Why is there no significant anti-gravity research these days?

Most projects seem to be short lived or abandoned at an early stage.
Attempts to reproduce seem half-assed.

What really caught my interest was Eugene Podkletnov's experiements with a spinning superconducting disc that made the cigarette smoke rise faster in the floor above. It was a small effect, but noticable.

I swear if I become a billionaire I will pour millions into this research.

youtube.com/watch?v=JHN-yuRGGQM

americanantigravity.com/news/space/frank-znidarsic-on-antigravity.html

Frank Znidarsic claims to have found the equation that ends up with Planck's constant (resolving the speed of the state transition in an atom).

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/i-have-recently-heard-rep/
hoverbrothers.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Research_Foundation
youtu.be/KlJsVqc0ywM
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d436/f39ac992cb61d578ec5851c5407ffaada21d.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fusion_experiments
sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ligo-doesn-t-just-detect-gravitational-waves-it-makes-them-too
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ernst_Worrell_Keely
pesn.org/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Podkletnov couldn't be replicated. The smoke was convection, not antigravity.

Since Einstein, gravity (and antigravity) is space-time curvature and not a "force" in the classical, Newtonian, sense. It can't be shielded by Cavorite.
scientificamerican.com/article/i-have-recently-heard-rep/

Be aware that AmericanAntigravity (and associated sites which discuss using Zero-point energy, Over-unity devices, and most anything supposedly developed by Nicola Tesla, but suppressed by a cabal of business and government) are largely forums for nutcases.
Also be aware that Veeky Forums has more than its fair share of nutcases as well.

Another way to look at it. The antigravity field was a column extending upwards some indefinite distance. Right? The superconducting ring stays superconducting without additional power. The rotation of the ring doesn't require a motor to sustain it. So the 2% reduction should remain regardless of how much mass you shove into the column. It's a static condition.
Even with a 2% reduction you can imagine two stacks of weights balanced on opposite ends of a balance-arm, like a scale. We slowly rotate the arm around the fulcrum. Each time a weight enters the antigravity field it bobs upwards. The arm will rock back and forth. We can extract useful energy forever.
Does that convince you?

Thanks!
I know those sites are a bit off. Because those people who are actually on to something are conflated with the overunity / tesla nutcases.

I noticed that this AlienScientist guy started a company hoverbrothers.com/ - with a new theory that looks kind of like string theory.

Scam or actual research?

It is impossible.

That experiment from 1998/1999? It was fake.

Well, first off, equating negative energy states (antimatter) with what's required for an Alcubierre-White Warp Drive -- is getting off to a bad start.
The "exotic matter" needed for a warp bubble or a stable wormhole is NOT antimatter.
They reference some reputable sources, like Quanta magazine and Nature (both articles are worth reading) , but, without taking the time to read their website extensively, it sounds like double-talk to me. I certainly wouldn't invest $$$.

The Gravity Research Foundation in Wellesley, Massachusetts was founded by a guy who had money but zero knowledge of physics. As en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Research_Foundation notes, they've gradually moved away from sheer crackpotism, but their only activities seem to be awarding small prizes (which might have been a lot of money in 1948) and putting up stone markers testifying to the genius of their founder.

"Fake" is a little harsh. He was dead wrong, but I think he sincerely believed he'd stumbled over a new phenomena.
Not the first time scientists have been carried away by their own enthusiasm. Look up "N-rays".

We have them, they are called rockets and planes.

>Since Einstein
is Einstein shaped reality or what? Stop being a brainlet

youtu.be/KlJsVqc0ywM

Feel free to advance a theory which fits the observations better.
THEN you can put down the rest of us as brainlets and we will acknowledge your superiority.

Diamagnetic levitation. Not antigravity.

define antigravity

A force which affects all forms of matter and energy (including light) proportional to the energy (including energy bound up as matter) within them.
Except it pushes where gravity would pull. Oh, and it's a conservative force. A body traveling in a closed loop should return to its starting location with neither more nor less potential energy that it started with.

There might be a loophole in that. A 5th force is possible. But that definition will do for now.

