Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by pluto2, Jan 8, 2014.
You missed this site
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I didn't miss it lol. It's an interesting site, it's just all hypothethical more or less
Here's a site you guys would like, it promotes a very optimistic view of our future. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah i sort of crudely said this in another post as "floating magnetic cars." It's creating electric fields through an object so as to magnetise it and apparently suspend gravity. but it isn't actual "anti-gravity". If that were the case then if i pic up a piece of plastic biscuit wrapper with static from my body then that could be called anti-gravity too.
The more i read of this site the more i realise it's a load of hogwash. wishful thinking though
Did you read the history of T.T.Brown
I skimmed over his wikipedia page there. He was UFO investigator. he was intelligent, but his so-called anti-gravity propulsion methods don't actually work how it explains on that site. Its really just electromagnetism or electrokinetics, and couldnt be applied to propulsion in space. sorry to say. but i do see he has quite the cult following. i said the site was hogwash because it said perpetual motion machines are possible.
T.T.Brown was never a UFO investigator
Well maybe wikipedia got it wrong, but that wasn't the point anyway. it was the propulsion method
Wikipedia got it wrong
What about the propulsion method ?
Another promising area of propulsion research is Inertial confinement fusion. if we perfected this it would be more efficient than magnetic fusion. Another interesting concept was Freeman Dysons nuclear pulse type propulsion design. yous have prob seen the documentary about project orion but here it is for anyone who hasnt seen it. very interesting:
What i said earlier, it wouldnt work for interstellar travel.
to travel in space you have to, at the basic level, throw something out the back so you go forward. his method doesn't have anything to do with this
Actually if you had investigated this in more depth you would have found that it is well beyond this
you're gonna have to do better than that. if you think it has merit then explain it to me.
townsend brown is not a reliable source. and i am not going to get into an argument over it. no credible scientist would disagree with my view.
what does the bolded bit mean? it's garbage.
exactly, but then look what the site in question is about, aliens...conspiracies etc.
river, go find a scientifically objective view on browns work, my guess is Wikipedia didn't get it wrong.
Separate names with a comma.