From: "
Subject: Re: The enigmatic Russian paper on the alleged anti-gravity Podkletnov Effect is not torsion physics
Date: July 30, 2011 11:58:41 PM PDT
To:
It was in a Robert Matthews story on the withdrawal of one of Pod's papers in the mid-90s. The pipe smoke part wasn't the only tip off. A grad student dropped the story and some papers off in my mail box and suggested we try to do a replication. I explained that a lot more work and money would be involved in any serious replication than he imagined. (The replicators, I am sure, will be happy to attest to this.) And went on to explain that such an effort would be wasted since there were so many indicators that the work alleged was not seriously grounded. I was amazed that Modanese even tried to produce a covering theory for the alleged results. (But look at all the theory papers produced to cover what turned out to be a telephone repeater signal that contaminated the SN 1987a alleged pulsar signal.) Plausibility in physics applies to experiments/observations as well as theory.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jack Sarfatti <
To: "
Subject: Re: The enigmatic Russian paper on the alleged anti-gravity Podkletnov Effect is not torsion physics
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:40:36 -0700
I had no idea pod's claim was based on pipe dreams. I never took it that seriously and did not read his experiments. However, when Giovanni Modanese wrote a theory for it, I took some notice. Jim, are you sure, the initial claim was that flimsy?
KGB disinformation? Now seems more likely.
The biggest heist however is the $ 13 trillion. Follow the money. ;-)
On iPhone
On Jul 31, 2011, at 2:23 AM, "
Arrghhhh. . . . The only reason why I used this particular email was the circulation list. My comments were not intended to say anything at all about the conversation relating to Podkletnov. A conversation I found interesting and by no means at variance with my guidlines. Indeed, after hearing years ago that Pod's "discovery" was made by observing drifting pipesmoke several floors above the apparatus in response to an alleged 2% effect, I found them utterly preposterous. I was amazed that anyone took the "discovery" seriously. I couldn't help suspecting that it was intended as an April fools joke, or a KGB disinformation plot. Nothing since then has given me any reason to change that initial assessment. And the recent traffic here I take to confirm my initial judgment.
The only intent in my email was to give those added to this list without their prior consent to opportunity to opt off if they choose. If you are one such, and you are interested in "advanced" propulsion, I hope you don't so opt. But the choice should be yours.
As for Jack's and my views on Mach's principle and how it fits into contemporary physical theory, I'll have a bit to say on a shorter list where that conversation paused. There is more agreement than meets the eye. And I think Jack's comments on his own scheme are fair and reasonable. It deserves serious consideration, especially given the very small number of even remotely plausible schemes extant for making stargates.
My appologies for any misreadings of my comments,
Jim