Because physics is closed for now. There will not be any more meaningful discoveries in your lifetime.

Everyone with a half decent prototype has already left this planet behind.

so why "Diamagnetic levitation" is not anti-gravity

Why wasn't physics closed last year, before the detection of gravitational radiation?

I suppose you're going to argue "meaningful" now. Reminder Lord Kelvin thought physics was a dead subject; everything was understood -- except for two tiny issues having to do with Maxwell's equations. Those unimportant details turned into quantum mechanics and special relativity.

That was anticipated. It just confirmed an existing theory.
Idiot.

why dont you research ways in which you might start magically shitting gold.
i mean sure, you can never know something is impossible 100% but you can get pretty close, what i say makes about much sense as yours

Because it DOESN'T affect all matter equally. Only the electron clouds around atoms and only when those electrons are in certain configurations. Only a few substances exhibit diamagnetism. Water is weakly diamagnetic -- which is why you can float a frog in a heck of a field. Bismuth is better and is usually used in experiments to demonstrate the phenomena to students. Both are very weak compared to ferromagnetism.

I worded my statement carefully in an attempt to rule out the other 3 known forces.

Look, you can always find someone who was wrong about something. Unless we are building a new particle accelerator that is many orders of magnitude more powerful than what’s currently planned, there’s little hope of a paradigm shifting discovery any time soon. I’m sorry if that’s bad for your career, but it’s true.
Before you throw more astronomy at me, I did not say astronomy is closed. But that’s a separate field. We will probably make a lot of exciting discoveries with the Webb.
But for a long time, physishits are going to be mathematicians on acid playing with strings and “missing” stuff you can’t see or disprove.

Put the dividing line wherever you like.
Before the Mossbauer effect, before QED, before the Standard model, before the Higgs.
It's stupid to say we've reached a limit and nothing new will come along in the next N years. You never know. Consider my 2nd paragraph, about Kelvin.

And there was someone saying what you were saying right before every field that went dead went dead. It proves nothing.
Bottom line, you need more energy than we will reasonably be able to put into an accelerator any time soon to go there.

OK, posts crossed. Particle physics does seem to be stuck, limited to untestable theorizing. (It's not my career, incidentally.)
I just think your statement is overbroad.

P.S. note I said “for now” and Kelvin said forever.

Well as Robert Forward points out using current physics to produce antigravity is exceptionally difficult:
>>It is obvious that research in the field of gravitation will be very difficult since even the most optimistic calculations indicate that very large devices will be required to create usable gravitational forces. Antigravity, like space travel, will probably have no direct effect on the daily life of the average person. Future progress in the control of gravitation, like all modern sciences, will require special projects involving large sums of money, men, and energy.
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d436/f39ac992cb61d578ec5851c5407ffaada21d.pdf

Physics beyond what we have right now is speculative and must focus on proving such physics exists rather than applications.

>>was someone saying what you were saying right before every field that went dead went dead.
and could you give an example of these so called dead fields?

I think first we aught to figure out exactly what gravity is. From there, we may be able to define some measure of gravitational permeability.

I haven't spent much time on this website bit a good rule of thumb for evaluating someone's new theory of physics is that if they don't have at least the start of a rigorous mathematical framework for describing physical phenomenon, they're probably wrong. If they're just describing things with natural language, you can usually safely ignore it.

Guess it's time to play some roulette.

Best example I can think of is the Lord Kelvin quote above. Everything was known and physics was finished except for making measurements with greater precision.

Superconductivity was entirely unexpected. No one, SFAIK, predicted that.
Likewise, Fullerenes.
Lasers weren't a total surprise. Einstein had predicted the basic phenomena even if no one had any ideas for building one.

Between WWI and WW2, it was known that atomic energy existed. Radium decayed, though nothing could change the rate. Neutrons had been discovered. Atoms could be transmuted, hydrogen fused into helium. But some famous scientist proclaimed that it would always take more energy to trigger a reaction that you'd get out of it, so it was no more than a curiosity. If you read SF from that era "atomic generators" are all high-voltage gizmos which shattered atoms by brute force. No one anticipated finding a reaction triggered by low energy neutrons which simultaneously released energy AND more neutrons. Atomic energy could be released "merely" by stacking bricks of elements in the right configuration. No electricity needed. That changed everything.

those aren't dead fields though. I'm asking for an example of fields that actually went dead.

What about the Higgs particle being discovered with no major upgrades to the LHC? All it takes is trying to look for something else. They never would have found the Higgs if they hadn’t had a theory that predicted it and figured out how they’d go about looking for it, and there’s nothing to say that this won’t happen again.

But if that doesn’t count as a large enough discovery to be a “paradigm shift” then you’re probably right. But it’s not like LIGO wasn’t constructed recently.

What if the physical phenomena we observe in the cosmos is not the result of some unexplained quantity, like dark matter, but is instead the result of a functional anti-gravity device on earth that is projected an infinite distance into space?

I bet the scientific-industrial establishment would want to cover that up even more than cold fusion.

But I’m including that in the past since it like, you know, already happened.

When was functional anti-gravity invented? Surely not before Newton. Say 300 years ago. So anything in the telescope further than 150 lightyears distant couldn't be influenced by what's happening here.

Dark matter is more than 150 LY away.
Try your "theorizing" on /x/

Optics is the closest.

Because it's bullshit.

>instead the result of a functional anti-gravity device on earth that is projected an infinite distance into space?
Why?

There is, mostly within fusion research. Stop being a moron and actually do a little bit of research before you post.

Physicists be like "this thing happens but you can't observe the thing because you'll fuck it up"

How do people take this seriously lmao!

>gravity (and antigravity) is space-time curvature and not a "force" in the classical, Newtonian, sense.

Since QFT, arent all forces just a kind of curvature in a field? Curvature in an EM field for example?

Can you elaborate on that at all? How does fusion link to anti-gravity?

The entire problem with nuclear fusion is that we know it is physically possible however the actual "fusion" is so hot it will burn through all known substances including concrete and rock. So, it has to be confined using very strong magnets to levitate it. This is what has driven most high energy research for the past fifty years, magnetic confinement. Whoever figures out how to make a magnetic levitation system efficient enough where it requires less energy than the fusion it contains gives off as heat has a working fusion reactor. There are many, many, many efforts at doing this and a quick glance at Wikipedia shows over 10 in active development:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fusion_experiments

I'm aware that this isn't strictly "anti-gravity" but the point is to figure out how to make things float with magnets, which is what OP's image and his links refer to.

The entire problem with nuclear fusion is that we know it is physically possible however the actual "fusion" is so hot it will burn through all known substances including concrete and rock. So, it has to be confined using very strong magnets to levitate it. This is what has driven most high energy research for the past fifty years, magnetic confinement. Whoever figures out how to make a magnetic levitation system efficient enough where it requires less energy than the fusion it contains gives off as heat has a working fusion reactor. There are many, many, many efforts at doing this and a quick glance at Wikipedia shows over 10 in active development:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fusion_experiments

I'm aware that this isn't strictly "anti-gravity" but the point is to figure out how to make things float with magnets, which is what OP's image and his links refer to.

That is not antigravity user. OP's post isn't supposed to be levitating stuff with antigravity not magnets. A spinning super conducting disk was supposedly making a gravitational field, but more recent experiments could not reproduce it.

That being said research at LIGO has a remote chance of leading to antigravity. LIGO could tell us if negative mass exists in the universe. LIGO might be able to be used to see if there are materials with non linear gravitational effects. LIGO itself might be able to generate gravitational waves allowing theories of quantum gravity to be tested:
sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/ligo-doesn-t-just-detect-gravitational-waves-it-makes-them-too

No.
Gravity is considered a space-time distortion and it affects everything. Matter and energy take "the path of least resistance", so to speak. The other forces can't be like that because they only effect some particles. Neutrinos don't feel the nuclear forces, so they go right through matter unhindered. If Dark Matter exists, it's dark because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier
All the other forces are due to force-carrying particles being swapped back and forth.
Imagine 2 trains running in opposite directions on parallel tracks. You're on train A and you toss a rock at someone on train B. He catches it, but the rock was moving with train A. Train B slows a little because its momentum has to be shared to bring the rock up to its speed. Same thing happens if the rock is thrown back to train A. Continue the back-and-forth and trains will come to a relative stop.

There MAY be a force-carrying particle, the graviton, for gravity but it will be very hard to detect. This is why gravity is not covered by the Standard Model and why integrating QM and GR is so difficult.

It takes strong fields to contain the plasma but the power to maintain them isn't the problem. A working reactor would use superconductors. Building the field is a one-time job. We can't make fusion work (yet) because the plasma leaks out too fast. And when it leaks, it doesn't melt through the reactor walls. Despite the multi-million degree temperature, the plasma is very very rarified. (A dense plasma would radiate as a black body, at the 4th power of temperature, and lose all it's head rapidly. A thin plasma loses heat slower.) So the actual thermal energy in the reactor is quite small. If it touches the walls, all that happens is that the "fire" goes out. The electron beam in a CRT monitor has an equivalent temperature of hundreds of thousands of degrees -- but it doesn't melt the glass face of the tube. Not enough mass in the beam.

Again, a bit of research would help here. The difference between gravitational waves and EM waves is probably just variations in some process we don't yet understand. This is the basis for Unified Field Theory, or superstring theory.

Given that many parts of string theory have been experimentally proven, the idea that "magnetism" is a wholly separate entity from "gravity" is probably not true. But science hasn't come to a conclusion on this, as there is not enough experimental data to verify theoretical math done.

>>the idea that "magnetism" is a wholly separate entity from "gravity" is probably not true
yeah no. The coupling would have to be so low that that magnetic fields strong enough to kill you would be needed to get any effect at all.
>> that many parts of string theory have been experimentally proven
HAHAHA OH WOW! No experiments have proven anything about string theory

>I swear if I become a billionaire I will pour millions into this research.
And then you will disappear.

Over Unity and Anti Gravity have been around for decades now. I've seen hundreds of inventors and inventions come and go. The lame obviously fake ones stick around swindling people for years while promising new inventors "disappear" after making ONE presentation.

If you become a billionaire I would suggest you research this in SECRET and NEVER try to patent your findings. After you have (re)discovered what dozens already know, then make working prototypes and send them out anonymously.

Of course none of this matters. Because you made this post your name is already on a watch list. IF you ever get any money (like from the lottery) they will bump up your surveillance to make sure you don't discover anything.

that because all those people were faking it.

This belongs on

the most effective proof that someone's purported over-unity device is a hoax is if they ask for money. if their device is the real deal, they would be able to bootstrap themselves from one prototype to the richest person on the planet all on their own.

>Why
Total, utter and complete failures tend to kill off most lines of research. Ref. cold fusion.

Making huge promises that don't quite materialise is also fatal over time even if there are some successes in honest research, ref. high temperature superconductivity.

And fraud tends to catch up with the perpetrators.

And some fake it very well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ernst_Worrell_Keely
He tapped "etheric force" because, even in the 19th century, "perpetual motion" had gotten a bad name.
Keely died, age 61, with the suckers still Believing. In fact, there are STILL Believers today. The usual "suppressed by the government" crowd.

Why is there no significant perpetual-motion research these days?

See

Oh, it's out there. pesn.org/
Lack of recent updates due to founder going to jail for pedophilia.

When it was up and running though, he touted an endless string of gizmos which extracted energy from cosmic forces, buoyancy, generators which were driven by motors which were driven by the aforementioned generator, secret catalysts which split water into hydrogen and oxygen without using energy, etc.
All were to go into commercial production ("sweeping aside the greedy utilities who charge for electricity") within months. When the deadlines passed they were never mentioned again and readers were urged to invest in newer schemes.

Then there's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Light_Power
They just don't CALL it "perpetual motion" anymore.

>And then you will disappear.

Well if I would invest in it, I would babysit them and make sure they do their shit, and of course tell them in a very friendly and diplomatic manner that there will be consequences if they try to scam me. :)