"Concrete Smashing" via exotic beam device

[metamars]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water!:

Dr. Paul LaViolette has added to his web re experimental verification of his theory of subquantum kinetics. I don't think his theory is mathematical enough to impress most physicists, but OTOH he seems to have found too many verifications of his theory for him to be completely wrong. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible for me to find a Ph.D. physicist's writing on his work.

In any event, for whatever it's worth, from http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict2.html

Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the force exerted by the gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Paul LaViolette contacted Dr. Eugene Podkletnov and inquired about the performance of his gravity impulse beam generator. Previously Drs. Podkletnov and Modanese had reported in a published paper that the impulse beam was able to deflect a test mass up to 14 centimeters when 2 million volts were discharged through the generator's superconducting cathode disc (Podkletnov and Modanese, 2002). Podkletnov had subsequently told LaViolette that the beam was able to punch 4 inch holes through concrete blocks when 10 million volt pulses were discharged through the disk. In January 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov if his team used a different electric pulse generator to produce the gravity pulses that punched holes through concrete blocks as compared with the ones that produced the 14 centimeter pendulum deflections and whether the former used a different Marx capacitor bank that was able to create a pulse with a steeper gradient. Dr. Podkletnov concurred that was indeed the case, the concrete smashing pulses were created with an electric discharge that had a much more rapid voltage rise-time.

Verification (2008): The prediction with respect to the superluminal speed of gravity potential component of such waves was verified qualitatively. Previously, Dr. Podkletnov had told LaViolette that he and Dr. Modanese had measured the speed of the pulses to be between 63 and 64 times the speed of light. In January of 2008, LaViolette asked Podkletnov whether the concrete smashing pulses produced by the steeper electric field gradients traveled much faster than the pendulum deflecting pulses. Podkletnov concurred and said that they had determined that these stronger pulses traveled at least several thousand times the speed of light.

LaViolette is coming out with a book on exotic propulsion. I think I can reasonably guess that if the book is mostly true, exotic devices that may have worked similarly to the Podkletnov device, but much more powerful, were already developed on 9/11.

Unfortunately, I don't know how we could possibly verify any such claims.... (I don't mean the laboratory-scale work of Podkletnov and Modanese. I mean a large scale device.)

I've read through the Podkletnov paper that LaViolette links to, and the pendulum deflecting beam has no (measurable) distance dependence, yet exerts a force proportional to the mass of the pendulum. So, it's gravitation like in one way, and anything but in another.

I've not read anything more about the faster "concrete smashing" pulses than what is in the quotes above.

 

[David Wong]

Ooh, this should be awesome.

Based on this guy's device, somebody calculate the size/power of a device needed to pulverize all of the concrete in the WTC.

I'm thinking it'll be just slightly smaller than the Death Star, and cost...

... about 2.3 trillion dollars to build.

Wait a second...

 

[Brainache]

I would like to make a prediction using all of the psychic powers granted to me by Sylvia: The concrete smashing industry will never be the same again...

 

[beachnut]

This is a CT?

Good for that the WTC was a steel structure. Even the concrete floors were on steel pans.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dr. Paul LaViolette has added to his web re experimental verification of his theory of subquantum kinetics. I don't think his theory is mathematical enough to impress most physicists, but OTOH he seems to have found too many verifications of his theory for him to be completely wrong. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible for me to find a Ph.D. physicist's writing on his work.

If you can read LaViolette's website and believe for a moment that he is a sane, responsible and objective scientist, then I wouldn't recommend you bother talking to any Ph.D. physicists. You're already too far gone for us to be able to communicate with you. But for your own sake, don't offer to buy any bridges off him.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

do the math you are incapable of metamars.. To destroy the concrete in only the floors of the world trade center which is 8,600,000 square feet total
You would need 12,384,000,125,600,000 volts of electricity for your fantasy energy beam.

 

[metamars]

This is a CT?

Good for that the WTC was a steel structure. Even the concrete floors were on steel pans.

In terms of the forces involved, I don't think the type of matter, well, matters, excepting for it's density.

Got gravity beam, will push!

However, that's just for the milder force that pushed the pendulums around. Like I said, I don't know anything more about the "concrete smashing" pulses than what I've quoted. Whether it's more of the same, but just more intense (and speedier), or whether it's as different from the pendulum-pushing pulses as s-waves are from p-waves (whatever that analogy could possibly mean), I have no idea.

One thing's for sure - you can't possibly mistake concrete getting smashed. Either there's a real effect, or somebody is making stuff up. No mistakes allowed....

 

[metamars]

do the math you are incapable of metamars.. To destroy the concrete in only the floors of the world trade center which is 8,600,000 square feet total
You would need 12,384,000,125,600,000 volts of electricity for your fantasy energy beam.

Back in the day, my profs used to say that Power = Volts * Amps. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[Alareth]

Volts * Amps = Watts

Regardless, the required energy levels are not something that could easily be produced without an equally amazing scifi macguffin such as a Zero Point Module from Stargate.

 

[metamars]

If you can read LaViolette's website and believe for a moment that he is a sane, responsible and objective scientist, then I wouldn't recommend you bother talking to any Ph.D. physicists. You're already too far gone for us to be able to communicate with you. But for your own sake, don't offer to buy any bridges off him.

Dave

Hans Bethe seemed favorably disposed to at least some of LaViolette's theories in physics - in particular, his prediction of blue-shifting inside the solar system. As Bethe was a Nobel laureate, I think that should count for something.

 

[beachnut]

In terms of the forces involved, I don't think the type of matter, well, matters, excepting for it's density.

Got gravity beam, will push!

However, that's just for the milder force that pushed the pendulums around. Like I said, I don't know anything more about the "concrete smashing" pulses than what I've quoted. Whether it's more of the same, but just more intense (and speedier), or whether it's as different from the pendulum-pushing pulses as s-waves are from p-waves (whatever that analogy could possibly mean), I have no idea.

One thing's for sure - you can't possibly mistake concrete getting smashed. Either there's a real effect, or somebody is making stuff up. No mistakes allowed....

Oh, you have a gravity beam? OH? Standstill while I charge my 10 million volt pulses. darn, just a 4 inch hole in the concrete wall, oops, the wtc is steel. Back to the lab, and how do we get 1300 foot beam. 10,000,000 times 12/4 times 1300 = bunches of voltes, or a lot of these disk things; wait, a phase array disk thing. Let me build it in lower NYC.

So, are you the new Judy Wood? , You are joking as to this being applicable to the WTC and 9/11? Funny stuff, just brush off the math, push it aside, who cares about volts, I want energy. Funny stuff. Even fiction does a better job, see "back to the future", at least the mad scientist knows what energy is and how to calculate it.

Wow, 9/11 truth, not as good at math as is fiction. Wowzer. But then you are not really the next Judy Wood are you? Need cab fare for happy dale? This was a humor thread,,, right? You are joking about using this on the WTC right?

You got this weapon to show us? And what is the CT on this topic? CT?

 

[metamars]

Volts * Amps = Watts

Regardless, the required energy levels are not something that could easily be produced without an equally amazing scifi macguffin such as a Zero Point Module from Stargate.

An energy beam which could smash concrete might, instead, be used to fracture some steel columns at their weakest point. Just sayin'. Or maybe push in a wall.

OTOH, I got the impression that these gravity beams are not prone to dispersion, unidirectional, etc. Doesn't sound very promising from the point of view of concealment, even if there's no detcord, chemical trace, etc. However, we need Max Photon, the real expert on these sorts of things, to comment. I humbly bow to his superior wisdom.

Now, if you could construct a gravity-beam-transmogrifier, well, then, as a boss of mine used to say "Now you're cooking with gas!"

 

[phunk]

However, we need Max Photon, the real expert on these sorts of things, to comment. I humbly bow to his superior wisdom.

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, thanks for the laugh.

 

[Alareth]

However, we need Max Photon, the real expert on these sorts of things, to comment. I humbly bow to his superior wisdom.

Thermite dusted gravity beams?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hans Bethe seemed favorably disposed to at least some of LaViolette's theories in physics - in particular, his prediction of blue-shifting inside the solar system. As Bethe was a Nobel laureate, I think that should count for something.

OK, let's assume that there is a verifiable result that concrete-smashing gravity beam pulses have been observed to travel at several thousand times the speed of light. What are the implications of this discovery?

First of all, everything we know about relativity and causality is completely wrong. The entirety of Einstinian physics will have to be rewritten. Theoretical physicists will be falling over one another in the rush to formulate whole or partial theories to explain why the universe is so grossly different on a fundamental level to what we believed was a good model. The prize in sight is to become a new Einstein. The entire physics community would be in uproar, and publications would be coming out thick and fast.

Ask yourself, why isn't this happening? There are two possible answers.
(1) There is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to suppress any discoveries that contradict Special Relativity, motivated by some emotional or financial attachment hitherto unspecified to the Einstinian status quo to the extent that the highest pinnacle of achievement for any scientist, the immortality associated with having your name attached to the new Theory of Everything, is judged insignificant by comparison, or,
(2) A website produced by someone who claims to have reverse-engineered the antigravity drive of the B-2 Stealth Bomber is not a reliable source of information. His papers have been rejected, not because of a conspiracy amongst scientists to falsely uphold Einsteinian physics, but because they've been looked at by people who understand the topic and found to be without merit.

Sadly, I think I know which one you'll judge more likely.

Dave

 

[metamars]

OK, let's assume that there is a verifiable result that concrete-smashing gravity beam pulses have been observed to travel at several thousand times the speed of light. What are the implications of this discovery?

First of all, everything we know about relativity and causality is completely wrong. The entirety of Einstinian physics will have to be rewritten. Theoretical physicists will be falling over one another in the rush to formulate whole or partial theories to explain why the universe is so grossly different on a fundamental level to what we believed was a good model. The prize in sight is to become a new Einstein. The entire physics community would be in uproar, and publications would be coming out thick and fast.

Ask yourself, why isn't this happening? There are two possible answers.
(1) There is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to suppress any discoveries that contradict Special Relativity, motivated by some emotional or financial attachment hitherto unspecified to the Einstinian status quo to the extent that the highest pinnacle of achievement for any scientist, the immortality associated with having your name attached to the new Theory of Everything, is judged insignificant by comparison, or,
(2) A website produced by someone who claims to have reverse-engineered the antigravity drive of the B-2 Stealth Bomber is not a reliable source of information. His papers have been rejected, not because of a conspiracy amongst scientists to falsely uphold Einsteinian physics, but because they've been looked at by people who understand the topic and found to be without merit.

Sadly, I think I know which one you'll judge more likely.

Dave

Your choices are rather limited, don't you think? They remind me so much of the nonsense pushed by some debunkers about everbody in the engineering community being happy with the NIST reports. I went out and actually asked Ph.D. level civil engineers if they had studied the NIST reports, and if they had read Stephen Jones' paper.

My sample size was rather small (6), but nevertheless revealing, insofar as such a small sample could be. Nobody had read Prof. Jones' paper, and nobody had studied the NIST reports, though one of the professors had followed technical discussion re the WTC collapses for a while after 911, but stopped before the report came out.

Another debunker "argument", shown to be pap!

Why don't you amuse us by conducting a survey of Ph.D. physicists and ask them how many have even heard about the Podkletnov device being used to smash concrete? I don't think it's even been written up, except for LaViolette's web page!

Furthermore, why don't you further amuse us by conducting a survey of Ph.D. physicists and asking them how many have a) studied Podkletnov and Modanese's paper in arxiv, of 2002 and b) how many have attempted to verify their claims?

