Yes, I went back and read Z's post. Thanks for shining a light on that. Alot of words went by quickly without much substance, and I missed that in the flurry.
Whatever Happened to Ning Li?
- Thread starter OCaptain
- Start date
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Please reconcile this claim that the idea should receive more attention with your repeated insistence that you are not qualified to judge how much attention this idea should receive?
Take your own profession as a guide: How much time and effort would you say you put into rejecting bad ideas within your area of expertise? How widely do you publish your rejections? Would I be able to find an extensive database of exhaustive reports, that you have communicated far and wide--even outside your immediate circle of responsibility--about all the bad ideas you have rejected over the years?
Or would I discover that in almost every case, you have communicated your rejection to at most two people: The person who came up with the idea, and the person to whom you are responsible for the work you do (your boss, your client, etc.)? Would I discover that in almost every case, your rejection was communicated briefly and informally, wasting as little of your time as possible?
Here's an example of your insistence that you're not qualified to judge the idea. How do you reconcile this with your judgement that the idea merits more attention?
Also, would you agree that in those links, Ben m has provided you with exactly the kind of subject matter expertise you were asking for, regarding this idea? Would you also agree that in the face of this expert rejection, and absent any qualifications on your part to disagree, the idea has received "the proper amount" of light already?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Since you know nothing of physics or engineering what good would the citations do you?
What makes a "scientific peer"? It's someine with like training who is able, because of training and education, to review a submission and be able to point out flaws to send back to the original author for correction.again you have it wrong, scientific evidence is independant of education, it is the evidence itself is what is important, not who is using it as part of their argument or their level of education.
you still do not understand argumentum ad verecundiam
I'll simplify this for you
my friend tells me that
1. he is cooking a roast dinner for lunch
2. that he's cooked roast dinners before
3. that he once did a cookery course so is qualified to cook roast dinners
4. that his family has a tradition of cooking roast dinners
5. he shows me the ingredients for the roast dinner
6. he shows me the oven he intends to cook the roast dinner in
7. he shows me pictures of previous roast dinners he's cooked
8. he describes how he intends to prepare the ingredients
9. he demonstrates that the oven is fully functional by turning it on
10. he introduces another friend who describes the roast dinner they had a week before
at what stage should I have total faith in the upcoming roast dinner ?
if your answer was anything except "when its on a plate in front of me" you'd have been wrong
Scientific peers also attend these conferences, and carry out the processes that create a scientific consensus. If you think you could unplug half of those present at a physics conference and plug in an equal number of you and I, all while retaining the quality of work and reliability of results, you're kidding yourself.
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
as he's decided to ignore the fact that Podkletnov own words were what I based calling him a nut on, I don't think citations will be much good either
here's that quote again in case anyone missed it
Podkletnov said:
he's saying that something which doesn't currently exist will be similar to something that is unknown
imo, nuts are the only people that make statements like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
no one here has claimed that peer review alone constitutes scientific proof, scientific consensus is not just peer review. You seem to have had issues with scientific evidence as long as I've known you, you were told very clearly earlier that scientific consensus was based on "communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review", not any one of those alone, this is why truthers are wrong, because they think that the noise coming out of their mouths is scientifically valid. It never is.
you have based another thread on rumors haven't you
Last edited:
I'm certainly getting there, but we could have all enjoyed the trip more without the hostility to what I'm trying to understand.
Scientists communicate with each other, and the world, by writing articles, primarily (for serious science) in peer-reviewed journals. If you're looking for an answer to question "have scientists thought about X", the first think to ask is "has anyone written an article about X". "The literature" is short for "the scientific literature", i.e. the world collection of signed, citable, peer-reviewed articles.
The literature shows that scientists and engineers, i.e. the people writing these articles, think (a) Ning Li's gravity-predictions are crap and (b) Eugene Podkletnov's experiments are crap.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
My apologies. What, exactly, are you trying to understand, that hasn't been sufficiently explained in this thread already?
I'm not being hostile; I just find your approach a little frustrating. On the one hand, you seem to be making assumptions about the topic, and then advancing arguments or claims based on those assumptions. On the other hand, you keep insisting that you're not qualified to assume anything about the topic. So it's not at all clear what you already understand, what you don't yet understand, and what you're trying to understand. By probing your assumptions and questioning the basis for your claims and arguments, I'm hoping to get a better idea of what exactly you're trying to understand. I guess I've been going about it the wrong way.
So: What, exactly, are you trying to understand?
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
An hour researching what Ziggurat said would have been productive, you can find all sort of introductory material in the web.
especially since he gave you a link.
Last edited:
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,773
OCaptain:
We're getting off topic. Much of the discussion no longer involves Ning Li, so let's get back to that.
In my first post of this thread, I pointed out a number of fatal flaws in her work. This is the sort of information you asked for. Now, do you understand my criticism of her work? If so, and if you agree with my criticism, then we can probably end the thread right here and now. If you disagree with my criticism, then you can tell me why, and we can have a discussion about that. If you don't understand my criticism (and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, I didn't go into great detail), then to proceed, you should ask me for clarification on whatever it was you did not understand. So, where do you stand with regard to my criticism of Li's work?
We're getting off topic. Much of the discussion no longer involves Ning Li, so let's get back to that.
In my first post of this thread, I pointed out a number of fatal flaws in her work. This is the sort of information you asked for. Now, do you understand my criticism of her work? If so, and if you agree with my criticism, then we can probably end the thread right here and now. If you disagree with my criticism, then you can tell me why, and we can have a discussion about that. If you don't understand my criticism (and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't, I didn't go into great detail), then to proceed, you should ask me for clarification on whatever it was you did not understand. So, where do you stand with regard to my criticism of Li's work?
Before engineers can engineer they must base the engineering on what's known. The point I'm making is we can describe all the things gravity does with high precision, but what remains unknown is the nature of gravity. So to harness gravity for propulsion there has to be a proven theory explaining how to do that. There ain't none so engineers can't make machines to use gravity in that way.
Last edited:
Don't listen to Zig, like many other posters here, he's a scornmonger naysayers who knows very little physics and who denounces everything he doesn't understand as "woo". Here's a few bits of feedback to show you what I mean:
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.
This is wrong. Consider an electromagnet. It typically consists of coils, wherein electrons are moved in a circular path. As a result an imbalance in the electromagnetic fields of the electrons and metal ions becomes apparent as a magnetic field. It takes energy to move these electrons, there's resistance, and the coils can get hot. Now consider a ferromagnet, and apply the same principle. Note that no energy is required, and that the ferromagnet doesn't gets hot. There is indeed a form of superconduction in the ferromagnet. It's subtle, but it's there. Guys like Zig will sweep it under the carpet as "intrinsic spin", and then when you ask about that, will give you a load of flannel.
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.
Wrong. Both the electromagnetic field and the gravitomagnetic field feature rotation (check out curl which is also called rot, short for rotor). They can make things rotate. They are both "turn" fields, and they are definitely related. Formalising the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is one of the goals of contemporary physics.
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.
The field in electromagnetism is the electromagnetic field. This has a dual nature, with an electric aspect and a magnetic aspect. There's no such thing as an electric field in itself. If you found yourself in what you'd say was an electric field, then when you simply move, you cannot avoid detecting the thing you call a magnetic field. But all that's happened is that your motion means you now see the field in a different fashion. The same would apply with a gravitational field. See NASA re the gravitomagnetic field. If the earth wasn't spinning but you were going round it, you'd still experience a gravitomagnetic field.
Having said all that, this Ning Li thing might all be poppycock.
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.
This is wrong. Consider an electromagnet. It typically consists of coils, wherein electrons are moved in a circular path. As a result an imbalance in the electromagnetic fields of the electrons and metal ions becomes apparent as a magnetic field. It takes energy to move these electrons, there's resistance, and the coils can get hot. Now consider a ferromagnet, and apply the same principle. Note that no energy is required, and that the ferromagnet doesn't gets hot. There is indeed a form of superconduction in the ferromagnet. It's subtle, but it's there. Guys like Zig will sweep it under the carpet as "intrinsic spin", and then when you ask about that, will give you a load of flannel.
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.
Wrong. Both the electromagnetic field and the gravitomagnetic field feature rotation (check out curl which is also called rot, short for rotor). They can make things rotate. They are both "turn" fields, and they are definitely related. Formalising the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is one of the goals of contemporary physics.
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.
The field in electromagnetism is the electromagnetic field. This has a dual nature, with an electric aspect and a magnetic aspect. There's no such thing as an electric field in itself. If you found yourself in what you'd say was an electric field, then when you simply move, you cannot avoid detecting the thing you call a magnetic field. But all that's happened is that your motion means you now see the field in a different fashion. The same would apply with a gravitational field. See NASA re the gravitomagnetic field. If the earth wasn't spinning but you were going round it, you'd still experience a gravitomagnetic field.
Having said all that, this Ning Li thing might all be poppycock.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
I've read quite a few of Zig's comments over the years, and they make it clear that Zig is extremely knowledgeable on just about every aspect of physics, and - if I had to guess - is specialized in condensed matter physics (such as superconductivity).
No, it isn't. The relationship between electromagnetism and classical general relativity is perfectly well understood. Quantizing gravity is hard, but that's irrelevant for this (quantum gravity effects are very, very small).
Farsight, it's fine if you want to discuss your crackpot ideas, but it's not fine when you make false assertions about physics in general, and they're off-topic in this thread.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,773
Why does your response have absolutely nothing to do with my statement?
Furthermore, to the extent that your response even makes any sense with regard to an electromagnet, you'd need to adopt the reference frame of a moving charge, which is a pain in the ***. You'd be much better off simply calculating the magnetic field itself, directly, since that's the only component you typically need in such a problem. And for that, there's no imbalance: the metal ions don't have a magnetic field, and the moving electrons do.
That's quite irrelevant here.
Wow. You really couldn't be more wrong. Ferromagnetism isn't even close to "a form of superconduction". It's not subtle, it's glaringly, obviously wrong. As for electrons not having spin, well, that's about the stupidest thing I've heard you say, Farsight. And that's saying something.
Again, a stunning display of ignorance. I explicitly stated that the equations have similarities, and as the link I gave said, there's a formal mathematical analogy between the two. But despite this similarity, they are still distinct forces. That's my point, and your response doesn't address that in any way except for some hand waving towards currently unsupported speculation.
Way to miss the point. I was, in fact, stating precisely this: a purely electric field in one reference frame must have a magnetic field in another reference frame moving with regards to the first. Even when you get something right, it appears that you STILL get it wrong, because you're trying to use what I actually said to disprove what you think I said.
RationalVetMed
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,467
OK, now that you've finished bickering about irrelevant stuff would you care to address the post that started all this and which you "missed... in the flurry"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8180694#post8180694
Or maybe you'd prefer to continue avoiding the subject?
Yuri
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
OK, now that you've finished bickering about irrelevant stuff would you care to address the post that started all this and which you "missed... in the flurry"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8180694#post8180694
Or maybe you'd prefer to continue avoiding the subject?
Yuri
Seconded.
My understanding of this is that Ning Li claims that rotating ions induce gravitational fields. Her specific theory was probably bunk, which likely led to her absconding the country for China.
However, her basic idea that "antigravity" induction via rotating ions seems related to many other theories. They all appear to be rooted in the ideas of an eminent British physicist named Arthur Schuster in the 1890s. Nobel Laureate P.M.S. Blackett, who has one of the most unfortunate initials I've ever seen, believed the core idea of the theory to be correct with some modification. Blackett's theory was demonstrated to be false by Blackett's own admission.
However, the idea that somehow, under some conditions, rotating mass induces an electromagnetic field and vice-versa remains an intriguing concept. It could hold true just under certain conditions that no one has ever been able to isolate.
However, her basic idea that "antigravity" induction via rotating ions seems related to many other theories. They all appear to be rooted in the ideas of an eminent British physicist named Arthur Schuster in the 1890s. Nobel Laureate P.M.S. Blackett, who has one of the most unfortunate initials I've ever seen, believed the core idea of the theory to be correct with some modification. Blackett's theory was demonstrated to be false by Blackett's own admission.
However, the idea that somehow, under some conditions, rotating mass induces an electromagnetic field and vice-versa remains an intriguing concept. It could hold true just under certain conditions that no one has ever been able to isolate.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
What about isolating the conditions theoretically?
Given an empty space, a mass, and physics as we know it, is there any reason to think that rotating the mass will produce an electromagnetic field? Or vice-versa?
I mean, help me understand: You're talking about the possibility of an inherent property of mass, and/or electromagnetism, that has been there all along, that has played a part in every single observation we've ever made, but so far not even a hint of it has shaken out of any experiment yet performed in QM, SR, or GR?
Isn't that a bit like saying maybe phlogiston is real, but we can only detect under certain conditions that no one has ever been able to isolate?
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Anything with angular momentum - either due to quantum spin or simple rotation - produces a "gravitomagnetic field". But it's absolutely tiny for anything short of a rapidly rotating black hole (it took decades of effort and an extremely precise satellite experiment to detect for the earth's rotation), and it's far more tiny when it comes from atomic or molecular spin than when it comes from (say) a rotating bicycle wheel.
Give the matter some charge, and rotating it certainly produces a magnetic field. Similarly, atoms and particles with spin also produce magnetic fields. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with antigravity.
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
An unbelievable amount of bickering has been moved to AAH. This thread itself seemed destined for the Conspiracy subforum. However, recent posts have turned to a discussion of real physics. Please do your part to continue a productive scientific discussion without accusations or other name-calling.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Loss Leader