Gravitic Propulsion--What IF the US and China Really Have it?

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

Odds are...it exists...and there's a good chance the US and China now have it.
This technology is so far advanced beyond conventional propulsion that, effectively, the US and China are at military parity.

Thoughts?

What odds...lol

We get this "secret" tech every year. It can only be advanced Alien tech, but we have had zero, so it's another story. There is a massive number of people in the world who would have a good idea if we had Gravitic propulsion and how exactly it would work, but once again it is all secret, very convenient.

It sure wouldn't be used in crappy drones over NJ...lol

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Question? Does not magnetic "draw" or "pull"...present completely different than "populating" or "pushing"?

Not propulsing forward...but being "drawn" towards...magnetcally?

We need not think about "propulsing" or "pushing" ourselves thru Space, but learning how to "magnetically" dial-in a location.

Travel would be ridiculously fast.

Any guesses on who would prevent technology like this? Certain energy companies maybe but that does not stop the tech from having military applications.

I truly believe we are seeing current tech as well as alien tech that has been here all along.

We need not think about "propulsing" or "pushing" ourselves thru Space, but learning how to "magnetically" dial-in a location.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Not necessarily anti-gravity but it could be a little of both magnetics and gravity, hence Gravitics. Using the earths magnetic field.
Gravitics

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Mornin' 😎✌️I've studied this since '69...In my mind...we need to think out of the box.

We need to realize..flying around in "vehicles with "flashing and colored lights" by "Aliens" with arms, legs, eyes and a mouth...coming to enslave, eat or sc-ew our women...is prob waaaaaaaaaaaay off....cause they would have already...

I'll go on record as saying with somewhat assurance...we have NO CLUE what they/them/It are.....

But I'm open betting...they don't need flashing, colored lights.

Govs and Top Secret stuff..no matter how weird...IF ITS FLASHING..it's US.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

1962 Popular Science

a reply to: CosmicFocus

Anti-gravity discover John Hutchinson
interesting
query=Anti+gravity]might find something here[/url]

John Hutchison

Fraudulent footage

A toy UFO being "levitated" — by pulling on a string attached to it.
Hutchison himself claims to have replicated the results numerous times prior to 1991, while admitting some footage he has released since (at $100 per tape) was faked,[2] as he is no longer able to recreate the effects. He assumed that nobody would notice that the "levitating" objects were actually falling in front of an upside-down camera[3][4][5] or held up with invisible strings,[6] which he initially tried to convince his audience were cords supplying power to the levitating objects. As Hutchison said:[7]
The string is not string but #32-gauge double polythermalized wire on a takeup up reel with 20 to 50000 volts DC. The the[sic] main apparatus was turned on, causing the toy plastic ufo to fly all about in amazing gyrations. This was a pretest to gryphon films airing this fall for fox TV. I did not need the extra high voltage 2000 time period so the toy levitated without a high voltage hook up during the filming for gryphon there was a string on the toy no high-voltage dc but interesting movements.


rationalwiki.org...

By all means. Recreate the anti gravity technology and document it works.

Thanks for pointing that out. I was just looking for mor information on anti-gravity and looking for the 1962 Popular Science article. Noted

You’re changing the subject.


You.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

Anti-gravity discover John Hutchinson
interesting

John Hutchinson

rationalwiki.org...

Fraudulent footage

A toy UFO being "levitated" — by pulling on a string attached to it.
Hutchison himself claims to have replicated the results numerous times prior to 1991, while admitting some footage he has released since (at $100 per tape) was faked,[2] as he is no longer able to recreate the effects. He assumed that nobody would notice that the "levitating" objects were actually falling in front of an upside-down camera[3][4][5] or held up with invisible strings,[6] which he initially tried to convince his audience were cords supplying power to the levitating objects. As Hutchison said:[7]

Hutchinson was making claims and “shared” his antigravity technically up to the 1980s. Where nobody could duplicate his results. Some 20 years after the supposed popular science articles.



Or you referring to the old hope antimatter fell up?

You’re changing the subject.

a reply to: Lazy88

I said thanks for pointing that out, about Hutchinson.
My first post was a response-below-, I was replying to the post just before mine. I was trying to assist another ATS member with a link and where he may find what he was looking for.
From CosmicFocus:

Hell, even back about 1962 Popular Science ran a piece on how various aspects of science across America were hot on trying to create null-mass drive units. Everybody knew the potential for such a device. It would be the greatest war weapon that ever created. Beyond that it would be the greatest invention since the wheel.

(BTW: I tried researching PS files at one point to refind that old article I had read at the time, but I didn't find it listed. funny that?

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Have you tried looking on eBay for past magazines.

Concerning Popular Science. It’s not really odd sense they keep most of their material behind a paywall. I enjoy popular science. But popular science is more like teen beat for nerds.

Ever think to go to a college or university library and look at actual physics journals and peer reviewed papers?

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Have you tried looking on eBay for past magazines.

Concerning Popular Science. It’s not really odd sense they keep most of their material behind a paywall. I enjoy popular science. But popular science is more like teen beat for nerds.

Ever think to go to a college or university library and look at actual physics journals and peer reviewed papers?

That is what I was suggesting to CosmicFocus, too funny. That is my post which you replied to. We're on the same page. By the way, do you thibk the drones were using a "gravitics" propulsion system? If what Livelberger said was true then, wow.

Find a University library and look through their microfilm. It's sure to be available that way.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Do you understand the difference between popular science magazine vs actual physics journals?

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Want to get famous and get some money.

Just complete the below challenge. Just use your popular science magazine?

Anti-Gravity Tech? NASA, DARPA, and MIT Debate the Future of Propulsion

Published: Sep 25, 2021 08:12 AM EST


The Gravity Research Institute of the Göde Scientific Foundation has offered a reward of one million euros for a reproducible anti-gravity experiment but has come up with nothing so far despite a few close calls.

interestingengineering.com...

The GÖDE-Award
What is gravity? And can it be influenced or even abolished entirely?

goede-stiftung.org...


Since its establishment in 1998, the GÖDE-Stiftung has been addressing experiments by trained scientists, and also enquiries and experiments by hobby researchers who believed that they could extract an influence on gravity from their experimental results.

So far, all experiments replicated or tested by us have shown no effects that indicate a possibility of somehow manipulating the weakest of all basic forces. All alleged effects were either unconsidered external influences, measurement errors or could not be proven at all.

Up to now, experiments replicated or tested by us have not shown any effects that indicate a possibility of somehow manipulating the weakest of all basic forces. All proclaimed effects were either unconsidered external influences, measurement errors or could not be verified at all.

a reply to: CosmicFocus

I should have mentioned that my search for the article on attempts to replicate null-mass drives WAS on the official Popular Science site.

I have no doubt that everything has been scrubbed. BTW, PS has for decades has been a conduit for the proper kind of UFO info. I believe there yet may be info on the internet that discuss that exact point.

a reply to: CosmicFocus

Popular science is where I read about the canals and trees on Mars in the late 70s. Try and find it now it is not in our timeline.

originally posted by: CosmicFocus
a reply to: CosmicFocus

I should have mentioned that my search for the article on attempts to replicate null-mass drives WAS on the official Popular Science site.

I have no doubt that everything has been scrubbed. BTW, PS has for decades has been a conduit for the proper kind of UFO info. I believe there yet may be info on the internet that discuss that exact point.

Again. Popular science is behind a pay wall.

You can browse eBay and the like for used magazines like this.



If there was any real research, it would be in physics journals that are also behind paywalls but should have copies available at colleges and universities. Research is more than googling something.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: CosmicFocus

Popular science is where I read about the canals and trees on Mars in the late 70s. Try and find it now it is not in our timeline.

Why would there be articles in the 1970’s ?

Martian canals

The existence of Martian canals was still controversial even at the dawn of the Space Race. In 1965, the Sourcebook on the space sciences said that "Although there is no unanimous opinion concerning the existence of the canals, most astronomers would probably agree that there are apparently linear (or approximately linear) markings, perhaps 40 to 160 kilometers (25 to 100 miles) or more across and of considerable length."[10] Later in the same year, the arrival of the United States' Mariner 4 spacecraft debunked for good the idea that Mars could be inhabited by higher forms of life, or that any canal features existed. It took pictures revealing impact craters and a generally barren Martian landscape, with a surface atmospheric pressure of 4.1 to 7.0 millibars (410 to 700 pascals), 0.4% to 0.7% of Earth atmospheric pressure, and daytime temperatures of −100 degrees Celsius were measured. No magnetic field,[11][12] nor radiation belts[13] were detected.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

It was known by telescope there was no evidence even before the space mission Mariner 4 I think in 1965.

Anyway…

Hello Mars — This is the Earth!
In 1919, Popular Science magazine imagined how Earthlings might communicate with Mars

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Notice a pattern when populated and habitable mars was all the rage……

The concept exists in theoretical and hypothetical physics but the ammount of power required to distort gravitational fields make it imposible even with nuclear fussion.

There's no experimental or observational data to back up the proposed models involved in the theoretical concepts so the idea is pure speculation.

We're decades off having the understanding ofd quantum mech to come up with an alternative gravity theory where such travel was/if possible so at least 100 years off making a craft on the off chance new discoveries completely rewrite the physics of gravity.

Tl;dr - It's pure sci-fi and if possible the tech is at least 100 years away in military aerospace concepts.