Talk:Anti-gravity/Archive 1

message: I've attempted to restore the links removed by Pjacobi while re-framing the article into a form more likely to be acceptable. It's now much more readable, and should be NPOV enough to satisfy everybody.
If anyone has specific names, dates, and details about the claims in the "Anti-gravity in the context of non-mainstream physics" section, please add them, as the original version of the article was a bit vague about them.
--Christopher Thomas 22:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: The article currently says:
: it may seem reasonable to postulate a material that shields against gravity or otherwise interferes with the force. An example of such a material, cavorite, is a major deus ex machina of H. G. Wells' famous book, The First Men in the Moon.
If such a substance existed, you could simply put it under one side of a heavy flywheel and get perpetual motion.
Although Wells doesn't point it out explicitly, he seems to have been aware of the problem. In the novel, when Cavor actually creates Cavorite for the first time, it produces a ferocious air current:
:"Well, so soon as it reached a temperature of 60 Fahr, and the process of its manufacture was complete, the air above it, the portions of roof and ceiling and floor above it ceased to have weight. I suppose you know - everybody knows nowadays - that, as a usual thing, the air has weight, that it presses on everything at the surface of the earth, presses in all directions, with a pressure of fourteen and a half pounds to the square inch? "
:"I know that," said I. " Go on."
:"I know that too," he remarked. " Only this shows you how useless knowledge is unless you apply it. You see, over our Cavorite this ceased to be the case, the air there ceased to exert any pressure, and the air round it and not over the Cavorite was exerting a pressure of fourteen pounds and a half to the square in upon this suddenly weightless air. Ah! you begin to see! The air all about the Cavorite crushed in upon the air above it with irresistible force. The air above the Cavorite was forced upward violently, the air that rushed in to replace it immediately lost weight, ceased to exert any pressure, followed suit, blew the ceiling through and the roof off. 
The energy required to do this came from nowhere, just as the energy to propel Well's cavorite sphere comes from nowhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The cavorite in A Deepness in the Sky was different, for the record.  It levitated itself in the opposite direction of a gravitational field, and only when light was shining on it (presumably where it gets the energy necessary). — Omegatron 19:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavorite "seems reasonable?" No. 

message: Please clarify something for me!
A negative mass object would not be repelled by a positive mass. The Newtonian formula for the force of gravity is:
F = {-GMm \over r^2}
Where G is the gravitational constant, the two Ms are the masses of the two objects, F is the force and r is the distance between their centres of gravity. Does a negative value of F indicate a force towards the two objects common centre of gravity?
Assuming it does:
If one of the objects had negative mass, the force between them would be negative.
F = ma
If P represents the positive mass object and N represents the negative mass object and c represents the common centre of gravity. F is the force each object would experience and a is the acceleration each would experience.
        a--->   <---a
    <---F       <---F
        N           P           c
In this case, the two objects would be attracted. All definitions of F in Newtons gravitational formula state that a positive F means an attractive force. For two positive masses this would be exactly the same as a force in the direction of the common centre of gravity (the assumtption I worked on previously). However, if a positive F represents a force in the direction of the other object things are very different.
        a--->       a--->
    <---F           F--->
        N           P           c
As you can see, both bodies would accelerate in the same direction. If the magnitude of the mass of both bodies was equal, both would remain equidistant and constantly accelerating.
Note: This does not result in a violation of conservation of energy or momentum because the sum of the masses is zero. If the some of the masses was not zero, they would either converge or diverge in such a way that the sum of their momenta and kinetic energies would be zero.
Which of these cases is correct? All I know is that the article is incorrect in saying negative mass would be repelled by positive mass (although it may work the other way round).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghazwozza (talk • contribs) .
:The negative mass article should contain the same information. — Omegatron 19:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it does, and Ghazwozza is completely right. I've fixed the article. Intangir 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh weird, I didn't quite read Ghaz's comment closely enough. The sign of the force is relative to the location of the other object, not the center of mass of the system. In any case, an object with negative gravitational and inertial mass would not be repelled. Intangir 04:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A negative mass object would not be repelled by a positive mass object 

message: A user recently added this to Bell:
* The Bell, a supposed anti-gravity experiment by Nazi scientists (, )
I don't know whether it's worth a mention in this article (or its own article) or not, but I thought I would point it out to those who might be interested.  — Catherine\talk 17:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bell

message: If someone wants to check, whether something can be salvaged:  --Pjacobi 20:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like straightforward copyright violation, to me, in addition to being POV and potentially OR. I didn't take a thorough look at it. --Christopher Thomas 23:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Missed the grant of premission to duplicate at the top. Looking more like OR if the poster is the author, though. --Christopher Thomas 23:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large non-encyclopedic addition reverted 