You do realize, do you not, that Podkletnov (Ph.D. material science) and Modanese (Ph.D. theoretical physics) have done the work, and that LaViolette (Ph.D. system theory) is basically reporting on it? Whether or not the effects discovered by Podkletnov and Modanese are, in the final analysis, taken by the scientific community to be a verification of LaViolette's theories is quite besides the point.

Now, as to why there is not more interest in the either confirming or disconfirming Podkletnov/Modanese, you got me there. I fully understand why engineers, who mostly applied tried and true formulas, and whose goal is to construct buildings that will not fall down, would not be terribly interested, in the main, in reading a 10,000 page NIST report. They would be very interested if findings by NIST result in building code changes, but other than that, it's not like the NIST report is essential to most civil engineers' profession.

But physicists should be quite interested in the the Podkletnov/Modanese (PM) phenomenon, if for no other reason than demonstrating (I assume in an easily reproducible manner) violations of Einsteinian speed of light claims. That is to say, if even 1% of physicists have heard of the PM effects, because of their extraordinary nature, I would think that they'd be highly motivated to explore further. We are talking experimental reports, here, not merely theoretical ones, of which there's an endless variety, and furthermore, in these days of string theory, commonly not testable.

So, while my expectations in this regard might not be all that different from yours, my attitude to testing the validity of assumptions re physicists expected behavior is very different. I think the way to find out is to actually ask physicists. Vacuous theorizing, when a surer alternative process is readily available, doesn't impress me.

I'm glad you wrote this, though, because there are some local, Ph.D. physicists that I can pop these questions to. I'll try and do that next week, and report the answer, right here on this thread!

Till our cyberspace worldlines meet again,

metamars

 

[uk_dave]

I think the way to find out is to actually ask physicists. Vacuous theorizing, when a surer alternative process is readily available, doesn't impress me.

Fantastic idea!

If you happen to bump into some 'truthers' during your cyberspace travels, perhaps you could suggest something similar to them. Tell them about the 'yellow pages', listings under 'S' for Structural Engineers.

 

[Brainache]

I'm not a physicist, but I'd like to know what the implications of a device shooting gravity beams at 1000 times the speed of light would be.

Would the beam reach the target before you fired it?

Would it mean that the further you were from your target, the sooner the target would be destroyed?

Have I read too much Sci Fi?

 

[DGM]

I went out and actually asked Ph.D. level civil engineers if they had studied the NIST reports, and if they had read Stephen Jones' paper.


My sample size was rather small (6), but nevertheless revealing, insofar as such a small sample could be. Nobody had read Prof. Jones' paper, and nobody had studied the NIST reports, though one of the professors had followed technical discussion re the WTC collapses for a while after 911, but stopped before the report came out.

Did you happen to ask them WHY they haven't studied it? Did you ever consider their lack of concern to be a sign that the results of the day were not unexpected? You'd think a PhD level engineer would notice if it just didn't look right (obvious to all "truthers"), wouldn't you think?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So, while my expectations in this regard might not be all that different from yours, my attitude to testing the validity of assumptions re physicists expected behavior is very different. I think the way to find out is to actually ask physicists. Vacuous theorizing, when a surer alternative process is readily available, doesn't impress me.

I am a physicist. I took a first look at LaViolette's website, and drew the conclusion that I didn't need to take a second look. He's convinced that the Biefield-Brown effect is a manifestation of antigravity when it's well known not to be, he claims his theory gives better explanations of phenomena that are already explained but doesn't actually derive these explanations, and he cites without corroboration some anecdotal accounts from third parties of absurd results. Worst of all, his references are principally to his own work going back about 15 years. Google his name and you'll find some highly critical discussions of his work, and some new age crap. He's a crank, pure and simple.

But I wouldn't expect you to be in the least skeptical about what he has to say. After all, it's something you want to hear, so it must be true, right?

When you ask your physicist friends, be sure to mention that the gravity pulses travel at several thousand times the speed of light.

Dave