|
|
| conclusion of
community antigravity comunita antigravitazionale 2003 |
Introduction :
> my ame is Enrico Valbonesi i had previously applied for
the positionof
> " analist"whit your agency two years ago and last month.
> i would like to point out to you : my theory why , the
last shuttle on
> 1/febb/2003 crashed.the launch direction taiken by the
shuttle aat19,9
> degree angle from the equator crosses the state of texas
meetspresence
> of "could Plasma "in the "ionosfere . The same
phenomena is presentat
> "hesdallen , Norway , at a lower level in the atmosphere.
> if usual that a flow of " cold plasa " changes its
colour and also its"
> enegy content " in its course.
> the impact between the shuttle and this " cold plasma "
at " pinklevel"
> caused the disfunction of all the instruments on board {
please see
> diagram 1 attached }.i had and to date studied and
observed such
> phenomenas. data over this are in my web sitehttp://www.antigravity.it>
.
> and i formally invite you to have a look them and
perhaps i could be
> serve the agency in preventing thatsuch accidents will
not appenagain.
> anoter example over why crashes had occureed past been
caused byimpact
> between "sililar wave = micro-wave towers " or globular
lightnings> conclusion: i can say future crashes will
occur again beacuse there is a
> corealation between this recent crash and those in the
past because of
> phenomena caused by energy waves (similar Plasma ) TO
prevent these
> crashes i have created a formula : problem : change of
energy in the
> word , in the space. hipothesis : a split gravitational
wave that
> returns to its stable position. generating these "illuminous>
phenomenas."
> experiment at " hesdallen " energy changes in frequency
and spectre in
> un uneven way.change color blu red- pink yello whait.
> summary it is possible to understand and control these
phenomenas if we
> know where they originate. (black holes or gamma ray
blazer)
> e
|
ON THE VERGE OF ANTIGRAVITY"
Q: What limitations have you run into?
What are the
problems or challenges? |
TM: The limitations are not inherent in the theory,
only in the practical construction. My custom 250-watt
power supply is
less than 1/2 horsepower in output (746
watts/horsepower). The problem is building electronics to
convert the high-voltage electricity required. If Boeing
set out to build a full-scale Lifter tomorrow, they
could have it flying probably within
one year.
However, the expense would be considerable. The
limitations are
currently on the engineering end, not the physics end. |
Q: All the Lifters I've seen are triangular. Why
that shape? |
TM: The triangle is a self-reinforcing geometric
shape. Four sides tend to buckle a bit when the corona
wire is
tensioned. Many-sided Lifters have been constructed
and tested, but three sides is the
simplest
three-dimensional shape.
Q: Is it easy to build a lifter? Can
anyone do it?
What materials are required?
TM: I have complete construction plans
on my
website, as well as testing plans. Please read the safety
instructions
before beginning experimentation, however. The
types of voltages required can produce
hazardous
shocks, and anyone working with this should realize that
the dangers are
as real as with any other type of
scientific experimentation.
Q: What are you working on now in this
area?
TM: At the moment I am involved with
many
physicists, engineers and companies. I've been basically
passing
research from
one party to another. It's not
glamorous, but
antigravity research spans so many disciplines that none
of these people
knows
about the breakthroughs happening
outside of their
own narrow field of research. Lately, one person sends me
a file, and I
pass it along to several others (paperwork,
urghhh!)
As I am currently on layoff from AT&T
Wireless, so I
don't have a bunch of cash to invest in building larger
projects.
However,
when I am back at work I intend to
attempt the De
Aquino gravitational shield, as well as experiment with
the Podkletnov
superconductive grav-shield. I
subscribe to an
interesting hypothesis by Steve Burns (M.S., Nuclear
Engineering) that
the
Podkletnov device works not by
Cooper-pair electrons
as Podklnetov believes, but instead by high-current ELF
waves.
If this hypothesis is correct, it will
not only
explain the results that Podkletnov has encountered, but
also provide a
framework
for increasing the efficiency of his
results to
accurate, predictable and generally quite profound levels.
If the De
Aquino
experiment works (which is premised to
work running
on 1/10 hertz ELF waves through 99.95% pure iron) the
result should be
220+ pounds of "true antigravity" at
approximately
10 amperes of electricity - perhaps 1.1kW (110volts/10
amps=1.1kW).
|
Q: What has been the response to this research from
the conventional physics community? |
TM: The response that I have received from the
conventional physics community with regard to the De
Aquino theory is
quite
encouraging, which is a surprise, as
they are
usually very skeptical about ideas of this sort. However,
if it works
like the theory
maintains, then a conventional
gasoline engine
generating 200 horsepower would have the ability to lift
nearly 200 tons
of
payload - a staggering increase in
performance over
the Lifter.
Podkletnov has told me that he
believes that De
Aquino's idea should work as advertised. However, unlike
Burns he does
not believe that his experiments also
function on the basis of the De Aquino
ELF effect.
Recent failures by NASA and others to replicate the
Podklnetnov
experiment suggest that perhaps Podkletnov is
mistaken about the Cooper-pair
electron theory, and
that perhaps a "hidden-variable" such as ELF or perhaps
something else
is what causes his
difficult-to-reproduce results.
Unfortunately, the attempt to
replicate his
experiments was not done with the care that Podklnetnov
himself used to
conduct them. The signs are that NASA
spent a bunch of money, and when it
didn't work
after a couple of tries, they gave up. They probably didn't
spend the
hours of simply "playing with it" required to make
the darned thing work.
Not to sound critical, but NASA
forgets that decades
of tinkering and development were required before mankind
understood
rocketry well enough to send a man to
the moon on a schedule. They tend to
not remember
that the Space Shuttle is a direct descendant of Goddard
and Von Braun's
work - and both of these fellows
had years to experiment with both
partial success
and failure before learning what the few truly guiding
principles were.
It's the same with art, I suppose: a
novice can use
the same brushes, canvas and lighting as a master artist,
but because of
the subtleties of different
brush-strokes and interpretation, the
result will
look very different. Therefore, NASA expecting instant
results with the
Podkletnov apparatus would be the same as
me expecting to be able to build one
of their
vehicles on the first try.
|
Q: What do you see as the future of this technology?
Could it be applied, for example, to aircraft or
spacecraft?
|
TM: The Lifter technology can be applied to an
aircraft. In fact, several people have speculated that it
is in use as
part of the B-2 [Stealth] Bomber. My belief is
that if it is, it's only in use to
reduce
fuel-consumption and reduce the boundary-layer effect on
the
wing-surface (high-voltage charges cut through boundary
layers,
which is why the Lifter runs about 5
to 10 degrees
colder than the surrounding air; it is a standing-state
wind-chill
factor). In terms of spacecraft, NASA
plans on doing
vacuum-chamber testing with the ISR in New Jersey this
summer [2002].
Depending on their results, it may also have
applications in a vacuum. I personally
believe that
they will not design their emitter correctly to allow
charge-transfer in
the vacuum, which means that their tests will
probably not have a successful result
even if
Biefeld-Brown does work in a vacuum.
NASA's experiment will require a
different
configuration that the conventional Lifter to encourage
charge-transfer
across a gap in vacuum as opposed to the air,
but they appear to be more intent on
disproving the
Biefeld-Brown effect than taking this into account.
Instead of a wire
and a foil, they will need a pin and a foil to
achieve electron-charge transfer
through a vacuum.
Whether they attempt this or not will really be the
tell-tale sign of
whether or not they want this to work or
instead intend to attempt to disprove
it in a vacuum
without really trying.
Tim Ventura offers an American
Antigravity CD-ROM
containing "the most comprehensive resource on Antigravity
technology
currently available." |
Zetetica
> Exploring The Sciences
> the ADVANTAGE/S of anti-gravity
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author
Comment
sear
Friend
Posts: 410
(9/16/02 5:29:33 am)
Reply
the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
The physics of anti-gravity
may be very
interesting.
But this thread is
deliberately not about
that.
Let us simply presume that a
material is
discovered which is as opaque to gravity as a 3 foot thick
slab of lead
is to sunlight.
And let us further assume
that any object
placed upon such a shield of sufficient size to cover it's
bottom
silhouette would essentially become weightless.
Presuming that:
what benefits would accrue to
mankind from
such technology?
Would we build dwellings of
it, free
floating in the atmosphere? What would the advantage of
that be? Why
would we?
What besides more energy
efficient
helicopters would such technology provide?
What benefits would accrue to
mankind from
anti-gravity technology?
[if you don't like the flat
shield idea,
pretend it's inexpensive paint]
judas priest
Garble
Posts: 669
(9/16/02 7:22:31 am)
Reply
re
Ok interesting?
Speeds up construction ,
Piss the fuck out of crane
companies
Think of the advantage of
hovering homing
rockets ( navigation ability )
O space rockets (spacecraft)?..arhhh
aleins
have landed!
Cheat weight lifting
Hovering crafts?.. Also
hovering train idea
won?t need magnets
Would this mean we could be
invulnerable to
any form of gravity?? E.g. black holes?
The list seems small?? but
construction
benefits, and military are vast at that.
Not sure about the last one??
if however
gravity will not have any effect no matter the amount?.
Then way not?
gladpanther
Perpetually Flabbergasted
Posts: 1917
(9/16/02 8:08:28 am)
Reply
Would this sheild/paint be
everywhere?
I'm stuck on the idea of
people hurtling
towards the boundry of anti-gravity/gravity and *thunk*!
maximum gravity
Initiate
Posts: 112
(9/16/02 11:34:15 am)
Reply
Re: Would this sheild/paint
be everywhere?
How would you pour it out of
the can???
sear
Friend
Posts: 411
(9/16/02 3:23:25 pm)
Reply
Re: Would this sheild/paint
be everywhere?
Quote:
"How would you pour it
out of the
can???" maximum gravity
1st of all max, I don't mean
to stroke your
ego, but you've got the perfect pseud for this thread.
To answer your question
indirectly, there
are some details we simply must "brush" aside.
Perhaps we can contemplate
that one on a
holiday. But you may wish to bring your own coat (or two);
as some may
bristle at you if you're
under-dressed in the autumn
chill.
Now I've got one for you ...
How would one go about
dropping a drop
cloth that had some of this paint spilled on it?
maximum gravity
Initiate
Posts: 124
(9/16/02 8:00:20 pm)
Reply
Re: Would this sheild/paint
be everywhere?
I think if you could invent
an equal
coating of "heavy" gravity, then in essence, you could
contain the
anti-gravity paint, within a balanced field of heavy
gravity. Otherwise, we would
have to assume
that the nearer the antigravity got to a source of gravity
(i.e. the
earth), it would repel it proportionatly to its
proximity.
Thus you would have to have
some way to
regulate the gravitational attraction of the "heavy
gravity" in order to
manipulate (control/move) the
antigravity.
Hmmm...this could be a source
of perpetual
motion. Do we take into consideration gravitational force
increases with
increase in mass?? If we are
constantly increasing the
gravitational
force to repel the antigravity, it should accelerate
proportionaly with
the increase. If at some point we can harness
the increase in mass (gravitational
force)
to repel the anti-gravity, the force of repulsion should
increase with
the mass of the object.
Now we may have a case of
opening the lid
on the paint can, only to see the paint fly off into space
in
ever-increasing speed, until it finally rips a hole in
space.
David L88
Veteran
Posts: 839
(9/16/02 10:26:21 pm)
Reply
Re: the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
It would solve a lot of knee
and back
problems. Bring on the Flubber!
sammyd11
Newbie
Posts: 1
(9/17/02 12:32:44 am)
Reply
Re: the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
I'd coat the inside of a tiny
box with the
paint. Then I'd get a 1cm cube of matter from a neutron
star and place
it inside, and close the box. Then I'd leave
it on the table of a world I'm
not too fond
of. When they open the box, ... kablooie.
Or slightly less tech, I
would coat the
inside of a howitzer barrel with it. The lack of weight of
the
projectile would let you accelerate it to hyper-velocity
speeds over a relatively
short barrel
length. The kinetic energy of the exiting projectile would
be
astounding.
But I'm still tryng to
picture how
space-time would warp around zero-g. I think inside a box
that prevented
all gravity from entering, time would be
undefined. You could climb
inside whenever
you were late for something and you would already be done
when you got
out.
Rando the Considerable
Kung-Fu Master
Posts: 1432
(9/17/02 8:30:29 am)
Reply
Re: the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
sear,
Quote:
Let us simply presume
that a material
is discovered which is as opaque to gravity as a 3 foot
thick slab of
lead is to sunlight. Been
reading some HG Wells have we? Well
for starters, the bouyant force of air would shoot us high
into the
stratosphere. I'd say that the only
realistic "antigravity" would
be an
exploitation of extremely strong magnetic fields to cancel
out gravity.
But as you said, this isn't about the physics (too
bad). Asimov once wrote a
story about two
physicists who discovered the means of producing an
antigravity field.
When they first activated it the field gave off
a mysterious violet glow.
They could find
no explanation until one of them inserted a billiard,
which immediately
shot through the building at almost
lightspeed. They realized
that once gravity
was cancelled out, the objects were inherently massless,
and the only
speed a massless object could go at
was the speed of light. The
glow was being
produced by air molecules being accelerated and energized
by the field.
What made this concept neat
was that
instead of levitating spaceships or whatnot, antigravity
was used as a
neverending supply of energy instead.
demented hedgehog
Master
Posts: 1268
(9/17/02 4:28:41 pm)
Reply
Re: the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
I still think the ability to
land a big-ass
interstellar spaceship in the middle of a cornfield would
be majorly
awesome. sear
Friend
Posts: 413
(9/18/02 6:13:51 am)
Reply
Re: the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
Quote:
"...They realized that
once gravity was
cancelled out, the objects were inherently massless, ... "
Junk sci-fi.
The gravitational field to
which an object
is subjected has absolutely nothing to do with its mass;
only its
weight. Its mass does not vary.
Further, as bubbles rise from
scuba
equipment under water, they soon reach terminal velocity.
I infer a billiard ball
subjected to
atmopheric boyancy would too.
btw dh,
how about landing an ocean
liner in the
middle of a corn field.
Wouldn't that be fun?
spin1978
Science Mod
Posts: 718
(9/18/02 9:46:39 am)
Reply
Re: the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
Probably a more closely
worded expression
would be, "The weight - the effect that a gravitational
field has on an
object - will vary in that gravitational
field proportional to its
mass." At certain
places on Earth, the acceleration due to Earth's gravity
varies a bit
from the 9.8 m/s^2 most of us are familiar
with, although not too much.
It might be
9.7 in some places, perhaps 9.9 in others. Your mass does
not change in
those three places, but the gravitational
field does as does your
resultant weight.
Eh. Anyway.
Rando the Considerable
Kung-Fu Master
Posts: 1463
(9/18/02 10:46:05 am)
Reply
Weight
sear, Quote:
The gravitational field
to which an
object is subjected has absolutely nothing to do with its
mass; only its
weight. Its mass does not vary.
Hey, I know it's junk sci fi, but it's
still a cool story. A guy did get shot with that billiard
and it left a
big hole in his chest. It made my day.
sear Friend
Posts: 414
(9/18/02 12:09:58 pm)
Reply
Re: Weight
Quote: ... and it left a
big hole in his chest
... Rando
A big black hole?
Well, if you're in to that
sort of thing,
next time your cat or small dog gets rained on, you can
try drying it
off in the microwave oven.
If you leave it in for more
than 15
minutes, it'll almost certainly be dry when you scrape it
out.
sirbytor
Initiate
Posts: 202
(9/18/02 6:13:19 pm)
Reply
Re: Weight
why isn't anyone stating the
obvious:
antigravity SEX! it's a dream of mine (and i'm closer,
having changed
jobs to work for NASA )
another thing that popped
into my mind:
people with disabilities, paraplegics for example, would
be just as
mobile as the rest of us.
then there's the 3D billiards,
football,
baseball, etc..... and,
according to recent cosmology
theories, it's possible that there's ``dark energy''
around which acts
like an antigravitational field to counteract the
effects of normal matter (and
make the
expansion of the universe accelerate). so, theoretically,
there might
exist technology to ``flatten out'' space-time
in certain regions of the
universe.
-S
gmaharriet
Initiate
Posts: 202
(9/18/02 8:34:10 pm)
Reply
Re: the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
You guys are all getting so
complicated and
technical!
I was thinking of things like
rebuilding
the World Trade Center...if anything flew into one floor (assuming
they
could put out the fire), the other floors
would just stay afloat.
For vacations, you could rent
a floating
craft (kinda like a houseboat), but you wouldn't have to
stick to
waterways. Anyone for a trip to the top of Mt.
Everest?
How 'bout the real estate it
would free up?
You could build houses above each other with the
good-neighbor fences
floating between levels. Of course,
we'd have to find a way to
get sunshine to
grow the floating lawns and flowers.
And there'd be no traffic
jams driving to
work. The altimeter on your vehicle could determine what
altitudes were
allowed for traffic going east, west,
north or south.
maximum gravity
Initiate
Posts: 132
(9/18/02 9:08:52 pm)
Reply
Re: the ADVANTAGE/S of
anti-gravity
From your lips to boeings
ears....
Boeing tries to defy gravity
Edited by: maximum gravity
at: 9/18/02
9:11:24 pm |
| |
Greg
Bernhardt
is anti-gravity the same thing as negative
pressure? or am
i drunk?
rde
What's negative pressure?
Reign_of_Error
depends what you are talking about. if you
mean air
pressure, then negative air pressure would be vacuum I
think!?
kmguru
I have no idea what anti-gravity is. So here
is my thought
- an expert can set us in the right track.
Every molecule has a gravity field due to its
mass, however
miniscule. When the masses combine to have billions of
tons, then the
cumulative effect is felt on other masses.
Since gravity is always an attactive force,
unless there is
an equivalent repulsive force that combines with other
mass to produce a
similar higher amout repulsive force, there could be no
anti-gravity.
If a molecule produces that repulsive force,
any molecule
coming in contact will repel each other and can not create
the mass
necessary to produce large meanigful anti-gravity.
I think, even for anti-matter, the gravity
has to be always
positive so that mass can be created. But how a billion
pound of
anti-matter will behave in normal space, I have no idea.
So, my take is anti-gravity is not possible.
But creating
gravity on space ships may be possible.
Why an electron does not fly off or crash
into the neucleus
may provide some answers to your quest....
I could be drunk too.
KneD
well, as far as I know:
Anti-gravity is an hypothetical force, it's a
force which
einstein came up with, but he later rejected this theory.
It is indeed a force that 'pushes' mass away
from
eachother.
The theory was used to explain the expansion
of the
universe (in the '30's and '40's).
When the Big bang theory was proven, they
rejected the
anti-gravity theory.
But nowadays, we are searching for an
explanation of the
accelaration of that expansion, and again most astronomers
think of some
anti-gravity force.
The inflation theory (alan Guth) which has to
do with the
very first moments of the universe uses this anti-gravity
too.
the anti-gravity is locked up someway in
vacuum, this part
isn't clear to me too, so don't ask me about it, it's
quantum mechanic
stuff.....
after all, though einstein recalled it, the
force maybe
exists....
(the genius was a bigger genius then he
thought)
It may be possible I am wrong on some points,
it has been a
while ago now when I read about this stuff......
Reign_of_Error
I agree with kmguru..
Anything that has mass has gravity(in the
positive way), be
that matter or anti matter.
As for its relaitionship to negative pressure,
you will
have to define negative pressure before we can understand
what you
mean..
Crisp
Hi all,
Concerning gravity and anti-matter: there
have been
experiments to verify that anti-matter indeed falls down
to earth (as
regular matter). The experiment involved a beam of
antiprotons (created
from
collision experiments) that were set on a
straight path.
The beam deflected downwards over large distances,
indicating the effect
of gravity. I should note that there has been some dispute
on the
accuracy of the measurements, but the vast
majority of
scientists will agree that antimatter behaves the same
like regular
matter with respect to gravity (after all, antimatter [i]is[/i]
regular
matter, with
some other configurations of quantum
parameters). I don't
think a solution for "anti-gravity" (whatever that might
be) could be
found in anti-matter.
Kmguru,
[b][i]"Why an electron does not fly off or
crash into the
neucleus may provide some answers to your quest....
"[/b][/i]
This can be explained in a very accurate way
with
quantummechanics. The Coulomb interaction provides the
bond between the
nucleus and the electron (so the electron for sure doens't
fly off).
Quantummechanics predicts the electrons are
spread out
spatially over orbits, that can have peculiar shapes (you
surely
remember a picture of the p-orbits from school or from a
book). What is
even
stranger is that there is a non-zero
probability of finding
the electron [i]inside[/i] the nucleus when you measure
its position. So
it's not really a matter of "why it doesn't crash"; the
electron always
"partially" crashes into the nucleus because
its
wavefunction is spread out over entire space with the
highest
probability on the orbits, a small probability inside the
nucleus or
further away than the orbit,
and an almost non-existing probability
outside the atom.
What this means is still an issue of debate (I think that
debate
deserves a seperate thread) but what I try to point out is
that the
electron/nucleus interaction is comprehended
to a very
large accuracy with only the electromagnetic Coulomb
interaction. I also
don't think that would be able to explain "anti-gravity".
Furthermore, I should add that I agree with
your reasoning
why anti-gravity would not be measurable between masses: I
also think
the masses are expelled before they would reach a
macroscopically
detectable size. However, this would not have
prevented us
from detecting it (we also discovered the strong and the
weak nuclear
forces, and those work on (sub)atomic scales). So I have
to agree, as
KneD pointed out, that "anti-gravity" would
be a
cosmological concept, introduced to explain why galaxies
several billion
lightyears away seem to be speeding up (moving faster and
faster away
from us)
instead of slowing down (as gravity would
predict).
I don't think antigravity is a real force; My
guess is that
the acceleration of the expansion of the universe can be
explained from
a model for the structure of the universe itself, and that
it does not
need
the introduction of another fundamental
force.
Bye!
Crisp
kmguru
Thanks Crisp. Now I am more confused. :confused:
What it means is that if there is no such
thing as a
fundamental force called gravity, then we have to look
elsewhere to see
if gravity is the result of certain configuration of other
fundamental
forces. If
that is the case, we may be able to
manipulate it.
Oh! I thought expansion of the universe is
due to a massive
cetrifugal force due to the spin of the primal energy
after the big
bang???
Unless there is a massive attractive force
surrounds the
universe...just some weird thoughts...
John Devers
I'll post this bit on the search for
gravitons and gravity
waves here too, once we understand them, anything is
possible.
Gravitational Wave Detection by
Interferometry
Loop Quantum Gravity
Approaches to Quantum Gravity in Four
Dimensions
I found this incomplete list from the above
links quite
interesting:-)
2 Quantum Gravity: Where are We?
This is a non-technical section in which I
illustrate the
problem of quantum gravity in general, its origin, its
importance, and
the present state of our knowledge in this regard.
The problem of describing the quantum regime
of the
gravitational field is still open. There are tentative
theories, and
competing research directions. For an overview, see [121
]. The two
largest research
programs are string theory and loop quantum
gravity. But
several other directions are being explored, such as
twistor theory [154
<], noncommutative geometry [68 ], simplicial quantum
gravity , 65 , 61
,
], Euclidean quantum gravity [104 , 107 ],
the Null Surface
Formulation [85 , 86 , 87 ] and others.
String theory and loop quantum gravity differ
not only
because they explore distinct physical hypotheses, but
also because they
are expressions of two separate communities of scientists,
scientists
who
have sharply distinct prejudices, and who
view the problem
of quantum gravity in surprisingly different manners.
Chagur
I fudged a bit ... read only the intro's and
conclusions
... and I am wondering why I'm
left with the image of a small group of blind
men
attempting to describe an elephant. :D
Take care and thanks for some 'heavy' reading
on these
quiet Winter nights.
|
| |
| |
|
|
send you
opinion |
| Antigravity Poll |
| |
About Poll
Do you think
antigravity vehicles
are possible? |
| |
| No, they will never be possible. |
| |
Not yet, bu they will be
some day. |
| |
Yes, I think
they exist now. |
| not sure |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|