anti gravity propulsion, why so interesting?

[Gene Steinberg]

Ah all we need is to discover dilithium crystals.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Ah all we need is to discover dilithium crystals.

C'mon Gene - what kind of Trekkie are you?! The dilithium crystals only regulate the matter-antimatter reaction for the power system; they don't produce the warp field - that's what the warp coils in the nacelles are for! Lol

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I didn't mention the precise purpose. Only that they were needed.

 

[mike]

And go where?

We'd see them on the moon. We'd see them on mars. We'd see them at the la grange points. We'd see them in orbit.

Maybe its my Ninjutsu training, but in my experience just because you cant see something doesn't mean its not there.

In astrophysics we infer the presence of object we can't see all the time.

Hubble Captures ‘Shadow Play’ Caused by Possible Planet.

I think any technology advanced enough to utilize antigrav might well have other tricks up its sleeves.


Cloaking device makes objects invisible – to infrared light anyway

Or rather than invisibility, perhaps look like something its not as below.

ADAPTIV - Cloak of Invisibility | BAE Systems | Australia

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Would this be under the elements of the loop inside the antigravity circle during the spinning cycle which could leave a shape some type of orb motion? Stargazers discover planets in our solar system may host alien life

 

[DROBNJAK]

... Nope. I keep trying to explain this but so far only marduk has understood it. I’ll try to be very clear. ... Gravitomagentism doesn’t produce any kind of propulsive effect whatsoever – gravitomagnetism can be envisioned as a “twisting” of spacetime.

Thomas, you are going both backwards and forwards. You are saying that gravitomagnetic field is not able to create propulsion, than you show Robert L. Forward's solution which is using gravitomagnetics to move craft in a desired direction. What you are talking about is textbook gravitomagnetic configuration that is used just for educational purposes, can not give you directional flight. If one thinks out of the box, like R.L. Forward and configuration is deliberately engineered with purpose, than it gives one a plenty of directional movement. Our technology is obviously not there yet, so engineering challenges are ignored.

... People tend to overlook what’s happening on the outside of the donut. The gravitational acceleration around the outside of the donut possesses an equal and opposite gravitoelectric induction field. So if matter would get launched downward through the center, it would get pulled upward around the outside. Nothing you can do can change that law – no form of gravitomagnetic device, even a gravitoelectric dipole generator, can fly, because the forces always cancel. It’s the same Gaussian field law that applies to electromagnetic fields.

Again, you are sticking to textbook and not thinking like a practical guy. Yes, gravitomagnetic 'push' is the same on the inside as on the outside, so sum total is zero, so in pure textbook theory there is no movement. But, in practice, there is nothing on the outside of the toroid, while on the inside there is a whole rest of the craft, with crew cabin, food storage (if any), hull, structural elements, nuclear fuel (if any) etc. etc.

Basically, inside Forward's toroid internal gravitomagnetic field will 'latch' on the matter of the craft itself, while the toroid's external gravitomagnetic field will 'latch' on empty space. So there is built in asymmetry. I think you yourself talked before about need for asymmetry. So there it is, 'latching' on the mater of craft will be stronger, than 'latching' on the outside empty space, so craft will 'glide' in one direction. If one reverses twist of gravitomagnetic field, than craft will go in the opposite direction. It can go both backwards and forwards, so practically one can park it in a tight spot on a supermarket's parking lot, if needed.

Gravitomagnetic propulsion is the only proposal, beside the warp drive, that is based on tried and tested, feet on the ground, theory, General Relativity. No gravitons, string-theory, dark matter, parallel universes and other fancy unproven stuff. GPS would be off by 70m (210ft) if General Relativity was wrong.

Beside all the above, evidence from testimonies and trace cases strongly points towards gravitomagnetics. I have literally dozens, if not hundreds, of cases on the file. Here is the funniest proof ever that UFOs fly on gravitomagnetics:

UFO Abducts Elk in Washington State

As far as name dropping goes, one another supporter of gravitomagnetics is Jane Harzan, MUFON's director, former IBM executive, who is nuclear physicist by education.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Thomas, you are going both backwards and forwards. You are saying that gravitomagnetic field is not able to create propulsion, than you show Robert L. Forward's solution which is using gravitomagnetics to move craft in a desired direction.

No, look more closely at the diagram: this device produces field lines in closed loops, just like magnetic field lines. Robert Forward’s device does *not* produce any propulsive capability whatsoever. You could launch grapefruits through the center, like a gravitational cannon, but the device cannot –move itself-. At all. No matter what you do to the design. Gravitomagnetic field lines are always closed, period.

What you are talking about is textbook gravitomagnetic configuration that is used just for educational purposes, can not give you directional flight. If one thinks out of the box, like R.L. Forward and configuration is deliberately engineered with purpose, than it gives one a plenty of directional movement. Our technology is obviously not there yet, so engineering challenges are ignored.

No – read the paper. Forward’s gravitoelectric dipole generator is NOT a propulsion device, and was never designed to be a propulsion device. It was designed to show that you could create an induced gravitoelectric dipole. That’s all it does. It’s amazing that he showed that one pole has an “antigravity-like” quality, without using negative energy. But it’s a dipole field, so it produces no >net< thrust.

I’m sorry – believe me, I know how disappointing that must be to hear. But it’s not a propulsion device.

Again, you are sticking to textbook and not thinking like a practical guy. Yes, gravitomagnetic 'push' is the same on the inside as on the outside, so sum total is zero, so in pure textbook theory there is no movement. But, in practice, there is nothing on the outside of the toroid, while on the inside there is a whole rest of the craft, with crew cabin, food storage (if any), hull, structural elements, nuclear fuel (if any) etc. etc.

You’re not understanding the physical principle here – let me clarify. For all practical purposes pertaining to a reasonably sized device, as Robert Forward has described here, the gravitational field of the Earth is a gradient radiating out from a planar surface, because the device is so much smaller than the curvature of the Earth.

Now take a cross-section of Forward’s device through the central plane, parallel to the surface of the Earth. The sum of the repulsion through the center of the donut, is exactly equal to the sum of the attraction around the outside of the donut. Its interaction with the Earth is ½ attraction through the center and ½ repulsion around the outer edge, net = 0. This is an example of Gauss’s law, which applies equally to electromagnetism as well as gravity and gravitomagnetism. There’s no way around it: no gravitomagnetic field can produce propulsion, unless you happen to be interacting with a neutron star or a black hole which has its own intense gravitomagnetic field. But for general propulsion purposes, it’s completely useless: it’s not a propulsion device.

If anyone doesn’t understand this, then they don’t understand gravitoelectromagnetism, period. Having a PhD in nuclear physics does not necessarily mean that someone understands general relativity and the physics of gravitoelectromagnetism. If Jan Harzan claims that gravitomagnetism explains UFO propulsion, then he’s simply wrong. The laws of physics don’t care what degrees you have, or how “practical” you are – gravitomagnetic fields have zero divergence, by definition, just like magnetic fields.

Look, I know it sucks. You thought: “Hey, that’s the ticket: Robert Forward’s simple gravitoelectric dipole generator is the perfect UFO propulsion device!” Nope. Read Forward’s own paper about it if you don’t believe me: he never claimed that it was a propulsion device, because it isn’t.

Why do you think that everyone got so excited about the Alcubierre warp field metric? Because it was the first physically valid gravitational field propulsion concept. And, it’s not limited to subluminal speeds - at least not theoretically.

 

[DROBNJAK]

What about latching onto any matter that is inside Forward's toroid? You said that if we put a grapefruit in the middle of toroid grapefruit will be launched forward.

Doesn't that mean that if we rigidly fix that grapefruit to the Forward's toroid, than toroid will repel itself off the grapefruit? Effectively, toroid pushes grapefruit, grapefruit pushes toroid. Even with Gravitational Probe B, Earth's gravitomagnetic field was pushing on those super-smooth gyroscope silicon balls off their position. In a super tiny amount, those silicone gyros were pushing back on Earth. So there was interaction.

If there is nothing on the inside of the toroid, than of course, everything is symetrical and it won't move. But if we fix some mass in the center, than toroid will repel itself against that mass.

Practically same as speaker coil. You put a ferrite inside coil and it gets repelled. On the end of the day gravitomagnetic field is a derivative of gravitational field, so it atracts matter.

OR, ALTERNATIVELY ...

Are you saying that gravitomagnetic field doesn't act on mass in the same way as gravitostatic (normal gravity) field, because gravitomagnetic field is dipole field (like magnetic). The same way magnetism only acts on moving charges, but not on static charges?

In that case, how does one explain the abundance of witness observations, like that rotating elk, rising columns of swirling water, swirling grass etc.? Swirling debris, fluids and sometimes elks are very strong trend in the data. Its not just one witness.

n.b.
I would much prefer to replace grapefruit with apple. Historically speaking, apple helped more to a study of gravity.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Now you’ve got it. Nice work – it’s hard to really understand this stuff without the mathematical proofs, but you figured it out conceptually. Leonardo da Vinci had a similar leap of intuitive understanding when he looked into perpetual motion machines – he was able to understand the principle of conservation of energy without the mathematical arguments that would formalize it centuries later.

What about latching onto any matter that is inside Forward's toroid? You said that if we put a grapefruit in the middle of toroid grapefruit will be launched forward.

Doesn't that mean that if we rigidly fix that grapefruit to the Forward's toroid, than toroid will repel itself off the grapefruit? Effectively, toroid pushes grapefruit, grapefruit pushes toroid. Even with Gravitational Probe B, Earth's gravitomagnetic field was pushing on those super-smooth gyroscope silicon balls off their position. In a super tiny amount, those silicone gyros were pushing back on Earth. So there was interaction.

If there is nothing on the inside of the toroid, than of course, everything is symetrical and it won't move. But if we fix some mass in the center, than toroid will repel itself against that mass.

That’s pretty much right - but don't forget the conservation of momentum: if the mass is fixed within the hole, then whatever's holding it in place will transfer an equal and opposite force to the device - all you'd do is create a counter-tension. But if you had a tall cylindrical column inside of that toroid, then you’d have an excellent field-driven elevator, or you could even launch the toroid into space. It could even work like a rocket if it had masses onboard to produce reaction propulsion. But the rocket principle isn’t useful for manned interstellar spaceflight for that reason – carrying your reaction mass with you is prohibitively costly in energy, and of course subluminal interstellar spaceflight is also a very time-costly prospect.

Are you saying that gravitomagnetic field doesn't act on mass in the same way as gravitostatic (normal gravity) field, because gravitomagnetic field is dipole field (like magnetic). The same way magnetism only acts on moving charges, but not on static charges?

Bingo. Gravitoelectromagnetism obeys the exact same fundamental principles as electromagnetism, and in the weak field limit, even the magnitude of the forces can be calculated using the same formulas, except with an inverse sign (opposite gravitoelectric charges repel, whereas opposite electrical charges attract).

So you can actually model the physics of gravitational interactions by thinking about their electromagnetic analogues. You can think of the Earth as a gigantic conductor with a static electrical charge, and then try to figure out how to produce an electromagnetic force between that, and your craft (just remember to flip the sign of the interaction). If you can devise a solution that works with electromagnetism, then it's easy to translate that into a gravitoelectromagnetic form.

In that case, how does one explain the abundance of witness observations, like that rotating elk, rising columns of swirling water, swirling grass etc.? Swirling debris, fluids and sometimes elks are very strong trend in the data. Its not just one witness.

n.b.
I would much prefer to replace grapefruit with apple. Historically speaking, apple helped more to a study of gravity.

Sure, an apple propulsion system would work ;

I love those cases where the ufo field interacts with visible matter, like fluid – that stuff is a major clue to understand how these things work, imo. I’ve seen cases where a ufo close to the water produces a depression in the surface of the water, for example – a possible indication that a negative gravitoelectric field is exerting a force on the water.

Analyzing environmental effect cases can get complicated though, because water is also an electrical conductor, and it’s diamagnetic (repelled by a strong magnetic field) – so there are a number of ways that a powerful electromagnetic field can exert visible forces on water. So there’s no easy way to tell whether those water effects are electromagnetic or gravitational in nature.

But let’s say that a craft has a static positive gravitoelectric charge at the top, and a static negative gravitoelectric charge on the bottom – then it doesn’t even need to interact with matter at all - that would only be a by-product of the operation of the field. Because in that case, the craft is inside of a gravitational field gradient that can produce acceleration even in deep space, like the Alcubierre warp field concept. But honestly I don’t think that the Alcubierre concept is the *only* way to employ those dynamics (there’s no real need for a “warp shell,” all you really need is an artificially produced gravitoelectric field gradient).

Robert Forward looked at this analytically and creatively long before anyone else really jumped on board, so I highly recommend a look at all of his theoretical research papers - they're amazing. I recently found a real gem over at The Black Vault – his 1990 paper for the US Air Force called “21st Century Space Propulsion Study.” Here’s my favorite excerpt:

NEGATIVE MATTER PROPULSION

Negative matter is a hypothetical form of matter with negative gravitational, inertial, and rest mass. Negative matter is not antimatter, which as far as we know has positive gravitational, inertial, and rest mass. Negative matter should not exist, for if it did, it would be possible to build propulsion systems that would produce an unlimited amount of unidirectional acceleration without the expenditure of energy or reaction mass, and free energy machines that would provide unlimited amounts of mechanical energy.

The PI studied the concept of negative matter in extensive detail and found that despite its amazing propulsion properties, the concept of negative matter seems to violate no law of physics. A system involving equal amounts of positive and negative matter can produce a nearly unlimited amount of energy and momentum in the positive matter object, because the negative matter object is gaining an equal but opposite amount of negative energy and momentum at the same time.

A lengthy (70 page) paper discussing these nearly unbelievable study results was prepared. Copies of the papers plus personal letters were sent to some twenty renowned scientists who had previously written papers on negative matter, or who were expert in the field of gravitation, astronomy, or exotic particle physics to insure that the scientific background for this unconventional paper was as solid as possible. No objections were made to the paper as written. A shortened version of the paper was published in the January/February 1990 issue of the AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.-2 At the end of the paper, the PI makes some suggestions for further research into this very exotic, high risk, high payoff field.

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/space/a229279.pdf

A more rigorous paper on this subject can be found here:
“Negative matter propulsion," Robert L. Forward, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1990), pp. 28-37.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

This subject is a wonderfully challenging problem in theoretical physics. And I love a good riddle, so I’m grateful for it. But for those who just want the answer, it’s very frustrating, because we don’t have the answer yet. On the other hand, the first person to crack this puzzle will get to change the world, and throw open the doors to manned interstellar spaceflight.

 

[DROBNJAK]

@Thomas, I am really grateful for the enormous effort that you are putting in to explain this.

But I am only about 80% persuaded. You are still not explaining the attraction and the rotation of the objects suspended under UFOs, like derbies, water, grass and elks. Granted there are other fields, but magnetic field, same as gravitomagnetic field, would not cause swirling and rotation of objects filled with water like grass and elks. There is a mystery for you ...

I know that general relativity in a week field mode has the same equations as electrodynamics. But it is 100% certain that UFOs are not messing up in the weak field regime. They are certainly in a nonlinear strong field regime, where laws of conservation of energy and momentum don't apply anymore (at least in a straightforward way) .

Now we know, from data, that there is gigantic slow pulsating magnetic field in the vicinity of the craft. Slow pulsating magnetic field causes humans and mammals to become paralised, because it is messing up transmission of information between the brain and muscles. As well there is polarization of light around the craft because of the Faraday's effect. Most likely magnetic field is the reason why petrol engines cut out. Etc. etc.

Electrostatic field seems to be relatively weak, because I never read about a case where long sparks are seen, only a glow. And UFOs have sharp edges, like a rim, which should produce sparks. Its actually even quite rare that witnesses report that their hair was standing on ends.

We know that on the underside of UFOs there is a strong attractive field. The best example is Mansfield, Ohio Coyne case where helicopter with 4 crew members was pulled up 1,800ft (600m):

Mansfield, Ohio Coyne case​

As well there are many other cases where smaller cars were lifted few feet off the road etc. But it was never reported that these cars had a tendency to start spinning about vertical axis.

Case of Knowles family, Australia​

Hmmm, its just the question what field is doing pulling up from under the UFOs. It seems that dry leaves and gravel don't get affected, its always either metals (even non-magnetic like aluminum) or watery stuff like humans and animals???

In the Stephen Michalak case, just before UFO landed on a rock, all the moss and small debris were cleared up in swirling motion. That happened just in a central area about 1/3 of the craft's diameter.

That elk case, from Washington state, that I mentioned above had two witnesses confirm that as UFO lifted the elk, UFO's apparent size increased. That would be very consistent with energy transfer from UFO to elk.

This is unconfirmed (just two observations of mine) but it seems that UFOs are using lots of waveguides. Now some say, like Bob Lazar, that these gravitational waves are passing through these waveguides. I find that strange, because we know that gravitation is passing through matter without any change. Is it possible that gravitomagnetic waves would reflect of a sides of a tube?

We know that UFOs are doing phase shifting like crazy. Like with phase arrays.

 

[the_great_attractor]

This has been a really interesting read so far and im very impressed how much knowledge some of you have on the topic!
But where do "we" stand on the antigravity?
Did Germany have any research going on under ww2 and did the US continue the work from the 1950 and later? Greenglow?
Maybe US allready have some sort of antigravity propulsion, but we never will know.
Or if a major breaktrough happens in the future within the walls of NASA or any private company/researcher we probably can be sure that some department of US goverment will pick it up and hide it from you and me..
Its highly depressing.

 

[DROBNJAK]

@Thomas R Morrison Would this work in GR?

This might be explanation why elks and water columns are rotating.

UFO are using AC gravitomagnetic fields (alternating), not DC (static) fields. Like Tesla vs Edison ;-). Data, from multiple sources, shows that UFOs are using oscillating EM fields with low frequency carrier wave. Its a guess, but oscillating EM fields might be yielding oscillating gravitomagnetic field.

Now we know that we can use EM field as a modeling reference. We know that a piece of non-ferrous metal (Copper, Aluminum) is electrically neutral and can't be pushed or pulled by a static magnetic field. Except if we use oscillating AC magnetic field. Than we get eddie currents inside the electrically conductive, but electrically neutral material. So, from EM analogy, if they are using AC gravitomagnetic fields, than they are creating gravitomagnetic eddie currents and than they can push and pull gravitostatically neutral objects.

And because GR equations are EM equations in the revers, we just multiply the force with (-1), so we get eddie currents pull in GR, instead of eddie currents push in EM.

Thomas, what is General Relativity saying? Can AC gravitomagnetic field produce gravitomagnetic eddie currents in a neutral matter?

Nobel prize please ;-) !

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

@Thomas I am really grateful for the enormous effort that you are putting in to explain this.

You’re welcome DROBNJAK – I love this subject, and I’m always happy to share what I’ve learned.

But I am only about 80% persuaded.

I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. I can only describe what we know about physics, and explain how that may apply to this exciting yet perplexing riddle. Hopefully if enough of us understand the physics well enough, one of us will arrive at a practical and applicable concept.

You are still not explaining the attraction and the rotation of the objects suspended under UFOs, like derbies, water, grass and elks. Granted there are other fields, but magnetic field, same as gravitomagnetic field, would not cause swirling and rotation of objects filled with water like grass and elks. There is a mystery for you ...

Actually both of those fields can induce rotation, like we’ve seen in some of those water cases. Gravitomagnetic fields *are* spin fields. And water – especially seawater, is conductive, so electromagnetic fields can induce motion in water. Check out “magnetohydrodynamics.”

Objects rotating in mid-air shouldn’t be surprising – imagine that you’re caught in some kind of gravitational beam that’s lifting you off the ground: you’re in free-fall, and there’s nothing to stabilize you, so you’d rotate freely, like the astronauts in orbit if they don’t grab onto something.

We can apply what we know about physical principles to glean some level of insight into some of these questions. But we have to parse the data very carefully, and bear in mind this very pertinent fact: it appears that we’re dealing with a technology that’s many millennia ahead of present human technology and science. So while I have a reasonable level of hope that we may be able to figure out the most basic performance characteristic of these devices – the fundamental nature of their propulsion principle, I think it’s realistic to assume that we can presently understand the full range of their technological capabilities.

I know that general relativity in a week field mode has the same equations as electrodynamics. But it is 100% certain that UFOs are not messing up in the weak field regime. They are certainly in a nonlinear strong field regime, where laws of conservation of energy and momentum don't apply anymore (at least in a straightforward way).

The nonlinear effects of gravitation only apply to the magnitude of the effects: it doesn’t alter their fundamental characteristics, like the conservation of energy and momentum.

Only the metric expansion of spacetime that we see with the cosmological constant, and ideas like the Alcubierre warp field, appear to violate those laws *between* reference frames - but those laws still apply within each individual inertial reference frame.

Now we know, from data, that there is gigantic slow pulsating magnetic field in the vicinity of the craft. Slow pulsating magnetic field causes humans and mammals to become paralised, because it is messing up transmission of information between the brain and muscles. As well there is polarization of light around the craft because of the Faraday's effect. Most likely magnetic field is the reason why petrol engines cut out. Etc. etc.

Electrostatic field seems to be relatively weak, because I never read about a case where long sparks are seen, only a glow. And UFOs have sharp edges, like a rim, which should produce sparks. Its actually even quite rare that witnesses report that their hair was standing on ends.

We know that on the underside of UFOs there is a strong attractive field. The best example is Mansfield, Ohio Coyne case where helicopter with 4 crew members was pulled up 1,800ft (600m):

Mnh…you’re making a lot of claims and assumptions based on cases that I’m not familiar with, so I have no idea how valid they may or may not be. If a ufo can lift an elk, that’s not a magnetic effect, so whatever made that helicopter rise up may not be magnetic either. And a rapidly oscillating electrical charge can ionize the air and make it glow without producing a spark. In any case we don’t know which aspects are a result of the propulsion field, and which may be a by-product of the energy system, and which may be a directed beam of some kind, like a tractor beam (which we’ve produced in the lab at a small scale).

Hopefully Chris will get some proper scientific measurements of these field effects: if we can correlate specific field effects with a variety of cases and their real-time performance, we could probably make significant progress on these questions.

As well there are many other cases where smaller cars were lifted few feet off the road etc. But it was never reported that these cars had a tendency to start spinning about vertical axis.

Hmmm, its just the question what field is doing pulling up from under the UFOs. It seems that dry leaves and gravel don't get affected, its always either metals (even non-magnetic like aluminum) or watery stuff like humans and animals???

Yeah we may be seeing some kind of energy beam effect here, which we have no experience with. I hope to perform some experiments in this direction by the end of the year; I’ll let you know if I detect anything interesting.

Theoretically, matter should be repelled underneath these craft (and iirc, Paul Hill observed exactly that) – but there are many indications that they employ some kind of force beam in addition to their propulsion field. A collimated gravitoelectric beam, for example, could lift elk and cars and people and whatnot.

In the Stephen Michalak case, just before UFO landed on a rock, all the moss and small debris were cleared up in swirling motion. That happened just in a central area about 1/3 of the craft's diameter.

It’s quite possible that these objects have spinning surfaces – it’s very difficult to tell if a disc is rotating around its axis. Or this could be an indication of a gravitomagnetic field – a sufficiently intense gravitomagnetic field could spin you around like Dorothy in a tornado.

That elk case, from Washington state, that I mentioned above had two witnesses confirm that as UFO lifted the elk, UFO's apparent size increased. That would be very consistent with energy transfer from UFO to elk.

? See, this is what I mean when I say that in many respects we’re completely out of our depth trying to analyze some of these observations. Cases where these things change size, shape, or even break into many smaller objects and then merge again – these kinds of capabilities are so far beyond our understanding that I don’t even know where to begin to make sense of them.

We’re like a cave man trying to figure out a stealth bomber. There are some recent developments in the area of engineering the quantum wavefunction of materials to create totally nonclassical exotic effects, but we really haven’t even taken our first baby steps in that direction yet. But a 30ft object engineered in such a manner could very well produce phenomena that would absolutely boggle the squishy human monkey brain.

This is unconfirmed (just two observations of mine) but it seems that UFOs are using lots of waveguides. Now some say, like Bob Lazar, that these gravitational waves are passing through these waveguides. I find that strange, because we know that gravitation is passing through matter without any change. Is it possible that gravitomagnetic waves would reflect of a sides of a tube?

Well, we thought that magnetic fields penetrated through pretty much everything, until we discovered the Meissner effect with superconductors in 1933, so I suppose it’s possible. Without a quantum theory of gravity we’re really groping in the dark on many questions like this; it’s quite frustrating.

But honestly I think that the ufo aspect of Lazar’s story is pure fiction. I think I explained my view of that case earlier in this thread. I prefer to look for correlations between independent observers who don’t have a demonstrable track record of lying about themselves, like Lazar lied about his education.

We know that UFOs are doing phase shifting like crazy. Like with phase arrays.

I just have no idea what you’re talking about here. A phased array is a pretty simple type of multidirectional antenna. It’s interesting to consider how that might work with gravitational waves, or heck, even powerful EM radiation. In this field of inquiry we tend to overlook the simple fact that photons carry momentum, because at our level of technology we can’t produce a flashlight powerful enough to propel itself. But that is possible, if you have a very powerful source of energy, which presumably these craft possess. And a phased array would be a great way to steer a device propelled by EM radiation. There’s an interesting new interpretation of special relativity in Daniel Fry’s books, that raises some fascinating questions about the true potential of such an idea.

This has been a really interesting read so far and im very impressed how much knowledge some of you have on the topic!
But where do "we" stand on the antigravity?
Did Germany have any research going on under ww2 and did the US continue the work from the 1950 and later? Greenglow?
Maybe US allready have some sort of antigravity propulsion, but we never will know.
Or if a major breaktrough happens in the future within the walls of NASA or any private company/researcher we probably can be sure that some department of US goverment will pick it up and hide it from you and me..
Its highly depressing.

Don’t be depressed, the_great_attractor! We’re advancing every year, and there are countless physicists around the world who are fairly obsessed with this topic, though they usually have to be very careful about how they discuss it.

Author and aerospace journalist Nick Cook seems to think that the Nazi’s were making progress in this area, but I’m very doubtful that Nazi Germany made any progress, because it’s 2017 and not even our Nobel laureates have succeeded in creating any kind of observable gravitational field effect in the lab (though I did see an interesting proposal for a viable experiment that would entail a significant dollar investment to construct, about a year or two ago).

I strongly suspect that the US military has made significant advancements in the area of field propulsion. That doesn’t necessarily mean gravitational field propulsion, but something very useful. Richard Dolan showed some video footage that he took with an infrared camera through a telescope, of what appeared to be advanced military hardware zooming around in the upper atmosphere. I’ve never stopped contemplating that – it’s in one of his video lectures on YouTube. Those craft don’t execute the kinds of very distinctive high-speed hairpin maneuvers that many of us have seen with ufo sightings, so I’m guessing it’s not gravitational field propulsion. But it’s not rocket propulsion, or anything else that we “little people” know about here in the public sector. So they’re holding back something really interesting from us.

And I’ve stumbled across a number of hints that the defense industry has made significant discoveries in the area of gravitational field manipulation. But there’s no penetrating the wall of secrecy. Laymen think that it’s impossible to hide such a huge discovery, but those people have no idea how powerful and terrifying the edifice of government security really is. This isn’t 1940 anymore. The defense industry has been expanding and honing their security apparatus, with a virtually unlimited budget, for many decades. Let me put it this way: when was the last time you saw a document classified at the Special Access Program level? Never, that’s when. The public never gets to see Special Access Program intelligence – which would be the minimum level of classification for breakthrough propulsion, munitions, and energy technologies. And that’s not even the highest level of classification.

NASA is actually conducting some woefully underfunded experimental research into warp field propulsion right now, actually – and that stuff is public. If they succeed, we’ll definitely hear about it, because it was born in the public sector. They don’t try to cover up research in the public eye – I haven’t seen a single case where that has happened. I think it’s enough for them to be >35 years ahead of us, technologically – they don’t need to slow us down to maintain their edge.

There’s a really good BBC special about Project Greenglow; it seems that the project has been shut down, but the show touches on one of my favorite theoretical concepts advanced by CERN physicist Dragan Hajdukovic, that *might* break the field wide open:
Project Greenglow and the battle with gravity - BBC News

Meanwhile, lots of physicists around the world are looking for a breakthrough, but nobody in the public sector has made one yet.

@Thomas R Morrison Would this work in GR?

[snip]

Now we know that we can use EM field as a modeling reference. We know that a piece of non-ferrous metal (Copper, Aluminum) is electrically neutral and can't be pushed or pulled by a static magnetic field. Except if we use oscillating AC magnetic field. Than we get eddie currents inside the electrically conductive, but electrically neutral material. So, from EM analogy, if they are using AC gravitomagnetic fields, than they are creating gravitomagnetic eddie currents and than they can push and pull gravitostatically neutral objects.

And because GR equations are EM equations in the revers, we just multiply the force with (-1), so we get eddie currents pull in GR, instead of eddie currents push in EM.

Thomas, what is General Relativity saying? Can AC gravitomagnetic field produce gravitomagnetic eddie currents in a neutral matter?

Nobel prize please ;-) !

Now you’re thinking like a physicist ; But hold on to your prize shelf there, Feynman – you’re missing some key details here.

There is actually a gravitoelectromagnetic analogue to the Lenz law effect that you’re talking about – it’s been elucidated in great detail in the academic literature.

But here’s the thing. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you have some wonderful ferrogravitomagnetic material that lets you Vastly amplify the gravitomagnetic field, so you don’t need a device a mile in circumference with coils the width of a football field, containing flowing neutronium at relativistic speeds, just to lift your apple. And let’s say that you can oscillate this gravitomagnetic field at high frequency and amplitude.

The reason the Lenz law works with conductors is because the charges in the metal are free to move. And when they move, they establish a field that’s in opposition to the changing magnetic field, so you have a force between the oscillating magnet and the conductor.

So if you could generate a rapidly oscillating and powerful gravitomagnetic field via ferrogravitomagnetic field amplification, that wouldn’t confer those advantages to the ordinary low-density and bound matter around you, like the Earth. So the coupling between your field, and the Earth, would be insignificant; the Earth wouldn’t produce the necessary opposition field in response to your device. It would probably work pretty well close to a neutron star, where the degenerate matter is in a superfluid state – then you could induce a gravitomagnetic field to react with. But the Earth isn’t neutronium, and even the oceans – where at least the matter can flow in response to a field like that, aren’t dense enough to produce an observable force.

And then there’s the problem of the force law: dipolar field interactions diminish with the inverse cube law. So even if you were orbiting a neutron star, the repulsion wouldn’t be very useful. You could “bounce” away from it, but you wouldn’t have any active propulsion field after that, so you’d never get close to the speed of light. Unless you could somehow collimate the gravitomagnetic field like a laser. But even then (if that’s possible) you could never accelerate to speeds above C, because a field interaction can never propel you faster than the field’s propagation speed, which is C.

So no, the key to the kingdom requires something altogether different, but conceptually simple. We need a positive static or quasistatic gravitoelectric charge on one side of the craft, and a negative gravitoelectric charge on the other side of the craft. That configuration gives you theoretically limitless acceleration, with no fundamental expenditure of energy (beyond charging the field in the first place) – opening the portal to the stars for all of humankind for all time.

And the daunting problem of producing a negative gravitoelectric charge has dramatically shifted in the last 20 years – it’s no longer safe to say that a negative gravitational field effect is a starry-eyed impossibility, because the universe is doing it right now. That’s what “dark energy” is – a physical manifestation of a negative gravitational field. Can we harness it and amplify it?

Ufo’s appear to be doing exactly that. So it can be done. We just need the one thing that every physicist and astrophysicist on the planet wants to know: the correct theoretical understanding of dark energy. Which probably rests with a quantum field theory of gravitation.

Figure that out, and I’ll deliver your Nobel Prize personally, betwixt a pair of lovely Danish girls and bearing a case of your favorite champagne ;

 

[DROBNJAK]

Actually both of those fields can induce rotation, like we’ve seen in some of those water cases. Gravitomagnetic fields *are* spin fields. And water – especially seawater, is conductive, so electromagnetic fields can induce motion in water. Check out “magnetohydrodynamics.”

Just because something is a "spin" field doesn't mean it will automatically produce mechanical rotation. There is a need for a special artificial arrangements etc. As we discussed the two "spin" fields we know gravitomagnetic and magnetic don't automatically rotate ordinary matter.

Objects rotating in mid-air shouldn’t be surprising – imagine that you’re caught in some kind of gravitational beam that’s lifting you off the ground: you’re in free-fall, and there’s nothing to stabilize you, so you’d rotate freely, like the astronauts in orbit if they don’t grab onto something.

That makes sense, that elk was weightless while suspended (in a free fall, as you say) could had been simply rotated by wind. But generally, from various UFO cases, we have lots of spining. So I would say it is a significan clue, which needs more work.

Just a question about gravitomagnetic eddie currents: If gravitomagnetic field wouldn't produce eddie currents in solids, would it produce eddie currents in liquids? In a liquid every molecule is gravitational charge and its able to move.

We can apply what we know about physical principles to glean some level of insight into some of these questions. But we have to parse the data very carefully, and bear in mind this very pertinent fact: it appears that we’re dealing with a technology that’s many millennia ahead of present human technology and science. So while I have a reasonable level of hope that we may be able to figure out the most basic performance characteristic of these devices – the fundamental nature of their propulsion principle, I think it’s realistic to assume that we can presently understand the full range of their technological capabilities.

I wuld agree. If our technology is not up to their level, our thoretical knowledge should be far ahead enough for us to explain all the observed physical effects. That's where we should focus. Most likely that GR could lift at least 80% of UFO's vails. I made (in my head) all this big list of obseved UFO physical effects, but its frustrating, because I am again stuck, only on a higher level.

The nonlinear effects of gravitation only apply to the magnitude of the effects: it doesn’t alter their fundamental characteristics, like the conservation of energy and momentum.

Only the metric expansion of spacetime that we see with the cosmological constant, and ideas like the Alcubierre warp field, appear to violate those laws *between* reference frames - but those laws still apply within each individual inertial reference frame.

Thanks for the clarification. That will be usefull in future.

Mnh…you’re making a lot of claims and assumptions based on cases that I’m not familiar with, so I have no idea how valid they may or may not be.

Mansfield, Ohio Coyne case is a gold standard case, certainly one of top 3. Four on duty military pilots in helicopter, plus about six independant witnesses on the ground, all described the same event.

Knowles family from Australia, maybe not in top 10, but yet physical effects from their case are very consistent with other similar cases. In Betty Hill case car was, also, lifted off the ground. My method mostly relies on cross-confirmation of physical effect accross multiple less reliable cases. Like a statistical significance, although far from it. We have to work with what we have.

If a ufo can lift an elk, that’s not a magnetic effect, so whatever made that helicopter rise up may not be magnetic either.

My working hypothesis is that they are not doing anything special, like beams. Simply their propulsion is producing attraction towards the craft on the objects bellow the hull and repulsion on the objects above the craft. Just based on witness obsevations and behaviour of loose material and air. That would, for example, explain why there is no sonic boom. Now I am trying to figure out which fields are doing that.

But can you model this just with EM & GR?

And a rapidly oscillating electrical charge can ionize the air and make it glow without producing a spark.

REALLY? I just this week bought a plasma ball to try to figure out how to get glow, without sparks. So I am on a good track. Can you please tell me where can I read more on how oscillating electric field can produce only the glow. I only know Tesla coils and they spark a lot.

One question, can one ionize air with just magnetic field, no electric?

In multiple cases you have plasma glow move in this sequence: yellow > orange > red > indigo color. I checked on Wikipedia and these are the exact emission lines fron Nitrogen in the air. Indigo color is from Hydrogen, if air has lots of moisture, like above the sea or on land after a rain. Practically, as if UFOs are shifting through gears. 1st gear pale yellow, 2nd gear orange, 3rd gear red, 4th gear indigo. Pilot Graham Bethune observed and described the whole sequence. While orange glow is the most prevelent, there is even a book just about orange UFOs.

If we can reverse engineer energy levels for these Nitrogen and Hydrogen levels we can get insight into how strong their propulsion is. Actually, exactly that had been done by electrical engineer in MUFON case #74,282. He watched UFO and than calculated from indigo colored emission that an unusual dumbbell UFO (like two disks, joined together) was spending 155.0 MW of energy. That would be 155.0/2 = 77.5 MW for "ordinary" single-disc UFO. That's obviously energy spent on "glow", not on propulsion or just hovering. But we are inching forward on them ;-).

Site "The Physics Factbook" tells us that a typical electrical railroad locomotive has power output of about 4.5 - 5.2MW, call it 4.8MW. Comparing the double bell UFO to and average electric locomotive, this double bell UFO is using about 155/4.8 = 32.3 times more power, just on Hydrogen's indigo glow. This "double bell" UFO is quite rare kind. More typical "single bell" or lenticular disc UFO would than use approximately half as much power, just on Indigo glow, or an estimated 32.3/2 = 16.2 times more power than an average electrical locomotive. So its not like they have a Hoover dam under the bonnet. These are reasonable levels of energy.

Physicist Robert Hanrahan stands between some NERVA fision reactors, for size comparison.

From the above photo onc can see that one of these NERVA reactors can easily fit inside standard 30ft/20tons UFO. It turns out that UFO's energy requirements are of the same order of magnitude that these reactors can provide. If we use an electrical railroad locomotive at 4.8MW as unit of measurement, than Kiwi A, with 70 MW can drive 14.5 locomotives and Phoebus 1A 1,090 MW can supply 227 locomotives.

Going back to dual bell UFO from the MUFON case #74,282, cold war's NERVA Phoebus nuclear reactor would produce 1,100 MW / 155 MW = 7.0 more power output than the double bell UFO, or 14.0 times more than a typical single-disc lenticular UFO. NERVA Phoebus nuclear reactor is about 12ft (4m) tall and it can easily fit into 30ft (10m) diameter UFO. Please check photo above. While NERVA Phoebus was just burning hydrogen fuel without converting that energy to electircal current, still NERVA Phoebus reactor was producing 7 times more energy that dual bell UFO was spending on Hydrogen plasma glow. Even with 70% power conversion loss, there will be 2.1 6) times more electromagnetic energy left than what was needed to power the indigo plasma in the MUFON case #74,282 UFO.

Max Plank institute has a hot cathode that's converting heat to electricity at 60%. So above estimate is on conservative side.

What I am implying is that from the above rough estimate, an average fission mini-nuclear reactor can provide enough energy to hover a standard single-disc 30ft/20 tons UFO. ;-)

By the way, ufologist Stanton Friedman, who was nuclear physicist, worked on NERVA project reactors.

Max Plank Institute's 60% efficient hot cathode.

I actually wrote a whole article about these UFO power requirement estimates, just don't know what to do with it ;-).

@Thomas R Morrison: It would be possibly interesting if you can calculate energies, in MW, for yellow, orange and red glow for a whole craft, like an average 30ft dia, 20 tons UFO? That way we can get some ideas about the energy UFOs use to move in different modes of flight. I guess that lot more energy is needed to excite Hydrogen's indigo glow, than Nitrogen's pale yellow glow.

As well we know their masses (from soil inundations), speeds and accelerations, because in various cases, they'd been clocked by military radars. From that we can calculate energy requirement for their propulsion. Than we go back to NERVA project and pick a reactor that fits the bill and BINGO!, we are flying ;-)

In any case we don’t know which aspects are a result of the propulsion field, and which may be a by-product of the energy system, and which may be a directed beam of some kind, like a tractor beam (which we’ve produced in the lab at a small scale).

If we just keep on working, we'll eventually disambiguate that part. We just need to lay down stepping stones, one by one, on the path towards that goal. It would be nice to pull together all the witness testimonies with physical effects into one place, so its easier to study them.

Hopefully Chris will get some proper scientific measurements of these field effects: if we can correlate specific field effects with a variety of cases and their real-time performance, we could probably make significant progress on these questions.

Can you please clarify? Are you talking about the data Ray Stamford collected or something else? Please cut me in, if Chris gets something out of Ray. I only have small slices of Ray's data.

Yeah we may be seeing some kind of energy beam effect here, which we have no experience with. I hope to perform some experiments in this direction by the end of the year; I’ll let you know if I detect anything interesting. ... Theoretically, matter should be repelled underneath these craft (and iirc, Paul Hill observed exactly that) – but there are many indications that they employ some kind of force beam in addition to their propulsion field. A collimated gravitoelectric beam, for example, could lift elk and cars and people and whatnot.

Hmmmm, I remember that case from Paul Hill's book, where car windshield broke down when UFO took off. That seemed like a push. But when water columns are rising and cars are lifted off the road that's pull. So maybe Paul Hill's interpretation was wrong, maybe windshield broke because it was pulled out? I think that in the most cases these liftings are side effect of the propulsion, not really deliberate acts.

Problem with Paul Hill was that he was a mechanical engineer, with almost no knowledge of EM and GR. So his analysis was unproductively biased towards his professional knowledge. Generally, that is a problem with specialists. One can't get their head out of the box.

There was actually a case, where one woman and 2-3 aliens were lifted through a window of a high rise building near Hudson bridge in New York, and there were about a dozen witnesses. But book was written in a such a way that one can't tell if it was a fiction or report from a real event.

It’s quite possible that these objects have spinning surfaces – it’s very difficult to tell if a disc is rotating around its axis. Or this could be an indication of a gravitomagnetic field – a sufficiently intense gravitomagnetic field could spin you around like Dorothy in a tornado.

I personally don't remember a single case where an underside outer part of the UFO was spinning separately from the rest of the craft. From sounds produced by UFOs it is quite likely that something on inside spins. Spinning of the craft as a whole is reported much more often. But that's 50%/50%, there is an equal number of cases where crafts were not spinning. There is one group of UFO craft, that has spinning vertical gratings around the rim. They range in size from "standard" 30ft to like 1,500ft (500m) in diameter ;-)

There are some recent developments in the area of engineering the quantum wavefunction of materials to create totally nonclassical exotic effects, but we really haven’t even taken our first baby steps in that direction yet. But a 30ft object engineered in such a manner could very well produce phenomena that we ...

UFOs do really appear as if they are completely made from nano-materials. Like a whole 30ft hull is made of a single piece nano-material, which we currently can only assembly atom by atom.

See, this is what I mean when I say that in many respects we’re completely out of our depth trying to analyze some of these observations. Cases where these things change size, shape, or even break into many smaller objects and then merge again – these kinds of capabilities are so far beyond our understanding that I don’t even know where to begin to make sense of them.uld absolutely boggle the squishy human monkey brain.

I don't think they know much more theory than we do. Its just that they've been around longer than us and their engineering is better. I think we can figure them out, if we keep on working.

I just have no idea what you’re talking about here. A phased array is a pretty simple type of multidirectional antenna. It’s interesting to consider how that might work with gravitational waves, or heck, even powerful EM radiation. In this field of inquiry we tend to overlook the simple fact that photons carry momentum, because at our level of technology we can’t produce a flashlight powerful enough to propel itself. But that is possible, if you have a very powerful source of energy, which presumably these craft possess. And a phased array would be a great way to steer a device propelled by EM radiation. There’s an interesting new interpretation of special relativity in Daniel Fry’s books, that raises some fascinating questions about the true potential of such an idea.

The way I understand phase arrays, is like when sail-boats are moving against the wind. One has only pushing force, he can (somehow) create pulling force. Is that right?

And I’ve stumbled across a number of hints that the defense industry has made significant discoveries in the area of gravitational field manipulation. But there’s no penetrating the wall of secrecy. Laymen think that it’s impossible to hide such a huge discovery, but those people have no idea how powerful and terrifying the edifice of government security really is. This isn’t 1940 anymore. The defense industry has been expanding and honing their security apparatus, with a virtually unlimited budget, for many decades. Let me put it this way: when was the last time you saw a document classified at the Special Access Program level? Never, that’s when. The public never gets to see Special Access Program intelligence – which would be the minimum level of classification for breakthrough propulsion, munitions, and energy technologies. And that’s not even the highest level of classification.

I have a collection of such a hints as well. Do you want to do exchange ;-) ?

There’s a really good BBC special about Project Greenglow; it seems that the project has been shut down, but the show touches on one of my favorite theoretical concepts advanced by CERN physicist Dragan Hajdukovic, that *might* break the field wide open: Project Greenglow and the battle with gravity - BBC News

Hajducovic is from Montenegro. Same as myself. That mountain in my avitar photo, is in Montenegro, its called Durmitor.

And the daunting problem of producing a negative gravitoelectric charge has dramatically shifted in the last 20 years – it’s no longer safe to say that a negative gravitational field effect is a starry-eyed impossibility, because the universe is doing it right now. That’s what “dark energy” is – a physical manifestation of a negative gravitational field. Can we harness it and amplify it?

The way I understand it, there is a standard space-time, somewhere far away from any galaxy. But one can have lower and higher curved space-time. So when you have higher curved space-time, near Earth or Sun, you get gravitational attraction and when you have lower curved space-time, in inter-galactic void, you get repulsion. Am I wrong here? No need for gravitons etc.

... Which probably rests with a quantum field theory of gravitation. ... Figure that out, and I’ll deliver your Nobel Prize personally, betwixt a pair of lovely Danish girls and bearing a case of your favorite champagne ;

Yeah, the best brains on Earth had been trying that over the last 100 years. They haven't moved forward even just one thou.

Re: Bob Lazar ...

One thing that people constantly fail to recognize about Lazar's physics is that he insisted that that was a theory that he was told. There was a handbook in the lab and he simply told to general public what was in it. On many occasions Bob openly stated, that it was the biggest mystery for him why he was chosen for the job, because he was not a scientist, he was an engineer by education. He himself even said that he didn't know enough to be of practical use to that team.

On other hand, scientific specialists, with verified Los Alamos credentials, recently started coming out of woodwork and saying that they sat with Bob on Los Alamos meetings where scientific matters were discussed. That guy confirmed his name, but few other didn't want to give names, but they've said they knew him from the lab.

Lets not forget that Bob Lazar was the first man who made a tangible scientific prediction from study of UFOs. He was the first to predict existence of the element 115 and at a time scientists openly laughed at him. Making scientific prediction that became true, has more weight than endlessly spinning conspiracy theories by futile digging info. from government archives. None of the greats, like Friedman, Vale, Grier, Linda etc. came even close to anything similar.

As well, he is the first one who pointed out that UFOs are surrounded by toroidal field that has a long spike extending bellow the craft. That spike extension is exactly what we see in water columns, loose derbies etc. Actually, the whole this thread is about the effect of that spike bellow the craft and the dipole torus.

And to top it off, Lazar said the exact frequency of the carrier wave I talked above and that frequency was exactly the same as the one Ray Stamford measured with his suite of instruments.

Lazar contributed three cross-validated physical data points, one scientifically confirmed. He's only second to Ray Stamford.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Having to listen to the a number of paranormal/ science shows which focus on the open mind theories of some type of narrative being projected at humanity by some forces and don't go in the true believers camp. Seems the above organisation was set up in good faith by some members and was hijacked due to impact of eyewitness coming in contact with top secret covert allied advance technology by mistake and it's ballooned into a ongoing business for many authors who do make a buck or why bother keeping the UFO field alive. No doubt they cracked anti-gravity tech it might be the Chinese, Israel's , French ,Russian or in my thinking of commonwealth group connected to Tibetan/ India..

Not ignoring the reality of very possible intelligent life forms which not being told and most likely to fighting to reveal (Professor Stephen Hawking hypothesis) and the late research John Keel . Not everyone has a uniform and many of these 1950s board members had access to security clearness not kept in filing cabinet or academic/ technical skills kept on circuit that's why they call them covert projects. Mr Pope knows and agree with Don's observations and others in this field. Also the fact folks go missing and the connection to military is a concern. The above organisation was most likely infiltrated for genuine reasons the Cold War and other conflicts. I reckon there is other intelligent life forms (whatever they are) in our solar system and beyond even if our science community is trapped in web of control. Not interested in all the tin foil hat BS rather the truth and facts. Like the great debate of journalist Graham Hancock on another radio show and ongoing shutters put up against him by the controlled science community which fear its chains of control being loosened by open mind science to look at the evidence prepared to listen not ridicule. On the matter of eyewitness like Don says need to check all bases and what is gained from them speaking, Like the individual in South Australia how do you know it's legitimate and even having others discuss it prior can be prepared like a politician's speech. Looking at historically speaking "the Japanese POWs story" at Roswell by Nick would not cause such a cover up rather the use of disabled folks would or was it as Nick Redfern says a "Covert Agenda". Mind you horrid actions during and after WW2 was not just occured in USA so folks seeing the Holocaust images which did go around the world news cinemas so many of the Roswell nurses, servicemen and civilians would have seen these images of children in those horrid death camps.