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.

 

US Navy Patents Anti Gravity - B64G1/409 Unconventional Spacecraft Propulsion Systems

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU


Well people always claim the USA has tech 50 or more years ahead really


Concorde and Harrier jump jet do they ring any bells.

There is NO demeonstration of anti-gravity tech so write a patent of bull cookies without a working model and anyone can do that .

An important paragraph with a very big word.


If we can engineer the structure of the local quantum vacuum state, we can engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level (thus affecting a physical system's inertial and gravitational properties). This realization would greatly advance the fields of aerospace propulsion and power generation.


The big word is IF
edit on 18-4-2019 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul


Why we know perpetual motion machines can never work you cant say the same for other technologies still in development.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Better graphic of the reality of it all



USAF General involved in UFO & Secret Space Program Disclosures

......we now know that the unnamed general is Major General William N. McCasland, who up until 2013 was the Commander of a top Air Force Research Laboratory.

Here is a brief biography of McCasland prior to his retirement:

Maj. Gen. William N. McCasland is the Commander, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. He is responsible for managing the Air Force’s $2.2 billion science and technology program as well as additional customer funded research and development of $2.2 billion. He is also responsible for a global workforce of approximately 10,800 people in the laboratory’s component technology directorates, 711th Human Performance Wing and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

McCasland’s biography clearly establishes that he had the necessary scientific and technical background to be very familiar with the topic of advanced aerospace technologies related to the UFO phenomenon.





edit on 4182019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)


Added for info
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (U//FOUO) DIA Study: Advanced Space Propulsion Based оn Vacuum (Spacetime Metric) Engineering

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (U//FOUO) DIA Study: Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions

edit on 4182019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
Seems like quite a contradictory and odd policy the US patent office has.
It seems a little strange but apparently they have tried to reject some patents that obviously were non-functional and in some cases the rejection was appealed and the courts decided they couldn't do that, so it seems now they don't really try that hard to reject obviously non-functional devices.

www.uspto.gov...

Situations where an invention is found to be “inoperative” and therefore lacking in utility are rare, and rejections maintained solely on this ground by a federal court even rarer. In many of these cases, the utility asserted by the applicant was thought to be “incredible in the light of the knowledge of the art, or factually misleading” when initially considered by the Office.
Then they list a perpetual motion machine patent application and a handful of other specific cases where it seemed they wouldn't work like "an invention asserted to change the taste of food using a magnetic field" but they say such cases are so extremely rare (they only list 7), that they offer the following guidance:


These examples are fact specific and should not be applied as a per se rule. Thus, in view of the rare nature of such cases, Office personnel should not label an asserted utility “incredible,” “speculative” or otherwise unless it is clear that a rejection based on “lack of utility” is proper.
So theoretically they have the ability to reject non-working patents, but if they've only done that a few times and the courts haven't upheld some of their decisions to do that, they seem more likely to grant the patent as long as it doesn't say it's a perpetual motion machine.

You can even get a patent for a "perpetual motion machine" or a device which has the same properties of more energy out than goes in, by just saying in the patent "it's not a perpetual motion machine", even if it does essentially the same thing as a perpetual motion machine. This patent does that:

patents.google.com...

Thus, an electromagnetic generator operating in accordance with the present invention should be considered not as a perpetual motion machine, but rather as a system in which flux radiated from a permanent magnet is converted into electricity, which is used both to power the apparatus and to power an external load.


That description violates energy conservation principles as much as any other perpetual motion machine so effectively that's what it is, but the patent was granted anyway because they say it's not a perpetual motion machine. It's not the only patent like that. So it looks a little more consistent when you find out they really do grant patents for anything, even perpetual motion machines, as long as you say in the patent that it's not a perpetual motion machine.


originally posted by: Phage
I've never seen proof of mass reduction, but that turbo encabulator sounds impressive!




edit on 2019418 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: MetalThunder

I always laugh when I see that. This is supposedly one of the most secret programs ever, yet everything but the name of the guy that painted it is supposedly online. And you don't see an issue there?



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

You can laugh all you want .... Makes no difference either way



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MetalThunder

It also doesn't make it true because it's posted on the internet, even if someone pinky swears that it's true.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

As yourself being a Mod, I am surprised that because a picture is posted, that you don't agree with, you are so dismissive, While Ignoring the DIA reports linked. Keep on keeping on ! Lead by example lol
edit on 4182019 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MetalThunder

You think you just found this and this is something new? Please. It's been around for years. And my status as a Mod has nothing to do with this.

I know the security that goes into a SAP. I talk to people that I've built a relationship with for years, and getting any kind of information from them is like pulling teeth. But this, supposedly super secret program that no one I've ever talked to has ever admitted to hearing about, has every single detail about how it works, and everything else you could want to know about it all over the internet, without anyone in any organization doing anything about it. Even the supposed designation, as told by the people that give the details don't make sense, or fit any designation system.

As for the links?



Essentially, the wormhole involves connecting two potentially distant regions of space bу а topological shortcut. Theoretically, one would enter the wormhole and instantaneously bе transported to the exit located in а distant region of space. Although no observational evidence of wormholes exists, theoretically they саn exist as а valid solution to general relativity.


And-


This paper has considered the possibility-even likelihood-that future developments with regard to advanced aerospace technologies will trend in the direction of manipulating the underlying spacetime structure of the vacuum of space itself bу processes that сап Ье called vacuum engineering or metric engineering. Far from being simply а fanciful concept, а significant literature exists in peer-reviewed, Тier 1 physics publications in which the topic is explored in detail.

The analysis presented herein, а form of general relativity for engineers, takes advantage of the fact that in GR а minimal-assumption, metric tensor арргоасh can bе used that is model-independent-that is, it does not depend on knowledge of the specific mechanisms or dynamics that result in spacetime alterations but rather only assumes that а technology exists that сап control and manipulate (that is, engineer) the spacetime variables to advantage. Such an арргоасh requires only that the hypothesized spacetime alterations result in effects consonant with the currently known GR physics principles.


They are papers that assume the technology will eventually exist, they aren't saying that the technology does exist.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

Many people would be astonished at the number of patents and secret patents issued for all kinds of crazy tech.

How many of these things were ever actually physically developed (or attempted) is anyone's guess.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MetalThunder

you may want to take a bit of care when talking like that to Zaphod58. He has a little bit of expirence in this area. from what I can tell, a little more than thou. (considering he is one of the resident experts in this field for ATS)

you might even want to look up some of zaphod58's threads and history, ya know so you avoid looking more foolish? Just saying.

The TR3B is cool, but then most sci-fi is



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

My father (RIP) had Top Security clearance during the Gemini - Apollo programs ..... I am not illiterate in the subject myself.




posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

LOL

Don't you worry about me



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

It's interesting because that experiment with the frog has been done in my hometown at the university Radboud Nijmegen.



English/Nat British and Dutch scientists using a giant magnetic field have made a frog float in mid- air, and might even be able to do the same thing with a human being. The team from Britain's University of Nottingham and the University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands has also succeeded in levitating plants, grasshoppers and fish. Scientists at the University of Nijmegen in Holland have managed to make a frog float six feet (approximately two metres) in the air - and they say the trick could easily be repeated with a human.




I remember that every time they wanted to do an experiment they had to ask the local power company and the township permission to put out extra power otherwise the town of like a hundred fifty thousand citizens would run out of power every time they switched on.
Now I don't know if it's true about the power outage but that's the rumor about that experiment.


edit on 0b20America/ChicagoThu, 18 Apr 2019 14:41:20 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoThu, 18 Apr 2019 14:41:20 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
Now I don't know if it's true about the power outage but that's the rumor about that experiment.
I assume it's not true, because levitating a frog shouldn't take much power. However if you post a link confirming the rumor I'd be happy to change my opinion if appropriate.

Lighting a light bulb shouldn't take much power either, but the machine at Wardenclyffe that Tesla used to light a light bulb used so much power that the power company would only allow him to operate it at night, and this is really true:

Tesla’s folly – why Wardenclyffe didn’t work

When Tesla achieved a desired result, such as lighting a bulb at a distance of 60 meters from his tower, he interpreted it as a success, while ignoring the fact that he was drawing ridiculously large amounts of power from the local power grid. Because the amount of power his tower drew was so large, Tesla was only permitted to run his tower during the night.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




if you post a link confirming the rumor I'd be happy to change my opinion


Now that's what I asked the guy at Phillips like thirty years ago.

I don't know I'm not in the position to know how much power magnets need to float something of that size and weight?
So I presumed he was telling the truth



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

Here is the paper describing the experiments.
frog-ejp.pdf

The magnet required 4MW to run, which is quite a bit. Those are resistive losses and would need some serious cooling. Levitation itself does not require any power.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Wow. This is legit. Remains to be seen, however, if it actually works.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

Now that's why this fella looked weird at me, we didn't have the net those days...



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
The magnet required 4MW to run, which is quite a bit. Those are resistive losses and would need some serious cooling. Levitation itself does not require any power.
Wow, that might be as inefficient as Tesla using that entire Wardenclyffe tower to light a light bulb. Thanks for the info. I imagine there might be ways to levitate a frog more efficiently.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join