PDA

View Full Version : De Aquino researches on gravity control



jumpjack
2011-Jun-13, 07:31 AM
What do you think of Fran De Aquino researches on Gravity/EM/Quantum unification and Gravity control methods?

They've been published in several peer-reviewed papers, and they appear to have been even recently updated:



Mathematical Foundations of the Relativistic Theory of Quantum Gravity (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0212033)
Copyright © 2002-2011 by Fran De Aquino

Published in the peer-reviewed:
Pacific Journal of Science and Technology (USA)
Volume 11. Number 1. May 2010 (Spring), (Physics),pp.173-232.

Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0701091)
Copyright © 2007-2011 by Fran De Aquino

Published in the peer-reviewed:
Pacific Journal of Science and Technology (USA)
Volume 11. Number 2. November 2010 (Fall), (Physics),pp.178-247.

The Gravitational Spacecraft (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9904018)
Copyright © 1997-2011 by Fran De Aquino

Published in the peer-reviewed:
Electric Spacecraft Journal (USA)
Volume 27. December 1998 (First Version), pp.6-13.

Is that true? These researches appear quite weird as minimum...

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-13, 08:21 AM
What do you think of Fran De Aquino researches on Gravity/EM/Quantum unification and Gravity control methods?...

...The Gravitational Spacecraft
Copyright © 1997-2011 by Fran De Aquino

Published in the peer-reviewed:
Electric Spacecraft Journal (USA)
Volume 27. December 1998 (First Version), pp.6-13.

Is that true? These researches appear quite weird as minimum...
I would say that this person's claims, whatever they may be, are not true based on the following sentence from the abstract of the last cited article:


...This means that gravitational forces can be reduced, inverted and intensified by means of electromagnetic fields...

It would be helpful if you would ask, for instance "Is it true that gravitational forces can be controlled by means of electromagnetic fields?" rather than just providing links to various papers and asking "Are they true?".

Most people are reluctant to take the time to open links if there is no specific issue or claim mentioned in your post.

In general, your initial question "What do you think of.....Gravity control methods" will almost invariably generate an automatic negative response since there are no known methods in mainstream science for controlling gravity.

Chris

jumpjack
2011-Jun-13, 09:04 AM
It would be helpful if you would ask, for instance "Is it true that gravitational forces can be controlled by means of electromagnetic fields?" rather than just providing links to various papers and asking "Are they true?".

Sorry but I don't get your point: I just asked your opinion about a peer-reviewed paper titled "Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure", which exactly means asking what you'd like me to ask! ;-)



In general, your initial question "What do you think of.....Gravity control methods" will almost invariably generate an automatic negative response since there are no known methods in mainstream science for controlling gravity.

That's why I'm asking your opinions here!
Can official peer-reviewed paper be considered "mainstream science"? If not, why,and how does an peer-reviewed research eventually "turns" into "mainstream science"?

astromark
2011-Jun-13, 09:08 AM
The warping of space and time by the effect of mass objects is not a function of electromagnetic field radiation or interference.

I do not see this as mainstream science. No manipulation of gravity measured is possible.

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-13, 09:19 AM
Sorry but I don't get your point: I just asked your opinion about a peer-reviewed paper titled "Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure", which exactly means asking what you'd like me to ask! ;-)


That's why I'm asking your opinions here!
Can official peer-reviewed paper be considered "mainstream science"? If not, why,and how does an peer-reviewed research eventually "turns" into "mainstream science"?
I'm not a scientist so I can't answer your question. From replies to other posts that I've read in this forum I gather that all peer-reviewed papers are not created equal. Those members of the forum that seem to be knowledgeable have commented that the peer review process for some publications is questionable, at best.

Perhaps one of those members can comment on the quality of the peer review process that's been applied to the papers you cite.

Chris

jumpjack
2011-Jun-13, 09:46 AM
The warping of space and time by the effect of mass objects is not a function of electromagnetic field radiation or interference.

I do not see this as mainstream science. No manipulation of gravity measured is possible.
In some of De Aquino papers, experimental resulst are shown and compared to values predicted by theory, with quite a good match.
I wonder if his results have also been indipendently repeated.

tusenfem
2011-Jun-13, 01:21 PM
I am weary of journals that specifically name the title of the author (BSc, PhD etc.) as if that is something important, most of the time this is used to "up the image" of a "fringe" or "side-lines" journal. I can see no reason why one would publish such important papers in a journal that probably nobody reads. These cited papers do not seem to show up in ADS (I only found a Francisco Aquino and a Fredy Aquino).

Then I noticed that the first paper cited is 79 pages long, maybe someone will be tempted to go through it.

Also, it is kind of strange to have the papers published and then revise them after they are published.

macaw
2011-Jun-13, 02:08 PM
Published in the peer-reviewed:
Pacific Journal of Science and Technology (USA)
Volume 11. Number 1. May 2010 (Spring), (Physics),pp.173-232.

.

"Pacific Journal of Science and Technology"? "Journals" like this publish any fringe stuff that anyone submits. Not even worth of the paper they are published on.

TonyE
2011-Jun-13, 02:21 PM
The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology (USA) is published by the Akamai University that says on its website, under "Accreditation"

"Akamai University is not accredited by an accrediting agency or association recognized by the US Department of Education."

Peer review is by the editorial staff of the Journal. I also note that the paper in arXiv is endorsed only by the author.

macaw
2011-Jun-13, 02:29 PM
The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology (USA) is published by the Akamai University that says on its website, under "Accreditation"

"Akamai University is not accredited by an accrediting agency or association recognized by the US Department of Education."

Peer review is by the editorial staff of the Journal. I also note that the paper in arXiv is endorsed only by the author.

Yes, good catch, both are the trademarks of worthlessness. The third one is when such "journals" charge the authors by the page for publication.

EigenState
2011-Jun-13, 06:07 PM
Greetings,


Yes, good catch, both are the trademarks of worthlessness. The third one is when such "journals" charge the authors by the page for publication.

Emphasis added. Page charges are in fact routine with the most reputable journals, although they can be waived under certain circumstances.

For example, Page charges (http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/page/Page%20charges) for The Astrophysical Journal.

The American Institute of Physics journals have similar policies.

Best regards,
EigenState

jumpjack
2011-Jun-13, 06:47 PM
In the meantime, did anybody of you take a look to the formulas?
The "key" formulas spread in just the few first pages (up to 6), all other ones are based on first ones, so we've just to figure out if first ones are "good" or not.

macaw
2011-Jun-13, 07:33 PM
In the meantime, did anybody of you take a look to the formulas?

No, there is no point wasting time.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-13, 08:04 PM
mmhhh.

loglo
2011-Jun-13, 09:19 PM
His dodgy gravity control paper is based on his dodgy gravity quantisation paper. I am not sure if his knowledge of quantum theory is worse than his knowledge of GR or the other way around. He seems to believe that just because he can get h and m into the same equation he has quantised gravity. If it was that easy it would have been done 50 years ago. Nothing to see here, move along. :)

astromark
2011-Jun-14, 09:32 AM
His dodgy gravity control paper is based on his dodgy gravity quantisation paper. I am not sure if his knowledge of quantum theory is worse than his knowledge of GR or the other way around. He seems to believe that just because he can get h and m into the same equation he has quantised gravity. If it was that easy it would have been done 50 years ago. Nothing to see here, move along. :)

To Jumpjack... With no unkindness intended I endorse this attitude of Loglo's. and yes I have attempted to understand this paper of De Aquino... and have dismissed them as unscientific. I have searched for more of this and not found it as true to match my understanding of the manner of gravity.

