ANTIGRAVITY

Science and Technology News, Advanced Military Projects and Space Exploration

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: ANTIGRAVITY

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Sat May 14, 2011 10:49 pm

Access Denied wrote:Oh my, looks like an accident waiting to happen...


wait till you hear the stories.....

i know i shouldn't really insult members etc. and i try to think carefully before i post but this guy is an idiot of the highest order, and extremely irritating.

only thing im not sure of is if hes just a troll or if he actually believes the nonsense he comes out with.

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am


Re: ANTIGRAVITY

Postby oboe » Fri May 20, 2011 4:09 am

chrLz wrote:
oboe wrote:If the Biefield-Brown models aren't antigravity, why did the US (and quite possibly British) government spend so much money on antigravity research?

Errr, perhaps because they thought there might be some way of 'doing' antigravity, and felt it was worth a few dollars to investigate?[/quote]

oboe wrote:whether or not a company had a government contract, until there was a breakthrough in the research.

Which breakthrough was that, then? Please give all of your evidence for making that claim.


I retract that statement. I have no evidence for a breakthrough in the research.

oboe wrote:Then, sometime around 1959, it all went hush-hush

How do you tell the difference between going 'hush hush' and the project being wound down as it was unsuccessful and they figured that eventually - if there was something to it - that other research might lead to it? If you have evidence for something being found and then covered up, please supply it.


No evidence. From reading the book, I assumed there was a valid reason why electrogravitics seemed to no longer be a subject of open discussion. However, it seems to me at least some of Brown's inventions and/or research was eventually used in the B2. Was that plane not a hush-hush subject for quite a few years?

oboe wrote:and none of the government-contracted companies doing research openly talked about it anymore.

How do you tell the difference between that, and the projects being wound down... and science as a whole better understanding how gravity works and what it actually is.. and how it *isn't* just a matter of finding some amazing 'secret'.

BTW, all objects that move up and away from our planet (even me as i get up from this seat..) use one or more of the many *existing* A-G techniques...


I know what ya mean. Getting my big butt outta this chair might seem like an amazing feat to some.

Edited in a feeble attempt to fix quotes... sigh, it's been a while since I've replied to a post on any forum.
oboe
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: ANTIGRAVITY

Postby oboe » Fri May 20, 2011 4:28 am

Buckwild wrote:
oboe wrote:I read the article. Is the article supposed to disprove antigravity theory, any of them? If so, the author didn't do a very good job.


This study & experiments demonstrated that :

In spite of decades of speculation about possible new physical principles being responsible for the
thrust produced by ACTs and lifters, we find no evidence to support such a conclusion. On the
contrary, we find that their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses onlyelectrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions.


Lifters for basement physicists = anti-gravity. Now, tell me why do you think they "didn't do a very good job". Are you gonna present a rebuttal or should we just trust/believe you without any demonstration ?


Cheers,
Buck


I ask again, is that article supposed to disprove ALL antigravity theories? Or just a one or two? If so, which ones?
oboe
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: ANTIGRAVITY

Postby oboe » Fri May 20, 2011 4:33 am

Access Denied wrote:A little research on your part would go a long way towards avoiding being taken in by the charlatans who promote these kind of psuedoscientific antigravity fairy tales.

There's a big difference between Nick Cook, non-scientist, and Dr. Paul LaViolette, Phd., scientist of physics. Sorry, AD, but an article in a skeptics magazine doesn't seem, to me, to refute antigravity theories.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sat May 21, 2011 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: unnecessary quote of an entire previous post
oboe
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: ANTIGRAVITY

Postby chrLz » Fri May 20, 2011 1:41 pm

oboe wrote:There's a big difference between Nick Cook, non-scientist, and Dr. Paul LaViolette, Phd.

Is there? In what direction? What is LaViolette's PhD in, do you know? And how hard do you think it is to get a PhD, and does it imbue you with correctness in all that you do on that subject, let alone anything outside it? Do you think all PhD's are intellectual giants? Do you think some might *use* their title for what might be called self-aggrandisement? Do you accept that some highly educated folks lose their marbles over time (not that I'm suggesting that here.. {much..})?

... scientist of physics.

What *type* of physics is he trained in? What experiments (or other properly peer reviewed science) in anti-gravity does he provide to back up his claims?

Sorry, AD, but an article in a skeptics magazine doesn't seem, to me, to refute antigravity theories.

And articles on sites like 'freeenergynews.com', that promote well-known SCAMs, don't seem to me to provide anything remotely like a 'respectable' antigravity theory to refute.

*Which* antigravity theory/ies do you find particularly compelling, exactly? The super-secret one that Violette thinks powers the B-2 (which I've only ever seen doing very ordinary aerodynamics..)? Can you cite *any* actual examples of this supposed technology that has passed any sort of real scrutiny? This area is littered with scams and the scumbags who are only capable of making money by finding people less-well-informed (and less evil) than they are, and stealing their money.

And you are right, an article that scoffs at a 'theory' isn't proof or refutation of anything - it seems to me that there is nothing of substance to refute.. - a claim that is groundless and without a single verifiable example should probably not be called a 'theory'...
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: ANTIGRAVITY

Postby Access Denied » Sat May 21, 2011 6:52 am

oboe wrote:There's a big difference between Nick Cook, non-scientist, and Dr. Paul LaViolette, Phd., scientist of physics.

What Chrlz said…

oboe wrote:Sorry, AD, but an article in a skeptics magazine doesn't seem, to me, to refute antigravity theories.

No apology necessary, you are of course free to ignore an accomplished PhD and worship whomever you want…

What's New by Bob Park - Friday, August 18, 2000
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN00/wn081800.html

INFINITE ENERGY: EEOC RULES THAT COLD FUSION IS A RELIGION.
Paul LaViolette was terminated by the Patent Office on 9 Apr 99. He had been recruited by patent examiner Tom Valone, who issued an e-mail appeal for "all able-bodied free energy technologists" to "infiltrate" the Patent Office (Science, V.284, p.1254, May 99). It was Valone, you will recall, that organized the much- traveled Conference on Future Energy (WN 30 Apr 99). Claiming he was fired because of his belief in cold fusion, LaViolette turned to the Equal Employment Opportunities Office. He argued that his belief in cold fusion amounted to a religious belief. Actually, LaViolette believes in lots of stuff, like the B-2 bomber relies on antigravity technology (WN 20 Nov 98). Anyway, on 7 July the EEOC ruled that cold fusion is indeed protected religious belief. This appears to confirm what many have been saying all along.

I would suggest skeptics are all that’s separating you from an empty wallet but suit yourself, you can’t say nobody told you caveat emptor
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: ANTIGRAVITY

Postby ryguy » Mon May 23, 2011 8:02 pm

If there's anything at all that I've learned in the past decade, it's that perpetual motion (free energy) and anti-gravity remain two of the most-commonly utilized platforms used for the bilking of investors in the fields of advanced physics.

Getting a slice of the 'risk capital' pie is very, very big business. Luckily for many unscrupulous "physicists", there are a lot of very gullible investors willing to throw away their money.

In the 70's/80's it was consciousness research - now it's energy and anti-gravity.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: ANTIGRAVITY

Postby savvys84 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:29 am

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:
a word of advice before you start with your ridiculous bs, this is not ATS, you will be very swiftly removed from this site if you fail to answer questions and back up your claims....



What questions.
Besides a word of advice, remove those pics as they are under copyright
savvys84
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:58 am

Previous

Google

Return to Science & Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron