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.

 

New form of 'Anti-Grav' Propulsion possibly discovered

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

www.physorg.com...
Felber's antigravity discovery solves the two greatest engineering challenges to space travel near the speed of light: identifying an energy source capable of producing the acceleration; and limiting stresses on humans and equipment during rapid acceleration.
.....
The field equation of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has never before been solved to calculate the gravitational field of a mass moving close to the speed of light. Felber's research shows that any mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it. The closer a mass gets to the speed of light, the stronger its 'antigravity beam' becomes.

Felber's calculations show how to use the repulsion of a body speeding through space to provide the enormous energy needed to accelerate massive payloads quickly with negligible stress. The new solution of Einstein's field equation shows that the payload would 'fall weightlessly' in an antigravity beam even as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Veerry interesting. I wonder if this will have any other applications other then space travel, like Anti-grav hoverboards or something similiar




More immediately, Felber's new solution can be used to test Einstein's theory of gravity at low cost in a storage-ring laboratory facility by detecting antigravity in the unexplored regime of near-speed-of-light velocities.


Yet another anti-grav related news report though it seems to be much different then the last one as it makes no claims to FTL travel.




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Well, if there is a repulsive anti-gravity beam in front of the near light speed object, how does it go forward?



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
While I'm unsure of the soundness of this, I will say something about labelling it as "anti-gravity" - and with everything labelled anti-gravity.

Anti-gravity doesn't exist. Gravity is the effect of a fold in space-time, it's a force. There is no anti-force for gravity.

HOWEVER everything that's labelled "anti-gravity" is essentially "gravity defying". It's using little loop-holes in gravity, or wierd energies, to keep afloat.

This discovery is also not anti-gravity - but rather seems to be a loophole in how gravitation works. The mass that would rest in this beam would be "falling forwards". Thus, it's not actually pushing anything, and anything in that path would instead be falling forwards under the strength of a wierd 4-dimensional bend.

I think this is important, because it shows that space-time can bend in a direction other than "down".

But, once again, this nifty trick needs to be proven. Once/IF it's proven, then I'm sure other things will come from it - but not much here on earth, unless you find a way to build particle accelerators into your skateboards.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
My take on the theory is the anti-grav beam in front of the object affects other objects in the path of acceleration (along the velocity vector), thus creating a channel and, in a way, supplying a pull to the initial object. This could greatly increase velocity relative to acceleration, and lessen the impact of such extreme acceleration on the initial object.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium

Anti-gravity doesn't exist. Gravity is the effect of a fold in space-time, it's a force. There is no anti-force for gravity.



I dont think you can really make a claim like that yet. Truth is scientists dont really know what Gravity is they think they have a good understanding of what it does and how it behaves but thats not the same thing.

If anyone claims they know exactly what gravity is they are talking out of their #$@. Some people think its made up of particles called gravitons but they dont really know. Anti-gravitons may exist aswell but once again we dont know.



[edit on 11-2-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Icarus Rising said:


My take on the theory is the anti-grav beam in front of the object affects other objects in the path of acceleration (along the velocity vector), thus creating a channel and, in a way, supplying a pull to the initial object.

Gravity pulls, anti-gravity repels.

Is it me that doesn't understand, or you?
If I am misguided in my thinking, please correct me.
This stuff is inherently confusing.

I had a lot of beers last night, not functioning 100% on the mental faculty front



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Bogus. Can't say how many times I have seen these sort of equations or solutions to 'the problem'.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Gravity can be beaten, and will be beaten by scientist sooner rather than later.
Nick Cooks book hunt for zero point has some findings that mass can be nullified to a certain extent even today, so who are we to say that it can NEVER be broken?

Gyroscopes, zero point energy, dialetric revolutions, ect ect ect all in its infancy but soon it will be done. We just have to keep eyes peeled and looking for it.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium
While I'm unsure of the soundness of this, I will say something about labelling it as "anti-gravity" - and with everything labelled anti-gravity.

Anti-gravity doesn't exist. Gravity is the effect of a fold in space-time, it's a force. There is no anti-force for gravity.

HOWEVER everything that's labelled "anti-gravity" is essentially "gravity defying". It's using little loop-holes in gravity, or wierd energies, to keep afloat.

This discovery is also not anti-gravity - but rather seems to be a loophole in how gravitation works. The mass that would rest in this beam would be "falling forwards". Thus, it's not actually pushing anything, and anything in that path would instead be falling forwards under the strength of a wierd 4-dimensional bend.

I think this is important, because it shows that space-time can bend in a direction other than "down".

But, once again, this nifty trick needs to be proven. Once/IF it's proven, then I'm sure other things will come from it - but not much here on earth, unless you find a way to build particle accelerators into your skateboards.



This actually make's sense in a way... When something accelerate's towards c velocities, it's mass increase's, so in a sense one could imagine this mass falling forward in on itself. The so called antigravity beam could be a sort of shock wave effect making it appear to be repelling against this mass as it's traveling at near c velocities.

[EDIT]

Eh, just remembered it said how it repels mass in front of this beam. But what if it's just being caught in this gravitational shock wave of sorts? IDK lol



[edit on 11-2-2006 by Produkt]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Bogus. Can't say how many times I have seen these sort of equations or solutions to 'the problem'.


Really. Are you saying that the field equasion is unsolveable simply due to the fact that no one has done it before? How bout we wait until it gets vetted before passing judgement mmkay?

Also care to point to other "solutions" to this problem? Also can you post the exact field equasion that was apparently "solved" just so you can show us you actually know what you're talking about as you seem to pass judgement quite a bit without explaining why you came to that conclusion. Any mathematical reasons why it's Bogus?

btw I am skeptical too, but I balance that skeptism with a bit of cautious optimism, something you should practice as you come off just a bit arrogant at times.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
We can not really say if there can be anti-gravity or not. We have not understood gravity yet. All we know is that matter bends spacetime. But we still have to answer the following questions:

1) why does matter bend spacetime

2) what is spacetime composed of, so as that matter affects it (because if spacetime was really empty, then matter would have no effect on it - it is not possible to have an effect on nothingness)

3) what is the speed of gravity. Some say it is the speed of light and it is composed of gravitons; some others say that it is an extremely big value (2x2^10C or something similar) which violates the general relativity (as it could be used to transmit information faster than light)

4) how gravity is related to the quantum world



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
patft.uspto.gov.../netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,960,975.WKU.&OS=PN/6,960,975&RS =PN/6,960,975



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000

Really. Are you saying that the field equasion is unsolveable simply due to the fact that no one has done it before? How bout we wait until it gets vetted before passing judgement mmkay?


No.



Also care to point to other "solutions" to this problem? Also can you post the exact field equasion that was apparently "solved" just so you can show us you actually know what you're talking about as you seem to pass judgement quite a bit without explaining why you came to that conclusion. Any mathematical reasons why it's Bogus?


I can't point to other solutions because I do not know if a solution exist. I also can't find squat about this Febler character or anything that he has published, neither can I find anything to verify his credentials.



btw I am skeptical too, but I balance that skeptism with a bit of cautious optimism, something you should practice as you come off just a bit arrogant at times.
[edit on 11-2-2006 by sardion2000]


Sounds to me like you are holding your breathe at every shout that the solution to anti-gravity or FTL or LT travel has been discovered. I prefer to stay footed where I am at. If I am wrong, so...I am wrong. My life will not be destroyed because I was wrong.

.....
EDIT: Oh, and also, the title made me apprehensive: 'Exact solution'.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Frosty]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The impression I received was one of an anti-gravity 'vortex' of sorts, for lack of a better word, travelling in front of the object along its path. Kind of like the beam of a flashlight is reflected to shine only in front of the bulb. This 'vortex' could provide added impetus to the object by essentially creating a 'low-gravity' area constantly directly in front of the object (the beam), in effect pulling it forward. I am in way over my head here, and I'm not trying to tell anybody they are wrong, or step on any toes. Just trying to wrap my brain around a new concept.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I am wondering if this can be related to the conservation of mass and energy, but with gravity instead.
What I mean is that according to this guys theory, if gravity is increased because of increased mass travelling so fast, that it must balance that with creating low mass antigravity as well?
And it increases or decreases proportionately.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Anti- Grav research dates back to the 1930s and went "black" in the 1950s... There is no way anti-grav technology will be made public in the near future... NO WAY!! Why?!?! Because if it was... overnight the aerospace, petrochemical & automotive industries will become obsolete.... There is so much money to be lost there is no way the powers that be will let that happen... What do you really think they are working out there in Area 51??!? Aliens and UFOs?? Nope!! That's just a cover story... Anti-Grav Tech!!!



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
I also can't find squat about this Febler character or anything that he has published, neither can I find anything to verify his credentials.

Dr. Franklin S. Felber lives in San Diego California and is the Vice President of Starmark Inc. He got his Ph.D in physics from the University of Southern California in 1975. He is presenting his new exact solution of Einstein's 90-year-old gravitational field equation at STAIF 2006( Space Technology & Applications International Forum) on the 14 so we won't have to wait long for an update on what they think of his "loophole". As stated in the link posted by sardion,


(Dr. Felber) has led physics research and development programs for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation, the National Institute of Justice, National Institutes of Health, and national laboratories.

One such project was the High-Power Stealthy Acoustic Through-the-Wall Sensor



We have demonstrated a capability with ultrasound to detect and locate even stationary persons through certain interior walls at ranges up to about 8'. The Phase I program objective is to develop and demonstrate a proprietary high-power upgrade to this capability. Starmark's novel system concept should increase the power of the recently developed through-the-wall sensor by up to a factor of 100,000 in the Phase I breadboard and 900,000 in the Phase II prototype. The upgrade will make possible surveillance of persons through many more types of exterior building walls, including metallic walls, and over much greater ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The low cost of the through-the-wall sensor, projected under $1000, will allow these greatly enhanced capabilities to benefit a wide range of law enforcement and fire and rescue organizations, as well as military personnel in operations in urban terrain.



Originally posted by Frosty
Bogus. Can't say how many times I have seen these sort of equations or solutions to 'the problem'.

I can't point to other solutions because I do not know if a solution exist.


How can you call it bogus, if you don't know if a solution exists?

Links:
STAIF 2006
Email Starmark Inc. at : starmark@san.rr.com

Published Articles From Dr. Felber
New exact solutions of differential equations derived by fractional calculus
Weak 'antigravity' fields in general relativity

[edit on 11-2-2006 by The Zodiac]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zhukov
There is no way anti-grav technology will be made public in the near future... NO WAY!! Why?!?! Because if it was... overnight the aerospace, petrochemical & automotive industries will become obsolete.... There is so much money to be lost there is no way the powers that be will let that happen


Thats only true if it would be a cost competitive which it likely wouldnt be. If it was 10 or 100 times more costly then convential tech only militaries would use it.

If it was cost competitive it likely wouldnt be complicated and whoever developed anti-grav first would create a new industry that would put those others to shame and make loads more money.

It would be like the vacuum tubes companies keeping the transistors under wraps out of fear it would make their company obsolete which of course they didnt do they just started making transitors and made a but load more money.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Can someone answer me this?

Energy cannot be created, correct? Neither can mass, but the two are interchangeable, hence E=MC2.

If neither energy or mass can be created, then how can you increase mass the faster you go?

You still have the same amount of spaceship regardless how fast you go, your not actually adding any extra mass to it, so where does this increased mass come from?



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   


Mass can be converted into energy and vice versa.

In addition to the violation of mass conservation above, it can be shown that conservation of energy is violated, i.e. the energy you put into accelerating an object doesn't all show up as the object's energy.

But both the missing energy and the increased mass can be explained if you allow mass to be a form of energy, according to the following relation:

E = mc2

Note that, because c is so large, mass is a very, very concentrated form of energy.


From:
www.opencourse.info...
I had to find something, you got me frying my brain here.
Still beyond human comprehension


[edit on 12-2-2006 by Toadmund]




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join