On 10/19/2011 18:16, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Anti-gravity is something that I've seen all over the Internet some people
> have made it and that most if not all cases have been hidden by Gov. or
> Military specially in USA,

Given that an explanation for how and why gravity does what it does is going 
on at the LHC, I would think anyone with an actual working anti-gravity 
device would be way, way too famous to be covered up.

> This anti-gravity maybe could be fused or have a base on this magnetic
> locking or other super-conductivity experiments/theories,

Uh, no. There's no gravity involved in what you saw here, any more than it's 
ghosts holding the fridge magnet to the fridge.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Yes I know is only magnetic force passing through a superconductor and 
getting stuck on its way through but since I don't know much about 
Quantum Physics I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed 
or interact, to achieve lift at quantum level or something like that. I 
wonder why I don't read scientists trying to make practical use of 
anti-gravity. I was told that they have found a way to tele+transport a 
monochrome laser light 1 meter using Quantum Physics, where are those 
experiments, we could use that.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Well I have tried to research how true are some the things showed and 
> some are lies and others are true, but why would military will hide the 
> research of people that levitated wood?

  Why are you assuming that the "military" is hiding that? Just because
someone claims that they are hiding it doesn't make it true.

  Ufologists and conspiracy theorists are very keen to argue from ignorance,
especially if the government or the mitilary is involved. For example,
sometimes the government will publish some secred documents with large
pieces of text blacked out. The ufologists and conspiracy theorists will
immediately jump to the argument from ignorance: What are they hiding?
Is it UFOs? A world domination conspiracy?

  Yet the explanation is probably much more mundane. You see, governments
and the military do perform clandestine spying and other similar operations
from time to time, and publishing the details of these operations may
either compromise existing operations or cause political turmoil. They
may use spy planes (which sometimes can get confused with UFOs) or agents
in the field. However, there isn't necessarily anything in this related to
hiding UFO or other similar technology. It's more probably Tom Clancy type
stuff than UFO type stuff.

> I think that was real adn I'm absolutely sure the 'Area 51' is 
> developing secret military devices

  It's not a secret that "Area 51" is a development and testing site for
new military technology, most often aircraft. Many of the most famous
military aircraft have been tested there.

> and hiding extraterrestrial UFO info 
> all evidence points to that

  Argument from ignorance.

> Is a interesting series that recollects from respected Ufologists and 
> testimonials from people that had first contact, The Pacific Triangle, 
> UFO in other Countries, like England ("England Roswell"), Brazil 
> military documented people killed by UFOs, UFO today scientific analysis 
> of a possible UFO craft with Michio Kaku helping describing some 
> phenomena and other scientist, etc, I suggest you buy it or torrent it.

  I have seen quite some videos and documentaries about ufology, including
videos that claim to be the most convincing evidence of UFOs. They weren't
very convincing.

  Eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. People interpret what
they see in all kind of wrong ways because they don't know what they are
seeing. Mouth-to-mouth word spreads these stories, and people invent new
details to them, even without realizing (that's because people do not
repeat the words they hear; instead they repeat the mental image they
got when they were told the story). Some people repeat as personal
experience something that they heard from a good friend (this is very
well documented in multitude of cases, including the infamous Roswell
"UFO" case). Some people lie.

  Eyewitness testimony can be discarded as evidence outrigh. At most it
can be used as a starting point for further investigation, but not as
evidence of any kind. Believing in something because of eyewitness
testimony is simply foolishness. I wouldn't believe even my best and
most trusted friend if he claimed to have seen something extraordinary.
(With that I don't mean he's lying. I mean that unless I get more concrete
evidence, the veracity of the claim is an open question. It's most probable
that he was simply mistaken.)

  Ufologists can compile tons and tons of "evidence", several-hours-long
"documentaries", entire libraries of books, but it all amounts to the
exact same thing as conspiracy theories. With enough cherry-picking and
selective interpretation (and more often than not complete lack of any
actual investigation) you can make anything sound plausible.

> If you're only paying attention to things that you can prove 
> scientifically or is scientifically accepted you're missing a great deal 
> that science can't explain and is part of nature: Extraterrestrial life, 
> alien spacecrafts & ghosts, etc.

  Again, that's just an argument from ignorance. "Science can't explain
this, hence it must be an UFO/ghost/whatever." No, it doesn't. Don't argue
from ignorance. If science cannot explain it (and in most cases it actually
can; it's just that believers dismiss the explanation), then it's just
something unexplained. "It's an UFO" is not an explanation.

  Why should I believe in something there's no actual evidence for? I would
most probably be believing in falsities, and what good would that do to me?

> You don't believe them? fine, but there 
> are indications of it all over the world and people doing scams don't 
> mean is all false.

  Please don't argue from ignorance. Lack of explanation does not imply
anything. (And that's assuming there's no explanation. There actually is
a very simple explanation far more often than ufologists want to believe.)

> Take the crop circles, the simpler ones are true UFO 
> making because of the impossible way they're made of; impossible as in 
> no human could bend & leave a little radiation that way; proof no, 
> reasonable doubt, oh yes.

  Actually all crop circles are quite easy for humans to make, and this
has been demonstrated countless times.

  And anyways, even if some crop circles cannot been explained, what does
that prove? Nothing. It's unexplained. Deducing an explanation from the
unexplained is just an argument from ignorance.

> Anti-gravity is something that I've seen all over the Internet some 
> people have made it and that most if not all cases have been hidden by 
> Gov. or Military specially in USA

  That sentence is contradictory. How can they be "all over the internet"
if they have been hidden?

  If someone invented an antigravity device, it would probably be an
automatic Nobel prize for him.

>, the concept and experiments are not 
> new, at least 50 years at the seems, but of course everyone that makes 
> "UFO science" is discouraged with a "bullets are so cheap" or you dying 
> of a mysterious or "natural" "heart attack" as probably happened to the 
> lead actor of the series ____ that according to people was the closest 
> to the truth someone ever made it a TV series.

  Ok, this is going so far into the tinfoil-hat territory that I'm going
to stop.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
> If the levitating triangle was this: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft then the guy was delusional or 
> flat out lying when he said that science can't explain it.  The upshot 
> is that the voltage induces a slight air current through the triangle, 
> and since the triangle is very lightweight this is sufficient to lift 
> it. I believe it's not currently practical for "real-life" use because 
> the voltage source would weigh significantly more than the lift it 
> generates (which is why the demos you see are powered by an external 
> voltage source).

  Btw, one common feature to all (actual) physical phenomena that seem
to levitate objects is that they actually don't. Ok, it depends on how
you define "levitation", but usually it means something that somehow
nullifies gravity. (If "levitation" meant simply "does not touch the
ground for a long period of time", then planes, helicopters and hot
air balloons all "levitate" without problems.)

  Gravity is not being affected in any way in any of these phenomena.
The "levitating" object is still being pulled down by gravity, and hence
it's applying a force to the ground. The only difference between these
phenomena and just an object that is in direct contact with the ground is
that there's an invisible force mediating between the object and the ground
(usually a magnetic field or a flow of air).

  I don't really understand why some people get so excited about these
"levitation" experiments. They are no different from airplanes and
helicopters. All of them hover in the air without toucing the ground.
The mechanism is just a bit different depending on the phenomenon.

  What makes the "levitation" of a superconductor over a magnet (or the
other way around) so cool is that it's not something you experience in
everyday life (for obvious reasons). You could try to levitate a magnet
over another magnet, but it will just quickly fall off. The Meissner
effect makes the superconductor stay in place, which is unintuitive and
not common-day experience.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10/19/2011 23:17, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed or interact,

Technically, gravity is a completely different thing from quantum forces. 
Indeed, the separation of gravity from the other three forces is the current 
biggest confusion and mystery to be solved, and the source of funding for 
the LHC.

> to achieve lift at quantum level or something like that.

"Lift" is not "anti-gravity", any more than Boeing is ant-gravity.

> don't read scientists trying to make practical use of anti-gravity.

Because they don't know how to create anti-gravity, and indeed it's not at 
all obvious that such a thing would even be theoretically possible. Gravity 
is caused by, basically, the existence of real non-euclidean geometry. It's 
not quite obvious how you "anti" that.

> told that they have found a way to tele+transport a monochrome laser light 1
> meter using Quantum Physics, where are those experiments, we could use that.

That's not hard. I have a flashlight that will transport all kinds of colors 
all the way across the room.  Without actually an understanding of what's 
under discussion, reading that sort of stuff just rots your brains.

It's like asking "if my friend can have an email conversation with me over 
the computer, why can't my computer have an email conversation with me?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   How come I never get only one kudo?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 23:17, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> > I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed or interact,

> Technically, gravity is a completely different thing from quantum forces. 
> Indeed, the separation of gravity from the other three forces is the current 
> biggest confusion and mystery to be solved, and the source of funding for 
> the LHC.

  In fact, it may well be that gravity isn't a force at all, just a
side-effect of the geometry of spacetime (as postulated by the theory
of GR).

  This would mean that modifying gravity requires modifying the geometry
of spacetime.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>    I don't really understand why some people get so excited about these
> "levitation" experiments.

Answer >---|
            |
            v
>    What makes the "levitation" of a superconductor over a magnet (or the
> other way around) so cool is that it's not something you experience in
> everyday life (for obvious reasons).

Post a reply to this message

On 10/19/2011 6:16 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Saul Luizaga<sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>> In the History Channel 'UFO Files' at the end of one of the episodes a
>>> young man levitates a triangle induced with 50,000 volts, he said at the
>>> moment science can't explain it yet. On that series, a few people
>>> researched how to levitate wood chair and other non-magnetic stuff in in
>>> the passed century (1960 or later I think, I don't recall well), they
>>> were supposedly hired by USA military, in the episodes they show
>>> original footage made by the levitators.
>>
>> I wouldn't put too much trust in a TV show named like that.
>>
>> TV shows are made for entertainment. They lie if they have to. Everybody
>> knows that, yet people still fall for it.
>>
>> Now, if you give me actual references to peer-reviewed publications,
>> that's a different story. (And I'm not talking about the triangle
>> levitating
>> thanks to the 50 kilovolts.)
>
> Well I have tried to research how true are some the things showed and
> some are lies and others are true, but why would military will hide the
> research of people that levitated wood? that's anti-gravity and of
> course powerful technology if you can make a fighter with it which is
> probably what some paranoid military people thought when they took that
> away as soon it was known.
>
> You'll never get proof from things like this, is always a little shady
> but they have reasonable believable capability if you dig enough.
> Another case was the Roswell UFO fragment that was recorded in a
> cassette long ago in a unique interview in the '90s when the secretary
> that was shown the material took it in his hands and when she deformed
> it, it returned to its original shape and was told it was a space craft
> piece, she had a agreement to never talk about it, she said something
> like: "What are they gonna do to me, through me in jail or kill me? I
> think I can handle either one", she was at the time very old 70+ years,
> I think that was real adn I'm absolutely sure the 'Area 51' is
> developing secret military devices and hiding extraterrestrial UFO info
> all evidence points to that, just like the Big Bang Theory. 'Area 51'
> was admitted to exist by USA Gov. by a trail that it was won by skillful
> lawyer that defensed really sick, even terminal people that worked in a
> "non-existent Military facility", most of those people must have died by
> now and THAT is not fiction at all, they worked like 20-30+ years ago,
> there and got poisoned by radioactive and toxic waste they were in
> charge of disposal and the Gov. fired some of them for being sick, and
> didn't want to recognize they did it, nice huh? another powerful reason
> to not believe Governments of any Country, you have to be watchful always.
>
>
Think my eyes just crossed... Seriously though, much like various other 
things of the sort, there is a lot "made up" at the time, which later 
you run into problems, like it being pretty much impossible to, say, 
completely erase *any* evidence of certain people involved, yet there 
isn't even evidence that certain people that supposedly where there ever 
existed **at all**. Those things have been rehashed a lot, and nothing 
new has come out of them, other than further questions about if any of 
it happened, could have, or what statements really where made, by who, 
etc. I find it amazing that the most likely result of Roswell, that some 
goofball that believed in UFOs may have misidentified something man 
made, initially, because he *personally* had no direct knowledge of the 
project it came from, during a time of massive military experiment and 
research, is just not possible, but that a real UFO crashed, and was 
covered up by a government that can't seem to bloody hide shit 
otherwise, including the location of their secret, "it doesn't exist", 
military bases, successfully prevented any but a few random people, from 
ever telling the truth about a crashed alien space craft... What? And, 
most of the stuff since is even more insane, complete with some of the 
"top" UFO people, that claim its all true, also claiming that their 
entire existence was erased, complete with university records, job 
records, even place of birth, and replaced with completely different 
information, including that the closest they ever got to a base was as a 
janitor.

Guess who is the #1 top nut talking about invisibility, levitation, etc. 
Yep, the janitor...

Post a reply to this message

On 10/19/2011 11:17 PM, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Yes I know is only magnetic force passing through a superconductor and
> getting stuck on its way through but since I don't know much about
> Quantum Physics I thought some how the 2 forces could somehow me mixed
> or interact, to achieve lift at quantum level or something like that. I
> wonder why I don't read scientists trying to make practical use of
> anti-gravity.

Because, anti-gravity isn't possible until you understand "gravity". The 
magnetic stuff isn't anti-gravity, and it requires superconductors, 
which do not work at sane temperatures (as in any range of such that are 
practical, at all, or would provide enough lifting for more than a small 
disc, over a magnet).

> I was told that they have found a way to tele+transport a
> monochrome laser light 1 meter using Quantum Physics, where are those
> experiments, we could use that.

For what? Just because you can monkey with like 1:10,000 photons 
produced by such a laser, in a way that results in that one photon being 
"teleported" a meter or so, doesn't mean that you can do shit all useful 
with it. Seriously, if it was that easy to produce quantum effects, or 
entangled pairs, we would already have light sabers (basically, you 
split the pair, send on out the business end, and send the other down 
the tube, to be "bounced" back, or absorbed, so that the other half of 
the pair "stops" at the length you want. Problem is, the blade could be 
only as long as the "hilt", or more precisely the absorption/reflection 
chamber. Second problem - even if you had part of each pair bouncing 
around inside a reflection chamber, it would take you a week to form a 
blade, and it would dissipate in seconds, the moment it hit something, 
since you can't "consistently" produce entangled pairs at anything near 
the scale, and rate, needed to do it.

Same problem with trying to "teleport" lasers. It only works, 
consistently, with single photons, and then only with some X number, out 
of Y produced. What do you want next, make them bend around corners, or 
produce Star Trek holodecks?

Post a reply to this message

On 10/20/2011 9:24 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Is a interesting series that recollects from respected Ufologists and
>> testimonials from people that had first contact, The Pacific Triangle,
>> UFO in other Countries, like England ("England Roswell"), Brazil
>> military documented people killed by UFOs, UFO today scientific analysis
>> of a possible UFO craft with Michio Kaku helping describing some
>> phenomena and other scientist, etc, I suggest you buy it or torrent it.
>
>    I have seen quite some videos and documentaries about ufology, including
> videos that claim to be the most convincing evidence of UFOs. They weren't
> very convincing.
>
>    Eyewitness testimony is completely unreliable. People interpret what
> they see in all kind of wrong ways because they don't know what they are
> seeing. Mouth-to-mouth word spreads these stories, and people invent new
> details to them, even without realizing (that's because people do not
> repeat the words they hear; instead they repeat the mental image they
> got when they were told the story). Some people repeat as personal
> experience something that they heard from a good friend (this is very
> well documented in multitude of cases, including the infamous Roswell
> "UFO" case). Some people lie.
>
Eye witness testimony is "so" unreliable that, in one of the shows on TV 
recently, 10 people couldn't pin down, in a staged crime:

1. The number involved (correct number was 4, the average number given 
was 2, with 3 being the next closest. None of them got 4).
2. The person that took the item (they claimed everything from the woman 
arguing, to one of the other people in the crowd with them, had, when it 
was actually taken by one, then handed off to another.)
3. How any of the people involved where dressed (Not even going to go 
into that, see later.)
4. What, and from where, it was stolen (wallet, from the guys back pocket).
5. Couldn't avoid "false" memories, resulting from two plants, whose 
only job was to get 50% of it right, but introduce three wrong details.

The end result was the only verified "suspect" that wasn't even involved 
at all, the woman who was either in a hat, or not, wearing red, white, 
or dark clothes, her and the man she was arguing with, or her and two 
men, one of which stole a camera, out of a camera bag (no bag, and it 
was a wallet, out of his pocket). It only got worse, when they put them 
in a room, asked them questions together, so they fed off each other, 
and the two plants dropped the "camera", and "she had a hat, and a white 
coat on", BS into the mix.

The farther you get from the event, the more useless the information 
gets. The more people have time to talk to each other, the more useless 
the information gets. And, unless you are very careful to pick the guy 
that doesn't embellish, and it *very* precise in their details, without 
adding in feelings, and side thoughts, etc., even the stuff you get out 
of a witness "within minutes" of it happening, is often complete gibberish.

Now, the "witnesses" in UFO cases are rarely clinical, they add details, 
as they go, they tend to talk about what they felt, rather than only 
what they saw, i.e., even from the standpoint of talking to them, 
"within minutes" of the event, their testimony would be thrown out as 
unlikely to be reliable, without additional information, right from the 
start. Yet, we are supposed to presume that, having had years to 
rethink, reexamine, talk to other people, listen to, or read, other 
stories like their own, etc., there testimony of what happened got "more 
reliable" with time?

Yep, as you said Warp, the whole idea that this is sensible, or that you 
can trust any of it, at all, without *clear* evidence, like the missing 
"crashed ship" or other verifiable facts, is pure absurdity.

Post a reply to this message