Any thoughts on the feasability of electrogravitics (as mentioned in the following article) from the high-energy physics group? Is anti-gravity theoretically possible? Do you think we already have this technology?

U.S. Has Heavily Researched Anti-Gravity, Book Says

LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. military may have conducted serious research into anti-gravity based on Nazi studies, a top defense journalist suggests in a new book.

In ``The Hunt for Zero Point,'' journalist Nick Cook says, based on a decade's research, he believes by the 1950s the U.S. was seriously working on anti-gravity ``electrogravitics'' technology, which would lift and propel vehicles without wings or thrust.

``I feel intuitively that some vehicle has been developed, particularly given that there is this wealth of scientific data out there, and the Americans have never been slow to pick up on this sort of science,'' Cook, the aerospace consultant for Jane's Defense Weekly, told Reuters in an interview.

Cook uncovered reports and sightings of a Nazi research device that had been hidden in a remote part of Poland, where it had apparently been supplied with great quantities of electricity -- which an electrogravitic experiment would require.

Curiously, barely a hint of such Nazi research appeared after the war, suggesting that whoever captured it -- probably the United States -- immediately stamped it ``secret,'' he said.

Cook noted that, as a respected expert, he is risking his reputation by writing seriously about a technology associated with UFOs, which most scientists dismiss as science fiction embraced by ``hocus-pocus'' believers.

The United States is known to have a huge budget for so called ``black projects,'' because it spends more on defense than can be accounted for by adding up the value of public programs.

Cook admitted he cannot produce a conclusive case. But that is the nature of black projects, in which even the workers usually have no idea what they are working on.

In 1947, amid the early craze of UFO reports, an air force general reported on the possibility of the United States building disc-shaped objects with extreme rates of climb and maneuverability but without noise or evident propulsion.

In the mid 1950s electrogravitics was the subject of a few press reports, including one that described work by most of the United States' major defense contractors, Cook reported.

And then it all went quiet -- just as stealth technology suddenly disappeared from view in the mid 1970s, only to re-emerge as operational aircraft in the late 1980s.

Academic papers on the subject have mysteriously disappeared from libraries.

There is still no firm evidence that electrogravitics is more than science fiction. Civilian scientists and amateurs have experimented with it, and while some have reported success, no one seems to have reproduced their results to prove that it works.

Didnt read the article but I can personally tell you duh, ofcoarse they do. I hear they also have something called gravitational propulsion which is what the UFO's are supposed to run on. I'm not entirely sure about the physics involved but it does sound scientifically feasable.

Im pretty shure its possible but Im not sure when we will have the technology to do so.

I think this will come to us linked with the ability to simulate gravity in space. Once we unlock one we get the other.

Sounds feasible.....(like i know anything)
no really/./......
anyone know where i can find any theory on this?
cheers
moosey

Heres proof of anti-gravity, yes you too can try this experiment at home of course I recommend outside.

What you will need, A Bucket with a decent handle and some water.

Directions:
Fill bucket to no more than half full, then start swinging it it until you get the buckets velocity high enough to make it go around in a circle above your head. The Velocity will hold the water in.


Okay so the water stays in the bucket in relation to both the velocity and the fact that you have gravity down here, In space you won't have as much gravitational pull from bodies like the earth, so you water would act weirdly, unless you span it superfast.

This means if you want antigravity you get dizzy, unless your crafty enough to do the next step, what if you spin a weight fast enough, you could cause some vaccum like a whirlpool effect, place some greating over the top and viola, you have gravity... well suction.

um, so basically what your're saying is that antigravity is a shit name for, I think that its angular momentum (or centifugal/pedal) forces.(can never remember)(should I? I only do Alevels...)

and i thought that it was going to be about gravitons and quantum field theory........

methinks that is better

moosey outtahere

The article mentioned in the first post to this thread fails to describe any physical process by which "electrogravitics" could work. There's very little content there; just wild rumours.

Gravity is rather different from centrifugal forces. Gravity is an attraction between objects with mass. Accelerated motions can mimic the effects of gravity, but nobody has yet managed to find any way to "shield" or block out the effects of gravity caused by the presence of matter.

No way could they keep anti-gravity a secret form the academic world. Not a chance. end rumor.

