Classified Antigravity Craft Using Back-Engineered ET Technology?

Originally posted by SuicideVirus

Looks like somebody's been reading their "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Who designed this quantum drive? Zaphod Beeblebrox?

Don't Panic!

lol actually, that was the infinate improbability drive (yes i have read the guide too many times, but i DO know where my towel is)

but as to why we'd want these? even if there are no aliens (which i find unlikely actually) its like someone else said, strike anywhere within an hour. launch from oklahoma or somehwere, hit orbit, drop in on your enemies and home by lunch. no need for afb's anywhere else in the world, no need for aircraft carriers. planes like this, especially if they could build cargo and troop carrier versions, and we would be able to bring all our military back to us soil cuz we woudnt need forward bases.

i like that idea personally.

So the A in F-22A.
Is this anti-grav as well?

Sure would explain how StarScream managed to morph back and forth in mid-air so much whilst pwning the raptors.

[edit on 14/7/07 by -0mega-]

Originally posted by danx

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
Well, Anti-Gravity is already an established fact, so that's no question, but whether there are aliens to repel or not is a whole 'nother question in itself.

An established fact?

Although anti-gravity is talked about and accounted for on some mainstream physics theories such as Einstein's General Relativity, last time I checked real world testing of anti-gravity has never been acknowledged as yielding positive results.

There is as far as I know but one single experiment which has demonstrated any deviation from classical Einsteinian General Relativity.

These experiments have, in fact, rejected a fair number of alternative (but originally scientifically plausible or potentially compatible) theories of gravitation. Most recent and truly spectacular is the "Gravity Probe B" spacecraft, launched 40 years after the experiment was proposed.

That recent experiment was in a superconductor (where classical GR is expected to have some kind of modifiation, generally not known now) and showed an extremely tiny effect, an amplification apparently due to quantum effects, of an effect predicted by general relativity.

There are other hypothetical (theoretical) papers dealing with solutions of GR equations which assume the existence of some kind of "negative energy" matter which can create warping of spacetime different from usual mass/energy. Let's be clear: those solutions are clever mathematical manipulations, there is no physics yet connecting them as potentially real.

Let's also be clear: we have no "stuff" in our lab which is negative-gravitational energy. None of the things we engineer has any such property.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty sure the Government and companies in the private sector (Lockheed, Northrop, etc) have done extensive studies and tests with anti-gravity/electrogravitics and might even be using it right now in real world applications.

I actually think it is very unlikely any major company has any substantial research or accomplishment in that area. They are rather short-term money focused, and something like this would take decades of first-principles study before it could accomplish anything useful for a product, if ever. This is the province of a national laboratory and academic scientists, and there is no evidence at all of a sufficiently large and continuous research program and test facilities, even secret, which would support even hypothetically secret anti-gravity aircraft.

The leading frontiers of 'not yet really known physics' are in the "dark energy" seen cosmologically and maybe some we'll see some particle anomalies if CERN can make the Higgs. The likelihood it's engineerable is very very small.

Originally posted by mbkennel
An established fact?

Yuppers that's what the man said...

last time I checked real world testing of anti-gravity has never been acknowledged as yielding positive results.

Perhaps its time you check again... but try something a little different... include the words "gravity shielding" in your search... anti gravity as a term implies a physical force opposite gravity. Gravity shielding simply implies finding a way to overcome the effects of gravity, not coming up with a whole new form of energy... and THAT does not go against Einstein...

Yet the end result is the same... you get a vehicle that does not need to be concerned about gravity.

There is as far as I know but one single experiment which has demonstrated any deviation from classical Einsteinian General Relativity.

As you say... as far as you know...

However Boyd Bushman a senior scientist at Lockheed Martin would tell you otherwise... take two neodymium magnets (around $5,000.00 a piece) force them together like poles together and you generate a field that overcomes a portion of gravity around the object..

He is an interesting character... and is constrained by what he can actually say... but very interesting indeed. I will put links at the end of the post...

That recent experiment was in a superconductor (where classical GR is expected to have some kind of modifiation, generally not known now) and showed an extremely tiny effect, an amplification apparently due to quantum effects, of an effect predicted by general relativity.

There are other hypothetical (theoretical) papers dealing with solutions of GR equations which assume the existence of some kind of "negative energy" matter which can create warping of spacetime different from usual mass/energy. Let's be clear: those solutions are clever mathematical manipulations, there is no physics yet connecting them as potentially real.

Let's also be clear: we have no "stuff" in our lab which is negative-gravitational energy. None of the things we engineer has any such property.

I actually think it is very unlikely any major company has any substantial research or accomplishment in that area. They are rather short-term money focused

And you would be wrong... there are many companies with gov contracts working on just such projects, Even Stargate technology is being studied by Government labs...

and something like this would take decades of first-principles study before it could accomplish anything useful for a product, if ever.

And we have had decades, ever since Nikola Tesla...

This is the province of a national laboratory and academic scientists, and there is no evidence at all of a sufficiently large and continuous research program and test facilities, even secret, which would support even hypothetically secret anti-gravity aircraft.

