Bobbox1980 wrote:In regards to McCandlish's tale on the existence of the ARV, why does it sound so implausible to you?
You mean besides the fact there’s absolutely zero evidence to support the claim?
Like I said, the story is as laughable as the “science”… for one thing, Norton AFB was a logistics base and there’s no way the military would bring a highly classified project to a public air show for a “private” exhibit there.
Bobbox1980 wrote:I was debating whether to open a seperate thread on the subject outside the Hoaxes forum as I do not think the Gordon Novel RAM project and the ARV are necessarily the same thing.
Don’t bother, they are. RAM is a “spoof” (or “rip-off” if you prefer) of the original ARV hoax… with more colorful illustrations.

[note the conspicuous absence of the all important oxygen tanks]
Bobbox1980 wrote:Mark McCandlish does not have a history of lying or making up stories.
How do you know?
Bobbox1980 wrote:He has been a conceptual artist for defense companies as well as the Popular Science andPopular Mechanics magazines.
So? That doesn’t mean he’s qualified to evaluate the stories he was allegedly told.
Bobbox1980 wrote:He seemed to have credibility to me.
Could that be because he’s telling you what you want to hear?
Bobbox1980 wrote:Yes he could be lying or Brad Sorenson could be lying but there is no proof of that. There is of course no proof that they are telling the truth either.
So then why believe it?
Bobbox1980 wrote:I initially investigated the science behind what McCandlish talked about, the Biefeld Brown Effect, maybe about a year or so ago. I got my hands on every study I could involving high voltage capacitor tests involving solid dielectrics. Those studies did have some anomalous results when the capacitors were cycled from off to on but for the most part were the same as that Wired article you linked to which I have read before. I could find no scientific theories however that might mesh with the idea of high voltage capacitors providing a propulsive effect.
So why didn’t you say that to begin with?
Bobbox1980 wrote:Just because McCandlish might have gotten the science wrong doesn't mean the physical descriptions of the ARV are wrong.
Not “might of”, he did, and yes, it does.
Never mind the fact that the “cutaway” drawing of the alleged ARV looks absolutely ridiculous… like something out of a 50s B science fiction movie that was drawn by somebody who knows nothing about physics or modern spacecraft. Wasn’t that drawing originally published in Bill Cooper’s
Behold a Pale Horse? Looks more like a deep sea diving bell than a spaceship to me…

Bobbox1980 wrote:I ran across a German team by the names of Droscher and Hauser who won a best paper award from the AIAA's (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion group back in 2004.
So? Show me something published in a recognized peer-reviewed journal, not something from an AIAA sponsored “fringe physics” forum where anything goes.
Bobbox1980 wrote:They have been developing a theory called Extended Heim Theory based off of Heim Theory developed decades ago by Burkhard Heim. That theory posits the ability to transform photons (light) into gravitophotons which decay into a gravitational force photon and expansion force photon.
“Extended” or not, Heim Theory is considered pseudoscience. Check out this thread on Physics Forums if there’s any doubt…
Anti-Gravity Propulsion Realityhttp://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98733[that wasn’t you was it?]
Also, Wikipedia should give you a clue by four.
Bobbox1980 wrote:Without getting too into their physics, they proposed an experiment in their award winning paper that involved spinning a disc or ring at high speed above a very powerful electromagentic field on the order of 20 Tesla in strength. They claimed that this should result in a propulsive effect up.
“Without getting into the physics” they can claim whatever they want but nobody has been able to independently reproduce the alleged “anti-gravity” effects of “spinning superconductors” reported by Podkletnov
et al. and Tajmar
et. al. and in fact Graham
et al. found in 2007 that the alleged effect, if it exists at all, would be over 20 times smaller than predicted. The simplest explanation for this is the alleged effect simply doesn’t exist…
[this would also explain why none of these guys are publishing in peer-reviewed journals]
Bobbox1980 wrote:I find it intriguing that the ARV was reported to have a very large electromagnetic coil around the center of the craft with a flywheel at the top of or slightly above that coil. That is precisely what this German team was claiming the physics of EHT required in order to produce a propulsive effect.
My refrigerator has an electromagnetic coil, does that mean it could possibly be an “anti-gravity” device?
Bobbox1980 wrote:Perhaps the German team heard about the ARV and they created their physics based off it's parts, I have not asked them.
Perhaps you should then. Who knows, maybe some “insiders” who really weren’t convinced them it was a good idea.
Bobbox1980 wrote:I do think it warrants more study. As of yet this German team has not gotten the funding to conduct their proposed experiment so it still remains unknown whether or not it would work.
Trust me, if there was anything to it, lots of people would be working on it and funding wouldn’t be a problem. The problem is they haven’t published any credible theoretical work. From the conclusion of their “award winning” paper…
“The authors are aware of the fact that the current paper contains shortcomings with regard to mathematical rigor, and also proposes two highly speculative concepts.”They’re trying to put the cart before the horse… is it any wonder they’re not going anywhere?
Bobbox1980 wrote:I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the tale of the ARV if I were you. With that said you can understand why I wonder about Gordon Novel's heart attack...
Because “they” are “suppressing” the development of “free energy” even though “they” could be making billions from it? Makes perfect sense...
Men go and come but Earth abides.