It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# We need artificial gravity pronto.

page: 3
3
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 04:57 PM

Blue Shift
I solved the anti-gravity problem in my 20's but wouldn't you know it the evil government run by the gas companies stole it from me and now has it under lock and key. I solved it by having a quason field block the transdimensional component of ordinary matter. Turns out that gravity is just matter "falling" into a dimension that is at "right angles" to our ordinary three (four) dimensional spacetime. The effect is such that it appears that matter "falls into itself." The quason field -- generated fairly efficiently via Von Klein reaction -- slightly re-orients matter so that it's not aligned with the gravity dimension. Mass and volume are maintained, but it can't fall down the gravity hole.
edit on 14-3-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

hilarious.
Gravity is as yet. little understood by science.
Now to add gravity on to the spacecrafts is a tall order
and beyond the realm of conventional science

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 05:30 PM

Nochzwei

Blue Shift
I solved the anti-gravity problem in my 20's but wouldn't you know it the evil government run by the gas companies stole it from me and now has it under lock and key. I solved it by having a quason field block the transdimensional component of ordinary matter. Turns out that gravity is just matter "falling" into a dimension that is at "right angles" to our ordinary three (four) dimensional spacetime. The effect is such that it appears that matter "falls into itself." The quason field -- generated fairly efficiently via Von Klein reaction -- slightly re-orients matter so that it's not aligned with the gravity dimension. Mass and volume are maintained, but it can't fall down the gravity hole.
edit on 14-3-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

hilarious.
Gravity is as yet. little understood by science.
Now to add gravity on to the spacecrafts is a tall order
and beyond the realm of conventional science

well as others have said there are ways:

acceleration (and de-acceleration) produces an effect nearly indistinguishable form real gravity and it fulfills all the necessary comfort and medical functions of gravity.

centrifugal force produces an artificial gravity with a couple of drawbacks: to be useful the centrifuge needs to be larger than we can currently loft into space. and if the radius is too small it produces extreme vertigo and motion sickness and isn't worth it. also it greatly complicates the engineering of the ship and leads to complicated plumbing, wiring and astronaut access. It creates multiple points of potential failure for the ship systems. it requires a counter rotating centrifuge and more RCS fuel. it adds significant mass to the ship which requires more primary thrust fuel and more powerful engines and mitigating these (with retractable tethered modules and so forth) compromises the utility of the idea.

beyond these methods there is still the possibility of electronically generated gravity fields. it's allowed by the standard model and by relativity. it is anticipated that quantum gravity will also allow or even require it.

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:08 PM

stormbringer1701

LUXUS
We cannot give anti-gravity to the world, people are not ready and will abuse the technology what we will give them instead is inertial propulsion, its cruder but will suffice for their needs.

this statement about antigravity is probably the most true. it could be like giving hyper-megaton nuclear bomb to every idiot, terrorist, tyrant, psychotic or maladroit or drunk or high person on earth. billions and billions of people with bombs that can end the world. I don't think if gravity tech is really as powerful as we think it can ever become public access technology. not even any government should have it. not even mine. look how well they keep secrets. atomic bomb: stolen immediately after world war 2. some low rent contractor recently stole hundreds of thousands of secrets. and some punk PFC did the same thing in the army before this jerk. and the Chinese practically bought the secrets of the W54 mini nuke from a corrupt administration a few decades ago.

It would have to be held by a very small guild of trustworthy souls.

edit on 14-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: typo

edit on 14-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

Yes and every patent we apply for in the west somehow the Japanese get hold of it before it is granted through black market channels. Half these things that people think those "clever Japanese" invented were actually illegally stolen from patents in the west!

I have personal experience of this, a device I applied for a patent for miraculously turned up in Japan and they didn't even bother to alter the exact name I called the device, obviously sold to them on the black market or they have people dedicated to hacking western patent applications digitally. I've heard silicon valley has serious problems with them stealing the chips they are developing too!

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:19 PM

stormbringer1701
She got the Rossi treatment from the skeptics. if their claims are true she stole money from the project and absconded back to china to avoid prosecution. so she has the fraud cloud hang over her work even if the work is legit.

She did. It's not a matter of conjecture. She took the funding for building a prototype and spent it on things other than building a prototype.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 12:31 AM

Bedlam

stormbringer1701
She got the Rossi treatment from the skeptics. if their claims are true she stole money from the project and absconded back to china to avoid prosecution. so she has the fraud cloud hang over her work even if the work is legit.

She did. It's not a matter of conjecture. She took the funding for building a prototype and spent it on things other than building a prototype.
i did not say that she didn't embezzle. i said that this is used regardless of the legitimacy of her science- remember she had partners and also that she was not the only one to propose the same sort of thing; to discredit the science. and that is wrong no matter what she did.

i was in a thread about similar experiments that had nothing to do with her and several skeptics dared to bring her up as an accusation against me and the legitimacy of what i was discussing. screw that.
edit on 15-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 12:54 AM

lonegurkha
I find gravity to be a very interesting topic.I was thinking about it the other day when something occured to me.

When I was in school,which was admittedly many years ago, we were taught that gravity extends in all directions from a mass. Hense the reason that people in certain areas of the earth don't fly off. However solar systems like our own seem to have planets orbiting mostly in a plane around the middle of the star at the center of the system.

My thoughts at the time were, is gravity strongest in a directional plane eminating from the center of mass of the system? I wonder if any scientists who may be researching gravity have considered this?

Why don't planets orbit around the poles of a star. I am not aware of any examples of this. It must be possible as we have satillites in polar orbits. So clearly gravity works for polar orbits. Not really sure what to make of this. Struck me as rather odd.

Maybe it has something to do with the gravity interaction of the other planets.

They do, the flat plane orbit you know of is compressed to make it visually comprehensible. We don't have any that are completely perpendicular in our solar system, but it's certainly not some kind of rule that they can only orbit in between poles. The thing is, each and every object in orbit has it's own influence on gravity, so what happens here is that the biggest objects pull the other objects closer to it's own orbit, normalizing the orbital patterns of all the objects in orbit. So it's unlikely you'll ever get perfectly perpendicular orbits, unless you have an object with a really large elliptical orbit that is out of sync with the other objects [read, not in gravitational range of other bodies as it passes] but you can indeed have latitudinal or longitudinal orbital patterns.

It's all chance vs momentum vs gravitational force influences of other celestial bodies.
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 01:02 AM

Bedlam

stormbringer1701
She got the Rossi treatment from the skeptics. if their claims are true she stole money from the project and absconded back to china to avoid prosecution. so she has the fraud cloud hang over her work even if the work is legit.

She did. It's not a matter of conjecture. She took the funding for building a prototype and spent it on things other than building a prototype.

As far as I know, this IS absolute conjecture based on rumor from an email sent by Dr. Baker to an independent researcher, who also received a second email from Dr. Baker that might implicate Dr. Baker's first email as less than truthful.

Unless you got a look at her books and seen how she appropriated the money, you can't say it's not conjecture.

It's a bit of an x-file and nobody knows the real truth other than the ones who were involved in these projects first hand.

The only truth we know is that the idea that she "took the money and ran" came from a third party and is merely "hearsay." After making this statement, he [Dr. Baker] went on to say he still eats dinner with her husband [Li's]... She also popped back up two years after the alleged "embezzlement" as co-chairwoman of a conference she held for AC Gravity in 2003.

Defacto debunking the embezzlement theory.

It's also important to note that she started AC Gravity, and somebody renewed ACG's business license repeatedly in the amount of time she's "missing." As of 2014, it's still listed as an "Existing" business. Without renewing the license, this is impossible. There is no evidence that suggests that she sold ACG to a new owner, thereforeby insinuating that she indeed herself, has renewed the license.

Something the government wouldn't let her do if she had stole grant money and absconded it to China.

This part is speculation, but it would stand to reason that she did complete the prototype in secret and that it's also classified due to reasons of national security. The fact that she is still publicly "missing" eludes to the fact that she most likely is part of an on going "top secret" program.

It might even be top secret enough that her affiliates didn't know about it, hence why Dr. Baker might have initially mistaken her for a thief.

How is this not speculation and conjecture again?
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 01:21 AM

bobs_uruncle

There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave

This is why "forcefields" are actively being researched. We can see low level concepts in applied sciences today with anti-missile systems on tanks.

If you had a perimeter field that pushed micro dust away or deflected micro meteors before they could ever even touch the hull, this becomes a non-issue.

Space flight is complicated, but nothing has ever been proven too complicated to be done. It's just such a massive puzzle that it'll take a long time to get there [or maybe we've been there already, just not publicly.]
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:30 AM

Laykilla
As far as I know, this IS absolute conjecture based on rumor from an email sent by Dr. Baker to an independent researcher, who also received a second email from Dr. Baker that might implicate Dr. Baker's first email as less than truthful.

I went by the fact she didn't produce a prototype, and by the termination notice from NASA on the contract. She didn't even try - she used the money for research. I lived there at the time and was involved out at Redstone as a contractor and at UAH on my physics masters degree at the same time and actually knew her - it was one of those stories that got around. Ron Koczor also says she absconded with the project money - in essence she spent it on research and didn't do any practical development. Not so heinous, except she didn't do what she said she would do with the money. They generally don't like that.

Then, of course, she took off.

The only truth we know is that the idea that she "took the money and ran" came from a third party and is merely "hearsay." After making this statement, he [Dr. Baker] went on to say he still eats dinner with her husband [Li's]... She also popped back up two years after the alleged "embezzlement" as co-chairwoman of a conference she held for AC Gravity in 2003.

Defacto debunking the embezzlement theory.

Odd, that, since she vanished off of UAH and wasn't seen again. Maybe she got tired of the place and decided just to not come back to the Space Plasma center. Also I heard it from Baker and Koczor and a few others that knew her and were associated with the project.

It's also important to note that she started AC Gravity, and somebody renewed ACG's business license repeatedly in the amount of time she's "missing." As of 2014, it's still listed as an "Existing" business. Without renewing the license, this is impossible. There is no evidence that suggests that she sold ACG to a new owner, thereforeby insinuating that she indeed herself, has renewed the license.

You generally have to have two officers in Alabama, we did at any rate. As an aside, she suddenly has no further records for basic things, like utilities, starting at the time she vamoosed. It's a matter of public record who renewed the license, go find out.
We only had to be physically present the first time to file for the license, and although Huntsville/Madison make it agonizingly painful to get the license the first time, you can renew by mail or, IIRC, online.

This part is speculation, but it would stand to reason that she did complete the prototype in secret and that it's also classified due to reasons of national security. The fact that she is still publicly "missing" eludes to the fact that she most likely is part of an on going "top secret" program.

I could have been lied to by the NASA guys, I suppose. I did know the guys on the alternative propulsion team at the time and was working at MSFC on General Lord's long term near space balloon project. There are pics of her in China. Weirder things have happened, though.

How is this not speculation and conjecture again?
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)

I'll believe the guys I worked with, I suppose.
edit on 15-3-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:47 AM

Laykilla

bobs_uruncle

There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave

This is why "forcefields" are actively being researched. We can see low level concepts in applied sciences today with anti-missile systems on tanks.

If you had a perimeter field that pushed micro dust away or deflected micro meteors before they could ever even touch the hull, this becomes a non-issue.

Space flight is complicated, but nothing has ever been proven too complicated to be done. It's just such a massive puzzle that it'll take a long time to get there [or maybe we've been there already, just not publicly.]
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)

the M2P2 is ready made for this. it is a small lightweight multi function device about the size of a #10 coffee can. it can get a craft going at pretty near the speed of the solar wind. it can de-accelerate a craft at the end of a voyage the same way. and since it generates a magnetically confined 20 to 100 KM diameter plasma bubble it automatically qualifies as both radiation shielding against stellar radiation and as a dust and grit particle deflector. it can even tack into the solar wind like a yacht on an earthly body of water.
edit on 15-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

Edit: now i have to look into Ms Li's work her research may have went into the black world and this may be part of a cover story. her stuff really isn't that different from Podkletnov and Tajmar and others i take seriously; since it was discussing those that got the skeptics invoking Ning Li and her embezzlement ("Debunking" controversial science by ad hominem) so I'll look at the specifics if i can find them and judge the science rather than the rhetoric.
edit on 15-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: grammar trouble

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 03:52 AM

stormbringer1701
i did not say that she didn't embezzle. i said that this is used regardless of the legitimacy of her science...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I definitely think she was onto something. But yeah, she took the prototype money and lived off of it while she did a lot of theoretical work. Then I'm pretty sure (although there's no proving it) that she hightailed it home with her info. And China's really interested in it.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:27 AM

Bedlam

stormbringer1701
i did not say that she didn't embezzle. i said that this is used regardless of the legitimacy of her science...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I definitely think she was onto something. But yeah, she took the prototype money and lived off of it while she did a lot of theoretical work. Then I'm pretty sure (although there's no proving it) that she hightailed it home with her info. And China's really interested in it.

you every notice that the bulk of anti-gravity or gravity modification or gravity synthesis experiments all have certain similarities in their set up. i mean the establishment scientists or scientists with mainstream acceptable credentials, and the fringers and "kooks" all do the same sort of things in their experimental protocols to get their results even if those results are disputed. there really are only a few outliers that try different approaches.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:57 AM

stormbringer1701

you every notice that the bulk of anti-gravity or gravity modification or gravity synthesis experiments all have certain similarities in their set up. i mean the establishment scientists or scientists with mainstream acceptable credentials, and the fringers and "kooks" all do the same sort of things in their experimental protocols to get their results even if those results are disputed. there really are only a few outliers that try different approaches.

