TR-3B reduces mass ?

[John Phoenix]

Here you will find the story of the U.S. Air Force craft - a triangular shaped craft called the TR-3B. Questions to follow.

I found this here: http://www.darkgovernment.com/tr3b.html

 

But if you Google it, this same exact story is all over the internet:

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+TR-3B+is+Code+named+Astra.+The+tactical+reconnaissance+TR-3B+

 

 

" The TR-3B is Code named Astra. The tactical reconnaissance TR-3B first operational flight was in the early 90s. The triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace platform was developed under the Top Secret, Aurora Program with SDI and black budget monies. At least 3 of the billion dollar plus TR-3Bs were flying by 1994. The Aurora is the most classified aerospace development program in existence. The TR-3B is the most exotic vehicle created by the Aurora Program. It is funded and operationally tasked by the National Reconnaissance Office, the NSA, and the CIA. The TR-3B flying triangle is not fiction and was built with technology available in the mid 80s. Not every UFO spotted is one of theirs.

 

The TR-3B vehicles outer coating is reactive to electrical Radar stimulation and can change reflectiveness, radar absorptiveness, and color. This polymer skin, when used in conjunction with the TR-3Bs Electronic Counter Measures and, ECCM, can make the vehicle look like a small aircraft, or a flying cylinder--or even trick radar receivers into falsely detecting a variety of aircraft, no aircraft, or several aircraft at various locations. A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology.

 

Sandia and Livermore laboratories developed the reverse engineered MFD technology. The government will go to any lengths to protect this technology. 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. The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent. Do not misunderstand. This is not antigravity. Anti-gravity provides a repulsive force that can be used for propulsion. The MFD creates a disruption of the Earth's gravitational field upon the mass within the circular accelerator. The mass of the circular accelerator and all mass within the accelerator, such as the crew capsule, avionics, MFD systems, fuels, crew environmental systems, and the nuclear reactor, are reduced by 89%. This causes the effect of making the vehicle extremely light and able to outperform and outmaneuver any craft yet constructed--except, of course, those UFOs we did not build.

 

The TR-3B is a high altitude, stealth, reconnaissance platform with an indefinite loiter time. Once you get it up there at speed, it doesnt take much propulsion to maintain altitude. At Groom Lake their have been whispered rumours of a new element that acts as a catalyst to the plasma. With the vehicle mass reduced by 89%, the craft can travel at Mach 9, vertically or horizontally. My sources say the performance is limited only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%.

 

The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above l20,000 feet--then God knows how fast it can go! The 3 multimode rocket engines mounted under each corner of the craft use hydrogen or methane and oxygen as a propellent. In a liquid oxygen/hydrogen rocket system, 85% of the propellent mass is oxygen. The nuclear thermal rocket engine uses a hydrogen propellent, augmented with oxygen for additional thrust. The reactor heats the liquid hydrogen and injects liquid oxygen in the supersonic nozzle, so that the hydrogen burns concurrently in the liquid oxygen afterburner. The multimode propulsion system can; operate in the atmosphere, with thrust provided by the nuclear reactor, in the upper atmosphere, with hydrogen propulsion, and in orbit, with the combined hydrogen\ oxygen propulsion.

 

What you have to remember is, that the 3 rocket engines only have to propel 11 percent of the mass of the Top Secret TR-3B. The engines are reportedly built by Rockwell. Many sightings of triangular UFOs are not alien vehicles but the top secret TR-3B. The NSA, NRO, CIA, and USAF have been playing a shell game with aircraft nomenclature - creating the TR-3, modified to the TR-3A, the TR-3B, and the Teir 2, 3, and 4, with suffixes like Plus or Minus added on to confuse further the fact that each of these designators is a different aircraft and not the same aerospace vehicle. A TR-3B is as different from a TR-3A as a banana is from a grape. Some of these vehicles are manned and others are unmanned. "

 

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

 

I would like hard core backed up opinions on this MFD generator from the most serious engineering experts on this forum.. This thing is supposed to reduce mass by as much as 89%. Is the science behind this sound? We know the TR-3B is a Real craft. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=TR-3B

 

This story is often accompanying details of the TR-3B. If this is true and they can reduce mass in this manner then you would have to rethink a lot of science problems that involves things you cannot do due to problems with mass. It could change the entire face of science and how we look at physics, engineering and the world around us.

 

Also remember this technology is 11 years old now at least. If Moore's law holds true or at least if technology has doubled 7.33 times since 1998 then the experimental craft the Government is developing now could be light years ahead of even this craft!

 

Another good story from a skeptic who researched this is found here: http://www.rense.com/general5/trb.htm This post attempts to explain why the above MFD generator is a sound scientific device. You may want to consider this before you do any heavy thinking on this subject.

Edited November 10, 2009 by John Phoenix

[timo]

I would like [...]opinions [...] from the most serious engendering experts on this forum.

If you're looking to male teenagers in puberty that have to prove to everyone that their's is the biggest you should probably try some forum dedicated to an online RPG or something like that (assuming I understood the verb "to engender" correctly ).

 

This thing is supposed to reduce mass by as much as 89%. Is the science behind this sound? [...] If this is true [...] then [...] it could change the entire face of science and how we look at physics, engenering and the world around us.

Don't you already answer your question yourself? If being true it would change the entire face of science, physics, ... then the current mainstream view is probably that it's not true, no?

 

Also remember this technology is 11 years old now at least. If Moore's law holds true or at least if technology has doubled 7.33 times since 1998 then the experimental craft the Government is developing now could be light years ahead of even this craft!

Probably not more than 11 of them, though.

 

I am somewhat amazed that one can Google for Top Secret information; seems like pretty much the biggest contrast between concepts available.

[John Phoenix]

Er.. yeah I fixed my typo.. thanks..

 

Notice I say IF a lot in my above post.. Sure if this was something that's not experimental and the government 'could' actually talk about it freely then I suppose it would be front page news. Our government has been working on circumventing gravity since the 1920's. This is documented fact. There may be some spin on this craft granted. This first popped out in 98 I think after the Phoenix Lights thing happened and thousands of people saw a triangular shaped ship in the sky. This was the answer to it's Ours, not the ET's. Of course if this thing is just a hoax I am happy thinking the things all those folks saw was in fact a real alien space craft. Even in the past when the government had black ops aircraft and used it over enemy territory it was not reported to the public though it may have been leaked, until many years later. This is just how the government does things. So yes to me it is conceivable this thing can be real and still not be front page news.

 

The point is the explanation of how the MFD works in both this post and the one at the bottom of the post seems quite plausible to non scientist. I wish to know what scientist do think about the MFD generator after they have had some time to digest the information.

Edited November 10, 2009 by John Phoenix

[npts2020]

My first question is why hasn't NASA learned anything about this? Billions of dollars could be saved by reducing the launch weight of vehicles in this manner. The physics (if true) is well beyond anything I am familiar with but I can say with pretty fair certainty that a rotating disc does produce lift (think about a frisbee). However, my understanding of that particular phenomena is that it is due to air flow around the disc and not to any (anti)gravitational effects. This leads me to a second question about why experimental physicists have failed to notice any correlation between strong magnetic fields and gravitational strength until now? I would not stick my neck out enough to claim that the whole story is a hoax but there are certainly many more questions than answers about it in my mind.

[John Phoenix]

If the ship or the technology were real NASA would most certainly know about it. Who knows - perhaps they are using it.. but if it's true this thing is under black ops they are not going to come out and tell the public they have it or are using It. It's so far ahead of anything the public sector has they would be tipping their hand that they have a potential weapon an enemy would try to develop a defense for.

[npts2020]

True, but the technologies required would have much more profitable applications. Don't you think somebody would be trying to make possibly trillions of dollars from it? Besides, I would think it was (to the military way of thinking) a good thing to see an enemy draining their resources to stop a potential threat, real or not. That is why I don't discount the possibility of being a hoax.

[John Phoenix]

Of course someone would want to make tons of money from it. But, if it's Black Ops program they won't even be able to try. Remember.. The Government compartmentalizes everything. Half the people who work on the project don't have a clue what the other half is doing. There are probably only a small handful of people who actually know this crafts secrets and have the ability to make a this work and or produce another one.

 

Your second point:

No.. I disagree. The Government would be more concerned with their multi billion dollar weapon staying outside the public eye rather than any government knowing about it and wasting their funds trying to counter it. If that government were allowed to do that, they may actually succeeded .. and then the money would have been spent in vain, as well as the purpose for which the weapon was created.. it's a lose-lose situation.

 

As far as it being a hoax.. I admit it may be.. I still want to know what scientist think of the science behind the MFD generator.

 

Let me tell you what I find really strange. A few months ago I posted a lot on here and a lot of "hard core scientist" were quick to shoot down anything I made a thread about. Its been days.. this thread has had about 100 views and none of them have showed up to debunk this. Could it be that they cannot, because they either do not understand the science involved or they can find no fault in the theory?

 

I also find it strange (No offense meant) that you are the ONLY person to post in this thread other than me (and Timo once).. as if they are staying away for some unknown reason. - Could it be that this forum has dried up that much since I have been around? As we hear in other science circles.. Could it be that the government has gotten to people here and instructed them to keep quiet? Hey, I don't know.. just guessing.. but if you were me, it would look strange to you too.

[timo]

Could it be that the government has gotten to people here and instructed them to keep quiet? Hey, I don't know.. just guessing.. but if you were me, it would look strange to you too.

Speaking for me, none of Merkel's thugs visited me lately. I've just not found time to really read your 1st post and don't actually know if I really want to. One number that struck me though (you were interested in scientific opinions, right?) is the Plasma at 150 Kelvin. Is that a typo or supposed to be correct. Now, I am no expert of plasma physics but it looks strange that a substance is supposed to be in a plasma state in a temperature range where it probably doesn't even glow.

 

On a personal note: Assuming you are serious here: Have you talked about this with your friends and family? If no, I think you should do that.

[npts2020]

JP; I am not qualified to argue the specifics from a scientific standpoint (my background is engineering) but it does seem odd (and unlikely) to me that even DARPA could be 15+ years ahead of every other scientist working on similar projects. In addition, a disc golfing buddy of mine, who is an aerospace engineer with whom I discussed this, seems to think that such a craft is highly unlikely if not outright impossible. The thing that stands out to me is that somebody would have had to create a flying nuclear reactor without anyone finding out about it. It would almost be easier to fake a moon landing.

[swansont]

Another good story from a skeptic who researched this is found here: http://www.rense.com/general5/trb.htm This post attempts to explain why the above MFD generator is a sound scientific device. You may want to consider this before you do any heavy thinking on this subject.

 

Very little effort is put forth to justify that GR can explain what's going on. Just saying that there's a part of GR (presumably frame-dragging) that can account for this isn't nearly enough.

[John Phoenix]

Timo, I copied the article just like I found it so 150 Kelvin would be correct I suppose. You bring up a good point. I would like to know what the original author says about that. Why do you suggest I discuss this with my friends and family? They know nothing of science.

 

Top Secret is not a very high security clearance. So many people contract for the Government all the time that stuff gets leaked to the public. This is a fact. Just because the government doesn't acknowledge the leaked material doesn't make it false. For Government to go public and say yes this was leaked would ruin security further.

 

Added later- I just found out that 150 kelvin = -189.67 degree Fahrenheit. Now I'm thinking that may be a typo. Or perhaps not.. it's a mercury based plasma. I don't know which type of plasma that would be but the temperatures for plasma are as follows. ~0 K (crystalline non-neutral plasma) to

108 K (magnetic fusion plasma)

 

108 kelvin = -265.27 degree Fahrenheit

 

Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29#cite_note-9

 

I used a simple web based Kelvin to Fahrenheit conversion calculator for the conversions. I admit I do not understand these conversions. Wouldn't both -189.67 and -265.27 be really cold? This is not a hot plasma we are talking about?

 

npts2020 - Interestingly enough, they do have nuclear powered aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_aircraft

 

They had a problem with radiation shielding. But it's possible this TR-3b craft is big enough they could have the shielding. It would be really heavy but once they kick the MFD generator on they wouldn't have to worry about that.

 

swansont - I agree. That's why I was hoping I could find an physics engineer on this forum to really look hard into the theories. (that's why I posted this in the engineering forum) They may be able to explain the stuff that most people - even you, don't understand. If not confirm it then they could at least put forth some really hard core reasons why it cannot work. I wanted to know how possible this could be or a list of reasons why the science claims fail.

 

So far no one has been able to prove that this is 100% BS, so I don't understand the reason for moving it to the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum. (It may not fall under either category - how can we know until it is thoroughly examined?) I would think that it staying in the Engineering forum would give it a better chance to have hard core physics minded engineers examine it. The reason I say physics minded engineers and not just physicist is because it seems to me this would be their area of expertise.

 

Perhaps this isn't the right forum. Perhaps I need to post this over at JPL. I may stand a better chance of finding people familiar with this type of thing.

Edited November 14, 2009 by John Phoenix

[swansont]

swansont - I agree. That's why I was hoping I could find an physics engineer on this forum to really look hard into the theories. (that's why I posted this in the engineering forum) They may be able to explain the stuff that most people - even you, don't understand. If not confirm it then they could at least put forth some really hard core reasons why it cannot work. I wanted to know how possible this could be or a list of reasons why the science claims fail.

 

So far no one has been able to prove that this is 100% BS, so I don't understand the reason for moving it to the Pseudoscience and Speculations forum. (It may not fall under either category - how can we know until it is thoroughly examined?) I would think that it staying in the Engineering forum would give it a better chance to have hard core physics minded engineers examine it. The reason I say physics minded engineers and not just physicist is because it seems to me this would be their area of expertise.

 

Perhaps this isn't the right forum. Perhaps I need to post this over at JPL. I may stand a better chance of finding people familiar with this type of thing.

 

 

You have the burden of proof backward. The ones who propose that this is real need to come up with more than a hand-wavy explanation that it follows an obscure part of general relativity. There's a reason why many of the effects of general relativity (such as Lense-Thirring) have only been investigated relatively recently — they are small and hard to measure. So the claim of an effective 89% reduction in mass, if that's even a reasonable way to model any GR effect, is an extraordinary claim. Why hasn't this been seen at the ~1% level (100 times easier to do), which could easily be measured in a lab?

 

P&S isn't exile. Plenty of physics and engineering types look at this forum, in order to debunk things. Things are not presumed valid science until shown otherwise — it's the other way around. Claims without evidence or an established physical mechanism are to be treated skeptically. "Speculations" is exactly where discussion of this sort should go.

[John Phoenix]

Why hasn't this been seen at the ~1% level (100 times easier to do), which could easily be measured in a lab?

 

That is a very good question. I wish I thought of it..If this thing is real my best guess would be that no one else thought to try to build one of these things, exactly like they built it. This would make since to me especially if they are exploiting a little known quirk of relativity. Perhaps they did start at 1% at first and worked their way up.

 

There are videos of these craft, or what's claimed to be these craft because people mistook them for UFO's. These were seen and filmed by thousands of people in Phoenix 1998. Of the videos I have seen they do seem to behave rather UFO like. They can hover noiselessly for long periods of time then take off in the blink of an eye.

 

Here is one interesting video and comments. Even people who are in the service have claimed to have seen it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZpqpBVOa1U&feature=related

[swansont]

That is a very good question. I wish I thought of it..If this thing is real my best guess would be that no one else thought to try to build one of these things, exactly like they built it. This would make since to me especially if they are exploiting a little known quirk of relativity. Perhaps they did start at 1% at first and worked their way up.

 

Nobody trying an accessible experiment in relativity is exceedingly unlikely. I know a lot of scientists. That doesn't sound like them at all.

[John Phoenix]

So.. it's been days and still no one will look into the science claims seriously to prove or disprove this? Someone who knows the science involved and is able to take a hard look at it?

 

I have to find a more serious science forum. JPL doesn't have one. Oh well.

[swansont]

I have to find a more serious science forum. JPL doesn't have one. Oh well.

 

I suspect that "a more serious science forum" isn't really what you are truly looking for. People on science fora want to discuss science, and this isn't it. Debunking antiscience or pseudoscience can be an interesting exercise, but to garner interest you need to have presented some solid claims, rather than nebulous assertions like "it disrupts gravity by exploiting general relativity." There's no meat to it — there's nothing to dissect.

[SH3RL0CK]

So.. it's been days and still no one will look into the science claims seriously to prove or disprove this?

 

Ok, first allow me to state I haven't looked at the links, I avoid sites that are not mainstream when I am at work, for obvious reasons.

 

Someone who knows the science involved and is able to take a hard look at it?.

 

A hard look at what? What science is involved? Your posting on thishas a lot of nebulous claims, but no hard math. It is stated that the mass is reduced to 11% of original, but without a good explaination. Without any math, I don't have anything I can disprove.

 

The best explaination I have on exactly what this is supposed to do is

The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent.

which is not possible. Magnetism and gravity are two very different fundamental forces. Otherwise, you need to explain why a magnet will pick up a steel nail but not a wood toothpick.

 

The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim. This claim, that there exists an aircraft of this nature, is not sufficiently supported for me to accept. Not that I think the US military doesn't have exceptional aircraft, I am sure they do - just within the laws of physics. I say this concept is rubbish.

[Moontanman]

I seen some claims of aircraft like this but they are characterized as stealth blimps not nuclear powered physics busting craft. I think a rumor has gotten out of hand.

[John Phoenix]

SH3RL0CK,

 

Here's the page you haven't looked at:

 

You state, "Ok, first allow me to state I haven't looked at the links"

 

You say: "A hard look at what? What science is involved?"

 

If you would have looked at the link, then looked at the science of Dr. Forward that is linked to, you would have seen what science was involved.

 

Physics Analysis Of TR-3B

From FoucheMedia

FoucheMedia@satx.rr.com

11-9-00

 

 

Thought you might be interested in an article posted by John Kooiman about the TR-3B gravity warping technology. I will depend on my esteemed friends and colleges who actually understand physics to rebut or support his premise. Love to hear your thoughts. After the revelation about the USAF's saucer programs in the last few months, things are getting more interesting. Especially as I stated 3 years ago that we had researched, reverse engineered, and built many saucer type prototypes since the 50s.

 

Ed Fouche

Efouche@satx.rr.com

210 681-2595

 

_____

 

From John Kooiman

john.kooiman@home.com

TR-3B Antigravity Physics Explained

 

To be correct, I probably should say, "TR-3B Antigravity Physics Explained, insofar as General Relativity can be considered an explanation for gravity."

 

 

 

 

Many readers of this list are probably already familiar with Edgar Fouche's description of the USA's Top Secret TR-3B triangular shaped nuclear powered aerospace craft. If not, read about it here: http://fouchemedia.com/arap/speech.htm

 

Mr. Fouche describes the TR-3B's propulsion system as follows:

 

"A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology... 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.

 

The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent...

 

The current MFD in the TR-3B causes the effect of making the vehicle extremely light, and able to outperform and outmaneuver any craft yet ...My sources say the performance is limited only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%.

 

The crew of the TR-3B should be able to comfortable take up to 40Gs... Reduced by 89%, the occupants would feel about 4.2 Gs.

 

The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above l20,000 feet - then who knows how fast it can go!..."

 

I was skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claims when I first read them, as I'm sure that many of you are, but I was interested enough to do further research on what happens when you spin a plasma at high speeds in a ring (toroidal) configuration. I came across a physics article (sorry, I can't seem to locate the source right now) that described this exact configuration. The article said that, surprisingly, the charged particles of the plasma don't just spin uniformly around the ring, but they tend to take up a synchronized, tightly pitched, helical (screw thread) motion as they move around the ring. This can be understood in a general way as follows: the charged particles moving around the ring act as a current that in turn sets up a magnetic field around the ring. It is a well-known fact that electrons (or ions) tend to move in a helical fashion around magnetic field lines. Although it is a highly complex interaction, it only requires a small leap of faith to believe that the end result of these interactions between the moving charged particles (current) and associated magnetic fields results in the helical motion described above. In other words, the charged particles end up moving in very much the same pattern as the current on a wire tightly wound around a toroidal core.

 

I thought that this was an interesting fact, but didn't see how it could possibly relate to antigravity, until I ran across the following article: "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Dr. Robert Forward, written in 1962 (available at: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/pdf/tp007.pdf). Dr. Forward's article describes several little known aspects of Einstein's General Relativity Theory that indicate how moving matter can create unusual gravitational effects. When I saw Figure 5 in Dr. Forward's article, the pieces of the puzzle all fell together. I instantly saw how the moving matter pattern that Dr. Forward describes as necessary to generate a gravitational dipole was exactly the same as the plasma ring pattern described in the physics article discussed above! If Fouche's description is even close to correct, then the TR-3B utilizes this little known loophole in General Relativity Theory to create it's antigravity effects! Even though the TR-3B can only supposedly cancel 89% of gravity (and inertia) today, there is no reason why the technology can't be improved to exceed 100% and achieve true antigravity capability!

 

In theory, this same moving matter pattern could be mechanically reproduced by mounting a bunch of small gyroscopes all around the larger ring, with their axis on the larger ring, and then spinning both the gyroscopes and the ring at high speeds. However, as Dr. Forward points out any such mechanical system would probably fly apart before any significant antigravity effects could be generated. However, as Dr. Forward states, "By using electromagnetic forces to contain rotating systems, it would be possible for the masses to reach relativistic velocities; thus a comparatively small amount of matter, if dense enough and moving fast enough, could produce usable gravitational effects."

 

The requirement for a dense material moving at relativistic speeds would explain the use of Mercury plasma (heavy ions). If the plasma really spins at 50,000 RPM and the Mercury ions are also moving in a tight pitched spiral, then the individual ions would be moving probably hundreds, perhaps thousands of times faster than the bulk plasma spin, in order to execute their "screw thread" motions. It is quite conceivable that the ions could be accelerated to relativistic speeds in this manner. I am guessing that you would probably want to strip the free electrons from the plasma, making a positively charged plasma, since the free electrons would tend to counter rotate and reduce the efficiency of the antigravity device.

 

One of Einstein's postulates of GR says that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. This is consistent with Mr. Fouche's claim that inertial mass within the plasma ring is also reduced by 89%. This would also explain why the vehicle is triangular shaped. Since it still requires conventional thrusters for propulsion, the thrusters would need to be located outside of the "mass reduction zone" or else the mass of the thruster's reaction material would also be reduced, making them terribly inefficient. Since it requires a minimum of 3 legs to have a stable stool, it follows that they would need a minimum of 3 thrusters to have a stable aerospace platform. Three thrusters, located outside of the plasma ring, plus appropriate structural support, would naturally lead to a triangular shape for the vehicle.

 

I was extremely skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claimed size for the TR-3B, of 600 feet across. At first, I thought that this must be a typo. Why would anyone in their right mind build a "Tactical Reconnaissance" vehicle 2 football fields long? They must be nuts! However, the answer to this may also be found in Dr. Forward's paper. As Dr. Forward's puts it, "...even the most optimistic calculations indicate that very large devices will be required to create usable gravitational forces. Antigravity...like all modern sciences, will require special projects involving large sums of money, men, and energy."

 

FYI: This article has been posted to KeelyNet. You have permission to post it on your Web site, as long as proper creditation is provided.

 

P.S. Dr. Forward has also written a number of other articles that may be of interest to readers of this list. They are located at: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/TechPubs.html.

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

 

After reading that look at the PDF file "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Dr. Forward that can be found here: http://www.whidbey.com/forward/pdf/tp007.pdf

 

Don't just tell me it can't happen without reading all of this and trying to see if you can make coherent since out of it. That' not taking a hard look at it at all. LOL

 

Now, if any of you read all these things and you do understand this science, and you can put together why his explanation makes since to him to see why he arrives at his conclusions, then you are in a position to tell me it's rubbish or not.

 

Honestly people, I love how you love to make assumptions about something without investigating it.

 

You guys keep claiming there is nothing here but you wont go beyond that. Try to understand by Dr. Forwards science why John Kooiman thinks there is something to this. John Kooiman may have made an error someplace but he obviously believes it, and thinks he understands the science involved. That's what I mean by a hard look.

 

SH3RL0CK. If you wish not to do this that's fine by me, but don't tell me I didn't present anything to look at when you haven't even looked at all the data.

 

Please don't anyone answer this unless you have downloaded Dr. Forwards PDF and read it and tried to understand Mr. Kooiman's point of view. Oh crap, the PDF link is down. I will try to find another link. It is available at the American Journal of Physics But I will try to find another link to view it for free since it should be public domain by now- It was written in 1962. Guidelines to Antigravity by Robert L. Forward.

Edited November 19, 2009 by John Phoenix

[swansont]

The premise that if it can't be debunked it must be legit is flawed.

 

The relevant science would be contained in the statement "The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent..."

 

What is required is a detailed explanation of how this purported effect occurs — this is the linchpin of the whole argument, and there is absolutely no discussion of physics here! Almost all the rest is window dressing. The claim of mass reduction, especially of the large order claimed, is inconsistent with other physics concepts and with known gravitational effects being very weak. This does not pass the sniff test.

[SH3RL0CK]

SH3RL0CK,

 

Here's the page you haven't looked at:

 

You state, "Ok, first allow me to state I haven't looked at the links"

 

You say: "A hard look at what? What science is involved?"

 

If you would have looked at the link, then looked at the science of Dr. Forward that is linked to, you would have seen what science was involved.

 

Please don't anyone answer this unless you have downloaded Dr. Forwards PDF and read it and tried to understand Mr. Kooiman's point of view. Oh crap, the PDF link is down. I will try to find another link. It is available at the American Journal of Physics But I will try to find another link to view it for free since it should be public domain by now- It was written in 1962. Guidelines to Antigravity by Robert L. Forward.

 

 

You have certainly provided a large amount of text, I presume from your links. Yet in your text, there isn't a single equation or formula to justify the claims. It would seem to me that if there were a mathematical explaination, you would have included it for scrutiny. The only justification provided in your text seems to come from statements such as

it only requires a small leap of faith to believe

on top of the outlandish claims which violate the known laws of physics as has been pointed out.

 

 

SH3RL0CK. If you wish not to do this that's fine by me, but don't tell me I didn't present anything to look at when you haven't even looked at all the data.

Since you went to the trouble of making your posts as large as you did, but didn't include any real data, I assumed the links you must have read did not contain data. On top of a reluctance to click on unusual links (both at work and home), I don't have the time to research all your links and try to find something there that you apparently couldn't find. If you are looking for an answer here, it might be helpful if you could post something from your links that is actually informative and can be quantified rather than a bunch of vague claims.

 

Don't just tell me it can't happen without reading all of this and trying to see if you can make coherent since out of it. That' not taking a hard look at it at all. LOL

You guys keep claiming there is nothing here but you wont go beyond that.

I don't need to go beyond my statement that gravity and magnetism are fundamentally different forces to claim this is a bogus idea. That IS the hard look at this idea you are asking for. And being convinced it is bogus, and not being provided with a reasonable explaination, why should I look into it further? I do have better things to do with my time.

 

Also, there is no reason to go beyond saying there is nothing on these websites (as Swansont states) if indeed there is nothing there.

Edited November 19, 2009 by SH3RL0CK

[npts2020]

One thing I can say from experience is that there is no such thing as a reactor small enough to power said craft built out of anything that would allow it to be "light and maneuverable" even by standards of a plane large enough to carry a "crew". This, plus the (unanswered) objections in my previous posts, puts the whole idea well into the tin foil hat spectrum of discussion IMO and fully justifies being called speculation.

[swansont]

The notion that a reduced mass would reduce your g-force is misguided. The force is reduced, but its the acceleration that matters, and that would be unchanged — you still pull as many g's of acceleration.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's pure bullshit. Firstly, plasma is not superconductive. Secondly, what exactly is a magnetic vortex field? Seems like someone doesn't understand electromagnetism. Thirdly, this has no effect on gravity nor inertia. Fourthly, reducing mass is irrelevant to maximum velocity in atmosphere -- drag is what matters for that. Also, their chameleon skin thingamagic probably doesn't exist either. And I wonder what the weight of the toroidal container holding a 250,000 atm pressure would be.

[Moontanman]

This statement is nonsensical,

 

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.

 

To be a plasma a substance has to at least at a temp higher than it's boiling point, at that temperature and pressure Mercury would be a liquid. How do you accelerate a plasma to 50,000 rpm? How is a plasma superconductive? The whole premise needs to be supported by something other than this statement. Again i say it's a distortion of the Stealth blimp rumors that have been going around. A stealthy blimp? Possible, a nuclear powered anti-gravity craft? Unlikely to say the least.