It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
stormbringer1701
Neither term has anything to do with unified field theories of gravity and electromagnetism.
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?
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?
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.
Mary Rose
reply to post by stormbringer1701
What's taking so long?
stormbringer1701
. . . and before that podkletnov. though i doubt skeptics credit podkletnov as a credentialed mainstream scientist even though he is.
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?
stormbringer1701
. . . and before that podkletnov. though i doubt skeptics credit podkletnov as a credentialed mainstream scientist even though he is.
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:
Mary Rose
Has he been harassed and suppressed?
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
Arbitrageur
Even Podkletnov's own measurements varied widely, leading to questions about measurement accuracy/uncertainty/error:
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.
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)
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?
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?
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.