My question is about The Podkletnov Effect It is kind of old news, but it is news to me because I only now have come across it.

http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/gravity.html
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/gravity3.htm
http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/antigrav.html

It basically is an experiment which had rotating discs that made objects hanging above it lose some weight.. it was repeated succesfully by the plank institute in germany as well adding to it's credibility at the time.. but now it is not in the news anymore because they beleive it is experimental error.

do you think it is possible to defy earth's gravity?

gravity still remains the least known about force.

Xaxaro,

Welcome to sciforums!!!

I do believe that it would be possible to make an antigravity device. A few years ago I theoretically completed an antigravity device, but I never built a prototype. I shared my ideas about it on these forums, but my ideas weren't accepted by the "conservative" people on these forums. This is how it would work:

Basically, every field has a sister field. The sister field of the electric field is the magnetic field. Whenever a field moves, its sister field appears at right angles to both the original field AND the motion of the field. In other words, if an electron is moving in the y axis, all of the electron's electric field in the x axis will be converted to a mgnetic field in the z axis. This process is also reversable: a moving magnetic field converts back into an electric field. So for example you can take electrons, which are unipolar, and send them through a wire to create a magnetic field. You can then convert the magnetic field back into an electric field. The only difference is is that the resulting electric field will be bipolar, not unipolar like the original electrons.

The gravitational field also has a sister field. I call it the Z-field since it hasn't been named yet. Using the same technique I described above, a unipolar gravitational field can be converted to Z-field, which can, in turn, be converted into a bipolar gravitational field. If a device was made that would create the antigravity pole of the bipolar gravitational field pointing towards the Earth, the device would levitate, because opposite gravitational fields repel each other. Here is a simple expanation of how this device would be constructed:

You would place several small fast rotating discs at the parameter of a larger rotating disc. The small discs, when rotated, would convert their gravitational fields into Z-fields that would be pointing away from the center of the larger disc. When the larger disc would begin to spin, it would convert these Z-fields back into a bipolar gravitational field. This resulting bipolar gravitational field would be used for propulsion.

I know that my Z-force theory is correct because it would explain the precessions of gyroscopes. In the case of gyroscopes, if you try to push one over, a force will appear at right angles to the force you are applying. This is actually proof that the gravitational field has a sister field, as well.

Tom

I do believe that it would be possible to make an antigravity device. A few years ago I theoretically completed an antigravity device, but I never built a prototype. I shared my ideas about it on these forums, but my ideas weren't accepted by the "conservative" people on these forums.

The ideas weren't accepted because it was shown the ideas would not work. Your belief that it will work does not change that fact.

I know that my Z-force theory is correct because it would explain the precessions of gyroscopes. In the case of gyroscopes, if you try to push one over, a force will appear at right angles to the force you are applying. This is actually proof that the gravitational field has a sister field, as well.

The properties for precessions of gyroscopes are simply natural movements for rotating bodies and have nothing to do with gravitational fields. You are implying a gyroscope can create a gravitational field.

How do you explain a gimbaled gyroscope which can eliminate precession ?

xaxaro,

Nobody has been able to reproduce Podkletnov's results. Many have tried. It seems that the "effect" is not real.

Proosthus

Thank you + sciforums ppl.
:bugeye: :o :p ;) :D


Well I want to start manufacturing such disks.. what do you need to make such ceramic disks? hydraulic machines or ovens? Mixing bowls....

In the past always scientist's have made new experimental discoveries, but these days no scientist's want to experiment.. This leaves Potzers to do all the experimenting.. Pod's was one of the few who had the cahones to print something like this the first time around.. i am sure all the other scientists are busting his chops because of it..

<i>In the past always scientist's have made new experimental discoveries, but these days no scientist's want to experiment..</i>

This is very far from the truth. Physics is still very much an experimental science. Take a look at any physics journal these days. Every month hundreds of new experiments are published.

<i>Pod's was one of the few who had the cahones to print something like this the first time around.. i am sure all the other scientists are busting his chops because of it..</i>

Why would they? Antigravity would be fantastic if it worked. People have tried to reproduce these particular results without success. The man himself has not produced any advance on his initial claims. There are no antigravity prototype aircraft to be seen coming from his lab. What does that suggest to you?

James and Q,

Maybe the two of you should look into experiments that NASA is now performing using superconductors and a spinning disc. NASA claims that anti-gravity is within reach.

Tom

xaxaro,

Well I want to start manufacturing such disks.. what do you need to make such ceramic disks? hydraulic machines or ovens? Mixing bowls....

If you want to make these discs, I would recommend that you make them from the heaviest materials possible. That way you wouldn't have to spin them extremely fast to get the antigravitational force you desire. (The heavier they are, and the faster they spin, the more force they produce).

If I were making them, I would make them out of lead. Lead is heavy and it melts easily. I would make a mold for the discs, pour the lead in, and let it cool.

I decided to not to make this anti-gravity device because I've found a way to make another type of propulsion device that wouldn't require any moving parts. Here is the link to it if your interested:

http://www.sciforums.com/t5224/s/thread.html

Tom, aka Joeblow93132

Podkletnov now claims that his results have been verified by researchers at two universities - but he won't name these people for fear that they'll be ridiculed and ruined by the gravity establishment. The team at NASA make no secret of their work - but they have no definite results, yet. And so, at this time, the only credentialed scientist claiming to have witnessed gravity modification is Podkletnov himself.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity_pr.html

Is this what you're referring:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

...which just so happens to be here:

http://www.crank.net/propulsion.html

Q,

I'll believe NASA over a ultra-conservative website (www.crank.net), anytime. I don't know how you can even compare the two.

Tom

Don't spin lead discs very fast or they will fly apart & hurt you!
:(

Tom,

I'd be very careful making fast-spinning disks extremely heavy, and out of lead of all things. :rolleyes:

If the material a fast-spinning disk is made of does not possess adequate tensile strength, your disk will fly apart with potentially catastrophic and deadly consequences. Lead is probably just about the worst material you could pick (seeing how malleable it is.) Not to mention that lead and lead vapors are extremely and chronically toxic for the human nervous system.

Note: this is not a commentary on your theory, just on your experimental suggestion.

As for your electromagnetic "propulsion" scheme, I've looked at it and it won't fly. Electromagnetic waves have a habit of passing through each other, so if you emit a pulse from plate 1 that pushes on plate 2 as plate 2 emits its own pulse, then that pulse from plate 2 will push on plate 1 completely negating all impulse. All you get in the end is vibrating plates.

[edit: ha, looks like Odin beat me to it while I was typing this post up. :D]

[edit: ha, looks like Odin beat me to it while I was typing this post up.

No matter! we both gave him good advice!
:)

odin and overdoze,

What if you electroplate the lead discs with a stronger metal? Would that work??

overdoze,

As for your electromagnetic "propulsion" scheme, I've looked at it and it won't fly. Electromagnetic waves have a habit of passing through each other, so if you emit a pulse from plate 1 that pushes on plate 2 as plate 2 emits its own pulse, then that pulse from plate 2 will push on plate 1 completely negating all impulse.

Remember, the electric fields do not travel instantaneously, they travel at the speed of light. All you have to do is make sure that plate 1 is off before the pulse from plate 2 reaches it. That's why I have both plates pulsing, not only one. If you time the pulses correctly, they won't negate each other.

Tom

Tom,

Electroplating?? All that does is deposit an thin uniform veneer on the surface. Hardly effective.

What you might do is create a hollow "donut" out of some much tougher material -- e.g. tool steel, titanium, woven carbon fiber or even nanotubes -- and fill the innards with lead. Though I'm not sure that would gain you anything.

Ultimately, your theoretical effect is due to 2 things:

<ol>
<li>radial velocity of the disk's material</li>
<li>mass of the disk</li>
</ol>

Increasing (1) limits (2) and vice versa. So you might as well make the whole disk out of a light but very strong material and spin it real fast (common engineering approach to flywheels) -- or make the disk out of a heavy material and spin it slowly. Unless there is some finesse to the interactions and velocity is somehow more important than mass or vice versa.

As for your electric propulsion, let me refine my criticism. It turns out that whether plate 2 is charged or not is irrelevant. As you charge and discharge plate 1, you're essentially emitting light. It's the same principle as used in radio antennae -- in fact plate 1 is just a radio antenna in your case. So plate 1 will emit both electric and magnetic waves, oscillating orthogonally to each other -- aka photons. The photons are absorbed by plate 2 and give it a push, but plate 1 recoiled while emitting them so there's no net effect.

Your whole propulsion scheme would be a lot more efficient if you just shot light out of a laser. That way you get maximum impulse for the amount of light you emit. But this is just a "light rocket", and while you could approach lightspeed it would take you an inordinate amount of time to both accelerate and decelerate using such an engine.

The ideas weren't accepted because it was shown the ideas would not work. Your belief that it will work does not change that fact. -- Q.



Nobody has been able to reproduce Podkletnov's results. Many have tried. It seems that the "effect" is not real. -- JamesR


Skepticism is fine, but you must back it up with facts or you are the same as the Creationsists.

NASA has been working with Podkletnov's ideas for about ten years, and is ready to test devices in orbit.

A NASA report (http://search.spacelink.nasa.gov/r.html?col=&qt=Podkletnov&url=http%3A//www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/pdf/Robertson-JPC.PDF)

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/WhitePaper.htm

Really, there's heaps of material out there. You may note that NASA also listens to Hal Puthoff, a chap mockde for years by the general scientific community for his work on psychic phenomena and zero-point energy.

Just do a search at the main NASA site on "Podkletnov".

Adam,

NASA's BPP effort is commendable and exciting, but hardly a confirmation of Podkletnov's effect. And, the report you cited actually found a null result (meaning it failed to substantate the effect) -- granted it was a preliminary study.

So far, what James R said holds: nobody has been able to reproduce Podkletnov's results.

As for testing "devices" in "orbit": that's news to me. Where did you get that from?

http://www.cosmiverse.com/space03260201.html

Haven't found the NASA mission profile yet, I'll get on it later.

???

There's no talk there at all of testing devices in space. The BPP program conducts ground-based (and mostly table-top) experiments (keyword is: cheap.)

It was a headline for NASA in I think. Still searching for the mission profile.

I can't find any shuttle info on it. Maybe it was only ground experiments after all. But NASA has spent ten years on it. I would hardly call that "cheap".

The BPP program is fairly new (it is certainly not 10 years old.)

Also, cheap is of course relatively speaking. They might be spending say, 1 million a year -- maybe even less. That's nothing as these things go (a typical space mission runs into multiple 100M.)

P.S. you might like this website: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm

The BPP website (linked from there):
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

P.P.S. Jesus f*cking Christ, nothing's holy anymore! The Bush has spoken once again. They're about to cut the BPP out of existence! *breathes heavily* just 2 more years ... just 2 more years...

From the NASA paper linked above:

"Podkletnov’s gravity modification experiments were conducted in the early 1990’s. Nevertheless, skepticism persists, especially since the experiments have not been adequately documented and repeated."

"To summarize, we note that these exploratory experiments have been carried out in an attempt to quantify the effects of EM energy on a superconductor. The general conclusion is that the results of these tests gave a null result. That is, no conclusion at this time can be made to the EM effects on the superconductor."

Top right of page 2. Experiments by other researchers were not teh same experiments, but were simplified. Further down that column the author says further and more meticulous experiments are required.

And from the Conclusion: "That is, no conclusion at this time can be made to the EM effects on the superconductor." This from "simplified" experiements. Note that they did not achieve a negative result, they achieved a null result from less-than-accurate reproduction. Thus they continue to spend money and research the possible phenomenon.

The ideas weren't accepted because it was shown the ideas would not work. Your belief that it will work does not change that fact. -- Q.

Simply untrue, Q. The ideas were not shown to not work.


Nobody has been able to reproduce Podkletnov's results. Many have tried. It seems that the "effect" is not real. -- JamesR

Again, "the effect is not real" is a premature, unfounded statement, as demonstrated by the continuing funding and experiments, and by the aforementioned null result.

Overdoze,

As for your electric propulsion, let me refine my criticism. It turns out that whether plate 2 is charged or not is irrelevant. As you charge and discharge plate 1, you're essentially emitting light. It's the same principle as used in radio antennae -- in fact plate 1 is just a radio antenna in your case. So plate 1 will emit both electric and magnetic waves, oscillating orthogonally to each other -- aka photons. The photons are absorbed by plate 2 and give it a push, but plate 1 recoiled while emitting them so there's no net effect.

You're mixing apples and oranges. There are two forces that may be present in this device:

1) The momentum of the virtual particles of the electric field. (This is what you're referring to) This momentum(if it exists) is very small. As far as I know, electromagnetic photons have this momentum, but virtual particles that make up electric and magnetic fields do not. If these virtual particles had momentum, and if my device only used this momentum as a propulsion force, then, as you indicated, it wouldn't work. However, my device is not concerned with the momentums of photons or virtual particles, it is concerned with electromagnetic interactions(see 2).

2) The other type of force present in this device is the electrostatic attractive/repulsive force. This force is far greater than the momentums of the photons and virtual particles that create this force. I use this force to make the propulsion possible in my device.

Tom

Q commented on Prosoothus antigravity theories:

The ideas weren't accepted because it was shown the ideas would not work. Your belief that it will work does not change that fact.

Adam counters:

Skepticism is fine, but you must back it up with facts or you are the same as the Creationsists.

Simply untrue, Q. The ideas were not shown to not work.

Adam, I get the distinct feeling we're not talking about the same thing. My comment above was directed at Prosoothus's theories, not the Podkletnov’s experiment.

However, I am quite surprised you would support the Podkletnov experiment considering no one has ever successfully repeated the experiment.

The BPP project is an interageny project which is somewhat supported by the Glenn Research Center. It is not an official NASA project as are other projects linked to the GRC. The GRC has been set up as a peer review agency, therefore theories can be submitted and reviewed and in some cases funding can be provided.

Prosoothus

It would appear Overdose has come to the same conclusion and has outlined the same problem, no net effect, vibrating plates at best.

Originally posted by (Q)

Adam, I get the distinct feeling we're not talking about the same thing. My comment above was directed at Prosoothus's theories, not the Podkletnov’s experiment.

Oops, sorry, my bad.


However, I am quite surprised you would support the Podkletnov experiment considering no one has ever successfully repeated the experiment.

I support the possibility and the further research until it is conclusively proven to be bollocks. So far that hasn't happened. I support research into all areas which might give us amazing new technologies.

q- Podkletnov's experiment was duplicated by the Plank Institute if that counts as a credible source. Maybe NASA has not been able to duplicate the experiments because .. well who knows? But it was done correctly twice ( once by Pod. once by Plank I)

Prosthoos- If you get your experiment to work then I will listen, but in the mean time there are way too many people claiming antigravity devices.. Podkletnov is a material scientist who is quite good at what he does...

My Manufacturing of disks - No I am not going to use lead. If I manufactured the disk I would use the same ceramic compound that Podkletnov used.

I doubt that I will do this though - Why? - Time, money, risk of failure, lack of education-- etc. But maybe I will try it..

Let's say if someone really wanted to do this...

He would need:
The ceramic compounds $$$$
Oven or hydraulic press and/or vacuum $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
liquid hydrogen $
Heavy Duty Motor $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wood Shop/Metal Shop cutting/carving tools $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Misc parts

Unless you have access to a professional or educational lab, then this is REALLY hard to do.

What do you think it would cost/etc to do the Podlketnov experiment?

Also, doing this alone is not feasible. Sharing costs/experience/comradary/etc would be needed to get the job done...

I am thinking team of at least 5 people to share costs/lab/etc and at least 50,000 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Here is an idea: put an add in the paper looking for
electrical engineers, chem engineers, comp sci., material scientists, electricians, metal workers, etc. etc.. You could form a pretty good team.. I think this would be pretty cool to do... Even if it fails/...

<i>Podkletnov's experiment was duplicated by the Plank Institute if that counts as a credible source.</i>

Reference please. (I assume you mean the Max Planck Institute.)

xaxaro,

I am thinking team of at least 5 people to share costs/lab/etc and at least 50,000 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$50,000!!!! Are you crazy??? You can build a car for $50,000.

You don't have to make the discs, they are probably already premade for some other device (like brake rotors for cars). All you have to do is find them.

One more thing, the device does not have to be built exactly to specifications. The device would just have to prove that anti-gravity is possible, it doesn't have to be a powerful self-contained propulsion device.

Tom

xaxaro,

Disregard my last post. I thought you were talking about my antigravity device, not Podkletnov's device.

If you want to make Podkletnov's device then it will cost you alot of money. I'd say much more than the $50,000 you are suggesting. Good luck!!

Tom

xaxaro, James, Adam, and Q,

By the way, if my theory is correct, the reason Podkletnov device doesn't work is because his sample(floating above the disc) is not spinning. If he were to spin the sample, the two z-forces (of the rotating disc, and the rotating sample) would attract or repel each other, giving the appearance that antigravity was created.

I assume that when Podkletnov first tested his device, the sample may have been slowly spinning. He may have forgot to include this "spin" in his later experiments.

Tom

xaxaro,

The link that you provided for the Podkletnov experiment also describes the James F. Woodward propulsion device.

After reviewing Woodward's patent, I found that his device is a primitive version of my Electrostatic Pulse Engine.

Tom

Prosoothus, I don't really know what to say anymore. IT could be right or wrong, but I don't know that much so even if I say I agree it would not be very credible.

James, I was wrong. It was just a report, but not an actual experiment. This kind of dampens my belief in this as well, because if only it was repeated once... well... you know.

this is really a question of hitting the books and finding some loophole in relativity or electromagnetism. Anyone? You will be famous forever.

this is really a question of hitting the books and finding some loophole in relativity or electromagnetism. Anyone? You will be famous forever.

Welcome to Sciforums, xaxaro.

Unfortunatly, or fortunatly, or both, simply hitting the books has not shown any loopholes in relativity. It seems quite well confirmed, experimentally.

Adam:
I support the possibility and the further research until it is conclusively proven to be bollocks. So far that hasn't happened. I support research into all areas which might give us amazing new technologies.

Unfortunatly, it ain't that simple. Money is, of course, a factor.

I have an anti-gravity in my basement. I have a video of it in operation. Give me money.

This is a pretty poor example, but discretion on the amount of money spent is necessary.

Or you end up spending millions of taxpayer dollars on psychics (http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/1997/0014.html).

Xev,,

I was entertained by the link about the quack scientist's. I think that Podklednov is credible, because he did not do his experiment looking for antigravity- antigravity was supposedly accidentally found. Anyway, who is to say that the experiment is true or is not true? I am not, and neither is Pod- he is objective.

Einstein built upon Maxwell's ideas which was electromagnetism. I have only thought of what Einstein did insofar as being able to calculate different reference frames of space ships travelling different velocities, how time is different, etc.. But what I do not understand is how Einstein's RElativity explains electromagnetism and gravity?..... which has to do with Pod's experiment being true or not. Alrighty then.

edit: nevermind, was gonna say something but figured it out myself

It seems that Boeing is also investigating Podkletnov's experiment:

--
Researchers at the world's largest aircraft maker, Boeing, are using the work of a controversial Russian scientist to try to create a device that will defy gravity.
The company is examining an experiment by Yevgeny Podkletnov, who claims to have developed a device which can shield objects from the Earth's pull.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm

Very interesting Crisp. Any predictions on where this might lead?

If you don't mind... explain this "disc" idea in less... um, complex ways. For us (me) not so gifted people. Thanks.

Hi Adam,

I personally think it will lead nowhere, since I completely fail to see how gravity and electromagnetic forces can compensate eachother. The best you could do is perhaps use the earth's magnetic field to cancel gravity a little bit, but I fail to see how this can help an object accelerate enough to compensate gravity.

Ofcourse, it would be nice to see that it actually works (this would open some interesting scientific perspectives) but I wouldn't bet my money on it.

Bye!

Crisp

If you read Spin Gravity... Ether of Magnetism, the Podkletnov effect can be understood, since spin gravity dipolar spiral waves could be countered by an opposite wave. It is important to note the effect produced is phased by the high voltage, a reverse polarity will not show the effect. :)

I recently read of the "podkletnov effect" which is claimed to be anti gravity. By report the proponent of the speculation saw smoke from the pipe of a "co-speculator" mysteriously rise up to the ceiling when blown over a rapidly spinning magnetically suspended cryogenically cooled disc. The conclusion they made is that it must be antigravity in action. Not! I wonder what they were smoking that day.

If such things were so , Dorothy and her dog Toto would have really ended up in deep space, rather than Oz. Every day we see the weather report talk about barometric pressure variations. If we are paying attention we can see the magical effect of vortex flow in the real world when a dust devil sends litter up to the sky. It doesn't require a superconducting disc to become manifest. A tornado doesn't generate antigravity either. Differential flow velocity/air pressure temporarily lifts millions of things up in the air (birds , bees , and people in airplanes).

No wonder Boeing is going broke. Shame on Max Plank institute too.I think that I created some cold fusion in my freezer. Will they give ME money too?

Gravity control investigation raises hopes


10:20 18 August 02

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition

Controlling gravity will probably never help us launch a spacecraft, but that does not mean we should give up on the idea, says the European Space Agency. It is calling for missions that might one day enable us to harness gravity, however weakly, for the benefits we will reap back on Earth.

ESA has never got involved in gravity-control research before. But NASA's highly theoretical Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project in Cleveland, as well as recent announcements of unusual experimental findings in major science journals, have convinced the agency to take the field seriously, according to ESA adviser Clovis de Matos.

Since September 2001, investigators Orfeu Bertolami and Martin Tajmar have been combing through more than a dozen different gravity-control schemes for ESA. They conclude that most are not worth wasting money on.

Some schemes, such as certain notions based on superstring theory, promise gravity-reducing effects so weak they would provide a "push" only a billion-billionth as strong as the Earth's pull. Others simply contradict well-tested science.

But while Bertolami and Tajmar conclude that antigravity is still out of reach, they propose three simple missions that might lead to it in the future.


Falling antimatter


One is a Sputnik 5 spacecraft to investigate strange gravitational effects felt by the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes. In a second mission, experiments on the International Space Station could test whether antimatter falls any differently from normal matter.

Finally, they propose studies of superconductors and of superfluids - supercooled gases that flow without any friction - to investigate whether spinning them can create "gravitomagnetic" fields, much as rotating a magnet creates an electromagnetic field.

But even if we do work out how to control gravity, it will not help launch spacecraft, the researchers say. If a ship could be made lighter, any propellant it ejected would be lighter too, so it would not accelerate any faster.

Marc Millis, founder of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project, says it could be easier to launch a lighter ship if it was propelled by something outside its low-gravity force field, such as bombs exploded behind it.


Remarkable qualities

But even so, gravity is just one of the problems a spacecraft has to contend with. To launch a satellite into low-Earth orbit, for instance, it has to reach a speed of 8.9 kilometres per second. Even completely shielding it from gravity, it would still have to reach 7.5 kilometres per second just to stay in orbit.

But gravity control would be valuable here on Earth. Metals, ceramics and organic crystals made in microgravity show remarkable qualities. Alloys made in microgravity can be far stronger than normal because they lack the defects caused when gravity swirls the molten metal.

Microgravity also means objects can be suspended in mid-air, avoiding containers that could contaminate a pharmaceutical reaction, say. And certain superconductors can only be grown in microgravity.

Doing all that in space would be hugely expensive, but antigravity would mean it could be done on Earth, says Tajmar.

Charles Choi

Source. (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992674)

anti gravity IS possible..... maybe not Podkletnov' s way, its most post say that things are not possible as if we have reached the maximum in science, there is more than meets the eye! also to properties!

I just spent a happy 10 mins working out how fast a 100cm circumferance disk would have to spin to match the spinning velocity of the earth. If the small disk had the same mass as the earth could we assume that it would also have the same gravitational pull, or would a stationary non spinning earth still have the same gravitational pull?

I guess what I am getting at is the relationship between Gravity and Inertia. We all asume that Inertia is a result (sister or equal and opposite to) of opposition to gravity, what if it where the other way around and Inertia was the predominant force against matter and gravity was a result of its distortion. Inertia wants to stop a body in motion, the way it does this is by slapping a load of gravity round it.

We all asume that Inertia is a result (sister or equal and opposite to) of opposition to gravity

I don't. inertia can exist without gravity. instead of gravity, do you mean force in general?

Inertia wants to stop a body in motion, the way it does this is by slapping a load of gravity round it.

Inertia is a property of a body, not something acting on a body.

How can inertia exist outside of Gravity?

Change in inertia do to interaction with an electric or magnetic field, for a charged body. How easily can i push something(accelerate)

Maybe the disc should be made of depleted uranium , this should have both the tensile strength to survive the experiment and the density to possibly create some ethervortex or something....

Also it would be interesting to use radioactive dopants in the disk to see what happens to decay-times, foton/particle emissions etc if you spin the disc really fast.

Just a thaught, could it be that individual particles, due to the fast spin of the disk occupie the location of a neighbouring particle , BEFORE the waveform has fully collapsed to reveal the new position of that other particle?, so that the quantumstates become entangled (this would need very very fast rotation) ? Some sorta solid Bose-Einstein condensate. I would bet that cooling the disk and/or use a disk of superconducting material (additional Meissner effect) would further improve synchronisation of the quantum states...???

Why arent we all thrown from the Earths surface by cenrtifugal force? Why does a whirlpool or whirlwind capture objects? I am no scientist, but I am sure of one thing, when Gravity is eventually understood and made maleable it will be harnesed and controlled by a mechanism simpler than you would believe.

Why arent we all thrown from the Earths surface by cenrtifugal force?

Because gravity is "stronger" than this centrifugal force. It has however resulted in the earth being ellipsoid in shape.

Why does a whirlpool or whirlwind capture objects?

Whirlwinds are a result of the coriolis force fealt by atoms in the atmosphere "spilling" down from a high pressure region to a low pressure region. They "suck" up objects because of the pressure difference between the bottom of the object and the top of the object. A bit like an airplane wing.