Antigravity and Discovery Channel's Credibility

  • Thread starter Icebreaker
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Discovery
In summary, the conversation discusses the topic of antigravity and its credibility, particularly in relation to the Discovery Channel and NASA. The conversation includes mentions of various sources and examples, such as the Hutchison Effect and Joe Newman's free energy device, and the controversy surrounding antigravity technology. It also touches on the role of the media, with the mention of Discovery Channel's airing of documentaries on the subject. The conversation concludes with a mention of the Bible Code as an example of a similar situation. Overall, the conversation highlights the skepticism and debunking of antigravity claims and its lack of scientific credibility.
  • #1
Icebreaker
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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...
 
  • #5
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:
  • #6
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:
  • #7
So there you go. Thanks ZapperZ.
 
  • #8
Well, I can sleep sound tonight. Except for the headcrabs...
 
  • #9
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:
  • #10
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?
 
  • #11
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 I am 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:
  • #12
I'd love to see the Mythbusters taking them on. Especially that "metal rod and aluminum foil" antigravity stuff. BUSTED.
 
  • #13
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 principle 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.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html#ELECTROSTATIC%20ANTIGRAVITY 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:
  • #14
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.
 
  • #15
I liked the tree-cannon episode.

Dark Energy? :biggrin:
 
  • #16
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.
 
  • #17
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."
 
  • #19
That's the link that started the thread. :biggrin:
 
  • #20
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:
 
  • #21
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! :eek: ) ...
 
  • #22
Nereid said:
And there are even some good observational results that are consistent with DE (oh shock! oh horror! :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:
  • #23
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?
 
  • #24
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
 
  • #25
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.
 
  • #26
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.
 
  • #27
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:
  • #28
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 perceived 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.
 
  • #29
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.
 
  • #30
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, let's 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:
  • #31
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
 
  • #32
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, referring to the CC as his greatest blunder may be one of his greatest blunders.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
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:
  • #34
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.
 
  • #35
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.
 

Similar threads

  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
3
Views
992
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top