Will Anti-Gravity Technology Become a Reality Soon?

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I.S., it says explicitly in the article you provided that we do *NOT* have the technology.

It only says that Boeing doesn't have it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its up to you to prove it does exist. And until the Blue Angels are flying it, that's nearly impossible to do.

Not me, but JDW may have a bit of credibility at stake.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It only says that Boeing doesn't have it.

So what in the article leads you to believe that anyone in the US has it? You're being pretty cryptic. The article is quite explicit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
So what in the article leads you to believe that anyone in the US has it? You're being pretty cryptic. The article is quite explicit.

I'm just considering all possible angles.