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.

 

Anti Gravity Outlawed?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Nochzwei

Oh, I get it.

Obey Gravity, IT'S THE LAW!

Lol nice one. Its the law alright




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Nochzwei

Being serious, there is theory and research into Anti-Gravity going on unimpeded.

Thing is, it's a tough nut to crack, especially when everyone has a different definition of what anti-gravity may be.

where exactly is this research being carried out?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I am under the impression that in the 50's and prolly early 60s it wasn't so much of a taboo to talk about anti gravity or even dabble in it. But lol after that uncle sam got wiser
a reply to: Aliensun



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Hypothetically speaking what would happen to a launch site given Current Anti-Gravity technology. Taken to a level where it could escape Earths gravity by accelerating, akin to a Chemical Rocket to 25,020 mph?

In less than 2 minutes?


edit on 4-2-2016 by Kashai because: Added and edited content



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

They just want you to STAY right here stuck on prison planet earth. Get over it and like your cell earth.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Nochzwei

Being serious, there is theory and research into Anti-Gravity going on unimpeded.

Thing is, it's a tough nut to crack, especially when everyone has a different definition of what anti-gravity may be.

where exactly is this research being carried out?


Some was at BAE/NASA/LANL Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project but they ran out of funding.

Other physicists are doing work on all sorts of theoretical gravitation and force physics (some is going on at the LHC).

Other work, like the RF resonant cavity thruster is ongoing.

The results are usually academic and boring and if the press do get wind of them, they blow them up, coming to all sorts of 'over the top' conclusions from the tantalizingly small evidences that something is there in the results.


edit on 4/2/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:46 PM
link   


Evaluating NASA’s Futuristic EM Drive
April 29, 2015 by José Rodal, Ph.D, Jeremiah Mullikin and Noel Munson - subedited by Chris Gebhardt no alt
A group at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has successfully tested an electromagnetic (EM) propulsion drive in a vacuum – a major breakthrough for a multi-year international effort comprising several competing research teams. Thrust measurements of the EM Drive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed (microwave) cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum.

EM Drive:

Last summer, NASA Eagleworks – an advanced propulsion research group led by Dr. Harold “Sonny” White at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) – made waves throughout the scientific and technical communities when the group presented their test results on July 28-30, 2014, at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio.

Those results related to experimental testing of an EM Drive – a concept that originated around 2001 when a small UK company, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR), under Roger J. Shawyer, started a Research and Development (R&D) program.

The concept of an EM Drive as put forth by SPR was that electromagnetic microwave cavities might provide for the direct conversion of electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant.

2015-04-19-005958This lack of expulsion of propellant from the drive was met with initial skepticism within the scientific community because this lack of propellant expulsion would leave nothing to balance the change in the spacecraft’s momentum if it were able to accelerate.

However, in 2010, Prof. Juan Yang in China began publishing about her research into EM Drive technology, culminating in her 2012 paper reporting higher input power (2.5kW) and tested thrust (720mN) levels of an EM Drive.

In 2014, Prof. Yang’s papers reported extensive tests involving internal temperature measurements with embedded thermocouples.

It was reported (in SPR Ltd.’s website) that if the Chinese EM Drive were to be installed in the International Space Station (ISS) and work as reported, it could provide the necessary delta-V (change in velocity needed to perform an on-orbit maneuver) to compensate for the Station’s orbital decay and thus eliminate the requirement of re-boosts from visiting vehicles. Despite these reports, Prof. Yang offered no scientifically-accepted explanation as to how the EM Drive can produce propulsion in space.

2015-04-19-010043Dr. White proposed that the EM Drive’s thrust was due to the Quantum Vacuum (the quantum state with the lowest possible energy) behaving like propellant ions behave in a MagnetoHydroDynamics drive (a method electrifying propellant and then directing it with magnetic fields to push a spacecraft in the opposite direction) for spacecraft propulsion.

In Dr. White’s model, the propellant ions of the MagnetoHydroDynamics drive are replaced as the fuel source by the virtual particles of the Quantum Vacuum, eliminating the need to carry propellant.

This model was also met with criticism in the scientific community because the Quantum Vacuum cannot be ionized and is understood to be “frame-less” – meaning you cannot “push” against it, as required for momentum.

The tests reported by Dr. White’s team in July 2014 were not conducted in a vacuum, and none of the tests reported by Prof. Yang in China or Mr. Shawyer in the UK were conducted in a vacuum either.

The scientific community met these NASA tests with skepticism and a number of physicists proposed that the measured thrust force in the US, UK, and China tests was more likely due to (external to the EM Drive cavity) natural thermal convection currents arising from microwave heating (internal to the EM Drive cavity).

However, Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, recently reported in NASASpaceFlight.com’s forum (on a thread now over 500,000 views) that NASA has successfully tested their EM Drive in a hard vacuum – the first time any organization has reported such a successful test.

To this end, NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection.


NASA/Spaceflight.com

edit on 4-2-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Over the years since no anti gravity device has seen the light if the day, do you not get the distinct impression that anti gravity is outlawed?


And no unicorn repelling force fields have seen the light of the day, either. I guess they're also outlawed?
I actually have one of those...... What? You don't see any unicorns around me do you?

I tend to think anti gravity has simply not been harnessed yet. There have been several projects that used ionized fields to create a lifting effect, but they are not true anti gravity.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

It turns out that EW has detected that there is some force in a vacuum.

Most DIY folks are finding a positive force pointing to the small end. This leads to something that we, as Scientists can not accept.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
In other words those entities lost their ongoing grants
a reply to: chr0naut



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
"Impossible Rocket Drive Works and can get us to the Moon in Four Hours.

That is equivalent to driving 400 miles at 100 miles an hour.

I think a zero was missed somewhere in that there math



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: Nochzwei

Apply occams razor, what seems more likely, a giant coluded conspiracy about a very exotic Sci fi invention.

Or we just can't do it yet?


I'd say the conspiracy seems more likely.
We know the government and military hide things. We also know military technology is way ahead of public technology. With all of the current technological advancements being made, anti-gravity seems rather mundane, really. It'd be harder to believe that we can't utilize antigravity.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a friend of mine made one, well no flying ufo or such, but he was able to measure that the device loses weight when placed in certain configuration.
He wouldn't call it anti-gravity though, he himself is of the anti gravity crowd



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: Nochzwei

Apply occams razor, what seems more likely, a giant coluded conspiracy about a very exotic Sci fi invention.

Or we just can't do it yet?


I'd say the conspiracy seems more likely.
We know the government and military hide things. We also know military technology is way ahead of public technology. With all of the current technological advancements being made, anti-gravity seems rather mundane, really. It'd be harder to believe that we can't utilize antigravity.
Conspiracy maybe the most likely explanation.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a friend of mine made one, well no flying ufo or such, but he was able to measure that the device loses weight when placed in certain configuration.
He wouldn't call it anti-gravity though, he himself is of the anti gravity crowd
Did he put it on the net anywhere? Would be interesting to know what he built



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Kashai
"Impossible Rocket Drive Works and can get us to the Moon in Four Hours.

That is equivalent to driving 400 miles at 100 miles an hour.

I think a zero was missed somewhere in that there math

No. His math was right. 400 miles at 100 mph would take four hours. But then again so would driving 240 miles at 60 mph, so I don't really get the original point, except that if you go fast enough, you can get to the Moon in four hours.


edit on 2/5/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
NASA/Spaceflight.com

when we talk about "anti-gravity", we usually mean manipulating the way the force of gravity is acting upon an object to move that object. An EM drive does not manipulate the way the force of gravity acts.

An EM drive provides thrust via electrical energy. That thrust can help overcome gravity (as can a person do so for a moment by jumping into the air), but it isn't manipulating gravity. All thrust can help overcome gravity, whether it be a chemical rocket or the air coining out of a balloon.


edit on 2/5/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

The actual plans no, let's say not yet, still working on getting the patents which shouldn't take too long now.
The theory behind it and most of his work you can find on the net. If you want i send you some info tonight or tomorrow , got some stuff to do for now.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I don't know about "anti" gravity, but there is research into artificial gravity,..

article on an experiment

Here is a list of scientific papers on the subject of artificial gravity.

So, while this research is a bit aged, it is none the less extant, and old enough to have been developed into technology.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I though the B2 uses some form of MA to ionise the air ahead of it, and maybe behind it, pushing the air out of the way, reducing resistance, heating........all the things something hypersonic would need, including no sonic boom. Having said that, the B2 is not supersonic and the B3 LRS is not likely to be either, but since the system is beneficial in reducing heat, and by default the RADAR signature, the B2 and B3 could the testbeds for MA research, while benefiting from it in part.
edit on 5-2-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



new topics




 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join