Andrew you dont know my physics credentials so dont start talking crap about my level etc


If there are no other external forces than gravity, the g-force in a rocket is the thrust per unit mass. Its magnitude is equal to the thrust-to-weight ratio times g, and to the consumption of delta-v per unit time.
So in essense if mass is reduced 89% then so is the force applied.


thank you very much.


I still see you fail to have commented on my links to the poloticians statment, 2 army officers? not a word looking to pick holes all the time.

Eh? There are 60 seconds in a minute, and 60 minutes in an hour.

60 x 60 = 3,600 = number of seconds in an hour.

1.6 x 3,600 = 5,760mph, whereas

2,125 / 3,600 = 0.59 miles/second

Are you thick its a YF12 for a start! which is designed by lockhead with the same design one for fighter response the other for recon SR71.

During flight tests the YF-12As set a speed record of 2,070.101 mph (3,331.505 km/h) and altitude record of 80,257.86 ft (24,462.6 m), both on 1 May 1965,[9] and demonstrated promising results with their unique weapon system. Six successful firings of the AIM-47 missiles were completed. The last one launched from the YF-12 at Mach 3.2 at an altitude of 74,000 ft (22,677 m) to a JQB-47E target drone 500 ft (152 m) off the ground.[13] One of the Air Force test pilots, Jim Irwin would go on to become a NASA astronaut and walk on the Moon.

The program was abandoned following the cancellation of the production F-12B, but the YF-12s continued flying for many years with the USAF and with NASA as research aircraft. So were technically operational.

Really this is what im up against here Roadking, please dont repost in this thread as clearly you cant fairly look at something wothout comment.

Read in haste without corroborating, Andrew, but here is the source.....apparently British Airways' last chief Concorde pilot.

SR-71 THE WORLD'S FASTEST JET FIGHTER...QUITE A STORY

In April 1986, following an attack on American soldiers in a Berlin
disco, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Muammar Qaddafi's
terrorist camps in Libya. My duty was to fly over Libya and take
photos recording the damage our F-111s had inflicted. Qaddafi had
established a "line of death," a territorial marking across the Gulf
of Sidra, swearing to shoot down any intruder that crossed the
boundary. On the morning of April 15, I rocketed past the line at
2,125 mph.

I was piloting the SR-71 spy plane, the world's fastest jet,
accompanied by Maj. Walter Watson, the aircraft's reconnaissance
systems officer (RSO). We had crossed into Libya and were approaching
our final turn over the bleak desert landscape when Walter informed
me that he was receiving missile launch signals. I quickly increased
our speed, calculating the time it would take for the weapons-most
likely SA-2 and SA-4 surface-to-air missiles capable ofMach 5-to
reach our altitude. I estimated that we could beat the
rocket-powered missiles to the turn and stayed our course, betting
our lives on the plane's performance.

After several agonizingly long seconds, we made the turn and blasted
toward the Mediterranean. "You might want to pull it back," Walter
suggested. It was then that I noticed I still had the throttles full
forward. The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above
our Mach 3.2 limit. It was the fastest we would ever fly. I pulled
the throttles to idle just south of Sicily, but we still overran the
refueling tanker awaiting us over Gibraltar.

Please let's not descend into "are you thick" type comments or it'll end up the same way as the last thread - however frustrating it is to argue, lets show some mutual respect eh?

JONNY

No I'm not thick, I accept that I misquoted the aircraft designation. There is some irony that you think I'm thick for referring to the Lockheed AF12 as the AF21, a simple transposition of digits, and you respond by calling it the lockhead, incorrectly spelt and missing a capitalised L. lockhead? is that a wrestling hold?

You on the other hand are obiously totally incapable of accepting that you are talking bollocks. Much brighter people than me have explained in terms you obviously have difficulty understanding where your "arguments" and "theories" are untenable. Reposting the same crap doesn't make it right.

I believe the original poster asked that the thread does not become personal, you have made it so to many of the long term established and intelligent (more than you anyway) members of the forum.

While I accept your nitpicking over the aircraft designation, it does not alter the fact that the aircraft was not operational as a fighter. Your claim that there was an SR71 (is that the right designation?) fighter was incorrect. Factually wrong. Your comment that the YF12 flew for many years so was operational is obfuscation of the facts. It was not flying as a fighter, therefore it was not an operational fighter as I stated in my post.

I would therefore suggest that there is only one thickie involved in this exchange. In case it's beyond your wit to work that one out, look in a mirror. I look forward to meeting one day, we can discuss this man to Jonny.

Don't you dare to presume to tell me not to post in a thread. As you've started it, I am fully within my rights to post total bollocks with no factual content, and quote spurious nutters as proof that the bilge I'm posting is fact.

No doubt this thread will be closed shortly anyway.

Can you just run by my why, and how the existence of the YF-12 (a prototype interceptor version of what became the SR-71) has got anything to do with UFOs?

I think I must have missed that leap.

He was using it as an example of "The most advanced aircraft we have today" which it isnt, by a long way.

Ah, so advanced has been retired for yonks then.

You *are* aware that gravity and acceleration are *not* the same thing? Gravity is a force; acceleration is the effect of that force applied to a mass. The phrase '1-g' is merely shorthand for 'accelerates at 9.81m/s^2'.

Mass is also different from weight; mass is a fixed value based on the volume and density of a material while weight is a measure of the gravitational field within which that mass is weighed: thus, an apple has a mass of about 100g and a weight of about 1 Newton. The use of mass to imply weight is merely unfortunate verbal shorthand.

Thus while your statement about the g-force in a rocket is correct as far as it goes, that g-force is entirely unaffected by the weight of the rocket. And since your alien technology claims to reduce gravity around the rocket, its weight decreases but its mass is unchanged... and that means that its acceleration is unchanged. Your statement is self-contradictory on basic physics and can therefore be discounted.



Gentlemen, I'll remind you again to restrain your personal attacks. You know who you are. <the management>

That'll be me then. I apologise for posting, but not for what I said.

Agreed but it does not reduce the gravity around the craft only inside the craft.

Just to add The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent. Do not misunderstand. This is NOT antigravity. Anti-gravity provides a repulsive force that can be used for propulsion.

Posting something twice (or three times, or a thousand) does not make it true. Why not try arguing using, y'know, facts?

Interesting post chaps.
Great read.

I don't *know* about your physics level, but when you quote Wikipedia, without crediting the source and without realising that it doesn't actually prove the point you're trying to make, I can use logic to make a shrewd guess.

I haven't commented upon your links to people giving testimony, because as I've said, many, many times, individual testimony does not prove or disprove anything in science. I can watch any number of videos of people claiming x, y and z and say that because they don't have any external proof of their claims it proves nothing, and then you can argue that they are very credible people and we reach an impasse. I don't see that moves us on at all, do you?

<MOD> Keep it a clean and no personal insults <MOD>

Not aimed at anyone in particular.

Just as a case in point, this credible chap tells me that a Palestinian who's been dead for the neck end of 2,000 years loves me. Given that he's got a high ranking job in a long established organisation specialising in this sort of thing, a distinguished academic pedigree and thousands, if not millions, of supporters who say he's right does that prove that there is a god?

I wish to make it clear that any comments I've made about Jonny's physics education aren't intended as insults, but rather statements of fact.

Jonny has repeatedly posted sections of an article, without attribution - perhaps intending us to believe that it's his own work - and I contend that (a) he did not write the article and (b) he is not capable of understanding its content, nor (c) recognising why the content doesn't represent real science.

For all of these I'd say his physics qualifications (I contend he has none) are relevant points of discussion.

Doesn't matter. Acceleration and the effects thereof are *completely* unaffected by gravity and by mass, except in the vertical direction.

A 1g mass, a 1kg mass, and me all hit the ground at the same time if we jump off the top of the leaning tower of Pisa.

Perhaps the obvious explanation for g not having anything to do with gravity is the fact that you can experience g in zero gravity

For example, if you're floating around in space at a steady speed and direction and you change the speed (up or down) and/or the direction, you will experience g

If you change speed or direction VERY quickly, you will die, regardless of the fact that there's no gravity.

Therefore, applying an artificial "anti-gravitation" effect to an aircraft would not make the occupants immune to g - they would suffer it in just the same way as everything else

I'd say you can counter it with one of the most basic rules of physics, that pretty much everybody has at least heard, "Energy can not be created or destroyed".

What we're talking about here is being able to magic away the inertia of a 600ft long craft, which houses a huge ring of mercury and travels at mach-9.

That's an awful lot of energy to have suddenly disappear.

Tsk, Andrew. Did you never hear of the Bergenholm system?

Perhaps if it explodes and converts the matter to energy and then by useing a clever porrtable partical acelerator they can convert the heat energy to matter via kenetic energy on the way. Of corse it is 300% efficent to allow for the matter antimater anilation but that frees loads more free energy and that like chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Now this is on the internet it becomes true.

Showing your age there aren't we Barnacle?

EE Doc Smith, creator of the inertialess drive and of the multiple deus ex machinae needed to defeat those dastardly aliens, particularly those speaking for the Council of Boskone.

I think I still have some of his books somewhere after all these years.

Makes sense to me.

Actually while researching Jonny's MFD (Magic Floating Device) I've found that the only references for the physics behind it are, based on this page a physics article where the author "can't seem to locate the source right now" and an article by Dr. Robert Forward, which appeared in the American Journal of Physics (and is still available, in PDF form, from them - if you don't mind paying $30 for it).

I mention this, because Dr Forward is better known as an author of 'hard' sci-fi. Dragon's Egg seems to be his most famous work, and sounds quite interesting. I may have to see if I can find a copy.

As an aside - from what I can tell he really was a respected physicist, and did specialise in gravitational theory, so I'm not trying to debunk him a mere sci-fi author. I'm sure his article his scholarly, accurate, well worth $30 and thoroughly, thoroughly misunderstood by whichever idiot wrote that piece on the MFD (although their anti-gravity story, which heads the page, is brilliant and doesn't make them sound like a member of the tin-foil-hat gang at all).

Actually I was talking to one of the proffesors at work about superconducting ceramic magnets. The trick is you put a small live animal over the supperconductor and the tiny amont of iorn in its blood creates a magnetic feild and the frog floats. The prof is a prof of metallogy with doctorates in sermicinductors and intergrated curcuits. he actually had the cutting from the paper (not a tabloid) in his text book on his desk

Andrew, Dr Forward was also inventor of the Forward Mass Detector, I believe. Having read Dragon's Egg, I'd have to say that as a writer he was a damn good scientist. Wooden does not *begin* to describe his characters.

Pete - Gharlane, speaking for Boskone.

Barnacle here is the full data on it and the effect explaining why the gravitational mass and inetria are equivilant. It also qoutes Einstein and DR Forward.

Subject: TR-3B Antigravity Physics Explained:

To be correct, I probably should say, "TR-3B Antigravity Physics
Explained, insofar as General Relativity can be considered an
explanation for gravity."

Many readers of this list are probably already familiar with Edgart. If not,
read about it here: http://fouchemedia.com/arap/speech.htm.

Mr. Fouche describes the TR-3B's propulsion system as follows:
"A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field
Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead
of any imaginable technology... The plasma, mercury based, is
pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees
Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive
plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.

The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or
neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89
percent...

The current MFD in the TR-3B causes the effect of making the vehicle
extremely light, and able to outperform and outmaneuver any craft yet
...My sources say the performance is limited only the stresses that
the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along
with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%.
The crew of the TR-3B should be able to comfortable take up to 40Gs...
Reduced by 89%, the occupants would feel about 4.2 Gs.

The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at
each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach
9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above l20,000 feet - then who
knows how fast it can go!..."

I was skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claims when I first read them, as I'
m sure that many of you are, but I was interested enough to do further
research on what happens when you spin a plasma at high speeds in a
ring (toroidal) configuration. I came across a physics article (sorry,
I can't seem to locate the source right now) that described this
exact configuration. The article said that, surprisingly, the charged
particles of the plasma don't just spin uniformly around the ring,
but they tend to take up a synchronized, tightly pitched, helical
(screw thread) motion as they move around the ring. This can be
understood in a general way as follows: the charged particles moving
around the ring act as a current that in turn sets up a magnetic field
around the ring. It is a well-known fact that electrons (or ions) tend
to move in a helical fashion around magnetic field lines. Although it
is a highly complex interaction, it only requires a small leap of
faith to believe that the end result of these interactions between the
moving charged particles (current) and associated magnetic fields
results in the helical motion described above. In other words, the
charged particles end up moving in very much the same pattern as the
current on a wire tightly wound around a toroidal core.

I thought that this was an interesting fact, but didn't see how it
could possibly relate to antigravity, until I ran across the following
article: "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Dr. Robert Forward, written in
1962 (available at:
http://www.whidbey.com/forward/pdf/tp007.pdf). Dr. Forward's
article describes several little known aspects of Einstein's General
Relativity Theory that indicate how moving matter can create unusual
gravitational effects. When I saw Figure 5 in Dr. Forward's article,
the pieces of the puzzle all fell together. I instantly saw how the
moving matter pattern that Dr. Forward describes as necessary to
generate a gravitational dipole was exactly the same as the plasma
ring pattern described in the physics article discussed above!

If Fouche's description is even close to correct, then the TR-3B
utilizes this little known loophole in General Relativity Theory to
create it's antigravity effects! Even though the TR-3B can only
supposedly cancel 89% of gravity (and inertia) today, there is no
reason why the technology can't be improved to exceed 100% and
achieve true antigravity capability!

In theory, this same moving matter pattern could be mechanically
reproduced by mounting a bunch of small gyroscopes all around the
larger ring, with their axis on the larger ring, and then spinning
both the gyroscopes and the ring at high speeds. However, as Dr.
Forward points out any such mechanical system would probably fly apart
before any significant antigravity effects could be generated.

However, as Dr. Forward states, "By using electromagnetic forces to
contain rotating systems, it would be possible for the masses to reach
relativistic velocities; thus a comparatively small amount of matter,
if dense enough and moving fast enough, could produce usable
gravitational effects."

The requirement for a dense material moving at relativistic speeds
would explain the use of Mercury plasma (heavy ions). If the plasma
really spins at 50,000 RPM and the Mercury ions are also moving in a
tight pitched spiral, then the individual ions would be moving
probably hundreds, perhaps thousands of times faster than the bulk
plasma spin, in order to execute their "screw thread" motions. It is
quite conceivable that the ions could be accelerated to relativistic
speeds in this manner. I am guessing that you would probably want to
strip the free electrons from the plasma, making a positively charged
plasma, since the free electrons would tend to counter rotate and
reduce the efficiency of the antigravity device.

One of Einstein's postulates of GR says that gravitational mass and
inertial mass are equivalent. This is consistent with Mr. Fouche's
claim that inertial mass within the plasma ring is also reduced by
89%. This would also explain why the vehicle is triangular shaped.
Since it still requires conventional thrusters for propulsion, the
thrusters would need to be located outside of the "mass reduction
zone" or else the mass of the thruster's reaction material would also
be reduced, making them terribly inefficient. Since it requires a
minimum of 3 legs to have a stable stool, it follows that they would
need a minimum of 3 thrusters to have a stable aerospace platform.
Three thrusters, located outside of the plasma ring, plus appropriate
structural support, would naturally lead to a triangular shape for the
vehicle.

I was extremely skeptical of Mr. Fouche's claimed size for the TR-3B,
of 600 feet across. At first, I thought that this must be a typo. Why
would anyone in their right mind build a "Tactical Reconnaissance"
vehicle 2 football fields long? They must be nuts! However, the answer
to this may also be found in Dr. Forward's paper. As Dr. Forward's
puts it, "...even the most optimistic calculations indicate that very
large devices will be required to create usable gravitational forces.
Antigravity...like all modern sciences, will require special projects
involving large sums of money, men, and energy."


To Andrew where do I claim any of this my work? exactly I dont. You are not willing to view the evidence that I have shared as its only whitness testimony. It would be funny however if tommorow someone failed trying to kill you and was caught by the police with whitness testimony. But you would refuse their testimony as it is not legit in your mind?

And Andrew I probably understand science more than you whether computer science, physics etc. Although Im sure you could write alot better than me but everyone has there own strenghts and weaknesses.

You know what would be a fantastic movie?

E.T. vs Predator

cut and paste is worthless without understanding