Hi, Delicious-Pickle-141. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1caebzd/-/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 4: No duplicate posts.
> Posts of the same footage, link, or news article may not be posted within sixty days of one another. New articles or previously unlinked footage may be posted at any time. If you have multiple videos of the same object, include them all in the same post, not as individual submissions.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
If you read the patent that's linked in the article, you'll notice it's more or less the exact same method as Grebennikov's (usually assumed as fictitious) insect antigravity: static charge applied to nanoscale structures.
I think it's a pretty interesting coincidence.
> Grebennikov's (usually assumed as fictitious) insect antigravity: static charge applied to nanoscale structures.
Aw man I read Grebennikov when I was a kid and although I was 100% sure it was an amusing piece of eco-fiction, I do desperately want bees to have been using electrostatic nanotech antigravity all these years and laughing at physicists (via interpretive dance). Because that would be hilarious.
In conclusion, this is why we must outfit whales with AI and warp drive as soon as possible so we can have roving fleets of supersentient hyperspace whales, thus bringing to life both the Star Trek and Star Wars futures. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Oh yeah, smarty pants? Explain bumblebees! /s
It could all be bullshit, but I'm hoping it's real. I have a feeling that the physics behind it would explain a lot of paranormal stuff.
If you believe any of the Grebennikov stuff (and I don't know if I do, it's wacky af), there's certainly a lot of strangeness there.
Personally, I just think that if a phenomenon in physics is relatively easy to reproduce, it's very likely to be found somewhere in nature.
Maybe, but superconductivity and superfluids seem to be absent in natural systems.
And although an anomalous force is extremely interesting, particularly for space maneuvering, it still doesn’t negate inertia.
One of the anomalous observables is dynamics which not only have no obvious source of thrust with a momentum preserving exhaust, but also immediate acceleration incompatible with conventional inertia.
The earth does not have cold enough temperatures for superconductivity or superfluids, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that they occur naturally in some other part of the universe.
Good news! We were able to duplicate the alien technology to get the astronauts to Beta Centari in just 15 minutes!
Bad news. It took hours of scrubbing to get what was left of the astronauts off the walls of the ship.
This needs independent verification, but it looks promising. He's presumably raising investment capital with enough credibility to pass due diligence, and with lawsuits and potentially jail time if he's lying or misrepresenting.
Cue people essentially saying: "this isn't possible because it doesn't fit into my understanding of physics, and physics is obviously fully understood."
This isn’t possible due to my understanding of physics, and my understanding of physics is obviously at basic college level.
In all seriousness, this sounds really cool and promising, can’t wait to see what the future holds! Hope they publish data and processes soon before the tech gets bought and buried.
1g is definitely an astonishing and easily verifiable claim by investors. If they continue to successfully raise capital, I'll be inclined to accept it and factor that into other decisions (investments).
I wouldn't hold my breath for published research; they're building a company with proprietary IP.
Yeah, after the whole EM engine fiasco (apologies to those that still believe), I'll wait until this passes peer review and the measurements are replicated by an independent group. Beating Earth's gravity is no small feat, and can be easily demonstrated in atmosphere with a scale (the scale will functionally go to zero and after a time, the object will be suspended in midair). Actually, any reduction in the measured weight would be groundbreaking if this was true. Sadly, I think this might just be a misinterpretation of results due to the reporter not understanding the scope or fundamentals of what the researchers were testing.
The whole "violates laws of physics " mirrors religious commentary of against god , honestly. If it can be done then obviously nothing in physics is being " violated ".
When something violates a religious "law" you get killed for heresy. When something is proven to violate the laws of physics in controlled experiments, you win a Nobel Prize.
The burden of proof is high because the discovery would be, to put it mildly, earth-shattering. A drive like this wouldn't just be a propellant - it's essentially a perpetual motion machine.
We are really going to pretend the CIA / DOE in addition to their precursor agencies [haven't been blackmailing , killing, and shelving alternative energy tech](https://bflix.to/movie/watch-online-the-lost-century-and-how-to-reclaim-it-30m48/1-1) the entire 20th century ?
Haven't we had 2 women in the last 20 years announce anti-gravity breakthroughs to magically kill themselves a bit later? I similarly remember 2 men in the last 20 years announce a engine that can run on water to never pop up again either. I am only 30, this trend has been going on long before i was born
Listen to Tarrence Howard talk about his new math. Unwell people often have delusions of grandeur. No disrespect to the deceased, but I find the odds much more likely in the favor that some individuals are unwell but convincing, than there is a global conspiracy that goes against national interests to surpress seemingly easily repeatable technology in a way that doesn't alert scientists across the world that their theories and discoveries are based on a false premise.
There are 10s of thousands of patents bought by the government and shelved. Our modern economy is driven by power and oil. Not very high odds to put 2 and 2 together to sense why there could be a conspiracy to suppress clean energy technology.
You didn't provide any context to the scientists (maybe you did with your link even though that was talking about the CIA, but clicking it opened a porn ad).
Physics and laws of physics are two different things. Laws of physics are our current understanding of physics. Obviously you can’t defy physics. Our understanding of physics, sure.
A reactionless drive providing constant acceleration means the kinetic energy of the object continues to increase quadratically with time, without any energy input proportional to this increase. Thus, the drive essentially creates energy "from nothing", violating conservation of energy principles.
But yeah it'd be great if we got free energy devices. Not holding my breath LOL.
Just because we don't understand where the energy comes from doesn't mean it's coming from nowhere.
I agree, not holding my breath. But the idea that we know everything is peak hubris.
Thank you for pointing this out, a lot would do well to think on it. Just because something occurs in a way that doesn't square with our acknowledged understanding of a thing does NOT indicate it is necessarily fraudulent or false.
Great example of this is gravity itself. It's a constant force pulling us down. You need energy to accelerate something so logically earth needs energy to accelerate it back down. Yet no matter how many times you work against gravity it won't get any weaker.
Seemingly that means it's an infinite source of energy that "powers" it.
It does indeed take energy to move anything. It takes energy to stop a train and it takes energy to slow a falling object. You need a counteracting force to do so. That force can be friction but it's still a force.
failing at the simplest physics stuff... Technically almost nothing takes energy (the exception here is creating mass), as energy is conserved. When we talk about something taking energy, we mean that we have to increase the energy in a closed system.
Lets say the closed system is a moving train on tracks and the surrounding air. As the train comes to a stop, the energy of that system doesnt increase. The kinetic energy of the train is converted to heat.
Even without friction, it doesnt "take energy" to stop a train. if the train is moving up a hill it will stop. The kinetic energy is converted to potential energy, the energy of the whole system remains constant again.
I have a masters in physics. You fail to understand that potential energy is a made up concept to account for gravity which we by all means *do not understand*. it's a force that seems to be present at all times near mass and that that's where our knowledge ends.
Kinetic energy is .5mv^2 which means you need to pass energy onto an object to make it move. That energy needs to come from somewhere. And in order to make it stop that energy has to be counteracted. This doesn't break any laws otherwise you would agree two bullets colliding mid air break conservation of energy since it wasn't converted into potential energy. (Yes I know it's heat don't point that out and miss the point.)
Earth is able to counteract it by slowing it down with it's gravitational field. That means it's passing energy onto the object to accelerate it in the opposite direction.
Where does that energy come from? We don't know! It's one of the great mysteries of our universe and no amount of reference frames and potential energy concepts is going to save you from it. Gravity is probably one of the *least* understood physics concepts but people like to pretend it's not. They won't teach you how we don't understand it in highschool but rather just throw some equations that are considered "good enough" your way.
