Anti-Gravity Experiment

RMT

What about the TR3-B? I notice you had nothing to say about that one. All I can find are rumors on that one. No performance specs at all. One mention somewhere that it appears to be a little sluggish compared to your stop on a dime UFO. The amount of silence on this one is comparable to the Aurora.
 
Einstein,

The amount of silence on this one is comparable to the Aurora.
Is it possible they are one-in-the-same? In fact, it may be a reasonable conclusion to arrive at that the Aurora (with minimal credible facts available about it and its performance) could have been the genesis of the reports of the TR-3B, along with some "artistic license" taken with some of its "specs" that might not be associated with the real Aurora. I do not doubt that the Aurora is real, and the one constant technology report on it is also believeable: pulsed detonation wave propulsion. It is a known technology that can achieve supersonic speeds at much greater fuel efficiency than continuous combustion jet engines.

All I can find are rumors on that one. No performance specs at all.
Well, the link below is from someone who THINKS they know what it is and how it works.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2906/tr3b.htm

Not only do this person's "facts" seem to tie the TR-3B myth to the more realistic and believable Aurora (and thus blurring the distinction?), but in the description I find several technical inaccuracies... and the one biggest technical inaccuracy that is seen when lay people craft a story trying to sound like legitimate facts about an aerospace vehicle. Let's start with that little faux pas:

"With the vehicle mass reduced by 89%, the craft can travel at Mach 9, vertically or horizontally."

The technically incorrect usage of Mach number is one of the first things that sticks out like a sore thumb. Most people that are creating stories in this manner will use Mach as a means to sound technically correct instead of saying "really, really fast", which is all they mean with the incorrect use of Mach. The fine distinction that any aerospace engineer will point out is that Mach is a relative measure of velocity...NOT with respect to the ground, but with respect to a fluid (like air). Specifically, with respect to the speed of sound in that fluid. And the technical "baggage" that goes with this cannot be ignored or reasoned away with "black technology". That baggage is the shock wave. Anything traveling at "Mach 9" is going to have a very, VERY strong shock wave, which is very, VERY noticeable. The sonic booms and attendant rattle that happens over SoCal skies whenever the space shuttle would land at Edwards AFB is characteristic of a vehicle traveling LESS than Mach 2, and with shock waves that are purposefully formed to remain fairly weak (to reduce aerodynamic heating rates).

And then I have even heard non-technical people make-up things like "well, what if there is no shock wave because the gravity drive also moves the air with it?" Not a very good argument, because my question is "OK, how much air around the vehicle does it move with it? Sooner or later the 'gravity drive' has to lose its power to move air around the vehicle. At that point, the velocity difference between the displaced air and the surrounding airmass would still be significant". In other words, if something is traveling that fast, at some point there is going to be a shock wave formed. That is, unless it is moving the ENTIRE earth's atmosphere with it. And I think that would be a little bit conspicuous in other, noticeable ways!


"The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption."

Naah. The numbers here are clearly out of bed! First of all, 150K is pretty cold, given that 273K is equal to 0 celsius! You need HIGH temperatures to create plasma (you know, like re-entry heating on the space shuttle, which creates plasmas around its shock waves). Furthermore, total temperature is a primary measure of any propulsion method that uses time-rate-of-change in mass to achieve propulsive force. You want HIGHER temps because you burn the fuel more completely, thus achieving higher levels of thrust. Finally, 250 THOUSAND atmospheres, when you think about it, is simply ridiculous. The highest pressures achievable in chemical rockets (without the weight of the tanks becoming prohibitive) are only in the range of 400-500 atmospheres. Suffice it to say, these numbers are pure baloney.

So these are just a few of my evaluations on this story. Certainly it is not as wild as O'Boylan's stories. And let me also draw a fine distinction here when we look at the photo of a vehicle supposedly witnessed by many over Belgium. I am NOT denying that people may have very well seen a vehicle of this type of configuration. What I am cautioning against is lack of critical thinking that could lead one to actually believe that someone seeing a vehicle like this should logically lead to wild & wacky vehicle performance specs such as those discussed above. There is no lgical imperative that takes you from seeing something to "facts" about what it does and how it works. For that, we need evidence, and yes that includes MATH! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT
 
How the Aurora works, is a capillary system below the surface of the skin of this craft.

Then high mach number are at excess altitude, so friction is lessened.

The fuel is pulse detonated within a cavity, which is at a rate puffed performance, kind-of the inverse of how the V-1 pulse jet works in external push dynamics only, however on a larger scale.

This craft was caught on film, however is not of any value to me.

There is no stellar card in this craft.

No otherworld transmission capabilities in this craft.

No hyperdrive preforced singularity in this craft.

To the moon is probably all it could do, so therefore in the analytical sence, this said craft is retarded.
 
Shuttle exostructial thermal protection layer external airflow dynamics, in hyper acceleration and cruse mode ranges:

Simply how the external surface of the shuttle works, is that the external layer of this vehicle, is a purpose affair, that absorbs heat.

The physics formulas are angle of incidence, over any range of mode of heated air impact, always equals one or a plus to the absorption range of that particular tiled area.

This is a pan set formula, so I will not go into areas of attachment, as attachment is a contract by others and I simply do not care.

Any flame which strikes the surface of those tiles, is digested downward, till the reciprocity of thermal dynamics of heat flow, reaches zero.

At this point there is then said supposed stabilization of this heated exterior mode of reentry profiles, i.e. reentry.
 
whoa creedo, that was suprisingly specific and on topic... not being an aerospace engineer, i don't know if it's true. but kudos, its not like you to be so straightforeward.
 
Rainman,

"The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption."

Something tells me that our anthropologist has never heard of Boyle's Law, Charle's Law, Ideal Gas Law, or gas thermodynamics in general (not to mention that temperature expressed in kelvins does not include the word "degrees"...it's simply stated as a temperature of so many kelvins or K).

Here's another clue from Boylan:

http://www.drboylan.com/xplanes2.html

On very good authority I have been told in the last year from someone who knows but obviously must remain unidentified) that the United States Air Force currently has in its hanger(s) (an) aircraft which (is) (are) capable of Mach 50. That's 50 times the speed of sound. If we regard the speed of sound as somewhere around 770 mph, then Mach 50 becomes 38,500 mph. That's three times around the world in two hours. As far as I know, this is an intra- atmospheric aircraft that takes off from a large base in the Far West.

More of the same, as you point out above. Mach number relates the speed of an object through a gas (which is assumed to be in the rest frame). Seems that he has also never heard of orbital mechanics or escape velocity (which is approximately 25,000 mph or Earth). At 38,500 mph his brave pilot can wave bye-bye to Earth. Hope he packed a large lunch and a lot of extra oxygen and fuel.

And if this craft took off and went to Mach 50 from a "large base in the Far West", like Nellis or Edwards, we just might hear and feel the killer sonic boom and see the streaking fire ball.

Mach 50 my ***. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Thanks Darby,

Mach 50 my ***.
Yeah... talk about (literal) "hair on fire" speed! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I just wish I could find someone to pay me to do nothing but debunk BS reports of such flying vehicles with performance such that they clearly violate physics. That would be a sizeable market to work within!


RMT
 
newbie_0

It's just a magnet turning on and off real fast??

Yes, but the magnetic field produced by the electromagnet starts at a high value and declines rapidly. This produces a changing or moving magnetic field. A moving magnetic field apparently has different properties from a stationary magnetic field. The metal that is used in the last movie clip is magnesium. I have studied this and am convinced that this is a version of the Lorentz force. Usually with the Lorentz force an electric field is moving in relation to a fixed magnetic field which results in a right angle force. But here I believe the moving magnetic field is inducing an electric field in the magnesium which it reacts against to induce the right angle force causing the apparent repulsion effect.
 
Too bad you can't supply the math, it would go a LONG way towards the simple visible evidence from your video that there is no 'anti-gravity' effect at all and certainly nothing resembling 'space expanding'. What you show has nothing to do with gravity, anti-gravity or 'space expanding' in any way. Your video refutes your claims.

Such an intense gravity/anti-gravity field as could deflect your pendulums against the effect of the entire Earth right below you would produce visible evidence of warpage of space -- a kind of 'anti-gravity lens'. But the strings remain perfectly straight, the background remains undisturbed as the light from it passes through your field. The pendulums remain unwarped, the device remains clear and stable.

I haven't examined your device, but I see no evidence that the effect is anything outside of what would normally be expected from an electro-magnetic pulsing.

Create a device that produces an anti-gravity effect and your video will be much more interesting.

BTW, I do _not_ subscribe to the view that the math is a necessary element. Much of our history involves discoveries that had no supporting math until centuries later. Unfortunately for you, mathematics is the language that most closely resembles the reality that we measure. It is the language that we use to communicate precisely to others even though it's not required to demonstrate principles -- models _can_ stand in place of math as long as anyone can build one and no trivial alternative explanation exists.

But given the lack of _any_ evidence from you whatsoever, I'd say you better work on the math.
 
VinnieLT

Too bad you can't supply the math, it would go a LONG way towards the simple visible evidence from your video that there is no 'anti-gravity' effect at all and certainly nothing resembling 'space expanding'. What you show has nothing to do with gravity, anti-gravity or 'space expanding' in any way. Your video refutes your claims.

I can see you are not familiar with mathematical descriptions at all. Much of todays mathematics is pure fiction with no basis in reality at all. If I did describe this mathematically I would probably have to rewrite some of the basic mathematics that lots of mathematicians take for granted. Were you aware that Einstein himself faced this exact same problem? He actually had to create a type of mathematics to describe what he saw. Personally I take mathematics with a grain of salt.

Now my video actually depicts something that I think you are dismissing just a bit too hastilly. Magnetic fields usually act on other bodies with magnetic fields. Or materials that have magnetic field properties. Here this isn't the case. The only thing present that is defineable is a moving magnetic field. No magnetic materials are present. The body that the apparent force appears to act upon is made of magnesium. Now I have run across something similar with the Lorentz force. But to be honest. Most of physics and the explanations within physics for various phenomena is just theory. Theory is not fact. So I am questioning whether or not the Lorentz force is actually the cause of this apparent repulsion effect. There is a mechanical action reaction force being produced. It is very possible that we are lumping this phenomena together with general magnetic phenomena when we should be taking a closer look. At least I will be taking a closer look. I also will be looking at alternate explanations that could link this with gravity. But I have an open mind for these types of investigations.

P.S. You wont see any light bending activity with gravity fields in this intensity range. I believe the sun has a gravity field in the 30 gee range and it takes millions of miles of travel in a field that intense just to see noticeable deviation.
 
Einstein,

You haven't acually said what math concepts you believe to be fictional. What are they and how have you come to that conclusion?

Math is not physics. Rather, it is the language of physics. It gives clear and concise descriptions of the processes that the physicist is attmepting to describe and/or explain.

The beauty of this language is that it is, as stated, clear & concise. If there are mistakes they can be analyzed, detected and corrected. The same cannot be said of simple prose descriptions such as yours. Your description isn't subject to objective analysis because virtually any result that in some way appears to fit your theory is valid on its face. You can't quantify your experiments without math nor can an independent experimenter recreate your experiments and analyze his/her results and measure them against your results. Without the math there is no validating mechanism.

I am curious about what math Einstein you believe that invented other than what is said on a few I-Net meme's (some claiming that his lover/future wife "invented" math for him without giving any offer of proof). As far as I know all of his math was ODE's, partial differentials and differential geometry. What math did he invent? In fact, what new math did Marcel Grossman invent?

I would like to point out something that Rainman has been attempting to show, though in a more indirect manner:

The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 1998 John Baez
[email protected]

What is your self-score on this index?
 
Darby

It's always a pleasure to debate with you.

You haven't acually said what math concepts you believe to be fictional. What are they and how have you come to that conclusion?

We'll pick something easy so hopefully everyone can follow along. Let's start with integration. Sorry about the prose. But hopefully you can follow the visualization. I don't have a math keyboard. Take the function "x" and integrate it to the next form. For those that don't know what the answer is, it comes out to x^2/2. Now take that quantity and differentiate it. The answer comes out to plus or minus "x". Now technically the answer should have been the same as when we started. It's not. We have two choices. As far as I know, nobody ever bothered to fix that. But somebody came up with a patch. The absolute value sign. Just make sure your answer winds up between the magical absolute value sign. Just put the sign value you want outside the absolute value sign and then we are back to where we started. See anything wrong with that? The absolute value sign is a magical rabbit out of the hat. It isn't real. If it was, I would want one to stick on my bank account. So I think this is a very good example of how magical fiction is used in a mathematical description. The real math approach should have been to figure out how to get the result wanted in a fashion where magic isn't used.

Should I pick on integration? Or differentiation? Or division by "0"? How about the square root of a negative number? I think the imaginary numbers fall into the fictional mathematics category. I doubt anyone would argue that one at all.

Math is not physics. Rather, it is the language of physics. It gives clear and concise descriptions of the processes that the physicist is attmepting to describe and/or explain.

Yes, I do agree to a very limited point. Description only. And since there is a big problem with our math, I very rarely see clear concise descriptions.

Equation.jpg


Anyone care to step forward and tell me how clear and concise the above mathematical equation is? To me without the accompanying verbal description a mathematical equation by itself is useless.

You can't quantify your experiments without math nor can an independent experimenter recreate your experiments and analyze his/her results and measure them against your results. Without the math there is no validating mechanism.

I believe you would be correct in this instance if mathematical quantification was my goal. It's not. I'm researching to find the rules of operation. If and when I learn those rules, I am quite certain I would attempt to express them mathematically.

I am curious about what math Einstein you believe that invented

I was taught in school that Einstein gets the credit for the metric tensor. I never really questioned that. So if its true, fine. If not, oh well.

In fact, what new math did Marcel Grossman invent?

Not familiar with that name at all.

I would like to point out something that Rainman has been attempting to show, though in a more indirect manner:

Yes, that is rather alarming to me that when I share my curious endeavers into the reality we exist within, it is treated with hostility and resentment. But I guess everything has to balance. So for every curious person like me that would like to know more about the unexplored avenues in science, I suppose that there must be an equal number of people that would prefer not to know.
 
the moving magnetic field is inducing an electric field in the magnesium

I dont know much about physics, I'm assuming magnet's wouldn't stick to magnesium?

Is it normal for moving magnetic fields to induce electric fields in metals with similar properties to magnesium? I think it's normal to induce current in a coil of copper wire with a moving magnetic field, but a solid chunk of magnesium??? I'm rootin for ya! If you need video hosting for longer videos or want some music/text/narration send me a private message.
 
Einstein,

Mind if I step in here? I am beginning to see where some of your problems with math stem from, especially integration:
Take the function "x" and integrate it to the next form. For those that don't know what the answer is, it comes out to x^2/2.
Close, but not quite. If I assume that you are using an indefinite integral form, then you forgot the "+C" (constant of integration) in your solution. If you were speaking of definite integral, you did not specify the integral ranges, and if you had you would have to evaluate the difference of X^2/2 at the two limits of your integration. But let's move on, because there are more problems...

Now take that quantity and differentiate it. The answer comes out to plus or minus "x".
Whoops. I've never heard of that version of the power law for derivatives. Are you sure you are just not getting it confused with square roots (or any even root for that matter)? My calculus book (Calculus with Analytical Geometry, by Earl W. Swokowski) does not specify the + or - in the power rule for finding polynomial derivatives, and I have never used it in my work with calculus.

Now technically the answer should have been the same as when we started. It's not.
It is if you do the integration & derivation correctly. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

How about the square root of a negative number? I think the imaginary numbers fall into the fictional mathematics category. I doubt anyone would argue that one at all.
I beg to differ. First of all, the appropriate term for the square root of a negative is a complex number, of which one component is imaginary. Second, I can guarantee you that all control systems engineers (who must work in both the time and the frequency domains) will certainly tell you that complex numbers are far from fictional. If they were fictional, we could not use the imaginary component of the roots of a control system's characteristic equation to tell us something about the oscillatory behavior of the system. Were you aware of this fact that any control system whose characteristic equation has roots that are complex are oscillatory in nature? It is a fundamental aspect of AC circuits. And the opposite is also true: A system whose roots of its characteristic equation are real is non-oscillatory in its response...hence the world of DC.

I think this gets to the heart of why you have a problem with math: It appears you see math as only math, and you see its faults only when you dissassociate it from the physical situations that the math describes. But as Darby pointed out, that is not what math is about. Math is a means to describe physical situations. It is a language. And just as I can form non-sequitors in prose (which is done by dissassociating the words from the physical situation they describe), so can I form mathematical non-sequitors. Certainly, math can be abused and misused. And the beauty of math is that you can ferret out abuse and misuse when you make observations (take data) to show that a particular mathematical "phrase" does not follow reality.

So at what university did you study calculus? And did you study it only within the confines of a math department, or were you able to learn it alongside physical problems? Certainly you can see that integration is a powerful tool for calculating work in the realm of thermodynamics (the old P-V diagram).

RMT
 
newbie_0

I dont know much about physics, I'm assuming magnet's wouldn't stick to magnesium?

Yes, that is correct.

Is it normal for moving magnetic fields to induce electric fields in metals with similar properties to magnesium? I think it's normal to induce current in a coil of copper wire with a moving magnetic field, but a solid chunk of magnesium???

Yes, a moving magnetic field will induce an electric field in metals classified as conductors. However I am still uncertain that this might or might not be caused by the Lorentz force. The Lorentz force arises from crossed electric and magnetic fields. The magnetic field I do know is present, and it is moving. What bothers me about this is that this anti-gravity like force seems to work on just the same metals as in my sticky space experiment. In that experiment the aluminum disc is dragged along with a very high strength magnet. But since the aluminum is not moving in relation to the magnet, there can't be any induced electric field into the aluminum. But the effect only works if I accelerate the magnet. So I can't explain the sticky space effect using the Lorentz force. Since I see a connection because of the same metals being acted upon, I am starting to suspect that our theory on the operation of the Lorentz force may not be entirely correct. The sticky space effect does suggest the existance of a third field. Here is the clip of the sticky space phenomena:

Sticky Space
 
Are you getting the same amount of distance each time you turn on the device? Do you get the same amount of displacement with a very "rusty", oxidized piece of magnesium?

*edit, or one side rusty, one side clean?
 
Einstein,

Yes, that is rather alarming to me that when I share my curious endeavers into the reality we exist within, it is treated with hostility and resentment. But I guess everything has to balance. So for every curious person like me that would like to know more about the unexplored avenues in science, I suppose that there must be an equal number of people that would prefer not to know.
I think that is a bit of an unfair characterization if you were referring to myself (or Darby). In fact, the very reason I extoll you to develop the math (and take accurate measurements, instead of drawing conclusions based on watching videos) is because I am interested in knowing. And I think it would be fair to also say that others like myself, who are trained to do the math and take accurate measurements, will give you the same feedback. If you see it as hostile or resentment, perhaps it could be chalked up to the fact that many people of science are confronted with "crackpots" who do not wish to do the math or take accurate measurements.

RMT
 
Einstein,

What bothers me about this is that this anti-gravity like force seems to work on just the same metals as in my sticky space experiment. In that experiment the aluminum disc is dragged along with a very high strength magnet. But since the aluminum is not moving in relation to the magnet, there can't be any induced electric field into the aluminum.
Here I must again challenge your prose, and your conclusions that do not appear to be based on precision measurements. A few posts back I asked a question about one of your visualizations about why you called something weightless in a specific orbit. You did not answer that one, but I hope you can answer these:

1) Why do you say the aluminum is not moving in relation to the magnet? Certainly you can see at the beginning of the clip the aluminium is not completely static, and certainly you can see that as you initially move the magnet towards the aluminum there is a relative closing velocity.
2) Now dealing with the back-and-forth portion of this clip. Have you taken precision measurements that you can plot out to show that the relative velocity is identical to zero? I have a hard time believing that your brain and hand are so tightly rate-calibrated that they can achieve a net zero relative velocity between the magnet in your hand and the hanging disc. It may look like it is close to zero, but data could tell another story altogether.

Hopefully, even if you do not agree that doing the math can be a valuable step, you will at least agree that you need precision measurements and data plots in order to validate that the conclusions you are arriving at are indeed true. I am still not convinced that you are not simply moving your hand at the natural frequency of the disc pendulum. Data plots would either confirm or deny my suspicion. While the video clips are neat, they do not cut it from an analytical standpoint. Without math, you at least need quantified & calibrated measurements. And if you are missing both the math and the quantified measurements, then you are not doing science at all. You are merely observing and arriving at conjectures based on subjective observations.

RMT
 
But Rainman, magnetic fields shouldnt displace aluminum or magnesium, what do you think is going on? Are they not pure samples, do they contain bits of iron?
 
Top