Future Major Science Breakthrough- Levitation using anti-gravity matter.

[Scott]

hey Scott, interesting stuff but way too much at the one time....see if you can focus down to one salient issue and see how you go...[advice only take it or leave it ok]

Hi, yeah i have been told that before, sorry I will try to concentrate on specific things, by the way you caught me editing, i put a over unity energy water pump video in there that I believe there is no reason why it should not work in case your interested.

Thanks for the advise.

Cheers.
Scott.

 

[Quantum Quack]

interesting video!

all you gotta do Scott is park it out in the open on flat concrete raised of the ground somehow to show that there is absolutely no input of power [ including hidden batteries] and that it is in fact running on it's own merit.

Until you show it in a way that is clear it will be constantly discredited...and you know it...

so make the effort and show it properly with qualified witnesses in attendance preferably.

 

[Scott]

It is a very interesting video isn't it, it is not my vid though, i just see absolutely no reason why it should not work other than outdated laws that where told to us so that we could not understand these things, and of course ridicule them, it makes there job of suppression that much easier.

I have read about it a thousand different times, it's obvious to any one that takes the time to study it.

Unfortunately there will always be skepticism no matter what he does, there will always be some excuse as to why it does not work or should not work, such as hidden batteries editing or such, the only way for some to believe these things is to view it for them selves, examine it themselves. then do the work them selves.

When i first started working on my negatively charged water fuel cells i went on faith in that the information was giving freely and there was seemingly general integrity in Joe (of the Joe cell,) and his friends, and the fact I viewed all his friends buying stainless steel tubes and replicating his experiments.

I had instant results, but trying to teach this to others was a hole other matter. it started of with gaming friends on forums and they where quit nice in the beginning explaining to me how it is not possible because of the law of thermodynamics.

It even got to the point of anger eventually and denial but I stuck with it trying to teach them, that is how I learnt most of the stuff I am trying to explain to you guys, i set out to explain to them in a scientific way and along the way i got an understanding of other things.

I guess it's like if you handed some one some tools and told them to take a motor apart, they my not understand it right away, but after dismantling it and putting it back together a few times you get an understanding of it.

Even Peter, Joe's good friend that had worked with it for 12 years agreed that my hypothesis was correct as every thing fit together, it was just like using a battery but in reverse, using the ions instead of the electrical current.

Cheers
Scott.

 

[Oli]

NASA Jumps at Patent for Plasma-Powered UFO Technology etc etc

Yup, a proposed, as yet non-working non-proven (at full scale) technology.

My bad, nearly 50.

Oops, still wrong.

Depends what you are referring to, ORMES are gold turned into a plasma state, the ions on my cell are a form of hydrogen plasma, and in the case of these new wingless vehicles it produces plasma from the surrounding air.

Make your mind up - air or not?

No worries disclosure is under way, they wont hurt you little fella.

And has been for the last 20-30 years if you actually listen to the woo-woos.

Sorry for my negative comments I just hate when people get picked on for trying to expand there mind, regardless of the fact's, right or wrong people are entitled to there own opinions.

Correct: everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

In Albert's case he is more on than you may ever know at your age,

Wrong.

but even to others that may not have the knowledge you have, it's not nice to put others down so you can make your self feel better, I usually say to this, do you pick on the mentally challenged people too?

I'll forego the obvious remark, but I'm not putting him down so much as pointing out the fact that he, and you, are wrong, mistaken and in error. If you actually have a brain use it but don't spout nonsense as fact.

 

[(Q)]

I'm no scientist...

perpetual motion is possible...

Contrary to popular belief, there is no law of physics prohibiting perpetual motion...

Assertions, hypothesises, call them what you will...

Delusions.

 

[fedr808]

Future Major Science Breakthrough- Levitation using anti-gravity matter.

Is there any possibilities of levitational force opposing gravity in future without using jet or wind? The answer is YES.

As the theory of gravity discovered by Newton, there is possible for somebody to discover anti-gravity matter in future. As we know that gravity existed when there is a mass, eg planet, stars. Even our body also exert some unnoticed gravity on its own because of mass. This is really amazing as how a mass can generate gravity force in nature. There must be some sort of energy used to generate strong gravity force of the earth and other stars. Could it be generated from the powerful nuclear reactor in the core of a planet? So how do we interfere the gravity forces? Lets assumes the gravity is done by gravitron particle, so how do we deflect these particles so it will not affect us?

The eye witness of UFO flying in the sky says that the flying saucers emit colourful light. Perhaps the alien using both visible and non-visible electromagnetic spectrum to illuminate certain material on the craft and the reaction process occurred between light and the material causes levitation of the craft itself. So the alien craft can hover in our space without visible or any detected downward force. Do we have this kind of material element in our periodic table? Or other element not in periodic table which not yet discovered that existed in other planets or solar system? Some eye witness mentioned they saw the smooth shiny surface of the craft, resemble aluminum foil. If we can gather the alien craft in its crash site and using different combination of electromagnetic spectrum illuminating the craft surface, perhaps we can found the answer of levitation.There is some relationship between gravity and light rays. As light approach strong gravity forces such as Black Hole, the light ray will bend or absorbed by strong gravity. Take note that UFOs emit visible light wave not to entice us or entertain us, they have taken every precautionary step to avoid our detection. No aliens love other to discover their presence.

As we can see hydrogen gas can defy gravity or any lighter material will stay afloat in the liquid because of different volume density, perhaps we can utilizing this application on defying gravity in the future. Perhaps we can make the air denser than our body so we will have reduced recorded weight on earth. If we all can live in water, we will be able to defy some gravity force pulling us down but it is not the case.

The common phenomena that UFO witnesses mentioned are their electrical system went down,eg cars, clock, tv stop working when they encounter UFO.
There is total silent, no wind turbulent, but a dead of all electrical system suddenly. There is no coincident of all electrical appliances failure at that moment, and all the electrical instruments back to normal after UFO left . From this point of we can deduce that some instrument on UFO accidentally or intentionally alter our electrical system. They may using instrument that may interfere with our electrical system. Our electrical system is using electric charge moves from the positive side of the power source to the negative. But in aliens craft may using electromagnetism that counter our electrical system, such as negative ions move to positive or so on. With counter electromagnetism, it can counter the gravitron and develop levitation.

Magnetic levitation may be one of the solution in future, maglev, or magnetic suspension is a method by which an object is suspended with no support other than magnetic fields. The electromagnetic force is used to counteract the effects of the gravitational force. A substance which is diamagnetic repels a magnetic field. All materials have diamagnetic properties, but the effect is very weak, and usually overcome by the object's paramagnetic or ferromagnetic properties, which act in the opposite manner. Any material in which the diamagnetic component is strongest will be repelled by a magnet, though this force is not usually very large. Diamagnetic levitation can be used to levitate very light pieces of pyrolytic graphite or bismuth above a moderately strong permanent magnet. As water is predominantly diamagnetic, this technique has been used to levitate water droplets and even live animals, such as a grasshopper and a frog; however, the magnetic fields required for this are very high, typically in the range of 16 teslas, and therefore create significant problems if ferromagnetic materials are nearby.

Superconductors may be considered perfect diamagnets (µr = 0), completely expelling magnetic fields due to the Meissner effect. The levitation of the magnet is stabilized due to flux pinning within the superconductor. This principle is exploited by EDS (electrodynamic suspension) magnetic levitation trains, superconducting bearings, flywheels, etc.
In trains where the weight of the large electromagnet is a major design issue (a very strong magnetic field is required to levitate a massive train) superconductors are sometimes proposed for use for the electromagnet, since they can produce a stronger magnetic field for the same weight.

A magnet can be repulsively levitated when gyroscopically stabilized by spinning it in a toroidal field created by a ring of magnets. However, it will only remain stable until the rate of precession slows below a critical threshold — the region of stability is quite narrow both spatially and in the required rate of precession.
A permanent magnet can be stably suspended by various configurations of strong permanent magnets and strong diamagnets. When using superconducting magnets, the levitation of a permanent magnet can even be stabilized by the small diamagnetism of water in human fingers.

That is so reidiculous. First off their is no nuclear reactor at the center of our planet anyone whom says otherwise is wrong, flat out wrong, it has been proven otherwise so many times. And also there is no control material to control such a reaction.

