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.

 

UFO Propulsion. Does this video explain how it is done?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthyaroura

whilst I love the work of Nicola Tesla I see it for what it is! though the myth's I do find
entertaining But I consider the man a true Genius.
Keep that sense of humour, you really will live longer


The thing is about Tesla, he was genius for 1880. But by 1920's-1930's it was clear he was quite ignorant of all the enormous developments of physics in the interim.

Surely the 1939-1945 Radiation Lab at MIT (radar) was much more advanced in electromagnetism than Tesla.




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 



That isn't quite true, depending on your meaning of "isolated".


We can causally associate the movement of a 'particle' (the electron) with the effects of a magnetic field.

Gravity just poofs out, rather mysteriously, from objects with mass. Since pretty much everything has mass, it makes it pretty hard to figure out what, exactly, give matter its self-attracting property.


General relativity is still the best explanation of gravitation known, and the source term is the stress-energy tensor, which (classically) adds up pretty much everything that's physically real---masses & fields.


Except the observed effects of entanglement put an end to time being a frame of reference, thereby altering the entire premise of Einstein's theory. Gravity doesn't slow time anymore than a refrigerator does - the mechanics are simply at a different level. From the standpoint of information equivalence, it makes sense for matter to inherently 'slow' the mean rate of activity down when in proximity. Planck constants effectively put a limit on the amount of information that can exist in any given volume of space. Conservation of energy means that the energy necessary to process interactions between molecules must come from somewhere.

Granted, in the immediate, the theories are completely interchangeable - space-time and the gravitational constant are mathematical conveniences as opposed to real solutions, which poses a problem when attempting to predict the behavior of systems not observed in nature.

If you were to create a "wormhole" as Einstein describes, you would not be able to travel back in time. Such a notion is silly. Even Einstein recognized this. Because he married space and time so closely together in his theory, he missed the obvious. Travel through a wormhole may only take a fraction of a second - doesn't matter if it is instant or not - it's not the interim space we need to be concerned with, it is the difference between the point of origin and the point of deposit.

Let's say we are going to jump through a wormhole with ends placed conveniently in the galactic void, and one in proximity to the galactic center. The point in the galactic void is influenced very little by gravity - therefor time is artificially accelerated by comparison to the point being influenced by more gravity near the galactic center. Were you to jump from the edge of the galaxy to the center, you would exit with a burst of Cerenkov radiation - as your ship will be 'hot' compared to the much colder space. The greater the difference in relative gravitational densities, the more intense your entry will be.

EMF behaves rather similarly, though in a much more simple fashion. A signal sent from the galactic edge to the galactic center will be blue-shifted upon its exit from the worm-hole. Predictably, a signal sent from the center to the edge of a galaxy via wormhole will be red-shifted. At some point, it would be possible to violate Planck constants - transmitting gamma radiation to a region of high gravitational density will cause all kinds of chaos.


So far, no prediction of general relativity has ever been invalidated---except perhaps the unusual Tajmar experiment, but nobody really knows what that means.


See above. It's not that general relativity is wrong - it's that it was off the mark, and people have been too caught up with proving or disproving theories to simply go back and re-hash the idea. Of course - what I just did up there was a very watered down and simplistic unified theory.


What exactly do you mean by this? Is this Verlinde's stuff?


If gravity is not a field - like a magnetic dipole, or a force with a measurable carrier, then you can't really create an anti-gravity field, or a 'gravity shield.' You can, however, theoretically make some device capable of directly manipulating inertia and/or the entropic energy state (accelerating to escape velocity is far easier when your vehicle is already at that energy potential on the subatomic level). Which would fit one of your criteria for being "close enough" to antigravity. It would actually be far more useful and far superior to an anti-gravity field... but that's another story.

The other type of device I was describing was purely based off of a related area of interest. I've long been interested in what happens when you take multiple sources of EMF and orientate them so as to be able to create specific geometric 3d waveforms by manipulating the emissions of each source. Hutchison fans will jump up and down and wet themselves - I'm not so sure he really did much... or knew what he was doing - nor do I really care to try and replicate his claimed results.

Anyway - I've been interested in what happens when you do one (or more) of several things. For starters - let's say you use these multiple sources of EMF to create a region of space that is forced to handle a field that is attempting to oscillate faster than the speed of light will allow. What happens? By manipulating this region of positive and negative interference, would it be possible to create magnetic fields that appear to originate from 'free space'?

If such could be done (or any other method of generating a free-standing magnetic field were to be found), it would not be hard to then use a secondary device to push or pull off of those free-standing waves - potentially invalidating the need for a reaction mass.

The 'drive' would be an "impulse" drive - constrained to relativistic velocities unless its operation results in some unforseen capability (though I have no reason to suspect it would).

Of course - this would only be displacing the role of a reaction mass with the energy input necessary to create a free-standing magnetic field (and it may even prove more realistic and/or efficient to instigate energy-particle conversions and use that as a reaction mass - a sort of pseudo-reactionless drive that creates reaction mass from energy as required). I've no way of estimating the relative energy costs.

It could all be bunk, and I would build the ultra-precise masers from hell to later use to remotely cook my food and terrorize florescent light bulbs. But either way, I end up with something fun and cool. When I get bored - I can just toss stuff into the middle of the field and see what happens - maybe I'll discover something useful, or equally diabolical.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by mbkennel
 



That isn't quite true, depending on your meaning of "isolated".


We can causally associate the movement of a 'particle' (the electron) with the effects of a magnetic field.

Gravity just poofs out, rather mysteriously, from objects with mass. Since pretty much everything has mass, it makes it pretty hard to figure out what, exactly, give matter its self-attracting property.



I don't understand how this is any different from the fact that an electric monopole and a magnetic dipole "poofs out" rather mysteriously from elementary particles with charge, like an electron.


General relativity is still the best explanation of gravitation known, and the source term is the stress-energy tensor, which (classically) adds up pretty much everything that's physically real---masses & fields.


Except the observed effects of entanglement put an end to time being a frame of reference, thereby altering the entire premise of Einstein's theory. Gravity doesn't slow time anymore than a refrigerator does - the mechanics are simply at a different level. From the standpoint of information equivalence, it makes sense for matter to inherently 'slow' the mean rate of activity down when in proximity.


You've lost me here.


Planck constants effectively put a limit on the amount of information that can exist in any given volume of space. Conservation of energy means that the energy necessary to process interactions between molecules must come from somewhere.


???? As I understand it, energy is necessary to create configurations which in a subspace have lower entropy (i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Other than that I don't understand what you're trying to say.
What happens with a classical conservative field?



Granted, in the immediate, the theories are completely interchangeable - space-time and the gravitational constant are mathematical conveniences as opposed to real solutions, which poses a problem when attempting to predict the behavior of systems not observed in nature.

If you were to create a "wormhole" as Einstein describes, you would not be able to travel back in time. Such a notion is silly. Even Einstein recognized this. Because he married space and time so closely together in his theory, he missed the obvious. Travel through a wormhole may only take a fraction of a second - doesn't matter if it is instant or not - it's not the interim space we need to be concerned with, it is the difference between the point of origin and the point of deposit.

Let's say we are going to jump through a wormhole with ends placed conveniently in the galactic void, and one in proximity to the galactic center. The point in the galactic void is influenced very little by gravity - therefor time is artificially accelerated by comparison to the point being influenced by more gravity near the galactic center. Were you to jump from the edge of the galaxy to the center, you would exit with a burst of Cerenkov radiation - as your ship will be 'hot' compared to the much colder space. The greater the difference in relative gravitational densities, the more intense your entry will be.

EMF behaves rather similarly, though in a much more simple fashion. A signal sent from the galactic edge to the galactic center will be blue-shifted upon its exit from the worm-hole. Predictably, a signal sent from the center to the edge of a galaxy via wormhole will be red-shifted. At some point, it would be possible to violate Planck constants - transmitting gamma radiation to a region of high gravitational density will cause all kinds of chaos.


So far, no prediction of general relativity has ever been invalidated---except perhaps the unusual Tajmar experiment, but nobody really knows what that means.


See above. It's not that general relativity is wrong - it's that it was off the mark, and people have been too caught up with proving or disproving theories to simply go back and re-hash the idea. Of course - what I just did up there was a very watered down and simplistic unified theory.


What exactly do you mean by this? Is this Verlinde's stuff?


If gravity is not a field - like a magnetic dipole, or a force with a measurable carrier, then you can't really create an anti-gravity field, or a 'gravity shield.' You can, however, theoretically make some device capable of directly manipulating inertia and/or the entropic energy state (accelerating to escape velocity is far easier when your vehicle is already at that energy potential on the subatomic level). Which would fit one of your criteria for being "close enough" to antigravity. It would actually be far more useful and far superior to an anti-gravity field... but that's another story.

The other type of device I was describing was purely based off of a related area of interest. I've long been interested in what happens when you take multiple sources of EMF and orientate them so as to be able to create specific geometric 3d waveforms by manipulating the emissions of each source. Hutchison fans will jump up and down and wet themselves - I'm not so sure he really did much... or knew what he was doing - nor do I really care to try and replicate his claimed results.

Anyway - I've been interested in what happens when you do one (or more) of several things. For starters - let's say you use these multiple sources of EMF to create a region of space that is forced to handle a field that is attempting to oscillate faster than the speed of light will allow. What happens? By manipulating this region of positive and negative interference, would it be possible to create magnetic fields that appear to originate from 'free space'?

If such could be done (or any other method of generating a free-standing magnetic field were to be found), it would not be hard to then use a secondary device to push or pull off of those free-standing waves - potentially invalidating the need for a reaction mass.

The 'drive' would be an "impulse" drive - constrained to relativistic velocities unless its operation results in some unforseen capability (though I have no reason to suspect it would).

Of course - this would only be displacing the role of a reaction mass with the energy input necessary to create a free-standing magnetic field (and it may even prove more realistic and/or efficient to instigate energy-particle conversions and use that as a reaction mass - a sort of pseudo-reactionless drive that creates reaction mass from energy as required). I've no way of estimating the relative energy costs.

It could all be bunk, and I would build the ultra-precise masers from hell to later use to remotely cook my food and terrorize florescent light bulbs. But either way, I end up with something fun and cool. When I get bored - I can just toss stuff into the middle of the field and see what happens - maybe I'll discover something useful, or equally diabolical.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 



I don't understand how this is any different from the fact that an electric monopole and a magnetic dipole "poofs out" rather mysteriously from elementary particles with charge, like an electron.


Gauge Bosons - key phrase, plug it into Google. What separates gravity from all other 'fundamental forces' is the ability to attribute the interactions of other particles (virtual or real). Gravity just 'happens.' It is also a brain-busting problem to explain why gravity is so weak.


You've lost me here.


Not unexpected. A combination of two different ways of thinking and my occasionally vexing way of attempting to convey an idea in my head. What passes through my mind in a minute would take pages upon pages and hours of reading (average rate) to adequately explain. Problem is - I think while typing, and it would take substantially longer than a minute to convey a minute's worth of thought.

It will all catch up with me, though. My mind will become cluttered and overwhelmed with ideas and concepts and my perception of reality will falter and I will slip into dementia at a young age.

I'll attempt to translate:

"Except the observed effects of entanglement put an end to time being a frame of reference, thereby altering the entire premise of Einstein's theory."

I pray to all things Holy that you are familiar with General and Special Relativity, and have at least a basic understanding of it (even some people with a PhD in physics don't understand it or know how to apply it to anything but a calculator). If not, this is going to be a rough ride.

The effects of particle entanglement are, as far as we can tell, nonlocal - meaning two entangled particles are 'connected' via a bond that is capable of superluminous communication (faster than light). This is a problem, because all forms of relativity forbid this, as moving faster than the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy and makes you go 'back' in time. While, yet, we have not devised a way of using entanglement to communicate faster than light (it still requires a form of classic communication to verify) - particles are somehow capable of it (even if we cannot put it to use).

The mistake Einstein made was assuming time existed. The field of quantum mechanics was just coming about toward the end of Einstein's day - so the answers he sought were not really even known. Planck holds the answer. Planck-time is the smallest unit of time the universe can sense or 'care' about. You can think of these units as freeze-frames. Given any specific moment in time, a limited (albeit, incomprehensibly massive) number of possible outcomes exist for the next-most immediate moment. "Time" does not exist - only incremental states of existence.

That would pose the questions: "why do I remember yesterday" - which is all down to physics. Given this exact moment, today - a limited number of outcomes exist for tomorrow. Similarly, only a limited number of previous states could have lead to this state. On the macroscopic scale, it's not a big issue - the various spin-states of particles and compounds in your brain function to reconstruct memories of past events. Further speculation on how one experiences the future ventures into philosophy and spiritualism, honestly. Experiments with random event generators suggest that human presence and intent has the ability to influence the probability of quantum events - so perhaps that is involved.

In either case considering relativity as it was originally conceived and trying to incorporate it into modern physics is tantamount to building an airplane as it was originally conceived and trying to make it fly with an F-404 tubojet engine.


Gravity doesn't slow time anymore than a refrigerator does - the mechanics are simply at a different level.


A refrigerator works to preserve food by slowing molecules so as to reduce their mean number of reactions over a given period of time, yes? This means the steak you bought at the store yesterday will not go rancid after a day or two, but take closer to a week (depending upon a number of factors involved). How is that any different than setting someone next to a black hole and pulling them back a hundred years later to find that they've only aged a few seconds? More importantly - what experimental evidence is there that -time- is actually slowed?


From the standpoint of information equivalence, it makes sense for matter to inherently 'slow' the mean rate of activity down when in proximity.


Information and energy are the same thing. Energy can be described as the possible states a particle can assume. As particles near in proximity, the rate at which they can exchange various information (which amounts to different spin-states and particle locations) increases exponentially (inverse square law) - which increases the possible number of states that can be held by the mass. Something has to give in order to remain within bounds of the known laws of thermodynamics. Particle motion is 'slowed' and energy is conserved.

The effects are asymmetric and lead to the curving of -every- known mass. This also accounts for Gravity's weakness as it is a side-effect of masses nearer another mass appearing more frequently and distributing their fundamental forces unevenly - leading to universal attraction.


???? As I understand it, energy is necessary to create configurations which in a subspace have lower entropy (i.e. the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Other than that I don't understand what you're trying to say.


I might have made a misstatement and said "lower" entropy rather than "higher" entropy. A state of lower energy is a state of higher entropy. It's like solid-state electronics built around hole-theory, bass-ackwards when you are thinking in terms of electron flow. The whole of electronics is weird and plagued by classic concepts that fly in the face of modern understanding.

Anyway - the thing you're likely not grasping is the exchange between "time" and "energy." When you travel away from mass, you experience time at a much faster rate, and things on/near the mass appear to slow down. As stated before - this isn't because time is slowing down, it's because your subatomic particles are 'speeding up' (for the sake of simplicity - a more accurate but still comprehensible way to think of it is to think of space getting less dense as you move away from mass and more dense as you move toward it). Things that appear, for all intents and purposes, to 'slow down' are going to be at a higher entropic state than you are.

By all means - it's a partial theory, and probably rather similar to some already existing theories out there (I was coming to predict aspects of quantum mechanics based on the cursory explanation of atomic structure in middle school, having no additional education on the matter. Then I learn someone else beat me there before I was born). Not that I'm partial to it. I like to return to ideas and think of other ways to explain the same thing without sacrificing functionality or ignoring inconveniences (such as black holes or other, more obscure, phenomena of physics).



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Some news might be forthwith soon available to a Tesla group on free energy and the
UFO perhaps. I'll pass it along.

As for UFO propulsion the work of Tesla is without duplication and also locked
up from prying eyes.

Pressure waves at the speed of light from the ship coil vibrations build up enveloping
the ship and crew.




top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join