When was Podkletnov effect definitely discarded as not existent?

[jumpjack]

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

 

[AlephZero]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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).

 

[jumpjack]

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.

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).

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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.

 

[jumpjack]

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...

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[christopherV]

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.

 

[jumpjack]

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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[jumpjack]

I forgot a verb:
"I can't (anymore) understand why etc. etc..."

Stay calm.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

 

[christopherV]

@ 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.

 

[ZapperZ]

Thread closed pending moderation. Till then, this topic should not be reopened anywhere else.

Zz.