Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Antigravity Propulsion

views
     
TSnorther
post Mar 30 2012, 09:55 PM, updated 14y ago

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
I’m currently reading “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace Technology”. This book I find fascinating because of its implications, anti-gravity travel and nearly free energy.

From the cover: "In Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, physicist Paul LaViolette reveals the secret history of antigravity experimentation - from Nikola Tesla and T. Townsend Brown to the B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber. He discloses the existence of advanced gravity-control technologies, under secret military development for decades, that could revolutionize air travel using renewable energy. Included among the secret projects he reveals is the research of Project Skyvault to develop an aerospace propulsion system using intense beams of microwave energy similar to that used by the strange crafts seen flying over Area 51.

Using subquantum kinetics, the science behind antigravity technology, LaViolette reveals numerous field-propulsion devices and technologies that have thrust-to-power ratios thousands of times greater than that of a jet engine and whose effects are not explained by conventional physics and relativity theory. He then presents controversial evidence about the NASA cover-up in adopting these advanced technologies. He also details ongoing Russian research to duplicate John Searl’s self-propelled levitating disc and shows how the results of the Podkletnov gravity beam experiment could be harnessed to produce an interstellar spacecraft.”

The book is based mainly on the research and patents of Thomas Townsend Brown, an American physicist and inventor, but also on Tesla’s work because of his research into high-voltage shock discharges. Brown’s first inventions are listed as British patent 300,311 in 1928 and US patent 1,974,483 in 1934, both for gravitators. Initially, Brown’s work was dismissed by many of his colleagues (translated; not accepted in trade journals) because his research violated or challenged many of the main-stream accepted theories and laws of physics, particularly Newton’s third law of motion, Einstein’s laws of gravitation and relativity, and the first law of thermodynamics.

Before any of you dismiss this book as total nonsense, perhaps a bit of Brown’s career highlights may give you pause for reconsideration. In 1930, Brown was referred to Colonel Edward Deeds. Brown left his position at Swazey Observatory for a job at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC. He was assigned to the Navy-Princeton International Gravity Expedition to the West Indies on the US submarine S-48. Admiral Hyman Rickover, then a lieutenant, was the executive officer. Brown’s findings were summarized in a study titled “Anomalous Behavior of Massive High-K Dielectrics”. That study is still classified.

In 1933, Brown was given temporary leave to serve on the Johnson-Smithsonian Expedition on Eldridge Johnson’s yacht, the Caroline. While on the expedition, Brown had the opportunity to meet Johnson, Leon Douglass (McDonnell Douglass), and British master spy William S. Stephenson, who may have recruited Brown into his intel operations. In 1938, Brown was assigned to the maiden voyage of the USS Nashville as an assistant engineering officer, which carried $50 million in gold bullion from the Bank of England to Chase Manhattan Bank in New York. During that voyage, an electrogravitic research laboratory was established for him at the University of Pennsylvania, funded in part from the money on the USS Nashville. In 1939, Brown left the UofP to work as a material and process engineer at Glenn Martin Company (Lockheed Martin).

In 1940, the Navy called him back to head up a “mine sweeping research and development project” under the Bureau of Ships in Washington, DC, where he directed a staff of fifteen PhDs and had a budget of (coincidentally) nearly $50 million. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Brown was assigned to the Naval Operating Base in Norfolk, VA, as officer in charge of the Atlantic Fleet Radar Material School and Gyro-Compass School. In 1942, he was assigned to disassemble his equipment at the UofP and transfer it to Norfolk.

However, before his assignment to the Atlantic Fleet Radar School, Brown was assigned to the Philadelphia Navy Yard as an assistant machinery superintendent for “outfitting new ships”. This would have placed him in Philadelphia during the time when the USS Eldridge DE 173 was being outfitted for the infamous Philadelphia Experiment. When asked about his involvement in the experiment later in life, Brown said he “was not permitted to talk about that part of his work” and “much of what has been written about the project is grossly exaggerated”. Brown “retired” from the Navy in late 1943 due to a “nervous collapse”. One has to wonder if the collapse was due to the reportedly tragic events of the Philadelphia Experiment.

In 1944, Brown went to work for Lockheed Vega Aircraft in the Advanced Projects Unit (Skunk Works). In his spare time, he continued to conduct research with funding from his Townsend Brown Foundation. In 1952, he wrote a proposal urging the Navy to fund a highly secret project to develop a manned flying saucer as the basis of an interceptor aircraft with Mach 3 capability, Project Winterhaven. That proposal was never funded, probably due to highly classified work on electrogravitics already in progress.

user posted image

Available at : http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Antigravity-...y/dp/159143078X
dkk
post Mar 31 2012, 08:04 AM

10k Club
Group Icon
Elite
11,400 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
"Patented" does not mean working. The patent office does not examine applications to make sure they are functional. Just that they are patentable. The US Patent Office used to require that working models are submitted with the applications, but that requirement was stopped long ago.

If the patent dates from 1930, the it should be in the public domain by now. You are free to go and commercialize it.

If the guy is connected to the American spook agencies, that does not validate his research. It may mean that he is no kook. But it may also mean that the whole thing is just a cover for whatever real research they are doing. Or perhaps it's just a way to get funds for "black ops" that have nothing to do with scientific research at all.

TSnorther
post Mar 31 2012, 09:27 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(dkk @ Mar 31 2012, 08:04 AM)
"Patented" does not mean working. The patent office does not examine applications to make sure they are functional. Just that they are patentable. The US Patent Office used to require that working models are submitted with the applications, but that requirement was stopped long ago.

If the patent dates from 1930, the it should be in the public domain by now. You are free to go and commercialize it.

If the guy is connected to the American spook agencies, that does not validate his research. It may mean that he is no kook. But it may also mean that the whole thing is just a cover for whatever real research they are doing. Or perhaps it's just a way to get funds for "black ops" that have nothing to do with scientific research at all.
*
The (unreplicated) results (by Eugene Podkletnov, Ning Li, Martin Tajmar) might indicate that GR is broken (entirely possible, and replacements have been proposed), but not necessarily that useful applications can be devised.
Eventless
post Mar 31 2012, 10:04 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 09:27 AM)
The (unreplicated) results (by Eugene Podkletnov, Ning Li, Martin Tajmar) might indicate that GR is broken (entirely possible, and replacements have been proposed), but not necessarily that useful applications can be devised.
*
How are scientists going to take you seriously if you cannot replicate the experiment that supports your theory? If it cannot be replicated, it cannot be independently verified by others making it nothing more than a fairy tale. Just like cold fusion, no one can replicate the results.
TSnorther
post Mar 31 2012, 10:37 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 10:04 AM)
How are scientists going to take you seriously if you cannot replicate the experiment that supports your theory? If it cannot be replicated, it cannot be independently verified by others making it nothing more than a fairy tale. Just like cold fusion, no one can replicate the results.
*
How it supposed to disprove antigravity theory, any of them?

For the past several decades, highly classified aerospace programs in the United States and in several other countries have been developing aircraft capable of defying gravity. One form of this technology can loft a craft on matter-repelling energy beams. This exotic technology falls under the relatively obscure field of research known as electrogravitics."


Added on March 31, 2012, 10:46 am
QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 10:04 AM)
How are scientists going to take you seriously if you cannot replicate the experiment that supports your theory? If it cannot be replicated, it cannot be independently verified by others making it nothing more than a fairy tale. Just like cold fusion, no one can replicate the results.
*
and for cold fusion we'd have to make them, investing energy.



This post has been edited by norther: Mar 31 2012, 10:49 AM
Eventless
post Mar 31 2012, 02:18 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 10:37 AM)
How it supposed to disprove antigravity theory, any of them?

For the past several decades, highly classified aerospace programs in the United States and in several other countries have been developing aircraft capable of defying gravity. One form of this technology can loft a craft on matter-repelling energy beams. This exotic technology falls under the relatively obscure field of research known as electrogravitics."
*
You have to prove that is exists in the place. You do not have any proof at all at this moment. Unrepeatable results are not scientific proof.

Defying gravity and antigravity does not mean the same thing. Magnetic repulsion and electric repulsion is not antigravity.

Antigravity is supposed to work by affecting gravity directly by either reducing the effect of gravity or repulsion of mass bodies.

QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 10:37 AM)
and for cold fusion we'd have to make them, investing energy.
*
No one can even describe cold fusion works, how are they supposed to make it? No one has been able to replicate the results of the first experiment until now. Millions have been sunk into with no useful results.
TSnorther
post Mar 31 2012, 02:55 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 02:18 PM)
Defying gravity and antigravity does not mean the same thing. Magnetic repulsion and electric repulsion is not antigravity.
*
No. The simple Magnetic & Electric Repulsion can create an antigravity and electro Magnetic flight. For exmple "hot air balloon" (an early form of anti-gravity) can rise up through the Earth's atmosphere... Using "Electricity "for fuel, which requires "super-conductivity" for efficiency, and "batteries" as "fuel tanks" to hold the electricity necessary to start it's "solid state electronic motors"

QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 02:18 PM)
Antigravity is supposed to work by affecting gravity directly by either reducing the effect of gravity or repulsion of mass bodies.
*
It Would be possible to construct a craft with small enough propulsion power requirements that interstellar travel could be achieved.
Eventless
post Mar 31 2012, 03:11 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 02:55 PM)
No. The simple Magnetic & Electric Repulsion can create an antigravity and electro Magnetic flight. For exmple "hot air balloon" (an early form of anti-gravity) can rise up through the Earth's atmosphere... Using "Electricity "for fuel, which requires "super-conductivity" for efficiency, and "batteries" as "fuel tanks" to hold the electricity necessary to start it's "solid state electronic motors"
*
Anti-gravity has a specific meaning. If it does not directly affect the force of gravity, it is not anti-gravity. Stop making up your own definition.

QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 02:55 PM)
It Would be possible to construct a craft with small enough propulsion power requirements that interstellar travel could be achieved.
*
Given that no such devices has been created, these kind of claims cannot be proven therefore making it meaningless.
3dassets
post Mar 31 2012, 04:09 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 02:55 PM)
No. The simple Magnetic & Electric Repulsion can create an antigravity and electro Magnetic flight. For exmple "hot air balloon" (an early form of anti-gravity) can rise up through the Earth's atmosphere... Using "Electricity "for fuel, which requires "super-conductivity" for efficiency, and "batteries" as "fuel tanks" to hold the electricity necessary to start it's "solid state electronic motors"
It Would be possible to construct a craft with small enough propulsion power requirements that interstellar travel could be achieved.
*
Hot air balloon is not anti gravity, the same gravitation still pull the balloon except the hot air is stronger.

Interstellar travel don't need own energy source like petrol in engine, it should be abundance in the stellar to be viable such as the sun.
TSnorther
post Mar 31 2012, 04:47 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 03:11 PM)
Anti-gravity has a specific meaning. If it does not directly affect the force of gravity, it is not anti-gravity. Stop making up your own definition.
Given that no such devices has been created, these kind of claims cannot be proven therefore making it meaningless.
*
Here simple explanation A crsft that when in flight, can generate all the electricity it needs and recharge its batteries, just from its motion... A craft that once outside the Earth's atmosphere, flies at electromagnetic speeds.
If you believe or some other abstract theory, you will never understand antigravity or electro-magnetic craft... It is necessary to understand gravity as a simple electro-magnetic force, to understand the principles of antigravity and electro-magnetic craft.
It all by manipulating!


Added on March 31, 2012, 4:49 pm
QUOTE(3dassets @ Mar 31 2012, 04:09 PM)
Hot air balloon is not anti gravity, the same gravitation still pull the balloon except the hot air is stronger.

Interstellar travel don't need own energy source like petrol in engine, it should be abundance in the stellar to be viable such as the sun.
*
And being generated by the mass of the sun. But I never mentioned on petrol engine. Just an example on hot air balloon.


This post has been edited by norther: Mar 31 2012, 04:49 PM
SUSMrUbikeledek
post Mar 31 2012, 05:31 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
580 posts

Joined: Aug 2011


QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 04:47 PM)
Here simple explanation A crsft that when in flight, can generate all the electricity it needs and recharge its batteries, just from its motion... A craft that once outside the Earth's atmosphere, flies at electromagnetic speeds.
If you believe or some other abstract theory, you will never understand antigravity or electro-magnetic craft... It is necessary to understand gravity as a simple electro-magnetic force, to understand the principles of antigravity and electro-magnetic craft.
It all by manipulating!
Among the four forces of nature, only electromagnetic force has opposite interaction. that mean's it can attract and repel. Gravity force has no such behaviour.
3dassets
post Mar 31 2012, 05:41 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 04:47 PM)
Here simple explanation A crsft that when in flight, can generate all the electricity it needs and recharge its batteries, just from its motion... A craft that once outside the Earth's atmosphere, flies at electromagnetic speeds.
If you believe or some other abstract theory, you will never understand antigravity or electro-magnetic craft... It is necessary to understand gravity as a simple electro-magnetic force, to understand the principles of antigravity and electro-magnetic craft.
It all by manipulating!


Added on March 31, 2012, 4:49 pm

And being generated by the mass of the sun. But I never mentioned on petrol engine. Just an example on hot air balloon.
*
Maybe it is not defy gravity but focused channel of energy source that pull object around if you want to guess, and the reason why it can be seen but not detected by radar according to stories but a spaceship don't need to emit lights, you said that it is plasma thing that cause it to glow but the small parts of lights does look like light rather than propulsion, which look low tech, why smaller plasma propulsion needed all over the craft? Not efficient ET.

The b2 bomber does look kind of odd but its based on a kite, so, simplicity is the key.

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Mar 31 2012, 05:45 PM
Eventless
post Mar 31 2012, 06:26 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 04:47 PM)
Here simple explanation A crsft that when in flight, can generate all the electricity it needs and recharge its batteries, just from its motion... A craft that once outside the Earth's atmosphere, flies at electromagnetic speeds.
*
You can't have the same energy to move an object and store it at the same time. It can only be used for one purpose at any one time in a system. This is basic science-Law of conservation of energy. What you are describing is more like a perpetual motion machine which cannot exist.

What is electromagnetic speed? Are you just making stuff up as you go?
QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 04:47 PM)
If you believe or some other abstract theory, you will never understand antigravity or electro-magnetic craft... It is necessary to understand gravity as a simple electro-magnetic force, to understand the principles of antigravity and electro-magnetic craft.
It all by manipulating!
*
The only manipulation I see here the manipulations of facts. Gravity is not an electro-magnetic force. It may behave in similarly in certain manners, it is not the same thing. People who misunderstand Gravitomagnetism believe that anti-gravity is possible.
TSnorther
post Mar 31 2012, 08:25 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 06:26 PM)
You can't have the same energy to move an object and store it at the same time. It can only be used for one purpose at any one time in a system. This is basic science-Law of conservation of energy. What you are describing is more like a perpetual motion machine which cannot exist.
*
They are byproduct.
This which requires super-conductivity for efficiency
hold the electricity necessary to start it's solid state electronic motors.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 06:26 PM)
What is electromagnetic speed? Are you just making stuff up as you go?
The only manipulation I see here the manipulations of facts. Gravity is not an electro-magnetic force. It may behave in similarly in certain manners, it is not the same thing.
*
you are right because physical theories, gravity is totally different from electromagnetism.
There are plenty of people that argue this idea however i believe that the Gravity and the Electromagnetic Force are identical... and we can graphically see that the Gravity Force is a simple electromagnetic attraction...and this is can described in geometry direction.... gravity is a byprodcuct of electromagnetic.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 06:26 PM)
People who misunderstand Gravitomagnetism believe that anti-gravity is possible.
*
Translate this into Hyperspace. And we need to measure the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field. Superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. This apparently has profound consequences for interstellar travel, as the gravitomagnetic field used for propulsion will set up an alternate space-time field, akin to the warped space-time in a black hole, and time dilation occurs. 10-light year trip would only take 80 days.
Gravitomagnetism can create a lot of antigravity



Added on March 31, 2012, 8:28 pm
QUOTE(3dassets @ Mar 31 2012, 05:41 PM)
Maybe it is not defy gravity but focused channel of energy source that pull object around if you want to guess, and the reason why it can be seen but not detected by radar according to stories but a spaceship don't need to emit lights, you said that it is plasma thing that cause it to glow but the small parts of lights does look like light rather than propulsion, which look low tech, why smaller plasma propulsion needed all over the craft? Not efficient ET.

The b2 bomber does look kind of odd but its based on a kite, so, simplicity is the key.
*
I’m still confused with your question regarding Light. Light from which side? Side of craft windows? strange light? Multipy light or famous one beam light? But i guess you are asking about the light emitting from the ETs machine that accelerate the craft.

This post has been edited by norther: Mar 31 2012, 08:28 PM
Eventless
post Mar 31 2012, 10:09 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
There are no known devices that can convert electrical force into gravitational force. All you have is a bunch of unprovable fairy tales.
TSnorther
post Mar 31 2012, 10:22 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Mar 31 2012, 10:09 PM)
There are no known devices that can convert electrical force into gravitational force. All you have is a bunch of unprovable fairy tales.
*
same as x-ray were a hoax 150 years ago hmm.gif

user posted image

Eventless
post Apr 1 2012, 12:51 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Mar 31 2012, 10:22 PM)
same as x-ray were a hoax 150 years ago  hmm.gif
*
There's a big difference here. The effects of x-rays are measurable and replicable. Meaning that anyone that had the right equipment could recreate the devices and verify the findings.

All you have are designs and theories that doesn't work.
3dassets
post Apr 1 2012, 02:40 AM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 12:51 AM)
There's a big difference here. The effects of x-rays are measurable and replicable. Meaning that anyone that had the right equipment could recreate the devices and verify the findings.

All you have are designs and theories that doesn't work.
*
If it work, it won't come from a nobody. These thing cannot be stumbled upon only fairy tales can manipulate with fantasy solution.
ricstc
post Apr 1 2012, 02:43 AM

Saya Pun Nak Cari Makan
*******
Senior Member
2,272 posts

Joined: Apr 2010
From: Selangor
user posted image

Available at : http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Antigravity-...y/dp/159143078X
*

[/quote]


Ive got this ebook. Around 30MB in size. Bought it from Amazon. GREAT BOOK!!!

And here the Dr Laviolette hosting a daily radioshow audioed on Youtube



This post has been edited by ricstc: Apr 1 2012, 03:06 AM
3dassets
post Apr 1 2012, 02:58 AM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(ricstc @ Apr 1 2012, 02:43 AM)

Finally got people try to cash in, Secrets-Antigravity-Propulsion-Classified-Technology sold in Amazon is no secret any more but still no anti-gravity science project yet got hand book. biggrin.gif

This post has been edited by 3dassets: Apr 1 2012, 02:58 AM
ricstc
post Apr 1 2012, 03:05 AM

Saya Pun Nak Cari Makan
*******
Senior Member
2,272 posts

Joined: Apr 2010
From: Selangor
QUOTE(3dassets @ Apr 1 2012, 02:58 AM)
QUOTE(ricstc @ Apr 1 2012, 02:43 AM)

Finally got people try to cash in, Secrets-Antigravity-Propulsion-Classified-Technology sold in Amazon is no secret any more but still no anti-gravity science project yet got hand book. biggrin.gif
*
DELETED (not filthy rich, leaving this thread. Too poor in emotions to continue)

This post has been edited by ricstc: Apr 1 2012, 12:00 PM
3dassets
post Apr 1 2012, 03:30 AM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


[quote=ricstc,Apr 1 2012, 03:05 AM]
Finally got people try to cash in, Secrets-Antigravity-Propulsion-Classified-Technology sold in Amazon is no secret any more but still no anti-gravity science project yet got hand book. biggrin.gif
*

[/quote]
Cash in? Hahaha... RM1.00 will not make me a rich man. PLEASE lah... (Im filthy rich already - with or without anti-gravities)
*

[/quote]
If filthy rich already why still need to ask for RM1? Transfer minimum is RM5 or RM10, never heard of RM1.
TSnorther
post Apr 1 2012, 12:39 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 12:51 AM)
There's a big difference here. The effects of x-rays are measurable and replicable. Meaning that anyone that had the right equipment could recreate the devices and verify the findings.

All you have are designs and theories that doesn't work.
*
-Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.
—William Thomson Kelvin (1824–1907), a mathematical physicist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin

-Robert Goddard 1920s and 1930s, professor, physicist and inventor, was scoffed at because it was believed that rockets would never be able to go into space.

You are totally right in the perpetual motion machine because it violate the known laws of physics...but the gravitomagnetism with serious study will opened up unexpected domains.

Power generators and electrical motors can highly benefit for gravitomagnetism experiment. Then the effect in frame-dragging would be magnitude greater than predicted by relativity. The fields are extremely small. It is possible to produce artificial gravitational fields within the standard equations of relativity and we only need mass the size of a neutron star to do it.

I explain to but you seem repeatedly answer the same doesn't work.
The necessary existence of a gravitomagnetism field has been well established by physicists specializing in general relativity, gravitational theories, and cosmology. But, the existence of this field is not well known in other of arenas of physical science.



Added on April 1, 2012, 12:45 pm
QUOTE(3dassets @ Apr 1 2012, 02:40 AM)
If it work, it won't come from a nobody. These thing cannot be stumbled upon only fairy tales can manipulate with fantasy solution.
*
Nobody?? highly appreciated your comment.....these concept was in class I Impossibilities. It could be you great great grant children will use such public tech teleportation and stealth and these technologies may become available in some limited form in a century or two, BECAUSE in that it does NOT violate the laws of physics.

This post has been edited by norther: Apr 1 2012, 12:45 PM
Eventless
post Apr 1 2012, 01:42 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 1 2012, 12:39 PM)
You are totally right in the perpetual motion machine because it violate the known laws of physics...but the gravitomagnetism with serious study will opened up unexpected domains.

Power generators and electrical motors can highly benefit for gravitomagnetism experiment.  Then the effect in frame-dragging would be magnitude greater than predicted by relativity. The fields are extremely small. It is possible to produce artificial gravitational fields within the standard equations of relativity and we only need mass the size of a neutron star to do it.
*
Impractical much? Where can you get mass equivalent to a neutron star except from a neutron star? You need to move such a large mass just to produce a small amount of anti-gravity. What a waste of energy.

QUOTE(norther @ Apr 1 2012, 12:39 PM)
I explain to but you seem repeatedly answer the same doesn't work.
The necessary existence of a gravitomagnetism field has been well established by physicists specializing in general relativity, gravitational theories, and cosmology. But, the existence of this field is not well known in other of arenas of physical science.
*
None of the properties that you are describing has been attributed to to gravitomagnetism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

There is even a section specifically listed in the link above mentioning that gravitomagnetism does not support the possibility of anti-gravity. The only people who claim that are those who don't understand gravitomagnetism.
TSnorther
post Apr 1 2012, 04:02 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 01:42 PM)
Impractical much? Where can you get mass equivalent to a neutron star except from a neutron star? You need to move such a large mass just to produce a small amount of anti-gravity. What a waste of energy.
*

It appear to be found in superconductors, and they’re much larger effects. Gravitomagnetism is a gravitational analogue to Lenz’s Law where angular acceleration on a superconductor is countered by a twisting tidal force generated by the gravitomagnetic frame-dragging effect. Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, support and working on experimental anti-gravity projects.




QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 01:42 PM)
None of the properties that you are describing has been attributed to to gravitomagnetism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

There is even a section specifically listed in the link above mentioning that gravitomagnetism does not support the possibility of anti-gravity. The only people who claim that are those who don't understand gravitomagnetism.
*
It's man made, not natural..... manipulate magnetism using a current of electricity. We can defy the force of gravity.During the last 20 years many other scientists have published articles demonstrating the necessary existence of the gravitomagnetic field but not well known. Scientists are sensitive about their reputations and many of them still think antigravity is a joke. If they knew the facts, they'd be eager to get into it.We don't feel gravitomagnetism as we go about our everyday lives on Earth, but it's real.

Eventless
post Apr 1 2012, 06:52 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 1 2012, 04:02 PM)

It appear to be found in superconductors, and they’re much larger effects. Gravitomagnetism is a gravitational analogue to Lenz’s Law where angular acceleration on a superconductor is countered by a twisting tidal force generated by the gravitomagnetic frame-dragging effect. Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, support and working on experimental anti-gravity projects.

*
Where are you getting that particular information about superconductors and gravitomagnetism?

If you have bothered to read about that article on gravitomagnetism, the effect of frame dragging is incredibly small and it has nothing to do with eletricity or magnetism. It only indicates that some of the effect of gravity is similar to that found in electromagnetism. The only thing that frame dragging can do is cause an object to rotate, not produce electricity or magnetic fields. Gravitmagnetism has no effect on electromagnetism or can not be affected by electromagnetism. So no manipulating gravity using electrical means.

QUOTE(norther @ Apr 1 2012, 04:02 PM)
It's man made, not natural..... manipulate magnetism using a current of electricity. We can defy the force of gravity.During the last 20 years many other scientists have published articles demonstrating the necessary existence of the gravitomagnetic field but not well known. Scientists are sensitive about their reputations and many of them still think antigravity is a joke. If they knew the facts, they'd be eager to get into it.We don't feel gravitomagnetism as we go about our everyday lives on Earth, but it's real.
*
You are describing using electromagnetic repulsion to overcome the force of gravity. Gravity remains unchanged. That is not manipulating gravity using electricity.
TSnorther
post Apr 1 2012, 09:07 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 06:52 PM)
Where are you getting that particular information about superconductors and gravitomagnetism?
*
Magnetic flux in a superconductor is a function of the gravitomagnetic permeability, and vice versa. The velocity of a gravitational wave in a superconductor is estimated to be two orders of magnitude slower than the vacuum velocity, resulting in an estimate of relative gravitational permeability of a superconductor material which is as much as four magnitudes greater than free space.
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v46/i9/p5489_1
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v43/i2/p457_1


QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 06:52 PM)
If you have bothered to read about that article on gravitomagnetism, the effect of frame dragging is incredibly small and it has nothing to do with eletricity or magnetism. It only indicates that some of the effect of gravity is similar to that found in electromagnetism. The only thing that frame dragging can do is cause an object to rotate, not produce electricity or magnetic fields. Gravitmagnetism has no effect on electromagnetism or can not be affected by electromagnetism. So no manipulating gravity using electrical means.
*
Superconducting emitter bombarded by a high-voltage discharge in a high-intensity magnetic field, rather than simply rotating a superconducting. The military has been working on it for a very long time in secret in my opinion. We do not need a lot of energy and not absorb the energy of the gravitational field. It can be controlled, as a transistor controls the flow of electricity. No law of physics is broken. This is manipulating in my opinion.

Superconductors could affect the force of gravity.



QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 06:52 PM)
You are describing using electromagnetic repulsion to overcome the force of gravity. Gravity remains unchanged. That is not manipulating gravity using electricity.
*
Okay...this is out of topic regarding the book i read "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion".
Here the more easy for you - NASA’s Ron Koczor and Tony Robertson of NASA Glenn research center, who performed tests on a superconductive disk designed by Podkletnov and built by SCI Engineered Materials. However, the replication achieved only 200 rpm of the required 5,000 rpm and failed achieve a measurable result.
Now i told you considering of DARPA, DoD, and other secrect project, antigravity was develop long time ago as this is weird science and disruptive technology
I don't doubt for a second that the person on link i gave you work is real and they were disappeared.



Eventless
post Apr 1 2012, 10:32 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 1 2012, 09:07 PM)
Magnetic flux in a superconductor is a function of the gravitomagnetic permeability, and vice versa. The velocity of a gravitational wave in a superconductor is estimated to be two orders of magnitude slower than the vacuum velocity, resulting in an estimate of relative  gravitational permeability of a superconductor material which is as much as four magnitudes greater than free space.
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v46/i9/p5489_1
http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v43/i2/p457_1

Superconducting emitter bombarded by a high-voltage discharge in a high-intensity magnetic field, rather than simply rotating a superconducting. The military has been working on it for a very long time in secret in my opinion. We do not need a lot of energy and not absorb the energy of the gravitational field. It can be controlled, as a transistor controls the flow of electricity. No law of physics is broken. This is manipulating in my opinion.
*
The link you gave does not really say anything. The only give a synopsis which is useless unless you can see the actual content of the papers. The actual contents require a login. What a waste of time.

QUOTE(norther @ Apr 1 2012, 09:07 PM)
Superconductors could affect the force of gravity.
Okay...this is out of topic regarding the book i read "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion".
Here the more easy for you - NASA’s Ron Koczor and Tony Robertson of NASA Glenn research center, who performed tests on a superconductive disk designed by Podkletnov and built by SCI Engineered Materials. However, the replication achieved only 200 rpm of the required 5,000 rpm and failed achieve a measurable result.
Now i told you considering of DARPA, DoD, and other secrect project, antigravity was develop long time ago as this is weird science and disruptive technology
I don't doubt for a second that the person on link i gave you work is real and they were disappeared.

*
More useless information that can't be verified. Only good information is that it does not work.

There was this article that I've found in regards to Ron Koczor. This does not support anything that you've said. Boeing did not do any research in this field. Nor did the experiments work. More money sunk without any results.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/brave_new_world/2002/10/feeling_antigravitys_pull.html
TSnorther
post Apr 1 2012, 10:56 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 10:32 PM)
The link you gave does not really say anything. The only give a synopsis which is useless unless you can see the actual content of the papers. The actual contents require a login. What a waste of time.
More useless information that can't be verified. Only good information is that it does not work.
*
The scientist who works on this is Ning Li(actually not real name)-cover up by US gov. If you really interested with the PDF copy, no problem sure will share.

QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 10:32 PM)
There was this article that I've found in regards to Ron Koczor. This does not support anything that you've said. Boeing did not do any research in this field. Nor did the experiments work. More money sunk without any results.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/brave_new_world/2002/10/feeling_antigravitys_pull.html
*
Now you enough happy with your good result BUT....good news for me Black Project is working on it long time ago after WWII and Hitler as well and again Project Winterxxxxn is now working in development of a Mach 3 disc shaped electrogravitic fighter craft.

B2 Stealth Bomber is a contemporary craft that utilizes anti-gravity capabilities.

This post has been edited by norther: Apr 1 2012, 11:12 PM
3dassets
post Apr 1 2012, 11:07 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(norther @ Apr 1 2012, 12:39 PM)

Nobody?? highly appreciated your comment.....these concept was in class I Impossibilities. It could be you great great grant children will use such public tech teleportation and stealth and these technologies may become available in some limited form in a century or two, BECAUSE in that it does NOT violate the laws of physics.
*
Yeah, talk about the future without us, like people who invented things in the past thought of us? Being able to dissemble a living thing and resemble it elsewhere is like the power of the creator, why need to do that while we can just transfer the thought to another simulated body? Like the movie "Avatar". That is why I say you are out dated in creative science.
TSnorther
post Apr 1 2012, 11:27 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
[quote=ricstc,Apr 1 2012, 02:43 AM]
user posted image

Available at : http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Antigravity-...y/dp/159143078X
*

[/quote]
Ive got this ebook. Around 30MB in size. Bought it from Amazon. GREAT BOOK!!!

And here the Dr Laviolette hosting a daily radioshow audioed on Youtube


*

[/quote]

Welcome aboard...page 54 more interesting biggrin.gif
Eventless
post Apr 2 2012, 07:26 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
Seems that all the name that you've used can be found in the article below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_shielding

It isn't anti-gravity. It is gravitational shielding. By itself it produces no propulsion at all. It just reduces the effect of gravity on a body with mass. It also does not work as described. You still need a propulsion system in order to move. Why bother with it if conventional rockets can already do the same without the need of for additional systems and weight?
SUSMrUbikeledek
post Apr 2 2012, 07:58 AM

On my way
****
Senior Member
580 posts

Joined: Aug 2011


Gravity is not a force per se. it's a deformation of space by huge mass. It's like if you put a cannonball in the middle of the matress. The cannonball will deform the otherwise flat surface of the matress. if you put a golf ball on the surface of the matress near the place where you put the cannonball, the deformation in the surface of the matress will cause the golf ball to roll into the cannonball. This is how large body in space attract another mass into it. because ths masses simply rolling into each other along the spacetime curvature. Now theoretically, it's possible to create anti-gravity. But we have to deform the surface of the matress upward instead of downward so the golf ball will roll outward instead. It implies that the cannonball must have a negative mass. Now how do we create negative mass? can you imagine the -5kg cannonball?

