The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why some antigravity experiments fail  (Read 12661 times)

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Why some antigravity experiments fail
« on: 02/03/2014 17:09:30 »
Why so many anti-gravity experiments fail. Letís look at eugeny podkltnovís experiment. He took a liquid nitrogen cooled superconductor, put it above a magnetic field, and spun it. This should have blocked planetary gravitation, and allow the test weight to be partially suspended. He claims the experiment worked, NASA tryied the experiment and said it failed. For an experiment to work for one and not the other there must be some difference, if eugeny performed the experiment in a darkened room it would probably have worked. NASA probably performed the experiment in a well lit room, and this is probably the difference why it worked for one and not the other.
   The photon is the force carrier for the graviton, by having this experiment well lit you add photons to the material and gravitons at the same time, this defeats the purpose of the experiment. For the experiment to succeed, the best bet would be to have a darkened room, with a suspended test weight. It would be best if it was electrically heated, to red-hot so it could radiate photons away from it. When itís hot and radiating photons the electricity would need to be stopped so that it would prevent electrical photons of gravitons from coming in This should create a reduced gravity affect.
« Last Edit: 13/03/2014 21:08:24 by alan hess »


 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8126
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #1 on: 02/03/2014 19:19:29 »
Quote from: wikipedia.org/Eugene_Podkletnov
Podkletnov's gravity shielding experiments

According to the account Podkletnov gave to reporter Charles Platt in a 1996 phone interview, during a 1992 experiment with a rotating superconducting disk,

    Someone in the laboratory was smoking a pipe, and the pipe smoke rose in a column above the superconducting disc. So we placed a ball-shaped magnet above the disc, attached to a balance. The balance behaved strangely. We substituted a nonmagnetic material, silicon, and still the balance was very strange. We found that any object above the disc lost some of its weight, and we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect was increased.

Podkletnov published a paper in 1992 reporting that the weight of an object directly above the disk was decreased. He concluded that the superconducting disk was shielding the Earth's gravitational force above it. This is sometimes called the Podkletnov effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov#Podkletnov.27s_gravity_shielding_experiments

Hang on a mo, superconductors are super-cold, -200o C ,  air/nitrogen at that temperature would be denser and have more buoyancy than room temperature air. Objects in such cold dense gas would weigh less than in room temperature air.

[The temperature difference will also cause air currents which could explain the pipe-smoke effect].

Repeat the experiment in a vacuum.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2014 19:46:49 by RD »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #2 on: 02/03/2014 19:46:15 »
As far as I know he used a 20 pound weight which is not affected by air currents. The point also is that NASA tried to reconstruct the experiment and it failed. My point is photons carry the graviton with them when they travel when these photons hit an object gravitons and photons are absorbed or reflected. I feel that the experiment should work the photons are eliminated from the equation.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8126
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #3 on: 02/03/2014 19:52:24 »
As far as I know he used a 20 pound weight which is not affected by air currents.

It will appear to weigh less when in a denser fluid because of increased buoyancy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
« Last Edit: 02/03/2014 19:55:24 by RD »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #4 on: 02/03/2014 22:10:03 »
You have no argument from me that an object in a liquid will lay less than object and air. This experiment was conducted in air, for a breeze to affect a 20 pound object would require a lot of air movement. Although I do agree with you if the experiment should've been the conducted in a vacuum so there is no chance of outside influence. My point still is that photons need to be eliminated from the experiment also.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8126
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #5 on: 03/03/2014 07:34:35 »
You have no argument from me that an object in a liquid will lay less than object and air.

Air , like liquid, is a fluid. The more dense the fluid, (be it liquid or gas), the greater the buoyancy effect.

 The colder the gas the denser it becomes ,
( nitrogen gas boiling off from liquid-nitrogen used to cool the super-conductor will be close to -200oC , which is extremely cold ).
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 07:43:04 by RD »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #6 on: 03/03/2014 08:02:03 »
Rotating superconductor => magnetic field. All materials have some magnetic properties.
Rotating disc => vortex, so tobacco smoke (hot) will rise and concentrate in the vortex.
So far, no evidence of antigravitation. And surely if rotating the disc clockwise  produces an upwards force, rotating it anticlockwise should produce a downwards force. Does it?
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #7 on: 03/03/2014 09:08:38 »
A rotating disc has a minimal fan effect in order to have a fan you need to have blades. I agree there is some difference caused by the air being at different temperatures. The experiment claims a 15% drop in the weight of the sample material. It would take a lot of air movement to create this much affect on a 20 pound weight. While this difference in temperature may easily affect cigar smoke I don't see how it can affect the sample.
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8126
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #8 on: 03/03/2014 10:56:32 »
A rotating disc has a minimal fan effect in order to have a fan you need to have blades.

A rotating cylinder can create lift (no blades required).

The extreme temperature gradient alone, without any rotation, could create a toroidal vortex when the air-current passed over a disc-shaped obstruction ,  which then caused the pipe-smoke to be confined into a column ...




I agree there is some difference caused by the air being at different temperatures.

Homework : find out the how the density of air at say -100oC compares with the density of air at room temperature, say 25oC , then apply Archimedes principle.


The experiment claims a 15% drop in the weight of the sample material.

The unverified experiment, ( has not been independently repeated ).
« Last Edit: 03/03/2014 11:16:10 by RD »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #9 on: 03/03/2014 16:14:31 »
I understand what you're saying, I also agree with you there are times when different densities can be accomplished by different densities in different fluids and/or different temperatures. That is not the situation in this case the 20 pound weight should not be affected by the small differences of the liquid nitrogen plus as far as I know his experiment was contained. So the liquid nitrogen was under a  lid and   the the disk was also. I may be wrong on this but I think this is how he had his experiment set up so the liquid nitrogen will not leak out. Also if you've ever been around liquid nitrogen when it spilled on the floor you will notice things do not jump off the floor from the difference in the temperature you not feel a breeze blowing from the difference in the temperature all you will feel is cold. This was not the point of my discussion point I tried to make with this discussion it is on the photon and gravitons. The graviton travels with the photon. Gravitons are absorbed and released in the same manner that a photon is. I found it interesting that a Russian scientists performs this experiment and it works. NASA performs the same experiment and it doesn't work I looked for differences in the experimenting techniques. The concept of his experiment is such you take a dense material supercold spin it, and it should block gravity. Gravitons from the earth when an item is taken to absolute 0 there is no molecular motion and it should be a block. Most scientists will not report an experiment with deception because they are faced with other scientists call him on it, odds are this experiment worked for him. When others try it something is different I feel the difference is the photons.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #10 on: 04/03/2014 02:09:09 »
What I don't understand is "why" spining a large superconductor would effect gravity at all. that doesn't make sense. If you could, explain what is supposed to cause gravity to decrease from spinning a superconductor?

let's say that this experiment is done in a vacuum and air doesn't effect the experimental results. What would cause gravity to decrease?

Is it possible that nasa lied about the experiment? The government would probably lie about something like this, you know that whole ufo conspiracy, I bet the government want's to develop this technology in secret so they can make anti-gravity military aircraft/spacecraft. If America develops this technology way before everyone else even knew it existed then that would give the American military a huge advantage.  A perfect reason to keep this sort of thing secret and gives them a motive to lie.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2014 02:18:07 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #11 on: 04/03/2014 04:43:02 »
Sure the graviton is supposed to exist in the center of the atom. When the temperature drops to absolute 0 all motion in the atoms ceases basically it's frozen. When you take a dense material like lead that is frozen and spin it a barrier will be created. Now all the frozen atoms will stop gravitons from penetrating to your sample material and lower the gravitational coefficient of your sample. This was the idea behind his test you didn't achieve absolute 0 with liquid nitrogen, but he's lowered the temperature enough that it should have worked. He claims that it did. NASA reran the experiment claims it didn't. They may have falsified the data but I don't think so. I believe the difference is in the lighting, eugeny was smoking a cigar so I assume they were in a laid-back atmosphere probably had the lights down drinking some beers. When NASA reran the experiment they probably had it in a full-fledged laboratory which was well lit possibly with sunlight coming in through the window. In my studies I've noticed a strong correlation between the graviton in the photon just for example the sun it has lost 7% of its mass since it was born converting mass to energy if this mass was still at the sun you would have a higher gravitational coefficient instead of the standard figure. This is not the case the sun has a standard figure gravitational so therefore how did the gravity leave, the only thing that leaves with any consistency is photons. Photons have a spin of one, Gravitons have a spin of 2, so they can travel together, both travel at the speed of light and the graviton will adopt whatever frequency the photon is traveling at. The graviton is emitted at the same time the photon is and will be absorbed or reflected by whatever they hit just like the photon is. This keeps the gravitational balance of the solar system. Sorry I went on and on, but I believe light must be excluded from antigravity experiments or they will fail.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4707
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #12 on: 04/03/2014 07:14:18 »
So are you proposing the generation of antigravitons by spinning a superconductor, or that a spinning supercon sucks gravitons out of a distant block of lead but they return to it when the disc stops spinning?

And why does the supercon have to rotate? Since the plane of rotation is orthogonal to the line of action of the antigravity or whatever, rotating the source won't change the effect.

The story does have all the usual elements of classic scifi: rotation, superconductivity, silicon, vortices....and even the after-dinner cigar - but lacks the essential ingredient of physics: numbers. Do you have any?
« Last Edit: 04/03/2014 07:19:33 by alancalverd »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8126
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #13 on: 04/03/2014 08:01:22 »
If the object has a volume of a litre then deceasing the temperature of the gas (air) around it to close to the temperature of liquid nitrogen could reduce it's apparent weight by ~10 grams via increased buoyancy, which is a measurable amount, but only 1 part in a thousand if the object was say 10Kg , i.e. 0.1% reduction in weight, not "15%" reduction.

...  for example the sun it has lost 7% of its mass since it was born converting mass to energy ...

The Sun's loss of mass via radiation isn't that high ...

Quote from: newton.dep.anl.gov
So if the Sun lost mass by radiation at this rate it would lose 1% of its mass in (0.01)(2 x 10^33 grams)/(4 x 10^12 grams/sec) = 5 x 10^18 seconds, or about 160 billion years.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99441.htm

The sun looses more mass via solar wind (e.g. CME) than via radiation.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #14 on: 04/03/2014 13:50:39 »
The center of the sun is a highly balanced nuclear reaction converting mass to energy if this balance is off the reaction will not work. If it is converting mass to energy the gravity coefficient will go up, the only thing to leave the center of the sun is photons and radiation. Yes there is solar wind at the outside of the sun caused by the heat and energy at the center of the sun. While this does decrease the mass of the sun it does not affect the gravity coefficient at the center of the sun. Also please note that radiation is photons of a higher energy than visible light.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #15 on: 04/03/2014 23:53:03 »
alan hess

Ok I think I get what your talking about, correct me if I'm wrong.

lets take for example you get hydrogen and anti hydrogen. Both atom have gravity, but when you put the two together, they are both converted into energy (light/photons) when that happens both particles are lost, and so is the gravity generated by both atoms, that gravity escapes in the form of light/photons.

What you mean to say is that in the sun, a lot of mass is lost in the form of light do to the light released by the sun during fusion reactions, that makes sense.

you mean to say that atoms are basically huge amounts of balled up light and that gravity is made by this light inside an atom right? implying that photons have tiny amounts of gravity and that's why light is sucked into a black hole via the force of gravity and bent via space curvature.

But to me none of that matters, to me the experiment suggests that it's the electrons in cooper pairs that give rise to this effect "nothing else".

If that's true might I suggest an improvement to the experiment. Instead of levitating a superconductor over a magnet, make superconductor magnet charged near it's critical current density and lock it in persistent mode inorder to make a superconducting magnet around 10 Teslas of magnetic power, levitate that "super magnet" over another superconductor, then spin it at high speed.

By doing this you get the maximum amount of cooper pairs in the superconductor sample, thus improving the experimental results, perhaps even archiving nearly complete loss of gravity in the sample.

even if it dosn't work (it should work) then at least you'll levitate a superconductor about 3 feet off the ground which would be freaking awesome!
« Last Edit: 04/03/2014 23:57:36 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #16 on: 05/03/2014 00:52:43 »
You're very close in your understanding, but I need to correct you on a few points. You are talking about combining hydrogen and hydrogen, this reaction is called fusion it forms helium not annihilation. Atoms didn't come around until 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe is much too cool at this point for combination or recombination. That happened in the 1st moments after the Big Bang and it was the electrons combining formed photons, photons combined formed electrons, and the quarks combined also. Gravitation was not lost during this time it was already in existence. The atom is not made of light. The atoms creates light by the electrons jumping to a higher orbit and falling back to a lower orbit thus releasing (photons) light. On your experiment I'm not sure what would happen, the spinning disc at the bottom should block gravitons from the planet, in the spinning disc on top should block gravitons from the top so anything between it should levitate. Beyond that I'm not sure.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #17 on: 05/03/2014 01:30:14 »
I used the term "ANTI"hydrogen as in anti matter, to describe what happens to the 2 atoms when they meet, they are converted into energy, (light) an the gravity from the 2 atoms disappears. I thought you were saying that light carries off the gravity when mass is converted into energy.

And I think you miss understood the experiment I suggested.

the original experiment looked something like this.



He used electromagnets to levitate the superconductor disk then spun it.

My Idea changes up the whole experiment. instead of a superconductor levitating over an electro-magnet.  My experiment calls for a supercharged superconductor magnet to levitate over a superconductor.

It's like a magnet levitating over a superconductor.

In this case the magnet "IS" a superconductor! and it levitates over another superconductor on the ground. Only the "super magnet" is levitating, nothing else. All you need to rotate the super magnet is a copper ring coil electro-magnet around the super magnet.

The reason why this experiment is better is because you have a much greater amount/concentration of cooper pairs. I theorize that the cooper pairs are completely responsible for this anti-gravitic effect. so if you have more cooper pairs then you get more of an effect.

you see the only thing that changes when you freeze a superconductor is the way electrons flow through the material. (forming cooper pairs)
if the experiment didn't work on hot superconductors and it did on cold superconductors then that means that the effect is likely to be do to the cooper pairs/quantum entangled electrons. by charging the superconductor your basically putting more electrons into it (which will flow in cooper pairs) so the more charged your superconductor is the better the effect will work.

I will draw you a picture of this experiment but I probably wont get to it today, it will better illustrate what im talking about.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2014 01:44:54 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #18 on: 05/03/2014 05:05:05 »
Here is the picture I drew it's really not that great, but it provides illustration as to what I'm talking about.

on the bottom is a superconductor disk

then there are 2 coils, the larger one is an electromagnet and the smaller one inside the bigger one is a superconductor "super-magnet"

the superconductor disk levitates the super-magnet and the electro-magnet spins the super-magnet like a  non-contact motor.
« Last Edit: 05/03/2014 05:09:33 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #19 on: 05/03/2014 13:16:49 »
Sorry I misunderstood, hydrogen, anti-hydrogen would create energy, as you suggested and photons, I would say that the gravitons would travel with the photons. As for your experiment. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to try it. By the way you drew a very good picture of the original experiment.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #20 on: 05/03/2014 21:52:10 »
But I wonder, theoretically speaking would this new experiment improve the results?  Is it logical to hypothesize that the quantum electron pairs is purely responsible for such a dramatic effect? I wonder how it would effect the results of the experiment.

when you levitate a superconductor over a neodymium magnet the superconductor acquires 1 Tesla of magnetic power. which means that the superconductor is holding 1/12th of it's maximum current density in cooper pairs.  and if the experimental results showed a 7% loss of weight at 1/12th its maximum cooper pairs then that would mean that if the superconductor was charged to 100% then I would expect 84% loss of weight! now that's pretty close to complete weight loss, at that level of wightlessness the sample would probably become lighter then the air around it and float up like a hydrogen balloon.
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #21 on: 06/03/2014 14:57:57 »
I kinda really don't think so, the experiment was set up for the frozen lead to interfere with the gravitons. The only thing that could probably improve the experiment would be to make a superconductor chamber completely surrounding your sample. In theory, that should cause your sample to float. Unfortunately, I don't know what the Cooper pairs do in this situation, but it is an interesting question.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #22 on: 06/03/2014 21:05:20 »
hmmm... I'm trying to visualize the new experiment you propose. This "super-chamber" you speak of, is it like a hollow superconducting ball with a spinning superconductor inside? that sounds awesome :)

That would bend the magnetic fields of your levitator magnet in a very unusual way, perhaps blocking the magnetic fields from entering the interior of the hollow orb making it impossible to levitate. ontop of that how would you spin the superconductor in the core of this hollow orb?

Could you illustrate this experiment and explain it in a little more detail, I'm a bit confused how this new experiment is supposed to work, I don't know very much about "gravitons"
 

Offline alan hess

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #23 on: 07/03/2014 14:46:47 »
I would just spin the whole chamber, this would prove whether it was Cooper pairs, or the frozen superconductor material that was interfering with gravity. Any time you have multiple variables, you need to remove some from the equation. This is the best way I can think of.
 

Offline ScientificSorcerer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 367
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #24 on: 07/03/2014 23:25:18 »
I was also curious what would happen if you could make cooper pairs produce light. your theory states that Gravitons travel with light in this case I can only imagine how cooper paired plasma might look like. That stuff would literally be quantum entangled plasma, What substance could be more exotic! I Bet that stuff might be useful.

Imagine this experiment for example



Imagine a "superconductor Tesla coil" with virtually any current capacity That shot out quantum entangled plasma!!! Now if that isn't scifi science then I don't know what is. Of coarse the cooper pairs would probably break apart after leaving the surface of the superconductor but You could probably find something incredible about it that may relate to anti-gravitation espesually if you introduced the plasma to a magnet ring "spinning the plasma".

If you Have ever heard of "Tom Townsend Brown" A person who said that he could manipulate static fields to create anti-gravity effects.
If you've never heard of him look him up on Google, It might relate to what's happening in the superconductor.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2014 23:38:00 by ScientificSorcerer »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Why some antigravity experiments fail
« Reply #24 on: 07/03/2014 23:25:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums