Talk:Levitation (physics)

message: I remember reading a non-fiction book years ago a man who travelled to Tibet (it wasnt the german bloke Sven somebody), or who perhaps lived in that area themselves, and who described how the monks could levitate. I cannot remember the author or title, but it probably was around the early to mid 20th. century, or maybe late 19th. They would sit cross-legged meditating in a cell in isolation for a very long time - months or years. With a lot of practice they were able jump into the air while still cross legged. As far as I remember when they could jump over the wall surrounding their cell, they ended their hermitage. The book was a good read - anyone know which one it was? Perhaps the man was a monk himself. Maybe I downloaded it from Project Gutenberg - cannot remember.
I have seen a modern photo of western people who claimed to be flying. The photo showed a group of them in the air and cross-legged above what looked like a room-sized mattress. I expect they all jumped into the air at the same time, and the photo was snapped.
I have seen a cow jump over the moon, and counting sheep flying in the air in numerical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.181.232 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Human levitation

message: See WP:CONTEXT. A user  added a number of unnecessary links and this was done to a number of pages. I'm currently tagging all pages he messed up and will attempt to clean them all up, as this will be extremely time consuming anyone willing to remove the links from this page before I get back will be greatly appreciated. --Crossmr 07:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first reference link is dead btw--69.47.207.100 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I can't believe anyone would even think of leaving it out, regardless of their beliefs.
It is a time-honoured and widely discussed phenomenon, with a short but impressive list of "celebrities" (St. Theresa of Avila, to mention just one).
Again, people who find it difficult to synthesise information - ALL pertinent information - should stay away from the lexicography business, even if it is only (?) virtual.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.142.146.72 (talk • contribs).
:Human levitation is addressed in its own articles, including Metaphysical levitation (which mentions Theresa of Avila) and Party Levitation. --Headwes 23:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the segment on human levitation?

message: Levitation that is clearly impossible as a feature in fictional books/films etc - shouldn't there be a section for this? Ecth (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? what encyclopedic benefit would it be other than to remind the reader that what happens in books can't always happen in the real world?--Crossmr (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional Levitation

message: I was actually hoping to find information on the ability of some animals to hover (that is, stay suspended in air without moving in space), such as hummingbirds. I wonder if there would be enough information to start an article or section on that? StroboX (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I get redirected here from "hovering"...

message: For some reason there is a massive un-wrapped line in some sort of box right after the "physics" heading. I tried to figure out what was wrong, but I am fairly new to this sort of thing and I couldnt figure it out. If someone could fix that, it would be great. Stickman30 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup (formatting)

message: It says: "By means of aerodynamic forces, the effect of levitation can also be achieved using the upthrust of air, with the levitating object having the same average density as air."
The article on Aerodynamic levitation doesn't cover this exactly, but the previous paragraph seems to say levitation occurs when the air pressure equals the weight of the object (per unit area), and doesn't mention density. If the air had the same density as the object, you would be talking of an air pressure of hundreds of atmospheres, which seems improbable, but I'm not an expert. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: levitation by air-jets

message: Hi. It appears that this page used to contain information about all 3 meanings of "levitation" (scientific, paranormal, illusory) eg. Hence, it still has many confusing incoming links (Special:WhatLinksHere/Levitation).
I've started a thread at Talk:Levitation (disambiguation)#Primary topic, suggesting that this page be retitled, and that the disambiguation page become the initial result of a search for "levitate" or "levitation". Please give feedback here or there. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replied at the disambiguation talk page. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary topic

message: Where should we link to this page, Electrodynamic suspension? It's a form of magnetic levitation in that it uses electromagnets. It seems there is some overlap in the article Magnetic levitation and Electrodynamic suspension. We also have the article Electromagnetic suspension, again there is some significant overlap. Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both just magnetic levitation. And there is no separate topic between magnetic levitation and electromagnetic suspension. Electromagnetic suspension is a subset of electrodynamic suspension which is a subset of magnetic levitation. There's no radiation pressure significantly or usefully involved anywhere in any of these levitations only magnetic pressure.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 04:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One uses permanent (or electromagnets) and the other doesn't. They are seperate techniques. However, they are of course, related. So perhaps discuss them under seperate headings in the magnetic levitation main section. Polyamorph (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Electrodynamic suspension can be done with either electromagnets or permanent magnets or both. The characteristic is the induced electrodynamic current that forms one field. In the case of electromagnetic suspension, this current is in the levitated object, but that's also true in electrodynamic suspensions that use induction motors. Actually, in electromagnetic levitation the coil IS a single phase induction motor.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Electrodynamic suspension

message: Gravifugal levitation is the most important kind of levitation. It is a way of existence of whole material universe. I suggest to add it to the article: "Levitation".
Gravifugal levitation is based in orbiting Earth or some other celestial body at the velocity of satelisation or velocity of levitation. E. g. Astronauts are levitating in their spaceships when they are orbiting Earth at velocity 7,9 km/sec. In such kind of orbiting, gravity functions as centripetal force. Reaction to the centripetal action of gravity is particular centrifugal force. We can call it gravifugal. Earth is levitating in regard to Sun on the base of gravifugal force too, at the orbital velocity of 30 km/sec. Moon is levitating in regard Earth at the orbital velocity 1,002km/sec. Geostationarry satelites, are levitating above certain point at the equator at orbital velocity of 3, 05 km/sec.Its angular velocity equals to that of Earth In opposite to some other kind of levitation (E.g. diamagnetic or electrostatic....), gravifugal levitating bodies are in permanent weightless state. Equation for calculating the value of gravifugal force is F = m v2/ R Where M is mass of body, v is its velocity and R is distance from Earth's (or some other celestial body) center of gravity. Velocity of levitation is v = root of GM/R. Where G is gravitational constant, M mass of celestial body, and R is distance from center of celestial body's gravity.--Petarbosnicpetrus (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravifugal levitation

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: The nominator's rationale was based upon the fact that there are 2 other general concepts named levitation: Levitation (illusion) and Levitation (paranormal). The nominator argued that the latter of these was also a common meaning of the word, and that there was no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Levitation. To back this up, they presented the evidence of the page views, dictionary definition and links to the page. 
Discussion participants generally agreed with the nominators statement, with 6 in support and 2 opposing (not including nominator), however it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a vote. One opposer believed the current primary topic also applies to the paranormal examples. This was disputed by the nominator, arguing that while the physics concept was the fundamental definition of the word, it can't correspond to just 1 article, and believed that the oppose was "seems to presuppose the creation of a new broad concept article". The comment addressed this, believing that it would not be a good idea. Their rationale for this opinion was the fact that it is difficult to have a single article addressing "electromagnetic phenomena and saints flying through the air." While I see good points on both sides, as a neutral outsider I believe the nominators comment disputing the oppose holds more weight compared to the oppose itself.
The second oppose preferred a "concept dab", but understanding the difficulties that may come with this (see previous paragraph), they opposed. Their oppose was based on the fact that the concept of levitation has long lasting educational significance. This was disputed by , who compared it to other real things which aren't the primary topic on Wikipedia, such as Garden gnomes and the mythical creature Gnome. While I do understand this, it feels a bit like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The opposer replied, arguing that, while it isn't always the case, educational significance is often more important than false concepts. They stated that they sometimes think of "is them (readers) reading article A going to be more likely to 'change the world' than reading article B?" I do find this a convincing point, and I did consider it highly while determining the result of this discussion.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC includes the following statement: a topic may be considered the primary topic . But it's important to note the other  common criterion for determining the primary topic:  I don't believe there is consensus here that this is the case, but I also don't believe this is the case for the other uses of the term, finding no primary topic. When analysing the two criterions, I believe the latter is more relevant in this discussion, and I find a consensus to close this RM as moved. While 's and 's opposes brought up good points and referenced relevant guidelines,  multiple other participants believed that there is no primary topic, agreeing with the nominators statement and evidence, and in my close I find this to carry more weight.
I thank the nominator and participants of the discussion for their comments, and I also thank  for notifying me asking for a better closing summary. I apologise for the insufficient initial summary, and I hope that this summarises my close better than the single sentence before. echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Polyamorph Hello. Thanks for pinging me. I should have given a more in-depth closing rationale. I apologise for not doing this, and I will expand upon it when I have a chance in the next few hours. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now expanded my closing statement. While I still believe there is consensus to perform the moves, I hope my explanation helps to clarify this outcome in a better way than before. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that is very thorough! Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Very well done. Red Slash 16:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 March 2023