Deconstructing the anti-gravity drive

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   
John Lear posted a diagram of the anti-gravity drive that, as we all know, powers UFOs and propells them in their inter-stellar travails. I found this diagram very cute and decided to annotate its elements, as well as point out things that do not make an iota of sense.


Originally posted by johnlear
The propulsion system on the saucer is a closed system and occurs in a 'tuned' tube to contain the matter-antimatter reaction.


Tuned to what?




A is the tube they shoot the proton to the tip of the 2 inch long arrowhead shaped piece of Element 115 (B).


They shoot a proton through a curved tube? Interesting. How do they do that? Protons don't follow curved path unless there is a magnet, and it's not in the diagram.


C is the reaction of the matter-antimatter creating heat which through a thermionic generator creates positive voltage to run the ship.


What is this antimatter (i.e. what is its composition)? Is is anti-helium, anti-protons? More importantly, due to charge conservation, when anti-matter is created in this chamber, an equal amount of matter must be created. Where does it go and what is its composition?

Matter-antimatter reaction does not produce heat per se. It produces photons in GeV energy range. I like the way they drew a little bonfire of sorts that's burning under the arrow-shaped piece of element 115, reminds me of kindergarten. Where is the "matter" fed which is supposed to meet the "antimatter"? No answer from the diagram.

Miraculously, the "antimatter" goes straight down and does not back up that magic tube that "shoots protons".

Anyhow, the photons emitted can be absorbed and the energy dissipated in showers ultimately released it heat -- however, it is also inevitable that the materials in the apparatus become radioactive after being subjected to the intense bombardment from the GeV range photons. So you have a little Chernobyl on wheels... Sorry, Chernobyl in space.

Why doesn't the arrow shaped piece of metal melt under intense irradiation? Indeed, the whole apparatus must be running white-hot for thermionic effect to work. Why there is a reference to the "positive voltage"? You will need to close the circuit anyway to utilize the current.


[edit on 8-1-2008 by buddhasystem]




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I'm not sure about the diagram that John Lear posted but the anti-gravity engine is a real possibility and many papers have been written about it in the scientific community. Most of these papers examine what is known as 'gravity shielding' which can negate gravity using various physics anomalies.

Quite a few papers are posted at this site lanl.arxiv.org... which hit very close to the mark if you can wade through the advanced math. These should probably be classified and I think will be soon enough. Already I have noticed several of these papers disappearing from the archives.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   
From Wiki:



If we could assemble all of the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.


also from above:



There are numerous newer theories that add onto GR or replace it outright, and some of these appear to allow anti-gravity-like solutions. However, according to the current widely accepted physical theories, verified in experiments, and according to the major directions of physical research, it is considered highly unlikely that anti-gravity is possible.





posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by smartie
 


Smartie, there is a grey shaded area in the diagram tha shows how it goes straight up in the "reactor" -- seemingly, the antigravity wave is similar to hot air.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
HOT AIR!

I like that one...between them JL and BL could fly across the Atlantic maybe around the world non-stop.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Originally posted by buddhasystem





John Lear posted a diagram of the anti-gravity drive that, as we all know, powers UFOs and propells them in their inter-stellar travails. I found this diagram very cute and decided to annotate its elements, as well as point out things that do not make an iota of sense.




BS, if its not too much trouble could you please reference your comments and questions from this site:

www.boblazar.com...

Perhaps I didn't explain it as well as I could have.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Perhaps I didn't explain it as well as I could have.


You actually transcripted the content of hits page quite well, even though you omitted some of the more cute physics insights such as

All of the actions and reactions inside the reactor are orchestrated perfectly like a tiny little ballet

That must explain how the damn thing work! Because otherwise, there is nothing on Bob's page to corroborate on the operation of the device.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
BS and JL - I love you two. You're like Tom and Jerry - though I won't say which is which!

John - I have to say I think the stuff Bob has on the website is a bit too simplistic to work as anything more than a vague idea - the problem with the concepts involved in this sort of technology is more or less every tiny portion of it deserves its own encyclopedia.

But Buddha, the danger surely is that you fall into the trap of suggesting tentative and vague statements are necessarily wrong from the start. Dubious perhaps, unproven, maybe - but to dismiss the whole thing as not making "an iota of sense" is a bit bold, maybe?

Anyway - sorry for interrupting - carry on!

LW



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
But Buddha, the danger surely is that you fall into the trap of suggesting tentative and vague statements are necessarily wrong from the start.


Well, the posted diagram takes away a lot of vagueness, don't you think? This was what it meant to do anyway. Now, if you declare that laws are physics are null and void inside that chamber, I rest my argument. I personally don't believe that laws of physics are voided onboard UFO.

If, however, laws of physics are valid, I don't see how the suggested construction of the reactor can possibly work, on many levels. I leave gravity out of it because this is the leasrt substantiated element of the design. I only stick to the nuclear physics aspect and even there it doesn't make sense.


Dubious perhaps, unproven, maybe - but to dismiss the whole thing as not making "an iota of sense" is a bit bold, maybe?


Well, I am a bold person!


[edit on 8-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Bobs own website banner states that it is a:




Theoretical Physics Archive


enough said.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Hi buddhasystem,
I have three serious questions I like to ask you, I hope you will answer them.


One,
Do you believe in Ufo’s in the sense, that it are Alien “Extraterrestrial” crafts of some sort.

Two,
Do you really understand the explanation of how the The Reactor
Works on Bob Lazars site?

Three,
Do you found yourself capable, after you have seeing and handling an Alien device yourself, what’s probably Hundreds of Thousands, or perhaps even millions of years ahead of us, and know what it’s possible function is, to draw an very accurate diagram of it, and explain in detail to us how it really works?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
Do you believe in Ufo’s in the sense, that it are Alien “Extraterrestrial” crafts of some sort.


I believe in the possibility of such, but not that this is a demonstrated fact.


Do you really understand the explanation of how the The Reactor
Works on Bob Lazars site?


Yes, I do. Really.



Do you found yourself capable, after you have seeing and handling an Alien device yourself, what’s probably Hundreds of Thousands, or perhaps even millions of years ahead of us, and know what it’s possible function is, to draw an very accurate diagram of it, and explain in detail to us how it really works?


It would depend on the device in question, really. If it's an intricate tea-ball made in Zeta Reticuli, I likely would have no problem explaining its function in detail. If it's a nuclear device, that could be a lot harder but not entirely impossible. I just don't know what that device might be, the one you are referring to.

Now, the diagram purports to have figured out all such pesky detail, and I submit that it's a fabrication.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem




Well, the posted diagram takes away a lot of vagueness, don't you think? This was what it meant to do anyway. Now, if you declare that laws are physics are null and void inside that chamber, I rest my argument. I personally don't believe that laws of physics are voided onboard UFO.

BS,it is good that you state it is your belief,not a fact,for i daresay any here have undeniable proof that we possess all the laws of physics.


If, however, laws of physics are valid, I don't see how the suggested construction of the reactor can possibly work, on many levels. I leave gravity out of it because this is the leasrt substantiated element of the design. I only stick to the nuclear physics aspect and even there it doesn't make sense.


i wonder how many times in the past scientists and researchers have made that same statement before the dawning of a new insight or discovery??



Dubious perhaps, unproven, maybe - but to dismiss the whole thing as not making "an iota of sense" is a bit bold, maybe?


Well, I am a bold person!



respectfully, your opinion counts as it is your opinion; just as john lear's and all the members' opinion counts; but, if one day this design proves viable and does indeed work, i wonder how many will change their opinions then? i wonder............



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Buddha,
Are you saying that an Anti-Gravity device of any kind made by humankind is completely unfeasable or this particular drive as described by Bob Lazar?
There are a number of articles about an Anti-Gravity device that Finnish scientists have been working on that NASA have been quite interested in. They have even discussd the possibility of using it for space travel.
I am curious because I was going to post something about Anti-Gravity myself



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Buddha,
Are you saying that an Anti-Gravity device of any kind made by humankind is completely unfeasable or this particular drive as described by Bob Lazar?


I thought it was plain obvious that I was referring to a particular device, which in addition is depicted in the diagram on this thread.

And as I said, the puported anti-gravity powers of such alleged device are of secondary importance because quite simply there is no physics proposed to explain how it may work, apart from the gibberish like "gravity waves are accessed from transmutation". As you can see, I focused on nuclear physics/power generation characteristics of the apparatus, which I find completely bogus.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Another hole in the pruported design of the "reactor":

www.boblazar.com...

is that unless the energy of the antiprotons allegedly emitted from the piece of element 115 are in the eV range (which is implausible because since they are formed in bulk matter anyway, and they need to get out and it's impossible with 1 eV worth of energy), the low cross section of the interaction of these antiprotons will prevent them from being efficiently absorbed in the gaseous target that Bob is telling us is used by the aliens.

Indeed, there are more holes in Bob's story than in Swiss cheese in a cage full if hungry aliens.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Seriously, Buddha...

You know a lot of, umm, 'stuff'. You're a physicist for gosh darn!

OK...now let's say you lived 100 years ago, and someone told you about a theory they were postulating regarding 'quantum mechanics'. Or even better, 200 years ago someone told you there was such a thing as an 'atom', or a 'proton'...or, [insert idea here].

See my point? Knowledge is supposed to evolve, and move forward. Yes, of course, what sounds 'crazy' in one context could halt that progression. But, just to be very simplistic, it was thought that heavier than air flight was 'impossible' and anyone who propsed it was 'crazy'.

So, why not try this---use your vast knowledge of physics and try to postulate a scenario where new discoveries might occur. Could make you rich!



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
OK...now let's say you lived 100 years ago, and someone told you about a theory they were postulating regarding 'quantum mechanics'. Or even better, 200 years ago someone told you there was such a thing as an 'atom', or a 'proton'...or, [insert idea here].


As a matter of fact, 'atoms' were proposed by the Greek scientist Democritus 2400 years ago. This and other ideas are still alive and well.


See my point?


I'm afraid I don't. You see, there is plenty of specifics in the alleged design of the alledged reactor powered by the alleged element 115. This specifics were provided by the hoaxer(s) with the intent of making the story more credible. It's not like Lazar said "there was a blue glowing cube powered by fluctuations of the Higgs field". No, he instead offers a very concrete physics-based model of the reactor which is fraught with impossibilities. For example:

(a) the energy release mechanism is the reaction of anti-proton with ordinary matter. Anti-protons have been studied in a fair amount of detail and are routinely produced in high-energy physics experiments. Lasar postulates that they interact with a gaseous target. The available data clearly indicates that the low cross section will prevent an efficient reaction as described by Lazar -- there is just not enough material.

(b) The production of anti-protons is a result of a nuclear reaction taking place in the alleged element 115 (this is impossible for great many reasons as the required energy, about 4 GeV, cannot be stored in a nucleus... You need 4 GeV because Bob insists on antiproton pairs, which means you need two prtons and two antiprotons).

(c) the flux of mesons and gammas resulting from annihilation does not produce heat directly as Bob seems to naively imply. You need to absorb radiation in the first place to generate heat. The whole "dome" depicted in the diagram would then become hot and with time, radioactive.



Knowledge is supposed to evolve, and move forward.


True! Knowledge is cool. Pseudo-knowledge isn't.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Yeah, but...

Demotricus' hypothesis was not accepted in his day and age...if it had been, we'd be farther along technologically, methinks...

What is more, there are always theorists who are way out there, and only later (tragically, sometimes, after their deaths) do their ideas find some vindication as testing methods are developed. BTW, Demotricus would have been stunned and amazed (shocked and awed??) by what his theory has blossomed into...the understanding that the atom is not the 'smallest' particle known, etc, etc.

I'd love to have some ancients here for dinner, just to pick their brains. Will need a Universal Translator, and lots of napkins....



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
John Lear posted a diagram of the anti-gravity drive that, as we all know, powers UFOs and propells them in their inter-stellar travails.



See, my problems start in the very first sentence of this thread.


My issue is philosophical. The whole concept of an "anti-gravity drive" would be as useless in "inter-stellar travails" as a jet engine. Why, you ask? Simple. A jet engine would be useless because a jet needs atmosphere, as something to "push" against.

Likewise. An "anti-gravity engine" would have no effect in the interstellar void:


There's no gravity. Ergo, nothing to push against.


Gravity/antigravity drives would only be usefull in a planet's gravity-well. You'd need a warp engine to transit the void of space.


.





top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join