The anti-gravity peoples simply treat Gravity as a foirce just like magnetism. This is where they mistaken.

This post has been edited by MrUbikeledek: Apr 2 2012, 08:00 AM
TSnorther
post Apr 2 2012, 11:05 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(MrUbikeledek @ Apr 2 2012, 07:58 AM)
Gravity is not a force per se. it's a deformation of space by huge mass. It's like if you put a cannonball in the middle of the matress. The cannonball will deform the otherwise flat surface of the matress. if you put a golf ball on the surface of the matress near the place where you put the cannonball, the deformation in the surface of the matress will cause the golf ball to roll into the cannonball. This is how large body in space attract another mass into it. because ths masses simply rolling into each other along the spacetime curvature. Now theoretically, it's possible to create anti-gravity. But we have to deform the surface of the matress upward instead of downward so the golf ball will roll outward instead. It implies that the cannonball must have a negative mass. Now how do we create negative mass? can you imagine the -5kg cannonball?

The anti-gravity peoples simply treat Gravity as a foirce just like magnetism. This is where they mistaken.
*
None of above....but quite interesting with golf ball and cannonball....here I show you - "Magnetic principle" and the "Weight into Speed".. Golf ball and cannonball can kept unbalanced to sustain the disruption of equilibrium to produce the wobbling effect. It suspended on point, forever sideways or tilting. The magnet would not wear out because they were suspended on a magnetic field. Movement of the golf ball and canonball produced an electro-gravitational field to cause the mattress to lose its connection with gravity, thereby neutralizing it's 'weight'. Movement of the both ball could be controlled by pulling the ball out of rotation......We use two principles : The first is call: "Weight into Speed", the second is the "Magnetic Principle". This is same like Hamel Spinner!
High Grade University never teach us this weird stuff.
Both the "Magnetic principle" and the "Weight into Speed" devices will, if built right, run for many thousands of years!



Added on April 2, 2012, 11:24 am
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 2 2012, 07:26 AM)
Seems that all the name that you've used can be found in the article below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_shielding

It isn't anti-gravity. It is gravitational shielding. By itself it produces no propulsion at all. It just reduces the effect of gravity on a body with mass. It also does not work as described. You still need a propulsion system in order to move. Why bother with it if conventional rockets can already do the same without the need of for additional systems and weight?
*

We no need the propulsion system. Gravitational shielding possible work caused by HTC superconductors produced by means of discs with multiple layers, rotating at high speed, Furthermore, not conventional superconductors are involved, but HTC superconductors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm

"The project is being run by the top-secret Phantom Works in Seattle, the part of the company which handles Boeing's most sensitive programmes."

The article is a cover story/ program.
They may already have anti-gravity figured out and of course it's kept very secret.

Like an ARV: Alien Reproduction Vehicles (ARVs): Reversed-engineered UFOs made by humans by studying actual ET craft built by Lockheed, Northrup, et al, and housed in secretive locations around the world.

Phantom Works :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Phantom_Works



This post has been edited by norther: Apr 2 2012, 11:24 AM
3dassets
post Apr 2 2012, 12:18 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


The so called mattress is unknown or dark matter let alone bending it, when you found a way to defy gravity, you still need an efficient way to propel, why must talk like a scientist while we are not and all the reference is only open for casual exchange of opinion?
SUSMrUbikeledek
post Apr 2 2012, 01:15 PM

On my way
****
Senior Member
580 posts

Joined: Aug 2011


Weight into speed? Sound's like gravity assisted acceleration and we have it already. Magnetic principle only work on charged objects.
Eventless
post Apr 2 2012, 06:06 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 1 2012, 10:32 PM)
There was this article that I've found in regards to Ron Koczor. This does not support anything that you've said. Boeing did not do any research in this field. Nor did the experiments work. More money sunk without any results.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/brave_new_world/2002/10/feeling_antigravitys_pull.html
*
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 2 2012, 11:05 AM)

We no need the propulsion system. Gravitational shielding possible work caused by HTC superconductors produced by means of discs with multiple layers, rotating at high speed, Furthermore, not conventional superconductors are involved, but HTC superconductors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm

"The project is being run by the top-secret Phantom Works in Seattle, the part of the company which handles Boeing's most sensitive programmes."

The article is a cover story/ program.
They may already have anti-gravity figured out and of course it's kept very secret.
*
The article that I've quoted is several months later than your article. It actually shows and invalidates some of the claims made in your article.

The only difference between regular superconductor and HTC superconductor is the operating temperature, nothing more.

QUOTE(norther @ Apr 2 2012, 11:05 AM)
Both the "Magnetic principle" and the "Weight into Speed" devices will, if built right, run for many thousands of years!
*
Superconductors require constant cooling using liquid air in order to work. The fact the people at NASA destroyed a few HTC superconducting discs in their experiment with this theory indicates that they do wear out from use. Unless the discs are able to rotate themselves, you need a mechanism to keep the discs rotating. Motors can wear out. That is a lot of things that can wear out. Good luck getting it to last a few year much less a few thousand years.
TSnorther
post Apr 2 2012, 07:34 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 2 2012, 06:06 PM)
The article that I've quoted is several months later than your article. It actually shows and invalidates some of the claims made in your article.

The only difference between regular superconductor and HTC superconductor is the operating temperature, nothing more.
Superconductors require constant cooling using liquid air in order to work. The fact the people at NASA destroyed a few HTC superconducting discs in their experiment with this theory indicates that they do wear out from use. Unless the discs are able to rotate themselves, you need a mechanism to keep the discs rotating. Motors can wear out. That is a lot of things that can wear out. Good luck getting it to last a few year much less a few thousand years.
*
That is the problem with NASA design and they are NOT AWARE to do with the exhaust of heat like ordinary engines.This possibility that an accident may happen by the release of heat energy when the superconductive magnet of the engines change into normal conducive condition. It can wear out if they apply to much magnetic force and and the superconductor's capability is destroyed. Superconductivity is a spectacular phenomenon that is still intriguing researchers. This is the question that researchers have been trying to answer for the last twenty-five years.

TR-3B & X-22A antigravity craft is everywhere in this world the and Aurora is so real things.


Eventless
post Apr 2 2012, 08:08 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 2 2012, 07:34 PM)
That is the problem with NASA design and they are NOT AWARE to do with the exhaust of heat like ordinary engines.This possibility that an accident may happen by the release of heat energy when the superconductive magnet of  the engines change into normal conducive condition. It can wear out if they apply to much magnetic force and and the superconductor's capability is destroyed. Superconductivity is a spectacular phenomenon that is still intriguing researchers. This is the question that researchers have been trying to answer for the last twenty-five years.

TR-3B & X-22A antigravity craft is everywhere in this world the and Aurora is so real things.

*
Liquid air cooling is the most powerful cooling method around these days. If that can't keep your disks cool, nothing will. Unless there's an unlimited supply of liquid air, you will loose superconductivity eventually. There's nothing sustainable about it.
TSnorther
post Apr 3 2012, 12:34 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
user posted image

B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its winglike body. Although these disclosures were framed in the context of enhancing the B-2’s radar invisibility, in fact they are part of an electrogravitic drive capability. West Coast scientists and engineers who were formerly associated with black research projects, which are defense research projects that are so secret even their very existence is classified. Northrop, the prime contractor for the B-2, had been experimenting with applying high-voltage charge to aircraft hulls since at least 1968, when at an aerospace sciences meeting held in New York in January 1968 scientists from Northrop’s Norair Division reported that they were beginning wind tunnel studies on aerodynamic effects of applying high-voltage charges to the leading edges of high-speed aircraft bodies. Similar research was carried out in 1965 by the Grumman and Avco corporations. Interestingly, in 1994, Northrop bought out and merged with Grumman.
Eventless
post Apr 3 2012, 12:47 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 12:34 PM)
B-2 Advanced Technology Bomber electrostatically charges its exhaust stream and the leading edges of its winglike body. Although these disclosures were framed in the context of enhancing the B-2’s radar invisibility, in fact they are part of an electrogravitic drive capability. West Coast scientists and engineers who were formerly associated with black research projects, which are defense research projects that are so secret even their very existence is classified. Northrop, the prime contractor for the B-2, had been experimenting with applying high-voltage charge to aircraft hulls since at least 1968, when at an aerospace sciences meeting held in New York in January 1968 scientists from Northrop’s Norair Division reported that they were beginning wind tunnel studies on aerodynamic effects of applying high-voltage charges to the leading edges of high-speed aircraft bodies. Similar research was carried out in 1965 by the Grumman and Avco corporations. Interestingly, in 1994, Northrop bought out and merged with Grumman.
*
Irrelevant post. Nothing to do with your superconductor gravity shield. It is changing the airflow around the aircraft not the gravitational field around the aircraft.
TSnorther
post Apr 3 2012, 12:53 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 3 2012, 12:47 PM)
Irrelevant post. Nothing to do with your superconductor gravity shield. It is changing the airflow around the aircraft not the gravitational field around the aircraft.
*
Because it ignored by mainstream academics that the phenomenon isn’t anticipated by either classical electrostatics or general relativity.

