Bad, Bad, Bad Physics

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 (6.67259×10^-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 6.6738×10^-11 and standard deviation of 0.0012×10^-11 or the true value of G is somewhere between 6.66899×10^-11 and 6.67619×10^-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 —> Read More