It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation

page: 13
150
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 03:43 AM
link   
really neat, the advancements are coming better late than never




posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: NISMOALTI
really neat, the advancements are coming better late than never
Surprising that nasa is jumping at something like micronewtons which could be a measurement error



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

You guys didn't answer a line about the wormholes researched by professor Kip Thorne and others. Instead you are jumping happy beause I quoted UFOs so you could attack me. Well, I take the challenge having more to add. And this is my last post in this absurd thread.



Irrefutable proof by Mexican Military and released by Mexican government office and televised by US television, that UFOs do exist. Whether it will be called "scientific" or "non-scientific" it is up to the scientists. Will they accept the reality as God-given fact, or will they try to adjust experiments to match their CRAZY theories? As they try to do up until that moment? Including theories of the far and wide Universe they never experimented with? That is crazy. That is absurd. That is however fact in today's predominant scientific Physics/Astro research.

The most contested issue of UFOs and ET s is how they cross the vastness of space. Here we have to assume NEW LAWS and NEW FORCES that today's physcis doesn't know about. As for example the antigravity properties of certain heavy elements NOT FOUND on planet Earth. Particularly element 115 that was never synthesized so far, and that is expected to be STABLE unlike 114 and 116. I haven't seen and touched it. Here is a person who claims first hand experience with both element 115 and the saucers 115 powers with antigravity.

Bob Lazar says it all. www.youtube.com... If you have critics for Bob Lazar it is your issue with him. It is not an issue with the element 115 and the saucers. When the message cannot be killed, then shoot at the messenger. It doesn't work anymore in the internet age.

As far as saucers being "not scientifically documented", I'm sorry but they are. There are enough footage including from STS and ISS that the impeccable scientists could take and investigate, including the simple measurements made already by volunteers onine, that show the saucers seen around our spacecraft have enormous dimensions, they are gigantic! The saucers, triangles etc fly as a matter of fact, they are seen by hundreds of thousands of people. It is not scientific proof? May be of outdated physics laws taken for unchangeable. The current physics rejects the reality, pretty much as the scholars did in the times of Galileo and Bruno.

The physics and science should reflect the reality, and not vice versus.

I wonder, weren't there scientists around the religious bosses in the prosecutions against Galileo, and later Giordano Bruno? The Ancient times know well the earth was round, and to a great doze of certainty that we were visited by aliens recorded in pyramids and other artifacts. How it happened that the most educated people in Middle Ages, religious AND scientists sitting next to each other, or being BOTH religious AND scientists, denied that knowledge?

Is it possible it happens today again, under the clout of "modern science" that understands EVERYTHING?

Science that pretends to know what happens on other planets, stars, developed under quite different conditions, forces we don't know about, etc? What's wrong the nature to have created the necessary conditions the Dark/black energy antigravity to be manifested on the surface of other celestial bodies different from our Solar system? We know of only element 115 thanks to insiders. Strange, how the same element 115 ununpentium found place int he famous movie Avatar under the name Unobtainium. No, I don't believe in coincidences. Perhaps some people in the know have decided, Enough Is Enough! Let the truth go out!

NASA experiment is a good occasion for all who deal with that, to say, here is the turning point for the GREAT CHANGE in minds of people, to say the things the way they are. Zero energy, antigravity, ETs saucers, and so on. One cannot go without the other. The denial takes all the same source of negation, no matter if it was against Giordano Bruno or today's Michio Kaku.

I am tempted to add something from Professor Kaku but you guys sure know of him and ridicule him no worse than all the rest who dare to say the truth. It is your choice to do so. It doesn't change the truth though. Hawking is not the only possible interpretation of Einstein. Even if he is right for some things. If he believes the wormholes destroy themselves, let he stay on earth where he belongs to. The reality shows inter-galactic travel that overpass the barriers we know about. As a matter of fact. Prove with your science it should not exist. It is a petty effort to keep the status quo on earth at all cost. Don't you understand it already changed? Don't you understand the big bosses have already ordered it to be changed? NASA said it and you still oppose and oppose. It should be in forums where the people say the alternative science. Now we have NASA saying it and CNN reporting it, and people continue in their paradoxical unbelief. Well you continue stay where you are at, I take the new wave of discovery and go forward. This is a personal choice.

What particular laws of your textbooks, dear scientists' PRs, did the Norway Spiral fulfil in order to appear at height of 300 km from earth already in space? Failed Bulava missile? Or perhaps we all encounter NEW LAWS of Physics that very few understand if at all. There is nothing wrong not to understand the new laws. It is wrong to deny the reality manifested before our eyes. Such denial has nothing to do with science. It is called fanaticism. Let no scientist today be fanatic anymore. The times have changed irreversibly.

edit on 3-8-2014 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: Rob48

Bob Lazar says it all. www.youtube.com...
As far as saucers being "not scientifically documented", I'm sorry but they are. They fly as a matter of fact, not as a matter of outdated physics laws taken for unchangeable. The physcis and science should reflect the reality, and not vice versus.

It is a pity that even in conspiracy forum there aren't enough people who would stand for the truth. Even After NASA admitted the truth could be quite different from the textbook. What do we expect from scientists then, who built up their career and well-being on outdated laws? They would never say against the convenient status quo, except for if they are required to do so. Pretty much as religious.


The existence of UFO's doesn't invalidate the laws in physics or relativity we use today. Bob Lazar says UFO's fly by producing their own gravitational waves. It could be. Bur I don't think we can generate a gravitational wave today. And even then, this wave could well fit in our laws.

But that is not the problem in this thread. This thread is about EM thrust. The title is totally misleading as there is no proof, if it really works, that it violates the existing laws. For one of its inventors, It is explainable with the relativity theory. And it does not create any energy as some state here. You put some energy in and that energy produces thrust. And at the moment it produces very limited quantity of thrust.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: 2012newstart

Bob Lazar? I'm sorry but those two words invalidate your entire post.

As for ununpentium? Hahaha! How are you planning to use a radioactive element with a half-life of less than a quarter of a second to build a flying saucer? Good luck with that!


edit on 3-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: Harte

Somehow that sounds like a circular argument to me.

That was Feynman's point exactly.

Force is not a stand-alone thing. On the other hand, neither is "love," "belief," or "equals," "addition" and "multiplication." Yet we use them, and experience them, anyway.

Harte



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
oh and in the largest meaning none of these things violate the laws of physics. they may violate the current model just as Einstein's relativity diverged from Newtons laws of physics. by necessity QG will "violate" Einstein's relativity. by necessity when Dark matter is nailed down it will violate the standard model as it stands now. there is no new scientific discovery that does not violate the previous understanding of physics. if it could be accounted for by established understandings why would anyone investigate? there would be nothing new to find.

there is a difference between what the universe's laws are and what we currently know of them. there is nothing that can be discovered that is unreal. if it works it is by definition real even if we did not know it would work before hand.

you cannot do the impossible. but to say science currently knows everything that is possible is laughable.

You are absolutely right. But there are no "laws" in physics, just observations and theories to explain them.
It's unfortunate, but common, that journalists (and scientists too) phrase it in such a way as a "violation" of some "law."

Harte



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: Rob48

You guys didn't answer a line about the wormholes researched by professor Kip Thorne and others. Instead you are jumping happy beause I quoted UFOs so you could attack me. Well, I take the challenge having more to add. And this is my last post in this absurd thread.



Irrefutable proof by Mexican Military and released by Mexican government office and televised by US television, that UFOs do exist. Whether it will be called "scientific" or "non-scientific" it is up to the scientists. Will they accept the reality as God-given fact, or will they try to adjust experiments to match their CRAZY theories? As they try to do up until that moment? Including theories of the far and wide Universe they never experimented with? That is crazy. That is absurd. That is however fact in today's predominant scientific Physics/Astro research.

The most contested issue of UFOs and ET s is how they cross the vastness of space. Here we have to assume NEW LAWS and NEW FORCES that today's physcis doesn't know about. As for example the antigravity properties of certain heavy elements NOT FOUND on planet Earth. Particularly element 115 that was never synthesized so far, and that is expected to be STABLE unlike 114 and 116. I haven't seen and touched it. Here is a person who claims first hand experience with both element 115 and the saucers 115 powers with antigravity.

Bob Lazar says it all. www.youtube.com... If you have critics for Bob Lazar it is your issue with him. It is not an issue with the element 115 and the saucers. When the message cannot be killed, then shoot at the messenger. It doesn't work anymore in the internet age.

As far as saucers being "not scientifically documented", I'm sorry but they are. There are enough footage including from STS and ISS that the impeccable scientists could take and investigate, including the simple measurements made already by volunteers onine, that show the saucers seen around our spacecraft have enormous dimensions, they are gigantic! The saucers, triangles etc fly as a matter of fact, they are seen by hundreds of thousands of people. It is not scientific proof? May be of outdated physics laws taken for unchangeable. The current physics rejects the reality, pretty much as the scholars did in the times of Galileo and Bruno.

The physics and science should reflect the reality, and not vice versus.

I wonder, weren't there scientists around the religious bosses in the prosecutions against Galileo, and later Giordano Bruno? The Ancient times know well the earth was round, and to a great doze of certainty that we were visited by aliens recorded in pyramids and other artifacts. How it happened that the most educated people in Middle Ages, religious AND scientists sitting next to each other, or being BOTH religious AND scientists, denied that knowledge?

Is it possible it happens today again, under the clout of "modern science" that understands EVERYTHING?

Science that pretends to know what happens on other planets, stars, developed under quite different conditions, forces we don't know about, etc? What's wrong the nature to have created the necessary conditions the Dark/black energy antigravity to be manifested on the surface of other celestial bodies different from our Solar system? We know of only element 115 thanks to insiders. Strange, how the same element 115 ununpentium found place int he famous movie Avatar under the name Unobtainium. No, I don't believe in coincidences. Perhaps some people in the know have decided, Enough Is Enough! Let the truth go out!

NASA experiment is a good occasion for all who deal with that, to say, here is the turning point for the GREAT CHANGE in minds of people, to say the things the way they are. Zero energy, antigravity, ETs saucers, and so on. One cannot go without the other. The denial takes all the same source of negation, no matter if it was against Giordano Bruno or today's Michio Kaku.

I am tempted to add something from Professor Kaku but you guys sure know of him and ridicule him no worse than all the rest who dare to say the truth. It is your choice to do so. It doesn't change the truth though. Hawking is not the only possible interpretation of Einstein. Even if he is right for some things. If he believes the wormholes destroy themselves, let he stay on earth where he belongs to. The reality shows inter-galactic travel that overpass the barriers we know about. As a matter of fact. Prove with your science it should not exist. It is a petty effort to keep the status quo on earth at all cost. Don't you understand it already changed? Don't you understand the big bosses have already ordered it to be changed? NASA said it and you still oppose and oppose. It should be in forums where the people say the alternative science. Now we have NASA saying it and CNN reporting it, and people continue in their paradoxical unbelief. Well you continue stay where you are at, I take the new wave of discovery and go forward. This is a personal choice.

What particular laws of your textbooks, dear scientists' PRs, did the Norway Spiral fulfil in order to appear at height of 300 km from earth already in space? Failed Bulava missile? Or perhaps we all encounter NEW LAWS of Physics that very few understand if at all. There is nothing wrong not to understand the new laws. It is wrong to deny the reality manifested before our eyes. Such denial has nothing to do with science. It is called fanaticism. Let no scientist today be fanatic anymore. The times have changed irreversibly.


Sorry dude that video does not show UFOs, it has been proven that what it is showing (since it's a thermal camera) is oil platforms on the horizon burning off excess gasses.

It's the plane that's moving not the "glowing objects".

That's a fact.
edit on 3-8-2014 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
over unity is not a deal killer in an open system. for example geothermal heat pumps are over unity and no one cares. if a device taps some sort of pervasive energy source it could well be over unity and not violate the laws of conservation or thermodynamics.

Only if you define "over unity" in a specific way (using the coefficient of performance.)
That's a cop out. Over unity should apply to the efficiency of a system, if you want to use the term in the usual sense and not make a semantic argument.

Harte



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: Rob48

You guys didn't answer a line about the wormholes researched by professor Kip Thorne and others. Instead you are jumping happy beause I quoted UFOs so you could attack me. Well, I take the challenge having more to add. And this is my last post in this absurd thread.

Here's an idea. Why don't you ask Kip Thorne to explain UFOs?


Harte



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
Show some scientists an actual honest-to-goodness flying saucer and they can try to explain it. Until then, flying saucers don't exist and don't need to be explained other than as a 70 year old hoax.


Oh there is no doubt that scientists have been shown flying saucers if the scientists have been following what’s going on in the world.

Sometimes good, old-fashioned common sense needs to come forth.

Your response sounds like scientism to me.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte
That was Feynman's point exactly.

Force is not a stand-alone thing. On the other hand, neither is "love," "belief," or "equals," "addition" and "multiplication." Yet we use them, and experience them, anyway.


By circular argument I meant begging the question.

Bearden’s point as stated in my previous post is that there is no clear definition of “force.”

The title of the excerpt I quoted is “Engines and Templates: Correcting Effect Confused as Causes.”

So he’s focusing on cause and effect.

In the excerpt, first he mentions the term “dual field concept.”

Then he states:


. . . there is fundamental duality involved even in the notion of force itself.

www.cheniere.org...


And he quotes Feymann to show that science doesn’t know what force is.

And he says:


Even in recognizing the duality of a theory, however, physicists often have not clearly recognized that they confuse effect as cause in their use of the field concept itself. So they have not resolved the issue, even with the “duality” principle which was just an agreement to quit fighting and use either the particle view or the wave view, as one wished, if it worked. It did not address or solve the confusion of wave and particle, and of cause and effect.

www.cheniere.org...

Bearden goes on to say:


The field concept itself is perhaps the most primary example of dual use of a concept for two precisely contradictory things.


Two precisely contradictory things.

Bearden then states:


The concept of a force—which is an effect and never a cause, but is used nearly universally as a cause—is also a fundamental part of the confusion. Force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation process a priori. . . .

www.cheniere.org...


