151–160 of 225 posts
The post just says the video came from BiliBili. Does anyone know the actual source? I want to believe but this video is suspicious.
> He posted on his personal social media, According to public information, he is an assistant engineer in the Department of Metallurgical Engineering and Materials of Wuhan University of Science and Technology, and is also a doctoral candidate at the school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can it look like something that is ostensibly invisible? It's not swinging around like a pendulum, so what exactly are you seeing that makes you think it looks like an invisible string?
What accounts for the smooth “settling” into place after the last touch around 10s? I have no idea what I’m talking about, but in other flux pinning demonstrations the sample seems to oscillate around the fixed point. That smooth settling looks like some sort of damping, like maybe a force that increases with distance, like maybe spring tension. (Of course, “we have no idea” is an acceptable answer if that turns out…
> (Of course, “we have no idea” is an acceptable answer if that turns out to be the case.)
Of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's hard to imagine how this could be faked short of digital manipulation So, it's easy to imagine how this could be faked.
Alternatively, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolytic_carbon is discussed in the Twitter thread by the OP as a possible explanation of "not superconductivity" . . .
Doing a quick sanity check on youtube videos, every example I can find of it levitating involves use of magnet arrays as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://twitter.com/Andercot/status/1687748594563268608 seems to indicate that simply diamagnetic levitation cannot create the level of stability shown in this video.
I don't think that's right. Diamagnetic levitation is one of the ways you can get around Earshaw's theorem. Funny enough this is a quote taken directly from the wikipedia article that Andercot linked, in the "loopholes" section: >Earnshaw's theorem has no exceptions for non-moving permanent ferromagnets. However, Earnshaw's theorem does not necessarily apply to moving ferromagnets,[4] certain electromagnetic systems,…
The only examples I can find of stable non-superconductor diamagnets involved 4+ magnet arrays, though, or multipole magnets, e.g. https://phys.org/news/2014-08-diamagnetic-levitation-pyrolit... and not dipole configurations like this video seems to show.
Can anyone explain if the specimen was found through rigorous research or just sheer luck? Because it is starting to seem like it's the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What accounts for the smooth “settling” into place after the last touch around 10s? I have no idea what I’m talking about, but in other flux pinning demonstrations the sample seems to oscillate around the fixed point. That smooth settling looks like some sort of damping, like maybe a force that increases with distance, like maybe spring tension. (Of course, “we have no idea” is an acceptable answer if that turns out…
Air resistance seems like a reasonable explanation for the dampening. Furthermore if it's not pure and only partially superconducting, the dampening could be due to magnetic fields forming eddy currents in the sample. > (Of course, “we have no idea” is an acceptable answer if that turns out to be the case.) Of course.
(FWIW I’m thrilled about the possibility of a rtrp drop this year, and I have to assume 'pera is as well. But this video doesn’t look just like flux pinning we’ve seen before. It’s visibly a little different in a way that wants explanation. I wouldn’t come out the gate calling it a hoax, but I’d feel better about not doing that if the basis for skepticism were at least acknowledged.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly how revision in science works; incomplete is wildly different from “wrong”, and most of our understanding of science would need to be fully wrong for aliens to do what is claimed they can do, to the point where we would have needed to get impossibly lucky in order to have built the things we have.
Why would, say, FTL travel being possible imply that we needed to be “impossibly lucky” to build the things we have? I’m not a physicist, but I am mathematically literate, so please feel free to direct me to technical sources.
And the problem with just being okay with our wrongness is that it doesn’t match up with our ability to predict and rely on the science to complete complex engineering projects.
Here’s a math example: it’s like saying 1+1 is sometimes actually fleeb. Easy to imagine, but wholly destructive to the entire concept of math.
It's hard to imagine how this could be faked short of digital manipulation, and it seems implausible that it would be a known high TC superconductor because it would warm up too fast. Absent the former explantation, I'm starting to believe this is real. Also, it's not like all the author's are unknown hacks. Hyun Tak Kim has about 10k citations (Google scholar, which sometimes combines people who have the same name t…
Seriously? To me this looks like a chip of graphite glued to an invisible thread. The way the object moves is not what I would expect from magnetism (see second 10 for instance)
If I had a magnet that was much bigger than the superconductor it would look even more similar (less 'pivoty').