http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSS5hRdHkgQ

Otherwise the rocks and sand would fall upwards from the floor without human intervention.

And yes, I know it is faked.

Ian

Has no-one considered any alternatives ?

What if the rocks and sand were of a lower density than the surrounding atmosphere ? Would not the rocks “float” ?

Ian

The real question is the reliability and accuracy of source material. Two reasons to look something up: 1) to learn something, 2) to support your position on something. Suppose I state that airplanes fly by force of the pilot’s will. I then want to prove my point, so I cite “Howthingswork�, “Wikipedia�, and for grins, Snopes. Those three have articles that state something to the effect agreeing with my statement. Thus I have justification for my belief that planes fly by the pilot’s wish. Suddenly along comes some know-it-all who cites “The Aerodynamic Principles of Fixed Wing Aircraft� (McMillan and Chase, 1986)*, which describes fluid dynamics, the principles of lift and drag, Bernoulli vs. Newton, etc ad nauseum. Now who is correct? Me with my 3 references, or him with his 1? Part of the answer, of course, is the quality of the references – his is 1st principles technical text book, mine are three online webpages with dubious authorship. Of course, even that isn’t a guarantee the text book is right, but still, it is more likely to be correct.

Wikipedia operates on the principle that because it can be edited by anyone, the technically informed people are able to read, evaluate, and edit the content to make it more correct. And if bad stuff gets in, someone can correct it. It can also be discussed and debated for those points that get more gray. That’s the theory. However, it assumes that because the technical people can participate that they do participate. Also, it assumes that the more correct information is more convincing, and able to sway the majority of participants on that topic. If the content is controversial and not balanced, it can incite a repetition of each side editing and reverting posts. You would think factual matters wouldn’t be subject to that kind of attack….

People seem to find their favorite online (i.e. quick and easy) resources. They validate with one or two entries, the content seems clear, then they use those references for everything. Except just because Wikipedia correctly discusses airplane flight does not mean it is correct in discussing submarines. Maybe, maybe not.

The bottom line is you can’t accept any source as automatically correct. Wikipedia is a nice reference, but isn’t necessarily accurate, and must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis.

LINK

Link edited by The Bad Astronomer

Originally, all I did was post some information and make a simple statement. I feel strongly that Wikipedia is dangerous because it mixes good information with questionable information in a venue that is easily accessible by people who don’t know any better. It is all well and good to become elitist and say, “well of course you should know it’s a joke,” except that somebody is always going to take it otherwise. If you don’t know any better, how do you sort joke entries from real ones?

Being a skeptic is all well and good, but it does take some experience and education in order to become an effective skeptic -and this is something that many readers on the internet will always lack. Wikipedia is a nifty idea and a unique venue for debate, but I think there’s some caution required that has not yet been put in place… especially in light of the very real problems involving information clarity that exist in the world today.

If you think I’m being unnecessarily overbearing, or heavy handed, that is your perrogative. I apologize with that; I have no intention of insulting anyone, but my serious opinion is no less valid than everyone else’s. Maybe this whole thread is all about joking and the odd man out is the one who sees something serious and dangerous. Well, I do see a darker topic lying under this and I’m not a bit afraid of expressing that view point. To say “Not only is everyone having fun with this…” implies that it is wrong to have a different opinion because I apparently am not “everyone” and I should conform to the group opinion. Applying peer pressure is an easy way to dissencourage both creative thought and critical thought.

I thought the original video was pretty funny, and I understood what had been done immediately. What got me interested in the darker topic here was that someone would immediately turn around and dig up information that seemed to corroborate the video in its fakey stance (regardless of whether that person intends only to contribute to a joke). What the darker topic is is that a third person perspective will immediately take the two together and carry them somewhere, maybe blindly. The link I posted exemplifies this. Misinformation propagates quickly indeed in our world today, perhaps even from an “innocent” joke.

I hope I’ve made it clear why I feel as I do, and I would be happy to clarify if not.

Wings and engines
Large fuel tanks.
Under-carriage
Tail unit
Galley

Then add 4 x CYPARDON gyro units, one small a.c. power unit and batteries

Lmfao XD

What screamed fake about the video was the cuts. It should have been one continuous shot. In addition, one big giveaway was the audio. Despite the video cuts, the audio continued uninterrupted.

Nice hoax.

Note that there are no photos of the product or any demonstrations anywhere, and the main use mentioned on the home page is for solving traffic problems! Also, this made me laugh out loud: “There are about 500 sightings every year of U.F.O.s…Many are triangular.” Next to this quote is a picture of the Concorde!

(In the case of the video, Brian Dunning even gave it away on the “pictures” page. He says, “And, just for fun, view this video of a ‘gravitational anomaly’ we found inside the mine…”)

I’d like to inform you of the Frappr! map for freethinker blogs:
http://www.frappr.com/freethinkers

If you have a blog please considering adding your push-pin and blog URL.
In addition, if you know of any other blogging freethinkers I’d appreciate
it if you forward this invitation to them.

I participate in a similar map and we have close to 200 international
members. In short: it’s a great way to visually promote blogs within our
nontheistic community.

Thus far no members outside of America. Who’s gonna be the first from the international community?

Finally, feel free to grab the image I created for your own blog. Or, for
that matter, make your own!

Sincerely,

Bob Patterson

Got Blog? Add it to Freethinkers!
http://www.frappr.com/freethinkers

Blogroll me!
http://www.taozenchi.com/bcpblog/

Or something.

I doubt anyone who reads this page is going to be buying an anti-gravity machine any time soon.

For the smug people here who think this was amateurish- let’s see if any of them can come up with a better video.

Finally, it should be noted that there are many examples of genuine videos and photographs that have been criticized on the internet as being obvious fakes. For instance, I follow some of the Apple rumor sites. Sometimes you’ll see a photo of a product before its official release. Even in the cases that such photos are genuine you’ll see many posters say that it was a bad photoshop job that anyone could do- and they’ll even point out obvious mistakes.

Let’s imagine this video had been a little bit more convincing (i.e. one continuous shot- lot’s of money spent on special effects etc.) How would we then have reacted? Could we imagine any plausible explanations that would explain the apparent gravity defying gravel? Maybe they were pre-magnetized or maybe the video was shot underwater somehow?

There are lots of magic tricks where I have no idea how the trick is performed- I could watch them a billion times and gosh-darn it- it would still look like the lady was being sawed in half. (There wouldn’t even be any video trickery in this case!) So it’s obviously not enough to be able to spot trickery. Skepticism is generally much tougher than that.

Finally, I’ll admit that the mention of cavorite was the instant tip-off for me. I wonder how quickly I would have worked this out otherwise. Is there any shame in not getting the trick? I don’t think so. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to watch that video and claim that they don’t know how it’s done and that it could even be real- but – they would like more information. If the effect could be clearly documented and repeated a thousand times, then it would become much much more convincing. There are many one-off events that are almost impossible to explain using the scientific method. Some times we’re just not smart enough- or we need more information.

Well, I’ve posted too much to this discussion- but it just grabbed me somehow. It’s such an interesting topic.

Somebody hasn’t been keeping up with their alternate-reality fiction lately.