When was Podkletnov effect definitely discarded as not existent?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jumpjack
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Podkletnov effect, a controversial phenomenon purportedly related to anti-gravity. Participants explore the status of research on this effect, the validity of various theories, and the implications of mainstream scientific acceptance. The conversation includes references to specific studies and papers, as well as differing opinions on the nature of scientific theories and evidence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the status of the Podkletnov effect, questioning when research on it ceased and citing various papers that attempt to explain it.
  • Others argue that the Podkletnov effect has never been widely accepted and lacks sufficient evidence to be considered valid.
  • A few participants discuss the nature of scientific theories, debating whether theories should be assumed true until proven false or vice versa.
  • Some contributions highlight the importance of peer-reviewed literature in discussing scientific claims, with skepticism towards non-mainstream theories.
  • Participants reference the relationship between theories and observed phenomena, with some suggesting that current theories like Dark Matter and Dark Energy may also lack direct evidence.
  • There are critiques of the funding and direction of scientific research, questioning the value of pursuing theories that have not yet been empirically validated.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reflects significant disagreement among participants regarding the validity of the Podkletnov effect, the nature of scientific theories, and the criteria for acceptable research. No consensus is reached on these issues.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding and acceptance of scientific procedures, with some emphasizing the need for empirical evidence while others challenge the mainstream scientific narrative. The discussion also touches on the implications of funding in scientific research.

jumpjack
Messages
223
Reaction score
3
I just discovered Podkletnov effect after googling around after reading anhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf" .

My thread has been closed saying that this effect is confirmed as not existent... but I just found an attempt of explaining it, published in 2007:
"[URL Theory of the Podkletnov Effect based on General Relativity: Anti-Gravity
Force due to the Perturbed Non-Holonomic Background of Space[/URL]

I can't even understand the title, so I don't even try to understand the paper...

But I'd like to know whene researches on this topic halted, having I found some info about Einstein Cartan Evance theory which appears to be another possible explanation of the effect.

According to Scala's study, instead, using superconductors appears to be the WORST method to look for gravity/magnetism correlation, being gravitational field directly proportional to magnetic permeability... which is close to 0 in superconductors!

Plenty of researches exist on the topic:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_fil...7/PP-10-13.PDF
http://www.aias.us/documents/uft/a63rdpaper.pdf
http://aias.us/documents/uft/a75thpaper.pdf

Antigravity production confirmed, on arxiv publications:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0603/0603033.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
This gives an alternative hypoethesis to explain the observations.
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volume5/Issue3/L1_AnExplanationOfTheAntigravityEffectObservedInPodkletnovsExperiments_061210A_L1_L4.pdf

I have no idea whether or not it is reasonable, or how it relates to this recent research
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13545453

If nothing else, that suggests that the "shape" of fundamental particles IS a serious question in mainstream physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jumpjack said:
When was Podkletnov effect definitely discarded as not existent?
You're doing science backwards here. Theories aren't assumed to be correct, then discarded when determined to be incorrect, they are assumed to be incorrect until a sufficient body of evidence is built to show they may be correct. The Podkletnov effect has never had this. It has never been widely accepted to be existent.
But I'd like to know whene researches on this topic halted...
Similar to above, you're looking at that backwards. More to the point, though, it hasn't been halted. Your arvix paper, for example, contains citations from as late as 2005 (and I'm not sure what the date is for the article itself).
 
russ_watters said:
You're doing science backwards here. Theories aren't assumed to be correct, then discarded when determined to be incorrect, they are assumed to be incorrect until a sufficient body of evidence is built to show they may be correct.
Actually I think you are doing it... I'v been teached "each theory is true until it's shown it's not".
But maybe we're talking about 2 different things: a theory created from existing ones, which ends showing that something "must" exist, and a theory created to explain observed phenomena.

I think Scala's equation are first type and Podkletnov experiments raised second type of theories, yet to be confirmed.


russ_watters said:
The Podkletnov effect[...] it hasn't been halted. Your arvix paper, for example, contains citations from as late as 2005 (and I'm not sure what the date is for the article itself).
So why it's forbidden to talk about it in this forum? (threads about it are closed due to "Podkletnov effect" not being existent).
 
jumpjack said:
Actually I think you are doing it... I'v been teached "each theory is true until it's shown it's not".

Utter nonsense.

Here's my theory: a giant invisible unicorn runs on the planet causing earthquakes. Under your view, it is true until someone shows it is not. As you can never prove it is not it therefore must be true.

Load of rubbish. A theory is only as good as the evidence that supports it.

