Branchoria UFO Research Deaths UFO Research Deaths

Evidence-led scrutiny of deaths, disappearances and suppression claims around unconventional research.

Within UFO Research Deaths

When Does Gravity Research Become an Antigravity Claim?

Legitimate research involving gravity or superconductors does not by itself demonstrate gravity cancellation or a working antigravity device.

245 sources 3 graphics
Preview for When Does Gravity Research Become an Antigravity Claim?

On this page

  • What legitimate gravity research can establish
  • Where stronger antigravity claims begin
  • Why technological proof requires more evidence

Introduction

Research on gravity, superconductors and unconventional propulsion can be scientifically legitimate without establishing “antigravity”. That distinction matters in discussions of UFO technology and alleged suppression of researchers, because the strongest versions of those narratives often assume that unusual theoretical work had already crossed the much larger evidential gap to a functioning gravity-control device.

Overview image for Antigravity
Illustrative overview

Established gravitational physics does allow unfamiliar effects. General relativity predicts curved spacetime, gravitational waves and frame-dragging; physicists continue to test whether gravity behaves exactly as Einstein’s theory predicts; and experiments can legitimately ask whether unusual states of matter reveal tiny departures from known theory. But none of that is equivalent to demonstrating that gravity can be screened, cancelled or reversed on demand. Modern tests instead place increasingly stringent limits on departures from general relativity and the equivalence principle. The critical question is therefore not whether a researcher studied an unconventional gravitational mechanism, but whether the claimed mechanism produced a reproducible force that survives controls for electromagnetic, thermal, mechanical and instrumental effects.[APS Journals]journals.aps.orgAPS JournalsMission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle | Phys. Rev. Lett.September 14, 2022…Published: September 14, 2022

What legitimate gravity research can establish

A useful starting point is that gravity research routinely examines effects that would once have sounded extraordinary. General relativity predicts that a rotating body drags spacetime slightly around with it, an effect known as frame-dragging. NASA and Stanford’s Gravity Probe B mission measured this phenomenon using precision gyroscopes in Earth orbit, obtaining a frame-dragging result consistent, within its experimental uncertainty, with Einstein’s prediction. Such an experiment is genuinely about a coupling between rotation and gravity, but it does not create a propulsion field or weaken Earth’s gravitational pull.[NASA]nasa.govWhat is Gravity Probe B?What is Gravity Probe B? - NASAJune 12, 2020…Published: June 12, 2020

The same distinction applies to equivalence-principle research. The weak equivalence principle says, in practical terms, that freely falling bodies respond to gravity in the same way regardless of their composition. The MICROSCOPE satellite compared titanium and platinum test masses and found no violation, constraining their relative differential acceleration to roughly the 10−15 level. Rather than revealing an accessible way to alter gravitational mass, the result severely restricts many theories that would predict composition-dependent gravitational behaviour.[APS Journals]journals.aps.orgAPS JournalsMission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle | Phys. Rev. Lett.September 14, 2022…Published: September 14, 2022

Antimatter provides an especially clear example of the difference between an interesting gravity question and an antigravity result. It was scientifically legitimate to ask whether antihydrogen would fall downwards or experience repulsive gravity. CERN’s ALPHA-g experiment finally observed neutral antihydrogen under Earth’s gravity and found its acceleration directed towards Earth, consistent within uncertainty with ordinary gravitational attraction. The experiment specifically ruled out the simple idea that antimatter falls upwards with a gravitational acceleration of approximately −g.[Nature]nature.comObservation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter | NatureObservation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter | NatureSeptember 27, 2023…Published: September 27, 2023

These examples show why the word “antigravity” can be misleading. A laboratory may study gravitomagnetism, equivalence-principle violations or the behaviour of exotic matter under gravity without possessing any method for cancelling gravity. Even discovering a tiny deviation from general relativity would not automatically yield practical propulsion: the magnitude, controllability, energy requirement and scalability of the effect would all have to be demonstrated separately.

Antigravity illustration 1
Explanatory illustration 1

Superconductors are where the boundary becomes especially important

Superconductors occupy a prominent place in antigravity narratives because they exhibit genuinely remarkable macroscopic quantum behaviour. Electrical resistance can vanish, magnetic flux can be expelled or quantised, and superconducting currents can persist for long periods. Those properties make superconductors reasonable systems in which to investigate extremely small couplings between quantum matter, electromagnetism and gravity. They do not, by themselves, imply gravity shielding.

