Talk:United States gravity control propulsion research

archive

Welcome. The lack of the use of the term "initiative" in the references is the basis for modifying the original article into this redirected version.Tcisco (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The UFO, is that what anti - gravity is all about. If there is a consensus that the UFO is an electrical craft I would look toward an electrical answer to gravity or anti - gravity. The master of electricity from wire is Tesla and his studies should be reviewed. From all the videos of UFOs stuck in the skies, I'd say their coils needed tuning. Teslafieldmachine (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This article cited a 1960 report about Martin Kaplan's experiments. In 1964, L. Halpern and B. Laurent presented the theoretical possibility of generating and intensifying graviton flux in a manner like a LASER beam (IL Nuovo Cimento 33(3), 728-751). Analyses by the late NASA scientist, Paul R. Hill, provided a UFO propulsion model that incorporated gravitons and antigravitons in his book Unconventional Flying Objects. Paul A. LaViolette traced the history of gravity-like beam propulsion from Tesla to Podkletnov and Modanese in Chapter 6 of his book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. The Mansfield, Ohio case in The UFO Enigma (pages 89-92, 298-372) could be a form of evidence for applied gravity-like beam propulsion.Tcisco (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Should it be under the category of General Relativity?

The relativity task force has deemed this article within the scope of General Relativity. One of their tasks is to “Carefully assess articles on non-mainstream views of relativity to determine if they should be in Wikipedia.” If an editor has issue with their decision, it should be taken up with the task force, instead of repeatedly removing the category from the page. xod (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two questions:

1. Should Category:General relativity be in the "See also" section. (The answer there is clearly no, regardless of what the task force says.)
2. Should the article be in Category:General relativity? I lean against, but if some reliable sources (so far, not yet seen in the article) make the connection, it might be appropriate if the category is for things related to General relativity. The category description doesn't specify, but all the other articles are about General relativity or people working in relativity. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(from WT:PHYS) I would say no on both counts. Generally, categories should not be included in a See also section. While an argument can be made for including this article in the category, I think it is sufficiently different from the rest of that category that inclusion would clutter up the category without meaningfully improving usability. I am removing Category:Physics for the same reason.
On the other hand, I do think that the WP:PHYS tag on this talkpage is appropriate. The categorization and WikiProject schema serve different purposes. The one is to aid our readers in finding relevant information, while the other is to help editors find each other and help improve and maintain articles of common interest. It is useful for the project to be listed here, as people interested in GR are in the best position to be able to answer any physics questions that arise here. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on other WP forums: [1] SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

To Xod: Notice that no one at the Physics project or Relativity task force classified this article as falling under their purview. Rather it was added automatically by a bot, namely AnomieBOT, as a result of being mis-categorized into Category:General relativity. I herewith remove it from the project and taskforce. JRSpriggs (talk) 10:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the removal. This is well within the scope of the Physics project and relativity taskforce. However, the presence of a project's banner is present does not indicate that the article should be necessarily be categorized in the categories matching the projects/taskforces topics (i.e. Category:Physics, Category:Relativity.). Personally, I think both of Category:Physics and Category:General relativity are very poor choices. Category:Anti-gravity however, seems perfectly adequate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To Headbomb: This has nothing to do relativity. According to relativity such a project is absurd, impossible. Just because someone has a mistaken idea that he might be able to do something with gravity, does not mean that his idea is something that people studying relativity should be interested in. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is obviously absurd yes, and the reason for the absurdity is because it goes against relativity. Thus relativity people are those best equipped to deal with the science, or lack thereof, of this article. Hence why the relativity taskforce exists. This is similar to a situation where we would have a mechanics taskforce. If we had one, it would be present on Talk:Perpetual motion. This article is quite deeply connected to relativity and relativity figures, and deals with a string of failures, fringe theories, etc.. all related to relativity. Not tagging it with the relativity taskforce seems most peculiar. Likewise for faster-than-light stuff, tagged by the relativity banner as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

1907.a. loodud Relatiivsusteooria "heuristika" ebaaadekvaatsus.

Hamilton Carteri aktuaalsest sõnavõtust artikli kohta. Erirelatiivsusteooria on juba oma loomisena (postulaatidena) sihituslikult "olema" heuristiline, arutamisele mittekuuluv ja teisi võimalusi välistav. Näib, et Üldrelatiivsusteooria "on hakanud sellest välja rabelema"?! Hiljuti (16.märtsil 2013.a.)juhtis Hamilton Carter (g+)-s tähelepanu 1959.a. avaldatud nn. "Terrell pööramine" (James Terrell ja Roger Penrose)kohta. Järeldus sellest on mõtlemapanev: Mitte mingit Lorentz-kontraktsiooni pole olemas ja Lorentz-teisendusi saab vaadelda vaid kui MUDELIT, mis "kuubikuna" oleks olnud Vaatleja suhtes "pööratud", nurga arcsin(v/c) võrra. Taolne "optiline efekt" olevat MÕÕDETAV suurustes (v/c) ja (1/G), milles G - on nn. Lorentz-teguri pöördfunktsioon ja G //Minul - kui k !// avaldub /k =/ G = (1 - (v/c)^2)^(-1/2); Käesolevates artiklites aga tõusetub ika ja jälle üles nö. prioriteedi-küsimus: KAS Üldrelatiivsusteooria on "anti-gravitatsiooni välistav" (?) või ei ole? Viitena lisan veel: Paul Kard "Relatiivsusteooria peajooned", Tallinn, "Valgus",1980, (eesti k., lk. 141 - 142 avaldatud "edasiviivad mõtted". Nimelt kinnitab P.K., et k - on suurusega (v/c) võrreldes teist järku suurus - ja sellisena "muutub see teatud kiirustest/nurkadest alates" - ainumääravaks. Sisuliselt tähendab see: Doppleri ristefekti ainumääravust "relativistlikult võrreldavatel kiirustel". Ka on P.K. toonud "arvutusliku piirnurga a(0)", selliselt, mille mina /T.E./ esitan kui "kriteeriumit": k = f (kui teisendusfunktsioon f on rakendatud ruumilisele vahemikule f(ct) ja selle pöördfunktsioon g(ct) = ct/!1 - (v/c)cos(a(0); "Lihtne näide" nn. Leningradi teadlaste tehtud uurimistööst, milles täheldati nn. antigravitatsiooni ilminguid - massivse güroskoobi ülikiirel pöörlemisel. Nimelt "kaaluti"güroskoobi "servad" ja tsenter - pöörleval kehal need erinesid järsult. Minu /T.E./ seletus: "liikuvosa" güroskoobist - on "lähemal Lauale"! Edasisi järeldusi loe: Tõnu:veebiruum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tönu Eevere (talk • contribs) 12:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Title change proposal

Propose changing this article's title from "United States gravity control propulsion research" to "Gravity control propulsion research" or something like this. Locus of research is incidental to article topic.

Yea? Nay? Kortoso (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nay. Research conducted in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, that was not financially supported by the United States, should have separate articles. For example, some of the peer reviewed papers that had cited United States Air Force contract codes, and/or affiliations with the Gravity Research Foundation, ARL, and/or RIAS were included in this article. Work by Burkhard Hiem was included because RIAS had announced in at least three different publications a contractual relationship had been established with him. Papers by Hermann Bondi were not mentioned because American, contemporaneous literature on gravity control propulsion research, from 1955 through 1974, did not mentioned him. Tcisco (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Storm King Warp Drives LLC

Storm King Warp Drives LLC was removed from the list of aerospace industries because it was established in 2019, according to Manta.com, and the list was for companies cited in works published from 1955 through 1974. Tcisco (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)