Deconstructing the anti-gravity drive, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 03:21 PM by weedwhacker
reply to post by dr_strangecraft


dr_

Interesting postulate.

Not sure your analogy is credible, that is, comparing an atmosphere and a jet engine to a technology that may power an advanced spcecraft.

What you may be trying to say is...'How can a craft accelerate and decelerate without smearing the occupants all over the walls?...am I close??

Point is, this is tech that is not commonly understood by us poor ATS'ers...hence, we are here to get an education.


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 04:02 PM by buddhasystem
Originally posted by tezzajw
Something powers those UFOs.


en.wikipedia.org...

A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning


Something that our mainstream physicists have not yet worked out how to duplicate. The Air Force and their scientists probably know, considering that they have an inside deal going on...


I think it's fairly impossible to create a secret bubble in the scientific community which contains a "parallel science" which is sufficiently different from what you call "mainstream". Don't take me wrong, tezz, there is know-how such as the construction of explosive shell in a nuclear device or intricacies of active armor. But to stipulate that there is a whole caste of people which possess the apparently arcane knowledge is a whole different story.

And back to the non-working engine that Lazar drew a diagram off... You see, Lazar provides a physics reasoning for how the "reactor" functions, and it is evident that it's good enough for some non-physisist to swallow, hook, line and sinker. What I presented in this thread is that the physics based claims of Lazar are simply wrong.


reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 10:34 AM by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Dear tezz, I'll have to go with the flow -- for example, John insists on adressing me as "BS", and other members use various abbrviations such as "vag" instead of "vagabond" etc. So I think I'll stick with "tezz". I find it aesthetically pleasing. If John starts using my full nickname in his missives, I will assume I have to reconsider my standards as well.



How nice. I really enjoy seeing the true colors of contempt being shown by the self proclaimed savior of physics. What does Tezzajw have to do with John Lear? Anyone who knows anything about John knows that he has a "poor friggin' attitude". Since he decides to use BS for you, it justifies your ignorance of a request made politely on more than one occasion? Your participation is crossing the line from debate into meanspiritedness, and i am disappointed that someone of your (self) reported education would stoop so low.

I would ask you if you have considered the use of metamaterials in the construction of this device? On the nanoscale you can produce weird effects on matter via simple changes in substrate composition and surface design (to mention only two). The emerging field of plasmonics seems to be a promising field to explain heretofore unseen properties from materials found in nature.

I am not supporting this sketch you refer to (I am not even going to look at it...i can't even fix a lawn mower, and am not very technically inclined). I am reminding you that your inability to imagine or think outside the box should not be such a hindrance. Materials science is that strange field between physics and natural science....would it hurt for you to spread your wings a little and consider possibilities even slightly outside your discipline?


reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 11:51 AM by buddhasystem
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I really enjoy seeing the true colors of contempt being shown by the self proclaimed savior of physics.


I'm very glad I was able to bring that enjoyment to you, BFFT! Behold my true colors.

Your participation is crossing the line from debate into meanspiritedness, and i am disappointed that someone of your (self) reported education would stoop so low.


Well heck, I didn't call anybody BS and I didn't lie in any of my posts here, so I still do better than some.

I would ask you if you have considered the use of metamaterials in the construction of this device? On the nanoscale you can produce weird effects on matter via simple changes in substrate composition and surface design (to mention only two). The emerging field of plasmonics seems to be a promising field to explain heretofore unseen properties from materials found in nature.


Well you see, nanomaterials have to do with essentially solid state physics effects, which indeed can be quite unusual. However, whatever nanostructure you design, it does not have any effect on the properties of the nuclei in that material. And that's the focus of my presentation here.

I am reminding you that your inability to imagine or think outside the box should not be such a hindrance. Materials science is that strange field between physics and natural science....would it hurt for you to spread your wings a little and consider possibilities even slightly outside your discipline?


You see, BFFT, your intent is commendable; however, you are piling up the material science and nuclear physics and radiation physics. The chunk of metal (i.e. the alleged 115) that Bob was showing to John might have had a nanostructure of some sort, but it in no way negates the cross sections of the nuclear reactions. What happens in the atomic realm (electron shells and solid state effects) rarely couples with the nuclear phenomena. I presented basic considerations above.


reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 12:18 PM by spacevisitor
reply to post by buddhasystem


Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yup, that whole thing is 100% fabrication.


Hi buddhasystem, you can come with anything you want, reply on reply, trying to debunk it like it is one of your specialities, but you can’t convince me in any way that it is 100% fabrication.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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.



Well I wander, what is your professional opinion of this sort of information then?
What more proof do you want?

many military, intelligence, government, corporate and scientific witnesses has came forward so far to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies. The weight of this first-hand testimony, along with supporting government documentation and other evidence, will establish without any doubt the reality of these phenomena.


Source; www.disclosureproject.com...

Source; www.projectcamelot.net...

Because for me, this is a 100% reality, and therefore an absolute real possibility of the existing of an Alien anti-gravity drive device as claimed by Bob Lazar en supported by John Lear.
But obviously, when you don’t believe now in the reality that Earth is being visited by UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies., you would also never believe in the existing of an Alien anti-gravity drive device either.


reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 12:29 PM by buddhasystem
Originally posted by spacevisitor
Hi buddhasystem, you can come with anything you want, reply on reply, trying to debunk it like it is one of your specialities, but you can’t convince me in any way that it is 100% fabrication.


I do not want to. I offer science facts that a lot of folks didn't have a chance to learn about earlier, and let them draw their conclusions. If you disagree with the simple science I presented, feel free to argue. If you don't, then your belief in this design is 100% act of faith and not reason, so I have to rest my case.



Well I wander, what is your professional opinion of this sort of information then? What more proof do you want?


If you read your source carefully, mind the future tense. "Will establish".... "will prove"...

Hell, maybe I will be a millionaire one day, I just don't know. Same difference.

Because for me, this is a 100% reality, and therefore an absolute real possibility of the existing of an Alien anti-gravity drive device as claimed by Bob Lazar en supported by John Lear.


I fail to see ANY connection whatsoever between hypothetical existense of UFOs and the feasibility of the design presented by Lazar, which I find completely bogus on many levels. As for John's involvement, he didn't even bother to read Lazar's page (as is evident from his ignorance about what sort of antimatter Bob said was emitted). John hasn't contribute anything material to Bob's hoax. This is reflected in the fact that Lazar still has a Wikipedia page and John no longer does. At best he just regurgitates what Bob said, with varying degree of accuracy.

But obviously, when you don’t believe now in the reality that Earth is being visited by UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles


That has no bearing on whether the Bob's design is real or not.


[edit on 10-1-2008 by buddhasystem]


reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 12:39 PM by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by buddasystem


Well heck, I didn't call anybody BS and I didn't lie in any of my posts here, so I still do better than some.


When you compare your deeds to that of those you find reprehensible, then you, at best, will only achieve the same reprehensible behavior.

I, personally, see nothing wrong with calling you "BS" for short...but that is just me. My point is since it offends you, you should be the most understanding of Tezzajw, and should be the first to comply with his request. Not doing so appears irrational and petty, and is below you.

Stoop all you want, i guess.

Well you see, nanomaterials have to do with essentially solid state physics effects, which indeed can be quite unusual. However, whatever nanostructure you design, it does not have any effect on the properties of the nuclei in that material. And that's the focus of my presentation here.


I apologize. I am not focusing on one specific area to find causation. I am referring more to the burgeoning field of quasiparticles (plasmons, magnons, etc) to produce the strange results. Since i am dealing completely with theory here (as the sketch in question cannot be found in physical form), and trying to answer the question "How can it be possble" as opposed to "is it possible".

When did science make that change? If we choose to assume that all things are possible, then all that is left is to discern how. keep a sharp eye and an open mind...the research may just be out there!!!

You see, BFFT, your intent is commendable; however, you are piling up the material science and nuclear physics and radiation physics. The chunk of metal (i.e. the alleged 115) that Bob was showing to John might have had a nanostructure of some sort, but it in no way negates the cross sections of the nuclear reactions. What happens in the atomic realm (electron shells and solid state effects) rarely couples with the nuclear phenomena. I presented basic considerations above.


I am not referring to the metaproperties of the 115, i am referring to the construction of the device itself. YOu report that it has impossible characteristics, yet ignore the possibility of amalgomated metamaterials providing these characteristics. One does not need a magnet if he can control the flow of electrons in some other way.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^