This reminds me of when Professor Farnsworth stated they increased the speed of light in 2208, because traveling faster than light was impossible so this was the only alternative.
@@DKNguyen3.1415 Hubert J! One of the most quotable scientific minds of all future! It’s about time he started showing up in dissertation bibliographies.
@@DKNguyen3.1415 So what you're saying is, if we want to unlock the possibilities of space travel, we need to stop moving ourselves through the universe and instead move the universe around our ships?
Well, to be fair, there are classified mathematics and physics. The NSA employs something like 10 universities worth of mathematicians, and all their work is classified.
And despite all of that, simple gravity is the free energy that we've all been waiting for. They've had a gravity train for years that operates on 0 fuel with this super high tech feature: lifting up one side of the track
It may be hidden, but its waiting to be uncovered, and someone will uncover it, and will use it against you. So put aside your playstation for the rest of this afternoon and make an effort to add one plus one. You'll find it useful sooner than later.
@@RobardoHughes My point exactly. I've found it to be enlightning to make an inventory of everything I don't know. It's a bit depressing at first, but after a while it shows things I didn't know I don't know, because I thought I did know them, and it's that kind of non-knowledgable knowing that prohibits learning. Hopefully not too abstract?
Joe the not scientist asks "from an engineering perspective, how do you make any of this happen?" Eric the scientist says, "you would build something that did something.." what an upside down world.
That oscillator circuit at 9:13 is amusing. I am a Power Electronics engineer and I have an intest in the history of this technology. This circuit shown is equivalent to what would be considered state of the art in around the 1870's. Technology has moved on quite a bit since then withe the advent of the thermionic vacuum tube and then all that semiconductor stuff.
Yeah, that schematic ... lol. Brushes and car lamps. I guess the crucial part is Cx, which is a "varicondenser". If you don't have a varicondenser, don't worry. A Hawaiian pizza works just as well.
I was looking for this comment. lol I watch the Asianometry TH-cam channel for his modern semiconductor fab content. The tech and methods they use today are incomprehensible to basically everyone, including me. The processors in our phones are virtually at the physical limit of what's possible in our Universe. It's mind-blowing, and completely mundane simultaneously. I'm sure they'd have discovered antigravity if it was there to be found.
My son is a passionate drone flyer, making nice, magical videos with these devices. Now I have the suspicion, that he works for the chinese secret service. I love this video and your work on anti-gravity, thank you. PS.: So foxy that you disguise your intelligence activity with a German accent😂.
@SabineHossenfelder do urself a delight and buy one with camera headset; should be worth it for a play around; maybe even discover an artistic touch over its flying and video making; if you do buy a full set please do an insight video on it; make sure you get a decent range one, at least 2.5 miles range or even 5 miles range; verify in case of sudden rain how it behaves and also get a second battery pack if possible; if you would be passionate about outdoors nature viewing check if it can be made to run a bit silent so u dont scare the wild life; money wise fuck money and just get the professional stuff. Side note: why not treat urself with some 10 k meters assisted plane jump? Too old to jump off a plane? Too old to pay 4k on a drone setup? Never. Dont be greedy and share experience. Enjoy
agreed, the best description of joe ive seen is comparing him to a feudal lord who got an interest in learning and invites wizards to his yurt to explain why the sky is blue and where the sun goes at night. all the wacky people he brings on are a feature, not a bug, of the process of hewing closer and closer to truth
Didn't Douglas Adams predict exactly this? The Bistromathic drive was a faster-than-light propulsion system that emerged from the complex calculations needed to tally restaurant bills. So the complex system resulted in new physics to travel large distances quickly.
And, it came about because physicists weren't invited to those kinds of parties? Nothing changed there ..., I can't imagine Sabine dancing on a table top, anywhere in the visible universe.
The increasing rarity of new discoveries is just how discoveries work in every field. Early paleontologists found bones literally sticking out of the ground and every single one was a monumental find that described something new and huge. Once the surface is picked over you have to start digging and finds become statistically more likely to be something you already know. This is the same for ore mines and oil fields. Eventually you cross the threshold where the goodies are hidden in places that were not economically viable to look before and you need better technology and more time and effort to extract the stuff. Sanding a piece of wood, weeding a garden, restoring an old watch, these are all the same principle of diminishing returns. You discover all the big stuff first because it's the most obvious and because it requires the least amount of effort per unit of result. I appreciated that perspective. Thanks Sabine
A friend and I saw an aircraft/UFO that I later found out looks similar to something called the Tr3-B. Look it up. It was Groton Connecticut 2006ish. It hovered silently for 5 minutes in the night sky where I could see the silhouette, and lights. 3 lights each corner with one weird one in the middle. After 5 minutes of us being like what is that. It took off like a bullet suddenly. Not a rocket or aircraft. I saw no plume or heard anything. It headed north before heading over the tree line, and then suddenly popped out heading east. That turn must have been HARD. It was only out of sight for a moment! Then it went over the horizon. The entire process took under 10 seconds from hovering to over the horizon. We could never figure out if was small, and silent. Or large, and high up. Yet just last year Sandboxx news Alex Hollins told his story of seeing one too which is just insane. He is a respected journalist. He said it was massive! I cannot explain that, and I won't. My friend says aliens, or dimensional beings. I don't know about that. I think Alex, my friend, and I saw the same thing. Yet I can't be certain if Alex saw a different craft. I swear by this story. Things like that make me agnostic life, and my friend crazy, lol. I just hope it is ours. Never seen any real UFO again sadly.
But we know that we still don't know a lot of things. And maybe we can never know everything. Also, our resources are growing exponentially, and our tools are getting better too. So It would make sense to still discover things at the same pace. We do find bones regularly btw., and even entire cities. And there are still plenty of places we haven't even looked yet, like Antarctica.
Yes, but no. There is a world of information just below the surface that has not yet been discovered in terms of Dinosaurs, Rome, Germania, The Celts, the Chinese, the... everything. There is SO MUCH their. Discovering it requires two things: Passion, and incentive. Beyond this though - if we consider the average total man hours per discovery and track that over time, it's stayed relatively consistent for millennia really. The amount of people relative to the total populace doing research is small - and while research and discovery is more difficult then say 500 years ago, we have far better tools for doing that discovery. So the question: What is going on? To understand: We have to understand what drove funding and research in the past - vs. what drives it today. In the past: Military interest, and wealthy people interested in a topic. Today: It's mostly driven through political interest, and while there is still military interest - that military interest has been diminished mostly to the realm of the militaries own capability. Historically, Military interest would include, but not necessarily limited to: Ancient cultural finds, Geological surveys, understanding local flora/fauna, potential resource deposits, and more. Why this fell away is largely in the post WWII era - we shifted from a dominate, colonize, exploit operation and we shifted to a Trade based relations operational process. After all: If you aren't planning to occupy a region - you don't need justification such as "Our ancestors lived their". Today: Military interest - was basically replaced by Political interest, and from this we have seen a complete disregard to studies that even suggest something other then human sources are driving climate change. We see string theory dominate the field through funding grabs as compared to every other form of theoretical physics stifling potential discovery. And the list keeps on going. When you politicize something, and create a bureaucratic process - when every research paper needs to deal in some way with climate to get funding - good research is stifled, in favour of people more able and tuned into the political BS. And as a result: Less good science gets done.
Thing is, we've had gravity propulsion forever... Push a boulder off the cliff. It moves as if by magic toward the canyon floor. ACME sells a mail order kit. Comes with a tiny umbrella and a small sign that says, "help!."
Back in the 1960s, if you looked in the back of Analog magazine, you could find an ad tor an antigravity device that you could buy. I always figured that if I had sprung for that (it was only a few dollars, IIRC), I would have gotten a coathanger.
Nikola Motors had a truck with a gravitic propulsion system, and they went into bancrupcy. (Don't get hung up on the details that the rolled a non functioning truck down a hill to make it seem like it actually can drive.)
A big problem with Eric W is that he ends his non-explanation with a snide "your not smart enough to understand". I am smart enough to understand that he is just bullshitting with his theories.
Intelligence if often compartmentalized. He's clearly very smart in some areas. That doesn't mean that in other areas he's not a raving idiot. His claims here lack all of the signs of intelligence: they are sweeping, vague, missing anything specific. "If we can play with these forces as variables not as constants, we can do so much." And if pigs had wings, they could fly. But they don't, and they can't. In Swedish, "Hvis og hvis min røv er spids og fyldt med marmelade." Or, "If and if my ass is pointy and full of marmalade." In German, "Wenn das Wörtchen wenn nicht wär, wär mein Vater Millionär." Or, "If that little word "if" did not exist, my father would be a millionaire."
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly...he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science...Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries." - Max Planck, 1924
@@thekaxmax We don't need the world's most intelligent people looking for advances in fields where advancements occurred in the last hundred years. We need them looking for advances in fields where they aren't expected.
From what I have read, "antigravity" was pioneered by Towsend Brown of the US Navy. He performed experiments with levitating crafts containing high voltage capacitors. However the forces experienced in these experiments were almost certainly due to the generation of ions from the air due to the high voltages used.
thats what they publically claim. how do you know it is purely from ions? I havent seen anyone test this in a vacuum, and creating a vacuum is difficult and expensive. a perfect vacuum also is not necessary. if the force is because of ions, it should be much, much lower in a chamber with very little air molecules inside.
In "Foundation's Edge" from 1982, Asimov describes a ship that uses gravitic propulsion. In "Foundation" from 1942, only an elevator is described as using gravitic technology.
I am love with the mind of Sabine Hossenfelder. Years ago while living in Wiesbaden, Germany I had the opportunity to attend a German university for free for the first year while I worked on my German language skills. How wonderful it would have been to sit in on a lecture from Dr Hossenfelder. Thank you for the videos!
2:12 In this case, Marc Andreesen isn't even hallucinating. In the 1990s, there was a lengthy court battle against the PGP creator Zimmerman. As PGP used the patented RSA algorithm and it was freely downloadable worldwide, he was sued to "export weapons technology to enemy states" like Iran or North Korea. So it's not THAT of a stretch to assume whole branches of maths would be classified instead of published.
Also, it was verboten to ship software with encryption that used keys longer than 56 (? that's what my Alzheimer tells me) bits. That included web browsers and such, but it took about 15 minutes for everybody to figure out how to patch the software and remove this limitation. Also, do you remember T-shirts with the DVD master key? Those were fun times…
@ 3:23 : "You would build something, based on new plans that did something that nothing else could do." ROFL! I seriously rolled so out loud for over a minute.
@@HansImWald Though several approved patents, zero working prototypes for any of his ideas. Approved patents simply mean that no one has had a similar idea approved before. If I wanted to pay the price, I could have any wacky idea patented. Here, too, it boils down to "You would build something based on new plans that did something that nothing else could do". Gobbledygook.
For the video reference in this thread to Salvatore Pais - several granted patents - no prototypes. A granted patent only means no one else submitted the idea - the USPTO does not screen patent applications for any kind of feasibility in the real world. Anyone can submit any idea for a patent... if they are willing the pay the price of filing a patent application.
I think she would fold in half afyer realizing she could say what she wanted, would be politely creatively challenged and then be baked to no degree. I know her type.
@@idrathergetaidsthangetwoke9145 Yes, Joe lets everybody say exactly what they want. No matter how much of ridiculous BS it is. If they were an expert on the subject for example medicine, I’ll throw a whole bunch of stupid anti-medicine questions at them so that is audience thinks that what they say is actually in question
Even if he listened and was able to understand, he'd just go back to agreeing with a quack on the same subjects in a few weeks. Did you follow the whole Graham Hancock Vs Flint Dibble thing? He had an expert on with one of his regular quacks and it went how you'd expect but after a while he just had the quack on again and started the interview claiming the expert was full of it.
