Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Anti grav makes a leap

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Ning li has had some success with her experiments on gravity shielding, i personally think it will be hugely beneficial to mankind and thats an understatement.

popularmechanics.com...


Here is another link with more info on the subject

www.americanantigravity.com...

[edit on 20-8-2004 by ufo3]

[edit on 18-11-2004 by ufo3]




posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
How very interesting! I've had this whole gravity thing on my mind alot lately, how apropro you would post this!

I find it very interesting that they are able to produce a Bose-Einstein effect in the disk. Exactly what compound is used to make the disk, I wonder (or did I miss that in the article?)



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
I find it odd that they once thought that it was impossible. We all know that nothing is impossible
so you would think that they would have known that as well.

Anyway, I personally am grateful to see this advancement in technology. The things that this technology could be used for is nearly limitless and I would like to see how far they will take it (maybe even into physical training
)

Anyway thx for the info



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
It'll make a good party trick. When someone isn't looking, place an anti-gravity device under their seat and watch them fly into the vacuum of space.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Very nice! Harnessing gravity will open up space to man kind. I can imagine some very powerfull space propulsion devices that could be developed from this type tech. Not to mention how much cheaper moving things into orbit would be if you could defy earths gravity! I sure hope this all works out because it means in my lifetime we may actually be able to become a true space fairing species!

X



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Although "anti-gravity" is considered bad science by most of the scientific community there are some credible scholars and profesionals who believe that the science exists and is in development.

A close friend of mine who works in the defense industry confided that she saw a disk high over an air force base and the usaf personnel just shrugged their shoulders and went on about their business when she brought it to their attention.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
from what i read it seems this could make sending things into space extremely cheap. that would be great for private exploration.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Guys did you check the date on the article, it is more than 5 years old, it was published on 1999.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Especially in regards to the theory about the function of the device that would nullify gravit all the way into the atmosphere/space threshold.

If this holds true, would it not be possible to modify the device to act as an inertial dampener of sorts (no, I'm not specifically referencing ST) in order to allow a craft towing or being repulsed by the device to move almost without limitation to speed?



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufo3
Ning li has had some success with her experiments on gravity shielding, i personally think it will hugely beneficial to mankind and thats an understatement.


"Li says she has turned down several offers for financial backing. It is less about money than control. "Investors want control over the technology," she says. "This is too important. It should belong to all the American people.""

Give that woman a kewpie doll!


xeven:
I can imagine some very powerfull space propulsion devices that could be developed from this type tech

Hows that?

Not to mention how much cheaper moving things into orbit would be if you could defy earths gravity!

Definitely. So cheap as to just cost the price of building a 'launch pad and powering it. It would be especially helpful for getting small payloads into space, and serve as a way of getting them back too. Just apply less than the requisite force to nullify gravity, and it will slowly fall back to the planet. I would think that most things would have ot be put into a geosynchronous orbit with the 'launchpad' in order to effect this tho.

And, forgive me for being stupid but, if an object has the force of earth gravity nullified around it, how fast will it project upward? And also, what happens when the object is moving up, but the earth is spinning below it? Does it move out of the beam, and if it does, doesn't it just fall back to the earth? And if the gravity underneath an object can be nullified (but its held stable), will it just be pulled away from the gravity nullifying column?

edit to add:

surfup:
Guys did you check the date on the article, it is more than 5 years old, it was published on 1999.


Doh!

Damnyou batman!!!


[edit on 20-8-2004 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Here's a related article that describes another type of device and mentions Dr. Ning Li again as a reference and advisor. Published in September of 2002

www.fortunecity.com...



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   
If you Google exactly this phrase: 'anti gravity, superconductors' you'll get a whole lot of articles related to the subject



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Nick Cook (a Janes aviation writer) wrote an excellent book on the subject "The Hunt For Zero Point" and addresses the point that years ago published reports indicated we were on the verge of anti-gravity. Then sudden silence and disinformation.

