Boeing admits working on antigravity in Phamtom works division

jerry777
www.ufoevidence.org... this is some information that i beleive is very good reading!

You wrote a sentence!
You also provided a link!

reply to post by Bedlam


So you are familiar with the work of Townsend Brown?

www.preposterousuniverse.com...

One of the three authors of the Sakurai prize winning paper on the Strong force Graviton connection which states unambiguously that a quantum graviton appears to be a pair of strong force carriers known as gluons gamely tries to explain the mathematics involved in the discovery.

Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does. Although these relations could in principle have been discovered without unitarity-based methods, the power of the methods to provide very simple expressions, led people to find initial patterns, and then easily test the patterns in many other examples to gain confidence.

This from a Sakurai prize winning scientist who works at SLAC at Stanford. make that at least three or four of them.

So now you got scientists who are hard to dismiss as your garden variety kook or scam artist speaking plainly about how gravity and the strong force are essentially the same thing.

reply to post by jerry777


I don't think we will be seeing antigravity anytime soon .

reply to post by Bedlam


I'm still ferreting info. It takes awhile.

And again, no. Lol

sparrowstail
reply to post by Bedlam

 

So you are familiar with the work of Townsend Brown?

Correct. I am also familiar with the lack of any supporting theory in physics that would allow his work to be true, and a marked lack of any corroborative demonstration. Especially given that it's no more than a capacitor. You'd think someone would have managed an irrefutable demonstration by now.

That's not what's going on with the B2 et al.

stormbringer1701
So now you got scientists who are hard to dismiss as your garden variety kook or scam artist speaking plainly about how gravity and the strong force are essentially the same thing.

Even if the gauge particle for gravity ends up being some preposterous gluon pair, it doesn't make the strong force co-identical with gravity. Especially as the strong force's range is the diameter of a nucleus, and that of gravity is quite a bit larger.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Bedlam

 

I'm still ferreting info. It takes awhile.

And again, no. Lol

Hey, I'll give you honorable mention. You might even get one of those cool ambiguous attaboys "In Jan 2014, Zaphod58 provided a much needed service for the United States of America. Zaphod58 receives the heartfelt thanks of a grateful nation"

After a while, you start getting fuzzy on just which one was what. But they're cool to put on the wall.

Bedlam

stormbringer1701
So now you got scientists who are hard to dismiss as your garden variety kook or scam artist speaking plainly about how gravity and the strong force are essentially the same thing.

Even if the gauge particle for gravity ends up being some preposterous gluon pair, it doesn't make the strong force co-identical with gravity. Especially as the strong force's range is the diameter of a nucleus, and that of gravity is quite a bit larger.

see now there is something that we can discuss right there

are you sure that the gluon exchange field is always within the diameter of the nucleus? I'll be honest and say i don't know for sure. it is often said that nuclei with an elongated shape expose at least part of the gluon exchange field. i have also read that nucleonic isomeres expose the gluon enchange field. it does sort of make sense that an elongated nucleus would at least potentially allow an exposed gluon field since the gluon field would have to spatially include the outlying protons.

i also don't know that the doubled gluon thing is anything more than a mathematical construct. but if it is also a real thing then it's behavior and characteristics may be vastly different from those of a single gluon. there are some possible analogies that might illustrate this. in super conductors electrons form cooper pairs and the cooper pairs result in a change in the properties of the whole system.

also electricity and magnetism separately behave differently from an EM wave where the electrical component and the magnetic component are separated by 90 degrees spatially and out of phase frequency wise relative to each other. it has been described as the electrical component and magnetic component tumbling over each other and supporting each other so that they need no medium in which to travel.

many particles are composed of smaller particles atom, proton and neutron, quarks and so forth. each composite particle has different behaviors to its component particles.

it is not a stretch to think that a composite composed of two gluons would have different properties and behaviors than it's constituent parts.

stormbringer1701
i also don't know that the doubled gluon thing is anything more than a mathematical construct. but if it is also a real thing then it's behavior and characteristics may be vastly different from those of a single gluon. there are some possible analogies that might illustrate this. in super conductors electrons form cooper pairs and the cooper pairs result in a change in the properties of the properties of the whole system.

I would tend to totally agree with you here. A single gluon mediates the strong force. It's fine with me if a bound pair is the gauge particle for gravity, if it makes sense in other ways it has to make sense in order to agree with observed behavior. I have to reformat my head to think about particle physics, right now I'm stuck doing statistics. Stats wants to leave my head and run away, so I have to keep it penned up in my head. It doesn't want other things in there. I hate stats.

i forgot to mention the behaviors of quasi particles like exitons, solitons and that psuedo monopole they discovered in solid state physics recently.

ok man. i'll let you concentrate on statistics for a while then. it was an interesting conversation though. normally people run screaming away when i try to talk physics.

stormbringer1701
ok man. i'll let you concentrate on statistics for a while then. it was an interesting conversation though. normally people run screaming away when i try to talk physics.

What I really need to do is log out and get the stuff done rather than avoid it by posting all night. It won't go away, sad to say. But I'm having fun with someone who thinks nickel's not magnetic but all iron is, and who thinks that sound "accelerates into radio waves". As well as some DU folk who think it's what you get out of a reactor (facepalm). I think before I got so incensed about something I'd at least know it wasn't spent fuel pellets.

Before anyone gets really waist-deep in this, I would just like to point out that the author here is Nick Cook. As far as I can tell, this is the same Nick Cook who has been kicking around antigravity in Jane's since the mid-90s. He has also written several books which I can only describe as a bit whimsical. I can't give out copyrighted material, but here's a link to a review of one of his books. I recommend reading the article (and book, for the more adventurous) and deciding for yourself whether this is the same guy, and whether he is a trustworthy source of news on the subject.

The Hunt for Zero Point

Pr0

Zaphod58
There is a propulsion system in use that is not exactly antigravity, but is not what you would see on a normal aircraft. It's in limited use but it's out there.

Will the public ever get a look?

crazyewok

Zaphod58
There is a propulsion system in use that is not exactly antigravity, but is not what you would see on a normal aircraft. It's in limited use but it's out there.

Will the public ever get a look?

I'm sure the public has already gotten a look. They just don't know it yet.

reply to post by crazyewok


Not in the near future unless they put it on one of the projects coming out.

reply to post by Zaphod58
May be we will see a system like that on a B-2 successor?

reply to post by darksidius


There are rumors of at least one aircraft coming out within a year or two. It MIGHT have an advanced propulsion system on it.

Zaphod58
reply to post by darksidius

 

There are rumors of at least one aircraft coming out within a year or two. It MIGHT have an advanced propulsion system on it.

Out as in out from the black or out as it out from R&D but still black?