message: My objections to the current version are as follows:
#Most physicists believe that at extremely high energies, gravity and the other fundamental forces unify, which would allow gravity to be manipulated in ways that are not readily apparent now.  Actually, while physicists generally agree that it must be possible to formulate a quantum theory of gravitation, some prominent mainstream physicists suspect that gravitation may not be unified with the other fundamental forces.   And it is certainly not true that there is a general expectation that any quantum theory of gravitation or TOE will lead to manipulation of the gravitational field (other than by moving mass around, of course).
#Claims that the U. S. government has secretly achieved electrogravitic propulsion, the claims of Thomas Townsend Brown, and the notion of electrogravity itself are all regarded as cranky by mainstream physics.  Such claims are strongly linked to Area 51 type conspiracy theories.  This entire section should be rewritten to more accurately characterize these claims as highly cranky, and to point out that despite the similar sounding names, gravitoelectromagnetism is part of mainstream physics and completely different from crank claims involving alleged "electrogravity".
#NASA, Boeing, and BAE Systems have all funded: in fact, Boeing appears to have officially denied this, and it seems that the NASA experiment was short lived and has been defunded, and that BAE may not have been directly involved in Project Greenglow.  Authors need to be much more cautious and not accept on face value news reports in trade publications or even major news outlets.  In particular, some BBC news stories were factually inaccurate (see alleged Boeing involvement).
#Robert Distinti's claims are regarded as cranky (his site is listed an crankdot).
#While the current characterization of the preprint by F. S. Felber is acceptably NPOV, I have just looked at it and am confident that the alleged effect is a coordinate effect which has been misinterpreted by an author who is apparently inexperienced in this field (in time I hope to explain that in greater detail elsewhere).
I can fix the problems myself but I thought I'd give the original authors the chance. ---CH 22:42, 16 February 2006
:Regarding force unification, at unification energies you would indeed have processes that produced (or consumed) gravitons. However, just as electroweak unification effects aren't terribly useful for manipulating the weak nuclear force under laboratory conditions, I don't expect that ToE-style unification will have practical applications. I added the paragraph about it during my original rewrite as part of a list of potential mechanisms for antigravity-type effects (practical and impractical, and hopefully flagged as such). The article has mutated considerably in the meantime. Re. whether or not unification occurs, the most popular theories being actively researched (string theory and membrane theory variants) tend to assume that it does, so I'd consider unification worth mentioning.
:Regarding Felber's paper, I was wondering when this was going to start showing up in articles. He did a massive press release recently (which doesn't look so good when papers aren't published in reputable print journals yet). My main concern with his proposed effects is that they should have very strong impact on particle accelerator interactions (with gamma values of a thousand or more, particles should be deflected out of collision paths, if I'm reading things correctly).
:Regarding an overhaul of the article, it could probably stand with another rewrite, but I'm not in a position to do it any time soon. My last one is linked from my user page, if you want a starting point that might be a little more organized than the current article; your call.--Christopher Thomas 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely speculation, but unification could have some effects on gravity. If you look at the early universe, then the faster expansion than what can be explained with gravitational theory stands out like a sore thumb. The hunt for the higgs particle could be good materials for this topic. Agreed on the clean-up of the crack-pot materials. -MegaHasher 05:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV flag 

message: There are strong reasons to believe that no such substance can exist. Consider the results of placing such a substance under one-half of a wheel on a shaft. The side of the wheel under the substance would have no weight, while the other side would. This would cause the wheel to continually "fall" toward the side under the plate. This motion could be harnessed to produce power for free, a clear violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
 
How in the world did anyone come up with this?  It only 'violates' the 1st Law if you exclude the gravitational field!  Does a solar cell violate the 1st Law?  No, it harneses a small fraction of an existing energy field and coverts that energy into a useable form.  The same would be true here.  The gravitation field exists, and the proposed device would just harness or draw away some of that energy.  When the gravitational field ends, so does the antigravity effect.  What a crock, not a violation.  Cyberia1 (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to harness energy out of a gravitational field is to let something lose gravitational potential (ie height above the ground). In the situation described, the wheel's gravitational potential stays the same no matter how long the theoretical substance is beneath it. No potential energy has been lost, and so according to the 1st law of thermodynamics, no energy can be gained from the gravitational field. You cannot gain energy in one place without losing it somewhere else, and the only way to lose gravitational potential energy is to move closer to what's attracting you. The section you quoted is absolutely correct, and you are not. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cant the electric field be blocked in a similar way? Em3ryguy (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm not so sure the article is right either. Have a look at this detailed analysis of the "wheel machine": http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/gravshld.htm. It shows why it won't work even if a gravity shield were possible. mike4ty4 (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Violation of First Law of Thermodynamics???

