Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: Anti-gravity w/ spinning wheels

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682

    Anti-gravity w/ spinning wheels

    Sorry for the Youtube link, but for those who are willing to see it and by using mainstream notions (with the highly probable existence of gravitons), what could possibly explain the following phenomenons, especially the last one:
    https://youtu.be/Ki7YkOjVzDg

    The atoms of the spinning wheels are able to neutralize gravitons by collision?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,992
    Maybe you could just list the claims and supporting references here? If there are no supporting references, then that may be all we need to know. There's a lot of drivel out there, and YouTube doubly so.

    (And, given that there is no experimentally tested theory of gravitons, it's pointless to attempt an "explanation" in terms of gravitons. General Relativity is our current tested theory of gravity.)

    Grant Hutchison

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Maybe you could just list the claims and supporting references here? If there are no supporting references, then that may be all we need to know. There's a lot of drivel out there, and YouTube doubly so.
    That's the thing. This was recently tested and patented but no paper was written on the subject. But there are plenty of professors on Youtube demonstrating the subject.

    (And, given that there is no experimentally tested theory of gravitons, it's pointless to attempt an "explanation" in terms of gravitons. General Relativity is our current tested theory of gravity.)
    Ok no problem. I was just wondering if there could be a quantum physics collision process I was not aware of.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,395
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Ok no problem. I was just wondering if there could be a quantum physics collision process I was not aware of.
    Thing is it really doesn't work like that for virtual particles. Shielding in quantum field theories is nothing as crude as collision type models - it is generally due to higher order interactions leading to a change in the effective background field (not the classical field).

    You really can't think of virtual particles as little billiard balls being shot back and forth that can be blocked by things getting in their way.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,862
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    (with the highly probable existence of gravitons)
    You could find papers online that say String Theory is "highly probable" too. Doesn't make it so.

    As the good Doctor said, gravitons are not part of a currently evidenced theoretical framework.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Ok. The "evil" software engineer says thanks for the explanations, specially the quantum ones.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,992
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    That's the thing. This was recently tested and patented but no paper was written on the subject. But there are plenty of professors on Youtube demonstrating the subject.
    Colour me incurious about novel physics first published on YouTube.

    Grant Hutchison

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    If it's commercializable then it's better patenting it than publishing a paper, specially when there's no theory to back it up.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,992
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If it's commercializable then it's better patenting it than publishing a paper, specially when there's no theory to back it up.
    For certain values of "better".

    We've had the whole "antigravity patents" narrative for decades now. Where's my flying car?

    Grant Hutchison

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    39,862
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If it's commercializable then it's better patenting it than publishing a paper, specially when there's no theory to back it up.
    If the design was so simple that any science teacher can demonstrate it, why hasn't it been commercialized already?
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    This most likely becomes a politics subject which we all know is the antithesis of human evolution. But I will not elaborate on that here.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,429
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If it's commercializable then it's better patenting it than publishing a paper, specially when there's no theory to back it up.
    Yeah, right. I typically hear excuses like that from people pushing magic energy machines and/or magic propulsion machines when they are asked for experimental support. They aren’t going to let scientists test their claims, they say, because they are afraid their discovery will be stolen from them, but they will get a patent, which doesn’t actually require a demonstration (let alone a demonstration done under conditions meant to verify there is something to their claims, not a trick or misunderstanding of what is actually occurring).

    Funny how claims like that never get to the commercialization stage. They just fade away when they can no longer convince suckers to keep throwing money at it. Then it is on to the next scam just like it.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Yeah, right. I typically hear excuses like that from people pushing magic energy machines and/or magic propulsion machines when they are asked for experimental support. They aren’t going to let scientists test their claims, they say, because they are afraid their discovery will be stolen from them, but they will get a patent, which doesn’t actually require a demonstration (let alone a demonstration done under conditions meant to verify there is something to their claims, not a trick or misunderstanding of what is actually occurring).

    Funny how claims like that never get to the commercialization stage. They just fade away when they can no longer convince suckers to keep throwing money at it. Then it is on to the next scam just like it.
    Well a world-wide patent is pretty expensive (> $20k) so I don't think he's simply trying to get attention.

    Anyway to go back to my original question, here are some explanations I am currently reading:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT...xey_chekurkov/

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    North Tonawanda, NY
    Posts
    3,982
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Maybe you could just list the claims and supporting references here? If there are no supporting references, then that may be all we need to know. There's a lot of drivel out there, and YouTube doubly so.
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    This was recently tested and patented but no paper was written on the subject. But there are plenty of professors on Youtube demonstrating the subject.
    The link in the original post here goes to a video with a handful of extremely vague non-descriptions of alleged experiments with spinning objects, sometimes specified to have been superconducting, sometimes said to have had some apparent effect on gravity. The most qualified mainstream scientist-like source it mentions is Eugene Podkletnov, who submitted a couple of papers on this subject for peer review & publication in the 1990s (the second of which he withdrew before publication), was disavowed & dismissed by the university he had been working at, and has since then made claims about other universities or military contractors knowing that this works but not admitting it for one reason or another. The video's other references to comparable alleged experiments range down from there, through some short clips of things that look like they could be ordinary centrifuges with the video maker's own voice talking over them in generalities about spinning & superconductors, to somebody with another YouTube channel who wears a face-hiding silver helmet and T-shirt when he appears on camera, whose words this video's maker says he can't understand because of a language barrier.

    Silver Helmet Guy apparently uploaded videos of a home-made, plugged-in contraption a couple of feet wide hovering a few feet above the ground (including returning to position when knocked out of place by hand). The video that we're linked to from here in this thread makes it seem like that contraption is supposed to be anti-gravitational, but plays none of SHG's original (Russian) audio and provides nothing even claimed to be captioning or translation, so for all I know, SHG is actually talking about some small fans attached to a disguised helium balloon. And this device clearly contradicts the Eugene Podkletnov story, because he only claimed a ≤2% reduction in gravity's effect from a system requiring so much mass and such a high rotational speed that one university wanted to replicate his experiment but didn't have the required resources, not total neutralization of gravity with a rig like SHG's.

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I was just wondering if there could be a quantum physics collision process I was not aware of.
    Not collision-related, but I did once read about a mathematical derivation of a way to generate something related to gravity in the same way that magnetism is related to electricity, using a spinning superconducting Bose-Einstein condensate, which would obviously be far from anything we can build now because BECs are ridiculously hard to make & maintain and it's not clear that they could really even act like objects that could do things that objects do like "spinning" in the first place. But if this video was based on that idea, then the most important component got dropped along the way. A spinning superconductor is not a spinning superconducting BEC. (And SHG probably wouldn't even have access to superconducting anything.)

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,992
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Well a world-wide patent is pretty expensive (> $20k) so I don't think he's simply trying to get attention.
    He who? Patent reference?

    Grant Hutchison

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    20,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
    Silver Helmet Guy apparently uploaded videos of a home-made, plugged-in contraption a couple of feet wide hovering a few feet above the ground (including returning to position when knocked out of place by hand).
    So he'll be taking delivery of his million-euro Göde Award any day now, I'm sure.

    (Perhaps there should also be some sort of award for people prepared to click "play" on YouTube videos that have a start image featuring a Nazi flying saucer.)

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
    Not collision-related, but I did once read about a mathematical derivation of a way to generate something related to gravity in the same way that magnetism is related to electricity, using a spinning superconducting Bose-Einstein condensate, which would obviously be far from anything we can build now because BECs are ridiculously hard to make & maintain and it's not clear that they could really even act like objects that could do things that objects do like "spinning" in the first place. But if this video was based on that idea, then the most important component got dropped along the way. A spinning superconductor is not a spinning superconducting BEC. (And SHG probably wouldn't even have access to superconducting anything.)
    I'm trying to understand as fast as I can that subject but other than SHG, apparently superconductors, rotating superconductors, electrogravitics, gravitoelectromagnetism, ... have some interesting effects:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0325232140.htm
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2021-May-24 at 02:15 AM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    He who? Patent reference?

    Grant Hutchison
    Sorry it's based on a discontinued patent:
    https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030209637A1/en

    That explains why it cannot be patented anymore.
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2021-May-24 at 03:43 AM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,429
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Sorry it's based on a discontinued patent:
    https://patents.google.com/patent/US20030209637A1/en

    That explains why it cannot be patented anymore.
    Excellent example of technobabble. Wormholes? Low density hyperspace? Clearly, no working example was asked for or built. This is exactly why I don’t take such patents seriously.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Excellent example of technobabble. Wormholes? Low density hyperspace? Clearly, no working example was asked for or built. This is exactly why I don’t take such patents seriously.
    I agree but that's because there is no theory to explain it.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,429
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I agree but that's because there is no theory to explain it.
    No theory to explain what? I’ve seen no indication there is anything more to this patent than some science fiction technobabble. There is no reason to take it seriously.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    20,429
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I'm trying to understand as fast as I can that subject but other than SHG, apparently superconductors, rotating superconductors, electrogravitics, gravitoelectromagnetism, ... have some interesting effects:
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0325232140.htm
    That article goes back to 2006. The only way anyone has found to manipulate gravity is by moving mass around. Gravity is a very weak force, so manipulation amounts to some combination of moving a lot of mass or dealing with truly minuscule gravitational effects. What you sometimes get with strong magnetic fields and similar are other things besides gravity that can fool you and you have to carefully test and control for in experiments. This makes experiments challenging because of false positives in insufficiently controlled experiments.

    Basically, if you’re looking for a gravity generator or anti-gravity machine, good luck as there is no indication they are even possible.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    No theory to explain what? I’ve seen no indication there is anything more to this patent than some science fiction technobabble. There is no reason to take it seriously.
    There are no peer-reviewed paper on the rotating disks because it's new so all I have so far is the video and the following related papers:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0701091.pdf
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0325232140.htm
    https://pdfslide.net/documents/a-new...vs-effect.html

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    There are no peer-reviewed paper on the rotating disks because it's new so all I have so far is the video and the following related papers:
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0701091.pdf
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0325232140.htm
    https://pdfslide.net/documents/a-new...vs-effect.html
    I'm not 100% sure but I believe this is the closest peer-reviewed thing I can find that is related to this experiment:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...75389211005803

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,395
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    There are no peer-reviewed paper on the rotating disks because it's new so all I have so far is the video and the following related papers:
    The framework that predicted the effects from the first paper go back to 2002. The second article is from 2006. The third to 2000. Experiments go back to the 90s at least. So we've had between 15 and 30 years to see published evidence. It's not new.

    There are no peer-reviewed papers because no theory or claim has stood up to peer review so far.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    The framework that predicted the effects from the first paper go back to 2002. The second article is from 2006. The third to 2000. Experiments go back to the 90s at least. So we've had between 15 and 30 years to see published evidence. It's not new.

    There are no peer-reviewed papers because no theory or claim has stood up to peer review so far.
    Like I was saying in the previous post, here's the closest peer-reviewed paper I could find on the subject:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...75389211005803

    Podkletnov had a chance to get some help from defense companies but he didn't want to have anything to do with them, thus slowing down the experimental verification.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,395
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I'm not 100% sure but I believe this is the closest peer-reviewed thing I can find that is related to this experiment:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...75389211005803
    Which just says that they think it is possible to create a model that could explain what is seen. Their result that there is a simple test to tell if their model is on the right track is useful though. Although from memory since no one has been able to recreate the original effects I'm not sure how useful the whole exercise is.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,395
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    Like I was saying in the previous post, here's the closest peer-reviewed paper I could find on the subject:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...75389211005803

    Podkletnov had a chance to get some help from defense companies but he didn't want to have anything to do with them, thus slowing down the experimental verification.
    He also did some work with a university but they lack of theory meant that it came down to "Replicate what I did exactly, if it doesn't show the effect then you must have done it wrong". Which is challenging to build a research project around.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    He also did some work with a university but they lack of theory meant that it came down to "Replicate what I did exactly, if it doesn't show the effect then you must have done it wrong". Which is challenging to build a research project around.
    Yeah this research process is completely inefficient, and could use some help.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,682
    So anyway, thanks for the conversation, this discussion was interesting and constructive on my end.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •