Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: IAmTheRumble

but it is certainly evidence none the less.

No. It isn't.

In scientific experimentation statistical evaluation means something. If it is not statistically significant it does not matter how "interesting" it is because errors in measurement cannot be ruled out. That is the conclusion of those who attempted to duplicate Yamashta's experiments. They are similar to those who have attempted to duplicate other such claims.

a reply to: Phage

Ok, well I guess we disagree then. Imo, it should be investigated further.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble
"Electrogravitics" was investigated.

Here's my understanding of events:
1709: First report of "electric Wind"
1750: First report of "recoil force" from electric wind, or "thrust"
1920s: Thomas Brown coins the term "electrogravitics"
1950s: He gets some aircraft companies interested in the idea, they research it along with other ideas in gravity control propulsion research
1960s: "Electrogravitics" turns out to actually be, "Ion Wind". Ionocraft are researched.
1974: The research is abandoned as fruitless, except according to conspiracy theorists who claim otherwise.
2002: NASA publishes a website explaining the misunderstanding: www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html#ELECTROSTATIC%20ANTIGRAVITY

From the dead NASA link, as retrieved from a 2005 version at archive.org (emphasis mine):

ELECTROSTATIC ANTIGRAVITY

Description
Electrostatic antigravity, which originated at least as early as the version called the "Biefeld-Brown" effect, is a force-producing effect resulting from placing high voltage across unusually shaped capacitors. There are several variations of this half-century-old idea, devices with such names as "Lifters," "Asymmetrical Capacitors," "Electrogravitics," or "Electrokinetics." The shapes and sizes of the capacitors vary, but they are typically large enough to be easily observed (on the order of centimeters in size). Sometimes the capacitors are shaped to look like flying saucers. Other times they are arranged as rings and disks. One of the most recent versions, the "Lifter," is usually a triangular arrangement of three capacitors, where the two electrodes of the capacitors are placed one above the other. The upper electrode is a simple wire. The lower electrode is a plate of aluminum foil, oriented in an upright position. The whole assembly is constructed out of balsa wood poles, aluminum foil, and copper wire.

Why it Looks Like a Breakthrough
These devices are relatively easy to construct and operate. They have no moving parts. When charged up to high voltage (normally around 40 kV, and less then 1 mA of current), the light-weight versions of these devices can lift off the ground and levitate. The power supply, however, remains on the ground and the power is delivered with extension wires. Since such levitation is seldom seen with everyday devices, many people assume that some antigravity effect is at work.

Reflexive Objection & Counter Arguments
For those who are familiar with high voltage effects, such devices are assumed to be simply operating from ion wind. Ion wind is an air flow that is created by the ions that move from one capacitor electrode to the other. The devices are pushed up by the reaction forces from this downward motion of the surrounding air. Even in a vacuum, there can still be enough ion motion or corona discharge to cause counter forces. If the devices were operating by something other than ion wind, then such devices would appear to violate "Conservation of Momentum," a basic law of known physics.

Most advocates for these electrostatic antigravity devices admit that ion wind is present, but claim that the observed forces are too large to be accounted for by just ion wind.

Deeper Assessments
Unlike the gyro and oscillation devices described earlier, these electrostatic antigravity devices are much more difficult to rigorously analyze. It is very difficult to isolate all spurious causes that might lead to a false positive, even when these devices are operated in a vacuum. Fortunately, reports have been published that describe more rigorous experimental techniques. Here are three examples: (paste link at archive.org to see sources, ATS direct linking doesn't work on archive.org links).....
All these studies, examining different versions and using different techniques, found that there were no extra forces produced. These devices are not antigravity devices.

Conclusion
Their is no new force at work here. All evidence to date suggests that all the thrust created with these devices comes from an easily produced phenomena, ion wind. There is no evidence to suggest that any type of antigravity effect is responsible for the thrust. None of the proponents of these devices have reported any experimental evidence in any peer-reviewed publications to support their claims that a new force is being demonstrated.

Regardless of the cause of the effect, there is the question of utility. So far, such devices cannot lift much mass (typically, they produce about a few-thousandths of a Newton, while consuming around 20 to over 100 Watts). None have been able to levitate their power supply, let alone an additional payload. This limits their utility when compared to alternative forms of aircraft propulsion.

So the ionocraft make nice science fair projects but if they can't lift their own power supply, they aren't very useful. Even if someone makes an ionocraft that lifts its own power supply, I think they would prove to be inefficient because they operate on corona discharge which is notoriously inefficient in power distribution and electrical engineers work very hard to prevent it.

NASA also explained how experimental tests are subject to experimental error (the part I bolded), and cited papers showing rigorous research to eliminate the errors. So, if you're looking at a paper not on NASA's list, you should certainly be questioning the amount of experimental error in the paper, since it's apparently a well known problem in researching these claims.

The same thing applies to other antigravity research claims such as those of podkletnov's first paper claiming a 0.3% reduction in mass which could easily have been some kind of experimental error.

Pulses

How does this work in worst case scenario?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Glad to hear your take but, didn't brown try to do his experiment in a vacuum and it turned out to work? If true what would that mean? It talks a little bit about it here: starburstfound.org...

Fascinating if true!

originally posted by: yulka
Pulses

How does this work in worst case scenario?

How strong do you want to make the electromagnetic fields? With the advent of flat screens for monitors and TVs the EM fields are reduced greatly, but the visual stimulation can still influence people. The famous example was the Pokemon episode that gave a lot of people seizures:

PSE

The "Dennō Senshi Porygon" episode of Pokémon is the most frequently cited example (see the Society and culture section, below); broadcast of the program in Japan, which includes strong flickering scenes, produced seizures in a surprising number of viewers, even though the proportion of viewers affected was extremely low.

a reply to: IAmTheRumble
That's mostly NASA's take with which I happen to agree. What part of "It is very difficult to isolate all spurious causes that might lead to a false positive, even when these devices are operated in a vacuum." is unclear? There are lots of claims, but none have been verified beyond the types of claims NASA describes as verified, to my knowledge. Obviously they would have a very strong interest in any such technology since it could have significant implications for their areas of operation.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I totally agree with the fact that NASA would be all over it, if true. Who knows what they would do with it, maybe it would get thrown into a private investigation. Thanks you for answering my posts, even if I disagree on some stances.

there is no need to unify GR with QM.
gravitation is no force. It is another name for special case of space-time topology.
Gravity can be explained imo just using geometrical construct.

Gravitons and what not is bogus and waste of time. Einstein has said it one billion times already, gravity is curvature.


cheers))

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Glad to hear your take but, didn't brown try to do his experiment in a vacuum and it turned out to work? If true what would that mean? It talks a little bit about it here: starburstfound.org...

Fascinating if true!

The experiments were done several times since then with no results.NASA did a test in there vacuum chamber in 2003 it failed In a vacuum browns lifters do not work. It's not anti gravity they are hovercrafts.

originally posted by: darkorange
there is no need to unify GR with QM.
gravitation is no force. It is another name for special case of space-time topology.
Gravity can be explained imo just using geometrical construct.

Gravitons and what not is bogus and waste of time. Einstein has said it one billion times already, gravity is curvature.

Relativity works great in many experiments. However Michio Kaku and other physicists have called the infinite density calculation of relativity inside a black hole a breakdown of general relativity theory. In addition, the information loss paradox associated with black holes may not have a solution without considering quantum mechanics.

I'm not sure if gravitons are required to solve either of those problems but quantum mechanics probably is, either quantum gravity or loop quantum gravity or something else. I don't think we have a completely satisfactory description of black holes with GR and QM as they are today.

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I totally agree with the fact that NASA would be all over it, if true. Who knows what they would do with it, maybe it would get thrown into a private investigation. Thanks you for answering my posts, even if I disagree on some stances.

We know what Brown's ionic wind is. If there's a "private investigation", I doubt it has anything to do with Brown's ionic wind, but lots of people wonder what Ning Li has been doing since 2002.

I don't know what Mr. Kaku has found. I was talking of if gravity can be explained my means of geometry.

Hi, can you predict Blood moons for thousands of years to come? ANd if yes, how?

originally posted by: yulka
Hi, can you predict Blood moons for thousands of years to come? ANd if yes, how?

When the Earth eclipses a full Moon, the direct sunlight is blocked, but the sun's rays still light up the moon. This light, however, has travelled through the Earth's atmosphere first, and sometimes causes the totally eclipsed Moon to look red or brownish.

So to predict blood moons all we need to do is be able to predict the moons orbit on relation to us. And we'll thanks to Einstein that's a pretty easy thing to do. And good news NASA can help you!
eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: dragonridr

Sorry for asking a dumb question, could you help me with the mathematics, or maybe just source link =) i want to pass the 3000 mark.

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: dragonridr

Sorry for asking a dumb question, could you help me with the mathematics, or maybe just source link =) i want to pass the 3000 mark.

I would strongly suggest you use the basic calculations but if you truly want to know how they do it its a bit complicated. You need to use besselian elements It's done by computing the motion of the Moon's shadow on a plane that crosses the Earth's center. Then, the shadow cone of the Moon can be projected on the Earth surface.
a=a0+a1∗t+a2∗t2+a3∗t3
eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov...

And here is another example same NASA web site I have you it's all on there. Read it
eclipses.gsfc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: darkorange
I don't know what Mr. Kaku has found. I was talking of if gravity can be explained my means of geometry.

What do you think of the geometry of an object the mass of 4 million Earths, zero radius, and infinite density? Can 4 million Earths fit in a space smaller than a proton, basically zero space according to general relativity? This is what Dr Kaku is wondering, and he doesn't like the idea. His explanation lasts 75 seconds from 4m00s to 5m15s in this video, but the rest of the video is also relevant to your comments if you're not too pressed for time to watch the other 9 minutes:

Michio Kaku on black holes and Einstein's equations deep flaw

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Also, there may be number of undetected black holes wondering across cosmos.

That's what the gravitational microlensing observations were attempting to find. We might have a hard time seeing black holes, but we think we should be able to detect their gravitational influence from the way they magnify light from more distant objects. There don't appear to be enough of them or other massive objects we call MACHOs, to explain all the mass we think must be out there.


So, in other words...."Dark Matter" may be nothing more than wandering lone wolf black holes?

a reply to: EdSurly
My point was sort of the opposite of that. There are certainly some black holes, and some planets, and some brown dwarfs that account for SOME of the dark matter, but not enough. Most of of the dark matter must be something else because our microlensing observations put limits on how many of those "MACHOs" exist and it's not enough.

Let me ask a short question that isn't so simple, is it possible that Einstein's theories could be incorrect? Or is this totally out of the question?

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
Let me ask a short question that isn't so simple, is it possible that Einstein's theories could be incorrect? Or is this totally out of the question?

Simple answer yes we continually try to disprove it. Have we no so far his theory has held up to everything we have thrown at it. Is it the correct answer again unlikely but what ever that answer is will incorporate relativity.