q says: "ET visiting Earth ideas are contradicted by physics."
- Thread starter spookz
- Start date
Einstine
I dislike, yay, even hate Einstine. Reality should be backed by equations, not vise-versa.
I dislike, yay, even hate Einstine. Reality should be backed by equations, not vise-versa.
==============================================Originally posted by (Q)
What is your problem? Above is a quote from the link you provided - it is a major flaw in his understanding of GR - hence the link is useless.
Of course, I didn't expect you to understand it.
Are you saying Einstein had a major flaw in his understanding of GR
because he believed electromagnetic forces and gravity were linked?
After all, he spent the rest of his life trying to develope a unified field theory. The guy in the article agrees with Einstein and says if the theory is unified, it is SPECULATED that it MAY become possible to
use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity or
spacetime to induce propulsive forces. It is known that gravity
effects EM forces, the speculation is if the opposite is true. Podkletnov's paper, if true, would confirm it. The paper WAS
published in a peer-reviewed physics journal. And I am aware
that the way GR is currently interpited, electromagnetism is not
allowed to affect gravity. I have seen some argue that under GR,
gravity is not a force. They say gravity is described as warping
space and time. But again, gravity IS one of the four known
fundamental forces, so I don't quite follow that view.
Last edited:
Are you saying Einstein had a major flaw in his understanding of GR...
No. I'm talking about the guy who wrote the article.
The guy in the article agrees with Einstein and says if the theory is unified, it is SPECULATED that it MAY become possible to
use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity or
spacetime to induce propulsive forces.
No, Einstein did not agree with that.
Podkletnov's paper, if true, would confirm it. The paper WAS
published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.
So what? His paper was refuted.
No. I'm talking about the guy who wrote the article.
The guy in the article agrees with Einstein and says if the theory is unified, it is SPECULATED that it MAY become possible to
use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity or
spacetime to induce propulsive forces.
No, Einstein did not agree with that.
Podkletnov's paper, if true, would confirm it. The paper WAS
published in a peer-reviewed physics journal.
So what? His paper was refuted.
millis is directly referencing another author...
This coupling is most prominently described by General Relativity [25].
[25] Misner C. W., Thorne, K. W., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973) Gravitation, W. H. Freeman & Company, NY.
Coupling of Electromagnetism and Gravitation in the Weak Field Approximation
a reconciliation (pdf)
i see some are not content to sit on their ass and bleat nay
This coupling is most prominently described by General Relativity [25].
[25] Misner C. W., Thorne, K. W., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973) Gravitation, W. H. Freeman & Company, NY.
Coupling of Electromagnetism and Gravitation in the Weak Field Approximation
a reconciliation (pdf)
i see some are not content to sit on their ass and bleat nay
it is an attempt to show your dogmatic attitude. you sit on your ass and blindly accept the status quo. if it were up to you retards we would be still grunting away in the stoneage
Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.
see q? true to form.
Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.
see q? true to form.
more cool research
According to Cook's report, the GRASP document made these observations about Podkletnov's work:
*An anti-gravity beam four inches (10 centimeters) wide has been demonstrated in Russia, successfully repelling objects more than a half-mile (1 kilometer) away with negligible power loss.
*Such technology could be engineered into a new weapons system capable of vaporizing objects.
*Objects placed over a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting material lost up to 2 percent of its weight, a feat NASA was unable to replicate during the 1990s but plans to try again soon using hardware built to Podkletnov’s specifications.
Gravity Shielding Still Science Fiction, Boeing Says
Advanced Propulsion Comes Of Age
by the way q, the glenn research center (transient inertia effects, quantum vacuum energy, zero-point electromagnetic energy and Casimir forces, or exploring anomalous superconductor gravity effects and superluminal quantum tunneling) gets close to a billion dollars in funding
According to Cook's report, the GRASP document made these observations about Podkletnov's work:
*An anti-gravity beam four inches (10 centimeters) wide has been demonstrated in Russia, successfully repelling objects more than a half-mile (1 kilometer) away with negligible power loss.
*Such technology could be engineered into a new weapons system capable of vaporizing objects.
*Objects placed over a rapidly spinning disc of superconducting material lost up to 2 percent of its weight, a feat NASA was unable to replicate during the 1990s but plans to try again soon using hardware built to Podkletnov’s specifications.
Gravity Shielding Still Science Fiction, Boeing Says
Advanced Propulsion Comes Of Age
by the way q, the glenn research center (transient inertia effects, quantum vacuum energy, zero-point electromagnetic energy and Casimir forces, or exploring anomalous superconductor gravity effects and superluminal quantum tunneling) gets close to a billion dollars in funding
in post by Q:
"The guy in the article agrees with Einstein and says if the theory is unified, it is SPECULATED that it MAY become possible to
use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity or
spacetime to induce propulsive forces."
Q's response:
No, Einstein did not agree with that.
=========================================
I wasn't too clear in my above statement. I was referring to the
guy in the article agreeing with Einstein that a unified field theory
should be possible. Do you think Einstein was wrong for thinking
this, Q? Now, what do you think the implications are for a theory
that unifies the four known forces, Q? Do you think it would be
important and why? Are you claiming to be aware of Einstein's
SPECULATION if the four known forces are unified, and why he
thought it important enough to devote most of his life's work to that
end?
============================================
in post by Q:
"Podkletnov's paper, if true, would confirm it. The paper WAS
published in a peer-reviewed physics journal."
So what? His paper was refuted.
============================================
The final version of the paper by Podkletnov, the one linked, was
published on Monday, 15th of Sept. 2003 at 12:53:29 GMT. You
made the claim that this paper was refuted, Q. Now you must
back up your claim with a link, or admit you were talking out your
a**. No links to the 1995 event when Podkletnov pulled his paper
BEFORE publication and all kinds of wild speculation abounded.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051
"The guy in the article agrees with Einstein and says if the theory is unified, it is SPECULATED that it MAY become possible to
use electromagnetic technology to manipulate inertia, gravity or
spacetime to induce propulsive forces."
Q's response:
No, Einstein did not agree with that.
=========================================
I wasn't too clear in my above statement. I was referring to the
guy in the article agreeing with Einstein that a unified field theory
should be possible. Do you think Einstein was wrong for thinking
this, Q? Now, what do you think the implications are for a theory
that unifies the four known forces, Q? Do you think it would be
important and why? Are you claiming to be aware of Einstein's
SPECULATION if the four known forces are unified, and why he
thought it important enough to devote most of his life's work to that
end?
============================================
in post by Q:
"Podkletnov's paper, if true, would confirm it. The paper WAS
published in a peer-reviewed physics journal."
So what? His paper was refuted.
============================================
The final version of the paper by Podkletnov, the one linked, was
published on Monday, 15th of Sept. 2003 at 12:53:29 GMT. You
made the claim that this paper was refuted, Q. Now you must
back up your claim with a link, or admit you were talking out your
a**. No links to the 1995 event when Podkletnov pulled his paper
BEFORE publication and all kinds of wild speculation abounded.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051
Spookz.
I'm pretty damned sure that FTL is possible.
However, there is about squat for experimental evidence (that I'm aware of) to support my sure self. As such, that's just a hopeful opinion based on nothing more than experience and insight. Science needs more than that to allow engineers to actually build stuff to test ideas.
The math/physics/materials/manufacturing/etc. just isn't in a way to say "yeah that can be done".
Doesn't mean it can't be, it's like asking if a transporter can be built though, or "where the hell is my flying car"? It's somewhere way off in the unknown for now.
Okay the flying car isn't as far off as FTL I'd guess, but you know what I mean.
I'm pretty damned sure that FTL is possible.
However, there is about squat for experimental evidence (that I'm aware of) to support my sure self. As such, that's just a hopeful opinion based on nothing more than experience and insight. Science needs more than that to allow engineers to actually build stuff to test ideas.
The math/physics/materials/manufacturing/etc. just isn't in a way to say "yeah that can be done".
Doesn't mean it can't be, it's like asking if a transporter can be built though, or "where the hell is my flying car"? It's somewhere way off in the unknown for now.
Okay the flying car isn't as far off as FTL I'd guess, but you know what I mean.
Last edited:
However, there is about squat for experimental evidence (that I'm aware of) to support my sure self.
sure there is. ftl has been observed experimentally. the controversy is in the interpretation of this and whether sr has been violated. my limited understanding is that while energy or info cannot exceed light speed, the wave associated with the transfer can (phase velocity) chiao's experiments can be found here
As such, that's just a hopeful opinion based on nothing more than experience and insight.
i can dig that but lets keep that b/w us shall we?
Doesn't mean it can't be, it's like asking if a transporter can be built though, or "where the hell is my flying car"? It's somewhere off in the unknown for now.
cool. lets all just shut the hell up. we'll just jet around for the rest of eternity. hey perhaps et will give us ftl ships. that would really save us the trouble of thinking yes?
sure there is. ftl has been observed experimentally. the controversy is in the interpretation of this and whether sr has been violated. my limited understanding is that while energy or info cannot exceed light speed, the wave associated with the transfer can (phase velocity) chiao's experiments can be found here
As such, that's just a hopeful opinion based on nothing more than experience and insight.
i can dig that but lets keep that b/w us shall we?
Doesn't mean it can't be, it's like asking if a transporter can be built though, or "where the hell is my flying car"? It's somewhere off in the unknown for now.
cool. lets all just shut the hell up. we'll just jet around for the rest of eternity. hey perhaps et will give us ftl ships. that would really save us the trouble of thinking yes?
LOL.
Spookz.
I didn't imply that people shouldn't be questioning the paradigm. I didn't imply that people shouldn't be as creative and dedicated to overcoming seemingly impossible problems as they can possible be.
I just tried to show that the pardigm is natural and that all endeavors beyond the scope of the pardigm MUST BE viewed with great skepticism by the pardigm.
From the perspective of the human race, we have to ensure that the house we build can hold our weight before we let the old one burn.
Spookz.
I didn't imply that people shouldn't be questioning the paradigm. I didn't imply that people shouldn't be as creative and dedicated to overcoming seemingly impossible problems as they can possible be.
I just tried to show that the pardigm is natural and that all endeavors beyond the scope of the pardigm MUST BE viewed with great skepticism by the pardigm.
From the perspective of the human race, we have to ensure that the house we build can hold our weight before we let the old one burn.
well? as you can see...plenty of questions. what do you have to offer apart from useless oneliners..
"it is a major flaw in his understanding of GR - hence the link is useless."
"Its interesting to note that Einstein spent the better part of his life trying to develop a unified field theory combining gravity with electromagnetism, and was ultimately unsuccessful. "
"No, Einstein did not agree with that. "
"So what? His paper was refuted."
that's it for the whole thread. (plus the ad hominems) you say absolutely nothing! cmon teach! teach!
*this blind worship and adulation of einstein speaks volumes.