Dr Eugene Podkletnov Anti-Gravity Scientist gives Rare Interview

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

Hi zorgon and science fans.

VERY nice 5 parts vide ! !

As I can see, "they/he" is REdiscovering that phenomena:
( Reduction of gravity by spinning objects )

www.enterprisemission.com...

. . .or another way to see it:

www.nuc.berkeley.edu...

Blue skies.




posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Hey zorgon/Alien Scientist.
How can one get in touch with Eugene. Something about my own
project, I wish to discuss with him.

Thanks



posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Hey zorgon/Alien Scientist.
How can one get in touch with Eugene. Something about my own
project, I wish to discuss with him.

Thanks


That will not be easy... If you read this article by Wired Science writer Charles Platt you will see why
www.wired.com...

It will also be the best way to attempt to contact him

Couple quotes;


Far-fetched? Indeed. Most physicists laughed at Podkletnov's report. Riley Newman, a professor of physics at UC Irvine who has been involved in gravity research for 20 years, typified the reaction when he commented, "I think it's safe to say gravity shielding is not conceivable." Like many scientists, he felt that Podkletnov must have made a mistake, measuring magnetic fields or air currents instead of genuine weight reduction. And yet, few of Podkletnov's critics actually bothered to read his description of his work. Their reaction was so dismissive, it almost sounded like prejudice. From their perspective he was an outsider, a nonmember of the "gravity establishment." They couldn't believe that a major discovery in physics had been made by such a no-status dilettante fooling around at some obscure lab in Finland.



After publishing a preliminary paper in 1992, he wrote a more thorough paper that was rejected by more than a dozen journals till finally it penetrated the peer-review process at the respected British Journal of Physics-D. This seemed to offer the recognition he was hoping for, yet instead it initiated a career-destroying nightmare. The trouble started when Robert Matthews, science correspondent to the British Sunday Telegraph, got hold of the story. Matthews, like any journalist, relies on contacts, and he's disarmingly honest about it. "You don't get stories by digging for them," he now says with a laugh. "This isn't like Sherlock Holmes, that's a lot of bollocks. It's like, you hope a little brown envelope turns up in the post, and if it does, you're in luck." In his case the little brown envelope contained page proofs of Podkletnov's paper, leaked by a man named Ian Sample who worked on the editorial staff of the Journal of Physics-D. Although Podkletnov's paper hadn't been published yet, Sample and Matthews decided to break the story in the Sunday Telegraph, which printed it on September 1, 1996. The first sentence was key: "Scientists in Finland are about to reveal details of the world's first antigravity device."

Antigravity? Podkletnov never used that word; he said he'd found a way to block gravity. Maybe this seemed a trivial distinction, but not to the staid professors at the Institute of Materials Science in the University of Tampere, to whom "antigravity" sounded like something out of a bad Hollywood movie. The director of the institute promptly denied any involvement and declared that Podkletnov was working entirely on his own initiative. Then the coauthor of Podkletnov's paper claimed that his name had been used without his knowledge - which was highly implausible, but he stuck to his story, presumably because the institute told him to. In the end Podkletnov had to withdraw the paper from publication in the journal, he was abandoned by his friends, and his credibility was impaired.


Good luck... let me know if you get anywhere



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Mr Podkletnov said something that contradicts the theory of General Relativity. In video 3, he says that the speed of gravity waves are 64 times greater than the speed of light.

This goes against the theory of General Relativity. Anything that moves faster than light can send a signal to the past and create logical paradoxes.

Anyone knows anything about this?



Good point although the concept itself of anti gravity is not allowed by GR, and if anti gravity exists and in fact it does , shows that GR is flawed



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
As a professional, theoretical physicist (M.A., M.Sc., Ph.D.), having heard here Dr Eugene Podkletnov's explanation of the loss of weight of objects suspended over his spinning, superconducting ceramic discs, I can say with full confidence that he does not know what he is talking about. Or, to be more accurate, he is a low-temperature physicist who seems to have little understanding of fundamental, theoretical principles and particle physics (my research field) - a quite common occurrence amongst such experimentalists, in my experience, unfortunately. Whilst, according to Einstein-Cartan theory, spinning matter would generate a torsion component in the space-time connection and a repulsive, gravitational force in addition to the normal, attractive component, the speed of rotation is far too low for the angular momentum density to create even a 5% change of weight (the calculations are too long and technical to add here). So the effect is not due to generation of torsion in the space-time metric.

What is really happening has nothing to do with altering gravity. It is far simpler than that. A magnetic field is generated by the currents of electrically charged Cooper pairs circulating in the surface of the rotating, superconducting ceramic disc, expelled from its interior by the Meissner Effect. This field couples to the atomic nuclei in the suspended object. Their intrinsic magnetic momentum makes them behave as minute magnets with their own magnetic fields, and it is the mutual repulsion between their fields and the magnetic field of the currents of Cooper pairs that causes the levitation, making it appear to lose weight. It is merely a form of magneto-levitation that exploits the natural diamagnetism of objects.

That is all I wish to comment on the topic.


You are correct regarding the Cooper pairs and their relation to the Meissner effect... However, I must disagree about your comment here regarding Podkletnov's theory being wrong.

If he were wrong, than please explain the existence of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment that was further experimented on by the European Space Agency and shown to exist? This is not a trivial find and to overlook this in modern physics experiments conducted by an agency such as the ESA would be truly ignorant before commenting to the extent to say someone is wrong. It's also been talked about extensively in physics journals so it should not come as a surprise. Here is more info from the ESA if you're so inclined: Source

You may be a theoretical physicist, but that's exactly what it is.... theoretical. These folks are conducting actual experiments with measurable effects and results that can be recorded and further predicted, while theoretically, all you are doing is fancy math.

I mean no disrespect, but please provide a little more hard fact before you slam someone's credibility with nothing more than your word. The math may not be for everyone and some of the detailed papers might be over some people's heads, but there are people here who understand the science, so for those that would like to see it, please provide references.

~Namaste

EDIT: I'd like to add that without theoretical physics, the experimental forms would probably not work or have gotten as far as they have, but it does not excuse ignorance of new information or recently performed experiments. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't trivializing the theoretical physicists because they are a critical bond needed between the hard-core math and the carrying out of the experiments.
edit on 8-11-2010 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: clarification



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by W3RLIED2
 


Thanks for the link, although Podkletnov's claims are considered false is in the document.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by masterp
Mr Podkletnov said something that contradicts the theory of General Relativity. In video 3, he says that the speed of gravity waves are 64 times greater than the speed of light.

This goes against the theory of General Relativity. Anything that moves faster than light can send a signal to the past and create logical paradoxes.

Anyone knows anything about this?



Good point although the concept itself of anti gravity is not allowed by GR, and if anti gravity exists and in fact it does , shows that GR is flawed


Perhaps GR is flawed: it allows wormholes, which means that faster-than-light travel is possible.

Suppose Bob and Alice are connected through a wormhole and also have a conventional communication device. Wouldn't this configuration allow for paradoxes? it would, according to the various sites online.

For me, faster-than-light travel does not have to create paradoxes. It might be possible to witness the effect before the cause, but you can't interact with the cause in order to change the effect.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
 


Perhaps GR is flawed: it allows wormholes, which means that faster-than-light travel is possible.

Suppose Bob and Alice are connected through a wormhole and also have a conventional communication device. Wouldn't this configuration allow for paradoxes? it would, according to the various sites online.

For me, faster-than-light travel does not have to create paradoxes. It might be possible to witness the effect before the cause, but you can't interact with the cause in order to change the effect.


So if Eugenes gravity waves.impolses travelling at 64c are travelling thru a worm hole, how was he able to interact with this worm nole and indeed measure their speed and come to a figure of 64c.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Alienscientist has some neat stuff on his channel. I was just watching this set of videos the other day.
edit on 23-11-2010 by bekisu because: Read rest of thread. lol



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection how was he able to interact with this worm hole and indeed measure their speed and come to a figure of 64c.


THAT is a very good question.. unfortunately we can't ask him



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
here is what occuring in the phenomenon we are observing here.

the spinning superconductor is generating a gravito magnetic field composed of cooper pair electrons.there is indeed a crossover between cooper pairing and bose einstien condensates so the cooper paired electrons exist as bose einstien condensated pairs of electrons.
when in a bose einstien condensate particles interact on a quarkic level that is the particles quarks are capable of interacting via thier spin,opposite spins attract and vice versa.normaly the particles which are comprised of the quarks are in to high an energy level to interact,when temperatures are reduced the quarks can interact strongly unhindered by negatives to interaction such as particle vibration and motion.

cooper paired electrons interact with the quarks of other particles in a interaction which is stronger than the normal interaction between the particles,.therefore the potenial for a powerful interaction by cooper paired quarks is reality.
quark spin polarity is the opposite of the particles spin,so when under normal conditions particles are in atractive spin when in bose einsiten condensate conditions their quarks will spin in opposition,thus the polarity in BEC conditions is reversed same spin repels.
thus when a magnetic field is made to exist as a BEC/cooper pair the poles of the magnetic field will actually repel each other.
this is what is occuring with the spinning disk,when the BEC electrons of the gravitomagnetic field placed are organized magneticaly into an atractive configuration with the one pole of the conventional magnetic field,this allignment then becomes repulsive under BEC quark interaction .thus the gravitomagnetic field of the spinning disk and the conventional mag field are magneticly organized into a repulsive quarkic interaction causing levitation.

what is occuring in the case of the anti gravity in the smoke and the like is this.
atomic spin results in the spin based interaction between electrons and atoms,attractive or repulsive.
the magnetic field of the spinning disk and the conventional mag field spin organize the atomic spin of say the smoke,the atoms of the smoke allign themselves with the magnetic field lines,thus they are spin organized magneticly,this spin organization is attractive but the quarkic interaction with the BEC cooper paired electrons is repulsive.

so all one has to do to create anti gravity is to organize the desired matters atoms into a spin polarized attractive state with a magneic field composed of electrons in a cooper pair bose einstien condensate state.the quarks of the cooper pair BEC electrons will repel the quarks of the desired matter.

following me anyone?.

thia leads to varying anti grav potentials ile write out tommorow.



posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection how was he able to interact with this worm hole and indeed measure their speed and come to a figure of 64c.


THAT is a very good question.. unfortunately we can't ask him


True. Neither did I get anywhere in contacting him.
Though I have a sneaky suspicion that the KGB/FSB has got him bottled up tight



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Here are some of the variables for an experiment of this sort:
1. Width of disc. Note the Podkletnov used an 8'' disc. I see a lot of people apparently use much smaller discs. If the effect is exponential with regards to width of medium, then people who use much smaller discs may get no results whatsoever.
2. Resonant frequencies of magnetic fields. Note that he also stated that the frequencies were high, though how high we don't know. (larger the disc, lower the resonant frequency)
Specifically, in the letter from Znidarsic, the following relationship is given:
Freq. of oper. MHz = 37/(length of superconductor in inches)
3. Rotational speed of disc. He stated 5000 rpm (rounds per minute) for the first experiments, then later they were much higher (30k rpm). I read somewhere that Ning Li was having problems with the discs they made at NASA breaking apart at high rotational speeds. If the disc ceramic material is not put through the correct cooking and de-oxygenating stages, it will fall apart at high rpms. Of course, the bigger the disk, the larger forces outward the disc experiences (as it gets farther from the center, the forces are larger pushing outward due to spin).

Can anyone else name other experimental variables?

Now, some measurements of interest are the following:
1. Relationship between the above and percentage weight reduced.
2. Direction of column of gravity modification. I wonder if the only way to aim it is by changing the orientation of the spinning disc?
3. How does the effect go down in strength with distance?

More ideas:
1. Would it be possible to do a complete end-run around having to spin the disc?
www.nanowerk.com...=18071.php
Maybe diffraction plates could be used and an electron field projected on the disc through one of those?
Note that if you start to look into projection of rotating magnetic fields, you'll see a lot of items in the area of fusion research with plasma control and the like.
On the other hand, it'd probably be better to just duplicate the experiment first, as someone else said that was why Dr. Ning Li was supposed to have failed.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by diginess
 

Wow, I think I just gave myself Podkletnov's frequency!
Operating frequency = 37MHz/width of disc in inches
Magentic Field Operating frequency for Podkletnov's disc must've been 37/8 = 4.625MHz.
Anyone care to post a brief description of where the 37 came from?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by diginess
 


Am not entirely certain if eugenes and ning lis exp was ever duplicated by any1,
though there have been scattered albeit unconfirmed reports that, british aerospace and nasa were trying
and eugene used to visit their research labs



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
By playing with Fran De Aquino formulas, which appear to explain Podkletnov effect, I figured out that a small but detectable antiG effect could be obtained by using:
- 4 cm wide / 0.15 mm thick disc
- mumetal material (magnetic permeability = up to 400'000) (look for it on ebay)
- 1-10 Hz EM field frequency
- 30'000-40'000 rpm (dremel)

This should generate around 0.001 g.

All of these conditions can be reached by using off the shelf products at the affordable total price of around $200, so I think I'll give it a try. :-)
edit on 30-6-2011 by jumpjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I also found some news about Podkletnov: looks like is going to start a 50 mln $, 5 year program together with a dozen of physicists about this topic. And he's going to publish something "cool" in october, 2011.

Sorry, no links, just "rumors".



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jumpjack
I also found some news about Podkletnov: looks like is going to start a 50 mln $, 5 year program together with a dozen of physicists about this topic. And he's going to publish something "cool" in october, 2011.

Sorry, no links, just "rumors".


Thanks for that information. Please keep us updated on that rumored 5-year program.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Your explanation is of course correct.
However, Podkletnov also measured weight loss in a closed system of rotating magnets,that could not be due to the Meissner effect, and the Biefeld-Brown effect speaks for itself, it is more than than can be accounted for by 'ion wind' repulsion.
I suspect that he realised that the effect of temperature on a magnet (and under certain conditions, vice-versa) might have some implications on field unification.



posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by jumpjack
 


Go for it
a star from me





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join