TR-3B Anti-Gravity Spacecraft (our technology?)

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

Exactly. You nailed down. There is a confusion between gravity force, and gravity field. Gravity exerts a force onto objects. No objects, no force. As a field, gravity is always there because it is a property of space-time. Even in an Universe devoid of objects you still have a gravity field.

The confusion arises when we make no distinction between these two beasts (force, and field).

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Pay no attention to me : )

Not nuclear powered unless they have overcome the (intangiable) rusty red trail of atomic pollution conventional reactors leave in their wakes.

If 'nuclear' is involves it would be ordinance.

Very high voltages, think valves and rectifiers from the 1950s over modern electronics.

To use an old word cinnabar and a word for the few who notice these things on ATS: EWAR.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

A) The ball no longer has gravitational forces acting upon it B) The ball is where gravity is strongest C) The ball is where gravity is the weakest D) Other (explain)

SilicneSynapse already gave the answer. You need to understand the difference between gravitational force, and gravitational field. They are different. In your experimental set-up I assume we neglect Earth is rotating, and we assume no atmosphere is present (otherwise your ball will be compressed quite before you reach the center of your bore).

But we need to also remove all other objects in the Universe, otherwise your ball will feel the gravitational field and will never reach a stable standstill position. Therefore, let's also remove all other objects in the Universe to see if your set-up works. Your answers:

A) Incorrect. The ball feels the forces of the surrounding objects, in this case the forces of the Earth. The Earth will collapse due to its own gravitational forces acting on itself.

B) Incorrect. The ball is not located at the point of the strongest gravity field. It is located at the point where the mean field has it lowest value.

C) The point where gravitational forces are the weakest does not exist in your set-up, as it currently stands.

D) The walls of your Earth attract each other, so your Earth will collapse. No way to avoid it. Your 'hollow' Earth wouldn't last. Gravity is a self-interacting field.

We have also neglected the fact that the tether will feel gravity as you descend, will feel torsion forces, and will break apart quite before you reach the center of your drilled Earth. We have also neglected quantum fluctuations, that ruins the idea of a perfect standstill: the ball will oscillate minutely due to these fluctuations, and will finally locate itself off-center (from thereon, the ball would feel attracted to either point of the surrounding walls).

The only way to save the situation will be cancelling gravity forces (but not the gravity field) by having Earth rotating clockwise, and having the ball rotating counterclockwise, and transforming Earth into a torus, and the ball into a ring. You then simply adjust rotational (angular) velocities, and there you have it: an Arthur C. Clarke space station.

a reply to: Direne

Your changed parameters certainly changes the outcome, in view of you referencing a “Hollow” earth…..whereas my hypothesis calls out specifically a “Solid” earth.

…..” that the earth is completely solid, no molten core, etc…solid as a ball bearing.”…..

And so, thanks for your wonderfully presented and enlightening explanations on the earth in my question as impacted in a universe sense.

SilicneSynapse presents an answer prior to me asking the question.

I agree that there has to be a distinction when talking gravity and knowing the difference between Gravity Forces and Gravity Fields.

For my drilling in “Solid” earth gravity question, I’m leaning to accepting Mantiss2021’s answer so far…. in the most simplistic way that it was presented.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1


By hollow I meant you drilled a hole in your planet, so it is technically hollow. But yes, the key thing is differentiating between force and field. And the key lesson is that you can have an object levitate, without that implying non-physical concepts such as antigravity.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Whatever physics is in play it is way over my head. I just like to drink IPA’s and ponder these things.

There is a lot of interesting research to read about, that could possibly relate to this topic though.
Back in the early 90’s you had the murmings of what Ning Li was researching, her DOD grant, how it all seemed to have gone poof and went away, and her possibly jetting off to China, now it was probably not anti gravity, but maybe stumbled on some other effect. I believe she died this last July sadly.
Another thing is Magnetohydrodynamics and how its possible applications for propulsion could help overcome the heat barrier resulting from shock waves.
But what seems likely to me is this goes back to way before Ning Li. Afterall we have had sightings of craft with beyond spectacular manouverability since the 1940’s. Reports of craft with ’falling leaf’ style descents pretty much stopped a long time ago now, or at least very far and few between. Progress has clearly been made.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

without a core the planet would not rotate itself as it orbits the sun. if there was no core gravity would not pull anything on earth down,or make things heavy. There has to be a spinning core to produce enough gravity. The ball stays in place though not due to gravity,but to weightlessness and nothing pulling on it. if you just threw the ball though with no gravity it would go straight through.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Etathia
Manipulate inertia?....interesting. the question is how. And is inertial modification a side effect of what theyre doing? Is there more than one way to do what theyre doing?

Isolate yourself from the background "info" .
Problem is - how do we then rationalise witnesses observing craft employing these systems ?

If you've got a locally deployable "make it not happen" field- surely eye witnesses would see some sort of event...maybe a blue shift, scattering or lensing effect....but they arent seeing lights and planforms if the sensing device employs photons.

Those cauldrons in Siberia are very mysterious. It’s hard not to think they are left over high tech.

a reply to: LABTECH767

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

without a core the planet would not rotate itself as it orbits the sun. if there was no core gravity would not pull anything on earth down,or make things heavy. There has to be a spinning core to produce enough gravity. The ball stays in place though not due to gravity,but to weightlessness and nothing pulling on it. if you just threw the ball though with no gravity it would go straight through.

My original hypothesis condition “ Here we go……Let’s make a hypothetical assumption for the purpose of this demonstration and that is, that the earth is completely solid, no molten core, etc…solid as a ball bearing.”

Your assertion “The ball stays in place though not due to gravity,but to weightlessness and nothing pulling on it.” seems plausible, but even an asteroid, not near any planetary body to exert the force of gravity from the planet on the asteroid to draw it in, (essentially in deep space standing alone)…….has some sort of gravity itself, does it not? Even though the asteroid doesn’t commonly have a rotating core to generate its own gravity. If an asteroid does not have gravity and it is “solid” all the way through, then what keeps the dust, dirt, and loose rocks settled to the surface of it? Why would all that material not float off of it in the “weightlessness” of space. You would think that a solid non-rotating body in space, and with no gravity, would have a clean rocky surface, free of any loose material on its surface.

So back to your asserted answer pointing to “weightlessness”, it’s plausible ……but is it totally factual, …..perhaps to some degree. I reserve closure to answer my original hypothetical question.

You mentioned “ if you just threw the ball though with no gravity it would go straight through.” …….

That may be true, but I suspect and I can’t prove….with gravity, the wrecking ball, if dropped “down” one end of the drilled hole on either side of the drilled hole surfaces, the ball will not go through and out the other side’s surface, due to resistance friction traveling past earth’s midpoint on its way “up”, but reach a point of loosing velocity and falling back “down”. What I assert is that the ball oscillates back and forth (up and down) throughout the length of the drilled hole. The velocity of the wrecking ball then diminishes (slows down) with each oscillation until it finally settles to the earths mid point (center) and just floats.

The lack of gravity in my hypothesis question is not mentioned. I assume without a rotating molten core, but a solid core, that the earth still has gravity…(my asteroid example supplements that) and since it’s my fantastical hypothetic ….. once again,Mantiss2021 seems to satisfy answering the question…”The wrecking ball rests at the nexus of All gravitational forces acting upon it; that is to say, at the point where the gravitational forces balance each other most equally, which would be near the "center" of the planet”…….

Until something better is more convincing.

Thanks for your input…

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Just read if anything has a mass greater than a few atoms it has MASS. MASS equals a gravitational field. SO yes even IF earth was solid it would have gravity,but the planet would lack a EM field produced by our iron nickel core that rotates inside. There is a new theory that explains why the core is so hot and it is SOLID.

solid core even though it should be liquid?

So I must modify my previous statement due to old information.Thank you for the new information.

Still the gravity is still weak from the planet itself.

a reply to: yuppa

The article enlightens and educates for sure….Thanks! I’m amazed as always, just when you think something you’ve been taught in the classroom is written in stone and fact……as science progresses with the years….what was previously in stone now has cracks of other possibilities.

a reply to: yuppa

I am stull open as to what constitutes the necessary conditions for gravity to exist.

For example if membrane theory is correct then if would posit the possibility that the weak force (Gravity) possibly emanates from anther membrane universe in peripheral contact with our MAIN membrane universe (our universe being made up of several of these branes in contact) and that gravity is the result of this interaction would therefore if we dip into STRING theory be everywhere with 'even empty space' having gravity since everything is made of the same thing BUT were that STRING is scrunched up and balled into a not in space time it creates a region were the gravity corresponding to the amount of the string that is there is therefore much greater than so called empty space volume for volume, this does not matter to the brane from which the weak force emanates as it is still at a one to one ratio and that region of contact is therefore also scrunched up to allowing more of the weak force to exist in smaller region due to this from our three dimensional perspective, of course this rest's upon the idea that the mass that this condensed region of STRING is made up of is the same thing as empty space.

So it would actually suggest that gravity is at a one to one ratio throughout the entire string if we fall back into string theory for a moment, this also opens up interesting observations to the nature of time as were gravity is intense enough time apparently get's displaced of forced out so you have time dilation affects in strong gravitational fields as if the two forces are almost opposite's.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

That is an argument with merit however I would argue that this was only the developmental stage, once in mass production costs would have come down and with less moving parts actually become far cheaper than a conventional piston engine, fuel efficiency would have gone up as the engineers got ever more innovative and even the ability to more easily burn other fuels such as Hydrogen from cracked water would have made this a potential high threat to the petroleum industry.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

I remember getting in the same trouble years ago. I was verbally assaulted well enough that I never typed the three letters again in a group. But regardless of what folks wish to call it, the black triangles are real, and the do move differently than other aircraft, based on reports. So it seems squabbling about the designation really takes away from the discussion, and doesn't make anyone look like hero's (IMHO).

Words (and acronyms) have meanings.


If you mean "Big Black Triangle", or "BBT", then say that. They may very well exist based on witness descriptions, and more normal sized triangles certainly do, however nobody has been able to capture any photos or videos of BBTs that doesn't appear to be fake or misunderstood.

Brinking up the designation TR-3B really doesn't help the discussion, since it's an admitted fictional invention of Edgar Fouche which described physics doesn't even make any sense. Whatever kind of secret triangles the military or aliens have flying would use real physics, not Fouche's fictional and invention with "physics" that make no sense.

Edgar Fouche’s TR-3B is most likely a hoax

The US Air Force, as far as I am aware, does not have such a thing as a TR-3B. Edgar Fouche’s TR-3B is most likely pure science fiction – – there has never been any single, credible photo of a TR-3B.

No videos either, though there have been some faked photos and videos.

The no credible photos or videos applies not only to the TR-3B but also to ANY claims of BBT sightings. The famous "petit Rechain" photo of Belgian Wave infamy which so impressed Leslie Kean was eventually admitted to be a hoax, as discussed in the link.


Famous Black Triangle UFO a Fake

I like noriohayakawa but I don't think he really knows what secrets the military does or doesn't have, and if he did, he couldn't talk about it, so I don't give much weight to his claims along those lines, but I certainly do agree with his concerns that the petit-rechain and similar photographic evidence is fake, and we do need some real photos or videos to talk intelligently about what exactly eyewitnesses are claiming to see when they talk about BBTs. For example, the only publicly known video of the triangle flying over Phoenix in the "phoenix Lights" 8:30pm-ish event shows lights moving independently, so it was a V-formation of individual objects (with squarish wings according to Mitch Stanley), not one giant triangle craft as some people mis-perceived. Without the video we wouldn't know that. So that's one alleged BBT that is not a BBT according to the video evidence.

Without real photos or videos of the others described by eyewitnesses, we can't say much about them except that the Phoenix lights case is probably not the only case where eyewitnesses have been mistaken in thinking what they saw was a BBT, when it wasn't that.

For the technology aspect I remember watching a video regarding the history of the Foo Fighters in WWII and the premise behind the vide is that they were actually German/Japanese aircraft and they used a technology that relied on mercury to help create the anti gravity properties or magnetic field properties. If that is the case then the technology has been around for quite some time.

I saw the video a few years ago before the Youtube purge and can't seem to find it anymore but the technology described by the OP is similar to what was described.

a reply to: yuppa

Have any of y'all read the Sekret Machines books? They are all about the TR-3B craft. They call it the "Locust" in the books. I know the premise of these books is fiction, but they are supposedly firmly based in reality. So, it would follow that some sort of anti-gravity triangle exists in the US Arsenal.

Also, Google the "Sonora Aero Club".

a reply to: Charliebrowndog

I do not believe they were German though there was a long fear that another civilization somewhere on earth was a threat to the then powers of the world.

Sightings of anomalous objects like foo fighters which actually go back to the first world war actually well and truly predate this with aerial objects such as the so called Air Ship flags of the 1880's-1890's being notable when large airship (Cigar) shaped craft were often seen.

But you will find examples of odd sightings of objects going right back to the Ancient Chinese and the Roman Empire for example.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: yuppa

The article enlightens and educates for sure….Thanks! I’m amazed as always, just when you think something you’ve been taught in the classroom is written in stone and fact……as science progresses with the years….what was previously in stone now has cracks of other possibilities.

Certainly, that's what makes science so strong. You can start with what you can figure out, then modify it as it goes along to account for new observations as long as it can incorporate the older observations. It's always provisional. I was reading a post by a post-grad student in chemistry and he described the process of his education as starting with the old, perfectly workable theories and then as he progressed and got into more advanced theories and practices, along the way it was often a case of "Well, this is how we originally thought it worked, but now we think this other way is how it really works." Always looking for a better way to explain it or work with it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


You are right in a lot of what you are saying there.
Regarding video evidence and photographic evidence. I dont think you are quite clear in what you are saying regarding the phoenix lights case though. First of all it was supposed to have been a giant boomerang or V shaped craft. Are you saying all the witnesses claiming they saw that, mistook whatever was in that particular video for a giant boomerang or V shaped craft?
There are lots of witnesses who claim to have seen it flying very low and slow overhead. Certainly there seems to have been many different sightings that day. Flares, aircraft and something not explained imho.