Talk:Anti-gravity

message: I have removed the following paragraph from the section "Conventional effects that mimic anti-gravity effects":
* Multiple nearby gravity sources generate separate gravity fields. Thus, if an object is placed at a certain location between two sources (the so-called Lagrangian point, see picture), their gravity cancel out each other's. In this state, the object still experiences gravity, but from opposite directions with the same strength, so the resulting force is null.
It is not the gravity of the objects that cancels each other out, it is gravity *plus centrifugal forces*. The situation is very similar to a satellite staying in its orbit despite gravitation. --Lotharster --91.67.24.156 (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed "Lagrangian Points"

message: This is a general question to all Wikipedians: Using anti-gravity or some force of reversed gravity, would it be possible to accelerate a projectile to super speeds? I'm not talking about magnetic propulsion or anything of that sort, or a Gauss gun, but really taking an object, putting it in a chamber of some sort with Anti-Gravity or some sort of Zero-Gee space to make it reach higher speeds before going out and reacting to the Earth's gravity. You know, to make it faster.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.126.143 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are not forums. I cannot answer your question as all anti-gravity concepts are pseudoscientific or very speculative and early stage science. I5-X600K (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Accelerating Objects Using Gravity

message: There is something amiss in what I have seen concerning this so-called testing of Tajmar's effect by the New Zealand group.  For one thing, the discrepancy between the mass of Cooper pairs first measured in superconductors by Janet Tate et.al  is a long-standing discrepancy.  In New Scientist, 2006-11-11, Tate is quoted as saying The measurement has remained unexplained for the last 20 years.  Whatever you may say about Tajmar's work, that discrepancy is still there and still remains unexplained.  Moreover, at last check, the reported anomalies of the Gravity Probe B mission are also still unexplained.   Thus, we still cannot rule out a gravito-magnetic effect.
Has anyone bothered to contact Tajmar directly?   Because I did and this is what he tells me:
It's always the same problem that people just read abstracts only.  The New Zealand group (Graham et al) tested my 2006 theory (which I already dismissed with my own experimental results) - not my experiment. They did not find any result with error bars two orders of magnitude above my signal strengths! If you read their paper they say in the last paragraph that their results can not confirm or refute my experimental claims but that they put limits on my old theoretical model.
So according to Tajmar, the New Zealand result is almost irrelevant. He also pointed me in the direction of a more recent paper (2008):
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271v2
FYI, I would like to remind everyone: The astronomer William Wallace Campbell whose 1922 measurements of his observations of the Sun during a total eclipse in Australia would eventually confirm Einstein's predictions.  However, before the said measurements, Campbell had made a preliminary set of measurements with inferior equipment during a solar eclipse of 1918 that did not confirm the results.  He appeared at Cambridge and was about to refute Einstein's theory but Eddington had data, admittedly limited data, obtained from measurements precariously obtained during a solar eclipse in Africa that seem to confirm Einsein's bending of light.
Campbell decide to delay publication that would have refuted GRT, rather stating that yes, the Einstein theory is unsettled.  In other words, Einstein's theory came very very close from being refuted before anybody invested in trying to vindicate it.
    Imagine what would have happened had Campbell not been so conscientious?
Thus, I submit this section about the New Zealand group should be revised because it apparently does not really refute Tajmar's experimental findings and Tajmar has since discarded his theory.  I would say the experimental result is unsettled NOT repudiated.  I agree that Tajmar's experimental findings need to be vindicated and/or refuted by other groups, especially in America but this part of the web-site conveys the wrong and negative impression.  Now. I could decide to be bold and make the changes myself but I would prefer not to enter a tug-of-war with the author(s) of this part of the web-site.  I would like to get some feedback first But I submit that this part of the web-site conveys a premature conclusion and thus the wrong impression.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.71.55.135 (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't really use the material directly from him, as it is unpublished.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Tajmar effect tested in New Zealand

message: there is no gravity . So the problem is not what antigravity is, but rather , what gravity is not. Gravity is not a force of attraction Gravity is a pressure force created by the 98% of the matter we know exists in the universe but that matter we don't know the nature of.
I will speak more of this later.81.34.202.107 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravity is not an attraction force

message: "There are numerous newer theories that add onto general relativity or replace it outright, and some of these appear to allow anti-gravity-like solutions. However, according to the current widely accepted physical theories, verified in experiments, and according to the major directions of physical research, it is considered highly unlikely that anti-gravity is possible"
There is credible research on antigravity.  The work of Dr. Ning Lee http://www.amasci.com/weird/vortex/tnews.txt has shown in labs to produce force fields that suspend objects and act as an antigravity effect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.112.92 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to modify or delete line

message: The article does not seem to consider anti-gravity as the opposite polar force of gravity, which ironically seems also to be the force that is called dark energy.
In this context then dark matter would be the substance from which dark energy emanates and in that contect be anti-matter.
In a perfect world there would be a balance in the amount of matter and anti-matter and gravity and anti-gravity with an imbalance representing some type of transition in the universe.
Where is this concept discussed in the Wikipedia? 71.100.11.118 (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: anti-gravity as the polar force of  gravity

message: The writing here is terribly conservative. I doubt that a real scientist actually wrote this article. Gingermint (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wet Blanket

message: This query regarding the possibility of anti-gravity drives of the first kind
has been moved to "Anti-gravity drives" and momentum conservation";
because the following article/ comment seems to be unrelated to it
Rhnmcl (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Anti-gravity "  and momentum conservation

message: Given the wide range of topics on this page, a brief discussion of the Woodward Effect seems appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.111.97 (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Woodward Effect

message: String theory (and all other theories involving hidden dimensions)
 predict that gravity and electromagnetism unify in hidden 
dimensions and that the hidden dimensions are indetectible because of 
their small size. It does also predict that sufficiently short-waved 
photons, with wavelengths shorter than the size of the hidden 
dimensions, can enter them. Producing ultra-short photons can thus 
manipulate gravity, with revolutionizing space travel applications such 
as cheap anti-gravity launches. The 
problem that it would require high energy can be practically solved by 
concentrating several laser beams on a nanoparticle, heating it to 
locally extreme temperatures. An Alcubierre metric can be created by 
ejecting multiple nanoparticles from the craft and then beam perfectly 
timed laser beams on them (fire at the most distant first so that they are
 hit simultaneously), so each nanoparticle contributes a slower than 
light effect but together add up to faster than light, creating no discrete 
event horizon and thus no Hawking radiation.
By Martin J Sallberg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.166.80 (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibilities in string theory.

message: How should the word be spelled, "antigravity" or "anti-gravity"? The former looks more right to me and MW spells it as such, but are there reasons why this article uses the latter? Λυδαcιτγ 06:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: There is no mention of scalar-tensor theory.  E.g. the Brans-Dicke theory has a fudge factor to ensure agreement with Astronomical observations.  I remember reading that scalar-tensor theories did not always produce solutions with a Newtonian limit.  This is why they had imposed a canonical form of the scalar field as  \Phi = \phi^2  to ensure a positive field so that "anti-gravity" could not happen.  But this prescription resulted from 'believing' that anti-gravity could not happen.  Nonetheless, theoretically, some scalar-tensor theories could produce departures from Newtonian gravity.  My point is that theoretically, "anti-gravity' is not yet ruled out.TonyMath (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are a series of reliable sources on this it can be added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok let's start with this one Antigravity in F(R) and Brans-Dicke theories  and its possibility in curvature quintessence]. This other one Quintessence scalar-tensor theories and non-Newtonian gravity talks about the possibility of non-Newtonian gravity. Let's start with that.  These 3 references show that scalar-tensor theories admit the 'theoretical' possibility of departures from the Newtonian limit of gravity and hence what some would called anti-gravity. TonyMath (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Some problems (and please take this as hopefully constructive nitpicking). Sourcing something is not the same as reliably sourcing it. Papers on a topic are not considered reliable sources because they are primary sources (see WP:PST) so "hence what some would called anti-gravity" comes off as WP:OR, its an interpretation of the papers. The article Scalar-tensor theory does not mention anti-gravity. It would be nice if there was something on the level of a Nature article about how "someone is calling this anti-gravity" - Wikipedia should be sourced to already well published ideas that appear in general publications, its not really an outlet for bleeding edge theory or interpretations there of. This also seems to be an article about hocum, not advanced cosmology. All that being said, if you can find a way to word it in following Wikipedia guidelines (like maybe a section on real theoretical anti-gravity) it could be a good addition.  Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that perhaps more direct, or additional if not more prestigious references might help here.  Consider dilatonic quantum gravity, ref 21, i.e. the paper by Mann and Ohta provides a solution with a non-Newtonian limit apart from a solution with a Newtonian limit.  This is Jackiw–Teitelboim gravity theory, a scalar-tensor theory in $1+1$ dimensions.  This paper is fundamental i.e. exact solutions of a self-interacting quantum gravitational system.  It combines gravity theory, EM theory and quantum mechanics albeit in lower dimensions.  This is not cosmology but could have applications in cosmology.  It is part a first rate body of work by R.B. Mann and co-workers with publications in Classical and Quantum Gravity and Phys. Rev. D.  However, I have the feeling that you want something more along the lines of Scientific American or Nature.  Nonetheless, a 'en passant' statement that anti-gravity i.e. solutions with a Non-Newtonian limit are considered in scalar-tensor (quantum) gravity theories could be made. But you are probably right, that more along these lines needs to be worked out before any statement could be made in wikipedia.TonyMath (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Scalar-Tensor Theory

message: In the first game (Crysis) there are missions with zero gravity within alien spaceships (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e2HjmL6B8s) and if I remember it correctly there were even frozen place outside which had a lessened force of gravity. Should it be added to the Video games section (anti-gravity seems to be implied there)? --Fixuture (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Crysis 1 feature Anti-gravity?

message: Second paragraph states "Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible except under contrived circumstances.". While it is understandable that within the context of GR, the concept of anti-gravity doesn't make much sense, it is unclear which contrived circumstances are the exceptions.
The sentence ends with 3 references, which are textbooks [of which I've read one (GR by Wald) and half (Intro to QFT by P&S), but I don't remember that such contrived circumstances were mentioned], but without any further explanation.
It should be clarified which contrived circumstances would make anti-gravity possible. 93.142.224.42 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this refers to exotic matter, GR can spit out some weird results if you allow negative mass and other yet undiscovered matter. e.g. Alcubierre drives *do* conform to GR, but only with the use of negative mass. This is highly impractical, so some would describe GR solutions that require exotic matter "contrived" I5-X600K (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Contrived circumstances?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706031149/http://www.light-science.com/gen2.html to http://www.light-science.com/gen2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: External links modified

message: ""Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means, such as lifters, which fly in the air by moving air with electromagnetic fields"
Lifters have been shown to operate in vacum, so this statment should be revised--Namaste@? 19:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: lifters in vacum

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anti-gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121228174605/http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/winners_name.html to http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/winners_name.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: External links modified (January 2018)

message: There are some issues with this passage:
General relativity was introduced in the 1910s, but development of the theory was greatly slowed by a lack of suitable mathematical tools. It appeared that anti-gravity was outlawed under general relativity.
As noted in the clarification needed tag the wording doesn't account for the way the theory was actually adopted because the tools were all there before Einstein even started to work on it. Further, the time line is not correct as far as I can tell. 1911 was when Einstein predicted that there would be a nonzero light deflection in a strong gravitational field and that's not realy the introduction of GR.
Any suggestions for how this can be rewritten? I'll ruminate it some and offer one myself but you know it's better to get a consensus, especially in an article where this is far from the most important point.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening of 1950's GR research section

message: That topic has borderline stand-alone notability, and is generally described in sources like  or  in passing as "“apergy” – an antigravity-like force" or "Antigravity devices abound in early science fiction (apergy, cavorite, fluids, rays, etc.)." Should we merge it here? This article, to my surprise, does not have an 'in fiction' section that it likely should have. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge - I think Apergy is clearly not notable, and the article is just a list of the six times the term has been used in fiction over the course of 140 years. LaTeeDa (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from [[Apergy]]

message: I learned of this from 
The "anti-gravity wheel" is a 764g flywheel held up by two strings, one around each axle, to a simple tall rectangular frame. The frame rests on a scale, to show the "anti-gravity" effect. The demonstrator rotates the flywheel until the strings are wound up, and then releases it. (A hanging yo-yo would do the same, but the string might rub.) While the flywheel is descending and while it is climbing, the whole assembly weighs 6g (force) less than it does while the wheel is at rest. (Eureka?)
Spoiler: The assembly weighs a lot more during the short times that the wheel is changing direction at the bottom, such that its average weight over full "cycle" is unchanged. The scale doesn't register the burst of extra weight clearly, because the inertia of the frame and the scale (especially a mechanical scale) damp it and/or the sampling interval of a digital scale obfuscates it. A balance could show that the average weight is unchanged.
If, instead, a superball is dropped from the frame (without strings), then 100% of the weight of the superball is "lost" between bounces (and a lot more, maybe 10000% (100x its weight), is applied during each brief bounce). The flywheel does similarly, but in slow motion. The flywheel accelerates at only 1% of G, so only 1% of the weight of the flywheel is "lost" while it is falling down (or falling up). The much longer duration of the fall (several seconds, instead of milliseconds) gives time for the reduced weight to stabilize on the scale.
The YouTube video also calls it "Maxwell's wheel". Here, Maxwell's wheel currently redirects to Color triangle#Maxwell's disc, also mentioned as a "top".
The redlinked article Maxwell's Wheel has a deletion note saying it was copyvio from this catalog page (I found an archived version. They've since dropped the item). Other catalogs list them, for example this page. Every catalog mentions conservation of energy, etc., but it seems like only articles mention the weight loss. This article shows a classroom demo and explains the weight changes.
So "Maxwell's wheel/Wheel" seems distinct from "Maxwell's disc". (Article James Clerk Maxwell mentions both.) Maxwell's Wheel might deserve its own article or section, with a hatnote disambiguating to the Maxwell's disk/Disc section.) -A876 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "Anti-gravity wheel" illusion

message: — Assignment last updated by Ahlluhn (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: 4A Wikipedia Assignment