Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Antigravity Propulsion

views
     
Eventless
post Apr 4 2012, 03:48 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
It kinda sad that norther didn't bother to do any actual research into Thomas Townsend Brown. His patented device actually works. Do a search for antigravity lifter on youtube, you'll find quite a few videos on the device being built and flown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect
Unfortunately so did the mythbusters. It flies but it is not due to antigravity. It works by ionizing air and accelerating the ions in a downward motion in order to produce thrust which lifts the device. No air means no lift. The mythbusters repeated the experiment in a vacuum chamber and the lifter failed to lift off.
Eventless
post Apr 4 2012, 10:55 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 4 2012, 10:17 PM)

The effect was a result of ion propulsion, or electric wind, and therefore could not be used in a vacuum such as outer space. The earth's atmosphere can be rich in ions (electrically-charged particles), but a vacuum is not.

What we see today on B-2A is dielectric flying wing, a charged leading-edge, ions dumped into the exhaust stream and other clues.

The B-2A seems to be a culmination of many of Brown's observations made more than forty years ago.

*
You missed the entire point of my post. Brown's work has nothing to do with anti-gravity. If you are basing everything on Brown's work, your whole argument is based on wrong information since it has nothing to do with anti-gravity to begin with.

You didn't even get the reason why ion propulsion does not work in vacuum right. It needs gasses to ionize in order to produce ions. The atmosphere is not rich in ions. Ions don't last long in the atmosphere because it is unstable.

There's no proof that B-2s uses ions to improve its propulsion. The B-2 has nothing to do with Brown's work at all.
Eventless
post Apr 5 2012, 11:51 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 5 2012, 11:11 AM)
Biefeld -Brown Effect is your answer if you never heard about this. Brown stopped using the word "electrogravitics" and instead used the more acceptable scientific terminology "stress in dielectrics."
*
I did talk about the Biefield-Brown Effect a couple of post back. It has a link exactly like the one below inside it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect
It is known as electrohydrodynamics by other scientists. It is well documented and anti-gravity does not play any part inside of it. It works just like a jet engine that uses ions instead of heated gasses for thrust.
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 5 2012, 11:11 AM)
I never mentioned of proof but Brown had talked about it in 1950s. You can refer to LaViolette's, he is damn intelligent and what he present is real.

*
You are treating his book like some sort of bible that can't be wrong. You are basing everything on belief. Nothing scientific about it all. You need proof for science.

This is nothing more than a story telling thread that serves no real purpose.
Eventless
post Apr 5 2012, 08:30 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 5 2012, 08:05 PM)
From the first post :
Secret of antigravity is held by the military secretly and Black ops. It was discovered long ago back in the 1800's. Read up on all the airship reports from back then and you will see why I say that. Who the inventor or inventors are is a mystery and what became of these airships as well is a mystery as well.
*
You are contradicting yourself. If no one knows who the inventors are, how would you know that they exist? This is equivalent to saying nothing.

What aircrafts were around during the 1800's? The only known working aircrafts during those time were balloons and gliders. Given that the science behind those are well known, I don't see any point at looking at them for proof of anti-gravity. If you have something specific in mind, say it. Don't make others do your own work for you.
Eventless
post Apr 5 2012, 09:26 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 5 2012, 08:30 PM)
You are contradicting yourself. If no one knows who the inventors are, how would you know that they exist? This is equivalent to saying nothing.

What aircrafts were around during the 1800's? The only known working aircrafts during those time were balloons and gliders. Given that the science behind those are well known, I don't see any point at looking at them for proof of anti-gravity. If you have something specific in mind, say it. Don't make others do your own work for you.
*
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 5 2012, 09:13 PM)
This example is based on several example of propulsion system from "The Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion." Page 152.

The flying craft would be moved forward by creating a gravity well or "gravity gradient". The craft, along with it's occupant, fall into the gravity well together, i.e. move forward together. To the passenger inside the craft there is no sense of falling and no sense of direction changes, no "G-Forces with straning faces of grunting passengers struggling to remain conscious by tightening the lower muscles of the body to retain blood in the brain. The craft can change direction instantly in sharp zipping turns and the passengers would not feel the changes of direction relative to the craft.

The "Gravity Well" is created through gradient differences by a charged ion field generated in front of the craft shown by +(plus) signs. The "Gravity Hill" is the dense jet of charged -(negative) ions thrust out behind the craft.

A gravity gradient is created between the negative hill and the positive well drawing the craft and occupants in the direction of the Gravity Well.
*
Nothing to do with the 1800s or airships.

Ion propulsion has been used by NASA since the 1960s. If there were anti-gravity effects, they would have detected it by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

Got this part is wrong. Missed the word "no" in front of the G-Forces. Sorry.
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

Did you even bother researching any of these examples on the internet?

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 5 2012, 10:54 PM
Eventless
post Apr 5 2012, 09:57 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 5 2012, 09:44 PM)
No...just share and exchange the related document with other on email that interested in antigravity. I didn't bother you to reply. Are you Freaking out? Sorry.
*
Why would I be freaking out? Freaking out means that there's actual real and interesting information being presented. You have presented neither.
Eventless
post Apr 5 2012, 11:01 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 5 2012, 09:13 PM)
The craft can change direction instantly in sharp zipping turns and the passengers would not feel the changes of direction relative to the craft.
*
For this part to happen you need to cancel out inertia, not gravity. Inertia depends on mass not weight. Your passengers will still be affected by the movement of the vehicle even though there is no gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia
Eventless
post Apr 6 2012, 12:08 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 5 2012, 11:06 PM)
- Many people are amazed how quiet the B-2 is during take-off.

- First the USAF said Chemicals are added to the exhaust to cool the exhaust, but later they admitted, it is to prevent the forming of contrials.
*
It would not be much of stealth bomber if you could hear it coming or see it coming(contrails) would it?


Added on April 6, 2012, 9:19 am
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 5 2012, 09:13 PM)
The craft can change direction instantly in sharp zipping turns and the passengers would not feel the changes of direction relative to the craft.
*
Why does the B-2 need to take off from a runway if it can do the above? It should be able to take off like a helicopter since it can hover if it was using anti-gravity technology.

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 6 2012, 09:19 AM
Eventless
post Apr 6 2012, 06:51 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 6 2012, 01:59 PM)
If you are interested enough you will do the work for yourself.  If you choose not to look then the loss is yours, not mine.
Please see attachment PDF copy History of aircraft in 1800’s

Derigibles were around but they were often times noticably different and there was very few around and they of coarse were slow moving.

Other links :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_airship
*
Those events are like the UFO stories of today. Does not really prove anything. Except that aliens may have anti-gravity tech. It does not mean that humans had the technology back then.

QUOTE(norther @ Apr 6 2012, 01:59 PM)

Added on April 6, 2012, 2:09 pm
After taking off conventionally, the B-2 can switch to antigravity mode and fly around the world without refueling.
http://www.stripes.com/news/the-plan-keep-...l-2058-1.173113
*
The content of the link does not match what you have described. Another bogus link.

That part on planned upgrade does not mean that they are putting in anti-gravity technology. That being said did the B-2 originally have anti-gravity technology or not? Why would they need to put it in if it was already using it? Your stories are contradicting itself.
Eventless
post Apr 8 2012, 01:04 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 7 2012, 11:14 PM)
sad.gif this is too tangent and your link too much wikipedia. I have no idea if  the answer all the way from wiki.
*
Wikipedia is a good source of information if you know how to use it. You should learn to use it to get a better understanding of things instead of basing everything solely on your book. So far you've been showing stuff without understanding what you are showing.

How exactly is my post a tangent compared to what you have been posting?
Eventless
post Apr 8 2012, 01:19 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 8 2012, 10:59 AM)

Wikipedia is an extremely popular internet resource, visited by millions. Persons unfamiliar with science, medical, engineering, politics etc and tend to uncritically accept what they read there, unaware that it may be false or misleading.

*
There's also a section at the bottom called reference where the information is derived can be found. The references allows you to look deeper if necessary. It is a good starting point to do further research if one so desires. You don't use it solely as source of information.

QUOTE(norther @ Apr 8 2012, 10:59 AM)
Ok now what i can see it is incompleteness, incompetence, or outright bias.
*
You are basing this on?

They have been known to mark pages when there's insufficient or doubtful references. That sounds competent enough to me.

What is wrong with removing pages if the information is not up to their standards?

They also delete topics here, does that mean you should not be using this forum?

Is the source of bias the due to the fact that it does not support any of your facts?
Eventless
post Apr 8 2012, 06:57 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 8 2012, 04:39 PM)
Not on this forums. I mean Wikipedia. There Looks to be an edit war, you will notice if you have registered account.But Wikipedia doesn’t allow “original research” Check it out, and contribute their own.
*
Original research belongs in scientific journals. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. It cannot validate scientific research. Unvalidated research is no different from story telling. Someone else needs to validate the research in order to eliminate bias. You are blaming the wrong people. They should get their work validated by other scientist first and have the result published before attempting to enter into wikipedia.

This is the reason why I don't like your posts. Most of the experiments that you've quoted are not independently validated. They can't be validated because no one else could get it working.
Eventless
post Apr 8 2012, 10:12 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 8 2012, 09:18 PM)
The Wikipedia page for this physician has been deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...Robert_Cathcart

Why? Because Dr. Cathcart "does not meet notability criteria per WP:BIO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO
*

Based on the link given, the main reason it wasn't included is due to references given. It is basically a one sided story. No one else is confirming his story. How is that credible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling
Linus Pauling made the similar claims in regards to vitamin C. His page is still around. It probably helps that he has a large and varied reference section on his page. Large vitamin C doses is not a miracle cure unfortunately.

Added on April 8, 2012, 10:19 pm
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 8 2012, 09:18 PM)
Gerson Therapy, has been completely removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...apy&redirect=no
*
This link is more revealing-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Gerson
No evidence that it actually works. People actually got sick from following it. Most of the patients died within 9 months. Those that survived were doing both standard cancer therapy and Gerson's therapy at the same time. Not very encouraging is it?

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 8 2012, 10:32 PM
Eventless
post Apr 12 2012, 11:17 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 12 2012, 03:50 PM)
The last Gerson grandson editing is archived:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../69.109.140.164
*
A grandson does not really count as an independent source of information for an article.

Given that there's no real proof that the method in question actually works, why give it its own page?

The method has been around for decades and they can't produce evidence that it works. That does not speak much about its effectiveness.

There's no evidence of bias that I can see here.

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 12 2012, 11:30 PM
Eventless
post Apr 13 2012, 03:26 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 13 2012, 02:01 PM)
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page on Max Gerson is a shell of what it should be and the section on the therapy it self is nothing like the actual therapy promoted by the Gerson Institute and practiced around the world. In Japan it readily describes the Gerson Therapy as magnificent. It really is too bad we don't have the degree of medical freedom of choice that they share in Japan.

And again you never answer my question regarding ALLOPATHY?


and

H1N1 Vaccination??
*
It is because you didn't present a specific question in regards to those topics. The other reason is that this thread is about anti-gravity, not alternative medicine.


Added on April 13, 2012, 4:03 pm
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 13 2012, 02:01 PM)
Unfortunately, the Wikipedia page on Max Gerson is a shell of what it should be and the section on the therapy it self is nothing like the actual therapy promoted by the Gerson Institute and practiced around the world. In Japan it readily describes the Gerson Therapy as magnificent. It really is too bad we don't have the degree of medical freedom of choice that they share in Japan.
*
There's nothing stopping you from using that method. Just don't blame others if it does not work.

Still isn't it odd that there is no statistics available on the effectiveness after so many decades?

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 13 2012, 04:03 PM
Eventless
post Apr 14 2012, 12:24 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 14 2012, 11:15 AM)
90% of your wikipedia information is bogus.
*
Do you have any proof of that? All you have presented are baseless claims. I have backed up my claims, what have you done?
Eventless
post Apr 14 2012, 03:45 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 14 2012, 01:49 PM)
I have to list down the example and you pick which one and i will SHOW you the proof that Wikipedia is "the abomination that causes misinformation".

Abortion ? Science and Evolution ? Liberal Politicians ? Global warming ? Bestiality/zoophilia ? Anti-Christianity ? Conservapedia smears ? Gender bias ? Conservative personalities and politicians ?

*
Start another topic if you want to prove that wikipedia is not a good source of information. If the pages that I've shown are incorrect, you could have easily pointed out and explain what is wrong with them. You were not able to do so.
Eventless
post Apr 14 2012, 09:20 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 14 2012, 07:06 PM)
The TR-3B’s performance is limited only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%.
*
Gravity affects weight not mass. Mass remains the same regardless of gravity. G forces in an aircraft is not caused by gravity, it is caused by the acceleration of the aircraft. If it is affecting the mass of an object, it is not anti-gravity. Out of topic again.
Eventless
post Apr 15 2012, 02:16 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 15 2012, 01:12 PM)
TR-3B utilizes little known loophole to create it's antigravity effects.
*
The effects being described by your post is not the result of anti-gravity. Please get some understanding of physics before continuing further.


Added on April 15, 2012, 2:29 pm
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 14 2012, 07:06 PM)
The 3 multimode rocket engines mounted under each corner of the craft use hydrogen or methane and oxygen as a propellant. In a liquid oxygen/hydrogen rocket system, 85% of the propellant mass is oxygen. The nuclear thermal rocket engine uses a hydrogen propellant, augmented with oxygen for additional thrust. The reactor heats the liquid hydrogen and injects liquid oxygen in the supersonic nozzle, so that the hydrogen burns concurrently in the liquid oxygen afterburner.” From 1998.
*
Why would a craft need a nuclear reactor to heat up the liquid hydrogen before combustion in the first place? The space shuttle has been doing it for decades without the need of such a device.

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 15 2012, 02:29 PM
Eventless
post Apr 15 2012, 07:22 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
2,643 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 15 2012, 04:45 PM)

If you think you understand Physics; you don't understand Physics.

*
I understand enough about the words used. Can you say the same? Gravity, mass and weight is pretty well defined. How they relate to each other is also well defined. There's even actual equations about them. The relationship between gravity and electromagnetism is not defined. Show me actual physics equations that links gravity and electromagnetism.
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 15 2012, 04:45 PM)
There is other aspect not mentioned on TR-3B. Something very hot and very cold, iron,magnetism,mercury=plasma and fast as hell and back to your answer could be methane, what i heard other aspect is the refrigerated cyro cooling.
*
And you are basing all this on? A video of a few lights in the sky. Why can't it be a craft from an alien civilization? Is that bias showing. Every UFO in the sky has to be an anti-gravity craft from earth. For someone who keeps on advocating thinking outside the box, you seem pretty much stuck inside one.

3 Pages < 1 2 3 >Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.1201sec    0.72    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 17th December 2025 - 01:45 PM