The aviation editor of Jane’s, Nick Cook, has written a book called “The Hunt for Zero Point”.
I’m completely confused by it, and would like second opinions.
Nick Cook, working for one of the most respected, dispassionate, and impartial military publishers, noticed that certain associated types of military, aviation and physics projects turned “black” in unusual ways. As this book describes, when following leads he ran into unexpected obstacles. (This is from an experienced journalist who deals as a matter of course with military secrets.) Information sources disappeared. His fellow reporters advised him to drop the enquiries.
Briefly, the author has assembled various pieces of evidence that “anti-gravity” mechanisms exist, and that they are being flown.
If I was reading this post without having read the book, my reaction would be: bullshit. In fact, that’s my reaction right now.
However:
He cites several experiments that are in part public knowledge.
He cites various papers and reports, some of which seem to be in the public domain.
He discusses various features of planes such as the B-2, claiming that anti-gravity is being used, even if it isn’t being called exactly that.
Now. I am can hunt these reports down. And I could understand some of them. However I won’t know when somebody’s pulling the wool over my eyes about gravity and electromagnetism.
Why my suspicions are aroused:
He mentions projects described in the book “Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron Curtain”. My understanding is that this book was created on the basis of disinformation that the U.S.S.R. produced specifically with the intent of deceiving the United States military.
In particular, he mentions Kirlian Photography. Wasn’t this later shown to be a method of photographing moisture? (And nothing more?)
What he’s saying sounds convincing–until areas with which I have experience. Then suddenly, he doesn’t sound authoritative, but like a reporter who’s over his head, not grasping what they’re talking about. (Specifically, his visits to NASA sound like incredibly ignorant interviews from projects I was involved given by NPR and Omni Magazine.)
My questions are: What is going on? Has Nick Cook been taken in by conspiracy theorists? Or are these actual projects about which he has managed to get some dim glimmer? Or is he being duped by the American military into purveying disinformation?
Like you, I’m highly suspicious. I admittedly haven’t read his book, but if a choice is being made between believing Mr Cook was mistaken about experiments he’s apparently admitting he has only indirect knowledge of or that one of the most central laws of the universe has been overturned, I can tell you where the smart money’s going. Mr Cook, after all, wouldn’t be the first competent person to demonstrate amazing ignorance when he steps outside of his chosen field.
Some more links, all of which point to Mr. Cook being hopelessly at sea when it comes to physics (and not too strong on journalism either, according to the Fortean Times):
The numerous examples that you have unearthed cast a dubious light on the book. Not just one BIG question, but several. Whenever a writer invokes not one, but many doubtful and often unrelated claims, be suspicious. Be very suspicious.
Never mind WHY he is writing the book, just ignore it.
What was galling was how all these experiments I couldn’t verify were being loosely tied. I’ve seen professional scientists duped, but not quite in this way.
What was interesting (and confusing) is that the author named another (valid) book about Nazi research which does exist – I read it in the NASA library. It’s not well known, and I was impressed he’d found it. He claimed, of course, that the book didn’t have the half of it.
I’m going to print out one of those reviews and stick in before returning it to the library.
Here’s the thing about anti-gravity devices: They’re not impossible. In fact, they’re not difficult to make at all. Of course the military is experimenting with anti-gravity devices. Just about every device you can think of can be an anti-gravity device. Lift up a rock with a lever? That’s anti-gravity. Drive a car up a hill? Anti-gravity. Fly an airplane? Yup, you’ve guessed it.
Now, what would be impressive is a device which could modify gravitational fields to a practical degree. But oddly, even most of the gizmos discussed by the tinfoil-hat crowd don’t claim to do that. They always talk about using some other effect to counteract gravity, and that’s done all the time. What’s the big deal?
Many of the projects the author discusses specifically avoid using the term “anti-gravity”, even though the author does. The various project’s people talk instead of “blocking gravity” or “converting cosmic energy into directed propulsion”.
What these projects mostly have in common is “getting something for nothing”. I.e., energy. It could be just laughed out of court, except that nuclear fusion produces energy out of an insignificant amount of radioactive material. Solar sails are from free solar wind. It’s energy we don’t have to pay for that interests people. Most of the “anti-gravity” ideas presented anticipate some other force out there which we don’t know about, which could be used as an energy source.
Would these new energy sources be a good thing? One of the interviewees describes a source the size of an apple that could “boil away the Earth’s oceans”. My first thought was, great, just what the terrorists are looking for.
One of the little “hooks” that this book managed to lodge in me was about some simple experiments in England. As is happens, the “anti-gravity” device described was detailed in a “Meccano Magazine” of the 1960s – including complete instructions on how to build it. Meaning to come back and try it, I cut the article out – Then lost it. Briefly, it was a square platform of thinest balsa wood struts, and tissue covering the surface. The thing was elevated by a model train transformer, wires attached to the tissue.
If there were an ‘anti-gravity’ device, it would have to require at least as much energy to move something than it would gain in potential energy, or you’ll violate conservation laws.
Just think - you could flip a switch and raise a weight, then turn it off and harness the energy of the weight falling. Then do it again. Perpetual energy source, let alone perpetual motion.
MusicatI wasn’t claiming it worked! I was hoping someone had read the mag and remembered the article. It was from about 1966. Meccano Magazine was a British boy’s hobby magazine with a worldwide distribution, not a fringe newsletter about purple pyramids left by aliens to guide the faithful to Atlantis. They mostly had descriptions of how to make model boats, train layouts, etc.
Sam StoneYep, absolutely. In the case of this flying platform, the power was coming from the wires on the model train transformer. (No magic, perpetual motion.) DC power translated to lifting from the ground – a very weak effect they said. Maybe it worked best on windy days on floors with an updraft
This wouldn’t mean that it couldn’t work. We’d just have to revise those scientific laws. (Can you see it now? "OK, Hawking, we’ll just say it has to mostly be in compliance with the laws of conservation!)
Well, back in previous antigrav threads this article was linked -> lanl
It seems to purport that they generated some kind of force that counteracts gravity. Was never mentioned in the media and I haven’t heard anything about it since.
