# Saw this on www.cnn.com

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/09/05/wow.tech.black.world/index.html

I find it interesting that anti-gravity is being discussed more and more, and by big name corporations like Boeing no less. There is less stigma attached to anything "anti gravity", like there was several years ago.

My general belief is that someday I think we will overcome gravity, as well as understand it :) Some very smart people still say overcoming gravity would be akin to inventing a perpetual motion machine. I personally don't believe in perpetual motion, but I still think some form of gravity control will exist hopefully in my lifetime.

I just thought it was interesting, and wondering if anyone else read this article who might have some opinions.

Mentor
"Anti-gravity" is a meaningless term. Anything that exherts a force opposite to gravity could be considered anti-gravity.

And popular media is a woefully bad source for science news.

IMHO, more oriented toward $$than physics. This is gravity. Science Advisor Originally posted by russ_watters "Anti-gravity" is a meaningless term. Anything that exherts a force opposite to gravity could be considered anti-gravity. Maybe true for many folks, but I don't think Boeing has anything nearly so vague in their vocabulary. They've already got plenty of stuff that "exherts a force opposite to gravity", but they don't call any of it "antigravity". I must say I for one would be very suprised if they discover true antigravity within the next 100yrs, but it would take a lot longer if they weren't looking. BTW, do you think it would be worth our while to try to come up with a working definition for the term? Just for use amongst ourselves, I mean. Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by LURCH Maybe true for many folks, but I don't think Boeing has anything nearly so vague in their vocabulary. They've already got plenty of stuff that "exherts a force opposite to gravity", but they don't call any of it "antigravity". I must say I for one would be very suprised if they discover true antigravity within the next 100yrs, but it would take a lot longer if they weren't looking. BTW, do you think it would be worth our while to try to come up with a working definition for the term? Just for use amongst ourselves, I mean. I have seen some big names associated with this subject; in particular a couple of ex-astronauts. In spite of the popular scientific opinion, I am starting to think that a black projects break through has been made indeed. The claims for this only seem to grow in intensity and credibility. Brad_Ad23 Anti gravity is meaningless. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime...if you uncurve space time and curve it opposite, you are just making more gravity. Otherwise, as stated, just about anything that opposes gravity is anti-gravity. Science Advisor Originally posted by Brad_Ad23 Anti gravity is meaningless. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime...if you uncurve space time and curve it opposite, you are just making more gravity. Otherwise, as stated, just about anything that opposes gravity is anti-gravity. Yet negative energy is predicted to be "gravitationally repulsive". To use a Flatland-style annalogy, GR shows us a picture of 3-D space as a flat 2-D surface which can be bent in a third direction (downward) by the presence of mass. AFAIK, this model is never used to portrey an upward curvature, like something pushing up from beneath the flat surface, but it is not hard to see that this is an inherent possibility of the model. Just as objects with posssitive downward force can bend the fabric downward, so too objects with negative downward force (possitive bouyancy) could push up like bubbles beneath the surface. This would create a curvature of spacetime from the center of which normal (negatively bouyant) matter would be repelled. For me, this has always been my understanding of "anti-gravity", curving spacetime in the opposite direction from normal gravity. This is what I picture happeneing around negative energy (and negative matter, if it exists). Brad_Ad23 Negative energy is as impossible as anti-gravity, which it would produce. Let me ask you, have you been able to physically construct a system with negative volume? No? What about walk a negative distance? Didn't think so. [note: Thermodynamics would forbid negative energy from existing in any useful form (modified to include quantum fluctuation energy)unless it was global]. Mentor Originally posted by LURCH Maybe true for many folks, but I don't think Boeing has anything nearly so vague in their vocabulary. They've already got plenty of stuff that "exherts a force opposite to gravity", but they don't call any of it "antigravity". Which is exactly my point. Its meaningless. And I highly doubt anyone from Boeing would ever use that term in an official capacity. I question the validity of the report from a purely factual standpoint - there is a reason there aren't any specifc quotes from people at Boeing. They don't exist. Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by russ_watters Which is exactly my point. Its meaningless. And I highly doubt anyone from Boeing would ever use that term in an official capacity. I question the validity of the report from a purely factual standpoint - there is a reason there aren't any specifc quotes from people at Boeing. They don't exist. Anti-gravity propulsion comes ‘out of the closet’ By Nick Cook, JDW Aerospace Consultant, London Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware. As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing’s Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices. So far, however, Boeing has fallen foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West). --- Janes Defense Weekly Which I assume [but do not assert] goes with this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5071 Another earlier reference: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/anti_grav_010909.html [Broken] Last edited by a moderator: Zantra The US has black projects ? *GASP* We don't REALLY spend 500 bucks on a toilet seat? *GAPE* Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by Brad_Ad23 Anti gravity is meaningless. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime...if you uncurve space time and curve it opposite, you are just making more gravity. Otherwise, as stated, just about anything that opposes gravity is anti-gravity. The repulsive force between two bodies would vary strictly as a function of mass. Not just any force would meet this requirement. Also, what is spacetime? Joy Division Welcome to bad science behind closed doors. Also known as a big freaking waste of taxpayers dollars. Proper science is nigh impossible without peer review and big money does not mean big breakthroughs. For evidence of this see why most big companies have severely slashed or removed their R&D departments. I wouldn't for a second believe that because NASA or any other government agency is researching something that it gives it any credibility. When you have billions of dollars of other people's money to spend you can throw some are really stupid stuff that may pay off big time. I'm suprised that they aren't researching alchemy as well. It's too bad that politicians quickly forget how science and engineering differ. The science behind nearly every modern technology (especially the ones militaries use) are found in peer review "real science". These scientific principles are used by engineers to make these technologies. The engineering work can be done in secret. Build all the secret planes you want, but the fact that planes can fly remains part of everybody's science. The fact that rockets push remains part of peer review science. Of course you could try to make something that flies based on what some obscure russian scientist says he found. A phenomenon that couldn't be repeated in the years NASA has been trying. But of course that's what most people with sense call a waste of time and money. Last edited: Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by Joy Division Of course you could try to make something that flies based on what some obscure russian scientist says he found. A phenomenon that couldn't be repeated in the years NASA has been trying. Even though I can easily buy into your argument, here's the rub. If it did work, do you think they would tell us? Answer: Not if they could avoid it. This is true beyond any doubt. Stealth technology was kept secret for nearly 30 years. The military air advantage of an anti-gravity drive is potentially absolute. So, my question to you is this: If we had an anti-gravity drive of some sort, why would the public be told about it? Wouldn't we keep this thing Top Secret as long as possible? Next, going with your position on this, do you feel that scientists and corporations are duping congress with smoke and mirrors, and pseudoscience, and knowingly having their way with them, or do you think this is just bad science run amok? Last edited: Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Originally posted by russ_watters "Anti-gravity" is a meaningless term. Anything that exherts a force opposite to gravity could be considered anti-gravity. And popular media is a woefully bad source for science news. Perhaps the term "antigravity" is used as a smoke screen for a revolutionary but more earthly innovation. I am suspicious that we have some sort of electric propulsion used in blimps [buoyant or nearly buoyant air ships]. Maybe this is more the nature of the truth of the claim? Bonjour, "The Earth is flat and you could fall when reaching its limits." "The sun, and other astral objects, spins around the earth." "Light is propagating via ether fluctuations." "Speeds are stricly and linearly additive, V' = Vrel + V" From an historical point of view, these precedings where invalidated with some few-$$\$ profound toughs and anti-demonstrated with experiments. Money is not warrant to "good" thoughs but could help to experiments.

"Negative energy, repulsive gravitation, space-time uncurvature, ..."

IMHO, don't over tax-pay to bring some "good" thoughs since money corrupt human brain and these "leaping ideas" shall, most of the time, be brough from uncomformal unfunded brain.

Mentor
I.S. I read the article, but notice - even in the section you quoted there isn't a reference to any person, paper, press release, or otherwise from Boeing. Plus what the opening paragraph says is far different from the supporting paragraph. You can't start a "project" using a technology until you have the technology - and they don't even have the science that comes before the technology.

It just sounds to me like they are investigating a claim by a Russian scientist. There is nothing more to it than that and it is surprising that JDW would phrase it in such a tabloid manner (I'd expect that more from CNN).

I recommend a book for you guys who are interested in black projects: "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich (head of the Lockheed Skunk Works during the development of the Stealth Fighter). Stealth was the blackest project there has ever been - blacker even than the Manhattan Project. But *ALL* projects with new science/technology progress in roughly the same way and stealth was no exception:

1. SCIENCE: A Lockheed mathematician/physicist read a Russian paper on EM radiation and realized that the equations in it could be used to calculate the radar cross section of simple objects.

2. TECHNOLOGY: They built a few test models showing the concept worked.

3. ENGINEERING: They took the test model design and turned it into a flyable aircraft (no small feat).

This anti-gravity "project" is not yet even at step one.

The repulsive force between two bodies would vary strictly as a function of mass. Not just any force would meet this requirement.
Piece of cake. Any supporting force on any object does exactly that (magnet, string, bolts, etc). Hell, that definition makes your SHOES anti-gravity devices.

Maybe I should issue a challenge: Construct a definition for "anti-gravity" that would exclude your shoes (p.s. my shoes have the maglev option attached).
Welcome to bad science behind closed doors. Also known as a big freaking waste of taxpayers dollars.
Agreed, Joy. My guess would be a guy on Boeing's board read an article in Pseudoscience News (doesn't exist but it should) about anti-gravity and wanted in on the action. So he assigned this "project" to his advanced projects division. The guys assigned the project must be PISSED.

Ironically, "Skunk Works" has a chapter about business and how other companies (Boeing is listed) have tried unsuccessfully to copy Lockheed's model for an advanced projects division. This would be part of the reason why.
So, my question to you is this: If we had an anti-gravity drive of some sort, why would the public be told about it? Wouldn't we keep this thing Top Secret as long as possible?
I.S. Clearly no, yes. But didn't you just post a link to an article about it...? If there was a real project, this thread wouldn't exist because it WOULD be secret - secret enough not to tell JDW that it existed.
Perhaps the term "antigravity" is used as a smoke screen for a revolutionary but more earthly innovation.
Certainly possible. I (and others) have long maintained that flying saucers are a perfect cover story for real projects. The myths persist largely because they are exploited - and they HAVE been used with great success. Flying saucers helped protect the security of the stealth project for example.

Imagine, your point is well taken, but there are two problems - the first two examples not only predate science itself, but they were known by educated people to be wrong even without the benefit of science to help them learn why. And the second two though useful at the time (and to some extent even now) DO fit with observations depending on their usage. And where they don't fit has been known for quite a long time.

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Originally posted by russ_watters
I.S. I read the article, but notice - even in the section you quoted there isn't a reference to any person, paper, press release, or otherwise from Boeing. Plus what the opening paragraph says is far different from the supporting paragraph. You can't start a "project" using a technology until you have the technology - and they don't even have the science that comes before the technology

I agree. My only point was that this is not just coming from CNN. Also, no one needs to cite the reputation of JDW.

It just sounds to me like they are investigating a claim by a Russian scientist. There is nothing more to it than that and it is surprising that JDW would phrase it in such a tabloid manner (I'd expect that more from CNN).

How do you conclude this? It sounds like you are drawing conclusions without any evidence? I think JDW deserves a litte more credit than that. They are considered THE reference for aircraft technology.

I recommend a book for you guys who are interested in black projects: "Skunk Works" by Ben Rich (head of the Lockheed Skunk Works during the development of the Stealth Fighter). Stealth was the blackest project there has ever been - blacker even than the Manhattan Project. But *ALL* projects with new science/technology progress in roughly the same way and stealth was no exception:

1. SCIENCE: A Lockheed mathematician/physicist read a Russian paper on EM radiation and realized that the equations in it could be used to calculate the radar cross section of simple objects.

2. TECHNOLOGY: They built a few test models showing the concept worked.

3. ENGINEERING: They took the test model design and turned it into a flyable aircraft (no small feat).

An when did we first hear about Echo I? 35 years later. As soon as the original Russian work was realized and tested, the whole thing was made Top Secret.

This anti-gravity "project" is not yet even at step one.

If we had it how would you know? The whole point of classified projects is that people aren't supposed to know that the technology exists.

Piece of cake. Object with constant mass you can attach a force from any number of places to do exactly that (magnet, string, bolts, etc). Hell, that definition makes your SHOES anti-gravity devices.

What do you mean? What force goes strickly as a function of mass - independent of the material used? This is really a no brainer.

Agreed, Joy. My guess would be a guy on Boeing's board read an article in Pseudoscience News (doesn't exist but it should) about anti-gravity and wanted in on the action. So he assigned this "project" to his advanced projects division. The guys assigned the project must be PISSED.

You make a lot of assumptions in your arguments.

I.S. Clearly no, yes. But didn't you just post a link to an article about it...? If there was a real project, this thread wouldn't exist because it WOULD be secret - secret enough not to tell JDW that it existed. Certainly possible. I (and others) have long maintained that flying saucers are a perfect cover story for real projects. The myths persist largely because they are exploited - and they HAVE been used with great success. Flying saucers helped protect the security of the stealth project for example.