Why must we necessitating that any technologies that could be described as "gravatic" or "anti-gravatic" in effect or appearance must be exclusively tied to the rubbish idea of "zero energy" travel and all the other rubbish? It's more than plausible that some form of advanced propulsion system exists without being tied to psychedelic bro-spiracy theories.
My guess is Gravitic Propulsion is patented by the same people who developed Unobtanium. Imagine a future where Widgets made of Unobtanium are powered by Gravitic Propulsion. Surely a golden age awaits.
I really love your content, as someone who went the route of chemistry and not physics, I absolutely am here for your humor and delivery, please never stop! :D
The thing with searching for new physics in chemistry is that finding weird stuff isn't the exception but the rule - and when something unexplainable happens it's not a source of excitement but "shot we have to try a different way"
@@KristopherNoronha No, it wasn't in the video. The subject of emergent of behavior just reminded me of this. You can try search for the words 2D graphene and magic angle. It's graphene sheets, not nanotubes.
The key to ever lasting energy is to build a thing that brings two things together that causes a thing to happen. We then take that happening and run a thing through it that causes it to do a thing. While it does its thing, we cycle it inside protected things in tanks of things that will build up a thing that can turn a thing that provides an abundance of energy.
helium balloons fall upwards. they are gravitic propusion in a sense, because gravity is pulling on the denser air, effectively pushing the balloon up. the balloon consumes no energy to float and fall upwards, the energy comes from earths gravitational field.
I have invented a means to rotate gravitic propulsion 180º. I'm trying to find a different word for "teeter-totter" in the wording of the text. There's a danger someone will steal the idea and make trillions of dollars from my work.
That is basically what sci-fi gravitic propulsion is. Basically make an artificial field of mass in front of your vessel, and it'll fall towards it. I know Halo specifically uses this for the alien forces in lore. But like Sabina said, to make something fly with this, that artifical field must have more than the mass of the earth. Even if it were possible to make artificial gravity, it would be a massive energy hog. Anything using it would basically need a black hole to power it.
I don't... This subject is very serious, and she has done the history and the scientists who've worked on it a great disservice! th-cam.com/video/uR2fGJghP6w/w-d-xo.html
See the 1927 patent GB300311A - This produces what Thomas Townsend Brown, the Inventor, describes as the Electro Gravitic effect or ionic wind. Later changed to the Biefeld-Brown effect. Brown worked with the US Navy in the 1950s, before the topic became top secret.
"Most mainstream scientists and engineers consider the so-called "Biefeld-Brown effect" to be primarily an ionic wind phenomenon, meaning that the force generated is due to the movement of charged particles in the surrounding air, rather than any exotic gravitational interaction. Laboratory experiments have consistently shown that the force diminishes in a vacuum, supporting the ionic wind theory rather than any antigravity claims." - ChatGPT
T. T. Brown was awarded multiple patents in this field, from 1928 to 1965. To have a patent, you literally have to describe how to make it. That's the patentable part. And as usual, no one has claimed that his findings somehow violate the energy laws. If you have to keep putting in power, it's just another engine.
@@johnevans1385 good for fanning fires though. PTT a real technique in cancer treatment, and it twigged me to think DEW and weather manipulation. It can be done no doubt. The principle of Photothermal Therapy (PTT)-localized heating through light absorption by nanoparticles-could theoretically be applied to atmospheric or environmental manipulation. How PTT Works Photosensitizer Agent: PTT relies on materials like nanoparticles (e.g., gold nanoparticles, graphene, or carbon nanotubes) that absorb NIR light and convert it into heat. These materials are often functionalized to specifically target cancer cells. NIR Light Activation: A NIR laser is used to penetrate tissue, as it can reach deeper tissues due to minimal absorption by biological components. Heat Generation: The nanoparticles absorb the NIR light and convert it into heat. This localized hyperthermia induces cancer cell death, typically through protein denaturation and membrane disruption. Cancer Cell Death: The heat damages cancer cells without significantly affecting surrounding healthy tissue, as the treatment is precisely targeted. Here's an exploration of the idea: Applying PTT Principles to Atmosphere Seeding. Seeding the Atmosphere with Nanoparticles: Material Selection: Similar to gold nanoparticles in PTT, materials with high absorption efficiency at specific wavelengths (e.g., carbon black, graphene, or engineered metal oxides) could be dispersed in the atmosphere. Size and Composition: Nanoparticles would need to be engineered to resonate with specific wavelengths of light, such as infrared or visible sunlight. Heating the Atmosphere or Target Areas: Localized Heating: If nanoparticles are tailored to absorb specific frequencies of light (e.g., solar radiation or directed laser beams), they would convert that energy into heat, warming the surrounding air or objects immersed in the seeded area. Selective Heating: By controlling the dispersion of nanoparticles, specific regions or layers of the atmosphere could be targeted. For instance: Warming cold air masses to influence weather patterns. Melting snow or ice in targeted regions. Preventing frost formation in agricultural fields. Directed Energy Application: Infrared lasers or high-intensity light sources could be used to selectively activate nanoparticles within the seeded region, focusing energy and maximizing efficiency. Potential Applications Weather Modification: Influence local weather patterns by heating air masses or redirecting wind flows. Mitigate frost damage to crops by warming specific areas of farmland. Solar Energy Enhancement: Increase localized heat absorption in regions where solar energy is insufficient (e.g., in cold climates or during the winter). Thermal Decontamination: Selectively heat areas to kill pathogens or pests in agricultural or urban settings.
@@johnevans1385so a failed idea, that no one should do any more research on or invest money in? That doesn’t sound like what a intelligence agency would do to discourage or stop research in a classified field!
@@johnevans1385 Sure agreed it's not an "antigravity " phenomena but it doesn't need to be as long as it actually works in large scale such as facilitating the levitation of large craft in the air which I'm pretty sure it does despite what the mainstream scientists have said. The tech has been perfected since the 50's by big military contractors but kept hidden from the public eyes IMHO . It's not for the public's eyes maybe even only a few in the US govt. are privy to it's existence the rest don't even know about it.
Very good points, Sabine. The idea of you going on to Joe Rogan's podcast is brilliant. I would pay to see that. I am impressed when Rogan asked, "from an engineering perspective". In the end, all this fundamental physics is meaningless, until it is applied.
What about Electric Universe / Plasma Theory vs. Standard Theory? This might be how people look at the universe, and reveal new truths not seen by current scientific bias.
It seems like some physicists are more concerned about plowing forward than taking the time to fully understand where we are. I know that seems boring, but it more fully explains the real world around us. Which is something that is much more useful.
@SabineHossenfelder , below is a simple setup. Please do it yourself and explain it to yourself how it works (just be curious, no need to explain to others). Please don't rely on anyone else's previous put down explanations. At 2:45 mark you can see no ionic air and you can feel that ring is on heavier side when it drops. th-cam.com/video/006d36WWyaQ/w-d-xo.html
Did that guy reference Einstein's rulers and protractors? Did they have small clocks attached in their 4th dimension to be able to measure space-time and not only space?
As a chemist/geochemist, I honestly think this is where all the cool things will actually come from. The big holy grails here are Room Temperature Super conductors Meta Stable solid Hydrogen Meta materials Macro scale Nanoparticles And I'm sure there are others I have yet to come across or am not personally interested (one of my lectures was trying to make synthetic haemoglobin).
"Macro scale nanoparticles" makes NO sense 😂😂😂😂. I guess that's why you are a "geochemist". We could almost say that all marerials around us are basically "macro-scale nanoparticles" ...
@boredscientist5756 it's things like meter long single nanotubes or large sheets of single layer graphene. I don't think my terminology there is on point, but the thing is a real area of study.
As a lay bust interested person, I have always felt that if any of these things were possible astronomers and astrophysicists would have already seen it in the cosmos.
I think this is a great overview and the points about compatibility with what we know are spot on. However I think there is a 4th way that you glossed over, which are some kind of emergent behaviour that only shows up in specific circumstances. For instance, Cooper pairs in superconductivity, or magic angles in graphene. So you are correct that these aren't new fundamental forces, fields or particles, but specific arrangements of fundamentals may reveal new and surprising properties that aren't apparent in other contexts. Edit: haha, I should have waited for the rest of the video, I see you eventually made basically this same point. Kudos!
to be fair, Rogan's question was pretty terrible. what would the thing we don't know how to work, operate, or build, look like from an engineering perspective? That guy was a trooper for even attempting to answer that question for him.
Sabine, I appreciate your willingness to explore fringe concepts and discuss the gap between what we think might be possibe and what science can prove is possible. Your openness is refreshing!
I learned about anti-gravity way back in 1970 in grade school. Professor Bullfinch developed anti-gravity devices. Here's the title of the seminal book on the subject: "Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint"
I now want a thriller-action movie featuring Sabine Hossenfelder as the world's greatest physicist-spy waging war against the world's forces of stupidity. First movie: The Quark Who Loved Me.
Excellent video, Sabine! I especially liked the part where you note that the place to look for scientific upsets is in emergent properties, rather than in fundamental ones. It's especially striking when you consider that life and consciousness are emergent properties of the physics of our universe. But, coming to the fundamental rules of our universe completely cold, no one would predict it giving rise to something as complex and varied as biology. That all said, the level of cringe I felt at watching some of the pseudoscience clips was legitimately painful for me. Like, if somebody has to dodge the most basic of questions about the "world shattering" assertions they're making, then you know they're absolutely full of crap.
As a cognitive scientist, I like what you said Sabine about the new physics being within the emergence of compound complexity. I'm personally working on a "Standard Model of Consciousness" that involves emergence from the electrical activity between neurons in the brain forming "currents", "standing waves", and other structures which assemble into higher-order structures to produce consciousness, And I expect this can be generalized outside of "commonly-understood brains" to other systems involving the aggregation and internal reprocessing of information, like slime molds, mycelial networks, and others.
@@howlinwulf Yes, I remember seeing a video documentary about exactly what you mentioned... (I'm looking through my YT history) ... yup, it was by @realscience at th-cam.com/video/nPOQQp8CCls/w-d-xo.html
@ I leave believing in things for the religious. I prefer to actually know things than just believe in them, but unfortunately I do not know the answer to whether or not it exists because I am not privy to such guarded information. Until I do know the answer i will keep an open mind.
no. the entire world is controlled by a single shadow government. the rivalry between nations is artificial. its just a giant conspiracy against humanity, freedom and civilization. the tech is hidden not because its dangerous, its hidden because renders most of the oppressive economy obsolete. anti gravity devices generate energy when flying, because they get pushed by earth gravity. they are "free energy" devices in the sense that they gain more energy than they loose, because they are pushed by earths gravity instead of fighting it. effectively, its a method of transportation at hypersonic speed in the atmosphere and close to light speed in space, with instant acceleration produced by tiny forces cause there is no weight to overcome. it has effectively zero energy cost when in flight and close to a strong mass like a planet, its relatively safe because you cannot ever hit the ground at high speed so crashing it is difficult and if done, relatively harmless as the force is tiny. it eliminates the need for all transportation infrastructure. no streets, no ships, no planes, no large runways, faster, safer, no energy cost, no fuel. and it also overcomes all issue of space travel. think about how much cheaper this would make everything. remove all the successive transportation and energy cost that in prices. as you dont need street infrastructure, real estate will be much cheaper, can be build everywhere, and energy can be generated everywhere, without any need for fuel, mining, imports and no danger or pollution. if this was made public, humans would instantly be free from the oppressive control of governments and ruling elites, and thats precisely why this is hidden. the anti gravitic nature is not the troubling part, its the fact that allows for very convenient energy generation and simultaneously reduces energy consumption down to near zero, since transportation would not required any.
i have saved a video of a man who is demonstrating a small levitating saucer with 2x counter rotating discs. but i don’t want to share the name of the user just in case. because he explain how it works and i don’t want that information to disappear. even tough she is probably right, there is no plot to hide this information. i just keep it to myself for now. no one has any interest in replicating that experiment anytime soon, since most people would probably think it’s fake. anyways, to make such a flying saucer be energy self sufficient, it will need to be connected to the aether. as in tapping into a very vide spectrum of frequency and transforming those energies into DC or use regenerative acceleration.
