How do we into

anti-grav and more importantly anti-mass?

For obvious reasons

Other urls found in this thread:

keelynet.com/greb/greb.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=qT72yTGSIUA
youtube.com/watch?v=mGuiGy1StGg
youtube.com/watch?v=VXTf5esrJBw
youtube.com/watch?v=cEd0nmdqhks
youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_s28wIOzQ
archive.is/OKL0N
projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/antigravity.php#id--Paragravity--Robert_Forward
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19800010907
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No, you need to somehow... Get powergrid working right... For solar energy for example....

give this a read and judge for yourself

keelynet.com/greb/greb.htm

I still have no idea what to make out of it because I really want it to be true.

...

kek. you should add a tinfoil hat and a joint in his hand

The answer is Ununpentium ;^)

i'm not asking /x/ if it exists even though it probably does

i'm asking Veeky Forums how we can conceivably do it

>i'm asking Veeky Forums how we can conceivably do it

The standard model of the universe says there is a small chance that graviton particles exist and string theory strongly suggests it. That is as far was get have gotten on anti gravity in science sadly

Isn't string theory and quantum mechanics all just maths based of assumptions and shit like that?

>Isn't string theory and quantum mechanics all just maths based of assumptions and shit like that?

Yes, but the math is pretty solid

what about the issue with the compton wave

and the fact that its all based off newtonian laws and einsteins theories that could possibly be wrong?

"Viktor Stepanovich Grebennikov is a naturalist..."
Stopped reading there.

>we
Fuck off
>inb4 "durr phd at MIT"

Quantum mechanics was based on empirical observations telling everyone you need a wave/particle theory with quantized observables--Schroedinger's equation was a reasonable attempt at what such a wave/particle should be governed by.

String theory is more of a model of how to build fundamental physical theories, like QFT (Quantum Field Theory), with a different quantized object (strings vs fields). String theory yields applications in relating seemingly unrelated theories and studying the possible structures of classical/quantum theories from a different perspective. The hopeful idea that string theory *was* the theoretical structure of the universe isn't as touted as it was a few decades ago.

You can easily look this stuff up, my friend, and I encourage you to do it. Skepticism is healthy, but randomly disliking things you don't understand without making an attempt to inform yourself doesn't really help anyone.

>anti-grav and more importantly anti-mass?

There's no known mechanisms that would make it possible to generate or emulate anti-gravity or anti-mass. Nobody knows if it's possible, or even has a reason to believe that it's possible, let alone how to start engineering something to do it.

youtube.com/watch?v=qT72yTGSIUA

youtube.com/watch?v=mGuiGy1StGg
youtube.com/watch?v=VXTf5esrJBw
youtube.com/watch?v=cEd0nmdqhks
ayy lmao

Fair enough i'll look into it.

What if you found something you believed could?

What about mass?

youtube.com/watch?v=Rr_s28wIOzQ

anyone got any spare anti-matter?

I believe anti-matter still has normal mass which means it still causes gravity.

...

>string theory

Ohh, nice. I've never seen that Lazar video.

lol
but whats so /x/ about GMO?

???

Whats with the /x/ cries?

It is pretty much one faggot who thinks he is a janitor and keeps spamming it everywhere

If you rotate any material fast enough (a superfluid is probably required for this), almost equal to the speed of light, frame dragging should cause spacetime to curl over on itself to make a closed loop. At which point, your mass is essentially cut off from the rest of the universe. Do with it as you will.

>Isn't string theory and quantum mechanics all just maths based of assumptions and shit like that?


thats literally 99% of science

friendly reminder that Entropy is a buzzword created by physicists who were butthurt about the laws of thermodynamics being purely empirical. we still have no idea why thermal energy works the way it does.

Well then how the fuck do i power the rotator to be that fast?

lol

>just randomness guys totally part of the theory

congratz you just proved that you will never be a scientist.

A ferromagnetic superfluid inside a torroid with large superconducting coils around it fired in quick succession around said torroid. Similar to tokamak fusion reactor except instead of light hydrogen and helium, you would want the superfluid to have as much mass as possible to increase the frame dragging effect.

But then its going to make it harder to spin what powers the spinner?

Nothing is spinning except for the superfluid. Look up tokamak fusion reactors. To simplify it further, think about how an AC motor works, a rotating magnetic field is created by simply energizing different parts of the stator field at different times. Nothing is moving except for the voltage/current, which produces movement in the armature. A superfluid flows with zero resistance, and a ferromagnetic superfluid would be attracted to magnetic fields created by enegized coils. You just need to enegize the coils in a circular pattern around the toroid (with an energized coil on the opposite side aswell to act as a counterbalance) and just slowly reduce the time delay between firing of successive coils until the distance between each coil divided by the time between each firing is very close or equal to c. The "spinner" would need insane amounts of energy yes but thats how you would do it. Since you are already essentially building a tokamak to achieve this the frame dragging "drive" may function as its own power source assuming we can ever get one to produce more energy than it consumes.

kek no. The frame dragging effect will be practically immeasurable before the whole assembly destroys itself. We don't have ferromagnetic superfluid. In addition, superfluid has a maximum critical flow before it stops being superfluid.

Superfluid helium 3 is magnetic, and is an excellent source of fusion reactor fuel. The assembly wont destroy itself if you achieve a proper magnetic containment field. Suspended by a magnetic field in a vacuum the superfluid really wont be flowing much, more like floating as a unit with small currents inside of said unit.

Holy fuck i just now realized i missed the "r" in eneRgized twice in this post. I need sleep.

##sci on webchat.freenode.net

we need more sci folks

I was going to post this PDF that has NASA openly admitting that flying saucers are real and that they think they may know how they work but they have taken it down from the NASA website. I wonder why? I am kicking myself for not downloading it.

I saved that pdf. It says they don't know what the workings of UFO's are, but they attempt to offer some explanations based on previously known factors like the workings in astronomic bodies like the sun and black holes.

Bottom line is in simple terms that;
-Space-time is just a projection of a higher dimension
-Gravity is represented in space-time
-Higher dimensional forms may have resonances as higher or lower harmonics of geometric em fields
-The lower harmonics could influence the higher dimensional structures
-Changing the harmonics with resonant fields could then be used to create an imbalance which the higher dimensional structure would seek to correct by moving the resonant field (with everything in it)

Cool! I was actually thinking of very similar concepts for explaining how UFOs do what they do.

You should upload the pdf onto some file share site.

Field Resonance Propulsion Concept (NASA) PDF
archive.is/OKL0N

- crawlbot

Give us the PDF or you only screenshotted the cover and you don't actually have it.

What's so /x/ about crystals? They're pretty standard as far as reality goes, it's just that they're bitches to make. Especially x-ray quality shit.

>-Space-time is just a projection of a higher dimension
It's usually the other way around, but OK, this isn't so controversial these days to suggest hidden dimensions.
>-Gravity is represented in space-time
Alright, so far so good.
>-Higher dimensional forms may have resonances as higher or lower harmonics of geometric em fields
Mmmm, this doesn't really mean anything. What exactly do you mean by resonances and harmonics and why are you specifically referring to an EM field--let's say the electromagnetic gauge field--as a geometric field? It can be, classically, introduced into a curved spacetime with no problem--do you just mean electromagnetism in curved spacetime?
>-The lower harmonics could influence the higher dimensional structures
This is also a pretty meaningless statement unless you clarify what the hell you're talking about with these 'resonance structures.'
>-Changing the harmonics with resonant fields could then be used to create an imbalance which the higher dimensional structure would seek to correct by moving the resonant field (with everything in it)
What the hell is a harmonic w/r/t a 'resonant field?' What do you mean an imbalance--in what? How does the 'higher dimensional structure' know to correct this 'imbalance' and how does 'moving the resonant field' accomplish this?

Less woo more physics, my friend. From a related paper by the beloved AC Holt
>...determine quantitative relationships between gravitational fields, magnetic and electric fields, and the basic structure of space-time
was not cutting edge at the time of publication, 80s, and seems to be concealing his lack of tangible methods by simply throwing off people without a physics background via some technical-sounding words. He's still employed, it seems, at a government agency. I wonder what he's up to there. Nothing in the papers I've seen on 'field-dependent propulsion' seems coherent or grounded in physics.

>>superfluid helium 3 is magnetic
you got a citation for that kiddo?
>>The assembly wont destroy itself if you achieve a proper magnetic containment field.
Sure and if we had 'proper' materials with 'proper' strength we wouldn't need superfluid helium and magnets. We could just use a bunch of disks made of adamantium to create the frame dragging.

>>Suspended by a magnetic field in a vacuum the superfluid really wont be flowing much
then why the fuck do you need a superfluid again?

frame dragging does not work that way.


You are probably thinking Robert L. Forward's frame dragging torus. If one has a torus of ultradense matter or a bunch of regular matter that rotates like a smoke ring, one can create a gravitational force in the center of the torus pointing through the torus.

One could use such a device to instantaneously accelerate any object without destroying said object, because forces would be applied uniformly to every atom in said object.

projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/antigravity.php#id--Paragravity--Robert_Forward

Ok i didnt see the word "magnetic exactly but this is essentially what im after.

>The most important potential advantage of this fusion reaction for power production as well as other applications lies in its compatibility with the use of electrostatic fields to control fuel ions and the fusion protons.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

We dont need some supernatural materials to build it. You know what magnetic confinement is? Yes there would still be some force exerted on the field generator but its much more manageble than you seem to think because the fuel wouldnt touch the walls in ideal situations. Which brings me to your last "counter arguement" minimizing resistance to fluid flow is what we are after here, ideally you wouldnt need it but its likely not going to always be ideal. I dont know how this would work in a conventional tokamak style reactor because a large component of being able to sustain fusion in said reactor is high heat. Superfluid helium 3 is denser but much colder, not saying ive done the math but near reletivistic speeds its likely to still fuse and the increased density will increase the frame dragging effect.

Lastly frame dragging does in fact "work like that". In the simplest terms i can explain it, frame dragging is the tendency of massive objects to "pull" space time with them as the move or rotate. It is predicted by Einstien's theory of relativity and has been experimentally confirmed. Note, it says massive objects. The closer to the speed of light you get your mass increases (mass dialation) and the frame dragging effect would increase exponentially for the last few percentage points towards c. The goal is to make a closed loop of space time by dragging it so far circularly that it comes back to meet where it started, giving you your own spacetime "bubble" in which you are always stationary.

I apologize in advance for all the spelling errors or unclear explanations for i am extermely tired.

Ok so how does this make you anti-grav or anti-mass?

It makes your mass effectively zero since any local curvature of spacetime would have no effect inside the "bubble". However, im not sure where the boundries of the bubble would form but hopefully it would be outside the radius of the machine or there would be problems.

Magnets.

>you got a citation for that kiddo?
it just is stupid reatrd i hope u dont get into physics, fucking american

Do you have a citation for this man being an American?

This is one of those few threads on /sci as they were meant to be, before all the engineers came

I don't think so, trust me, I'm an Engineer.

This is a fucking /x/ tier thread. It was /x/ tier from the very beginning. Shit, the 2nd post is a link to goddamn keelynet. There is not a single equation or calculation in this thread.

This is thread is cancer and failing to recognize it as such makes you cancer too.

It seems that ntrs.nasa.gov is currently down but the file ist now available at
archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19800010907
There's also a 'sanitized' conference version (AIAA-80-1233), UFO research removed.

Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness.

I have heard someone say that they believe that antimatter might gravitate differently from normal matter. This will be tested soon at CERN.

I'm of the opinion that gravity isn't a force as per the the current field theory, and that continuing failed attempts at shoehorning it in have retarded the subject greatly. AIUI the many-worlds interpretation requires gravity to be a quantum force.

If only they taught lateral thinking in schools. And still slapped children for being little shits.

That's something someone from /x/ would say.

You bore me. "Fuck the hypothetical", right? If this thread were in math-speak, I'd appreciate it. It's not as if either of us has contributed for it to become such. I'll take my hat for there is too much halfwitting and interfering (you), you take yours because you are profane and better placed bashing philosophy on some no liver 420chan shite thread.

Doesn't it hurt?

>>The goal is to make a closed loop of space time by dragging it so far circularly that it comes back to meet where it started, giving you your own spacetime "bubble" in which you are always stationary.
Can't be done, see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

Are you guys autistic? It's conspiracy theories involving GMOs and magic woo involving crystals that are /x/

Jesus god thank you, thank you so much

Anyway Veeky Forums BTFO

>I don't understand it
>Therefore it's all woo
>I know more than a NASA scientist

what the fuck did i just read

Interesting. I notice that Le Sage (1748) had a theory of gravity as a pushing force and matter as a repulsive force to this 'push'.

With matter as 4% of our universe, and dark energy as 70+% there is now some corroboration that DE 'repulses' (ie pushes at matter). driving the accelerating expansion of our U. Funny times we live in.

Veeky Forums BTFO

What is thi...I don't eve..

pretty simple, he's retarded.

>How do we into anti-grav and more importantly anti-mass?

STOP TRYING TO MIND CONTROL THE UNIVERSE, FUCKTARDS.

>that armband
kek'd heartily

ntrs.nasa.gov is up and running again and all's well.
I'd suggest to also get the sterilized conference version (pic) of the file because of the more interesting reference section. Subscribers should get it from the AIAA site while others may want to visit lunahelia.com/resources/acholt/holt.htm because the ntrs only offers a summary.

There is literally nothing wrong with DMT.

Thanks bud.
The real question is why haven't they built this?

Transdimensional physics is not in the public domain.

While interesting, that article doesnt disprove my concept. My hypothetical machine would rotate at much higher speeds than a black hole typically rotates at, and as a consequence, create a larger frame dragging effect in the nearby space-time than a black hole would anywhere outside its event horizon.

"A breakthrough in field-dependent propulsion systems is not more than 10 years away if the resources required to complete a breakthrough in field physics are provided ..." (AIAA 1980 1233 Introduction)

USD 8.5 TRILLION missing from the budget of the DoD. Fuel for a decade-long Mega-Manhattan Project to achieve an unacknowledged "breakthrough in field physics".

Pic: The most requested item from the Clinton Library is UFOs, said the librarian to the witch.

Thought that went on the F-35?

Current F-35 budget estimate is $1.5 trillion (Time citing Reuters) or free college to every student in the U.S. for 20 years.

>tfw american
>tfw free college because poor
feels good

>tfw american
>tfw free college because intelligent
mixed feelings desu

>tfw European
>tfw free college because European
Feels splendid

>tfw american
>tfw paid off my student loans 8 months after graduation because im not a failure with a degree in burger flipping

Feels white man.

What fucking job do you have?

>tfw got free undergraduate degree in Europe
>tfw got free graduate degree in the US

Is /x/ Veeky Forums's /pol/?

I-I'm studying industrial engineering, will I make it?

Started in technical college with a degree in electromechanical technology (a glorified electrician) the company i work for is currently paying for my degree in electrical engineering provided i get good grades, which is fucking childs play if you arent retarded. I made $70k last year working 3 days a week and got a free education aswell. When i do get my engineering degree i will probably stay in my current position for a while because $70k for 3, 12 hour days a week is actually pretty close to what i would make as an engineer hour for hour, with the added bonus of 4 days off a week.

You will make it just fine, but financially it makes more sense to get a skilled trade under your belt and then get a job at some company willing to pay for the expensive degree.

Le cowadoody reference xD
Ebin

>industrial engineering

only if you go into sales