The US has had Anti-Grav for 40+ yrs.

T

thed

IT Gopher
Registered Senior Member
Honest they have. Some one at work told me they have, they even have official documentation from FOIA sources proving it. According to my source, the B-2 bomber uses this tech to fly and as an anti-missile defence.

They also claim the US uses EM weapons for mind control.

For some reason they appeared perturbed that I started questioning them about this. More worryingly, they claim that they are talking to the editor of Janes Weekly/Aerospace as they believe the same.

Now, who here agrees with this guys stance. Needless to say, I don't.
 
well the b2 is a gigantic wing with honking big jets on it... dont know why it would need an anti-grav system. maybe its a backup?
 
Originally posted by SpyMoose
well the b2 is a gigantic wing with honking big jets on it... dont know why it would need an anti-grav system. maybe its a backup?
Click to expand...

Bear in mind I work for an airline, so does matey. My first question was; "So what's wrong with jet engines?"
 
Originally posted by spookz
lifters will be the cockroaches of antigravity
Click to expand...

Spookz, was I talking to you during my smoke break in BoHo today? Sounds like it, it seems. From the article,

The simplest answer comes from antigravity debunkers. When I call university physicists to ask how these things work, they bark with laughter at the idea that it's antigravity.

The propulsive force, they say, has a simpler explanation: ion wind.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned at the time (to whomever), these things are not anti-gravity devices. They provide a force against Gravity that lifts them. That is a far cry from counter-acting (anti) gravity.
 
When the B-2 Spirit was first introduced, some people questioned
its thrust-to-weight ratio. It had 4 GE F118-GE-100 engines with
17,300 lbs. thrust each, for a total of 69,200 lbs. thrust. Its max
take-off weight was 376,000 lbs. for a ratio of 5.43 lbs. for each
pound of thrust. The engines now develop 19k lbs. thrust each.
For comparison, the B-52 Stratofortress has 8 Pratt&Whitney engines
with 17k lbs. thrust for a total of 136,000 lbs thrust and a max
take-off weight of 488,000 lbs. for a ratio of 3.58 lbs. for each
pound of thrust. Some aircraft engineers thought the B-2 was
underpowered, I have no idea myself, but that may have been
part of the reason for suspecting some help from "weight reduction"
technologies, not really "anti-gravity." The B-1B Lancer has a total
of 120,000 lbs. of thrust from its 4 GE F-101-GE-102 engines (30k
lbs. each.)
 
Originally posted by spookz
any theories floating out there? current research projects?
Click to expand...

The only current project I'm aware of is NASA trying to confirm the work of one Podkletnov. I'll be surprised if it is confirmed but pleased if it is.

As for theories, a few are about.

First off, is the inverse of a Black Hole, the White Hole. These where predicted as the Scharzschild solutions are symmetric, you can reverse signs. This gives you something that is the exact opposite of a Black Hole. Interstingly, they are connected to BH's by Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky bridges, commonly known as wormholes. So you get FTL travel and anti-gravity as such in one package. Kip Thorne has been doing researcg in this area. I believe it's what formed the basis for Sagans' Contact.

Guth's Inflationary theory postulates a period where space expands. This requires something opposite to gravity, it repulses not attracts. The trick here is that spacetime is treated as a fluid so a negative pressure becomes anti-gravity. Inflations primary predictions, spacetime is highly flat, has been confirmed.

The recent evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is again an example of anti-gravity. The result has been confirmed. It is though Dark Energy is the cause. If we can confirm the link and understand it we might be able to acheive the unacheivable.

Oddly enough, Physicists have no problem with these ideas but they do with people claiming anti-gravity devices based on Orgone Energy Cells or similar.
 