Astron
2011-Jun-14, 09:51 AM
No, there is no point wasting time.

So you basically devalue something without even bother to read it?
Many things that now are proven beyond any doubt were once considered nonsense.


If it was that easy it would have been done 50 years ago. Nothing to see here, move along. :)

This could be said at any given time for any scientific discovery so it's doesn't really considered as a valid reason for not reading the paper.

TonyE
2011-Jun-14, 01:21 PM
So you basically devalue something without even bother to read it?


The problem is that a vast amount of material is published and one has to be selective in the choice of reading. Another problem (for many people including me) is that they get lost in the maths and are not qualified to determine if it hangs together or not. If the material had been published in a place where serious peer review had taken place then I may be prepared (provisionally) to accept the conclusions and invest effort to understand.


Many things that now are proven beyond any doubt were once considered nonsense.

This may be true. If this material had even superficial validity I would expect "the establishment" to come out all guns firing to try and demolish the theory. But no! The author has bublished 40 different versions on arXiv so far as well as using many other web resources where "anyone can publish anything". But the only citations are by the author himself. The author needs to get at least one respected scientist to review the material and either endorse it or refute it.

Strange
2011-Jun-14, 01:33 PM
Many things that now are proven beyond any doubt were once considered nonsense.

But that doesn't mean that all nonsense will one day be proved correct.

Strange
2011-Jun-14, 01:34 PM
If this material had even superficial validity I would expect "the establishment" to come out all guns firing to try and demolish the theory.

Or, failing that, get a share of the Nobel prize!

macaw
2011-Jun-14, 01:42 PM
So you basically devalue something without even bother to read it?
Many things that now are proven beyond any doubt were once considered nonsense.

This is not one of them. If the author had anything of value, he would have published in a reputable journal.

WayneFrancis
2011-Jun-14, 02:22 PM
Sorry but I don't get your point: I just asked your opinion about a peer-reviewed paper titled "Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure", which exactly means asking what you'd like me to ask! ;-)


That's why I'm asking your opinions here!
Can official peer-reviewed paper be considered "mainstream science"? If not, why,and how does an peer-reviewed research eventually "turns" into "mainstream science"?

You can be ATM and still be good science but just because you've got some peer-reviewed research doesn't mean your ideas are main stream.

So are you asking if these papers are mainstream? One must first ask if the "journals" are reputable and properly peer reviewed journals.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-14, 02:23 PM
good point. If I wanted to publish his research (with my name ;-) ) on a peer reviewed journal, where should I start from?

WayneFrancis
2011-Jun-14, 02:24 PM
I am weary of journals that specifically name the title of the author (BSc, PhD etc.) as if that is something important, most of the time this is used to "up the image" of a "fringe" or "side-lines" journal. I can see no reason why one would publish such important papers in a journal that probably nobody reads. These cited papers do not seem to show up in ADS (I only found a Francisco Aquino and a Fredy Aquino).

Then I noticed that the first paper cited is 79 pages long, maybe someone will be tempted to go through it.

Also, it is kind of strange to have the papers published and then revise them after they are published.

Or revised and published 16 times over 11+ years

WayneFrancis
2011-Jun-14, 02:31 PM
mmhhh.

The point is these papers are not really peer reviewed and why waste time reading them. You'd have just as much luck finding useful information from sci-fi novels...actually more as many sci-fi writers spend a lot of effort trying to get much of their science right.

WayneFrancis
2011-Jun-14, 02:42 PM
So you basically devalue something without even bother to read it?
Many things that now are proven beyond any doubt were once considered nonsense.


Why waste time? If someone came up to you and said "I can tell you how to do your job better I just need a few hours of your time" would you listen to them?
Now what if that person just babbled on for hours and it was clear to you that they had no clue about your job...What if they said "well there is this other person I hang around with that can tell you how to do your job better! They just need a few hours of your time!"
Would you listen to that next person? How many people would you listen to?



This could be said at any given time for any scientific discovery so it's doesn't really considered as a valid reason for not reading the paper.

Problem is that often these "papers" have very fundamental problems. Again...how many crank science papers do you think legit people should read?
If they read even a small percentage of them then they'd have no time for anything else. Forget even trying to spend the time to put into writing why
the crank science papers are wrong, to which most authors argue that no body understands despite having their mistakes clearly pointed out to them.

When real ground breaking science papers are published they are often adopted very quickly because the science in them is so sound. If the "science"
in these papers was so sound, it doesn't have to be mainstream, then the papers would be accepted by an appropriate legit journal.

WayneFrancis
2011-Jun-14, 02:47 PM
good point. If I wanted to publish his research (with my name ;-) ) on a peer reviewed journal, where should I start from?

Have you looked at the sticky post in this forum called I'm an independent researcher, how can I get my work published? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32406-I-m-an-independent-researcher-how-can-I-get-my-work-published)?

Tensor
2011-Jun-14, 02:48 PM
Many things that now are proven beyond any doubt were once considered nonsense.


Yeah, we've heard it before, they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown. The problem is that those with training didn't laugh at Galileo or Einstein.

Swift
2011-Jun-14, 07:33 PM
May I suggest that we limit this thread to a discussion of De Aquino's work and papers, and save the broad discussion of the worth of Journals and the mechanics of the peer-review process (except how it directly relates to these papers) for another thread

jumpjack
2011-Jun-14, 07:45 PM
Indeed it would be cool if anybody could have a look at them...

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-15, 01:46 AM
Indeed it would be cool if anybody could have a look at them...
I did have a look at them. I repeat my reply in post #2:


I would say that this person's claims, whatever they may be, are not true based on the following sentence from the abstract of the last cited article:


...This means that gravitational forces can be reduced, inverted and intensified by means of electromagnetic fields...

If there is another specific claim that has been made in these papers that you would like to discuss, then please then please post that claim (and supporting evidence for it, if possible).

Chris

loglo
2011-Jun-15, 09:45 AM
So you basically devalue something without even bother to read it?
Many things that now are proven beyond any doubt were once considered nonsense.



This could be said at any given time for any scientific discovery so it's doesn't really considered as a valid reason for not reading the paper.

I read the paper and his previous one which it is based on. They are seriously flawed, oblivious to the last 50 years of research and observations and show lack of knowledge of the most basic principles in physics. All he is doing is manipulating differential equations and assuming that he is producing valid physical results.

The only test I can see that he puts his work to is to derive the precession of Mercury's orbit, totally ignoring that GR has been tested to much greater levels of accuracy in the last 40 years. If a rank amateur like me can pull his papers apart in a glance (eg he claims to have quantised gravity yet does not derive an operator for the graviton or show how the force is mediated, ) then there really is nothing to see here.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-15, 11:32 AM
I did have a look at them. I repeat my reply in post #2:



If there is another specific claim that has been made in these papers that you would like to discuss, then please then please post that claim (and supporting evidence for it, if possible).

Chris

I think you already decided his claims are not right well before reading the formulas and their explanation, and that you read them being already sure they were not right, else you would be talking right now here about why you think formula (3) in paper 9904018 (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9904/9904018.pdf) is incorrect.

Swift
2011-Jun-15, 02:12 PM
I think you already decided his claims are not right well before reading the formulas and their explanation, and that you read them being already sure they were not right, else you would be talking right now here about why you think formula (3) in paper 9904018 (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9904/9904018.pdf) is incorrect.
jumpjack,

Be careful. It is perfectly OK to ask questions about a non-mainstream theory, such as De Aquino's, in Q&A. But when you start arguing the mainstream answers that are given back to you, it starts becoming advocating a non-mainstream theory, and that can only be done in the ATM forum. Second, it is impolite to question whether another member has actually done what they say they did. You are free to disagree with csmyth3025's opinion, but you shouldn't question his sincerity or motivations.

tusenfem
2011-Jun-15, 02:16 PM
Equation (3) looks like a write around for relativistic mass, and then comes the weirdness that the momentum is created by electromagnetic radiation, yeah right!

Tensor
2011-Jun-15, 06:11 PM
I think you already decided his claims are not right well before reading the formulas and their explanation, and that you read them being already sure they were not right, else you would be talking right now here about why you think formula (3) in paper 9904018 (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9904/9904018.pdf) is incorrect.

Perhaps you can explain to us why formula three matters, if he does not produce any kind of accuracy prediction for predictions of tests for the equivalency principle? Why should it matter if he can't produce an operator for his mediator particle? This is supposed to be a Quantum explanation, which requires an operator.

And does he have any kind of explanation for this ( arXiv.org/abs/physics/0411052) experiment. where it was determined that inertial and gravitational mass is the same to an accuracy of 1.2 x 10-7 with error bar of 1.7 x 10-? Which is consistent with inertial and gravitational masses being the same and way out of line with his claim. Or how about the tests with the Earth and Moon showing inertial and gravitational are the same to 1 x 10-13?

Have any of those tests made it into his papers? I haven't seen them, perhaps you could point out where in his papers they are and how well they match his ideas predictions. After all, if can't match experimental test limits as well as another theory, seemingly isn't aware of current test results, and can't produce items that are required in theories (operators, in a claimed quantum theory), exactly why can't we just blow off his paper?

jumpjack
2011-Jun-15, 07:08 PM
jumpjack,

Be careful. It is perfectly OK to ask questions about a non-mainstream theory, such as De Aquino's, in Q&A. But when you start arguing the mainstream answers
I am not arguing anything.
He was just replying even before examining the subject of the question, maybe because he does not like the question.

Tensor's reply is what I expected in a forum like this. :clap: (Thanks Tensor)

@tusenfem
mass & quantum theory are weird, just think how a photon behaves upon passing through a small crack. [/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality"]The result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality) is "impossible". ;-)

Swift
2011-Jun-15, 07:52 PM
I am not arguing anything.
He was just replying even before examining the subject of the question, maybe because he does not like the question.
We also have a rule against debating moderation in thread. If you have questions about moderation, PM one or several moderators, or use the Report function (black triangle with the ! in the lower left corner of each post).

jumpjack
2011-Jun-15, 08:38 PM
Perhaps you can explain to us

Actually I'm looking for explanations...
Anyway...


why formula three matters, if he does not produce any kind of accuracy prediction for predictions of tests for the equivalency principle? Why should it matter if he can't produce an operator for his mediator particle? This is supposed to be a Quantum explanation, which requires an operator.

Sorry, I can't answer this question... because I can't even understand it! (my fault, I have only very very very basic knowledge of quantum theory; hence I'm looking for explanation and opinions about "theory of gravity quantization")



And does he have any kind of explanation for this ( arXiv.org/abs/physics/0411052) experiment. where it was determined that inertial and gravitational mass is the same to an accuracy of 1.2 x 10-7 with error bar of 1.7 x 10-? Which is consistent with inertial and gravitational masses being the same and way out of line with his claim. Or how about the tests with the Earth and Moon showing inertial and gravitational are the same to 1 x 10-13?

Yes, he has; it's on page 9 of paper 0212033 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0212033):

Mg=(1-V^2/c^2) * Mi

V^2/c^2 is less than 10^-17


Now, it is possible to learn why Newton’s experiments using simple penduli do not find any difference between Mg and Mi. The reason is due to the fact that, in the case of penduli, the ratio V^2/c^2 is less than 10^-17 , which is much smaller than the accuracy of the mentioned experiments.
Newton’s experiments have been improved upon (one part in 60,000) by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (1784–1846). In 1890, Eötvos confirmed Newton’s results with accuracy of one part in 10^7. Posteriorly, Eötvos experiment has been repeated with accuracy of one part in 10^9.
In 1963, the experiment was repeated with an even greater accuracy, one part in 10^11. The result was the same previously obtained.
previously obtained.
In all these experiments, the ratio V^2/c^2 is less than 10^-17, which is much smaller than the accuracy of 10^-11 obtained in the previous more precise experiment.
Then, we arrive at the conclusion that all these experiments say nothing in regard to the relativistic behavior of masses in relative motion.



Have any of those tests made it into his papers?

As far as I can understand, current technology does not yet allow to verify the existing difference (if any) among Mg and Mi.

The paper I cited contains the full mathematical justification of De Aquino formulas.... but it's too complex for "my" physics. :-(
Maybe you have better chance to understand all steps. But... just resist against the temptation of throwing the paper (or the monitor...) out of your window while reading...: great "intuitions" and great "oddities" are mixed together. Just discard the second ones. ;-)

Page 38 is also interesting, as it calculates the amount of gravity quantum ( 3.9 * 10^-73 kg ) and other things.

(I repeat: discard "oddities", focus on formulas)



Equation (3) looks like a write around for relativistic mass, and then comes the weirdness that the momentum is created by electromagnetic radiation, yeah right!
it's demonstrated in paper 0212033 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0212033), p.8 and previous ones. Don't know if it is properly demonstrated...
Anyway I think it's quite the basis of the theory, so I ask: can electromagnetic radiation create momentum as he states? (Does this means that EM radiation can generate force?)

macaw
2011-Jun-16, 04:48 AM
As far as I can understand, current technology does not yet allow to verify the existing difference (if any) among Mg and Mi.

This is false, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalenc e_principle). I think that there is a specific rule against pushing fringe concepts in Q&A.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 07:17 AM
This is false, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalenc e_principle). I think that there is a specific rule against pushing fringe concepts in Q&A.

If your read more carefully, you'll see that I said "as far as I can understand", I didn't say "I'm completely sure that it's absolutely true that current technology does not yet allow to verify the existing difference (if any) among Mg and Mi." I even added "if any".

So just stay calm: if you want to have a scientific discussion about this topic you're welcome, else you're not compelled posting replies in this thread.

Besides, last experiment by Eöt-Wash group is still far from reaching needed precision (10^-13 is "quite" different than 10^-17 )

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 07:28 AM
Why was STEP mission canceled?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalenc e_principle

It was the only one capable of reaching needed precision in measurement!!! (although probably one additional magnitude order would be better)

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-16, 10:13 AM
Actually I'm looking for explanations...
Anyway...

Sorry, I can't answer this question... because I can't even understand it! (my fault, I have only very very very basic knowledge of quantum theory; hence I'm looking for explanation and opinions about "theory of gravity quantization")...

...The paper I cited contains the full mathematical justification of De Aquino formulas.... but it's too complex for "my" physics. :-(

If you're truly looking for explanations then I suggest you study some of the mainstream explanations that can be found in textbooks - or even Wikipedia if that's all you have at your disposal.

There are others in this forum more knowledgeable than myself telling you that this guy's "theories" are not valid. You're asking that they explain why they're not valid when you admittedly don't even understand the mathematics contained in these papers. How can this be done without resorting to equally complex mathematics that you also wont be able to understand?

Astromark's post #4 sums up the situation:


The warping of space and time by the effect of mass objects is not a function of electromagnetic field radiation or interference.

I do not see this as mainstream science. No manipulation of gravity measured is possible.

If, after being told that DeAquino is wrong, you still feel that he might be right then your best bet is to educate yourself in mathematics and physics so you understand why it is that you feel he might be right.

Chris

PS A good place to look for sources of information is the sticky thread at the top **FAQ**Resources On The Web

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 12:55 PM
If you're truly looking for explanations then I suggest you study some of the mainstream explanations
Very very very weird suggestion: I'm looking for explanation about a theory, and you suggest to look at explanations for other theories.

Never mind.


How can this be done without resorting to equally complex mathematics that you also wont be able to understand?
If you'd try to explain, I could try to understand.

I don't "feel" De Aquino is right: I know none in the thread yet proposed an explanation (only arguments) of why he is not (apart for Tensor, from which I'm waiting a new reply), and I know measurements performed up to now where not precise enough to demonstrate he's wrong. I also think De Aquino math is good, and I asked for verification.
I also asked if his formula (3)/(55) (depending on paper) has physical justification (momentum changed by EM energy), and if not, why.

I also asked info about next planned space missions (if any) to check Equivalence Principle down to 1 part out of 10^-18, but no replies arrived.

Lot of questions, lack of answers, plenty of arguments.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 01:04 PM
Is Crookes radiometer an example of EM energy causing mechanical effects?
http://www-toys.science.unitn.it/toys/images/l-radiometro.jpg

I.E., can it be considered a momentum change due to EM?

Strange
2011-Jun-16, 01:10 PM
Is Crookes radiometer an example of EM energy causing mechanical effects?

I.E., can it be considered a momentum change due to EM?

No. Although it is often described that way, that is not how it works. But the Nichol's radiometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichols_radiometer) can be used to demonstrate radiation pressure.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 01:13 PM
Or, maybe better, can this statement justify equation (3)/(55)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Modern_definitions_of_momentum

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/2/d/d2dec44ba56c41a31b4d334b144b51d6.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/c/3/9c3f2777ac6cb5f4c9c1edc647c68311.png

This of course can't work in empty space at light speed, but it could, for example, in plasma.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 01:16 PM
Other question:
when an EM field makes an engine rotate, can it be considered momentum change due to EM radiation?

Shaula
2011-Jun-16, 01:27 PM
EM radiation can transfer momentum and angular momentum. That is not in doubt. Optical tweezers and so on rely on that fact. But this is always a momentum transfer - an atom recoils when it spits out a photon, the other atom recoils as it absorbs one. Static EM fields do not transfer momentum AFAIK.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 01:50 PM
What about a variable magnetic field acting on an a magnet (i.e. electric motor): may it be considered momentum change due to EM effect?

And what about solar sails? Would "solar sail effect" act on a Crookes radiometer in total vacuum rather than low pressure?

Tensor
2011-Jun-16, 01:56 PM
...(apart for Tensor, from which I'm waiting a new reply),...

I'm working on it, life got in the way. I'll have it sometime today. Just a couple of quick points.


Lot of questions, lack of answers, plenty of arguments.

No quantum gravitational operator, no reason to continue since this is a claim of a quantum gravitational theory. And just where exactly does he calculate that 10-17 for the penduli? Or for the other experiments for that matter? He makes a claim, without showing the calculations that produce that claim.

WayneFrancis
2011-Jun-16, 02:08 PM
Very very very weird suggestion: I'm looking for explanation about a theory, and you suggest to look at explanations for other theories.

Never mind.


What you are looking for is information about an idea that is supposed to overthrow the current mainstream theory. If an hypothesis is going to over turn a current theory then it must be able to answer the same questions that the current theory does and more and hopefully with more precision. Thus understanding the current theory tells you what the new idea should be able to answer. It will also show you what amount of evidence is needed for an idea to be accepted. To many people claim they have better answers to problems then the current theory but it often becomes obvious that the people proposing the replacement don't even understand what the current theory actually says.

This would be like someone thinking they could write better accounting software then I do but they don't actually understand all the accounting principals involved. You might think that you don't need to know what the current theory says and just question the root questions being answered but science is rarely done that way. Even when an idea is completely overturned like GR overturning Newtonian gravity A.E. fully understood how Newtonian gravity worked.



If you'd try to explain, I could try to understand.

I don't "feel" De Aquino is right: I know none in the thread yet proposed an explanation (only arguments) of why he is not (apart for Tensor, from which I'm waiting a new reply), and I know measurements performed up to now where not precise enough to demonstrate he's wrong. I also think De Aquino math is good, and I asked for verification.
I also asked if his formula (3)/(55) (depending on paper) has physical justification (momentum changed by EM energy), and if not, why.

I also asked info about next planned space missions (if any) to check Equivalence Principle down to 1 part out of 10^-18, but no replies arrived.

Lot of questions, lack of answers, plenty of arguments.

Multiple people have pointed out flaws in the paper. It isn't valid to argue "Ok, that might be wrong but what about this other part" What makes you think that
if they author has got some fundamentals wrong that more complex ideas might be correct? It would be like asking someone that can't add 2 + 2 to give you the answer to some complex differential equation and expect that the answer might be correct and then complaining that even though you can not verify the answer given yourself that others should be able to dumb down the real answer to your level so that you can both understand it and understand why the first answer is wrong.

Maths is not very forgiving. If you can't do the maths yourself then you pretty much have to take the word of those that can and more importantly trust them when they say the formulas are being manipulated wrong.

It would be like if I showed you this

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?E=mc^{2}
and
http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}

then try to tell you that
http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\frac{hc}{\lambda}=mc^{2}
so
http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\frac{h}{\lambda}=\frac{mc^{2}}{c}
=
http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?\frac{h}{\lambda}=mc

m is the rest mass of an object thus using Planck constant I've shown that a photon isn't truly massless. Now if you don't understand the real meanings behind the first 2 formulas I used then you can easily be duped into believing that I've just overthrown a century of science because I've discovered that photons are not truely massless.

Swift
2011-Jun-16, 02:11 PM
This is false, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalenc e_principle). I think that there is a specific rule against pushing fringe concepts in Q&A.
There is also a specific rule about members playing moderator, a rule I know you've been told about many times, and if you read the thread, you will know that moderators are well aware of things.

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-16, 02:13 PM
...I also asked info about next planned space missions (if any) to check Equivalence Principle down to 1 part out of 10^-18, but no replies arrived.


Currently, STEP is still in the design phase. Another satellite-based experiment, the French-developed Micro-Satellite ŕ traînée Compensée pour l'Observation du Principe d'Equivalence (MICROSCOPE), is scheduled to launch in 2010. MICROSCOPE will have two pairs of test masses instead of four, and will be able to detect a violation of the equivalence principle as small as one part in a million billion (10^15).
(ref. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/18may_equivalenceprinciple/ )

NOTE:
http://smsc.cnes.fr/IcMICROSCOPE/timeline_gb.gif


MICROSCOPE (MICRO-Satellite ŕ traînée Compensée pour l'Observation du Principe d'Equivalence) is the third microsatellite of the CNES Myriade series. It is dedicated to a fundamental physics experiment.
(ref. http://smsc.cnes.fr/MICROSCOPE/ )

Google is your friend.

Chris

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 02:27 PM
(ref. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/18may_equivalenceprinciple/ )

Google is your friend.

