[purveyor of knowledge]

Originally Posted by neutralino Erm.. anything published by either the IOP or the AIP. Also if one searches on SPIRES and comes up with the article, then it's fairly safe to say that the respective journals are reputable. I'd need to read the actual paper to say for certain, but I'm guessing that, if the author mentions some sort of anti-gravity device, then it is not that credible.

How are you to know that though? Do you know what you cannot know?

Is it scientific, to say that antigravity is impossible just on principle? Is it scientific to say that what seems too good to be true must be beyond our capability? How are you to know the principles on which our universe operates? And how are you to assume they must be so mundane as to not allow for the the greatest absolute possibilities?

What if antigravity was indeed for real? Have you considered the possibility in your dreams? Have you had an open and quiet mind and have you lit a flame of curiosity in your scientific pursuit that causes you to consider the ultimate possibilities that may be afforded to us? Perhaps if so you will read the article instead of dismissing it outright. I am not trying to talk down to you, I am just trying to tell you to be a real scientist. Scientists do not hold on to dogma. Scientists investigate the world directly and replicate everything that can be done, and they announce their results, in whatever forum they can, and that's exactly what Roschin and Godin did. Must you defame their discoveries before you know what they are or are not?

I'm asking, what are you basing your guess on when you say that antigravity must not be credible? Also, based on your beliefs, how do you intend for mankind to get to the nearest star system? If antigravity is impossible, then perhaps you believe that we are not intended to leave this solar system or that we have no means to and never will? Perhaps you think we are stuck here. But tell me,what is the reason for your guess that antigravity is only the stuff of dreams? Is it because it is too good to be true? Is that your rationale and scientific method?

Also I ask you this, if you decide to give merit where merit is due, will you actually read the article and base it on it's own merit. Furthermore, will you replicate the experiment yourself and serve as a true scientist? Who knows, perhaps you can disprove this whole thing. Or maybe you can help prove that it's true. But are you willing to get your hands dirty? Or would you rather try and debunk things based on an unpoven and pessimistic-sounding principle which dictates what you believe to be true even before you have had time to think about it.

Originally Posted by neutralino I've also never said that a photon has any rest mass. It is possible for a particle to have zero rest mass, but still have some energy, and thus curve spacetime. If you attribute any amount of rest mass to the photon, then you must dispense of special relativity: a theory that has been tested and verified time and time again.

I know you never said that, for that is where you and mainstream science diverge from me. But how is it possible for a particle to have zero rest mass? Because somebody said so? For in principle all things must have mass, and these are the types of principles we need to discover everything intuitively. Is it not a sound principle that everything must have mass?

If photons have, in effect, an infinitely small rest mass it would not change relativity one bit. The only thing it would change is to justify how photons can have relativistic mass. For is it not a sound principle that an object with relativistic mass must also have rest mass, and that this principle applies to everything?