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.

 

Patent Issued for anti gravity Device

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Mass IS energy so basically what your saying is that energy 'interacting' with energy powers that interaction? I am not sure what that is supposed to mean so feel free to clarify what you had in mind if you were actually trying to propose a solution to something mainstream science can not explain.


Where did you get mass is energy from and what does it mean? What cannot they explain?




Permanent magnets do not rely on outside influences to generate their fields.

Ferromagnetism

Ferromagnetism is a phenomenon by which a material can exhibit a spontaneous magnetization, and is one of the strongest forms of magnetism. It is responsible for most of the magnetic behavior encountered in everyday life and, along with ferrimagnetism, is the basis for all permanent magnets (as well as the metals that are noticeably attracted to them).

So basically we don't know but then give it a name that does not define in scientific terms what we are seeing.


You can take the only free elements iron, cobalt and nickel (sorry for not stating the free part earlier) and place them in a magnetic field and they will exhibit ferromagnetism, it is not unknown how it happens. The orientation of electron spins align in a field. The electrons interact but do not pair.







Well what does the fact that you have not heard of it mean or, for that matter, prove?


It could be made up. 'Spacetime imbalance'? please, when have you read in any journal or even a discover or scientific american the term 'spacetime imbalance or whatever it is?



Mass IS energy and it curves spacetime as you surely know. Is that not the whole point of his claim?


Spacetime is not a tangible object, so it would be very hard to bend these things, they are simply measurements. If it is bending then there are two forces acting on the body, what causes this? (Many things can) I thought thepointof his claim was about passing a em through a vacuum.



What I tried to suggest is that without an imagination wich leads to knew ideas no scientific progress could be possible. Observation is fine but it still takes IMAGINATION to interpret what it could possibly mean. Science is not the investigation of fact as investigation of fact would be redundant. Science is the investigation of the unknown BASED on "facts" ( as they may apply) for foundation. Please do not make assumptions about me and lets stick to the topic at hand. Play nice and stop worrying about my motives!

Stellar


It doesn't take imagination, it takes education, discipline and knowing what you are doing in order to run experiments or engineer.

Science is the investigation of facts. The scientif method is derived from a process lawyers used in England around the 16th century in which lawyers investigated, examined, and tried to make sense of facts. The scientist liked the approach and so they adopted it.




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I was able to track down the original news piece in Nature. Since it’s currently a subscribed item, I have quoted relevant sections below.


This is not the first such patent to be granted, but it shows that patent examiners are being duped by false science, says physicist Robert Park, watchdog of junk science at the American Physical Society in Washington DC.Park tracks US patents on impossible inventions. “The patent office is in deep trouble,”he says….

Park argues that patenting devices that so blatantly go against scientific understanding could give them undeserved respectability, and undermine the patent office’s reputation. “When a patent is awarded for an idea that doesn’t work, the door is opened for sham.”…

Patent 6,960,975 …describes a space vehicle propelled by a superconducting shield, which alters the curvature of space-time outside the craft in a way that counteracts gravity. The device builds on a claim by the Russian physicist Eugene Podkletnov that superconductors can shield the effects of gravity. NASA was at one stage investigating the idea, but it has become almost as notorious as cold fusion as an example of fringe science.

One of the main theoretical arguments against antigravity is that it implies the availability of unlimited energy. “If you design an antigravity machine, you’ve got a perpetualmotion machine,” says Park. Shield half of a wheel from gravity and it will keep turning for ever. The US patent office has long fought to prevent applications for patents on perpetualmotion machines. In 1911, after a constant stream of applications, one commissioner ruled that they would not be considered until a working model had been running for a year.

More recently, inventor Joe Newman sued the office after it rejected his application for such a device. The court finally ruled against Newman in 1990, a decision that the patent office cites in its rules about which inventions are patentable.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Well if u have to provide energy to shield part of the wheel - I don't know how that would be considered a perpetual motion machine...

As far as this guys claims - I didn't look into it that much - but I have no doubt that rediculous inventions slip through the patent process.

What I would like to see is a sophisticated lie dectector test be carried out on Eugene Podkletnov if Russian authorities will not allow him to disclose his "special" formula.

At least then some credibility can be added to or removed from his claims.

(I am assuming he is still alive?)



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Where did you get mass is energy from and what does it mean? What cannot they explain?


E=mc2... ever heard about this formula?

In two word, it says that (for instance) the annihilation of 1g produce 300.000.000 J .... mass is localised energy: energy of vacuum



You can take the only free elements iron, cobalt and nickel (sorry for not stating the free part earlier) and place them in a magnetic field and they will exhibit ferromagnetism, it is not unknown how it happens. The orientation of electron spins align in a field. The electrons interact but do not pair.

