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.

 

Gravity research gets off the ground

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2002 @ 02:43 PM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

Monday, 27 March, 2000, 23:34 GMT 00:34 UK
Gravity research gets off the ground



Such devices would shield planes from the Earth's pull

A leading UK company is challenging what we understand to be the fundamental laws of physics.
The military wing of the hi-tech group BAe Systems, formerly British Aerospace, has confirmed it has launched an anti-gravity research programme.

It hopes that Project Greenglow will draw scientists from different backgrounds to work on future technologies that will have echoes of the propellantless propulsion systems being investigated by Nasa's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program.

Gravitation shielding

If any of the work is successful, it could lead to dramatic developments in the way we travel - anti-gravity devices could make it much easier for aeroplanes, spacecraft and even the next generation of cars to get off the ground.

In 1996, the experiments of a Russian scientist were jeered at by the physics world. Writing in the journal Physica C, Dr Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed that a spinning, superconducting disc lost some of its weight. And, in an unpublished paper on the weak gravitation shielding properties of a superconductor, he argued that such a disc lost as much as 2% of its weight.

However, most scientists believe that such anti-gravity research is fundamentally flawed. It goes against what we know about the physical Universe and is therefore impossible, they say.

Pascal's Wager

"I find it rather peculiar that they've done this," said Bob Park from the American Physical Society, in reaction to the BAe Systems admission. "One can only conclude that at the higher levels of these organisations there are people who don't have a very sound grounding in fundamental physics.

"You can invest a little money in far-out projects if they have some chance of success - it's called Pascal's Wager. In this case, most scientists would say there is zero chance of success."

Nonetheless, this view will not stop anti-gravity devices from continuing to be a popular feature of science fiction and the inspiration for countless websites.




posted on Jul, 29 2002 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Yeah, great isn't it!!

I've just posted it in the science forum...
I'll delete the topic there.

I got it from janes.com;

Anti-gravity propulsion comes ëout of the closetí

By Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London

Boeing, the worldís largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.

As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeingís Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices in Russia and Finland. The approach, however, has been thwarted by Russian officialdom.

The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: ëGRASPí ó Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.

A GRASP briefing document obtained by JDW sets out what Boeing believes to be at stake. "If gravity modification is real," it says, "it will alter the entire aerospace business."

GRASPís objective is to explore propellentless propulsion (the aerospace worldís more formal term for anti-gravity), determine the validity of Podkletnovís work and "examine possible uses for such a technology". Applications, the company says, could include space launch systems, artificial gravity on spacecraft, aircraft propulsion and ëfuellessí electricity generation ó so-called ëfree energyí.

But it is also apparent that Podkletnovís work could be engineered into a radical new weapon. The GRASP paper focuses on Podkletnovís claims that his high-power experiments, using a device called an ëimpulse gravity generatorí, are capable of producing a beam of ëgravity-likeí energy that can exert an instantaneous force of 1,000g on any object ó enough, in principle, to vaporise it, especially if the object is moving at high speed.

Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10cm) wide beamís ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km. Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield. Podkletnov declared that any object placed above his rapidly spinning superconducting apparatus lost up to 2% of its weight.

Although he was vilified by traditionalists who claimed that gravity-shielding was impossible under the known laws of physics, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) attempted to replicate his work in the mid-1990s. Because NASA lacked Podkletnovís unique formula for the work, the attempt failed. NASAís Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama will shortly conduct a second set of experiments using apparatus built to Podkletnovís specifications.

Boeing recently approached Podkletnov directly, but promptly fell foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West).

The GRASP briefing document reveals that BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have also contacted Podkletnov "and have some activity in this area".

It is also possible, Boeing admits, that "classified activities in gravity modification may exist". The paper points out that Podkletnov is strongly anti-military and will only provide assistance if the research is carried out in the ëwhite worldí of open development.

499 of 873 words
[End of non-subscriber extract.]

www.janes.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2002 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Our brains must be vibrating at the same frequency!



posted on Jul, 29 2002 @ 03:04 PM
link   
ha yeah,

I have just read your article, it sais "The military wing of the hi-tech group BAe Systems" has launched a research program

While the janes article claims Boeing "is working on experimental anti-gravity projects "

Both articles have been released today....??? Coincidence??



posted on Jul, 29 2002 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Check this out:

www.greenglow.co.uk...

Unofficial Project Greenglow website

"Last Modified 5th July 1999"
I guess a few peeps already new about that program for quite a while



posted on Jul, 29 2002 @ 03:16 PM
link   
No such thing. Boeing is making alot of moves.

news.bbc.co.uk...



Boeing and European aerospace group EADS have made the surprise announcement of the Farnborough air show, revealing that they plan to work together for the first time.


and......

news.bbc.co.uk...


With a push of a button, the aircraft production line at Boeing's massive Everett plant whirs into action, drilling and installing the first of five thousand fasteners into the wing of the company's latest wide-bodied aircraft, the 777-300ER.



posted on Jul, 29 2002 @ 03:24 PM
link   
ok, but still; Would thay also share top secret research projects??

I'm sure the US gov't doesn't want EADS or BAe involved in highly classified (anti-gravity) projects...



posted on Jul, 29 2002 @ 11:46 PM
link   
As always we are ahead in the news down here in Aussieland

xmb.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 30 2002 @ 02:24 AM
link   
You aussie's are SO sad down under, that's why they give you press releases a couple of hours earlier to make you guy's happy....


Hey, I'm on the blackvault.com main page with this article;

Science: Anti-gravity propulsion comes ëout of the closetí

zion writes "Boeing, the worldís largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware."
Posted by Administrator on Monday, July 29 @ 12:56:22 PDT (83 reads)
(Read More... | 3564 bytes more | comments? | | Science | Score: 0)




posted on Jul, 31 2002 @ 08:42 AM
link   
This is potentially fascinating. Iím in the UK at present and I heard it ìliveî, so to speak, on the BBC news ñrather than reading it on the Website. Not much was made of it beyond the mention of Boeing and BAE ñI believe NASA are also involved ñ which rather sadly suggests that ìhardî things donít get broadcast.
I remember the first time Podkletnov made the news on this topic: about 6 years ago. He was going to publish it all for the Institute for Physics in London. It got leaked to the UK press and was torn apart and Podkletnov withdrew his paper: so it remained a mystery, and the ìofficialî line remained hat no one could replicate his experiments and hence they failed one of the first tests of science.
In itself, of course the fact that commercial/military researchers are now trying t reproduce his work is not indicative of much: military teams follow all manner of leads and for every winner there are countless flops. Itís hard to restrain a chuckle however at the thought that this is the work of a obscure Russian physicist working at the time in Finland and not retro-engineering from Little Green men in the USA.
It may all be nonsense ñ or the effect (2% reduction, I believe) may occur but for other reasons (the history of science is full of people who got ìrightî answers but supplied ìwrongî reasons, a he time); but if there is truth in it, it would ñ with the current uncertainty re the Higgs boson ñbe the most significant event in Physics for almost a century: everything would have to be re-written. And that IS exciting.
This is a rather good background article ñnot condescending and good enough scientific journalism to e intellectually satisfying. www.inetarena.com...
They say ñand itís true ñ ìIn all honesty, according to known physical principles, gravity cannot be shielded or modifiedî;
but they then discuss the issue well ñand, as I say, it is precisely because it must be false, by the KNOWN laws of physics, that it is so exciting since, if it true, then the corollary is hat the KNOWN laws are wrong.
Hereís hoping that media dumb-down doesnít keep the developments hidden.



posted on Jul, 31 2002 @ 05:34 PM
link   
if they are successful, I cant wait to see a finished product! this is incredible!



posted on Aug, 6 2002 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by William One Sac

In 1996, the experiments of a Russian scientist were jeered at by the physics world. Writing in the journal Physica C, Dr Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed that a spinning, superconducting disc lost some of its weight. And, in an unpublished paper on the weak gravitation shielding properties of a superconductor, he argued that such a disc lost as much as 2% of its weight.



Thats not all, i was reading an article in a paper few days agao, it said that not only this disk lost 2% of its mass but anything placed ABOVE the disk also had a mass loss

Not just a foot or two but all the way to the roof of his laboratory and higher!


I hope you all realise what that means.



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 03:20 PM
link   
i made a tight ass gravity bong once. the government wants in on my secrets



posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Gravity research gets off ground;

Zion, William & Members:

Is anyone familar with an old post I made several years ago regarding The Dean Drive ? This was also posted on the old TBV website.

The Dean Drive was/is an inter-galactic/anti-gravity drive, I have been aware of it since 1960 (42 years ago) And I would appreciate any current information or "links"
to it that anyone has.

The Dean Drive seems to perhaps utilize some of the same technology
that the Russian scientist was using (spinning discs)

The inventer of the Dean Drive made an interesting
proposition on how to best "use" the Drive; Install it in a nuclear submarine and use the sub for the inter-galactic spacecraft. Shortly after, the nuclear submarine Thresher while on its maiden voyage, disappeared, with all hands. Several years later the Navy offered pictures that purported to be of the "sunken Thresher" Were they ? Who knows, but it was strange that Mr Dean proposed that a nuclear submarine was the IDEAL vessel for his Drive.

I will look forward to any follow-up on this matter.


TN1

posted on Jan, 15 2003 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I have been reading this post with a great interesting and i have to say that these kind of experiments have started long time ago ,approximately in 60's.The most common ones are the anti-gravity,quantum and classical teleportation ,with the fisrt one being achieved and some more along with theroretical calculations like fussion and fission ,unification theories and electromagnetic experiments .
I have also to say that when particles are experiencing a very strong magnetic field then they associate together to produce a quantum fluid ,this is very important as far as i can understand .Only in high momentums (transfer) the electromagnetic and the weak forces can be unified .The most powerfull force is the strong nuclear ,but the gravity is the weakest one .If you know some laws of physics then the em potential is V=KQ^2/r and the gravitational potential is V=Gm^2/r and i think that this gives us a value of 10^36.Therefore em is 10^36 stronger than the gravity ,but for the case of 2 particles ,lets say protons.
Well for our planet ...We have a large quantity of protons ,just divide the mass of the planet with 1.67*10^-27Kgr and you will find the number .Therefore the gravity must be at least equal to the em anti-gravity force ....??Well in physics doesn't seem reasonable but everything is possible according to probabilities!!
Someone said about Higgs particles .
Can you please see my post in Science called:TOP QUARK and tell me what are you thinking...
As for the Dr (Russian) that he did not published his paper ,this is happening oftenly :When you are not sure for something(1) .When you have realised that your work violates some laws(2). When you afraid of the status qvo of the scientific society(3) and finally when you exhange or agree not to publish your work for political -financial reasons having been paid 'enough'.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join