Antigravity and Discovery Channel's Credibility

  • Thread starter Icebreaker
  • Start date
I

Icebreaker

Last edited by a moderator:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
None of that stuff bothers me...at least most of what I saw is classic nonsense. What does bother me are a number of reports about anti-gravity technology from such sources as Jane's Defense Weekly, and NASA sponsored grants. We have had a number of posts about this in the past.
 
I

Icebreaker

Perhaps NASA is desperate for a new form of propulsion.

Nevertheless, I thought Discovery Channel had at least some scientific credibility. The show as mentioned above broadcasted everything (and more) that I've listed above pretty much as "facts".

Must be a ratings thing.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
The NASA thing was actually called a "gravity shield" that would reduce the weight of the shuttle for a few seconds during launch. No other context for the idea was provided in what I've seen.

I think any of these shows are much like a newspaper in that the source is everything. If a respected nuclear physicist comments on nuclear physics, the information is probably reliable. If it is Hutchinson explaining why his magic technology will only work with him in the room and no one else, well...
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Here are a couple of examples:

29 July 2002

Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’

By Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.

As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing’s Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices. So far, however, Boeing has fallen foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West).

100 of 873 words [End of non-subscriber extract.]

The full version of this article is accessible through our subscription services. Please refer to the box below for details.
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml


This is a paper from the Russian Scientist mentioned.
http://www.gravity-society.org/msu.htm

I don't know the state of this controversy. The last that I heard, no one could duplicate Podkletnov's results, but Podkletnov claimed to know what the problem was.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
34,924
3,798
Ivan Seeking said:
Here are a couple of examples:


http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml


This is a paper from the Russian Scientist mentioned.
http://www.gravity-society.org/msu.htm [Broken]

I don't know the state of this controversy. The last that I heard, no one could duplicate Podkletnov's results, but Podkletnov claimed to know what the problem was.
.
I suppose this is the reason why stuff like this isn't in the Physics section, because it would be a classic quackery.

I've dealt with the Podkletnov effect since it first appeared in print in Physica B in the mid 90's. I still can't believe the amount of mileage this gets even after several institutions, even NASA, tried to duplicate the observation over a period of time and FAILED! Obviously, this means nothing to a whole lot of people.

Oh, and here's the kicker. His "theoretical" explanation on why this is seen only in high-Tc superconductor and NOT any other superconductor (he is linking it to the d-wave symmetry of the order parameter of the YBCO crystals) has been thoroughly dismissed!

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
So there you go. Thanks ZapperZ.
 
I

Icebreaker

Well, I can sleep sound tonight. Except for the headcrabs...
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
733
Apologies, but doesn't anti-gravity break just about every known law of physics? I see 'free energy' all over the place when you plug that into any CPT model. First kaons, now free energy... Chronos retreats to cave of reality...
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Chronos said:
Apologies, but doesn't anti-gravity break just about every known law of physics? I see 'free energy' all over the place when you plug that into any CPT model. First kaons, now free energy... Chronos retreats to cave of reality...
Dark Energy?
 
This is a bunch of crock but oddly enough the device reminds me of something that I found in a book that contains a bunch of projects. In fact Im almost positive it's the same stupid devcie that attemps to make a mockery of science. I wonder if/does it actually work on any scientific principle. There has to be unless one well known publisher made one huge mistake.
This, and the Hutchison Effect, plus Joe Newman's free energy device is, obviously, fake. What startles me is that Discovery Channel is airing some documentaries (not mockumentaries) about them.
You know what. They are definiately going to be on the discovery channel again but this time on the Mythbusters. You know how angry the wacky free energy crowd got at them when they said there is no such thing as a free energy device. It's disturbing.
 
Last edited:
I

Icebreaker

I'd love to see the Mythbusters taking them on. Especially that "metal rod and aluminum foil" antigravity stuff. BUSTED.
 
I'd love to see the Mythbusters taking them on. Especially that "metal rod and aluminum foil" antigravity stuff. BUSTED.
Nope sorry... The devices actually work. The science is crap. They work on a priciple known as ion wind. It is a really cool science experiment and nothing more.
Perhaps NASA is desperate for a new form of propulsion.
Not that desperate.
Nasa The Ultimate Debunkers Look at that. They even cite studies that debunked this as pseudoscience. I still want to make one though because it just looks cool.
This, and the Hutchison Effect, plus Joe Newman's free energy device is, obviously, fake. What startles me is that Discovery Channel is airing some documentaries (not mockumentaries) about them.
The same reason why the History Channel aired a serious documentary about the Bible Code despite the fact someone used the code itself to prove it was a fraud.
 
Last edited:

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
733
I love Mythbusters. It's hilarious. I saw the free energy episode. A true classic. I could watch them try various other free energy devices for an entire season. Maybe mix in some anti gravity devices for variety.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
I liked the tree-cannon episode.

Dark Energy? :biggrin:
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
Ivan Seeking said:
I liked the tree-cannon episode.

Dark Energy? :biggrin:
Dark energy is just a name for the cosmological constant, a perfectly reasonable part of Einstein's equations. It is not mumbo-jumbo.
 
Chronos said:
I love Mythbusters. It's hilarious. I saw the free energy episode. A true classic. I could watch them try various other free energy devices for an entire season. Maybe mix in some anti gravity devices for variety.
Heheh... They even tried stealing energy using a giant coil of wire. Adam said," Well it's technically not free energy but it's free as in we are stealing it."
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
That's the link that started the thread. :biggrin:
 
Chronos said:
Apologies, but doesn't anti-gravity break just about every known law of physics? I see 'free energy' all over the place when you plug that into any CPT model. First kaons, now free energy... Chronos retreats to cave of reality...
Well, of course, in a realistic sense, if we wanted some kind of anti-gravity, we would perforce have to do something about the gravity existing between two masses, such as the earth and a spaceship. In discussing antigravity, people say all sorts of things like shielding the spaceship from gravity (beats me how this would be done) or reducing the effects of gravity. Since gravity has its effect no matter what, the only logical course to pursue would be to reduce the actual amount of gravitational force between the two objects. Since conservation will apply, the only way to reduce the force of gravity is to convert that force to something else.

If there can be a Universal Field Theory among the four forces of the universe, what would happen if we converted the force of gravity to joules? Assume we have two masses, m1 and m2, with a force of gravity between them. Then we know the following:
1. The two masses are in motion, with respect to each other at a minimum.
2. E1 = c^2 * m1 / (1 – (v1 / c)^2)^½
3. E2 = c^2 * m2 / (1 – (v2 / c)^2)^½
4. F = (G * m1 * m2) / r^2 (force of gravity between them)

Solving equations 2 and 3 for m1 and m2, and then substituting those energy equivalents for m1 and m2 from equations 2 and 3 into equation 4, and then solving for energy, with algebraic simplification, yields

5. E1 * E2 = F * {(r^2*c^4) / [G * (1 – (v1 / c)^2)^½ * (1 – (v2 / c)^2)^½)]}

The denominator term is tiny and the numerator term is huge.

(Obviously, this is just the mathematical equivalent of
E1 * E2 = m1 * m2 * c^4, with no force-of-gravity term at all.)

However, if we read equation 5 like we read equation 2 or 3, we could read it, "When the force of gravity between two masses is converted into energy, we get a whopping huge number of joules."

Consequently, the idea that we could remove the force of gravity between the earth and the spaceship is equivalent to saying we would destroy this solar system and maybe any life in the next one. So sad. :cry:
 

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
selfAdjoint said:
Dark energy is just a name for the cosmological constant, a perfectly reasonable part of Einstein's equations. It is not mumbo-jumbo.
And there are even some good observational results that are consistent with DE (oh shock! oh horror!! :surprised :eek: ) ...
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Nereid said:
And there are even some good observational results that are consistent with DE (oh shock! oh horror!! :surprised :eek: ) ...
About six year ago I think, having just arrived back in the US from a job in Peru, I sat for a rest in the Atlanta airport. Next to me were a couple of gentlemen who were talking about the increasing rate of expansion - ala DE. It turned out that I had sat right in the middle of a large group of world class physicists who were returning from a - the - conference in which the acceleration of the cosmos was first publicly agreed upon. It was a very strange way to learn of a new force in nature; first hand, and from some of the premier people of physics. Needless to say, I didn't sleep anymore on that trip.
 
Last edited:

Nereid

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
Ivan Seeking said:
About six year ago I think, having just arrived back in the US from a job in Peru, I sat for a rest in the Atlanta airport. Next to me were a couple of gentlemen who were talking about the increasing rate of expansion - ala DE. It turned out that I had sat right in the middle of a large group of world class physicists who were returning from a - the - conference in which the acceleration of the cosmos was first publicly agreed upon. It was a very strange way to learn of a new force in nature; first hand, and from some of the premier people of physics. Needless to say, I didn't sleep anymore on that trip.
Wow, what a blast!

You didn't catch any of the gentlemen's names, by any chance, did you?
 
Ivan Seeking said:
The NASA thing was actually called a "gravity shield" that would reduce the weight of the shuttle for a few seconds during launch. No other context for the idea was provided in what I've seen.

I think any of these shows are much like a newspaper in that the source is everything. If a respected nuclear physicist comments on nuclear physics, the information is probably reliable. If it is Hutchinson explaining why his magic technology will only work with him in the room and no one else, well...
"Those who do not read the newspaper are ignorant. Those that do are misinformed." -Mark Twain
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I liked the tree-cannon episode.

Dark Energy? :biggrin:

I too enjoyed the tree canon episode. :biggrin: After I finished laughing I wondered how my force it would take to do that. :rolleyes: I thought the needle in a hay stack portion was comical as well.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top