Anti Gravity theoretically proven, welcome to the future of propulsion.

[Lunar4]

It gets good at 6:05. An interview with a senior Lockheed Martin ex-employee. He was able to cancel out gravity with opposing magnetic fields. Great stuff.

edit:and heres part 2 if your interested.

[Simetrical]

"Anti-gravity" implies obedience to the rules of gravity, but in reverse. To be considered antigravity, a force needs to at least repel all masses in the universe in proportion to their mass, and in inverse proportion to the square of their distance from it. Magnetic fields, air cushions, and so on are perfectly valid propulsion methods, but don't qualify as "antigravity".

[David Deas]

No. But you can't market your research half as well without the "anti-gravity" tag.

[Chaigidel]

well anti-matter is just normal atom with opposite charges ( electron -positron etc)

so to be antigravity gravitons would need to be proven and then find a way that they could have an opposite charge ? :O

but this will come when it comes --- the casimir effect has nothing to do with antigravity by the way

[Gary88]

there is a guy who is working on anti gravity and has a device which he claims give such a propulsion. it was in new scientist early this year he's quite an accomplished scientist not just some crackpot but the degree to which he claims his machine propells is so slight that you cant tell if its actually working or just minute fluctuations in the apparatus...all sounds bollocks to me

[Chaigidel]

well we are pretty close to alot of breakthroughs in energy production could be on the edge of a whole new way of living if fusion power gets stabilized and then I wouldnt put it past us to do some mighty things yet, if we attempt to tap the quantum foam we will probably just blow up in a gamma ray burst.

[Simetrical]

well anti-matter is just normal atom with opposite charges ( electron -positron etc)

so to be antigravity gravitons would need to be proven and then find a way that they could have an opposite charge ? :O

"Charge" is the wrong word to use here. Gravitons, if they exist, are surely uncharged. It's also notable that in the Standard Model of particle physics, massless particles like photons don't have antiparticles, so probably nor would antigravitons exist.

The most mathematically plausible possibility for antigravity is particles that have negative mass. This is viewed as unlikely to be possible, but should it turn out to be the case, Newtonian gravity would predict gravitational repulsion, and according to Wikipedia so would general relativity.

there is a guy who is working on anti gravity and has a device which he claims give such a propulsion. it was in new scientist early this year he's quite an accomplished scientist not just some crackpot

First of all, he never claimed he was working on antigravity, just a fuelless propulsion device (I assume you're talking about the issue with the typically hyperbolic "A Future Without Wings or Wheels" cover). Second of all, there are quite a lot of scientists who consider him a complete crackpot. While I'm not so experienced in physics, it seems blatantly obvious to me that he's violating conservation of momentum at least. He claims that the overall added forward momentum in the whole is compensated for by loss of momentum in part of the innards, but it seems fairly clear that the particles in question couldn't stay inside the engine if their average speed was different for very long, and it would have to be very different to conserve momentum while accelerating a large mass like a person.

[Juvenal]

Toward the end of his life, the great Eric Laithwaite (inventor of the linear motor) also thought he was onto anti-gravity.

He believed that gryroscope rotation could be partly converted into reduced weight, and he had an experimental setup to demonstrate this (this was shown on TV).

I don't believe these results have held up - I think the problem is that the demonstration gryros were in contact with the air, so that the weight diminution could be achieved through aerodynamic effects.

As for Boyd Bushman - I couldn't help noticing a certain glint in his eye. He is after all trying to sell a DVD. The way the bowling ball and pliers moved looked like it was done with an electro-magnet.

I found the celt much more interesting. I can understand its shape might have prevented it from rotating clockwise without destabilising - but the video showed it actually reversing and undoing the rotations it had achieved.

When it comes to fantastical claims, I think the big giveaway is when the claiment "over-eggs the pudding". The Area 51 and flying saucer stuff actually makes the claims harder to believe instead of bolstering them.

[Gary88]

(I assume you're talking about the issue with the typically hyperbolic "A Future Without Wings or Wheels" cover).

haha, that would be the one i believe

He claims that the overall added forward momentum in the whole is compensated for by loss of momentum in part of the innards, but it seems fairly clear that the particles in question couldn't stay inside the engine if their average speed was different for very long, and it would have to be very different to conserve momentum while accelerating a large mass like a person.

indeed, i believe the article mentioned this but i dont remember. but as i said, all bollocks (his idea that is)