why is levitation considered a pseudoscience?
138588
Simply put, it hasn't been proven or replicated in a controlled experiment by Scientists.  It lacks a scientific base.  \n\nOn another note, there are proven ways of levitation in electric fields of objects that have a very small mass, however, it hasn't been proven for humans or objects of great mass so I wouldn't call it levitation perse.
836672
science people say so...\nbecause with measurements, everything is quantized.... and if something can't be quantized, like ghosts, then they are not real, or of no interest...\nbecause science people are interested with matters of consequence...
1003894
david blaine is not really that amazing. the levitation from both of them are just forms similar to belducci(?) levitation.\n\nAs far as walking on water, i have not seen that trick yet. but i would bet it has a simple and logical explaination.\n\nMy answer is no. Neither one is god or satan. The reason we are not worshipping them is becuase they are not unique in their magic.\n\nDO NOT LOOK UP BELDUCCI levitation, its a nasty spoiler and you will hate both magicians forever.\n\nTo what the eyes miss,\nSilence
99456
Einstein alluded about forces saying that they are fictitious.This make sense because forces do not exist unless there is an interaction between two entities.\nThe magnetudes of interaction depends on the densities of the masses and their volume.The greater the densities the greater the interaction.Thus we can categorize them.\nHowever ;the mechanisms involved is the same in all interactions!Einstein Related this mechanism to a curvature.\nHe had discovered when a force comes into being it comes  from a common  mechanism(.A force is a force ). Force only come into being only as pairs.A force cannot exist by itself no more than a magnet having a single pole.\nUnfortunately ,He had the basis for a Unified Theory and did not realize it.\nAs far what has been measured in the interaction of micromasses or micromasses,I  dont believe there is anything exact.Only approximtions.\nThe phenomena of gravity apply to both micromasses as well as Macromasses.This is the only thing that is Realistic.\nIn other words Electrical phenomena as well Gavity are all one and the same Phenomena.\nYou may not agree with it but its a more realistic answer than resorting to the aphabetic soup of forces that the Physists have concocted as saying that they are different Phenomenae.\nIf you dont understand about their description of weak,strong nuclear forces, dont feel bad. I doubt that they fully understand it themselves!
527446
You are exactly right!  Even something as universally accepted as the germ theory is still called a "theory."  Scientists use the word 'theory' only to keep reminding themselves that nothing is ever ever *proven* in science (the way it is in mathematics).  As you say, evidence mounts, rival theories get toppled because they don't explain the evidence as well, and bit by bit the theory is accepted.  But even then, it is still always called a "theory."  The strength of science is in the humility to recognize that we are fallible.  We can *never* be absolutely positive about anything.  An experiment or a piece of evidence could be discovered tomorrow that, if verified, could *disprove* the theory.  A theory that does not allow any way for this possibility, is not a scientific theory.\n\nHowever, be careful with that phrase "only a theory."  Anti-scientists use that phrase to try and diminish the power or credibility of a theory ... to imply that because something is not 100% certain, it is completely *uncertain.*\n\nScientists have a disadvantage when arguing with anti-scientists.  Scientists, with that word "theory" are always always saying "we might be wrong."  Anti-scientists are not so burdened ... they *never* say "we might be wrong."  Any time science says "hey we found an error, a flaw, a piece of bad data we must throw out" the anti-scientists pounce on it saying "See!  The scientists are flawed, error-prone, rife with bad data!"  But show an anti-scientist a flaw, an error, a piece of bad data, and they will continue to trot it out *years* after it has been debunked, over and over.
455451
If your definition of levitation is to be completely free of Earth's gravity, then some problems would occur. As the Earth travels through space, the levitating object would be stationary and the Earth would travel away from the object very quickly. Also, a great deal of power would be required to generate levitation. Levitation is not flying, and two magnets repeling each other is not actual levitation, yet some call it so.\n\nLevitation is impossible presently, and also not very practical.
1145580
The Coriolis force was discovered in 1835 by French mathematician Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis.  He noticed that there appeared to be a deflection force on moving objects in rotating reference frames.\n\nImportantly the Coriolis "force" is termed a "pseudo-force" by physicists because it only appears in non inertial (ie accelerating) reference frames.  Coriolis is actually just the action of inertia resisting the acceleration of the rotating frame.  Other examples of pseudo forces include centrifugal force and the acceleration due to gravity.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
31136
Hey I've always thought of it.\nIf you find one, just answer any of my questions in my Q&A (in order to contact me).\nGOOD QUESTION, anyway.\n\n\nI've always dreamt of using such a magnet for levitation.
613926
Why do people cite "Myth busters" as if it is some type of scientific source?\nIt is a TV show...and not a very good one at that.  Sometimes they get it "right", sometimes they are wrong.\nJustifying something because "they did it on Myth busters" is not a good idea if you want to be taken seriously.\n\nThe principle at work here is called terminal velocity.\nIn a vacuum, when an object is dropped, it continues to accelerate as it falls, its velocity ever increasing until it hits the ground.  However, most things (including the Empire State Building) are not in a vacuum, and thus, air resistance comes into play.  After the object is dropped, it will accelerate due to gravity.  As the object accelerates and its velocity increases, the frictional force acting on the object increases.  There will come a point when the frictional (upward) force exerted on the object is balanced by the objects weight (downward force).  When the forces are balanced, no acceleration takes place and the object maintains a constant velocity....called the terminal velocity.\n\nThe terminal velocity depends on several factors, two of which being the cross-sectional surface area the air pushes against, another being the mass of the object.\nA higher cross sectional area allows a higher frictional force.  A lower mass means the force applied will have a greater effect on accelerating the object due to Newton's 2nd law (F = ma).\nIn the case of a penny, the terminal velocity is probably pretty low because it has such a small mass with a relatively high surface area.  It would not take long for the penny to reach its terminal velocity and stop accelerating.  At this point, the penny is fallings as fast as it every will naturally through the air due to gravity.
19813
no, and im curious to know why you would put this in the physics section... the laws of physics are very strict about things and the existance of ghosts would certainly violate a lot of them.
194000
It's just like "positive and negative" for magnetism, isn't it?  People say them as though they mean something.  All they really mean is that there are two types of magnetic things--like ones repel, opposite ones attract.  We don't know why it's so, but we feel much better when we can attach a word to it.\n\nWe understand many things about gravity (as we do about magnetism), but we can't explain why it exists in the first place.  That question is not even in the scope of physics, really, because it can't possibly be confirmed or denied by any experiment.  But like many things, we want to believe that we understand it.
440513
Yes it is wrong.  It might be a good approximation for lower altitudes, but is not truly correct.  In the same way, Newton was wrong with his equations, but they still make good approximations over reasonable ranges of values.
1057686
There is a huge volume of "pseudoscience" in our world, due mostly to marketing efforts. While it can be detected in every consumer advertising campaign in existence to some degree, it is especially prevalent in the hair care industry.\n\nShampoo and conditioner manufacturers make some of the wildest claims of pseudoscience imaginable. They make their products sound like high-tech miracles that revolutionize haircare in order to impress the masses into buying it. Some of their claims are simply empty words that have no basis in the way physics, biology, and chemistry work. \n\nConsumers often fall for the amazing claims because they lack the background to understand the reality and deal with such claims critically. The impact? Sales based on misleading information like the claims of the snake oil vendors of yester-year. Fortunately FDA and other consumer protection mechanisms help prevent potentially damaging lies. The damage dealt by hair care pseudoscience is largely confined to the bank account rather than the body.
647355
The word you are looking for is telekinesis. As for whether it really exists, I expect if anyone had scientific proof of it, it would create quite a stir and you wouldn't have to go digging here to find evidence of it. Neat idea, though. I sure tried to move things with my mind plenty of times as a kid...
923261
No, parscychology is NOT real science. It is superstitious nonsense. It is simply witchcraft by another name.\n\nYahoo should be ashamed for including this rot under the science banner.
42194
It's an illusion.  \n\nWhen a magician claims he can fly, of course everyone in the audience looks for the cable hanging from the ceiling which is holding him up.  But you couldn't see it, and his assistants probably swung things over his head showing that there wasn't anything there, right?  \n\nWell, of course he is being held up by SOMETHING.  The trick is that the cables stretch SIDEWAYS from his body.  He is still being held up, but the cable isn't where everybody knows it should be, and so they don't see it.  Additionally, he probably had some sort of glitzy, shifting, reflective backdrop to create optical confusion and further hide the cables.
421149
no, it's not spin.  it is an indication that there is no evidence that the universe behaves a certain way.  if evidence is ever presented and verified that the universe can behave that way, thoughts on that theory need to be reconsidered.\n\nin general, i don't think there are good representations of how science is really done in public knowledge.  it is a growing and changing thing that is always met with great skepticism and scrutiny from its own members first.  it doesn't do things like "spin" -- there is no room for such a thing when you are trying to get a clear understanding.  you have to first be willing not to lie to yourself.