Jump to content

CNN Says U.S. has Anti-Gravity


John Phoenix
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know many scientist do not believe anti-gravity is possible. I just wanted to know what you folks thought of this.

 

 

Do you think they are really talking about anti-gravity, or using strong magnetic fields to 'levitate' the craft?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/09/05/wow.tech.black.world/index.html

 

"(CNN) -- What ground-breaking new technology is kept so secret by the authorities that even to comment on its existence would be to reveal too much?

 

Welcome to black world technology -- the discrepancy in the defense budgets no-one can explain, and the programs which politicians and officials have the right to deny even exist.

 

Yet it is big business, not just for those involved in developing the technology, but for the spin-offs that eventually come in the "white world" -- defense jargon for the real world.

 

"The computers that were secretly developed to go to the moon are now on your desktop," Nick Cook, aerospace consultant for Jane's Defence Weekly told CNN.

 

"It all ends up in the commercial world in some ways, but black world technology is hard to penetrate in terms of figures and types of programs," he said.

 

Boeing, the world's largest aircraft manufacturer says it is working on anti-gravity propulsion, which could revolutionize conventional aviation.

 

If the science underpinning the program can be made into reality, it will be the biggest thing to hit the aviation industry since the Wright Brothers.

 

"GRASP," or Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion, was only recently reported in Jane's Defence Weekly, but the U.S. military may have had the technology for years.

 

The National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), based in Nevada, say that mysterious U.S. military craft using this kind of technology have been skirting the skies since the 1980s.

 

And NIDS is now calling for the military to unveil its secrets for commercial benefit.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited by swansont
snip some of the copyrighted material
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we can float objects with strong magnetic fields. I think a lot of the time when people say "Anti-Gravity" it is this ability that they are actually talking about and it is not really true anti-gravity.. people just lack a fancy packaged way to explain the effect otherwise so Anti-Gravity comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this sound to me like the same discussion from the TR-B3 reduces mass thread in speculations?

 

I have no idea. My reading comprehension is pretty good and I don't see any resemblance in the two threads.

 

I think the thing on my mind is that this is from CNN and not some source that would be as easily questionable. I mean.. It's not rense.com or coming from a known quack site. I figure if CNN published it there may be some truth to it. After all.. It's CNN! They are known for their journalistic integrity aren't they?

 

Anyone know anyone at Boeing? I am sure CNN is good about checking sources before they do a story.. they just don't have a reputation to print lies or silly quack stuff. It should be easy enough to prove the story at least, even if you don't believe what the story talks about.

 

In fairness, I know this story is a few year old.. but if true, just the fact that Boeing is or was seriously looking into this tells me they at least thought Anti-Gravity was possible.. and you know Boeing, they design high tech air craft for a living.. for the Government and Space programs even.

Edited by John Phoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amount of quoted material as been pruned a little. It's copyrighted. Fair use is one thing, but half of the article is a bit much

 

 

I have no idea. My reading comprehension is pretty good and I don't see any resemblance in the two threads.

 

I think the thing on my mind is that this is from CNN and not some source that would be as easily questionable. I mean.. It's not rense.com or coming from a known quack site. I figure if CNN published it there may be some truth to it. After all.. It's CNN! They are known for their journalistic integrity aren't they?

 

But science journalists are also known for their occasionally inappropriate levels of credulity, and journalism in general is known for its propensity for sensationalism. There is precious little discussion of the technology in question, just innuendo. Frame it another way: is the military researching ways of improving propulsion? Almost certainly. But "antigravity" sounds a lot sexier.

 

 

BTW, NIDS disbanded in 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Discovery_Science

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is precious little discussion of the technology in question, just innuendo.

A technical description is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051.

Note well: This has not been replicated. In the ensuing years the author, Evgeny Podkletnov, has fallen deep, very deep into the Woo.

 

 

Frame it another way: is the military researching ways of improving propulsion? Almost certainly. But "antigravity" sounds a lot sexier.

In this case the research is indeed into antigravity. Some other articles:

 

July 29, 2002 BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm.

Overly sensationalistic.

 

July 31, 2002 SPACE.com article: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/gravity_research_020731.html.

Brief, not quite so sensationalistic.

 

August 1, 2002 SpaceDaily article: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-02t.html.

Also brief, and also not quite so sensationalistic.

 

February 2003 Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282281.html?page=3.

Deep in the Woo (flip to the previous two pages to see what I mean).

 

The full-of-Woo CNN article is dated September 2003, more than a year after the initial reports. From this I conclude two things. (1) CNN's source for science reporting is Popular Mechanics. (2) They are slow readers.

 

 

 

The DoD does fund (at a very low level) some rather fringy work under the guise of "Hey, if its right..." Sometimes that woo-woo stuff turns out to be not so woo-woo after all. Military heat rays? Real. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6297149.stm. Antigravity? So far, not real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A technical description is here: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0209051.

Note well: This has not been replicated. In the ensuing years the author, Evgeny Podkletnov, has fallen deep, very deep into the Woo.

 

Is that the right link? I don't see what that has to do with "antigravity."

 

Also, not that there's much to work with in the other articles, but why "antigravity" and not just propulsion? What do they mean by "losing weight," exactly? And isn't a "gravity shield" essentially a perpetual motion device?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the right link? I don't see what that has to do with "antigravity."

See section 4.2 of the article. Also see the other paper by the same authors, http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0108005.

 

 

Also, not that there's much to work with in the other articles, but why "antigravity" and not just propulsion?

Antigravity is so much sexier.

 

This is not-quite-lunatic fringe stuff. DoD and NASA have funded some rather fringy stuff in the past. NASA more or less stopped because (a) they don't have the budget they had in their heyday, and (b) it's a bit embarrassing when the news comes out. DoD has a huge budget and a nice way of keeping their wacko investigations private. The rationale is obvious: Every once in a while it pays off. (Note well: This is the same rationale used here at Science Forums to justify the existence of the Pseudoscence nd Speculations sub forum.) That heat ray stuff was straight out of science fiction -- and it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About this thing they have done with the floating frog via strong magnetic fields.. what do we know about this that could be piratical for everyday use?

 

I had a link to what I thought was the original study/experiment but that link is no longer a valid web page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.. what you are telling me is you do not believe that it was ever possible for science to levitate an object in a strong magnetic field?

 

Even though the link to the research is down, you can see by the other post on this popular physics forum that the scientists did not refute this claim.

 

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3552

 

Here ya go:

http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/

 

" Whether an object will or will not levitate in a magnetic field B is defined by the balance between the magnetic force F = M∇B and gravity mg = ρV g where ρ is the material density, V is the volume and g = 9.8m/s2. The magnetic moment M = (χ/ µ0)VB so that F = (χ/µ0)BV∇B = (χ/2µ0)V∇B2. Therefore, the vertical field gradient ∇B2 required for levitation has to be larger than 2µ0ρg/χ. Molecular susceptibilities χ are typically 10-5 for diamagnetics and 10-3 for paramagnetic materials and, since ρ is most often a few g/cm3, their magnetic levitation requires field gradients ~1000 and 10 T2/m, respectively. Taking l = 10cm as a typical size of high-field magnets and ∇B2 ~ B2/l as an estimate, we find that fields of the order of 1 and 10T are sufficient to cause levitation of para- and diamagnetics. This result should not come as a surprise because, as we know, magnetic fields of less than 0.1T can levitate a superconductor (χ= -1) and, from the formulas above, the magnetic force increases as B2. "

 

The Simple Explanation:

 

"As you might well know, all matter in the universe consists of small particles called atoms and each atom contains electrons that circle around a nucleus. This is how the world is made.

If one places an atom (or a large piece of a matter containing billions and billions of atoms) in a magnetic field, electrons doing their circles inside do not like this very much. They alter their motion in such a way as to oppose this external influence.

Incidentally, this is the most general principle of Nature: whenever one tries to change something settled and quiet, the reaction is always negative (you can easily check out that this principle also applies to the interaction between you and your parents). So, according to this principle, the disturbed electrons create their own magnetic field and as a result the atoms behave as little magnetic needles pointing in the direction opposite to the applied field*.

 

As you probably saw many times when playing with magnets, magnets push each other away if you try to bring together their like poles, for example, two north or two south poles. Similarly, the north pole of the external field will try to push away the “north poles” of magnetized atoms.

Our magnet creates a very large magnetic field (about 100 to 1000 times larger than school or household magnets).

In this field, all the atoms inside the frog act as very small magnets creating a field of about 2 Gauss (although very small, such a field can still be detected by a compass). One may say that the frog is now built up of these tiny magnets all of which are repelled by the large magnet. The force, which is directed upwards, appears to be strong enough to compensate the force of gravity (directed downwards) that also acts on every single atom of the frog. So, the frog’s atoms do not feel any force at all and the frog floats as if it were in a spacecraft."

Edited by John Phoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That thread is from 2003, before Physics Forums took on a position to oust psychoceramics quickly. Nonetheless, the thread was locked rather quickly. Since that happened 2003, the only inference I would make is that it is utter nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.. what you are telling me is you do not believe that it was ever possible for science to levitate an object in a strong magnetic field?

 

Of course it is possible to levitate items with magnets. But that isn't antigravity, per se. Gravity is still pulling on the levitated items, just not as strongly as the magnetic fields are pulling in the other directions.

 

It is also possible to levitate items using mechanical forces. Birds do this every time they fly but pushing down on the air with their wings. That, also is levitation, but NOT anti-gravity. Its just that the mechanical force pushing on the air (each flap of the wings) is greater than the gavitational force on the bird.

 

True antigravity would be much different than these and as of now, we have never observed any true antigravity in the universe. We don't really know the specifics of this particular military research. "GRASP" might be research into true antigravity, but it might also be something entirely mundane. Perhaps research into using Lagrangian Analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics) to reposition satelites with a minimum expenditure of rocket fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know, although i thoroghly believe in freedom of speech. i really dont see the need for any journalists to even begin to try to sensationalize ANY 'black' program. because it severely damages the us military and any out of country detainees. honestly, the only real journalistic inquiries into such programs should be made by real journalists that can take the material and break it down objectively, such as nature or the smithsonian. or more mainstreem and sensationalized, popsci.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

antigravitational propulsion is probably impossible to build because antigravity probably doesn't exist

 

and gravity propulsion is basing on gravitational waves (as has said Podkletnov), but

- firstly, until this moment such waves weren't observed

- secondly, such phenomenones concern only a very huge bodies with very huge mass, like stars - so building and practical using of such propulsion is very unprobable (maybe impossible)

Edited by PAL/SECAM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That thread is from 2003, before Physics Forums took on a position to oust psychoceramics quickly. Nonetheless, the thread was locked rather quickly. Since that happened 2003, the only inference I would make is that it is utter nonsense.

 

 

You label that thread psychoceramics. Are you saying science did not levitate that frog with a magnetic field?

 

I have seen the videos, this was clearly done. How could it be psychoceramics when there is clearly some type of science involved? This makes no since to me.

 

 

psychoceramics:

The study of crackpots and crackpot phenomena. This

includes things such as weird science and pseudoscience, bizarre

religion, kooky solutions to the world problem and other things.

Robert Pirsig's MOQ (Metaphysics of Quality).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That thread is from 2003, before Physics Forums took on a position to oust psychoceramics quickly. Nonetheless, the thread was locked rather quickly. Since that happened 2003, the only inference I would make is that it is utter nonsense.

 

The diamagnetic frog levitation is a rather well-known demonstration. The locking may have had to do with the "NASA does this to humans all the time" claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Swansnot, that is one reason I suppose. Not a very goon one mind you. The original poster didn't even say it. They didn't have to shut down the thread just because one person was not "scientific" enough. Those people do not want to discuss the very real fringe applications and new theories of science.. they just want to be right and maintain everything they already know must never be questioned.. . That's how I see them anyway. This is the same forum that banned me for just asking a question - without even answering it- and it was my first and last post.

 

O.k. so.. I would still like to get to the bottom of this levitating non metallic objects in strong magnetic fields bit. Since this experiment, what has been done to progress the technology? What practical applications could there be in industry for such technology? Does anyone know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What practical applications could there be for magnets? Lots...

 

That's a given, But - It has little to do with magnets. Magnetic fields can be produced with electrical current.

 

The question was not what practical applications could there be with magnets,

 

but the application of moving or levitating non metallic objects with magnetic fields. That is a Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a given, But - It has little to do with magnets.

 

No, it's just magnetic fields we're talking about. Nothing special about them.

 

Magnetic fields can be produced with electrical current.

 

Well, yes.

 

The question was not what practical applications could there be with magnets,

 

Oh, but it was!

 

but the application of moving or levitating non metallic objects with magnetic fields. That is a Big difference.

 

Ok. "Metallic" is not the issue. There's ferromagnetic, paramagnetic, and diamagnetic. Ferromagnetic is things like iron (hence the name), which in the presence of magnetic fields form "permanent" magnets that retain a magnetic field of their own. Paramagnetic materials attract and concentrate magnetic fields they're in, and diamagnetic materials repel and disperse them. This results in real forces on these objects in the presence of magnetic fields. What this means is that almost anything is going to be attracted or repelled in the presence of a magnetic field, although for most things this attraction/repulsion will be very weak.

 

As it happens, water is weakly diamagnetic, and hence, since living things are mostly water, so are we. And so in the presence of an extremely strong magnetic field, there will be repulsion. That's how the frog is "levitated." There is nothing special about the magnetic field, just that it's very very strong in order to be able to lift something like a frog with such an ordinarily weak effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.