Originally posted by Mad Scientist
No way could they keep anti-gravity a secret form the academic world. Not a chance. end rumor.You're right. Something that big would surely leak.

Originally posted by Mad Scientist
No way could they keep anti-gravity a secret form the academic world. Not a chance. end rumor.

Mad Scientist,

It is pretty much an acepted fact that from around 1918 or so until 1976 or so, the US government had in place a program that intercepted every single telegraph that was sent either to or from the US. Even though this program was in strict violation of our constitution, it continued until the mid-70's until a president, I believe it was president Carter, stopped it through executive order. Something of this magnitude was kept secret for over 60 years. Read the book "The Puzzle Palace". It describes the history of the NSA.

Also, the F117 Stealth fighter was being flown in the late 70's and early 80's. Three of them crashed in Northern Arizona during their developments. The first time the "public" heard about them was in the operations that took place in Panama in 1990. I might add that an entire operational wing of F117s were flying several years before this and no one in the public new.

Finally, from my experiences in the US Air Force, I can tell you quite confidently that the US Government keeps an incredible amount of stuff out of the public's eye.

So given all of this, it is quite easy for me to believe that we could have a fully functional "anti-gravity" machine and you would never hear about it.

If the government keeps things such as the F117 from the public for so long, what do you think they would do for a technology that could literally revolutionize the world?

I heard a story long' long ago about these saucers using a magnet that pulled another magnet downward with the force to pull half a ton while the other magnet pulled upwards with a force of 1 ton, thus creating lift.

But we all know that gravity is the warping of space time and both magnets will fall at the same rate into the well, don't we?


You may want to look at this old antigravity machine.

<A HREF="http://abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/gmis9739.htm" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> Anti-gravity machine
</FONT></A>

Thanks for the chuckle ...You're right. Something that big would surely leak. I could just see the first time an 'anti-gravity' machine was turned on! Things flying in every direction since it wouldn't only be Earth's gravity that was being negated.

And, talk about loosing our atmosphere real quick like!

Originally posted by James R
The article mentioned in the first post to this thread fails to describe any physical process by which "electrogravitics" could work. There's very little content there; just wild rumours.

but nobody has yet managed to find any way to "shield" or block out the effects of gravity caused by the presence of matter.
A theory specifically starts as rumors,it is called as hypothesis in the scientific community,has a scientific base for it.off course they are rumors,but sometimes turn true in the course of time.

well,i"ll explain as far as i know.a binary system sirius a and b,specifically were known to loose their gravititional attraction as the time went by NOT due to the life cycle of the star themselves.the rumors then developed.it was speculated that since gravititional energy is radiated,it must be in form of quanta of gravitons.as they are known.now, a graviton is always emmitted by matter as far as i know ALWAYS away from the center of gravity of the object.now,since every paticle has an antiparticle associated with it there's where the concept of anti-gravitons comes into existence.i dont much about them,but i hope what i know is not incorrect .if it is please i would be glad to hear any corrections in my understanding of the subject.

Gravity wave radiation is thought to explain the slowing down of the periods of certain binary <b>pulsars</b>. I'm sure the same effect occurs with Sirius A and B, but I think in that case it would be too small to measure.

From memory, the graviton is its own antiparticle (as is the case with photons). However, bear in mind that the graviton is still a theoretical particle. Nobody has ever seen one yet because gravitational wave detectors haven't succeeded yet. A LOT of time, effort and money is being spent on the search right now, though.

When they do eventually crack the mystery that is gravity, u me and the rest of the people on this world today proberbly wont be around to see it.
Dont ponder on things u cant change, rather work on things u can.
Oh and btw UFO's roflmao.

Zion, have you got a link for that bit about sirius A and B, I know they are close to the galaxies black hole, maybe something is going on with the static gravity well?

A very interesting site on levitation and anti-gravity.
http://antigravitypower.tripod.com/

A flying platform!?
http://antigravitypower.tripod.com/Grebennikov/index.html

There has been a recent scientific paper that suggests it is possible to "stiffen" space-time through the use of magnetic fields (see the discussion in the Frontier Physics group if you want a link to the paper).

If this theoretical work is true, what it implies is that by "stiffening" space-time, you are removing the effects of gravity, which bends space-time. This is in effect, negating the gravitational effect of matter. If this is truly possible, then this is, in fact, a type of "anti-gravity", although it appears to be more of a "gravity shield" than "anti-gravity", but the effect would be similar. If you could remove the effects of gravity in a localized area, you would in fact achieve "anti-gravity" on a local scale.

