Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Stephen Marley Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports STEM
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Anti-gravity Out of Magnetics?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 867 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 5:45:55 PM PDT
Wow, you are so smart. A feller could really find his head in a spin with you! Perhaps you can elighten all of us with your worldly contributions. I have served my country, written two books, and helped a lot of people. What have you done that's so special? Please, help bring me up to your brilliant level of pomposity. Oh, maybe you're too busy building the Space Shuttle.

Posted on Aug 4, 2009 5:53:31 PM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Peanuts! Popcorn! Caaaarackerjacks! Ice Cold Beer here!!

Programs! Get your PROGRAMS!!! Ya can't see the show without your proooooograms!!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 5:59:44 PM PDT
I'll take two!:)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 10:04:09 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Bully for you, Erik. Really. But what does any of that have to do with scientific accuracy or being so "open-minded" the flies are gathering, drawn by the crap that's collected?

Again, get a ruler and measure the damned thing and find someone who cares by flogging it elsewhere. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2009 12:28:39 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
It is disappointing that having encountered information counter to their beliefs that `Truth Seekers' instead of refuting the information instead turn to name calling.

There is absolutely no evidence that the B-2 uses antigravity in whole or in part: the idea is at best a misconception, at worst a deliberate fabrication.

Instead of a reasoned counter-argument, the self-proclaimed `Truth Seekers' are rude.

Similarly, on another thread, the fact that the Marfa Lights are not documented prior to 1957 when Paul Moran wrote `The Mystery of the Texas Ghost Light' in Coronet Magazine was ignored. Researching this further, it turns out that claims that the lights were seen by Robert Reed Ellison in 1883 are not supported by his own book, 'History of Marfa and Presidio County', written in 1937. Whilst his memoirs described several strange events there is no mention of any `lights'.

Inconvenient facts tend to be ignored.

This pattern is typical.

Historically it has been seen, for example, with `Madame' Helena Blavatsky, who despite being caught `ghost-handed' fabricating a paranormal event in 1879 (and guilty of other fraudulent `miracles') was still believed in by her followers. Similarly Erich Anton Paul von Däniken, a convicted embezzler, has admitted that many items in his books are inaccurate or untrue, but has never removed any discredited "evidence" from his books.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2009 7:20:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 5, 2009 7:21:54 AM PDT
Apparently my previous posts gave you the impression that I have no respect for science or the scientific method. Neither of the above cases is true. I don't believe in, or support unsubstantiated claims; nor do I flock to anyones banner without proof of its validity.
In the past I said that I enjoyed reading about pseudo-scientific subjects(I do), but I never said that I believed them. I also have faith, but I'm not blind. You seem to be quick to judge me after reading a few lines of text. Forgive me, but that seems a little quick, and a bit harsh.
I also fail to see how I am not "open-minded." And much of the time, I actually agree with the things that you say, but you love to throw punches. It's only natural to hit back.:)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2009 8:06:28 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
That's fair enough. :)

I guess I lumped you in with Marilyn a little too hastily, huh?

Posted on Aug 5, 2009 8:18:06 AM PDT
Good for you, Meaty Ogre! You've found the proper response to all these "thread theatrics". (Although I'd love to see what your Program looks like ...)

In the honorable tradition of Erik's last (and most civil) post, I too will try to explain my belief system. AGAIN. (Although I am baffled by the negative bombasts, who are so quick to shred and discard all the elements in most of my posts, and are yet so quick to forget what I've repeatedly posted as my belief system!)

To begin with, I am a Truth Seeker. I certainly do NOT "believe" in all the fringe sites or ideas I post on. I am a happy "fence sitter" on a lot of topics. I neither believe nor disbelieve. (Somehow the psychology in this country, at least, is that "fence sitters" are cowardly. 'You MUST take a side!' seems to be the strident tradition. And psychological studies have shown that once a person does "take a side", they feel compelled to ferociously defend that position for evermore.)

I am only trying to get some interesting, thoughtful, balanced and civil discussion going. If all I wanted to do was research a topic by find-point-click, I wouldn't be in these forums. I also want to explore the enlightening intrigue of intelligent posters' "opinions" and "speculations". Dogmatically negative know-it-alls are NOT the posters I want to attract to my discussions!

So I offer up lots of controversial ideas and theories, and will continue to do so. Most are "intriguing speculations", NOT necessarily what I "believe". I am trying to "explore" these topics/ideas thru the interaction with intelligent and interesting posters. Nothing more.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 5, 2009 4:59:27 PM PDT
Well said Marilyn.

And Mr. Craig, I would say that I enjoy Marilyn's adventurous speculations, but I am not for or against anyone. As far as I can tell, her postings seem to encourage a great amount of interesting discussion. That they may sometimes go astray is as natural as talking.

I'm both an avid reader and writer. I try to uncover as many truths as I can and make of it what I may. Maybe now we can all shake hands and move on in the spirit of progress. Although that seems just about as likely as an antigravitational hoverboard.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 6, 2009 1:11:06 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:

Now would that be my definition of antigravity or Marilyn's ... which could be anything from strings from balloons to quantum state recalibrators? ;)

I don't have any problem with threads going astray. But I must say that for me the most interesting aspect of Marilynian threads is usually when Martin (Helsdon) pops in to set her straight. :)

(Pity she had to get snittish at him, though, what?)

Posted on Aug 7, 2009 7:41:06 AM PDT
To anyone still following this discussion, here are some articles on unusual or fringe sites, about (possible) PROTON PROPULSION:



3) carmakermalaysia.blogspot


In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2009 9:29:14 AM PDT
I'll take a look at them Marilyn.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2009 11:01:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2009 11:14:33 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:


Flying saucer Area 51 conspiracy material, complete with description of imaginary craft (with artist's impressions!), misinformation, disinformation and advanced technobabble.

Let's explore some of the claims on the site:

"This information, as well as the information that AP released last Fall about the accidental discovery of anti-matter 50 YEARS AGO..."

No. In 1928, British physicist Paul Dirac set out to attempt to reconcile the laws of quantum theory with Einstein's special theory of relativity. He determined that his calculations would work for an electron with negative charge, and with a positive charge. He described this as the electron's "antiparticle", and stated that every particle has an "antiparticle" with nearly identical properties, except for an opposite electric charge. His predictions were confirmed by experiments made by Carl David Anderson in 1932, when his investigations into cosmic rays identified particle tracks created by a particle with the same mass as the electron, but with opposite electrical charge. In 1995 CERN made nine antihydrogen atoms during the PS210 experiment.

Antimatter offers a space drive, though not as described on this website: an antimatter rocket could provide incredibly high specific impulse. However, it is incredibly expensive to make, requiring a great deal of energy, and Dan Brown not withstanding at present the total antimatter produced would roughly equal the energy output of a brightly burning match.

For `real' potential applications for antimatter propulsion see:

"NASA is working with theorist Ning Li of the University of Alabama at Huntsville Equipment and test mater ials arc being prepped for a set of experiments that could, if successful, lead to new knowledge about gravity fields. If Li's ideas work, modifying and controlling gravity may be the outcome."

Not actually true: she "was working with Nasa" and left the team. She then left the "University of Alabama": In 1996, researchers (including Ning Li) at Marshall Space Flight Center attempted but were unable to replicate Podkletnov's results (see below). A NASA spokesperson has said that the collaboration fell apart because Li was only interested in proving her own theories for a "gravity shield" and not building a working device. No experiment was a success.

"Researchers in 1992 at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland first claimed to observe a gravity force shielding effect. Leading the work, Russian scientist Eugene Podkletnov discovered that objects suspended over a rapidly spinning disc of super conducting ceramic material weighed less than normal-as if the object was somehow being shielded from the full force of gravity. More importantly, the faster the superconductor spun, the less an object over the super conducting material appeared to weigh."

Not actually true: Podkletnov was disowned by the director of the laboratory, withdrew his paper and was no longer permitted entry into the laboratory at Tampere. No attempts to replicate his 'findings' have been successful.


This is a dictionary definition of 'propulsion'. Nothing relevant here unless you don't know what the word `propulsion' means.

"3) carmakermalaysia.blogspot"

This is a blog about car making in Malaysia. Nothing relevant here.


This is about historical Soviet and American rockets!

Time to `phone home ET.


In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2009 11:05:28 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2009 12:24:18 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:

"3) carmakermalaysia.blogspot"

Proton is a manufacturer of cars in Malaysia.


The Proton is a Soviet rocket (formal designation: UR-500) first launched in 1965.

