Weird Science

Soap takes its name from the reaction that creates it - saponification. You, basically, boil up fat and an alkali (usually caustic soda) and the molecules bond together. Many modern soaps don't contain an alkali, hence "soap free soaps" but use man made (oil derived) emulsifiers and surfactants to blend the various ingredients together. The surfactants reduce the surface tension of the water on you skin and hence wet better.

Dove "with 1/4 moisturiser cream" uses an emulsifier to retain the cream in the soap block. BTW - moisturiser is simply (!) a blend of oil and water much like mayonnaise (the egg yolk is a natural emulsifier and traps the oil and water in the yolk together).
 
Vid of a UFO type model that uses the coanda effect to acheive lift. The same effect used in the exhaust outlets in F1 to feed the diffuser.

Basically a jet of air is passed over a curved surface, the coanda effect makes the air cling to the curve resulting in low air pressure giving lift.


 
It's somewhat amusing and quite revealing that the commentators feel the need to go on about the Coanda effect being utilised by Red Bull as if it is somethnig new. In fact, an aerodynamicist who doesn't know about and apply an understanding of the effect in the course of his/her work would be useless. The knowledge of the begaviour of fluids over curved sufaces pervades every aerodynamic detail of the F1 car, from the tiny winglets and vanes added to a front wing to the venturi of the rear diffuser. The effect is also a consideration in designing the internal shapes of air intakes, fuel intakes and 'pathways' right through to the shape of the exhaust system. The list of applications is almost endless such is the importance of the effect in everything from a Dyson "hoover" to a propellor blade or a Double DRS.

The point I'm trying to make is that the techno-babble use of the term is avoiding the astonishingly missed fact that the FIA have tried to ban the use of exhaust gases to produce aerodynamic effect on the performance of the F1 car has either 1) signaly failed or 2) has been contravened by ... guess who :thinking:
 
One of the things that are fascinating me for the moment is the frequencies of objects.
I stumbled on a vid. of Dr Hutchinson where he changes the frequencie of an object to make it levitate. This reminded me of something i read about ancient egyptians using a tool to make the stones for the pyramids weightless->levitate. And again the same thing comes up with the Coral Castle, where one man build an entire castle. He only continued building the castle when nobody was around, but some people saw him levitating rocks with some kind of tool.

 
I wasn't prepared for that "music" on that video but still fascinating stuff. I find the Egyptian claim a bit far fetched, being able to change the weight of a pyramid block would be a useful skill still in this age so why hasn't anyone tried to recreate it?
 
Yeah, should have warned you about the music.
I don't think the Egyptian claim is far fetched. I'm not saying it's true, but it is a theory.
It could be a lost technology, although i don't think it's lost, it's well preserved.
7.jpg

:)
 
Don't believe everything you read and especially don't believe everything you see on Youtube. Canadian inventor, John Hutchison claimed to have discovered a shed load of secrets about creating free energy and levitation. He even claimed he could make some kinds of metal disappear. Problem is he forgot to make notes of said secrets (a very odd thing for a scientist to neglect to do) and then forgot what he did in his experiments and how the heck he succeeded. Since no-one, including NASA scientists, were ever able to replicate his experiments he was eventually forced to admit that his videos that have ended up on Youtube were faked.

Sorry, but a golden rule in the Universe is that nothing is for free. Everything comes from something. Energy can be transformed into mass and mass can be transformed into energy but the sum of their parts will always be at least the same - never less - and in fact increased if more mass or energy is required to energise and enable the transformation.

Sorry to be a dream-buster.
 
Your not, cause i already read the same as you.Except i read that he said the police stole his documents. Normally i do my research, but with this guy i only did it after posting.

But that doesn't mean anti gravity doesn't exist.

Just read about Coral castle.
Edward Leedskalnin an amateur sculptur, diagnosed with tuberculose started building the Coral Castle in 1920 with Coral Rock. With the heaviest block weighing 35 tons. He build this castle all by himself and without the help of modern machinery. In 1936 he moved his little castle 10 miles down the road where he finished his Castle.

Also this castle is build on a ley line. I've only read a bit about ley lines, but they line up almost every ancient monuments like The prymids, Stonehedge, Eastern Island,...
 
