Real Money

Bank Fraud is the basis of real debt elimination

Debt Elimination is Real Freedom
Accelerated Mortgage Payoff - Eliminate Credit Card Debt - Eliminate Student Loans - Mortgage Elimination - Tax Freedom - Avoid the Draft  -  Asset Protection - Credit Repair - Stop Foreclosure - Earn Real Money

Podkletnov's claims received major publicity in 1996, when a British newspaper reported that a followup paper was about to be published in the British Journal of Physics D. Podkletnov later withdrew the paper under curious circumstances:

But Podkletnov has now withdrawn the paper, just weeks before it was due to appear. His decision follows a bizarre series of developments triggered by media interest in the device. Earlier this month Tampere University issued a carefully worded statement denying all knowledge of the antigravity research. While admitting that it had been involved in some preliminary experiments done by Podkletnov in the early 1990s, the university said he was no longer on the staff.

Suspicions deepened when Vuorinen, the supposed coauthor of the paper, issued a statement denying that he had ever worked on antigravity with Podkletnov.

The furore appears to have surprised Podkletnov, who insists that the claims made in the paper are genuine. But he says the university is correct in denying the existence of any recent research, as the paper centers on experiments carried out in 1992.

On the key issue of Vuorinen's denial of involvement in the work, Podkletnov says that there must have been some confusion over names, and that another Petri Vuorinen was the true coauthor. Podkletnov does have an unpaid affiliation with Tampere's Institute of Material Science. However, inquiries have failed to uncover anyone with a similar name at the university who admits to working on the antigravity research.

The controversy also appears to have shocked the Institute of Physics, which publishes the Journal of Physics D. Three referees failed to find any major flaw in the paper's claims, which if confirmed would rate as one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in history.

Gravity is the most ubiquitous force in the Universe, and no one has ever found any way of shielding matter from its effects. The discovery of a shielding effect would have huge theoretical and commercial implications.

Faced with Tampere University's statement, and Vuorinen's denial that he was involved, Richard Palmer, managing editor of the journal, decided to put the paper on hold pending further inquiries. Three days later, on 9 September, Podkletnov solved the institute's dilemma by withdrawing his paper. He gave no reason. But he stands by his claims: 'This is an important discovery and I don't want it to disappear,' he told New Scientist.

The paper may now never appear in any physics journal: Podkletnov is said to have been put under pressure from unknown 'funding agencies' not to reveal any more, pending patent applications.

Even so, the mystery of the antigravity machine lingers. What is known is that the paper had passed scrutiny by independent experts in superconductivity, and had been accepted by a reputable journal. Tampere University itself concedes that Podkletnov has a good reputation for research, and refuses to pass judgment on whether the antigravity machine actually works." (53)

Podkletnov was subsequently thrown out of the university. But despite the controversy, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama decided to investigate his claims (54). The first attempt at replication failed, but it had been conducted without sufficient knowledge of the original experiment (55). A second replication attempt was never completed due to lack of funding.

Podkletnov now says that he can generate repulsive force beams. Journalist Nick Cook reported the following in a 2002 London Financial Times article:

Meanwhile, Mr Podkletnov, now based at the Moscow Chemical Scientific Research Center, has taken his ideas further. Last year he published another paper - backed by Giovanni Modanese, an Italian physicist, detailing work on an 'impulse gravity generator' that is capable of exerting a repulsive force on all matter.

Using a strong electrical discharge source and a superconducting 'emitter', the equipment has produced a 'gravity impulse', Mr Podkletnov says, "that is very short in time and propagates with great speed (practically instantaneously) along the line of discharge, passing through different objects without any observable loss of energy".
The result, he maintains, is a repulsive action on any object the beam hits, that is proportional to its mass. When fitted to a laser pointing device, Mr Podkletnov says, his laboratory installation has already demonstrated its ability to knock over objects more than a kilometer away. The same installation, he maintains, could hit objects up to 200km away with the same power." (55)

These claims caught the attention of aerospace company Boeing which has been reported to be researching antigravity.

Whether antigravity will ultimately be proven to exist or not, one thing is already clear: mainstream physics is unwilling to investigate antigravity claims in good faith. Robert L. Park, the spokesman of the American Physical Society made a typical comment in his What's New column in 2002 that illustrates the unscientific "theory overrides evidence" modus operandi of the physics establishment:

Why would Boeing choose to spend millions to test a ridiculous claim by an obscure Russian physicist that has failed every test and is a physical impossibility to begin with? (56)

The reason that antigravity and gravity shielding are considered "physical impossibilities" is of course the dictate of general relativity that gravity is not an ordinary force, but an effect of curved space-time.

In dismissing the evidence for such phenomena, mainstream physics is engaging in circular reasoning rivaling that of fundamentalist theology: since no experiment has ever contradicted general relativity, general relativity must be true, and anti-gravity and gravity shielding effects cannot possibly be real, since they would contradict general relativity."