This distinction is particularly relevant to the work of Ning Li and Douglas Torr. Their early papers examined theoretical gravitational effects in superconductors. A 1991 paper in Physical Review D analysed how gravitomagnetic and electromagnetic fields might behave in a pure superconductor, while a 1992 Physical Review B paper considered gravitational contributions to magnetic attenuation. Whatever one thinks of the models, publication of such theoretical work is not evidence that a laboratory gravity shield existed. The papers addressed possible field couplings within formal models; they did not report a propulsion craft or a macroscopic cancellation of Earth’s gravitational field.[APS Journals]journals.aps.orgPhys Rev D.43.457APS JournalsEffects of a gravitomagnetic field on pure superconductors | Phys. Rev. DJanuary 15, 1991…Published: January 15, 1991

That point is easily lost when later accounts summarise the work simply as “antigravity research”. In scientific terms, there is a large progression from proposing a coupling, to predicting a measurable anomaly, to detecting it, to independent replication, and finally to engineering a controllable technology. Moving directly from the first or second stage to the last changes the evidential status of the story.

Li herself later co-authored an experimental test using bulk yttrium-barium-copper-oxide, or YBCO, superconductors. The experiment was motivated in part by reports of gravitational anomalies around superconducting material. Using a sensitive gravimeter, however, the researchers found changes in acceleration smaller than two parts in 108 of normal terrestrial gravity under the tested static conditions. The experiment therefore established a limit rather than demonstrating macroscopic gravitational shielding.[ScienceDirect]sciencedirect.comOpen source on sciencedirect.com.

For discussions linking Li’s research to UFO propulsion or to claims that revolutionary work had to be hidden, this is an important evidential constraint. Her scientific record shows serious engagement with unconventional gravity questions. It does not publicly establish that she had achieved operational antigravity.

Measuring Spacetime Curvature

Channel: NASA Video

Open on YouTube

Where stronger antigravity claims begin

The dividing line becomes clearer in the case of Eugene Podkletnov’s superconducting experiments. In a 1992 Physica C paper with R. Nieminen, Podkletnov reported that a small test mass positioned above a levitating YBCO superconductor appeared to lose approximately 0.05–0.3 per cent of its weight. The authors suggested that an unusual superconducting state might somehow modify gravitational interaction. A later preprint described much larger reported reductions, reaching roughly 2 per cent under particular rotating and electromagnetic conditions.[ScienceDirect]sciencedirect.comOpen source on sciencedirect.com.

If those effects were robust, they would be extraordinary. A repeatable one- or two-per-cent reduction in gravitational weight caused by a compact laboratory apparatus would not be a minor refinement of gravitational theory. It would require a major explanation and would immediately invite engineering tests.

That is precisely why replication matters more than the novelty of the original report. A 2003 experiment by George Hathaway, Brian Cleveland and Yicheng Bao attempted to reproduce the alleged effect using a rotating superconducting disc and radio-frequency fields, drawing on Podkletnov’s published descriptions and additional communications. The researchers reported no gravity-like force within the sensitivity of their apparatus.[ScienceDirect]sciencedirect.comOpen source on sciencedirect.com.

The null result does not logically prove that every conceivable version of Podkletnov’s experimental arrangement must fail. Replication can be complicated when claimed effects depend on difficult material fabrication, cryogenic conditions or poorly characterised operating regimes. But an extraordinary mechanism cannot become established technology through such qualifications. If an effect is claimed to be large enough for propulsion, proponents ultimately need to specify conditions precisely enough for independent laboratories to reproduce it.

A 2022 preprint by A. V. Fetisov reported small apparent weight changes near YBCO material and described them as new evidence related to the Podkletnov effect. The experimental configuration differed significantly from the original: the material was not superconducting and was not rotating, and the authors proposed a different interpretation. Such a report is relevant to continuing investigation, but a preprint reporting another anomalous weight measurement is not equivalent to broad independent confirmation of gravitational shielding. The central replication problem therefore remains.[arXiv]arxiv.orgarXiv New experimental evidence for Podkletnov effectarXiv New experimental evidence for Podkletnov effect

Is Antigravity Even Possible?

Channel: AH DOCUMENTARY

Open on YouTube

A gravitational anomaly is not automatically gravity control

The term “gravity shielding” carries a stronger implication than merely observing a balance reading that changes when an apparatus is activated. A weight measurement can be affected by several ordinary forces that are enormously stronger than gravity at laboratory scales.

This is particularly troublesome around superconducting apparatus. Such experiments may involve strong magnetic fields, rapidly changing currents, cryogenic fluids, vibration, rotating machinery, high voltages and thermal gradients. An apparent reduction in measured weight can therefore arise from magnetic coupling to supposedly non-magnetic components, mechanical vibration transmitted to a balance, gas movement, electrostatic forces, buoyancy changes or shifts in the apparatus itself. Demonstrating genuine gravitational modification requires isolating the measured object from these alternatives and showing that the effect follows properties expected of gravity rather than of the laboratory hardware.

The ALPHA-g antihydrogen experiment illustrates how demanding that separation can be. Gravity is so weak relative to electromagnetism that minute stray electric or magnetic fields can overwhelm the gravitational force on antimatter particles. The collaboration therefore used electrically neutral antihydrogen, carefully characterised magnetic confinement and compared measured escape patterns with simulations for attractive, absent and repulsive gravity. That is the sort of discriminating methodology required when an experiment is supposed to identify gravity itself rather than an unexplained force.[Nature]nature.comObservation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter | NatureObservation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter | NatureSeptember 27, 2023…Published: September 27, 2023

NASA encountered a similar problem in evaluating claimed “mechanical antigravity” devices. A technical memorandum drawing on the agency’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics programme warned that oscillating masses and gyroscopes can appear to generate net thrust because of differential friction or confusion between torque and linear force. NASA’s recommendation was not to dismiss every unconventional claim in advance, but to demand clear minimum experimental thresholds capable of distinguishing genuine propulsion from artefacts.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server Responding to Mechanical AntigravityTechnical Reports Server Responding to Mechanical Antigravity

That principle applies directly to alleged gravitational technologies. A moving pointer, a changed scale reading or an unexplained acceleration is the beginning of an investigation, not the final identification of a new force.

Antigravity illustration 2
Explanatory illustration 2

General relativity contains unusual gravity without providing a gravity switch

Another common source of confusion is the fact that general relativity itself permits gravitational phenomena far removed from Newton’s simple picture of attraction between masses. Rotating bodies generate gravitomagnetic effects analogous in some mathematical respects to magnetism; gravitational waves carry disturbances in spacetime; cosmological models can contain accelerated expansion; and speculative spacetime geometries can be written down mathematically.

None of these observations supplies a known laboratory mechanism for placing a screen between an object and Earth and thereby blocking gravity. The familiar electromagnetic analogy is particularly dangerous here. A conductor can rearrange electric charge so that an electrostatic field is screened, and superconductors have distinctive magnetic behaviour. Gravity in general relativity is not another electromagnetic field for which an analogous shielding material has been demonstrated.

Gravitomagnetism offers a good illustration. Frame-dragging is real: Gravity Probe B measured an effect of the magnitude predicted for Earth’s rotation. Yet the effect is extremely small, not a strong artificial field produced by an ordinary rotating object. Some speculative superconductivity papers have proposed greatly enhanced gravitomagnetic phenomena, including work by Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos. Those authors themselves noted that earlier superconducting gravitational anomalies had not been independently reproduced and that proposed explanations rested on unsettled assumptions.[NASA]nasa.govResults and ImplicationsResults and Implications - NASA…

The existence of a theoretically named field therefore proves little about engineering feasibility. The meaningful questions are quantitative: how strong is it, what source produces it, how much energy is required, does it survive independent measurement, and can it exert a controllable force on external objects?

Why modern precision tests raise the evidential bar

Antigravity claims do not exist in a vacuum. They sit alongside an increasingly dense network of high-precision experiments testing gravity across very different scales.

MICROSCOPE found no composition-dependent violation of free fall down to roughly parts in 1015. ALPHA-g observed antihydrogen accelerating towards Earth rather than displaying simple gravitational repulsion. Gravity Probe B detected frame-dragging at approximately the strength predicted by general relativity. Gravitational-wave observations provide additional strong-field tests: in July 2026 the LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA collaboration reported that its largest combined set of tested compact-object merger signals remained consistent with general relativity, with tighter bounds on possible deviations.[aps.org]journals.aps.orgAPS JournalsMission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle | Phys. Rev. Lett.September 14, 2022…Published: September 14, 2022

None of those experiments rules out every conceivable new interaction. Physics still lacks a complete quantum theory of gravity, and carefully designed searches for deviations remain scientifically worthwhile. But the accumulated evidence changes the burden of proof. A proposed laboratory gravity-control effect must either fit within the tightly constrained behaviour already observed or identify a new regime in which the effect appears without contradicting those tests.