Just some food for thought:D

Hi,
I have found an interesting link to anti-gravity that i would like to include.

www.antigravity.de/patenttext.html

I think all the world governments need to stop keeping so much a secret. I long for the day when world leaders put humanity as a whole ahead of their own purposes.

I'm sure if the military "open sourced" all it's technological secrets our race could advance so much faster, but no, the military leaders of the world can't seem to see over their pile of nukes, tanks and jets at the bigger picture. Like spoiled babies with too many toys they are...

what you guys are talking about is a gravity-propulsion device an anti-gravity device would just make the thing immune to gravity.
anyways something like that would be more probable in my opinion. if something was immune to gravity it would just slowly float upwards from the earths surface at an angle to its point of departure. why? because the earth orbits the sun and the earth rotates.

I hope one of you knows what im talking about and explains it better.

Do you have any information regarding formidable attempts to create antigravitational devices have been recorded. Or better still any devices or information sold to companies, and/or government institutions?:confused: :confused:

My point is that instead of looking for antimatter to anhilate matter,that is to say gravitons anhilated by antigravitons,why not produce antimatter from the matter itself and then anhilate the antimatter for propulsion.

take for instance,photons,
as JAMES R has mentioned in one of his threads that photon is an antiparticle of itself,so why not study the antiparticle state of the photon and positrons and their various charracterstics behaviour which differentiate from their counterparts,including opposite charges etc.that would reduce the costs considerably.
anyways,it is still not proved that gravitons do exist,but if they do,then we have find them out or isolate them fast.a big problem here is that gravitons are supposed to transparent to matter.
any inputs in this regard will be welcome.
bye!

I believe I once read an article on a new type of force being researched by Physicists (they come up with new ones too often for my liking!!) that was described as a sort of universal anti-gravity. It was hypothesized that this force is what kept the universe from reshrinking a la big crunch. I was not too clear on what exactly propogated this force. Regular matter exhibits gravitational attraction, but what exactly caused the antigravity I can't say, though I believe it was some kind of particle that interacts weakly with regular matter. Either way, this research had given way to a new fundamental constant that the physicists denoted with lambda... so if you see a lambda that doesn't represent wavelength or mean free path of a particle, it may be just what I'm so unsuccessfully trying to explain.

Hypothetically, if we could pin down this 'repulsive' substance, could it not be used in practical applications of anti-gravity? I'm not talking UFO's or floating skateboards here, either.... with a strong enough anti-gravity device, could we not peer inside the event horizon of a black hole and then come back out?? Interesting thought, no?

I guess antigravity can be produced with a bunch of spinning discs. The theory would almost be identical to the "right angle" theory of electric and magnetic fields. Example:

When an electron moves in a straight line it produces a magnetic field at right angles to both the electric field of the electron and the motion of the electron. Now that you have a magnetic field, you can convert it back to an electric field using the same technique. The resulting electric field can be bipolar even though the original electric field of the electrons were unipolar.

Here's my idea:

When a particle, with a mass, moves in a straight line it produces a Z-field at right angles to both the gravitational field and the motion of the mass(gyroscopic effect in revolving objects). Now that you have a Z-field, you can convert it to a bipolar gravitational field using the same technique. Since the gravitational field created is bipolar, one pole is gravity, the other is antigravity. You can figure out the rest.

Tom

"Eerily, every electrical circuit and every electrical load is - and has always been - powered by EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum.......

"Broken symmetry in the fierce exchange between the active vacuum and the system
powers every system they build. And not a single professor or university teaches that,
nor does it appear in a single textbook......



"All the coal, oil, natural gas, etc. ever burned, and all the nuclear fuel rods ever used, and all the hydroelectric dams ever built, have directly added

not one single watt

to the power line. Not one!"

...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them."

What about counter rotating fields along with high frequency energy in capacitor series, is anyone here tech?

JoeBlow93132:

<i>I guess antigravity can be produced with a bunch of spinning discs.</i>

Sounds like the Poletnov (sp?) experiment (which nobody has managed to duplicate yet).

