Antigravity Experiments?

walt willis said:
It is contained within a super conductor device as I was told.
Click to expand...
Depending on the materials used and of course also of the fluid contained, it is actually not a problem at all to have a 50k rpm spinning part. The “casing” does not even have to be a field, it can be done with a material casing, even if filled with Hg. It could be even hand made in someone’s basement (having a lathe) up to some certain point regarding the size. For example, using carbon fiber as a material, having the median diameter 40 mm, the cross section (the cavity filled with Hg) diameter 10 mm and the thickness of the cavity “wall” 15 mm, could provide a much higher spinning than 50k rpm (I estimate it to be possible round 15k rps) … but that would be only for the sake of argument, as such a small sized rotating system of this kind would not bring anything, the effects taking place within the Hg mass would be of no significance, even hard to detect and measure.
 
Last edited:
NaturalPhilosopher said:
antigravity is easy.
most of these designs posted here are for efficiency increases, not for basic antigrav.
like the difference between a corvette and a model-t. Both work but one is a lot more complex
Click to expand...
In fact it is even more than that, it was, is and will be used all the time. When a bird takes off from the ground and rises up in the air – it is antigravity … when a space shuttle gets on orbit – it is antigravity.
Antigravity means ANTI (against) GRAVITY (gravitational pull), so anything that moves “upwards” can be assimilated to antigravity. As a matter of fact, antigravity could practically not exist in the deep space, even in the interplanetary space of a (our) solar system, because there the gravity is negligible, so there is nothing to apply and push against.
I was referring to certain systems (devices) that would have the capability to “float” over the ground at let us say 2 meters and one could walk underneath it without even noticing if he (or she) does not directly see the device above – that is impossible to do when a space shuttle takes off (I personally would not stand under the booster engines), not even under a hovering helicopter (the air flow would knock down from his feet even the strongest athlete). All these machines we are already used to, are so to say “conventional”, they use “something” to push themselves up from the ground – high pressure and very hot exhaust gas (in the case of a space shuttle), high pressure air (in the case of a helicopter), etc.
The devices I referred to, do not do this in connection or in relation with the outside environment, they have everything happening in a closed system, with no interaction with the surrounding objects.
 
[
start at edge said:
In fact it is even more than that, it was, is and will be used all the time. When a bird takes off from the ground and rises up in the air – it is antigravity … when a space shuttle gets on orbit – it is antigravity.
Antigravity means ANTI (against) GRAVITY (gravitational pull), so anything that moves “upwards” can be assimilated to antigravity. As a matter of fact, antigravity could practically not exist in the deep space, even in the interplanetary space of a (our) solar system, because there the gravity is negligible, so there is nothing to apply and push against.
I was referring to certain systems (devices) that would have the capability to “float” over the ground at let us say 2 meters and one could walk underneath it without even noticing if he (or she) does not directly see the device above – that is impossible to do when a space shuttle takes off (I personally would not stand under the booster engines), not even under a hovering helicopter (the air flow would knock down from his feet even the strongest athlete). All these machines we are already used to, are so to say “conventional”, they use “something” to push themselves up from the ground – high pressure and very hot exhaust gas (in the case of a space shuttle), high pressure air (in the case of a helicopter), etc.
The devices I referred to, do not do this in connection or in relation with the outside environment, they have everything happening in a closed system, with no interaction with the surrounding objects.
Click to expand...

Cool insights. I agree.
Still tho there's a prob. What causes gravity?
If there's gravity there might be a symmetry to it.
Like pos & neg, north & south, matter & antimatter, gravity and antigrav.

Is gravity a pressure?
but of what?
 
start at edge said:
In fact it is even more than that, it was, is and will be used all the time. When a bird takes off from the ground and rises up in the air – it is antigravity … when a space shuttle gets on orbit – it is antigravity.
Antigravity means ANTI (against) GRAVITY (gravitational pull), so anything that moves “upwards” can be assimilated to antigravity. As a matter of fact, antigravity could practically not exist in the deep space, even in the interplanetary space of a (our) solar system, because there the gravity is negligible, so there is nothing to apply and push against.
I was referring to certain systems (devices) that would have the capability to “float” over the ground at let us say 2 meters and one could walk underneath it without even noticing if he (or she) does not directly see the device above – that is impossible to do when a space shuttle takes off (I personally would not stand under the booster engines), not even under a hovering helicopter (the air flow would knock down from his feet even the strongest athlete). All these machines we are already used to, are so to say “conventional”, they use “something” to push themselves up from the ground – high pressure and very hot exhaust gas (in the case of a space shuttle), high pressure air (in the case of a helicopter), etc.
The devices I referred to, do not do this in connection or in relation with the outside environment, they have everything happening in a closed system, with no interaction with the surrounding objects.
Click to expand...
A bird does not use anti gravity to fly neither does a plane or rocket! Anti anything has to incorporate the same type of energy force but in opposition to that force! Example "Anti mater vs. Mater". By the way I was told only about the alien anti-gravity device and not what Bob Lazar said was antigravity used for deep space flights.
 
NaturalPhilosopher said:
[

Cool insights. I agree.
Still tho there's a prob. What causes gravity?
If there's gravity there might be a symmetry to it.
Like pos & neg, north & south, matter & antimatter, gravity and antigrav.

Is gravity a pressure?
but of what?
Click to expand...
Gravity may be understood better as having two components such as a weak and strong force similar to a magnet?
There are many ideas about this subject that still demand answers.
The more I learn the deeper the question I develop.
I've been face to face with three grays and have had a visit from to air force guys and a MIB after reporting seeing saucers.
Because of my direct experiences I tend to listen to everyone that shares insight on all forums.
I've been fooled before and I'm sure to be fooled again.
I'll try not to offend people that state information they believe to be true.
I pray that one day our government with come clean and tell use the truth! 9331
 
NaturalPhilosopher said:
[

Cool insights. I agree.
Still tho there's a prob. What causes gravity?
If there's gravity there might be a symmetry to it.
Like pos & neg, north & south, matter & antimatter, gravity and antigrav.

Is gravity a pressure?
but of what?
Click to expand...
Gravity is caused by the existence of matter itself. There is a “trinity” that always goes together – mass, space and time … you can not have only one of those and the other two missing, or two of those and the other missing. Gravity can not exist if mass (AND space AND time) does not exist.
Gravity is a force, so it is a form of energy, but only in regards to matter (mass), not radiation (light or heat for example). It can generate a wave (gravitational waves) if and when significant mass involved phenomenon takes place (two black holes collision, for example). I don’t think it can be associated with the idea of pressure as we know it, because pressure (air pressure for example) implies a substance (gas) that has to be contained and closed in something (a balloon for example), which means that it somehow can be stopped. Gravity is unstoppable, it does not need any container, it penetrates everything, it even escapes the event horizon of a black hole (which not even light can do).
 
walt willis said:
A bird does not use anti gravity to fly neither does a plane or rocket! Anti anything has to incorporate the same type of energy force but in opposition to that force! Example "Anti mater vs. Mater". By the way I was told only about the alien anti-gravity device and not what Bob Lazar said was antigravity used for deep space flights.
Click to expand...
Of course a bird, plane or rocket do not use antigravity. So far, antigravity is practically a concept. In what I previously wrote, I used it as a term, starting from its written form, that is why I came to say “against gravity”. I do not even know if it would be correct or accurate to call it “antigravity”. In my examples I simply referred to it as a force pushing against (opposite) another force. The same could be said about a vehicle in motion that is stopped, for example a car on the road, moving with 50 km/h in the direction of the kinetic vector, has to have an equal force applied in the opposite direction in order to stop it. In this case, this opposite force could be the friction within the brake system and the tire – road friction, it could be the uphill angle of the road (which is in fact gravitational component) or it could be a collision with another vehicle with the same value of the kinetic vector, only in the opposite direction. Basically, when someone says “antigravity”, the meaning is a force that acts in the opposite direction of the gravitational pull.
The gravitational pull is present only in regards to something that has a mass, so it can exist as a concept only if another object exists that has mass, therefore a gravitational pull.
If we refer to a force that gives a vehicle motion, as antigravity force, then that force should cease to exist when the presumable vehicle gets far away from the object (earth, for example), as there is no more gravity to act against, only the vehicle gravity itself.
If we refer to antigravity as the symmetrical counterpart of gravity, then it exists all over the universe. The resulting action of gravity is making objects get close and closer to each other (attract) – the opposite of this, is having those objects getting further and further away from each other (repel), which seems to be happening permanently in the expansion that we were able to observe and prove.
 

Top