Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Deconstructing the anti-gravity drive

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Likewise. An "anti-gravity engine" would have no effect in the interstellar void


Err... at least the hoaxers are telling us that this gravity produced by the engine is used to curve space and shorten distances. That's weird but actually the least controversial aspect of these claims. I of course think that "gravity A" and "gravity B" is crock, but that's just my opinion.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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



A jet engine compresses or alters the density of a fluid. Does the proposed "anti-gravity drive" do the same thing?



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??


No, not at all.

I'm saying that warping gravity is useless, where there is no gravity to warp. More than about 20 diameters from a planetoid, and there's no gravity present, to manipulate.



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


The ruse of "it is beyond your comprehension" is useless, if the thread or diagram purports to actually . . . explain anything.
.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
As you can see, I focused on nuclear physics/power generation characteristics of the apparatus, which I find completely bogus.

That's probably why you'll never be able to build a UFO, I suppose.

Something powers those UFOs. 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...



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
See my point? Knowledge is supposed to evolve, and move forward. Yes, of course, what sounds 'crazy' in one context could halt that progression.


You're absolutelly right. Real science is supposed to constantly evolve.
It should never take a theory as the ultimate truth, but just the best description of reality so far.

Unfortunatelly many scientists often forget this and don't try to look beyond, but there are always those, who constantly look for the next step in the evolution of science.

But any major leap will come from someone who understands all of the current theories perfectly, but knows there must be a better one out there.

Not from someone, who uses a bad understanding of certain scientific terms to make up something fantastic, while his basic premise is wrong.


It's kinda like in art, where you have to be able to paint normal paintings, before dabbling in abstract ones. Otherwise you're just throwing paint at the canvas..

Similarly, throwing pseudo-scientific terms around, doesn't really acomplish much, except confusing people into believing what is said is scientifically valid and making them buy bogus books.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Likewise. An "anti-gravity engine" would have no effect in the interstellar void


Err... at least the hoaxers are telling us that this gravity produced by the engine is used to curve space and shorten distances. That's weird but actually the least controversial aspect of these claims. I of course think that "gravity A" and "gravity B" is crock, but that's just my opinion.


Yeah. I disbelieve. You get curvature of space/time around a blackhole, because of the insane mass crammed into it. Which also makes it visible using radio telescopes from earth. If that were the case, there'd be "gravity lenses" all over the sky where alien craft had traveled, especially if they had come close to earth, and fiddled with our gravity signature.

Wikipedia: gravity well.


.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

The ruse of "it is beyond your comprehension" is useless, if the thread or diagram purports to actually . . . explain anything.
.



Well put. I made the same point to WW/TJ recently. Once you start explaining how things work in that reactor based on physics, you are liable to stick with physics and not majik.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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.


Exactly. It's incredible, how often this approach is used in new age and similiar books lately.

It's just a bunch of big words most people might have heard, but don't really understand, but it's enough to make them believe it might be real and that it's based in science..

But it can't stand up to any real scientific evaluation.

It's basically on the level of Star Trek techno babble, often even below that.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by deezee]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
The diagram to me looks like its basic so common folk can understand...

I never did all that well in physics but the diagram seems to be written so I can understand the gist of it...

The fact that no magnet was drawn on tube A doesn't mean one wasn't present.

Also, perhaps the material contains physical properties that negates the need for a magnet...


At any rate, if I drew a picture of a lightbulb and stated that the center curved wire glows brightly, but didn't explain the vaccuum tube or the current flow, it wouldn't mean the lightbulb doesn't work or never actually existed. It this case it would mean my diagram is incomplete.

Also, take into account perspective. Even if I couldn't figured out how a lightbulb worked, it doesn't mean I couldn't draw a diagram that accurately represented what it does, however incomplete the details...



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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".

Duly noted. While you think that it is near impossible, I think that there is a clandestine group who do have the knowledge of how a UFO is powered. After all, if the Air Force can keep a secret about its dealings with ET, then keeping a secret about the power source for their craft wouldn't be a problem.


buddhasystem
Don't take me wrong, tezz

A minor bit of housekeeping here, buddhasystem. Perhaps you didn't read my reply in the Element 115 thread. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you have not. Here it is again for you to read.

tezzajw
I'd prefer it if you spelt my username correctly (tezzajw), rather than possibly trying to slur it to your own liking. I'm sure you know, being a physicst, how touchy some people can be when you don't reference them properly in your standard mainstream publications and research papers. The same principle applies here too. Thanks for your understanding.

Please use my screen name properly, as I have asked. If need be, then pretend that I am a PhD peer whom you are referencing in one of your mainstream physics research papers, then you won't be tempted to slur my name again. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobbyt
At any rate, if I drew a picture of a lightbulb and stated that the center curved wire glows brightly, but didn't explain the vaccuum tube or the current flow, it wouldn't mean the lightbulb doesn't work or never actually existed.


Oh, but it's not like that at all. It's like: here's the bulb, and here's the battery. When I connect the two, the curved tugsten wire starts emitting anitprotons.

You see the difference? There is actually a fair amount of detail in the description of the alleged reactor, just enough to make it believable for a layperson.

If you re-read some of what I wrote, you'll see that it was about specifics, and largely not about something being absent. I grant you that the curved hose for feeding protons to the reactor zone was an exception.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Another thought on Lazar's description of the alleged "reactor". The antiprotons are supposedly emitted by the nuclei of element 115, in that arrow shaped piece. To get out of that bulk metal, they need to cross a certain thickness of it. And the density of heavy elements is quite large. So there will be inevitably annihilation going right inside that piece, much more so than in the tenuous "gaseous target" that Lazar said is used.

Yup, that whole thing is 100% fabrication.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

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?



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

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]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobbyt
The diagram to me looks like its basic so common folk can understand...


Actualy, any real scientist would draw the thing as it is really supposed to look, describe it's workings in scientific terms and then maybe offer a simplified explanation.

Unfortunatelly in this case, as well as many others, it is just another example of using pseudo scientific terms in order to make the entire thing appear valid.

The author simply (correctly) assumes, most people don't understand enough about physics, to know it all just a bunch of nonsense.


Look at descriptions of how particle accelerators work. You will see the cross section of the tube, with all the parts drawn and electromagnets (coils) around, meant to keep the particle in the middle and accelerate it.

There is no need to simplify things. Those, who don't really understand, will still learn as much as they would from a simplified drawing, or maybe even more, while those, who do understand it, will learn a lot from it.

I'm sorry, but this is all just pretend science, only meant to accelerate book sales and nothing more.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
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]





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join