contra grav anyone?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00032353-36AB-1CDC-B4A8809EC5
88EEDF&catID=2

for the full paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0204012

> Tomb wrote:

> [quoted text omitted]
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00032353-36AB-1CDC-B4A8809EC5
> 88EEDF&catID=2

A quick perusal of the Scientific American article gives the impression that
the effect would have very profound consequences, if it was true, but there

From the side bar: Even if Chiao's contraption works, it wouldn't allow the
generation of antigravity fields, as Russian materials scientist Eugene
Podkletnov, then at Tampere University of Technology in Finland,
controversially claimed to have observed in 1992 (see link). Antigravity
requires canceling out a powerful, static gravitoelectric field, yet
superconductors have no effect on such fields

This isn't anti-gravity or contragravity, but the production of gravity
waves.

Note also, this is not necessarily the same gravity a la Newton. This is
the generation of gravito-magnetic waves...  The gravity generated by a
moving mass... Einstein's backyard so to speak. What we would consider

normal gravity is gravito-electric, or the gravity of stationary
mass... (for all practical purposes the earth is stationary to us)

Podkletnov was claiming the deflection of gravito-electric gravity...
And has been "debunked" as some people are found of putting it.

To bring this on topic, this could be, IMHO one of the first steps in creating
grav technology... Grav plates, drives, etc. For a near time deal, it might be
used instead of a spinning rec area for astronauts to exercise in.

Rand.

> At 06:55 PM 6/12/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> Tomb wrote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00032353-36AB-1CDC-B4A8809EC5
> > 88EEDF&catID=2