Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Top Secret Classified Interstellar Space Propulsion System.

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Our satellites are very much at the mercy of the Sun and its electromagnetic forces, while the forces remain relatively constant all is good, but when the solar winds pick up it can wipe out not just our satellites but electrical grid as well. Fluctuations in the magnetosphere can and constantly are being detected. As for distortions in our stars, we are not in a position yet to prove that the light we see is actually coming from where we see it. As the density of space changes throughout the universe so will the refractive index, light curvature due to very high gravity, like black holes is also reasonably established resulting in quite a complex picture from what we see to what actually is.

I am not claiming to know the key and exact relationship between electricity and gravity, but I have come across enough to acknowledge that there is a relationship. All of science would love to have a complete unified theory on the relationships of energy and either big brownie points to whoever finds it first or watch out who ever uncovers it next as national steps in.

The relationship between electricity and magnetism is fairly well established, so if you prefer to tackle gravity through a magnetic lens all the best to you, I am sure there will be answers.




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
I'd get excited since i've been kindof thinking this for a while but.

i'll wait for phage to explain it



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Sounds_of_Silence
 


The only actual published findings are Johns experiments as video some of which are on youtube. Why technology is kept from the public that is easy it is done every day for commercialism and for military purposes or political purposes. On the internet when ever you want to know something nowadays what ever web-sight you goto wants your credit card and to make matters worse you are in a search bubble. Which means what you see on the internet is moderated by the search engine you use which in turn is moderated by the government and special interest groups.

Everything you see and hear is controlled, edited, discredited, or is disinformation for an agenda .

edit on 16-12-2012 by Reactor because: clarification



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by solarstorm
 


We are talking a long time now time for the USA of having use of this technology for themselves. John I believe only validated what the government had already learned about this type of propulsion. But his experiments were new to us "the public" in learning and understanding this on our own without help from Aliens.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Your first misunderstanding was that this was gravity. No this is artivical gravity and artifical space-time with different polarities, phase, amplitute, and modulation in regards to normal space-time. It is totally outside of normal nature.

But, due to the electically magnetic nature, frequency, phase, polarity, and modulation these effects can cancle out normal space-time allowing for faster than speed of light travel which Einstien did not allow for. And I do belive that real gravity works alot along the sames lines as this principle but it occures naturally it is not man-made.

Your second misunderstanding was that I was talking about neutral or uncharged particles. I said nothing about them. But for normal matter to exist it has to have charged particles which brings them into my realm of my claim.

Your third misunderstanding was that Einstein was left out of this. I assure you he is not but what I am explaining is not taught in the text books so you have nothing to compare here except what I have said. Good luck with that one.

And, I do appreciate you input dont take this personally.





edit on 16-12-2012 by Reactor because: to make my words more clear.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Reactor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


.

On the giving no proof I am not a scientist. I am not in academics. and I am not selling this. So, basically I don't owe anyone anything here and I have promised nothing. I give my story freely for others to believe or disbelieve that is up to them. All I wanted was to get this out in the open. That is all. Nothing more.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Sure you do. It is just more proof about how much of this stuff really does exist and as for your frustration about how little of the real stuff reaches the public. I assure you there really is someone driving around on water in their gas tank but 99.9 percent of us dont. Why is that? why? There is more to that than the public knows nor cares about. Most of it is they just dont care and that is fine with me.

As for my claims I am here to clarify what Bob and John brought to the public. I am here to back them with facts. Im not here to sell you anything or to ask you to believe me. That is your decision and your call.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reactor
reply to post by Druscilla
 


Sure you do. It is just more proof about how much of this stuff really does exist and as for your frustration about how little of the real stuff reaches the public. I assure you there really is someone driving around on water in their gas tank but 99.9 percent of us dont. Why is that? why? There is more to that than the public knows nor cares about. Most of it is they just dont care and that is fine with me.

As for my claims I am here to clarify what Bob and John brought to the public. I am here to back them with facts. Im not here to sell you anything or to ask you to believe me. That is your decision and your call.



"Clarification", as interpreted by many typically involves parroting what's already been said by someone else, usually from an assumed but unverifiable position of authority, and just as much unverifiable fluff embroidered onto the original telling.

We don't want 'clarification'. We want unambiguous confirmation such that it's not the house of cards it always is.

All you give us are some nice platitudes that anyone with a modicum of interest in the subject could easy bake. Never is there ever demonstrable verifiable confirmation.

Thus, if you desire to "clarify" anything, give us something unambiguous. Give us video of a proof of concept test model at close range, in action. Otherwise, the Caret drone hoax as well as the Alien autopsy fraud where much better, but, nonetheless, fraudulent.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Our satellites are very much at the mercy of the Sun and its electromagnetic forces, while the forces remain relatively constant all is good, but when the solar winds pick up it can wipe out not just our satellites but electrical grid as well. Fluctuations in the magnetosphere can and constantly are being detected.
[]/quote]

Indeed, and within this level there is no appreciable measured gravitational effect.


As for distortions in our stars, we are not in a position yet to prove that the light we see is actually coming from where we see it.


Sure it is. Astronomers have measured parallax from nearby stars (angular oscillation due to orbit of earth) since the 19th century,



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Druscilla
 




Build us just a small scale proof of concept working demonstration model.


There are many experiments around demonstrating electrogravitics, here is a small simple example that explains part of the general concept www.alternativkanalen.com... .


Observation of a force is not gravity. There is no evidence of *gravitaitonal* modification, which would intrinsically involve altering inertia and the metric.

For instance, did the experimental appratus and procedures in that link measure the possibility of induced polarization/dielectric forces from the table and surrounding material? High voltages will result in capacitive effects even outside what you think is the capacitor. This guy made an electric dipole. OK, now what?

Well, there are dipole-dipole electrostatic forces which go as 1/r^4.

Here's a problem which could have been on my freshman physics quiz. Given an electric dipole, two charges with separation d and charge q, compute the force if they are above an infinite conductive plane with distance r >> d, with the axis of separation parallel to the plane.

By the way, ground level of Earth is a good approximation to an infinite conductive plane for these purposes.


Start looking into how the B2 Bomber plugs together for some more advanced proofs of concept.


Any evidence of gravitational modification? No. There is some open research from the 1960's about using electrical charges for boundary layer control in air.
edit on 16-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Well I have answered at least 4 readers post fulling my obligations as the original poster. So I will let the readers run with their own personal personal conclusions and comments. I forgot to include in my original post that Bob called this a field propulsion system. Which runs in tandem with Johns experiments using tesla coils and radar to make objects fly. So John Hutchinson was essentially experimenting with what Bob called a " field propulsion system."

I now know how that propulsion system works which is what Bob did not fully understand at the time he first came out with his story. One of the reasons he came out with it is he wanted to let main stream science figure it out. I hope both him and John eventually see what I have said about how their system works that they both had experience with.

Also as Bob noted in his interview when you change gravity or simulate gravity you effect space and time. When you change and effect space you change time and gravity. When you can control time you also change gravity and space.
Which is what Einstein said as well. By modifying space-time speeds greater than light speed can be achieved with this high energy propulsion system.

Hey, I appreciate everyone listening to me and responding to me and having me here and I want to thank ATS for finally letting me post. We each have are own beliefs and conclusions which is ok. I am more than happy to agree or disagree and live and let live. Everyone have a good day.
edit on 16-12-2012 by Reactor because: spelling correction
edit on 16-12-2012 by Reactor because: I spelled Einstein wrong. Ha ha.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   


Interesting. I don't think that's the last we will see of the OP.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Reactor
 


One cannot control the speed of an Electrons Orbit since an Electron is a Quantum Particle/Wave Form. Electrons can travel slower than Light Speed if conducted by specific elements.

Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Electrons have rest mass, and so never DO travel at light speed.

In a conductor, it's more of a very slow crawl.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


It is at the speed of Nucleus Orbit I speak.

Split Infinity



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Still not at the speed of light. And an orbital isn't strictly an orbit, not like planets around a sun. It's more of a likelihood.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 




Astronomers have measured parallax from nearby stars (angular oscillation due to orbit of earth) since the 19th century,


Parallax provides one observation to help gauge the relative distance of nearby stars, but not the exact location. Gravitational lensing from black holes is one clear example in how gravity distorts light, or a part of the electromagnetic spectrum. So what effect does the galaxy's gravitational distribution have on the light we receive from the stars? Until we go to a star to confirm it's absolute location we are left with best guesses that continually change with our understanding www.abovetopsecret.com...



There is no evidence of *gravitaitonal* modification


If you prefer to use the term dipole, fine. What is important is the application, how can we get around faster, further, cleaner and cheaper than what is currently being employed. As for the B2, it uses a high electrical voltage on it's leading wing edge and exhaust gases. With the amount of money and tight constraints is must play some advantage.

So if we are to find some common ground in this debate, in some situations gravitational forces can affect electromagnetic forces, in other situations electromagnetic forces can affect gravitational forces?



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev

As for the B2, it uses a high electrical voltage on it's leading wing edge and exhaust gases. With the amount of money and tight constraints is must play some advantage.


It does, indeed, but not due to "antigravity" or some bogus "lifter" effect. There are two very important real world effects to the wing charging system. The B-2 system is about two generations back now.

At least it doesn't glow in the dark.
edit on 17-12-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
What I can't seem to wrap my noggin around, when it comes to this "anti-gravity" horse hockey, is how it could operate outside of the atmosphere...

I don't see "anti-gravity" as an acceptable means of interstellar travel, mostly due to the fact that gravity is a byproduct of matter, not some external force disconnected from it.

For instance, if you were "repelling" gravity, you would reach a point in interstellar space where you wouldn't have enough gravity to "repel". Now, I wouldn't discount it as a possible means to push a vehicle within a given radius from a star, planet, or satellite, but as a given distance is reached, the gravitic attraction of said astronomical body would diminish to the point that there was insufficient latent "warping" of spacetime for the repulsive force to provide a means for propulsion, unless the vehicle reached maximum speed instantaneously, which would kill everyone on onboard...soooooo...not buying anti-gravity theories for a means of interstellar travel.

If you could explain how mass could be "nullified" I could start to envision a probable scenario for interstellar travel.

The distances are too great, and life is too short to make it possible unless a vehicle becomes "massless."
edit on 17-12-2012 by AllenBishop because: Smartphone typing is difficult
edit on 17-12-2012 by AllenBishop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllenBishop
What I can't seem to wrap my noggin around, when it comes to this "anti-gravity" horse hockey, is how it could operate outside of the atmosphere...

I don't see "anti-gravity" as an acceptable means of interstellar travel, mostly due to the fact that gravity is a byproduct of matter, not some external force disconnected from it.

For instance, if you were "repelling" gravity, you would reach a point in interstellar space where you wouldn't have enough gravity to "repel".


It doesn't work this way. You should think of it more like electromagnetism (except that the theory is nonlinear)---there is a field everywhere in space. Masses (like charges) are "source terms" in generating the field. If somehow you come up with some new magic physics with an alternate source term then you could, very hypothetically, alter gravitation in a different way.


Now, I wouldn't discount it as a possible means to push a vehicle within a given radius from a star, planet, or satellite, but as a given distance is reached, the gravitic attraction of said astronomical body would diminish to the point that there was insufficient latent "warping" of spacetime for the repulsive force to provide a means for propulsion, unless the vehicle reached maximum speed instantaneously, which would kill everyone on onboard...soooooo...not buying anti-gravity theories for a means of interstellar travel.

If you could explain how mass could be "nullified" I could start to envision a probable scenario for interstellar travel.


Hypothetically the idea would be that you could compress the distance locally in your frame somehow by altering the metric so that in your own frame you are always travelling less than c but to an outside observer far off in Euclidean geometry you appeared to have traversed faster than c.


The distances are too great, and life is too short to make it possible unless a vehicle becomes "massless."


Well, it may not be massless/inertia-less in one frame but what if it appeared to be from the outside?

edit on 17-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join