That is why a claimed one-per-cent “gravity reduction” is not merely another small anomaly. In experimental terms, one per cent is enormous compared with the precision at which some foundational gravitational principles have been verified. A real effect of that scale, if controllable and reproducible, should usually produce unmistakable signals in well-isolated experiments.

Antigravity illustration 3
Explanatory illustration 3

What would count as technological proof?

For the UFO-and-antigravity suppression narrative, the decisive evidential leap is often left implicit. A scientist may have written about gravity modification, obtained funding, conducted classified work or reported an anomaly. None of these establishes that the scientist possessed a usable propulsion technology.

A credible demonstration of engineered antigravity would need substantially more. At minimum, independent investigators would need a clearly specified apparatus; blinded or otherwise well-controlled measurements separating gravitational effects from electromagnetic and mechanical forces; repeatability across multiple laboratories; scaling behaviour matching a coherent physical model; and a measurable reaction on external test masses or trajectories. If the device were claimed to provide propulsion, it would also need to demonstrate sustained net acceleration under conditions excluding ordinary momentum exchange.

Energy accounting would matter as well. A technology cannot be inferred merely because mathematical solutions of a gravitational theory permit unusual spacetime configurations. The physical source required to produce the configuration must itself be attainable. NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics programme explicitly explored speculative possibilities such as gravity–electromagnetism coupling, warp concepts and other unconventional mechanisms, while stressing the need to identify credible experiments rather than assuming that mathematically interesting possibilities were near-term engineering solutions.[NASA Technical Reports Server]ntrs.nasa.govTechnical Reports Server NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics ProgramTechnical Reports Server NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program

Reproducibility is equally decisive. A revolutionary device need not initially be understood theoretically, but its observable behaviour must be transferable. If a claimed force disappears when a different group rebuilds the apparatus, the evidence has not reached the level required to overturn gravitational physics.

The distinction that matters for suppression claims

Within accounts of allegedly suspicious deaths or disappearances of UFO and antigravity researchers, there is a recurring temptation to treat proximity to unconventional gravitational research as evidence of possession of a breakthrough. Scientifically, those are very different propositions.

Ning Li’s published record shows serious theoretical and experimental research on possible gravitational effects in superconductors. Podkletnov published a remarkable gravity-shielding claim. NASA funded and examined speculative propulsion physics. Researchers have explored gravitomagnetism and other possible couplings. These facts establish that unconventional gravitational research has existed within legitimate scientific and engineering institutions.[aps.org]journals.aps.orgAPS JournalsGravitational effects on the magnetic attenuation of superconductors | Phys. Rev. B…

They do not establish that any of those lines of work produced a functioning gravity-cancellation technology. In the most prominent superconducting case, published independent replication failed to detect the claimed force; Li’s own static YBCO experiment instead set a stringent upper limit under the conditions tested. Meanwhile, precision gravitational experiments continue to agree closely with conventional theory.[ScienceDirect]sciencedirect.comOpen source on sciencedirect.com.

That evidential distinction is central when evaluating later claims of suppression. Evidence that a scientist researched an unconventional mechanism can support the statement that the person worked on an unusual or potentially important subject. It cannot, without additional experimental documentation, support the stronger premise that the scientist had already discovered revolutionary propulsion worth concealing.

Gravity Probe B in a Nutshell — The Video

Channel: relgyro

Open on YouTube

The practical threshold

The most reliable way to judge an antigravity claim is therefore to ask where it sits on an evidence ladder. A theoretical coupling is a research hypothesis. A single anomalous measurement is an experimental clue. A replicated anomaly is evidence of a real phenomenon. A mechanism that survives competing explanations becomes a candidate extension of physics. Only after controllable, repeatable scaling and demonstrated net force does the discussion begin to resemble propulsion technology.

Superconductors, antimatter, frame-dragging and quantum-gravity research are all legitimate parts of modern physics. Their existence keeps open the possibility that nature contains gravitational behaviour not yet fully understood. What the current public evidence does not provide is a reproducible device that screens Earth’s gravity or generates the kind of controllable field commonly implied by “antigravity” in UFO narratives.

For that reason, claims about suppressed antigravity breakthroughs require two separate evidential demonstrations rather than one: evidence that suppression or wrongdoing occurred, and independent evidence that the underlying technology actually worked. Established gravitational physics does not make new discoveries impossible. It does, however, make clear what a revolutionary claim must overcome: not institutional scepticism alone, but decades of increasingly precise experimental tests and the absence so far of a reproducible gravity-cancellation effect.

Amazon book picks

Further Reading

Books and field guides related to When Does Gravity Research Become an Antigravity Claim?. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.

Browse more on Amazon:Gravity: How the Weakest Force in the Universe Shaped Our LivesGeneral Relativity: The EssentialsThe Antigravity Enigma: Fiction, Fringe Science, and Modern Physics

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

eBay marketplace picks

Marketplace Samples

Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.

UsingUSA

Selected fromantigravity poster oneBay.co.uk.

Browse more oneBay.co.uk

Example items shown for inspiration; availability and pricing can change. Branchoria may earn a commission if you purchase through outbound eBay links.

Endnotes

1. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.121102

Source snippet

APS JournalsMission: Final Results of the Test of the Equivalence Principle | Phys. Rev. Lett.September 14, 2022...

Published: September 14, 2022

2. Source: ligo.org
Link:https://ligo.org/science-summaries/o4b_tgr/

Source snippet

Testing general relativity with the latest and loudest compact binary merger observations – LSC – LIGO Scientific Collaboration...

3. Source: nasa.gov
Title: What is Gravity Probe B?
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/what-gravity-probe-b/

Source snippet

What is Gravity Probe B? - NASAJune 12, 2020...

Published: June 12, 2020

4. Source: nasa.gov
Title: Results and Implications
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/results-implications/

Source snippet

Results and Implications - NASA...

5. Source: aps.org
Link:https://www.aps.org/about/news/2022/09/general-relativitys-weak-equivalence-principle

Source snippet

American Physical SocietyMICROSCOPE Mission Present's Most Precise Test of General Relativity's Weak Equivalence Principle | American Phy...

6. Source: nature.com
Title: Observation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter | Nature
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06527-1

Source snippet

Observation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatter | NatureSeptember 27, 2023...

Published: September 27, 2023

7. Source: physics.aps.org
Link:https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/167

Source snippet

Physics - Antimatter Feels Gravity Just like Matter...

8. Source: journals.aps.org
Title: Phys Rev D.43.457
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.43.457

Source snippet

APS JournalsEffects of a gravitomagnetic field on pure superconductors | Phys. Rev. DJanuary 15, 1991...

Published: January 15, 1991

9. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.46.5489

Source snippet

APS JournalsGravitational effects on the magnetic attenuation of superconductors | Phys. Rev. B...

10. Source: sciencedirect.com
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921453497014627

11. Source: sciencedirect.com
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092145349290055H

12. Source: arxiv.org
Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9701074

13. Source: sciencedirect.com
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921453402022840

14. Source: arxiv.org
Title: arXiv New experimental evidence for Podkletnov effect
Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.03332

15. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server Responding to Mechanical Antigravity
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20070004897

16. Source: arxiv.org
Link:https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086

17. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Title: Technical Reports Server NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980201240.pdf

18. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19990023211

19. Source: journals.aps.org
Title: hsyt nv2n
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prb/accepted/10.1103/hsyt-nv2n

20. Source: physics.aps.org
Link:https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/79

21. Source: meetings-archive.aps.org
Title: mar u31
Link:https://meetings-archive.aps.org/smt/2026/mar-u31/15/

22. Source: dcc.ligo.org
Link:https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P2500066/public

23. Source: physics.aps.org
Link:https://physics.aps.org/articles/v19/s14

24. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65085-4

25. Source: science.nasa.gov
Title: general relativity and the nature of spacetime
Link:https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/programs/physics-of-the-cosmos/general-relativity-and-the-nature-of-spacetime/

26. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.181402

27. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-82092-5

28. Source: meetings-archive.aps.org
Link:https://meetings-archive.aps.org/dpp/2024/zo08/6/

29. Source: meetings-archive.aps.org
Link:https://meetings-archive.aps.org/dnp/2024/d01/3/

30. Source: meetings.aps.org
Link:https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DNP24/Session/D01.3

31. Source: meetings.aps.org
Link:https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/DAMOP24/Session/Y03.1

32. Source: meetings-archive.aps.org
Link:https://meetings-archive.aps.org/damop/2024/y03/1/

33. Source: nature.com
Title: Gravity is attractive | Nature Physics
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02292-0

