Science Forums 2

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

This is the problem. People try to use force to propel things away from gravitational pull, when in fact what they should be looking for is ways of negating it, so that craft weigh nothing in relation to its pull, meaning only minimum propulsion is needed to direct craft in the desired direction as with dirigibles and indeed rockets in space.

The great difficulty in looking for a means of negating the force of gravity – to be precise, a way to change the attractive force experienced by two bodies due to gravity , without changing the mass , or the distance between them - is that there is no experimentally validated scientific theory suggesting it is possible, no empirical observation that it occurs. There is also no theory or evidence suggesting that the mass of a body can be decreased other than by the usual means of removing some of its matter.

There is no theory or experimental evidence that this change in force or mass, commonly termed antigravity, more precisely described as a difference between inertial and gravitational mass, ever occurs, or can occur.

Although differences between inertial and gravitational mass is not known to be consistent with any physical theory, physicists, engineers, and futurists have speculated at length about the consequences of a body with negative gravitational and inertial mass, which is not inconsistent with theory. However, to the best of my knowledge, no theory suggest the existence of such matter, even though some quantum mechanical effects suggest that a more general form of “exotic matter” may be possible, put could not be used to lift objects (see: Exotic matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

In short, Paige is proposing that people look for an effect that all scientific theory and evidence indicates does not and cannot exist. Such a search would surely be difficult, almost surely unsuccessful, and worse, likely to result in the searcher, our of frustration with the difficulty of finding such an effect using legitimate scientific methods, accepting ideas unsupported by experimental evidence, or worse, ideas promoted by intentional deception and unintentionally individual and group self-deception. Although such a pursuit can lead to enjoyable social interaction with fellow searchers, I don’t think its ultimately psychologically healthy, nor useful to science of humankind.

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

Macho mechanics have to defy gravity, not understand and work with knowledge of it, hence they expand more energy than would be necessary if they took the alternative course.

This claim implies that engineers have available to them design alternatives to build more efficient machines than they do, but chose not to because doing so would insult their sense of masculinity. Ignore than over 13% of aerospace engineers are female (source: “Employed persons by detailed occupation and sex, 2006 annual averages”, US Dept of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics), I don’t believe this has ever occurred in the field of aerospace engineering. This discipline has always sought the greatest possible mechanical efficiency, driven by such factors as the need for tactical superiority in wars and low transportation cost in business. Aircraft are actually surprisingly efficient: for example, a Boeing 747-8I has distance-payload/fuel mass of about 18000 kg, vs. about 12000 for a 2008 Toyota Prius, at 8 times the speed, and with the ability to cross oceans!

Originally Posted by paigetheoracle

I believe Schauberger and others may have stumbled upon this in the past but can it be proved now? Not by us, certainly but that doesn't mean it isn't true, just unprovable within a forum like this.

As the many websites and publications dedicated to Viktor Schauberger listed in the his wikipedia article show, so do many people. However, there is no scientific support for the belief. No one, even Schauberger in the fourteen years after some claim he built an antigravity device, reproduced or even appears to have seriously worked on such a device. It appears uncertain if Schauberger ever stated that he believed his “Repulsin discoid motors” were other than air pumps – his claims appear to focus not on some non-aerodynamic explanation for their propulsion, but that they were “over unity” (AKA perpetual motion) machines, doing more mechanical work than the work put into them by their motors. His only publication appears to be a 1933 philosophical work, "Our Senseless Toil (‘Unsere Sinnlose Arbeit’) - The Cause of the World Crisis". The major theme of his life works appear to be that explosion is ultimately bad for living things, implosion good. His training appears to be in hunting and forestry – despite recent (1990+) claims to the contrary, I find no evidence of any mathematical or scientific studies or writing by Schauberger, or evidence that he had much knowledge of math, science, or engineering. There’s evidence that Schauberger was mentally ill, having been confined to a mental hospital for some time in 1941, although it’s claimed that this was the result of “An intrigue caused by the Viennese Association of Engineers”, or possibly the Nazi SS, not a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis.

According to many sources, just before his death, Schauberger was coerced by US and Canadian companies into revealing his secrets and surrendering his patents for aircraft and power-generating machines.

In short, Schauberger appears to be a fringe cult figure. Even though he left many drawings of the devices he and others claimed could generate free power, improve human and plant health, and propel air and water craft to incredible speeds with nearly no power input, no device created from these drawings has supported these claims. Though this provides interesting insights into the psychology and sociology of fringe science, conspiracy theories, and related social movements, I don’t think Shauberger contributed anything of scientific or technological value.