Strictly, there is no contradiction because gravity is not a force.

However I would venture that the first statement is perhaps misleading, a flask of liquid helium must apply a force to the bulk liquid to prevent it falling through the container walls. It would be true to say that there is no frictional force or viscosity for a superfluid.

Following articles propose that the entire universe arise from a fundamental substance of the universe which has all the properties of empty space. It is infinite, indivisible, motionless, perfectly resilient and friction-less. You cannot call it a super-fluid because it is not a material or energy. Therefore gravity cannot act on it. When this fundamental substance begins to move it makes waves which physicists call quanta of energy. So motion, energy, space (wavelength) and (time) are simultaneously created.

With these energy waves gravity also makes its appearance. When the waves subside, gravity also disappear. Entanglement and gravity are due to indivisibility of this fundamental substance.

So in this context, super-fluid cannot be absolutely resistance-less and can be retarded by gravity.

Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338621845_Periodic_quantum_gravity_and_cosmology

Periodic relativity: the theory of gravity in flat space time

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341999450_Periodic_relativity_the_theory_of_gravity_in_flat_space_time

https://arxiv.org/abs/0707.4539v11

It is influenced by forces. Climbing walls: compare surfce tension with gravity (two forces) No friction may be better, exitations are less than the characteristic energy gap.

Some interesting answers here. If I could address the points of the considerers in turn.

------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------

"there is no contradiction because gravity is not a force."

This is an interesting statement. However I would have thought that the net result of the bending of space and time (I assume the considerer is alluding to this) is to produce a force (like on the soles of our feet) and so it is difficult to see the distinction between this and a force produced by other means.

" a flask of liquid helium must apply a force to the bulk liquid to prevent it falling through the container walls."

This is true. However, the superfluid part can only "move" if move is the right word inside the non-superfluid part. If this non-superfluid part provides a thin film (potentially only atoms thick)-- say on the surface of a cup, or in the tiny holes at the base of a beaker, then the superfluid part may transport itself to the extremities of this film, ---somehow, without being subject to any retarding force. Once at these extremeties, it may transform itself back into a normal fluid, and then drip off, it now being subject to the Law of Gravity. Cf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI

"It would be true to say that there is no frictional force or viscosity for a superfluid."

Agreed.

----------------------------------------------

" It is infinite, indivisible, motionless, perfectly resilient and friction-less. You cannot call it a super-fluid because it is not a material or energy."

This sounds much like the description given here, by Newton and Poe, of a substance that carries no weight.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12764.05768

"So in this context, super-fluid cannot be absolutely resistance-less and can be retarded by gravity."

As far as I know no one has detected any resistance whatsoever for a superfluid or superconductor. Isn't it true that "eternal supercurrents in a ring" persist, as far as we know, forever?

----------------------------------------------

"It is influenced by forces. Climbing walls: compare surfce tension with gravity (two forces) No friction may be better, exitations are less than the characteristic energy gap."

This alludes to the fascinating experiment whereby a cup of superfluid helium empties itself, by the superfluid ostensibly "climbing walls." However, as outlined above, this is, in my view, a widely held misapprehension : the superfluid "moves" or is "transported," against the force of gravity within the thin film of normal fluid (potentially a few atoms thick) that exists on the walls. So no actual force acts on the superfluid part-- it cannot, if it could, it could be retarded, and it would fall outside of its own definition as a superfluid.

When the superfluid reaches the extremities of this thin film, it transforms back into a normal fluid, and drips off the bottom, as show here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI

As far as the superfluid part is concerned, up and down, make no difference. Its mode of transport is outside of the grip of gravity.

I guess experimentalist from Kapitza Institute in Moscow can answer the complementary question, Dr. Gary Stephens

Kind Regards.

Dear Gary Stephens ,

any force we know except gravitation, in the long range is of EM origin.

EM to exert a force has to excert an interaction which then is a friction, an interaction between parts, an interaction between electrons.

Since A superfluid does not interact with electrons of materials from that poin of view is frictionless.

gravitation does not involve any electrical interaction to occur. Since it is exerted homogeneously at all points in a body does not involve any kind of friction. This can be taken as a distinguishing point between the force of gravity and an electromagnetic force.