Empirical evidence over renders.😎

T. Townsend Brown new something.

In the Egyptian museum there is a round shaped the middle is up like this object. Having that inclosed

As an ex- scientist( PhD) I understand the physics, however, also as an ex Chartered Mechanical Engineer of 50 years experience, if not made already, you need a working prototype , a proof of concept, that will verify the theory! A simple drone like aerial vehicle would suffice! Just get it to hover, that will convince the skeptics!

*INHALE*

We're not far from building a T1000

Tell me about some books about this besides ones by Froning and Musha. I also have Terence Barrett's Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism.

If you want to go faster than light, first you need an A.I. computer to tell you how to do it.

all motions are came from internal pressure of atoms. That moment could do with two ways from our world. First method is base over newton third law. Action and reaction used other background resistance. Ground and water , air also too. Today vehicles are running with this style counter reactive propulsions. Mobiles use ground reaction and ship used water reaction. Plane also used air reaction same way. But we missed second method of propulsion. Atomic internal motion which we still missed. I called this with "inertia". Inertia can made directly. This is second method in motion method. Our rocket engines showing mixed with first method and second method . I see rocket engines showing second method at space without gravity region arrive. Direct method of inertia producing step happening in rocket exhaust nozzle cone region Which I see. We must find way for second method of direct inerta making machine. I believe "inertia could produce directly". UFO are running with direct inertia technology. Find to ways for direct inertia making machines with physical agitation .

Are these mhd based scram jets what we’ve been seeing in skies w/ signif increased freq, from 2015-2025… esp in 2017 & 2023-24? Thx for the channel

Pretty cool how craft display’s the blue and red Doppler effect separations… keeping it aloft through hydrolysis and electromagnetism

Yeah for sure these quantum fluctuations create energy/waves which propagate and run into others X an unfathomable # of these created matter to begin with. Once we can stack/manipulate the fluctuations to become align will emerge crazy technologies. Can’t wait

2023 CERN study showed dark (neg) matter has behaving/moving down into gravity rather than being repulsed by gravity, once they controlled for annihilation. U should peep game and update this vid

Still some confusions about MHD and the creation of ionic wind. MHD at a voltage below 30,000V, will create ionic wind (see Jean Louis Naudin's Lifter). TT Brown had to go to France, to gain the support (denied in the US) of a French aeronautical / space agency, to prove that his MHD worked in empty space = the movement upward of a capacitor did NOT merely push on air. Biefeld and TT Brown also demonstrated this, way earlier, in their lab, with asymmetrical capacitors powered inside a vacuum chamber. Their video is found on youtube. They celebrate with champagne at the end. TT Brown named his earlier work as "Electrogravitational" while If you study it, you will find tests made with asymmetrical capacitors (Styrofoam cups wrapped with foil) which moves on the horizontal plane. Since gravity is not affected but vertically, MHD is not affecting gravity. *I would not disassociate Electric force from Magnetic force, as both of these orthogonal forces make up the Lorenz Force. F = q (E + B x v). The experiment is cheap to conduct, using salt water and food dye to visualise the Lorenz force exerted on salt water (fluid). As it works in space, we can wonder what medium does it affect? Photons are the exchange particle in all electric and magnetic phenomenon. Photons are not like baseballs ejected by the Sun. Rather, they comprise the omnipresent medium, earlier called Aether. It could be easily expected that since photons are intimately involved in anything electrical and magnetic, logically, creating electrical and magnetic forces would likely affect photons. Indeed, you can see how rather strong magnets will bend a fire (a plasma).There are false assumptions still in place in regards to the nature of light, photons, and what constitute a magnetic field/ electric field. When we find the true nature and interactions of these. we will no longer be slaves to the Third Newton's Law of motion, ushering a new era of space travel. Cheers!

There is not a single MHD, but two kinds. MHD in liquids or in hot gases like thermonuclear plasmas (as in stars) is at thermal equilibrium and is governed by a high magnetic Reynolds number. It poses no issues to engineers, besides the mandatory high-power electromagnets and the electrical generator on board. On the contrary, weakly ionized gases (also called "non-thermal plasmas") are far from equilibrium, which means that only the "electron gas" is hot, while the heavy gas (neutral and ions) stays at room temperature (BTW that's why you can hold a fluorescent tube in your hand without burning). This MHD is that of low magnetic Reynolds numbers, and that's why MHD applications in ionized gases are so difficult to master and develop. Because when a non-thermal plasma with low-magnetic Reynolds number is magnetized with a strong magnetic field (critical Hall parameter involved), a nasty, very fast instability arises: the _electrothermal instability_ (discovered by E. Velikhov in 1962) as well as thermal blockage, which ruins the efficiency of such converters and makes them impractical. Only when the electrothermal instability is tamed (with a method discovered by JP Petit in 1983) can MHD converters in ionized gases exist. For air-breathing hypersonic applications, apparently only the Russians managed to crack the nut.

