Antigravity and Discovery Channel's Credibility

  • Thread starter Icebreaker
  • Start date

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Nereid said:
Wow, what a blast!

You didn't catch any of the gentlemen's names, by any chance, did you?
I did and even wrote a few down, but at the time I was traveling a great deal and I don't know what happened to the information. I do know that this was a pretty elite class of pholks :biggrin: , but not any names that I recognized. I do remember that people from the Univ. of Chicago, Fermi Lab, etc. were there.

As a really long shot, if this rings any bells.. one of the gentlemen, a physicist, was on a personal campaign of some sort to get the discovery channel and friends banned or something. I remember that he was was going from person to person asking for their support for a letter from the physics community; and making quite a fuss about it.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Btw, when I told them that I was a graduate in physics, they treated me as if that meant something in that crowd! :biggrin: They were very nice.


Edit: Just out of curiosity I checked my passport. I looks like that was either March 18th, or the 24th, 1999, if that helps.
 
Last edited:
39
1
If anybody, including Einstein, had the slightest idea or could explain -how- any of the electromagnetic/gravity forces actually did what they do--as opposed to simply being able to model and predict their effects--then there would be some basis to think that this absolutely can't be done.

But, it is no more whacky then building motors and generators based on observational models/theory without having the slightest clue as to -why- they work.

It is entirely, possible--just as with electromagnetic devices of all kind, that Boeing or somebody someday builds commercial anti-gravity devices, complete with formulae and dimensions and 'how to' instructions, without having the slightest clue as to the 'why?'

There may even be seemingly
impossible hurdles to cross, like, "I can't generate enough force in the Y direction by flapping my wings with my simple motor to lift my fat ass off the ground," which will some day be shattered by the application of the same force in the X direction on a lifting surface that will do the same thing easily, and later, by brute force devices that can.

Such as, a rocket; a helicopter actually does the same thing as a 'fixed wing' aircraft, in regards to leveraging the ability of lifting surfaces to create lift. But, none of that is 'something for nothing.'

The point is, the barrier to flight was not actually the once percieved barrier of applying insufficient direct force in the desired direction of travel('up'), and just because that problem was solved does not mean that man is suddenly free to violate any energy laws by lifting a plane to great heights and then recovering the energy of its fall and pocketing the supposed difference, except as a loss.

Hell, an airplane in total, or a rocket is an 'anti-gravity' device.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,504
4,719
Zlex said:
Hell, an airplane in total, or a rocket is an 'anti-gravity' device.
If you wish to use the word in that way, then the entire conversation is meaningless, isn't it? If an airplane is an anti-gravity device, then anti-gravity is, of course possible. So then it is useless to define "anti-gravity" in that way. Hence "anti-gravity" must be a device that generates a negative gravitational field. And since that is not something that can be done artificiall, yes, anti-gravity would violate the existing laws of physics.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Russ, why do you and others keep talking about this violating the laws of physics when we think that dark energy may dominate at large distances?

Also, lets get real folks. When we say anti-gravity we mean a new force in nature that works oppositely to gravity - that produces a repulsive force in proportion to the mass of the object.
 
Last edited:
293
0
Hi,

I have read that in a 1928 or 1929 paper Einstein suggested that the magnetic vector potential might be a place to start looking for anti gravity effects.

juju
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Whether or not he mentioned this, I'm not sure, but Einstein proposed the Cosmological Constant (CC), which assumed the existence of anti-gravity. This was due to the belief of the time that the universe was relatively static. He later called the CC his greatest blunder. From there, Einstein was groping for a grand unified theory that would unite all of the forces of nature in one theory, which we still don't have today.

Ironically, refering to the CC as his greatest blunder may be one of his greatest blunders.
 
Last edited:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,504
4,719
Ivan Seeking said:
Russ, why do you and others keep talking about this violating the laws of physics when we think that dark energy may dominate at large distances?
Not sure what you mean. There is a big, big difference between a hole in our knowledge (a prediction that didn't quite pan out) and something that contradicts already theories that already have experimental data backing them up that covers the situation in question. There is a reason anti-gravity and perpetual motion often share the same website. Just ask our friend aviator....
 
Last edited:
It's really quite simple to negate the effects of gravity. All you need is a micro black hole. Hang on, I think I've got one in my pocket.

Recipe for rabbit stew; first catch a rabbit.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
russ_watters said:
Not sure what you mean. There is a big, big difference between a hole in our knowledge (a prediction that didn't quite pan out) and something that contradicts already theories that already have experimental data backing them up that covers the situation in question. There is a reason anti-gravity and perpetual motion often share the same website. Just ask our friend aviator....
Dark energy is not a fringe topic. I don't get your point.
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
731
Deja vu. What part of cowpie did I miss? This gets old after awhile.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,504
4,719
Ivan Seeking said:
Dark energy is not a fringe topic. I don't get your point.
Right, dark energy is not a fringe topic: anti-gravity, wrt this thread (ie, relating to perpetual motion, gravitational field generators, etc), is. You seemed to be trying to compare the two: they are not the same thing.
 
6,171
1,272
Ivan Seeking said:
Also, lets get real folks. When we say anti-gravity we mean a new force in nature that works oppositely to gravity - that produces a repulsive force in proportion to the mass of the object.
All the matter that produces this repulsive force has already done so. Once in a while a guy will be digging a hole and an anti-gravity rock will fly out of it past his face, but good luck to him trying to prove it.
 
Vis a vis the whole accelerating expansion of the universe malarky... the expansion is equal everywhere, isn't it. I mean, if you have a mile of empty space in one place and another mile in another, they will expand to equal sizes in equal amounts of time?

If there was some form of energy (dark energy) pushing galaxies away from us, would the rate at which a given galaxy was moved not depend on the mass of the galaxy, not the distance it is from us? I mean, if galaxy A weighs 1, galaxy B weighs 2 and galaxy C weighs 3 and they were equidistance on a straight line, if some force were pushing galaxies A and C away from B, you would expect C to recede more slowly, no? I'm sure the brains have got it covered, but I wonder what their thinking is.
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
El Hombre Invisible said:
Vis a vis the whole accelerating expansion of the universe malarky... the expansion is equal everywhere, isn't it. I mean, if you have a mile of empty space in one place and another mile in another, they will expand to equal sizes in equal amounts of time?

If there was some form of energy (dark energy) pushing galaxies away from us, would the rate at which a given galaxy was moved not depend on the mass of the galaxy, not the distance it is from us? I mean, if galaxy A weighs 1, galaxy B weighs 2 and galaxy C weighs 3 and they were equidistance on a straight line, if some force were pushing galaxies A and C away from B, you would expect C to recede more slowly, no? I'm sure the brains have got it covered, but I wonder what their thinking is.
According to the standard account the expansion is uniform everywhere. But ther is a new theory that we are in the remains of a huge bubble expanded from early in the universe's age, and our expansion is less than the space outside the bubble.

The expansion is a feature of space, and calling it anti-gravity confuses this. So it only depends on space, not on the matter that happens to be around. The galaxies aren't themselves accelerated, it's the space between them that has accelerated expansion. In addition to its time dependence it has volume dependence, so a volume of 8 cubic light years would have 8 times the expansion in a given time as a volume of one cubic light year.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Fair enough; no known mass dependency makes it pretty clear that this is not anti-gravity. But I still take issue with citing violations of the laws of physics since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. For all that we know, a complete theory may demand that anti-gravity exists; or even that this missing variable is partly why the famed TOE is so elusive.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,504
4,719
Ivan Seeking said:
But I still take issue with citing violations of the laws of physics since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity. For all that we know, a complete theory may demand that anti-gravity exists; or even that this missing variable is partly why the famed TOE is so elusive.
Since the ToE must be compatible with GR, I still can't see why you have an issue with it.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
russ_watters said:
Since the ToE must be compatible with GR, I still can't see why you have an issue with it.
This assumes that we can measure and or would recognize the effects. Is it possible that the data to support this idea already exists somewhere but is interpreted incorrectly, or buried in the noise? And I guess that there is also the idea that it could only be produced artificially.

Edit for clarity.
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Oh yes, and could it be that this effect is buried within normal gravity, and what we see is the net of the two forces?

I don't mean to suggest that it's there. But I don't see how we can claim that it's not, with certainty.
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,094
172
Just out of curiosity I did a quick check, and there is plenty out there. For example:

...Antigravity and the impossibility arguments

Proposed by Morrison [7] in a celebrated paper, antigravity is known to violate the sacrosanct CPT symmetry, contradict the results of the Eötvös-Dicke-Panov experiments [10], exclude the existence of the long-lived component in the neutral kaon system in the presence of the Earth gravitational field [8], violate energy conservation and imply vacuum instability [7,11]. The arguments against antigravity then appear to be so compelling that it may seem presomptuous or even foolish to reconsider them
[12]. However, Nieto and Goldman have recently reviewed critically these arguments [13] and we refer the reader to their recent review for a thorough discussion and an historical perspective on these impossibility arguments (see also Ref. 14). Here, we will only insist on the points necessary to the following discussion and on those parts of Nieto and Goldman's review with which we disagree. Concerning the first two impossibility arguments, let it suffice to say that the CPT theorem has not generally been demonstrated on curved spacetime and that the ineluctability of a past singularity imposed by the theorems of Penrose and Hawking [15] make it doubtful that the CPT
theorem can ever be demonstrated without modification for gravitation 16,17].

Similarly, Goldman and Nieto have repeatedly stressed [18] that Schiff's argument on the Eötvös-Dicke-Panov experiments [10] is invalid because of his incorrect renormalization procedure. Attempts have been made to consider some adjustable vector interaction which, added to the tensor (and therefore always attractive) interaction dictated by general relativity, would lead to a violation of the equivalence principle applied to matter and antimatter. This arbitrariness is aesthetically objectionable, but Morrison's original antigravity [7] appears even worse : Goldman 3 and Nieto themselves reject the possibility of such a gross violation of the equivalence principle where antimatter would “fall up”, the total force on a static e+ e– pair, e.g.,being zero, since it would lead to a violation of energy conservation. We will come back later to the argument of energy non-conservation and first turn to Good's argument which appears to impose the most stringent constraint on antigravity.
http://www-dapnia.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?class=std&&file=Doc/Publications/Archives/spp-92-07.pdf [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
242
0
The probability of an antigravity particles is about the same an antiphoton particle--almost zero. How do I know? Just check for any real evidence. There is none.
 
To get back to a point which was made near to the start of this thread: all of the antigravity nonsense on the internet is one thing, having clearly-crackpot ideas being discussed by NASA and peer-reviewed academic journals is quite another. For instance, a long review in Progress in Aerospace Sciences (Jan. 2003) treated classical crackpot anti-gravity claims as if they were of value. And I am talking about real codswallop here. One device (apparently being tested by BAE Systems, following advice from the review's author!) was a 'centrifugal drive'. You know, one of those daft machines that flails a couple of variable-length arms around and is supposed to 'swim' through outer space (just because it works on a shiny floor). And yes, I do know that Dr Wisdom (what an apt name) has recently suggested that a variable-geometry object might be able to exploit space-time curvature for propulsion purposes. But was the reviewer the sort of person who would have known that?
 

Chronos

Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,398
731
Having been intimately involved in the design, development and deployment of vibratory mechanical equipment, I can assure you there is no free energy [i.e., anti- gravity] lurking between oscillations. I made numerous trips to customer facilities to fix the dang thing when it broke. I would not volunteer for a deep space mission that employed such a device for propulsion. Aside from being hugely inefficient, the spare parts payload would be prohibitively expensive.
 
6,171
1,272
Chronos said:
Having been intimately involved in the design, development and deployment of vibratory mechanical equipment, I can assure you there is no free energy [i.e., anti- gravity] lurking between oscillations. I made numerous trips to customer facilities to fix the dang thing when it broke. I would not volunteer for a deep space mission that employed such a device for propulsion. Aside from being hugely inefficient, the spare parts payload would be prohibitively expensive.
Have you ever read about the Dean Drive? It got big press in the 1960s, and then suddenly dissappeared.

I was tempted once or twice to try and build one to see what it was all about. It isn't so complex that a mechanic couldn't juryrig one together in his garage. That's alot of work just to prove exactly why it wouldn't work as claimed, though. It just occured to me that it might be worth it to someone involved in the manufacture of industrial vibratory machines, since it might offer a new way to make things vibrate that has some sort of advantage in some particular application.
 

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
Top