Gordon Novel's RAM

The ones that didn't get away

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 05, 2010 3:32 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote: Brad took a client of his rumored to be an ex-Secretary of Defense with an Italian sounding last name (Frank Carlucci?) and this client got him backstage access though more was on display than the client realized and Sorenson got to see the ARV, a video tape on it, a cutaway and a few words by a 3-star General that was there claiming it could go faster than the speed of light.


If true, this would be a clear violation of the oath this general (and likely also any ex-SecDef) took as part of their SF-312, which is covered under Title 18 section 793, and possibly 798 of the US federal code.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA


Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Wed May 05, 2010 6:26 pm

Well, from what McCandlish said, the client asked a security guard outside the hanger to see the guy running the air show. The guy running the air show recognized Sorenson's client immediately and when the client was asked about Sorenson the client said he was an aide.

Maybe details are being left out or changed or whatever but it sounded pretty informal.

What is interesting is if it was Frank Carlucci it opens the possibility that Bush Sr. and James Baker were in on this project as well. Frank C. Carlucci became Managing Director of the Carlyle Group in 1989 and the Chairman in 1993. Bush Sr. was a Senior Advisor, James Baker was Senior Counsel. Carlucci was a former Secretary of Defense and Deputy Director of the CIA, Bush Sr. a former Director of the CIA, VP and President.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Access Denied » Fri May 07, 2010 7:44 am

Welcome to the forum Bobbox and thanks for posting that link. Unfortunately the stories McCandlish tells (all secondhand by the way) are laughable and the “science” even more so… if I were you I wouldn’t waste my time trying to fill in the blanks for him or extrapolating anything from it.

I recommend reading this article in Wired…

The Antigravity Underground
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.0 ... avity.html

What makes lifters fly?

The simplest answer comes from antigravity debunkers. When I call university physicists to ask how these things work, they bark with laughter at the idea that it's antigravity.

The propulsive force, they say, has a simpler explanation: ion wind.

When the current enters the wires ringing the top of the lifter, electrons race off to ionize the surrounding air. The ions are attracted to the foil skirt and race down, smacking into neutral molecules and generating a downward-moving breeze. At one point, I take my lifter to Rainer Weiss, a hyperactive, gray-haired gravity expert at MIT. He's working on the groundbreaking LIGO project to detect gravitational waves - when he's not dealing with journalists who plunk tinfoil UFOs down on his desk. He shakes his head and sighs.

"There is nothing mysterious about this at all," he says. He scribbles furiously across two sheets of paper, calculating the current flowing through the device, the number of ions it would create, and their total potential kinetic thrust. It's about 7 millinewtons, he concludes, and scoops up my lifter. "Do you know how much this weighs? Let's take a guess - it's a couple of grams." That's probably just light enough to get it airborne. As far as he's concerned, my lifter is nothing more than a hovercraft. Case closed.

The article goes on to mention an experiment done by a former coworker and personal friend of mine (Dr. Rusek, now at Purdue) and another, more conclusive experiment performed by a scientist I work with that verified it doesn’t work in a vacuum. (like in space)

Even in air lifters (aka EHD or electrohydrodynamic thrusters) can barely lift themselves, never mind the heavy high voltage power supply needed to make them work… picture flying saucers with very long extension cords. :)
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: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby ryguy » Fri May 07, 2010 2:07 pm

AD's response above reminded me why I love this place. :)
---
"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: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Zep Tepi » Fri May 07, 2010 2:37 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote:Well, from what McCandlish said, the client asked a security guard outside the hanger to see the guy running the air show. The guy running the air show recognized Sorenson's client immediately and when the client was asked about Sorenson the client said he was an aide.

Maybe details are being left out or changed or whatever but it sounded pretty informal.

What is interesting is if it was Frank Carlucci it opens the possibility that Bush Sr. and James Baker were in on this project as well. Frank C. Carlucci became Managing Director of the Carlyle Group in 1989 and the Chairman in 1993. Bush Sr. was a Senior Advisor, James Baker was Senior Counsel. Carlucci was a former Secretary of Defense and Deputy Director of the CIA, Bush Sr. a former Director of the CIA, VP and President.


Bobbox, if you're reading this could you please contact me at sbroadbent@realityuncovered.com - I've, err, made a *slight* error on the user registrations and as a result I ended up deleting your account. Please accept my apologies :oops:
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby ryguy » Fri May 07, 2010 3:59 pm

99% of the time, he's as accurate and professional as the best hacker you'll ever find on the Internet. But there's always that 1% when he occasionally trips over his own feet. I guess it even happens to the best of us. :)

-Ry
---
"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: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Fri May 07, 2010 5:18 pm

@ Zep Tepi - It looks like my account is ok, still able to post.

@ Access Denied

In regards to McCandlish's tale on the existence of the ARV, why does it sound so implausible to you? 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.

Mark McCandlish does not have a history of lying or making up stories. He has been a conceptual artist for defense companies as well as the Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines. He seemed to have credibility to me. 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.

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.

Just because McCandlish might have gotten the science wrong doesn't mean the physical descriptions of the ARV are wrong.

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.
http://www.hpcc-space.de/

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.

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.


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.

Perhaps the German team heard about the ARV and they created their physics based off it's parts, I have not asked them. 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.


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...
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Zep Tepi » Fri May 07, 2010 5:24 pm

Ahem, sorry Bobbox190, it was the user Boondox who I inadvertantly sent to the trashcan in the sky. Easy mistake to make, mixung up the two names. What with them both starting with B and ending with X. Yeah, easy.

Ever had one of those days? Damn election...
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Sat May 08, 2010 9:39 pm

@ Zep Tepi - Yeah I've had them, usually after a night of boozing heheh. At a glance the names do look similar.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Access Denied » Wed May 12, 2010 6:13 am

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.

Image

[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…

Image


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 Reality
http://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.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby ryguy » Wed May 12, 2010 2:02 pm

Coincidentally, Gordon Novel's heart attack occurred the same time Steve decided to publish a sample page from the huge "business plan" copies that were leaked to us from a few of the RAM insiders. I think the heart attack had less to do with someone trying to "shut him up" and more to do with stress. And eating too much fatty food.

-Ry
---
"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: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Wed May 12, 2010 5:38 pm

@ Access Denied

This will probably be an exercise in futility. Even the most basic of statements you baselessly challenge to try to weaken my arguments. You know exactly what I was talking about when I said "secret" in the Child Brides from Outer Space article, the UFO secret, the nature as to what is really going on there.

There are different types of evidence, hearsay (McCandlish being told about the ARV by Sorenson) is not proof and would not be accepted in a court of law as testimony but police investigating a crime will use hearsay as a lead to further investigate.

You call the ARV a hoax yet you have no proof of that, not a single shred of hard proof, yet turn around and state McCandlish's story is evidence of nothing. His story is a lead, a lead that you seem completely unwilling to investigate.

Where is your proof McCandlish has a history of lying? I stated he did not have a history of lying because there is no proof that he does.

I brought up McCandlish's background at Popular Science and Mechanics because unlike individuals like Bob Lazar, no one can offer a shred of hard proof that McCandlish has lied about his background.

Yes he lacks hard proof to back up his story. That is not a reason to completely dismiss it, considering the lack of hard proof that he is a liar I think it means his story should be rigorously investigated.

I didn't think it was necessary to bring up my knowledge on Biefeld Brown. If you read McCandlish's interview carefully you will realize that the story Sorenson told McCandlish did not include Biefeld Brown. Biefeld Brown was McCandlish's interpretation as to how the ARV worked based on Sorenson's story. You seem to have difficulty in separating McCandlish's attempts to uncover the science of the ARV with Sorenson's story on the ARV. Sorenson did not provide any scientific explanations as to the nature of the ARV.

Sorenson described an approximately 1 foot thick greenish translucent plastic on the bottom with what looked like 1/2 inch thick copper plates divided up into thin triangular slices. He described an approximately 1 foot thick greenish translucent plastic ring around the middle of the craft with what looked like 1/4 inch copper rod wound like an electromagnetic coil. He described a flywheel of some kind under the crew seats.

You can make all the claims you want as to the ridiculous look of the cutaway sketch but your opinion is just that, an opinion and has no basis in fact or science. Modern accepted science cannot produce a craft that can go anywhere near the speed of light yet the ARV supposedly could go faster than light. How do you know what a faster than light capable craft would look like?

The AIAA is a highly accredited organization composed of engineers from all the major aeronautic and aerospace companies. They give college grants to prospective engineers in those fields. I would hardly say anything goes in their Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion group. Furthermore considering modern physics cannot explain how to travel faster than light it is precisely fringe or lesser known physics theories that we need to be looking at. The status quo does not have an answer.

Extended Heim Theory is absolutely not pseudoscience. That is a completely baseless accusation. The fact remains that EHT's proposed experiment has never been done by anyone, not Tajmar, not Podkletnov. That physics thread did not discuss any aspects of EHT. EHT predicted a propulsive effect by spinning a disc above a magnet (or superconducting electromagnet), not spinning a magnet (or superconducting electromagnet). EHT predicts that a spinning magnet will experience a force opposite to the direction of it's spin, ie slow down it's rate of spin. The last place I am going to go for cutting edge news on science is wikipedia.

I did not bring this up before because I did not want to get too into the science but it should also be noted that EHT predicts that the negative energy density expansion force gravitophotons I mentioned in the previous post interact with electrons while the positive energy density gravitational force gravitophotons interact with protons and neutrons. The gravitational force gravitophotons are the ones that are supposed to interact with the spinning disc.

The EHT team does not think the expansion force gravitophotons are important because electrons have such a small mass but I am not sure that is correct. If one looks at the ARV, if it had capacitors on the bottom, then it had a concentration of electrons at the bottom of the ship. It may turn out to be necessary to have a capacitor underneath the magnet so you have spinning disc on top, magnet underneath, and capacitor underneath the magnet.

If one is familiar with the idea of the alcubierre warp drive one will see that such a configuration (if gravitophotons exist and can be created in this way) would put a dent in spacetime at the front of the craft and a hill in spacetime at the back of the craft. The positive energy density gravitational force gravitophotons would be getting absorbed at the front of the craft at the flywheel and the negative energy density expansion force gravitophotons would be getting absorbed at the back of the craft at the capacitors.

I could reference a man by the name of Marcus Hollingshead but considering he never proved his claims you would likely just dismiss the story without investigating it. To keep it short he had 3 pairs of spinning rings with toroidal coils built around each ring wired up independently and he had a capacitor in the very center. He claimed that if he charged up the capacitor, spun up the rings, powered on all the coils, and then turned the power off on one coil that the device would move in the direction of the powered off coil. The device is not all that different from the ARV when you really think about it, spinning ring above ring spinning in opposite direction with coil turned on with capacitor in the center.


Ufology does not seem to understand that stories that involve science and verifiability are on a completely different level than government insiders telling their story, or defense insiders telling their story, or ufo abductees telling their story, or (I hate to break it to you) debunking those hoaxers and fraudsters who are selling their stories. There is no way to verify those insider or abductee stories without the government coming clean. Such stories encourage learned helplessness because it leaves the ufology community dependent on the government for solid proof. Debunking hoaxer and fraudster stories can be slightly helpful assuming you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater but still not on the same level as one involving science and verifiability.

The ARV story and Hollingshead's story are so great, on another level actually, because mockups of these devices can be built and tested by people in their garages. A small scale mockup of the ARV with spinning disc above electromagent above capacitor can be built and tested. A mockup of the Hollingshead device with spinning ring pairs, their toroidal coils, around a capacitor can be built and tested. Any serious thorough investigation requires that. Simple denunciations of the stories do not cut it when the stories can be scientifically verified or proven false by building mockups and conducting tests.

P.S. EHT makes no claims about free energy, just the propulsion.

@ ryguy - More than likely you are right, it was just a case of stress and fatty foods, and that he is 70.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby ryguy » Wed May 12, 2010 9:06 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote:Furthermore considering modern physics cannot explain how to travel faster than light it is precisely fringe or lesser known physics theories that we need to be looking at. The status quo does not have an answer.


How do you attempt to explain something that you don't even know is possible yet? This would be like saying modern physics can't explain how to turn cotton into gold. Isn't it possible that some things really are impossible and instead of turning to pseudo-scientific explanations, we should focus on the valid/verified scientific building blocks and go from there?

EHT predicted a propulsive effect by spinning a disc above a magnet (or superconducting electromagnet), not spinning a magnet (or superconducting electromagnet). EHT predicts that a spinning magnet will experience a force opposite to the direction of it's spin, ie slow down it's rate of spin.


Spinning a magnet within/near an electric coil will experience forces depending on the configuration of the coil/magnet and the electrical parameters - with forces of flux always acting perpendicular to the surface area of the magnet and the number of electric field lines crossing the surface (again, dependent upon the electrical power)...that there are such forces is nothing new to modern physics? We use these principles every day in electrical engineering - it's how most of your motorized electrical devices operate.

...but it should also be noted that EHT predicts that the negative energy density expansion force gravitophotons I mentioned in the previous post interact with electrons while the positive energy density gravitational force gravitophotons interact with protons and neutrons. The gravitational force gravitophotons are the ones that are supposed to interact with the spinning disc.


What are "gravitational force gravitophotons" again?

If one looks at the ARV, if it had capacitors on the bottom, then it had a concentration of electrons at the bottom of the ship. It may turn out to be necessary to have a capacitor underneath the magnet so you have spinning disc on top, magnet underneath, and capacitor underneath the magnet.


Does the "EHT" team understand that electrons don't collect on a capacitor, but upon one plate of a capacitor depending how the capacitor is charged? And what's the dielectric in this model - the air inside the "ship"? Is there a plate above and a plate below the ship, with electrons collecting on the lower plate - because if a capacitor sits "underneath" the magnet, the net difference in electrical field potential only exists between the two plates of the capacitor....so the model described above makes absolutely no sense.

If the theory is that a spinning coil located within the magnetic field will charge produce current flow which will charge a capacitor - this is 7th grade science. If the theory is that doing so will produce some kind of propulsion or physical force - the theory doesn't make any sense (unless someone can explain it more clearly).

....would put a dent in spacetime at the front of the craft and a hill in spacetime at the back of the craft. The positive energy density gravitational force gravitophotons would be getting absorbed at the front of the craft at the flywheel and the negative energy density expansion force gravitophotons would be getting absorbed at the back of the craft at the capacitors.


negative energy/positive energy/gravitophotons/spacetime.....this is all gobblygook.

To keep it short he had 3 pairs of spinning rings with toroidal coils built around each ring wired up independently and he had a capacitor in the very center. He claimed that if he charged up the capacitor, spun up the rings, powered on all the coils, and then turned the power off on one coil that the device would move in the direction of the powered off coil. The device is not all that different from the ARV when you really think about it, spinning ring above ring spinning in opposite direction with coil turned on with capacitor in the center.


Sounds like a very convoluted way of applying induction...lol. Hardly a form of antigravity propulsion, any more than you could send a ship to Mars using nothing more than an electric motor...

The ARV story and Hollingshead's story are so great, on another level actually, because mockups of these devices can be built and tested by people in their garages. A small scale mockup of the ARV with spinning disc above electromagent above capacitor can be built and tested. A mockup of the Hollingshead device with spinning ring pairs, their toroidal coils, around a capacitor can be built and tested. Any serious thorough investigation requires that. Simple denunciations of the stories do not cut it when the stories can be scientifically verified or proven false by building mockups and conducting tests.


Little do people know that they are simply conducting grammar-school science experiments involving electromagnetic and inductive forces...modern physics not only explains all of this but we put it into practice every day in electrical engineering.

P.S. EHT makes no claims about free energy, just the propulsion.


I still don't follow how any of the theory describes any form of propulsion whatsoever - all of these scenarios require energy in to get mechanical force (or the other way around - mechanical force to create electrical energy)....these forces act upon an object (a ring) perpendicular to the lines of flux (created by the electrical energy) - but they don't counter gravity, they just push upon an object (magnet) with the equal and opposite force pushing upon the coil. I'd love to see how you can even get a feather off the ground using such a setup, since none of it has anything to do with gravity.

-Ry
---
"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: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Zep Tepi » Wed May 12, 2010 9:58 pm

Great reply Ryan, it's always nice to see pseudoscience exposed with common sense and facts.

As you know, the antigravity crowd have always been a particular bugbear of mine. How they propose to counter gravity, when no one even knows where gravity itself comes from is just ludicrous.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Gordon Novel's RAM

Postby Bobbox1980 » Wed May 12, 2010 10:20 pm

Bobbox1980 wrote:Furthermore considering modern physics cannot explain how to travel faster than light it is precisely fringe or lesser known physics theories that we need to be looking at. The status quo does not have an answer.
How do you attempt to explain something that you don't even know is possible yet? This would be like saying modern physics can't explain how to turn cotton into gold. Isn't it possible that some things really are impossible and instead of turning to pseudo-scientific explanations, we should focus on the valid/verified scientific building blocks and go from there?


I thought science was about making a hypothesis which attempts to explain something new and then verifying that hypothesis through experimentation. Making a hypothesis has nothing at all to do with pseudo-science. The phrase pseudo-science is routinely used by debunkers uninterested in performing experiments themselves to prove a hypothesis true or false.

Spinning a magnet within/near an electric coil will experience forces depending on the configuration of the coil/magnet and the electrical parameters - with forces of flux always acting perpendicular to the surface area of the magnet and the number of electric field lines crossing the surface (again, dependent upon the electrical power)...that there are such forces is nothing new to modern physics? We use these principles every day in electrical engineering - it's how most of your motorized electrical devices operate.


I'm afraid you have misunderstood what I am saying. To get a propulsive effect up the EHT guys were talking about spinning an ordinary disc made of say carbon-fiber above an electromagnetic coil. Not spinning an electromagnet over an electromagnet or a permanent magnet over an electric coil (electromagnet).

What are "gravitational force gravitophotons" again?


The EHT guys can explain this a lot better than I can, I doubt I can fully explain it to you in adequate detail without copying and pasting large amounts of text onto this page. To keep it short photons are recognized in modern quantum physics as the carriers of magnetic forces, in EHT, these (photons) can be transformed into a neutral gravitophoton which decays into a gravitational force gravitophoton and expansion force gravitophoton under certain specific conditions (ex. spinning a carbon-fiber disc with an outer surface speed of 250 meters/sec above an electromagnet of about 20 tesla).

Does the "EHT" team understand that electrons don't collect on a capacitor, but upon one plate of a capacitor depending how the capacitor is charged?


I already stated the EHT team was not concerned with capacitors or electrons or the expansion force gravitophotons. You will have to excuse my poorly worded explanation. I know a capacitor works by pushing electrons off of one plate while electrons are added to the other plate. I was basing the importance of capacitors below the magnet on the ARV's description, the Hollingshead device's description, that theoretically EHT's expansion force gravitophotons will interact with electrons, and the alcubierre warp drive's need for contraction/positive energy density at the front of the craft and expansion/negative energy density at the back of the craft. Looking at the supposed ARV and Hollingshead device as well as EHT and the alcubierre drive, I figured maybe the difference in charge in a capacitor makes it easier for the negative energy density expansion force gravitophotons to collide with the electrons on the negative capacitor plate. This was an idea, hypothesis, I came up with not the EHT people so if it is wrong don't blame them, blame me.

negative energy/positive energy/gravitophotons/spacetime.....this is all gobblygook.


One needs to read about Extended Heim Theory from the source, the alcubierre warp drive from the source. I have spent months reading these theories, I can understand how they might seem like gobblygook, it is not. Negative energy density matter (something we do not yet have hard proof exists) is needed for example in the alcubierre warp drive concept. One would not know that without reading up on that idea. When I mentioned spacetime for example I was talking about it in the Einsteinian planets make dents in spacetime which we feel as gravity sense.

Little do people know that they are simply conducting grammar-school science experiments involving electromagnetic and inductive forces...modern physics not only explains all of this but we put it into practice every day in electrical engineering.


I beg to differ, no one has done these experiments and published the results. If you truly want to understand these hypotheses like EHT or the alcubierre warp drive you have to read them at their source. We can BS on a forum all day long but you would be far better off reading and studying the source materials than reading my interpretation of them. If you want to truly prove them false or true you have to conduct the experiments.

Perhaps bringing this up on this forum was a bad idea and theparacast forums or somewhere else would have been better. Afterall this forum is dedicated to exposing hoaxers and fraudsters, not on uncovering something new and unknown. Uncovering reality requires an open mind, one that doesn't immediately shout pseudo-science at anything not currently accepted by the mainstream scientific community, it requires a willingness to spend long hours reading and long hours experimenting.
Bobbox1980
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:34 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Famous Hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron