US Military using Electromagnetic Shields

[topicolo]

Apparently, the US military is developing a "force field" comprised of polarized plates for their light armor that can stop rpg rounds.

Check it out here (http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,54641,00.html)

[Pants]

rubbish. this is a BRITISH invention.

aint american hegemony great? if its used by them it MUST, by default, be their idea.....grrr.....

[firewire2001]

i was listenin to npr a few weeks ago and they had something on about this gravity thang that was able to knock satellites and just move things around on earth..

it sounded neat, and i really only heard the end of it..

did anyone else hear it, or does anyone know much else about it?

-f

[Mr. Anderson]

Pretty cool stuff - I coworker of mine went off to go work on this at Aberdeen, not much available on it though.

Anti grav is a bit strange - lots of whacko sites out there, its very hard to filter the real from the imaginary. Any search on anti-grav comes up with lots of alien stuff, but there is a place online - can't find it right now - that you can make your own antigrav demo - requires a few 10s of kW and you levitate a bunch of wire and tinfoil - whoohoo! If I find the link, I'll post it.

D

[AngusB]

Go to you local, well stocked (i.e. collegiate) library and find the 31 July 2002 Issue of Jane's Defence Weekly. The cover story is about Boeing experiments into building and anti-grav weapon. It also lists good refernces for general anti-grav research by the 'current' father, and Russian Scientist named Podkletnov.


Happy Reading

[Mr. Anderson]

The Russian has done some crazy stuff, that works over long distance too. But its a weapon more than a lifting device. I still haven't found that link, I'll go try again.

D

[topicolo]

I'm skeptical. They haven't been able to reproduce the Russian's experiments at all.:rolleyes: . Besides, he claimed that he was able to reduce the weight of the object by only 2%

[Pants]

Originally posted by topicolo
I'm skeptical. They haven't been able to reproduce the Russian's experiments at all.:rolleyes: . Besides, he claimed that he was able to reduce the weight of the object by only 2%

indeed. Its snakeoil science - certainly, as it stands now, his 2% was within the bounds of experimental error, add to this the fact that he hasn't allowed anyone to see his experiemental kit, and the fact that no one else has been able to replicate it, and you have to wonder...

the reason boeing, british aerospace and nasa are spending money on it (and not a lot by all accounts) is simply that a small expenditure to disprove it is prudent, given the advantages gained if it works.

The anti-grav thing dukestreet is talking about has more to do with magnets...ever seen those cool pics of frogs floating in a magnetic field? thats not antigravity, merely a large magnetic field...

[Megaquad]

I am pretty sure US army has antigrav saucers with no propellers etc.
From what I 100% know is that they can stay in air,on same place for long time,making no noise.

[big]

>From what I 100% know is that they can stay in air,on same place for long time,making no noise.

that would revolutionalize this world...

meaning no gas for consumers to buy, if the economy was ever going to be shaky due to the internet, think how it will be when those babies arrive?

no mechanics (fewer moving parts)

WOW that would be big

[Megaquad]

There is one significant problem about those baby's... They interfere with electronics because of those high-voltage particles.
When object like that is above car or lamp or anything else,they stop working.
Thats why ion technology will never become mainstream for air transport.
On the other hand,it's good for military use for spying,surveillance etc..

[Pants]

Originally posted by Megaquad
I am pretty sure US army has antigrav saucers with no propellers etc.
From what I 100% know is that they can stay in air,on same place for long time,making no noise.


I don't know wether to laugh or cry at this....
:( i sometimes wonder if even the most seemingly literate people had a science bypass at birth.

[Megaquad]

Member of my family saw such object,along with hundreds of other people.
That means it exists.

[Pants]

Originally posted by Megaquad
Member of my family saw such object,along with hundreds of other people.
That means it exists.


no - that means you probably all have issues with depth perception - it was a frisbee ! :)

hey - would you believe me if I said that where I work we have a quantum computer made out of a jello and fairy cake mix? seriously, we do, and i have seen it, along with many other members of staff, so it really must work and be real.

[Megaquad]

Pants you are ignorant,there are many witnesses who saw those objects,dont be blind.
My mother and her colleague saw flying saucer, with many lights around it.
And I would bet on my life it's true,because there is no way she would lie. Get it? Would you believe your own mother? I think you would..
I understand that you cannot be sure *I* am not lieing,you don't know me and you cannot thrust someone on the other side of a world. I understand that,but i assure you that I am not moron like that.

[Pants]

Originally posted by Megaquad
Pants you are ignorant,there are many witnesses who saw those objects,dont be blind.
My mother and her colleague saw flying saucer, with many lights around it.
And I would bet on my life it's true,because there is no way she would lie. Get it? Would you believe your own mother? I think you would..
I understand that you cannot be sure *I* am not lieing,you don't know me and you cannot thrust someone on the other side of a world. I understand that,but i assure you that I am not moron like that.


I am, by profession, a scientist. Just because you tell me you saw it doesn't imply that your conclusion that it was a 'ufo' is correct. I'm sorry, but if my mother told me, I would still be sceptical (probably more so! :) ). It has NOTHING to do with ignorance - your mother probably genuinely believes what she saw was a ufo. But that doesnt mean it *was* a ufo. Give me more proof rather than second hand stories. Something physical and testable - i too, would love to believe in aliens and antigravity devices (hey, it'd make my job a whole heap easier!), but i *know* no one has a viable antigravity device - I mean, we dont even know how gravity *works*.

Be sceptical, and you tend to get better answers.

[Dr. Distortion]

Originally posted by Pants



I am, by profession, a scientist. Just because you tell me you saw it doesn't imply that your conclusion that it was a 'ufo' is correct. I'm sorry, but if my mother told me, I would still be sceptical (probably more so! :) ). It has NOTHING to do with ignorance - your mother probably genuinely believes what she saw was a ufo. But that doesnt mean it *was* a ufo. Give me more proof rather than second hand stories. Something physical and testable - i too, would love to believe in aliens and antigravity devices (hey, it'd make my job a whole heap easier!), but i *know* no one has a viable antigravity device - I mean, we dont even know how gravity *works*.

Be sceptical, and you tend to get better answers.

Well, if the spectators couldn't identify the object, technically speaking, it would be an Unidentified Flying Object 'ufo'.
:p

-Dr. D.

[PyroTurtle]

take some spider silk, mix it with goat DNA, get the silk enabled milk from the goat, and make armor from it...doesn't that sound disguesting?
anywho, anti-grav would be cool...but dangerous in my opinion...that could do some funky stuff to space/time...interesting thoughts though...

[Megaquad]

I am not saying its alien,probably US Army or something.
She exactly described that object and said it was clearly visible... It was flying saucer standing still on altitude of cca 500m,with lots of lights all around it. Saucer was making no noise.
And as for "your mother probably genuinely believes what she saw was a ufo" thats definately not true,she doesn't really care what she saw,she accidentally told me that story. And as I said,her colleague was with her,a math professor.

[rainman::|:|]

Lets get one thing clear right now. Negative ion propulsion systems are nowhere near refined enough to levitate an object. And NIP is NOT antigravity! It works the same way jet engines do: Particles are accelerated to a tremendous speed and shot in one direction. The friction and "bounce" that is caused is what propells the object. So far, the only thing we've come up with for ion-propulsion is an air filter. I'm not saying that the technology doesn't hold promise, but it's far, far off, even for the military.

And I'm not going to even get in to the "my mom saw a UFO" dealie.

:)
pnw

[Megaquad]

You ignorant....grrra arrghhg:D
Well,I cant prove to you,but I know my mother saw flying saucer..

[Mr. Anderson]

I still haven't been able to find that damn link, but here's one that might cause some more discussion. And from Janes no less - crazy!

http://www.janes.com/aerospace/civil/news/jdw/jdw020729_1_n.shtml

D

[scem0]

I always though we were more terran but it seems we are branching off into protoss :D. I play way to much SC....

[Royal Pineapple]

Originally posted by scem0
I always though we were more terran but it seems we are branching off into protoss :D. I play way to much SC....
better them than the Zerg ;)

[krossfyter]

este vato!:D

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by scem0
I always though we were more terran but it seems we are branching off into protoss :D. I play way to much SC....

No matter, I always liked the Protoss more anyway :D
I always thought the Terrans were red necks.

[topicolo]

Originally posted by asurace


No matter, I always liked the Protoss more anyway :D
I always thought the Terrans were red necks.

I still can't believe how the terran marines, with their gauss rifles and powered armor can't stand up to a bunch of zerglings and how is it that needle spines can take down battleships?:confused:

[topicolo]

Originally posted by Megaquad
You ignorant....grrra arrghhg:D
Well,I cant prove to you,but I know my mother saw flying saucer..

How is Pants ignorant? If anything, he has a good dose of scientific scepticism. His reasoning is perfectly logical and reasonable. You can't claim anything as fact if you don't have conclusive scientific evidence. If 1 person was cured of aids because he hate dog crap every day and there were witnesses, nobody is going to start prescribing dog crap to people with aids based on those eye witness accounts.

[Royal Pineapple]

Originally posted by topicolo


How is Pants ignorant? If anything, he has a good dose of scientific scepticism. His reasoning is perfectly logical and reasonable. You can't claim anything as fact if you don't have conclusive scientific evidence. If 1 person was cured of aids because he hate dog crap every day and there were witnesses, nobody is going to start prescribing dog crap to people with aids based on those eye witness accounts.
even if they did perscribe it i think id rather go with the aids, it may be insencative to all who have aids, but i think id rather die, than eat dog crap everyday

[scem0]

Originally posted by Royal Pineapple

even if they did perscribe it i think id rather go with the aids, it may be insencative to all who have aids, but i think id rather die, than eat dog crap everyday

Yummmmmmm...... Iwould rather eat dog crap then have aids personally :D. I dont think that dog crap will be the answer though :) - probably something on the moon, or in space. That is my guess. My name is ms. cleo and im right. do not question - i am right.

[Pants]

Originally posted by topicolo


How is Pants ignorant? If anything, he has a good dose of scientific scepticism. His reasoning is perfectly logical and reasonable. You can't claim anything as fact if you don't have conclusive scientific evidence. If 1 person was cured of aids because he hate dog crap every day and there were witnesses, nobody is going to start prescribing dog crap to people with aids based on those eye witness accounts.

actually, what i find *really* interesting is the analogy between this thread and the licensing thread - if enough people say its true, some actually believe it is, irrespective of wether it is or not..

[Megaquad]

Originally posted by topicolo


How is Pants ignorant? If anything, he has a good dose of scientific scepticism. His reasoning is perfectly logical and reasonable. You can't claim anything as fact if you don't have conclusive scientific evidence. If 1 person was cured of aids because he hate dog crap every day and there were witnesses, nobody is going to start prescribing dog crap to people with aids based on those eye witness accounts.
There are 2 witnesses..
So,what about all those other people that saw flying saucers? They are all also lieing or something (maybe some of them lie but..)? There is no way it was something else because it was too near. Damn,I'm going to hunt UFO's with camera..and take a snap,you'll see then...

[topicolo]

Originally posted by Megaquad

There are 2 witnesses..
So,what about all those other people that saw flying saucers? They are all also lieing or something (maybe some of them lie but..)? There is no way it was something else because it was too near. Damn,I'm going to hunt UFO's with camera..and take a snap,you'll see then...

Look, there could've been many explainations for the phenomenon. I don't doubt your word or your mother's word about seeing it because they may actually have believed that they saw a ufo.
How do they know that the flying saucer wasn't an oddly shaped cloud, ball lightning, a little kid flying a ufo toy, or even an optical illusion? You can't rule them out. If you can produce verifiable evidence, such as undoctored images, then it may sway some of the skeptics over. Otherwise, good luck trying to convince people