I have been interested in this for awhile. Though I have never seen a convincing model, or a convincing theory on how it would work. It keeps popping up though, and in different places. Hypothetically, if I was going to verify this experimentally, how would I do so?
She’s smartened up and knows what people will click on. Look what happened to the TLC channel, turned into reality TV and aliens cause that makes money
That's a very elegant way to put it: new physics is hidden in the emergent properties of complex systems. I have a bit of fascination with the complex system theory, and I find this possibility highly plausible. I'm very grateful for that insight. It seems like a perfect fit to make some "woo" stuff possible without breaking down any solid foundation that we have. Something like Penrose's consciousness model, or Sabina's explanation of the possibility of thinking universe. But let's be fair - it also opens the possibility for the aforementioned Wolfram's magical ruler :)
I followed the research of Dr Ning Li for years. Tried contacting her and she couldn't be found anywhere. There was something to her research. She found a way to manipulate gravity using spinning superconducting disks. Her story is a fascinating story.
Anyone interested in antigravity should study Ning Li, Podkletnov Eugene, Townsend Brown, John Hutchison, Viktor Schauberger, Salvatore Pais, Nikola Tesla, Tom Bearden.
i work at the university where she worked, and i have followed her research. Her work definitely has merit and warrants further research. Rumor has it that she did work for DOD and fleshed out the idea.
@@Ghostrider-ul7xn There is numbers of researches which has dissipated. That means that they has been on something real. So... if this really is "Real" how we can get to it? Current physics is hopeless - it do not know what Gravity is, Space, Time, El.magnetism, Polarity... There is one book which explaining all these unknown elements - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe", but they is trying to hide it.
Aviaition Week and Space Technology once had an article claiming that zero point energy was just around the corner. They said it would be developed by 2012. That was just about the last thing I heard of it.
Joe actually asked a very easy and direct question about energy usage. Probably heard about space bending drives needing a lot of energy. Then the guy completely sidesteps the question Edit: oh and listened to the rest. New plans to do new things haha
Scaler Wave Math is easy, (B^{S} *10^{-18}). "ring ring, ring ring" "Elon?"|"wah-wah-wah-wah-wah" | How's that, you have a Billion Dollar Frontier Server Array in your Basement? | "wah-wah-wah-wah-wah" | Oh I'm not doubting you, but it's impractical for most of us, we need that space to do the Laundry.| "wah-wah-wah-wah-wah"| Laundry Elon, What's Laundry? ask your housekeeper she can explain it to you.| "wah-wah-wah-wah-wah" | Yes love you too bye.
Here's my issue with your argument, Sabine. 'Maths' are so unbelievably challenging, complex, and diverse, that the talent pool of humans who can understand the full breadth and depth of physics topics has got to be near zero. Is it possible there are blind spots? Yes. Add to this the innumerable edge cases, cusps, and asymptotes that can be exploited across all relevant equations, and I'm not convinced that it's simply "impossible" to do anything novel from this point on with the topics of gravity and time. The other factor that really challenges anyone in this space is access to advanced materials, vacuum physics, and photonics experiments. This is why we end up with teams of researchers and peer reviewed papers, yet this very workflow seems to create a glacial pace of innovation and discovery, rife with the pressure of 'next funding round' and only incremental progress. I see a parallel in new product prototyping, the space I play in. Regardless of budget, R&D projects / prototypes seem to apply the 80/20 rule out of necessity. If we had the time and money to only explore the far-fetched 20% of creative solutions and apply them to new products, we'd have some really cool stuff. Same can probably be said of math and physics. So, stay rooted in reality, yes, but don't close off the possibility of new phenomena. At one time someone was probably sh*tting on the idea of a laser, a semiconductor, or radio waves. For one thing, we have not fully explored superconductors, and if there can be zero resistance in electron flow, then a lot of 'maths' probably go to infinity. Same with BECs and even novel Piezo materials. That's my EE take on the whole thing.
Please don't tell me by "photonics experiments" you solely mean the wave-function collapse which was disproven as an instrument interference flaw yet to this day is still used by quantum woo grifters to suggest proof of God or the insane gnostic worldview that suggests schizophrenic hallucinations are real 💀
On the piezo topic - I have been pushing for more reseach in this area for the last decade. The NSF has set up some funding that is available through ARPA-E and some universities are now tapped into this and conducted some very encouraging research. It looks like the power denity for piezo transformers is likely to be potential 3 to 5 orders higher than for traditional magnetic devices.
Exactly, and they put and pollute the comments. If they do not belive, they can actually ask a chat-AI: Wonders, wonders, they say exactly same things as she said, even though she said where to look ...
Actually the US is not to blame for this one. Its the darn germans who got away. They started the research in the 1930s. Its quite well documented if one is inclined....
I'm a clueless german, but inclined. Please tell me where to look 😂 Is it the Fliegende Deutsche Untertasse? I've only found ones made of porcelain so far. They weren't particularly aerodynamic.
The USA had obscure research dating decades before that. The Germans were not the only ones to do that at that time, but their secrecy cracked because they lost the war.
Most people aren't aware of the Invention Secrecy Act. Once you read up on it and how often it's used, you start to wonder about a lot of things you "know" about the current state of science and technology.
Yes, actual Patents can be classified. But, to be a Patent in the first place, it has to describe some practical method of achieving a specific outcome AND not be obvious to one "skilled in the art". Theories, ideas, concepts, etc., can't be patented.
@@davidutullakatos637 no. also, all research is funded by top down controlled institutions. you wont be discovering anti gravity devices because you wont get funding and equipment to study it. they only fund what goes with their poilitical agenda. they dont want anti gravity to be publically known because of how much it would raise the standard of living, because its a method of flight that requires no fuel when turned on, and can be used to generate energy from gravity's push. all they need to do is not fund it, and then academics will not touch it because they cannot make money from it and academics are paid to publish to get draw research money from institutions and gov. they also can loose their reputation or career when it comes with the label "pseudo science" on wikipedia or within academica.
@@avsystem3142 I am close to 100% sure every other country has similar laws and they all agree on what the technology public is allowed to have access to.
The whole story, please! Yes, in 1953, the U.S. Army humorously classified Ohm’s Law as “confidential” in a training manual titled The Use of Radioisotopes in Warfare. This wasn’t a serious act of secrecy but rather a tongue-in-cheek way to emphasize the importance of understanding fundamental electrical principles like Ohm’s Law in military applications. This anecdote is often brought up as an example of military humor.
The RSA algorithm, in it's original form, was classified, as was much of the decoding of Enigma messages (WWII). The US will generally freely publish basic science, but when it dries up it means either it's very useful and now classified, or limited use and no funding!
You do not need advanced tech and structures to see the effects of a gravitic propulsion system. You just need to look into nature and study the flight characteristics of bumblebees able to lift their giant body with tiny wings and able to fly in perfectly straight lines completely unimpacted by even strong crosswinds. Explain that with classical aerodynamics. Not easy? Try magnetohydrodynamics. It will work. This is the key to gravitic propulsion.
It is a very precise and excellent explanation. The uncertainty in metric measurement is truly very complex. If the metric has uncertainties in the measured distance traveled by a photon and its arrival time, many issues arise. The first issue is in measurement. The Hamiltonian encounters a non-Hermitian problem, as defined by Pauli. If the Hamiltonian H is semi-positive definite (H≥0), then if a time operator That exists, its eigenvalues t should cover all possible times, meaning from negative infinity to infinity. This is because physical phenomena can occur at any time, not just at t≥0. However, this contradicts the Hamiltonian H . If the time operator That exists, it would form a conjugate relationship with H : [H,That]=ihbar This is similar to the commutation relation between position and momentum. However, if H has only non-negative eigenvalues (E≥0), such a commutation relation is impossible. This issue was explicitly pointed out by Pauli's theorem. It is not entirely impossible, though. Before I conceived the uncertainty relation of the metric, I encountered this problem. At that time, I was considering defining the metric through gauge fields of translation, and when I thought about expressing translations in the form of spinors, something strange happened. If a reflection to the past occurred, it would cause unitarity and causality problems. However, this did not prevent reflections to past time points because multiple reflections to past time points could still occur. But the direction of time flow still pointed to the future, thus avoiding causality issues, as the past still influences the future. The unitarity problem was also resolved because the total energy represented by the Hamiltonian would not flow to the past-it still pointed to the future. However, when I realized that the metric is actually measured through photons' traveled distance and arrival time, I abandoned that approach and turned to the issue of metric uncertainty. Now is the time to bring it back into use. The Hamiltonian can be resolved by allowing travel to the past while keeping time directed toward the future. This is similar to the cyclical nature of cosmic time: if we return to the past but time still moves forward, we eventually return to the original time point, just like a closed cycle. This requires a very large metric uncertainty to achieve because it needs to cover the phase of different time states. Essentially, this can only happen inside a black hole. However, problems remain numerous. The issue of Hilbert space completeness still exists because, when the metric is uncertain, g_munu(x) -> g_munu(x) + delta g_munu(x) the inner product becomes =∫d^n x sqar(|g(x)+ delta g(x)|) psi*(x)phi(x) Expanding it: sqar(|g(x)+ delta g(x)|)≈sqar |g(x)| (1+1/2Tr[deltag(x)]) The corrected inner product then becomes: =[∫d^n x sqar(|g(x)|) psi*(x)phi(x)] + [1/2∫ d^n x sqar(|g(x)|)Tr[delta g(x)] psi*(x)phi(x)] If delta g(x) is a small perturbation, the change in the inner product is a secondary correction and can be ignored. However, if delta g(x) fluctuates significantly, the inner product may undergo a noticeable change, potentially breaking the orthogonality between basis states. If delta g(x) is large or randomly distributed, additional nonzero inner products may emerge between different states, making them no longer strictly orthogonal. A clearer way to understand this is to consider the collapse of Hilbert space. For example, the orbital and energy levels of different electrons could become identical. In the process of neutron stars collapsing into black holes, all energy levels tend to converge. When the metric's uncertainty becomes large enough, the differences between neutron energy levels may shrink or even completely disappear. This could even lead to the collapse of the metric itself, making all metric states identical. Although we could argue that this phenomenon necessarily occurs when a neutron collapses into a black hole due to the inevitable breakdown of degeneracy, this does not mean we have no way to address it. We can incorporate the correction terms into the Hilbert space beforehand, but this requires precise computation of the compensation term. The metric uncertainty is significantly manifested inside black holes, so we must handle quantum perturbative gravity's vacuum corrections. Without addressing this, we cannot determine the compensation term or fully understand the black hole's interior. Although we can use metric uncertainty to derive an exponential decay factor in functional integrals, the number of problems remains overwhelming. I found that this is not so simple because the coupling constant does not have any uncertainty. Moreover, when we calculate the functional integral, since we are using the Heisenberg picture in quantum field theory, our phase factor is a positive oscillatory factor. The usual approach is to transform Minkowski spacetime into Euclidean space, which results in an exponentially decaying factor similar to statistical mechanics. However, when quantum perturbative gravity is transformed into Euclidean space, it has a negative kinetic term, which is known as the conformal factor problem. This directly leads to a divergent Gaussian integral instead of a convergent one. Actually, this issue is not that difficult to resolve. In the Schrödinger equation, the oscillatory factor is indeed negative because the Schrödinger picture follows the Hamiltonian formulation. Therefore, the Heisenberg picture, when converted into the Lagrangian action formulation, results in a positive oscillatory factor. As long as we use the Schrödinger picture in quantum field theory, the oscillatory phase factor naturally takes the form of an exponential decay. Since we do not perform analytic continuation to the complex plane, transforming into Euclidean space ensures that the decay factor remains exponential. However, there is still uncertainty regarding whether the metric measurement affects propagators and vertex terms. If it only influences the measure, it would merely change the interference weight factor without affecting loop calculations. But this is clearly impossible because the uncertainty in position and momentum affects the propagation of the field, and curvature is based on the metric. Therefore, both curvature interactions and propagation will be influenced by the metric uncertainty, leading to exponential decay factors in both propagators and vertex terms. Consequently, we can say that the divergence in quantum perturbative gravity is significantly suppressed, but it is still necessary to verify whether this is indeed the case.
@@SabineHossenfelderAll of this is just a coincidence. A wrong starting point gave me the technique. I posted it under your *What Everyone Gets Wrong about AI* video out of curiosity at the time. I'll post it again, but this kind of idea itself comes with many challenges and an uncertain process that may not necessarily be correct. I have an idea: although quantum perturbative gravity is non-renormalizable, we have not fully accounted for the fact that the metric itself may be quantized. In classical general relativity, one measures the metric by sending photons from A to B, measuring the travel time t, and then using d = c t to determine the distance. However, we have not considered quantum effects in this process. When we use photons to measure distance, the more precisely we measure the photon's arrival time, the less precisely we know the distance it traveled; conversely, the more precisely we measure the distance, the less precisely we know its arrival time. This leads to an uncertainty relation delta d * delta t≥ l^2_p. At first glance, this may seem unrelated to the renormalization of quantum gravity perturbations. But let us consider the path integral Z =intergal D g_munu e^(iS[g_munu] / hbar) Since the metric g_munu is quantized, we should integrate over ghat_munu. This introduces an extra factor e^(-delta(g)^2/l^2_p) which comes from using delta d * delta t ≥ l^2_p, reflecting the photon's time-distance measurement uncertainty. Thus, we have Z =intergal D g_munu e^(iS[g_munu] / hbar) e^(-delta(g)^2/l^2_p) Therefore, when delta g is large, contributions from high-energy states are suppressed. At every loop order, this can tame divergences. The reason is that when the momentum of the metric becomes too high, it becomes impossible to measure time and distance in a well-defined way, causing the metric to “foam up.” We often hear about spacetime “foam,” but seldom about what happens afterward. Once the metric enters this foamy regime, it can no longer sustain a well-defined geometry, so its curvature cannot continue increasing. Consequently, there is no singularity. This means that extremely small distances and the extreme curvatures at black hole singularities both vanish due to this effect.
@@SabineHossenfelder I posted it under your What Everyone Gets Wrong about AI video out of curiosity at the time. I'll post it again, but this kind of idea itself comes with many challenges and an uncertain process that may not necessarily be correct. I have an idea: although quantum perturbative gravity is non-renormalizable, we have not fully accounted for the fact that the metric itself may be quantized. In classical general relativity, one measures the metric by sending photons from A to B, measuring the travel time t, and then using d = c t to determine the distance. However, we have not considered quantum effects in this process. When we use photons to measure distance, the more precisely we measure the photon's arrival time, the less precisely we know the distance it traveled; conversely, the more precisely we measure the distance, the less precisely we know its arrival time. This leads to an uncertainty relation delta d * delta t≥ l^2_p. At first glance, this may seem unrelated to the renormalization of quantum gravity perturbations. But let us consider the path integral Z =intergal D g_munu e^(iS[g_munu] / hbar) Since the metric g_munu is quantized, we should integrate over ghat_munu. This introduces an extra factor e^(-delta(g)^2/l^2_p) which comes from using delta d * delta t ≥ l^2_p, reflecting the photon's time-distance measurement uncertainty. Thus, we have Z =intergal D g_munu e^(iS[g_munu] / hbar) e^(-delta(g)^2/l^2_p) Therefore, when delta g is large, contributions from high-energy states are suppressed. At every loop order, this can tame divergences. The reason is that when the momentum of the metric becomes too high, it becomes impossible to measure time and distance in a well-defined way, causing the metric to “foam up.” We often hear about spacetime “foam,” but seldom about what happens afterward. Once the metric enters this foamy regime, it can no longer sustain a well-defined geometry, so its curvature cannot continue increasing. Consequently, there is no singularity. This means that extremely small distances and the extreme curvatures at black hole singularities both vanish due to this effect.
I'm reading a book about anti-gravity and I just can't put it down!
Can you please share the name of the book?
@@hfhfhf11 woosh, its a joke.
😂👍🏼
For those wondering, the answer to gravitic propulsion is superconductors. It's not theoretical...
Is there lots of studies and proving it ?@@lava_torrent8384
I've been affected by gravity for over 65 years and I'm tired of it.
Gravity is the main oppressive device of all governments.
I'm down with it.
Me too, it hurts my knees.
It's been 69 for me, and I have no problem with it. I like not floating away into the vacuum.
I go out there every day and defeat gravity by getting hopping mad about it, but conversations like this always bring me down.
Eric said it clearly: just change physics. Build something (unspecified) to do something (unspecified) that hasn’t been built before. Easy peezy
This reminds me of when Professor Farnsworth stated they increased the speed of light in 2208, because traveling faster than light was impossible so this was the only alternative.
@@DKNguyen3.1415 Hubert J! One of the most quotable scientific minds of all future! It’s about time he started showing up in dissertation bibliographies.
@@DKNguyen3.1415 Let us pray to the almighty Atheismo!
Everything out of that guys mouth is nonsense
@@DKNguyen3.1415 So what you're saying is, if we want to unlock the possibilities of space travel, we need to stop moving ourselves through the universe and instead move the universe around our ships?
Good to see someone treating this situation with the gravity it deserves.
Massively underradii’ded comment.
And making some levity in the process...
=============================================
I invented an "Antigravity Ball," but I accidentally let go of it. .............. _Now it's gone!_ 😥
😅
@@SabineHossenfelder Love your channel, Sabine! You're also a character in my latest cartoon! th-cam.com/video/0FX14MdcSNQ/w-d-xo.html
😢😢😢
poor ball. destined to forever alone gravity bouncing away from anything other than itself. Oh the poetic tragedy...
Was it full of helium? Or full of *itself* ?
Well, to be fair, there are classified mathematics and physics. The NSA employs something like 10 universities worth of mathematicians, and all their work is classified.
1:26 German physicists secretly aiding the US Government in top secret military projects LOL! Like that would ever happen!
And despite all of that, simple gravity is the free energy that we've all been waiting for. They've had a gravity train for years that operates on 0 fuel with this super high tech feature: lifting up one side of the track
@@sneakytown it's most likely just a magnetic rail running on electricity...
@@atlucas1it did many many time already haven’t you read up on history
@@williamdawes8553 I think he's being sarcastic. Project Paper Clip was exactly that after WW2.
When I was in school I always wished they would hide the maths.
LOL
I will answer all my math homework problems with "It's Classified"
It may be hidden, but its waiting to be uncovered, and someone will uncover it, and will use it against you. So put aside your playstation for the rest of this afternoon and make an effort to add one plus one. You'll find it useful sooner than later.
I wish they’d hide tax return maths
Pythagoras theorem should have been classified
Bohm’s PhD thesis was classified and he wasn’t even able to finish his research, but was awarded the PhD.
Yeah, and they kicked him out of the country, and he went to Brazil. That was a big mistake.
Eric and Joe remind me of the conversations we used to have as 18 year olds smoking pot.
DUDE??!?!
But they're 8-year-olds on pot... So... magic magaLOWmaniac thinking takes over.
Some of the best conversations....
The root Rogan's formula for a conversation
Anyone seen my car? Big night.
In order to 'think outside of the box', it helps to know what box you're thinking in to begin with.
yup. Want to advance a field of science, go and get a degree in it first.
If you believe in boxes
Outside the box? Some of us can't find the box.
I tried thinking outside the box. but next time it want be at the theatre.
@@RobardoHughes My point exactly. I've found it to be enlightning to make an inventory of everything I don't know. It's a bit depressing at first, but after a while it shows things I didn't know I don't know, because I thought I did know them, and it's that kind of non-knowledgable knowing that prohibits learning. Hopefully not too abstract?
Joe the not scientist asks "from an engineering perspective, how do you make any of this happen?" Eric the scientist says, "you would build something that did something.." what an upside down world.
I mean if he knew how to do it, he'd do it in his garage. It wouldn't be considered a secret.
To be fair, that method can solve virtually all problems, you just have to fill in the details.
I was impressed with Joe for that one, he could smell the bs.
That is an exercise left to the listener.
I don't know. I read your comment by using some device that did something - so that means devices that do things must exist.
Thanks!
That oscillator circuit at 9:13 is amusing. I am a Power Electronics engineer and I have an intest in the history of this technology. This circuit shown is equivalent to what would be considered state of the art in around the 1870's. Technology has moved on quite a bit since then withe the advent of the thermionic vacuum tube and then all that semiconductor stuff.
I have an intest in it too.
Yeah, that schematic ... lol. Brushes and car lamps.
I guess the crucial part is Cx, which is a "varicondenser".
If you don't have a varicondenser, don't worry. A Hawaiian pizza works just as well.
I was looking for this comment. lol
I watch the Asianometry TH-cam channel for his modern semiconductor fab content. The tech and methods they use today are incomprehensible to basically everyone, including me. The processors in our phones are virtually at the physical limit of what's possible in our Universe. It's mind-blowing, and completely mundane simultaneously. I'm sure they'd have discovered antigravity if it was there to be found.
@@AvenEngineeryeah this is my area of specialty in power semiconductor device research
Yep, especially when guys like Salvatore Pais talk about 100Terahertz. Even GaN will have trouble up at those freqs.
My son is a passionate drone flyer, making nice, magical videos with these devices. Now I have the suspicion, that he works for the chinese secret service. I love this video and your work on anti-gravity, thank you.
PS.: So foxy that you disguise your intelligence activity with a German accent😂.
I am very tempted to buy a drone. I actually have one, but it's fairly old and hard to maneuver and I crashed it into the bushes a few times. 😂
@SabineHossenfelder do urself a delight and buy one with camera headset; should be worth it for a play around; maybe even discover an artistic touch over its flying and video making; if you do buy a full set please do an insight video on it; make sure you get a decent range one, at least 2.5 miles range or even 5 miles range; verify in case of sudden rain how it behaves and also get a second battery pack if possible; if you would be passionate about outdoors nature viewing check if it can be made to run a bit silent so u dont scare the wild life; money wise fuck money and just get the professional stuff.
Side note: why not treat urself with some 10 k meters assisted plane jump?
Too old to jump off a plane? Too old to pay 4k on a drone setup? Never. Dont be greedy and share experience. Enjoy
@@SabineHossenfelder This summer I bought the DJI Avata 2 with FPV goggles, and I’m having a blast with it! Highly recommend!
You know these guys are nuts .Why you bother with pretentious tweps?
@@drazenimoti1223a lot cheaper that getting a “real” pilot’s licence.
“Hey Joe can I come on your podcast?” We need this, let Joe go down the list of wild misconceptions and finally get some clarity from Sabine.
agreed, the best description of joe ive seen is comparing him to a feudal lord who got an interest in learning and invites wizards to his yurt to explain why the sky is blue and where the sun goes at night. all the wacky people he brings on are a feature, not a bug, of the process of hewing closer and closer to truth
@@PeterDanielBerg I love that analogy so much. Don't remember where I first saw it but it's brilliant.
You can't talk sense to far-right propagandists. They are not paid to engage in truthful dialogue they are paid to mislead cretins.
He wouldn't understand. What little natural intelligence he had was rotted by pot, special k, and steroids.
@@taylankammer Isaiah 11:6 perhaps?
@1:15 It's called a hill. Used in conjunction with advanced vehicles like a bicycle, one can ride variable distances without peddling.
