It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
..with all the experiments, both government funded and even hobby level, of gauss cannons, and high powered magnetic fields, there has been absolutely *no* observed "antigravitational" phenomena?
"levitiation" by creating a magnetic field of opposite polarity over another magnet is not antigravity. Otherwise, I'm doing it right now with no power input and two old hard-drive magnets.
This would be the Holy Grail of physics-the actual experimental proof of linkage between strong and weak forces. The biggest thing since sliced antimatter. But no rumble of this on the journals? No accidental discoveries by anyone like this guy? www.powerlabs.org
I recommend that the "Baloney Detection Kit" be called upon for this.
And as for "official" interest in this, even NASA got involved in the whole "lifter" craze and found that there was no "antigravity" there either-the process only works when there's atmosphere to ionize and "pump" for lift (an electric jet engine)
Sadly, we're stuck here, unless we gather the patience to travel worldship style or develop human hibernation.
Originally posted by soficrow
"I think it's important to note that there is a distinction between a biological effect and a health effect. ..."
Originally posted by apc
I think the "different dimension" term is more or less just a relation to the layman.
In reality the craft would form its own dimensional "bubble" independent from our universal restrictions. If our universe doesn't see the mass (because it is encapsulated and isolated in its own bubble universe) then our laws of physics would not apply to that mass. The only thing that would interact with our universe is the bubble itself.
"Our nation is on the threshold of new energy technology that I think will startle the American people," Bush said. "We're on the edge of some amazing breakthroughs — breakthroughs all aimed at enhancing our national security and our economic security and the quality of life of the folks who live here in the United States."
GradyPhilpott wrote: I would add one thing. It is one thing to have an engine that will deliver you to Mars in three hours, but it is quite another to send a human being along for the ride.
Originally posted by bodebliss
Oh they are going to send people.
The most obvious challenge to practical interstellar travel is speed. Our nearest neighboring star is 4.2 Light Years away. Trip times to reach our nearest neighboring star at conventional speeds would be prohibitively long. At 55 miles-per-hour for example, it would take over 50 million years to get there! I don’t think even the twinkies in the glove box would survive that long. At a more typical spacecraft speed, for example the 3-day trip time that it took the Apollo spacecraft to reach the moon, it would still take over 900 thousand years. I still don’t think the twinkies will make it. And even if we consider the staggering speed of 37-thousand miles-per-hour, which was the speed of the NASA Voyager spacecraft as it left our solar system years ago, the trip would still take 80,000 years. Maybe the twinkies would make it, but there would be nothing left on board to eat them. In conclusion, if we want to cruise to other stars within comfortable and fundable time spans (say, less than a term in Congress), we have to figure out a way to go faster than light.
Originally posted by koji_K
The article makes it sound like an Alcubierre drive, but I'm not trained in physics so I can't be sure....
There is no known way to induce such a wave, however, or to leave it once started...
Originally posted by bodebliss
"The only way of knowing is to give it a try. As Eddison (I think) once said, "I have not failed, I have found 1000 ways in which it doesn't work".
Even if this theory/device doesn't do what is intended, it may well do something else, or demonstrate something that doesn't fit with current theory, allowing us to learn more and possibly succeed next time. "
Originally posted by Griff
Funny how this scientist came up with this idea in the 50's. When Rosewell was what, in 1947? And yes, it seams very close to the ufo propulsion systems. Coincidence? I doubt it.