(You were 'taught', not 'teached'.)
So why it's forbidden to talk about it in this forum? (threads about it are closed due to "Podkletnov effect" not being existent).

Site rules are specific regarding mainstream science. If it isn't part of the mainstream it won't be tolerated. If, as per above there is nothing going for it, it won't be welcomed.
 
You are welcome to post pretty much anything on this site provided you have evidence from peer-reviewed literature to discuss.

Saying "this hasn't been proved wrong" is ridiculous as Jared explains.
 
JaredJames said:
Utter nonsense.

Here's my theory: a giant invisible unicorn runs on the planet causing earthquakes. Under your view, it is true until someone shows it is not. As you can never prove it is not it therefore must be true.
Are you sure you read my post? (Or maybe my poor English failed again...).
I just distinguished among theories originated by phenomena and theories originated by formulas.
Scala's theory originates from formulas and it requires verification of its validity. It does not say "as antigravity exist, these must be the formulas".

Einstein theories have been fully demonstrated some dozens of years AFTER he created them starting from existing formulas, for example, because no suitable technology existed yet to verify them (for example, gravitational lens effect created by huge, far galaxies).

Existence of exoplanets has been demonstrated as possible dozens (hundreds?) of years ago, but the first one was actually discovered in 1995.

Current theories say Dark Matter and Dark Energy must exist, but we do not yet have any evidence of them (although I must say I don't think they exist, I think our theory is just wrong: what is missing is some terms in our formulas, not "mysterious matter around").

And so on...
 
jumpjack said:
Current theories say Dark Matter and Dark Energy must exist, but we do not yet have any evidence of them (although I must say I don't think they exist, I think our theory is just wrong: what is missing is some terms in our formulas, not "mysterious matter around").

We observe dark matter, it wasn't so long ago there was a thread here on a dark matter halo on a galaxy.

The rest is demonstrating a lack of understanding of scientific procedure. My laptop battery is about to die so I'll have to get back to this later.
 
AlephZero said:
This gives an alternative hypoethesis to explain the observations.
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volume5/Issue3/L1_AnExplanationOfTheAntigravityEffectObservedInPodkletnovsExperiments_061210A_L1_L4.pdf

you know this is a little dishonest, he is required to post links from http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com approved journals on the subject and skeptics can get away with publishing any old trash? even better the intellectual dishonesty of naming the paper 'Journal of Vectorial Relativity' ?

to th OP,
with that said, this paper is about the frame dragging effect(confirmed by gravity probe B) and it's causes. Not some hocus pocus anti grav research, and it's irritating to me that cracks have latched on so hard to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
christopherV said:
and it's irritating to me that cracks have latched on so hard to it.
Sorry, can't understand this sentence.

Apart from this, now I can't (anymore) why so much money is spent in research, if only useful "research" is looking for theories which describes what we've already seen. In other words... LHC was a big waste of money: nobody ever saw any Higgs' Boson, so why looking for it?!? It's just a theory.
 
  • #11
jumpjack said:
Apart from this, now I can't (anymore) why so much money is spent in research, if only useful "research" is looking for theories which describes what we've already seen. In other words... LHC was a big waste of money: nobody ever saw any Higgs' Boson, so why looking for it?!? It's just a theory.

What are you jabbering on about? This is non-sense.
 
  • #12
I forgot a verb:
"I can't (anymore) understand why etc. etc..."

Stay calm.
 
  • #13
jumpjack said:
I forgot a verb:
"I can't (anymore) understand why etc. etc..."

Stay calm.

That still doesn't clear things up. I stand by what I said previously regarding a lack of understanding.
 
  • #14
@ jumpjack

alright
1) cracks refer to crackpots :
"one given to eccentric or lunatic notions"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crackpot

2) in h what is the quadrupole moment approximation ?

if you can't answer #2 you don't know anything relevant to even begin to be able to understand the paper you posted.

since it's obvious you have a love for gravity research, i will toss out a flower for you.
kip thorne's class on gravitational waves and detection.
http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/

seriously, enjoy.
 
  • #15
Thread closed pending moderation. Till then, this topic should not be reopened anywhere else.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Is this solution for interstellar travel viable?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Equivalence Principle: Paper on Internal Observer Effects
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Can an event horizon telescope observe quantum gravity effects
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Amplified frame-dragging effects due to superconductors?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Undergrad Is There a Preferred Axis in Cosmology and What Could Be Its Origin?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Undergrad New interpretations of the Pioneer effect ?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Addresses of Parallel Universes
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate If BH do not exist, would string & LQG be falsified?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Could Dust Be Responsible for the Pioneer Anomaly?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Researchers create gravity in lab experiment
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K