message: After reading a bit on the subject and checking out the Casmir Effect article, I was wondering if we should put it in as a sort of anti-grav generator. IT isn't techjically anti-grave, but it can force things apart.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberia1 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Casmir Effect

message: In the 1970s, an American scientist proposed using superfluid helium in a toroidal vessel to create gravity control.
Robert Distinti, an American engineer, has derived a simple formula that predicts anti-gravity effects when opposite charges are brought close enough. For macroscopic effects, this requires large charges and microscopic distances, but provides a theoretical explanation for the charged capacitor experiments.
In June 2005 F.S. Felber released a paper claiming that when a mass moves faster than 1 / \sqrt{3} of the speed of light, general relativity predicts that a moving mass emits a beam of repulsive gravity both forward, and more weakly to the rear of the mass.  This repulsive effect could easily be used to accelerate other masses, and the tidal forces are said to be weak.  As of February 2006, the paper is still in review.
Several historical oversights need to be rectified in this section.Tcisco 06:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Anti-gravity in the context of non-mainstream physics'' 

message: "Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity."
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM0L6OVGJE_index_0.html
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/gsp/Experimental_Detection.pdf
There appear to be superficial similarities to Podkletnov's work.  I do not have the knowledge to say whether this is at all interesting, related, or just another instance of bogus and/or pseudo- science
There is, however, a nice paragraph referring to Podkletnov's claims in the pdf:
"The reported results are very different from previous claims in the literature from Podkletnov claiming gravitational shielding effects above rotating superconductors 21,22 . As we have not observed any change in the vertical sensors (± 5 µg) above any superconductors during their phase transition and during rotation, our results even put new limits on any possible shielding effects (effect must be < 0.0005% compared to claims of up to 2% of weight change for samples above a rotating superconductor)."
WLD 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im afraid its not relevant, its refering to the gravitomagnetic force. - Zephyris Talk 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any relevance? 

message: Everyone should be able to participate in the debate. However, now the committed members express rejective, intolerant and malicious attitude towards some writers. They do not explain their point of view purely concentrating on the issues, but also imply that some people should not bother them with certain point of views. The critic of this page is a good example of this. Objectively, I'm not taking a position towards the claims of the counter arguments. I'm just pointing out the offensive style of the committed judges of the Wikipedia. You should also explain why you repeatedly erase links from that page. I have also copied my critisism to my user page of Improvements to Wikipedia
(unsigned comment by User:Teemu Ruskeepää)
:Come again?  What authors?  What "judges"? What page?  What links? ---CH 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destructive attitude of Wikipedians 

message: It must be at least docuented(what claims are),
just tag it with pseudoscience or/and 
explanation of maintsream physics why it doesn't work.
Deleting information is wrong.If we allow only right information on wiki,
which must be documented by all academic sources,it will be a desert.
A bunch of book summaries.This isn't wiki purpose,providing maximum knowledge on subject.Antigravity is pseudoscience(or at best fringe science) subject.Just talk about it like it is.NPOV isn't deleting Pseudoscience its allowing to present any information in NEUTRAL Manner.Just keep pseudosciece notices.
 (aka the cable.012.net.il anon)
:First, please consider registering and in any case sign your contribs.  Second, current violations of WP:NPOV include several claims of form
::according to [publication], blah blah blah 
:instead of 
::according to Robert Park, a professor of Physics at the University of Maryland who writes a regular column on fringe science at [link to the website in question], .
:See the difference?  My point is that we need to provide enough information for the reader to figure out that a claim appearing on Robert Distinti's website does not carry the same weight as Prof. Park's comments in Nature. Third, the current version is absurdly slanted toward promotion of dubious fringe ideas in various ways, and this must be addressed.---CH 23:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  note for editors:Do not delete under pretenses of "Pseudoscience" 

message: American Antigraverty is quite an important anti-graverty\alternitive energy site, could we mention them more than just once at the bottem of the page? Alan2here 20:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Antigraverty 

message: Antigravity, =  gravifugal force'''
The bigest scientific and non-scientific paradox and problem in the last several centuries. Serious and honest scientist believe it is nosence. Nobody is capable to see that antigravity was discovered by Newton. 
It is not an error. I am not talking about gravity, than rather about so called antigravity. 
See data: http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
Newton have seen that pendulum watches are going slower closer to the equator, and stated: it is caused by force arising from Earths rotation. This force decreases value of gravitational accveleration, and because of it the watches are going slower. Newton calculated value of that force, i.e. decreasing of gravity to cca 0,034m/sec2. Several centuries latter it was confirmed by gravimetrical meassurements. At the equator, bodies lose 0,34% of its weight. At the geo. lat. 45 degree only 0,17%. 
The force decreasing the weight of bodies, i.e. gravitational force always has the same line and opposite direction of gravity.
But that force is not antigravity, than rather gravifugal force. This force is arising in all cases in which gravity has a function of centripetal force. In those cases I am using the term gravipetal force.
Gravipetal and gravifugal - instead of too general: centripetal and centrifugal.
I believe so called and desired antigravity does not exist. Nature replaced it by gravifugal force.
At the velocity 7,9km/sec. value of gravifugal force equals to that of gravity, i.e. gravipetal force, bodies totaly lose the weight and astronauts are levitating in their space-ships. By gravifugal force we are capable to do all we believed would be possible to do by so called antigravity. 
Why nobody can see it?
Instead of to draw the attention to that fact, many scientist and no-scientist try to discover something that was discovered long, long time ago, confirmed by numerous gravimetrical meassurements and astronautical experience.
For more see also
Gravifugal levitation and antigravity/
:This theory, although plausible, is incorrect. The fault is in the extrapolation from a pendulum to a free disk - the supporting string of the pendulum is the route by which the force due to gravity is counteracted, the free disk does not have this connection and so the gravitational force is not counteracted. - Zephyris Talk 00:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antigravity 

message: Thank you for the welcome and quick response.  I have no problems with abstaining from incorporating UFO articles with this section.  I removed the corresponding citations from the list of references after discovering your deletions.  My goal was to provide a wealth of literature that evinces the existence of a nation-wide effort to develop gravity control propulsion that had continued for at least eleven years.  The articles, books, and newspapers were free of retractions and denials.  And, there were no indications of failure.    It would not have taken eleven years to discover shortcomings in the gravitic segment of the Biefeld-Brown Effect.  But, it would have taken  eleven or more years to develop substances with high dielectric constants and/or invent high voltage, light-weight, power supplies.  The engineers' success would not have necessitated flight for all.  "G-cars" may be very expensive.  If the flight characteristics of "G-cars" approximated those of documented UFO incidents, the Department of Defense would use them for covert operations and keep them from the public for as long as possible.
216.125.49.252 19:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Edits 

message: No one should remove information from Wikipedia simply because they do not believe it is scientific. An Encyclopedia is not intended to be scientific, but to be a reference of human knowledge, which may vary in scope far beyond scientific topics to such subjects as philosophy, religion, or so called "psuedoscience." Moreover, Wikipedia should give all views equal measure, even if a view is unpopular. Simply because most physicists believe Anti-Gravity to be a load of crap doesn't mean it's a fact. Theories aren't facts, period. They are theories. Contemporary science has never claimed to answer all questions or to present its theories as facts, but rather to find rational explanations based on prior knowledge, and for all we know that prior knowledge isn't even correct; see Brain in a Jar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.221.247.179 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience Is Still Knowledge 

message: Last night , I saw a documentry on 'abduction by aliens' on Discovery Channel in which there was a small description on the success in lifting a body with electromagnetic high voltage fields. The name of the scientist was Gary Stephenson. I found only this [ about it and a file  that explains it.  21st CenturyDRAGON 09:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gary Stephenson: Considerable Works on Anti Gravity 

message: This article would be improved dramatically if one were to use the standard footnote referencing system. There are too many references that do not appear in the text, and I suggest adding a section called "cited references" and "further reading." As an innocent bystander, it appears as if a "proponent" of antigrav has just adding tons of references (many irrelevant) in order to quiet and/or confuse the other editors who are tying to make this a balanced and factual article.
Secondly, it would go a long ways toward improving NPOV if this article were to source (primarily) secondary sources. The majority of references are to primary  sources or tertiary sources (such as news articles), and this makes it appear as if this topic is either original research, biassed. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia (i.e., a tertiary source), and as such, it should be based primarily on secondary sources. Lunokhod 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are attributing someone else's actions to me (in part). I haven't deleted any references, I am just in the process of turning them into standard hyperlinked footnote form (we could use hyperlinked harvard referencing if you prefer). As for the sententce I deleted that is mentioned above, I don't think that it is necessary to say that GFR essays have become peer-reviewed articles. If there is reason to cite these articles, then do so! Lunokhod 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some have mocked the merits of the Gravity Research Foundation because its early years had been dedicated to searching for materials and theories that yielded shielding, insulation; and/or heat extraction from gravity. The incorporation of some of the Foundation essays in a peer reviewed journal and the achievements attained by some of the essay authors were used to attest to the academic integrity of the organization.  Those attributes have been presented at physics history conferences.  Tcisco 20:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect to reference classifications, I can reorganize my segment of the contribution to manifest distinctions between the primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. And, it can be lengthened to evince neutrality by citing the euphoric and negative assessments of the gravity control propulsion projects.  My initial goal had been to insert a brief report.  Tcisco 20:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: It should be added to far more, star wars?  star trek?  The Matrix, the list is nearly endless, at least offer relevant links to machines of the sci-fi genre that have been conceived as a direct result of these theory's of anti grav devices.
===H.G. Wells and cavorite===
Newton's Law of Gravitation considered gravity to be a force between two objects, causing attraction in proportion to the objects' mass and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them. Under this interpretation, an object with negative mass would repel ordinary matter, and could be used to produce an anti-gravity effect. Alternatively, depending on the mechanism assumed to underlie the gravitational force, it may seem reasonable to postulate a material that shields against gravity or otherwise interferes with the force. A fictional example of such a material is cavorite, which is a major element in H. G. Wells' famous book The First Men in the Moon, although cavorite isn't consistent with even a Newtonian view of the universe—it causes violations of conservation laws. Neither negative-mass exotic matter nor gravity-screening material have been observed experimentally. While the potential existence of exotic matter is still debated, general relativity presents persuasive arguments against the existence of screening materials.
===The work of Larry Niven===
In several works of science-fiction by Larry Niven, there are spacecraft who make use of
a "gravity lens", which, presumably, is not an anti-gravity device, but rather deflects gravitational
attraction into a different direction.  One work mentions that a gravity lens vehicle is incapable of
gaining potential energy.  (Archived) MegaHasher 20:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ANTI GRAV IN FICTION