Interesting mystical facts: Ley Lines connect every F1 race circuit on the planet. If you draw a straight line around the Earth so that it exactly passes through two opposing corners of the great pyramid 'Cheops' you will disect the planet precisely into two equal halves.

Indeed, Edward Leedskalnin did spend over twent-five years constructing his Coral Castle. However, he did it at night and largely unobserved. His claim that he used no modern construction equipment (modern for the 1920's and 30's that is) was supported by his explanation that he knew the secrets of the Egyptians and how they built their pyramids. Of course, how the Egyptian pyramids were built is no longer a secret and only those in absolute denial continue to dispute theevidence and facts.

Don't take it from me, here's a nice way of putting it (if a little unkind to some 'believers'):

"There is one detail that virtually all agree on: since the reclusive Leedskalnin spent nearly thirty years working mostly at night and away from prying eyes, no one actually saw him move the coral. Since no one saw the blocks actually being moved, no one can state for certain that the task was accomplished by Leedskalnin alone. The claim that Leedskalnin didn't use modern (post-1920s) tools is obviously true, but the mistake is in assuming that modern tools are required to move the large blocks of coral. ​
​
Ultimately—and ironically—the solution may lie in Leedskalnin's own simple explanation: that he did it using principles of weight and leverage. "I have discovered the secrets of the pyramids," he said, employing the same methods used by ancient Egyptians. If Leedskalnin was being truthful, then the mystery is solved, for the methods by which the Egyptian pyramids could be constructed are well understood (see, for example, Mark Lehner's 1997 book The Complete Pyramids). ​
​
Photos exist of large tripods, pulleys, and winches at the Coral Castle site, and several sources (e.g., Wallace Wallington's Web site http://www.theforgottentechnology.com) demonstrate how massive weights can be moved by one or two people using simple physics. (The comparisons to Egypt's pyramids are a red herring; there are vast differences in weight, material, and complexity between the castle's coral slabs and the huge stone pyramids at Giza. Because coral is porous, large blocks appear heavier than they actually are.)​
​
Many mystery mongers arrogantly assume that those living in earlier times (such as Leedskalnin, or the ancient Egyptians) were not clever or resourceful enough to possibly have created impressive engineering feats without extraterrestial aid or mysterious powers. This view betrays an ignorance of history and sadly underestimates human ingenuity. It seems likely that if scientists haven't explained the Coral Castle specifically, it's because there's little to "explain." The Coral Castle mystery seems to be simply a matter of poorly-informed people who reject a mundane reality in favor of a fanciful myth."​
​
From: http://www.livescience.com/680-mysterious-coral-castle-fanciful-myth.html
 
With regard to gravity. There is a conundrum about the force of gravity. It is the weakest of the known forces of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Indeed, the jury is still out on whether it is actually a force at all. Other forces like magnetism seem to require two inherent opposing forces - positive and negative. So one would think that there should be positive and negative gravity. But gravity is not like that and seems. therefore, to break an accepted Universal constant - i.e. that everything in the Cosmos requires an opposite in order to exist.

What we do know is that gravity is inherent in every material object and that the mass of an object determines just how much gravity it has. The Moon is approximately 1/6 the mass of the Earth so it has approximately 1/6th the gravity of the Earth. Human beings by virtue of having mass also have gravity like everything else.

So, bearing the above in mind, then anti-gravity requires and object to have no mass. Therefore in order to achieve anti-gravity in an object it seems that we need to remove its mass. To date the only known way to do that has been to destroy the object. Furthermore, in destroying an object we are only changing its structure, composition or structural integrity. If we blow it up we turn it into a cloud of its constituent parts, whether that is grains of dust or gases.

So, then, if gravity requires an opposite, anti-gravity, in order to exist, maybe we are talking about mass requiring anti-mass. Since anti-mass is nothingness then anti-gravity is also nothingness. How one would harness nothingness to provide motive power is beyond me, but then so is rocket science. LOL
 
In the interests of fun and entertainment, I had hoped that the debate about anti-gravity devices and inter-stellar travel would take off so that I could at some stage throw in the ace that I keep in my back pocket.

Please note: I am not talking about using anti-gravity as a means of enabling fuel efficient travel in the terrestrial realm, although contradicting issues of scale and energisation will still apply.

Well, I can't wait any longer so here it is, and it's a question that contains its own answer. What disturbs me about it is that for all of the Discovery Channel type documentaries, UFOlogy, mystery and conspiracy theory programmes and publications so few debunkers actually use this ace card.

So, to the question, "Why would Aliens, let alone us, strive so hard to harness the weakest of the known electro-magnetic forces in the Cosmos in tryng to create a propulsion system in order to travel swiftly through space?"

The thing is, an anti-gravity device is only of use in order to escape the gravitational influence of the planetary body at the start of the journey into space. Having got into space, all things being relative, the effects of any anti-gravity device may well be of use as a deflector opposing the gravitational influence of bodies that one's ship would not want to bump into. However, its usefulness for propulsion will be zero. The craft will still require some other means of propulsion either a fueled engine or perhaps a solar sail, whatever.

Consider then, this further problem. To date all of the so called anti-grav' devices we have seen demonstrated (fact or faked) have required large inputs of energy. The equipment for such inputs will need to be carried on the spacecraft and the larger the craft the greater the payload of the generating equipment and any fuel that may be required for it. All that stuff will negate any potential benefit of the system once the craft is in space where gravity is not the problem since what one wants then is velocity. In fact, being attracted to other objects in space has its uses. Even the early interplanetary missions with spacecraft such as the Voyagers were directed on trajectories that took advantage of the other planetary bodies to accelerate the craft on their journey through our Universe.

This all leaves me with another question. Why is it that no-else seems to mention this tiny little problem with anti-gravity and off-world UFO's? I suspect it's one of the little secrets for a private joke within the hallowed halls of science and technology. After all what better way to protect their own standing, esteem and privilege if the alternative anti-science mob are pre-occupied with chasing the unobtainable. A bit like chemists who must raise a chuckle as modern day alchemists, convinced of the truth in ancient myths and legends, still strive to convert lead into gold, methinks. Yes, there must be much mirth about when another anti-gravity device is demonstrated on the interweb.

Correction to one of my earlier posts:

I stated that the Moon's gravity is approximately 1/6th that of the Earth and that the Moon is approximately 1/6 the size of Earth. The ratios are actually closer to 1/5th. :oops:
 
A bit of SiFi fun theorising..

I believe one theory for faster than light travel is to 'fold' space and time. As gravity has been proven to bend space though the observation of gravitational lensing, this theory appears sound.

So lets say man kind is somehow able to create a black hole singularity and 'fit' it into a space ship. Assuming to be able to acheive this we have knowledge of gravitons and how to manipulate them. We could using a convetional rocket or ion drive power the ship though space from A to B. But with the singularity it could be possible to warp or fold space to bring A and B closer together. So although the ship would never move faster than light as it apears 'on board' (for Einstien would get upset), to a remote observer the ship would move faster than light between A and B. Indeed if it were observed through a telescope the ship would appear to arrive before it left.

With this massive singularity gravity field on the ship it would of course be necessary to prevent the ship being consumed by it. Cue the need for anti gravity not as a levitation or propulsion device but as a stabiliser to control the singularity.
 
Im reminded of a radio interview I heard on radio 2 about 20 years ago now. I taped it at the time on to a C90 (look it up kids) I would be about 18 years old. It was an American who claimed to have worked for nasa at Area 51 where they had 3 alien space craft. 2 were damaged but one was working. They were openly hiring people to investigae the ships and try to reverse engineer it.
Anyway he was so convincing Im pretty sure I still have that tape up my attic. He claimed the ships were powered by element 118 ununoctium which was stable and emitted antigravity particals. 20 years on we have still only ever created 4 atoms of this element and only for nano seconds before they decay it to smaller elements.

Naturally I am sceptical, but I also have an open mind. I love the periodic table its facinating how just adding an extra proton can radically alter the property of an element from one to another. 86 Radon a radio active colourless gas, 87 Francium the most unstable naturally occuring metal on the planet with a half life of just 22 minutes......so who knows what element 118 can do.

Oh yes and as an after thought, now that eveyone carries a camera in their smart phone why is there still no good photos of UFO's. ... Told you I was a sceptic.
 
Back
Top Bottom