> Exactly. What is the (scientific, no less) theory that is behind the 
> "and
> not likely to change anytime soon" affirmation? It is not, just to 
> take
> this out of the way, the laws of thermodynamics, because it is not 
> about
> them: it is about whether someone might be able to come up "anytime 
> soon"
> with something that nobody (or at least not Tony) has considered so 
> far
> (theory, process, technology, whatever). Is there a scientific 
> theory about
> the probability of such an event

Yes.

> (as the affirmation was talking about
> exactly this)? If so, I stand corrected. (Would it contain a "Tony
> constant"? It would have to, I think :)  If not... ??

*OR* it would appear to be about such. Even though, when examined in 
detail, it proved not to be.

People have recently seriously proposed a device which, while it did 
not explicitly 'break the laws of physics'*, did "appear to break the 
law of gravity".

It was/is a "thruster" that allowed a system to 'hover' in a gravity 
field while consuming no power.
A table does this equally well.
However, as this system had no visible means of support (a crime under 
some administrations)( :-) ) it annoys the brain significantly.

The system was provable mathematically to the extent that serious and 
competent people argued (and may still be arguing) over whether there 
were some unacceptable assumptions used in establishing the proof. I, 
sadly, an quite sure that there were some invalid** assumptions 
involved and that the devices are unrealisable.

The devices were suitable for hovering because actual motion would 
involve work (force x distance). As long as there was no motion you 
had force x 0 = 0 and you got levitation without work being done.

As the system could levitate with notionally no power consumption 
(although in practice power would be required to implement the 
operation) it would APPEAR to "break" the law of gravity as it is felt 
to be formulated in the popular consciousness. It would not break any 
laws of nature as gravity is careful enough to describe itself 
somewhat differently than the average man thinks of it :-).

The point of the above is to note that there IS in fact a wholly 
serious current proposal about the probability of producing an "anti 
gravity" system, even though the scientific mind would scream at the 
thought that such a system could exist. (And it would alas be right to 
do so).

AFAIK NASA is currently funding research into this proposed system. 
FWIW>


        Russell

 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist