Anti-Gravity.Holy Grail Of The 21st Century

I found this article on Anti Gravity and it includes REFRENCES OF RESEARCH.


So its not just out of somebody's mind.

The Following Topics are covered.

*A Primer on the Role of Electromagnetic, Electrostatic and Torsion Fields in Antigravity and Field-Effect Propulsion

*Dr Eugene Podkletnov and the Hunt for Antigravity

*Electromagnetic Containment of a Plasma Field

*Electrostatic Propulsion Systems

*Dr Fran De Aquino’s Space-time Bubbles

*Vacuum Energy and Torsion Fields

*Entering Hyperdimensional Space

*References

Here is a quote from the beginning of the article:

While singing in the shower before visiting a University of Washington physics professor to talk about electrostatic propulsion and hopefully anti-gravity, I realized: Hey, birds defy gravity. So do 747s, for that matter. They apply the laws of physics and lift off the ground. That’s antigravity, isn’t it? Yes, that’s true, I suppose in a metaphorical sense. Seagulls, jumbo jets and spacecraft all manifest antigravitic effects, strictly speaking, but the kind of phenomenon I want to address here is not the overcoming of gravity but, instead, the neutralizing of it.

It goes on and is really go and has evidence to support claims.

The Link

Tell me what you think.

man no replies i thought this would be hot!

I'ma read up on it and post later on.. just so you dont think this post was entirely missed.
]
-G

Didn't miss the post mate, just reading and researching before I can really say anything. I'll be back!

This is one of my favorite topics. Nick Cook's book is a good read and I highly recommend it. According to Cook there appears to be some small evidence of Nazi saucer technology entering some highly secretive US aerospace projects.

As for the Biefield Brown effect, most say it's just ionic wind, but supposedly Brown got his saucers to work in a vacuum when the French were funding his work. Also Naudin has videos that show lifters working in mineral oil.

jnaudin.free.fr...

Can mineral oil be ionized by a strong electro-static field? Supposedly this is additional proof that it is not ionic wind, but maybe the same principle applies, even in mineral oil.

The snippet at the top of the thread mentioned birds and 747s.
Neither of these use anti-gravity to remain above the ground and neither does a spacecraft.

If you stopped a bird or plane in mid-flight it would drop like a stone. It's the airflow over the wing surfaces that keep them in the air, and without momentum they can't stay aloft.

The space shuttle and ISS need to maintain a speed of over 17,000 MPH to prevent them from dropping back to earth. They balance the speed of escape velocity and the drag of the planets gravity to remain in space. Think of a yo-yo on a string and spinning it over your head. If you slow down the spin it'll likely hit you in the head.

Nothing anti gravity in any of those examples.

reply to post by anxietydisorder


i bet you have yet to read the article.

Its is not based on those examples but goes more in depth

reply to post by zakd619


Hi Zakd619,
Just some thoughts about Eugene Podkletnov and a little anti-gravity hobby research I've looked into. Ning Li another well known researcher in the field was working to further advance Eugene Podkletnov's efforts to create a productizable gravity shield. She started a company and made a lot of claims, but seems to have disappeared, as has much of the work on this. In fact, no one seems to have verified reproduction of the effect in a validated research environment. I would have been pretty interested in something like that actually working out, but if it does, there are secrets that haven't been revealed yet.

There is a very interesting approach experimentally measured by James Woodward at Cal State Fullerton that seems to make a lot of theoretical sense to me and was verified in more than one test. A third attempt to verify at University of Washington was inconclusive due to the fact that the results indicating a small positive result were questioned due to vibratory interference. Here's a Nasa paper that includes discussion of Eugene Podkletnov's work as well as James Woodward's.

IMO, James Woodwards is the most interesting I've seen yet. If real, we will eventually be able to create impulse thrusters and potentially warp drives (seriously). You can Google it, but there was a major supporter in industry who reproduced the results. Interesting stuff.

I actually had a chance to ask Steven Hawking once if he believed in anti-gravity. He said in his interesting voice something like (quoted from memory) "i don't believe in anti-gravity because then we would have time travel, and we have not seen visitors from the future in our time". I know, it sounds like an odd answer, but that was really what he said.

Anyhow. Interesting subject. Here's a link to the NASA summary of their findings: gltrs.grc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by zakd619

i bet you have yet to read the article.

Sorry, I don't always express my thoughts clearly over a keyboard.

I did read the link that you posted, and a few parts I had to read twice. Nothing in there has anything to do with anti-gravity. They speak of propellant-less propulsion, but you need to feed it something to harness the energy. Fusion is probably our future but it's a ways down the road. Much further down the road we will probably be able to reduce them in size to put one on something like an aircraft carrier.

Why would it require billions of dollars and the cooperation of 7 countries to build ITER if we were even close to using fusion as a power source ?
ITER is also projected to take 10+ years to build with the end result of producing 500 MW in a 400 second burst. The output will mostly be heat in this experiment.
Hardly something you want to count on as a power source for a spacecraft in the near future.

Lifters have yet to be scaled up in any significant way and they've been around for a long time. These still use a propellant though.
I'm betting it's coal or nuclear, but that electricity that you pump into them is what causes the ionization. Your propellant doesn't have to be kerosene, but everything you want to get off the ground requires something going in to create a force to push against gravity.

You may have chosen the wrong paragraph to quote at the start of the thread, but it's things like this that put me off the article you quoted from:

Dr Hollingshed claims to have built a six-ringed toroidal coil antigravity device which achieved great effect using rotating magnetic fields. In January 2003, he announced on the Internet that he has developed a 160-kg vehicle able to lift in excess of 2,000 kg and that it has both horizontal and vertical drive features.

Well hell Dr. Hollingshed, tote the thing out of the barn and let us take a look at it.

It was full of words like "you might", it could", etc...
At the end of one section this was clearly stated:

Unfortunately, I have been unable to reach Jeff Cameron or anyone at Transdimensional for any kind of confirmation.

Anti-gravity in the sense we a talking about here is just not possible. Even in deep space beyond the heliosphere you still have multiple gravitational forces influencing any other mass.

I think I'll stand with Stephen Hawking on this one for a while.

reply to post by lifestudent


Well I've yet to see an adequate explanation for the Hutchison effect, which I assure you is not ionic wind. Not when bowling balls are being levitated and feathers are passing through blocks of iron. Thus I have a strong hunch that antigravity not only exists, but is being exploited by some highly secretive group or other, perhaps even in the private sector.

The Hutchison effect is possibly 1% luck of hitting correct resonance frequency of metal to soften it one time in his life and 99% fakery in my opinion. The "evidence" he has include a piece of wood that has softened into metal and some rock like things that you can measure for electrical current, which he claims comes from the ZPF, or zero point field.

His buzzword laden technobabble is not coherent nor based on any actual science as far as I can tell. At the same time, he has admitted faking the levitation in his videos with strings, and others have pointed out that he could fake the rest with magnets and upside down tables.

Regarding the 1% luck, I believe that could also be fakery as well if he happened across his "wood into metal" chunk of "proof" after some kind of vehicle crash where the cause was incredible force and imagined how he might convince people it was caused by his own experiments.

IMO, the rock like thing is most likely one of a known type of ore mixture that creates a natural "nuclear" battery. A source of electricity that, while usually at least slightly dangerous to humans produces electricity from the high beta decay of certain isotopes.

As far as "propellantless propulsion" relating to anti-gravity, think of it this way. The James Woodward theory and experiment works as follows:

1. You can not (or not in any known science), change the time averaged mass of an object, but you can create perterbations that depend on the rate of acceleration. Think of that for a sec. It means if you are not only accelerating, but increasing your rate of acceleration, oscillating between braking and accelerating at very high speeds, that the mass can change and adjust, not affecting it's time averaged mass.

2. In order to get sufficient change in acceleration of particles, James Woodward uses "flux capacitors", really. He accelerates particles using high voltage AC input into very high end capacitors. This creates a mass fluctuation in the capacitors.

3. In order to leverage that to generate thrust, he uses a push/pull technique, push it in one direction when it's light, then pull it in the other direction when it has more mass and inertia, generating thrust in the direction away from the heavy push, but leaving the total mass of the system constant over time. To get the speeds required to make the experiment measurable, he used piezoelectric crystals, which unfortunately heat up quickly when moving that fast. I believe he may have also gone to an entirely piezoelectric approach at some point.

His approach is actually based on Mach's Principle as well as an intertia model derived from Wheeler-Feynman Absorber theory. It means theoretically, things that look like circuit boards could generate thrust in a direction, from inside a vehicle or ship. If you had one producing thrust upwards, it could make an object hover, or float. Also, as long as you can generate electricity and direct your thrust, you could accelerate from your current speed to a faster one in any direction, in air or in space.


[edit on 30-10-2007 by lifestudent]

Doesn't anyone here think it strange that with all our technology we still can't quantitively state what gravity is ? some say particles, others say waves or perhaps a wavicle ? then there are the ether cohorts that get shunned as quacks.

Im reading one of Lynes first books and he is a proponent that Tesla discovered the etheric nature of gravity and was killed to keep it secret. Its possible that we do know the nature of gravitics and our science was polluted to steer us away from the nature of it with the "Jew Science" of Relativity ? I don't know just curious to see what others think here.

The claim is that under certain conditions of High Frequency and High Voltage the Ether that permeates all becomes a solid.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by mazzroth]

I should also point out that though Woodward's approach seems grounded in solid science, it is still considered theoretical by most due to limited reproduction of the effect. I would have thought that the University of Washington could have confirmed or denied their follow on tests by now, but I have seen nothing. Meanwhile, James Woodward seems to believe they have succeeded in measuring the effect very meticulously and provides useful information on his website.

Here's a link to James Woodward's page with additional links to instructions for creating parts:
physics.fullerton.edu...

Heya Zak.. thanks for the thread and the link.. very interesting.

I've not read it all yet but plan to.

I have no real comment of substance. I was just wating to say thank you and let you know that I think it is all interesting and insightful.


-G

[edit on 31-10-2007 by GlahES]