Your assumption that UFO's shut down mechanical things is BS and we all know it. You wanna know why? Because all of your UFO films and pictures were taken with electrical items. So do not make stuff up.

If you make another body of mass it will not do anything. The sun is a very massive thing just like the earth, but the earth is not floating further away it is in orbit. You cannot defy gravity by using another supermassive object, that is just so stupid. If you were right in this topic, hydrogen would be supermassive because it has no mass, and uranium which is has high amounts of mass would be super light which it isnt.

Your ridiculous claims attempt to quite literally try and flip everything we know about the universe upside down.

 

[fedr808]

Also if you are going to make claims as ridiculous as yours you CANNOT make assumptions. Scientific theory will kick the snot out of any assumptions you have.

 

[Ophiolite]

That is so reidiculous. First off their is no nuclear reactor at the center of our planet anyone whom says otherwise is wrong, flat out wrong, it has been proven otherwise so many times. And also there is no control material to control such a reaction.

I think if you are going to criticise ideas put forward by another poster, on the grounds that they are unscientific, then it is important you follow the same rules.

Please give me one instance where it has been proven that there is no nuclear reactor at the centre of our planet. You say this has been proven so many times, so it should not be difficult for you to come up with an example.

Do you think it is possible for any uranium based, natural nuclear reactor to exist, say in crustal rocks? Or is that also a ridiculous idea?

 

[fedr808]

First off we have evidence that the center of the earth is a layer of molten iron surrounding solid iron and nickel. The very center is 95% iron, 5% nickel, the next layer is 99.99% iron.

So this "scientist" is not only claiming that these real findings are lies, all 1,000 or so measurements by reliable and advanced instruments are lies. Yet he puts forth that it is surrounded by Uranium, without even proving these findings.

Also yes, ophiolite it IS impossible, because Uranium 235, the one that undergoes fission, when found is in tiny amounts. If you take one ton of uranium ore, only .01% of that are is fissionable. So to undergo a reaction you would need to have a lump of pure uranium, which is impossible to find naturally on earth, and by impossible i mean IMPOSSIBLE. Also there is nothing to trigger such a ridiculous reaction. It is not spontaneous

 

[Ophiolite]

First off, I asked you to provide one instance of where this concept had been disproven. You have not done so. I ask you to do so again. You have clearly stated that it has been proven many times that there is no nuclear reactor at the centre of the Earth. Please provide a single instance where this has been done. Incorrectly quoting conventional descriptions of the Earth's core does not count.

First off we have evidence that the center of the earth is a layer of molten iron surrounding solid iron and nickel. The very center is 95% iron, 5% nickel, the next layer is 99.99% iron.

The conventional view is that the iron content is around 80%, not 95%. There is no zone which is 99.99% iron. The closest I can come to understand how you could arrive at such a figure is to misinterpret one unconventional view that the centre of the Earth may be a single large iron crystal.

Let me ask you, do you know what evidence leads us to believe the composition is largely iron/nickel? Your comments suggest you do not.

It is based in part upon the presumption - a very reasonable one - that the bulk composition of the Earth is that of a chondritic meteorite. When we take that into account, reasonably assume the denser materials will sink to the centre of the planet, run models of density of various minerals and match these against the observed seismic data, we arrive at the composition I have noted above.

There is nothing in that chain of reasoning that precludes a small uranium central core. The conventional view - and one that I feel pretty comfortable with - is that uranium is lithophilic element. That is, it tends to form minerals that are prevalent in crustal rocks. However uranium will also form sulphides and sulphides are siderophile minerals, attracted to iron. It is entirely feasible that some uranium was segregated as a sulphide and sank to the inner core early in the Earth's history.

So this "scientist" is not only claiming that these real findings are lies,

No, he is not. He is offering the hypothesis that in addition to the processes conventionally believed to have occured, a quantity of uranium was trapped as a sulphide and sank to the centre of the Earth.

all 1,000 or so measurements by reliable and advanced instruments are lies.

Please give me just one of those thousands of measurements that invalidate his hypothesis. Go on. Really. Give it a try. With thousands to choose from it shouldn't be too diffficult, should it?

Yet he puts forth that it is surrounded by Uranium, without even proving these findings.

It's a hypothesis. He believes it to be consistent with the facts. The main thing I find against it is that it is an unnecessary hypothesis. So far I have found nothing to falsify it. But you seem so much more versed in this than I. Pray deliver the single datum that falsifies the hypothesis.

Also yes, ophiolite it IS impossible, because Uranium 235, the one that undergoes fission, when found is in tiny amounts. If you take one ton of uranium ore, only .01% of that are is fissionable. So to undergo a reaction you would need to have a lump of pure uranium, which is impossible to find naturally on earth, and by impossible i mean IMPOSSIBLE. Also there is nothing to trigger such a ridiculous reaction. It is not spontaneous

You really are a treat. I felt confident you were smart enough to recognise a trap when one was set, but no, you walk in like the gullible fool you apparently are.

A natural uranium reactor went critical at Oklo, in Gabon, about two billion years ago. Uranium concentration was around 3.5% and water served as the neutron moderator. You do not need a lump of pure uranium. So now that we've demonstrated that one of your beliefs of what is impossible is totally wrong are you prepared to be a little more scientific in your future posts?

 

[fedr808]

You just fell into one ophiolite. I know of that nuclear reaction, It lasted for a few hundred years.

Now the earth is 4 billion years old, there is no natural deposit out in the world with enough uranium to produce that kind of power for four billion years.


The only reason Uranium reactors nowadays (non natural ones of course) last so long is that the Uranium is enriched incrddibly.

Now ophiolite, I said impossible in the context of the scale of the reacter.
The amount, sheer amount of uranium necessary to last for so long is so ridiculously enormous that geologists could not possibly miss it.

This theory s based upon the idea that we missed a little lump of uranium at the core. Now the reason why it is false is because the amount of necessary uranium to produce such a reaction would be so enormous it would be the biggest scientific embarrasment of all time.

Also, in your example the control material was liquid water. Now i may be wrong about this but don't heavier materials sink? Now compared to molten iron, water is much, much lighter. And uranium is significantly heavier that iron. So between your control water and the uranium, is several thousand tons of molten, and solid iron. Now i may be wrong about this, but im pretty damn sure this is a law of physics.

With no control force, all of the uranium would go up in one big bang, it would maybe last 1 day if your lucky. but not 4 billion years.

Also, Geologists use P waves, pressure waves, and S waves, sheer waves to detect what materials exist beneath the earth's surface.

Haven't you ever seen those charts in science class that show the earth cut up like an onion? Did you really think they made that stuff up? They used the above techniques to arrive at them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Seismic_wave_prop_mine.gif

Here is a cool gif i found where they use one technique to show how an object, ie, land mine, shows up different than surrounding rock/soil.


Ophiolite, you do not get how the ranking system works in science. The first one is fact, it is the lowest, it is an observation made by a group of people, the next is hypothesis, this attempts to explain it with little or no testing, than after tens of thousands of tests, it is accepted as theory, which is the highest you can go.

A hypothesis can never best a theory. end of story. This hypothesis at the most would have been tested maybe twice, from the sounds of things, not at all.

The theory has been tested thousands of times.

So in the end, the commonly accepted theory beats the snot out of the hypothesis.


Here are some notable seismologists (the people whom use S, and P waves.)
Aki, Keiiti
Beroza, Gregory
Bolt, Bruce
Brune, Jim
Dziewonski, Adam Marian
Galitzine, Boris Borisovich
Gamburtsev, Grigory A.
Gutenberg, Beno
Hanks, Thomas, C.
Hutton, Kate
Jeffreys, Harold
Jordan, Thomas
Kanamori, Hiroo
Keilis-Borok, Vladimir
Knopoff, Leon
Lehmann, Inge
Mercalli, Giuseppe
Milne, John
Mohorovičić, Andrija
Oldham, Richard Dixon
Sebastião de Melo, Marquis of Pombal
Press, Frank
Richards, Paul G.
Richter, Charles Francis
Zhang Heng
Mike Lovell


Also, does a uranium reaction produce a significant enough electromagnetic reaction to create the magnetics field?

 

[fedr808]

And also it did not go "critical" critical means practically having a meltdown, it never went that hot (as far as fission reactions go.)

 

[albertchong1999]

Fedr808. perhaps you need to study more....

If the earth mass is between 0.2 to about 0.7 solar radius, nuclear material in the earth core is hot and dense enough that thermal radiation is sufficient to transfer the intense heat of the core outward and make this earth planet non-life supportive. In this zone there is no thermal convection; while the material grows cooler as altitude increases, this temperature gradient is less than the value of adiabatic lapse rate and hence cannot drive convection. Heat is transferred by radiation. This applicable to all star system which means you can detect the radiation on its surface such as sun and stars.. Moon and other planet in this solar system have a small nuclear reactor in the core due to immense pressure of the mass acting towards the center core. the smaller the mass of the planet, the lesser the strenght of its nuclear power.

finally, you can call me either theoretical scientist, qualified scientist, unqualified scientist, astronomical scientist, material scientist, futuristic scientist etc, that doesn't bother me... as long as i am earning money doing experiment in a lab and inventing and discovering new technology with my colleague that benefited lot of people.

 

[Ophiolite]

You just fell into one ophiolite. I know of that nuclear reaction, It lasted for a few hundred years..........Now ophiolite, I said impossible in the context of the scale of the reacter.

Not only are you not too bright, you also lie.
You made an unequivocal statement - a naturally occuring nuclear reactor in the crust of the Earth was an impossibility. No mention was made of the time that said reactor had to operate for - I simply asked could such a thing exist?
You replied with an absolute no. Now you are back peddling and arm waving at a phenomenal rate. It isn't fooling anyone.

The only reason Uranium reactors nowadays (non natural ones of course) last so long is that the Uranium is enriched incrddibly.

You also stated unequivocally that the uranium would have to be pure for the idea to work. In this you were also wrong. As noted, the concentration of uranium at Oklo was estimated to be around 3.5%.

This theory s based upon the idea that we missed a little lump of uranium at the core. Now the reason why it is false is because the amount of necessary uranium to produce such a reaction would be so enormous it would be the biggest scientific embarrasment of all time.

As I tried to explain to you in abbreviated form, we have no way - absolutely no way - of determining the composition of the core. We deduce it from a knowledge of solar composition, meterorite composition, planetary formation theory, finite element analysis modelling, PT laboratory studies, knowledge of phase changes, and seismic data. All of this involves interpretation. The starting assumption in the interpretations to date (excluding this one) is that uranium will not be present in the core. If that is your starting assumption it will be very easy to not identitfy the possibility of uranium in the core.

Also, Geologists use P waves, pressure waves, and S waves, sheer waves to detect what materials exist beneath the earth's surface.

No they don't. They use them to provide brackets around the possible materials that might exist in the core. There is no unique signature for iron, nickel, uranium, or any element or compound. The data are interpreted and that interpretation rests on assumptions.

Haven't you ever seen those charts in science class that show the earth cut up like an onion? Did you really think they made that stuff up? They used the above techniques to arrive at them.

Listen sonny, I've laid out seismic lines, set off charges, gathered the data, then cranked out an interpretation on an old mechanical calculator. I think I've got slightly more credentials in the seismic interpretation field than you do. (And before you get all particular, the principles of seismology remain much the same whether we are dealing with crustal rocks, as I was, or deep Earth structure, as we are discussing.)

Finally, despite your long list of seismologists you have still failed to provide a single instance where the uranium core hypothesis has been disproven.
Nor have you provided a single datum that falsifies the hypothesis.

You wave your arms in the air, display an ignorance of the fundamentals of the science, lie, provide a list of scientists, claim the hypothesis has been disproven a thousand times, yet at the end of it all you deliver not one single fact.

I think we can form an accurate impression of where you are coming from.

 

[fedr808]

You dont get it, sure you need 3.5% enriched uranium to set off a reaction, but that means at 3.5% you need an incredibly large amount of raw uranium. Nuclear reactors enrich it far, far, far beyond 3.5% pure and so they do not need as much fuel.

Now at 3.5%, in order to burn for four billion years, the amount of uranium necessary is tremendous. Your arguement is that there may be a little reactor at the core, but if it were so little we were unable to see it, than it would have run out of fuel millions maybe billions of years ago. Also uranium is significantly more massive than iron, it would show up easily. Some elements are hard to detect because theyre mass is similar to iron. but uranium's is very different.

