Aerospace’s Secret Search For Antigravity

Here is an ATS worthy video by Youtuber Jesse Michels who interviews researcher/author Nick Cook on the subject of secret antigravity research.

Its based on Cook's 10 years of research for his book "the hunt for zero point"so if you have read that you will have an idea of the subject-
It is full of interesting info and talks about Biefield Brown,the nazi bell,lockheed skunkwerks,Ning Li and loads of other antigrav related material.



So much cool secret stuff stashed away from the public-one guy tells Nick Cook-"picture a warehouse like the last scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark."

What use is "anti-gravity" outside of the immediate vicinity of Earth?

I find this to be an unlikely area of research. Aerofoils already do this....as you travel.

Gravity is a distortion of spacetime, not a force. Call me when you can warp spacetime.

a reply to: 777Vader

Maybe, inertialess drives?

I'm no expert. Just read a few sci fi books. Like E E Doc Smiths Triplanetary books:

dbpedia.org...

a reply to: onestonemonkey

nice, watching it now, cool way to spend next 90minutes

thanks for a proper ATS thread

edit
well ill be where have we heard this tragic ending before

Ning Li (physicist)

In a series of papers co-authored with fellow university physicist Douglas Torr and published between 1991 and 1993, she claimed a practical way to produce anti-gravity effects. She claimed that an anti-gravity effect could be produced by rotating ions creating a gravitomagnetic field perpendicular to their spin axis

In 2014, Ning Li was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street on the University of Alabama in Huntsville campus. Li’s husband, seeing the accident, suffered a heart attack and died a year later in 2015. For Li, this accident caused permanent brain damage that resulted in Alzheimer’s disease shortly after.[1] On July 27, 2021, Ning Li died at the age of 78

originally posted by: 777Vader
What use is "anti-gravity" outside of the immediate vicinity of Earth?

I find this to be an unlikely area of research. Aerofoils already do this....as you travel.

Gravity is a distortion of spacetime, not a force. Call me when you can warp spacetime.

There's still gravity in space which is why satellites like James Webb and similar have to be positioned in places where the gravitational attractions cancel each other out (known as Lagrangian points) to avoid them going into a decaying orbit and disintegrating.

Gravity is the weakest of the fundamental Physical forces (weak nuclear, strong nuclear. electromagnetic and gravitational)

Aerofoils are good but the idea behind anti-grav research is to increase manouverability and decrease ammount of fuel consumption as rocket tech requires 55kg fuel to lift a 1kg payload into space.

Used to work for BAe Warton and they had a dedicated anti-grav research 'shed' in the late 90s for a jet called Greenglow using superconducting electromagnets, I know a couple of people who worked on it but never got any info other than what was public at the time.

The website no longer exists so the project may have been closed down as things moved increasingly towards drones, research failed or may have moved onto more pre-production phases to succeed Raphael.

There's a doc on it here but costs upwards of £300 a copy - www.films.com... it was available on the BBC a few years back but has been scrubbed from iPlayer for some reason. www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: bastion

I recall a few threads about the Green Lady but the search function on here is a bit rubbish.

Zaphod?

a reply to: bastion

Here:

www.inverse.com...

a reply to: 777Vader
First, the term "antigravity" is wrong, used that way. What is sought is a device that puts a shield around an object where it is shielded from gravity and its cousins mass and inertia.

Hell, I remember reading an article in Popular Science back in the early 1960s that discussed how multiple agencies and research facilities were hard at work trying to create such an affect.

Science and government were not fools back then, even if they would want us to believe then and now that is still the case. They know. They always have known.

People don't seem to get the joke pulled on us. Understand that such a device will be vastly more important than the invention of the wheel. Not to mention the greatest weapon of war ever created.

a reply to: CosmicFocus

Terminology is definitely a factor in this age-old debate about the relationship between gravity and inertia. The discussion has gone on for hundreds of years.

Einstein postulated that gravity and inertia were equal; that is to say, forces required for gravitational mass is equal to the resistive forces of inertial mass. Where things get confusing is gravity is an attractive force, and inertia is a resistive tendency (not force). They are in essence opposites. Inertia requires a motive force to accelerate mass. Gravity accelerates the same mass by attracting it to another mass. In the absence of gravity an object of a given mass still requires a motive force to act upon it to accelerate it, slow it down or change its direction. Further, gravitational force changes as the mass of the attracting object changes. In the absence of a gravitational force, an inertial resistive tendency (relative to g) for a mass of equal value remains constant.

So you are correct in saying ‘anti-gravity’ is not really the best way to describe such a concept. What people should really be saying, at least in my mind, is an anti-inertia device. In essence a "shield" around an object which would render a motive force to move or accelerate it irrelevant. Such a discovery would be truly revolutionary indeed.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Simply talking about "inertia" is not the topic, it is only the affect. Mass is the topic, and if mass ain't movin' there is no inertia.

Build a field of shielding around a mass, and you can virtually zip across the universe. I don't know why people always try to complicate things. I've continually said over the years, that if you eliminate the mass of an object, a UFO or a starship, you can forget any limit on the speed of light that Einsteinian thinking would have you place on a massless ship.

I suspect that creating a massless state also eliminates what we call time. I further suspect that feature also applies to local UFOs we see darting around our world. Such a luxury they have.

I'm not a scientist in any fashion, merely a simple UFO abductee.

If you want to read about real science on the matter, please check on Dr. Hal Puthoff, he always has been the most important scientist in the world that would discuss at length UFO drive mechanisms in talks and books.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes. Maneuvering a spacecraft at even near relativistic speeds would create crushing g force.

Inertialess drive is the Holy Grail.