Whatever Happened to Ning Li?

[OCaptain]

Here's her Wiki page, and some of you may not know who she is, but she did something rather extraordinary among her peers - she got the attention of the Department of the Defense and apparently has disappeared from public view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)

Her team was working on a proof-of-concept of this idea to manipulate gravity by altering EM fields as far as back as 2000, when this Popular Mechanics article was published:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65730414.html

Unfortunately, you have to have a highbeam account to read the whole article (which I do not), but it may jog some of your memories about when this article was originally published.

Here are some more links to her work:

http://www.scansite.org/scan.php?pid=157

I've read lots of rumors but nothing definitive since then.

Has anyone any insight into what happened to her or her work?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm guessing this belongs in the CT forum.

 

[Ziggurat]

Has anyone any insight into what happened to her or her work?

I have no idea what happened to her. But her work is crap. Complete nonsense from top to bottom. If anyone at the DOD ever paid any attention to her work, it's because there are gullible suckers everywhere.

How bad is her work? Well, to start with, the only spin that ions in a superconductor are going to have is plain old ordinary nuclear spin, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with superconductivity. Nor will it produce any of the claimed effects.

Additionally, gravitomagnetism doesn't actually have anything to do with magnetism. It's called gravitomagnetism because the gravitational equations for moving masses have similarities to the electromagnetic equations of a moving charge. If you start with Coulomb's law and add in Lorentz invariance, you need something like magnetism. Well, gravity works the same way: Lorentz invariance requires field components which behave differently for moving masses.

Furthermore, because gravitomagnetism is only analogous to magnetism and doesn't actually have anything to do with magnetism, the term "gravito-electric" is complete nonsense. Ordinary gravity is already analogous to electric fields, so "gravito-electric" would be like saying "electro-electric". It's shear stupidity.

 

[shemp]

Maybe she was too successful and got repelled off the planet.

 

[OCaptain]

I have no idea what happened to her. But her work is crap. Complete nonsense from top to bottom. If anyone at the DOD ever paid any attention to her work, it's because there are gullible suckers everywhere.

How bad is her work? Well, to start with, the only spin that ions in a superconductor are going to have is plain old ordinary nuclear spin, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with superconductivity. Nor will it produce any of the claimed effects.

Additionally, gravitomagnetism doesn't actually have anything to do with magnetism. It's called gravitomagnetism because the gravitational equations for moving masses have similarities to the electromagnetic equations of a moving charge. If you start with Coulomb's law and add in Lorentz invariance, you need something like magnetism. Well, gravity works the same way: Lorentz invariance requires field components which behave differently for moving masses.

Furthermore, because gravitomagnetism is only analogous to magnetism and doesn't actually have anything to do with magnetism, the term "gravito-electric" is complete nonsense. Ordinary gravity is already analogous to electric fields, so "gravito-electric" would be like saying "electro-electric". It's shear stupidity.

So, it's not possible that she knew more than you? I have to ask, since the topic is about engineering to a large degree -are you an engineering professional? See, I'm not, and if her work is crap, I would be ill-prepared to explain why.

 

[Dancing David]

Here's her Wiki page, and some of you may not know who she is, but she did something rather extraordinary among her peers - she got the attention of the Department of the Defense and apparently has disappeared from public view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)

Her team was working on a proof-of-concept of this idea to manipulate gravity by altering EM fields as far as back as 2000, when this Popular Mechanics article was published:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65730414.html

Unfortunately, you have to have a highbeam account to read the whole article (which I do not), but it may jog some of your memories about when this article was originally published.

Here are some more links to her work:

http://www.scansite.org/scan.php?pid=157

I've read lots of rumors but nothing definitive since then.

Has anyone any insight into what happened to her or her work?

Um, who did the search for her and how. Why would we believe that she has 'dsiappeared'?

 

[Dancing David]

So, it's not possible that she knew more than you? I have to ask, since the topic is about engineering to a large degree -are you an engineering professional? See, I'm not, and if her work is crap, I would be ill-prepared to explain why.

So you have no idea who Ziggurat is, or their ability to understand what the alleged theory is. You don't know enough about physics to make a judgement and then you want to pretend that 'engineering' makes some difference?

Gosh, are you in for a rude awakening.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, it's not possible that she knew more than you? I have to ask, since the topic is about engineering to a large degree -are you an engineering professional? See, I'm not, and if her work is crap, I would be ill-prepared to explain why.

I am not an engineer. But this isn't an engineering problem. It's a basic physics problem. And the basic physics is just completely wrong. Not a bit wrong, not just overly speculative, but wildly wrong. No amount of engineering can ever overcome physics not allowing something. And yes, I've had enough physics training to recognize what I pointed out was wrong and make those statements with confidence. The only way Li's work might not be crap is if the source completely misrepresented what she did, and she wasn't working on antigravity.

 

[OCaptain]

So you have no idea who Ziggurat is, or their ability to understand what the alleged theory is. You don't know enough about physics to make a judgement and then you want to pretend that 'engineering' makes some difference?

Gosh, are you in for a rude awakening.

I'm making clear at the outset my inability to determine sound engineering and such at any sort of advanced level. Also, I am unfamiliar with Ziggurat, much less why you refer to Ziggurat in the Royal "we".

I am certainly not above being educated. I believe I said that.

 

[OCaptain]

I am not an engineer. But this isn't an engineering problem. It's a basic physics problem. And the basic physics is just completely wrong. Not a bit wrong, not just overly speculative, but wildly wrong. No amount of engineering can ever overcome physics not allowing something. And yes, I've had enough physics training to recognize what I pointed out was wrong and make those statements with confidence. The only way Li's work might not be crap is if the source completely misrepresented what she did, and she wasn't working on antigravity.

Thanks for the clarification. May I press a bit further -are you a Physicist by profession?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks for the clarification. May I press a bit further -are you a Physicist by profession?

Why would you believe anything Zig says?

This is, last time I looked, a skeptics forum, where one's critical thinking skills are valued, where 'argument from authority' is regarded as a logical fallacy, etc.

Why not find some other posts by Zig, read them, and make your own judgments
concerning the validity (or otherwise) of what you read?

 

[Dancing David]

I'm making clear at the outset my inability to determine sound engineering and such at any sort of advanced level. Also, I am unfamiliar with Ziggurat, much less why you refer to Ziggurat in the Royal "we".

I am certainly not above being educated. I believe I said that.

You also have no idea what the 'royal we' is either. But please don't let that deter you from making such strange statements.So you don't understand physics? Why should engineering matter?

 

[gabeygoat]

I'm guessing this belongs in the CT forum.

my thoughts as well

 

[OCaptain]

Why would you believe anything Zig says?

This is, last time I looked, a skeptics forum, where one's critical thinking skills are valued, where 'argument from authority' is regarded as a logical fallacy, etc.

Why not find some other posts by Zig, read them, and make your own judgments
concerning the validity (or otherwise) of what you read?

I hold the trained positions of specialists higher than those of amateurs and other non-professionals - like me - especially when they are communicating within their specialty, and showing their work.

To me, the reason the opinions of these professionals is important on this specific question is because - as near as I can tell - no scientific consensus has been demonstrated one way or the other.

As far as I've been able to find, there have been no substantive conversations that cast her work (Ning Li) in the proper light. It would be helpful, I think, if this could be done.

No appeal to authority here. I don't do that.

 

[theprestige]

As far as I've been able to find, there have been no substantive conversations that cast her work (Ning Li) in the proper light. It would be helpful, I think, if this could be done.

Tell us, please, what is "the proper light"?

ETA: No, seriously. Please tell us exactly what you know all the experts are doing wrong, and what you know they should be doing instead. Because that's what you're saying, when you say, "there have been no substantive conversations that cast her work (Ning Li) in the proper light." You're saying that you know what the "proper light" is, and that you are qualified to judge whether or not the "proper light" is shining on Ning Li's work.

This is in fundamental contradiction to your claim to be unqualified to assess her work properly.












Incidentally, have you considered the implications of Ziggurat's analysis? If he his correct, why would you expect any productive physicist or engineer to waste any time at all shining "the proper light" on her work? In a fraction of the time Zig needed to explain to you what's wrong with it, they'd conclude it was so fundamentally wrong as to not even be worth their time refuting. The kind of detailed, comprehensive analysis you may expect is likely reserved only for ideas that have at least some chance of not being stupidly incorrect.

 

[OCaptain]

You also have no idea what the 'royal we' is either. But please don't let that deter you from making such strange statements.So you don't understand physics? Why should engineering matter?

Either Ziggurat is more than one person or you have poor grammar.

Which is it?

 

[OCaptain]

Tell us, please, what is "the proper light"?

ETA: No, seriously. Please tell us exactly what you know all the experts are doing wrong, and what you know they should be doing instead. Because that's what you're saying, when you say, "there have been no substantive conversations that cast her work (Ning Li) in the proper light." You're saying that you know what the "proper light" is, and that you are qualified to judge whether or not the "proper light" is shining on Ning Li's work.

This is in fundamental contradiction to your claim to be unqualified to assess her work properly.












Incidentally, have you considered the implications of Ziggurat's analysis? If he his correct, why would you expect any productive physicist or engineer to waste any time at all shining "the proper light" on her work? In a fraction of the time Zig needed to explain to you what's wrong with it, they'd conclude it was so fundamentally wrong as to not even be worth their time refuting. The kind of detailed, comprehensive analysis you may expect is likely reserved only for ideas that have at least some chance of not being stupidly incorrect.

Almost anything is better than the darkness in which it exists now.

 

[OCaptain]

Almost anything is better than the darkness in which it exists now.

Further, I would love to be able to look up and consult a scientific discussion about her claims and such that explain it in more detail than "it's crap" (no offense meant to Ziggurat).

Can you point to anything of that nature? Anywhere? At all, theprestige?

 

[Marduk]

I hold the trained positions of specialists higher than those of amateurs and other non-professionals .

this is a classic example of an appeal to authority
just to refresh you, here's wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

No appeal to authority here. I don't do that.

you just did


basically whenever you place an anecdotal account as more valuable than any other anecdotal account you are falling into the trap
It is evidence, not claims that decide the truth, Ning Li could come out and state that she has manufactured an actual anti gravity engine, but until she's built it and its been tested and shown to work, in any discussion of the subject its irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

To me, the reason the opinions of these professionals is important on this specific question is because - as near as I can tell - no scientific consensus has been demonstrated one way or the other.

I don't think I'm going out on much of a limb to say that there is a consensus, at least among people who have heard of her work. I hadn't previously, and for good reason: her work is so fringe, and so poor, that the field pretty much just ignores her because she's a waste of time. Anyone actually working professionally on gravity or superconductivity is going to recognize her work as worthless within a few minutes, and just move on.

Either Ziggurat is more than one person or you have poor grammar.

"their" is often used as a gender neutral replacement of "his" or "her". I believe that's the sense in which it was used.

Further, I would love to be able to look up and consult a scientific discussion about her claims and such that explain it in more detail than "it's crap" (no offense meant to Ziggurat).

I don't take offense, but if you can follow what I said, my answer suffices. So I'm guessing you didn't follow what I said. I don't mean any offense by that either: most people have very little clue about physics, and there's no reason to expect them to. But that leaves the question of how much physics you know, and what about my answer you didn't understand. Because without more details from your end, I'm not going to be able to expand upon my previous answer in a way that's likely to be much use to you.