Again:


Force is an observable, and all observables are effect of the observation process a priori.

www.cheniere.org...


Do you agree or disagree that force is an observable, and all observables are effects of the observation, logically speaking?



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
For the first time I delved into anything about BLP and am of the opinion that, it is one mother of a game changing technology. Hope they bring these units to the market soon.
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Xenon engines will probably be the next type of booster you'll see in large-scale production. It will be many, many years from now, but eventually, you'll even see large scale harvesting of xenon gasses from other moons and planets in this solar system.

Do you really think that hydrogen-oxygen is the only feasible rocket design by today's technological standards? There is more to emergent technology today than simple problems of engineering feasibility. Key players in the resource acquisition market make it their business to manipulate the commercial marketplace for engine designs from weed whackers to Boeing jets.

There is more energy in this one solar system than humanity could use in its entire history. The idea of scarcity is an illusion. As long as you can keep people buying treatments, you continue profiting. Sell them the cure, and you go out of business.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

there is a very clear definition of force but you seem to mire it in a huge circular argument. A force is a push or pull upon an object resulting from the object's interaction with another object. Whenever there is an interaction between two objects, there is a force upon each of the objects. When the interaction ceases, the two objects no longer experience the force. Forces only exist as a result of an interaction. What your arguing and dont even know it is causality this often can and does get confused by scientists. This occurs because causality isnt always obvious in experiments there can be unknown forces at work. This gets into the butterfly effect where a small change in inititial conditions can lead to a huge change in the outcome.

In classical (Newtonian) mechanics a cause may be represented by a force acting on a body, and an effect by the acceleration which follows as quantitatively explained by Newton's second law. Basically a a cause should always precede its effect.Now Einstein added time in to the mix with special relativity which confirmed the assumption of causality, but they made the meaning of the word "simultaneous" observer-dependent. Consequently, the relativistic principle of causality says that the cause must precede its effect according to all inertial observers. So since causality is observer dependent this often can lead to confusions even for scientists. Again trying to disprove science doesnt prove another crackpot theory. And scientists being wrong or arguing about causality means nothing when as we know even small changes in force can make huge differences in effects.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nechash
Xenon engines will probably be the next type of booster you'll see in large-scale production. It will be many, many years from now, but eventually, you'll even see large scale harvesting of xenon gasses from other moons and planets in this solar system.

Do you really think that hydrogen-oxygen is the only feasible rocket design by today's technological standards? There is more to emergent technology today than simple problems of engineering feasibility. Key players in the resource acquisition market make it their business to manipulate the commercial marketplace for engine designs from weed whackers to Boeing jets.

There is more energy in this one solar system than humanity could use in its entire history. The idea of scarcity is an illusion. As long as you can keep people buying treatments, you continue profiting. Sell them the cure, and you go out of business.


Well im not so sure there slow but for deep spac probes yeah maybe but to get humans from one place to another unlikely. The thrust to weight ratio is just to low in ion drives compared to even chemical. Now a hybrid between the two would definitely have advantages though.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Once an orbital trade route is established, humans won't need to travel to other places the way we think about space travel. It will probably be mainly people living in facilities exchanging goods with passing orbital trade stations. Even a counterbalanced centrifuge can trade goods with a passing spacecraft using electrical motors today. The low TWR of an ion engine is made up for in its fuel efficiency and most human beings can't tolerate high G forces well anyway. It won't be good for a launch craft, but for most stations and ships which will never land on a planetary body, it will probably be their primary engine.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
over unity is not a deal killer in an open system. for example geothermal heat pumps are over unity and no one cares. if a device taps some sort of pervasive energy source it could well be over unity and not violate the laws of conservation or thermodynamics.

Only if you define "over unity" in a specific way (using the coefficient of performance.)
That's a cop out. Over unity should apply to the efficiency of a system, if you want to use the term in the usual sense and not make a semantic argument.

Harte


it's distinction without a difference. if i have solar power no one cares if the panels are only 13 percent efficient. every time i turn on the switch i get light. that's whats important in an open system. the (free) power source is virtually endless and i have to perform no work once installed (disregarding breakdowns) to get something out of it.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: stormbringer1701

You might as well say it's powered by magic, then. It's equally as fanciful.


if it's powered by fairies and it works i don't give a flip. (c'mere Tinkerbell..i got something for ya...)

"any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magick"



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
For the first time I delved into anything about BLP and am of the opinion that, it is one mother of a game changing technology. Hope they bring these units to the market soon.
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist


Keep waiting. Some of us have been waiting 20 years, since BLP was "HydroCatalysis". No working products then, no working products now.

Look, the same poster was claiming "it works!" way back in 2010.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Still nothing. And there never will be.
edit on 3-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
150
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join