1-No evidence:Scientists have not found any evidence to suggest that antigravity is possible based on our current understanding of physics.
2-Gravity's nature:Gravity is a fundamental force that attracts mass, and there is no known way to reverse this attraction.
3-Theoretical challenges:Even in advanced theories like general relativity, the concept of antigravity is considered highly unlikely.
4- Are the above facts incontrovertible??
"4- Are the above facts incontrovertible??"
No, these are not only not incontrovertible; but plain wrong!!
(1- 3) may only be valid on or near the surface of any cosmic body like the earth. Gravity as we know it is a dialectical contradiction of the unity of two opposite forces – attraction due to gravitational pull and repulsion due to vis viva – the intrinsic motion, inherent in matter itself as a mode of its existence, under any circumstances! Both Newton’s and Einstein’s theory of gravity implying only attraction under ALL circumstances are false in the extra-terrestrial realm. The current official theories are promoted to support theological notions of creation of the universe by God! Please see:
"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas": https://www.rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106
“Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology”! https://www.peertechzpublications.us/amp/article/view/AMP-6-181/pdf
The following dialectical and QED view of gravity; though quite dated, may be of some interest: "Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Graviton-Orbital-Band Theory": Article Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Gra...
"Cut elevator cable."
Only an ignorant idiot would make comment like this; just to deny scientific development! Learn some physics from the copes of following comments: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory/1241
[Abdul Malek added an answer 6 hours ago
Chandru Iyer > “Yes. Your reference is relevant.But these objections have been there over the history of this subject over a century”.
“Your reference is relevant.” The denial of this "relevant reference" (and other related ones) by official science, mainstream “scientists”, humbug fools, mathematical ideologues, ignorant side-kicks, etc., ad nauseum and blunt refusals to face objective truth, in favour of mysteries and Fairy Tales, reinforcing theology and monopoly capitalist ruling order now in its decadent and moribund fascist form. This is my point! You lot, both relativists and so-called anti-relativists engaged in cobweb-spinning, eclectic flea cracking are nothing but priests in Einstein’s “Castle in the Air” happily engaged in “thought experiments – chasing the light: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Chasing_the_light/
This dialectical materialist with his “Quantum Dialectical Physics” (QDP) for the first-time over a century; has demolished (in principle), not only the “Castle in the Air” of Albert Einstein; but its few hundred year’s old foundation; i.e.; the metaphysics of Isaac Newton!
Hence the following bold claim: [A - N – D finally (if still needed): Malek is already adorned with his ‘Bijay Mukut’ (Victory Crown) after silencing his powerful tormentors (only few gadflies or Don Quixote (s) remain) and after the “shut-up” of a number of RG forums, where he participated. He achieved the Herculean task of the cleaning the Augean Stable of theoretical physics and cosmology of Official Science from Isaac Newton to Albert Einstein; with the help of his Quantum Dialectical Physics; as the powerful Mountain Brook. His incredible hard work, dedication and fight against impossible odds made this victory possible.
Momentum – the Archilles’ Heel of Causality-based Physics: The Root of Its Miseries - from the Quantum to the Cosmic : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9682
What is Light, Really? A Quantum Dialectical View. Ann Math Phys. 2024;7(3):292-299. https://www.mathematicsgroup.us/articles/AMP-7-235.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385343389_What_is_Light_Really_A_Quantum_Dialectical_View
New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2 : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642
New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594
“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754
KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas: https://www.rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106
But he was not alone! Along with his (now Late) friend Chip Arp, Malek was always directly inspired by the glorious tradition of one of the greatest theoretical physicists Satyendra Nath Bose, one of the greatest astrophysicists Meghnad Saha, of modern times and most of all helped by the sharpest weapons and gems of the greatest dialectical thinkers from Heraclitus/Epicurus to Leibniz/Hegel to Marx/Engels. And last but not the least by the following few decades old Bengali movie song probably as a prelude to the present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Yt3t5CnDbzw]
Also the following top popular answer: [Abdul Malek added an answer
November 29, 2022
Joachim Domsta : You Sir, unfortunately, seem to me to be the most confused formal mathematician/scientist of any others, I have seen in RG for the past few years. Please see how many times you make successive comments to clarify or correct your own immediate previous posts. Also, I am not a formally trained mathematician and have very limited ability in mathematics. So, we are a mismatch to continue discussion on Einstein's mathematics used in LTs.
I would rather leave the matter to the consideration of others who are more qualified and for better judgments. If you have any issue with my publication, please take it up with INSPIRE, who listed/cited my article in their website. The following is what "INSPIRE" says in their website:
"INSPIRE (http://inspirehep.net/) is a trusted community hub that helps researchers to share and find accurate scholarly information in high energy physics.
It serves as a one-stop information platform for HEP community, comprising 8 interlinked databases on literature, conferences, institutions, journals, researchers, experiments, jobs and data. Run in collaboration by CERN, DESY, Fermilab, IHEP, IN2P3, and SLAC, it has been serving the scientific community for almost 50 years. Previously known as SPIRES, it was the first website outside Europe and the first database on the web. Close interaction with the user community and with arXiv, ADS, HEPData, ORCID, PDG and publishers is the backbone of INSPIRE’s evolution".
Thanks.]
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Were_some_scientists_right_in_showing_that_the_Lorentz_Force_brings_to_a_paradox
My best guess is that this is not a platform for personal gripes. My preference is for questions answered with the most reasonable assessment of the case, and not have personal inventions or culturally biased hypotheses rammed down our throats.
No confirmed evidence of true anti-gravity exists. While concepts like negative mass and exotic matter appear in theoretical physics, they haven't been observed experimentally. Current physics, including General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, does not support a repulsive gravitational force. However, effects like dark energy (accelerating cosmic expansion) and electromagnetic levitation can mimic anti-gravity under specific conditions. Sincerely, IJAZ
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology
- Virus