I agree with you on the outliers. Some of those outliers are quite spectacular, however.

But yeah, I've also seen a number of similar experiments to Podkletnov and Li. One stands out in particular. I got into quite the argument over one once, called a relatively high ranking AF guy a liar, more or less, while I was an NCO. Luckily he wasn't in my chain of command.
We didn't get along very well, anyway, so no great loss.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 07:23 AM

Thanks for that ,but ErosA433 responded with a wonderful explaination of conservation of angular momentem.This is the answer I was seeking. Makes perfect sense to me. I appreciate your explaination though.

posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 02:12 PM

Hey I am quite aware of centrifugal forces and producing linear motion 1 g accel due to gravity

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:20 PM

Laykilla

bobs_uruncle

There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave

This is why "forcefields" are actively being researched. We can see low level concepts in applied sciences today with anti-missile systems on tanks.

If you had a perimeter field that pushed micro dust away or deflected micro meteors before they could ever even touch the hull, this becomes a non-issue.

Space flight is complicated, but nothing has ever been proven too complicated to be done. It's just such a massive puzzle that it'll take a long time to get there [or maybe we've been there already, just not publicly.]
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)

Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 03:50 PM

Seems a sensible conclusion.
Meanwhile you arrive at your destination at 99.9% of C and ...it takes you so long to accelerate (de-celerate sic) to a speed where you can exit the craft safely, you overshoot it by 10 AU's.

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 04:06 PM

bobs_uruncle

Laykilla

bobs_uruncle

There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave

This is why "forcefields" are actively being researched. We can see low level concepts in applied sciences today with anti-missile systems on tanks.

If you had a perimeter field that pushed micro dust away or deflected micro meteors before they could ever even touch the hull, this becomes a non-issue.

Space flight is complicated, but nothing has ever been proven too complicated to be done. It's just such a massive puzzle that it'll take a long time to get there [or maybe we've been there already, just not publicly.]
edit on 15-3-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)

Now, let's say you are traveling at 99.99% C. You have to move everything else out of the way at 99.999% C or higher. Imagine the energy requirements to move one hundred 500gram objects, which wouldn't even be close to what would be actually encountered, in a linear 12 light year journey to say Barnard's Star. Depending on your final speed close to C, the energy required to move objects out of the way could easily exceed the total energy of the universe.

Cheers - Dave
actually if felber and hilbert are correct you impart up too twice your energy (the caveat here is: you cannot get it to go above C) via the hilbert effect. also it takes a tiny amount of energy to nudge something out of the way assuming you can impart it far enough away for the vector to clear your front. according to research just painting a earth impacting asteroid white on one side is enough to deflect a full on asteroid millions of miles away from intercept point. so photon pressure differences are enough. Another caveat to the hilbert felber effect though; is your mass is a lot less than a star or a planets so likely your own velocity would suffer appreciably if Hilbert's effect was used.

posted on Mar, 16 2014 @ 04:12 PM

Jukiodone

Seems a sensible conclusion.
Meanwhile you arrive at your destination at 99.9% of C and ...it takes you so long to accelerate (de-celerate sic) to a speed where you can exit the craft safely, you overshoot it by 10 AU's.

you aren't aiming at a planet though nor the star heaven forbid. you probably want to arrive outside the farthest limit of the star system in question then use low sublight to get to points of interest. the neat thing is you can use a very energy efficient plasma sail to slow down in addition to your main thrusters. the sail is actually inflated by the solar wind itself so your energy contribution is very small. maybe 100KW or even less. the rest is provided by the star and your sail will grow up to about 100 km diameter. imagine a sail like that slowing you down. as a bonus it acts as a radiation shield and a dust and grit and maybe even pea gravel deflector. it gives 100 KMs for stuff to move out of the way in.

and in space the range of a weapons strength laser is nearly unlimited with the type of collimation and focus possible with advanced solid state phased optical focusing. and you don't have to fragment or destroy and incoming impactor. if you pit the object it becomes it's own maneuvering thruster from the vaporized material escaping the hole the laser creates. you can pit a larger than sand grain sized object potentially a hundred thousand kilometers away or even more.
edit on 16-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 12:16 AM

Jukiodone

Seems a sensible conclusion.
Meanwhile you arrive at your destination at 99.9% of C and ...it takes you so long to accelerate (de-celerate sic) to a speed where you can exit the craft safely, you overshoot it by 10 AU's.

Or more (since the galaxy would have rotated as well) plus 1 to 40 million years dependent on the distance traveled LOL

Cheers - Dave

top topics

3