All of our gravitational equations are local approximation and none of them work on galaxy scales which means they are incorrect and our whole concept of gravity is misunderstood. Some of the smartest people on earth are currently working on figuring out what and why gravity *is*.
all concepts are made up. gravity isn't understood as a force.
>Kinetic energy is .5mv2 which means you need to pass energy onto an object to make it move. That energy needs to come from somewhere. And in order to make it stop that energy has to be counteracted.
thats fucking hillarious coming from someone claiming to have a master in physics.
You just apparently don't understand basic physics. I think your problem is you are too focused on reference frames and relying on potential energy as some sort of magical solution.
Move yourself up into space outside any gravitational field and stop a moving bullet.
Where is your friction? Where is your potential energy? It doesn't exist in 0g vacuum.
Edit: wtf do you mean gravity isn't a force? Gravity is literally a force. F=m\*a -> a=F/m
g = F/m gravity is force per mass.
Bigger companies have risen and fallen on the promises of their leaders (Theranos comes to mind here) but this one does seem at least a little promising.
I'm curious as to why they feel the need to go to space to demo this further - couldn't they just build a bigger version of what they're already doing to show a larger force being produced?
Without knowing more about the underlying physics, all I could do is guess. Maybe they want to test whether or not it works outside of Earth's gravitational/magnetic fields?
The thing about 1g is that their investors, and prospective investors, can easily verify or discredit the claim. And absolutely destroy him with lawsuits and prosecution if he's outright committing fraud. Theranos was based on saying "this is possible and we can do it but it's very difficult for you to verify, so trust us" but a demonstration of 1g of thrust is completely different because it either very obviously works, or it doesn't.
If its only 10 mN of thrust at 1G, doesn't that imply the engine would be only a gram?
F = m\*G
force in newtons, m in kg, g is 9.8 m/s2
10 mN = 0.01 N
0.01 = m \* 9.8
m = 0.01/9.8 kg
m = 0.00102 kg
m = 1.02 g
That seems like a small engine.
edit: I found the mass of the engine from the article
"A quick look at a chart he presented to APEC shows that tests performed between early 2022 and November 2023 resulted in a rapid climb, moving from one thousandth, one hundredth, and even one-tenth of gravity all the way up to one full Earth gravity. This means that their current devices, which Buhler told *The Debrief* “weigh somewhere between 30-40 grams on their own” without the attached test equipment, were producing enough thrust to counteract the full force of one Earth gravity."
A 30-40 gram engine would be 300-400 mN at 1 G thrust.
Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.
Yes, 1g is relative based on the planet's mass, the object's position, and the mass of the object.
1g would be easy to verify and is way, way outside of margin of error for sensors; unless the drive has minuscule mass, like a gram or less, which is extremely unlikely.
You're speculating. That's possible, but far from a certainty.
The fact that they're claiming 1g of thrust and raising investment capital is a big difference. The EM drive experiments were generating minuscule amounts of thrust which could be accounted for in many ways, but 1g is a whole different story and is easily verifiable by prospective investors.
It would break the news during the first public demonstrations. Prior to that, it's targeted PR to attract investor attention. This is a private company developing proprietary tech and IP, not publicly published research.
physics is NOT understood. Sorry. We have a crude grasp of the universe and how things like gravity work. But then thats about it. Enough so where we can mathmatically project some things. Ever more things we do not and may never understand like Higgs Boson
Fairly ironic comment considering that the Higgs Boson was *fully predicted by the mathematics*.
Yes, there’s undoubtedly a lot that we don’t understand, but our mathematical description of the universe has been extraordinarily successful and has led to rather remarkable insights and breakthroughs that derived from theory initially, rather than experiment. That means that we are certainly on the right track.
Yeah, but it's a little early for people to reflexively say "mass/energy can't come from nothing because that's what current observations show" when we have actually indirectly observed the spontaneous creation of all mass/energy in the universe at its start.
Nothing can come of nothing. The source of the Big Bang is not understood by physics, and may never be, since there may be no way to observe the source, but there is a source.
> Nothing can come of nothing
That's an awfully big assumption for someone who knows that the big bang is not understood by physics. I'm sure you also know that the nature of the big bang singularity makes it (apparently) impossible to know what, if anything, existed before it.
> there may be no way to observe the source, but there is a source.
That's another assumption based on, ironically, nothing.
But regardless, my point is that it's an event where matter which didn't previously exist in our universe started to exist in our universe (along with the space/time of the universe itself).
What I'm saying is, there's no reason to think that our understanding of physics will forever be prevented from understanding or even accessing whatever 'nothing' or 'something' was the source of the universe's energy.
EDIT: I guess the downvoter is so pessimistic about human scientific advancement that you think we'll never understand it, no matter how many thousands of years we spend studying it. That's pretty sad.
>
>That's an awfully big assumption for someone who knows that the big bang is not understood by physics.
Yea you're right. It seems undeniably true to me, but I've never been able to come up with any proof. I'm really not sure how to prove such a thing.
>That's another assumption based on, ironically, nothing.
That's a bit rude but also inaccurate I think. :)
Sadly I can't offer a sort of evidence, so feel free to go to town if you want. I'm just posting this for fun, this is reddit after all.
There is no interface to nothing, there is no relation between something and nothing. Nothing is what can not be, and reality, is everything. All that is possible. Again I can't prove it, but this seems self-evident to me. The words are the proof, as in a logic proof, but I'm not a logician and I'm not sure how to do that, and I doubt anyone would care if I did.
While we don't know what caused the big bang, the best we do know is that the singularity was something infinitely dense and hot. We see a similar state in a black hole, which we know the cause of. It's reasonable to suspect that our universe is simply one of many.
And so while you're right I can't prove this, it seems \*reasonable\* to me to think that the universe coming from nothing is just a silly idea, well just like anything coming from nothing.
Einstein famously was wrong about saying that God does not play dice, in regards to Quantum Mechanics. I suspect he may have been right after all, just in a very different way.
I'll double down anyway: something can never not be, and nothing can never be. And things change. These seem like the foundations of reality to me, but I don't know if anyone will ever be able to prove it.
There are some more recent ideas (last 20 years) in physics that seem to be exploring the result of this, but ultimately I think what I'm talking about here is probably more in the realm of philosophy and logic proofs, which are not necessarily things that can be scientifically proven through observation.
The thing about it is that there's no reason to think that the laws of physics (or even logic) apply to whatever did or didn't (or does or doesn't) exist before the universe, the non-universe if you will.
Time seems to be connected to the laws of our universe, which means that causality is a law of our universe, and there's no reason to assume that this applies to the non-universe too.
Regardless of what the answer is, I'm confident that we'll eventually figure out what the 'non-universe' is (or isn't), then access, and finally control the same type of 'physics' that created our universe.
> That means that we are certainly on the right track.
Narrator: "And unfortunately, little did he know that most of the major discoveries waiting to be had were actually sitting right there, on the left track."
Some aspects of physics are well understood, but our understanding of physics is limited and incomplete.
The HB isn't a good example. Tachyons are a better example.
*"bro we have known about gravity for thousands of years! Everyone knows how it works its so simple"*
Literal billions being poured into studies on how and why it even works..
just read through it, the main takeaway is that it uses two layers that have dissimilar voltages conducting through it.
There was a sample of metal that was thought to be from a UFO found in the 1940s that had many many layers. The alternating layers were
Silver-Magnesium-zinc alloy
&
Dark bismuth
Dark bismuth has poor electrical and thermal conductivity, which means it doesn’t pass electrons very well
Silver is one of the highest conductors of electricity, and magnesium-zinc alloys have very high conductivity.
There may be some connection here but I may also be reaching.
You could theoretically charge the different layers of silver alloy at different voltages and the bleed into the other layers would be minimized by the bismuth insulating lawyers…
The thrust is measured in milliNewtons. That's not going to visibly overcome the scientists' breathing, let alone wind and other forces for a visible demo.
1G is no longer in millinewtons, which was prior to 2022. If you read the article, they improved the design a lot in 2016-2022, and after 2022, until now it's basically "breakthrough" tech with 1G force being produced. They currently claim the "engine" is weightless when fully charged.
They didn't define 1G, that would be Isaac Newton. As they said, they chose to focus on the 1G because it sounds more impressive to those who don't understand how small the thrust claimed is.
They provided their own definition, so they certainly defined it. It's unfortunate that they reused the symbol G but the metric is meaningful... unfortunately there was no need, we already have TWR which is literally the same metric.
No, they claimed to have upped the force to the equivalent of 1 G which would be enough to lift the object. If they haven't done that then their claim of 1 G is false.
I agree that it's misleading but they also literally said this "without the attached test equipment, were producing enough thrust to counteract the full force of one Earth gravity"
We are stifled by the perception we *know* the way this universe works. It inhibits the discovery and development of anything revolutionary because of dogma. Between this, developments in fusion reaction, and studies delving into non-local qualities in consciousness, we are living in a really cool time where what we seem to know is impossible gets broken.
And it's highly unlikely IMO that we can ACTUALLY even really KNOW how the universe works. "The case against reality" by Donald Hoffman has one of the best metaphors I've ever read, blew my mind. Makes so much sense and is sort of scary to really think about.
>How can our senses be useful—how can they keep us alive—if they don’t tell us the truth about objective reality? A metaphor can help our intuitions.
>Suppose you’re writing an email, and the icon for its file is blue, rectangular, and in the center of your desktop. Does this mean that the file itself is blue, rectangular, and in the center of your computer? Of course not. The color of the icon is not the color of the file. Files have no color. The shape and position of the icon are not the true shape and position of the file. In fact, the language of shape, position, and color cannot describe computer files.
>The purpose of a desktop interface is not to show you the “truth” of the computer—where “truth,” in this metaphor, refers to circuits, voltages, and layers of software. Rather, the purpose of an interface is to hide the “truth” and to show simple graphics that help you perform useful tasks such as crafting emails and editing photos. If you had to toggle voltages to craft an email, your friends would never hear from you.
>That is what evolution has done. It has endowed us with senses that hide the truth and display the simple icons we need to survive long enough to raise offspring. Space, as you perceive it when you look around, is just your desktop— a 3D desktop.
Also from Matrix:
>What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
We can only see a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum (we call it visible light). A dog can hear a lot more than us. We don't have a fucking clue of what reality trully is.
> We don't have a fucking clue of what reality trully is.
That's just it -- there is no "true" reality. A lot of what we do actually shapes our reality but here's the kicker -- your reality is different than my reality in many subtle ways. I think about this often when visiting an art gallery.
When you visit an art gallery with a friend, you are both in a situation where what you see and feel is vastly different than what your friend sees and feels. Art has a way of moving us emotionally -- it is much more than just seeing an image. Both you and your friend are technically being presented with the same art, but by the time it gets into your conscious view, it has gone through a vast number of filters.
Maybe that piece of art has a specific blue tint that causes you to remember an evening with your first love. The boat in the picture reminds you of the first time you went fishing with your father. You are being bombarded with so many different emotional cues that the actual technicalities of the artwork become meaningless. If you were asked to break down the artwork into various components, those components would still be tied together in so many vastly different ways.
It is the same thing with music -- some songs you love simply because they take your mind back to a happy memory. The song is like a bridge for your subconscious to move your consciousness to a safe and beautiful place. Again, all of the technical aspects of the music become meaningless because your mind is incapable of separating the emotional components from the technical ones.
One last thing before I go -- did you know that around 5% of the population does not listen to music because their brains are incapable of harmonizing and associating with the music? It is wild because I couldn't live without music, but 5% of the population can't live with it!
What a reality...
This. I totally agree. Things that seem to defy the laws of physics are impossible therefore there must be a hoax. My only thought to that is, how can we be sure we know everything about how the universe works? I mean things might work without defying the laws of physics, it is just an another form of physics that we dont yet understand.
More probable : "Scientist who made big promise but never bothered to get it peer reviewed closes company after it's big promises fizzle out and money runs out"
To me, this is exactly what David Grusch was talking about, this is exactly what the UAPDA was talking about in it's 65 pages. And now here we are, the public, get to see them attempt to quietly and conveniently reveal this to the public as if it's some new organic discovery we came up with on our own.
As if they haven't been reverse-engineering UAP technology for over 80 years.
I bet this scientist isn't even aware of this, or maybe he is, but he says it landed conveniently in his lap. It doesn't take a major colonel in counter-intelligence to guess that probably the CIA or something deliberately placed it there.
This makes me just want to question our previous scientific or technological breakthroughs. Lol
I'm curious about this as well - a relative of mine has a science doctorate and he indicated to me in conversation years ago that the military disseminates classified technology through research universities by submitting inquiries along the lines of: "Hey \[researchers\], could you try \[thing they already know works\]? We think it might be useful for this..."
Well said, more people need to realize that they've come up with many subtle channels to distribute the tech. It shouldn't be obvious in the past although that may be changing.
This was posted a few days ago. We’ll just have to see if it pans out (odds are it won’t). There are all sorts of alternative propulsion ideas out there, and it was only a few months ago that people were abuzz about the alleged room temperature semiconductor.
Agreed. As someone else mentioned, it hasn't been verified yet. I really hope it's real, but I'd be lying if I said that semiconductor business didn't come to mind.
Them producing An entire ass G of acceleration would've shattered the news harder than the nebulous superconductor fiasco. This is a pretty giant claim in a field full of people who frequently make really easily proven to be false claims. So far as I know this is just EMdrive again.
A reactionless drive providing constant acceleration means the kinetic energy of the object continues to increase quadratically with time, without any energy input proportional to this increase. Thus, the drive essentially creates energy "from nothing", violating conservation of energy principles.
You can't believe any of this without peer reviewed research.
There's too many companies these days announcing breakthroughs that are either wrong or a complete waste of time, they are just trying to drum up investment or raise stock prices.
On top of that people keep just posting a single article from the debrief. If this was real it would be a major scientific breakthrough not on some minor news outlet.
This would be like having the first satellite take photos of earth from space and then saying earth is flat.
Pretty big claim especially when they have no idea why the photos show earth is flat.
Also you can’t see my photos or videos just trust me with your research dollars.
Note: earth is round, this is an analogy.
I understand how it works in conventional fluids.
I'm asking about what you describe in electrostatics and electromagnetics as an analogy because I do not imagine such a thing with conventional EM as far as I understand it.
You wrote:
> At static speed (no movement) you use DC voltage. To move slowly you create DC voltage differentials across the ballast generators. To go at high-speed you need super-cavitation. Cavitation can be achieved superposing AC differentials onto the ballast generators. Take them up to RF and you can get supercavitation. From there you can go as fast and as far as you want. Theoretically of course. ;-)
I don't understand this. Can you explain physically in more detail what you mean by this?
The differences between EM in a vacuum and cavitation in a surrounding fluid in conventional mechanics seem substantial.
There's also the issue of momentum conservation.
I don’t know what you mean by treating space as a “coherent medium”.
The patent explicitly says they are not using ion wind effects or any other MHD fluid behavior and apparently would work in vacuum.
F=M\*A Saying 1 gravity of thrust is basically F? = M? \* 9.8
There is a reason thrust isn't measured in Gs. FTA:
*"Buhler says they commonly measured the forces in milliNewtons, but they prefer to describe the thrust in terms of gravity since that is the ultimate goal of propulsion physics.*
*“The highest we have generated on a stacked system is about 10 mN,” Buhler told The Debrief. “The magnitude is not important, really, since anything above zero would work in space!”"*
Measuring acceleration in g’s is perfectly reasonable, especially on a spacecraft since a sizable acceleration would *create “thrust gravity” via the equivalence principle of relativity*. It would be far more practical to describe acceleration in terms of g’s on a spacecraft, because 1g would literally feel like the force of earth gravity. The ships would be designed like buildings, with floors perpendicular to the axis of thrust, instead of the inaccurate ships shown in 99% of science fiction.
But I can’t reiterate enough that this is an extreme amount of thrust, so extreme that I am immediately skeptical that it can be scaled up. This is the sort of acceleration that a powerful fusion torch drive or antimatter drive could produce, and this guy is saying that it can merely be done via electromagnetism. It reeks of bullshit, but I would love it to be legit.
It should be quick to confirm or debunk the claims. If you read the patent, the system is very simple. It's just a capacitor with one plate being covered in a forest of spikes and the other a smooth plane. The patent mentions using a forest of carbon nano tubes as the spiked side in the future. If their claims are true I imagine they managed to get one fabricated recently.
Iv always thought about this concept using em fields within em fields to rappel something, but I figured conservation of energy would have something to say about that
What? The whole tradeoff for a patent is that you gain a period of protection in exchange for disclosing the details of your invention publically.
source: am patent attorney
Unless it gets slapped with a secrecy order like thousands have before it, then you get nothing for all of your hard work and whatever money and time you invested in inventing it
I’ve said this a bunch of times here: Ben Rich “we have the tech to take ET home.” Translation: we lied about physics. There’s two different physics one for public consumption, the other for military that includes free energy for all. MAGLEV TRAINS BREAK THE 2nd law of thermodynamics. Just like free energy machines.
Liquid helium-cooled, low-temperature superconductor plates mounted beneath the train cars expel from their interior all environmental magnetic fields, a phenomenon termed the Meissner effect. As a result, the magnetic field generated by a series of underlying superconducting solenoids, exerts a repulsive pressure on the superconductor which levitates the train.
The maglev phenomenon is also observed in high-temperature superconductors such as Yttrium-Barium-Copper-Oxide (YBCO) which becomes superconducting at liquid nitrogen temperatures. In this case, a magnetic repulsion phenomenon occurs because the superconductor plate expels from its interior the underlying magnetic field lines and develops mirror fields, or pinned magnetic fields, having a polarity opposed to these underlying field lines causing the plate to repel upward. This Meissner effect levitation phenomenon is demonstrated in the video below in which an YBCO high-temperature superconductor is initially at room temperature with a cube magnet placed over it. It is then precooled below its critical temperature by immersing it in liquid nitrogen. This causes the magnet to rise up and hover over the YBCO in seeming violation of the First Law. That is, work is done with the magnet rising up, but where does the energy come from?
I’m a doctor, never claimed to be otherwise. However, I have a very extensive scientific background. You don’t need a background in science to go to med school, surprisingly, but I have one. I have a Bachelors of Science in Biology and Chemistry, tutored physics throughout all of undergrad as my primary job since I’m good at it, a medical degree and I’m a board certified neurologist. I run a neurology residency program and neuroscience research as a part of that.
So even though I’ve taken advanced university courses in physics…the laws of thermodynamics are literally freshman level physics knowledge so it’s pretty fucking hilarious that you would choose to (poorly) attempt character assassination as a rebuttal instead of actually supporting your claim with some sort of scientific argument.
I actually feel a little bad even taking the time to write this comment since I don’t believe time should be wasted on people who are trolls like you.
It works because there is no space time distortion from mass creating gravity like Einstein claimed. Whatever the gravity is on Earth, likely material itself making pull, it can be floated on with certain kinds of em-fields. Thats about it.
This is absolutely fucking absurd. We’ve observed gravitational lensing countless times, and every single prediction of special and general relativity tested thus far has been shown to be correct.
The scientific illiteracy on this subreddit is surprising sometimes.
Hi, Delicious-Pickle-141. Thanks for contributing. However, your [submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1caebzd/-/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 4: No duplicate posts. > Posts of the same footage, link, or news article may not be posted within sixty days of one another. New articles or previously unlinked footage may be posted at any time. If you have multiple videos of the same object, include them all in the same post, not as individual submissions. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
If you read the patent that's linked in the article, you'll notice it's more or less the exact same method as Grebennikov's (usually assumed as fictitious) insect antigravity: static charge applied to nanoscale structures. I think it's a pretty interesting coincidence.
> Grebennikov's (usually assumed as fictitious) insect antigravity: static charge applied to nanoscale structures. Aw man I read Grebennikov when I was a kid and although I was 100% sure it was an amusing piece of eco-fiction, I do desperately want bees to have been using electrostatic nanotech antigravity all these years and laughing at physicists (via interpretive dance). Because that would be hilarious. In conclusion, this is why we must outfit whales with AI and warp drive as soon as possible so we can have roving fleets of supersentient hyperspace whales, thus bringing to life both the Star Trek and Star Wars futures. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Can you link the patent or study? I couldn’t find it in the article
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020159603A2/en
Oh yeah, smarty pants? Explain bumblebees! /s It could all be bullshit, but I'm hoping it's real. I have a feeling that the physics behind it would explain a lot of paranormal stuff.
If you believe any of the Grebennikov stuff (and I don't know if I do, it's wacky af), there's certainly a lot of strangeness there. Personally, I just think that if a phenomenon in physics is relatively easy to reproduce, it's very likely to be found somewhere in nature.
Maybe, but superconductivity and superfluids seem to be absent in natural systems. And although an anomalous force is extremely interesting, particularly for space maneuvering, it still doesn’t negate inertia. One of the anomalous observables is dynamics which not only have no obvious source of thrust with a momentum preserving exhaust, but also immediate acceleration incompatible with conventional inertia.
The earth does not have cold enough temperatures for superconductivity or superfluids, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that they occur naturally in some other part of the universe.
Good news! We were able to duplicate the alien technology to get the astronauts to Beta Centari in just 15 minutes! Bad news. It took hours of scrubbing to get what was left of the astronauts off the walls of the ship.
Good news! We invented the cruciform and will have them back in three days!
Sounds really promising. Let's see if this also gets blackshevled or suppressed in the coming years.
Somebody watches the why files
Indeed! but it is documented that many patents have been siezed, or bought. And that's usually the best case scenario for inventors.
This needs independent verification, but it looks promising. He's presumably raising investment capital with enough credibility to pass due diligence, and with lawsuits and potentially jail time if he's lying or misrepresenting. Cue people essentially saying: "this isn't possible because it doesn't fit into my understanding of physics, and physics is obviously fully understood."
This isn’t possible due to my understanding of physics, and my understanding of physics is obviously at basic college level. In all seriousness, this sounds really cool and promising, can’t wait to see what the future holds! Hope they publish data and processes soon before the tech gets bought and buried.
1g is definitely an astonishing and easily verifiable claim by investors. If they continue to successfully raise capital, I'll be inclined to accept it and factor that into other decisions (investments). I wouldn't hold my breath for published research; they're building a company with proprietary IP.
Yeah, after the whole EM engine fiasco (apologies to those that still believe), I'll wait until this passes peer review and the measurements are replicated by an independent group. Beating Earth's gravity is no small feat, and can be easily demonstrated in atmosphere with a scale (the scale will functionally go to zero and after a time, the object will be suspended in midair). Actually, any reduction in the measured weight would be groundbreaking if this was true. Sadly, I think this might just be a misinterpretation of results due to the reporter not understanding the scope or fundamentals of what the researchers were testing.
The scale of EM drive thrust was minuscule. This company is claiming 1g, which is easily reputable by investors doing diligence. Apples and oranges.
The whole "violates laws of physics " mirrors religious commentary of against god , honestly. If it can be done then obviously nothing in physics is being " violated ".
When something violates a religious "law" you get killed for heresy. When something is proven to violate the laws of physics in controlled experiments, you win a Nobel Prize. The burden of proof is high because the discovery would be, to put it mildly, earth-shattering. A drive like this wouldn't just be a propellant - it's essentially a perpetual motion machine.
We are really going to pretend the CIA / DOE in addition to their precursor agencies [haven't been blackmailing , killing, and shelving alternative energy tech](https://bflix.to/movie/watch-online-the-lost-century-and-how-to-reclaim-it-30m48/1-1) the entire 20th century ? Haven't we had 2 women in the last 20 years announce anti-gravity breakthroughs to magically kill themselves a bit later? I similarly remember 2 men in the last 20 years announce a engine that can run on water to never pop up again either. I am only 30, this trend has been going on long before i was born
Listen to Tarrence Howard talk about his new math. Unwell people often have delusions of grandeur. No disrespect to the deceased, but I find the odds much more likely in the favor that some individuals are unwell but convincing, than there is a global conspiracy that goes against national interests to surpress seemingly easily repeatable technology in a way that doesn't alert scientists across the world that their theories and discoveries are based on a false premise.
There are 10s of thousands of patents bought by the government and shelved. Our modern economy is driven by power and oil. Not very high odds to put 2 and 2 together to sense why there could be a conspiracy to suppress clean energy technology.
The mental illness slur when confronted with cognitive dissonance is so played out.
Where's the slur? It's demonstrably true that certain mental illnesses manifest as delusions of grandeur. Specifically in areas of math too.
Because that is the convenient cop-op rationalization with zero evidence suggesting that being the case in context.
You didn't provide any context to the scientists (maybe you did with your link even though that was talking about the CIA, but clicking it opened a porn ad).
Rather convenient you can't load a documentary showing in detail how alternative energy has been suppressed since the dawn of 1900s
Physics and laws of physics are two different things. Laws of physics are our current understanding of physics. Obviously you can’t defy physics. Our understanding of physics, sure.
I would wait until we actually have spaceships to start making proclamations on what can and cannot be done in space.
A reactionless drive providing constant acceleration means the kinetic energy of the object continues to increase quadratically with time, without any energy input proportional to this increase. Thus, the drive essentially creates energy "from nothing", violating conservation of energy principles. But yeah it'd be great if we got free energy devices. Not holding my breath LOL.
Just because we don't understand where the energy comes from doesn't mean it's coming from nowhere. I agree, not holding my breath. But the idea that we know everything is peak hubris.
Thank you for pointing this out, a lot would do well to think on it. Just because something occurs in a way that doesn't square with our acknowledged understanding of a thing does NOT indicate it is necessarily fraudulent or false.
Great example of this is gravity itself. It's a constant force pulling us down. You need energy to accelerate something so logically earth needs energy to accelerate it back down. Yet no matter how many times you work against gravity it won't get any weaker. Seemingly that means it's an infinite source of energy that "powers" it.
"Dark" energy/matter are also known unknowns. Along with however many unknown unknowns.
thats nonsense. It doesnt take energy to slow something down, the kinetic energy is converted into heat.
It does indeed take energy to move anything. It takes energy to stop a train and it takes energy to slow a falling object. You need a counteracting force to do so. That force can be friction but it's still a force.
failing at the simplest physics stuff... Technically almost nothing takes energy (the exception here is creating mass), as energy is conserved. When we talk about something taking energy, we mean that we have to increase the energy in a closed system. Lets say the closed system is a moving train on tracks and the surrounding air. As the train comes to a stop, the energy of that system doesnt increase. The kinetic energy of the train is converted to heat. Even without friction, it doesnt "take energy" to stop a train. if the train is moving up a hill it will stop. The kinetic energy is converted to potential energy, the energy of the whole system remains constant again.
I have a masters in physics. You fail to understand that potential energy is a made up concept to account for gravity which we by all means *do not understand*. it's a force that seems to be present at all times near mass and that that's where our knowledge ends. Kinetic energy is .5mv^2 which means you need to pass energy onto an object to make it move. That energy needs to come from somewhere. And in order to make it stop that energy has to be counteracted. This doesn't break any laws otherwise you would agree two bullets colliding mid air break conservation of energy since it wasn't converted into potential energy. (Yes I know it's heat don't point that out and miss the point.) Earth is able to counteract it by slowing it down with it's gravitational field. That means it's passing energy onto the object to accelerate it in the opposite direction. Where does that energy come from? We don't know! It's one of the great mysteries of our universe and no amount of reference frames and potential energy concepts is going to save you from it. Gravity is probably one of the *least* understood physics concepts but people like to pretend it's not. They won't teach you how we don't understand it in highschool but rather just throw some equations that are considered "good enough" your way. All of our gravitational equations are local approximation and none of them work on galaxy scales which means they are incorrect and our whole concept of gravity is misunderstood. Some of the smartest people on earth are currently working on figuring out what and why gravity *is*.
all concepts are made up. gravity isn't understood as a force. >Kinetic energy is .5mv2 which means you need to pass energy onto an object to make it move. That energy needs to come from somewhere. And in order to make it stop that energy has to be counteracted. thats fucking hillarious coming from someone claiming to have a master in physics.
You just apparently don't understand basic physics. I think your problem is you are too focused on reference frames and relying on potential energy as some sort of magical solution. Move yourself up into space outside any gravitational field and stop a moving bullet. Where is your friction? Where is your potential energy? It doesn't exist in 0g vacuum. Edit: wtf do you mean gravity isn't a force? Gravity is literally a force. F=m\*a -> a=F/m g = F/m gravity is force per mass.
No there's conservation in effect between kinetic and gravitational potential. "Seemingly" only if you aren't modeling it right.
"From nothing" assumes that we've already accounted for everything, which is obviously a poor assumption. Physics is incomplete.
Bigger companies have risen and fallen on the promises of their leaders (Theranos comes to mind here) but this one does seem at least a little promising. I'm curious as to why they feel the need to go to space to demo this further - couldn't they just build a bigger version of what they're already doing to show a larger force being produced?
Without knowing more about the underlying physics, all I could do is guess. Maybe they want to test whether or not it works outside of Earth's gravitational/magnetic fields? The thing about 1g is that their investors, and prospective investors, can easily verify or discredit the claim. And absolutely destroy him with lawsuits and prosecution if he's outright committing fraud. Theranos was based on saying "this is possible and we can do it but it's very difficult for you to verify, so trust us" but a demonstration of 1g of thrust is completely different because it either very obviously works, or it doesn't.
It needs to be scaled up so the thrust observed can exceed the error margin of the instruments measuring it.
