What is Digg?41 Comments
- sjors, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nice, but on this moment we are not even able to find a decent way to move our cars without ***** up the whole world.
- sxlixz, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1what a boson...
- elmerfudd, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I agree with aaron157 - ("Do we really need a new post on this topic every other day? No Digg!!!")
Maybe digg.com should add anti-diggs... - NobleRocket, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Antigrav propulsion by the end of the century?!?!? I can't wait!
- brainychimp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ powercow
"first this guy has no other scientific papers.. HINT HINT.. when very first paper is a scientific break though that no one quite understands.. watch out!!!"
funny, you could say the same thing about a certain patent clerk who had also been unpublished in 1905.
I prefer to keep an open mind. - syukton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1****
"No, right now, it's just a theory. It doesn't become science fact until someone actually builds the first successful antigravity device."
Don't let you limited knowledge limit everyone else.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/video/Nov7-Outdoor-WinMedia.wmv
****
That isn't antigravity, it's ionic propulsion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifter_%28ionic_propulsion_device%29 - shness, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1This was done last May and it wasn't published nor was it cited by a credible scientist. You make the call. And by the way anti-gravity is *****. Sorry to spoil your fun.
- adml_shake, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Man screw this and just declassify the damn stargate!
- TKDWILSON, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Wow. Third time to the home page. My article was #2. Yours #3 and it is still making it. Mine had more diggs. The key is a title that incorporates Stargate terms. :-)
Eric Wilson - Virtualtaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Someone wanna explain to me why this is such a huge deal now when the paper containing amazing groundbreaking information on near light speed travel was written last year??
- longman2g, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1there was an article like this a few days ago; this one might be a little different, but all of these proposed petabyte or antigravity things don't mean squat. Once real evidence and work start on them, then it becomes technology. At this moment, its just science.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I think it's science fact"
No, right now, it's just a theory. It doesn't become science fact until someone actually builds the first successful antigravity device.
I have a theory on how to warp space time so that the speed of light is no longer a limitation but it doesn't become fact until the first warp device gets built. - jeraboam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1longman2g:
there was an article like this a few days ago; this one might be a little different
This is the same as the previous submission:
http://digg.com/science/Exact_Solution_of_Einstein_s_Gravitational_Field_Equation
It's just a different source. - SoccerBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice idea... hopefully this can actually happen. Star Trekish
- zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The site's popup created a momentary antigravity field on my desktop. My mouse was packing some serious speed there.
- tannergdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It may not hold up under factual scrutiny, but it FEELS true, and that is all we need.
- skooma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i just want a gravity gun....Dr. Freeman..
- shness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0skooma:
You are a gravity gun! - inactive, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2NO it is not a science theory.. it is science crap.. how come this crap keeps showing up everywhere..
first this guy has no other scientific papers.. HINT HINT.. when very first paper is a scientific break though that no one quite understands.. watch out!!!
second 99% of all scientists think this is poppy *****, the other one percent think it is BS.
Black holes don't have anti-gravity beams.. there are plenty of things traveling at 57.7 % the speed of light and faster.. they don't have anti-gravity beams... and it would sure suck as a form of travel as the gravity caused by acceleration is all of a sudden turned into anti-gravity at 57.7% the speed of light and you slam you head into the ceiling. You think inertia sucks.. try one that switches directions//
This doesn't make sense on sooooo many levels.. it just gets posted and reposted as people have a fantasy with anti-gravity.
Since anti-gravity is just gravity in the opposite direction this would have all kinds of effects that would be noticeable int he universe.. every so many light years gravity would appear to increase for a galaxy...
and how narrow is this supposed beam? hell this is also free energy.. as you speed up you gain mass but all of a sudden after 57%c you start to lose mass.. and gain acceleration without using more energy.. a complete violation of everything except maybe tachyons.. it even appears to violate Lorentz..Bah
well at least we don't need an ultra powerful magnet and a ring of nickle..
I am a cow and i know the smell of BS.. and this is BS> - MKmultimedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Glad I don't have to steer....
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1war!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's the document "Across the Zodiac" by Percy Greg
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10165.
Seem interesting... - stcredzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is indeed possible in terms of being allowed by theory. The amount of energy required makes it pretty far out, however. Robert Forward discussed the same phenomenon in this book _Indistinguishable from Magic_. (Except he proposed matter flowing helically around a torus, which is even *more* impractical!)
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200602/0671876864.htm?blurb - hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is all fine and grand, but the amount of energy to get to just 0.1c with current propulsion technology is far more than we're capable of. Even the most advanced nuclear propulsion systems on the chalkboard can only get us to 0.05c. Not that this isn't still exciting, because if Heim theory is correct we can toss out propulsion systems based on mass reaction drive technology, and use really strong magnets (I ***** you not) to drag us through stellar space at about this speed (0.57c), and through interstellar space at superliminal speeds. And if Miguel Alcubierre is correct, we can do it without relativistic effects. So feel free to take a trip to Wolf 359, do battle with the Borg, and come back without your entire family having died of old age while you were gone.
- electic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Always keep an open mind. No matter who it is, what he has done, what he looks like, you could be staring at the next great thing.
- Virtualtaco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0sorry about the double post... but wouldn't this previously uncalculated factor (the 57.7 percent and higher) have shown up as a consistent anomaly on particle accelerator readouts?
- ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"No, right now, it's just a theory. It doesn't become science fact until someone actually builds the first successful antigravity device."
Don't let you limited knowledge limit everyone else.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/video/Nov7-Outdoor-WinMedia.wmv - troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0You Rock...Rock!
- zenmouse, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1How many times is this going to be on the front page? There have literally been at least 5 posts of exactly the same thing! Please check for related articles before posting old *****!
- viperzonedotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Remember what happened to the dude from Iron Butterfly
- Tracon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Ahh at this rate i'll be lucky if i live long enough to get an anti-gravity wheelchair.
- r3adah3ad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0As long as the mynoks don't chew through the power cables....
- tryferos, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1Meet George Jetson....
- mockstar, on 10/24/2007, -1/+0I think it's science fact
- Double-Z, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1ezkiel, you do nothing for your cause posting 2 seconds of webcam footage. Link to hires, 20 minute videos..... oh, there are none.
This is anti-grav for god's sake, if it's real, show it, if it's not, make 2 second long clips in low-res. - tmibiker2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Dream on NASA
- sporkwitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm skeptical, and though the site looks somewhat reputable compared to some of the ***** stories I've looked into this morning, the fact that the site tried to open a pop-up doesn't lend to its credibility. As far as the physics behind what it's saying, I've never heard of particles behaving like that, even at a quantum level (I'm a bit of a physics geek, though admittedly I'm no expert.) Gravity attracts, period, regardless of distance, and that effect decreases with the square of the distance (IIRC, my physics is rusty.)
- MindTrigger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0
good ole lifters - Phoghat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Engage!
- aaron157, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Do we really need a new post on this topic every other day? No Digg!!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Too often, no digg...
http://www.gfx.com
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is