NO EVIDENCE?? Have you even LOOKED

LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) Check their archives for "gravity sheilding and anti-gravity work and toss in "Warp drives" just for kicks

AFRL (Air Force Research laboratory) Snoop around in there for a day or two.. Revolutionary Hypersonic Aerospace Vehicles With Plasma Actuators That Require No Moving Parts ... notice anything unusual about the shape?
landoflegends.us...

MIT Levitated Dipole Fusion Reactor research... note the word LEVITATED
Helium 2 Fusion reactors with minimal shielding and almost zero waste...
landoflegends.us...

And I am just scratching the surface of whats PUBLCALLY available... I haven't even tossed in the DoD sources yet!

The leading frontiers of 'not yet really known physics' are in the "dark energy" seen cosmologically and maybe some we'll see some particle anomalies if CERN can make the Higgs. The likelihood it's engineerable is very very small.

The likelihood of atomic energy begin engineerable a hundred years ago was also very very small

Here are the Boyd Bushman links....

I will post the link only to save bandwidth...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

My god, this thread simply contradicts all forms of physics I have studied.

That's simply all I can say about it, it's phenomenal how someone can say "Anti-gravity isn't anti-gravity, try a different name in your searches and you'll see how anti-gravity exists." I always thought that if it wasn't called by that, then it's not that.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
That's simply all I can say about it, it's phenomenal how someone can say "Anti-gravity isn't anti-gravity, try a different name in your searches and you'll see how anti-gravity exists."

I guess your physics studies are as good as your reading skills then... perhaps a few more years of study?

Not only did you twist my words to suit your ego, I bet you never looked at one of those government documents so you would know what I was talking about?

No worries... mainstream physics will catch up eventually I can wait

Haha buddy, maybe you should pay attention to what you said. No I did not twist your words, it's right there in plain un-edited text.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 14-7-2007 by ShatteredSkies]

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by mbkennel

last time I checked real world testing of anti-gravity has never been acknowledged as yielding positive results.

Perhaps its time you check again... but try something a little different... include the words "gravity shielding" in your search...
Yet the end result is the same... you get a vehicle that does not need to be concerned about gravity.

Here are some of the research papers from LANL (Los Alomos National Lab) concerning Gravity Shielding. So what are they up to? I’ll be darned if they haven’t applied this in practice already. Probably they have – years ago!

Title: Gravitational Shielding Effects in Gauge Theory of Gravity
Authors: Ning Wu

Title: Quantization of Black Holes in the Shielded Strong Gravity Scenario Authors: D. G. Coyne, D. C. Cheng

Title: Hypothetical Gravity Control and Possible Influence on Space Propulsion
Authors: M. Tajmar, O. Bertolami

Title: The Warp Drive and Antigravity
Title: Screening and Absorption of Gravitation in Pre-relativistic and Relativistic Theories
Authors: H.-H. von Borzeszkowski, T. Chrobok

Title: Gravitational Shielding Based on ZnS:Ag Phosphor
Author: Fran De Aquino (Maranhao State University, Brazil)

More here…

Have a good read!!

Cheers!

I am going to open myself up to criticism but that is fine. I have read all the posts so far and I can understand everyones point of view. The only problem I have is I have seen it. There is a craft that is surely man made and it does exist. I was less than 50 feet away and it made no sound. I am a rational mature adult and the last dang thing I expected to see that day was what I encountered. So here it is. I have been so obsessed with it I put all the information in a blog and posted it on line. Read all the information and come to your own conclusion. I have already came to my own. There is something out there that is way beyond what we are being told.

governmentsecretsaucer.blogspot.com...

I used to work at Boeing as computer tech in HB CA & I've seen the X-33. No f'king joke. It's pretty cool but I have no idea what the purpose is.

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
So here it is. I have been so obsessed with it I put all the information in a blog and posted it on line. Read all the information and come to your own conclusion. I have already came to my own. There is something out there that is way beyond what we are being told.

governmentsecretsaucer.blogspot.com...

Absolutely fascinating, calcoastseeker! But the vid wasn't too clear. Where's the object you mentioned? Couldn't see it. But the other stuff on that blog was pretty thought provoking! Here's what I found most interesting...

We cannot use the methods that the extraterrestrials use to control their craft because they do a mind/body interface with the craft. But installing our own means, our own avionics, that our pilots trained on our own avionics, would be able to control the flight of these craft.

governmentsecretsaucer.blogspot.com...

Cheers!



[edit on 15-7-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by weknowyouknow
I used to work at Boeing as computer tech in HB CA & I've seen the X-33. No f'king joke. It's pretty cool but I have no idea what the purpose is.

Was that the Lockheed-Martin X-33A? Could you make a sketch and post it here?

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh
Have a good read!!

Hey Mikey... you did notice it was a Chinese scientist?


Oh BTW did you get that rather long email I sent you? Didn't see an answer so I thought I would check

[edit on 15-7-2007 by zorgon]

Originally posted by calcoastseeker
I am going to open myself up to criticism but that is fine.

Well don't let that worry you... you are in some fine company on that score


I will read your report and give you my opinion... Thanks for sharing

Originally posted by weknowyouknow
I used to work at Boeing as computer tech in HB CA & I've seen the X-33. No f'king joke. It's pretty cool but I have no idea what the purpose is.

Damn! Wish I had known you a few weeks ago. I was in HB with my daughter and tried to stop by and see Sea Launch, but that terrorist stuff in London put a level 1 lock down on everything

I did stop by the office at the Boeing plant and get some phone numbers

Would you be interested in giving us an eye witness account of that craft for the Pegasus website?

Originally posted by mikesingh
Was that the Lockheed-Martin X-33A? Could you make a sketch and post it here?

LOL I would rather he tell us about the X-48B with the morphing flexible wing technology









[edit on 15-7-2007 by zorgon]

When I watch the video ... I clearly see that the point on the 'crystal' smoothly follows the tank as it passes by, which is not a smooth continuous spinning motion as something spinning without propulsion would do.

Zorgon ... I like reading your posts, I commend you on all your efforts and site ... BUT ... to take a pot shot at Mac computers for no reason really irks me a bit. I have a PC right now, have owned a Mac ... I don't see why you think PC is better. It is the user behind the machine that makes use of the technology ... if you had a Mac ... you might be surprised how much you like it. Having one of each wouldn't be bad, or have Virtual PC for Mac and have both on one system. I think you would do well with the top of the line PowerMac they have right now ... 16 GB of memory, 3 TB of hard drive, dual 3.0 GHz quad-core (8-core) processor, 4 graphics cards adding 1 GB of video RAM ... I hated MS, but have to admit, I got it to do a lot of things I wanted it to do just fine.

Anyone who believes that what you can learn is all that we know is being quite foolish. If we knew half of how advanced we are, half the people would be shocked speechless, the other half would say I told you so. Some of this stuff is in mainstream media and has been for years. They have clothing that bends light around the person/object ... it was on a show on Discover/Science channel ... not a big step to think they have far more advanced abilities of 'cloaking' for the military/black projects. Some genius developed laser-guided bullets ... and if this is what they are openly telling us ... what is truly behind the scenes? Would you have believed in crazy people talking about the Stealth bomber 50 years ago? Oh ... there is a traingle shaped plane that radar cannot see and can hit a target through a window from hundreds/thousands of miles away!

I believe our technology is far beyond the wildest dreams of the average person, and meeting the dreams of the most innovative independent minds who can fathom near impossible ideas compared to today's known standards and 'realities'. Science is what you are taught, you are limited by what people before you have learned and discovered, and what is put together for what some group of people decided you should know to gain qualifications (earn degrees). You can study without books or school. Newton didn't have your physics books to learn from, he wrote them from crazy stuff in his head .... and I am sure some thought he was a looney at first. Einstein didn't have a handbook telling him how to come up with the theory of relativity, he did that from his own mind.

We must be able to think for ourselves, see things for ourselves, and not limit our minds to what is known now or has been known ... for we always find out we never have the whole picture and that even the most advanced understanding of anything is really quite limited given any amount of time passing by.

How long ago was it that anti-matter would have been an insane work of fiction? Quarks? nano-technology? home PCs powerful enough to make supercomputers of a decade go seem pointless? Think about it ... with a clear mind.

What is in store for our future? What if it all isn't as complicated as everyone tries to make it out to be? What is straining and struggling concepts beyond even the most genius people of today, may be child's play in 100 years ... could you imagine taking a Playstation PSP/GameBoy DS back any amount of time? 10 years? 20 years? 100 years? take one to Einstein/Newton? Even they would think it to be quite amazing, though it is something that gets casually bought and tossed around by 5 year olds.

Anti-Gravity craft? Sure it exists. Inter-planetary travel? I am sure as well. This is why they claim it to take 20 years to get on the moon ... they need time to clean-up and hide the truth up there. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. We were 'there' 40 years ago with ancient technology.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

Anti-Gravity craft? Sure it exists. Inter-planetary travel? I am sure as well. This is why they claim it to take 20 years to get on the moon ... they need time to clean-up and hide the truth up there. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. We were 'there' 40 years ago with ancient technology.

Edit: Bolds mine!

FTI, Half a century ago with ancient tech?. I'm not so sure! Get what I mean? Using nav and control systems with computers that had less power under their hoods than today's cheap calculators for a complex Moon mission is a little hard to digest! So how was it done? Less said the better!

OK, so what about this object photographed from STS-64, shown below? Doesn't look like an alien space craft to me. Probably one of those black project craft?

Originally posted by zorgon
LOL I would rather he tell us about the X-48B with the morphing flexible wing technology.

Hey Ron, by the way, just read your mail today! Will reply as soon as I finish my beer!!

Now what in the name of Christ did you mean by 'Morphing' flexible wing?
Does it change shape? Wow! A shape shifter, if ever there was one!!

Seriously, you ain't serious are you?

[edit on 16-7-2007 by mikesingh]