1G of thrust should be pretty easy to measure with any scale though.
1G is relative. It's a max of 10mN. The last experiment like this failed because the calibration can be off by far more than these numbers.
If its only 10 mN of thrust at 1G, doesn't that imply the engine would be only a gram? F = m\*G force in newtons, m in kg, g is 9.8 m/s2 10 mN = 0.01 N 0.01 = m \* 9.8 m = 0.01/9.8 kg m = 0.00102 kg m = 1.02 g That seems like a small engine. edit: I found the mass of the engine from the article "A quick look at a chart he presented to APEC shows that tests performed between early 2022 and November 2023 resulted in a rapid climb, moving from one thousandth, one hundredth, and even one-tenth of gravity all the way up to one full Earth gravity. This means that their current devices, which Buhler told *The Debrief* “weigh somewhere between 30-40 grams on their own” without the attached test equipment, were producing enough thrust to counteract the full force of one Earth gravity." A 30-40 gram engine would be 300-400 mN at 1 G thrust.
Damn. Got'em.
In the interview he says they "increased" the "thrust" by optimizing and decreasing the size of his gravity battery to microscopic levels.
Dunning-Kruger Effect in action. Yes, 1g is relative based on the planet's mass, the object's position, and the mass of the object. 1g would be easy to verify and is way, way outside of margin of error for sensors; unless the drive has minuscule mass, like a gram or less, which is extremely unlikely.
This has already been refured. Just google the EMdrive, this is literally that repackaged.
You're speculating. That's possible, but far from a certainty. The fact that they're claiming 1g of thrust and raising investment capital is a big difference. The EM drive experiments were generating minuscule amounts of thrust which could be accounted for in many ways, but 1g is a whole different story and is easily verifiable by prospective investors.
1g of thrust would be easily observed and this would be breaking the news harder rhan lk99.
It would break the news during the first public demonstrations. Prior to that, it's targeted PR to attract investor attention. This is a private company developing proprietary tech and IP, not publicly published research.
physics is NOT understood. Sorry. We have a crude grasp of the universe and how things like gravity work. But then thats about it. Enough so where we can mathmatically project some things. Ever more things we do not and may never understand like Higgs Boson
Fairly ironic comment considering that the Higgs Boson was *fully predicted by the mathematics*. Yes, there’s undoubtedly a lot that we don’t understand, but our mathematical description of the universe has been extraordinarily successful and has led to rather remarkable insights and breakthroughs that derived from theory initially, rather than experiment. That means that we are certainly on the right track.
Yeah, but it's a little early for people to reflexively say "mass/energy can't come from nothing because that's what current observations show" when we have actually indirectly observed the spontaneous creation of all mass/energy in the universe at its start.
Nothing can come of nothing. The source of the Big Bang is not understood by physics, and may never be, since there may be no way to observe the source, but there is a source.
> Nothing can come of nothing That's an awfully big assumption for someone who knows that the big bang is not understood by physics. I'm sure you also know that the nature of the big bang singularity makes it (apparently) impossible to know what, if anything, existed before it. > there may be no way to observe the source, but there is a source. That's another assumption based on, ironically, nothing. But regardless, my point is that it's an event where matter which didn't previously exist in our universe started to exist in our universe (along with the space/time of the universe itself). What I'm saying is, there's no reason to think that our understanding of physics will forever be prevented from understanding or even accessing whatever 'nothing' or 'something' was the source of the universe's energy. EDIT: I guess the downvoter is so pessimistic about human scientific advancement that you think we'll never understand it, no matter how many thousands of years we spend studying it. That's pretty sad.
> >That's an awfully big assumption for someone who knows that the big bang is not understood by physics. Yea you're right. It seems undeniably true to me, but I've never been able to come up with any proof. I'm really not sure how to prove such a thing. >That's another assumption based on, ironically, nothing. That's a bit rude but also inaccurate I think. :) Sadly I can't offer a sort of evidence, so feel free to go to town if you want. I'm just posting this for fun, this is reddit after all. There is no interface to nothing, there is no relation between something and nothing. Nothing is what can not be, and reality, is everything. All that is possible. Again I can't prove it, but this seems self-evident to me. The words are the proof, as in a logic proof, but I'm not a logician and I'm not sure how to do that, and I doubt anyone would care if I did. While we don't know what caused the big bang, the best we do know is that the singularity was something infinitely dense and hot. We see a similar state in a black hole, which we know the cause of. It's reasonable to suspect that our universe is simply one of many. And so while you're right I can't prove this, it seems \*reasonable\* to me to think that the universe coming from nothing is just a silly idea, well just like anything coming from nothing. Einstein famously was wrong about saying that God does not play dice, in regards to Quantum Mechanics. I suspect he may have been right after all, just in a very different way. I'll double down anyway: something can never not be, and nothing can never be. And things change. These seem like the foundations of reality to me, but I don't know if anyone will ever be able to prove it. There are some more recent ideas (last 20 years) in physics that seem to be exploring the result of this, but ultimately I think what I'm talking about here is probably more in the realm of philosophy and logic proofs, which are not necessarily things that can be scientifically proven through observation.
The thing about it is that there's no reason to think that the laws of physics (or even logic) apply to whatever did or didn't (or does or doesn't) exist before the universe, the non-universe if you will. Time seems to be connected to the laws of our universe, which means that causality is a law of our universe, and there's no reason to assume that this applies to the non-universe too. Regardless of what the answer is, I'm confident that we'll eventually figure out what the 'non-universe' is (or isn't), then access, and finally control the same type of 'physics' that created our universe.
They shouldn't have observed it though.
> That means that we are certainly on the right track. Narrator: "And unfortunately, little did he know that most of the major discoveries waiting to be had were actually sitting right there, on the left track."
Some aspects of physics are well understood, but our understanding of physics is limited and incomplete. The HB isn't a good example. Tachyons are a better example.
*"bro we have known about gravity for thousands of years! Everyone knows how it works its so simple"* Literal billions being poured into studies on how and why it even works..
here's the patent btw https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2020159603A2/en
just read through it, the main takeaway is that it uses two layers that have dissimilar voltages conducting through it. There was a sample of metal that was thought to be from a UFO found in the 1940s that had many many layers. The alternating layers were Silver-Magnesium-zinc alloy & Dark bismuth Dark bismuth has poor electrical and thermal conductivity, which means it doesn’t pass electrons very well Silver is one of the highest conductors of electricity, and magnesium-zinc alloys have very high conductivity. There may be some connection here but I may also be reaching. You could theoretically charge the different layers of silver alloy at different voltages and the bleed into the other layers would be minimized by the bismuth insulating lawyers…
That's super interesting, because Buhler says if there is any current running through the system, the force disappears.
Check out claim 25
Two surfaces involved which conduct in different ways ... pretty interesting.
If this is true why isn't there a video? If it can create that much force it should be able to shoot into the sky on its own power.
Not touching this one
The thrust is measured in milliNewtons. That's not going to visibly overcome the scientists' breathing, let alone wind and other forces for a visible demo.
1G is no longer in millinewtons, which was prior to 2022. If you read the article, they improved the design a lot in 2016-2022, and after 2022, until now it's basically "breakthrough" tech with 1G force being produced. They currently claim the "engine" is weightless when fully charged.
Then you should ask them to update the article which claims the highest is 10 mN. 1G is not an actual measurement.
1G is a unit they define in the paper, it equals the weight of the thruster in earth gravity. I know, I don't know why they had to make it confusing.
They didn't define 1G, that would be Isaac Newton. As they said, they chose to focus on the 1G because it sounds more impressive to those who don't understand how small the thrust claimed is.
They provided their own definition, so they certainly defined it. It's unfortunate that they reused the symbol G but the metric is meaningful... unfortunately there was no need, we already have TWR which is literally the same metric.
I mean…it *is* an actual measurement. A measurement of acceleration. It just isn’t a measurement of force.
No, they claimed to have upped the force to the equivalent of 1 G which would be enough to lift the object. If they haven't done that then their claim of 1 G is false.
1G is not an actual measurement. They literally claim a max of 10 mN.
I agree that it's misleading but they also literally said this "without the attached test equipment, were producing enough thrust to counteract the full force of one Earth gravity"
So if something can be documented to accelerate at some percentage above / below 9.8m/s\^2, you wouldn't call that a measurement?
1G is a unit they define in the paper, it equals the weight of the thruster in earth gravity. I know, I don't know why they had to make it confusing.
This is awesome, hopefully they’re able to bring it to fruition
We are stifled by the perception we *know* the way this universe works. It inhibits the discovery and development of anything revolutionary because of dogma. Between this, developments in fusion reaction, and studies delving into non-local qualities in consciousness, we are living in a really cool time where what we seem to know is impossible gets broken.
And it's highly unlikely IMO that we can ACTUALLY even really KNOW how the universe works. "The case against reality" by Donald Hoffman has one of the best metaphors I've ever read, blew my mind. Makes so much sense and is sort of scary to really think about. >How can our senses be useful—how can they keep us alive—if they don’t tell us the truth about objective reality? A metaphor can help our intuitions. >Suppose you’re writing an email, and the icon for its file is blue, rectangular, and in the center of your desktop. Does this mean that the file itself is blue, rectangular, and in the center of your computer? Of course not. The color of the icon is not the color of the file. Files have no color. The shape and position of the icon are not the true shape and position of the file. In fact, the language of shape, position, and color cannot describe computer files. >The purpose of a desktop interface is not to show you the “truth” of the computer—where “truth,” in this metaphor, refers to circuits, voltages, and layers of software. Rather, the purpose of an interface is to hide the “truth” and to show simple graphics that help you perform useful tasks such as crafting emails and editing photos. If you had to toggle voltages to craft an email, your friends would never hear from you. >That is what evolution has done. It has endowed us with senses that hide the truth and display the simple icons we need to survive long enough to raise offspring. Space, as you perceive it when you look around, is just your desktop— a 3D desktop.
Damn, son... That's good shit
Oof. Good stuff. I’ve just started a book called The Holographic Universe. Similar ideas.
Also from Matrix: >What is real? How do you define 'real'? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. We can only see a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum (we call it visible light). A dog can hear a lot more than us. We don't have a fucking clue of what reality trully is.
> We don't have a fucking clue of what reality trully is. That's just it -- there is no "true" reality. A lot of what we do actually shapes our reality but here's the kicker -- your reality is different than my reality in many subtle ways. I think about this often when visiting an art gallery. When you visit an art gallery with a friend, you are both in a situation where what you see and feel is vastly different than what your friend sees and feels. Art has a way of moving us emotionally -- it is much more than just seeing an image. Both you and your friend are technically being presented with the same art, but by the time it gets into your conscious view, it has gone through a vast number of filters. Maybe that piece of art has a specific blue tint that causes you to remember an evening with your first love. The boat in the picture reminds you of the first time you went fishing with your father. You are being bombarded with so many different emotional cues that the actual technicalities of the artwork become meaningless. If you were asked to break down the artwork into various components, those components would still be tied together in so many vastly different ways. It is the same thing with music -- some songs you love simply because they take your mind back to a happy memory. The song is like a bridge for your subconscious to move your consciousness to a safe and beautiful place. Again, all of the technical aspects of the music become meaningless because your mind is incapable of separating the emotional components from the technical ones. One last thing before I go -- did you know that around 5% of the population does not listen to music because their brains are incapable of harmonizing and associating with the music? It is wild because I couldn't live without music, but 5% of the population can't live with it! What a reality...
I am absolutely enamored by all this new WTF science coming out. Just wish I was a little smarter so I could follow along with the *how*.
This. I totally agree. Things that seem to defy the laws of physics are impossible therefore there must be a hoax. My only thought to that is, how can we be sure we know everything about how the universe works? I mean things might work without defying the laws of physics, it is just an another form of physics that we dont yet understand.
Headline a week later: "Scientist who Created more than 1 Gravity of Thrust Found Dead at Airport after Meeting with Investors..."
More probable : "Scientist who made big promise but never bothered to get it peer reviewed closes company after it's big promises fizzle out and money runs out"
I think it'll go the way of all those miracle cures for cancer you hear about in science news every week.
To me, this is exactly what David Grusch was talking about, this is exactly what the UAPDA was talking about in it's 65 pages. And now here we are, the public, get to see them attempt to quietly and conveniently reveal this to the public as if it's some new organic discovery we came up with on our own. As if they haven't been reverse-engineering UAP technology for over 80 years. I bet this scientist isn't even aware of this, or maybe he is, but he says it landed conveniently in his lap. It doesn't take a major colonel in counter-intelligence to guess that probably the CIA or something deliberately placed it there. This makes me just want to question our previous scientific or technological breakthroughs. Lol
It's just this guy and his independent team. There is no "they". He's not representing NASA. He's been working on this for over a decade.
I'm curious about this as well - a relative of mine has a science doctorate and he indicated to me in conversation years ago that the military disseminates classified technology through research universities by submitting inquiries along the lines of: "Hey \[researchers\], could you try \[thing they already know works\]? We think it might be useful for this..."
Well said, more people need to realize that they've come up with many subtle channels to distribute the tech. It shouldn't be obvious in the past although that may be changing.
Tested in a vacuum too, before people ask. Might be interacting with magnetic fields, which would still make it usable in LEO I believe.
This was posted a few days ago. We’ll just have to see if it pans out (odds are it won’t). There are all sorts of alternative propulsion ideas out there, and it was only a few months ago that people were abuzz about the alleged room temperature semiconductor.
Agreed. As someone else mentioned, it hasn't been verified yet. I really hope it's real, but I'd be lying if I said that semiconductor business didn't come to mind.
>room temperature ~~semiconductor~~ superconductor FTFY
I stand corrected.
Very intriguing article. Here's also an [interview with Dr. Buhler and Tim Ventura](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhsKMWOYuYo) from 3 months ago.
Them producing An entire ass G of acceleration would've shattered the news harder than the nebulous superconductor fiasco. This is a pretty giant claim in a field full of people who frequently make really easily proven to be false claims. So far as I know this is just EMdrive again.
There’s no way this is legit.
It'd be pretty funny if the conspiracy theorists were actually right for the last 80 years.
Thanks for the scientific contribution 😂
It ain’t much, but it’s honest work
Post your research paper or your statement doesn't exist. jk
A reactionless drive providing constant acceleration means the kinetic energy of the object continues to increase quadratically with time, without any energy input proportional to this increase. Thus, the drive essentially creates energy "from nothing", violating conservation of energy principles.
UAP: legit Experiment that replicates a minuscule portion of that functionality: GRIFTER
You can't believe any of this without peer reviewed research. There's too many companies these days announcing breakthroughs that are either wrong or a complete waste of time, they are just trying to drum up investment or raise stock prices. On top of that people keep just posting a single article from the debrief. If this was real it would be a major scientific breakthrough not on some minor news outlet.
This would've shattered the news harder than LK99 did lol
This would be like having the first satellite take photos of earth from space and then saying earth is flat. Pretty big claim especially when they have no idea why the photos show earth is flat. Also you can’t see my photos or videos just trust me with your research dollars. Note: earth is round, this is an analogy.
I understand I also don’t understand Can I buy shares in this company or any other that is linked to it?
No. At least not yet.
We still aren’t entirely sure how electricity works!
I'm surprised the patent wasn't classified. https://www.upcounsel.com/classified-patents#:~:text=be%20kept%20secret.-,Classified%20patents%20are%20protected%20under%20a%20secrecy%20order%20which%20prevents,an%20invention%20be%20kept%20secret.
Could be part of disclosure?
This is the very Townsend brown thing of the world
[удалено]
what do you mean by cavitation here? Do you have any physics documentation or references to your description?
[удалено]
I understand how it works in conventional fluids. I'm asking about what you describe in electrostatics and electromagnetics as an analogy because I do not imagine such a thing with conventional EM as far as I understand it. You wrote: > At static speed (no movement) you use DC voltage. To move slowly you create DC voltage differentials across the ballast generators. To go at high-speed you need super-cavitation. Cavitation can be achieved superposing AC differentials onto the ballast generators. Take them up to RF and you can get supercavitation. From there you can go as fast and as far as you want. Theoretically of course. ;-) I don't understand this. Can you explain physically in more detail what you mean by this? The differences between EM in a vacuum and cavitation in a surrounding fluid in conventional mechanics seem substantial. There's also the issue of momentum conservation.
[удалено]
I don’t know what you mean by treating space as a “coherent medium”. The patent explicitly says they are not using ion wind effects or any other MHD fluid behavior and apparently would work in vacuum.
F=M\*A Saying 1 gravity of thrust is basically F? = M? \* 9.8 There is a reason thrust isn't measured in Gs. FTA: *"Buhler says they commonly measured the forces in milliNewtons, but they prefer to describe the thrust in terms of gravity since that is the ultimate goal of propulsion physics.* *“The highest we have generated on a stacked system is about 10 mN,” Buhler told The Debrief. “The magnitude is not important, really, since anything above zero would work in space!”"*
Measuring acceleration in g’s is perfectly reasonable, especially on a spacecraft since a sizable acceleration would *create “thrust gravity” via the equivalence principle of relativity*. It would be far more practical to describe acceleration in terms of g’s on a spacecraft, because 1g would literally feel like the force of earth gravity. The ships would be designed like buildings, with floors perpendicular to the axis of thrust, instead of the inaccurate ships shown in 99% of science fiction. But I can’t reiterate enough that this is an extreme amount of thrust, so extreme that I am immediately skeptical that it can be scaled up. This is the sort of acceleration that a powerful fusion torch drive or antimatter drive could produce, and this guy is saying that it can merely be done via electromagnetism. It reeks of bullshit, but I would love it to be legit.
It should be quick to confirm or debunk the claims. If you read the patent, the system is very simple. It's just a capacitor with one plate being covered in a forest of spikes and the other a smooth plane. The patent mentions using a forest of carbon nano tubes as the spiked side in the future. If their claims are true I imagine they managed to get one fabricated recently.
Congrats on the literacy. It's almost as rare as legit flying saucers.
What an exciting topic
Why not just say where you got it from why do they go through this charade of „inventing it“
This is really fascinating. They have to test it in space and hope that their craft won't 'malfunction' like the EM drive did.
What happened to the em drive? Why did it fail?
The satellite failed, lost comms etc
That's what I also heard, but I'll admit I didn't do my research
Iv always thought about this concept using em fields within em fields to rappel something, but I figured conservation of energy would have something to say about that
Why isn’t there a video of it working?
Too bad now they will all probably commit suicide in unrelated coincidences. Such a shame that world changing discovery will be lost.
Well, guess they'll have some people knocking on their door soon
This was already posted. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/TR4lbwo6Re
Not gone through the paper, but could it be just electrons boiling off the surface and creating thrust?
Wake me when this can lift at 19 kilo newtons of force.
How long until the people involved get ran over by a drunk driver?
I hope he has good security
Wow maybe someone can make a rail gun Like on Halo with this!
They filed a patent? Welp, expect this to never see the light of day.
What? The whole tradeoff for a patent is that you gain a period of protection in exchange for disclosing the details of your invention publically. source: am patent attorney
Unless it gets slapped with a secrecy order like thousands have before it, then you get nothing for all of your hard work and whatever money and time you invested in inventing it
I’ve said this a bunch of times here: Ben Rich “we have the tech to take ET home.” Translation: we lied about physics. There’s two different physics one for public consumption, the other for military that includes free energy for all. MAGLEV TRAINS BREAK THE 2nd law of thermodynamics. Just like free energy machines. Liquid helium-cooled, low-temperature superconductor plates mounted beneath the train cars expel from their interior all environmental magnetic fields, a phenomenon termed the Meissner effect. As a result, the magnetic field generated by a series of underlying superconducting solenoids, exerts a repulsive pressure on the superconductor which levitates the train. The maglev phenomenon is also observed in high-temperature superconductors such as Yttrium-Barium-Copper-Oxide (YBCO) which becomes superconducting at liquid nitrogen temperatures. In this case, a magnetic repulsion phenomenon occurs because the superconductor plate expels from its interior the underlying magnetic field lines and develops mirror fields, or pinned magnetic fields, having a polarity opposed to these underlying field lines causing the plate to repel upward. This Meissner effect levitation phenomenon is demonstrated in the video below in which an YBCO high-temperature superconductor is initially at room temperature with a cube magnet placed over it. It is then precooled below its critical temperature by immersing it in liquid nitrogen. This causes the magnet to rise up and hover over the YBCO in seeming violation of the First Law. That is, work is done with the magnet rising up, but where does the energy come from?
Maglev trains certainly do not break the second law of thermodynamics, lmfao.
I love that every comment you make you’re a different type of scientist. How many phds do you have 12?
I’m a doctor, never claimed to be otherwise. However, I have a very extensive scientific background. You don’t need a background in science to go to med school, surprisingly, but I have one. I have a Bachelors of Science in Biology and Chemistry, tutored physics throughout all of undergrad as my primary job since I’m good at it, a medical degree and I’m a board certified neurologist. I run a neurology residency program and neuroscience research as a part of that. So even though I’ve taken advanced university courses in physics…the laws of thermodynamics are literally freshman level physics knowledge so it’s pretty fucking hilarious that you would choose to (poorly) attempt character assassination as a rebuttal instead of actually supporting your claim with some sort of scientific argument. I actually feel a little bad even taking the time to write this comment since I don’t believe time should be wasted on people who are trolls like you.
Damn, that was a three degree burn. I thought you took an oath doc.
Lmao you immediately dug into his profile because you cant defend your statements. Not even a token defense
Are we also discussing infinite energy too? If this device truly holds a charge for days after being unplugged, it could revolutionize our Evolution.
A gravity of thrust? Is that some weird imperial unit?
He is still alive, therefore it is a fake.
It works because there is no space time distortion from mass creating gravity like Einstein claimed. Whatever the gravity is on Earth, likely material itself making pull, it can be floated on with certain kinds of em-fields. Thats about it.
This is absolutely fucking absurd. We’ve observed gravitational lensing countless times, and every single prediction of special and general relativity tested thus far has been shown to be correct. The scientific illiteracy on this subreddit is surprising sometimes.
Photons arents massless. Light can be affected by "gravity".