Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Rare Keyhoe Article On Antigravity Research: re UFOs

  1. Aug 30, 2003 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.debshome.com/Keyhoe_Antigravity.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 30, 2003 #2

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I am going to presume UFOs he saw are real etc.

    Ok, pop quiz - what's gravity got to do with it?

    Mr Keyhoe needs to read his newtonian physics. The key thing about accelerationg is the change of momentum they involve. The thing is suspension of the conservation of momentum, not creating "antigravity". Antigravity cannot be directional as the sort of things he requries shows, but only apply between massive objects.

    For no jets and exhausts, look at the Stealth Bomber. For unconventional propulsion, like ion propulsion, look at the so-called "Lifter". No antigravity.

    Robotic craft are certainly a possibility.

    Hmm... :wink:


    Ahha! Now the article has stopped giving pointless quotes that cannot be verified, we can really begin to dish the dirt.

    This is BS. First, there is no distance given. Secondly, this is easy to prove or disprove with a few statistics on the distance between here and the sun etc. Third, the force from the earth's "weak field" on the sun, with Newton's universal gravitation is exactly equal to the force of the sun and the earth.

    Holy $hit! Excuse me, but I would think I would be aware if the Unified Field Theory had been found. The author has most certainly been found with his pants down.

    It is foolish to call anything completely impossible. But this gives no-indication that this is possible.

    I dunno, but the second law of thermodynamics seems like a very large law of nature to be in conflict with.

    Of course it is false. Nothing is completely true. But didn't Weyl just say that the theory is not in conflict with known laws? Might I note how utterly stupid and insane to be talking about GR being utterly false is when you are comparing the most tested theory of all time with one based on speculation about things that may or may not even exist, and is certainly untestable, and is based on postulates that have never been shown in any experiment.

    These people are fools who have chosen to blind themselves to what real experiments tell us about the world.

    Grr...
     
  4. Aug 30, 2003 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well put.
     
  5. Sep 3, 2003 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I've always wondered why the fascination with the term "anti-gravity" as if it really meant something. Sometimes these things come from science fiction (hyperspace anyone?). Any idea where this one comes from? Sounds like Star Trek.
     
  6. Sep 3, 2003 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the mother ship. dah!

    This is one unfortunate aspect of the UFO claims. Even if the claimed observations did take place as described, the true believers tend to then formulate their own theories about what they allegedly saw. This only adds to the Boloney.
     
  7. Sep 4, 2003 #6

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I think more star wars with "anti-grav thrusters".(Why didn't they just do something half-reasonable like ion thrusters etc?) Before that, Jules Verne for a device that "shields from gravity", thus allowing you to cheat the laws of thermodynamics etc.
     
  8. Sep 4, 2003 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, things like "warp drive" and "hyperspace" have their roots in science first - Sci Fi borrows many of these ideas from real scientists. Also, why would we expect aliens to use 20th century human technology? By definition this does make an alien presence impossible. So again this notion that claims should sound more familiar only results from predisposed beliefs that void objective considerations. In fact, one might argue that in order to sound more plausible, hoaxers would choose to use such familiar examples rather than far fetched, exotic claims that obviously count against credibility.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Rare Keyhoe Article On Antigravity Research: re UFOs
  1. Ufo (Replies: 18)

  2. Antigravity (Replies: 51)

Loading...