> Actually the antigravity effect of rotating superconducting
> magnets was first recognized by Richard Pearse of New
> Zealand in May 1972

I guess this wouldn't be the Richard Pearse who died in 1953 would it?

http://www.auckland-airport.co.nz/pearse.html

Colin

You might not be able to explain why magnetism works, but you can at least be sure that it doesn't violate any fundamendal physical laws - such as conservation of mass-energy, or the laws of thermodynamics. You have to put in energy to overcome gravity, whether you can explain the effect or not. In broad terms, this needs to be given a pinch of salt of comparable size to that given to make a perpetual motion machine work.

Yes, I know that mass-energy and thermodynamics probably aren't "absolute", but they don't have big enough holes in to hide a competitive anti-gravity device.

Actualy a couple of US bike-shop owners worked on and invented a successful anti-gravity device way back 99 years ago.

They called it an "aeroplane". :p

Au contraire. The aeroplane relies on the presence of gravity. It's the down arrow that balances lift - imagine if it wasn't there.

Folks,

Don't be too certain the immutable laws of science are really immutable. The recent research that suggests that the speed of light is not constant has some "interesting" possibilities.

Tootle pip !!