I think you know this guy :

user posted image


Added on April 3, 2012, 12:57 pm
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 3 2012, 12:47 PM)
Irrelevant post. Nothing to do with your superconductor gravity shield. It is changing the airflow around the aircraft not the gravitational field around the aircraft.
*
check out this http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Antigravity-...y/dp/159143078X if irrelevant. The post is about what contains in the book and not the mainstream one.

This post has been edited by norther: Apr 3 2012, 12:57 PM
Eventless
post Apr 3 2012, 12:59 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 12:53 PM)
Because it ignored by mainstream academics that the phenomenon isn’t anticipated by either classical electrostatics or general relativity.
*
More like you didn't bother to understand the text that you've copied as proof. Nowhere does it mention anything about gravity. It only mentions aerodynamics.
TSnorther
post Apr 3 2012, 01:06 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 3 2012, 12:59 PM)
More like you didn't bother to understand the text that you've copied as proof. Nowhere does it mention anything about gravity. It only mentions aerodynamics.
*
Electrogavitic or any stuff out of box doesn't bother you.


Added on April 3, 2012, 1:19 pm
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 3 2012, 12:47 PM)
Irrelevant post. Nothing to do with your superconductor gravity shield. It is changing the airflow around the aircraft not the gravitational field around the aircraft.
*
Because NorthropCorp didn't mentioned about the gravitational field when it maneuver in stratosphere. This their secret. Normal thruster during take off and there are something weird in stratosphere level.

This post has been edited by norther: Apr 3 2012, 01:21 PM
Eventless
post Apr 3 2012, 01:42 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 01:06 PM)
Electrogavitic or any stuff out of box doesn't bother you.
*
It bothers me quite a bit because you are passing it off as science.

QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 01:06 PM)

Added on April 3, 2012, 1:19 pm

Because NorthropCorp didn't mentioned about the gravitational field when it maneuver in stratosphere. This their secret. Normal thruster during take off and there are something weird in stratosphere level.
*
Maybe it is because there actually nothing weird to begin with. What is so special about the stratosphere?

The Lockheed U-2 is capable of flying up to 21km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_spy_plane

Based on the page below, the stratosphere starts at 10km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere

Your B2 is only capable of reaching 15.2km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit

That plane is capable of flying well within the stratosphere and it is well over 50 years old. Another example of your so called electrogravitic technology or good old basic engineering?

TSnorther
post Apr 3 2012, 01:48 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 3 2012, 01:42 PM)
It bothers me quite a bit because you are passing it off as science.
Maybe it is because there actually nothing weird to begin with. What is so special about the stratosphere?

The Lockheed U-2 is capable of flying up to 21km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_spy_plane

Based on the page below, the stratosphere starts at 10km.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere

Your B2 is only capable of reaching 15.2km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit

That plane is capable of flying well within the stratosphere and it is well over 50 years old. Another example of your so called electrogravitic technology or good old basic engineering?
*
none of above due to cover-up.
Eventless
post Apr 3 2012, 01:59 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 01:48 PM)
none of above due to cover-up.
*
Anything that does not agree with your view is a coverup, how convenient.

You don't know the meaning of the phrase "cover up".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_up
TSnorther
post Apr 3 2012, 03:16 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 3 2012, 01:59 PM)
Anything that does not agree with your view is a coverup, how convenient.

You don't know the meaning of the phrase "cover up".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_up
*
Folk, what is your further clarification of Cover-Up?
There were folders called "filtered" and "unfiltered", "processed" and "raw", something like that. They also control the minds of hundreds of thousands of people include YOU. All sorts of evil flourishes when secrets abound and doors are closed and nobody knows. The only new thing are those which have been forgotten.

Eventless
post Apr 3 2012, 04:40 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 03:16 PM)
Folk, what is your further  clarification of Cover-Up?
There were folders called "filtered" and "unfiltered", "processed" and "raw", something like that. They also control the minds of hundreds of thousands of people include YOU. All sorts of evil flourishes when secrets abound and doors are closed and nobody knows. The only new thing are those which have been forgotten.

*
What is the point of covering up a technology that is useless to everyone except aircraft and spacecraft manufacturers? Most of the items needed to make it like superconductors and liquid air is not available to most people. How many persons do you know that can build their own supersonic aircraft? Are they worried that people would start fleeing the planet if this gets out? The idea that someone would want to cover this up is ridiculous.
TSnorther
post Apr 3 2012, 04:59 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 3 2012, 04:40 PM)
What is the point of covering up a technology that is useless to everyone except aircraft and spacecraft manufacturers? Most of the items needed to make it like superconductors and liquid air is not available to most people. How many persons do you know that can build their own supersonic aircraft? Are they worried that people would start fleeing the planet if this gets out? The idea that someone would want to cover this up is ridiculous.
*
F-117, B-2, SR-71, reconaissance satellites are proof to media but still something behind it.

Example of US is feeding public false infomation, Russia is wraped in mystery,Chinese just test them they dont care for public, Europe dosent have much of these and one more US was in possession of vast futuristic weapon inventory . Which is slowly leaking to public, some of people wont even speak of them because of importance..but i know you think this is noone will use it, probably noone can replicate it.

A combination of basic research and new technology that will usually take years of engineering to make into a useful weapon system. It is definitely highly sensitive and not the kind of things you want the media or enemies to know you are working on until they are ready for production--and even then most of the details should remain classified.

So they have trust agencies working with black projects to have appropriate oversight from military branches, select committees of congress etc.

World/humanity will get it sooner or later....

Eventless
post Apr 3 2012, 05:52 PM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 04:59 PM)
F-117, B-2, SR-71, reconaissance satellites are proof to media but still something behind it.

Example of US is feeding public false infomation, Russia is wraped in mystery,Chinese just test them they dont care for public, Europe dosent have much of these and one more US was in possession of vast futuristic weapon inventory . Which is slowly leaking to public, some of people wont even speak of them because of importance..but i know you think this is noone will use it, probably noone can replicate it. 

A combination of basic research and new technology that will usually take years of engineering to make into a useful weapon system. It is definitely highly sensitive and not the kind of things you want the media or enemies to know you are working on until they are ready for production--and even then most of the details should remain classified.

So they have trust agencies working with black projects to have appropriate oversight from military branches, select committees of congress etc.

World/humanity will get it sooner or later....

*
You keep saying there's something behind it but you can't say what it is. I think you've been hanging out on the internet for too long. You are starting to show signs of paranoia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
Either that or you need to work on your language skills, it pretty hard to understand what you're trying to say.

It does not really have any importance to the general public. In term of usefulness, the amount of weight reduction shown in the so called first successful experiment is pretty underwhelming.


Added on April 3, 2012, 7:12 pmWhat exactly is the purpose of this thread? So far it has been nothing but a story telling thread.

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 3 2012, 07:12 PM
TSnorther
post Apr 3 2012, 10:54 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
user posted image

With regards to this topic: "Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion, Telsa, Ufos & Classified Aerospace Technology" by Dr. Paul Laviolette.

Basically they ran an electric coil through the leading edge of the wings to create a positive charge -- thus electrifying the skin of the aircraft. Then, they created a negative charge back by the exhaust somewhere and the two charges together create an anti-grav field.

