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.

 

UFO Anti gravity from household items.

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
i heard he came up with the idea in his mothers basement, in a tub of bathsalts, in a dream a little fairy told him. At the end of the dream he was told to tie a thread on top and pull while recording with a video.




posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
Prior plausibility: EM Drive.


...has nothing to do with anti-gravity. And even if it did, it's like saying "planes are proof that I can fly!". No. Nice try.


Videos being "doctored"...irrelevant.


It's absolutely relevent.



Since you don't know that the videos were "doctored", and can't prove they were.


I don't need to You or OP needs to prove they weren't.


You should look up the legal definition of evidence some time...it might be useful.


You should look up the scientific definition, it's the definition that's actually relevent here.


And, I haven't shifted the "Burdon of proof", you did.


Yes you did: "Thing is...you have to prove a hoax! And proof of "hoax" is not anywhere to be seen here".


When you called it a "Hoax", you accused the creator of lying.


Lying, deluded, it's funtionally the same, here.


That is what you are being "called to task" for.


You should take your logic and critical thought "to task" instead.


What is even worse is that you proceeded to use inaccurate science and assumptions in your attempt to "debunk"...thus complicating the issue.


What, by expecting claims to be presented using some semblance of the scientific method? Ok mate.


By the way...the video IS valid evidence. IF you knew what you were looking at; it will provide all of the "real", "scientific" evidence needed to prove that it was BS. But, you are to busy defending a false position to take a look at the real world...



Yeah, good luck presenting a youtube video of an extraordinary claim in a scientific paper. See how far you get with that one lol!
edit on 12-10-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: tanka418




And, I haven't shifted the "Burdon of proof", you did. When you called it a "Hoax", you accused the creator of lying. That is what you are being "called to task" for.




So are you the creator of the video?

When people call hoax it could be a simple opinion and not some all knowing final claim they need to prove,

You mentioning burden of proof and saying its being shifted to that poster sound like you are the creator of the video asking to be debunked, are you?


No...I'm not the creator...

And, I also feel that calling something "Hoax" should be an opinion; however, what I see here at ATS, and in this case, is "hoax" is not being stated as an opinion, but rather a matter of inappropriate fact. A fact that often can not be proven. And, at the option of the "offended" party could have civil consequences. I have eve seen the argument of "debunk" used to justify copyright infringement.

The whole "debunk" attitude of some ATS members is entirely out of line; and would be better replaced with an attitude of "finding the truth". The notion that One can force fit reality to their whim is wrong, and those who insist on doing so need to be called to task.

They should also understand that I'm not the opposition; I actually trying to help...get at the truth.



posted on Oct, 12 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: tanka418
Prior plausibility: EM Drive.


...has nothing to do with anti-gravity. And even if it did, it's like saying "planes are proof that I can fly!". No. Nice try.



I suspect you know little to nothing about "anti-gravity"...for instance; did you know that Terrestrial Humans have had primitive "anti-gravity" devices for hundreds of years. Humans, and may other animals have "anti-gravity" abilities...

The ability is called: Jumping.
The device: a ladder.

Thee aren't any "real" anti-gravity devices / systems, gravity is what it is and noting else.. There are however technologies, abilities, primitive devices that can over come the effects of Gravity. Dudes "fakey" thruster, if it actually could work would certainly qualify as "anti-gravity" because it can offset the effects of gravity.





I don't need to You or OP needs to prove they weren't.



I wouldn't expect you would...however; you still NEED to prove it was.


You should look up the scientific definition, it's the definition that's actually relevent here.



I love this; it's so rich!!!

Please explain the differences...if you can.



Yes you did: "Thing is...you have to prove a hoax! And proof of "hoax" is not anywhere to be seen here".

["When you called it a "Hoax", you accused the creator of lying."

Lying, deluded, it's funtionally the same, here.


You have not established either "lying", or "delusion"...
Leaving the only delusion apparent here being yours.




"That is what you are being "called to task" for."

You should take your logic and critical thought "to task" instead.



Instead, you should take your own council...




Yeah, good luck presenting a youtube video of an extraordinary claim in a scientific paper. See how far you get with that one lol!


Again...nothing extraordinary here...nothing in the claim, nor anywhere else...And, by the way, videos are commonly used in science.

An article on "extraordinary claims"

You objected to the lack of scientific procedure, and while I doubt you know much about scientific anything...This could, with only a little work be a perfectly good hypothesis statement / paper. Though I will agree that Dude's presentation need much work.

Quickly...what is the real difference between a YouTube video and a professional one?

edit on 12-10-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
I suspect you know little to nothing about "anti-gravity"...for instance; did you know that Terrestrial Humans have had primitive "anti-gravity" devices for hundreds of years. Humans, and may other animals have "anti-gravity" abilities...

The ability is called: Jumping.
Jumping isn't anti-gravity, because jumpers have done none of the things in the definition of anti-gravity:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of ANTIGRAVITY : reducing, canceling, or protecting against the effect of gravity

They haven't reduced gravity.
They haven't canceled gravity.
They aren't protected from the effects of gravity. They still feel the full effect of gravity, whilst decelerating in their upward trajectory and accelerating in their downward trajectory.

Podkletnov claimed to have made some type of antigravity (reduced gravity), but these claims have never been independently confirmed as far as we know.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418

I suspect you know little to nothing about "anti-gravity"...for instance; did you know that Terrestrial Humans have had primitive "anti-gravity" devices for hundreds of years. Humans, and may other animals have "anti-gravity" abilities...

The ability is called: Jumping.
The device: a ladder.

Thee aren't any "real" anti-gravity devices / systems, gravity is what it is and noting else.. There are however technologies, abilities, primitive devices that can over come the effects of Gravity. Dudes "fakey" thruster, if it actually could work would certainly qualify as "anti-gravity" because it can offset the effects of gravity.



Redefining "anti-gravity" to suite your claims is dishonest. Here:

Anti-gravity is an idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, or to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism or aerodynamic lift. Anti-gravity is a recurring concept in science fiction, particularly in the context of spacecraft propulsion. An early example is the gravity blocking substance "Cavorite" in H. G. Wells' The First Men in the Moon.

In Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity was an external force transmitted by unknown means. In the 20th century, Newton's model was replaced by general relativity where gravity is not a force but the result of the geometry of spacetime. Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible except under contrived circumstances.[1][2][3] Quantum physicists have postulated the existence of gravitons, a set of massless elementary particles that transmit the force, and the possibility of creating or destroying these is unclear.

"Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means, such as lifters, which fly in the air by using electromagnetic fields.[4][5]


en.wikipedia.org...







Please explain the differences...if you can.


I have. Multiple times. The onus is on the person making the extraordinary claim to present the extraordinary evidence to support that claim.




You have not established either "lying", or "delusion"...
Leaving the only delusion apparent here being yours.


I'm delusional for believing a youtube video claiming "anti-gravity" is a hoax? Ok, pal.






Instead, you should take your own council...



This is not a difficult concept to wrap one's head around so I'm genuinely surprised you're failing to grasp it. You make the extraordinary claim, you back it up. And again, if a youtube video is credible evidence for an extraordinary claim by your book, I have a bridge to sell you.




Again...nothing extraordinary here...nothing in the claim, nor anywhere else...And, by the way, videos are commonly used in science.


Anti-gravity IS an extraordinary claim. And no, a single youtube video is NOT considered credible scientific evidence.



An article on "extraordinary claims"


You're really reaching here. At what point does defying the laws of physics and negating the effects of gravity NOT become an extraordinary claim?


You objected to the lack of scientific procedure, and while I doubt you know much about scientific anything...This could, with only a little work be a perfectly good hypothesis statement / paper. Though I will agree that Dude's presentation need much work.


No. A single youtube video demonstrating physics-defying effects with absolutely no prior plausibility is, unsurprisingly, not considered credible scientific evidence.


Quickly...what is the real difference between a YouTube video and a professional one?


See above.

There's only so many times I can point out how a youtube video demonstrating supposedly extraordinary, physics-defying effects is not evidence. There is absolutely no way to rule out the very real and obvious possibility of camera trickery/tampering. I'm not going to go round and round with you pointing this out, if you wish to remain so credulous then PM me and I'll give you details about this bridge for sale.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

Redefining "anti-gravity" to suite your claims is dishonest. Here:

Anti-gravity is an idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to the lack of weight under gravity experienced in free fall or orbit, or to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism or aerodynamic lift. Anti-gravity is a recurring concept in science fiction, particularly in the context of spacecraft propulsion. An early example is the gravity blocking substance "Cavorite" in H. G. Wells' The First Men in the Moon.

In Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity was an external force transmitted by unknown means. In the 20th century, Newton's model was replaced by general relativity where gravity is not a force but the result of the geometry of spacetime. Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible except under contrived circumstances.[1][2][3] Quantum physicists have postulated the existence of gravitons, a set of massless elementary particles that transmit the force, and the possibility of creating or destroying these is unclear.

"Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means, such as lifters, which fly in the air by using electromagnetic fields.[4][5]


en.wikipedia.org...



"Anti-gravity is a recurring concept in science fiction..." Gotta love it, and here I thought we were talking about the real world...


Sorry man; I've redefined nothing...perhaps provided a little clarity into the reality of "anti-gravity", but, I most certainly did not redefine it.




I have. Multiple times. The onus is on the person making the extraordinary claim to present the extraordinary evidence to support that claim.



Yes, I quite agree. And He did so...you have arbitrarily decided that what was presented as evidence was not evidence at all...you are wrong.

The video clearly evidences the reality of Dude's device; you don't want to see that...your bad.




I'm delusional for believing a youtube video claiming "anti-gravity" is a hoax? Ok, pal.



How many ways can I not be understood...I said nothing of the sort! I hinted that you may be delusional in thinking you have proven a "lie", or a "hoax"; neither of which you have been able to demonstrate...well except within the rather narrow bounds of YOUR vision.





Anti-gravity IS an extraordinary claim. And no, a single youtube video is NOT considered credible scientific evidence.

You're really reaching here. At what point does defying the laws of physics and negating the effects of gravity NOT become an extraordinary claim?


You keep trying to make this "extraordinary"...I've already said thee is nothing extraordinary here...There is no physics defying, negating gravity, or whatever. Just simple EM physics, even if not presented is a quite real method. The fact remains that your "prior plausibility" notion has been met by the EM Thruster, so the fundamentals science behind what is in the video is in fact real...for some reason you refuse to accept that fact.




No. A single youtube video demonstrating physics-defying effects with absolutely no prior plausibility is, unsurprisingly, not considered credible scientific evidence.

"Quickly...what is the real difference between a YouTube video and a professional one?"


See above.

There's only so many times I can point out how a youtube video demonstrating supposedly extraordinary, physics-defying effects is not evidence. There is absolutely no way to rule out the very real and obvious possibility of camera trickery/tampering. I'm not going to go round and round with you pointing this out, if you wish to remain so credulous then PM me and I'll give you details about this bridge for sale.


So, two fails in one post...

So then could you please type out the difference between scientific evidence and legal evidence...with links. Please.
Next; please tell us what the difference is between a YouTube video and one that night be used by the scientific community. Please.

Finally; you have absolutely no idea what constitutes evidence; so you have provided your own "special" criteria. Much of which is vastly wrong.


edit on 13-10-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

I can't be bothered with repeating yet again why a youtube video is not scientific evidence. Read my previous posts.

However, clearly you are not terribly familiar with the difference in rigour between legal and scientific evidence so read away, my friend:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(law)

The basic premise of doubt as well of the standards of evidence are completely different between the scientific method and the legal system. They are not the same. Stop trying to conflate the two for the purposes of your argument.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418

I can't be bothered with repeating yet again why a youtube video is not scientific evidence. Read my previous posts.



I have read our previous posts; and you haven't said anything! At least nothing of substance...it would seem that you have a completely wrong conception of what YouTube really is...You have judged it on insufficient evidence and have reached an inaccurate conclusion.




However, clearly you are not terribly familiar with the difference in rigour between legal and scientific evidence so read away, my friend:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(law)

The basic premise of doubt as well of the standards of evidence are completely different between the scientific method and the legal system. They are not the same. Stop trying to conflate the two for the purposes of your argument.


It to bad you didn't actually read and understand what was said;

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. (law)
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Oh look!! Scientific evidence is still simply "evidence".

Now the "rigor" you mention...isn't any more stringent in science than in a court of law. In fact, in a court the admissibility of evidence is far more strict, and, debatable. Making legal evidence somewhat superior, mostly for reasons of statistical analysis, and inference.

Again from the science article: "Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

So again; what was wrong with Dude's evidence? What he presented, inappropriately, was certainly empirical, even if it did lack something in protocol. But, neither you nor I have the authority to dictate protocol for his level of science. In as much as he was not a professional scientist, I would say (as a professional computer scientist), he didn't do too badly, Again, even IF his data and presentation say something other than what he thought.

No, sorry man...it is not permissible to reject evidence simply because you don't like the content; and that is exactly what you are doing. His evidence meets all of the criteria for either kind of evidence...although; did you notice how they are actually the same thing?...oh that's right, you think science is some sort of magical thing, prolly sent and enforced by some demi-god somewhere...sorry...not true.

You complain about YouTube, yet have no idea of the variety of content on YouTube. Did you know that when YouTube started it filled a niche created by the lack of video display abilities of your browser. Playing any video required a player of some sort. YouTube made an easily transportable display platform that was compatible with virtually all browsers. Its not so needed any more since the release of HTML/5.x and the ability of compatible browsers to display video (mp4, mov, ogg) directly.

However, until the release of HTML5.x and the full implementation, YouTube will continue to be used by a wide base of users, and that will include quite serious science...this isn't a matter of public opinion, your opinion, nor indeed, anyone's opinion; it is a matter of technology and technology's penetration. I have, and will continue to watch serious scientific video presentations on YouTube (though I would prefer not to...).



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanka418
It to bad you didn't actually read and understand what was said;

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. (law)
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Oh look!! Scientific evidence is still simply "evidence".'


You think the Janitor's eyewitness testimony is scientific evidence? Because that's on example of evidence that would be admissible in a court of law. But it's not scientific evidence.


Now the "rigor" you mention...isn't any more stringent in science than in a court of law. In fact, in a court the admissibility of evidence is far more strict, and, debatable. Making legal evidence somewhat superior, mostly for reasons of statistical analysis, and inference.


See above.


Again from the science article: "Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

So again; what was wrong with Dude's evidence? What he presented, inappropriately, was certainly empirical, even if it did lack something in protocol. But, neither you nor I have the authority to dictate protocol for his level of science. In as much as he was not a professional scientist, I would say (as a professional computer scientist), he didn't do too badly, Again, even IF his data and presentation say something other than what he thought.


What scientific controls where there? What statistical analysis? None. End of story.


No, sorry man...it is not permissible to reject evidence simply because you don't like the content; and that is exactly what you are doing. His evidence meets all of the criteria for either kind of evidence...although; did you notice how they are actually the same thing?...oh that's right, you think science is some sort of magical thing, prolly sent and enforced by some demi-god somewhere...sorry...not true.


See above.


You complain about YouTube, yet have no idea of the variety of content on YouTube. Did you know that when YouTube started it filled a niche created by the lack of video display abilities of your browser. Playing any video required a player of some sort. YouTube made an easily transportable display platform that was compatible with virtually all browsers. Its not so needed any more since the release of HTML/5.x and the ability of compatible browsers to display video (mp4, mov, ogg) directly.


None if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand.


However, until the release of HTML5.x and the full implementation, YouTube will continue to be used by a wide base of users, and that will include quite serious science...this isn't a matter of public opinion, your opinion, nor indeed, anyone's opinion; it is a matter of technology and technology's penetration. I have, and will continue to watch serious scientific video presentations on YouTube (though I would prefer not to...).


Well done for missing the point. Now, for the last and final time, because I won't bother responding you you any more in this thread: a layman presenting a video of a claim that allegedly defies the laws of physics is an extraordinary claim. A video on youtube, where all sorts of trickery can take place and cannot be independently rules out, is not evidence of such a claim.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped



Well done for missing the point. Now, for the last and final time, because I won't bother responding you you any more in this thread: a layman presenting a video of a claim that allegedly defies the laws of physics is an extraordinary claim. A video on youtube, where all sorts of trickery can take place and cannot be independently rules out, is not evidence of such a claim.


Okay, let me get this right; because our Scottish Engineer is only a layman he can't provide scientific evidence?

Or is it more the "impression" on you that what he is showing is "defying the laws of physics?"

You do understand that "being a layman" is utterly false notion and wholly invalid. If our presenter was actually an Engineer (neither of us knows IF he is or not), then he is hardly a "layman". Course then again, if a Medical Doctor attempted to describe something within the field of Semiconductor Physics; he would be a layman.

So the idea of "layman" is a completely false, and, relative notion.

You reject YouTube video's, yet have said nothing about videos in general. YouTube is ONLY a method of compression and display. It is a method of packaging the vide so that it may be easily transported, and displayed over the Internet, and does not allow for any additional "trickery", nor indeed, any other form of manipulation of the original content. Although, "for those in the know", it may provide a method to "hide" some amount of "trickery" because of "how" it and the h.264 video protocols work.

