Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed
3 Pages  1 2 3 >Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Antigravity Propulsion

views
     
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?

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
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.
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
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.
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

3 Pages  1 2 3 >Top
Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0266sec    0.88    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 17th December 2025 - 01:03 AM