Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Antigravity

  1. Mar 24, 2005 #1
    Antigravity and Discovery Channel's Credibility

    http://www.americanantigravity.com/

    Please, someone tell me this is fake.

    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.

    http://www.exn.ca/ontv/episode.asp?episode=43808928&TZ=0
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 24, 2005 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  4. Mar 24, 2005 #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.
     
  5. Mar 24, 2005 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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...
     
  6. Mar 24, 2005 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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

    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.
    .
     
  7. Mar 24, 2005 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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.
     
  8. Mar 24, 2005 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So there you go. Thanks ZapperZ.
     
  9. Mar 24, 2005 #8
    Well, I can sleep sound tonight. Except for the headcrabs...
     
  10. Mar 25, 2005 #9

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    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: Mar 25, 2005
  11. Mar 25, 2005 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Dark Energy?
     
  12. Mar 25, 2005 #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 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.
    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: Mar 25, 2005
  13. Mar 26, 2005 #12
    I'd love to see the Mythbusters taking them on. Especially that "metal rod and aluminum foil" antigravity stuff. BUSTED.
     
  14. Mar 26, 2005 #13
    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.
    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.
    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: Mar 26, 2005
  15. Mar 26, 2005 #14

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    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.
     
  16. Mar 26, 2005 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I liked the tree-cannon episode.

    Dark Energy? :biggrin:
     
  17. Mar 26, 2005 #16

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Dark energy is just a name for the cosmological constant, a perfectly reasonable part of Einstein's equations. It is not mumbo-jumbo.
     
  18. Apr 6, 2005 #17
    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. Apr 6, 2005 #18
  20. Apr 7, 2005 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's the link that started the thread. :biggrin:
     
  21. Apr 18, 2005 #20
    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:
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?