Talk:Levitation (physics)

Human levitation

I remember reading a non-fiction book years ago a man who travelled to Tibet (it wasnt the german bloke Sven somebody), or who perhaps lived in that area themselves, and who described how the monks could levitate. I cannot remember the author or title, but it probably was around the early to mid 20th. century, or maybe late 19th. They would sit cross-legged meditating in a cell in isolation for a very long time - months or years. With a lot of practice they were able jump into the air while still cross legged. As far as I remember when they could jump over the wall surrounding their cell, they ended their hermitage. The book was a good read - anyone know which one it was? Perhaps the man was a monk himself. Maybe I downloaded it from Project Gutenberg - cannot remember.

I have seen a modern photo of western people who claimed to be flying. The photo showed a group of them in the air and cross-legged above what looked like a room-sized mattress. I expect they all jumped into the air at the same time, and the photo was snapped. I have seen a cow jump over the moon, and counting sheep flying in the air in numerical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.181.232 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See:antigravity, gravifugal and human levitation --213.191.138.80 2007-12-18T15:17:12

Human Levitation 2

Now I've had time to try to remember, what I meant to say was that the book referred to was not Seven Years In Tibet by the austrian geezer.

The book I read could have been A Conquest of Tibet by Sven Hedin, but I'm not sure.

Cleanup

See WP:CONTEXT. A user [1] added a number of unnecessary links and this was done to a number of pages. I'm currently tagging all pages he messed up and will attempt to clean them all up, as this will be extremely time consuming anyone willing to remove the links from this page before I get back will be greatly appreciated. --Crossmr 07:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Added cleanup tag. Article has no intro, no separation between physics and esoteric meaning. Somebody added a terrible esoteric and unsourced POV 'see also' section, intersecting the stub tag. Boo 03:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The first reference link is dead btw--69.47.207.100 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the segment on human levitation?

I can't believe anyone would even think of leaving it out, regardless of their beliefs. It is a time-honoured and widely discussed phenomenon, with a short but impressive list of "celebrities" (St. Theresa of Avila, to mention just one).

Again, people who find it difficult to synthesise information - ALL pertinent information - should stay away from the lexicography business, even if it is only (?) virtual.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.142.146.72 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC).

Human levitation is addressed in its own articles, including Metaphysical levitation (which mentions Theresa of Avila) and Party Levitation. --Headwes 23:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There really ought to be some sections about levitation as a magic trick, and human levitation, with links to articles, and hte disambiguation should be clearer, It ought to group hte magical levitation techniques and the real levataion effects together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.51.104 (talk) 02:14, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

They say that-At the moment, in practice it is only going to be possible for micro-objects with the current technology, since this quantum force is small and acts only at short ranges," he said.

"For now, human levitation remains the subject of cartoons, fairytales and tales of the paranormal."

Their research was to be published in the New Journal of Physics.

-I wonder what Criss Angel thinks about it ?

piknosa00@googlemail.com--78.146.210.166 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fictional Levitation

Levitation that is clearly impossible as a feature in fictional books/films etc - shouldn't there be a section for this? Ecth (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? what encyclopedic benefit would it be other than to remind the reader that what happens in books can't always happen in the real world?--Crossmr (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I get redirected here from "hovering"...

I was actually hoping to find information on the ability of some animals to hover (that is, stay suspended in air without moving in space), such as hummingbirds. I wonder if there would be enough information to start an article or section on that? StroboX (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup (formatting)

For some reason there is a massive un-wrapped line in some sort of box right after the "physics" heading. I tried to figure out what was wrong, but I am fairly new to this sort of thing and I couldnt figure it out. If someone could fix that, it would be great. Stickman30 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

levitation by air-jets

It says: "By means of aerodynamic forces, the effect of levitation can also be achieved using the upthrust of air, with the levitating object having the same average density as air."

The article on Aerodynamic levitation doesn't cover this exactly, but the previous paragraph seems to say levitation occurs when the air pressure equals the weight of the object (per unit area), and doesn't mention density. If the air had the same density as the object, you would be talking of an air pressure of hundreds of atmospheres, which seems improbable, but I'm not an expert. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a link to Shoko Asahara? I looked at that article and there is no mention of levitation.75.88.236.109 (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary topic

Hi. It appears that this page used to contain information about all 3 meanings of "levitation" (scientific, paranormal, illusory) eg. Hence, it still has many confusing incoming links (Special:WhatLinksHere/Levitation).

I've started a thread at Talk:Levitation (disambiguation)#Primary topic, suggesting that this page be retitled, and that the disambiguation page become the initial result of a search for "levitate" or "levitation". Please give feedback here or there. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at the disambiguation talk page. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Electrodynamic suspension

Where should we link to this page, Electrodynamic suspension? It's a form of magnetic levitation in that it uses electromagnets. It seems there is some overlap in the article Magnetic levitation and Electrodynamic suspension. We also have the article Electromagnetic suspension, again there is some significant overlap. Polyamorph (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

They're both just magnetic levitation. And there is no separate topic between magnetic levitation and electromagnetic suspension. Electromagnetic suspension is a subset of electrodynamic suspension which is a subset of magnetic levitation. There's no radiation pressure significantly or usefully involved anywhere in any of these levitations only magnetic pressure.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 04:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

One uses permanent (or electromagnets) and the other doesn't. They are seperate techniques. However, they are of course, related. So perhaps discuss them under seperate headings in the magnetic levitation main section. Polyamorph (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Electrodynamic suspension can be done with either electromagnets or permanent magnets or both. The characteristic is the induced electrodynamic current that forms one field. In the case of electromagnetic suspension, this current is in the levitated object, but that's also true in electrodynamic suspensions that use induction motors. Actually, in electromagnetic levitation the coil IS a single phase induction motor.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Gravifugal levitation

Gravifugal levitation is the most important kind of levitation. It is a way of existence of whole material universe. I suggest to add it to the article: "Levitation". Gravifugal levitation is based in orbiting Earth or some other celestial body at the velocity of satelisation or velocity of levitation. E. g. Astronauts are levitating in their spaceships when they are orbiting Earth at velocity 7,9 km/sec. In such kind of orbiting, gravity functions as centripetal force. Reaction to the centripetal action of gravity is particular centrifugal force. We can call it gravifugal. Earth is levitating in regard to Sun on the base of gravifugal force too, at the orbital velocity of 30 km/sec. Moon is levitating in regard Earth at the orbital velocity 1,002km/sec. Geostationarry satelites, are levitating above certain point at the equator at orbital velocity of 3, 05 km/sec.Its angular velocity equals to that of Earth In opposite to some other kind of levitation (E.g. diamagnetic or electrostatic....), gravifugal levitating bodies are in permanent weightless state. Equation for calculating the value of gravifugal force is F = m v2/ R Where M is mass of body, v is its velocity and R is distance from Earth's (or some other celestial body) center of gravity. Velocity of levitation is v = root of GM/R. Where G is gravitational constant, M mass of celestial body, and R is distance from center of celestial body's gravity.--Petarbosnicpetrus (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petarbosnicpetrus (talk • contribs)

Requested move 9 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: The nominator's rationale was based upon the fact that there are 2 other general concepts named levitation: Levitation (illusion) and Levitation (paranormal). The nominator argued that the latter of these was also a common meaning of the word, and that there was no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Levitation. To back this up, they presented the evidence of the page views, dictionary definition and links to the page.

Discussion participants generally agreed with the nominators statement, with 6 in support and 2 opposing (not including nominator), however it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is not a vote. One opposer believed the current primary topic also applies to the paranormal examples. This was disputed by the nominator, arguing that while the physics concept was the fundamental definition of the word, it can't correspond to just 1 article, and believed that the oppose was "seems to presuppose the creation of a new broad concept article". The comment addressed this, believing that it would not be a good idea. Their rationale for this opinion was the fact that it is difficult to have a single article addressing "electromagnetic phenomena and saints flying through the air." While I see good points on both sides, as a neutral outsider I believe the nominators comment disputing the oppose holds more weight compared to the oppose itself.

The second oppose preferred a "concept dab", but understanding the difficulties that may come with this (see previous paragraph), they opposed. Their oppose was based on the fact that the concept of levitation has long lasting educational significance. This was disputed by Colin M, who compared it to other real things which aren't the primary topic on Wikipedia, such as Garden gnomes and the mythical creature Gnome. While I do understand this, it feels a bit like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The opposer replied, arguing that, while it isn't always the case, educational significance is often more important than false concepts. They stated that they sometimes think of "is them (readers) reading article A going to be more likely to 'change the world' than reading article B?" I do find this a convincing point, and I did consider it highly while determining the result of this discussion.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC includes the following statement: a topic may be considered the primary topic if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. But it's important to note the other common criterion for determining the primary topic: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. I don't believe there is consensus here that this is the case, but I also don't believe this is the case for the other uses of the term, finding no primary topic. When analysing the two criterions, I believe the latter is more relevant in this discussion, and I find a consensus to close this RM as moved. While Red Slash's and Polyamorph's opposes brought up good points and referenced relevant guidelines, multiple other participants believed that there is no primary topic, agreeing with the nominators statement and evidence, and in my close I find this to carry more weight.

I thank the nominator and participants of the discussion for their comments, and I also thank Polyamorph for notifying me asking for a better closing summary. I apologise for the insufficient initial summary, and I hope that this summarises my close better than the single sentence before. echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Levitation → Levitation (physics)
• Levitation (disambiguation) → Levitation

– The set of physical processes is not the primary topic with respect to either significance or usage. Leaving aside the various songs and films with the name, there are two other general concepts: Levitation (illusion) and Levitation (paranormal). The latter of these is especially significant: it probably reflects the most common meaning of the word (see e.g. [2]), is established in a number of millennia-old cultural traditions, and looms large in the public imagination. It gets 75% more views than the physics article [3], and (as an even cursory glance at the incoming links [4] will make evident), accounts for the larger share of usage within the text of Wikipedia articles. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose levitation is the suspension of objects against gravity. This applies to paranormal examples, even if they're made up. The hatnote could be clarified to point to some of the more common usages. Polyamorph (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's the fundamental meaning of the word, but as far as I can see, it doesn't correspond to a single encyclopedic topic, or at least not one we currently have an article about. What you're saying seems to presuppose the creation of a new broad concept article to cover that ground. For the record, I don't think that would be a good idea: I can't see how a single coherent article could talk about electromagnetic phenomena and saints flying through the air. – Uanfala (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. There is no primary topic here. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Pageviews make it clear that the current ptopic is not helping readers. Colin M (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Even with this article having the primary title, Levitation (paranormal) maintains a solid majority of pageviews, and I don't think either topic significantly leads the other in long-term significance. Seems to me like a WP:NOPRIMARY situation. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Clear WP:NOPRIMARY situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Prefer concept dab but if that's not possible, which--tbf--it probably isn't, oppose. Long-lasting educational significance goes to the thing that actually exists. Red Slash 20:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why does it matter that it actually exists? Should garden gnome be primary over gnome? Daemon (computing) over Daimon? Colin M (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't suggest that that's always the case, but here, I think it is. When I think of educational significance, I sometimes like think of "for a reader selected at random, is them reading article A going to be more likely to 'change the world' than reading article B?" For this, what you learn about fake levitation is going to be "interesting", but learning about actual levitation might get someone closer to scientific breakthroughs (most likely by piquing the interest of the next great scientist). I wouldn't suggest that could be the case for gnomes, lol Red Slash 06:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. No primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@EchidnaLives: I made my opposition clear, but I don't think the move can be summarised as "Participants agree that the physics concept of Levitation is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" since at least two users don't agree with this. Please also note there is an editing guideline on primary topics (see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and while a topic can be considered primary with respect to usage, a topic may also be considered primary with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. I, and at least one other user (Red Slash), i.e., one quarter of the !vote participants, believes this is the case here and as this is an editing guideline it should be addressed in your closing rationale. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Polyamorph Hello. Thanks for pinging me. I should have given a more in-depth closing rationale. I apologise for not doing this, and I will expand upon it when I have a chance in the next few hours. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now expanded my closing statement. While I still believe there is consensus to perform the moves, I hope my explanation helps to clarify this outcome in a better way than before. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very thorough! Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Very well done. Red Slash 16:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)