Uh oh, the cat's out of the bag. That's right, puny foreign countries: we've got the anti-gravity device, and we're only sharing with the other kids in the class who suck up to us! Now, don't you ungrateful nations (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Germany, FRANCE: I'm looking at you) wish you'd been a little nicer to us? Who's got the flying carpets now, Ahmed? Neener neener!
(Via the most grateful Tim Blair. We will make him head eunuch sales manager.)
"Bill Gunston speculated that the American Northrop B-2 Spirit heavy bomber already uses some form of anti-gravity technology"
It's called the Bernoulli Effect. Very hush-hush. I could be killed for telling you this.
Posted by: Paul at January 29, 2003 at 10:28 PMThe Tin Foil Hat brigade strikes again. He can't imagine why anyone would want to get onboard with a stealthy aircraft that doesn't look like a bunch of legos, can cruise at supersonic speeds without afterburners, and is highly maneuverable..... So he jumps directly to Anti-Gravity???????????
Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
Posted by: Rick Tengdin at January 30, 2003 at 12:21 AMCurious that so many people insist on finding bizarre explanations that focus on narrow, selfish, personal motives. None of them seem to have the wit to think that Blair and Howard (or Bush and Cheney for that matter) believe that squashing Islamic terrorism is the right thing to do and that replacing Saddam with some sort of consensual government is the first step in reforming the dysfunctional Arab political culture that gives rise to that terrorism. I suspect it says more about their own motivations and thinking than those of their targets.
Posted by: Michael Lonie at January 30, 2003 at 12:56 AMI loved the bit about the "kid gloves" we're using on North Korea. As if North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at January 30, 2003 at 02:17 AMArggh. This story actually floated around last spring. There's a Russian scientist named Yevgeny Podkletnov whose been trying to get funding for some thing he's been working on. Lots of results via Google, if you look. Podkletnov doesn't appear to be a complete nut. I ran some of the material by my wife, who teaches this sort of thing, and she said that while it doesn't sound like real anti-gravity (which would involve the elusive gravity waves and gravitons), that there might be something there. Some aerospace companies are rumored to be looking at his work, but they look at a lot of stuff that isn't practical.
Posted by: Jack at January 30, 2003 at 06:03 AMDo a search on "Zero Point Field" and you will see some information about the concepts described. There are legitimate physicists working on propulsion concepts that may involve manipulating mass properties. Of course, there was an Army intelligence unit that was working on psychic remote viewing at one time, too. It's amazing what one can get a contract for.
Of course none of this "gee whiz" stuff is necessary to explain why various countries are willing to depose Saddam Hussein by force. The state explanations are sufficient, just as Al Qaeda's statements about why they kill Westerners are sufficient to explain their motivation.
Posted by: Dave Himrich at January 30, 2003 at 10:26 AMUm, I hate to crush that guy's wet dream, but the F35 (JSF) does not employ anti-gravity technology. Did he miss the freaking ENORMOUS engine on that bad boy? (And the fact it took freaking forever to get it to work properly?) And the new stealth technology is ground breaking, which is why it's classified and tightly controlled. But we are that way with ALL proprietary technology. It isn't simply a matter of the U.S. wanting to hold onto it (though it does), it's also an issue of LockheedMartin actually owning the theory and techonology behind it.
(I just happen to work for LockheedMartin. My father also happens to work for LM as a project manager on the JSF program.)
Posted by: amy at January 30, 2003 at 10:41 AMI'm sorry to see you've been taken in by this blatant disinformation. Anti-gravity my ass! It's all about the hydrogen!
Posted by: Stephen M. St. Onge at January 31, 2003 at 09:39 PMOh, I really hate to step a little more on this soggy pile of goo, but here's what I sent to Glenn (in the half-assed expectation that maybe he was semi-serious about the antigravity thing):
Glenn:
There's a serious error in the article. No aerospace engineer worth his salt would look at the thrust of a single GE F-118-100 engine and think that was all that was available. The B-2 has four of these engines. That makes its net thrust something like 70,000 lbs. This would be an awful thrust-to-weight ratio for a fighter aircraft, but it turns out to be typical or high for passenger airliners like the 747. And about half that of an F-18 Hornet.
Also the B-2's lift/drag ratio is much higher than any other aircraft around, which makes it more aerodynamic. A higher lift/drag ratio allows the aircraft to fly level with a smaller wing angle-of-attack, which reduces drag. And there's no fuselage and tail to add drag, either. Basically the whole aircraft does all the heavy lifting, where a B-52 only lifts with a (relatively) small part. Roughly speaking, the B-2 is as good a glider as a U-2.
So...no antigravity; sorry.
David Perron
Staff Research Engineer
Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control
5600 Sand Lake Rd, MP-916
Orlando, FL 32809
407-356-0769