This is the clean readily available propulsion we need. Plus I can totally see the corr. bt UAP & oceans … what if we bottled salty sea water attached an expansion tank to the craft then wouldn’t need the ocean to charge? This is cool

and who's exploding nukes over antarica?

Works in the air too, check out the study on the Wingless Electromagnetic Air Vehicle and notice it’s subsequent black list after they figured out they could lift tones with the right (classified) power source.

I want to work with you guys. I believe I have beneficial information regarding such technology.

Why did bro stop uploading? I just found this channel and it is fast becoming one of my favourites.

Fluxliners with ion wind are the second generation of Avrocars. We are in 5th generation, with nuclear pulse MHD literally bending light.

A point to note, c² is logically attainable, physically re;Alfven.

I understand another engine is in the works, VERMA. It's not C¹²⁰ based, ie graphene fuel, wi white hot Plasma. Digital f[Hz] transistor gen, could lessen power consumption. With I²=ß or ßc², 'our tails are up' for e/m F. Keep up the Alfvèn, Chang-D.

What time to Jupiter does 39 days to mars correspond to?

Bullshit

But it's not working concept!

It should be able to function, okay version, in 2050. The fuel source is antimatter particles so that's going to be the limitation. Antimatter particles are very expensive.

It will be possible if you let go some of the mainstream science you think it could solve this problem, otherwise you will waste a whole lot of time and resources. Because some science is mainstream that doesn't mean it might work if you use it to levitate a craft that has no propellers and rocket jet engine but moves at a speed of light.

It's not a warm hole it's a implode and then a explode, an implode from point a to explode at point B.

It's a flow not a curve because space cannot be curved.

Someone said it will be a hundred years to create such drives but I think the ones who create it will be individuals in extremely less than a hundred years. It will take years for the ones who are looking for funds to create drives.

Where are you guys? Been waiting over a year im worried for ya

Does it have battery?

A magnetically cone device drawing I the partials which get scooped in by the rim at the end.

Thank you for your wonderful explanation, Vice President Gore.

Drones aren't the end all be all, but they need to be used to develop a system of cartography for the universe, and analyze the systems and effects of the universe, and compile the data into a database, which, over time, is like a GPS system for the whole universe. Lacking that, youre flying blindly into the most dangerous environments physically possible

The question touches on two related but distinct concepts: the energy density of the quantum vacuum and the so-called quantum vacuum catastrophe. Here’s a breakdown of both: 1. Energy Density of the Quantum Vacuum The quantum vacuum is not truly “empty” but rather filled with fleeting quantum fluctuations, where virtual particles briefly pop into and out of existence. The energy density of the quantum vacuum is often associated with the cosmological constant () in general relativity and dark energy. Experimental observations, particularly of dark energy, suggest the vacuum energy density is approximately:  This value is derived from cosmological measurements such as the expansion of the universe. 2. Quantum Vacuum Catastrophe The “quantum vacuum catastrophe” refers to the vast discrepancy between theoretical predictions of the vacuum energy density from quantum field theory and the observed value. Theoretical Predictions In quantum field theory, the energy density of the vacuum can be estimated by summing the zero-point energies of all quantum fields up to a cutoff frequency, typically the Planck scale. This yields an enormous value:  Observed Value vs. Theoretical Value The discrepancy between the observed vacuum energy density () and the theoretical prediction () is staggering-around 120 orders of magnitude. This is one of the greatest unsolved problems in theoretical physics, highlighting the inadequacy of our current understanding of quantum field theory and gravity when combined. Why the Discrepancy? 1. Cutoff Problem: The Planck scale cutoff may not be valid for summing zero-point energies. Other physical mechanisms might cancel most of the energy density. 2. Unification Issues: Quantum mechanics and general relativity are not fully reconciled, and this mismatch might stem from a deeper theory yet to be discovered. 3. Renormalization: The observed value may result from a delicate balance or fine-tuning between quantum vacuum contributions and gravitational effects. Summary • Observed energy density of the quantum vacuum:  • Predicted energy density by quantum field theory:  • Discrepancy: 120 orders of magnitude This is one of the most profound mysteries in physics, and resolving it would likely require a complete theory of quantum gravity or a deeper understanding of the nature of spacetime. I use ChatGPT to give me the mass, but this is the energy density of the quantum vacuum versus the proposed theoretical energy density of the quantum vacuum based on the plank. Constant has explained above, so you see this machine is nearly impossible and what he’s trying to show here is a perpetual motion, machine or an extremely magical concepts, similar to a perpetual motion machine I’m sorry I didn’t give you the numbers, some sort of malfunction when I pasted it so the energy density of the actual Quantum vacuum is 10 to the -9 jules per meter. Cubed. The proposed inconsistency because Quantum vacuum where is supposed to have according to the math as stated above is 10 to the 113th power Jules Per meter. Cubed.

We haven't had a video from AsteronX for a year now, since this one. I've been subscribed for longer than that and am missing their content. Are they still around and just working on something big that they can't let on about? Or have they finally folded, I hope not. TBH I'm seeing a lot of pretty Blender renders but would much rather have a mobile phone video of real working hardware, even if it's just a plywood and ali MHD "boilerplate" model. I don't even know if they'll see this comment, let alone reply to it.

This technology, although, as you say, is in early stages, is practical to build now and use in many applications. Since your video is 5 years old, what's happening now. I can see so many uses. Merry Christmas, and thanks for sharing.

It’s a neat idea for gas worlds but I don’t want that for Venus, I want full 1 to 1 earth-like terraformation. I don’t want any if’s, could’s and possibly’s, I wanna hear what is needed to get the job done and how can that be done no matter how ludicrous the methods. On top of that I don’t want any of this century long bs, I wanna hear how to get it done within a hundred or less no exceptions. An I don’t wanna hear any tired lazy old ass excuses on why that’s impossible due to a severe lack of imagination by a chronic aliment of scientific presentism.

We almost can. We sort of can.” But it’s not practical and certainly isn’t going to get you into space. The one thing he’s not mentioning here is the weight. The weight of the liquid nitrogen, the weight of the condensers, pumps, and heat exchangers required to cool the liquid nitrogen for the superconductors is a major issue. While we do have liquid nitrogen superconductors, they are extremely brittle ceramic tape. They’re not suitable for the stresses of any kind of high-speed acceleration. The equipment to proof them for hypersonic Mach 25 travel (which is what you would need to attain orbital velocity) would add even more weight. Then there’s the issue of the optics. The optics have to be kept cool. You’d need all sorts of cooling systems to pump and condense the liquid nitrogen for the laser generators. The laser generators have to be able to produce a large amount of light energy very efficiently-which is doable, but it wouldn’t be cheap in terms of weight. Using fiber optics to pump the laser to multiple laser emitters is again doable and would reduce weight. But at the same time, you’d need to keep those fiber optic cables cooled. You’d also need a massive laser generator in the center of the craft. Again, not cheap in terms of weight. Finally, you have to deal with the power train that builds up the voltage required to inject electrical current into the photochemicals that initiate the lasing reaction. This produces the first set of photons that knock into the photoreactive chemical compound to produce the laser Achieving Mach 25 (orbital velocity) with a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) craft is an extraordinarily challenging goal, and there are numerous additional problems beyond the ones you’ve already identified. Here’s a breakdown of some of the key obstacles: 1. Plasma Dynamics and Control • Plasma Stability: Maintaining a stable plasma flow at Mach 25 is extremely difficult. Plasma is highly sensitive to disturbances, and at such speeds, turbulence and instabilities (e.g., Kelvin-Helmholtz and Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities) can destroy the controlled flow required for propulsion. • Magnetic Field Requirements: The magnetic fields needed to contain and guide the plasma at such speeds would need to be extraordinarily powerful, requiring superconducting magnets capable of withstanding extreme stresses. Generating and sustaining these fields would consume massive amounts of energy. • Ionization Energy: Maintaining plasma at the required temperature and ionization levels to generate thrust would be a continuous energy drain. The ionization process itself can consume more energy than the thrust it produces. 2. Heat Management • Extreme Heating: At Mach 25, the craft would experience tremendous heating due to atmospheric compression, even at high altitudes. The thermal load on the materials and systems (e.g., magnetic coils, plasma injectors, and structural components) would be immense. • Material Limitations: Current materials, even advanced ones like carbon composites and ceramics, struggle to handle the combination of high temperatures, rapid thermal cycling, and the electromagnetic stresses of an MHD system. • Heat Dissipation: The heat generated by both the plasma and the craft’s friction with the atmosphere would need to be dissipated, requiring sophisticated cooling systems that add significant weight. 3. Energy Requirements • Power Density: The energy required to sustain an MHD drive at Mach 25 is staggering. Even the most advanced energy sources, such as nuclear reactors or theoretical quantum batteries, might struggle to meet the demands. • Energy Conversion Losses: Converting stored energy into the magnetic fields, plasma, and ionization processes needed for thrust involves significant efficiency losses. • Onboard Energy Storage: Current energy storage technologies (e.g., batteries, fuel cells) are either too heavy or lack the energy density required for sustained operations at orbital velocity. 4. Aerodynamic and Structural Challenges • Shockwaves: At such speeds, the craft would encounter extreme shockwaves that could destabilize the plasma flow and cause structural vibrations or failure. • Aerodynamic Drag: Even at high altitudes, the residual atmospheric drag at Mach 25 is substantial, requiring constant compensation from the propulsion system. • Structural Stresses: The combined forces of acceleration, drag, and magnetic field interactions would impose tremendous stresses on the craft’s structure. 5. Electromagnetic Interference • System Interference: The powerful magnetic fields required for MHD propulsion would interfere with onboard electronics, sensors, and communication systems. Shielding these components would add weight and complexity. • External Interaction: The craft’s magnetic field could interact with Earth’s magnetic field in unpredictable ways, potentially affecting navigation or stability. 6. Efficiency of MHD Propulsion • Thrust-to-Weight Ratio: MHD systems generally have a low thrust-to-weight ratio. Achieving enough thrust to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag at orbital speeds is a monumental challenge. • Propellant Management: While MHD propulsion can work with various propellants (e.g., air, plasma), managing and replenishing the propellant at high speeds and altitudes adds another layer of complexity. 7. Reentry and Recovery • Reentry Heating: If the craft is intended to return from orbit, it must survive reentry heating, which would likely exceed the heating experienced during ascent. • Deceleration: Decelerating from orbital speeds without destroying the craft or its systems would require advanced heat shields and potentially additional propulsion for controlled descent. 8. Practical Implementation • Scaling: While MHD propulsion has been tested in small-scale experiments, scaling the technology to a full-sized orbital vehicle is a massive engineering challenge. • Maintenance and Durability: Components such as superconductors, plasma injectors, and cooling systems would wear out quickly under such extreme conditions, requiring frequent maintenance or replacement. • Cost: Developing and operating an MHD craft capable of achieving Mach 25 would be prohibitively expensive with current technology. Conclusion While MHD propulsion is a fascinating and theoretically viable technology, its application to reaching orbital velocity faces insurmountable challenges with current science and engineering. Many of these problems could potentially be addressed with future advancements in materials science, energy generation, and plasma physics, but for now, achieving Mach 25 with an MHD craft remains more science fiction than science fact. Certainly! Here’s your text with proper grammar, punctuation, and spacing for improved clarity: Just so everyone knows, I’m going to use ChatGPT to further explain why this system does not and cannot work-at least not currently. I have hope that by 2065 or 2085 we’ll get there. What Astronex has to do is explain every single one of these points. He has to break down the equations. He could even use ChatGPT to do all the mathematical work for him, just like I’m going to do. He could also make a video addressing every single one of my points. But until he does so, no one should invest. Until he addresses these points in great detail-each point taking a minimum of five hours per video to solve in detail, not just superficially-I won’t be convinced. I want computer simulations. I want airflow tests in a wind tunnel. I want a workable model demonstrating, at the bare minimum, enough lift to equal a jet engine, with essential stability to generate thrust. He can start off with a very tiny model, like a drone, but then he’s got to scale it up. He can’t just create the drone and say, “Here, I’ve done it! I’ve proven it!” It has to be a workable model that can deadlift a car into the air. I want to see a drone, the size and weight of a modern-day car, being displaced and lifted. I’ll even accept it being hooked up to power cables, and I’ll say, “What an amazing advancement!” I promise I will. This revision maintains your message’s tone and intent while making it more structured and easier to read.