This is something that I am confused about. It is my understanding,
which may be wrong, that General Relativity specifically states that
gravity is NOT a "force," but a property of space-time itself. I always
thought that was part of the reason that scientists who revere
General Relativity generally disregard "UFOs" because they often
seem to exibit anti-gravity and anti-enertial properties that would
invalidate their beloved theory and "break the laws of physics."
Does not the "repulsive-gravity" (the new politically correct term)
of Dark Energy do the same thing? What is Dark Energy if it is not
a "force?"
 
thed

thanks. i'll read up

I'll be surprised if it is confirmed but pleased if it is.

as would everyone (unless of course one made a career out of debunking anti grav)

i need a simple analogy for anti grav. would magnets serve?

The recent evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is again an example of anti-gravity. The result has been confirmed. It is though Dark Energy is the cause. If we can confirm the link and understand it we might be able to acheive the unacheivable.

why cant the initial momentum (from the big bang) explain the expansion and current acceleration? :confused:
 
Spookz, there are several models for the universe, but the currently
favored one has the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate,
in other words, the galaxies and Quasars that are the most distant
from us are receding at a rate much faster than they were a few
billion years ago. The expansion has "speeded up" over time, not
stayed at the same rate.
 
this is the typical "duh" feeling i get when discussing this stuff. :(

The expansion has "speeded up" over time, not stayed at the same rate.

cant the unverse still be in its acceleration phase? at what point is it supposed to stay at the same rate? why assume it has to stay the same rate. shouldnt it eventually slow down and stop? galaxies and quasars are still picking up speed from the initial force that propelled them in the first place
 
Originally posted by thed
The only current project I'm aware of is NASA trying to confirm the work of one Podkletnov. I'll be surprised if it is confirmed but pleased if it is.
Click to expand...

Here's an excerpt from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Jan/Feb97, Vol. 53 Issue 1, page 7

NASA has spent several years and several hundred thousand dollars on building an anti-gravity device designed by Eugene Pokletnov, a sometime researcher at the University of Tampere in Finland, whose paper on anti-gravity, scheduled for publication in Britain's Journal of Physics D, was suddenly withdrawn after pre-publication publicity uncovered "confusion" over the identity of a co-author. According to Whitt Brantley, chief of the Advanced Concepts Office at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, NASA's anti-gray team is led by Ning Li of the University of Alabama, who came to the agency with a theory similar to Pokletnov's--that the "connections between gravity and electromagnetism . . . could be manipulated by superconductors." Many outsiders think of the project as NASA's version of cold fusion.

I would have posted a static link to it, but not everyone would have access to the journal on-line.

Anti-Grav is certainly an interesting topic.
 
In 1996, NASA started the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project.
The work of Eugene Podkletnov was one of the areas of study in
the project, among other theories and areas of study. A link:
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/
The project to build the superconducter had a lot of disagreement
and controversy among the participents as to how it should be built.
A link: http://www.enterprisemission.com/anti-grav.htm
As of Jan. 31, 2003 there appears to be no more funding for the
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project as a whole. I had read an
article that someone in the science committee in congress had stated
that the project was a waste of money trying to overturn the laws
of physics. A link to another page with several sites involved in
anti-gravity research and to an interesting story by a computer
hacker who was brought to trial for breaking into several classified
government computers. He claimed to have seen the plans for a
working model of an anti-gravity device on a computer at Wright-
Patterson AFB. http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=3
 
Yes, Spooks, space itself is thought to be expanding. However, it is
expanding at a faster and faster rate if current theory is correct.
After the Big Bang 14 billion years ago, there came a time called
"inflation" in which the universe expanded very rapidly, then the
expansion slowed down, according to the standard model. After
this, the universe again began expanding faster and faster, as it
still is today. The Dark Energy is supposed to be an unseen energy
with repulsive-gravity qualities to explain how the universe could
not only keep getting larger as it expands, but keep expanding at
a faster and faster RATE. Some of the most distant Quasars are
calculated to receding from us at a faster than light rate already,
which is allowed under General Relativity because the velocity is
due to the expansion of space itself, not due to the actual speed
of the Quasars. I am not a physicist, but I question the accuracy
of these models and the accuracy of cosmological redshift for determining the distance and the recessional velocities of these
Quasars, although redshift is not the only factor used in the
calculations. The oldest Quasar observed so far has a redshift
of z=6.4, which, I believe, would make it older than the universe
itself and receding much faster than the speed of light. Micro-Quasars, which are within our own Milky Way galaxy and only a few thousand light years away, have only been discovered in the
last few years. I believe they were identified as Quasars "with a forbidden motion" earlier. I don't know what kind of redshift analysis was done on them in earlier years, but it does seem odd
to me that science didn't recognize that they objects a few thousand light years away instead of the true Quasars which are
BILLIONS of light years away. JamesR once asked why did a particular UFO site post pictures of UFOs that seemed to be hoaxed
along with pictures that were thought to be real? He said that led
him to believe they all were hoaxed or not real. My question is why
does science have so many different models of the universe, why
not just list the true one? Could it be that none of them are real?
Sounds an awful lot like what is called pseudoscience to me, the
only difference being "real scientists" are doing the hypothesizing.
 
Originally posted by 2inquisitive
My question is why does science have so many different models of the universe, why not just list the true one? Could it be that none of them are real? Sounds an awful lot like what is called pseudoscience to me, the only difference being "real scientists" are doing the hypothesizing.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the data does not support any one model over the other at present. I believe the HST has been used to narrow done a few models though. There is no true model to favour.

To me this is the difference between science/skepticism and psuedo-science. The skeptic/scientist lacking data will take all reasonable models equally. Once some data is found to favour one model competing models are dropped. The psuedo-scientist says, "my model is right I'm not listening to the data". There are cientists with Ph.D's working in academia who are guilty of this as well. I am not saying all academics are blameless.

Case in point, the original Big Bang models where found to have 4 internal inconsistencies, plus the data was contradictory to the models. Cosmologists where on the verge of chucking the whole thing until Guth's Inflation fixed 2 of the major inconsistencies. This has led to new models and new experiments to confirm them. Which is where we are today. New data could still result in Cosmology starting all over again.

Compare and contrast that to the average psuedo-scientist who will not listen to contrary views.

Quasars, ack, don't get me started on Arp. Yes, I've read the book. No, I'm not convinced by the arguments.
 
quote:
The problem is that the data does not support any one model over the other at present. I believe the HST has been used to narrow done a few models though. There is no true model to favour.

To me this is the difference between science/skepticism and psuedo-science. The skeptic/scientist lacking data will take all reasonable models equally. Once some data is found to favour one model competing models are dropped. The psuedo-scientist says, "my model is right I'm not listening to the data". There are cientists with Ph.D's working in academia who are guilty of this as well. I am not saying all academics are blameless.
=================================================
thed, I agree that there are some pseudo-scientists who have their
"pet" theories to promote, especially in some fields. My gripe is that
science, as a whole, dismisses any of the admittedly less than solid evidence of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena as something faked, lied
about or "misunderstood" by uneducated people. Mainstream science
refuses to acknowledge what evidence is available to even try to
develope ANY models, let alone several for different types of data.
I know something very unusual is being seen in our skys. I believe
the wild speculation and conspiracy theories develope BECAUSE
mainstream science just "poopoos" anything to do with the phenomenon instead of at least trying to understand it and giving
some direction to follow. The people knew there were stones falling from the sky before science knew of meteorites.
 
Originally posted by 2inquisitive
Mainstream science refuses to acknowledge what evidence is available to even try to develop ANY models, let alone several for different types of data.

I know something very unusual is being seen in our skys.
Click to expand...

But if the evidence truly was convincing or compelling, scientists would not need to be compelled or convinced. :cool:
 
But if the evidence truly was convincing or compelling, scientists would not need to be compelled or convinced.
Click to expand...

Are you crazy?! They would all have to replicate what they were seeing, and it would have to be submitted for peer review to some heavyweight journal or other. A year or so later it might be returned to the authors for revision, and have to suffer a rewrite..... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top