One interesting point he makes is that the B2 was rumoured to incorporate anti-gravity technology while it was a black program. When it came into the open and all the specs were published, the numbers were crunched and by all accounts it shouldn't be able to fly.

It's a fascinating area to look into, filled with Nazis, spooks, government conspiracies, and coverups. An ATS wet dream.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by deevee
One interesting point he makes is that the B2 was rumoured to incorporate anti-gravity technology while it was a black program. When it came into the open and all the specs were published, the numbers were crunched and by all accounts it shouldn't be able to fly.


If that's true, the Russians have anti-grav technology too. The Russian bomber intended to carry nukes was a near carbon-copy of a B2 that they acquired.



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by shbaz

Originally posted by deevee
One interesting point he makes is that the B2 was rumoured to incorporate anti-gravity technology while it was a black program. When it came into the open and all the specs were published, the numbers were crunched and by all accounts it shouldn't be able to fly.


If that's true, the Russians have anti-grav technology too. The Russian bomber intended to carry nukes was a near carbon-copy of a B2 that they acquired.


What B-2 did Russia aquire I have never heard any such thing.Perhaps the most advanced plane on the planet. Do you have any evidence of this I find it hard to believe.

Unless your talking about the B-29 thats WW2 Tech

[edit on 20-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 20-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by shbaz

Originally posted by deevee
One interesting point he makes is that the B2 was rumoured to incorporate anti-gravity technology while it was a black program. When it came into the open and all the specs were published, the numbers were crunched and by all accounts it shouldn't be able to fly.


If that's true, the Russians have anti-grav technology too. The Russian bomber intended to carry nukes was a near carbon-copy of a B2 that they acquired.


What B-2 did Russia aquire I have never heard any such thing.Perhaps the most advanced plane on the planet. Do you have any evidence of this I find it hard to believe.

Unless your talking about the B-29 thats WW2 Tech

[edit on 20-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]

[edit on 20-8-2004 by ShadowXIX]


Ack, yes, my mistake.

From what I understand of it, it can barely fly and it's basically a slightly aerodynamic brick. The electrical system keeps it stabalized and for the pilot it flies like a normal plane.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Mastering Anti-Gravity is kind of the Air/Space Craft's Holy Grail.

However I think that having it on the spacecraft is along time away. To help fill the gap between Rockets and anti-gravity we need to build space elevators. They should hold us over until anti-gravity becomes mainstream.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Gravity shielding violates conservation of energy and will allow for free energy. The idea is simply. You need to put a wheel for one half above the gravity shielding device. The half above the shielding device will experience less gravity pull than the other side and the wheel will begin to turn. The speed of the wheel will increase until the resistance of air and rotation axis is enough to counter the force that results from the difference in gravitational pull. Since more wheels doesn't mean that more energy has to go to the gravity shielding device, it is a free energy device.

I don't like violation of conservation of energy, so I think the effect is caused by electromagnetism instead of gravity shiedling until the effect can be verified by other scientists.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Gravity shielding violates conservation of energy and will allow for free energy.


This depends on how much energy is required to create the gravity sheild, no? If the energy input is equal to or greater than energy of gravity exhibited on the target mass then I don't see how it violates the first law of thermodynamics. I haven't come across any claims that anti-gravity can be achieved without a high-voltage power source.



posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by electric
This depends on how much energy is required to create the gravity sheild, no? If the energy input is equal to or greater than energy of gravity exhibited on the target mass then I don't see how it violates the first law of thermodynamics. I haven't come across any claims that anti-gravity can be achieved without a high-voltage power source.


As I understand it, the energy required for gravity shielding doesn't depend on the amount of mass that is shielded from gravity. Maybe one or two small wheels won't provide more energy than is needed, but you can add more and more massive wheels and larger numbers of them and I think you'll eventually get enough energy from those wheels to violate the conservation of energy.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join