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.

 

Please explain an "Anti-Gravity" device

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by who_sright?
As I get more and more theories more and more questions seem to pop into my head.

An anti-gravity device in my opinion is a devices that removes the effect of gravity from an object.
All of your help is very much appreciated.


Check this dudes theory
www.scribd.com/savvys84




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
My 2 cents: Yes it is possible, it must be remembered that energy is trans dimensional , any shift in energy levels in one dimension will result in a force in another.


Interesting...You seem to posit the idea that whatever "energy" we employ in this, our "dimension"/brane, exerts an influence on other potential dimensions/planes of existence.

If this indeed be the case, I'd like to propose that whatever influences are employed in our own dimension are indigenous to our 'brane' alone, all matters being relative to their origins, and so, would likely stand to pose little, if any, effect on other potential existences.

Or are you merely referring to the reciprocal/subsidiary effects associated with the exertion of a force and it is it that I am reading far TOO much into your comments?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 




Here is a theory it may be flawed, and most probably is.
...
What if we were to find materials that had buoyancy that pushed them away from the ground?

We might be then able to build submarine like machines that can navigate in the air the way our ocean ones do.



Actually, it is a most intriguing theory, though to be 'scientifically' pedantic about it we should call it an hypothesis, I suppose, or the authoritarian nay-sayers will be all over the thread.

Could you flesh the idea out a little more? I'm wondering, do you see these 'buoyancy materials' as something that would be 'contained' inside our antigravity machine, thus directly analagous to the submarine?

Because, you got me thinking. Maybe the 'buoyancy materials' could be builtin to the actual structure of the anitgravity machine in such a way that the antigravity properties could be manipulated somehow. Maybe this would give the added advantage of offering some control over direction? I'm just free-form thinking here, I don't really see how that could work, but maybe better minds could figure it out.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by who_sright?
I have read many threads supposedly describing an anti-gravity device or a new theory that will lead to the creation of an anti-gravity device. What I would like to know is how would one test this device and prove that it is not effected by gravity and how would one control such a device since gravity has no effect would it not be impossible to prevent this device from moving in any direction of other variables such as wind, sound, light so on and so forth.

Part b. please explain this device in a manner that a helium balloon or blimp is not an anti-gravity device.

Thank you


An actual "anti-gravity" or, concretely, a space-time metric engineering device must be able to bend light.

Gravity--by definition---affects all physics through changing space-time metric.

No such working device (meaning changing space-time more than the standard equations of Einstein relativity) has been demonstrated, or one which has any engineering potential.

There was one odd result from ESA scientists showing an enhanced gravitomagnetic affect in a superconductor---that may be the closest thing. But it was still going from a stupendously weak to a very weak effect.

A balloon is simply ordinary forces. The net air pressure on the bottom is larger than that on the top, so it rises.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 




Here is a theory it may be flawed, and most probably is.
...
What if we were to find materials that had buoyancy that pushed them away from the ground?

We might be then able to build submarine like machines that can navigate in the air the way our ocean ones do.



Actually, it is a most intriguing theory, though to be 'scientifically' pedantic about it we should call it an hypothesis, I suppose, or the authoritarian nay-sayers will be all over the thread.



It IS an intriguing theory, yet the premise is based solely on the discovery of a hypothetical material and I had thought that the subject matter of the thread was more so oriented towards absolutes &/or what of the World &/or Universe we are actually aware of or have tangible evidence for..."?"

All in all though, yes, should we discover a substance or material that is intrinsically/naturally buoyant, it WOULD serve to circumvent the need for devising some means of levitating an object or vehicle and narrow our focus to merely devising a form of propulsion for it as half of the work, arguably the hardest part, would have already been done for us.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by kissmygrits
 


Yep, sounds like a B-3 to me

So mad it may just work!
Seriously though: rotation, magnetism, & 'voltage' are key elements....



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 


Try Quartz (heim's theory/De Aquino)
If Bearden's hypothesis is anywhere near right, we can literally alter matter, energy, reality itself. OK Bearden goes on about a lot of highly incredible stuff (his own MEG project still not on the market:@@

But if you also read Aspden, Heim, Searl, Kron & a host of others, you can start to build a picture....
OK maybe not Searl; he is still being 'debunked'



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 





All in all though, yes, should we discover a substance or material that is intrinsically/naturally buoyant, it WOULD serve to circumvent the need for devising some means of levitating an object or vehicle and narrow our focus to merely devising a form of propulsion for it as half of the work, arguably the hardest part, would have already been done for us.


So... thinking further, what would be the properties of this hypothetical material?

OK, buoyancy for one. So the submarine is buoyant in water right? What 'material' makes the submarine buoyant, and what is it about that 'material' than transfers its buoyancy to the submarine?



posted on Sep, 1 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Call me part of the club, since I'm curious if such a phenomenon exists too.

It's fairly obvious that gravity has some characteristic link to matter, which makes up mass. And mass also happens to be just another form of energy. (Given that E=mc²) Another interesting property of mass besides gravity is inertia. Are the two linked or related?

If the gravity and inertia aspects of mass are revealed as two separate things, it may be possible to create conditions where one counteracts the other. Technically it may still not be "true anti-gravity", but it would definitely let us do some things we currently haven't been able to do. Means of propellantless propulsion come to mind.

I tend to think of gravity as a phenomena relating to energy density in space. In other words, it's related to the existence of a lot of energy stored in a small place. It turns out there's quite a bit of energy in atoms. (But thankfully, under most circumstances they're exceptionally stable.) Instead of treating masses as masses, perhaps they should be treated as potentials?

Coming from the layperson perspective, I also see that gravitation forces work on the inverse square laws. The other things that seem to work on inverse squares are magnetism and other related electromagnetic phenomena (light, radio waves, etc.) So that particular characteristic seems to suggest they're related.

I don't know if there will be anti-gravity, but perhaps cancellation/shielding or negative gravity effects could be produced. Sort of like there's no anti-magnetism, but it can be shielded or repelled or enhanced by other magnetic fields. Unlike magnetism, gravity as we currently know it doesn't seem to have a polarity. (At least as far as we know. Maybe it has a phase bias or some odd property we don't understand yet.) So that makes figuring out some things trickier.

To test for some gravitic effect, it would require a test chamber that rules out buoyancy, known electromagnetic effects, convection currents, etc. In other words, the testing would have to be done in vacuum chamber of non-ferrous non-conductive materials and isolated from magnetic fields. And all your test equipment would have to work under those conditions and rule out things that could cause interference in measurement.

Anyhow if we can ever figure out the gravity thing, I suspect it might be another key to unlocking potentials in matter. In other words, you'd have relatively cheap means of mass/energy conversion. But that also means it may make existing nuclear science look a bit crude, and have an equal magnitude of danger associated with it. (Imagine how a hydrogen bomb works, but now having a method to convert other heavier elements directly into energy. If something like that truly exists and easy enough to do, it may be understandable why such a technology would be kept well hidden.)



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by pauljs75
 

There seems to be evidence that gravity & inertia can be separated, by 'inertia' i mean angular momentum, check this out;
files.abovetopsecret.com...
The 'inertial translation' works something like 'precession'-which the scientists have a bit of a problem explaining effectively.
This is the same effect as 'fridge magnet'-something else not quite explainable, despite a brave attempt by MIT to confuse us, and muddled entirely when 'debunkers' start quoting the Work equation, Thermodynamics etc. I firmly beleive that electrostatic & magnetic forces are 'pan dimensional' & i am beginning to think that 'gravity' & 'inertia' are, too.
Just my 2 cents
but i do read a lot of papers on this stuff.

[edit on 2-9-2010 by playswithmachines]

[edit on 2-9-2010 by playswithmachines]



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by just an allusion
 


Try Quartz (heim's theory/De Aquino)
If Bearden's hypothesis is anywhere near right, we can literally alter matter, energy, reality itself. OK Bearden goes on about a lot of highly incredible stuff (his own MEG project still not on the market:@@

But if you also read Aspden, Heim, Searl, Kron & a host of others, you can start to build a picture....
OK maybe not Searl; he is still being 'debunked'


Provide a link to enable a review please.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by just an allusion
 


Here are a few;
Bearden's theories can be read at; www.cheniere.org...
The De Aquino article is at; AMERICANANTIGRAVITY.COM
the Woodward effect (americanantigravity):chaos.fullerton.edu...
Kowsky-Frost antigravity experiments: www.keelynet.com...
Heim's theory: www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26 and : www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26.

Other References;
[1] E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk
Y Ba2Cu3O7−x Superconductor, Physica C Vol. 203 p. 441 (1992).
[2] E. Podkletnov, Weak Gravitational Shielding Properties of Composite Bulk
Y Ba2Cu3O7−x Superconductor Below 70 K Under EM Field, LANL Physics
Preprint Server, preprint cond-mat/9701074, January 1997. Available on the net:
www.gravity.org...
[3] N. Li, D. Noever, T. Robertson, R. Koczor and W. Brantley, Static Test for a
Gravitational Force Coupled to Type II YBCO Superconductors, Physica C 281, 260-
267. R. Koczor and D. Noever, Fabrication of Large Bulk Ceramic Superconductor
Disks for Gravity Modification Experiments and Performance of YBCO Disks Under
e.m. Field Excitation, NASA Marshall, Huntsville, AL, AIAA 99-2147, 35th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, 20-24 June 1999, Los Angeles,
CA.
[4] Frederic N. Rounds, Anomalous Weight Behavior in Y Ba2Cu3O7−x Compounds at
Low Temperature, NASA Ames Research Center. Preprint physics/9705043.
[5] Harald Reiss, A Possible Interaction Between Gravity and High Temperature
Superconductivity-By a Materials Property, Submitted to the 15th. European Conf.
Thermophys. Properties, Wrzburg, Germany, Sept. 5-9, 1999.
[6] Ning Li and D. Torr, Effects of a gravitomagnetic field on pure superconductors, Phys.
Rev. D 43 (1991) 457; Gravitational effects on the magnetic attenuation of superconductors,
Phys. Rev. B 64 (1992) 5489.
[7] Ning Li and D. Torr, Gravitoelectric-electric coupling via superconductivity, Found.
Phys. Lett. 6 (1993) 371.
[8] G. Fontana, A possibility of emission of high frequency gravitational radiation from
junctions between d-wave and s-wave superconductors, report cond-mat/9812070;
27
Gravitational radiation and its application to space travel, in CP504, Space Technology
and Applications International Forum-2000, edited by M.S. El-Genk, AiP, p.
1085.
[9] M. Agop, C. Gh. Buzea and P. Nica, Gravitational shielding in an electromagnetic
field. Local gravitoelectromagnetic effects on a superconductor, Physica C: Superconductivity,
339 (2) (2000) pp. 120-128
[10] U. Balachandran, R.B. Poeppel, J.E. Emerson, S.A. Johnson, M.T. Lanagan, C.A.
Youngdahl, Donglu Shi, K.C. Goretta, N.G. Eror, Synthesis of Phase-Pure Orthorhombic
Y Ba2Cu3O7−x under Low Oxygen Pressure, Materials Letters 8 (1989)
454-456.
[11] T.B. Lindemer, F.A. Washburn, C.S. MacDougall, O.B. Cavin, Synthesis of Y-Ba-
Cu-O superconductors in subatmospheric oxygen, Physica C 174 (1991) 135-143.
[12] M. Murakami, Processing of bulk YBaCuO, Supercond. Sci. Technol. vol. 5, pp 185-
203, 1992.
[13] S. Nariki, N. Sakai and M. Murakami, Fabrication of large melt-textured Gd-Ba-Cu-O
superconductor with Ag addition, Physica C: Superconductivity, 341-348 (1-4) (2000)
pp. 2409-2412.
[14] M. Muralidhar, S. Koishikawa, M.R. Koblischka and M. Murakami, Study of superconducting
properties of OCMG processed (Nd, Eu, Gd)-Ba-Cu-O with Pr doping,
Physica C: Superconductivity, 314 (3-4) (1999) pp. 277-284.
[15] S.I. Yoo, N. Sakai, T. Higuchi and M. Murakami, Melt processing for obtaining
NdBa2Cu3Oy superconductors with high Tc and large Jc, Appl. Phys. Lett. 65 (1994)
pp. 633-635.
[16] V.R. Todt, X.F. Zhang and D.J. Miller, Nucleation and growth of single- and multipledomain
Y Ba2Cu3O7−x Levitators: Influence of Seed Crystallofraphy, IEEE Trans. on
Appl. Super., vol. 7(2), pp. 1801-1804, June 1997.
[17] Chan-Joong Kim, Young A. Jee, Gye-Won Hong, Tae-Hyun Sung, Young-Hee Han,
Sang-Chul Han, Sang-Joon Kim, W. Bieger, G. Fuchs, Effects of the seed dimension
on the top surface growth mode and the magnetic properties of top-seeded melt growth
processed YBCO superconductors, Physica C 331 (2000) pp. 274-284.
[18] G. Modanese, Theoretical analysis of a reported weak gravitational shielding effect,
Europhys. Lett. 35 (1996) 413-418.
[19] G. Modanese, Role of a “local” cosmological constant in euclidean quantum gravity,
Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 5002.
[20] G. Modanese, Tunneling of a massless scalar field through a 3D gaussian barrier, J.
Math. Phys. 40 (1999) 3300.
28
[21] G. Modanese, Virtual dipoles and large fluctuations in quantum gravity, Phys. Lett.
B 460 (1999) 276; Large “dipolar” fluctuations in quantum gravity, Nucl. Phys. B 588
(2000) 419-435; Paradox of virtual dipoles in the Einstein action, Phys. Rev. D 62
(2000) 087502;
[22] G. Modanese, The dipolar zero-modes of Einstein action: An informal summary with
some new issues, in Proceedings of the Vigier III Symp. (Aug. 21-25, 2000, U. California
Berkeley), Kluwer Acad. Press.
[23] A.G. Riess et al., Astronom. J. 116 (1998) 1009; S. Perlmutter et al., Astrophys. J.
517 (1999) 565.
[24] I.L. Shapiro and J. Sol`a, On the scaling behavior of the cosmological constant and the
possible existence of new forces and new light degrees of freedom, Phys. Lett. B 475
(2000) 236; Scaling behavior of the cosmological constant: interface between quantum
field theory and cosmology, report UAB-FT-490, hep-th/0012227.
[25] G. Modanese, Local contribution of a quantum condensate to the vacuum energy density,
report gr-qc/0107073.
[26] J. Waldram, “Superconductivity of metals and cuprates”, IoP, London, 1996.
[27] D.R. Tilley and J. Tilley, “Superfluidity and superconductivity”, IoP, Bristol, 1990.
[28] G. Modanese, The London field in bulk layered superconductors, report condmat/
9909441.
[29] G. Modanese, Gravitational anomalies by HTC superconductors: a 1999 theoretical
status report, report physics/9901011.
[30] For the gravitational case: G. Modanese, Potential energy in quantum gravity, Nucl.
Phys. B 434 (1995) 697. For the other cases: K. Symanzik, Comm. Math. Phys. 16
(1970) 48.
[31] For a recent account and references see C. Barcelo, S. Liberati and M. Visser, Analog
gravity from field theory normal modes?, report gr-qc/0104001.
[32] B. Mashhoon, H. Young Paik and C. Will, Detection of the gravitomagnetic field using
an orbiting superconducting gradiometer; theoretical principles, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2825
(1989).
[33] I. Ciufolini and J. Wheeler, “Gravitation and Inertia”, Princeton Series in Physics,
Princeton university press, 1995, Cap. 6.
[34] R.P. Lano, Gravitational Meissner effect, report U.ofIowa 96-4, March 1996.
[35] H. Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 2701.
[36] B. M. Barker and R. F. O’Connell, The gravitational interaction: spin, rotation and
quantum effects - A review, Gen. Rel. Grav. 11 (1979) 149.
29
[37] R. F. O’Connell, Phys. Lett. A 32 (1970) 402.
[38] R. F. O’Connell and S. N. Rasband, Nature Phys. Sci. 232 (1971) 193.
[39] A. Peres, Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 2739. See also Y. N. Obukhov, Spin, gravity, and
inertia, report gr-qc/0012102.
[40] R. C. Ritter, L. I. Winkler, and G. T. Gillies, Search for anomalous spin-dependent
forces with a polarized-mass torsion pendulum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 701.
[41] H. Wallace, Method and apparatus for generating a secondary gravitational force field,
US Patent N. 3626605 (1971).
[42] G. A. Ummarino, Possible alterations of the gravitational field in a superconductor,
report cond-mat/0010399.
[43] S. M. Carroll and G. B. Field, Consequences of propagating torsion in connectiondynamic
theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 3867.
[44] A. Ye. Akimov and V. Ya. Tarasenko, Models of polarization states of the physical
vacuum and torsion fields, Izd. Vuzov. Fizika, 1992, Nov. 3, pp. 13-23. See also on the
Web: www.amasci.com...
[45] K. Nordtvedt, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 27 (1988) 1395.
[46] J. F. Woodward, Laboratory test of Mach’s principle and strong-field relativistic gravity,
Found. Phys. Lett. 9 (1996) 247, and references.
[47] D.E. Groom et al. (Particle Data Group), Review of particle physics, Eur. Phys. J. C
15 (2000); pdg.lbl.gov....
[48] G. T. Gillies, The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related
studies, Rep. Prog. Phys. 60 (1997) 151-225.
[49] W. Michaelis, H. Haars, and R. Augustin, Metrologia 32, 267 (1995). M. Fitzgerald
and T. R. Armstrong, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas. 44, 494 (1995). H. Walesch,
H. Meyer, H. Piehl, and J. Schurr, IEEE Trans. on Inst. and Meas. 44, 491 (1995).
V.P. Izmailov, O.V. Karagioz, V.A. Kuznetsov, V.N. Mel’nikov, and A.E. Roslyakov,
Measurement Techniques 36, 1065 (1993).
[50] N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali, The Hierarchy Problem and New Dimensions
at a Millimeter, Phys.Lett. B429 (1998) 263-272.
[51] C.D. Hoyle, U. Schmidt, B.R. Heckel, E.G. Adelberger, J.H. Gundlach, D.J. Kapner,
and H.E. Swanson, Submillimeter Tests of the Gravitational Inverse-Square Law: A
Search for “Large” Extra Dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published).
[52] D. La and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 376 for status and references
on scalar-tensor gravitational theories. See also S. Calchi Novati, S. Capozziello and
G. Lambiase, Newtonian limit of induced gravity, report astro-ph/0005104.
...There's plenty more where that came from



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
amazing1.com (a.k.a the "for the evil genius" books), have the schematic for a couple of anti-gravity projects. Unfortunately, neither is a true anti-gravity device (think more ion propulsion). One uses an electrical charge placed between a filament and a smooth conductive surface (like aluminum foil), fairly easy to build but has a lot of control issues. Another problem with that device is that it works by charging the surrounding air (via the filament) which then is attracted to the grounded surface (the smooth foil) and thus air will move through the gap between the filament and surface generating a small thrust (proportional to the amount of space between surface and filament and the amount of charge placed on the filament). this means that the amount of available thrust is limited by the amount of power used, the amount of air available, the physical structure of the lift, and so on. It is more of a "work in progress" than a currently applicable project. The other project they have is an Ion propeller (much more interesting) that basically takes a bunch of charge and focuses it into a small space (like a needle), in so doing the sheer amount of negative charge converging at one point forces the electrons to dart off like a cannon and create thrust. The only real problem here is generating enough charge to get a useful thrust. But if its true anti-gravity you are looking for, I've heard that taking a high concentration of excited particles at a high density (plasma) and rotating it in a chamber has a nullifying affect on gravitational fields. This is just a rumor that I heard somewhere, and obviously I lack the resources to test out this theory, but it may be a direction for you to go if you wish to try it out.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Dorian23
 


Sounds like 'lifter' technology to me.
If you supply your own gas
you can even use it in space, NASA tried an ion drive back in the 80's, but it produced so little thrust it was practically useless....
Note to debunkers; Interesting fact, the 'lifter' actually produces more thrust than can be accouted for than by ion flow alone. It would appear that the Biefeld-Brown effect is real

I know Mythbusters tried this with a vac chamber and the lifter didn't move, that's because they forgot to mention 2 things, 1 the B-B effect takes place at or just before the breakdown of the dielectric (air), so if you have a complete vacuum, it won't work. 2 they also ignored the fact that to compensate for the thinner air, you need to increase the voltage
Say a couple billion V for a near vacuum?.
Common EM theory says current does the work, not voltage. Obviously they missed something..........




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join