Posted on Aug 7, 2009 11:58:40 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
I'm glad I checked this thread before checking any of the links.


In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2009 12:17:40 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:

"I'm glad I checked this thread before checking any of the links."

All 'PeRusahaan OTOmobil Nasional' cars come with antigravity propulsion and antimatter containment fuel tanks. Time travel capability is not fitted on the standard models.


Posted on Aug 8, 2009 3:01:08 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Sounds to me, Martin, like you've been (hic) drinking out of the box ... one of them with wine in it! :D

(I was put off by the idea at first myself, but some of those are surprisingly quite good, you know. And because of the way the boxes are constructed, the wine stays fresh in the fridge if you don't finish it all in one sitting ... wobble ... fall over!)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 5:04:35 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:

"Sounds to me, Martin, like you've been (hic) drinking out of the box ... one of them with wine in it! :D"

What? You don't believe that Proton cars can fly?


In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 7:16:13 AM PDT
In the Army, we'd go with Mad Dog 20-20, "fortified wine," mighty hard to type after a bottle of that though.:)

Posted on Aug 8, 2009 7:35:56 AM PDT
To anyone still following this thread, I found this article in my e-mail archives: "U.S. Scientists Learn How To Levitate Tiny Objects", in on 1/7/09


In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 7:37:35 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:

In a curious case of `synchronicity', another thread is positing antigravity cars, oddly about flying between Singapore and Malaysia.

Fortunately someone has already set them straight on why we won't be seeing antigravity cars...

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 7:51:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 8, 2009 7:57:08 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:

"U.S. scientists learn how to levitate tiny objects"

Unfortunately, the article is referring to reversing the 'Casimir' effect (and indirectly the Casimir-Polder force) and concludes 'Capasso said levitating is next. "We just have to do it," he said.'

So the article title is a misnomer, as they haven't yet discovered or demonstrated 'levitation', just 'Casimir' attraction and repulsion, which was first performed in 1948. Unfortunately, the effect is only meaningful for very very tiny objects on a submicrometre scale.

This isn't anti-gravity, though some theoretical studies have suggested that the Casimir effect could be used to help stabilise wormholes. But... don't hold your breath.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 10:46:42 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
MD, Erik? That brings back the memories ... I think. urp ... uhg :(

Martin, I saw that before ending up here! I was really impressed at how teleportation got worked into it by the second post! Beam me up, Scotty! :D

"But... don't hold your breath."
No, DO try holding it while posting next time, Marilyn!

I've always wanted to see the xcvbdfgty7uihjknmm,./ from when someone has passed out and hit the keyboard with their forehead. ;)

Posted on Aug 8, 2009 11:29:35 AM PDT
M. Ogre says:
Ronald, I highly question the validity of your proposed "xcvbdfgty7uihjknmm,./" model. I don't see how you can so blithely presume to name this phenomenon based on one arbitrarily generated pattern. What? Did you make this up? It's not even close!! I do say, it's theoretically possible, but the data shows that the odds of such a particular pattern occurring are actually quite infinitesimal.

Based on a vaaaaaaaaaast database of empirical results, painstakingly (and painfully) compiled over a long career of late-night writing/wine-tasting sessions, the pattern generation almost invariably begins as "er5t67yui...", as it is the top of the forehead that impacts first. You see, to fully understand the action, trajectory and environmental variables must also be taken into account. Laptop keyboards will displace the proboscis strike differently than will a freestanding keyboard; table and chair height; subject's personal measurements, cranial formation included, all must be allowed for and designed into the experimental paradigm (a Neanderthal impact would probably be unique, for instance). Right or left-handedness might also figure into the equation, although, being right-handed only, I have not had the equipment to test this possibility. All that said, my results show that the er5t67yui... format is overwhelmingly more representative of said phenomenon.

I heartily invite you to experiment for yourself. Assuming that you are in fact homo sapiens, and not some alien ringer, I would certainly wager odds that you'll find replication of my results.

M. Ogre

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 2:18:00 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:

"I've always wanted to see the xcvbdfgty7uihjknmm,./ from when someone has passed out and hit the keyboard with their forehead."

Your experiment is flawed because they would also have to select 'post'.

My cat, with my assistance to hit 'post', can type a message:

[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum


This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  62
Total posts:  867
Initial post:  Jul 17, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions