Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Electrogravitics Is a Pseudoscience"

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

micpsi
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


These terms refer to either certain analogies between the mathematics of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field or to the weak-field approximation of Einstein's equations at large distances from the electrically charged body. Neither term has anything to do with unified field theories of gravity and electromagnetism.


tell that to Martin Tajmar and his colleagues the publishers of his papers and all the science periodicals that published articles on it.




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   

stormbringer1701
Neither term has anything to do with unified field theories of gravity and electromagnetism.


Maybe because what we need to do is throw out the old theories and start over again?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
As has already been pointed out, but Ill pop in and confirm it since Particle Physics is my area, that the weak force is mediated by the Z and W bosons. Not by mesons.

It is true as pointed out that theorists are trying to marry all of these theories together and have a theory that shows gravitation is coupled weakly to electromagnetism. The issue is a logical one.

The strong and weak force are both stronger than magnetism on the sub particle scales. If there is a coupling, then you would expect the ratio of strength to be many orders of magnitude weaker than the ratio of the electric field to gravitational fields, or magnetic and gravitational fields.

The reason for this statement is that from what we observe in nature, we can explain it on the first second and third order without the need for any additional couplings. Furthermore what is being proposed as being able to generate 'anti-gravity fields' or some kind of electronically driven device to act as a gravity drive, would require unfeasibly large amounts of power.

It is like the whole idea of the electric universe, the required charge differentials between objects to hold them in place is quite simply enormous and quite unfeasible when you begin to speculate how a system could work.

The point is, that with a coupling ratio for somewhere down at 10^-20 or so, it would be like running a gigawatt power device to negate less than half of the coupling.

Also most of what you guys said in regard to the 'story' and the reasons behind progression of various fields is absolutely incorrect.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Mary Rose

stormbringer1701
Neither term has anything to do with unified field theories of gravity and electromagnetism.


Maybe because what we need to do is throw out the old theories and start over again?


Interesting...

Since you guys insist theories dating back to the 1800s are somehow not old? and need to be held onto ? mmmmm pot... kettle... black



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Mary Rose

stormbringer1701
Neither term has anything to do with unified field theories of gravity and electromagnetism.


Maybe because what we need to do is throw out the old theories and start over again?


that's normally not a good idea. usually science works incrementally. for example relativity does not do away with Newton. it just refines it in certain extreme circumstances. and when relativity fails in some regime it will not be replaced either. a new theory will extend or refine both it and newton into some bizarre set of circumstances which they are inadequate at explaining on their own.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
i don't think any theory has been relegated to the trash heap whole cloth in quite some time particularly in the physical science. maybe phlogiston or something like that. it's possible but not very likely. even something radical like mainstream science acknowledging something like electro gravity, magneto gravity or strong force gravity would not require a radical trashing of the something like relativity. when something has huge predictive power which is subsequently verified by experiment or observation it is unlikely that it will ever have to be scrapped en toto.
edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


What's taking so long?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


What's taking so long?
I'm sorry; can you clarify?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


What's taking so long?
if you are talking about why science isn't picking up on at least one of the UFO propulsion friendly theories i think they are. there is a pattern of increasing numbers of mainstream credentialed science papers and articles on topics that could lead to something like that. the latest one i saw seems to imply that the strong force and gravity may be related mathematically in n=8 supergravity. but before that there was gravity probe b, lisa, ligo and other data and the ESA thing and before that podkletnov. though i doubt skeptics credit podkletnov as a credentialed mainstream scientist even though he is.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
anyway look at the diagram at the top of the ESA article: www.sciencedaily.com...

see that really hard to read because it's in a freaking yellow font colors label in the diagram? the bit that says gravitoelectric field component or something like that?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Its an interesting article, one I was not aware of. 2006, I wonder if there have been any more followups. The point to note in the paper is the following

field generated was 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field

Which is extremely small and could indicate a intrinsic systematic is at play. That said it would be interesting if a larger experiment has been conducted. Though I was not aware of it, as said, such an experiment is fairly difficult to conduct, and also fairly expensive. So it gives no credence to the idea that mainstream science is simply not interested.

the challenge here would be maintaining the superconductor during the whole of this.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


There are times, when it is difficult to know how to approach a certain topic, or even where to begin from. This is one of those times.

Electrogravitics IS a pseudoscience.

en.wikipedia.org...

Electrogravitics, the idea that there is a testable link between electromagnetism and gravity, has no basis in scientific findings what so ever. There is no experimental proof of this concept, and no rigorous scientific method involved in the initial having of the idea.

But there is no supporting evidence to back it up, so it cannot be considered to be a conclusion, arrived at via the scientific method, and therefore is not science, but pseudoscience. I find the fact that you attempt to defend the idea of electrogravitics, by making a vague reference to the fact that we do not know what energy powers UFO, some what amusing as well. You cannot honestly say, with a straight face, that not knowing what powers a UFO, can possibly be used to justify an entire field of science. That is like saying that unicorn faeces proves the existence of fairies!

Look. I think that there are a great deal of things in this universe which cannot, as of yet, be explained. I believe that somewhere, out there in the universe there are other intelligences, some greater than our own, some capable of FTL, and all manner of science made to appear as magic. But I cannot prove those things, and neither can anyone who fancies to, because if they could do, they would already have done so, and we would all KNOW one way or another. We do not. So, UFO remain in the same grey area as electrogravitics, and both will remain in such dusty corners until or unless hard science is used to prove their existence, ultimately and once and for all.

And that is the way it damned well SHOULD be!



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

stormbringer1701
. . . and before that podkletnov. though i doubt skeptics credit podkletnov as a credentialed mainstream scientist even though he is.


Has he been harassed and suppressed?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

stormbringer1701
anyway look at the diagram at the top of the ESA article: www.sciencedaily.com...

see that really hard to read because it's in a freaking yellow font colors label in the diagram? the bit that says gravitoelectric field component or something like that?


Just finished reading the source material the article was based on and yes it does basically say exactly what I said. That the affect is very interesting but the measurement could be inductive or not correct based upon the experimental setup. While the affect appears large in comparison to what is expected by relativity, they don't appear to have a strong handle on the sensitivity of the apparatus and would need to have many other groups conduct the experiment with different equipment etc to confirm it.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

stormbringer1701
. . . and before that podkletnov. though i doubt skeptics credit podkletnov as a credentialed mainstream scientist even though he is.


Mary Rose
Has he been harassed and suppressed?
The wiki about him infers some supression, though it has more "citation needed" notes than any wiki article I've seen. The problem as I see it is not with his credentials, but with lack of replication:

en.wikipedia.org...

Podkletnov, in fact, visited the Sheffield team in 2000 and advised them on the conditions necessary to achieve his effect—conditions that they never got close to matching.

Even Podkletnov's own measurements varied widely, leading to questions about measurement accuracy/uncertainty/error:

Podkletnov's first peer-reviewed paper on the apparent gravity-modification effect, published in 1992, attracted little notice. In 1996, he submitted a longer paper, in which he claimed to have observed a larger effect (2% weight reduction as opposed to 0.3% in the 1992 paper)
There's a big difference between 2% and 0.3%, so which is right? With that kind of variation one can't rule out experimental error, which is why replication is essential, but hasn't been successful which is why Podkletnov's claims have lacked credibility.

By the way, even if Podkletnov was right and either of those numbers was correct, it wouldn't be much help in flying a UFO or spaceship, would it?

The 2006 ESA experiment sounds somewhat similar, but it measures a frame dragging type effect and not Podkletnov's "gravity blocking" effect.

As to the question of how UFOs work, since they are unidentified, we don't know what they are, so there's no way to say how they work. The vast majority of UFO reports upon investigation turn out to be manmade objects and natural phenomena. We have tall tales from Bob Lazar about reverse engineering alien spacecraft, but since he lied about his education he's not the most credible person. If Lazar's story was true then he should have a better idea than anybody how alien spacecraft work since he claims it was his job to reverse engineer them, but you know Stanton Friedman is a pro-UFO researcher/speaker and believes in alien visitation, and he doesn't believe Lazar's story either.
edit on 7-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Mary Rose

stormbringer1701
. . . and before that podkletnov. though i doubt skeptics credit podkletnov as a credentialed mainstream scientist even though he is.


Has he been harassed and suppressed?


NASA made an attempt at replication and failed. this gives the skeptics the opportunity to claim he was faking it or was best was in error. however it turns out NASA could not fabricate a test article to his specifications nor could they rig a means of achieving his rotation speed so they failed to meet his protocol. He did not recant and still works on his experiments. Some of his critics are unwarrantedly harsh and ad hominem in their efforts to discredit him.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

ErosA433

stormbringer1701
anyway look at the diagram at the top of the ESA article: www.sciencedaily.com...

see that really hard to read because it's in a freaking yellow font colors label in the diagram? the bit that says gravitoelectric field component or something like that?


Just finished reading the source material the article was based on and yes it does basically say exactly what I said. That the affect is very interesting but the measurement could be inductive or not correct based upon the experimental setup. While the affect appears large in comparison to what is expected by relativity, they don't appear to have a strong handle on the sensitivity of the apparatus and would need to have many other groups conduct the experiment with different equipment etc to confirm it.


Full disclosure; Tajmar has retracted the original paper i believe. despite his three year efforts to be certain it was not experimental error he thinks the effect he measured may have been generated by the super cooled helium's kinetic effects. but he has published subsequently on similar things i think so i am not certain where it stands.

i posted it more for the confirmation that science expects there to be a coupling of magnetism to gravity more than for the spectacular claim of the strength of it in Tajmar's paper. though i must point out that it is interesting that there is a pattern of the experimental set up that scientist's use to look for coupling. it's similar to podkletnov (never sure of the spelling) and 99 percent of other efforts including fringe science efforts use the same basic set up.
edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Arbitrageur

Even Podkletnov's own measurements varied widely, leading to questions about measurement accuracy/uncertainty/error:

Podkletnov's first peer-reviewed paper on the apparent gravity-modification effect, published in 1992, attracted little notice. In 1996, he submitted a longer paper, in which he claimed to have observed a larger effect (2% weight reduction as opposed to 0.3% in the 1992 paper)
There's a big difference between 2% and 0.3%, so which is right? With that kind of variation one can't rule out experimental error, which is why replication is essential, but hasn't been successful which is why Podkletnov's claims have lacked credibility.

By the way, even if Podkletnov was right and either of those numbers was correct, it wouldn't be much help in flying a UFO or spaceship, would it?



The difference in magnitude is explained by changes in his apparatus and protocols. speed of rotation ; improved materials in the disk and so forth. it does not necessarily mean sloppiness in measurement.

i am not sure if he claimed so himself but others have claimed that the effect is proportional to rotary speed and the surface area (so diameter or circumference) of his disks. so to answer your second question in part the efficiency may go up radically with improvements to the set up. or maybe not. anyway if you could get say an 80 percent reduction in gravity effect on a craft it would make it a lot easier to lift it off the ground and into space. can you imagine a heavy lift rocket with an 80 percent savings on TWR? even a few percent would make a worthwhile advantage.

edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
oh i watched a video of an interview of podkletnov and he claimed that his subsequent experiments had even more spectacular magnitudes. using i think multiple stacked disks or something like that.

edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: well i really messed that one up




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

stormbringer1701
anyway if you could get say an 80 percent reduction in gravity effect on a craft it would make it a lot easier to lift it off the ground and into space. can you imagine a heavy lift rocket with an 80 percent savings on TWR? even a few percent would make a worthwhile advantage.
Yes a completely hypothetical 80% is a more sizable dent than the unreplicated 2%, but I tried to imagine it and what I see is the world's biggest blowtorch (the tail end of a heavy lift rocket) putting out huge amounts of heat in one of the hottest areas on the planet, aimed directly at a superconductor underneath it which needs to be at the coldest temperature in order to work. Not exactly a match made in heaven, is it?

Whether 0.3% or 2% hypothetical "gravity shielding" would provide much of an advantage requires considering the energy requirements, weight and drag of the superconductor apparatus. It's not a slam dunk that such a small reduction in gravity would be a net gain overall in a flight or propulsion system.
edit on 7-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join