And also there is some form of ionizing device fitted into the leading edges so that resistance/friction is also reduced.

It's an amazing piece of machinery.

Apparently this is also one of the reasons that ground crews are not allowed near the plane once it lands for a considerable period of time, due to the skin of the plane still holding an immense charge.

The book, it's extremely interesting.

3dassets
post Apr 4 2012, 01:30 AM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 10:54 PM)
user posted image

With regards to this topic: "Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion, Telsa, Ufos & Classified Aerospace Technology" by Dr. Paul Laviolette. 

Basically they ran an electric coil through the leading edge of the wings to create a positive charge -- thus electrifying the skin of the aircraft. Then, they created a negative charge back by the exhaust somewhere and the two charges together create an anti-grav field.

And also  there is some form of ionizing device fitted into the leading edges so that resistance/friction is also reduced.

It's an amazing piece of machinery.

Apparently this is also one of the reasons that ground crews are not allowed near the plane once it lands for a considerable period of time, due to the skin of the plane still holding an immense charge.

The book, it's extremely interesting.
*
This picture is a photo retouching, ever since digital software can to wonders, many artist and photographers alike created a lot of publicity for themselves like capturing ghost / god, UFO or what ever... It is easy to become paranoid if you yearn for mysteries and everything will become a conspiracy.
Eventless
post Apr 4 2012, 08:24 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(norther @ Apr 3 2012, 10:54 PM)
user posted image
*
QUOTE(3dassets @ Apr 4 2012, 01:30 AM)
This picture is a photo retouching, ever since digital software can to wonders, many artist and photographers alike created a lot of publicity for themselves like capturing ghost / god, UFO or what ever... It is easy to become paranoid if you yearn for mysteries and everything will become a conspiracy.
*
Actually the photo actually looks authentic if it was a infrared night vision image. The bright area would be hottest part of the plane since that is where the engines are located.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision

Best way to sell a story is to mix in the truth with the made up bits. That way it won't look too unbelievable. Better yet throw in a few scientific phrases that is authentic and hard to understand just to spice it up.
3dassets
post Apr 4 2012, 10:55 AM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 4 2012, 08:24 AM)
Actually the photo actually looks authentic if it was a infrared night vision image. The bright area would be hottest part of the plane since that is where the engines are located.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision

Best way to sell a story is to mix in the truth with the made up bits. That way it won't look too unbelievable. Better yet throw in a few scientific phrases that is authentic and hard to understand just to spice it up.
*
I know it could be real but also fake night vision effect too, my suspicious is the glare, the characteristic of infrared interpreted image does not glare it only glows and the picture shown is light and shadow of the sun, clouds don't appear in night vision like that.
Eventless
post Apr 4 2012, 11:25 AM

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

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(3dassets @ Apr 4 2012, 10:55 AM)
I know it could be real but also fake night vision effect too, my suspicious is the glare, the characteristic of infrared interpreted image does not glare it only glows and the picture shown is light and shadow of the sun, clouds don't appear in night vision like that.
*
Could it be an active infrared night vision photo? The example from the link below show the difference between regular and active infrared technology. The one with the active infrared looks like a well lit room compared to the regular one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision#Active_infrared
3dassets
post Apr 4 2012, 02:19 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 4 2012, 11:25 AM)
Could it be an active infrared night vision photo? The example from the link below show the difference between regular and active infrared technology. The one with the active infrared looks like a well lit room compared to the regular one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision#Active_infrared
*
The B2 picture seems like low light night vision combined with thermal imaging which I think not possible, Thermal imaging is like silhouette effect at high contrast between warm and cool that does not carry much details while infrared spectrum camera captures low light range of details, if object does not move at a distance, it is not possible to tell what is there.

The B2 picture does exhibit sun light or moon light appearance which will overwhelm the infrared sensor that capture details and will only show gradient of heat shape / pattern that resemble the object where clouds is black.
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.
TSnorther
post Apr 4 2012, 10:17 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 4 2012, 03:48 PM)
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.
*

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.



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.
3dassets
post Apr 4 2012, 11:15 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 4 2012, 10:55 PM)
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.
*
You are making story up as you go, where you get the secret? Since the technology is a secret means only US has it, why not show it off? Secret based on a questionable thermal-infrared photo anyway.
TSnorther
post Apr 5 2012, 11:11 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 4 2012, 10:55 PM)
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.
*
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."

QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 4 2012, 10:55 PM)
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.
*
You are Smart. I can’t get the reason BUT i am wondering if the higher voltage offered by static charges could make up the difference. If the charge replenishes fast enough it could run the ionic propulsion. As a lifter it would be used to hover a slightly heavy ship without touching the ground.

QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 4 2012, 10:55 PM)
The atmosphere is not rich in ions. Ions don't last long in the atmosphere because it is unstable.
*
The ions’ role has potential implications for the atmosphere, climate, and human health.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 4 2012, 10:55 PM)
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.
*
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.

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.
TSnorther
post Apr 5 2012, 08:05 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 5 2012, 11:51 AM)
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.

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.
*
From the first post :
QUOTE(norther @ Mar 30 2012, 09:55 PM)
Before any of you dismiss this book as total nonsense, perhaps a bit of Brown’s career highlights may give you pause for reconsideration. In 1930, Brown was referred to Colonel Edward Deeds. Brown left his position at Swazey Observatory for a job at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC. He was assigned to the Navy-Princeton International Gravity Expedition to the West Indies on the US submarine S-48. Admiral Hyman Rickover, then a lieutenant, was the executive officer. Brown’s findings were summarized in a study titled “Anomalous Behavior of Massive High-K Dielectrics”. That study is still classified.
*
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.

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.
TSnorther
post Apr 5 2012, 09:13 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
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.

user posted image
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
TSnorther
post Apr 5 2012, 09:44 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 5 2012, 09:26 PM)
Did you even bother researching any of these examples on the internet?
*
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.

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.
TSnorther
post Apr 5 2012, 10:09 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 5 2012, 09:57 PM)
Why would I be freaking out? Freaking out means that there's actual real and interesting information being presented. You have presented neither.
*
okay you are right...but i have nothing to say.Peace!
3dassets
post Apr 5 2012, 10:34 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


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.

user posted image
*
According to your explanation as if gravity don't exist and the craft pierce through air like needle, even if the craft can void gravity, it still subject to air friction and turbulence. Unless the technology transfer the air in front and place it at the back, its a miracle stuff. rclxms.gif
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
TSnorther
post Apr 5 2012, 11:06 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
For share from another member :

QUOTE
Ever since the B-2 was officially declassified many odd things were noticed about the plane and it's program.

- Many people are amazed how quiet the B-2 is during take-off.
- It's official operating speed is not declassified.
- 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.
- Both its wing leading edge and jet exhaust stream are charged to an incredibly high voltage.
- A few USAF publications by Wright Aeronautical Laboratory and Air Force Systems Command's Astronautics  Laboratory about the B-2, are about topics as 'electric-field propulsion', and 'electrogravitics' (or anti-gravity), the transient alteration of not only thrust but also a body's weight.

...The list of odd things about the B-2 is endless.


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
TSnorther
post Apr 6 2012, 01:59 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 5 2012, 08:30 PM)
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.
*
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


Added on April 6, 2012, 2:09 pm
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 6 2012, 12:08 AM)
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.
*
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

QUOTE
“We designed it ourselves,” he said. “Necessity is the mother of invention. We saw the need and went out and did it.”
Last month, Northrup Grumman awarded a contract to BAE Systems to replace 30-year-od analogue electronics with digital support systems on all B-2s. The size of the contract was not disclosed, and a Northrop Grumman spokeswoman said sensitive specifics about the planned upgrades would not be divulged.
A BAE executive said in a press release the new electronics will help give the fleet “exceptional situational awareness to reach its targets through highly developed, increasingly sophisticated enemy defenses.”



This post has been edited by norther: Apr 6 2012, 02:09 PM


Attached File(s)
Attached File  Early_Airship_Sightings.pdf ( 242.28k ) Number of downloads: 14
Attached File  History_of_the_Mystery_Airship_Sightings_in_the_late_1800_s.pdf ( 153.46k ) Number of downloads: 11
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.
TSnorther
post Apr 7 2012, 11:14 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 6 2012, 06:51 PM)
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.
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.
*
sad.gif this is too tangent and your link too much wikipedia. I have no idea if the answer all the way from wiki.

user posted image


This post has been edited by norther: Apr 8 2012, 12:03 AM
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?
TSnorther
post Apr 8 2012, 10:59 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 8 2012, 01:04 AM)
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?
*
Im also wikipedian...hmm..quite long time ago and tend to save all information about Science, medical, especially vaccination and of course Cancer (including melanoma, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, and many others). All the information i kept it factual with references, citations, and literature links.

I am not to offend and lets me tell you something about wikipedia - At the very bottom of most Wikipedia pages, there now is a "Rate This Page" survey box, where you may click to leave feedback as to whether it is "trustworthy," "objective," "complete" or "well-written." To submit your evaluation with just a couple of clicks. You can also click "View Page Ratings" to see how others have voted. No personal information is collected.

Ok now what i can see it is incompleteness, incompetence, or outright bias.

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.


They can DELETE pages they don't like.

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?
3dassets
post Apr 8 2012, 02:25 PM

Absolutely no nonsense
*******
Senior Member
3,796 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


norther,
If you want to create a group of followers, I suggest you go to "serious kopitiam" a subsection under "Kopitiam" it is a place where you can do that rather than challenge the real science that can be investigated with credible sources not speculation or believe.
TSnorther
post Apr 8 2012, 04:39 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 8 2012, 01:19 PM)
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.
*

In real life, it will NOT competent. If you research on vaccination and try to help your family member who is sick then you will know the fact.


QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 8 2012, 01:19 PM)
What is wrong with removing pages if the information is not up to their standards?
*
Standard of Allopathy?
Hiding the vaccination of smallpox, Cancer, H1N1 etc. What are they afraid of? They are afraid of the truth on vaccination and the vaccine diseases.
Wikipedia is justly famous as “the encyclopedia anyone can edit,” and I can attest to this attribute, as my friends have contributed two or three articles and edited several dozen other ones. But the notion that “anyone can edit it” is seriously misleading.
Is it Free to Edit?


user posted image


QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 8 2012, 01:19 PM)
They also delete topics here, does that mean you should not be using this forum?
*
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.

QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 8 2012, 01:19 PM)
Is the source of bias the due to the fact that it does not support any of your facts?
*
If you wish more source of bias, will PM and provide you the real one.

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.
TSnorther
post Apr 8 2012, 09:18 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 8 2012, 06:57 PM)
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.
*
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

Possibly, just possibly, the real reason Dr. Cathcart is deleted from Wikipedia has much more to do with his outspoken advocacy of very high doses of vitamin C to treat viral illnesses.

http://www.doctoryourself.com/cathcart_thirdface.html

and either

http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html

or

http://www.orthomed.com/titrate.htm

Here is all the deleted material on Dr. Cathcart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

and this

Gerson Therapy, has been completely removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...apy&redirect=no

To see something of what happened, you can click the "History" tab here as well."

Allopathic Medicine is mostly based around patentable drugs (pharmaceutical medicine), with radiation and surgery. Administered by the 'Medical Profession' who are all medical doctors. These medical doctors that will only use the drug company products are called Allopaths, as opposed to the ones who use alternative medicine (non-Allopathic), such as nutrients. One of the best kept secrets is the Allopathic medical monopoly.

Information from Malaysia

http://thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?fil...0835&sec=health

QUOTE
Today I will share with you some of the non-medical therapies being used to treat cancer. Do bear in mind that these methods are not backed by sufficient scientific studies, and therefore are not “evidence-based”. I shall continue to write about these “unproven” methods until a satisfactory, safe, and effective “proven” solution for cancer is found. Cancer patients have the right to choose, but they must get the right information to make that choice.


http://www.natural-health.com.my/Home.html

Take a look and decide for yourself. I believe there something from NWO!! Because they're afraid they'll be out of business.

This post has been edited by norther: Apr 8 2012, 09:31 PM
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
TSnorther
post Apr 12 2012, 03:50 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 8 2012, 10:12 PM)
Large vitamin C doses is not a miracle cure unfortunately.

As i know there is a mixture?


Added on April 8, 2012, 10:19 pm
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?
*

The above link revealing is bias and i can detect some deleted materials about Nutritional Medicine. All links, references and citations were removed. They were replaced by links to the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute, which offer only criticism of the Gerson Therapy. Even quotations from published scientific papers were removed. Attempts to rectify these actions were immediately overwritten.

It's easy enough to show the progression of the pages, since Wikipedia displays former edits on request, dated and documented. One can verify this by clicking on the "History" tab at the top of the Max Gerson page, and looking at 2005 and before.


The last Gerson grandson editing is archived:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr.../69.109.140.164

and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...s/Howard_Straus

A second Wikipedia page, specific to the Gerson Therapy, has been completely removed
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...apy&redirect=no
To see something of what happened, you can click the "History" tab here as well.

Max Gerson is not the only nutritionally-oriented physician whose work is slanted or censored at Wikipedia.

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
TSnorther
post Apr 13 2012, 02:01 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 12 2012, 11:17 PM)
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.
*
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??


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
TSnorther
post Apr 14 2012, 11:15 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 13 2012, 03:26 PM)
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
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?
*
90% of your wikipedia information is bogus.
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?
TSnorther
post Apr 14 2012, 01:49 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 14 2012, 12:24 PM)
Do you have any proof of that? All you have presented are baseless claims. I have backed up my claims, what have you done?
*
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 ?


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.
TSnorther
post Apr 14 2012, 07:06 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
TR-3B
user posted image

TR-3B Spotted over Belgium in 1990: This is the best most realistic shot of the TR-3B
user posted image

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%.

The crew of the TR-3B should be able to comfortable take up to 40Gs. The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above l20,000 feet--then God knows how fast it can go!

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.

The two nuclear engines power the MFD and are used in the atmosphere for thrust. You can see the intake/exhaust vectored vents all around the Flying Triangle. The 3 multimode rockets are used in orbit for maneuverability.


Added on April 14, 2012, 7:17 pm
QUOTE
The tactical reconnaissance TR-3B's (code-named Astra) first operational flight was in the early 90s. The triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace platform was developed under the Top Secret, Aurora Program with SDI and black budget monies. At least 3 of the billion dollar plus TR-3Bs were flying by 1994. The Aurora is the most classified aerospace development program in existence. The TR-3B is the most exotic vehicle created by the Aurora Program. It is funded and operationally tasked by the National Reconnaissance Office, the NSA, and the CIA. The TR-3B flying triangle is not fiction and was built with technology available in the mid 80s.


Not ETs craft(ufo) but the Infamous TR-3B






This post has been edited by norther: Apr 14 2012, 07:43 PM
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.
TSnorther
post Apr 15 2012, 01:12 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 14 2012, 09:20 PM)
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.
*
TR-3B utilizes little known loophole to create it's antigravity effects.
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
TSnorther
post Apr 15 2012, 04:45 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 15 2012, 02:16 PM)
The effects being described by your post is not the result of anti-gravity. Please get some understanding of physics before continuing further.
*

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



QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 15 2012, 02:16 PM)
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.
*
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.
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.
TSnorther
post Apr 15 2012, 08:49 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
226 posts

Joined: Feb 2012
QUOTE(Eventless @ Apr 15 2012, 07:22 PM)
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.
*
What theF mainstream..you still don’t understand from the first explanation and get me confused.

Here i show you the formula attached on TR-3B but NOT your mainstream physic that lack interest in exotic formula as follows :

A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology...The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.

user posted image

In GR that indicate how moving matter can create unusual gravitational effects. See above fig..the pieces of the puzzle all fell together. Moving matter pattern is necessary to generate a gravitational dipole was exactly the same as the plasma ring pattern as well.

So...TR-3B > loophole > antigravity effects.


Added on April 15, 2012, 9:22 pmFor those who interested with the book by Physicist Paul LaViolette.

at http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Antigravity-...y/dp/159143078X

Interesting fact : Paul LaViolette has passed the lie detector conducted by CIA and all the antigravity materials include energy zero point is real.

-This thread is closed-

This post has been edited by norther: May 3 2012, 05:46 PM

Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0578sec    0.57    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 3rd December 2025 - 08:18 AM