<i>When a particle, with a mass, moves in a straight line it produces a Z-field at right angles to both the gravitational field and the motion of the mass(gyroscopic effect in revolving objects).</i>

What's a Z field?


ripvanfunky:

<i>What about counter rotating fields along with high frequency energy in capacitor series, is anyone here tech?</i>

What about them?

James R,

A Z-field is the sister of the gravitational field just like the magnetic field is the sister of the electric field. I call it the Z-field because it hasn't been named yet. If you want to see it in action, spin a top.

Tom

How will spinning a top demonstrate the Z field? What effects will be produced which are not explained in terms of the usual 4 fundamental forces?

Gravity force is formulated as:

F = (Gm1m2)/r^2

F is gravitation force
G is a constant
m1 and m2 are mass
and r is distance.

Anti gravity mean minus (-) F. The result of the formula will always posistive, unless we have negative value of m or r.
But how distance become negative?
How mass become negative?

James R,

If you attempt to push a spinning top over, it will not fall down. Instead it will generate a force at a right angle to your force. This will cause the top to precess instead of fall over. What happened is that when you attempted to push the top over, the Z-Force got converted back into a gravitational force as explained in the previous post.

When you spin a top:

gravitational field + motion(at a right angle to gravitational field) =
Z-Force(at a right angle to both gravitational field and motion)

So in a spinning top the Z-force is created pointing upwards. When you attempt to move the Z-force then:

Z-Force + motion(at a right angle to the Z_Force)=
gravitational field(at a right angle to both the Z-Force and motion)

This gravitational force just created is at right angles to the Z-Force(created by the spinning top) and motion(you pushing the top).This gravitational field causes the top to precess.

Tom

SISgroup,

If I gave you a few million electrons and told you to make a positive electric field could you do it? It can be done, but only through electric/magnetic conversion. You would move the electrons to create a magnetic field, then you would move the magnetic field(or alter it's strength) to generate a bipolar electric field. In other words, you just created an anti-electric field(positive electric field) even though you didn't have any protons.

This is exactly what I'm suggesting, only with mass instead of electrons.

Tom

Joeblow,

I can explain the precession of a top in terms of the torque created by gravity and the pre-existing angular momentum of the top. I don't need a Z-force to explain precession.

Originally posted by Joeblow93132
SISgroup,

If I gave you a few million electrons and told you to make a positive electric field could you do it? It can be done, but only through electric/magnetic conversion. You would move the electrons to create a magnetic field, then you would move the magnetic field(or alter it's strength) to generate a bipolar electric field. In other words, you just created an anti-electric field(positive electric field) even though you didn't have any protons.

This is exactly what I'm suggesting, only with mass instead of electrons.

Tom
negative electric force (electron) is opposite of opposite of positive electric force (proton). And yes you right.
Then, to create the anti-gravitation force, we need the opposite of gravitation force.
So, what is the opposite of gravitation force?

James R,

I'm sure you can. I am also familiar with the formula, but in the science textbooks they never give a good explanation why this 90 degree force exists. The usual explanation is that there is a delay, so that the force is transferred after the top makes a 90 degree spin. This reason is flawed because the force is ALWAYS at 90 degrees to the original force. If this explanation was correct then the degrees would vary based on how fast the top would be spinning. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

If you know of another explanation for this force, please share.

Tom

SISGroup,

It's more like this:

Proton(positive electric field)+ motion=Magnetic field

Magnetic field + motion= Dipolar electric field(electric and anti-electric field)

Therefore:

Mass(positive gravitational field) + motion= Z-force

Z-force + motion = Dipolar gravitational(gravity and anti-gravity)



Tom

Joeblow,

Sounds like you need to get a new physics textbook. Here's my explanation:

As the top starts to fall over, the force of gravity acting at the centre of mass of the top produces a torque on the top, acting about its point of contact with the ground. Using the definition of torque as the rate of change of angular momentum, the resultant torque must change the angular momentum of the top. We must take the vector nature of both the torque and the angular momentum into account, since the direction of the change in the angular momentum vector is the same as the direction of the applied torque vector. The derived change in the angular momentum vector is added to the pre-existing angular momentum associated with the top's spin. This gives a new angular momentum vector which points in a slightly different direction. The spin axis of the top aligns itself along its instantaneous angular momentum vector, which precesses due to the constant torque.

There is no time delay involved.

For an explanation with diagrams and so on, any good first year university physics text should be ok.

Originally posted by Joeblow93132
SISGroup,

It's more like this:

Proton(positive electric field)+ motion=Magnetic field

Magnetic field + motion= Dipolar electric field(electric and anti-electric field)

Therefore:

Mass(positive gravitational field) + motion= Z-force

Z-force + motion = Dipolar gravitational(gravity and anti-gravity)

Tom
Mass + motion = sound like kinetic energy.

Proton has energy to pull the electron, but cannot 'touch' the electron.
And a mass has energy to pull anything, also can make touchings.
Proton has two energy, first is positive electric and second in gravity of it mass. So the right 'formula' of magnetic field may:

protons (or electrons) + gravity + motion = magnetic field.
Is there a third variable in Z force formula?

James R,

It still doesn't explain why the new force is ALWAYS at a 90 degree angle to the original force. According to your explanation, the angle of the secondary force should vary.

Tom

SISGroup,

Gravity isn't in the formula for electric/magnetic conversion. The strength of the resulting magnetic field is the result of only two factors: The strength of the electric field, and the speed of the field(or the speed at which it changes).

Tom

Tom,

Try this explanation in terms of forces if you have trouble understanding my previous explanation:

Imagine holding a bicycle wheel by its axle. Each hand is on one side of the wheel, and the wheel is spinning so that the top is moving away from you and the bottom is moving towards you. Now, suppose you want to turn the wheel so that the axle is still horizontal but the left side is closer to your body than the ride side. What force do you need to apply?

Common sense will tell you that you need to push forwards with your right hand and pull back with your left hand. But your knowledge of precession (and the experiment, if you do it) will tell you that is wrong. What you actually need to do is push upwards with your right hand and down with your left - then the wheel will move around at right angles to the applied force. Here's the explanation:

Consider a point at the top of the wheel. Instantaneously, it is moving away from you. What you want it to do is to move more to the left. Looking at the point at the bottom of the wheel, you want it to move around to the right a bit (remember it is moving towards you). Extending this type of reasoning, we can tell that all points on the top half of the wheel need to move to the left, and all points on the bottom half need to move to the right. The only way to change the velocity of any part of the wheel in a certain direction is to apply a force in that direction. To apply the right kind of force here you need to push your left hand down and right hand up, then the wheel turns to the left.

The explanation for the top is very similar to this. The explanation with torques explains the same facts in a different way. Either way, no z-force is needed.

Joeblow93132
Yes, you right.
The formula for magnetic field not consist of mass of electron.

But, I still cannot understand, how motion of positive mass produce Z-field. (I'm sorry, I 'jump' from my basic question)

Motion of positive mass will have kinetic energy. And yes, kinetic energy makes a positive cannot be pulled by gravity. This is like moon and earth. Earth cannot pull the moon since velocity of moon is strong enough against gravity of earth. No Z force acting on this phenomenon, i think.

BTW, If movement of positive mass create Z-field, therefore our earth will be influenced by Z-force of moon. Can you prove that there is a Z-field caused by moon on the earth?

SISGroup,

There is no Z-force influence on the earth by the moon. This is why:

1. The Z-force created from a spinning object is at right angles to the spin of the object and at right angles to it's gravitational field. So only the gradient of the gravitational field in the X and Y axis of the Earth is being converted to the Z-force. The resulting Z-force forms only at the Z axis of the Earth. In other words, the Z-force created, is exiting at the north and south poles of the Earth.

Since the same applies to the moon, you can see that the Earths and the moons Z-forces do not intersect. Therefore, their Z-forces do not influence each other.

2. The Z-force is a weak force(as weak as gravity). In order to generate a powerful Z-force, you need to either spin a very heavy mass, or a smaller mass very quickly. The Earth does not spin fast enough to create a significant Z-force.

Tom

Originally posted by Joeblow93132
.... The Earth does not spin fast enough to create a significant Z-force.

Tom

If your hypothesis is true then it is testable for even if it generated an extremely small force, over time that force would impact the orbitals of circumpolar satellites to such an extent that major course corrections would be needed.

I do not believe that that is the case for any circumpolar satellite that I am aware of.

SeekerOfTruth,

Interesting. I'll have to think about that.

Tom

SeekerOfTruth,

When the satellites go over the northern pole, Z-force may pull the satellites toward earth, but when they cross the southern pole, the opposite Z-force pushes them back to their original orbit.
At either point, the difference between the original orbit and the forced orbit would probably be under one meter.

Tom

James R,

I read your article about the spinning wheel a couple of times, but I still don't understand your explanation. How do you explain the fact the secondary force is always at a 90 degree angle to the primary force, never more or less? According to your explanation, shouldn't the angle be less than 90 degrees if the wheel spins slower and more if the wheel spins faster?

Tom

Tom,

It's a simple matter of changing the velocity of points on the wheel. If you want to add a velocity component in a particular direction, you need to apply a force in that direction. That's all there is to it.

Originally posted by Joeblow93132
SeekerOfTruth,

When the satellites go over the northern pole, Z-force may pull the satellites toward earth, but when they cross the southern pole, the opposite Z-force pushes them back to their original orbit.
At either point, the difference between the original orbit and the forced orbit would probably be under one meter.

Tom

But this would imply that there is total symmetry between the polor components of the Z force. Because the distribution of mass in the earth is not symmetrical, and because the earth is rotating, the Z force and its vector/magnitude at the north pole will be different from the Z force at the south pole at some given point in time after the satellite crosses the north pole. Remember, the satellite takes some finite amount of time to traverse from the north pole to the south, therefore the vector/magnitude of the Z force would have changed and there would not be a symmetry of forces to cancel each other out.

SeekerOfTruth,

If the distribution of mass on Earth is not symmetrical, why aren't satellites pulled out of their orbits when they pass over a mountain?

The fact is that it doesn't matter if the mass of the Earth is symmetrical or not. Only when you take a fragment of a satellites orbit does symmetry matter, when you take the entire orbit of the satellite into consideration it no longer matters because all the forces balance out. The same applies to the Z-force, at some points around the Earth, the push and pull of the Z-force will have different strengths. But once the satellite makes a complete orbit the total pull forces of the Z-force will be equal to all the push forces of the Z-force, thereby putting the satellite back into it's original orbit. This will always be the case as long as the satellite's orbit dissects the center of the Earth.

Tom

Equator area has longer distance with spining axis of earth than pole area. So, equator area has bigger centrifugal force than pole area. Since direction of centrifugal force is opposite of gravitation force, therefore it can decrease the gravitation force. So, both earth poles is not excited by Z force.
SeekerOfTruth has told us that mass of earth is not symetrical. I thing the north area has bigger mass than south one, because most continents lies in north area. So, the center of earth's mass should be closer with north ole then south one.
According to formula of gravitation force, therefore north pole will have different number of gravitation force than south one.

Check out this site linky (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/liftbldr.htm)

and this one (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifter4.htm)

Welcome to Sciforums.

Might want to check out this site:

<a href=http://www.first-to-fly.com/History%20Images/1903_Flyer_after_4th_flight.jpg> <font color=red> Anti-Gravity Machine </font> </a>

Take care ;)

;)

<Img Src=http://www.tap-ten.com/1jpg/tban.gif>
It's True! Antigravitics, ZPE, Teleportation and Time~Travel are all connected by a series of Quantum Particles and will be proven in public demonstrations very soon! it's only "A Matter of Time"

---T12 of TAP-TEN

<Img Src=http://www.tap-ten.com/1gif/t-10.gif>
http://www.Tap-Ten.com

From our Bookmarks section:
---Antigravity Research
A collection of anti-grav research links...

*A Compilation of Anti-Gravity Articles And References
With apologies for not fixing the equations or symbols. Someone send me the replacement text, and I will fix it! These 5 articles are included in this file below...
http://www.padrak.com/ine/TTB_EGP.html

*ANTI-GRAVITY, ANTI-MATTER: A DISCUSSION OF PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES AND BACK-ENGINEERING
Delta UFO, " The Descent", ©1996, 1997, Dave Kauble. posted on Deb's UFO Research Information Clearinghouse, January 12, 1997 ...
http://www.debshome.com/Propulsion_Technologies.html

*ANTIGRAVITY? WELL, IT'S ALL UP IN THE AIR
It sounds like something from The X-Files, but levitation is raising eyebrows--and interest at NASA
http://www.businessweek.com/1997/07/b3514118.htm

*Antgrav Research Links2
The Parr Gravity Wheel Experiment, The Gravity Wheel, Gravity Car Proposal, Single Pole Generator The Bedini Hamel Magnetic gate, means of propulsion for a flying disk UFO, An examination of the energy machine of Joseph Newman, Method and apparratus for accumulating electrical energy and transforming ether electricity, Structural Shape and Design of a UFO, Making a wimshurst electro static generator, Electrical Current Generator including Torque Reducing Countermagnetic Field, Sonic Levitation, High Frequency generator, Apparatus for transmission of electrical energy, The Hubbard Energy Transformer by Gaston Burridge, A motor operated by radio waves, Some Improvement in the construction of electro magnets, Hydrogen Fuel generator, Marko Rodin's on his unusual coil design, An Ion electrical generator, Your Car can run on water using this device without pollution, Making your own electrostatic machine, Water Powered Motors, FREE - GEET Multi-Fuel Conversion Plans updated, Very detailed Indian Research Paper on some perpetual motion observations, Extracting Energy from a Permanent Magnet with Energy-Replenishing from the Active Vacuum...
http://www2.murray.net.au/users/egel/content1.htm

*Anti-Gravity And The Unified Field; Childress, David H. (Ed.); 0932813100; @ Insight
Books by Childress, David H. (Ed.) at Insight Metaphysical Bookstore. We have a wide selection of books on , , . Anti-Gravity And The Unified Field; Childress, ...
http://www.insight-books.com/meta/0932813100mt.html

*Anti-Gravity Links
http://www.math.iupui.edu/marc/antigravity.html

*Anti-Gravity Machine (Eugene Podkletnov)
Henry P. Dart, III From: NEN, Vol. 4, No. 7, November 1996, pp. 7-8. New Energy News (NEN) copyright 1996 by Fusion Information Center, Inc. COPYING NOT ALLOWED without written permission. ALL ...
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_4_7_4.html

*AntiGravity Article From: "Scientific American"
(By: Mark Connolly) I have recently heard reports of a researcher claiming to have produced anti-gravity effects using a spinning, superconducting disk. Is there any theoretical basis to support the existence of anti-gravity or of some method of shielding out gravity?
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics29a.html

*Antigravity News And Space Drive Technology
A new bi-monthly newsletter (began in July 1997) that focuses on the theory, devices, and results of anti-gravity research. A serious publication.
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_8_5.html

*Antigravity News And Space Drive Technology
Courtesy of the Editor From: NEN, Vol. 5, No. 8, Dec. 1997, pp. 8-9. New Energy News (NEN) copyright 1997 by Fusion Information Center, Inc. COPYING NOT ALLOWED without written permission. ALL ...
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_5_8_5.html

*Antigravity and Propelantless propulsion researches
created on March 31th, 2001 - JLN Labs - Last update April 8th, 2001
http://jnaudin.free.fr/advpmnu.htm

*BAe's anti-gravity research, By: James Meek, science correspondent
BAe's anti-gravity research braves X-Files ridicule, Serious Progress Hinted In Secret Anti-Gravity Projects . The military wing of the hi-tech conglomerate BAe Systems took the Podkletnov experiment so seriously that it has launched an anti-gravity research programme, Project Greenglow. If the technology could be made to work it would make existing forms of transport obsolete.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,183636,00.html

*C.T.G RESEARCH LABS
Welcome To The Search For Free-Energy & Anti-Gravity at C.T.G Research Labs, The purpose of this site is to promote knowledge about free-energy and anti-gravity devices and to get other people interested in this rapidly developing field. We hope that presenting our research on the Internet will inspire new ideas in others, it also ensures that information cannot be suppressed, since once it's on the Internet it's out forever.
http://members.nbci.com/ctglabs

*Higgs Fields
SCALAR Anti-Grav Device? Higgs technology deals with manipulation of the Higgs scalar field and related forces within the Standard Model of particle physics. All particles get their mass from the interaction between ...
http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/Game/BigIdeas/higgs.html

*How To Build A Gravity Car! (Antigravity?)
Introduction: Last summer I published my 5th book, "Shape Power", which describes in detail the experiments which Joe Parr and myself have been doing. The simpler experiments we term the "Gravity Wheel Experiment". Joe discovered the basic effects and perfected the instrumentation. I was interested enough to hop on the band wagon and duplicate the simpler aspect of the experiments. The results from these experiments showed that we can...
http://angelfire.com/ak/egel/gravcar.html

*Project Greenglow
BAE SYSTEMS (The company formed from the merger of British Aerospace and Marconi Electronic Systems) is currently running a speculative research programme in the realm of gravitational physics with the aim of initiating some new areas of research and priming technology development, with the hope that subsequent implementation, could lead to significant advances in the aerospace industry. For historical reasons we have called this programme project Greenglow.
http://www.greenglow.co.uk

*THE BARBURY CIRCLE Connection
Pictured above this design appeared in a crop of wheat at Barbury Castle in 1991. To explore the uniqueness of the design a three dimensional six foot model was constructed. Experiments performed on the model revealed several anomalous properties. This web site is an assemblage of these experiments. ZPF and resonance is dealt with in parts to enlighten the reader to the scientific possibility of inertia modification. This web site is provided as a public service for educational purposes only...Professor Aquino clearly and concisely shows that Inertial Mass and Gravitational mass are related by a energy factor. Controlling this factor, gravitational forces can be reduced, nullified and inverted. No fundamental conservation laws are broken as energy is added to effect the process.
http://www.icnet.net/users/chrish/cropcir.html

*The Black-Triangle E-Group
We Are Unique - In That We Link Military Aviation ('Spotters') & Mil-Airband (Radio-Scanner) Enthusiasts, With UFO Researchers & The Groom Lake / Area51 'Interceptors'. We Are Searching For Answers To The Many Questions Raised By Sightings Reports Of Triangular, Stealthy & Unknown Flying Craft.
http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html

*The Gravitational Spacecraft from Fran De Aquino
Warping to the deep space...created on March 21th, 2000 - JLN Labs - Last update April 20th, 2000 (CAD Photos included)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/systemg/html/gravcraft.htm

*The Gravity Shielding Experiment: from "Chris Hardeman"
created on February 4th, 2001 - JLN Labs - February 26th, 2001 ...All informations in this page are published free and are intended for private/educational purposes and not for commercial applications.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/gravshld.htm

*The Rise and Fall of the "Anti-Gravity Machine"
By: D. Trull
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/gravity.htm

*The Thomas Townsend Brown Early Warped Ideas
Early Warped Ideas By Dan McCosh (04,2001)...The man who would later invent the flying saucer was a student at Caltech in 1923, when he first began espousing his theory of gravitation. But the world of conventional physics wasn't quite ready for the ideas of Thomas Townsend Brown, who told his classmates that gravity was a positive force that permeates space, a force that could be directed by high-voltage electricity. At a time when rocket science itself was in its infancy, he speculated that this could be the basis of an interstellar space drive free of the limitations of conventional rockets. It didn't help when the popular press of the day quickly embraced his ideas, while the establishment at Caltech ridiculed them.
http://www.popsci.com/exclusive/may2001/warped.html

*The Thomas Townsend Brown Website
Thomas Townsend Brown, an American physicist, was a leader in developing theories concerning the link between electromagnetic and gravitational fields theorized by Dr. Albert Einstein. He advanced from theory to application with the development of solid and disc-shaped apparatuses which are believed to have created and utilized temporary, localized gravitational fields.
http://www.soteria.com/brown

*eXn.ca
Did you say antigravity? In the Star Wars galaxy, vehicles levitate freely, oblivious to the law of gravity. Some are propelled by reactors that generate a stream of charged particles. All fine to feed our hunger for movie-screen adventures, but in the science community, such antigravity machines aren't just seen as fodder for space fantasies, the mere mention of them is enough to end a scientist's career. In 1992, Eugene Podkletnov, a Russian materials scientist at the University of Tampere in Finland, made a strange observation. Podkletnov was studying superconductors, materials that lose all of their electrical resistance and repel magnetic fields when cooled. While testing a superconducting disc by rotating it above powerful electromagnets, he found that small objects above the disc seemed to lose weight – up to two per cent. It doesn't sound like much, but it would imply that the objects were somehow being shielded from the pull of the Earth.
http://www.exn.ca/starwars/antigravity.cfm

<Img Src=http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/anim98.gif>