Anti-Gravity Impossible or not?

[C4N7]

Just watched this video, where Boyd Bushman is briefly interviewed by Nick Cook. Just wanted to guage peoples' opinions on what he said, and the possibilities of what hes suggesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw

[Van Rijn]

Just watched this video, where Boyd Bushman is briefly interviewed by Nick Cook. Just wanted to guage peoples' opinions on what he said, and the possibilities of what hes suggesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw

Okay, I watched it. Nick Cook (the commentator and interviewer) makes all sorts of grand statements, and there is Boyd Bushman not saying much of anything specific. Then near the end the commentator says that Bushman spoke highly of a scientist's experiments. That "scientist" is not named, but it is in fact John Hutchison, who is not a scientist, and who made some of the silliest and obviously faked videos you could imagine.

I posted earlier on Hutchison here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=648497&postcount=27

and here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=648525&postcount=30

That pretty well dumps credibility into the dumper. Anyway, when it comes to anti-gravity, my position, as always, is that I will believe it when there is independent confirmation from multiple credible sources.

[C4N7]

That dumps Hutchison's credibility, however does that also mean Boyd Bushman, and Nick Cook are not credible as well?

Bushman says in the end of the segment, "and it should fly." Doesn't that imply some sort of aircraft utilizing what he terms as anti-gravity? I can understand why he talked like that, given that hes not allowed to talk about certain things.


"I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?"

Invisible in what spectrum? Does the elf make no sound? Does it not breathe? I would then ask u how can u detect it? I guess u could use esp...

[Van Rijn]

That dumps Hutchison's credibility, however does that also mean Boyd Bushman, and Nick Cook are not credible as well?


Yes. Cook refers to Hutchison as a scientist but doesn't name him. That's wrong (he isn't a scientist) and deceptive. And, how do you have credibility when you speak well of someone else who has no credibility?



Bushman says in the end of the segment, "and it should fly." Doesn't that imply some sort of aircraft utilizing what he terms as anti-gravity?


What will fly? Where did Bushman say he had a working anti-gravity machine? Again, Bushman really didn't say anything specific, and there are all sorts of things that can be made to fly.


I can understand why he talked like that, given that hes not allowed to talk about certain things.


Even assuming he was credible, he didn't say anything! I saw some fellow talking a lot but not really saying anything, and an interviewer playing it up as much more than it actually was. It's classic, and you're buying into it.



"I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?"

Invisible in what spectrum? Does the elf make no sound? Does it not breathe? I would then ask u how can u detect it? I guess u could use esp...

Funny you mention the elf. I provide no evidence for my elf and never will. Let me know when somebody presents some evidence for an anti-gravity machine. That's the point of the elf: It isn't up to others to prove anti-gravity machines or elves don't exist. In science, the burden of proof is on the ones making an assertion. And yet, on BAUT, we often see folks bring something forward with no evidence, but saying they can't be proven wrong.

[Mr Gorsky]

We already have anti-gravity devices ... I think they are called rockets, or something.

:D

[Donnie B.]

We already have anti-gravity devices ... I think they are called rockets, or something.I'm not sure. I'll ask M. Montgolfier.

[mugaliens]

We already have anti-gravity devices ... I think they are called rockets, or something.

:D

Bullets and rocks work too, but the duration of the effect is somewhat limited.

Personally, I consider my feet and legs to be anti-gravity devices, as they keep my head much higher off the ground than I would be without them.

[sts60]

That dumps Hutchison's credibility, however does that also mean Boyd Bushman, and Nick Cook are not credible as well?

Is this the Boyd Bushman who believes the Gulf Breeze UFO sightings were some sort of alien spacecraft? Dave Barry once wrote a (serious) (mostly) feature piece about that.

[Delvo]

The people I would have immediately associated with antigravity or gravity control are Evgeny (Eugene) Podkletnov and Ning Li. They have claimed to create small "gravity-like" effects in their labs, but haven't released the plans for how to build the machines to anyone else. They say they're still working to improve them.

What I notice about the criticism I've seen of those two (and there is plenty) is what's missing from it. Their critics say that not telling others how to duplicate their results is a strong sign of the claims being false, but they don't point out any flaws in the theory and reasoning, any way that the idea contradicts known physics...

[Nicolas]

Personally, I consider my feet and legs to be anti-gravity devices, as they keep my head much higher off the ground than I would be without them.

I just realized I live inside a huge antigravity device.

[Fazor]

We already have anti-gravity devices ... I think they are called rockets, or something.

:D

Sorry to jump back up this thread so far but that's a very good point. I guess the answer to the origonal question depends on your definition of anti-gravity.
Many devices can overcome gravitational pull. But anti gravity would be reversing gravity. So if you reverse the gravitational pull to say, a car, it would push instead of attract. but the gravitational attraction of a car is minute anyway. If you reverse the earth's gravity, then we're all in for an interesting destructive ride :-D.

And finally, the version i think most people have pictured, would be a way to excempt an object from the forces of gravity. you would still need some sort of propulsion system to move, andit would still be subject to friction and every other force. possible? perhaps. but since no one can really explaine what gravity is [edit: and by that i mean, we know that objects with mass attract but no one for sure knows why or what causes the attraction], i don't see how you could bypass it with anything other than sheer luck.

[PhantomWolf]

But anti gravity would be reversing gravity.

Not really. "Anti" is to "oppose" or in the more classical meaning of the word, "to attempt to replace." Thus an Anti-Gravity device is not one that reverses gravity, but rather one that either by modern definition "opposes gravity" and thus could be anything from a rocket motor to a aircraft wing, or more classically something that attempts to replace Gravity, were we're more talking the Vomit Comet or something similar.

[Van Rijn]

That dumps Hutchison's credibility, however does that also mean Boyd Bushman, and Nick Cook are not credible as well?

Is this the Boyd Bushman who believes the Gulf Breeze UFO sightings were some sort of alien spacecraft? Dave Barry once wrote a (serious) (mostly) feature piece about that.

Yes, it is the same Boyd Bushman. :rolleyes:

[Van Rijn]

The people I would have immediately associated with antigravity or gravity control are Evgeny (Eugene) Podkletnov and Ning Li. They have claimed to create small "gravity-like" effects in their labs, but haven't released the plans for how to build the machines to anyone else. They say they're still working to improve them.

What I notice about the criticism I've seen of those two (and there is plenty) is what's missing from it. Their critics say that not telling others how to duplicate their results is a strong sign of the claims being false, but they don't point out any flaws in the theory and reasoning, any way that the idea contradicts known physics...

They're claiming new physics. The only way this might be confirmed is by experiment and experiment has not confirmed their results.

[Van Rijn]

Sorry to jump back up this thread so far but that's a very good point. I guess the answer to the origonal question depends on your definition of anti-gravity.


For the purposes of this type of discussion, I would define anti-gravity as an effect that would oppose gravity by a method not already well understood. Generally, so called anti-gravity effects are either due to known physics with known limitations, are due to poor experimental procedure or flat out hoaxes.

[C4N7]

Yes, it is the same Boyd Bushman. :rolleyes:

Actually he believes the gulf breeze sightings were a military test, not little green men...

http://www.intalek.com/AV/Boyd-Bushman-Lenz-Levitation.wmv


Before shredding Bushmans credibility, atleast take the time to listen what he says.

http://www.intalek.com/AV/Boyd-Bushman.wma

[eburacum45]

Before shredding Bushmans credibility, atleast take the time to listen what he says.
Too late for that; Bushman's credibility is in tatters already because of his support for such obvious charlatans as Hutchinson.

Bushman can levitate a coil a whole inch above a metal plate, then he extrapolates this to explain the (obviously faked) Gulf Breeze sightings?
Excellent stuff.

[Ronald Brak]

...but they don't point out any flaws in the theory and reasoning, any way that the idea contradicts known physics...

To remove the effects of earth's gravity for a one kilo object you would have to spend at least as much energy as it would take to accelerate that object to escape velocity otherwise it violates conservation of energy. Many claims about anti-gravity would make perpetual motion machines possible if they were true. For example put your antigravity field on one side of an electric turbine and it will start spinning as one side will weigh less than the other.

Not that anti-gravity is impossible. It's just there is no evidence for it beyond unsupported claims. It's kind of like Bigfoot, except not so respectable.

[Van Rijn]

Actually he believes the gulf breeze sightings were a military test, not little green men...


Here's a page on the gulf breeze hoax:

http://members.aol.com/garypos/Gulf_Breeze.html

From there:

The original Gulf Breeze "UFO" was a work of art -- huge, with a superstructure and substructure, portholes, internal illumination, a paralyzing "blue beam," the whole nine yards -- now there was a UFO worthy of tourist-trap status! One minor problem: only one person, local homebuilder Ed Walters, seemed to be around when the UFO and its occupants made their appearances, and only he was able to capture the craft on film, night after night.
[snip]
In a front-page, banner-headline story accompanied by photographs (see right), the Pensacola News Journal announced on June 10, 1990, that a UFO model had been discovered under insulation in the attic of Ed Walters' former home. Constructed from foam dinner plates and drafting paper, the model was turned over to reporter Craig Myers, and used by a News Journal photographer to, as the caption states and the results attest, "nearly duplicate some of Ed Walters' UFO pictures."

