I've seen that article about the atoms and baseballs falling at the same
rate floating around now for a few weeks.....had not really thought much
about it, but now that you bring it up....<g>...
I just can't take it seriously. It certainly leads to nothing
practically except a great report to show why they need more free
research money..<g>..and they'll get it because public attention is what
makes them look like they 'have a clue'...about gravity.....
Don Kelly's gravity drop experiments using identical boxes with various
weights and electrical devices and even geometric shapes inside them
(closed to have the same air resistance) showed definite variations
though to be honest, Richard Hull did similar experiments but using a
laser as his triggering device and reported no deviations.
When you think about it, the Japanese experiment with the CCW spinning
gyroscope showed that it did fall SLOWER but not when spinning CW.
There are so many factors to take into consideration, inertial,
gyroscopic, precession and this new 'hypercharge' claim (all of which I
think exist to varying degrees inside all matter, even a single atom)
for the 5th force...each of which could produce results quite different
from their newest 'proclamation' of truth.
I don't buy it.
Here is the Japanese experiment;
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/gyroag.htm
Five pound weight loss from the late Dr. Eric Laithwaite;
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/laith1.txt
The Eotvos Experiment from John Cramers Antigravity II : the Fifth Force
at;
http://mist.npl.washington.edu/av/altvw15.html
And one "test" has already been done and seems to agree with the
predictions of the theory. This test was not a new experiment but a
re-analysis of the Eötvös
Experiment, the famous experimental comparison of inertial and
gravitational mass performed by a Hungarian count in the early decades
of this century and published only after his death in 1922.
Fischbach and his collaborators realized that Eötvös should have seen
some evidence for the hypercharge force. The reason is that the
hypercharge of a nucleus depends strictly on the number of neutrons and
protons in the nucleus, while the mass of a nucleus depends also on the
binding energy of the system.
Thus an iron nucleus with large binding energy has a larger
hypercharge-to-mass ratio than does a hydrogen nucleus. To put it
another way, a kilogram sphere of water contains fewer neutrons and
protons and has a smaller hypercharge than a kilogram sphere of iron.
Therefore the sphere of water should fall slightly faster in vacuum than
the iron sphere because there would be a smaller hypercharge force
acting on the water than on the iron.
The Eötvös experiment should have shown the effects of these small
modifications of the force of gravity. And Fischbach's re-examination of
the Eötvös data reveals that indeed the predicted effect does seem to be
present in the old data.
--------------------
Now I realize the Eotvos experiment deals with an 'anti-gravity' force
which is talking about a hypercharge that somehow interacts with
gravity in such a way as to allow a mass to fall slower with less of a
hypgercharge and faster with more of a hypercharge.
But they can't control all those factors inside a baseball or even
inside an atom.
I've learned not to 'trust' so many claims made by formal science, which
is so totally bereft of any new thinking regarding gravity.
They fail consistently to take up the gauntlet of challenge from people
like Walter Wright, who has consistently predicted and demonstrated how
gravity works for over 30 years now and brought it to the attention of
many, yet no scientist or group thereof, no university, college,
educational or engineering body has deigned to accept Walters challenge,
presumably because he is not 'degreed'.
Yet he has predicted many 'new' discoveries based on his understanding
and experiments with magnets in the repellent mode, as in PUSH gravity.
Wrights challenge that no one will take up hoping he will die off and
the idea will either be 'forgotten' or they can try to claim it as
another one of their 'discoveries' for the sake of more decades of
funding;
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/wright1.htm
Wrights Push Gravity claims;
http://www.keelynet.com/gravity/wright.htm
Rather, we get these fluff pieces in the media, trusted because 'they'
said it was so, BS...take the life on Mars claim from the Mars rock that
had lain near the pole for millenia.....this newest piece seems to be
written to promote 'the coming of age of atomic interferometry' and
takes the atomic test as the correct one when compared to the neutron
test which did show discrepancies.
I have no problems with interferometry on whatever scale, but I do when
they make pronouncements like this that are basically 'calculated'.
So who's kidding who and for what purpose? Money as in funding.
The bottomline in my opinion, is they still don't have a clue about
gravity and must be running low on free grant money...publish or perish
only works for degreed persons affiliated with large orthodox
institutions....
That's why the article which is dated 08/25/99 didn't strike me as worth
note..<g>...I could be wrong from my pompous, know it all
standpoint...thats a JOKE son...though some might agree, tough, you have
to stand up for what you think and try to make a logical case for
it...for my money, its' just another fluff piece.
I'm open to correction but ask that you provide URLs and other
information that corroborates the points made...please....way too many
claims of something being solved by orthodox science when there are
still anomalies that are swept under the rug or conveniently not
mentioned or forgotten...
-- Jerry Wayne Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187