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.

 

Casimir effect and anti-gravity?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   

In physics, the Casimir effect and the Casimir-Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field. The typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart, without any external electromagnetic field. In a classical description, the lack of an external field also means that there is no field between the plates, and no force would be measured between them. When this field is instead studied using quantum electrodynamics, it is seen that the plates do affect the virtual photons which constitute the field, and generate a net force[1]—either an attraction or a repulsion depending on the specific arrangement of the two plates. This force has been measured, and is a striking example of an effect purely due to second quantization. [2][3] (However, the treatment of boundary conditions in these calculations has led to some controversy.[4])

Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder first proposed the existence of the force and formulated an experiment to detect it in 1948 while participating in research at Philips Research Labs. The classic form of the experiment, described above, successfully demonstrated the force to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory.[5]

Because the strength of the force falls off rapidly with distance, it is only measurable when the distance between the objects is extremely small. On a submicrometre scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. In fact, at separations of 10 nm—about 100 times the typical size of an atom—the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa), the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors [1].

Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. In modern theoretical physics, the Casimir effect plays an important role in the chiral bag model of the nucleon; and in applied physics, it is becoming increasingly important in the development of the ever-smaller, miniaturised components of emerging microtechnologies and nanotechnologies.


So in theory, this could transpire throughout many modifications into possible anti-gravity (considering you have a very powerful energy source)?




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
basicly u use subatomic particals as your wind.. it just can ect

not hard just very complex



energy is the sme thing no matter how small or big! try to keep that in mind..



[edit on 10-1-2009 by theresult]



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 


Yeah but if we understand the basic principles of the Casimir effect, how is that we don't utilize it.

Obviouslly John Hutchinson can make stuff float with it however he has an external energy source.

Now in theory say you have a device that does use sub-atomic particles as an energy source, you round it up around a connected metal creating a quantified field theory and then some nice diddly doo mechanisms to direct your craft forward and back you could fly around?

I'm pretty positive you must have a "engine" of sorts to then in hand mend all the other invisble energy around the connected frame of the craft.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Wel telsa did this way befor hutchingson..

he based all his stuff on telsas work


But what telsa and indeed huntching say is coreect.. We can tap into space "energy" or zero ect..

tesla knew that we are all on a mass / scale // we can tap into the life force of the universe.. "atoms wizzing about"..

its very very complex stuff but so simple in its theory..

Space is a container inside of this is the universe inisde that is us

We can tap the life of universe > loop universe gets power from xxx??

its random for a reason i think we cant caluclate it yet using math.. soon tho when we ditch math.. ; D



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 



Haha nice to know but I already know this. I'm a great fan of Nicola, in fact I think he was on the same equilibrium as Einstein if not greater in some aspects.

However I am awaiting someone with definitive calculations and explanations of how this could be done, theoretically.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


Think of a bubble in beer..

same thing.. We are IN something.. if we are to travel faster than light we need to remove ourself from the paramaters of light = space..

Now with this in mind Zero point would be infact space "or its energer"..

same way we know you are alive becouse you have a pules and you run on a mix of electicity and biogy// we dont know what tho..

But we do know there are 2 sides to this story and telsa found th elecotro side of the story..

THe are 2 points Energy and Spirit.. they are not the same thing btw



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 


I do hope your native language is not English.

However.

My space/time theories are complex based on what I know. And they gain more ground everyday.

What I am asking is not of a grain of sand on a beach, but of a anti-gravity possiblity from a grain or two grains of sand on a beach.

Catch my drift?



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


my name is drunken yoda



but the question you are asking is YES..

string theory proves hes right

M theory proves hes right

My theory proves hes right "cell theory"

What we / him are tapping into is the way we create life itself..

how he did it? ask him i just know hes very very outside a very small box.. and i blame men with no vision for that small box we inslave ourself in..




posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by theresult
 



Obviouslly John Hutchinson can make stuff float with it however he has an external energy source.




Hutchinson is a Fraud



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


That's nice.


=)



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


That's nice.


=)


That is your entire analysis of my evidence eh? Glad to see you really took about 1 second to read the title of the link before making up your mind on it.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Taking a look at this interesting force... it appears that it drops off dramatically as distance increases. In fact, it drops off so dramatically that it is essentially zero at distances as small as a few diameters of an atom. I suspect that it would be impossible (or extremely impractical) for this force to be the driving energy behind any "anti-gravity" device.

Here is some simple math for this force:


turns out that, on balance, the attractive components have a slightly stronger impact than the repulsive ones. For two perfect, plane, parallel mirrors the Casimir force is therefore attractive and the mirrors are pulled together. The force, F, is proportional to the cross-sectional area, A, of the mirrors and increases 16-fold every time the distance, d, between the mirrors is halved: F ~ A/d4. Apart from these geometrical quantities the force depends only on fundamental values - Planck's constant and the speed of light.


Casimir Effect

For those of you that really like math... here are the expanded equations:

Casimir equations pertaining to coadjoint orbit theory



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


oh well so what if he is... i think he makes a cool hippy,,,


we still have tesla.. very smart person.. looked and seen the river that flows within...this guy was waaayyy off the chart in thinking but he could prove it.. HE made what he wanted to prove..

You see for me telsa could show that no matter how small one goes there will be energy.. zero point menas you infact the next lower or higher level.. of what it is to be alive.. We can power us lot with what we need from the yang of being here..

sounds crazy?? well so is tuning ur telly into remote electrictiy..

telsa was god imo becouse he understud being alive and not just stupid to the world of greed and men..



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


As far as you go.

Proove to me that the twin towers weren't blown up by explosives.

Proove to me that UFOs don't fly off anti-gravity (maybe even similar to what John has produced)

And proove to me why I should care what you say because I've already reviewed every skeptic on John Hutchinson and found that they are as worthy of proof as he is.

Blah humbug.

On the other hand.

Good point other guy!

=)



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Amniodarone
 


Math is a load of tripe!!!


INFINITY SYMMERTY LOOPS

that means WE DONT KNOW.. IT JUST HAPPENS

man i hate math but i hate it "both logical and not at the same time"

Wtf????????

yes that is maths... im crazy i know this...math is FLAWED
well it will be soon..



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


As far as you go.

Proove to me that the twin towers weren't blown up by explosives.


Huh? Did I say they were or were not? Did I mention 9/11?


Proove to me that UFOs don't fly off anti-gravity (maybe even similar to what John has produced)


HUH? Did I mention that either?


And proove to me why I should care what you say because I've already reviewed every skeptic on John Hutchinson and found that they are as worthy of proof as he is.

Blah humbug.

On the other hand.

Good point other guy!

=)


So...a very clear string raising and lowering his object is not proof enough for you that the film was a complete fraud? What more proof do you need that the man was faking anti-gravity than footage of him using string to fake anti-gravity?

How is that not proof enough for you?

The other guy is right. I am not knocking Tesla and I would not. This guy is a complete huckster though. I am sorry that very clear footage of string used to fake anti-gravity proves nothing to you. Sad really.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


I agree in a way.. say he is faking? it still stands you cant debunk telsa... I mean this guy has pattens you cant buy .. or even find out what they are

Please try... u cant get telsas pattens//

Now zero point energy "tesla" stlye is like..friction!!

the friction the universe makes at it expands gives us unlimited energy to tap into "call it bein alive or god or zzz" but its there in a very real way..

telsa knew this.. now i dont know if John did that or found it out but he based all his ideas on tesla and he says that himsefl...

So for me john is making a point and showing the effects or he is a compleat # ... "why bother?"

zero point is real no matter how you look at it..



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 


Those skeptics don't debunk John because he 1) didn't admit to it like any other hoaxter and 2) theres no visual evidence of any faking of the events.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by theresult
 


You did catch me saying that I am NOT knocking Tesla right? I just have to say something about anyone that publishes their own footage of their antigravity effects with a clear string pulling it up and down. The man is an interesting character and knows how to sell things but he is not a professional film maker and needs someone to observe the entire shot for him so he can try harder to hide things like the string used to do his tricks.



posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Intothepitwego
 

2) theres no visual evidence of any faking of the events.


What? What do you call clear footage of string pulling his object up and down? That is not visual evidence of him faking the events?

Let me ask you another question that you can work around and pretend to not read correctly, what first hand visual evidence is there of him pulling any of this off? Why can he only do it on film, and even there needs to use string to make it happen?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join