Well, I'm impressed. :whistle:



http://www.intalek.com/AV/Boyd-Bushman-Lenz-Levitation.wmv


Wow. Just wow. As eburacum45 said, he floats a coil connected to a power supply by wire above a metal plate and extrapolates this to the gulf breeze hoax actually being a drone craft. If he had any credibility previously, this completely shot it down in flames.



Before shredding Bushmans credibility, atleast take the time to listen what he says.

http://www.intalek.com/AV/Boyd-Bushman.wma

Already did listen to him in the videos, and he killed his credibility there. Also, that is a half hour long audio file.

[C4N7]

Already did listen to him in the videos, and he killed his credibility there. Also, that is a half hour long audio file.

Interesting u cant find all the negative and these ** hoax claims, yet Bushman has nothing to do with it. U havent found any evidence that bushman is lying or isn't credible. U can say the gulf breeze sightings were a hoax, yet u weren't even there. I can make a ** website too saying the moon landing are fake, are u gonna qoute that too? Fact is i'm sure u cant prove Hutchisons a hoax, as well as the gulf breeze sightings which were viewed by hundreds of witnesses in different areas. Just cause some terd made some models doesn't mean its what all those people saw. U can bash Hutchison, but fact is Hutchisons work could be very genuine. Its closed-minded people like yourself who dismiss his work without actually doing your homework. I'm not talking about going to a skeptics website and believing everythings impossible and a hoax. U already had your mind made up, which in turn prevents u from learning the truth or new concepts of what reality is. U didn't even take the time to listen to the audio and true voice of Boyd Bushman, so u are the one losing out.

[C4N7]

Too late for that; Bushman's credibility is in tatters already because of his support for such obvious charlatans as Hutchinson.

Bushman can levitate a coil a whole inch above a metal plate, then he extrapolates this to explain the (obviously faked) Gulf Breeze sightings?
Excellent stuff.

I think its a non conducting plate. He says its unique, because the power is in dc form.

Another one who has time to comment that Bushmans not credible, yet doesn't even have time to actually listen what he says...Typical..

Come on.. Find something wrong with what he says...Atleast give it a chance.

http://www.intalek.com/AV/Boyd-Bushman.wma

[Serenitude]

U

Grownups spell that 'you' ;)

[C4N7]

Grownups spell that 'you' ;)

..."U" got me there :clap: I mean that has great relevance to the topic... Don't post if u have nothing to say about the topic. If u are so inclined to correct peoples' spelling, why don't U go teach a english class. I aced all my english classes in college, and could give a flying F about my spelling here. Nuff time wasted on u...next?

[Van Rijn]

Interesting u cant find all the negative and these ** hoax claims, yet Bushman has nothing to do with it.


No idea what you are getting at there.



U havent found any evidence that bushman is lying or isn't credible.


No, you found the evidence, I and eburacum45 discussed it. In one video he is quoted as speaking highly of faked videos, but the second is the clincher: A demonstration of an everyday, well known effect of physics stated to be something new and special.

That kills his credibility dead.



U can say the gulf breeze sightings were a hoax, yet u weren't even there. I can make a ** website too saying the moon landing are fake, are u gonna qoute that too?


If you had read it, there was a reference to a newspaper story (with an image of the page) about how the model for the hoax had been found in the attic of the guy who said he had seen the UFO.



Fact is i'm sure u cant prove Hutchisons a hoax, as well as the gulf breeze sightings which were viewed by hundreds of witnesses in different areas.


(emphasis added) Now that's funny, given that we've already discussed my elf and the point about proof. Ultimately, it isn't up to me to prove him wrong, he has the burden of proof, and all we have are some very poor videos. Having said that, if you had read my previous posts, you would have seen a link to one Hutchison video with a toy jerking up down and around, and off to the upper left a wire jerking in time with the toy. The other videos showed images that I could fake easily, and I'm not a professional magician.



U can bash Hutchison, but fact is Hutchisons work could be very genuine. Its closed-minded people like yourself who dismiss his work without actually doing your homework.


I've done plenty of homework in my life, thank you very much. Further, I evaluated these videos with an open mind. But, having an open mind is not the same thing as being highly credulous. If somebody is going to present something as amazing and new, I expect good evidence. In these cases, the evidence was horribly poor.




I'm not talking about going to a skeptics website and believing everythings impossible and a hoax. U already had your mind made up, which in turn prevents u from learning the truth or new concepts of what reality is.


As I've said before, when there are good experimental results from credible sources showing a new effect (call it anti-gravity) I will accept it. Poor videos aren't evidence (though videos like these are good evidence against the credibility of the makers).



U didn't even take the time to listen to the audio and true voice of Boyd Bushman, so u are the one losing out.

I already listened to his true voice on the video. Why waste a half hour listening to more of the same when he already destroyed his credibility?

[Gillianren]

..."U" got me there :clap: I mean that has great relevance to the topic... Don't post if u have nothing to say about the topic. If u are so inclined to correct peoples' spelling, why don't U go teach a english class. I aced all my english classes in college, and could give a flying F about my spelling here. Nuff time wasted on u...next?

I find that very hard to believe.

As to why he corrected your spelling, it's because it makes your posts harder to read. As someone who "aced all my english classes in college," surely you know that the point of good grammar and good spelling is good communication? (Also, if you did ace them, you'd know that "English" is capitalized.)

[C4N7]

I find that very hard to believe.

As to why he corrected your spelling, it's because it makes your posts harder to read. As someone who "aced all my english classes in college," surely you know that the point of good grammar and good spelling is good communication? (Also, if you did ace them, you'd know that "English" is capitalized.)

Are u serious? If u want to create static, do it else where pls. Trying to bait people is pretty pathetic, so if thats what u have to contribute to this thread, u can kindly exit, thx.

[C4N7]

I meant this thread, as a way to open peoples' mind's to different possibilities. "You" took it as - "Lets get all the evidence I can find to proof that its **" - Attitudes like that are useless. I never asked for proof nor claimed that there is any proof for Boyd's words. I don't think u understand my position. I'm not here to try and prove anti-gravity's real and being used by the military. I thought people mighty be interested in what he has to say and his ideas. Why is it anytime a person puts out ideas and theories, theres always some bunch of people dedicated to proving it wrong? --> Because it goes against what they believe, so they naturally reject it, often times not even looking at whats in front of them. He knows its real and works on projects which far exceed the official scientific laws in which u "mainstream" scientists spout and live by. Instead of assuming hes full of it, listen to that audio clip and make an informed decision based on the guys actual words, and not some biased disinformation from some skeptics debunking santuary.

I just love the arrogant, Know it All attitudes of people here, and the lack of imagination. Can't u just smell the fear? This isnt about you or me, is it? Its about thinking beyond what we know, and learning from nature. There are many unknowns out there, why have the attitude that u know everything and anything unual is bsk, a hoax, or swamp gas?

[SMEaton]

You asked for opinions, and so you got them. It seems you set up an easy mile-wide target for everyone, waited for it to get bulls-eyed, and then pounced on people for doing exactly what you asked.

[ToSeek]

I meant this thread, as a way to open peoples' mind's to different possibilities. "You" took it as - "Lets get all the evidence I can find to proof that its **" - Attitudes like that are useless. I never asked for proof nor claimed that there is any proof for Boyd's words. I don't think u understand my position. I'm not here to try and prove anti-gravity's real and being used by the military. I thought people mighty be interested in what he has to say and his ideas. Why is it anytime a person puts out ideas and theories, theres always some bunch of people dedicated to proving it wrong? --> Because it goes against what they believe, so they naturally reject it, often times not even looking at whats in front of them. He knows its real and works on projects which far exceed the official scientific laws in which u "mainstream" scientists spout and live by. Instead of assuming hes full of it, listen to that audio clip and make an informed decision based on the guys actual words, and not some biased disinformation from some skeptics debunking santuary.

I just love the arrogant, Know it All attitudes of people here, and the lack of imagination. Can't u just smell the fear? This isnt about you or me, is it? Its about thinking beyond what we know, and learning from nature. There are many unknowns out there, why have the attitude that u know everything and anything unual is bsk, a hoax, or swamp gas?

You specifically asked for people's opinions - you got them. Don't then attack them personally for what they have to say. Not only is it impolite, it's against the rules of this forum. This is an official warning coming from a moderator.

[eburacum45]

I think its a non conducting plate. He says its unique, because the power is in dc form.


Hmm; as far as I could make out, he says he used a conducting plate, but 'believes' that this would work with a non-conducting plate.

[C4N7]

Your right, my error.

Anyways u say that's criticism. I just wasn't aware that this was a debunking forum. I thought we would discuss possibilities, instead of peoples' credibility, not to mention peoples grammer.

[peter eldergill]

Oh quit playing the persecution card and write sentences with real words. "u" is not a word

Pete

[Ronald Brak]

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

[C4N7]

Oh quit playing the persecution card and write sentences with real words. "u" is not a word

Pete

Can't find anything better than that huh? Again, if u have nothing to say about the topic, don't post garbage pls. Read the forum rules again, and abide by them pls.

I should have known this would be the reaction to something people don't understand. Instead of discussing the real topic people feel the need to attack rather than trying to understand. I was told there were intelligent people here that knew about physics, science, and just general knowledge...Instead, all this thread recieved was doubt, immaturity, and lack of an open-mind. - How typical, there were some here who were cool and didn't feel the need to resort to attacks and I respect u for that, as far as the other immature kids, I feel sry for u, I truthfully do.

[Serenitude]

Can't find anything better than that huh? Again, if u have nothing to say about the topic, don't post garbage pls. Read the forum rules again, and abide by them pls.

Peter has been here a while, knows the forum rules, and doesn't need to be lectured by you on them. You, however, despite having been warned by a mod, would do well to follow them.


I should have known this would be the reaction to something people don't understand.

This is where you're having problems. The people here are quite educated, and know how to look at an issue using the scientific method. The problem here, actually, is that you don't understand the issues and science involved. Instead of accepting that, you repeatedly resort to personal attacks, or attacks on the forum membership in general. Again, the problem lies with you.



Instead of discussing the real topic people feel the need to attack rather than trying to understand.

People have been discussing the real topic. It has been found to be absurdly false, the science bunk, and the perpetrators as having no credibility. This makes you angry, because it is in fact you who do not understand.


I was told there were intelligent people here that knew about physics, science, and just general knowledge

You were told right.


Instead, all this thread recieved was doubt, immaturity, and lack of an open-mind.

Ironically, it's coming from you, and yet you are the one complaining....


How typical, there were some here who were cool and didn't feel the need to resort to attacks and I respect u for that, as far as the other immature kids, I feel sry for u, I truthfully do.

Ahem. Again, the childish behavior on display in this thread is coming from you. You have presented an absurd premise and have reacted with anger and petulance when it has been shown to be patently not possible. As for children, I'm sry, but it's U. You may want to choose a different forum, where such nonsense is greeted by less skeptical minds.

[Tensor]

Anyways u say that's criticism. I just wasn't aware that this was a debunking forum.

You better look at the one of the main pages (Bad Astronomy). One of the reasons for that site was to debunk the moon hoax. As to forum being a debunking site, the majority of members here look at evidence and accept or reject based on that evidence. If you define debunking as looking at the idea, and rejecting or accepting the idea based on evidence, (and as far as I can see, the idea you presented been rejected here based on previous evidence), then yeah, this is a debunking site.


I thought we would discuss possibilities,

If the idea is worthless, then there is no possibilities and, as a result, nothing to discuss.


instead of peoples' credibility,

Well, if the people presenting the idea have no credibility, then that figures into whether to accept or reject the evidence. Especially when that person hangs on to the "evidence", even after it's been shown to be wrong.


not to mention peoples grammer.

Well, since the majority of those here are, at least, articulate, the lack of using proper grammar has been evidence, in the past, of a lack of critical thinking. It is also quite annoying and, as Gillianren has pointed out, makes your posts much harder to read. And no one here has commented on your grammer, they have commented on your grammar. But then, you knew this, as you aced your english [sic] classes.

[paulie jay]

Instead, all this thread recieved was doubt, immaturity, and lack of an open-mind.

my emphasis

Is your mind open to the possibilty that you don't have sufficient scientific knowledge to make a realistic judgement on this matter? Please answer :)

C4N7, an "open mind" does not mean that we dismiss reality. An open mind does not mean that 2 + 2 = 5. Yes, an open mind is vitally important when discussing any matter of science, and as one great skeptic said "It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out". i.e. We do not ignore the science that we know!

Just a quick word on spelling. Of course it is entirely your choice, but you will find that you will retain a greater reading audience if you don't treat your posts as if they were text messages. Is it the end of the world? No. But it is the way of things around here - we do prefer posts not to be full of shorthand. As I say, it's your choice, and it's not like you are going to get banned for it. You will find, however, that very few members here will be bothered reading your posts.

[C4N7]

Ahem. Again, the childish behavior on display in this thread is coming from you. You have presented an absurd premise and have reacted with anger and petulance when it has been shown to be patently not possible. As for children, I'm sry, but it's U. You may want to choose a different forum, where such nonsense is greeted by less skeptical minds.

Since u failed to actually read what I posted, I'll say it again. I didn't ask for background checks on Mr. Boyd, or even Hutchison. I didn't ask for any credibility checks whats so ever. I asked opinions on what he said and was suggesting - Theres a difference.



Is your mind open to the possibilty that you don't have sufficient scientific knowledge to make a realistic judgement on this matter? Please answer :)

C4N7, an "open mind" does not mean that we dismiss reality. An open mind does not mean that 2 + 2 = 5. Yes, an open mind is vitally important when discussing any matter of science, and as one great skeptic said "It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out". i.e. We do not ignore the science that we know!

Just a quick word on spelling. Of course it is entirely your choice, but you will find that you will retain a greater reading audience if you don't treat your posts as if they were text messages. Is it the end of the world? No. But it is the way of things around here - we do prefer posts not to be full of shorthand. As I say, it's your choice, and it's not like you are going to get banned for it. You will find, however, that very few members here will be bothered reading your posts.

Ty. That was a intelligent post with no ******** remarks -cool, I can accept that. My harsh reaction comes when someone makes a ******** remark to me, not even pertaining to the thread, just to start static. Sry just hate scum like that, who cowardly say things that they would never say to your face. Anyways I'm done with this forum, as most of the people here are arrogant ********es who think they've got everything figured out. With that kind of knowledge, what else do u have to learn? If u took a second to actually listen to this brilliant scientist who happens to be a senior scientist at Lockheed(Crockpot according to people here) u would learn something suprising.

I'm a nice guy, and all u have brought out in me is bitterness and anger. I have no problem with critism, but a ******** attitude - I'm gonna react to in a negative way as u wanted. Most didn't even give it a chance. U guys can gang up on me like wussies all u want, if that makes u feel like a man, but just know thats an illusion.

[ToSeek]

C4N7 has been banned permanently so he will not be tempted to rejoin us "arrogant ********es."

[Donnie B.]

Whew. Flameout.

Unfortunate that things worked out that way.

[jt-3d]

Most didn't even give it a chance. U guys can gang up on me like wussies all u want, if that makes u feel like a man, but just know thats an illusion.

Why is it that they always think that whatever they bring is something we have never heard of before? That was something this guy could never figure out - that it was the same old stuff we've already seen so we don't have to give it a chance. We already did.

[PhantomWolf]

Why is it that they always think that whatever they bring is something we have never heard of before?

Same reason they all try the "They laughed at Galileo" line too.

[Van Rijn]

Since u failed to actually read what I posted, I'll say it again. I didn't ask for background checks on Mr. Boyd, or even Hutchison. I didn't ask for any credibility checks whats so ever. I asked opinions on what he said and was suggesting - Theres a difference.


*sigh* The logic of this statement escapes me. You asked opinions on what he said. I responded that what he said wasn't credible and I gave my reasoning. Now that you got yourself banned, I guess we'll never know why only certain answers to your question were acceptable. Ah, well.

[BadScience]

Hutchison is something like a bad incarnation of Uri Geller. He is a con artist and nothing more. It is funny to see how even people with scientific background fall for these cheap tricks. His first videos posted on his web were just totally laughable. A child toy that was clearly suspended on a wire (you could see him janking the wire near edge of the frame), a blinking toy on a wire lowered upside down through a hole in board... just really primitive con. People were laughing at those and so he removed them (but you can still find it) and he improved a bit his magic tricks. Soon he started filming upside down in his closet where things like a broom "magically" fly "up" and other Sesame street tricks.

It is soo funny to see people really discussing this as a sort of break-through science. You can see how easily people get conned by a simple trick. The simpler the better. Put a big Tesla Coil and some RF equipment as a background, suspend a toy on invisible thread, show a magically bent spoon, or strangely cut metal and you have antigravity. Filming things upside down? Janking a toy on wire? Yes, it looks like that, but he wouldn't do that - it's too primitive! It has to be some special property of electromagnetic field.

Most people do not realize that the base for a con artist or magician is a very primitive technique - so primitive that most of the people would simply dismiss them because "that wouldn't fool anybody". But it is the same as pen through a dollar bill, or using thumbtip for pulling out napkin. Hey, if you put a magician thumbtip on your thumb you would never-ever believe that it could fool anybody - it is soo visible! But it does, everytime. And so does Hutchison "effect".
I have nothing against the guy personally, I always thought about him as a sort of new type internet spoon bender. But it is quite disturbing that people do seriously still fall for this crap again and again despite living in the era of "google anything" and youtube. I know, people do want to be fooled, but Hutchison is really a low key artist, get somebody who at least do his act properly.

Maybe you had seen the guys that are building "floaters", the light structures where they plug high voltage and the structure fly up. That is in fact a genuine experiment because it can be verified and repeated over and over. It may not be antigravity, but it is cool experiment. Difference between "floaters" and hutchinson is like day and night. (unfortunately many "floaters" do get fooled by Hutchison & co. and mix their experiment with his bogus claims together under a "new type of force" - which makes many of them look like tin-foil heads and prone to straw man theories. My advice - get away from the con artist or they will spoil your fun!)

On the topic of genuine antigravity - the answer is simple. In our almost infinite universe anything, even strange things do have some probablity of existence, but if it looks like janking a toy on a wire, then it is also very probably just that.

Sorry, but Hutchison is a fraud, or let him be called "entertainer".

[Uclock]

9 out of 10 for entertainment value.

I hope C4N7 picks up his toys he just threw out the pram whilst stomping home in a temper. Bad boys you lot!

[HenrikOlsen]

Hey, if you put a magician thumbtip on your thumb you would never-ever believe that it could fool anybody - it is soo visible! But it does, everytime.
This is actually an experiment which is easy to do for yourself, if you can find a shop selling them.
You can easily go through a complete day without anyone noticing your thumb is covered by what you would consider an obviously faked tip.

[hplasm]

9 out of 10 for entertainment value.

I hope C4N7 picks up his toys he just threw out the pram whilst stomping home in a temper. Bad boys you lot!

Hmm...shouldn't your name be Youclock..? ;)

[mugaliens]

Hutchison is something like a bad incarnation of Uri Geller. He is a con artist and nothing more.

Well, illusion is one thing.

Explain this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6oAW9w9wFA).

Intelligibly, if you would, and not just "pat answer."

[01101001]

Well, illusion is one thing.

Explain this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6oAW9w9wFA).

Intelligibly, if you would, and not just "pat answer."
Do you claim that is not an illusion that attempts (perhaps succeeds with some) to make you think he had an ordinary woman pulled in half?

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/pullapart.asp)

[phunk]

Well, illusion is one thing.

Explain this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6oAW9w9wFA).

Intelligibly, if you would, and not just "pat answer."

How intelligibly can a trick be explained when we can only see it from the carefully edited view that the magician wants us to see on tv?

There's a reason magicians like david blane and chris angel perform in front of small groups on tv like that, because his audience is part of the trick. The woman he tore in half was most likely a double amputee, judging by the way she ran around on her arms afterwards, it wasn't the first time she's done it.

[BigDon]

I've seen folks in Blane's show who were "random folks in a crowd" that I've seen before in other places. Including Linsey Dawn Mckenzie. Can't mistake her for anybody else.

[BadScience]

It is easy to explain. Chris Angel is the real deal. He is a spiritual being from different space-time and also sold his soul to Soul.... errr I mean what do you suggest by "explain this"?
This wasn't a trick, but more a Halloween type of prank on people who watch it. It is also a bit more expensive for normal magician like me and you, as you need a 1pc of legless person willing to scream and make an idiot of him/her-self.
Tell Chris Angel he is no illusionist and he will slap your face with a wet towel. Coz he is.

I first wanted to finish with the sentence above, as that is the best explanation for money, but to spare this board from screaming "pat answer, pat answer, get him!" I'll give you your answer:
Learned Pigs & Fireproof Women or Raja Raboid who performed this trick in 1937
Thats it. The rest is on your googlability.
BTW. Chris Angel also sells bunch of his tricks, so for 30 bucks + shipping you can also sell your soul and become a youtube star.

To tie things up with the topic title, for $30 + shipping you can make your own antigravity levitating device courtesy of Chris Angel. Fully examinable pants, but check your angles. Ineterested?

[BigDon]

It was either Mugs link here or the links in Halo Movie thread in Small media at large put a trogan on my machine. Just to warn...

[Uclock]

Hmm...shouldn't your name be Youclock..?

Maybe your right but I always keep one eye closed, for safety reasons.

[hplasm]

Maybe your right but I always keep one eye closed, for safety reasons.

:D

[publiusr]

Over at livescience is a bit on sonic levitation.

Good if you are a small fish--with no fillings to shake out.

[djdugan]

Aren't there documented cases of non conducting "things " floating in a strong magnetic field ?
I think I saw a video of a frog that was placed in it (Mag field) and it just floated there...
Now the Coil was huge, but I always wondered if the frog's weight was totally negated ?, or just transferred to Magnetic coil assembly ???
Has anyone heard of this, or know the answer...?
When frog was floating, did magnetic assembly weigh the frog's weight more ?

[cjl]

Yep. Basically, that's the force being transferred to the magnetic assembly. It's not actually eliminating gravity, just counteracting it.

[publiusr]

An needing a giant mechanism to do it. The cosest thing I could come up with that might look like anti-gravity is this:

Over at Mark Wade's astronautix website is a listing for an enormous Lenticular HLLV under the "ROOST" section. Now if this craft used an all cryogenic propellant load with some superconducting tank skins--and floated over a long, supercooled magnetic launch strip---so it could hover and then build up speed--it might "look" like a flying saucer taking off after a hover.

[kyleraine]

Okay, I watched it. Nick Cook (the commentator and interviewer) makes all sorts of grand statements,

The smell of your skepticism must mean it's fake. Yeah.

"and there is Boyd Bushman not saying much of anything specific. Then near the end the commentator says that Bushman spoke highly of a scientist's experiments. That "scientist" is not named, but it is in fact John Hutchison, who is not a scientist,"

1. Which hutchison already said mr. genius reporter

2. So what if he's not a scientist?

3. So, only scientists know anything and understand anything? Durrrrr.

4. Are you a scientist? If not, that must mean I can't trust a word of your report.

5. So only scientists tell the truth? Booooo.

"and who made some of the silliest and obviously faked videos you could imagine."

Cuz u said so, and whatever you say is true cuz u said it. Cuz ur skeptical, and whatever a biased mentally ill person doubts must not be true. Cuz u doubt, and whatever you doubt must not be true. Dude, stop wasting my time and the time of others.

"I posted earlier on Hutchison here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=648497&postcount=27

and here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=648525&postcount=30

That pretty well dumps credibility into the dumper."

If what you said here is how you think, whatever you put there is SILLY time-wasting ranting too you confused hypocrite.

"Anyway, when it comes to anti-gravity, my position, as always, is that I will believe it when there is independent confirmation from multiple credible sources."

So they have no credientials CUZ U SAID SO? Cuz a lazy pompous ill rambler said so?

So you can't trust your eyes when you watch a video, how can you trust your eyes when you see anything else? Durrrrr.

And who cares about your position? So your position is right cuz u said so?

Where are you credentials?

There are many names for people like you, besides hypocrite.

[Neverfly]

The smell of your skepticism must mean it's fake. Yeah.

"and there is Boyd Bushman not saying much of anything specific. Then near the end the commentator says that Bushman spoke highly of a scientist's experiments. That "scientist" is not named, but it is in fact John Hutchison, who is not a scientist,"

1. Which hutchison already said mr. genius reporter

2. So what if he's not a scientist?

3. So, only scientists know anything and understand anything? Durrrrr.

4. Are you a scientist? If not, that must mean I can't trust a word of your report.

5. So only scientists tell the truth? Booooo.

"and who made some of the silliest and obviously faked videos you could imagine."

Cuz u said so, and whatever you say is true cuz u said it. Cuz ur skeptical, and whatever a biased mentally ill person doubts must not be true. Cuz u doubt, and whatever you doubt must not be true. Dude, stop wasting my time and the time of others.

"I posted earlier on Hutchison here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=648497&postcount=27

and here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=648525&postcount=30

That pretty well dumps credibility into the dumper."

If what you said here is how you think, whatever you put there is SILLY time-wasting ranting too you confused hypocrite.

"Anyway, when it comes to anti-gravity, my position, as always, is that I will believe it when there is independent confirmation from multiple credible sources."

So they have no credientials CUZ U SAID SO? Cuz a lazy pompous ill rambler said so?

So you can't trust your eyes when you watch a video, how can you trust your eyes when you see anything else? Durrrrr.

And who cares about your position? So your position is right cuz u said so?

Where are you credentials?

There are many names for people like you, besides hypocrite.

This insulting rant is part of why it's hard to take some people seriously.

Perpetual motion, ghost hunters, alchemy, psychic ability and psuedo science are all areas that charlatans have been making claims about through-out the ages and have yet to provide any proof.

If you can't handle the heat of providing evidence and proof, providing insults and derision certainly isn't going to make up for it or inspire anyone to take you more seriously.

ETA: I also just scrolled through and realized there is a bit of thread necromancy here. Oops.

[Gorgonian]

I personally thought that the model found in Ed Walter's attic was disputed as evidence of a hoax because:

1) he had moved out and someone else lived there (time for someone to plant it there)

2) it didn't really resemble the object that closely

3) it was made from blueprints that he was somehow able to prove were no longer in his possession (someone else was supopsed to have them or something)

This is all from memory from looking into this a few years ago. All I am saying is I don't think you can dismiss the entire thing just based on that model. My feeling was there were other reasons to dismiss that (such as some lighting and reflection issues in some photographs) though it still has always seemed to be a fascinating case to me.

[dgavin]

American Antigravity (Hutchison) is a Scam Company, of the same Ilk of the Internet Scamers that send out fishing emails.

Even the Antigrav "Floater" was debunked by Mythbusters not that long ago. In an atmosphere it works just fine. Soon as you stick it into a vacum chamber it breaks down.

In the end the Antigrav "Floater" is nothing more then a primative form of a Ion Drive, that Ionizes the air, which is then pushed doward by the opposite charge at the base of the floater.

[Jim]

The smell of your skepticism must mean it's fake. Yeah.
...

Kyleraine, you are new to BAUT and have obviously not read the Rules for Posting (http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/32864-rules-posting-board.html). If you had, you would know that your post is a violation of Rule 2 Civility and Decorum. You may be used to fora that allow such malicious posts, but BAUT does not.

Take the next three days off to acquaint yourself with the Rules and decide whether you will be happy here following them.

[Van Rijn]

A little review: About a year ago, C4N7 asked for opinions on an interview video he mentioned in the OP (http://www.bautforum.com/853309-post1.html), where a fellow named Boyd Bushman talks about anti-gravity to a reporter. Discussion in this thread was related to members' opinions on the interview. C4N7 wasn't happy with the opinions here, and had a bit of an attitude problem.


The smell of your skepticism must mean it's fake. Yeah.

"and there is Boyd Bushman not saying much of anything specific. Then near the end the commentator says that Bushman spoke highly of a scientist's experiments. That "scientist" is not named, but it is in fact John Hutchison, who is not a scientist,"

1. Which hutchison already said mr. genius reporter


Please watch the video mentioned in the OP and point out the time index where Hutchison appears.



2. So what if he's not a scientist?


It was an inaccurate and misleading statement by the commentator in the interview. The context of this, again, is in regard to the OP video. That interview video includes a clip of a "demonstration" done by someone who is only referred to as a "scientist." I recognized the bit as something done by Hutchison, but this is not stated in the video.



"and who made some of the silliest and obviously faked videos you could imagine."

Cuz u said so, and whatever you say is true cuz u said it.


Odd. I note that you have a similar shorthand posting style to that of C4N7.

Anyway, did you bother to follow the links I provided? Here's a video (http://www.uforc.com/Video_2.WMV) done by Hutchison. It supposedly demonstrates an anti-gravity experiment with a little saucer toy moving around in a jerky fashion. If you look at the upper left hand corner, you can see a wire jerking at the same time as the toy. This is obvious fakery.

Also, many of Hutchison's so-called experiments have things supposedly lifting off a plywood surface in an odd way. For example, a hand saw starts lifting off slowly, than moves "up" faster during the video. I could easily duplicate this experiment by hiding an electromagnet above a sheet of plywood. I would turn it on, and place the hand saw on the plywood ceiling where it would be held by the electromagnet. I would start filming the saw with the camera upside down, and turn off the electromagnet. When viewed, it would appear as if the saw accelerated upwards.

It's hard to describe how poor the videos are when considered as evidence. There are clips spliced together, often with poor lighting, using closeups of objects. They're not even good tricks.



"Anyway, when it comes to anti-gravity, my position, as always, is that I will believe it when there is independent confirmation from multiple credible sources."

So they have no credientials CUZ U SAID SO?


You miss the point: If somebody says they have discovered new physics, it starts getting interesting only when there is independent, repeated, credible confirmation. That's how science works. For instance, take a look at the history of the "missing" neutrino issue, and the experiments eventually showing neutrino oscillation. There was a process, with many scientists, with different experiments, investigating various possibilities.



So you can't trust your eyes when you watch a video, how can you trust your eyes when you see anything else? Durrrrr.


That depends on what information you have. A video, of course, gives someone more opportunities for manipulation, but a stage magician can pull off some great tricks too.

[triplebird]

Grownups spell ["u"] 'you' ;)

Unless they're speaking Dutch, of course. :)


Levitating a coil or toy above a plate (even when not faked) doesn't seem like a feat of "alien" prowess to me. Magnets or air pressure, say, could do this with little problem. If gravity is the acceleration of objects towards the Earth's center at 9.8m/sec2, then anti-gravity is merely the acceleration of objects at >9.8m/sec2 in the opposite direction. Rockets, springs, even human muscles do this (albeit for short bursts). So anti-gravity is plenty possible. Just not in the way pseudo-scientists like to describe it.

[Sean Clayden]

Not, otherwise the oil companies would be shafted.

[ZappBrannigan]

3. So, only scientists know anything and understand anything? Durrrrr.
I consider myself to be fairly well read when it comes to the internet, and yet I have never seen someone actually write out "Durrrr." Now this debate is a real chess match.

[peter eldergill]

What a funny rant on a year old thread that nobody cares about anymore!

Pete

[Peptron]

What a funny rant on a year old thread that nobody cares about anymore!

Pete

What do you mean not care about? It is funny as hell! Been a while I've seen something that entertaining. I should come to the conspiracy forum more often.

I didn't notice the thread was a year old. To me it was just C4N7 getting banned and coming back immediately under the sockpuppet name of kyleraine. Now that I see it's a year old I can't shake that vision of C4N7 curled into a ball ala Gollum ploting for vengence moaning "they will see, they will all see... my vengence! ... my precious vengence!" for an entire year, then getting banned after two posts in an interval of like 3 hours.

[peter eldergill]

What do you mean not care about? It is funny as hell! Been a while I've seen something that entertaining. I should come to the conspiracy forum more often.

Fair enough...perhaps I was a bit .... hasty! :)

Indeed it is humourous, I just find it odd that someone reraises a dead issue from well over a year ago...perhaps "forgotten about" might have been a better phrase to use

Pete

[Peptron]

Lol, no I see what you mean.

I think it's funny, but kind of not funny at the same time. I always laugh inside when I see somebody say "show me wrong" and then blow a fuse when shown wrong; or get angry when they ask for your opinion and it's something different from "I agree".

Not funny at the same time because I had to deal with self-persecuted people before. My father, who was schizophrenic, but even then he wasn't really bad on the "persecution" side of things; he was more of the highly imaginative type and then confused his imagination with reality. But I also had a friend who had what I'd call an extreme case of avoidant personality disorder, complete with delusional fit of persecution and total fixation over the idea that every single life form hated him personally. His self-esteem must have been a negative number. He never was fighting back though, his self-persecution was of the ultra-shy avoidant type, kind of if you said "Ah, you like the color blue? I kind of prefer the color red." would almost make him feel emotionally brutalised and he'd depress.

I think maybe that's why I avoid the conspiracy forum? There is potencial for amusement, but some people here have a schizophrenic flavor in their posting, or at least paranoid/schizotypal.

[PhantomWolf]

Not, otherwise the oil companies would be shafted.

Not to derail, but Energy companies (they sell a lot more than just oil) wouldn't be shafted at all. If there was a new energy source found that was more profitable to produce and sell than oil and gas are, who do you think would be selling it? Who has the worldwide infrastructure to support the consumers? Those very same Energy Companies. Those running the companies aren't stupid, they are more then prepared to move with the times, already most of them are working in the alternative fuels industry, in fact Shell has operational hydrogen equipped stations in several locations about the planet, including Washington DC. In the future, instead of pulling into a BP, Mobil, Texaco, or Shell station to fill up with petrol, you'll be pulling into those same ones to top up with hydrogen, ethanol or just to plug your car into the power supply to charge up the batteries super quick.

[peter eldergill]

To expand on that, my brother works for Ballard Power (fuel cells) in Vancouver. They obviously need to deal with energy companies and car companies. He told me that the energy companies wouldn't mind switching the infrastructure to hydorgen, but only once. They don't want to have to switch back.

Mind you, this was several years ago, the attitude may have changed

Pete

[PhantomWolf]

To expand on that, my brother works for Ballard Power (fuel cells) in Vancouver. They obviously need to deal with energy companies and car companies. He told me that the energy companies wouldn't mind switching the infrastructure to hydorgen, but only once. They don't want to have to switch back.

Mind you, this was several years ago, the attitude may have changed

Pete

There is a reason for that, it's going to be expensive to make the switch, that's one of the reasons it's being delayed. It needs to be done once and done correctly. There is no profit in getting it wrong, so they are playing a waiting game to see which technology is going to take over from petrol, and then once it's decided, there'll be a slow roll over to that technology as it is phased in and the older stuff is phased out.

[Singular]

Fair enough...perhaps I was a bit .... hasty! :)

Indeed it is humourous, I just find it odd that someone reraises a dead issue from well over a year ago...perhaps "forgotten about" might have been a better phrase to use

Pete

It gives everyone a chance to spout off and feel smart. Useful public service.

[Van Rijn]

I didn't notice the thread was a year old. To me it was just C4N7 getting banned and coming back immediately under the sockpuppet name of kyleraine. Now that I see it's a year old I can't shake that vision of C4N7 curled into a ball ala Gollum ploting for vengence moaning "they will see, they will all see... my vengence! ... my precious vengence!" for an entire year, then getting banned after two posts in an interval of like 3 hours.

According to Jim's post, kyleraine was given a three day suspension because of his attitude issue, not a sock puppet banning. But I understand the confusion - after reviewing the thread, kyleraine appears to me to have a very similar posting style and attitude to C4N7.

[Drbuzz0]

The biefield-brown effect is a mainstay of the "Anti-gravity" psuedo-science movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect

There is a method for producing thrust by sending huge amounts of high voltage into a capacitor-type thingy. It produces an "electric wind" but this cannot account for the whole effect. I've heard that in a vacuum there are tiny amounts of trust generated by such an apparatus.