 

[albertchong1999]

You dont get it, sure you need 3.5% enriched uranium to set off a reaction, but that means at 3.5% you need an incredibly large amount of raw uranium. Nuclear reactors enrich it far, far, far beyond 3.5% pure and so they do not need as much fuel.

Now at 3.5%, in order to burn for four billion years, the amount of uranium necessary is tremendous. Your arguement is that there may be a little reactor at the core, but if it were so little we were unable to see it, than it would have run out of fuel millions maybe billions of years ago. Also uranium is significantly more massive than iron, it would show up easily. Some elements are hard to detect because theyre mass is similar to iron. but uranium's is very different.

You get it wrong, it does not neccesary to have uranium reactor in the core to set off energy. The Sun uses hydrogen as a fuel to power its core.
The intense pressure inside the earth core is a free source of heat energy. If we can harness the heat source from the deep ground effectively, we certainly can use it to generate electricity and driving electric car without using fossil fuel. it will be environment friendly, no pollution and will never worry when the supply of fossil fuel will be depleted one day. If we ever can live on the moon or Mars, we can harness the heat energy from the ground also.

 

[Scott]

Yup, a proposed, as yet non-working non-proven (at full scale) technology.

Actually there are plenty of working models dating back to the 30's, it is the same concept as the ion lifters, plenty to go look at if you choose to.

Make your mind up - air or not?

Both, you can create this anti gravity affect by attaching Hydrogen ions, or gold ions so far that I am aware of and adding heat, and you can generate this anti gravity affect by having a large current running threw an object, electrons and there communication between other elements inside the atom are directly related to gravity and this anti gravity field, this can be done with high frequency radio waves as well and sound waves. Any thing that will disrupt the electron flow actually, it just so happens to be electrical current with this unit.

So you can turn the surrounding air into plasma around the object to create this field, or you can run a current threw an object's skin to create this field, of you can have a bunch of solid state ions in the craft and add heat, these ions are microcosm, macrocosm, and they take the weight of what they are attached too.

Heck you can even drain electrons in an object to make it lose weight, enough hole doping and it would become weightless as well, I have made a spoon lose weight by doing this.

This is also how I convert my water into a fuel source (HHO, ion's/plasma,) I just excite it with non magnetic stainless steel and leave the negative on for the electrons to drain, how do I know this? because I have had some 12 volt batteries gain up to 16 volts on me from doing this.

And has been for the last 20-30 years if you actually listen to the woo-woos.

Are you aware that the Vatican has announced that alien life is real and has been visiting us? Are you aware that 3 major G-7 countries are now releasing all there files on UFO's, are you aware that the X Minister of defence from Canada has announced this as well? are you aware that there is now approximately 700 High ranking officials that have come forth to tell us this. Are you even aware that you are taking the word of the very same people that have been deliberately keeping this from you?

Correct: everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Oh but they are, for instance it is a fact we have been visited by people from other planets and you still assume it is a fact they have not, and that's your choice.

I'll forego the obvious remark, but I'm not putting him down so much as pointing out the fact that he, and you, are wrong, mistaken and in error. If you actually have a brain use it but don't spout nonsense as fact.

You know what is funny about that comment, even the top scientist of the time stated heavy than air flight was impossible, radio waves where a scam, the earth is flat, we are the center of the universe ect... and it was them that looked like the idiots in the end was it not?

We are discussing new possibilities and as of yet undiscovered science, and most of what we are talking about is discovered just not admitted to by mainstream science, because you would have been one of the ones that said heaver than air flight is impossible is not our problem.

You lack the ability to think for your self, sure you might have a good memory about what you have been tought but one thing is for sure, you will never admit to a new discovery before it is announced because you lack the ability to conclude properly on your own, such as people visiting us from other planets and many other things we are discussing here.

Again we are discussing new possibilities and new hypothesis and possibly some new corrections that can account for unexplained things that the current theories can not explain such as my electron loss or transfer hypothesis.

Yet you can't seem to get it threw your head we are not talking about what we know here but rather what we don't know, you may not be aware of this, but this is how advancements are made.

There is a big difference between scientists actually making new discoveries and wannabe scientist talking about how much they know because they have a good memory.

Delusions.

lol it's shown to you right in front of your face and you still can not think for your self? perpetual motion is possible and in fact already happens in nature.

