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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: pseudoless
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So why then would the US Navy expend the time, and associated expense in seeking such a patent?


Because whats been seen over Belgium in `89 and the the Chevron craft over Phoenix in the mid 90s was and are real "aerospace" craft... They use some really fricken cool and out there methods of propulsion that are not yet common knowledge like the propeller or turbofan engines.




posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

Because they already got the knowledge and equipment to built it, as of the power sources to run it..


edit on 0b47America/ChicagoThu, 18 Apr 2019 19:11:47 -0500vAmerica/ChicagoThu, 18 Apr 2019 19:11:47 -05001 by 0bserver1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   
NASA put out a quiet publish of their current proposals for using "Magneto Aerodynamic" systems on space craft to reduce mass, and it is well known to military insiders that only a very small fraction of this research is not classified. The rest of it is classified.

NASA link

This doesn't mean "Antigravity" probably because using that term publicly would be embarrassing for public people funded by by dot.gov and dot.mil's

Plus the project that is public doesn't really fit that term, but perhaps the classified ones do.

edit on 18-4-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Pais is a long time US Navy researcher. I have no doubt he's required by his contract to assign any and all patents to the US Navy.

edit on 18-4-2019 by 1point92AU because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
I don't know if you understand what NASA is saying. They are not saying it changes the mass like the patent discussed in this thread claims. They are saying they don't need to build the spacecraft with as much mass because using that technology enables them to make a lighter space ship that will still accomplish the mission objectives. It's completely different than changing an objects mass using a turbo defabulator or whatever jargon was used in the patent.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: thedigirati

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



I "know" a guy in an identical scenario.



posted on Apr, 18 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
I don't know if you understand what NASA is saying. They are not saying it changes the mass like the patent discussed in this thread claims. They are saying they don't need to build the spacecraft with as much mass because using that technology enables them to make a lighter space ship that will still accomplish the mission objectives. It's completely different than changing an objects mass using a turbo defabulator or whatever jargon was used in the patent.


I fully understand what NASA is saying. Read my post earlier. But yes, they don't actually define mass reduction as a lessening of mass because of some force generated, but with a strong enough magnetic field, it seriously could lower mass from things I have read related to magneto aerodynamics.

But it's mostly classified, and a lot of stuff has been scrubbed online about it.
And yes I was ignoring even looking at the patent for obvious reasons. And only showing that REAL research is happening in spite of any so called patent addressing all of those problems. I didn't even read the patent, does it really mention the turbo encabulator? HAH! if it does, that's hilarious.

But if "anti-gravity" exists or is actually being developed, it won't do much good in atmospheres or water if drag isn't eliminated as well. It would still be an advantage, but it would be very limited.

So the Navy is using an associate to submit a hoaxy looking patent to rubbish the subject while they really are researching the whole package, because they are indeed doing so. Sounds about right.

Do you believe reducing mass is impossible? Is that what you are saying? Magneto Aerodynamics is a very wide field and it includes both drag reduction and mass reduction in scope. It helps understanding and belief to actually witness a saucer close up and levitating and then zipping away super sonic without a shock wave to know unequivocally that someone has already invented it.
edit on 19-4-2019 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
I read your post about reducing mass which is why I didn't know if you understood what NASA was saying because that means something completely different when NASA said it in your link than in the context of the patent in the OP. Your post inferred it was relevant to the OP post since you talked about mass reduction and so did the OP patent, and in my opinion it's not relevant; the type of "mass reduction" is so completely different.

The "turbo" thing was a reference to this post, not the exact same language but similar enough for someone like Phage who can recognize contrived technobabble speak when he hears it, though many people can't tell the difference between that and legitimate science language.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I never said it was impossible, however I did say that I've not seen any convincing evidence of mass reduction (or inertial mass reduction). So the burden of proof is on those who say it's possible. Not being able to prove it's impossible doesn't necessarily mean it's possible. From what I've read, experiments trying to measure and compare inertial mass to gravitational mass have found agreement to great precision.

Gravitational and Relativistic Physics

Analysis of the laser ranges has allowed us to verify the Equivalence Principle - an assumption of Einstein's Theory - with an accuracy of 2x10E-13.


These observations strive for even greater precision:

A small satellite to test the Equivalence Principle of Galileo, Newton and Einstein to 1 part in 100000000000000000 and beyond.

It's also been tested with atoms, and this talks about theoretical physics ideas that the equivalence principle might not always hold, but so far it has:

physicsworld.com...

However, some theorists have predicted that new physics might emerge when gravitational experiments are performed with quantum objects such as atoms...

The team found that (g85-g87)/g85 = 1.2 x 10E-7, with error bars of 1.7 x 10E-7, which is consistent with the two accelerations being the same, in accordance with the equivalence principle.
So researchers are looking for mass differences, but if they've found any beyond error bars, I'm not aware of it.

As for the classified research, even if you knew what it involved you wouldn't be able to discuss it so we can only speculate. There are classified patents but the patent in the OP is obviously not classified so I see no reason to conclude it's related to any classified research.

edit on 2019419 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm not going to read the patent, but if it truly mentions the turbo encabulator, then the purpose of submitting such a thing, by a guy who someone mentioned is associated officially with the US Navy, is to rubbish the entire idea of any of this to the rest of society. There can be no other purpose for such a submission except counter intelligence, ridicule, etc.

And anyone who is truly read up in all the past UFO related history would already accept mass reduction and drag elimination are already a "thing". Maybe not you of course.



posted on Apr, 19 2019 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
And anyone who is truly read up in all the past UFO related history would already accept mass reduction and drag elimination are already a "thing". Maybe not you of course.
I certainly have read quite a lot of UFO history. The evidence for human misperceptions is plentiful.

The evidence for mass reduction is either non-existent or unverified, and people who know physics have seen big problems with the understanding of physics made by people making such claims such as Ning Li.

So from a scientific approach, you go where the evidence leads you, but perhaps a scientific approach is not your style and you prefer to take stories at face value and assume human misperceptions don't exist. You must be doing something like that to say that "mass reduction" is a "thing", whereas science believes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there's really no reliable evidence for mass reduction. Human perceptions and storytelling are notoriously unreliable as any good scientist knows.

But if there's any good evidence of mass reduction in the UFO literature then bring out the best you've got and let's see if it stands up to any scrutiny. The Nimitz pilot Cmdr Fravor saw something strange but he didn't bother to turn on his camera, so oh well, all we have is another story. Maybe someday someone will record something interesting, but if he really thought it was alien I can't imagine why he wouldn't turn on his camera. Besides there were other pilots too who saw it and they don't tell the same story, but nobody talks about them.

edit on 2019419 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

i hope the author isnt talking about a vacuum like the lack of air kind.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 0bserver1

these that green color again.....



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: 1point92AU

How does BS like this get distributed on Google?



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

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


Yes, but is the glass half empty or half full? Instead of trying to debunk, offer alternatives toward affirmation. This has nothing to do with support of a hypothesis but an inquiry of its potential.


BTW, for what it is worth the patent is a red herring. It tells you nothing about how the engineered system or the related quantum field actually works on any Tactical Recon platform or Aurora Project craft. Trust me...



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
NASA put out a quiet publish of their current proposals for using "Magneto Aerodynamic" systems on space craft to reduce mass, and it is well known to military insiders that only a very small fraction of this research is not classified. The rest of it is classified.

NASA link

This doesn't mean "Antigravity" probably because using that term publicly would be embarrassing for public people funded by by dot.gov and dot.mil's

Plus the project that is public doesn't really fit that term, but perhaps the classified ones do.


using plasmas for aerodynamic assistance or even as a shell is not a new idea. the russian ajax aircraft was to use a plasma created by dumping tons and tons of EF energy to a very small point in front of the aircraft and it makes a small ball of plasma that in turn makes the bow shock in front of the actual aircraft so it keeps the heat off the skin of the aircraft.






the real question is how are these aircraft creating the power needed, yes there is MHD systems but they are heavy and need to have allot of hot high speed air to really generate allot of power.

when these smaller black triangles stop to hover there is no sound of turbines and there isnt sound when they are moving so obviously something else is going on for power generation. you would need a constant flow of high output power to make these aircraft work like they do and thats where i get hung up. what power source is compact, light and powerful enough to make them viable? othe than nuclear i have no idea but i have a feeling these things arent running around with nuclear reactors in them.

ETA:
plasma used on turbine blades


using plasma to help with aerodynamics




edit on 20-4-2019 by penroc3 because: pics



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: 1point92AU

i hope the author isnt talking about a vacuum like the lack of air kind.


From the patent: "In this manner, local vacuum polarization, namely the coherence of vacuum fluctuations within the immediate proximity of the craft's surface (outside vacuum boundary) is achieved, allowing for ‘smooth sailing’ through the negative pressure (repulsive gravity) of the ‘void’ (the void within the vacuum). It may be stated that the void ‘sucks in’ the craft."

It has nothing to do with vacuum as absence of air pressure, but more with variation of vacuum´s energy density, a quantum thing.

By the way, perhaps those concepts that A**** gave about the way triangles run dovetail nicely here if you peel off some misleading layers. Only saying...



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Fastmover

ahh astr0....

the best lies are sandwiched between two truths



-deep throat (x files)


i think that that whole saga was a ARG played by someone with a dash of real knowledge.

i've seen a black triangle less than 25 yards away and no higher than a street lamp so i know for a fact they exist and have some truly jaw dropping abilities, i was so startled and flabbergasted i didn't even take a picture and just stood there with my mouth open.

that said i don't think they are ET or from the future or whatever, i think anyone with a few brain cells will have to admit there is a secret space program run by all advanced nations. The US and UK have worked on black projects documented all the way back to the first nuclear bomb. The UK was even trained with US pilots on the F-117 and B-2 that alone speaks to our close ties, a lot of our secret aircraft are tested over the UK and Nick Pope even had one on his wall that was sold as a UFO(an alien one that is). Funny how the military was quick to swoop in with alot of cash to buy said pictures.



posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3
I have to admit i think the same, sir.





posted on Apr, 20 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: penroc3


What many people don't seem to understand is this and particularly the RMF dovetail with what Ed Fouche was stating well over a decade and a half ago. I am not getting into the debate about his legitimacy or illlegitimacy(he sandwiched truths and half truths as best as he could on order and secrecy of the State), but the polarization of the airframe would take something similar to what he proposed with a 60k atm torroid spinning Hg. The truth is the tech is as far out as Ben Rich stated and as the power source that Lazar mentions as E115. I am not going to give it away what I know, but go to Youtube and search "David Sereda Nasa's UFO Propulsion and Alien Caught on Tape." You will find your answers on that video. BTW, the B 2 has these technologies embedded in the airframe but don't confuse drag with mass reduction.



posted on Apr, 21 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: play4keeps


oh man your hitting some buttons with the TR3B talk. i will admit Edgar is a guilty pleasure of mine, i enjoy his story telling style and i do mean story.

his story is peppered with hints of realness but there is also so much hogwash it's hard to take him seriously


but all that said the triangles exist and are exceptional in their capabilities, my guess is he heard about Tier 3B and misunderstood it and came up with the TR-3b.

people are people in side the military and out, sometimes people share or overhear things they shouldn't and than spin stories or just assume things that isn't true.

like i said i've seen aircraft with "ufo" abilities so it's hard to dismiss him as a complete fraud.
edit on 21-4-2019 by penroc3 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join