But it's not anti-gravity. It's been called this many times but it's been tested with very accurate gravitometers and such and it's not. The best explinations is that it is a combination of ions being shed from the material and a sort of internal impulse-based momentum. if you imagine a bohr model of an atom. Think of the electrons as going into a an elyptical orbit where they shoot down one side fast and go back slower, due to the huge field they're under.

Electrons have very little mass. And ions from a metal plate would be small. That's probably why when you put huge amounts of energy into such a device you only get barely measurable thrust.


If you actually want antigravity you need negative mass. Probably not possible with any sort of matter. Possibly with "negative energy" which in theory might be possible, but only in really tiny amounts. Energy has next to no mass unless you have absolutely massive amounts of it. You'd need several h-bombs worth of negative-energy to have a few grams of negative mass.... if that's even possible in theory... which it might be... or not.

So at the moment.. it just ain't gona happen.

[JayUtah]

Right; it's just momentum thrust. Generating a force to oppose gravity is not anti-gravity. If it were, then we could attribute anti-gravity to, say, the Montgolfiers.

[Donnie B.]

Right; it's just momentum thrust. Generating a force to oppose gravity is not anti-gravity. If it were, then we could attribute anti-gravity to, say, the Montgolfiers.
True. But really, balloons are quite pro-gravity. It's the effect of gravity on the air around the balloon that makes it rise.

[mogues]

No offense but some people on here seem over critical and over assertive with their views on the subject. Instead of stating such things "as his credibility is ruined" - state "his credibility is questionable 'to me'". Someone's credibility is measured differently depending on another's knowledge of the person and the matter in question. For example if you do not know an individual personally their credibility to you would be of a lesser capacity than as to someone who does know said individual personally. Someone who is involved closely with a matter being questioned would have more knowledge on the subject and therefore a better judge of the persons credibility. Their credibility "should they state their views on the matter" then comes into question. This is neverending until it all just becomes speculation. Someones views on a subject will always be judged by the individual and every man and woman alive has preconceptions to any subject presented to them. You're view on a subject may be simultaneously completely different to my view should we be told at the same time (i say you're view meaning anybody). My point being that in order for a healthy and constructive argument to ensue it should be assumed that neither party is correct in their assertions because (it seems here on this topic anyway) that noone can put forward evidence that cannot have been tampered with and/or have personal knowlege on the subject or persons actual credibility. So i think if you wish to put forward relevant comment's and engage in an intelligent argument, you should choose you're word's more carefully and not label thing's that you have read here or there as fact. Because fact (again especially in this topic) is very debateable in itself eg. science that is and has been accepted as fact for millenia is continually debunked as former speculation and theory as the clock ticks forward. I say this not to offend anyone, nor do i say it on anyone's behalf. I say it merely because we all have an opinion and as noone can state absolute fact on this subject i think we should all just open our mind's a little, and be a little more accepting of the view's of others - whether they be highly informed or not. We are all entitled to our own opinion.

"Don't tell me it's not true, until you yourself have proven it's not true"

[eburacum45]

"Don't tell me it's not true, until you yourself have proven it's not true" It doesn't work like that. Someone with extraordinary claims needs to provide proof for those claims- and that proof will be rigorously examined. If the proof fails (as all the proofs of antigravity produced in this thread so far have failed) then it must be rejected.

[Mellow]

Almost exactly 2 years, thread necromancy alert :-)

[Mr Gorsky]

The thread that wouldn't die ... I feel a movie coming on. YouTube, of course.

:D

[Spoons]

Starring Angelina Jolie?

[djinn]

I don't know about an anti-gravity device, but C4N7/kyleraine and mogues all seem to use an anti-grammar device.

[Spoons]

They may not understand the gravity of their actions. ;)

[Swift]

mogues,

Assuming you return, first, welcome to BAUT. Second, if you are going to advocate some conspiracy, you need to prove it, it is not up to the rest of us to disprove it.

Lastly, paragraphs are a great invention. You might want to try them out for you next long post.

[JayUtah]

...

For example if you do not know an individual personally their credibility to you would be of a lesser capacity than as to someone who does know said individual personally.

No. In the case of nearly topic covered here, the credibility of any particular contributor can be judged solely on its merits, without any knowledge of the person or his background. In fact to do the latter would tend to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

The credibility of someone who claims that his gracile bridge can hold up 10,000 pounds, but who either refuses to test that or tests it and fails, is based solely on that outcome, not upon my knowledge of an individual person. What I know or may discover about him will not change the physical behavior of the universe regarding his bridge.

...every man and woman alive has preconceptions to any subject presented to them.

In the case of physics, science, and technology, those "preconceptions" are nearly always based on considerable practical history. My preconception about whether a bridge will bear some designated load is based on lessons learned from 1,000 years of bridge-building.

Topics covered in this forum do not generally lend themselves to legitimate differences of opinion. Whether abortion is morally justified, or what I should get my nephew for his birthday, are questions about which you and I may differ considerably according to any number of subjective factors. Whether a given gadget will generate anti-gravity, or whether a bridge will bear its rated load, are questions that appeal only to the established and immutable behavior of the universe. If you say the bridge will bear 10,000 pounds and I say it will not, one of us is wrong and the other is right. If the bridge collapses, none of your arguments in favor of its robustness will be true no matter how persuasively you argue them.

My point being that in order for a healthy and constructive argument to ensue it should be assumed that neither party is correct in their assertions...

Hogwash. Those whose models of the behavior of the physical world have stood the test of time are demonstrably correct in their assertions. Those who challenge that model with a new untested model have the burden of proof.

...no one can put forward evidence that cannot have been tampered with...

You allude to an affirmative rebuttal. If you develop a new method of bridge-building and assert that it is robust enough to hold up 10,000 pounds, its failure to do so may be the result of tampering, but since you would be the one affirming that cause for the witnessed effect, you would have the burden of proof. You can't accuse people of sawing through your bridge members without proof.

The status quo persists in science and technology not because of some ideological or idealistic allegiance, but because it's proven to work.

...e.g. science that is and has been accepted as fact for millenia is continually debunked as former speculation and theory as the clock ticks forward.

No. Science that is accepted for millennia is rejected for better science when better, more predictive or comprehensive, models arise and are validated. That occurs on the basis of hypothesis, empiricism, analysis, and finally practice. And in fact it is the scientists who do this for the world, not the pseudoscientists howling from the shadows and complaining about unfair rejection. The former models are not dismissed as speculation; they were correct inasfar as our ability to observe and test them. They remain valid for circumstances that fit the original presumptions.

We know that Newtonian dynamics breaks down as velocities approach significant fractions of the speed of light. There is a more complete Einsteinian model that works for more cases. But in fact most speeds we deal with do not approach the speed of light. Hence Newtonian dynamics remains the model that governs my profession because it is good enough, and simpler.

...we should all just open our mind's a little, and be a little more accepting of the view's of others

Open-mindedness does not mean accepting testable assertions of fact without the test. These aren't subjective questions. The test may not be bypassed simply because it's inconvenient or expensive to do them, or because they might fail.

We are all entitled to our own opinion.

Entitlement does not make it correct. If you offer an opinion regarding the behavior of the universe and your opinion does not match observable fact, it is simply wrong.

"Don't tell me it's not true, until you yourself have proven it's not true"

No, that simply shifts the burden of proof. One does not get to enjoy the warm glow of scientific accomplishment without having done the work. You can't simply propose the absurd with no further effort and expect to be taken seriously by people who have considerable practical experience to the contrary.

[Spoons]

...is based on lessons learned from 1,000 years of bridge-building.
So the legends are true - you really are 1000 years old? :D

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

[BigDon]

Ummm, shouldn't the opposite of gravity be levity instead of anti-gravity?

Because it certainly seems that way.

[HenrikOlsen]

My preconception about whether a bridge will bear some designated load is based on lessons learned from 1,000 years of bridge-building.
Based on this bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkadiko_Bridge), still standing after 3000 years, you off by a factor of at least 3:)

Just to include a bit of levity.

This, incidentally is an example that it is possible to say JayUtah is wrong about something, but also shows that it takes hard data to do so.

[ravens_cry]

The way I understand it, a claim to have made an anti-gravity system that uses less energy to lift an object then can be theoretically derived from the falling of the object is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Rather a no-no, from what I know of the modern understanding of the laws of physics.

[mogues]

Yeah the grammars bad i know Djinn and Swift, thank you for making me feel like an idiot :doh: I will try harder this time. As for JayUtah i see you've done a good job at disassembling my super large paragraph and tearing it to bits in front of my laughing eyes. Its all a bit funny but i enjoy reading the thoughts of knowledgeable people with intellects such as those i have read on this forum.

Back on subject i'll just say i don't think i conveyed my thoughts adequately in my last post so i'm going to try again.

"My point being that in order for a healthy and constructive argument to ensue it should be assumed that neither party is correct in their assertions..."

I simply meant that because you cannot prove the answer to the question you cannot be definitevely correct in you're assertions. The question "Anti-gravity impossible or not" An example then: A layman was shown this technology worked, had it explained so as he could understand but could not grasp or recall the science behind it. If he was then sat in a room along with you and asked the question "Is anti-gravity impossible or not?" He answers "not", you answer "yes it is". In terms of right and wrong, he is right and you are wrong. In terms of the scientific worlds outlook on it, he is wrong and you are right - because you can "prove" him wrong. You're answer however would not be the correct answer to the question. It must be "with our current scientific knowledge it is unacheivable", the question simply cannot be answered conclusively.

"science that is and has been accepted as fact for millenia is continually debunked as former speculation and theory as the clock ticks forward."

Here i should not have used the word speculation, however science is continually advancing and in reference to the building blocks of science, in some areas the mortar is wearing thin.

"...we should all just open our mind's a little, and be a little more accepting of the view's of others"

As i have already stated the question cannot be answered definitevely, it is in some respects a trick question. If you say it is impossible and ten years (a hundred years whatever) down the track it somehow comes to fruition then you would look a little silly to have said it was impossible no? This is simply what i meant about choosing words carefully (pot calling the kettle black).

"Don't tell me it's not true, until you yourself have proven it's not true"

Its not about proof, again the question states "impossible", there is no ellaborating with it eg. impossible with our current technology. It remain's a simple question. Not improbable - is it impossible? (and please i don't wish to fall into a debate of semantics - even if you are scientifically minded i think you should still remember the question you are attempting to answer).

And one last word in reference to the credibility subject, in this case i am referring to those who have stated that they have seen anti-gravity work or know of its current development. Again you can only surmise as with most things of this nature as to whether they are telling the truth or not. I know i am probably about to get a short science lesson after this post :lol: PEACE

[Tensor]

The way I understand it, a claim to have made an anti-gravity system that uses less energy to lift an object then can be theoretically derived from the falling of the object is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Rather a no-no, from what I know of the modern understanding of the laws of physics.

See that's your problem, you know physics. :lol:

[Jason_Roberts]

I don't understand the hype that some associate with anti-gravity. Isn't there plenty of things that regular gravity can do that are useful?

We've built our space exploration vehicles around the clever use of it.

[ravens_cry]

I don't understand the hype that some associate with anti-gravity. Isn't there plenty of things that regular gravity can do that are useful?

We've built our space exploration vehicles around the clever use of it.
Yes, but imagine if we could, even if only partially. A small push would send a spacecraft careening close to the speed of light. Even a less extreme negation would go beyond merely revolutionizing space access. I am not saying it is possible, but if it was, it would be an astronautical engineers *ahem* nocturnal emission.

[boppa]

Yeah the grammars bad i know Djinn and Swift, thank you for making me feel like an idiot :doh: I will try harder this time. As for JayUtah i see you've done a good job at disassembling my super large paragraph and tearing it to bits in front of my laughing eyes. Its all a bit funny but i enjoy reading the thoughts of knowledgeable people with intellects such as those i have read on this forum.

Back on subject i'll just say i don't think i conveyed my thoughts adequately in my last post so i'm going to try again.

"My point being that in order for a healthy and constructive argument to ensue it should be assumed that neither party is correct in their assertions..."

I simply meant that because you cannot prove the answer to the question you cannot be definitevely correct in you're assertions. The question "Anti-gravity impossible or not" An example then: A layman was shown this technology worked, had it explained so as he could understand but could not grasp or recall the science behind it. If he was then sat in a room along with you and asked the question "Is anti-gravity impossible or not?" He answers "not", you answer "yes it is". In terms of right and wrong, he is right and you are wrong. In terms of the scientific worlds outlook on it, he is wrong and you are right - because you can "prove" him wrong. You're answer however would not be the correct answer to the question. It must be "with our current scientific knowledge it is unacheivable", the question simply cannot be answered conclusively.

"science that is and has been accepted as fact for millenia is continually debunked as former speculation and theory as the clock ticks forward."

Here i should not have used the word speculation, however science is continually advancing and in reference to the building blocks of science, in some areas the mortar is wearing thin.

"...we should all just open our mind's a little, and be a little more accepting of the view's of others"

As i have already stated the question cannot be answered definitevely, it is in some respects a trick question. If you say it is impossible and ten years (a hundred years whatever) down the track it somehow comes to fruition then you would look a little silly to have said it was impossible no? This is simply what i meant about choosing words carefully (pot calling the kettle black).

"Don't tell me it's not true, until you yourself have proven it's not true"

Its not about proof, again the question states "impossible", there is no ellaborating with it eg. impossible with our current technology. It remain's a simple question. Not improbable - is it impossible? (and please i don't wish to fall into a debate of semantics - even if you are scientifically minded i think you should still remember the question you are attempting to answer).

And one last word in reference to the credibility subject, in this case i am referring to those who have stated that they have seen anti-gravity work or know of its current development. Again you can only surmise as with most things of this nature as to whether they are telling the truth or not. I know i am probably about to get a short science lesson after this post :lol: PEACE

Funnily enough just tonight I have seen that people that sidetrack threads (yes gillie I am looking in your direction) about grammer (or grammar even) actually are defeating their stated purpose

mine is `deleted' word- say `out- house ' quality-
yup- thats me...
but I have got no less than 3 teens tonight googling frantically `just to prove me wrong'

1 I have IMHO of course gotten off to a start with a usefull job and probably is going to be a productive member of society

all have wandered over here and been put off by the `in your face' attitude of many members

remember its no good being right, if the only one that cares that youre are right is you...


Phil and Dr Karl both talked out against the `ivory tower' approach that baut seems to want to impose

IMHO b.a and u.t merge was the biggest mistake that ever happened to the b.a forum

the ivory tower approach is imho killing any new forum members in any number from joining

and is imho the new divide between the young people that use `new english' and those that will readily deride those that misplace a : fo a ;

get around the `pick at the details' and educate- not berate

in the last few years there has been less and less of the `educate' and more and more `berate'



not all- but a certainly vocal minority of posters seem to fit this description

[InfoMedic]

I apologise if this has been mentioned before...

But something tells me that anti-gravity is possible if you know the correct method.
Real anti-gravity would also eliminate any G-forces (supposedly, that's what UFOS do, and bend light/time but who knows.)

What's peoples views of 'Coral Castle'?? To me, this is evidence of someone who used some very old methods to build.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr9U1cP68eU

Then again, what if he probably could have done it like this man did - but somehow in half the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

So Coral Castle is still a mystery in my view. Jon Depaw however is actively researching and experimenting with anti-gravity fields etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Gt3ED0zLw

Sorry for youtube videos lol.

[Mr Gorsky]

get around the `pick at the details' and educate- not berate

Sometimes the education is in picking at the details.

For example, in this thread alone, the OP has asked the question "is anti-gravity impossible?". The problem with that question is that it really isn'y specific enough to have a meaningful answer.

What is meant by anti-gravity, for example?

If we take the meaning that jumped out at me (as a non-physicist), anti-gravity would be something that works against gravity, and we already have (and indeed are born with) devices that work against gravity. They are called, aerodynamic wings, rockets and legs ... although legs only work against gravity on a short term basis, known technically as "jumping".

If we take the meaning to be something that compeltely counteracts the influence of gravity then my limited understanding of the laws of physics renders ravens_cry's point about breaches of fundamental physical laws of the universe most potent, in that the energy requirement just doesn't add up.

Sometimes (and I know this well from lurking at this board myself), when you ask a question the best possible answer you can get is for the question itself to go unanswered but for your eyes to be opened to what is wrong with your question and, perhaps, start to understand what the question should have been in the first place.

[boppa]

Sometimes the education is in picking at the details.

For example, in this thread alone, the OP

well any well educated person would have used o.p. or possibly O.P. as an abreviation for opening poster rather than OP.

........


;-)

[boppa]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Search Wiktionary Look up OP, op, or op. in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

OP or Op may refer to:
[edit] General

* Observation post
* Ocean Pacific
* One Piece, a Japanese manga and anime created by Eiichiro Oda
* Op-ed
* Op art
* Opening song for an anime
* Operator
* Optimus Prime
* Oliver Peoples
* Opposite prompt, the right side of a stage
* Opus number (usually classical music)
* Orange Peel
* Orange Pekoe
* Oratory Preparatory School
* Ordo Praedicatorum ("Order of Preachers"), the official name of the Dominican Order; Dominicans often use the letters "O.P." after their names to indicate membership.
* Overall Position, the grade appointed to Queensland high-school graduates
* Overland Park, Kansas, a city in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
* Orland Park, Illinois, a city south of Chicago
* Orchard Park, New York, a town south of Buffalo, New York
* Overpowered, internet slang referring to poor game balance.
* A channel operator on IRC
* Original Post, the first post (or posting) on a topic on a blog or forum, often containing the original question or topic of discussion.
* OpenID Provider

[boppa]

so you are assuming that i have the 22nd meaning in mind when you say the OP

rather than the 20th or the 8th...

oh..... right


its easy to play the ` blame game' when you have banning rights but its not so easy to actually show WHY the banning stick is waved around

imho far too often is the ` mainstream' long term posters that often derail a thread and actually incite new posters, often posting inaccurate or misleading information themselves....

[coreybv]

in that the energy requirement just doesn't add up.

I think this depends on the application.

It's true that generating the anti-gravity field would require at least as much energy as lifting the object in any other fashion (and quite possibly much more energy), but that doesn't necessarily negate its usefulness.

There could be a large advantage in decoupling the energy production from the object being lifted. Rocket design would be radically different if the crew capsule and/or payload could ride to orbital altitude in a column of anti-gravity instead of on top of massive boosters. Sure, it would take a great deal of energy, possibly a whole array of nuclear power plants, but once that infrastructure was built the incremental cost of sending mass into orbit may well be very small compared to building a whole new chemical rocket. If the field could be powered through tidal/solar/wind energy, then the cost effectiveness would be even greater, even if the total energy expenditure was much larger.

So while the energy requirements might make anti-gravity fairly useless for on-board propulsion, it may still have areas of application where it would make sense.

[boppa]

I think this depends on the application.

It's true that generating the anti-gravity field would require at least as much energy as lifting the object in any other fashion (and quite possibly much more energy), but that doesn't necessarily negate its usefulness.

There could be a large advantage in decoupling the energy production from the object being lifted. Rocket design would be radically different if the crew capsule and/or payload could ride to orbital altitude in a column of anti-gravity instead of on top of massive boosters. Sure, it would take a great deal of energy, possibly a whole array of nuclear power plants, but once that infrastructure was built the incremental cost of sending mass into orbit may well be very small compared to building a whole new chemical rocket. If the field could be powered through tidal/solar/wind energy, then the cost effectiveness would be even greater, even if the total energy expenditure was much larger.

So while the energy requirements might make anti-gravity fairly useless for on-board propulsion, it may still have areas of application where it would make sense.

coreybv- this sounds less like a `antigravity'- than a ground boosted launch system...
many people have been saying `ground based lasers' as a launch system for years- so much so its become a staple for s.f. writers (eg footfall)

as mentioned many years ago when the elephants were invading..

;-)

it has problems ie ground based launches often would have to launch thro bad conditions or abort where a chemical launch would n't care less.....

[ToSeek]

I don't know about an anti-gravity device, but C4N7/kyleraine and mogues all seem to use an anti-grammar device.

It's marginal, but I'd rather not see these sorts of observations posted because it's verging on an ad hom: "Their writing contains grammatical errors, therefore they must be wrong."

[moog]

`pick at the details'

Pick at 'what' details?
Having read through this very old thread I have seen nothing solid or coherent put forward anywhere in it.

And as for anti-gravity by a loose usage of the term this video seems to show a very nice anti-gravity machine in action :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lmtbLu5nxw

[boppa]

theres several ways of replying to a question (especially applies to a `newbie' imho)

theres the `what the hell, are you really that dumb' approach that if they ever come back will leave them ready and willing to reply in full (usually leading to a quick banning - which may look good on the `board books' but equally leaves the newbie feeling rather hard done by- often imho with their original question left unanswered or swamped with return questions )

or the backhanded answer a question that wasnt asked in the first place- `why do you think that antigravity exists moog, why do you put forward this position?'

[Gillianren]

"Gillie"? No. No, no, no. Gillian, thank you.

Do I intentionally derail threads because of failed spelling or grammar? Almost without fail, no. You'll notice I don't bother correcting most people, even when they make pretty egregious errors in every post. I corrected this particular person because they were trying to present an idea, but the way they were writing made it difficult to understand what the idea was. This is that person's problem. We communicate like adults here, not like text-messaging children. Here, it is considered, at least based on the behaviour of the people who seem to be most respected, polite to write the best way you can. Indeed, there are several non-native speakers whose writing is generally impeccable. It may seem as though I pick on some of them, but it is because they have asked me to because they know clarity of language is important.

I will also note that, in this instance, I wasn't the first one to comment anyway.

[coreybv]

coreybv- this sounds less like a `antigravity'- than a ground boosted launch system...
many people have been saying `ground based lasers' as a launch system for years- so much so its become a staple for s.f. writers (eg footfall)

as mentioned many years ago when the elephants were invading..

;-)

it has problems ie ground based launches often would have to launch thro bad conditions or abort where a chemical launch would n't care less.....

I'm not sure what sort of problems you're referring to that would prevent an anti-grav launch that wouldn't also stop the countdown on a chemical rocket. I think it may depend on where an individual's imagination (since this is completely imaginary technology) goes when they hear the word "anti-gravity".

When I hear the word, I envision some sort of magical substance and/or energy field that is "gravitationally opaque". Something that would block gravity just like a sheet of plywood blocks a flashlight beam. To launch something into space all you need to do build a pad, say 50 meters in diameter, out of this magical stuff, place your payload over the pad, and give it a tiny nudge. Inertia carries it to altitude.

The advantage comes from the fact that your energy infrastructure can be ground based. you're not limited by having to squeeze fuel and rocket motors into your vehicle, you can use multiple power plants, a 1000 acre wind farm and a massive solar array. Provided you had a need to transport large amounts of material into space, this could very well prove to be more cost effective than building hundreds or thousands of single-use chemical rockets. Additionally, when you're not launching, the energy from this infrastructure could be diverted to other uses, whereas a stockpile of solid rocket boosters aren't terribly useful for lighting an office building.

Think of it as a space elevator, with the physical elevator part.

I guess my point was that it could prove to be cost effective even if, in strict terms, it's less efficient than conventional methods.

Not that I think anti-gravity is necessarily possible in the first place, mind you.

[R.A.F.]

We communicate like adults here, not like text-messaging children.

I don't know...sometimes I wonder...

eta...in my experience, children/young adults who frequent this forum tend to have better communicative "skills" than some of the adults, although I do understand what you mean.

[eburacum45]

When I hear the word, I envision some sort of magical substance and/or energy field that is "gravitationally opaque". Something that would block gravity just like a sheet of plywood blocks a flashlight beam. To launch something into space all you need to do build a pad, say 50 meters in diameter, out of this magical stuff, place your payload over the pad, and give it a tiny nudge. Inertia carries it to altitude.


That doesn't seem to be possible. You couldn't 'block' gravity, as the lines of force would flow around any hypothetical obstacle.

Gravity is a very weak force, and it takes the entire mass of the Earth to create an acceleration of 1 gee. If you had a materal with 'antigravity', it would also be a very weak force. A kilogram of material with antigravitic properties would produce no more than a tiny reduction of the attraction between that material and the Earth; this would manifest as a tiny reduction in weight. To entirely cancel out the pull of the Earth you would need a mass of antigravitic material with the same pull as the Earth.

[coreybv]

That doesn't seem to be possible. You couldn't 'block' gravity, as the lines of force would flow around any hypothetical obstacle.

Gravity is a very weak force, and it takes the entire mass of the Earth to create an acceleration of 1 gee. If you had a materal with 'antigravity', it would also be a very weak force. A kilogram of material with antigravitic properties would produce no more than a tiny reduction of the attraction between that material and the Earth; this would manifest as a tiny reduction in weight. To entirely cancel out the pull of the Earth you would need a mass of antigravitic material with the same pull as the Earth.

You did notice that I used words like "imaginary" and "magic" in my post, right? :)

I do think that my definition is more in line with the intent of the OP, though. Given that the thread title is "Impossible or not?", clearly we're not talking about rockets or legs. We're talking about anti-gravity in the sci-fi sense, a magical "something" that nullifies the force of gravity in some way.

In any case, I wasn't attempting to argue that it's possible, I was taking issue with the assertion that high energy requirements would render it not useful.

[JayUtah]

...

Based on this bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkadiko_Bridge), still standing after 3000 years, you off by a factor of at least 3:)

Or maybe more, if we include trees felled over rivers. We're interested in the point at which engineering becomes a rational pursuit. It's not so much a point as a smooth transition over a long period from trial and error to purposeful design. The surviving examples of ancient engineering survive because they are robust. The ineffective designs fell down long ago.

1,000 years ago is a ballpark figure. But it corresponds roughly to when engineers acquired enough recipes for common structures that worked. Which is to say, it's when engineers began to understand in substantial detail why their structures worked. Proceeding from there to Newton and into the Industrial Revolution we see the basis of a body of knowledge by which one can reason about new candidate designs.

Before 1000 AD engineers would really only know whether a structure worked by attempting to build it. As knowledge progressed, engineers could assess the expression of a design without having to build it; they had advanced to a rational enough understanding of the basic principles.

[djinn]

It's marginal, but I'd rather not see these sorts of observations posted because it's verging on an ad hom: "Their writing contains grammatical errors, therefore they must be wrong."

Rebuke noted, and accepted.
Sorry.

[Mr Gorsky]

so you are assuming that i have the 22nd meaning in mind when you say the OP

rather than the 20th or the 8th...

oh..... right

Now you are just being needlessly obtuse. Abbreviations that have more than one meaning are dependent on context, and I think it is quite clear that in the context of a thread on a discussion forum, the abbreviation OP (with or without punctuation) should be taken to mean Original Post.

I work in Financial Services and our regulator (the Financial Services Authority) shares its abbreviation with another statutory body, the Foods Standards Agency. We do not feel the need to use the full name of the regulator in normal conversation because the context makes clear that we are talking about the FSA, and not the FSA.

If you see what I mean.

:D

That aside, the fact that Original Post appears at number 22 on that list is irrelevant ... it is simply a list, not an order of priority. If you editted the list and put Original Post first, the list would be no more or less correct than it already is.

Oh ... and I do note that you didn't respond to any of the actual content of what I posted.