lifters are ion wind devices. they use the same principle as the aurora turbulence for motion. they are electrostatic flying machines that use pulsating electric field. the electric field in the air and the lifter itself attract each other. anti-gravity is something completely different. gravity is a dynamic field were the electric and magnetic field move parallel to the gravitational field. gravity is anti-gravity inside another gravitational field. gravity manifest trapped energy as field.
@coldarc Ion wind is a feeble force of at least three orders of magnitude too weak to cause levitation of a 5 gram model, and we have flown models hundreds of grams! google: FORCE ON AN ASYMMETRIC CAPACITOR.
@Beamshipcaptain ion winds hate ground. aluminum foil have nothing to do with capacitance. the electric force is stronger than all other known forces. for electric flux ground means currents and currents means bad lifting force. currents is needed for charge separation but not for lift. a electric flux is electric force times distance and is work like mechanical work.. positive and negative charge is basically a difference in force between quantities of negative charges.
We all know these beam lifters are based on the ionic movement of air to gain lift. I made an ionocraft in 1971, it floated too, pretty nice actually, in a calm closed room. These are a better design, more elegant, but... they are NOT anti-gravity!
@doceigen Yea... you would think they would be able to take a hint from the fact that the original inventor named it an "Ionocraft". All this antigravity bull shit came later and has only been promoted by conmen in the entire history of the technology.
@1liveandlearn11 No... that is called electronic interference. Ofcourse your watch isn't going to work right when you stick it inside an electric field and shock it with 20kv...
My six-foot diameter Beamship Variation III LEAPS to the ceiling on less than 60-Watts, DC, and there is barely any detectable airflwo. Yet to get it to lift with airflow requires small motors from China with propellers, which creates a huge airblast! So obviously, some other force other than air movement is involved, and the sealing up in resin of the TT Brown discs, and the successfull vacuum tests in North Carolina, Paris, France, and Kingo of Prussia, PA, and more recent tests prove that.
@Beamshipcaptain Also if this 6 foot model exists why don't you have any videos of it on your channel? Your "Variations" as you call them don't even have any real variety to them at all. The same triangular design with a few minor modifications to the frame. Experimentation is meant to find new and usefull information. Einstein defined insanity as performing one experiment over and over expecting different results. If you do not change your design from the standard triangle what can you learn?
@kurisu925 We tried all different shapes. THe most efficient shape, that produced the most force with the least power consumption was an equilateral triangle. THe tests showed the larger the survace area of the Triangle, the greater the force, and the less input power required. THtats why after over 9 years, my Beamshipas are still the largest and most energy-thrifty of such devices on Planet Earth.
@Beamshipcaptain "The tests showed the larger the survace area of the Triangle, the greater the force, and the less input power required."
That statement cannot be true. If it was then bigger ones would be easier to make and since you seem to think you are bragging every time you mention yours being big it sounds to me you think otherwise. The next time you want to lie at least don't contradict yourself with it.
@kurisu925 you might remember me as freedomfighter. google Strange emissions by sun are mutating matter…then come back and preach your text book science. Would love to see your real work like me and Beam, like time dilations and such, you go read and learn now BOY!!!
@1liveandlearn11 Yea I remember you... you are a nut job who will believe anything so long as it is linked to some sort of a conspiracy theory. So what? I run into people like you all the time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@kurisu925 THis work is done for your benefit, and our children's children. Sorry If I type fast and forget to proofread what I type. I look at my keyboard when I type. My bad.
@Beamshipcaptain There is no work being done. You play in a band and you run an online buisness that sells lifter kits. Between the two there is no way you have the time to be involved in the lifter research and the SEG research with John Searl as you claim. A REAL researcher would make such work his primary focus if it could do the things you claim these do. We can clearly see what your primary focus is. Most of your videos are of your band and you advertize your buisness all the time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@kurisu925 We all have to eat and provide for our daily needs whilst we all seek funding and grants to do this most important work full-time. Be logical. But we have done and published fundamental work. Extrapolations of this work will give the people of this Earth cheap, clean energy, and cheap, superfast air and space-travel, even interstellar travel, THIS CENTURY. There is no more science fiction. The science fact is so much more incredible, but there it is.
@Beamshipcaptain Ok so now you claim to work on both lifters and the SEG full time. That is 8 hours a day. sleep should take up another 8 hours so when exactly do you find the time to practice in your band, manage your online buisness that sells lifter kits, and play with all of those remote control planes you keep filming and mosting videos of... Funny you have the time to post videos of remote control planes but fail to post videos of any of the 41 IGVs before losing them... Be logical beamie.
@kurisu925 It IS my primary focus. But we all have to work to support our research. Advertising a business is the way to put a business on a paying basis. Logic.
@Beamshipcaptain Beamie... you claim to be in charge of the development of the SEG and IGV. Magaging a research team is a full time responsibility. Kurisu is right in that there is no possible way that you could be managing a legitimate research team AND playing in your band AND running your online buisness AND still have time to buy, play with, and film all of those RC planes of yours.
@Beamshipcaptain Ofcourse you lack any video of the flight footage I challenged you to post 14 months ago. Or any other evidence of actual research. Though you do show yourself playing with some of the lifter kits. Not performing any tests with them though.
Plus they work sealed, and in vacuum. Why would they not? THis is how VACUUM TUBES work, and electrostatic attraction. Electrostatic attraction works in vacuum. Scientist John Fiala, son of CAL TECH physicist Harvey Fiala, sealed my Beamships in hard vacuum, and they still flew. You can call him to request a video. NASA shows the concept working in vacuum on Youtube. This is subquantum kinetics, as Dr. LaViolette. I saw one of his lectures in 1990 in Colorado Springs.
Please read SUBQUANTUM KINETICS (1994,2003) by Paul A. LaViolette, PhD. Look at Model 'G'. Gogle it. I first saw Dr. LaViolette lecture on Subquantum Kinetics and electrogravitics in 1990 at Colorado Springs. Look at his lectures on YouTube.
r2 is the approximate area of the device. A capacitor that operates at Voltageq: 1/2mv^2=qV. THe force exerted on an asymmetric capacitor is given by the rate of change of momentum: F= mvI/q where I is the current flowing thru the capacitor gap,and we assume that all the ionic momentum i mv, is transferred to the capacitor when the charged particles leave an electrode. Also, we assume that none of this is captured at the other electrode.
Graham and Lahoz, "Observation of Static Electromagnetic Angular Momentum in Vacuo," NATURE V. 285, May 15,1980, p.129, Woodward, James "Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia" FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, V. 34,2004,p.1475Mahood, Thomas"Propellantless Propulsion: Recent Experimental Results Exploiting Transient Mass Modification', Proceedings of STAIF,1999, J.W. Campbell,(NASA), "Cylindrical asymmetrical capacitor devices for Space Applications", US Patent No. 6,775,123, issued Aug. 10, 2004.
That should read:" a 2 microAmpere ion wind resulting from electrons accelerated in a 250 kiloVolt potential would yield a force of somewhat over 10^-3 dynes, almost 100-million times less than the lift produced by TT Brown's apparatus"- (which also works in vacuum, and less current is needed.)- LaViolette, PhD, SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION (2008)
"A. IONIC WIND,FORCE TOO SMALL. THe most common explanation for the net force on an asymmetric capacitor invokes ion wind. Under a high Voltage DC bias, ions are thought to be accelerated by the high potential difference between electrodes, and the recoil force is observed on an asymmetric capacitor. A simple upper limit on the ion wind force shows that the ion wind effect is a factor of at least three orders of magnitude too small." FORCE ON AN ASSYMETCI CAPACITOR, T. Bahder and C. Fazi US ARMY
@Beamshipcaptain Either you are being intentionally dishonest with this stuff or you don't understand what it is you are reading. Yes, this is a quote from a PRELIMINARY study done by Bahder & Fazi but this quote was relating to one specific set of assumptions & does not take into account ion drift. The next section of that very study goes on to cover this.
You have simply taken a single paragraph & pasted it here out of context. That's pretty low.
Actually, I started this in the hope of an honest discussion between two adults but if this is the sort of cheap tactic you're going to stoop to, I'd rather not bother. I have better things to do than wade through reams of studies just so I can point out your cheap tricks to people.
There are only 2 possibilities here:
1) You're a complete moron (in which case I have nothing to learn from you)
2) You're a wilful charlatan (in which case I want nothing to do with you)
"These measurements of thrust indicated that the force lifting TT Brown's electrified disc was almost 100 million times greater than what could reasonably be expected by an ion wind. For example,an upward thrust of 110 grams is equal to a force of about 10^5 dynes.By comparison, a 2 microAmpere ion wind resulting from electrons accelerated in a 250 kiloVolt Potential would yeild a force of somewhat over 10^3 dynes,almost 100 million times less than the lift produced by TT Brown's apparatus".
"Here, the report makes the astounding diclosure that under hard Vacuum Conditons, a force of 110 grams (1.1 newtons) could be achieved for a power expenditure of just 0.5 Watt (250,000 Volts times 2 x 10^-6 Amps), or 2,200 newtons of thrust per kiloWatt. This is about 150 times the thrust to power ratio of a jet engine! Also it is 10,000 times greater than the thrust to power ratio of a sspace shuttle main engine."- SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION(2008), by Paul A. LaViolette, PhD.
how did you do this? was it easy? where did you connect the negative charge? Please help me!!! i've been trying to do this but it does NOT work!!! HELP!!
@yochinayo It is actually quite simple. The curent is only running through the thin strand of wire at the top and two wires running to the power supply. The voltage is about 20,000 volts and the amperage is... very low but I forget the exact figure. Because of the high voltage the electricity is able to pass through the air close to the wire with out just arcing all over the place. This allows it to ionize the surrounding air which causes it to be drawn to the aluminium foil.
the electricity ions the air and creates trust underneath the device. or something like that, Mythbusters actually proved that this is no anti-gravity.
@SkullMaster1993 Careful you might provoke Beamshipcaptain to go on one of his hour long rants about mythbusters... He sells lifter kits on his website and I guess his sales go up the more people believe in this antigravity nonsense.
@MrAwsome514 Sales are irrespective of the propulsive effect. What is important is that this form of propulsion is a quantum leap over internal combustion, and shall get us Earth-humans into interplanetary space and interstelllar space, just as it has brought other people from other planets and star systems for millions of years. Electromagnetism works the same in all parts of the universe. Since every atom of craft and payload within the field moves at the sme rate, inertial-mass is canceled.
@Beamshipcaptain Beamie the very man who invented lifters called it an ionocraft because it works on the ion eind effect. No reliable research organization has ever found even the slightest evidence that any other effect is even present let alone responsible for the lift without later withdrawing the finding upon discovering a flaw in thier testing which gave the illusion of such an effect.
@Beamshipcaptain Also Don't bull shit me beamie I have worked in marketing before. When people hear about new technology they read up a little on it before buying it. If you tell them it is ion wind they will find the real litterature that tells them about how weak and nearly useless it is and lose interest, but if you tell them it is antigravity and provide them with fake litterature... well then you pretty much control thier opinion as to weather to buy or not.
@Beamshipcaptain Bullshit! There is nothing gravitationally happening here, it's simple thrust vs weight. Also, since the thrust comes from ionizing the air & thrusting it downwards it is reliant on an atmosphere. It doesn't work in a vacuum & so is useless for interplanetary travel.
Of course, you'll claim otherwise (without any evidence to support it, no doubt) but I'm far too familiar with the physics involved to fall for that crap. Save your BS explanation for the tinfoil hat crowd.
@tvsinesperanto This works more efficiently in vacuum, as shown in Paris France, by the inventor, Thomas Townsend Brown, in 1955 at less than a billionth of an atmosphere, and also in 1956 in AH Bahnson Labs in North Carolina, and in 1959, 2 miles from her at General Electric SPACE center in King of Prussia PA. Takaaki Musha showed its more efficient in vacuum at the 2007 AIAA meeting. John Fiala flew my Beamships in hard vacuum and with onboard power. A Youtuber sealed TT Brown saucers in resin
@Beamshipcaptain I flat out don't believe you. Even if I was to grant you that those were successful (a HUGE if), every other test ever conducted with these things shows that they DO NOT work without an atmosphere. It is also contrary to the way the BBE effect works (which is well understood). Do you even know how the BBE works? Do you know anything about the technical side of EHD at all? You need matter of some kind to be present so that the top (smaller) electrode can strip electrons
from it's atoms to form ions which are then forced down due to attraction towards the lower (large) electrode in accordance with Coulomb's Law. In a vacuum there is no matter (well, very little) & therefore nothing to thrust downwards upon.
You are 1/2 correct in saying that it's more "efficient" in a vacuum only in that the breakdown voltage of air is less than that of a vacuum so that you can crank the voltage up between the electrodes before coronial discharge occurs.
This doesn't help you at all though because, as already stated, there is no matter to create the thrust so it doesn't matter how high the voltage is.
Trust me, I'm a qualified Electrical Engineer, I studied this stuff formally, I know how it works & when it doesn't & I can tell you right now, it doesn't work in a vacuum. Saying it does not only denies the experimental evidence but also ignores the theory of how the BBE works.
@tvsinesperanto They work more efficiently without air. TT Brown levitated saucers in hard vacuum at AH Bahnson labs in 1956-58. Flew saucers in hard vacuum and levitated them with great force in hard vacuum in Paris, France in 1955. He flew saucers at less than a billionth of an atmosphere at GE Space center in 1959, a couple miles from me in King of Prussia, PA, 1959.Takaaki Musha showed the Biefeld Brown effect is more efficient in vacuum at the AIAA 2007 meeting.
So you keep saying but there's no corroborating evidence for these so-called "successes" in the 50's that you keep referencing. You are basing your entire argument on hearsay & in the world of science, that don't cut the mustard pal. Let's see some evidence.
I'm also calling BS on your claim that the ion wind is 3 OoM too weak to lift a model. Post your figures.
You claiming "x flew y in z" is uncompelling. Where's your evidence?
@tvsinesperanto Lab devices weighing 100 grams have pruduced thrust of 110 grams, for electrical power expenditure of 500 Watts(250,000 Volts@2 milliAmps). Experiment performed in air of 1 ATM.Supplementry research indicates much greater eficiency results (same or greater thrust for less power input) when operated in vacuum (10^-4mm Hg or better), when the current drops to about 2.0 microAmperes"- "Electohydrodynamics"-Electrokinetics, Inc. Bala Cynwyd, PA, March 23rd, 1960.
@Beamshipcaptain And once again this is merely hearsay. Was this a properly run experiment? Was it published? Where? Was it peer reviewed? Was it independently replicated?
Just posting a quote from someone does not constitute evidence.
However, let's assume the figures you give are accurate, the lift due to ionic wind is:
F = Id/k
Where:
F = lift due to ion wind (Newtons)
I = current (Amperes)
d = air gap distance (Metres)
k = Ionic mobility of coefficient of the medium (m^2/Vs)
I = 2 x 10^-3 A (i.e. 2mA) k (for air) = 210 x 10^-6 m^2/Vs You don't specify the air gap used but it's well known that 1mm/KV is optimum so we'll assume that d = 0.25m F = 2 x 10^-3 x 250 x 10^-3/210 x 10^-6 F = 2.38 N Is that enough to lift 100g? F = ma F = 3.38 N a (on earth) = 9.8 ms^-2 m = F/a m = 2.38/9.8 m = 0.243 Kg (or 243g) More than enough lift to fly a 100g model without the need to invent any type of mystical gravitational forces.
My apologies for the lack of formatting. I did have blank lines separating calculations but it seems that YT's parser strips them out. Hopefully it's still readable.
@tvsinesperanto We use the published Thomas Townsend Brown equation from the paper "How I control Gravitation," T. Townsend Brown, SCIENCE AND INVENTION, August, 1929, F= Vm1m2/r^2.
F= force, V=Voltage, m1 positive m2 negative.
The gravitational factors enter through the consideration of the mass of the electrified bodies and the mass of the dielectric between the electrified bodies. Also: "Towards Flight, without Stress, Strain, or Weight (INTEL-Washington DC, INTERAVIA, March 23rd, 1956).
@Beamshipcaptain As I've said, I want no further part in this discussion as I am no longer convinced that you have any idea what you're talking about. Either that or you are intentionally lying. In either case, it profits me nothing to continue.
You seem to be a lay person without a grounding in science or electronics who has read just enough from crackpot web sites to appear convincing to the uninformed. However, your explanations make no sense to someone who knows what they're talking about
@tvsinesperanto You are quite right. Beamie sells lifter kits through his company "Applied Electrogravitics". He also sells the book he mentioned. It is difficult to get people interested in buying kits when they know it works on ion wind. The limitations of the ion wind effect just are not very appealing to prospective buyers. Tell them it is antigravity on the other hand and provide them with fake litterature... you pretty much controll their decision weather to buy or not at that point.
@kurisu925 It does not matter what people think - They WORK! Ion wind has a limit, and is too feeble to lift even a 3 to 5 gram model. But there is no limit to the Biefeld-Brown effect, and can lift a mouse, and models hundreds of grams have been lofted. I sealed TT Brown saucers in plastic, and they flew backwards. Another chap sent me videos of Brown saucers sealed in resin, and they also flew backwards. And the literature is not fake. It comes form science journals such as NATURE.
@Beamshipcaptain "Science journals" that have a disclaimer in them reguarding the truthfulness of their content. They quite clearly state that the material inside is not held to any sort of standard what so ever. It is not peer reviewed and it is not acceptable as evidence. I have informed you many times NASA put out a paper in 2004 and put this issue to rest. Their tests showed no operation in vacuum, no antigravitic effect, and that ion wind accounts for all thrust observed.
@kurisu925 OIC. Well that certainly explains why he is so adamant they work in a vacuum even though his explanations of how they supposedly work is a meaningless mishmash of impressive sounding words.
If he has a commercial interest in promoting these things it's not surprising that he is citing all sorts of spurious BS to support his arguments.
They really need to start teaching the scientific method & critical thinking in schools. There is far too much of this BS about these days.
@tvsinesperanto They do try to teach kids the scientific method in schools. However, I think the problem is that many kids simply aren't interested in science. I think this is why all of the successful scams have such big claims. They need a big claim in order to gain the interest of the people who were too disinterested to have payed attention to their science teachers in school. Because once they gain their interest the scammers get to give them an false education of their own choosing.
@tvsinesperanto The conspiracy theories surrounding most of these scams is yet another tool for scammers to use. Once they have managed to convince someone that there is a secret organization trying to cover up the "Technology" that person is no longer able to accept any source of information other than that scammer. In the words of admiral Ackbar... "IT"S A TRAP!"
Do they? Where I am (Australia) they don't teach it formally (although they cover it obliquely in the last 2 years if you decide to take Physics, Chem or Bio). Glad to hear they teach it formally somewhere.
Yeah, You're right about kids not engaging. I reckon schools should look at the popular CTs & teach kids the scientific method & critical thinking techniques using the CT's themselves as a tool to get the kids interested. I reckon that'd work well
@tvsinesperanto THe US Army in 2000 showed the force of ION WIND is too weak a force to cause levitation of even a 3 to 5 gram model by at least three ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. Perdue university flew thee devices in hard vacuum in 2000.So did NASA, and their videos are on Youtube. SOmeone sealed TT Brown saucers in resin, and they flew BACKWARDS. I sealed 1-meter diameter Brown saucers in plastic bags in 200 in Reno, Nevada in 200, and they also flew backwards. John Fiala flew my beamships in vacuo.
@GateMessenger No, the lifter is exhibiting an ion wind, which has been proven with the smoke test. If it were localized gravity then the smoke would gather in the center of the lifter and not be pushed down to the tabletop. There is no gravity modification proven.
@UnderManiac Ok, why would the smoke gather at the center of the lifter if this was truly an anti-gravity effect? In order to understand this effect one needs to understand what is causing gravity first. Einstein only notes the effects of gravity not what is actually causing it. What if gravity were the opposite of the ion wind which is being created by the lifter?
@GateMessenger According to lifter enthusiasts, it is creating it's own gravity well (or bubble, or whatever). This would mean it would have it's own localized gravity. The smoke would fall into that gravity well or gravity effect and concentrate into the center of it.
Einstein explained gravity, not just noted it's effects. I guess you never read anything about Einstein or his theory on gravity. If you had, you'd understand what I am talking about. Check it out for yourself.
@UnderManiac No, it does not mean the lifter will create it's own localized gravity. That is a misconception because gravity is not understood. What the lifter is doing is reacting to the Earth's ion wind. The lifter does not produce it's own gravity. But the effect does demonstrate the Earth's ion wind. It is this continuous ion wind emanating from the core which produces the opposite effect called gravity. Much similar to the Sun's ion wind but weaker.
@GateMessenger How is the Earth creating this ion wind? Where is it coming from? Why don't we feel the effects of it? Gravity is well known to science. Maybe it's not understood by you, but it has been proven. Also gravity is not known to proponents of the lifter. The lifter is a thrust engine with no moving parts. In your argument, I could say that a rocket is exhibiting anti-gravity and that gravity is a chemical thrust towards the earth, from some unknown source.
.. This is the reason why these lifter experiments work against the flow of gravity because when the ions flow from the core something has to replace the energy, for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction, Newton. The energy escaping from the pressurized core creates an equal & opposite negative flow, called gravity. Space and planets/stars are complete opposites. At the cores are extreme pressure, in space is extreme vacuum, hot core, cold vacuum, opposites. Opposites attract!
@GateMessenger Wow, what a stretch of the imagination. How would you measure the pressurized core? How does that affect gravity? Your idea is backwards. Pressure won't stay in a vacuum. Pressure seeks to balance itself when released in a vacuum. If you put a balloon in a vacuum chamber the balloon will increase in size because the pressure would try to balance itself out with the pressure outside it. How could that be gravity?
@UnderManiac Well pressure is not gravity but what it does to mass causes energy to be created in the form of heat. Basic thermodynamics at work. Heat is energy! When the energy escapes an opposite reaction occurs. If it were not for this opposite reaction then stars would spew off their material and would never have formed. Note hydrogen is the lightest element and a million mile per hour wind cannot blow the material off because of gravity. The action of g is opposite to the energy escaping.
@GateMessenger So then, if gravity is the opposite of energy escaping, how do planets form? The asteroids, meteors, comets, etc that come together to make a planet doesn't give off energy. If they did, they would never form together as they'd be pushing against one another. Gravity surrounding each of these objects pulls them together when they get close enough.
Pluto has a moon orbiting it. What keeps that moon orbiting a frozen dwarf planet? Shouldn't it repel if it was spewing energy?
@UnderManiac Asteroids form because of a static attraction. This is noted with experiments of water within space. The water collects into a ball. This is not due to gravity because gravitons are not evident within atoms. This also explains why objects in space do not become spherical until the emanating energy starts flowing. I hypothesized that only after the object gets about 100 miles in diameter does it produce enough pressure to turn the core molten thus producing new (dark)energy.
@GateMessenger All matter bends space-time, even if it's slightly. Static attraction does not explain how the moon orbits the earth and the earth the sun. Static attraction explains how atoms stay together, this is on the minute scale. It does not work on the macro scale. Please view the videos explaining gravity. Gravity is known to science, but not to you is my guess.
When all theories can be linked together showing that one action causes all the observations in the heavens will be the day the cause of gravity is fully understood. I believe gravity is an effect from the action of extreme pressure. Pressure creates heat, heat is energy(dark energy) causing all bodies which produce energy to inflate away from one another. Those objects which do not create energy(not enough core pressure) are caught in an inward flow of space toward mass, called gravity, IMHO.
@GateMessenger Gravity is pressure? Please explain and give scientific references to support your hypothesis please. Nowhere in the scientific literature I've read have I come across that idea. What is causing this pressure? Which direction does it come from? Since pressure is a measurement of how deep something is in a medium, what medium is everything in?
hey...i need help here please...uhm.., i need to know...like how many weights can this lifter technology lifts(sorry if my english is kinda bad lol..heehe)..,and.. is it true that i can't touch the thing that is levitated due to the high voltage that acts on it?? and if it's true...how do i change it from "untouchable" to "touchable"? maybe there's a resolution to this question? and if there is...we might be able to apply this miracle everywhere.. --- a curious lil boy ---
@runescapers99999 well unfortunately this model is barely lifting it's own frame. generally lifters are far too weak to do anything usefull which is why the technolology is only really usefull to conmen who want to make some easy money. You would honestly use less energy and make it lift more weight if you used electric motors and propellers to make it fly.
My god, Beamshipcaptain is still trying to sell this ida as antigravity?
He really does not know ANYTHING about gravity then. This is clearly an Ion wind generator (or lifter).
I've researched this technology and it has nothing to do with anti-gravity. Since gravity is the bending of the space-time fabric and not a force, anti-gravity will never be a reality. I've done a heck of a lot of reading on gravity.
@UnderManiac Gravity has never been proven to cause any warping of the space/time fabric or even able to effect light. If you want evidence then look at the sun spots. They are spots on the sun which effect light we receive. Does it mean gravity is stronger there? No, the sun builds up a magnetic bubble and releases it, that effects the light, a magnetic field not gravity. This is also why jets spew from the poles of black holes, a place where the energy is not effected by the magnetic field.
@GateMessenger Actually, yes gravity has been proven by experimentation. It does affect light. I'll have to find the information for you, but Einstein postulated that light will bend around an object that exhibits a great gravitational field. This was confirmed by a couple scientists during an eclipse referencing a known star's position that was currently just behind the sun. During the eclipse they were able to see the star, calculated it's apparent position and compared it to it actual pos
@UnderManiac First of all the gravity of the sun is not strong enough to cause such a bending effect on light. Yet we see this all the time with sun spots, darker regions on the surface which effect light. Say this is wrong and you are lying, say it is right and you contradict yourself. Besides, how can it be determined that gravity is causing this or an electromagnetic field when black holes produce both! If Einstein was right then sun spots are caused from gravity being increased locally, not!
@GateMessenger The gravity of the sun is not strong enough to bend light? That is where you are wrong. The gravitational well of the sun can, and has, caused light from another star to bend, making the star appear to be in a different place, a few degrees off the actual location.
@UnderManiac That is a rumor, Einstein even stated that the sun's gravity, only 11 times that of Earth's, is not strong enough to bend light. Tell me sun spots are caused because of gravity. You cannot because the light is effected by increased magnetic fields locally, not because of gravity. Show me evidence that gravity is causing this effect. I have given a well known reference to support this hypothesis.
@GateMessenger You stated that before. I never claim, nor did any scientist, that gravity is responsible for sun spots. There are a lot of Youtube videos that can explain sun spots. Many of which I have viewed. Please point out where the sun's gravity isn't strong enough to bend light, I want to read Einstein's quote on that. Nobody is disputing sunspots are caused by enormous magnetic fields in the sun.
@UnderManiac I was trying to show you that there is no evidence which supports the hypothesis that gravity effects light. There is evidence that magnetic fields do though.
@GateMessenger And I am trying to show you that gravity does indeed affect light. I don't discount magnetic fields affect light, but they don't completely account for the effect. Have you not bothered to watch any of the youtube videos about gravity and light? Are you saying Einstein is wrong about gravity and light, when his theories have been observed? Please publish your theory on ion wind in a scientifically reviewed publication, have it scrutinized by the experts.
@GateMessenger You got your science mixed up. The electromagnetic fields of the sun are the cause of sunspots. There would be lots of north and south poles on the sun because the magnetic fields are not aligned with each other. This has NOTHING to do with gravity, which is a bending of space-time around the mass. Light has enough energy to easily move from that gravity well, yet still has to follow the curvatures of space-time.
@UnderManiac Lol, I do not have this confused for I do not believe gravity effects light. You and many others erroneously claim this! Besides, if gravity were the culprit the effects which are produce because of gravity are not the same as what is causing gravity. Many people are so confused! Gravity, by your rhetoric, is an effect from the bending of space around mass, yet that is not the case because those are effects created by gravity not the other way around.
@GateMessenger I can point you to hundreds of websites that confirm that light is affected by gravity. I can also point you to Einstein's theory on gravity, which also explains light being bent by gravity. Funny how you are so much more intelligent than either Newton or Einstein, who's views on gravity greatly differ from yours. Funny how no science supports your idea on what gravity is.
Calculations done by Einstein about bending light had been confirmed several times, independently.
@UnderManiac Yes, it is funny how the cause of gravity has eluded the greatest minds. All because they rely on ideas which were wrong from the start. For instance, the law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. Yet in the same formula when gravity is used as the work force energy is produced in the form of heat. Pressure produces heat in the cores of planets & stars! By current theory, g produces pressure, heat then nuclear reactions, in that order showing energy can be created!
@GateMessenger You are missing something in your thinking. Gravity, again and again, is well known. It has been proven. Newton couldn't explain what gravity was. Einstein did. Plus the laws of thermodynamics are stable. You cannot create nor destroy energy, it can only be transformed from one state to another. The pressure causing nuclear reactions turns those reactions to energy, it's there all along. Remember the equation E=MC².
@UnderManiac If the energy is being created by nuclear reaction then what first causes the nuclear reactions? You accept that gravity creates pressure, that pressure creates heat and the combination creates the nuclear reaction which is suppose to explain the energy output and the age of the sun. Only one problem with this. Gravity is creating heat, gravity is a reaction to an action or cause which continues as long as there is enough mass to produce pressure to create the heat. "create heat"
@GateMessenger This is confusing. Gravity pulls things together, such as the gas and particle cloud that made our sun. The force of gravity creates pressure (trying to bring everything into the center). As this happens the molecules heat up (due to interactions with each other). Enough pressure and heat makes nuclear reactions happen and thus the star is born. No energy is being created here, matter is being transformed into heavier elements and giving off energy as a result.
@GateMessenger Mass can be converted into energy, energy can be converted into mass. The amount of energy mass has is directly proportional to the amount of mass the object has (times the speed of light squared). That's how nuclear power plants work. Einstein theorized and it was proven (with the invention of the atom bomb). Nothing new was produced, only converted from one form to another.
@UnderManiac I understand that mass can be converted into energy. The problem here is that no one excepts that energy can be created. If it could not then the universe would not have been observed to be inflating exponentially!
@GateMessenger Energy cannot be be created nor destroyed. It does not explain an expanding universe. The universe is just expanding, causing matter to get further apart from each other. There is no new mass or new energy being created. Prove that energy can be created. Don't just say it is because the universe is getting bigger. Explain, in detail, how energy is being created.
@GateMessenger Please point me to any scientific publication or website that can support your idea that energy can be created and is due to the fact the universe is inflating. What makes you think the universe can only inflate if new energy is created? Why can't space just be stretching?
@GateMessenger Please point me to any scientific publication or website that can support your idea that energy can be created and is due to the fact the universe is inflating. What makes you think the universe can only inflate if new energy is created? Why can't space just be stretching?
@UnderManiac Energy is created from extreme pressure. This is why the cores of planets and stars are molten hot not because it is the heat left over from the accretion of material which created this planet. And yes there is a formula for this, see thermodynamics. Insert the action of gravity as the work force in that formula and you can see how energy is being created in the form of heat. Hermann von Helmholtz first proposed that gravity was causing the energy which emanates from the Sun, not I.
@UnderManiac If Einstein was so right then why did his relativity not predict the universe's inflation? He had no idea because he believed in a universe which contained all the mass & energy it always had. He never once thought that the law of thermodynamics was wrong & that (dark)energy is continuously being created. Please note Inflation theory where observations of galaxies show the universe inflating from every point where gravity is concentrated! Evidence energy is created via gravity!
@GateMessenger Einstein's theory of relativity did predict the expanding universe, yet he didn't want to believe it. He was taught to believe that the universe is constant, so he added a universal constant to co-incide with a static universe, although he knew it was inconsistent. He believed his theory was wrong when it predicted an expanding universe.
At first you were saying energy created gravity, now vice versa. You confuse me.
@GateMessenger Yes, relativity did predict an inflating universe. I've gone to several websites, even education websites and they all agree that relativity did indeed predict an expanding universe. Did you do NO research?
@GateMessenger Energy is not created, it's transformed. I think your teachers need to be fired, since they did not educate you very well. Why not read works regarding thermodynamics, how energy is "created", how matter is transmuted into energy, etc.
@UnderManiac Energy cannot be created? If energy cannot be created then why is the universe inflating from every point where gravity is the strongest(dark energy)? Thus why Einstein never predicted it with relativity. Go ahead and mock me, I deal with ignorance all the time. You know the process of new ideas, first there is anger then ridicule then acceptance. Logic, observations and evidence will always prevail over theory!
@GateMessenger You still haven't answered my question about gravity being an ion wind and how are the planets and moons being held in orbit when they should be blown off into interstellar space.
@UnderManiac I truly believe I have discovered the cause of gravity only because it explains so many observations, plus hypothesizes future ones. Like the age of Saturn's rings & the age of the solar system. If true then the inner planets are the oldest in our solar system & the outer planets the youngest, Kuiper belt being the youngest. The solar system did not begin as a nebula, simply accretion from the sun. Energy can be created but it cannot be destroyed! Thus why Inflation's observation!
@GateMessenger Wow, you must be a new age Einstein. Please publish your theories in scientific magazines (scientifically reviewed ones). Your ideas will be considered, based on sound and proven scientific tests. The theory must hold up against the most harsh scrutiny. It must be testable, especially on the macro scale.
What makes you think you are more intelligent than Einstein, who's theories have been tested and proven true?
@GateMessenger Dont' delude yourself that you have it figured out. If gravity is an ion wind, as you claim, and the gravity at the center of the sun is a result of an opposite reaction to the ion wind created by the sun (being pushed out into space), then how does the earth revolve around the sun? What keeps the earth tied to the sun and now blown off into interstellar space. Your theory doesn't hold true.
@GateMessenger Black holes are extremely dense dead massive stars at the end of their life. The mass of the black hole bends space-time to the extreme where light is not even energetic enough to escape. Do black holes cause electromagnetic fields? That's something I will have to investigate at some time, but I'm pursuing another avenue in theoretical science and want to finish that stuff first.
@UnderManiac If black holes are at the end of their life then why are black holes estimated to be older than the galaxies they reside in? Wouldn't that mean black holes never die? So how can one be at the end of their life when it just began? Yes, black holes do produce magnetic fields, see cosmic gamma ray bubble images.
@GateMessenger Where did I say black holes are at the end of their lifes? I am mistaken if I mentioned that. Please quit quoting things I never said. It is theorized that black holes are at the center of galaxies. Black holes won't last forever though. It would be too long an explanation for here, but you can find videos about them.
@GateMessenger A black hole occurs when a massive start no longer has any fuel to burn. The internal pressures cannot hold out against gravity and the star collapses on itself. This has to be a star at least 20 times the mass of our sun. Our sun will only become a white dwarf (or maybe a red one). Eventually, it will become a dark mass, still having gravity. Check out "how a black hole is created"
@UnderManiac That explanation has defied logic since I first heard it. First of all if a star burned out it would contain less mass. Gravity is related to mass right? So if mass became less then gravity would follow. Yet black holes retain gravity so logically they must also retain mass. What is apparently occurring is the star does not burn out it simply becomes one giant sun spot. The light we see slowly fades away & looks like it disappears from sight, an illusion of light. It's still there!
@GateMessenger How does it defy logic? The nuclear furnace called the sun produces it's heat and light by fusing atoms together, unlike our nuclear power plants, which split atoms apart. Fusing atoms make them into heaver elements. This continues until the elements become as heavy or heavier than lead. In giant suns, even lead is made into heavier materials. The cores don't get lighter, they get more dense over time. Guess you don't know how suns work.
@GateMessenger Yes, our sun will burn out and become a dark lump. The outer planets, if they are not flung into space by the death throws of our sun, will continue to orbit this burned out lump, because it will still have mass pressing on space. No more "ion wind" as you theorize.
By the way, you still haven't explained how this ion wind keeps earth in orbit around the sun. Shouldn't it push the planets and moons away from it? Equal and opposite reactions.
@UnderManiac That is only a theory which can never be proven based on a flawed idea that energy cannot be created only converted and that the universe is static, contains the same amount of energy and mass as it did from the start. If that were the case then the universe would be collapsing because of all the conversion of matter to energy and the attraction of gravity. This is the big mistake which makes it difficult to comprehend what is actually causing gravity.
@GateMessenger You don't understand the term theory when it comes to science there bud. In science, theory is defined as explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. This means theory holds up to the scrutiny of the scientific community and to empirical observations. It's been tested!
@GateMessenger Please enlighten us oh wise one. Teach us how energy is created from nothing. We yearn for your detailed explanation of this "theory". Oh, wait, you just said that theory can never be proven. I guess the theory of gravity (Netwon's theory), doesn't hold true. Then we can forget gravity and float around like madmen, even though it has been tested, it still isn't true because it's just a "theory".
@GateMessenger Please explain how energy causes gravity. This is your "theory". You haven't given your theory any basis in which to test. You also have to present your theory to the scientific community, to those in that particular field of study. If there is validity to your claim, it would be taken seriously and investigated, both through empirical tests and observations and through equations. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed article in scientific publications.
@GateMessenger I said that black holes were collapsed stars at the end of their lives (at the end of the star's life), not the black holes. Obviously, black holes are only beginning then. You confuse easily, thus your confusion on gravity.
@GateMessenger ition. They confirmed Einstein's theory that gravity can bend light around a mass with high gravity. Black holes spew jets of energy that come from just barely inside the event horizon. It's not coming from the core. I had a hard time thinking about this and did a lot of research. Magnetic fields and gravity have nothing to do with each other. Planets without a magnetic field (ie: has a solid core) still have gravity.
@UnderManiac Sure, but that does not mean a darn thing, considering planets do not have enough gravity to bend light either. When you find a star without a magnetic field then I will reconsider do to evidence.
@UnderManiac Jets were never predicted by Einstein's relativity. As for warping time, gravity was never proven to be the culprit, the tests were done within Earth's magnetic field. The time displacement was most likely due from moving through the magnetic field not moving through gravity. Gravity is an effect, which to this date not many know what is causing it. I hypothesized that the same action causing gravity is also causing the inflation of the universe. I will share this info without cost.
@GateMessenger So you're saying the atomic clock experiment is invalid because they didn't take the magnetic field into account? Time and space are intertwined and inseparable. Gravity is an effect on space-time by a mass. It's not two objects pulling on each other and it's not instantaneous across vast distances. Eloquently, gravity is a dent (or well) in the space-time fabric. Objects caught in that well are influence by the warped area.
@UnderManiac So is there any evidence that light is effected by magnetic fields or are you going to keep speculating that gravity is the culprit without acknowledging the evidence which says otherwise?
@GateMessenger Light is energy, part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and as such is also affected by magnetic fields. However, light still has to follow the curves in space-time just like any object in space. I don't understand how you don't see this. It's basic science. Don't put words in my mouth needlessly.
@GateMessenger I never said you were wrong that light is affected by magnetic fields. Light is also affected by dust particles (scattering effects causes a blue sky), Light IS also affected by gravity, ask I have said before. Just google youtube gravity. Lots of videos there explaining gravity. Start here if you like: watch?v=O-p8yZYxNGc
@UnderManiac Yes, they explain the attraction called gravity but they do not show evidence that gravity can bend light. Heat can also manipulate the path of light. Ever look through flames at an object?
@GateMessenger Heat affecting light is easily explained. When light passes through a denser or lighter medium, it's bent. Ever look at at straw in a glass of water? The part that sticks out does not line up with the part that is submerged. It's called refraction. A very well know phenomenon. Light can be bent by extremely large magnetic fields. Gravity bends light even more easily, as light has to follow the curvature space-time. Watch the videos.
@UnderManiac The atomic clock experiments are invalid because of temperature fluctuations. Atomic clocks are based on radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is only a constant when temperature does not fluctuate. Decay stops at absolute zero & increases as temperature increases. This is the only reason the atomic clocks in space do not synchronized with Earth clocks. It is very cold in space when in the shadow of Earth. Satellites get real warm when in direct sunlight, big temperature fluctuation.
@GateMessenger Hmmm, nothing I've read about the atomic clock experiments ever indicate that temperature is a factor. Space is not at absolute zero. So, do you design satellites? Do you know all the things that the designers have to consider? My guess is you don't have much of an idea about that stuff. The satellite would have to become so extremely cold to make the atomic clocks ineffective.
@UnderManiac I never said that the atomic clocks were ineffective. I merely point out the fact that the atomic clocks rely on the decay of a radioactive particle being in sync in order to measure time exactly in two different places. In order for the particles to decay at the same rate the temperature of the decaying particles must match exactly. Any deviation will cause one particle to decay at a different rate causing the clocks to become unsynchronized. This has nothing to do with gravity.
The only effect observable from nasa is a distinct pungent smell of bull shit. Nasa was initially staffed from the skoda labs post ww2 (operation paperclip) where the nazi bell experiments successfully developed anti gravity vehicles. See Joseph P Farrell for all the information you need.
@beyosoco The only way to negate the effect of gravity on an object is to cause the object to have 0 mass. This is impossible as all matter has mass and there is no way to alter that mass short of splitting it's atoms and destroying them... ofcourse then you wouldnt have an object to negate gravitational effects from... By the way do you know what some one needs to write a book... A pen and nothing more. Just because a book gets written does not mean that it is worth the paper it is written on.
@MrAwsome514 And all that shit you have just written was read by you from a page written by a pen. When you grow a brain you will learn to think for yourself, pick up a keyboard and type Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2. Watch them both and then lets see if you still cling to the dogma. Good luck
@beyosoco The technology is clearly over your head so the only way you would have to determine the truth about it is to examin the integrety of those explaining it to you. On the one hand you have NASA and several other highly respected research groups concluding that there is no antigravitic effect present after performing thier own testing on the devices... and on the other hand you have people like beamshipcaptain down there who run thier own website selling kits spewing lies to boost sales.
@MrAwsome514 I did write a reply but have decided to cancel it and just leave you to your little game with those who wish to play with you. There is just no point to it.
@beyosoco Just face the facts. The only people who claim this machine is generating antigravity are the ones who stand to profit from the claim. People who make the claim simply to place themselves at the center of a controversy knowing that it will make them eligable to charge UFO enthusiasts money to have them attend thier conventions or to expand thier demographic for kit sales on thier website... Even the man who invented lifters named it an "Ionocraft"... why? Because it is Ion wind!
@beyosoco You come in here to tell me I am wrong despite the fact that I have presented proof of what I say and then you leave with out presenting any proof of your own... Here is a tip for you sir. If you want to be taken seriously you MUST provide supporting evidence. If you fail to do so then no one can accept what you say as being true.
This is not magic, it's an ion generator, produces ozone, which is dangerous. Nothing is ever fully understood, that is the nature of science, it's not the answers that drive us, it's the questions.
It's newton's third law. You through a stream of ions downwards the ions exert an upward force. Anti-Gravity My Ass...(That's what Newton would have said)
@amiyaiitkgp Thisworks in vacuum, and under oil. No air for ion wind in vacuum, and oil does not ionize. John Fiala confirmed my Beamship models fly in vacuum, and he has flown them with an onboard power module. Don't be made a fool of by vested interests. Even NASA proved they work in vacuuml, and 21st century patents were granted on the basis of vacuum tests (Cambpell, Serrano, GRAVITEC).
@amiyaiitkgp We can all celebrate. For 80 years, we've had the keys to clean, silent, ultra fast inertialess air and space travel, and warp drive. The entire universe is now open to humans from Earth for colonization. No limits.
@Beamshipcaptain For centuries people have been made fool on religious ground this is a new era now people with (some) knowledge of technology make fools of the those who don't understand it. The whole experiment is a very well understood phenomenon of electro-hydrodynamics (Biefeld–Brown effect).
But if you say otherwise I suggest you publish a paper on the experiment and publish it in a peer reviewed journal - youtube is not the place to prove and disprove scientific phenomenons.
@amiyaiitkgp Already done 8 years ago. In the JOURNAL OF NEW ENERGY, Vol 7, No.1 (2003), and NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, July/Aug 2002, and I have a new paper coming out in the latest issue of EXTROARDINARY TECHNOLOGY. By the way, Please read ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE, by Richard Milton, that shows the gaps holes and flaws in the current paradigm of "peer review".
@Beamshipcaptain of course where else will you publish it....a 3rd grade journal published by a small company (Emerging Energy Marketing Firm who collect such pseudo science in the journal). For a technology as big as you say it is it should be published in Nature (who am I kidding) next time try a mediocre journal published by IEEE or Elsevier If you'r lucky you will take at-least two more decades to do that.
lifters are ion wind devices. they use the same principle as the aurora turbulence for motion. they are electrostatic flying machines that use pulsating electric field. the electric field in the air and the lifter itself attract each other. anti-gravity is something completely different. gravity is a dynamic field were the electric and magnetic field move parallel to the gravitational field. gravity is anti-gravity inside another gravitational field. gravity manifest trapped energy as field.
coldarc 4 months ago in playlist antigravity and lifters
@coldarc Ion wind is a feeble force of at least three orders of magnitude too weak to cause levitation of a 5 gram model, and we have flown models hundreds of grams! google: FORCE ON AN ASYMMETRIC CAPACITOR.
Beamshipcaptain 2 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain ion winds hate ground. aluminum foil have nothing to do with capacitance. the electric force is stronger than all other known forces. for electric flux ground means currents and currents means bad lifting force. currents is needed for charge separation but not for lift. a electric flux is electric force times distance and is work like mechanical work.. positive and negative charge is basically a difference in force between quantities of negative charges.
coldarc 2 months ago
We all know these beam lifters are based on the ionic movement of air to gain lift. I made an ionocraft in 1971, it floated too, pretty nice actually, in a calm closed room. These are a better design, more elegant, but... they are NOT anti-gravity!
doceigen 6 months ago 3
@doceigen Yea... you would think they would be able to take a hint from the fact that the original inventor named it an "Ionocraft". All this antigravity bull shit came later and has only been promoted by conmen in the entire history of the technology.
kurisu925 5 months ago 2
put a watcth in it, you will see time dialations
1liveandlearn11 8 months ago
@1liveandlearn11 No... that is called electronic interference. Ofcourse your watch isn't going to work right when you stick it inside an electric field and shock it with 20kv...
kurisu925 8 months ago
anyone knows how to do these?
notoriouscrank 9 months ago
My six-foot diameter Beamship Variation III LEAPS to the ceiling on less than 60-Watts, DC, and there is barely any detectable airflwo. Yet to get it to lift with airflow requires small motors from China with propellers, which creates a huge airblast! So obviously, some other force other than air movement is involved, and the sealing up in resin of the TT Brown discs, and the successfull vacuum tests in North Carolina, Paris, France, and Kingo of Prussia, PA, and more recent tests prove that.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain Also if this 6 foot model exists why don't you have any videos of it on your channel? Your "Variations" as you call them don't even have any real variety to them at all. The same triangular design with a few minor modifications to the frame. Experimentation is meant to find new and usefull information. Einstein defined insanity as performing one experiment over and over expecting different results. If you do not change your design from the standard triangle what can you learn?
kurisu925 9 months ago
@kurisu925 We tried all different shapes. THe most efficient shape, that produced the most force with the least power consumption was an equilateral triangle. THe tests showed the larger the survace area of the Triangle, the greater the force, and the less input power required. THtats why after over 9 years, my Beamshipas are still the largest and most energy-thrifty of such devices on Planet Earth.
Beamshipcaptain 8 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain "The tests showed the larger the survace area of the Triangle, the greater the force, and the less input power required."
That statement cannot be true. If it was then bigger ones would be easier to make and since you seem to think you are bragging every time you mention yours being big it sounds to me you think otherwise. The next time you want to lie at least don't contradict yourself with it.
kurisu925 8 months ago 2
@kurisu925 you might remember me as freedomfighter. google Strange emissions by sun are mutating matter…then come back and preach your text book science. Would love to see your real work like me and Beam, like time dilations and such, you go read and learn now BOY!!!
1liveandlearn11 8 months ago
@1liveandlearn11 Yea I remember you... you are a nut job who will believe anything so long as it is linked to some sort of a conspiracy theory. So what? I run into people like you all the time.
kurisu925 8 months ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kurisu925 kurisu925, it is you who is tht"nutjob". Your hrad is firmly up your ass.
Beamshipcaptain 8 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain beamie learn to spell. If there is one thing I cannot stand it is being insulted by a complete dumb ass.
kurisu925 8 months ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kurisu925 THis work is done for your benefit, and our children's children. Sorry If I type fast and forget to proofread what I type. I look at my keyboard when I type. My bad.
Beamshipcaptain 8 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain There is no work being done. You play in a band and you run an online buisness that sells lifter kits. Between the two there is no way you have the time to be involved in the lifter research and the SEG research with John Searl as you claim. A REAL researcher would make such work his primary focus if it could do the things you claim these do. We can clearly see what your primary focus is. Most of your videos are of your band and you advertize your buisness all the time.
kurisu925 8 months ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@kurisu925 We all have to eat and provide for our daily needs whilst we all seek funding and grants to do this most important work full-time. Be logical. But we have done and published fundamental work. Extrapolations of this work will give the people of this Earth cheap, clean energy, and cheap, superfast air and space-travel, even interstellar travel, THIS CENTURY. There is no more science fiction. The science fact is so much more incredible, but there it is.
Beamshipcaptain 7 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain Ok so now you claim to work on both lifters and the SEG full time. That is 8 hours a day. sleep should take up another 8 hours so when exactly do you find the time to practice in your band, manage your online buisness that sells lifter kits, and play with all of those remote control planes you keep filming and mosting videos of... Funny you have the time to post videos of remote control planes but fail to post videos of any of the 41 IGVs before losing them... Be logical beamie.
kurisu925 7 months ago 6
@kurisu925 It IS my primary focus. But we all have to work to support our research. Advertising a business is the way to put a business on a paying basis. Logic.
Beamshipcaptain 4 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain Beamie... you claim to be in charge of the development of the SEG and IGV. Magaging a research team is a full time responsibility. Kurisu is right in that there is no possible way that you could be managing a legitimate research team AND playing in your band AND running your online buisness AND still have time to buy, play with, and film all of those RC planes of yours.
MrAwsome514 4 months ago 3
@Beamshipcaptain Ofcourse you lack any video of the flight footage I challenged you to post 14 months ago. Or any other evidence of actual research. Though you do show yourself playing with some of the lifter kits. Not performing any tests with them though.
kurisu925 8 months ago 8
Plus they work sealed, and in vacuum. Why would they not? THis is how VACUUM TUBES work, and electrostatic attraction. Electrostatic attraction works in vacuum. Scientist John Fiala, son of CAL TECH physicist Harvey Fiala, sealed my Beamships in hard vacuum, and they still flew. You can call him to request a video. NASA shows the concept working in vacuum on Youtube. This is subquantum kinetics, as Dr. LaViolette. I saw one of his lectures in 1990 in Colorado Springs.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
Please read SUBQUANTUM KINETICS (1994,2003) by Paul A. LaViolette, PhD. Look at Model 'G'. Gogle it. I first saw Dr. LaViolette lecture on Subquantum Kinetics and electrogravitics in 1990 at Colorado Springs. Look at his lectures on YouTube.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
THis is a gross overestimation of the force due to ionic effects, so Equation 2 is an upper limit to ionic force.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
r2 is the approximate area of the device. A capacitor that operates at Voltageq: 1/2mv^2=qV. THe force exerted on an asymmetric capacitor is given by the rate of change of momentum: F= mvI/q where I is the current flowing thru the capacitor gap,and we assume that all the ionic momentum i mv, is transferred to the capacitor when the charged particles leave an electrode. Also, we assume that none of this is captured at the other electrode.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
Graham and Lahoz, "Observation of Static Electromagnetic Angular Momentum in Vacuo," NATURE V. 285, May 15,1980, p.129, Woodward, James "Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia" FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, V. 34,2004,p.1475Mahood, Thomas"Propellantless Propulsion: Recent Experimental Results Exploiting Transient Mass Modification', Proceedings of STAIF,1999, J.W. Campbell,(NASA), "Cylindrical asymmetrical capacitor devices for Space Applications", US Patent No. 6,775,123, issued Aug. 10, 2004.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
That should read:" a 2 microAmpere ion wind resulting from electrons accelerated in a 250 kiloVolt potential would yield a force of somewhat over 10^-3 dynes, almost 100-million times less than the lift produced by TT Brown's apparatus"- (which also works in vacuum, and less current is needed.)- LaViolette, PhD, SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION (2008)
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
"A. IONIC WIND,FORCE TOO SMALL. THe most common explanation for the net force on an asymmetric capacitor invokes ion wind. Under a high Voltage DC bias, ions are thought to be accelerated by the high potential difference between electrodes, and the recoil force is observed on an asymmetric capacitor. A simple upper limit on the ion wind force shows that the ion wind effect is a factor of at least three orders of magnitude too small." FORCE ON AN ASSYMETCI CAPACITOR, T. Bahder and C. Fazi US ARMY
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain Either you are being intentionally dishonest with this stuff or you don't understand what it is you are reading. Yes, this is a quote from a PRELIMINARY study done by Bahder & Fazi but this quote was relating to one specific set of assumptions & does not take into account ion drift. The next section of that very study goes on to cover this.
You have simply taken a single paragraph & pasted it here out of context. That's pretty low.
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
Actually, I started this in the hope of an honest discussion between two adults but if this is the sort of cheap tactic you're going to stoop to, I'd rather not bother. I have better things to do than wade through reams of studies just so I can point out your cheap tricks to people.
There are only 2 possibilities here:
1) You're a complete moron (in which case I have nothing to learn from you)
2) You're a wilful charlatan (in which case I want nothing to do with you)
In either case, goodbye.
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
"These measurements of thrust indicated that the force lifting TT Brown's electrified disc was almost 100 million times greater than what could reasonably be expected by an ion wind. For example,an upward thrust of 110 grams is equal to a force of about 10^5 dynes.By comparison, a 2 microAmpere ion wind resulting from electrons accelerated in a 250 kiloVolt Potential would yeild a force of somewhat over 10^3 dynes,almost 100 million times less than the lift produced by TT Brown's apparatus".
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
"Here, the report makes the astounding diclosure that under hard Vacuum Conditons, a force of 110 grams (1.1 newtons) could be achieved for a power expenditure of just 0.5 Watt (250,000 Volts times 2 x 10^-6 Amps), or 2,200 newtons of thrust per kiloWatt. This is about 150 times the thrust to power ratio of a jet engine! Also it is 10,000 times greater than the thrust to power ratio of a sspace shuttle main engine."- SECRETS OF ANTIGRAVITY PROPULSION(2008), by Paul A. LaViolette, PhD.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how did you do this? was it easy? where did you connect the negative charge? please help me! ive been trying to do this and it doesnt work!! HELP!!!!
yochinayo 10 months ago
@yochinayo Read TT Brown, US Pat. No. 2,949,550 ELECTROKINETIC APPARATUS, and copy it. As I did starting end of January, 1990.
Beamshipcaptain 10 months ago
how did you do this? was it easy? where did you connect the negative charge? Please help me!!! i've been trying to do this but it does NOT work!!! HELP!!
yochinayo 10 months ago
@yochinayo It is actually quite simple. The curent is only running through the thin strand of wire at the top and two wires running to the power supply. The voltage is about 20,000 volts and the amperage is... very low but I forget the exact figure. Because of the high voltage the electricity is able to pass through the air close to the wire with out just arcing all over the place. This allows it to ionize the surrounding air which causes it to be drawn to the aluminium foil.
MrAwsome514 10 months ago
@yochinayo If I am not mistaken I believe the foil is grounded aswell.
MrAwsome514 10 months ago
the electricity ions the air and creates trust underneath the device. or something like that, Mythbusters actually proved that this is no anti-gravity.
SkullMaster1993 11 months ago
@SkullMaster1993 Careful you might provoke Beamshipcaptain to go on one of his hour long rants about mythbusters... He sells lifter kits on his website and I guess his sales go up the more people believe in this antigravity nonsense.
MrAwsome514 11 months ago 2
@MrAwsome514 Sales are irrespective of the propulsive effect. What is important is that this form of propulsion is a quantum leap over internal combustion, and shall get us Earth-humans into interplanetary space and interstelllar space, just as it has brought other people from other planets and star systems for millions of years. Electromagnetism works the same in all parts of the universe. Since every atom of craft and payload within the field moves at the sme rate, inertial-mass is canceled.
Beamshipcaptain 11 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain Beamie the very man who invented lifters called it an ionocraft because it works on the ion eind effect. No reliable research organization has ever found even the slightest evidence that any other effect is even present let alone responsible for the lift without later withdrawing the finding upon discovering a flaw in thier testing which gave the illusion of such an effect.
MrAwsome514 11 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain Also Don't bull shit me beamie I have worked in marketing before. When people hear about new technology they read up a little on it before buying it. If you tell them it is ion wind they will find the real litterature that tells them about how weak and nearly useless it is and lose interest, but if you tell them it is antigravity and provide them with fake litterature... well then you pretty much control thier opinion as to weather to buy or not.
MrAwsome514 11 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain Bullshit! There is nothing gravitationally happening here, it's simple thrust vs weight. Also, since the thrust comes from ionizing the air & thrusting it downwards it is reliant on an atmosphere. It doesn't work in a vacuum & so is useless for interplanetary travel.
Of course, you'll claim otherwise (without any evidence to support it, no doubt) but I'm far too familiar with the physics involved to fall for that crap. Save your BS explanation for the tinfoil hat crowd.
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
@tvsinesperanto This works more efficiently in vacuum, as shown in Paris France, by the inventor, Thomas Townsend Brown, in 1955 at less than a billionth of an atmosphere, and also in 1956 in AH Bahnson Labs in North Carolina, and in 1959, 2 miles from her at General Electric SPACE center in King of Prussia PA. Takaaki Musha showed its more efficient in vacuum at the 2007 AIAA meeting. John Fiala flew my Beamships in hard vacuum and with onboard power. A Youtuber sealed TT Brown saucers in resin
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain I flat out don't believe you. Even if I was to grant you that those were successful (a HUGE if), every other test ever conducted with these things shows that they DO NOT work without an atmosphere. It is also contrary to the way the BBE effect works (which is well understood). Do you even know how the BBE works? Do you know anything about the technical side of EHD at all? You need matter of some kind to be present so that the top (smaller) electrode can strip electrons
CONT...
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
from it's atoms to form ions which are then forced down due to attraction towards the lower (large) electrode in accordance with Coulomb's Law. In a vacuum there is no matter (well, very little) & therefore nothing to thrust downwards upon.
You are 1/2 correct in saying that it's more "efficient" in a vacuum only in that the breakdown voltage of air is less than that of a vacuum so that you can crank the voltage up between the electrodes before coronial discharge occurs.
CONT...
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
This doesn't help you at all though because, as already stated, there is no matter to create the thrust so it doesn't matter how high the voltage is.
Trust me, I'm a qualified Electrical Engineer, I studied this stuff formally, I know how it works & when it doesn't & I can tell you right now, it doesn't work in a vacuum. Saying it does not only denies the experimental evidence but also ignores the theory of how the BBE works.
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
@tvsinesperanto They work more efficiently without air. TT Brown levitated saucers in hard vacuum at AH Bahnson labs in 1956-58. Flew saucers in hard vacuum and levitated them with great force in hard vacuum in Paris, France in 1955. He flew saucers at less than a billionth of an atmosphere at GE Space center in 1959, a couple miles from me in King of Prussia, PA, 1959.Takaaki Musha showed the Biefeld Brown effect is more efficient in vacuum at the AIAA 2007 meeting.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain "work more efficiently without air"
So you keep saying but there's no corroborating evidence for these so-called "successes" in the 50's that you keep referencing. You are basing your entire argument on hearsay & in the world of science, that don't cut the mustard pal. Let's see some evidence.
I'm also calling BS on your claim that the ion wind is 3 OoM too weak to lift a model. Post your figures.
You claiming "x flew y in z" is uncompelling. Where's your evidence?
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
@tvsinesperanto Lab devices weighing 100 grams have pruduced thrust of 110 grams, for electrical power expenditure of 500 Watts(250,000 Volts@2 milliAmps). Experiment performed in air of 1 ATM.Supplementry research indicates much greater eficiency results (same or greater thrust for less power input) when operated in vacuum (10^-4mm Hg or better), when the current drops to about 2.0 microAmperes"- "Electohydrodynamics"-Electrokinetics, Inc. Bala Cynwyd, PA, March 23rd, 1960.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain And once again this is merely hearsay. Was this a properly run experiment? Was it published? Where? Was it peer reviewed? Was it independently replicated?
Just posting a quote from someone does not constitute evidence.
However, let's assume the figures you give are accurate, the lift due to ionic wind is:
F = Id/k
Where:
F = lift due to ion wind (Newtons)
I = current (Amperes)
d = air gap distance (Metres)
k = Ionic mobility of coefficient of the medium (m^2/Vs)
CONT...
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
My apologies for the lack of formatting. I did have blank lines separating calculations but it seems that YT's parser strips them out. Hopefully it's still readable.
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
@tvsinesperanto We use the published Thomas Townsend Brown equation from the paper "How I control Gravitation," T. Townsend Brown, SCIENCE AND INVENTION, August, 1929, F= Vm1m2/r^2.
F= force, V=Voltage, m1 positive m2 negative.
The gravitational factors enter through the consideration of the mass of the electrified bodies and the mass of the dielectric between the electrified bodies. Also: "Towards Flight, without Stress, Strain, or Weight (INTEL-Washington DC, INTERAVIA, March 23rd, 1956).
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain As I've said, I want no further part in this discussion as I am no longer convinced that you have any idea what you're talking about. Either that or you are intentionally lying. In either case, it profits me nothing to continue.
You seem to be a lay person without a grounding in science or electronics who has read just enough from crackpot web sites to appear convincing to the uninformed. However, your explanations make no sense to someone who knows what they're talking about
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
@tvsinesperanto You are quite right. Beamie sells lifter kits through his company "Applied Electrogravitics". He also sells the book he mentioned. It is difficult to get people interested in buying kits when they know it works on ion wind. The limitations of the ion wind effect just are not very appealing to prospective buyers. Tell them it is antigravity on the other hand and provide them with fake litterature... you pretty much controll their decision weather to buy or not at that point.
kurisu925 9 months ago
@kurisu925 It does not matter what people think - They WORK! Ion wind has a limit, and is too feeble to lift even a 3 to 5 gram model. But there is no limit to the Biefeld-Brown effect, and can lift a mouse, and models hundreds of grams have been lofted. I sealed TT Brown saucers in plastic, and they flew backwards. Another chap sent me videos of Brown saucers sealed in resin, and they also flew backwards. And the literature is not fake. It comes form science journals such as NATURE.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
@Beamshipcaptain "Science journals" that have a disclaimer in them reguarding the truthfulness of their content. They quite clearly state that the material inside is not held to any sort of standard what so ever. It is not peer reviewed and it is not acceptable as evidence. I have informed you many times NASA put out a paper in 2004 and put this issue to rest. Their tests showed no operation in vacuum, no antigravitic effect, and that ion wind accounts for all thrust observed.
kurisu925 9 months ago
@kurisu925 OIC. Well that certainly explains why he is so adamant they work in a vacuum even though his explanations of how they supposedly work is a meaningless mishmash of impressive sounding words.
If he has a commercial interest in promoting these things it's not surprising that he is citing all sorts of spurious BS to support his arguments.
They really need to start teaching the scientific method & critical thinking in schools. There is far too much of this BS about these days.
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
@tvsinesperanto They do try to teach kids the scientific method in schools. However, I think the problem is that many kids simply aren't interested in science. I think this is why all of the successful scams have such big claims. They need a big claim in order to gain the interest of the people who were too disinterested to have payed attention to their science teachers in school. Because once they gain their interest the scammers get to give them an false education of their own choosing.
kurisu925 9 months ago
@tvsinesperanto The conspiracy theories surrounding most of these scams is yet another tool for scammers to use. Once they have managed to convince someone that there is a secret organization trying to cover up the "Technology" that person is no longer able to accept any source of information other than that scammer. In the words of admiral Ackbar... "IT"S A TRAP!"
kurisu925 9 months ago
@kurisu925 "Teach...the scientific method."
Do they? Where I am (Australia) they don't teach it formally (although they cover it obliquely in the last 2 years if you decide to take Physics, Chem or Bio). Glad to hear they teach it formally somewhere.
Yeah, You're right about kids not engaging. I reckon schools should look at the popular CTs & teach kids the scientific method & critical thinking techniques using the CT's themselves as a tool to get the kids interested. I reckon that'd work well
tvsinesperanto 9 months ago
@tvsinesperanto THe US Army in 2000 showed the force of ION WIND is too weak a force to cause levitation of even a 3 to 5 gram model by at least three ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. Perdue university flew thee devices in hard vacuum in 2000.So did NASA, and their videos are on Youtube. SOmeone sealed TT Brown saucers in resin, and they flew BACKWARDS. I sealed 1-meter diameter Brown saucers in plastic bags in 200 in Reno, Nevada in 200, and they also flew backwards. John Fiala flew my beamships in vacuo.
Beamshipcaptain 9 months ago
no service for it to react to create trust how do you explain that. no air under it to lift it.
JoelHarvey1 11 months ago
... so in reality the upward lift of the lifter is the evidence needed to show what is causing the effect called gravity.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger No, the lifter is exhibiting an ion wind, which has been proven with the smoke test. If it were localized gravity then the smoke would gather in the center of the lifter and not be pushed down to the tabletop. There is no gravity modification proven.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Ok, why would the smoke gather at the center of the lifter if this was truly an anti-gravity effect? In order to understand this effect one needs to understand what is causing gravity first. Einstein only notes the effects of gravity not what is actually causing it. What if gravity were the opposite of the ion wind which is being created by the lifter?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger According to lifter enthusiasts, it is creating it's own gravity well (or bubble, or whatever). This would mean it would have it's own localized gravity. The smoke would fall into that gravity well or gravity effect and concentrate into the center of it.
Einstein explained gravity, not just noted it's effects. I guess you never read anything about Einstein or his theory on gravity. If you had, you'd understand what I am talking about. Check it out for yourself.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac No, it does not mean the lifter will create it's own localized gravity. That is a misconception because gravity is not understood. What the lifter is doing is reacting to the Earth's ion wind. The lifter does not produce it's own gravity. But the effect does demonstrate the Earth's ion wind. It is this continuous ion wind emanating from the core which produces the opposite effect called gravity. Much similar to the Sun's ion wind but weaker.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger How is the Earth creating this ion wind? Where is it coming from? Why don't we feel the effects of it? Gravity is well known to science. Maybe it's not understood by you, but it has been proven. Also gravity is not known to proponents of the lifter. The lifter is a thrust engine with no moving parts. In your argument, I could say that a rocket is exhibiting anti-gravity and that gravity is a chemical thrust towards the earth, from some unknown source.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
.. This is the reason why these lifter experiments work against the flow of gravity because when the ions flow from the core something has to replace the energy, for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction, Newton. The energy escaping from the pressurized core creates an equal & opposite negative flow, called gravity. Space and planets/stars are complete opposites. At the cores are extreme pressure, in space is extreme vacuum, hot core, cold vacuum, opposites. Opposites attract!
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Wow, what a stretch of the imagination. How would you measure the pressurized core? How does that affect gravity? Your idea is backwards. Pressure won't stay in a vacuum. Pressure seeks to balance itself when released in a vacuum. If you put a balloon in a vacuum chamber the balloon will increase in size because the pressure would try to balance itself out with the pressure outside it. How could that be gravity?
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Well pressure is not gravity but what it does to mass causes energy to be created in the form of heat. Basic thermodynamics at work. Heat is energy! When the energy escapes an opposite reaction occurs. If it were not for this opposite reaction then stars would spew off their material and would never have formed. Note hydrogen is the lightest element and a million mile per hour wind cannot blow the material off because of gravity. The action of g is opposite to the energy escaping.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger So then, if gravity is the opposite of energy escaping, how do planets form? The asteroids, meteors, comets, etc that come together to make a planet doesn't give off energy. If they did, they would never form together as they'd be pushing against one another. Gravity surrounding each of these objects pulls them together when they get close enough.
Pluto has a moon orbiting it. What keeps that moon orbiting a frozen dwarf planet? Shouldn't it repel if it was spewing energy?
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Asteroids form because of a static attraction. This is noted with experiments of water within space. The water collects into a ball. This is not due to gravity because gravitons are not evident within atoms. This also explains why objects in space do not become spherical until the emanating energy starts flowing. I hypothesized that only after the object gets about 100 miles in diameter does it produce enough pressure to turn the core molten thus producing new (dark)energy.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger All matter bends space-time, even if it's slightly. Static attraction does not explain how the moon orbits the earth and the earth the sun. Static attraction explains how atoms stay together, this is on the minute scale. It does not work on the macro scale. Please view the videos explaining gravity. Gravity is known to science, but not to you is my guess.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@GateMessenger The moon is more than 100 miles in diameter, yet it has a solid core.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
When all theories can be linked together showing that one action causes all the observations in the heavens will be the day the cause of gravity is fully understood. I believe gravity is an effect from the action of extreme pressure. Pressure creates heat, heat is energy(dark energy) causing all bodies which produce energy to inflate away from one another. Those objects which do not create energy(not enough core pressure) are caught in an inward flow of space toward mass, called gravity, IMHO.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Gravity is pressure? Please explain and give scientific references to support your hypothesis please. Nowhere in the scientific literature I've read have I come across that idea. What is causing this pressure? Which direction does it come from? Since pressure is a measurement of how deep something is in a medium, what medium is everything in?
UnderManiac 1 year ago
cover the top of the lifter and then u see there is no antigravity.
BarrioX5 1 year ago
hey...i need help here please...uhm.., i need to know...like how many weights can this lifter technology lifts(sorry if my english is kinda bad lol..heehe)..,and.. is it true that i can't touch the thing that is levitated due to the high voltage that acts on it?? and if it's true...how do i change it from "untouchable" to "touchable"? maybe there's a resolution to this question? and if there is...we might be able to apply this miracle everywhere.. --- a curious lil boy ---
runescapers99999 1 year ago
plus,please tell me the ratio of voltage to height of levitation...pleaseeee.....
runescapers99999 1 year ago
@runescapers99999 well unfortunately this model is barely lifting it's own frame. generally lifters are far too weak to do anything usefull which is why the technolology is only really usefull to conmen who want to make some easy money. You would honestly use less energy and make it lift more weight if you used electric motors and propellers to make it fly.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
My god, Beamshipcaptain is still trying to sell this ida as antigravity?
He really does not know ANYTHING about gravity then. This is clearly an Ion wind generator (or lifter).
I've researched this technology and it has nothing to do with anti-gravity. Since gravity is the bending of the space-time fabric and not a force, anti-gravity will never be a reality. I've done a heck of a lot of reading on gravity.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Gravity has never been proven to cause any warping of the space/time fabric or even able to effect light. If you want evidence then look at the sun spots. They are spots on the sun which effect light we receive. Does it mean gravity is stronger there? No, the sun builds up a magnetic bubble and releases it, that effects the light, a magnetic field not gravity. This is also why jets spew from the poles of black holes, a place where the energy is not effected by the magnetic field.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Actually, yes gravity has been proven by experimentation. It does affect light. I'll have to find the information for you, but Einstein postulated that light will bend around an object that exhibits a great gravitational field. This was confirmed by a couple scientists during an eclipse referencing a known star's position that was currently just behind the sun. During the eclipse they were able to see the star, calculated it's apparent position and compared it to it actual pos
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac First of all the gravity of the sun is not strong enough to cause such a bending effect on light. Yet we see this all the time with sun spots, darker regions on the surface which effect light. Say this is wrong and you are lying, say it is right and you contradict yourself. Besides, how can it be determined that gravity is causing this or an electromagnetic field when black holes produce both! If Einstein was right then sun spots are caused from gravity being increased locally, not!
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger The gravity of the sun is not strong enough to bend light? That is where you are wrong. The gravitational well of the sun can, and has, caused light from another star to bend, making the star appear to be in a different place, a few degrees off the actual location.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac That is a rumor, Einstein even stated that the sun's gravity, only 11 times that of Earth's, is not strong enough to bend light. Tell me sun spots are caused because of gravity. You cannot because the light is effected by increased magnetic fields locally, not because of gravity. Show me evidence that gravity is causing this effect. I have given a well known reference to support this hypothesis.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger You stated that before. I never claim, nor did any scientist, that gravity is responsible for sun spots. There are a lot of Youtube videos that can explain sun spots. Many of which I have viewed. Please point out where the sun's gravity isn't strong enough to bend light, I want to read Einstein's quote on that. Nobody is disputing sunspots are caused by enormous magnetic fields in the sun.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac I was trying to show you that there is no evidence which supports the hypothesis that gravity effects light. There is evidence that magnetic fields do though.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger And I am trying to show you that gravity does indeed affect light. I don't discount magnetic fields affect light, but they don't completely account for the effect. Have you not bothered to watch any of the youtube videos about gravity and light? Are you saying Einstein is wrong about gravity and light, when his theories have been observed? Please publish your theory on ion wind in a scientifically reviewed publication, have it scrutinized by the experts.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@GateMessenger You got your science mixed up. The electromagnetic fields of the sun are the cause of sunspots. There would be lots of north and south poles on the sun because the magnetic fields are not aligned with each other. This has NOTHING to do with gravity, which is a bending of space-time around the mass. Light has enough energy to easily move from that gravity well, yet still has to follow the curvatures of space-time.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Lol, I do not have this confused for I do not believe gravity effects light. You and many others erroneously claim this! Besides, if gravity were the culprit the effects which are produce because of gravity are not the same as what is causing gravity. Many people are so confused! Gravity, by your rhetoric, is an effect from the bending of space around mass, yet that is not the case because those are effects created by gravity not the other way around.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger I can point you to hundreds of websites that confirm that light is affected by gravity. I can also point you to Einstein's theory on gravity, which also explains light being bent by gravity. Funny how you are so much more intelligent than either Newton or Einstein, who's views on gravity greatly differ from yours. Funny how no science supports your idea on what gravity is.
Calculations done by Einstein about bending light had been confirmed several times, independently.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Yes, it is funny how the cause of gravity has eluded the greatest minds. All because they rely on ideas which were wrong from the start. For instance, the law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. Yet in the same formula when gravity is used as the work force energy is produced in the form of heat. Pressure produces heat in the cores of planets & stars! By current theory, g produces pressure, heat then nuclear reactions, in that order showing energy can be created!
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger You are missing something in your thinking. Gravity, again and again, is well known. It has been proven. Newton couldn't explain what gravity was. Einstein did. Plus the laws of thermodynamics are stable. You cannot create nor destroy energy, it can only be transformed from one state to another. The pressure causing nuclear reactions turns those reactions to energy, it's there all along. Remember the equation E=MC².
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac If the energy is being created by nuclear reaction then what first causes the nuclear reactions? You accept that gravity creates pressure, that pressure creates heat and the combination creates the nuclear reaction which is suppose to explain the energy output and the age of the sun. Only one problem with this. Gravity is creating heat, gravity is a reaction to an action or cause which continues as long as there is enough mass to produce pressure to create the heat. "create heat"
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger This is confusing. Gravity pulls things together, such as the gas and particle cloud that made our sun. The force of gravity creates pressure (trying to bring everything into the center). As this happens the molecules heat up (due to interactions with each other). Enough pressure and heat makes nuclear reactions happen and thus the star is born. No energy is being created here, matter is being transformed into heavier elements and giving off energy as a result.
UnderManiac 11 months ago
@GateMessenger Mass can be converted into energy, energy can be converted into mass. The amount of energy mass has is directly proportional to the amount of mass the object has (times the speed of light squared). That's how nuclear power plants work. Einstein theorized and it was proven (with the invention of the atom bomb). Nothing new was produced, only converted from one form to another.
I think you need to learn more about physics.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac I understand that mass can be converted into energy. The problem here is that no one excepts that energy can be created. If it could not then the universe would not have been observed to be inflating exponentially!
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Energy cannot be be created nor destroyed. It does not explain an expanding universe. The universe is just expanding, causing matter to get further apart from each other. There is no new mass or new energy being created. Prove that energy can be created. Don't just say it is because the universe is getting bigger. Explain, in detail, how energy is being created.
UnderManiac 11 months ago
@GateMessenger Please point me to any scientific publication or website that can support your idea that energy can be created and is due to the fact the universe is inflating. What makes you think the universe can only inflate if new energy is created? Why can't space just be stretching?
UnderManiac 11 months ago
@GateMessenger Please point me to any scientific publication or website that can support your idea that energy can be created and is due to the fact the universe is inflating. What makes you think the universe can only inflate if new energy is created? Why can't space just be stretching?
UnderManiac 11 months ago
@UnderManiac Energy is created from extreme pressure. This is why the cores of planets and stars are molten hot not because it is the heat left over from the accretion of material which created this planet. And yes there is a formula for this, see thermodynamics. Insert the action of gravity as the work force in that formula and you can see how energy is being created in the form of heat. Hermann von Helmholtz first proposed that gravity was causing the energy which emanates from the Sun, not I.
GateMessenger 11 months ago
@UnderManiac If Einstein was so right then why did his relativity not predict the universe's inflation? He had no idea because he believed in a universe which contained all the mass & energy it always had. He never once thought that the law of thermodynamics was wrong & that (dark)energy is continuously being created. Please note Inflation theory where observations of galaxies show the universe inflating from every point where gravity is concentrated! Evidence energy is created via gravity!
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Einstein's theory of relativity did predict the expanding universe, yet he didn't want to believe it. He was taught to believe that the universe is constant, so he added a universal constant to co-incide with a static universe, although he knew it was inconsistent. He believed his theory was wrong when it predicted an expanding universe.
At first you were saying energy created gravity, now vice versa. You confuse me.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac No, relativity did not predict an inflating universe which is accelerating.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Yes, relativity did predict an inflating universe. I've gone to several websites, even education websites and they all agree that relativity did indeed predict an expanding universe. Did you do NO research?
UnderManiac 11 months ago
@GateMessenger Energy is not created, it's transformed. I think your teachers need to be fired, since they did not educate you very well. Why not read works regarding thermodynamics, how energy is "created", how matter is transmuted into energy, etc.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Energy cannot be created? If energy cannot be created then why is the universe inflating from every point where gravity is the strongest(dark energy)? Thus why Einstein never predicted it with relativity. Go ahead and mock me, I deal with ignorance all the time. You know the process of new ideas, first there is anger then ridicule then acceptance. Logic, observations and evidence will always prevail over theory!
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger You still haven't answered my question about gravity being an ion wind and how are the planets and moons being held in orbit when they should be blown off into interstellar space.
UnderManiac 11 months ago
@UnderManiac I truly believe I have discovered the cause of gravity only because it explains so many observations, plus hypothesizes future ones. Like the age of Saturn's rings & the age of the solar system. If true then the inner planets are the oldest in our solar system & the outer planets the youngest, Kuiper belt being the youngest. The solar system did not begin as a nebula, simply accretion from the sun. Energy can be created but it cannot be destroyed! Thus why Inflation's observation!
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Wow, you must be a new age Einstein. Please publish your theories in scientific magazines (scientifically reviewed ones). Your ideas will be considered, based on sound and proven scientific tests. The theory must hold up against the most harsh scrutiny. It must be testable, especially on the macro scale.
What makes you think you are more intelligent than Einstein, who's theories have been tested and proven true?
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Dont' delude yourself that you have it figured out. If gravity is an ion wind, as you claim, and the gravity at the center of the sun is a result of an opposite reaction to the ion wind created by the sun (being pushed out into space), then how does the earth revolve around the sun? What keeps the earth tied to the sun and now blown off into interstellar space. Your theory doesn't hold true.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Black holes are extremely dense dead massive stars at the end of their life. The mass of the black hole bends space-time to the extreme where light is not even energetic enough to escape. Do black holes cause electromagnetic fields? That's something I will have to investigate at some time, but I'm pursuing another avenue in theoretical science and want to finish that stuff first.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac If black holes are at the end of their life then why are black holes estimated to be older than the galaxies they reside in? Wouldn't that mean black holes never die? So how can one be at the end of their life when it just began? Yes, black holes do produce magnetic fields, see cosmic gamma ray bubble images.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Where did I say black holes are at the end of their lifes? I am mistaken if I mentioned that. Please quit quoting things I never said. It is theorized that black holes are at the center of galaxies. Black holes won't last forever though. It would be too long an explanation for here, but you can find videos about them.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@GateMessenger A black hole occurs when a massive start no longer has any fuel to burn. The internal pressures cannot hold out against gravity and the star collapses on itself. This has to be a star at least 20 times the mass of our sun. Our sun will only become a white dwarf (or maybe a red one). Eventually, it will become a dark mass, still having gravity. Check out "how a black hole is created"
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac That explanation has defied logic since I first heard it. First of all if a star burned out it would contain less mass. Gravity is related to mass right? So if mass became less then gravity would follow. Yet black holes retain gravity so logically they must also retain mass. What is apparently occurring is the star does not burn out it simply becomes one giant sun spot. The light we see slowly fades away & looks like it disappears from sight, an illusion of light. It's still there!
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger How does it defy logic? The nuclear furnace called the sun produces it's heat and light by fusing atoms together, unlike our nuclear power plants, which split atoms apart. Fusing atoms make them into heaver elements. This continues until the elements become as heavy or heavier than lead. In giant suns, even lead is made into heavier materials. The cores don't get lighter, they get more dense over time. Guess you don't know how suns work.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Yes, our sun will burn out and become a dark lump. The outer planets, if they are not flung into space by the death throws of our sun, will continue to orbit this burned out lump, because it will still have mass pressing on space. No more "ion wind" as you theorize.
By the way, you still haven't explained how this ion wind keeps earth in orbit around the sun. Shouldn't it push the planets and moons away from it? Equal and opposite reactions.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac That is only a theory which can never be proven based on a flawed idea that energy cannot be created only converted and that the universe is static, contains the same amount of energy and mass as it did from the start. If that were the case then the universe would be collapsing because of all the conversion of matter to energy and the attraction of gravity. This is the big mistake which makes it difficult to comprehend what is actually causing gravity.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger You don't understand the term theory when it comes to science there bud. In science, theory is defined as explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. This means theory holds up to the scrutiny of the scientific community and to empirical observations. It's been tested!
UnderManiac 11 months ago
@GateMessenger Please enlighten us oh wise one. Teach us how energy is created from nothing. We yearn for your detailed explanation of this "theory". Oh, wait, you just said that theory can never be proven. I guess the theory of gravity (Netwon's theory), doesn't hold true. Then we can forget gravity and float around like madmen, even though it has been tested, it still isn't true because it's just a "theory".
UnderManiac 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UnderManiac Fine, if you want to mock me then you will learn nothing.
GateMessenger 11 months ago
@GateMessenger Please explain how energy causes gravity. This is your "theory". You haven't given your theory any basis in which to test. You also have to present your theory to the scientific community, to those in that particular field of study. If there is validity to your claim, it would be taken seriously and investigated, both through empirical tests and observations and through equations. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed article in scientific publications.
UnderManiac 11 months ago
@GateMessenger I said that black holes were collapsed stars at the end of their lives (at the end of the star's life), not the black holes. Obviously, black holes are only beginning then. You confuse easily, thus your confusion on gravity.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@GateMessenger ition. They confirmed Einstein's theory that gravity can bend light around a mass with high gravity. Black holes spew jets of energy that come from just barely inside the event horizon. It's not coming from the core. I had a hard time thinking about this and did a lot of research. Magnetic fields and gravity have nothing to do with each other. Planets without a magnetic field (ie: has a solid core) still have gravity.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Sure, but that does not mean a darn thing, considering planets do not have enough gravity to bend light either. When you find a star without a magnetic field then I will reconsider do to evidence.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Jets were never predicted by Einstein's relativity. As for warping time, gravity was never proven to be the culprit, the tests were done within Earth's magnetic field. The time displacement was most likely due from moving through the magnetic field not moving through gravity. Gravity is an effect, which to this date not many know what is causing it. I hypothesized that the same action causing gravity is also causing the inflation of the universe. I will share this info without cost.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger So you're saying the atomic clock experiment is invalid because they didn't take the magnetic field into account? Time and space are intertwined and inseparable. Gravity is an effect on space-time by a mass. It's not two objects pulling on each other and it's not instantaneous across vast distances. Eloquently, gravity is a dent (or well) in the space-time fabric. Objects caught in that well are influence by the warped area.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac So is there any evidence that light is effected by magnetic fields or are you going to keep speculating that gravity is the culprit without acknowledging the evidence which says otherwise?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Light is energy, part of the electromagnetic spectrum, and as such is also affected by magnetic fields. However, light still has to follow the curves in space-time just like any object in space. I don't understand how you don't see this. It's basic science. Don't put words in my mouth needlessly.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Thank you, you just admitted I was right by saying light is effected by magnetic fields.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger I never said you were wrong that light is affected by magnetic fields. Light is also affected by dust particles (scattering effects causes a blue sky), Light IS also affected by gravity, ask I have said before. Just google youtube gravity. Lots of videos there explaining gravity. Start here if you like: watch?v=O-p8yZYxNGc
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac Yes, they explain the attraction called gravity but they do not show evidence that gravity can bend light. Heat can also manipulate the path of light. Ever look through flames at an object?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Heat affecting light is easily explained. When light passes through a denser or lighter medium, it's bent. Ever look at at straw in a glass of water? The part that sticks out does not line up with the part that is submerged. It's called refraction. A very well know phenomenon. Light can be bent by extremely large magnetic fields. Gravity bends light even more easily, as light has to follow the curvature space-time. Watch the videos.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac The atomic clock experiments are invalid because of temperature fluctuations. Atomic clocks are based on radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is only a constant when temperature does not fluctuate. Decay stops at absolute zero & increases as temperature increases. This is the only reason the atomic clocks in space do not synchronized with Earth clocks. It is very cold in space when in the shadow of Earth. Satellites get real warm when in direct sunlight, big temperature fluctuation.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger Hmmm, nothing I've read about the atomic clock experiments ever indicate that temperature is a factor. Space is not at absolute zero. So, do you design satellites? Do you know all the things that the designers have to consider? My guess is you don't have much of an idea about that stuff. The satellite would have to become so extremely cold to make the atomic clocks ineffective.
UnderManiac 1 year ago
@UnderManiac I never said that the atomic clocks were ineffective. I merely point out the fact that the atomic clocks rely on the decay of a radioactive particle being in sync in order to measure time exactly in two different places. In order for the particles to decay at the same rate the temperature of the decaying particles must match exactly. Any deviation will cause one particle to decay at a different rate causing the clocks to become unsynchronized. This has nothing to do with gravity.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
The only effect observable from nasa is a distinct pungent smell of bull shit. Nasa was initially staffed from the skoda labs post ww2 (operation paperclip) where the nazi bell experiments successfully developed anti gravity vehicles. See Joseph P Farrell for all the information you need.
beyosoco 1 year ago
@beyosoco The only way to negate the effect of gravity on an object is to cause the object to have 0 mass. This is impossible as all matter has mass and there is no way to alter that mass short of splitting it's atoms and destroying them... ofcourse then you wouldnt have an object to negate gravitational effects from... By the way do you know what some one needs to write a book... A pen and nothing more. Just because a book gets written does not mean that it is worth the paper it is written on.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
@MrAwsome514 And all that shit you have just written was read by you from a page written by a pen. When you grow a brain you will learn to think for yourself, pick up a keyboard and type Universe The Cosmology Quest Part 1 of 2. Watch them both and then lets see if you still cling to the dogma. Good luck
beyosoco 1 year ago
@beyosoco The technology is clearly over your head so the only way you would have to determine the truth about it is to examin the integrety of those explaining it to you. On the one hand you have NASA and several other highly respected research groups concluding that there is no antigravitic effect present after performing thier own testing on the devices... and on the other hand you have people like beamshipcaptain down there who run thier own website selling kits spewing lies to boost sales.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
@MrAwsome514 I did write a reply but have decided to cancel it and just leave you to your little game with those who wish to play with you. There is just no point to it.
beyosoco 1 year ago
@beyosoco Just face the facts. The only people who claim this machine is generating antigravity are the ones who stand to profit from the claim. People who make the claim simply to place themselves at the center of a controversy knowing that it will make them eligable to charge UFO enthusiasts money to have them attend thier conventions or to expand thier demographic for kit sales on thier website... Even the man who invented lifters named it an "Ionocraft"... why? Because it is Ion wind!
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
@beyosoco You come in here to tell me I am wrong despite the fact that I have presented proof of what I say and then you leave with out presenting any proof of your own... Here is a tip for you sir. If you want to be taken seriously you MUST provide supporting evidence. If you fail to do so then no one can accept what you say as being true.
MrAwsome514 1 year ago
@MrAwsome514 Second thoughts, don't bother you are obviously a SHILL, a waste of time, too dim to hang..
beyosoco 1 year ago
This is not magic, it's an ion generator, produces ozone, which is dangerous. Nothing is ever fully understood, that is the nature of science, it's not the answers that drive us, it's the questions.
frosted1030 1 year ago 2
@frosted1030 no service for it to react to create trust how do you explain that. no air under it to lift it.
JoelHarvey1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JoelHarvey1 Please restate the question. "no service for it to react to create trust" is gibberish.
frosted1030 11 months ago
What is the power supply you used on this?
Horsegal101 1 year ago
Comment removed
amiyaiitkgp 1 year ago
It's newton's third law. You through a stream of ions downwards the ions exert an upward force. Anti-Gravity My Ass...(That's what Newton would have said)
amiyaiitkgp 1 year ago 5
@amiyaiitkgp Thisworks in vacuum, and under oil. No air for ion wind in vacuum, and oil does not ionize. John Fiala confirmed my Beamship models fly in vacuum, and he has flown them with an onboard power module. Don't be made a fool of by vested interests. Even NASA proved they work in vacuuml, and 21st century patents were granted on the basis of vacuum tests (Cambpell, Serrano, GRAVITEC).
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain Congrats now go to a strip club and celebrate...
amiyaiitkgp 1 year ago
@amiyaiitkgp We can all celebrate. For 80 years, we've had the keys to clean, silent, ultra fast inertialess air and space travel, and warp drive. The entire universe is now open to humans from Earth for colonization. No limits.
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain For centuries people have been made fool on religious ground this is a new era now people with (some) knowledge of technology make fools of the those who don't understand it. The whole experiment is a very well understood phenomenon of electro-hydrodynamics (Biefeld–Brown effect).
But if you say otherwise I suggest you publish a paper on the experiment and publish it in a peer reviewed journal - youtube is not the place to prove and disprove scientific phenomenons.
amiyaiitkgp 1 year ago
@amiyaiitkgp Already done 8 years ago. In the JOURNAL OF NEW ENERGY, Vol 7, No.1 (2003), and NEW ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, July/Aug 2002, and I have a new paper coming out in the latest issue of EXTROARDINARY TECHNOLOGY. By the way, Please read ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE, by Richard Milton, that shows the gaps holes and flaws in the current paradigm of "peer review".
Beamshipcaptain 1 year ago
@Beamshipcaptain of course where else will you publish it....a 3rd grade journal published by a small company (Emerging Energy Marketing Firm who collect such pseudo science in the journal). For a technology as big as you say it is it should be published in Nature (who am I kidding) next time try a mediocre journal published by IEEE or Elsevier If you'r lucky you will take at-least two more decades to do that.
amiyaiitkgp 1 year ago