Some people are so brainwashed it's unbelievable.

besides superconductors being able to have a current flowing threw them continuously in perpetual motion I will explain where else this happens again.

Inside an atom we have a constant spin of protons and electrons, there is no input of energy, and there is no loss of energy (entropy) and it puts out energy, (electromagnetism.)

Stop waiting for the very people that don't want you to have this technology to tell you if it's possible or not people, open your minds just a tiny bit and go watch the war on coldfusion, it's a great start at viewing suppression of this kind of stuff.

Cheers.
Scott.

 

[fedr808]

Here's my theory for anti gravity. Weight equals the force of gravity times mass. The only way to get anti gravity is to either nullify the force of gravity, which would be way too hard, are find something with a negative mass. Mass is a measurement of how much matter something has. So in theory if you have something of negative matter than it will have anti gravity properties.

So in theory could you use a high concentration of anti matter to nullify the effects of gravity? I mean isnt the majority of anti matter found in outer space? that would explain why it is in space and not near any planetary body because the force of gravity repeals it.


Also albert my post was about the fact that there isn't a nuclear reactor at the core, not about any possible energy we can get from it. If we had a drill bit that could drill down that far.


Scott for startes NO. First off you cannot make a spoon lose electrons, for one thing, it is a solid object so even if you could you would only be removing electrons from the surface. Two, any electrons the atom loses makes the atom increasingly unstable, and some simple atoms like the steel in your fork can bond with surrounding atoms to regain those electrons. If it can't it becomes unstable much like uranium 235 is unstable.

Also, splitting H2O into hydrogen and using it as a fuel cell is child's play. There are science kits you can buy that make little toy cars powered by water being turned into a fuel cell.

Also Scott, your batteries would not have gained voltage that is just silly, and if they did, it had nothing to do with what you think happened. Maybe they did change because of your experiment, but your hypothesis for why is incorrect. Those batteries would have gained more electrical charge, and last longer. Voltage is basically the amount of electricity leaving the battery, ie, a small water pipe versus a large water pipe.


Scott, congragulations, 700 high officials have announced this, there are only two million some odd other officials that disagree. 700 does not represant the community of high ranking government officials. And the vatican does not represant Earth.

Scott, in this world there is no such thing as "fact." The highest level that you can get is "theory." So do not toss around the word "fact" because in the scientific community, the term "fact" is even worse than scientific hypothesis.

Scott, scientists from 500 years ago, with crude instruments, did not represant the opinion of the 21st century scientific community. And i cannot belive you dared to make such an absurd opinion.

Scott the amount of people whom do not believe what you think is correct far, far, far outnumbers the people that are on your side. Do not speak on behalf of the world, because it does not revolve around you.

And electron lose can be explained by some theories. Some of them are known as electricity.

Scott, politicians are not scientists, at the most wannabe scientists. Expert opinions, unlike yours, are real scientists. Do not speak on behalf of the scientific community, because it does not revolve around you.

Perpetual motion is an impossibility, show me where it happens in nature. The definition of perpetual motion is that an object gives off more energy than it produces. Be very careful about what you define as perpetual motion. If you throw a ball in space and it keeps on going, that is not perpetual motion, because there is not force acting on it, with no force there is not acceleration, with no acceleration there is no change in movement. The only thing acting on it is inertia which is a resultant of mas, which is a resultant of matter. matter in it's state is not energy. And the perpetual motion impossibility applies to energy not matter.

 

[fedr808]

And in the words of Richard Feynman, recipiant of the noble prize for physics. "we already have anti gravity-devices, the floor, the pillow you are sleeping on, not only do they repel the affect of gravity but they stop it, so they are anti gravity devices."

 

[Read-Only]

So in theory could you use a high concentration of anti matter to nullify the effects of gravity? I mean isnt the majority of anti matter found in outer space? that would explain why it is in space and not near any planetary body because the force of gravity repeals it.

No, anti-matter has mass - just the same as normal matter. It has NO anti-gravity properties. It isn't found near normal matter because when the two meet - as they naturally would through gravitational attraction - they destroy each other.

And just to complete the picture, we manufacture a few milligrams of anti-matter each year for experimental purposes. (So it does exist here, we just have to spend a tremendous amount of energy and effort to make it.)