message: In several works of science-fiction by Larry Niven, there are spacecraft who make use of
a "gravity lens", which, presumably, is not an anti-gravity device, but rather deflects gravitational
attraction into a different direction.  One work mentions that a gravity lens vehicle is incapable of
gaining potential energy.  (Archived) MegaHasher 20:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The work of Larry Niven

message: Should gravitomagnetism be mentioned? At least it's a real scientific effect. -- 212.213.204.99 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good question.  The answer is yes.  "Guidelines to Antigravity," by Robert L. Forward (1963), pesented gravitomagnetism as one of the candidates for a form of gravity control propulsion.  He acknowledged the impracticability of using accelerated masses to generate what he called a prorational field and suggested the use of superconducting currents as substitutes for the accelerated masses.  His paper is cited in the Anti-gravity article, but a summary of its was not included.  Tajmar, Plesescu, Marhold, and de Matos have implemented Forward's suggestion with Cooper pairs in an accelerated, superconducting Niobium ring to generate a measurable gravitomagnetic field .  Many of us are waiting for an independent research team to successfully replicate their apparatus and obtain similar results.  If an independent confirmation is attained, it will make it a real scientific effect that could be manipulated by laboratories.  I will have to amend the article to accommodate your suggestion.  Thank you. Tcisco 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a few corrections to gravitomagnetism and to some of its links.  Dramatic astrophysical phenomena that evinces the reality of gravitomagnetism had not been cited in those articles.  Including them helps to establish it as a valid theory.  Tcisco 05:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to cite attempts to generate detectable gravitomagnetic, gravitoelectric, and gravitoelectromagnetic fields by Ning Li, Eugene Podkletnov, and Martin Tajmar's team in the restructured Reported Experiments section.  Their attempts have been recorded in peer reviewed journals. Tcisco 07:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitomagnetism 

message: ::The accelerating expansion of the universe due to dark energy is an effect that causes a large-scale repulsive force. However, this is not gravitational in nature, and so is not anti-gravity.
The author of this article has figured out what dark energy is!  Maybe they could lett the rest of us in on it?  Puddytang 05:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, I would love to know the answer to that. This article is inherently biased, but different parts are biased against different sides. Definitely needs a complete do-over.Cromdog 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correctly that is fair fight in science bit http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208138 seems to prove now the Dark energy with an antigravity effect. Until now, nobody names it antigravity but the existence of gravitons and antigravitons, searching Google, seems to be a fact. Please help to stop disruptive manner e.g. by User:Duae Quartunciae, no physicist but daring to know everything better. Unclear why saying HERE nothing     thanks 84.158.255.57 20:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article actually covers more than the dark energy notion, which can indeed be considered as a kind of anti-gravity. However, I have removed the demanded by GR phrase from the very first paragraph of the article, because that does not belong in the introduction. The notion of dark energy as anti-gravity — which I support — should be in its own section and not presumed from the start to be the only kind of anti-gravity under discussion. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 22:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  By the way... there is a rather strange mention of me above. I think this may be bad feelings arising from discussions of the Fritz Zwicky biography. I've very little input into this article so far; apart from the small change relating to the phrase "demanded by GR", described in the previous paragraph. There are a number of changes from users at 84.158.*.* which are going to be an issue; not just with me. One problem is that they/he is not a native speaker of English, and will need a bit of help on matters of grammar and style. It will be really useful if you register a user name at wikipedia, and use that for your edits. Also, your removal of the "totally disputed" tag was dubious. Since it is at the head of the article anyway, I'm not replacing it. But the recent changes by 84.158.*.* are () The best thing is to avoid perceived personal issues, engage on the assumption that everyone is trying to improve the article in good faith, and just focus on the substance. -- Duae Quartunciae (t|c) 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Kehler. This page is not a good place to talk about anything not immediately relevant to the article on Anti-gravity. I have written a longer welcome for you, at a subpage in my own user space. Please come there and read, and if you wish to leave me a message there you will be very welcome; as is anyone else. The page is: Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Kehler. Let's leave this page here for its intended use, and carry more general discussion over in the page I have provided for you. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The accelerating expansion of the universe

message: Thanks for your first partly positive reaction. Now other user(s) continued unfair disruption. 
* UNFAIRNESS AGAINST DISSIDENTS (incl. you) was accused at the WIKI-founder where you must click SHOW in line "Introduction to alternate cosmology controversy and request for assistance" below []. 
* Why have I still no IDENTIFICATION (I hope to have in autumn)? I live too far from a city (at DSL-limit), since 3 years hoping to get promised but good working DSL. When I got it, it worked only during a summer sunshine period. After much rain the min. speed not worked. I want no more to regress to pay Internet in phone-minutes. Thus I work with our clubs PC but its HP was cracked last year, redirected to "sexy sites" provoking our big care - like dyn. IP. Sorry, but at my club(s) is published club's main meaning, seldom (only) my own. 
* Since 2 months I personylly hope to get my own single private privilege or own but good DSL. 
* Correct User:Duae_Quartunciae, with no "native English" we need help therein! In decades not only I had forgot my English. 
* But we need no help in (Astro-)physics: If there is no vacancy time we have in 3 associated clubs more than 20 Drs. – 6 Drs. in physics and more than 20 physicians and engineers (like myself). Sometimes we had even contact with an >88 y.o. (some say even 90) formerly well-known (now got very angry) French Univ.-Prof. - While it seemed initially 75%, meanwhile less than 40% support mainstream. 
* After a speech and discussions with John Dobson and the Prof. in 2006 we learned that in the whole world Big bang is less and less mainstream meaning, but well protected - see first line of our accusation: LINK [AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY]: about 500 organizations, physicists and researchers meanwhile signed against Big-bang). 
* Not reading our link was accused as incredibly unfair manner - by you as none-physicist was your meanest action with your cooperators. To revert but not to realize that only Fritz Zwicky's (!!!) Tired light declares - now even officially supported internationally since March 2007 (now also by NASA in http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701132 the otherwise not declared Pioneer anomaly! 
* Nevertheless you were partly right: "Our" Fritz Zwicky article was finally disturbed mainly by ourselves: Too many in our club finally had found more and more enthusiastically something for his rehabilitation - We say: too many cooks make a bad meal.
* Nevertheless you were partly right: "Our" Fritz Zwicky article was finally disturbed mainly by ourselves: Too many in our club finally had found more and more enthusiastically something for his rehabilitation and we say: too many cooks make a bad meal.
thanks by wfc-k 84.158.216.111 13:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Kehler. This page is not a good place to talk about anything not immediately relevant to the article on Anti-gravity. I have written a longer welcome for you, at a subpage in my own user space. Please come there and read, and if you wish to leave me a message there you will be very welcome; as is anyone else. The page is: Welcome to Wikipedia, Mr Kehler. Let's leave this page here for its intended use, and carry more general discussion over in the page I have provided for you. Cheers —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks [[User:Duae_Quartunciae]], see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#DEMANDING_FAIR_WIKIPEDIA_FOR_THOUSANDS_DISSIDENTS Our complaint at Jimbo Wales]] 

message: In a curious edit by User:MegaHasher, (diff) the paragraphs on fiction by Wells and Niven were removed from the article, and transferred into this dicussion page without comment. The material now appears above, in section "#ANTI GRAV IN FICTION". Just flagging this. Was this what you really wanted to do? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If User:MegaHasher was trying to help split the article, he should have made a statement in the discussion section. Tcisco 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material on fiction by Wells and Niven removed 

message: I have replaced a paragraph from this section because it claimed negative gravitational mass creates singularities.  The proof published by Sir Hermann Bondi in 1957 yielded singularity free equations.  The correct assessment has been placed in the first paragraph of this section. Tcisco 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I executed an "undo" on a deletion of the referenced ZPF phrase.  Compliance with the strong equivalence principle and incompatibility with a theory like ZPF was noted during the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. Tcisco 19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Negative mass also seems to suffer from problems similar to the gravity shield. Forward pointed out that a negative mass will fall toward "normal" matter as normal, while normal mass will fall away from the negative matter. Forward noted that two similar masses, one positive and one negative, placed near each other will therefore accelerate in the direction of the line between them, away from the negative mass. This is another apparent violation of conservation of energy.
Quite to the contrary! The negative mass acquires a negative kinetic energy, for if m < 0, then ½mv² < 0. If m1 = −m2, the two speeding masses have zero total kinetic energy. Therefore, energy is apparently conserved. I can't check it right now, but it seems unlikely that Forward would make such an elementary mistake. Anyway, the conclusion is wrong so I'm correcting it.—Herbee 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Resurrecting an old thread: m in kinetic energy refers to inertial mass, not gravitational mass. We don't know whether the hypothetical negative masses discussed would have positive or negative inertial mass (any Higgs expert there? ^^). No equation in physics establishes relationships among the two, even though we've always found m_i to be equal to m_g, but we're talking about m_g < 0 here, another never-encountered situation. Habbit (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative Mass

message: I just happened on this page while flicking through random articles. For what it's worth, New Scientist recently did a very interesting article on the subject, see 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12429-three-ways-to-levitate-a-magic-carpet.htmls
Pan narrans 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse Casimir Effect 

message: Larry Leon Burks has twice added his own personal web page as an external reference. This cannot be included for multiple reasons. It is a private web page, and the material is  not notable. Stop adding this material, Larry. It does not even come close to the  requirements for inclusion in wikipedia. You should review WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, WP:EL, and probably a few others as well. Apart from anything else here in wikipedia, you should get rid of whatever is putting those awful popups on your page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Larry has now added his link once, and reverted to add it again twice. I have removed it three times. I can do no more for the time being, under the  three revert rule. Larry, there is no way that link is going to remain for long. I am not reporting it as yet; but if another editor sees it, then they are likely to remove it as well, after which you need to be careful about the  three revert rule. I have already given a warning to  on his talk page, and so I will proceed straight to a formal report after two more reverts from Larry. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry Leon Burks 