Chris
Thanks, it was actually my enemy ;-) , as it continuously gave me results dated 1997 or 2001!

loglo
2011-Jun-16, 02:57 PM
If your read more carefully, you'll see that I said "as far as I can understand", I didn't say "I'm completely sure that it's absolutely true that current technology does not yet allow to verify the existing difference (if any) among Mg and Mi." I even added "if any".

So just stay calm: if you want to have a scientific discussion about this topic you're welcome, else you're not compelled posting replies in this thread.

Besides, last experiment by Eöt-Wash group is still far from reaching needed precision (10^-13 is "quite" different than 10^-17 )


The other way to test the equivalence principle is to probe for deviations of local Lorentz invariance. This has been done with Hughes-Drever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes%E2%80%93Drever_experiment) type experiments which limit any mass isotropy to less than 1 part in 1030.

macaw
2011-Jun-16, 03:18 PM
If your read more carefully, you'll see that I said "as far as I can understand", I didn't say "I'm completely sure that it's absolutely true that current technology does not yet allow to verify the existing difference (if any) among Mg and Mi." I even added "if any".

So just stay calm: if you want to have a scientific discussion about this topic you're welcome, else you're not compelled posting replies in this thread.

Besides, last experiment by Eöt-Wash group is still far from reaching needed precision (10^-13 is "quite" different than 10^-17 )

This is false, the value for \frac{v^2}{c^2} in the Eotvos experiment is 10^{-12}. The reason is that v=330m/s as used in the Eotvos-class experiments. So, the 10^{-17} you picked up from the paper is just wrong and uniformed, it is based on some nonsense about the speed of a pendulum. To me, and maybe to the rest, you seem not to be asking questions but to be using Q&A in order to push Aquino's fringe theory. BTW, the current limits on mass anisotropy are of the order of 10^{-32}, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes%E2%80%93Drever_experiment#Modern_experiment s). This should put the Aquino "paper" to rest.

Shaula
2011-Jun-16, 04:40 PM
What about a variable magnetic field acting on an a magnet (i.e. electric motor): may it be considered momentum change due to EM effect?

And what about solar sails? Would "solar sail effect" act on a Crookes radiometer in total vacuum rather than low pressure?
What are you trying to get at here? It is known that a varying EM field acting on the chargesin a material can induce bulk torque or motion. Mainstream. What that paper is proposing is that gravity acts differently on a material due to the presence of an EM field. That has nothing to do with motors or the question of whether a varying field can affect a magnet - yes it can, we know it can. That is a world apart from an EM field altering the gravitational effects a piece of matter feels. Worlds and worlds apart. Ditto solar sails - we know that the outwards pressure of light can be harnessed. Not an issue. Once again - this has nothingto do with changing the gravitational mass of the system being propelled.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 05:10 PM
What are you trying to get at here? It is known that a varying EM field acting on the charges in a material can induce bulk torque or motion. Mainstream. What that paper is proposing is that gravity acts differently on a material due to the presence of an EM field.

A formula coming from infamous formula (3)/(55) says that the gravity effect is obtained by inducing motion by variable EM field to a body rotating at 6000 rpm and in superconducting state (it would cause a gravity reduction of 2,7%, and much greater effect at speeds of 50'000 and 100'000 rpm); if true, the theory would explain Podkletnov results.


does not cause different gravity That has nothing to do with motors or the question of whether a varying field can affect a magnet - yes it can, we know it can. That is a world apart from an EM field altering the gravitational effects a piece of matter feels. Worlds and worlds apart. Ditto solar sails - we know that the outwards pressure of light can be harnessed. Not an issue. Once again - this has nothingto do with changing the gravitational mass of the system being propelled.
I'm trying to understand if De Aquino statement that the DeltaP term in the formula can be changed by either mechanical and EM force can be accepted.


To me, and maybe to the rest, you seem not to be asking questions but to be using Q&A in order to push Aquino's fringe theory.
Thanks, your opinion is well known.
Your link lists difference in GeV, is it the same unit of measure used by De Aquino? And is it the same listed in the link I posted? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalenc e_principle)

macaw
2011-Jun-16, 07:36 PM
Thanks, your opinion is well known.
Your link lists difference in GeV, is it the same unit of measure used by De Aquino? And is it the same listed in the link I posted? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalenc e_principle)

The numbers for Eotvos are unitless.
Aquino's error is quite obvious.
Try addressing these two problems with his paper, we'll get to the rest later.


and much greater effect at speeds of 50'000 and 100'000 rpm); if true, the theory would explain Podkletnov results

Podkletnov retracted his claims long ago. His "experiments" failed the basic test of independent verification.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-16, 08:05 PM
Can you please be less cryptic about the "obvious error". (Ok, you're smarter and skilled than me, you won).

Are you sure about Podkletnov? I heard he's going to start a research project with a dozen of colleagues, financed with 50 mln euros in 5 years.

macaw
2011-Jun-16, 09:24 PM
Can you please be less cryptic about the "obvious error". (Ok, you're smarter and skilled than me, you won).

This is not about winning, is about you pushing fringe stuff. Aquino claims that the (v/c)^2 is of the order of 10^{-17} and I have just showed you that it is of the order of 10^{-12}. Why do you make me post the same things twice, wasn't it quite obvious the first time around.


Are you sure about Podkletnov?

Yes, I am very sure. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov#Public_controversy)

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-17, 02:29 AM
Can you please be less cryptic about the "obvious error". (Ok, you're smarter and skilled than me, you won).

Are you sure about Podkletnov? I heard he's going to start a research project with a dozen of colleagues, financed with 50 mln euros in 5 years.
You seem to be fixed on the idea that gravity can be reduced and, indeed, reversed by the manipulation of electromagnetic fields. You also seem to be fixed on the idea that the scientific community has, for some reason, overlooked the work of those claiming to have found theoretical or experimental evidence for this effect.

The scientific community is not conspiring to keep anti-gravity from mankind. If such an effect could be verified (even theoretically) I suspect that the major governments of the world would be pouring billions of research dollars into developing a means of utilizing it to promote their aspirations of becoming a world power in transportation and space technology.

The fact is that the claims of De Aquino, Podkletnov and others have never been verified or replicated by any reputable scientific reseach. Essentially, their claims are based on flawed science and/or flawed calculations.

Real science may not appeal to the imagination as much as De Aquino's proposal that gravity can be reduced or reversed - but at least it's real science. De Aquino's ideas are not.

Chris

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 07:15 AM
I suspect that the major governments of the world would be pouring billions of research dollars into developing a means of utilizing it to promote their aspirations of becoming a world power in transportation and space technology.
Indeed, that's why I'm trying to understand why Podkletnov says he's going to start a research in partnership with a dozen of scientist financed by 50 mln dollars in 5 years, as I said. He claims he got amazing results with 100'000 rpm rather than 6'500, and De Aquino would explain the "podkletnov effect", so I'm very curious. Also because Podkletnov says he's a good friend of De Aquino.


The fact is that the claims of De Aquino, Podkletnov and others have never been verified or replicated by any reputable scientific reseach. Essentially, their claims are based on flawed science and/or flawed calculations.
I found several works describing similar works, but as the authors themselves admit, they did not match exactly Podkletnov setup in their experiments (don't know why).

Anyway I'm sorry but I can't still understand how to use this table (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes%E2%80%93Drever_experiment#Modern_experiment s) to compare it to this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalenc e_principle) and to De Aquino claims:
second one measures Mg/Mi ratio, which is related to v^2/c^2 ratio; how do I convert values in first table to something comparable to values in second table?



No quantum gravitational operator, no reason to continue since this is a claim of a quantum gravitational theory.

What should I look for in De Aquino papers? Unfortunately I'm not skilled in quantum physics (else I wouldn't ask here...), so I need some help here.



And just where exactly does he calculate that 10-17 for the penduli? Or for the other experiments for that matter? He makes a claim, without showing the calculations that produce that claim.
I think the speed of a pendulum can quite easily be calculated. :think:

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-17, 08:41 AM
...What should I look for in De Aquino papers? Unfortunately I'm not skilled in quantum physics (else I wouldn't ask here...), so I need some help here.

First of all, I'll leave the mathematical and quantum mechanical critique to those who know what their talking about. My level of understanding about these subjects is probably no greater than yours.

Let's take a look at some of the claims made in one of the papers by De Aquino that you cited: "The Gravitational Spacecraft" (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9904/9904018.pdf)


Equation (4) shows, for example, that, in the case of a gas at ultra-low pressure (very low density of inertial mass), the gravitational mass of the gas can be strongly reduced or made negative by means of the incidence of electromagnetic radiation with power density relatively low.
Thus, it is possible to use this effect in order to produce gravitational shieldings and, thus, to control the local gravity.
The Gravity Control Cells (GCC) shown in the article “Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure”‡, are devices designed on the basis, of this effect, and usually are chambers containing gas or plasma at ultra-low pressure. Therefore, when an oscillating electromagnetic field is applied upon the gas its gravitational mass will be reduced and, consequently, the gravity above the mentioned GCC will also be reduced at the same proportion.
It was also shown that it is possible to make a gravitational shielding even with the chamber filled with Air at one atmosphere. In this case, the electric conductivity of the air must be strongly increased in order to reduce the intensity of the electromagnetic field or the power density of the applied radiation.
This is easily obtained by ionizing the air in the local where we want to build the gravitational shielding. There are several manners of ionizing the air. One of them is by means of ionizing radiation produced by a radioactive source of low intensity, for example, by using the radioactive element Americium (Am-241). The Americium is widely used as air ionizer in smoke detectors...
(ref. pages 3 & 4)

This effect has never been demonstrated. There is no known way to create a "shield" that will block or reduce gravity. If it's as easy to do this as De Aquino suggests, don't you wonder why we still have airplanes and cars instead of levitating vehicles?


The gravity control by means of any of the processes mentioned in the article: “Gravity Control by means of Electromagnetic Field through Gas or Plasma at Ultra-Low Pressure” allows the inversion of the weight of any body, practically at any place. Consequently, the conversion of the gravitational energy into rotational mechanical energy can also be carried out at any place...
(ref. page 5)

---and---


This shows that this small motor can be used, for example, to substitute the conventional motors used in the cars. It can also be coupled to an electric generator in order to produce electric energy. The conversion of the rotational mechanical energy into electric energy is not a problem since it is a problem technologically resolved several decades ago. Electric generators are usually produced by the industries and they are commercially available, so that it is enough to couple a gravitational motor to an electric generator for we obtaining electric energy. In this case, just a gravitational motor with the power above mentioned it would be enough to supply the need of electric energy of, for example, at least 20 residences. Finally, it can substitute the conventional motors of the same power, with the great advantage of not needing of fuel for its operation. What means that the gravitational motors can produce energy practically free.
It is easy to see that gravitational motors of this kind can be designed for powers needs of just some watts up to millions of kilowatts...
(ref. page 6)

If this is possible, don't you wonder why we still have internal combustion engines in our cars and coal-fired, hydroelectric and nuclear power generating plants?


One of the fundamental characteristics of the gravitational spacecraft, as we already saw, is its capability to acquire enormous accelerations without submitting the crew to any discomfort.
Impelled by gravitational thrusters gravitational spacecrafts can acquire accelerations until 10 ^8 m/s ^2 or more. This means that these spacecrafts can reach speeds very close to the speed of light in just a few seconds.
(ref. page 13)

If this is possible, don't you wonder why NASA and ESA spends billions of dollars each year just to launch vehicles at less than 10 km/sec?

These are just the claims made in the first 13 pages of this paper. The remaining 61 pages contain even more fantastical claims.

Do any of these claims sound realistic to you?

Chris

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 09:04 AM
Let's take a look at some of the claims made in one of the papers by De Aquino that you cited: "The Gravitational Spacecraft" (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9904/9904018.pdf) [...] If it's as easy to do this as De Aquino suggests, don't you wonder why we still have airplanes and cars instead of levitating vehicles?


[...]
If this is possible, don't you wonder why we still have internal combustion engines in our cars and coal-fired, hydroelectric and nuclear power generating plants?

[...]
If this is possible, don't you wonder why NASA and ESA spends billions of dollars each year just to launch vehicles at less than 11 km/sec?



Absolutely yes! (I indeed know about research in this field carried on by NASA, ESA and Boeing).
That's why I'm asking.

I have a dubt about why possibly De Aquino results are not widely known or even used or even publicly investigated: the "collateral effects".
He says somehwere (don't remember where exactly) that an object propelled by his GCC engines, if suddenly stopped due to engine failure or impact, would result in freeing some megatons of energy, which looks like a very good reason not to play with his equations and devices.

But if I could find full evidence of his equations being wrong (didn't find anything such till now in this thread), I could eventually be sure that De Aquino GCC engine does not exist just because it does not work, not because it's dangerous.

Van Rijn
2011-Jun-17, 09:12 AM
Absolutely yes! (I indeed know about research in this field carried on by NASA, ESA and Boeing).
That's why I'm asking.

I have a dubt about why possibly De Aquino results are not widely known or even used or even publicly investigated: the "collateral effects".
He says somehwere (don't remember where exactly) that an object propelled by his GCC engines, if suddenly stopped due to engine failure or impact, would result in freeing some megatons of energy, which looks like a very good reason not to play with his equations and devices.


More likely: Nobody wants to waste money on free energy machines. Free energy machine scams have been going on for centuries. It is a case where people want VERY good evidence first.

Strange
2011-Jun-17, 09:37 AM
Absolutely yes! (I indeed know about research in this field carried on by NASA, ESA and Boeing).

Can you provide references to any of those research projects? Any I have seen in the past have been either fake, misrepresentations or research that was completed very rapidly with negative results (as one would expect).


I have a dubt about why possibly De Aquino results are not widely known or even used or even publicly investigated: the "collateral effects".
He says somehwere (don't remember where exactly) that an object propelled by his GCC engines, if suddenly stopped due to engine failure or impact, would result in freeing some megatons of energy, which looks like a very good reason not to play with his equations and devices.

If that were true, then there is another government department with even bigger budgets than NASA who would have developed it.

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-17, 09:39 AM
Absolutely yes! (I indeed know about research in this field carried on by NASA, ESA and Boeing).
That's why I'm asking...

If by "Absolutely yes!" your saying that De Aquino's claims do sound realistic then I don't how to dissuade you.

I can tell you that I'm pretty sure NASA, ESA, and Boeing are not conducting research in this field. If you know of any such research then please provide a reference.

Chris

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 11:29 AM
Can you provide references to any of those research projects? Any I have seen in the past have been either fake, misrepresentations or research that was completed very rapidly with negative results (as one would expect).

I know a couple of ESA papers, but right now I find just this one:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39624103/Gravitomagnetic-Field-of-a-rotating-superconductor-ESA

Don't know what happened then.

About NASA and Boeing researches, I only have this site talking about them:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2072733&device=

Ron Koczor email address is freely available around, so probably it's not active anymore due to spam, but maybe one could try contacting him: Ron dot koczor at msfc dot nasadot gov
Unfortunately, if actually gravity control has such "collateral effects", it's quite improbable such a matter can be discussed about publicly... Hence it's better doing it on your own to determine what's true and waht is not in this field of research.




If by "Absolutely yes!" your saying that De Aquino's claims do sound realistic then I don't how to dissuade you.

No, absolutely I wonder! :doh: (didn't you notice bold text?)



I can tell you that I'm pretty sure NASA, ESA, and Boeing are not conducting research in this field. If you know of any such research then please provide a reference.

As said, don't know about know, just about past.
And I heard of that 50 mln dollars research going to be carried on for next 5 years by Podkletnov and others. Who would ever spend such an amount of money for something probably not working at all? So, maybe this "news" I heard of is just false, or maybe not.
Anyway, I was also told that new paper on this matter is going to be published in october/november 2011. Sorry, I have no more details about this.

tusenfem
2011-Jun-17, 11:43 AM
I know a couple of ESA papers, but right now I find just this one:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39624103/Gravitomagnetic-Field-of-a-rotating-superconductor-ESA

Don't know what happened then.


That is not from ESA (although there is an ESA affiliation for the 2nd author), that is Tajmar with his bunk science that was never reproducable, as far as I know. He presented his stuff here at my institute and was hardly convincing in presenting his "results."



About NASA and Boeing researches, I only have this site talking about them:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2072733&device=


I have no idea what kind of "E-journal" slate is, so I will refrain from that, apart from a "black world conspiracy to keep NAZI anti-gravity hidden?" REALLY!



Ron Koczor email address is freely available around, so probably it's not active anymore due to spam, but maybe one could try contacting him: Ron dot koczor at msfc dot nasadot gov
Unfortunately, if actually gravity control has such "collateral effects", it's quite improbable such a matter can be discussed about publicly... Hence it's better doing it on your own to determine what's true and waht is not in this field of research.


Maybe YOU could contact him, YOU seem to be the proponent of "anti-gravity" here, why ask for others to do it?



No, absolutely I wonder! :doh: (didn't you notice bold text?)

As said, don't know about know, just about past.
And I heard of that 50 mln dollars research going to be carried on for next 5 years by Podkletnov and others. Who would ever spend such an amount of money for something probably not working at all? So, maybe this "news" I heard of is just false, or maybe not.
Anyway, I was also told that new paper on this matter is going to be published in october/november 2011. Sorry, I have no more details about this.

And WHERE did you hear this? What are your sources? For the money and team, for the new paper, etc. etc.


Actually, this is starting to go way beyond simple Q&A and I am delibarating whether this should not be put into ATM as you seem to be unwilling to accept mainstream physcis answers.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 11:50 AM
A 1997 Popular Mechanics article about NASA attempt to replicate Podkletnov experiment (failed because it was not possible to build the superconducting disk):
http://books.google.it/books?id=MGYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA44&dq=popular+mechanics+1997+ron+koczor&hl=it&ei=9j77TdrJEcqVOpmMobsE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%201997%20ron%20koczor&f=false

It could contain some hints and clues for looking for other papers.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 12:03 PM
Found other clues about the 1997 conference:
http://www.archive.org/details/NasaBreakthroughPropulsionPhysicsWorkshopProceedin gs
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/BPPNASA.htm

(5) Ronald J. Koczor, and David Noever (NASA MSFC, Huntsville, AL), Experiments on the Possible Interaction of Rotating Type II YBCO Ceramic Superconductors and the Local Gravity Field: Presents the status and interim results of experiments being conducted at MSFC to investigate claims of gravity effects in the vicinity of rotating superconductors in strong magnetic fields (Podkletnov 1992). Only static measurements have been completed to date, with inconclusive results (change of less than 2 parts in 108 of the normal gravitational acceleration) (Li 1997). Work continues toward measurements with rotating superconductors.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 12:11 PM
Just found other clues about NASA researches:


Frank Znidarsic:: “I was part of the NASA team and am in your pictures to prove it. We attempted the experiment twice. In both attempts, we made several large SC disks, but never developed the rotation apparatus to test them.”

There are only two NASA published reports from this work:
Static test for a gravitational force coupled to type II YBCO superconductors, LI N. (1) ; NOEVER D. (2) ; ROBERTSON T. (2) ; KOCZOR R. (2) ; BRANTLEY W. (2), Physica. C. Superconductivity, 1997, vol. 281, no2-3, pp. 260-267.
This work was using an industrial gravity measuring device on non-rotating, non-two layer small SC samples. Generally this report was wrong as this device was designed to measure long term (10 of minutes to hrs) gravitational effects. Therefore, any conclusion about the SC gravity effects should not have been published at all using the technique reported. Also, as non-rotating, non-two layer SC samples were used, this report has no bearing on the Podkletnov experiments.

Fabrication of large bulk ceramic superconductor disks for gravity modification experiments and performance of YBCO disks under EM field excitation, Ronald J. Koczor and David A. Noever (NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL), AIAA-1999-2147, AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 35th, Los Angeles, CA, June 20-24, 1999.
This was only about fabrication.

Plus two in house reports:
Granular Superconductors and Gravity, Noever, David and Koczor, Ron, NASA no. 19990023209. NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop Proceedings; UNITED STATES; 1999.
This is the same as the first one above.

Superconductor-Mediated Modification of Gravity? AC Motor Experiments with Bulk YBCO Disks in Rotating Magnetic Fields, Noever, David A, Koczor, Ronald J and Roberson, Rick, NASA no. 19990019627.
A non-two layer SC sample was used. Therefore, this report has no bearing on the Podkletnov experiments.

Exploration of anomalous gravity effects by magnetized high-Tc superconducting oxides, Glen A. Robertson, Ron Litchford, Bryan Thompson and Randall Peters, AIAA 2001-3364.
ed these effects:
As far as Tajmar and the ESA replications:

Their first report denied the effect:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0404/0404005.pdf

However they later came out and confirmed the tests:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140

Didn't look at any of these papers yet.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 12:26 PM
Actually, this is starting to go way beyond simple Q&A and I am delibarating whether this should not be put into ATM as you seem to be unwilling to accept mainstream physcis answers.


I'm still waiting for clues about where to look for the "missing quantum operator", and how to compare the two tables about equivalence principle, the two things which could help me understanding if this theory is good or not.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 12:31 PM
I have no idea what kind of "E-journal" slate is, so I will refrain from that, apart from a "black world conspiracy to keep NAZI anti-gravity hidden?" REALLY!

You need to disregard "oddities" which always "walk together" with gravity research, and focus on clues about where to find papers, publications and so on.



Maybe YOU could contact him, YOU seem to be the proponent of "anti-gravity" here, why ask for others to do it?

It's a generic "you"; in Italian we use in the meaning of "somebody should"; sorry, don't know English equivalent.





And WHERE did you hear this? What are your sources? For the money and team, for the new paper, etc. etc.
[color=red]

I contacted Podkletnov last week. Unfortunately I can't have any confirmations of what he says, until I'll see this "new paper" (if I'll ever do...)

csmyth3025
2011-Jun-17, 01:39 PM
Originally Posted by csmyth3025
Let's take a look at some of the claims made in one of the papers by De Aquino that you cited: "The Gravitational Spacecraft"

[...] If it's as easy to do this as De Aquino suggests, don't you wonder why we still have airplanes and cars instead of levitating vehicles?

[...]
If this is possible, don't you wonder why we still have internal combustion engines in our cars and coal-fired, hydroelectric and nuclear power generating plants?

[...]
If this is possible, don't you wonder why NASA and ESA spends billions of dollars each year just to launch vehicles at less than 11 km/sec?


No, absolutely I wonder! :doh: (didn't you notice bold text?)

Yes, I did notice the bold text. Did you notice that these are conditional phrases preceded by "If this is possible,..."?

If you wonder why these things are so, then you've tacitly accepted the idea that De Aquino's claims are realistic.

There's not a single post in this thread that would lead you to believe that "free energy" from gravitational motors - or gravitational shielding - or gravitational propulsion is possible.

Tensor asked you "...why formula three matters..." and your response in post 39 was "...Actually I'm looking for explanations..."

So far the explanations you've received here have been that De Aquino's ideas are fantasy disguised as theory and his mathematical treatment is flawed.

I'm sure that there are those in this forum who could provide a point-by-point critique of De Aquino's papers should they care to spend their time doing so. In any event, I doubt if either of us could understand their critique any better than the papers.

For now I'm satisfied to rely on my own common sense and on the collective judgement of the forum members replying to this thread.

Chris

macaw
2011-Jun-17, 01:40 PM
Actually, this is starting to go way beyond simple Q&A and I am delibarating whether this should not be put into ATM as you seem to be unwilling to accept mainstream physcis answers.


Please do, this is 100% ATM.

macaw
2011-Jun-17, 01:45 PM
Just found other clues about NASA researches:


Frank Znidarsic:: “I was part of the NASA team and am in your pictures to prove it. We attempted the experiment twice. In both attempts, we made several large SC disks, but never developed the rotation apparatus to test them.”

Frank Znidarsic is a crackpot who shows up periodically on physics forums only to be chased away. Do you plan to keep bringing up all the fringe people that made this type of claims? You already brought up Podlentkov, Tajmar, Aquino, now Znidarsic, when do you plan to bring in Allais and his "gravity shielding" experiment?

jumpjack
2011-Jun-17, 02:30 PM
And I didn't even talk of Ummarino, Modanese and Scala! ;-)

No, seriously, once I get the replies I need about Equivalence Principle tests and quantum operator to look for, I'll stop bothering you! ;-)

tusenfem
2011-Jun-17, 03:12 PM
This has way left the Q&A stage, moved to S&T.
Jumpjack you will need to make up your mind what you want, do you want the mainstream view or do you want to push the fringe science.

Tensor
2011-Jun-17, 05:53 PM
Actually I'm looking for explanations...
Anyway...

Sorry, I can't answer this question... because I can't even understand it! (my fault, I have only very very very basic knowledge of quantum theory; hence I'm looking for explanation and opinions about "theory of gravity quantization")

If you don't know what an operator is, then I'm afraid I can't help you. I just don't have the time, inclination or ability to teach you Quantum Field Theory. Just know, that if there isn't an gravity operator, it isn't quantized.



Yes, he has; it's on page 9 of paper 0212033 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0212033):

Mg=(1-V^2/c^2) * Mi

V^2/c^2 is less than 10^-17

As far as I can understand, current technology does not yet allow to verify the existing difference (if any) among Mg and Mi.

What does V2/c2 have to do with the accuracy of the difference between his Mg and Mi? Those tests are showing the limits of a difference in gravitation and inertial mass (his Mg and Mi). As a matter of fact, that paper does not show what his predicted difference is. Unless you want to look at it this way. Looking at his Mg=(1-V2/c2) * Mi equation. To simplify, lets have his Mg = 1 Gev. The difference in between Mg and Mi would be less than 10-17 Gev. In 1985 on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes–Drever_experiment#Modern_experiments) the experiments show that the neutron (~1 Gev) was measured to have no difference in gravitational and inertial mass by 10-27 Gev. Happy?


The paper I cited contains the full mathematical justification of De Aquino formulas.... but it's too complex for "my" physics. :-(

Most of it is based on bad assumptions. End of story.


Maybe you have better chance to understand all steps. But... just resist against the temptation of throwing the paper (or the monitor...) out of your window while reading...: great "intuitions" and great "oddities" are mixed together. Just discard the second ones. ;-)

How about this one. On page 10, his calculations show, and he claims that, concerning Mercury, and calculating per century, calculations for two successive perihelions arrive at a 43" advance of the perihelion. His statement after this claim is that:This result is the best theoretical proof of the accuracy of Eq. (45). Which is the equation showing the substitution of the relativistic equations of Mg. Which is what he basis his Mg=Mi on.

One problem, if that is his best theroetical proof, the rest of his paper is garbage. The observed per century advance of Mercury's perihelion is ~5600". The calculated Newtonian advance (using coordinate effects, the influence of other planets, and the oblateness of the sun was ~5557. The DIFFERENCE between the observed and calculated was 43", not the entire precession as claimed.


Page 38 is also interesting, as it calculates the amount of gravity quantum ( 3.9 * 10^-73 kg ) and other things.

Not on 38.


(I repeat: discard "oddities", focus on formulas)

I went through just about the entire paper (and I want all that time back). He makes some flat out wrong claims, uses discredited and withdrawn work, and seems to make things up as he goes along. He doesn't show all his work, and the oddities ARE part of the package. If the oddities aren't there, then the red flags don't go up. It's up to him to put the oddities there or not.


it's demonstrated in paper 0212033 (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0212033), p.8 and previous ones. Don't know if it is properly demonstrated...
Anyway I think it's quite the basis of the theory, so I ask: can electromagnetic radiation create momentum as he states? (Does this means that EM radiation can generate force?)

EM can create momentum, but not the way he envisions. There are no experiments that show his momentum ideas.

jumpjack
2011-Jun-20, 07:48 AM
If you don't know what an operator is, then I'm afraid I can't help you. I just don't have the time, inclination or ability to teach you Quantum Field Theory. Just know, that if there isn't an gravity operator, it isn't quantized.

Unfortunately I can't know if it's there or not if I don't know what to look for.


Unless you want to look at it this way. Looking at his Mg=(1-V2/c2) * Mi equation. To simplify, lets have his Mg = 1 Gev. The difference in between Mg and Mi would be less than 10-17 Gev. In 1985 on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes–Drever_experiment#Modern_experiments) the experiments show that the neutron (~1 Gev) was measured to have no difference in gravitational and inertial mass by 10-27 Gev. Happy?

Very. I was waiting for this explanation since first post. :dance:


Not on 38.

Sorry, my fault, it's on page 34 in paper 0212033.



I went through just about the entire paper (and I want all that time back). He makes some flat out wrong claims, uses discredited and withdrawn work, and seems to make things up as he goes along. He doesn't show all his work, and the oddities ARE part of the package. If the oddities aren't there, then the red flags don't go up. It's up to him to put the oddities there or not.

By "oddities" within quotes I meant equation at p.61 of 0212033 and sentences in p.66 in same paper: If I had talked about them at the beginning, I wouldn't have get a single reply and the whole thread would have been discarded without a single word of explanation. :whistle:
Now, instead, I learnt a lot of things.

Thanks a lot to all who wasted their time replying to me. :clap: