Physics of Anti-Gravity Explained in DETAIL... Legendary Video Series!!!

Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by loner007

 

Einstein wasn't respected before he was well known either.

That is the problem with scientific institutions now. They assume that someone that is already well-respected has to come up with plausible theory. But the truth is, new possibilities come from new sources.

Scientific institutions assume that somebody who comes up with a plausible theory already has to understand the existing accepted theory and experiments sufficiently well.

I just finished watching all twelve of these videos and I have to say, well done. I learned a lot from them and I look forward to more. The person who produced these only has a high-school education, yet he can teach physics more easily than most high school teachers these days. Because they're all conventional followers instead of crazy pioneers.

High school teachers are not going to be successful pioneers discovering new fundamental physics.

But they can be crazy.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged

How the hell can you guys say a theory is wrong without even learning what its saying??

OR ESPECIALLY WITHOUT STUDYING THE MATH!!!

Math doesn't lie. When the math produces results that the current world of physics says is impossible.. WITHOUT USING PLANCK'S CONSTANT, and actually, deriving planck's constant from FIRST PRINCIPLES, that means something.

Indeed, it usually means you did something wrong.

Planck's constant is dimensional, in units corresponding to arbitrary human choices. Deriving something from first principles may mean that you can fix nondimensional numbers. People have tried this for the fine structure constant for ages, though none is satisfactory or successful.

There are plenty of physical theories with correct mathematics which are nevertheless wrong physics; because physics is not mathematics. Good mathematics historically has had unusual power in describing correct physical theory (though the more contemporary experience with string theory may belie that), but just because it looks good doesn't mean it is a true physical representation of the universe.

General relativity has very beautiful (and for the time) innovative mathematics, but it is based most critically on physical axioms---not mathematical axioms---and these princples were the key insight of Einstein.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by loner007

 

Einstein wasn't respected before he was well known either.

That is the problem with scientific institutions now. They assume that someone that is already well-respected has to come up with plausible theory. But the truth is, new possibilities come from new sources.

Scientific institutions assume that somebody who comes up with a plausible theory already has to understand the existing accepted theory and experiments sufficiently well.

I just finished watching all twelve of these videos and I have to say, well done. I learned a lot from them and I look forward to more. The person who produced these only has a high-school education, yet he can teach physics more easily than most high school teachers these days. Because they're all conventional followers instead of crazy pioneers.

High school teachers are not going to be successful pioneers discovering new fundamental physics.

But they can be crazy.

Did you watch the videos? I think the accepted theory is understood, unless you can somehow prove that it isn't thoroughly explained or stated (which it is).

Also, who are you to say what high school teachers are NOT going to do? Like I said earlier, Einstein was a dropout...

Originally posted by die_another_day

Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by die_another_day

 

And oh, you obviously haven't watched the videos. Your post is very close to bordering on "off-topic". Not only does seattle4truth discuss that it's not a 5th force, he states that the pre-existing forces are never tampered with. Their magnetic counterparts are tampered with. Anti-gravity is kind of a misleading term, so I could see how you were thrown off, but next time you should probably look at the videos before commenting on the validity of their claims, or asking questions which were answered within.

He also incorporates EM and super-symmetry. The concept itself is not a conspiracy, obviously. But there may be a conspiracy in the contamination and restraint of materials available to produce "anti-gravity" and "cold fusion". Along with the evidence of "foul play" among the scientific community concerning the results of a pretty simple lab experiment.

Contaminated palladium=contaminated results.

edit on 1-11-2010 by prepared4truth because: address other issues

Actually I was waiting for someone to tell me what I missed.

I simply don't want to spend 2 hrs on a video about a physics conspiracy.

If you think that only the top secret laboratories of the US government can produce "anti-gravity" or "cold fusion" without universities or other countries knowing, then you must be disillusioned.


There is no "anti-gravity,"

There are forces and equal and opposite reactions.

Are you serious? It's not about a physics conspiracy... really, you should watch the videos. Also, why would top secret laboratories of the US government NOT be able to produce "anti-gravity" or "cold fusion" without other universities knowing? How do you know what other countries know? It is a known fact that organizations within countries carry out projects in secret so that other countries do not utilize the tech and they generate propaganda in order to keep people like YOU in the illusion.

Once again, who are you or any person that considers themselves knowledgeable to say, "There is no anti-gravity"? Like I said, if you watch the videos you'd see that "anti-gravity" is not what's being discussed. In better terms, it's "gravido-rotation-inducement".

Stop waiting for someone to tell you something. That's how things get distorted.

Did anyone else notice that in PART 2 (at time 4:54) the audio is distorted!? It sounds really out of place, as if someone messed with the original audio in order to distort the information. This is just conjecture on my part, but it doesn't sound like a problem created during the video's upload to YouTube. It sounds like somebody recorded a nonsensical mumbling, and then dubbed it over the original audio. I'm mainly thinking down this line of reasoning because of Cold Fusion's history of being regarded as a rather taboo area of interest among the scientific community, so as soon as the video (part 2, 4:54) started to detail part of the process of creating Cold Fusion, the audio is hijacked by a mubling from the Dark Lord Shabranigdo, WTF!? Or, it's also possible that my homework has driven me to hallucinate

Originally posted by prepared4truth
Also, who are you to say what high school teachers are NOT going to do? Like I said earlier, Einstein was a dropout...

Yes, from high-school (because it was too stifling), and he transferred to a degree program in a rigorous university (ETH) and subsequently earned a PhD from the University of Zurich. Even before completing his PhD, he was publishing papers in serious scientific journals.

In the transient state of d-wave superconductors, we investigate the temporal variation of photoinduced changes in the superfluid weight. We derive the formula that relates the nonlinear response function to the nonequilibrium distribution function. The latter qunatity is obtained by solving the kinetic equation with the electron-electron and the electron-phonon interaction included. By numerical calculations, a nonexponential decay is found at low temperatures in contrast to the usual exponential decay at high temperatures. The nonexponential decay originates from the nonmonotonous temporal variation of the nonequilibrium distribution function at low energies. The main physical process that causes this behavior is not the recombination of quasiparticles as previous phenomenological studies suggested, but the absorption of phonons.

linky
arxiv.org...

xp

Originally posted by die_another_day
...
There is no "anti-gravity,"

There are forces and equal and opposite reactions.

What would be the equal and opposite reaction of gravity?
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

reply to post by rockn82


The antigravitational field is really gravitomagnetism. It's a purely local field, like how a magnet curves back onto itself.

Thanks for the post, I actually watched all of them to my own surprise. Some complex stuff, but I gathered what I could understand from it. Some of the videos are no longer available though.

Enlightening information nevertheless, and yes the narrator is great, comedic in fact.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Do you think the theory makes sense?

The problem here is the term "ANTI GRAVITY" As long as we keep using that term mainstream science will pooh pooh it and toss out anyone working on it...

Anti-gravity, like anti matter implies equal and opposite, and when two opposites come together they will cancel each other out... in most cases with a violent release of energy.

Of what use would anti-gravity be as a propulsion unit if the two forces simple cancel each other out?

AlienScientist uses THIS new description for 'anti-gravity'

Anti-gravity is the idea of creating a place or object that is free from the force of gravity. It does not refer to countering the gravitational force by an opposing force of a different nature, as a helium balloon does; instead, anti-gravity requires that the fundamental causes of the force of gravity be made either not present or not applicable to the place or object through some kind of technological intervention.
www.alienscientist.com...

Los Alamos labs uses terms like 'Gravity shielding' ie blocking the effect of gravity, not creating an opposite force.

If you want to warp local space-time to fold space you DO NOT want anti-gravity... instead you want MORE gravity to create a gravity well around your ship

Gravity manipulation as Eugene calls it
Gravity Shielding from Los Alamos
Electrogravitics may work

but NOT ANTI GRAVITY

reply to post by zorgon



Gravity manipulation I agree with. Podkletnov used to call it gravity shielding, but that term is WAY WRONG. if it was gravity shielding u could block off the moon and send it out of orbit.

But the antigravitational effects come from a purely local field.

However, its just sementics, gravity manipulation sounds like a bunch of douchebaggery.

Anti-gravitational is a term everyone can understand. "the big bang" isnt technically correct either, since it was tiny as hell, and made no noise.....


But guess what, it's still called the big bang.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
The antigravitational field is really gravitomagnetism. It's a purely local field, like how a magnet curves back onto itself.

This is using a local field



A spinning magnetic field over a stationary magnetic field

But don't forget that the Earth is a dipole magnet itself and rotating. Perhaps that explains why saucers have such erratic flight paths

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
However, its just sementics, gravity manipulation sounds like a bunch of douchebaggery.

Yes its semantics. but just look at the few pages of posts here at ATS in this thread alone...

In one sense an ordinary airplane is an 'anti-gravity' device as it defies gravity as long as the wings have lift

We have the same problem with 'dimensions' some consider time the 4th dimension while others consider parallel universes dimensions

So maybe we need a new term

And a gravity shield that would block of the moon would be a bad idea... but I wonder what would happen if you create a strong warp field between the Earth and the moon... Might be good to engage warp drive/jump gates outside the solar system

Phew!

Ok, finished the video series. Narrator has a good voice, and doesn't go too fast or to slow.

Everything sounds legit to me (and very cool!), but the devil is (as they say) in the details.

So he starts with this equation: Vt = ƒƛ

Vt = The speed of the quantum transmission
ƒ = The frequency of the emitted photon
ƛ = The wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission

Now, Frank picks a value of 1.094 x 10^6 m/s for Vt and in the video it is explained where this constant comes from. I believe it was empirically determined.

The point of this equation is that with Vt known, and the frequency of an emitted photon measurable, we can arrive at the wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission.

Next, he takes a formula describing capacitance between two square plates: C = e0A / D

C = capacitance
e0 = permittivity of free space
A = area
D = distance

He then substitutes ƛ^2 for A, and ƛ/2 for D, resulting in an equation that looks like C = e0ƛ^2 / (ƛ/2). This step seems fishy to me. He's using wavelength as a substitution for distance and area? Maybe this was explained in the video, but if it was, I didn't get it, and I still don't.

This simplifies further to C = 2e0ƛ and since ƛ = Vt / ƒ (as per the first equation, we end up with a formula that looks like this:

C = 2e0Vt / ƒ

If there is funny business going on in his math, it is with regards to this above equation! This just looks like unit manipulation to me. How can capacitance be expressed as a function of frequency at the moment of quantum transmission? Capacitance has nothing to do with the wavelength or frequency of photons. But I'm not a physicist, so what do I know?

Anyways, next we take a formula for energy stored in a capacitor: E = Q^2 / 2C

E = energy
Q = charge (in coulombs)
C = capacitance

He then subs in his 2e0Vt / ƒ in place of C in the denominator, and we arrive at:

E = [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] ƒ


And since Einstein's equation for the photo-electric effect is E = h ƒ

We can isolate [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] = h

Tada!

We've derived Plank's constant as a function of charge squared over speed of quantum transmission.

And just to make sure they're actually equivalent....

Q = 1.60217646 × 10-19 coulombs
Vt = 1.094 x 10^6 m/s
e0 = 8.85418782 × 10-12 m-3 kg-1 s4 A2

(2.56696942 × 10-38) / 4(8.85418782 × 10-12)(1.094 x 10^6) = 6.62513376 × 10-34 m3 kg / s2

Which equals Plank's constant to within significant digits.

So, he's not lying - he does derive plank's constant. But as to whether or not that means anything, or has any relevance, I really have no idea.

I'm not a physicist, I just know how to do algebra. I'll leave it up to the self-described "experts" to explain all this. At least now you can all argue about the actual math, rather than nothing at all.

I mean, seriously, none of the skeptics in this thread so far have even bothered to watch the flippin' video. Now you don't have to. Here's the math. Debunk away.

Originally posted by prepared4truth
Einstein wasn't respected before he was well known either.

Einstein was wrong



Don't take my word for it just google that

reply to post by FalselyFlagged


Thank you for your answer. However, my question was in more of a rhetorical nature to hopefully get a few people to stop for one moment and think, not necessarily out of the box even. Perhaps this is the perfect equation. Perhaps it is complete crap. But, either way nothing should stop people from investigating the maybes. Flatly disregarding theory or belittling the people who don't think the same as everybody else, gets mankind no where. It was my hope in which some people would have read my post and thought for a moment instead of blurting out "facts", which can change periodically.
It reminds me of the people that go into fits of rage about people attempting to make a "magnet motor". Will it ever work? What are the odds that everybody fails? I am sure the odds are pretty stacked against the inventor. However, if just one person accidentally pops something into the correct alignment and powers a generator which changes the course of humanity, I will be proud of the person that didn't give up.

Good Day All

reply to post by zorgon


Oh yeah, I know Einstein was wrong. Every human makes genuine mistakes. But he was also correct a lot more than he was wrong, at least in the public eye. And he was correct about issues that nobody else could describe.

Also, this doesn't change the fact that he was a dropout. He had his ideas before he got his degree. He taught himself. A formal education isn't always right for people to learn, and does not dictate whether a person is smart. That was my original point.

reply to post by prepared4truth


Exactly.

And the truth of the matter is that it DOESN'T MATTER where you went to school, if you can DERIVE PLANCK'S CONSTANT FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES.

Yes, I am shouting. Cause it's that damn revolutionary. LOL

Originally posted by RedBird
Phew!

Everything sounds legit to me (and very cool!), but the devil is (as they say) in the details.

So he starts with this equation: Vt = ƒƛ

Vt = The speed of the quantum transmission
ƒ = The frequency of the emitted photon
ƛ = The wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission

Now, Frank picks a value of 1.094 x 10^6 m/s for Vt and in the video it is explained where this constant comes from. I believe it was empirically determined.

In actual physics, the velocity of a photon, being a massless particle, is c, which is about 3 x 10^9 m/s.

The point of this equation is that with Vt known,

'known' in the sense of "random baloney pulled from my bellybutton lint"

and the frequency of an emitted photon measurable, we can arrive at the wavelength of the photon at the moment of transmission.

Next, he takes a formula describing capacitance between two square plates: C = e0A / D

C = capacitance
e0 = permittivity of free space
A = area
D = distance

He then substitutes ƛ^2 for A, and ƛ/2 for D, resulting in an equation that looks like C = e0ƛ^2 / (ƛ/2). This step seems fishy to me. He's using wavelength as a substitution for distance and area? Maybe this was explained in the video, but if it was, I didn't get it, and I still don't.

Indeed, because it makes no sense at all.

This simplifies further to C = 2e0ƛ and since ƛ = Vt / ƒ (as per the first equation, we end up with a formula that looks like this:

C = 2e0Vt / ƒ

If there is funny business going on in his math, it is with regards to this above equation! This just looks like unit manipulation to me. How can capacitance be expressed as a function of frequency at the moment of quantum transmission? Capacitance has nothing to do with the wavelength or frequency of photons. But I'm not a physicist, so what do I know?

You know enough to smell bovine scatology.

Anyways, next we take a formula for energy stored in a capacitor: E = Q^2 / 2C

E = energy
Q = charge (in coulombs)
C = capacitance

He then subs in his 2e0Vt / ƒ in place of C in the denominator, and we arrive at:

E = [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] ƒ


And since Einstein's equation for the photo-electric effect is E = h ƒ

We can isolate [Q^2 / 4e0Vt] = h

Tada!

We've derived Plank's constant as a function of charge squared over speed of quantum transmission.

Suppose I discharge the Capacitor Of Eternal Life, so Q = 0. Whoops! Planck constant ain't! There goes quantum mechanics, Newton and Laplace ride again!

I'm not a physicist, I just know how to do algebra. I'll leave it up to the self-described "experts" to explain all this. At least now you can all argue about the actual math, rather than nothing at all.

I mean, seriously, none of the skeptics in this thread so far have even bothered to watch the flippin' video. Now you don't have to. Here's the math. Debunk away.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg. --- Abraham Lincoln