Apparently it is possible to modify gravity with current state of technology. See the URLs below.
Not all methods are created equal though. Aparently the type of superconductor matters as wll as the spinning method, etc...
Do we understand enough of RSt to suggest how to optimize the variables in these experiments. e.g. is it better to spin the superconductor faster or increase the voltage, what is the best thickness and shape of the superconductor, etc...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... ?full=true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov
Gravity modification experiments
Gravitomagnetic Effects
At that strength, says Overduin, we would expect to see gravitomagnetic effects throughout the cosmos. To make the graviton massive would limit the distance it can travel, and since all astronomical observations suggest that gravity travels the entire breadth of the universe, there is a big conflict to resolve.
"In space"... by giving the graviton mass, they are creating a "gravitational limit" to the effect of gravity. Of course, RS folk know that there is no graviton and the effect is due to the discrete unit postulate--once the strength drops below 1 natural unit, it just stops. But they should eventually conclude that there IS a gravitational limit.
The article doesn't give much information, but we also know that "magnitudes are absolute" so you cannot change the gravitational pull of any mass. But on the other hand, you can induce a similar effect, which Larson calls a "gravitational charge". In his RS, it is a 2D rotational vibration; in RS2 it is due to the presence of a charge, electron neutrino captured within the atomic rotation, resulting in a 2D RV placed upon the atom (isotopic mass).
We know from Nehru's research on the superconducting state, that it is NOT the material that superconducts, but the electrons pairing off into Cooper pairs that exhibit the effect (dimensional reduction from birotation removing resistance). Since the captured, charged neutrinos act in a fashion similar to uncharged electrons (both being net spatial rotation), neutrinos can flow through the atoms just like electrons can, except it appears more like a magnetic monopole--a 2D structure--rather than a charge. Rotate a 2D structure about a radius, and you get a temporary 3D structure manifesting as a centripetal force--an increase in gravitational charge, accompanied by a magnetic field of the 2D neutrino. (The charge on the neutrinos would most likely inhibit them from making pairs, as uncharged electrons do).
Look at the heavy atoms they use... niobium. Atomic number 41, which means a base mass of 82, measuring in at 93 AMU--11 AMU are a result of 22 captured neutrinos (each neutrino provides 1/2 AMU). That's about 24% of the motion involved.
If you want to increase the effect, spin faster or use a higher-isotope element (one with more captured neutrinos). The colder the material, the less thermal interference you'll have.
"In space"... by giving the graviton mass, they are creating a "gravitational limit" to the effect of gravity. Of course, RS folk know that there is no graviton and the effect is due to the discrete unit postulate--once the strength drops below 1 natural unit, it just stops. But they should eventually conclude that there IS a gravitational limit.
The article doesn't give much information, but we also know that "magnitudes are absolute" so you cannot change the gravitational pull of any mass. But on the other hand, you can induce a similar effect, which Larson calls a "gravitational charge". In his RS, it is a 2D rotational vibration; in RS2 it is due to the presence of a charge, electron neutrino captured within the atomic rotation, resulting in a 2D RV placed upon the atom (isotopic mass).
We know from Nehru's research on the superconducting state, that it is NOT the material that superconducts, but the electrons pairing off into Cooper pairs that exhibit the effect (dimensional reduction from birotation removing resistance). Since the captured, charged neutrinos act in a fashion similar to uncharged electrons (both being net spatial rotation), neutrinos can flow through the atoms just like electrons can, except it appears more like a magnetic monopole--a 2D structure--rather than a charge. Rotate a 2D structure about a radius, and you get a temporary 3D structure manifesting as a centripetal force--an increase in gravitational charge, accompanied by a magnetic field of the 2D neutrino. (The charge on the neutrinos would most likely inhibit them from making pairs, as uncharged electrons do).
Look at the heavy atoms they use... niobium. Atomic number 41, which means a base mass of 82, measuring in at 93 AMU--11 AMU are a result of 22 captured neutrinos (each neutrino provides 1/2 AMU). That's about 24% of the motion involved.
If you want to increase the effect, spin faster or use a higher-isotope element (one with more captured neutrinos). The colder the material, the less thermal interference you'll have.
Every dogma has its day...
Bruce Good reply - as
Bruce
Good reply - as usual.
Do you think the direction of the electrical discharge (current) in relation to the spin vector matters much for the efficiency of the effect ?
Good reply - as usual.
Do you think the direction of the electrical discharge (current) in relation to the spin vector matters much for the efficiency of the effect ?
Monopoles and Spin Vectors
Do you think the direction of the electrical discharge (current) in relation to the spin vector matters much for the efficiency of the effect ?
Considering that the neutrino is a magnetic monopole (the phase angle from the unit boundary determines the pole, for example, 0-degrees for North, 180-degrees for South), and the atoms are 2D rotations--magnets with north and south poles--there would be few possibilities for different spin orientations. The North monopoles will migrate to the South pole of the atom, and vice versa, but will be caught in the magnetic rotation. It is kind of like trying to stay on a Merry-go-Round spinning at 100 mph... there isn't much choice in the direction your feet are going to fly while you are holding on to the pole.
Secondly, we are looking at mass so we are dealing with a scalar measurement. The only "direction" that matters is "in" or "out" (in this case, "in" in space, or "out" in time).
The electrical discharge would be irrelevant as far as the magnetic interactions go to produce 2D RV (gravitational charge) are concerned. However, the captured, charged electron within the neutrino would be effected by an electric field. The "direction" that would matter in this case would be the electrical polarity (+/-) and strength. With a suffiicently high field strength, it would be possible to force the electron out of the neutrino, creating a huge spike in voltage (voltage = charged electrons, current = uncharged electrons), resulting in a substantial discharge (spark). The uncharged neutrino, having no net displacement, would simply fly off into space, carried by the progression. This, in effect, would also reduce the isotopic mass of the atom and the gravitational charge, destroying the gravitomagnetic effects. So what you want to do is to align your system to keep the charged electrons in the neutrinos, and try to induce a charge on uncharged neutrinos passing by (which they do, constantly). Even though it could push the isotopic mass into the radioactive limit, the radioactivity would not show up until you switched off and the Earth's magnetic ionization level took over again.
Considering that the neutrino is a magnetic monopole (the phase angle from the unit boundary determines the pole, for example, 0-degrees for North, 180-degrees for South), and the atoms are 2D rotations--magnets with north and south poles--there would be few possibilities for different spin orientations. The North monopoles will migrate to the South pole of the atom, and vice versa, but will be caught in the magnetic rotation. It is kind of like trying to stay on a Merry-go-Round spinning at 100 mph... there isn't much choice in the direction your feet are going to fly while you are holding on to the pole.
Secondly, we are looking at mass so we are dealing with a scalar measurement. The only "direction" that matters is "in" or "out" (in this case, "in" in space, or "out" in time).
The electrical discharge would be irrelevant as far as the magnetic interactions go to produce 2D RV (gravitational charge) are concerned. However, the captured, charged electron within the neutrino would be effected by an electric field. The "direction" that would matter in this case would be the electrical polarity (+/-) and strength. With a suffiicently high field strength, it would be possible to force the electron out of the neutrino, creating a huge spike in voltage (voltage = charged electrons, current = uncharged electrons), resulting in a substantial discharge (spark). The uncharged neutrino, having no net displacement, would simply fly off into space, carried by the progression. This, in effect, would also reduce the isotopic mass of the atom and the gravitational charge, destroying the gravitomagnetic effects. So what you want to do is to align your system to keep the charged electrons in the neutrinos, and try to induce a charge on uncharged neutrinos passing by (which they do, constantly). Even though it could push the isotopic mass into the radioactive limit, the radioactivity would not show up until you switched off and the Earth's magnetic ionization level took over again.
Every dogma has its day...