But where did that energy come from? Oh yeah, it was put into it when the energy was put into it pushing it up the hill in the first place.
how has the scientific community missed this?! 😆
That's what the first thing i thought. Gravitational drives are super easy to use, the only problem is they are not reversible.
Didn't Douglas Adams predict exactly this? The Bistromathic drive was a faster-than-light propulsion system that emerged from the complex calculations needed to tally restaurant bills. So the complex system resulted in new physics to travel large distances quickly.
And, it came about because physicists weren't invited to those kinds of parties?
Nothing changed there ..., I can't imagine Sabine dancing on a table top, anywhere in the visible universe.
Indeed the infinite improbability drive.
@@rbaxter286that was the improbability drive that used tea, bistromathics was the next discovery
Bistromathics requires prior experience with both the Special and General Theories of Disaster Area Tax Returns.
Thanks for reminding me it was over restaurant bills. I enjoy guessing the bill before it comes. I'm usually very close.
I get down a hill on skis with gravitic propulsion. Just the other day, my grandma flew down the stairs under its power. It's amazing!
"...grandma flew"
There was absolutely nothing aerodynamic about that event.
I have misused gravity several times, That kind of pain can humble you.
Okayyy ...sooo....there are no emoticons to express the way i 'm feeling right now...
She was pushed down the stairs?
The trick with flying is always falling but missing the ground somehow
Thanks
It is well known that in 1985, Dr. Emmitt (Doc) Brown discovered anti gravity and time travel with his invention the "Flux Capacitor".
Flux Capacitor = Rare Earth Magnet?
The increasing rarity of new discoveries is just how discoveries work in every field. Early paleontologists found bones literally sticking out of the ground and every single one was a monumental find that described something new and huge. Once the surface is picked over you have to start digging and finds become statistically more likely to be something you already know.
This is the same for ore mines and oil fields. Eventually you cross the threshold where the goodies are hidden in places that were not economically viable to look before and you need better technology and more time and effort to extract the stuff.
Sanding a piece of wood, weeding a garden, restoring an old watch, these are all the same principle of diminishing returns. You discover all the big stuff first because it's the most obvious and because it requires the least amount of effort per unit of result.
I appreciated that perspective. Thanks Sabine
The same is now happening with computer hardware.
❤
A friend and I saw an aircraft/UFO that I later found out looks similar to something called the Tr3-B. Look it up.
It was Groton Connecticut 2006ish. It hovered silently for 5 minutes in the night sky where I could see the silhouette, and lights. 3 lights each corner with one weird one in the middle.
After 5 minutes of us being like what is that. It took off like a bullet suddenly. Not a rocket or aircraft. I saw no plume or heard anything.
It headed north before heading over the tree line, and then suddenly popped out heading east. That turn must have been HARD. It was only out of sight for a moment!
Then it went over the horizon. The entire process took under 10 seconds from hovering to over the horizon.
We could never figure out if was small, and silent. Or large, and high up. Yet just last year Sandboxx news Alex Hollins told his story of seeing one too which is just insane. He is a respected journalist. He said it was massive!
I cannot explain that, and I won't. My friend says aliens, or dimensional beings. I don't know about that.
I think Alex, my friend, and I saw the same thing. Yet I can't be certain if Alex saw a different craft.
I swear by this story. Things like that make me agnostic life, and my friend crazy, lol. I just hope it is ours. Never seen any real UFO again sadly.
But we know that we still don't know a lot of things. And maybe we can never know everything.
Also, our resources are growing exponentially, and our tools are getting better too. So It would make sense to still discover things at the same pace. We do find bones regularly btw., and even entire cities. And there are still plenty of places we haven't even looked yet, like Antarctica.
Yes, but no. There is a world of information just below the surface that has not yet been discovered in terms of Dinosaurs, Rome, Germania, The Celts, the Chinese, the... everything. There is SO MUCH their. Discovering it requires two things: Passion, and incentive. Beyond this though - if we consider the average total man hours per discovery and track that over time, it's stayed relatively consistent for millennia really. The amount of people relative to the total populace doing research is small - and while research and discovery is more difficult then say 500 years ago, we have far better tools for doing that discovery.
So the question: What is going on? To understand: We have to understand what drove funding and research in the past - vs. what drives it today.
In the past: Military interest, and wealthy people interested in a topic. Today: It's mostly driven through political interest, and while there is still military interest - that military interest has been diminished mostly to the realm of the militaries own capability.
Historically, Military interest would include, but not necessarily limited to: Ancient cultural finds, Geological surveys, understanding local flora/fauna, potential resource deposits, and more. Why this fell away is largely in the post WWII era - we shifted from a dominate, colonize, exploit operation and we shifted to a Trade based relations operational process. After all: If you aren't planning to occupy a region - you don't need justification such as "Our ancestors lived their".
Today: Military interest - was basically replaced by Political interest, and from this we have seen a complete disregard to studies that even suggest something other then human sources are driving climate change. We see string theory dominate the field through funding grabs as compared to every other form of theoretical physics stifling potential discovery. And the list keeps on going.
When you politicize something, and create a bureaucratic process - when every research paper needs to deal in some way with climate to get funding - good research is stifled, in favour of people more able and tuned into the political BS. And as a result: Less good science gets done.
Thing is, we've had gravity propulsion forever...
Push a boulder off the cliff. It moves as if by magic toward the canyon floor.
ACME sells a mail order kit.
Comes with a tiny umbrella and a small sign that says, "help!."
Meep Meep
Back in the 1960s, if you looked in the back of Analog magazine, you could find an ad tor an antigravity device that you could buy. I always figured that if I had sprung for that (it was only a few dollars, IIRC), I would have gotten a coathanger.
Nikola Motors had a truck with a gravitic propulsion system, and they went into bancrupcy. (Don't get hung up on the details that the rolled a non functioning truck down a hill to make it seem like it actually can drive.)
Nice.
Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. ~ Dave Barry
A big problem with Eric W is that he ends his non-explanation with a snide "your not smart enough to understand". I am smart enough to understand that he is just bullshitting with his theories.
I'm not sure about his theories, but both W brothers come off as people who think they are smarter than the rest of humanity
@@la7era1u54 Literally built a career bullshitting.
Don't underestimate your ability to spot bullshitting. I applaud it because it's becoming rare. And this is not sarcasm!
as you approach the singularity, it really does feel weird.
Intelligence if often compartmentalized. He's clearly very smart in some areas. That doesn't mean that in other areas he's not a raving idiot.
His claims here lack all of the signs of intelligence: they are sweeping, vague, missing anything specific.
"If we can play with these forces as variables not as constants, we can do so much."
And if pigs had wings, they could fly. But they don't, and they can't.
In Swedish, "Hvis og hvis min røv er spids og fyldt med marmelade."
Or, "If and if my ass is pointy and full of marmalade."
In German, "Wenn das Wörtchen wenn nicht wär, wär mein Vater Millionär."
Or, "If that little word "if" did not exist, my father would be a millionaire."
Sometimes Sabine, you are wonderfully clear, and this is one of those times! Thanks 🙂
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly...he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science...Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries." - Max Planck, 1924
And you'd need a Planck or Maxwell or Einstein to make that extra leap. Are there any right now working in this field?
@@thekaxmaxWe won’t know their names until they’re successful
@@thekaxmax We don't need the world's most intelligent people looking for advances in fields where advancements occurred in the last hundred years. We need them looking for advances in fields where they aren't expected.
Hubris, it's always hubris.
If physicists wanted us to believe they weren't conspiring with the government. They shouldn't have Manhattan project. Just saying.
From what I have read, "antigravity" was pioneered by Towsend Brown of the US Navy. He performed experiments with levitating crafts containing high voltage capacitors. However the forces experienced in these experiments were almost certainly due to the generation of ions from the air due to the high voltages used.
There's lots more out there.
@@MR-nl8xrreproduce it
thats what they publically claim. how do you know it is purely from ions? I havent seen anyone test this in a vacuum, and creating a vacuum is difficult and expensive. a perfect vacuum also is not necessary. if the force is because of ions, it should be much, much lower in a chamber with very little air molecules inside.
The force was from ions, but he didn’t ever levitate any craft
@@Scissors69 according to authorities. you dont know if he levitated anything, your just reading from wikipedia.
Sabine said everything one would expect an agent for us government would say....
Sabine Hossenfelder The Sole Authority On Anything & Everything!
But she lives and works in EU so that doesn't fly
@mikhail_fil Sabine is a zenithist. believing everything in physics has already been discovered like von jolly in 1874
@@JohnKuhles1966 way false
@@car9167 You think location means ANYTHING?
“You can’t just build a state of the art AI model in your basement”
*Deepseek has entered the chat*
Wow, the conehead conversation was indeed surrealistic.. he petted his own leg like he was checking on Schrödingers cat
Very excited to that Sabine talking about this! It's going to be an exciting year for sure.
Sabine on JRE would be hilarious ngl
He loves to bring in all the conspiracists, its more exciting
She deserves better.
It would be like a Placozoa trying to interview Einstein.
I want Philomena Cunk to interview Sabina. My mate Paul
More like irritating for a scientist to deal with a flamboyant entertainer
As always thank you for injecting science into this.
It's that old saying, "Is that a particle accelerator in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?" 😆
neither it's a bonner !
Theoretically you could make a pocket sized particle accelerator, but it won't accelerate the particle very much.
The first mention of gravitic technology that I know of was in Isaac Asimov's novel "Foundation," from 1942.
And a close relative was the use of gravity shielding in H G Wells's book.
In Cixin Liu’s Death’s End they use a form of gravity propulsion as spaceship engines
David Brin uses the term in his Uplift novels, although it's never really explained. Still, it's my favorite Science Fiction.
In "Foundation's Edge" from 1982, Asimov describes a ship that uses gravitic propulsion. In "Foundation" from 1942, only an elevator is described as using gravitic technology.
you need to try non fiction it's very old for decades
I am love with the mind of Sabine Hossenfelder. Years ago while living in Wiesbaden, Germany I had the opportunity to attend a German university for free for the first year while I worked on my German language skills. How wonderful it would have been to sit in on a lecture from Dr Hossenfelder. Thank you for the videos!
Someone should remind Eric that there are no free lunches in physics.
2:12 In this case, Marc Andreesen isn't even hallucinating. In the 1990s, there was a lengthy court battle against the PGP creator Zimmerman. As PGP used the patented RSA algorithm and it was freely downloadable worldwide, he was sued to "export weapons technology to enemy states" like Iran or North Korea. So it's not THAT of a stretch to assume whole branches of maths would be classified instead of published.
Also, it was verboten to ship software with encryption that used keys longer than 56 (? that's what my Alzheimer tells me) bits. That included web browsers and such, but it took about 15 minutes for everybody to figure out how to patch the software and remove this limitation. Also, do you remember T-shirts with the DVD master key? Those were fun times…
@ 3:23 : "You would build something, based on new plans that did something that nothing else could do." ROFL! I seriously rolled so out loud for over a minute.
th-cam.com/video/8TYMQOUDQBo/w-d-xo.html
@@HansImWald Though several approved patents, zero working prototypes for any of his ideas. Approved patents simply mean that no one has had a similar idea approved before. If I wanted to pay the price, I could have any wacky idea patented. Here, too, it boils down to "You would build something based on new plans that did something that nothing else could do". Gobbledygook.
That sounds like a roundabout way of saying "It's classified."
I know right? Reminds me of the Wright brothers, those couple of kooks, thinking they can just "make" a flying machine 🤣
For the video reference in this thread to Salvatore Pais - several granted patents - no prototypes. A granted patent only means no one else submitted the idea - the USPTO does not screen patent applications for any kind of feasibility in the real world. Anyone can submit any idea for a patent... if they are willing the pay the price of filing a patent application.
I would love to see Sabine on Rogan's podcast. She would melt his brain
I think she would fold in half afyer realizing she could say what she wanted, would be politely creatively challenged and then be baked to no degree.
I know her type.
@@idrathergetaidsthangetwoke9145
Yes, Joe lets everybody say exactly what they want. No matter how much of ridiculous BS it is.
If they were an expert on the subject for example medicine, I’ll throw a whole bunch of stupid anti-medicine questions at them so that is audience thinks that what they say is actually in question
Joe’s brain was melted a long time ago
Even if he listened and was able to understand, he'd just go back to agreeing with a quack on the same subjects in a few weeks.
Did you follow the whole Graham Hancock Vs Flint Dibble thing? He had an expert on with one of his regular quacks and it went how you'd expect but after a while he just had the quack on again and started the interview claiming the expert was full of it.
I think his “brain” is completely melted 🤣. But I get your point
Why must we necessitating that any technologies that could be described as "gravatic" or "anti-gravatic" in effect or appearance must be exclusively tied to the rubbish idea of "zero energy" travel and all the other rubbish?
It's more than plausible that some form of advanced propulsion system exists without being tied to psychedelic bro-spiracy theories.
2:16 Stumbling his words, self soothing by stroking his leg. What he's thinking and what he's saying probably don't match.
Yeah he is spitting bs and he knows it
1:30 Correction: conspiracies to hide top secret physics has been a thing on social media since before social media.
My guess is Gravitic Propulsion is patented by the same people who developed Unobtanium.
Imagine a future where Widgets made of Unobtanium are powered by Gravitic Propulsion.
Surely a golden age awaits.
Is Unobtanium the generic, patent-free version of Unobtainium?
It is people like you who said telephones were witchcraft...
@@manoo422 - “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke
@@brothermine2292 Yes, it is.
Sort of like Linux/Unix
Ayup.
Ah, it's patented by the Navy
I really love your content, as someone who went the route of chemistry and not physics, I absolutely am here for your humor and delivery, please never stop! :D
The thing with searching for new physics in chemistry is that finding weird stuff isn't the exception but the rule - and when something unexplainable happens it's not a source of excitement but "shot we have to try a different way"
I think a good example of emergent behavior is twisted graphene layers with the 1.8 degree magic angle of twist.
is that what was in the video? or was that just a plain carbon nanotube?
@@KristopherNoronha No, it wasn't in the video. The subject of emergent of behavior just reminded me of this. You can try search for the words 2D graphene and magic angle. It's graphene sheets, not nanotubes.
It's a shame the FBI have threatened you into saying they didn't threaten you.
The key to ever lasting energy is to build a thing that brings two things together that causes a thing to happen. We then take that happening and run a thing through it that causes it to do a thing. While it does its thing, we cycle it inside protected things in tanks of things that will build up a thing that can turn a thing that provides an abundance of energy.
There was math removed from my answers in math exams by the us government
That’s why my grades where mediocre
Same. I’d be a world famous physicist if the government hadn’t gotten to my teachers first.
would you care to put a probability on that? Go on, you can do it.............
I have invented a method of gravitic propulsion that I call falling
helium balloons fall upwards. they are gravitic propusion in a sense, because gravity is pulling on the denser air, effectively pushing the balloon up. the balloon consumes no energy to float and fall upwards, the energy comes from earths gravitational field.
I have invented a means to rotate gravitic propulsion 180º. I'm trying to find a different word for "teeter-totter" in the wording of the text. There's a danger someone will steal the idea and make trillions of dollars from my work.
Its flat earth conspiracy nonsense, gravity isnt negotiable, flying into space is the only escape.
That is basically what sci-fi gravitic propulsion is. Basically make an artificial field of mass in front of your vessel, and it'll fall towards it. I know Halo specifically uses this for the alien forces in lore.
But like Sabina said, to make something fly with this, that artifical field must have more than the mass of the earth. Even if it were possible to make artificial gravity, it would be a massive energy hog. Anything using it would basically need a black hole to power it.
Now all you have to do is learn to miss the ground and you can fly.
I so appreciate Sabine's dry humor, much needed this morning.
I don't... This subject is very serious, and she has done the history and the scientists who've worked on it a great disservice!
th-cam.com/video/uR2fGJghP6w/w-d-xo.html
Researching emergent properties! Bingo! (thanks for including this)
See the 1927 patent GB300311A - This produces what Thomas Townsend Brown, the Inventor, describes as the Electro Gravitic effect or ionic wind. Later changed to the Biefeld-Brown effect.
Brown worked with the US Navy in the 1950s, before the topic became top secret.
"Most mainstream scientists and engineers consider the so-called "Biefeld-Brown effect" to be primarily an ionic wind phenomenon, meaning that the force generated is due to the movement of charged particles in the surrounding air, rather than any exotic gravitational interaction.
Laboratory experiments have consistently shown that the force diminishes in a vacuum, supporting the ionic wind theory rather than any antigravity claims." - ChatGPT
T. T. Brown was awarded multiple patents in this field, from 1928 to 1965.
To have a patent, you literally have to describe how to make it. That's the patentable part.
And as usual, no one has claimed that his findings somehow violate the energy laws. If you have to keep putting in power, it's just another engine.
@@johnevans1385 good for fanning fires though.
PTT a real technique in cancer treatment, and it twigged me to think DEW and weather manipulation. It can be done no doubt. The principle of Photothermal Therapy (PTT)-localized heating through light absorption by nanoparticles-could theoretically be applied to atmospheric or environmental manipulation.
How PTT Works
Photosensitizer Agent:
PTT relies on materials like nanoparticles (e.g., gold nanoparticles, graphene, or carbon nanotubes) that absorb NIR light and convert it into heat. These materials are often functionalized to specifically target cancer cells.
NIR Light Activation:
A NIR laser is used to penetrate tissue, as it can reach deeper tissues due to minimal absorption by biological components.
Heat Generation:
The nanoparticles absorb the NIR light and convert it into heat. This localized hyperthermia induces cancer cell death, typically through protein denaturation and membrane disruption.
Cancer Cell Death:
The heat damages cancer cells without significantly affecting surrounding healthy tissue, as the treatment is precisely targeted.
Here's an exploration of the idea: Applying PTT Principles to Atmosphere Seeding.
Seeding the Atmosphere with Nanoparticles: Material Selection: Similar to gold nanoparticles in PTT, materials with high absorption efficiency at specific wavelengths (e.g., carbon black, graphene, or engineered metal oxides) could be dispersed in the atmosphere. Size and Composition: Nanoparticles would need to be engineered to resonate with specific wavelengths of light, such as infrared or visible sunlight.
Heating the Atmosphere or Target Areas: Localized Heating: If nanoparticles are tailored to absorb specific frequencies of light (e.g., solar radiation or directed laser beams), they would convert that energy into heat, warming the surrounding air or objects immersed in the seeded area. Selective Heating: By controlling the dispersion of nanoparticles, specific regions or layers of the atmosphere could be targeted. For instance: Warming cold air masses to influence weather patterns. Melting snow or ice in targeted regions. Preventing frost formation in agricultural fields.
Directed Energy Application: Infrared lasers or high-intensity light sources could be used to selectively activate nanoparticles within the seeded region, focusing energy and maximizing efficiency.
Potential Applications Weather Modification: Influence local weather patterns by heating air masses or redirecting wind flows. Mitigate frost damage to crops by warming specific areas of farmland.
Solar Energy Enhancement: Increase localized heat absorption in regions where solar energy is insufficient (e.g., in cold climates or during the winter).
Thermal Decontamination: Selectively heat areas to kill pathogens or pests in agricultural or urban settings.
@@johnevans1385so a failed idea, that no one should do any more research on or invest money in? That doesn’t sound like what a intelligence agency would do to discourage or stop research in a classified field!
@@johnevans1385 Sure agreed it's not an "antigravity " phenomena but it doesn't need to be as long as it actually works in large scale such as facilitating the levitation
of large craft in the air which I'm pretty sure it does despite what the mainstream scientists have said.
The tech has been perfected since the 50's by big military contractors but kept hidden from the public eyes IMHO .
It's not for the public's eyes maybe even only a few in the US govt. are privy to it's existence the rest don't even know about it.
I appreciate your recent focus on positive & inspirational content with your added realistic point of view.
Very good points, Sabine.
The idea of you going on to Joe Rogan's podcast is brilliant. I would pay to see that.
I am impressed when Rogan asked, "from an engineering perspective". In the end, all this fundamental physics is meaningless, until it is applied.
What about Electric Universe / Plasma Theory vs. Standard Theory? This might be how people look at the universe, and reveal new truths not seen by current scientific bias.
Its like the "arm" said in "Twin Peaks" "Elec-tricity!"
It seems like some physicists are more concerned about plowing forward than taking the time to fully understand where we are. I know that seems boring, but it more fully explains the real world around us. Which is something that is much more useful.
Totally agree
@SabineHossenfelder , below is a simple setup. Please do it yourself and explain it to yourself how it works (just be curious, no need to explain to others). Please don't rely on anyone else's previous put down explanations. At 2:45 mark you can see no ionic air and you can feel that ring is on heavier side when it drops.
th-cam.com/video/006d36WWyaQ/w-d-xo.html
@@SabineHossenfelder th-cam.com/video/8TYMQOUDQBo/w-d-xo.html
There are two types of clock. Digital and analog. They both tell the time but one is square.
That's the problem. You need a long clock.
@@Marvin-tpaNo. a wide one. 😉
@@Marvin-tpaMy grandfather's clock is long and dangly.
I'm sticking to my sundial.
Did that guy reference Einstein's rulers and protractors? Did they have small clocks attached in their 4th dimension to be able to measure space-time and not only space?
As a chemist/geochemist, I honestly think this is where all the cool things will actually come from.
The big holy grails here are
Room Temperature Super conductors
Meta Stable solid Hydrogen
Meta materials
Macro scale Nanoparticles
And I'm sure there are others I have yet to come across or am not personally interested (one of my lectures was trying to make synthetic haemoglobin).
"Macro scale nanoparticles" makes NO sense 😂😂😂😂. I guess that's why you are a "geochemist".
We could almost say that all marerials around us are basically "macro-scale nanoparticles" ...
You're forgetting red mercury.
@dvv18 That's more of a myth. It doesn't have any basis on chemistry
@davidhobbs5679 You don't say…
@boredscientist5756 it's things like meter long single nanotubes or large sheets of single layer graphene. I don't think my terminology there is on point, but the thing is a real area of study.
I now understand the gravity of the situation regarding anti-gravity propulsion!
As a lay bust interested person, I have always felt that if any of these things were possible astronomers and astrophysicists would have already seen it in the cosmos.
I think this is a great overview and the points about compatibility with what we know are spot on. However I think there is a 4th way that you glossed over, which are some kind of emergent behaviour that only shows up in specific circumstances. For instance, Cooper pairs in superconductivity, or magic angles in graphene. So you are correct that these aren't new fundamental forces, fields or particles, but specific arrangements of fundamentals may reveal new and surprising properties that aren't apparent in other contexts.
Edit: haha, I should have waited for the rest of the video, I see you eventually made basically this same point. Kudos!
Kudos to you to for making the edit.
You mean other people comment befoer watching to the end? I thought I was the only one.
The man talking to Joe Rogan was describing Harry Harrison's Bloater Drive, described in Bill the Galactic Hero.
to be fair, Rogan's question was pretty terrible. what would the thing we don't know how to work, operate, or build, look like from an engineering perspective? That guy was a trooper for even attempting to answer that question for him.
@@twistedpixel756 Fair comment.
Sabine, I appreciate your willingness to explore fringe concepts and discuss the gap between what we think might be possibe and what science can prove is possible. Your openness is refreshing!
She is not open enough and exercises willful blindness to certain developments in physics.
The last time I changed physics, there was this gigantic explosion called the Big Bang. I'm not doing that again.
Must be getting late. I laughed at this, too.
I learned about anti-gravity way back in 1970 in grade school. Professor Bullfinch developed anti-gravity devices.
Here's the title of the seminal book on the subject: "Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint"
It’s great to find another Danny Dunn fan!
I now want a thriller-action movie featuring Sabine Hossenfelder as the world's greatest physicist-spy waging war against the world's forces of stupidity.
First movie: The Quark Who Loved Me.
Just asking, are you high?
@@blucat4 Drugs facilitated a lot of great art and ideas. More power to them.
I know, but this wasn't an example of such.
@@blucat4 Just trying to trigger a laugh.
I laughed.
Still waiting for santa to bring me a hoverboard (back to future stylee)Some pretty cool experiments going on with plasma/ plasmoids.
I would love to see Sebine in the JRE podcast
Excellent video, Sabine! I especially liked the part where you note that the place to look for scientific upsets is in emergent properties, rather than in fundamental ones. It's especially striking when you consider that life and consciousness are emergent properties of the physics of our universe. But, coming to the fundamental rules of our universe completely cold, no one would predict it giving rise to something as complex and varied as biology.
That all said, the level of cringe I felt at watching some of the pseudoscience clips was legitimately painful for me. Like, if somebody has to dodge the most basic of questions about the "world shattering" assertions they're making, then you know they're absolutely full of crap.
Well done as usual.
government alien agent approves 👏🏼
As a cognitive scientist, I like what you said Sabine about the new physics being within the emergence of compound complexity. I'm personally working on a "Standard Model of Consciousness" that involves emergence from the electrical activity between neurons in the brain forming "currents", "standing waves", and other structures which assemble into higher-order structures to produce consciousness, And I expect this can be generalized outside of "commonly-understood brains" to other systems involving the aggregation and internal reprocessing of information, like slime molds, mycelial networks, and others.
Ypu just went over most people's head.
But Japan used their subway to test and map the most efficient routes using just such life forms.
@@howlinwulf Yes, I remember seeing a video documentary about exactly what you mentioned... (I'm looking through my YT history) ... yup, it was by @realscience at th-cam.com/video/nPOQQp8CCls/w-d-xo.html
“How does it work? I don’t know”
That is by far the most convincing argument I’ve ever heard that it cannot possibly exist rofl
So, do you believe it exists? Just curious!
look it up clown. podlnetkov. 1990s it was in time magazine even
@ I leave believing in things for the religious. I prefer to actually know things than just believe in them, but unfortunately I do not know the answer to whether or not it exists because I am not privy to such guarded information. Until I do know the answer i will keep an open mind.
We all know Sabine is concealing Die Glocke. Give it up!😂😂
The idea of chinese gravatic propulsion drones is easily disproven: if they had such, they would not risk it's capture by a foreign power.
That's insane... If they had such tech, we'd probably have it as well, starting from 34.99 on Temu
@ No warrantee or QC though.
That’s what they *want* you to think.
Not if they knew that the US also has it already.
no. the entire world is controlled by a single shadow government. the rivalry between nations is artificial. its just a giant conspiracy against humanity, freedom and civilization. the tech is hidden not because its dangerous, its hidden because renders most of the oppressive economy obsolete. anti gravity devices generate energy when flying, because they get pushed by earth gravity. they are "free energy" devices in the sense that they gain more energy than they loose, because they are pushed by earths gravity instead of fighting it. effectively, its a method of transportation at hypersonic speed in the atmosphere and close to light speed in space, with instant acceleration produced by tiny forces cause there is no weight to overcome. it has effectively zero energy cost when in flight and close to a strong mass like a planet, its relatively safe because you cannot ever hit the ground at high speed so crashing it is difficult and if done, relatively harmless as the force is tiny. it eliminates the need for all transportation infrastructure. no streets, no ships, no planes, no large runways, faster, safer, no energy cost, no fuel. and it also overcomes all issue of space travel. think about how much cheaper this would make everything.
remove all the successive transportation and energy cost that in prices. as you dont need street infrastructure, real estate will be much cheaper, can be build everywhere, and energy can be generated everywhere, without any need for fuel, mining, imports and no danger or pollution.
if this was made public, humans would instantly be free from the oppressive control of governments and ruling elites, and thats precisely why this is hidden. the anti gravitic nature is not the troubling part, its the fact that allows for very convenient energy generation and simultaneously reduces energy consumption down to near zero, since transportation would not required any.
Flying Saucer coming from behind my house one night totally silent it was using anti-gravity and it wasn't aliens
i have saved a video of a man who is demonstrating a small levitating saucer with 2x counter rotating discs. but i don’t want to share the name of the user just in case. because he explain how it works and i don’t want that information to disappear. even tough she is probably right, there is no plot to hide this information. i just keep it to myself for now. no one has any interest in replicating that experiment anytime soon, since most people would probably think it’s fake. anyways, to make such a flying saucer be energy self sufficient, it will need to be connected to the aether. as in tapping into a very vide spectrum of frequency and transforming those energies into DC or use regenerative acceleration.
good! don’t share it!. gullible ones don’t deserve it
I have been interested in this for awhile. Though I have never seen a convincing model, or a convincing theory on how it would work. It keeps popping up though, and in different places. Hypothetically, if I was going to verify this experimentally, how would I do so?
Sabine commenting on UFOs was not on my list for 2025, but I welcome it.
She’s smartened up and knows what people will click on. Look what happened to the TLC channel, turned into reality TV and aliens cause that makes money
👍 you did it. Used the "waining" to present some kontekst and understanding. Good for me.
That's a very elegant way to put it: new physics is hidden in the emergent properties of complex systems. I have a bit of fascination with the complex system theory, and I find this possibility highly plausible. I'm very grateful for that insight. It seems like a perfect fit to make some "woo" stuff possible without breaking down any solid foundation that we have. Something like Penrose's consciousness model, or Sabina's explanation of the possibility of thinking universe. But let's be fair - it also opens the possibility for the aforementioned Wolfram's magical ruler :)
I followed the research of Dr Ning Li for years. Tried contacting her and she couldn't be found anywhere. There was something to her research. She found a way to manipulate gravity using spinning superconducting disks. Her story is a fascinating story.
Anyone interested in antigravity should study Ning Li, Podkletnov Eugene, Townsend Brown, John Hutchison, Viktor Schauberger, Salvatore Pais, Nikola Tesla, Tom Bearden.
i work at the university where she worked, and i have followed her research. Her work definitely has merit and warrants further research. Rumor has it that she did work for DOD and fleshed out the idea.
@@Ghostrider-ul7xn There is numbers of researches which has dissipated. That means that they has been on something real. So... if this really is "Real" how we can get to it? Current physics is hopeless - it do not know what Gravity is, Space, Time, El.magnetism, Polarity... There is one book which explaining all these unknown elements - "Theory of Everything in Physics and the Universe", but they is trying to hide it.
Aviaition Week and Space Technology once had an article claiming that zero point energy was just around the corner. They said it would be developed by 2012. That was just about the last thing I heard of it.
I will give you a [YES]
They'd never tell
@TomSherwood-z5l This is alien technology (ZPM) and was classified under the Stargate Program. Although the program is well documented. 😎
Wow, 30 years ago I played a tabletop RPG that had gravitic drives. It was fantasy back then, and I'm willing to bet is still is.
3:10 "more degrees of freedom" *rolls eyes, yes, degrees of freedom which aren't free to a large degree; wtf are these people taking.
Joe actually asked a very easy and direct question about energy usage. Probably heard about space bending drives needing a lot of energy.
Then the guy completely sidesteps the question
Edit: oh and listened to the rest. New plans to do new things haha
I hate dumb people who try to play at bejng smart. The guy clearly is a chucklehead. Sadly dumb people will listen.
Scaler Wave Math is easy, (B^{S} *10^{-18}). "ring ring, ring ring" "Elon?"|"wah-wah-wah-wah-wah" | How's that, you have a Billion Dollar Frontier Server Array in your Basement? | "wah-wah-wah-wah-wah" | Oh I'm not doubting you, but it's impractical for most of us, we need that space to do the Laundry.| "wah-wah-wah-wah-wah"| Laundry Elon, What's Laundry? ask your housekeeper she can explain it to you.| "wah-wah-wah-wah-wah" | Yes love you too bye.
This phone is pure gold😂
@@Thomas-gk42 TY, Glad you liked.
I can create artificial gravity, I just need 2000 Heptatons of matter.
@ Perfect. : )
Here's my issue with your argument, Sabine. 'Maths' are so unbelievably challenging, complex, and diverse, that the talent pool of humans who can understand the full breadth and depth of physics topics has got to be near zero. Is it possible there are blind spots? Yes. Add to this the innumerable edge cases, cusps, and asymptotes that can be exploited across all relevant equations, and I'm not convinced that it's simply "impossible" to do anything novel from this point on with the topics of gravity and time. The other factor that really challenges anyone in this space is access to advanced materials, vacuum physics, and photonics experiments. This is why we end up with teams of researchers and peer reviewed papers, yet this very workflow seems to create a glacial pace of innovation and discovery, rife with the pressure of 'next funding round' and only incremental progress. I see a parallel in new product prototyping, the space I play in. Regardless of budget, R&D projects / prototypes seem to apply the 80/20 rule out of necessity. If we had the time and money to only explore the far-fetched 20% of creative solutions and apply them to new products, we'd have some really cool stuff. Same can probably be said of math and physics. So, stay rooted in reality, yes, but don't close off the possibility of new phenomena. At one time someone was probably sh*tting on the idea of a laser, a semiconductor, or radio waves. For one thing, we have not fully explored superconductors, and if there can be zero resistance in electron flow, then a lot of 'maths' probably go to infinity. Same with BECs and even novel Piezo materials. That's my EE take on the whole thing.
Please don't tell me by "photonics experiments" you solely mean the wave-function collapse which was disproven as an instrument interference flaw yet to this day is still used by quantum woo grifters to suggest proof of God or the insane gnostic worldview that suggests schizophrenic hallucinations are real 💀
On the piezo topic - I have been pushing for more reseach in this area for the last decade. The NSF has set up some funding that is available through ARPA-E and some universities are now tapped into this and conducted some very encouraging research. It looks like the power denity for piezo transformers is likely to be potential 3 to 5 orders higher than for traditional magnetic devices.
These people know everything. Just ask them , they will tell you so.
My comment would be that she pretty much covered this when she said material science WAS a huge area for novel and new areas of science to open up.
@@ForgeMasterXXL Correct. But I would add that we are replying to a post based entirely on ignorance. Not a good place to start. Ever.
Sabine, you are a gift.
Exactly, and they put and pollute the comments. If they do not belive, they can actually ask a chat-AI: Wonders, wonders, they say exactly same things as she said, even though she said where to look ...
So we have to make something the size of earth and wait seven and a half million years for a result.
Unfortunately the Vogons won't wait that long.
That's a lot of effort and time to build a death star and hold a grudge.
OK! Where's my coffee plantation?
Thank you for the video.
Actually the US is not to blame for this one. Its the darn germans who got away. They started the research in the 1930s. Its quite well documented if one is inclined....
I'm a clueless german, but inclined. Please tell me where to look 😂 Is it the Fliegende Deutsche Untertasse? I've only found ones made of porcelain so far. They weren't particularly aerodynamic.
Oh not that stupid bell conspiracy theory? Yeah, moving right along.....
Victor Schauberger: Trout Turbine.
The USA had obscure research dating decades before that. The Germans were not the only ones to do that at that time, but their secrecy cracked because they lost the war.
Merci ! Un peu de sagesse dans un monde de folie.
The US government have patented this technology. Denying it is futile at this point.
You can patent things that don't work.
Cool can you provide vide me the patent numbers?
been trying to make maths dissapear since grade 5
And spelling
@ speling.
Nothing new, I remember the book "The Hunt for Zero Point'" by Nick Cook in 2003. Same anti-gravity stuff a few decades later.
I like when an actual physicist like our friend Sabine here takes a good look at questions like this. Thank you Sabine!
Most people aren't aware of the Invention Secrecy Act. Once you read up on it and how often it's used, you start to wonder about a lot of things you "know" about the current state of science and technology.
That's applied only to America tho
So if other countries or scientists from other countries discover it then its classification becomes pointless
Yes, actual Patents can be classified. But, to be a Patent in the first place, it has to describe some practical method of achieving a specific outcome AND not be obvious to one "skilled in the art". Theories, ideas, concepts, etc., can't be patented.
@@davidutullakatos637 no. also, all research is funded by top down controlled institutions. you wont be discovering anti gravity devices because you wont get funding and equipment to study it. they only fund what goes with their poilitical agenda. they dont want anti gravity to be publically known because of how much it would raise the standard of living, because its a method of flight that requires no fuel when turned on, and can be used to generate energy from gravity's push. all they need to do is not fund it, and then academics will not touch it because they cannot make money from it and academics are paid to publish to get draw research money from institutions and gov. they also can loose their reputation or career when it comes with the label "pseudo science" on wikipedia or within academica.
The best way to suppress it is to buy the patent and then sit on it. No gubermint required
@@avsystem3142 I am close to 100% sure every other country has similar laws and they all agree on what the technology public is allowed to have access to.
In 1953, the US Army identified Ohm's Law as classified (secret information). The Government can designate anything it wants as "classified".
She is either very naive or under NDA's.
The whole story, please! Yes, in 1953, the U.S. Army humorously classified Ohm’s Law as “confidential” in a training manual titled The Use of Radioisotopes in Warfare. This wasn’t a serious act of secrecy but rather a tongue-in-cheek way to emphasize the importance of understanding fundamental electrical principles like Ohm’s Law in military applications. This anecdote is often brought up as an example of military humor.
The RSA algorithm, in it's original form, was classified, as was much of the decoding of Enigma messages (WWII).
The US will generally freely publish basic science, but when it dries up it means either it's very useful and now classified, or limited use and no funding!
@@tlove2108 Did you actually WATCH the video? She literally states that math surrounding development of the nuclear bomb etc., indeed was hidden.
@@tosvus watched the whole thing. She makes snarky jokes as if it couldn't be possible
I’ve seen enough of Eric to be perplexed at his level of admiration. Way overrated.
You mean his level of admiration for himself? 😄
========================================================
@ That too!
You do not need advanced tech and structures to see the effects of a gravitic propulsion system. You just need to look into nature and study the flight characteristics of bumblebees able to lift their giant body with tiny wings and able to fly in perfectly straight lines completely unimpacted by even strong crosswinds. Explain that with classical aerodynamics. Not easy? Try magnetohydrodynamics. It will work. This is the key to gravitic propulsion.
It is a very precise and excellent explanation.
The uncertainty in metric measurement is truly very complex. If the metric has uncertainties in the measured distance traveled by a photon and its arrival time, many issues arise.
The first issue is in measurement. The Hamiltonian encounters a non-Hermitian problem, as defined by Pauli. If the Hamiltonian H is semi-positive definite (H≥0), then if a time operator That exists, its eigenvalues t should cover all possible times, meaning from negative infinity to infinity. This is because physical phenomena can occur at any time, not just at t≥0. However, this contradicts the Hamiltonian H .
If the time operator That exists, it would form a conjugate relationship with H :
[H,That]=ihbar
This is similar to the commutation relation between position and momentum. However, if H has only non-negative eigenvalues (E≥0), such a commutation relation is impossible. This issue was explicitly pointed out by Pauli's theorem.
It is not entirely impossible, though. Before I conceived the uncertainty relation of the metric, I encountered this problem. At that time, I was considering defining the metric through gauge fields of translation, and when I thought about expressing translations in the form of spinors, something strange happened. If a reflection to the past occurred, it would cause unitarity and causality problems. However, this did not prevent reflections to past time points because multiple reflections to past time points could still occur. But the direction of time flow still pointed to the future, thus avoiding causality issues, as the past still influences the future. The unitarity problem was also resolved because the total energy represented by the Hamiltonian would not flow to the past-it still pointed to the future.
However, when I realized that the metric is actually measured through photons' traveled distance and arrival time, I abandoned that approach and turned to the issue of metric uncertainty.
Now is the time to bring it back into use. The Hamiltonian can be resolved by allowing travel to the past while keeping time directed toward the future. This is similar to the cyclical nature of cosmic time: if we return to the past but time still moves forward, we eventually return to the original time point, just like a closed cycle.
This requires a very large metric uncertainty to achieve because it needs to cover the phase of different time states. Essentially, this can only happen inside a black hole.
However, problems remain numerous. The issue of Hilbert space completeness still exists because, when the metric is uncertain,
g_munu(x) -> g_munu(x) + delta g_munu(x)
the inner product becomes
=∫d^n x sqar(|g(x)+ delta g(x)|) psi*(x)phi(x)
Expanding it:
sqar(|g(x)+ delta g(x)|)≈sqar |g(x)| (1+1/2Tr[deltag(x)])
The corrected inner product then becomes:
=[∫d^n x sqar(|g(x)|) psi*(x)phi(x)] + [1/2∫ d^n x sqar(|g(x)|)Tr[delta g(x)] psi*(x)phi(x)]
If delta g(x) is a small perturbation, the change in the inner product is a secondary correction and can be ignored.
However, if delta g(x) fluctuates significantly, the inner product may undergo a noticeable change, potentially breaking the orthogonality between basis states.
If delta g(x) is large or randomly distributed, additional nonzero inner products may emerge between different states, making them no longer strictly orthogonal.
A clearer way to understand this is to consider the collapse of Hilbert space. For example, the orbital and energy levels of different electrons could become identical. In the process of neutron stars collapsing into black holes, all energy levels tend to converge.
When the metric's uncertainty becomes large enough, the differences between neutron energy levels may shrink or even completely disappear.
This could even lead to the collapse of the metric itself, making all metric states identical. Although we could argue that this phenomenon necessarily occurs when a neutron collapses into a black hole due to the inevitable breakdown of degeneracy, this does not mean we have no way to address it.
We can incorporate the correction terms into the Hilbert space beforehand, but this requires precise computation of the compensation term. The metric uncertainty is significantly manifested inside black holes, so we must handle quantum perturbative gravity's vacuum corrections. Without addressing this, we cannot determine the compensation term or fully understand the black hole's interior.
Although we can use metric uncertainty to derive an exponential decay factor in functional integrals, the number of problems remains overwhelming.
I found that this is not so simple because the coupling constant does not have any uncertainty. Moreover, when we calculate the functional integral, since we are using the Heisenberg picture in quantum field theory, our phase factor is a positive oscillatory factor. The usual approach is to transform Minkowski spacetime into Euclidean space, which results in an exponentially decaying factor similar to statistical mechanics. However, when quantum perturbative gravity is transformed into Euclidean space, it has a negative kinetic term, which is known as the conformal factor problem. This directly leads to a divergent Gaussian integral instead of a convergent one.
Actually, this issue is not that difficult to resolve. In the Schrödinger equation, the oscillatory factor is indeed negative because the Schrödinger picture follows the Hamiltonian formulation. Therefore, the Heisenberg picture, when converted into the Lagrangian action formulation, results in a positive oscillatory factor. As long as we use the Schrödinger picture in quantum field theory, the oscillatory phase factor naturally takes the form of an exponential decay. Since we do not perform analytic continuation to the complex plane, transforming into Euclidean space ensures that the decay factor remains exponential.
However, there is still uncertainty regarding whether the metric measurement affects propagators and vertex terms. If it only influences the measure, it would merely change the interference weight factor without affecting loop calculations. But this is clearly impossible because the uncertainty in position and momentum affects the propagation of the field, and curvature is based on the metric. Therefore, both curvature interactions and propagation will be influenced by the metric uncertainty, leading to exponential decay factors in both propagators and vertex terms. Consequently, we can say that the divergence in quantum perturbative gravity is significantly suppressed, but it is still necessary to verify whether this is indeed the case.
I gotta say writing that much into a youtube comment is gutsy.
Interesting argument, hadn't seen this before. Do you have that published somewhere?
@@SabineHossenfelderAll of this is just a coincidence. A wrong starting point gave me the technique. I posted it under your *What Everyone Gets Wrong about AI* video out of curiosity at the time. I'll post it again, but this kind of idea itself comes with many challenges and an uncertain process that may not necessarily be correct.
I have an idea: although quantum perturbative gravity is non-renormalizable, we have not fully accounted for the fact that the metric itself may be quantized. In classical general relativity, one measures the metric by sending photons from A to B, measuring the travel time t, and then using d = c t to determine the distance. However, we have not considered quantum effects in this process. When we use photons to measure distance, the more precisely we measure the photon's arrival time, the less precisely we know the distance it traveled; conversely, the more precisely we measure the distance, the less precisely we know its arrival time. This leads to an uncertainty relation delta d * delta t≥ l^2_p. At first glance, this may seem unrelated to the renormalization of quantum gravity perturbations.
But let us consider the path integral
Z =intergal D g_munu e^(iS[g_munu] / hbar)
Since the metric g_munu is quantized, we should integrate over ghat_munu. This introduces an extra factor
e^(-delta(g)^2/l^2_p)
which comes from using delta d * delta t ≥ l^2_p, reflecting the photon's time-distance measurement uncertainty. Thus, we have
Z =intergal D g_munu e^(iS[g_munu] / hbar) e^(-delta(g)^2/l^2_p)
Therefore, when delta g is large, contributions from high-energy states are suppressed. At every loop order, this can tame divergences. The reason is that when the momentum of the metric becomes too high, it becomes impossible to measure time and distance in a well-defined way, causing the metric to “foam up.” We often hear about spacetime “foam,” but seldom about what happens afterward. Once the metric enters this foamy regime, it can no longer sustain a well-defined geometry, so its curvature cannot continue increasing. Consequently, there is no singularity. This means that extremely small distances and the extreme curvatures at black hole singularities both vanish due to this effect.
This is just an argument.
@@SabineHossenfelder I posted it under your What Everyone Gets Wrong about AI video out of curiosity at the time. I'll post it again, but this kind of idea itself comes with many challenges and an uncertain process that may not necessarily be correct.
I have an idea: although quantum perturbative gravity is non-renormalizable, we have not fully accounted for the fact that the metric itself may be quantized. In classical general relativity, one measures the metric by sending photons from A to B, measuring the travel time t, and then using d = c t to determine the distance. However, we have not considered quantum effects in this process. When we use photons to measure distance, the more precisely we measure the photon's arrival time, the less precisely we know the distance it traveled; conversely, the more precisely we measure the distance, the less precisely we know its arrival time. This leads to an uncertainty relation delta d * delta t≥ l^2_p. At first glance, this may seem unrelated to the renormalization of quantum gravity perturbations.
But let us consider the path integral
Z =intergal D g_munu e^(iS[g_munu] / hbar)
Since the metric g_munu is quantized, we should integrate over ghat_munu. This introduces an extra factor
e^(-delta(g)^2/l^2_p)
which comes from using delta d * delta t ≥ l^2_p, reflecting the photon's time-distance measurement uncertainty. Thus, we have
Z =intergal D g_munu e^(iS[g_munu] / hbar) e^(-delta(g)^2/l^2_p)
Therefore, when delta g is large, contributions from high-energy states are suppressed. At every loop order, this can tame divergences. The reason is that when the momentum of the metric becomes too high, it becomes impossible to measure time and distance in a well-defined way, causing the metric to “foam up.” We often hear about spacetime “foam,” but seldom about what happens afterward. Once the metric enters this foamy regime, it can no longer sustain a well-defined geometry, so its curvature cannot continue increasing. Consequently, there is no singularity. This means that extremely small distances and the extreme curvatures at black hole singularities both vanish due to this effect.