Posted on 09/08/2001 1:05:48 PM PDT by Paul_E_Ester
By Bradley Perrett
LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. military may have conducted serious research into anti-gravity based on Nazi studies, a top defense journalist suggests in a new book.
In ``The Hunt for Zero Point,'' journalist Nick Cook says, based on a decade's research, he believes by the 1950s the U.S. was seriously working on anti-gravity ``electrogravitics'' technology, which would lift and propel vehicles without wings or thrust.
``I feel intuitively that some vehicle has been developed, particularly given that there is this wealth of scientific data out there, and the Americans have never been slow to pick up on this sort of science,'' Cook, the aerospace consultant for Jane's Defense Weekly, told Reuters in an interview.
Cook uncovered reports and sightings of a Nazi research device that had been hidden in a remote part of Poland, where it had apparently been supplied with great quantities of electricity -- which an electrogravitic experiment would require.
Curiously, barely a hint of such Nazi research appeared after the war, suggesting that whoever captured it -- probably the United States -- immediately stamped it ``secret,'' he said.
Cook noted that, as a respected expert, he is risking his reputation by writing seriously about a technology associated with UFOs, which most scientists dismiss as science fiction embraced by ``hocus-pocus'' believers.
The United States is known to have a huge budget for so called ``black projects,'' because it spends more on defense than can be accounted for by adding up the value of public programs.
Cook admitted he cannot produce a conclusive case. But that is the nature of black projects, in which even the workers usually have no idea what they are working on.
In 1947, amid the early craze of UFO reports, an air force general reported on the possibility of the United States building disc-shaped objects with extreme rates of climb and maneuverability but without noise or evident propulsion.
In the mid 1950s electrogravitics was the subject of a few press reports, including one that described work by most of the United States' major defense contractors, Cook reported.
And then it all went quiet -- just as stealth technology suddenly disappeared from view in the mid 1970s, only to re-emerge as operational aircraft in the late 1980s.
Academic papers on the subject have mysteriously disappeared from libraries.
There is still no firm evidence that electrogravitics is more than science fiction. Civilian scientists and amateurs have experimented with it, and while some have reported success, no one seems to have reproduced their results to prove that it works.
As I stated previously, it is Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity." If you wish to know what that is, I suggest you avail yourself of any of the literally thousands of links on the 'net available to you by inserting the terms "General Relativity" in a search engine of your choice. The links will be better informed and more coherent than anything I could possible write on the topic.
Alternatively, you should read what "Physicist" has already provided on this topic on this very thread, and direct further questions to him.
And, have we developed an insulator for gravity?
Not to my knowledge. But if gravitation is a consequence of a curvature of spacetime (as Einstein's theory indicates it is), I doubt we ever will. As always, I defer to "Physicist," et.al., in matters such as these. Perhaps he will elaborate on this.
LMAO!
Don't blame me for bring up Hilbert spaces [genuflect now, please!] -- it was "Physicist" who invoked it!
So we know that gravity bends light. So what? It is just proof that gravity exisists, and that light probably has some sort of mass. What is gravity?
PS, without my work, you may have not had that super Hubble picture you posted.
I don't think anyone has bothered to reply to your question, so I thought I'd take a stab at it.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you say "problem" with absolute zero. I'm not aware of any problem with it, unless you are referring to the difficulty of getting something to that temperature.
Absolute zero is a reasonably well-defined concept: it is the temperature at which molecules have zero kinetic energy (ignoring their internal energy, that is). In other words, at temperatures above absolute zero, molecules a bashing into each other like miniature bumper cars (or billiard balls, if you prefer). In fact, temperature is just a measure of the kinetic energy associated with the motion of molecules. At absolute zero, the collision velocity between the molecules goes to zero (meaning the molecules are no longer moving around, and hence their kinetic energy is zero). Kinda like REALLY hard "frozen" molecules that are so cold all they can do is shiver, but not move.
As for the difficulty in getting something to be that cold, that is simply a manifestation of the reality of Thermodynamics: heat (energy) naturally flows from a warmer source to a colder sink. Thus, the closer you get something to absolute zero, the greater the temperature gradient between the thing and it's surroundings, which are desperately trying to transfer some of their heat to the colder thing, and in so doing, defeating your efforts to reach absolute zero. It is literally a game of decreasing returns on your investment; each increment of marginal decrease in temperature is more difficult to achieve, as heat tries to naturally sneak back in whilst you are furiously working to get rid of it.
If this isn't what your are referring to, please restate your question in more detail.
Okay, wise guy. Can you prove that any Cauchy sequence of Dilbert Dogs converges on a Milk Bone? Huh? Huh? Can ya?
Aha! There you have it!
While a Hilbert Space [genuflect now, please] is complete, you have proven that Dilbert Space is Incomplete (no Milk Bones).
You may now assume your rightful place on medved's list of great Mathematicians......
Ouch!
So we can use General Relativity to calculate exactly how far it bends. We can also use it to calculate exactly how clocks slow down in gravitational wells, and how quickly elliptical orbits precess, and how rapidly binary pulsars spiral towards each other because of energy lost to gravitational radiation. Believe it or not, that last one is by far the most precisely measured of all the quantities.
It is just proof that gravity exisists, and that light probably has some sort of mass.
But it doesn't have any mass; we know that from completely independent measurements. But even so, if light had a tiny mass (actually, no mass is necessary even in this classical picture; but I leave it for the sake of argument) and gravity were a Newton-style inverse square law like electromagnetism, light rays would indeed bend, but the bending would be a factor of two smaller than is observed.
What is gravity?
It's the curvature of spacetime.
PS, without my work, you may have not had that super Hubble picture you posted.
And I thank you for it. But I suppose you still think me an ingrate for disagreeing with you.
There is no need for one, as there are no magnetic charges.
And, have we developed an insulator for gravity?
Electrical insulators prevent electric charges from moving. In the case of gravity, the charge is mass/energy. So what is needed for a gravitational insulator is something to prevent massive objects from moving. A brick wall will suffice for an example.
==================
This may also be of interest, but it seems to have disappeared of the FreeRepublic, at least I can no longer find it on a search.
-=------------
010812 Harvard scientists say theyve stopped light
2001-08-12
8/12/01 12:57:56 PM
Harvard scientists say they've stopped light: Speed of light is zero
Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Keywords: SCIENCE?? OR JUNK.
Source: Boston Glob
Published: 1/18/2001 Author: Douglas Bailey
Posted on 01/18/2001 14:18:46 PST by rface
Two years ago, Harvard scientists stunned the world of physics when they said they slowed the speed of light to about 40 miles per hour. Now, they report they have brought light to a complete stop in an achievement that may pave the way for ultra-fast computers that are impervious to hackers.
In separate reports scheduled for release in two scientific journals later this month, the physicists - Dr. Ronald L. Walsworth and Dr. Mikhail D. Lukin of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and Dr. Lene Vestergaard Hau of Harvard University and the Rowland Institute for Science in Cambridge - say they have actually tamed light, holding it, then letting it go on command.
The ability to bring light, which normally travels at 186,000 miles per second, to a standstill is expected to precipitate major advances in quantam computing, which theoretically relies on the ability to harness and delay light. Such computers would be phenomenally faster than today's swiftest computer and their security could be guaranteed.
Walsworth and Lukin's paper is scheduled for publication in the Jan. 29 issue of Physical Review Letters. Hau will detail her findings in the the journal Nature.
This story ran on page A3 of the Boston Globe on 1/18/2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe this makes no sense because its from Harvard.
Ashland, Missouri
1 Posted on 01/18/2001 14:18:46 PST by rface (RFacemyer@msn.com)
[ Reply | Private Reply | Top | Last ]
To: rface
If I'm understanding this correctly (and I misunderstand alot, believe me). This has the potential, as the article states, to open up the creation of quantum computing. Sort of like a light driven transistor. This could get around a number of problems/limitations with our electricity (electron) driven transistors. Of course all that might prove to be unworkable and it will be just a cool trick.
8 Posted on 01/18/2001 14:25:04 PST by Tis The Time''s Plague
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: rface
If this is true, we can soon say goodbye to computing as we know it, and we will soon have computers more akin to what we would see on the starship Enterprise.
The great thing about photons, is that the current restrictions to computational speed, (heat, resistance, EMF)are history. If we can control a photon in the same way we do now with electrons, this is going to be a whole new world.
10 Posted on 01/18/2001 14:26:28 PST by innocentbystander
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | Top | Last ]
LOL - I thought a physicist would know the difference between an insulator and a barrier.
---------
That is circular logic, and doesn't really explain anything much to me. Gravity is a force, space/time are measures of variations. I have already figured out, to my satisfaction, that time travel is impossible, as it must of necessity encompass space travel - if we travel back in time, the earth would no longer be in the same place as it was at that time, therefore, we must travel back in time and space.
"PS, without my work, you may have not had that super Hubble picture you posted. And I thank you for it. But I suppose you still think me an ingrate for disagreeing with you."
Not at all. It is one of the things I am very proud of out of my three years working at Kennedy Space Center. I designed a special system, first used on the Hubble launch, which saved the day and allowed them to make their very critical launch window. Otherwise, the Hubbble could have been delayed for years, if it made it up at all.
As far as disagreeing - you are in your element here, not me. I am just trying to get some answers, to my satisfaction, that can give me an idea in laymans terms, what gravity is. At present, I have only seen offers of measurements of gravity as examples. EG, light is composed of photons, and measured in mph or what ever. What is gravity composed of?
Until the discovery of the missing mass of the universe, I too thought that light had a small amount of mass, due to the gravitational effects we can measure.
The presence of missing mass, (AKA dark matter)explains that what we were measuring was the gravitational effects of the matter that the light waves are traveling through, and it also goes a long way in describing what gravity is.
Consider that dark matter which comprises upwards of 90% or more of the total mass of the universe occupies what we have always classified as empty space. This means we and everything in the universe is moving through that dark matter. Gravity becomes differential inertia.
But this also raises a whole host of other unknowns, just like every other answer we have found.
LOL - The farther I go, the behinder I get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.