The problem you have, and of course anyone else who uses YouTube is that it is absolutely impossible to get around the h.264. This however does not in anyway invalidate the video, or it's content.

Now, about the "independently verified" part...absolute poppycock! You are stating something that is wholly false, and you probably know it! That video, is easy to verify by simply following the video itself. The method in the video would be an excellent way for a "layman" to demonstrate something he didn't understand, yet, managed, against all odds, to discover. Further, IF that actually did occur; you would dismiss the whole thing and go on muddling about sans what may be an important discovery. That by the way would make you quite unqualified to decide such things...which you most certainly are.

And again; this video does not defy / violate any of the laws of Physics. You may "think" it does, but, as in other areas of this debate; you are quite mistaken.

I very glad you "won't respond" any more...it is quite boring and frustrating to argue with someone who does not have the background to argue such matters.

And again: The video provided sufficient evidence, regardless of any "trickery" to demonstrate the reality of the video's content. You have based your entire argument on that content, yet refuse to acknowledge that it is evidence. If it were not evidence, One might ask why YOU are using it against itself. See...you state that it is not evidence, yet you use it as evidence. A wee bit hypocritical at its very best.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Oh look, it's a UFO! It can't be a hoax because it hasn't been proven, but it's on YouTube so it must be legit. There is absolutely no plausible explanation other than it being real:

www.youtube.com...

Run for your lives!!!
edit on 14-10-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
I do worry about the sanity of imbeciles who think things like this are real. Its always a good laugh though, and thats the main reason this site is here



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418

Oh look, it's a UFO! It can't be a hoax because it hasn't been proven, but it's on YouTube so it must be legit. There is absolutely no plausible explanation other than it being real:

www.youtube.com...

Run for your lives!!!


Plausible explanations aren't always reality.

You think it to be fake...why?

With only a couple of details it look quite god. The model even has the correct slope for the hill its parked on.

So tell us, what is wrong with it?



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Its a hoax. I am pretty sure of it.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418

Pan me for details about the bridge I've got for sale.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: tanka418

Pan me for details about the bridge I've got for sale.


Oh well...can only try...As they say:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

Yall must be gettin' awful thirsty!

Ya know...all I was trying to do is get you to actually use a little science, logic and sense, but if you don't want to...



edit on 15-10-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Jumping isn't anti-gravity, because jumpers have done none of the things in the definition of anti-gravity:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of ANTIGRAVITY : reducing, canceling, or protecting against the effect of gravity

They haven't reduced gravity.
They haven't canceled gravity.
They aren't protected from the effects of gravity. They still feel the full effect of gravity, whilst decelerating in their upward trajectory and accelerating in their downward trajectory.

Podkletnov claimed to have made some type of antigravity (reduced gravity), but these claims have never been independently confirmed as far as we know.


Actually, "jumping" does all of those things over the short term...
Jumping removes the effects of gravity during the short period of upward acceleration...

Consider the "Mexican jumping bean". Is that not anti-gravity? You will say no. BUT...what if that bean didn't fall back to the Earth? What would you say of it then?

Now...IF the wee worm in the bean could jump fast enough...what would you say? And by "fast enough" I mean fast enough to produce an upward vector of sufficient strength to offset the gravitational constant of Earth.

Before y'all answer you should do the math...



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: tanka418


Actually, "jumping" does all of those things over the short term...
Jumping removes the effects of gravity during the short period of upward acceleration...


You can stretch a bungee cord, but that doesn't negate the effect of the cord. It's still there, pulling back.

This is sad, even for you AA.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tanka418




Jumping removes the effects of gravity during the short period of upward acceleration...


Yes the effect seems as though its weakened because another force is involved when jumping.

However the effect of gravity is still the same its just force working against gravity that might make it look like the effects of gravity have been canceled or reduced.

A rocket with enough force to leave the atmosphere isn't anti-gravity and a rocket is the same as jumping when the effect of gravity is being discussed.

The force used to jump are the muscles in our legs and back which represent the fuel and engine in the rocket.

Both rockets and jumping aren't any form of anti gravity so maybe you should try doing what you suggest others do or what you are trying to get others to do.




Ya know...all I was trying to do is get you to actually use a little science, logic and sense, but if you don't want to...




new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join