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics, in simple language, says that in a closed physical system, useful energy decays into waste heat, and one can't win it back. A machine that produces, say, electrical energy from ambient heat is impossible according to the second law, and termed a "perpetuum mobile of the second kind".

But the second law is under siege, and it may turn out that this alleged rock-solid law of nature is only a reflection of the limitations of 19th and 20th century engineering.

In a paper titled A Solid-State Maxwell Demon (57) D.P. Sheehan and A.R. Putnam of the departments of Physics and J.H. Wright of the department of Mathematics and Computer science of the University of San Diego have proposed a semiconductor device that would generate useful energy from the thermal noise of an electronic circuit. The authors successfully tested their model on a commercial semiconductor simulator and estimate that the technology necessary to construct a laboratory model will be available by 2007. In their introduction, they write:

Over the last ten years, an unprecedented number of challenges have been leveled against the absolute status of the second law of thermodynamics. During this period, roughly 40 papers have appeared in the general literature, representing more than a dozen distinct challenges; the publication rate is increasing. Recently, for the first time, a major scientific press has commissioned a monograph on the subject and a first international conference has been convened to examine these challenges.

One would think that given the implications (defeating the second "law" means nothing less than solving the human energy crisis permanently), governments, corporations and the scientific establishment would be interested. But there is very little interest. The prevailing (circular) reasoning remains that machines that violate the second law are impossible because they would contradict the second law (58).

Conclusions

There is widespread belief among physicists and non-physicists alike that physics has essentially understood the universe. According to this "end of science" belief (59), all that remains is to connect a few dots and to do some fine-tuning. But the evidence discussed here suggests that this satisfactory state of affairs is a mere illusion created by a failure of the self-correcting mechanisms of modern science. The current consensus view of physical reality which is based on relativity, quantum mechanics and big bang cosmology may turn out to be more social construct than eternal truth. An unbiased, honest reevaluation of this consensus in light of anomalous evidence is sorely needed, but it will require fundamental reform of the peer review and funding mechanisms of modern science.
References
1. Martin, Brian. Stamping Out Dissent. April 26, 1993, pp. p.49-50.
2. Wilson, Robert Anton. The New Inquisition. s.l. : New Falcon Publications, 1991.
3. 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections. Jahn, Robert G. 1, 2001, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, pp. 21-.
4. Editorial. Bauer, Henry H. 3, 2000, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, pp. 304-305.
5. Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. Stanley Pons, Martin Fleischmann. 2A, April 10, 1989, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Vol. 261, pp. 301-308 .
6. Searches for low-temperature nuclear fusion of deuterium in palladium. al, N. S. Lewis et. 1989, Nature, Vol. 340, pp. 525 - 530.
7. Measurement and analysis of neutron and gamma ray emission rates, other fusion products, and power in electrochemical cells having Pd cathodes. Albagli, D. 2, 1990, Journal of Fusion Energy, Vol. 9, p. 133.
8. Upper Limits On Neutron And Gamma-Ray Emission From Cold Fusion. Gai, M. July 6, 1989, Nature, Vol. 340, pp. 29-34.
9. Beaudette, Charles G. Excess Heat - Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. s.l. : Oak Grove Press, 2000. p. 113.
10. Charles G. Beaudette, Excess Heat - Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. s.l. : Oak Grove Press, 2000. p. 113.
11. Mallove, Eugene F. MIT and Cold Fusion: A Special Report. Infinite Energy. March/April 1999, Vol. 4, 24, pp. 64-118. http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/mitcfreport.pdf.
12. —. Ten Years That Shook Physics. Infinite Energy. March/April 1999, Vol. 4, 24, p. 3.
13. Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss. Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D20 System, Volume 1: A Decade of Research at Navy Laboratories. [Online] www.spawar.navy.mil/sti/publications/pubs/tr/1862/tr1862-vol1.pdf.
14. B. Daviss. Reasonable Doubt. New Scientist. March 29, 2003, 177, p. 2388 .
15. Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd/D lattice: emission of charged particles. Stanislaw Szpak, Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Frank E. Gordon. 6, 2007, Naturwissenschaften, Vol. 94.
16. Cold Fusion Conundrum at Texas A&M. Taubes, Gary. June 15, 1990, Science, Vol. 248, pp. 1299-1304.
17. Platt, Charles. What If Cold Fusion Is Real? Wired. November 1998, Vol. 6, 11.
18. Editorial. Epstein, Mike. 1, 1994, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 8.
19. Mallove, Eugene F. The Triumph of Alchemy: Professor John Bockris and the Transmutation Crisis at Texas A&M. Infinite Energy. July/August 2000, Vol. 6, 32.
20. Elemental Analysis of Pd Complexes: Effects of D2 Gas Permeation. Y. Iwamura, M. Sakano, T. Itoh. 2002, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 41, pp. 4642–4650.
21. Higashiyama. Replication Of MHI Transmutation Experiment By D2 Gas Permeation Through Pd Complex. [Online] http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Higashiyamreplicatio.pdf.
22. John E. Chappell, Jr. What Ideas Does The NPA Stand For? Natural Philosophy Alliance. [Online] http://mywebpages.comcast.net/Deneb/Steps.htm.
23. Farrell, John. Did Einstein cheat? Salon Magazine. [Online] July 6, 2000. http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html.
24. Goodstein, David L. Atoms to Quarks. The Mechanical Universe ... and beyond. s.l. : California Institute of Technology/Intelecom, 1985. Vol. 51.
25. Asimov, Isaac. The Two Masses. [book auth.] ed Timothy Ferris. The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics. s.l. : Back Bay Books, 1993.
26. A Varied Group. Goodman, B. 10, May 15, 1995, The Scientist, Vol. 9, p. 3.
27. A Modified Lorentz Aether Theory. Hatch, Ronald R. 39, September/October 2001, Infinite Energy, Vol. 7, pp. 14 - 23.
28. Relativity and GPS, Part I. Hatch, Ronald R. 3, 1995, Galilean Electrodynamic, Vol. 6, pp. 51-57.
29. Relativity and GPS, Part II. Hatch, Ronald R. 4, 1995, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 6, pp. 73-78.
30. Frey, Raymond E. LIGO: Status and Recent Results. [Online] July 27, 2007. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/P/P070079-01.pdf.
31. The Aether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth. Miller, Dayton C. July 1933, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 5, pp. 203-241.
32. Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light. P. Marmet, C. Couture. 1, 1999, Physics Essays, Vol. 12, pp. 162-173.
33. Anomalies in the History of Relativity. McCausland, Ian. 2 , 1999, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 13.
34. Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space. A. Brillet, J.L. Hall. 9, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 42, pp. 549-552.
35. Modern Michelson-Morley Experiment using Cryogenic Optical Resonators. H. Müller, S. Herrmann, C. Braxmaier, S. Schiller, A. Peters. 2 , July 11, 2003, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91.
36. New Analysis of the Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller. Shankland, Robert S. 2, April 1955, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 27, pp. 167-178.
37. DeMeo, James. Dayton Miller's Aether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look. Infinite Energy. 2001, Vol. 7, 38, pp. 72 - 82.
38. Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame. Reginald T. Cahill, Kirsty Kitto. 2, April 2003, Apeiron, Vol. 10.
39. From classical to modern aether-drift experiments: the narrow window for a preferred frame. M. Consoli, E. Costanzo. 5-6, December 13, 2004, Physics Letters A, Vol. 333, pp. 355-363.
40. Marcus Chown. Catching the cosmic wind. New Scientist. April 2, 2005, 2493.
41. Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space. Wallace, Bryan G. 361, 1969, Spectroscopic Letters, Vol. 2.
42. Letter to the Editor. Wallace, Bryan G. 8 , 1981, Physics Today, Vol. 34.
43. —. Wallace, Bryan G. 1 , 1983, Physics Today, Vol. 36.
44. The Unified Quantum Electrodynamic Aether. Wallace, Bryan G. 3, 1973, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 3, pp. 381-388.
45. Wallace, Bryan G. The Farce of Physics. s.l. : Self-published online, 1994.
46. The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang. Flandern, T. Van. 2, 2002, Apeiron, Vol. 9.
47. A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies. H. Arp, D. Russell. March 10, 2001, Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 549, pp. 802-819.
48. Arp, H. Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies. s.l. : Cambridge University Press, 1989 .
49. —. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science. s.l. : Apeiron Press, 1998.
50. Burbidge, G. Quasi-Steady State Cosmology. arXiv.org E-Print Archive. [Online] August 2001. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108051.
51. A Possibility Of Gravitational Force Shielding By Bulk YBa2Cu3O7?X Superconductor. E. Podkletnov, R. Nieminen. 3-4, December 10 1992, Physica C, Vol. 203, pp. 441-444.
52. C. Platt. Breaking the Law of Gravity. Wired. March 1998, Vol. 6, 03.
53. Matthews, R. Antigravity machine weighed down by controversy. New Scientist. September 21, 1996, p. 77.
54. Holden, C. NASA's fling with Anti-Gravity. Science. October 11, 1996, Vol. 274, p. 183.
55. Cook, N. Boeing challenges the laws of physics. London Financial Times. July 29, 2002.
56. Park, Robert L. What's New. [Online] August 2, 2002 . http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN02/wn080202.html.
57. A Solid-State Maxwell Demon. D.P. Sheehan, A.R. Putnam, J.H. Wright. 10, October 2002, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 32.
58. Maxwell's demon: Slamming the door. Maddox, John. June 27, 2002, Nature, Vol. 417, p. 903.
59. Horgan, J. The End of Science. s.l. : Little Brown & Company, 1997 .
60. The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 Reginald T. Cahill January 11, 2005, http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501051.pdf

Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics - 2 - 3 - 4