Talk:Polarizable vacuum

message: 68.125.78.83, you wrote Getting agreement with these classic tests is no great achievement.  This kind of naked scorn is probably inappropriate (a bit ironical, considering the source).  TIA ---CH 09:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]], please 

message: While I have your attention, have you read these (plus two dozen or so eprints posted in between the given dates)?:
*
*
In the first, Tajmar and Matos appear to rediscover GEM and add a comment in the last paragraph clearly suggesting they think of this in terms of a unified field theory, which would certainly be a fringe interpretation.  While you are googling cranky websites, you are likely to come across many claims to the effect that Tajmar and Matos (or just "ESA") have "scientifically confirmed" what "we have been saying along" about Eugene Podkletnov,  UFOs, etc.---CH 23:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On a related subject, what about cranky mischaracterizations of Tajmar and Matos eprint?

message: I extensively rewrote an earlier version of this article, which concerns a fringe science notion which has been assiduously promoted by Harold E. Puthoff and thereupon became embroiled in a controversy over the content with Michael Ibison, who is employed at Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, a research institute founded by Puthoff.  I am leaving the WP and am now abandoning this article to its fate.
Just wanted to provide notice that I am only responsible (in part) for the last version I edited;
see User:Hillman/Archive.  I emphatically do not vouch for anything you might see in more recent versions.  Given the legion of cranky websites which attempt to "co-opt" the papers of Puthoff and coworkers to promote as "mainstream science" a huge variety of dubious "zero cost energy from the vacuum" and "spacecraft propulsion schemes" (which typically constitute perpetual motion machines), and given the personal involvement of  and  in this topic, it seems likely that at least some future versions are likely to present slanted information or even disinformation.  In fact, I haven't had the heart to even read the most recent edits so for all I know, as I write, the current version may contain such WP:NPOV problems. 
Good luck to all students in your search for information, regardless!---CH 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Students beware

message: i would like to hear from other editors regarding categorizing this article in the fringe science or physics caterogy. my opinion is that as of today, June 2009, the government has spent tons of cash exploring PV-GR theory. hence, PV can not be considered fringe any more than GR can be considered fringe. what say you? i'm interested in revamping this article using 2009 citations and limiting existing copy, including criticism, to historical section. Henry Delforn (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: New science is created on the fringe. So I guess you could call Polarizable Vacuum a fringe science. Puthoff attempted to create a cosmology of local variables that can be tested experimentally using only one adjustable parameter K instead of 26 parameters in the standard model. He failed but not by a wide margin. After several revisions PV matches the major components of General Relativity reasonably well, but falls short in obscure details like frame dragging at high speed stress energies. As a first attempt PV is a rather good model for study purpose related to space exploration and deep space transport, and the only published cosmology of local variables that can be tested locally. Other scientists have proposed modifications to PV theory to bring it into closer agreement with observations. One retired engineer offered a mathematical proof from special relativity that Puthoff's 2012 version of Polarizable Vacuum theory can not be applied in flat space for velocities greater than zero, no matter how you measure the velocity, unless minor modifications are made to PV theory. Maybe that explains why PV failed the test for frame dragging at high speed. PV does seem a lot like a fringe science, but a useful fringe the main stream might develop into the future of cosmology. Most scientists agree that the standard model of 26 parameters is not entirely satisfactory and should be restated on a smaller set of fundamental principles. Astrojed (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe physics/science?? 

message: I am working very hard analyzing light nullspeeds as per the Kerr metric for low-mass objects.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncutssss (talk • contribs) 04:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerr metric 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Polarizable vacuum. 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://www.webcitation.org/65eR7W9tu?url=http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/index.html to http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-12/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907205912/http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf to http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf
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) 17:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)