How long might this technology have existed? Rumors about classified projects almost always leak out. Also, the day always comes that classified technology becomes declassified. You seem to ignore this obvious scenario as a possibility. Finally, clearly many advanced projects have created UFO reports. This is well understood by anyone with an interest in the subject.

I'm not arguing that we have a true anti-gravity drive. There is obviously no evidence to support this notion. But the dimissals that I read sound more like pseudoscience that the original report.

Negative energy is as impossible as anti-gravity, which it would produce. Let me ask you, have you been able to physically construct a system with negative volume? No? What about walk a negative distance? Didn't think so.

[note: Thermodynamics would forbid negative energy from existing in any useful form (modified to include quantum fluctuation energy)unless it was global].

But negative energy does exist.

Joy Division
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Even though I can easily buy into your argument, here's the rub. If it did work, do you think they would tell us? Answer: Not if they could avoid it. This is true beyond any doubt. Stealth technology was kept secret for nearly 30 years. The military air advantage of an anti-gravity drive is potentially absolute.

So, my question to you is this: If we had an anti-gravity drive of some sort, why would the public be told about it? Wouldn't we keep this thing Top Secret as long as possible?

Next, going with your position on this, do you feel that scientists and corporations are duping congress with smoke and mirrors, and pseudoscience, and knowingly having their way with them, or do you think this is just bad science run amok?

Well if they want to use it they would have to make it not a secret. To keep your technology a secret you have to not use it then you might as well not have it. There is no reason to keep something like anti gravity a secret. You gain no advantage by the enemy not knowing you have anti gravity craft. It's just like conventional aircraft, your enemies will know you have them but oftentimes it is still difficult to do anything about it.

Something like stealth technology is better off secret because it works better when then enemy doesn't know you have it. Something like anti gravity has too many commercial possibilites to be kept a secret after it is a working technology.

Also one must ask, who would they be keeping it secret from? The US is not enaged in a war where the extent of it's abilities need to be kept secret from the enemy. All this black op/secret project crap is precipitated from the second world war and cold war where there were real enemies with similar power that would use the same technology against allied forces if given the knowledge.

Now however you may have notice that most of this top secret stuff is already revealed in a matter of one or two years after it is fielded. Or even in the later stages of development. (See: land warrior system.) Other military conceptual technologies like some new nanotech concepts are revealed when still in vaporware dreams stages. If the army has been flying UFOs with anti gravity for 20 years why are they still building conventional aircraft? Again if you're not going to field a technology and use it, or reveal it as a deterent why would you even bother.

If antigravity has been found then why hasn't NASA found it as well? They're not like the military. They have very good reasons to reveal any new technologies for comercialization or just to validate that they are in fact a body that can do meaningful technological research and that the tax dollars in the space program are well spent.

To answer your last question I don't honestly think that a whole lot of people are trying to dupe congress out of their money. I just think that a lot of politicians really don't know how real technological progress comes about and misspend quite a bit of money.

P.S. Government conspiracy guys in black suits can I have my dog back now?

negative energy does not exist. We may assign it a negative value in our equations (such as gpe, but that is only because it acts in the opposite direction).

And you are probably waiting to say what about the Casmir effect or something of that nature. It does contain a negative energy of a type, BUT we can never break the symmetry and get anything meaningful out of it so for all intents, it is not real (hence it is virtual).

As for all this "oh well they probably have it, or something close to it" crap (because that is what it is), let me put this on you. The military may be well funded, but ideas tend to spread fast. Someone in the public domain would have stumbled across this already if it existed and the military had it. It just happens. Stealth technology while classified was well known to anyone who did research with radar. Consipiracies may be fun, but physics always wins the day.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
As for all this "oh well they probably have it, or something close to it" crap (because that is what it is), .
Who said this?

let me put this on you. The military may be well funded, but ideas tend to spread fast. Someone in the public domain would have stumbled across this already if it existed and the military had it. It just happens.

Can you tell me what someone was supposed to stumble onto? Since we have no idea what might produce something like antigravity, your prognostication and mystical powers amaze me. For all we know, the random discovery of such a thing could be a one in a billion.

Stealth technology while classified was well known to anyone who did research with radar. Conspiracies may be fun, but physics always wins the day.

Actually, all references to the technology were classified. I am also quite sure that anyone who claimed that such a craft was possible was labeled a nutcase. Also, if there are no secrets, then why do 55 year old government documents get released only after the reviewers black out 5 - 90% of all the text? Clearly the government has secrets worth protecting that are at least this old.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Originally posted by Joy Division
Well if they want to use it they would have to make it not a secret. To keep your technology a secret you have to not use it then you might as well not have it. There is no reason to keep something like anti gravity a secret. You gain no advantage by the enemy not knowing you have anti gravity craft. It's just like conventional aircraft, your enemies will know you have them but oftentimes it is still difficult to do anything about it.

This would all depend on how useful the technology might be. If we are given some kind of absolute advantage, then we would want to keep it secret indefinitely. Use the weapon in a stealthy mode, and credit the hit to something else like a B2 bomber. In war, the rarest of all commodities is the truth.

Something like stealth technology is better off secret because it works better when then enemy doesn't know you have it. Something like anti gravity has too many commercial possibilites to be kept a secret after it is a working technology.

This all depends on who you are and what your motives may be. Everyone knows about the stealth planes – which still are very secret and are used very effectively.

Also one must ask, who would they be keeping it secret from? The US is not enaged in a war where the extent of it's abilities need to be kept secret from the enemy. All this black op/secret project crap is precipitated from the second world war and cold war where there were real enemies with similar power that would use the same technology against allied forces if given the knowledge.

You don't understand the military industrial complex. If you don't have an enemy, you make one up. This is how one gets funding. See Eisenhower's final address to the nation. Also, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars here. Can you really underestimate the power of this much money? Not to mention that this translates into jobs.

Now however you may have notice that most of this top secret stuff is already revealed in a matter of one or two years after it is fielded. Or even in the later stages of development. (See: land warrior system.) Other military conceptual technologies like some new nanotech concepts are revealed when still in vaporware dreams stages. If the army has been flying UFOs with anti gravity for 20 years why are they still building conventional aircraft? Again if you're not going to field a technology and use it, or reveal it as a deterent why would you even bother.

Absolutely not true. My dad saw things in Korea that only came into the public view 30 years later. I learned about similar things from guys in Vietnam – LASAR guidance systems for example - and I have heard unconfirmed reports of weapons used in the Gulf I and II conflicts. Also, the SR71 was stealthy for 30 years before the public knew about this. This does not mean that I think we have a functional anti-gravity drive. We are really arguing about the nature of black projects [and those that predate the term "black"].

If antigravity has been found then why hasn't NASA found it as well? They're not like the military. They have very good reasons to reveal any new technologies for comercialization or just to validate that they are in fact a body that can do meaningful technological research and that the tax dollars in the space program are well spent.

I really think this ignores the implications of such a technology. I think you underestimate the National Security interests in having such an advantage; assuming that you would actually have an advantage - maybe anti-gravity drives are real lemons! If this was of tremendous advantage, the commercial value would not even rate as an afterthought.

To answer your last question I don't honestly think that a whole lot of people are trying to dupe congress out of their money. I just think that a lot of politicians really don't know how real technological progress comes about and misspend quite a bit of money.

I can understand that...not to mention the political value of pork projects for jobs [= votes].

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Who said this?

Can you tell me what someone was supposed to stumble onto? Since we have no idea what might produce something like antigravity, your prognostication and mystical powers amaze me. For all we know, the random discovery of such a thing could be a one in a billion.

Actually, all references to the technology were classified. I am also quite sure that anyone who claimed that such a craft was possible was labeled a nutcase. Also, if there are no secrets, then why do 55 year old government documents get released only after the reviewers black out 5 - 90% of all the text? Clearly the government has secrets worth protecting that are at least this old.

1)I might have misread an earlier post of yours. But the case still applies to those who read and don't post.

2)People rarely stumble into things in science. Its the long, continual work that progresses towards something new. It is not purely trial and error.

3)The technology sure, but not the science. It is simple science to make stealth. Technology is often not so simple, for it is the real world application of the science.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1)I might have misread an earlier post of yours. But the case still applies to those who read and don't post.

2)People rarely stumble into things in science. Its the long, continual work that progresses towards something new. It is not purely trial and error.

3)The technology sure, but not the science. It is simple science to make stealth. Technology is often not so simple, for it is the real world application of the science.

Really we agree for the most part. I am virtually certain this will not turn out to be a true anti-gravity drive - whatever that is. However, since we don't know what such a thing might be, I don't see how one can debunk this story either. I still tend to expect that anti-gravity is just a cover for something real but less exotic.

On the other hand, this claim does not come from only one source. Other examples of this - from apparently credible sources - can be found. I have been hearing about this from ex military people for about 15 years now.

Last edited:
I to agree that there is a problem with the definition, but it also seems that there is a natural form of anti-gravity.

See, I've always thought that anything that oppossed gravity could be considered anti gravity.

Espcially since www.dictionary.com will tell you that "anti" means to oppose.

So a person jumping on a trampoline would be a form of anti-gravity, since the upward movement is in opposition to the downward pull of gravity. But it should always be noted, atleast on earth, that gravity always wins. Resitance is futile, so to speak.

But when I think of an anti-gravity powered ship, it just boggles the mind. a ship that opposses the force of gravity, in order to gain altitude and momentum.

As I understand it, the amount of gravitational power an object carries is directly related to its mass. In order to produce some kind of opposition to gravity, it seems that a larger mass must somehow be emulated.

And the only thing that comes to mind that truly does oppose gravity is dark energy and I'd assume dark matter. But does it opposse gravity, or is it just a stronger force?

I liked the idea some alien worshipping people had about making nano built zeppelins which actually weighed less then the air surrounding them, and by apply heat to one side or another provided the movement.

But I'd think having a "anti-gravity drive" is impossible. For one, gravity is the attraction between objections that pulls them closer together. So anti-gravity would be the repelling action between objects that pushes them apart.

I could see something working on a planet, but as far as space travel, the A-G driven ship would not have an object to repel against.

Well, a shot in the dark. Don't kick me to hard. :)

Joy Division
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You don't understand the military industrial complex. If you don't have an enemy, you make one up. This is how one gets funding. See Eisenhower's final address to the nation. Also, we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars here. Can you really underestimate the power of this much money? Not to mention that this translates into jobs.

The US has enemies. They are terrorists and rogue states. The fact that they know that stealth bombers, nuclear weapons , unmanned spy drones etc. are part of the US arsenal is irrelevant. They aren't in a position to use those technologies against the US. Just like they certainly aren't going to be using anti gravity against the US.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Absolutely not true. My dad saw things in Korea that only came into the public view 30 years later. I learned about similar things from guys in Vietnam – LASAR guidance systems for example - and I have heard unconfirmed reports of weapons used in the Gulf I and II conflicts. Also, the SR71 was stealthy for 30 years before the public knew about this. This does not mean that I think we have a functional anti-gravity drive. We are really arguing about the nature of black projects [and those that predate the term "black"].

Completely irrelevant. Remember when I mentioned the cold war. You know the one going on during Korea and Vietnam. The idea was to keep the technologies out of soviet hands. That's not the world we live in anymore. Today it's really easy to find evidence of technologies the military is interested in, and what they currently have and are currently testing. You see shows all the time on TLC about tanks and helicopters and what they can do. You can go to defense contractors websites and see what they're researching. Sure this doesn't mean that there are no secrets, but what makes antigravity such a big deal that it should be kept secret for years.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

I really think this ignores the implications of such a technology. I think you underestimate the National Security interests in having such an advantage; assuming that you would actually have an advantage - maybe anti-gravity drives are real lemons! If this was of tremendous advantage, the commercial value would not even rate as an afterthought.

I would seriously like to know what you think antigravity propulsion would have over todays conventional aircraft. What makes antigravity in your mind the ultimate weapon of superiority?
I think you need to stop letting your imagination go wild with remote possibilities and come back to reality. You're vastly overestimating the impact this technology would have on the battlefield and underestimating the impact it would have on the american economy.

Outside all thise hype and all, someone mentioned the power of hundreds of billions of dollars. Money cannot change laws of physics.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Originally posted by Joy Division
The US has enemies. They are terrorists and rogue states. The fact that they know that stealth bombers, nuclear weapons , unmanned spy drones etc. are part of the US arsenal is irrelevant. They aren't in a position to use those technologies against the US. Just like they certainly aren't going to be using anti gravity against the US.

I think you are missing my point. The military industrial complex still receives huge sums of money. In fact, the black budget money has increased under Bush. Also, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs, not to mention concerns about Korea and China, we are hardly free of serious opposition. But the original point was not whether we have viable opponents; the point was that this complex has not been dismantled because of the money. I do feel that there is a legitimate need for our continued military superiority over all aggressors.

Completely irrelevant. Remember when I mentioned the cold war. You know the one going on during Korea and Vietnam. The idea was to keep the technologies out of soviet hands. That's not the world we live in anymore. Today it's really easy to find evidence of technologies the military is interested in, and what they currently have and are currently testing. You see shows all the time on TLC about tanks and helicopters and what they can do. You can go to defense contractors websites and see what they're researching. Sure this doesn't mean that there are no secrets, but what makes antigravity such a big deal that it should be kept secret for years.

We can't know either way if it would be that significant. I only argue that it could be. I can also guarantee that in 1970 you would not have found the classified information about RADAR evading technologies. Why do you falsely assume that TLC airs our most classified secrets?

I would seriously like to know what you think antigravity propulsion would have over todays conventional aircraft. What makes antigravity in your mind the ultimate weapon of superiority?
I think you need to stop letting your imagination go wild with remote possibilities and come back to reality. You're vastly overestimating the impact this technology would have on the battlefield and underestimating the impact it would have on the american economy.

I think you need to stop assuming that we know what the implications of such a technology would be. We can't know. It might allow absolute air superiority through speed and acceleration, or it might be an energy pig that offers no advantage at all. It could be something that forevermore will only work on bench tops. How can we even guess? My objection is that you claim to know what the characteristics of such a technology would be. This is silliness.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Outside all thise hype and all, someone mentioned the power of hundreds of billions of dollars. Money cannot change laws of physics.

This is out of context. I was talking about the motivation to continue with black budgets and projects; even if no immediate need for such new technologies is obvious.

Mentor
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I agree. My only point was that this is not just coming from CNN. Also, no one needs to cite the reputation of JDW.
Yes, and that's why it surprised me coming from them.
How do you conclude this? It sounds like you are drawing conclusions without any evidence?
Your quote says they are trying to acquire the Russian research so the obvious conclusion is they don't have it yet. And if they don't have it they can't have evaluated it yet.
If we had it how would you know? The whole point of classified projects is that people aren't supposed to know that the technology exists.
If we aren't supposed to know then why did they just tell us? And again, the article says they are trying to acquire the research. Maybe its dis-information, but it doesn't make sense. If they did have the research they wouldn't say anthing at all about it..
An when did we first hear about Echo I? 35 years later. As soon as the original Russian work was realized and tested, the whole thing was made Top Secret.
My point exactly. We weren't told about stealth. We have now been told about "anti-gravity." WHY? If there really was a project underway we would not be told about it.
What do you mean? What force goes strickly as a function of mass - independent of the material used? This is really a no brainer.
Heh. Gravity of course. And the force of gravity pulling your body to the floor is countered by an equal and opposite force pushing your body up: anti-gravity.
You make a lot of assumptions in your arguments.
Actually, that bit about Pseudoscience News was the only speculative thing in my post, but it is still reasonable. The analysis of the article follows directly from the content of the article.
Well if they want to use it they would have to make it not a secret. To keep your technology a secret you have to not use it then you might as well not have it. There is no reason to keep something like anti gravity a secret. You gain no advantage by the enemy not knowing you have anti gravity craft. It's just like conventional aircraft, your enemies will know you have them but oftentimes it is still difficult to do anything about it.
Thats true, Joy but we're not there yet: you tell people you have it AFTER you have it. They told people they are in the beginning stages of researching it, which is the time when it would be MOST secret.
Also one must ask, who would they be keeping it secret from? The US is not enaged in a war where the extent of it's abilities need to be kept secret from the enemy. All this black op/secret project crap is precipitated from the second world war and cold war where there were real enemies with similar power that would use the same technology against allied forces if given the knowledge.
As I.S. said, the military doesn't work that way. Since it takes roughly 20 years to field a new airplane, you have to look 20 years in the future to what POSSIBLE threats there might be. Secrecy even in peacetime is of the utmost importance simply because you can't predict the future.

Joy Division
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think you are missing my point. The military industrial complex still receives huge sums of money. In fact, the black budget money has increased under Bush. Also, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other WMDs, not to mention concerns about Korea and China, we are hardly free of serious opposition. But the original point was not whether we have viable opponents; the point was that this complex has not been dismantled because of the money. I do feel that there is a legitimate need for our continued military superiority over all aggressors.

I never said large amounts of money should not be spent on the US's military. That's your government's perogative and their right. All I'm saying is that it's better spent researching real technologies.
Like others have said you can't buy genious it just happens. But when you have THAT much money you might think that you could. Again like I said before when you've got billions of dollars of course you're going to throw some at a longshot like anti-gravity, the payoff is big enough even though it is unlikely. That still doesn't mean it ever has or ever will exist.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

We can't know either way if it would be that significant. I only argue that it could be. I can also guarantee that in 1970 you would not have found the classified information about RADAR evading technologies. Why do you falsely assume that TLC airs our most classified secrets?

TLC doesn't air national secrets. It does have programs boasting the capabilities of high tech military systems. You don't have to give the specs/manuals and assembly instructions for a FLIR device to say that helicopter pilots use them to fly at night. Likewise you don't have to divulge how to build your own antigravity drive to boast it's faster , more manoeverable and efficient than any other engine (while showing a flying saucer performing amazing aerial stunts to some rock music. )

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think you need to stop assuming that we know what the implications of such a technology would be. We can't know. It might allow absolute air superiority through speed and acceleration, or it might be an energy pig that offers no advantage at all. It could be something that forevermore will only work on bench tops. How can we even guess? My objection is that you claim to know what the characteristics of such a technology would be. This is silliness.

Technologies only really surprise us and revolutionize our lives when the lot of human ingenuity is applied to them. Anti-gravity would of course be a revolutionary technology that would change our lives. However it's actual military applications are few I'd suspect. You just keep harping that it would make an amazingly superior fighter jet. The idea of developing superior weapons in a time of peace is that once they've been built you reveal them to act as a deterrent to war. You don't have to break out the secret UFO and whoop someones butt if they know you have them and decide not to attack because of it.

As an example the national missile defense program would have a much greater impact than a stronger faster fighter. Yet you hear about it all the time on the news.

Now obviously this should mean that no gravity drive fighter jets have been built in any great number. That means that they're still in development stages. Well as russ has said why are we now hearing about them?

I don't doubt that some technological innovations come because of secret government projects. The technological revolutions because of these technologies however only happen after they are revealed. And the breakthroughs in basic science that make the technologies possible in the first place happen before they become classified.

Last edited:
Joy Division
Originally posted by russ_watters
Thats true, Joy but we're not there yet: you tell people you have it AFTER you have it. They told people they are in the beginning stages of researching it, which is the time when it would be MOST secret.

Which would seem comfusing but not all that uncommon. It's really not hard to find information about technologies being developed by the military still in the conceptual stages. Especially those being developed by third party military contractors. It's a confusing statement when you try to view the military technological development as done completely behind closed doors. If you take a more benign view of the situation*, it makes a little more sense.

*ie that no physics changing breakthroughs are happening in secret government labs and that military secrecy is more used to hide screw ups than to develop technological superiority.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
I think I can defend my position this way:
I have documents posted [linked] that prove that we are still keeping scecrets that are 50 years old. This is why we find documents almost completely blacked out before release under the Freedom of Information Act. Beyond any doubt we keep secrets for a very long time. Next, as I understand Russ and Joy, the question is whether or not a secret this big could be kept. Russ, you keep ignoring the possibility that we have had this technology, whatever it may be, and now it begins to leak out. Maybe Boeing is trying to get it from the Russians because the US won't give it to them. However, I also agree that the two statements at JDW are apparently contradictory. But as far as the objections that this technology could not exist in principle without general knowledge [among scientists] of the scientific principle behind it I think fails - simply because it might have been discovered completely by accident. We may have it but still have no idea what IT is or how it works.s Consider lodestones as a historical example. What's more, if this was discovered in the private sector then secrets are the norm.

I'm not arguing for anti-gravity. I'm just trying to keep you debunkers honest.

Mentor
Originally posted by Joy Division
But when you have THAT much money you might think that you could. Again like I said before when you've got billions of dollars of course you're going to throw some at a longshot like anti-gravity, the payoff is big enough even though it is unlikely. That still doesn't mean it ever has or ever will exist.
Its happened. Back in the 80s, the govt approached Lockheed (also as told in "Skunk Works") after Reagan made his speech about the National AeroSpace Plane. They pretty much just said "how much money will it take for you to build a mach 12 space plane?" Lockheed laughed at them and sent them away.
It's a confusing statement when you try to view the military technological development as done completely behind closed doors.
Granted.
Russ, you keep ignoring the possibility that we have had this technology, whatever it may be, and now it begins to leak out.
I'm not ignoring it, I.S., it says explicitly in the article you provided that we do *NOT* have the technology.
I'm not arguing for anti-gravity. I'm just trying to keep you debunkers honest.
Heh, not easy to do - proof of a scientific nature can be a real *****. Until the Blue Angels are using our latest and greatest, its a piece of cake to argue it doesn't exist because its not up to me to prove it doesn't exist. Its up to you to prove it does exist. And until the Blue Angels are flying it, that's nearly impossible to do.

Last edited: