NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Interesting, but tabloids aren't usually the most reliable of sources. Still. It seems reasonable to believe that many accounts are sincere and difficult to explain given what we know now.
That statement is demonstrably false. We now know that in the vast distances between the galaxy clusters, the gravitational interaction between the galaxy clusters reaches zero at a given distance, and beyond that distance, there's a gravitational repulsion acting between galaxy clusters. As you know, this repulsive gravitational field which nullifies the positive gravitational field, and even drops into the negative regime, has been dubbed "dark energy."
That seems to be a key feature of myriad reports - Carl Feindt has a useful website where he's collected reports involving UFO interactions with large bodies of water, and they seem to operate underwater nearly as adroitly as they operate in the atmosphere: WATER UFO - A RESEARCH ENDEAVOR
Thank you Randall. I had to jump in because people were quoting that false statement without challenging it, and that’s how misconceptions proliferate.
Academic physicists are still reluctant to use the word “antigravity” because the academic science community has been shitting on ufo witnesses who described AAVs as “antigravity craft” for so long that the stigma is nearly impossible to overcome at this point. So they couldn’t describe the antigravitational acceleration between the galaxy clusters as antigravity without jeopardizing their careers, and therefore they chose the term “dark energy” instead – that focuses the attention on the (unknown) source of the effect, rather than the effect itself (antigravity). You’ll also see a lot of talk in the literature about “repulsive gravity” and “negative gravitation,” which are just politically correct synonyms for “antigravity.” The stigma is slowly beginning to dissolve now, 20 years after the discovery of antigravity acting between the galaxy clusters.
The physics of gravitational field propulsion explain all of the key performance characteristics of AAVs reported around the world for at least 70 years:
Interesting stuff. For those who are unfamiliar and want to skip the part where you try to determine whether electrogravitics and gravitoelectromagnetism ( GEM ) are the same thing, they're not. The former misrepresents the effect as antigravity, when in fact, it's ionic. However in reviewing a number of other articles it seems that gravitoelectromagnetism is being conflated with electrogravitics, so caution is advised there. GEM itself appears to be a serious area of scientific study. But there are some issues to consider.
I’m glad you feel that way; gravitational physics is fascinating stuff – we’ve barely scratched the surface here. When you get into the really interesting facets of this subject, it sounds like magic – the applications of a gravitational field technology are that dazzling and unfamiliar to most people. I hope we live to see some of them, as unlikely as that may be.
Actually “electrogravitics” has nothing to do with ion wind – people who are awful at physics have simply misapplied that term to those lifter thingies.
That’s not what physicists mean by “antigravity.” The term simply refers to the negative pole of the gravitational field, which is dipolar, just like the electrical field. Ordinary matter has a positive gravitational charge, so it’s attracted to the Earth. If you could endow a body of matter with a negative gravitational charge, it would fall away from the Earth as readily as ordinary matter falls toward the Earth. We simply haven’t figured out how to do that yet. But I assume that one day, we will, because AAVs exhibit that capability all over world - and if they can do it, then we can figure out how to do it too, eventually.
That’s not true – it’s every bit as concrete and well-defined and empirically confirmed as electrodynamics.
It doesn’t attempt to do that; it actually does that. GEM is established and well-understood mainstream physics, and its many different varieties of predictions have been observationally confirmed – most recently gravitational waves, but lots of other astronomical observations have confirmed it for a long time, and experiments like the Gravity Probe B have also confirmed it.
This is a little bit mixed up. The nature of the electrical field is as much a mystery as the underlying nature of the gravitational field; we have very accurate mathematical models that describe how both of these fields work in practice, but we don’t have much insight into their fundamental natures. I should also probably mention that it may turn out that antimatter has a negative gravitational charge - we don't know the answer to that question yet. They've been trying to measure the gravitational interaction of antimatter for decades, but it's very hard to do, so we haven't seen any meaningful experimental results yet. I'm dying to see what they find; we may see some results in the next few years. It would be so cool if positrons and antiprotons fall upward in the Earth's gravitational field
No that's not true - the Higgs boson was detected to a statistical certainty of 5-sigma back in 2012, and that's the standard for a scientific discovery. I don't think that any 5-sigma particle signal has ever turned out to be an error. In fact they're even detecting the Higgs boson decaying into bottom quarks now. There's always a handful of contrarians willing to dispute anything under the Sun - like the crappy scientists who get paid to lie about the global warming crisis, but that doesn't mean that there's any actual scientific controversy about it. I know that you like to argue about the validity of the Higgs boson discovery, but it only makes you come off as a crank: you should stop.
Sure but like I said above, the same can be said of the electrical field - our equations only describe it, they don't explain it. But that didn't stop us from inventing smartphones or the internet. A description is perfectly useful in lieu of an explanation, which may turn out to be more of a philosophical concern than a scientific one.
We know that it's not a question about gravity having a limited range, because beyond the point of null gravity, the field becomes repulsive, and accelerates the galaxy clusters apart. If it were simply an issue of limited range, there wouldn't be any cosmological acceleration. But there is, so we know that the gravitational field is being actively counteracted by an antigravitational field at those distances (oddly, spacetime itself appears to be the source of that antigravitational field effect - but I won't feel confident about that until we see the results of the Dark Energy Survey after the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope collects data for a few years).
I'm glad we could get the neurons firing with this discussion - it is an amazing subject, and there's so much to learn about it. It's been pretty thrilling to see our understanding of these things make a few big strides just in our lifetimes alone. Back when we were kids, mainstream scientists laughed at the notion of antigravity - now it's a proven fact, and a few brave theorists are even starting to use the term in academic papers being published in the most reputable physics journal on the planet. And just in the last 20 years or so, GEM has gone from an obscure area of physics known by only specialists in general relativity, to now being a prominent feature of gravitational field physics that's taught at the undergrad level.
Paul Hill, a NASA aeronautical engineer, spent years quietly researching the AAV phenomenon, and his book, Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis, was published after his death. This page summarizes his findings with regard to the notable absence of sonic booms in supersonic AAV reports:
I'm all for living as long as possible just to see what sort of amazing things the future will bring.
It's a matter of usage and context - To clarify: "Electrogravitics is claimed to be an unconventional type of effect or anti-gravity force created by an electric field's effect on a mass. The name was coined in the 1920s by the discoverer of the effect, Thomas Townsend Brown, who spent most of his life trying to develop it and sell it as a propulsion system. Through Brown's promotion of the idea it was researched for a short while by aerospace companies in the 1950s. Since apparatus based on Browns' ideas have often yielded varying and highly controversial results when tested within controlled vacuum conditions, the effect observed has often been attributed to the ion drift or ion wind effect instead of anti-gravity." - Wikipedia
It depends on what physicists you're talking about and what theory they're talking about, and there are more than one of both.
You seem to be conflating the issue of what gravity is with the way it's measured and described: Britannica - Gravity, also called gravitation, in mechanics, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter. It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter ... Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects ...
That's not the context of the word "concrete" my comment was made in. By it's very nature any analogy isn't the thing itself, and in this case ( GEM ) is an analogy between gravitation and EM. However we still don't know what imparts gravity or any of the fundamental forces of nature onto nature. They simply exist and are associated with scientific models that describe ( not to be confused with explain ) the behavior of measurable things like bodies in space which are concrete. In other words a planet is something concrete. Gravity is associated with planets, but the two are distinctly different concepts.
By "attempt", I mean that there are inconsistencies in the gravito-electromagnetic analogy and that while the analogy is interesting, believing it to be perfect would seem to be an overestimation, while believing it to be unremarkable would be underestimating it. Here's a reference - http://cds.cern.ch/record/681993/files/0311024.pdf
While your follow-up is accurate, I think the term "mixed-up" isn't. It's more likely that the interpretation of what is said doesn't fit with the assumptions made in the discussion. In other words, it seems to me that the objections you make and attribute to the other person being wrong, stating something untrue, or being misinformed, may not have anything to do with those reasons, but are due to differing perspectives on the same issue, each of which may be valid within their own right, but seemingly incongrunent with each other. The challenge then isn't to prove either person is wrong or right or misinformed, but to bridge the conceptual gaps.
The discussion about the concept of spacetime is another example of what I was just saying above.
There you go again. I simply said that the discovery is controversial. I didn't specify exactly how it's controversial because I don't have time to write pages and pages of logical analysis on the reasons along with all the related citations, but essentially it boils down to what appears to be a lot of fudging by the scientists who claim the Higgs has been found. By fudging, I mean that it wasn't actually "detected". Rather it's been "inferred", mainly by statistical analysis of something presumed to be the decay of the Higgs Boson into bottom quarks, and that the variables for defining the Higgs Boson, particularly its mass aren't anything close to what has actually been measured. Therefore because the results of experiments don't match the predictions, what justifies the assumption that what was predicted has actually been found? This is a perfectly valid question. Here are some links that might help:
Wouldn’t it be nice if our governments invested even half the money that we spend on killing strangers abroad, on improving the quality and longevity of human life? I wonder what we could accomplish if life extension were an actual priority.
That part’s correct.
Another example of Wikipedia’s shitty limitations, given that it’s edited by anonymous people who tend to be wrong on everything that’s even slightly on the fringe of mainstream knowledge.
Physicists don’t mistake the ion wind effect for electrogravitics – but a large number of online amateur UFO enthusiasts made that error about 15 years ago, so now it’s all over the damn internet, further confusing an already confusing subject.
It’s no wonder that the public is by and large scientifically illiterate when even the encyclopedias can’t get the basic facts straight. Gravitation is an acceleration field, not a force field. The weight we measure on a scale (our mass x the acceleration of gravity) is a force, and gravity was called a force in Newtonian physics for centuries, but we now understand that it’s an acceleration field, not a force field. That’s why photons, which have zero mass, are accelerated around the Sun by the gravitational field by twice the magnitude predicted by Newtonian physics.
I explicitly stated that it’s an analogy, so I don’t know what you’re complaining about. Gravitoelectromagnetism is a verified field of physics which makes explicit predictions about the gravitomagnetic field (aka frame dragging aka the Lense-Thirring effect) and a variety of inductive gravitational field effects, which are analogous to the full range of inductive electromagnetic effects. Both are real, concrete, well-formulated and observationally verified areas of physics. The linearized approximation is only that - an approximation which is only reasonably numerically accurate in the weak field and low-velocity limit. The fully correct predictions of gravitoelectromagnetic field dynamics are expressed with the Einstein field equation.
Oh ffs – I said: “A perfectly analogous effect happens when you spin a ring of matter around in a circle; you create a gravitomagnetic field (this is also known as “frame dragging” and “the Lense-Thirring effect”).” I didn’t say that GEM is a perfect analogy to EM overall. GR is nonlinear, for example, so the inductive GEM effects actually intensify logarithmically in the strong-field and high-velocity regime. And of course quantum effects are outside the scope of the analogy, because quantum phenomena like the Meissner effect are not inductive in nature.
Sure, plasma can bend radar signals around a craft. And a powerful laser beam could create an aerodynamic buffer against sonic booms. But nobody has reported powerful laser beams setting the air on fire in front of AAVs so evidently that’s not the method they’re using.
Absolutely.
A convincing argument doesn't simply criticize and dismiss references. Reasonable counterpoint requires that the content of references be shown to be inaccurate. This can be done by providing a coherent logical analysis of your own, or by making reference to more substantial references than the references in dispute that can be shown to contradict the claims made by the references in dispute.
Here you go:
No – the equivalence principle is not simply a comparison between gravitation and an accelerated reference frame, it’s a true equivalence, and that equivalence is a fundamental postulate of general relativity. That’s why gravity is called an acceleration field: an observer at a point in spacetime cannot distinguish between an acceleration produced by the curvature of spacetime, and an acceleration of the observer’s reference frame. Even Wikipedia gets it right occasionally:
.