message: The original version of this article had an absolutely insane number of references. Wikipedia guidelines on  citing external sources indicate that the References section should be for material actually used in the page. In this case, the References section was being used inappropriately as a kind of general purpose bibliography. Such material really belongs under "Further reading" or "External links".
In the  External links guideline, the rule is as follows:
::::it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.
The list of references badly needed purging. If Tcisco wants to retain any of the purged references, he should give a justification for each one. Note the guideline section WP:EL#Important points to remember specifically notes that links should be kept to a minimum. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Justifications for several references had been explicitly cited in this Talk section several months ago.  In particular, the three segments of this section entitled References; Neutral Point of View; and Split Into Three Articles had presented justifications for reputable, tertiary references.  They were among the materials recently deleted without justification.  Rationale for the deletions failed to exhibit any familiarity with the references.  At the very least, those portions of the article that had been discussed and justified in this Talk section should be restored.  Such actions would be in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines. Tcisco 14:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please link to the relevant parts of the talk page archive.  Also, 'several' isn't the same as the huge bibliography.  But you still haven't answered my question.  Please explain it, clearly and concisely. Michaelbusch 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: References were cited to avoid plagiarism.  Many statements in the article are not common knowledge.  I can't defend the links I did not contribute. Tcisco 16:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of references 

message: The gravity control propulsion initiative texts and references were in compliance with the News values standards and undue weight restrictions of Wikipedia and should not have been deleted.  According to Wikipedia policy: “Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.”  From the perspective of that rule, the physics community, back in the fifties and during the twenty-first century, has been a tiny-minority.  The sentence “Unsurprisingly from the viewpoint of current physics, the US initiative led to no results” is an unreferenced opinion by a tiny minority.  It violates the undue weight restrictions.  Dr. Jean Eisenstaedt’s section in Einstein and the History of General Relativity indicated the period from 1925 through 1955 was a “low water mark” for studies of general relativity in both America and Europe.  Dr. David Kaiser’s dissertation manifested the greatly diminished number of graduate level general relativity courses offered by university physics departments back then.  I have yet to encounter a paper from the physics community that states those explicit projects had failed.
Statements explicitly addressing the gravity control propulsion projects, from prominent members of the physics community, have been published and supportive.  Positive expressions for the projects have been made by Dr. Bryce DeWitt, Dr. Edward Teller, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Dr. John Wheeler, Dr. Vaclav Hlavaty, Dr. Stanley Deser, Dr. Richard Arnowitt, and Dr. Lucien A. A. Gerardin.  Their statements were featured in publications for a much larger population.  The New York Herald-Tribune, The Miami Herald, Holiday magazine, and True magazine published explicit accounts about the initiative for their broad base of subscribers.  Press releases by industrial leaders stated their participation in gravity propulsion projects.  The opinions the mass media had molded were much greater in number than the physics community.  Subsequently, they must be represented in the article.
The next largest majority was the aerospace community.  Their technical articles from the United States and Great Britain provided explicit information about the projects.  The “flood of letters” to the editor of Interavia caused them to publish an additional article about gravity control propulsion research.  The body of aerospace literature represents another majority that should be represented.
Conspiracy theories became popular after the Watergate scandal.  Subsequently, the testimonies of whistleblowers from the ranks of government contractors became of interest to the general population.  At the very least, the comments by Nick Cook and Dr. Steven Greer, about the anti-gravity research projects, must be represented in the article.  Tcisco 04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The physics community is not 'a tiny minority'.  They are the experts. Michaelbusch 04:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their expertise has not been an issue.  Relative to the population of subscribers that the media had targetted for news about the gravity control propulsion projects, they are a tiny minority.  Many aerospace engineers have earned doctorate degrees in physics.  In terms of occupation, they constitute a body of experts larger than the physics community.  With respect to the undue weight restrictions, the physics community is a small minority and the subset of relativists has always been a tiny minority. Tcisco 04:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not understand how any of the above justifies the large inclusion.  If you insist this must be on Wikipedia, spin it off into another article and link it. Michaelbusch 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I recommend History of United States anti-gravity research.  The Undue Weight consideration is most important for this article in that it makes it readable. Michaelbusch 20:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed to offer any arguments to my justifications, other than disatisfaction.  My contributions have complied with the Wikipedia rules.  You claim it is not readable.  Maybe the word you should use is that it is objectionable in your sight. Tcisco 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I can do that.  The section was located roughly in the middle of the article. Tcisco 04:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't create the RIAS article due to difficulties I had with trying to load photographs of it from the Glenn L. Martin Company. Tcisco 05:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, thanks! Maury 12:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to respond to the 3O request, but I see that you have already had some constructive outside input, so I have removed the listing. If the dispute reignites, feel free to relist it or drop me a line and I will chip in personally. Adrian M. H. 13:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Application of the undue weight restrictions

message: I had a little time this morning, so I've whipped up a new version of this page which you can read here. I have added a section in the intro explaining how modern physics appears to outlaw anti-gravity devices, which I believe is important. I have collected all the theoretical approaches into a single section, and the empirical devices into another. I have added several other examples of both that I was aware of that had not been previously included.
I have also toned down the Talbert references, for the reasons I have outlined above, and removed those that appear to be supported solely by "fringe" references (UFO journals and such). These are suitable for separate articles on the topic, but in this article I believe it simply distracts from the overview-like text I think we need to maintain here.
It still needs more refs -- I'd really like some help there. I've also put in a few placeholders for areas where some expansion is needed. For instance, I know that the original "national efforts" section mentioned another foundation being created (at a university?) but I can't find it in the diffs. Tcisco, if you can recall what I'm referring to here, could you add it in place of the "*"ed section (you'll see it). I'd also like to mention a few of the variety of gyroscopic devices that have been made over the years.
Anyway, let me know what you all think!
Maury 13:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the third paragraph of the intro needs work. General relativity does have antigravity solutions, as you mention in the "negative mass" section; saying that these are abnormal is begging the question. And I don't see how Newtonian gravity is so amenable to shielding; you can use the shield to build a perpetual motion device, as detailed in the "gravity shields" section. -- BenRG 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed re-write 

message: Any concern about archiving the discussion above? Maury 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None. Tcisco 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, notice the style of these posts? BUG! Maury 14:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, non bug, just a trailing tag. Fixed! Maury 14:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive discussion? 

message: Randell Mills has published a new paper that purportedly describes experimental confirmation of his theory regarding the anti-gravitational effect of so-called hyperbolic electrons. The experimental setup seems fairly straight forward - create hyperbolic electrons by shooting a beam of free electrons of the correct energy through a perpendicular beam of neutral atoms (e.g. He, Ne, Ar, etc.). He then measures the upward (anti-gravitational) deflection of the electrons by the ratio of current densities at two grounded electrode plates, one above and one below the electron beam, both positioned about 100mm behind the atomic beam. He varies the electron energy and sees deflectional peaks that correspond, roughly, to quantum modes predicted by his theory. This seems like a pretty interesting phenomena - particularly because it should be easy to replicate if true. Anyone else think this is worth mentioning on the page? GenMan2000 01:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental evidence?

message: The current article makes no mention of Podkletnov's name at all. This is regrettable, as "en.wikipedia.org" means en. as in english language, not en. as in english property of web! WASP cultural imperialism ruins the very nature of the Internet! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russophobic bias? 

message: Boyd Bushman was an employee for Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks division and has talked vaguely about their work in trying to build aircraft that used anti-gravity technology.
To my knowledge he has never explained anything specifically about how these craft work/might work because of his NDA's or so he claims.
He has however made a very explicit claim of one experiment he conducted while at Lockheed that I guess wasn't part of his work in their Skunkworks projects.
He claimed that he bought a pair of some of the most powerful rare earth magnets available.  That they cost around $5000 for the pair.  He claimed that he created a spiral into the magnets and screwed the magnets onto a metal screw.  In laymens terms he took a screw and the magnets were like bolts that he tightened onto the screw.  He needed to do this because he oriented the magnets so that their north poles were opposing each other. Below is a crappy text diagram to illustrate what I mean:
   |South Pole Magnet 1|
   |North Pole Magnet 1|
         |    |
   |North Pole Magnet 2|
   |South Pole Magnet 2|
He then placed this item inside a spherical object he had drilled out to hold the item and capped the end.  He also had another spherical object identical to the one with the magnetic item.
He proceeded to drop both objects at the same time while observers were asked to record which object hit the ground first.
Trial after trial after trial the observers continually recorded one object hitting the ground slightly after the other one.  The spherical object with the opposing magnets inside was the object that continually landed second.
This is a very easy experiment to test if incredibly powerful opposing magnetic fields decrease gravity in the objects around them.  I believe this should be added to the article hopefully encouraging others with some expendable cash to throw away to repeat this experiment and help prove or disprove his results.  I have done lots of searching on Google and have found pretty much no one discussing this experiment.   Bob  72.209.12.250  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.12.250 (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't write Wikipedia articles to increase discussion on a topic. (We define "original research" pretty jargonistic here.) Wikipedia aims to be a non-interfering observer of human knowledge. If there aren't enough discussion going on already (and they must be verifiable, mind you), they don't belong here. However, if the contents you're planning to add is already published in reliable sources, go ahead and add them in, citing sources. --朝彦 (Asahiko) (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boyd Bushman's Very Specific Experiment on Gravity Reduction/Shielding/Anti-Gravity 

message: I have replaced 'GR' with 'general relativity' throughout. The article on general relativity spells the words out in full, and I found the use of 'GR' here grating. -- Etimbo ( Talk) 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced GR with general relativity throughout