34. Source: nature.com
Title: Daily briefing: Grape DNA reveals the true origins of wine
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03092-5

35. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/nature/volumes/621/issues/7980

36. Source: nature.com
Title: Free-falling antihydrogen reveals the effect of gravity on antimatter
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02930-w

37. Source: nature.com
Title: Antimatter falls down, not up: CERN experiment confirms theory
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03043-0

38. Source: science.nasa.gov
Title: gravity probe b
Link:https://science.nasa.gov/mission/gravity-probe-b/

39. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.023003

40. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103025

41. Source: news.stanford.edu
Title: campus curiosities
Link:https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/10/campus-curiosities

42. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prl/issues/129/12

43. Source: aps.org
Title: New Results for MICROSCOPE Mission | American Physical Society
Link:https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2022/09/microscope-mission-general-relativity

44. Source: physics.aps.org
Link:https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/94

45. Source: physics.aps.org
Link:https://physics.aps.org/articles/v15/95

46. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022821

47. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.022822

48. Source: nasa.gov
Title: Leonard Schiff and Birth of Gravity Probe B
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/image-article/leonard-schiff-birth-of-gravity-probe-b/

49. Source: physics.aps.org
Link:https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/s46

50. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.261101

51. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06023-x

52. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.042002

53. Source: nasa.gov
Title: A Breakthrough Propulsion Architecture for Interstellar Precursor Missions
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/general/a-breakthrough-propulsion-architecture-for-interstellar-precursor-missions/

54. Source: dcc.ligo.org
Link:https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-G1701305/public

55. Source: nasa.gov
Title: A Breakthrough Propulsion Architecture for Interstellar Precursor Missions
Link:https://www.nasa.gov/general/a-breakthrough-propulsion-architecture-for-interstellar-precursor-missions-2/

56. Source: meetings.aps.org
Link:https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/FWS16/Event/286204

57. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35879

58. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep34140

59. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23424

60. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15777

61. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8820

62. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep09739

63. Source: nature.com
Title: A moiré deflectometer for antimatter | Nature Communications
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5538

64. Source: nature.com
Title: An experimental limit on the charge of antihydrogen | Nature Communications
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4955

65. Source: nature.com
Title: Quantum rotor in nanostructured superconductors | Scientific Reports
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04542

66. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.121102

67. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2787

68. Source: nature.com
Title: Lightning in superconductors | Scientific Reports
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00886

69. Source: ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov
Title: gp b general
Link:https://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/missions/satellite_missions/past_missions/gp-b_general.html

70. Source: einstein-new.stanford.edu
Link:https://einstein-new.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

71. Source: news.stanford.edu
Title: s gravity probe b confirms two einstein theories
Link:https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2011/05/stanfords-gravity-probe-b-confirms-two-einstein-theories

72. Source: einstein-new.stanford.edu
Title: results nasa hq
Link:https://einstein-new.stanford.edu/Media/results-nasa_hq.html

73. Source: nature.com
Title: Trapped antihydrogen | Nature
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09610

74. Source: physics.aps.org
Link:https://physics.aps.org/articles/v3/15

75. Source: journals.aps.org
Title: Rev Mod Phys.82.109
Link:https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.109

76. Source: cosmicopia.gsfc.nasa.gov
Title: qa gp gr
Link:https://cosmicopia.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_gp_gr.html

77. Source: nature.com
Title: Antigravity has feet of clay: Nature News
Link:https://www.nature.com/news/2005/050124/full/news050124-8.html

78. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20040070788

79. Source: news-archive.stanford.edu
Title: gpbshort 421
Link:https://news-archive.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/gpbshort-421.html

80. Source: imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/20apr04.html

81. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20030067892

82. Source: ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov
Link:https://ecolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/2003-Spring/announce.everitt.html

83. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/35024025

84. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19990047463

85. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19980017317

86. Source: sciencedirect.com
Title: Static test for a gravitational force coupled to type II YBCO superconductors
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921453497014627

87. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19970009634

88. Source: sciencedirect.com
Title: Does a superconductor shield gravity?
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0921453496003401

89. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960025450.pdf

90. Source: sciencedirect.com
Title: Alternative explanation of “gravitational screening” experiments
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0921453495004947

91. Source: sciencedirect.com
Title: Alternative explanation of “gravitational screening” experiments
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0921453495004947

92. Source: sciencedirect.com
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/092145349290055H

93. Source: sciencedirect.com
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/092145349290055H/pdf?md5=bfc751b87889117434dec5c029c2d522&pid=1-s2.0-092145349290055H-main.pdf

94. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prb/issues/46/9

95. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900010644

96. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.39.2825

97. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19900028350

98. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19800054809

99. Source: meetings-archive.aps.org
Link:https://meetings-archive.aps.org/dpp/2024/np12/76/

100. Source: meetings-archive.aps.org
Link:https://meetings-archive.aps.org/dpp/2012/bp8/2/

101. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prl/recent?journal%5B%5D=prl&page=3&sort=recent&toc_section%5B%5D=gravitation-and-astrophysics&type=article

102. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prl/recent?page=493

103. Source: journals.aps.org
Link:https://journals.aps.org/prb/recent?ei=ntuwkjqa&page=8577

104. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=Breakthrough+Propulsion+Physics

105. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=Breakthrough+Propulsion+Physics+Workshop

106. Source: ntrs.nasa.gov
Link:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=208400

107. Source: nature.com
Link:https://www.nature.com/subjects/experimental-particle-physics/nature

108. Source: sciencedirect.com
Title: Reverse Engineering Podkletnov’s Experiments
Link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211005803

109. Source: ligo.org
Link:https://ligo.org/testing-general-relativity-with-observing-run-o4a-data/

110. Source: ligo.org
Link:https://ligo.org/science-summaries/O4b_Cosmology/

111. Source: dcc.ligo.org
Link:https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-G1701305-v1/public

112. Source: ligo.org
Link:https://ligo.org/science-summaries/GW150914TestingGR/

113. Source: ligo.org
Title: exceptional tests of general relativity with gw250114
Link:https://ligo.org/exceptional-tests-of-general-relativity-with-gw250114/

114. Source: ligo.org
Link:https://ligo.org/science-summaries/O4a_TGR_Omnibus/

115. Source: dcc-backup.ligo.org
Link:https://dcc-backup.ligo.org/LIGO-P2500066-v7/public

116. Source: dcc-llo.ligo.org
Link:https://dcc-llo.ligo.org/LIGO-P2100275-v12/public

117. Source: dcc-lho.ligo.org
Link:https://dcc-lho.ligo.org/LIGO-P2100275-v13/public

118. Source: profiles.stanford.edu
Title: bradford parkinson
Link:https://profiles.stanford.edu/bradford-parkinson?tab=bio

119. Source: einstein-new.stanford.edu
Link:https://einstein-new.stanford.edu/Media/

120. Source: einstein-new.stanford.edu
Title: education index
Link:https://einstein-new.stanford.edu/RESOURCES/education-index.html

121. Source: engineering100.stanford.edu
Title: the future firmly in sight
Link:https://engineering100.stanford.edu/stories/the-future-firmly-in-sight

122. Source: einstein-new.stanford.edu
Title: spacetime index
Link:https://einstein-new.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime-index.html

123. Source: hepl.stanford.edu
Title: about us
Link:https://hepl.stanford.edu/about-us

124. Source: profiles.stanford.edu
Title: thomas langenstein
Link:https://profiles.stanford.edu/thomas-langenstein

125. Source: en.ikwipedia.org
Title: Eugene Podkletnov
Link:https://en.ikwipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

126. Source: wired.com
Link:https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/

127. Source: ligo.caltech.edu
Link:https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/about

128. Source: ouci.dntb.gov.ua
Link:https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/7nJwBNL7/

129. Source: science.gov
Link:https://www.science.gov/topicpages/m/magnetic%2Blevitation%2Bexperiments

Additional References

130. Source: youtube.com
Title: Measuring Spacetime Curvature
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNswvk3oP_k

Source snippet

This selection of videos directly illustrates the distinctions drawn in the article between fringe "antigravity" concepts and rigorous ex...

131. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2481168

132. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2563037

133. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1302997

134. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2345973

135. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2509524

136. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5896213

137. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/biblio/2441082

138. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2441082

139. Source: osti.gov
Link:https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1777281