Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

Post by de_watcher » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:29 AM UTC

rurban wrote: post #70

duchenne wrote: post #61

I love the following Feynman's quote: ``In those days, one of the theories proposed was that the planets went around because behind them were invisible angels, beating their wings and driving the planets forward. You will see that this theory is now modified! It turns out that in order to keep the planets going around, the invisible angels must fly in a different direction and they have no wings. Otherwise, it is a s…

Gravity is very similar to magnetism, a "magically" attracting force of distinct objects. The explanation is very easy via fields. Just trying to explain it via particles will get you into trouble, e.g. the flawed standard model, or the Higgs. Einstein was pretty close in his spacetime bending explanation, but this still doesn't explain dark matter or the recent gravity experiments with fast rotating magnets in stron…

Post by StrotherLJ » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:43 AM UTC

Post by gpderetta » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 10:55 AM UTC

jbattle wrote: post #34

garmaine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physicist here (by degree, not profession). What you state is not true: by currently accepted physical theories, time travel to the past IS very much possible. It's known as a "closed, time-like curve" in the literature. Now, most mechanisms explored for doing so wouldn't allow travel back further than the initial creation of the time travel device, so you could say that time travel to our past is not possible since…

I've never understood why "paradoxes make cause-and-effect-reasoning difficult" concerns are a valid argument that something could not be possible. Does physics care whether the workings of the universe are accessible to our logic?

Post by zzzcarrot » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 11:10 AM UTC

ISL wrote: post #51

lisper wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much money does society need to spend supporting the work you do before we can safely conclude that Einstein was actually correct and we don't need to test it any more?

That's a great and important question. (doubly so for me, as constrained resources may see me leave the field, to which I have devoted my entire professional life, in the coming months) We are perennially grateful for the support we receive to do the work that we do. To a high degree of approximation, Einstein's predictions are very, very correct. We are trying to look very carefully at Nature because we don't think…

Post by coldtea » Thu, Oct 31, 2019, 11:14 AM UTC

dr_dshiv wrote: post #57

ISL wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great and important question. (doubly so for me, as constrained resources may see me leave the field, to which I have devoted my entire professional life, in the coming months) We are perennially grateful for the support we receive to do the work that we do. To a high degree of approximation, Einstein's predictions are very, very correct. We are trying to look very carefully at Nature because we don't think…

Some argue that keeping talented people out of industry is a downside of the sciences not an upside. Personally, particle physics irritates me because I don't believe in particles... It's all vibrations, man :)