Assistance appreciated!

[Lazerbeak]

It is very cool. It's nice to see some very real tangible science being applied in this way.

My thought is that a Unified field theory is what is lacking and why there is so much disagreement and confusion at this point. I agree that perhaps what appears to be separate is in fact connected or even aspects of a single undiscovered field/energy.

____________________________

Wow, electrogravitics. Back in the 50's, classified, TR3B. Very interesting :shhh:

~ LB

 

[EnergyCoherence]

Wow, electrogravitics. Back in the 50's, classified, TR3B. Very interesting :shhh:

~ LB

I think after the Roswell crash, they really put a monumental amount of money to develop anti-gravity, or gravity manipulation. This would obviously give the military an incredible advantage, although I don't think they would risk these technologies on the battlefield, given that even the U.S.'s mundane technologies suffice. I think a lot of the UFO sightings today, could just be technology we developed. If you think about it, having a 30-50 billion dollar a year budget for 30-40 years, what could you develop? I don't think Ben Rich was kidding when he said we have the technology to take et home.

If you have a hour and a half, you might watch Edgar Fouche's presentation where he talks about the TR3B.

 

[Lazerbeak]

I actually am familiar with Ed Fouche and posted his talk in another thread

The thing that is most remarkable to me is how many reputable scientists, engineers etc are coming forward with some truly amazing information. Everything is verifiable in the public domain, from patents to current technological trends.

The refusal of the public at large to accept the possibility of a new paradigm is perhaps one of the biggest hurdles to disclosure. Granted this is no coincidence, but hopefully things will change. It will be easier once the science is proven and understood. I have great faith in humanity.

~ LB

 

[Trevor]

Now all you need is the physical experiment to back these statements up.

No. Just no. I have decades of physics experiments by people with years of experience backing up what I'm telling you.

YOU are making a claim that counters all those decades of study in physics by thousands of scientists. YOU must provide the scientific experimentation to prove that claim.

Somewhat relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Well, I think in the end it comes down to having the money. I will agree no real conclusions can be made from that experiment, but it was interesting none the less. The height was not the same, as well as the strength of the magnets were no where near what Bushman used in his test. Actually I can't even imagine working with neodymiums costing 5k a piece, as magnets costing a fraction as much could easily crush through your body.

Stronger magnets would not make a difference, explained below.

Also note that neodymium magnets were much, much more expensive eight or ten years ago. Magnets that were hundreds of dollars then can be had for tens of dollars now.

If this is true why can they levitate plastic and any other material with large magnetic fields?

Nearly every material on earth is weakly diamagnetic (further reading).

Using an absurd amount of energy, it would even be possible to levitate a human. Why? Because we are filled with water, and water is weakly diamagnetic (like most other materials). It is NOT antigravity, nor is it at all revolutionary.

With regards to the dropping experiment, diamagnetic levitation only works when the magnet is stationary. If the magnet (source of the upward force) is falling with the object that is being diamagnetically repelled (levitated in this case), both would fall at the expected rate, but the two objects would still be repelled from each other.

Make sense?

Trevor

 

[Wolfman29]

The reason they can levitate any material is because of something called diamagnetism. See this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism#Demonstrations

 

[EnergyCoherence]

No. Just no. I have decades of physics experiments by people with years of experience backing up what I'm telling you.

YOU are making a claim that counters all those decades of study in physics by thousands of scientists. YOU must provide the scientific experimentation to prove that claim.

Well you did say -

Experiment B: When you bolt two magnets together when they repel each other, they fall at the same rate as anything else.

So where is the physical experiment backing this statement up?

Nearly every material on earth is weakly diamagnetic (further reading).

Using an absurd amount of energy, it would even be possible to levitate a human. Why? Because we are filled with water, and water is weakly diamagnetic (like most other materials). It is NOT antigravity, nor is it at all revolutionary.

With regards to the dropping experiment, diamagnetic levitation only works when the magnet is stationary. If the magnet (source of the upward force) is falling with the object that is being diamagnetically repelled (levitated in this case), both would fall at the expected rate, but the two objects would still be repelled from each other.

Make sense?

Trevor

Yes, I admit that is not a good example.

Of course we all know there is no concrete evidence that links gravity to magnetism, but it is still my opinion that it is, it is just science or physics is unable to explain it. If physics really understood gravity then we would be able to produce a device which could create gravity, but no one in the public realm has yet to do so. Although Podkletnov did show that gravity can be reduced.

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov - Full Length Uncut Fixed (2004) - YouTube

Any thoughts on T Townsend Brown's work concerning his electrogravitic experiments?
http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/?p=49

 

[Wolfman29]

Energy, Newton's Second Law has so many verified experiments backing it up. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Newton's Second law, as well as being able to think outside the box a bit, would be able to mathematically prove that they would fall at a rate no different from that which we know is the standard drop rate on Earth (9.81m/s^2). It's a matter of net force.

You can have an opinion on something but that doesn't mean it's not wrong. IF gravity were linked to magnetism, it would be linked to electricity, as well, just so you know. That is, electricity and magnetism are just two sides of the same coin. That falls from both classical Maxwell (used in everything that you use today) and from quantum electrodynamics, the most "true" theory every exist (it has the most experiments verifying it of any scientific principle).

EDIT: It's funny how people have this fascination with gravity when it's, in fact, the weakest force; people just don't seem to understand that gravity is just like the other forces, only the "gravitic" charge is mass.

 

[Trevor]

So where is the physical experiment backing this statement up?

Galileo did it. What you're asking me to do is prove basic kinematics.

If you drop one magnet from a roof, it will accelerate at a rate of 9.8m/s^2.

If you drop two repelling magnets from a roof, they will push on each other, but will otherwise fall at 9.8m/s^2.

If one of these drop "tests" was done scientifically, using precise release, that concept would be proven to your satisfaction.

Of course we all know there is no concrete evidence that links gravity to magnetism, but it is still my opinion that it is, it is just science or physics is unable to explain it. If physics really understood gravity then we would be able to produce a device which could create gravity, but no one in the public realm has yet to do so.

There is a huge body of evidence by many great scientists that shows no connection. If you choose to ignore that, that's your prerogative.

We DO understand gravity. It's the curvature of spacetime caused by objects having mass. Objects with more mass curve spacetime more. This has been backed up, again, with decades of experiments.

What we do not understand is how to duplicate the effect of gravity without mass, or reduce the gravitational effect that a massive object has on another object.

Although Podkletnov did show that gravity can be reduced.

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov - Full Length Uncut Fixed (2004) - YouTube

No.

Podkletnov did NOT show that gravity was reduced.

He showed that the DOWNWARD FORCE exerted on an object held over superconductor rotating over a magnet was reduced.

His findings were that the object showed a 0.5% - 2% decrease in its weight. My hypothesis is that whatever objects he held over that apparatus were diamagnetically opposed by the magnet and/or the rotating superconductor.

The weak force of diamagnetism easily and logically explains that.

Occam's Razor, my friend.

Any thoughts on T Townsend Brown's work concerning his electrogravitic experiments?

Well, I pulled up the wikipedia page on it...

Electrogravitics is a pseudoscience that attempts to find a connection between gravity and electricity.

Many experiments by people such as Nikola Tesla, R. L. Talley,[4] Eugene Podkletnov, and Giovanni Modanese have failed to find a connection between gravity and electricity.

That field has as much merit as medieval alchemy, and I don't feel compelled to waste my time on it.

Trevor

 

[EnergyCoherence]

Galileo did it.

No, he dropped two stones, not two magnets in repulsion mode.

If you drop two repelling magnets from a roof, they will push on each other, but will otherwise fall at 9.8m/s^2.

Still no physical experiment to back this up. To me this constitutes an assumption.

It's the curvature of spacetime caused by objects having mass. Objects with more mass curve spacetime more

This statement seems to explain the effect of gravity, but not explain the underlying mechanics of how gravity works.

What we do not understand is how to duplicate the effect of gravity without mass, or reduce the gravitational effect that a massive object has on another object.

Yes, again if science truly understood gravity we would be able to artificially create it.

My hypothesis is that whatever objects he held over that apparatus were diamagnetically opposed by the magnet and/or the rotating superconductor.

Why was the effect still present even with the metal screen in between the disc and the mass?

Well, I pulled up the wikipedia page on it...

Quote:
Electrogravitics is a pseudoscience that attempts to find a connection between gravity and electricity.

Many experiments by people such as Nikola Tesla, R. L. Talley,[4] Eugene Podkletnov, and Giovanni Modanese have failed to find a connection between gravity and electricity.
That field has as much merit as medieval alchemy, and I don't feel compelled to waste my time on it.

Medieval alchemy.. Ok.. Nuff said.

 

[Trevor]

No, he dropped two stones, not two magnets in repulsion mode.

Any two objects exerting a mechanical force would exhibit the same behavior as two repelling magnets falling.

It's high school physics. You can replicate the experiment yourself.

Still no physical experiment to back this up. To me this constitutes an assumption.

An assumption based on laws of physics built through decades (and in some cases centuries) of repeatable experimentation.

This statement seems to explain the effect of gravity, but not explain the underlying mechanics of how gravity works.

It does explain the mechanics. Read more about gravity.

Yes, again if science truly understood gravity we would be able to artificially create it.

Just because we understand it does not mean we can automatically artificially bend spacetime.

Why was the effect still present even with the metal screen in between the disc and the mass?

Because diamagnetism isn't stopped by a metal screen.

Trevor

 

[scumbagatheist]

Well, clearly we don't understand how a star works, as we cannot create one in the lab.

We must also not understand anything about atoms, as we cannot create an atom from nothing in the lab.

I guess we don't understand glaciers either, as we cannot just plop one onto a mountain range.

We know nothing about eggs, as we cannot make one without a chicken.

Is anyone else seeing the failure of logic here?

It's so amusing how people can "feel" things should be, because they lack an understanding of it. Being a biologist, I have to deal with the same B.S. when things like evolution and genetic theory come into discussion.

 

[Lazerbeak]

How to make a Star...

https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/nic/icf/

Icemaker...

Genetically engineered chickens...

~ LB

 

[EnergyCoherence]

Any two objects exerting a mechanical force would exhibit the same behavior as two repelling magnets falling.
It's high school physics. You can replicate the experiment yourself.

Again a statement without the physical experiment to back it up. A senior scientist of lockheed martin did the experiment and says otherwise. So I guess I can assume you think he is lying or delusional?

It does explain the mechanics. Read more about gravity.

If it is so easy, please explain how gravity works at a quantum level.

 

[Trevor]

Again a statement without the physical experiment to back it up. A senior scientist of lockheed martin did the experiment and says otherwise. So I guess I can assume you think he is lying or delusional?

Are you serious right now?

The burden of proof is on YOU, the lunatic making the outlandish claim. It is not MY job to prove basic physics to you.

If I told you the moon was round you would ask me to prove it with a physical experiment.

I think the little old man at Lockheed is senile and wants attention - a little old man who you believe while ignoring the collective work of hundreds of ACTUAL physicists.

If it is so easy, please explain how gravity works at a quantum level.

I've already tried explaining high school physics to you. There's no way I'm going to waste my time researching the subject then writing an explanation that you'll dismiss because it isn't pseudoscience.

You are open-minded to lunacy and closed-minded to hard science and the scientific method.

You are a lost cause. For the sake of my sanity, I'm done here.

Trevor

 

[scumbagatheist]

It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.

Have you even read a book on gravity, or any other fundamental force, for that matter?

Check please!
I'm done here too. You simply cannot fix stupid.

 

[Lazerbeak]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Quantum theory is still rather young and developing. While understood that it requires a potentially vast rethinking of accepted scientific thought, it may be to soon to dismiss research and theory which may potentially lead to a deeper understanding of the workings of our universe :thinking:

there are certain physical phenomena such as singularities that are "very small" spatially (volume) yet are "very large" from mass and energy perspectives. Such objects cannot be understood with current models of quantum mechanics, nor can they be explained by general relativity. This situation highly motivates the search for a theory of quantum gravity.

~ LB