I take pasta and tomatoes... put them togheter... do I have a plate of "spaghetti with tomato sauce"?
Why does the orientation of electron spins stays align? Where comes the energy necessary to maintain this equilibre from?





It could be made up. 'Spacetime imbalance'? please, when have you read in any journal or even a discover or scientific american the term 'spacetime imbalance or whatever it is?

Any corps in the univers produce spacetime imbalance: the most obvious effect is when the light of the stars is "bent" because it pass near to a heavy stars (or black hole)...



Spacetime is not a tangible object, so it would be very hard to bend these things, they are simply measurements. If it is bending then there are two forces acting on the body, what causes this? (Many things can) I thought thepointof his claim was about passing a em through a vacuum.

A ray of light in not a tangible object, but a heavy stars bent it... think about the "magnifying galaxies"
The spacetime is bent everywhere, even the earth bent the spacetime: this is why we are staying on its surface



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   




Machine (yellow wheels & black motor) in lower part of vertical test rig with control electronics to right..






For further information, such as photographs and a VHS video recording of machine rising, contact:-
e-mail mick@mtjf.demon.co.uk
phone Mick UK 01309 673120
or write M T French, Lynard, Tytler Street, Forres, Moray, SCOTLAND, IV36 0EL



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillo
E=mc2... ever heard about this formula?

In two word, it says that (for instance) the annihilation of 1g produce 300.000.000 J .... mass is localised energy: energy of vacuum


IT states mass is equivalent to energy but not mass is energy. This was known before Einstein's equation with kE=1/2mv^2. A vacuum would have no energy from what I understand.



I take pasta and tomatoes... put them togheter... do I have a plate of "spaghetti with tomato sauce"?
Why does the orientation of electron spins stays align? Where comes the energy necessary to maintain this equilibre from?


You are talking about a heterogenous mixture, I am refering to wave properties of matter. These seem like two different topics.

The orientation aligns because the atom is introduced to a weak magnetic field. Why it stays I don't exactly know...but, the electrons spin stays the same because the electrons do not shift, no ionic bond, and iron cobalt and nickel are dimagnetic.They interact cooperatively within a domain. Though they will disorient and become paramagnetic at certain temperatures (ferromagnetic Curie temperature).


Any corps in the univers produce spacetime imbalance: the most obvious effect is when the light of the stars is "bent" because it pass near to a heavy stars (or black hole)...


A ray of light in not a tangible object, but a heavy stars bent it... think about the "magnifying galaxies"
The spacetime is bent everywhere, even the earth bent the spacetime: this is why we are staying on its surface


A ray of light is very tangebile, it gives off energy, can be slowed down and speeed up. We stand on the earth's surface because of gravity not the way nothingess is shaped.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
If this machine if for real why doesnt the inventor get some credible scientists and engineers to test tha machine and verify to the world that it works as claimed? I bet a guy like James Randi would be happy to help if he is for real.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
A vacuum would have no energy from what I understand.

Our knowledge of the univers states that, to maintain the current gravity balance, 90% of the matter is missing...
An example: if a meteor is falling toward a planet, it gains inertia... where does this energy comes from? Gravity? Yes... but does it mean that gravity is a free source of energy!?... My point of view is that the energy of the falling body is constant in any point of its trajectory. Inertia is a "reluctance" of mass to be accelerated. So it must be the structure of the space that is changing. Exactly like for the light going through water, glass, ... it's not the speed of light that is changing (light speed is almost the only thing we know is constant), it's structure of the spacetime (vacuum).
We have already built many technologies to modify the spacetime. From the enormous "collider" to some strange gaz able to "slow down" the light speed up to 40 miles/hour...

Now if someone wants to patent a space "pocket" cyclotron... why not!?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
If this machine if for real why doesnt the inventor get some credible scientists and engineers to test tha machine and verify to the world that it works as claimed? I bet a guy like James Randi would be happy to help if he is for real.

In science, like in other domains there are subjects that gives credibility and other that transform you in a crasy mind.
Do you know nobody did already give a good explaination of why a bicycle in motion stays in balance?


[edit on 17-11-2005 by Lillo]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a flux modulation controller, the flux modulation controller LMAO ---


The very first time i ever came across a Flux Modulation controller
was when i was reading a John Titor post...!!!!!!!


Scary very Scary indeed .. ... Time will tell i guess excuse the pun !



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillo
An example: if a meteor is falling toward a planet, it gains inertia... where does this energy comes from? Gravity?


Really? Inertia is the tendency of a body to resist force. So wouldn't falling be a loss in inertia not a gain?


Yes... but does it mean that gravity is a free source of energy!?...


Gravity is not free but it does not derive from a vacuum (there is no energy froma vacuum), though it may be able to travel or pass through.


My point of view is that the energy of the falling body is constant in any point of its trajectory.


Why would this happen, could you explain?


Inertia is a "reluctance" of mass to be accelerated. So it must be the structure of the space that is changing.


Yes, it has changed, it now has a meteor encompassing a region which prior was only encompassed by atmoosphere. But I don't think anything is bending. Space is nothingness when occupied can represent a measurement. It be hard for nothingness to bend anything.



We have already built many technologies to modify the spacetime. From the enormous "collider" to some strange gaz able to "slow down" the light speed up to 40 miles/hour...


According to your definiition of spacetime and modifing it, typing on the computers and just occupying space does this already.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
According to your definiition of spacetime and modifing it, typing on the computers and just occupying space does this already.

Exact! You got it!
My definition is: I bent the spacetime, so I am

For the cyclotron, I was speaking about macroeffect...
The most "evident" natural effect is to look through a swiming pool: the water make the bottom appear closer...

PS: ray of light is not tangible! It interact with the matter in different ways depending on its frequency (e.g.: microwave interact with water increasing its molecural agitation... good to prepare the tea faster
).

As far as I know photon has no mass, so it does not interact with gravity(this is the actual theory)... but it can be deviated when moving "close" to a massive star... how?

I found this site about another gyroscopic inertial thruster
www.open.org...



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillo
Exact! You got it!
My definition is: I bent the spacetime, so I am


But spacetime is just a measurement. It doesn't bend or change, just what is being measured, the physical object.


As far as I know photon has no mass, so it does not interact with gravity(this is the actual theory)... but it can be deviated when moving "close" to a massive star... how?

Mass is not required for gravitational effects, this is proven when light from distant stars gravitates towards the sun and can be scene at certain parts of the earth during a solar eclipse.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillo
As far as I know photon has no mass, so it does not interact with gravity(this is the actual theory)... but it can be deviated when moving "close" to a massive star... how?



Originally posted by Frosty
Mass is not required for gravitational effects, this is proven when light from distant stars gravitates towards the sun and can be scene at certain parts of the earth during a solar eclipse.


I know about these effects... nevertheless photon doesn't interact with gravity... it's not my invention, this is the official theory (as far as I know)...

bah... who cares


[edit on 17-11-2005 by Lillo]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Where did you get mass is energy from and what does it mean? What cannot they explain?


E= Mc2 . Mass and energy is the same thing as C2 is a dimensionless constant. Mass is thus energy condensed by the factor c2. You might want to stop pointing fingers at my lack of degrees considering this sort of oversight (or worse ) on your part....

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the
belief in the ignorance of experts." Feynman (The Physics Teacher, 7
September, 1969, 313-320)

As i said many times before we do not define the mechanism that powers the observed universe . There is NO theory in current accepted physics that clears this up.


You can take the only free elements iron, cobalt and nickel (sorry for not stating the free part earlier) and place them in a magnetic field and they will exhibit ferromagnetism, it is not unknown how it happens. The orientation of electron spins align in a field. The electrons interact but do not pair.


Well a mechanism was suggested but as can be shown that mechanism really explains nothing and simply changes the question slightly. Solving problems by introducing more or different unknowns a solutions can not lead anywhere. What powers the assumed strong nuclear force that keep protons from flying apart? For that matter what powers their endless attraction the first place?


It could be made up. 'Spacetime imbalance'? please, when have you read in any journal or even a discover or scientific american the term 'spacetime imbalance or whatever it is?


So untill you read about a phenomenon in a scientific journal it does not exsist? Do you really believe observation affects reality THAT much? Absence of observation is absence of the thing itself?


Spacetime is not a tangible object, so it would be very hard to bend these things, they are simply measurements.


Don't argue with me about what gravity does to spacetime, please! Take it up with physicists who tell us that it is so since it would be very ironic if you suddenly start questioning current dogma.



If it is bending then there are two forces acting on the body, what causes this? (Many things can) I thought thepointof his claim was about passing a em through a vacuum.


Well spacetime is bent in the presence of gravity and since this is accepted you will probably now be inclined to start asking how spacetime can be bent if it's in fact not tangible. I am making very many points here and i am not sure wich one your respond to here. To partly answer the question i think your asking; the so called vacuum is in fact bristling with very rapid fluctuations of EM energy but remaining in virtual state. It is also filled with a violent fluctuating flux of virtual particles, appearing and dissapearing so quickly that a individual particle does not persist long enough to be individually detected. Thus, the vacuum is extraordinarily energetic, but the energy is in a special form ( fleeting violent fluctuations and virtual particle flux). Nonetheless, because it contains enormous energy , the average vacuum may be considered a potential. In another sense, the vacuum, potential, and spacetime are all one-and-the-same thing wich does explain why they interact the way we know they do.


It doesn't take imagination, it takes education, discipline and knowing what you are doing in order to run experiments or engineer.


And that is all perfectly true. How on earth do you explain why some people are so much better at inventing and designing or even engineering? Can you quantify or explain why they tend to NOT be the norm or adhere to most of the norms you just mentioned?

"Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought."
—Albert Szent-Gyoergi
"The man who cannot occasionally imagine events and conditions of existence that are contrary to the causal principle as he knows it will never enrich his science by the addition of a new idea."
-Max Planck
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
—Albert Einstein
"If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make reality the basis of our philosophy? …But we cannot distinguish what is real about the universe without a theory… it makes no sense to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what reality is independent of a theory."
-Stephen Hawking
"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively not by the false appearance of things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."
— Schopenhauer
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."
— J.G. Holland
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
— Galileo Galilei
"When I examined myself and my methods of thought, I came to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge."
— A. Einstein
"Advances are made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by questioning answers."
— Bernhard Haisch, astrophysicist
"The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best — and therefore never scrutinize or question."
— Stephen Jay Gould

I mean what can i tell you other than what these scientist have said? If you do not get you dont get it and with some people if they do not know you can not tell them.


Science is the investigation of facts. The scientif method is derived from a process lawyers used in England around the 16th century in which lawyers investigated, examined, and tried to make sense of facts. The scientist liked the approach and so they adopted it.


In theory, yes. You know what a theory is do you not?

Stellar

[edit on 17-11-2005 by StellarX]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I wouldn't particulary trust the ALL the laws of physics, have you ever heard of the theory of everything? Well if not or if you have but don't understand in lameman's terms its what alot of different scientific communites are waiting for to help describe everything perfectly, now this is huge in physics because they don't want to look themselves since they are too lazy (well most physists are) to go about the normal way of progression and find a theory, revise it if it doesn't fit and once someone finds something that disproves that theory correct it so it fits. You see a lot of different scientists and physists are waiting for this some examples: Astronomers, Nuclear Physists, Quantum Physists, Mathematicians,(although they may be considered by some to not belong in the "scientists" list however since Math and science are closely related and although not waiting for the theory of everything to solve all their problems they are regretably in the same boat), Chemists and the list goes on. My point being alot of scientific areas have alot of admitted errors so don't belive everything very blindly just because it is te currently "accepted theory" by most "renowned" people in that area. For example of not to go with the flow look at how Galileo was mocked because he didn't accept the current theory. Just wanted to let you know.... Peace and didn't mean to offend anyone in any way if this did

[edit on 17-11-2005 by JoJo the religious man]



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

And that is all perfectly true. How on earth do you explain why some people are so much better at inventing and designing or even engineering? Can you quantify or explain why they tend to NOT be the norm or adhere to most of the norms you just mentioned?


Not everyone goes into the fields of science and engineering with the intent to become well known inventors or designs or researchers. People have different interest. People have heard of Curie temperature but who has honestly heared of the Neel temperature and known what its function is?

You also seem to quote a lot of well known people, so I use a summary of a quote I read from a book. Richard Feynman was once asked whether he felt that the world would ever see another Farraday (a scientist who lacks the certain higher math skills to stay at the top or even be close to the level he was at). In reply Feynman said those days are gone, it is all about the math. You cannot get into science without the math.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Not everyone goes into the fields of science and engineering with the intent to become well known inventors or designs or researchers. People have different interest.


I would think curiosity drives all interest in science and certainly in serious investigation and discovery. People do have different interest but if the interest is to just believe everything, as it's now beleived to be, there can be no progress.


You also seem to quote a lot of well known people, so I use a summary of a quote I read from a book.


Well you do not want to take my word for things so i try quote some famous scientist who i agree with.



In reply Feynman said those days are gone, it is all about the math. You cannot get into science without the math.


Do having all the equipment you need for climbing everest making climbing the moutain a certainty or just a possibility? Feynman is obviously right but as the other quotes shows having the equipment , neccesary as it may be, enable's you to no more than a fair chance given it's not all you bring to the table.

Stellar



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
This is what I don’t get.

The patent was granted to Boris Volfson of Huntington, Indiana, the work was done by
Eugene Podkletnov, Russia.

Who is Boris Volfson? An obvious Russian/German pseudonym or some guy ripping of other peoples work?



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Who is Boris Volfson? An obvious Russian/German pseudonym or some guy ripping of other peoples work?


Something like that i am sure. The west is either hiding their technologically breaktroughts very well from their poeple or the Russians are just simply far ahead in many scientific fields....

Stellar




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join