You Must Be KIDDing!

Simple Antigravity experiment

June 4, 2017

This would be a good candidate for application of UFT367 to UFT370, using a modification of the simultaneous differential equations given there. That would be a classical theory, and quantum classical equivalence means that there is a classical limit to any quantum hypothesis.”

Laithwaite was bad enough … but now Kidd? If only you knew about all of the other magical spinning-top levitation gadgets, dating back over 100 years! But nobody knows antigravity pseudoscience like we know it. Our author friend is too busy with a more urgent project at the moment but, heads up, he has already written-up the Kidd device as ‘a touchstone to reveal engineering incompetence at all levels’. Newly-added Ron will be small-fry, given that a British university applied for a patent on this heap of scrap metal and given that it featured in a limited-circulation internal report (we have a copy of course) by British Aerospace. It even found its way into British Aerospace’s ‘house magazine’ (no wonder it had to bribe buyers to take its products). We seem to recall that Kidd’s Krap was part of Project Greenglow, and has even been mentioned in a leading aerospace journal. So, while ‘the cream of British engineering’ sees a device worth investigating, physicists can only stand back and laugh. There is clearly something wrong with the education system, isn’t there Ron? Why do your new loony friends think that there is a Nobel Prize in it? Lots of people have ‘proved’ that it defies gravity. Are you calling them liars? Be careful whom you offend … one of those idiots is a millionaire scientologist. Here is a helping-hand to any readers who think that ‘there might be something in it’. Physics is all about asking the right questions. For instance, asking ‘what keeps the Moon up’ will forever cripple understanding. Asking ‘what keeps it down’ brings enlightenment. All of this spinning-top nonsense stems from watching a top on its little tower and mentally picturing what force is holding up the free end. Big mistake. There isn’t one. All of the forces involved are couples. There is only one ‘one-line’ explanation of why a top does not fall over: “it does not have sufficient energy to” … but that is too paradoxical for non-physicists’ palates.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: