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.

 

SCI/TECH: New Developments In Anti-Gravity Propulsion

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
In an interview with physics genius Robert Scott Lazar, the author reveals how little we know about the forces of nature, and how to use them for our benefit. By making non-magnetic objects behave like magnets, the force from this reaction can be enough to levitate. An explanation of how elements that have yet to be syntesized on earth, can provide us with the technology to create this kind of propulsion. Operating on the thoery that when anti-matter comes into contact with matter, both annhilating eachother, transfering 100 percent of matter into pure energy.
 



www.raidersnewsupdate.com
In 1989, Robert Scott Lazar claimed to have worked as a physicist at a hidden base referred to as S4 on a highly classified project involving back engineering of alien technology, antigravity and antimatter propulsion. Stanton Friedman doesn't believe him. But have scientists just proven Lazar was right all along?

RNU.com – (Raiders News Update) - Yesterday, in the article, "How to float like a stone", science correspondent for The Guardian, David Adam wrote that what goes up no longer has to come down. Quoting researchers who announced their results this week in the New Journal of Physics, Adams noted that, "British scientists have developed an antigravity machine that can float heavy stones, coins and lumps of metal in mid-air. Based around a powerful magnet, the device levitates objects in a similar way to how a maglev train runs above its tracks."

The article went on to quote Peter King, physics professor at Nottingham University, as saying, "We can take an object and float it in mid-air because the magnetic forces on the object are enough to balance gravity."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I have never seen a more well written paper about theoretical physics. All of this is possible, and is backed by modern physics theory, and I would know, I have taken 3 years of physics. It is simply above our technological ability at this time.

I believe it is possible that within ten years we will begin to see the evolution of "anti-gravity" propulsion, and aircraft.

Part 2 of the article is the first link on the supporting news stories.

Related News Links:
www.raidersnewsupdate.com
www.ufoarea.com
www.guardian.co.uk
www.americanantigravity.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.americanantigravity.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The Lockheed X-22A Anti-Gravity Fighter Disc
Paul E. Potter and UFO physics....
Government Interest Patents

[edit on 15-5-2005 by Eyeofhorus]

[edit on 15-5-2005 by Eyeofhorus]




posted on May, 15 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Very interesting. Later in the article are some comments from Stanton Friedman, who has debunked Lazar's claims on his website www.stantonfreidman.com

Friedman downplays the tech as not being true antigravity, but still this is an exciting discovery.

Good find.


Note to any who may not know, Statnton Friedman was also a guest speaker on ATS.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Yeah i definatly agree. This is a very exceiting step in the right direction for a different source of propulsion. My personal view of Lazar is that i don't really believe a word of what he says.
But a very good find. Very intersting!



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I voted yes, because this is good research, but not really new....

Magnetic "antigravity" is not much different than Maglev trains...
just more juice used...
it still could not be used in any way similiar to the fantastical anti grav device Lazar mentioned...

this is a very neat toy, much like the floating spinning discs that can be bought at sharper image. Yes they levitate, yes they have no strings... yes, they are a pain in the butt to get lined up or they fly off the platform... but not really "anti gravity" just opposing magnetism...

in thios case they are introducing the magnetism into previously un magnetized things... which has also been done before... just never as an opposing magnetism experiment.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Aelita where are you when we need you?



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I agree with you Lazarus, I've seen videos of lab experiments conducted on this same type of thing for 15-20 years now, just not on this scale.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Aelita where are you when we need you?


I'm here


I read the article on Element 115 and it's complete bull. Nothing that Lazar says makes any sense, from the physics point of view.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I don't follow, what is the new development?


To make the anti gravity machine even more powerful, the team used an oxygen and nitrogen mixture to create a paramagnetic fluid. Inside the magnet, the mixture helps the objects float

What does this have to do with anti-gravity?



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't follow, what is the new development?


To make the anti gravity machine even more powerful, the team used an oxygen and nitrogen mixture to create a paramagnetic fluid. Inside the magnet, the mixture helps the objects float

What does this have to do with anti-gravity?


Answer: nothing. It's magnetic effect. I donno why it's being hyped as anti gravity. Once I floated a 200 lbs slab of aluminum in the air, it was cool and was indeed levitation, but no anti-gravity was involved. Just eddy currents
The magnet was a size of a small house.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Aelita you could cite this in support of your last weeks posting.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
The title of this thread is erroneous. The artlcle itself mentions nothing about anti-gravity.




The device exploits diamagnetism. Place non-magnetic objects inside a strong enough magnetic field and they are forced to act like weak magnets themselves. Generate a field that is stronger below and weaker above, and the resulting upward magnetic force cancels out gravity.

Guardian


This is what Friedman had to say about the development:



Now, have British scientists proven Lazar was telling the truth? Have they let the alien anti-gravity-cat out of the bag? I asked nuclear physicist and renowned UFO investigator Stanton T. Friedman. Here is what he said:

The simple answer is no. One could also say a rocket was an antigravity device because its exhaust leads to it moving upward whereas gravity pulls it down. A pulley arrangement for lifting something is not an antigravity device. The use of magnetic forces as in the magnetic train (maglev) that is noted in the article is not new. It does not create a gravitational field. It does not nullify gravity. A force is exerted which is upward. Gravity is still there. There is no connection whatsoever between this sort of device and the Lazar science fiction device which is as mythical as his supposed degrees from MIT and Cal Tech and his employment as a physicist at Los Alamos. Check out my article on Lazar at my website www.stantonfriedman.com. Incidently, magnetoaerodynamic devices such as I described in my Congressional testimony in 1968 and in various papers can also exert upward forces... but are not anti-gravity. It is also true that 4 atoms of Element 115 were created at a huge accelerator in Dubna. Half life was in the millisecond range. Lazar claimed at one time that Los Alamos had 500 pounds. No way Jose. Half life is too short.

Stan Friedman
www.raidersnewsupdate.com...


The comments of scientist Stan Deyo:




Using two magnets to levitate masses with low magnetic permeability is not "antigravity" in the strictest sense. It is magnetic levitation - not something altering the gravitational field.

www.raidersnewsupdate.com...



Both scientists agree that Bob Lazar is a liar.

None of this negates the importance of the research reported in "The Guardian" and the "New Journal of Physics." It's just that it has nothing to do with anti-gravity.


[edit on 05/5/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I have an "anti gravity" device right here. made out of a coupel neodynium (sp?) magnets from a couple scrapped hard drives..and there's a guy who must've built an "anti gravity gun" and a "flying saucer drive system" if this sort of thing is "anti gravity"... www.powerlabs.org...

Oooh, magnetic repulsion from like poles...didn't Volta discover this in the 1600's?

I even built one of those electrostatic "lifters". The one NASA even tested. Problem is, it only works in air. basically, a light, floatable version of your "Ionic Breeze" air filtration device.

Bob Lazar is a crank. If there was anything at Area 51, it's radiation must've fried his brain. He does more to *destroy* credibility about alien technology than the government could even hope to do themselves. Not to mention the damage done to the reputation of real researchers worldwide.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   
We'll send Darth Tater to get Bob Lazar just as soon as we teach him to levitate.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
deleted by author.

[edit on 05/5/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
It resists the force of gravity. Therefore it is anti gravity. The normal force from the ground on your feet (the electrons repeling against one another) is an anti-gravity force. The pressure lift generated by a plane's wing is an Anti gravity force.

Anti gravity does not constitue "zero gravity" or the abscence of gravity. There is no wat to make gravity go away unless you move far enough away from the body. Therefore an "anti-gravity" force is needed to make the object float, hover, fly etc. Get your terms straight before you talk to a third year engineering student, who has taken more physics than most people can imagine.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Damn good finding. This is a great discovery.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
Get your terms straight before you talk to a third year engineering student, who has taken more physics than most people can imagine.


Whereas Stanton Friedman, reknowned nuclear physicist says it's not antigravity...

The forces you speak of are resisting gravity, working in vectoral opposition to gravity, but they could not be termed "anti-gravity" in the truest sense of the term. Anti-gravity would imply a generated gravitational force, i.e. manufactured gravity, which you can manipulate to directly counteract or negate normal universal gravity.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyeofhorus
Get your terms straight before you talk to a third year engineering student, who has taken more physics than most people can imagine.


I think you need to get your facts straight. You don't even have a degree and a few undergraduate courses doesn't qualify you to do anything in the field of physics. Unless such a device alters the force of gravity, it isn't anti-gravity. The process described in the original article, not the fruitcake site you link to describes the event as such:




The device exploits diamagnetism. Place non-magnetic objects inside a strong enough magnetic field and they are forced to act like weak magnets themselves. Generate a field that is stronger below and weaker above, and the resulting upward magnetic force cancels out gravity.

The Guardian



[edit on 05/5/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Well Grady I would reiterate my "For what its worth" comment that I posted about some of the comments directed at your posting, but it's easier to just say I told you so.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Lets look at the definition of anti, the "prefix" in anti-gravity per dictionary.com. Hopefully this will clarify what anti-gravity is.

Anti -
1. Opposite:
2. Opposing; against:
3. Counteracting; neutralizing:
4. Destroying:

And the definition of anti-gravity itself.

Anti-gravity -
The hypothetical effect of reducing or canceling a gravitational field.

Troy




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join