All physics is error prone and then there is bad physics. I deconstruct one of the most controversial antigravity experiments on the internet, so that we as a general population are able to differentiate misinformation from the real thing.
Near field gravity probe experiments measure the value of the gravitational constant G (6.67259x10^-11). They are good examples of error prone physics as they don't agree with each other. In spite of the notable increase in the precision of these experiments the sample of recent experiments have a mean of 6.6738x10^-11 and standard deviation of 0.0012x10^-11 or the true value of G is somewhere between 6.66899x10^-11 and 6.67619x10^-11.
These experiments are text book examples of precision versus accuracy, i.e. very precise experimental methods that are unable to determine a statistic, with reasonable accuracy. The error appears to be systematic. Something in the background causes these errors but legacy physics is unable to point a finger as to what it is.
OK, so what is bad physics?
Bad physics is the claim that something has been accomplished when not. The University of Sydney YouTube video below is a good example. It claims that Prof. Laithwaite's Big Wheel experiments have been explained by classical mechanics. This I had to see, as a Boeing engineer I met at a space conference some years ago, agreed that these observations could not be solved using classical mechanics.
Do you really think that Laithwaite, professor of heavy electrical engineering at Imperial College, London, who invented the linear motor and the maglev train technology would have been simple-minded enough not to have investigated gyroscopics?
Do review this video with my comments below:
1. Lacking rigor: The experimenter introduces systematic errors by stepping to rotate the disc about himself. This is observed as bounces around the 91 kg (200 lbs) total weight.
2. Nullifying observations: Any observable weight change are masked by the stepping motion, resulting in null observations. Masking a small signal with large noise is definitely one way to force null observations into experimental results.
3. Contradiction: At 0.54 mins, he says ". . . if it does not get lighter why does it feel lighter?" His body tells a different story from his experimental observations, and contradicts his preconceived notions.
4. Weight gain: At 2.49 mins, the experimenter tries to reverse the rotation, and says "it is hard to go back. . ." The disc weight has increased as it has fallen much lower.
5. Ignore observations: At 2.57 mins, there is a weight gain from 431.0 to 432.0. The opposite of what they just said. But those two folks ignore that fact.
6. What are they doing?: At 3.29 mins, the weight is dropping all by itself!
7. Messing: At 3:36 mins, they keep messing with the experiment. Why?
8. Another contradiction: 3:40 min, he say "it feels lighter without actually getting lighter". What?
The experimenter himself agrees that his experiment is a "shaky mess". Is this the basis for experimental rigor? To make the claim that it is solved?
This is the crux of the matter. To make the claim that this is within classical mechanics requires both a formula derivation from classical mechanics and that this formula matches the experimental observations. They have not done either.
Worse, it teaches our kids that sloppy research is acceptable, and very likely the norm. On a planet where other nations want to supersede us, this is unacceptable. University of Sydney, what do you have to say?
So what can we do with Prof. Laithwaite's invention?
With the discovery of Non Inertia (Ni) Fields, a new type of field (see An Introduction to Gravity Modification) I solved Laithwaite's demonstration in 2008. The rotating spinning disc has an upward or downward acceleration a which is a function of the wheel spin s, rotation of this spin vector r (in this case, about the person), and the hypotenuse formed by the radius of the spin and rotation h; such that a=k.s.r.(h^0.5) where k (=1) is the regression coefficient.
Per the University of Sidney video, (i) stretching out your hand is equivalent to increasing h, and increasing the gravity canceling upward acceleration ("feels lighter") resulting in a rising spinning disc, and (ii) reversing the rotation from +r to -r with respect to spin increases the weight or gravitational acceleration from approximately +g-g (about 0g) to +g+g (twice the weight, 2g). This is confirmed by University of Sydney video at 2:49 mins, as the experimenter struggles when rotation is reversed.
A rotating spinning disc could be used as a propellantless engine, however, the forces on this disc are very great. To build such an engine would require strong alloys and welding materials.
In my 2013 peer reviewed Journal of Modern Physics paper, I had proposed that mass is a proxy for the amount of matter causing gravitational fields. This mass source in General Relativity can be replaced with something else, like mechanically dynamic structures per Laithwaite. General Relativity would remain intact even if gravity is caused by particle motion within the atomic nucleus. This eliminates the need for the graviton particle as a force carrier in the Standard Model.
In place of gluons, I had proposed Variable Electric Permittivity (VEP) matter, a form of spacetime that held quarks together in nucleons. Therefore, Standard Model's bosons (photons, gluons & gravitons) are replaced with spacetime modification as the workhorse for forces.
In my 2013 paper I had proposed that gravitationally distorted spacetime alters particle properties in its field to match its distortions. Here, we see the opposite, particle motion altering spacetime to cause gravitational fields. A particle-spacetime distortion interchangeability that will lead to new types of propulsion engines that modify spacetime.
Without new tools we are at a loss to explain anomalies, and for the University of Sydney to claim "it is solved" without both the theoretical and the experimental rigor, is wrong.
Did you get University of Sydney's real mistake? They missed the opportunity to make these types of discoveries.