AI says Redbird matter instead of Rydberg matter?

Did you mean the exhaust speed is at 8% light speed? not the rocket speed? see 4:17

"even the most efficient theoretical design for a warp drive will require immense energy just to activate" - yes, but where my perspective differes here is that I dont the ships power core is what pays for basically any of it. The power core may just be the ignition source so to speak, that creates a depleation zone around the ships engines, and then the rest of the energy flows in from the the horizon that makes, and from upwelling of fresh energy. Thus each system has a charge up time if demands are higher then what can be demanded locally. For warp, this may means the ship does not immediately get to its cruise speed. Second even small ships could have immensely powerful fields around them for relativley low power when it uses the QV to boost the Einstien Gravity constant closer to 1 internally. I also get the idea of the singularity converter, but there be more then one similar drive possible here. The converter is a promising deflector though that for sure from our convo.

Good 👍 explanation of the MHD propulsion.

Pseudoscience all you would get is electricity flowing in a metal ring, no star trek magic.

Reaalistic propulsion !... It should by constructed to use for Mars and Jupiter moons missions...

Wow, so the podcast I’m listening to it’s called silly jerk number one and silly jerk number two take a dump on the scientific model of investigation by calling it safe science no I agree that science has no room for quitters, but it’s got plenty of room for safe speculation for things we don’t know about and what I mean by speculation is forming hypothesis, and then confirming the hypothesis through evidence to become a theory a theory is a working model And not just a working model it’s a working model that has the best evidence possible to support its existence so when scientist say this is a theory, not a hypothesis, that’s the highest honor, a working model can achieve in sciences to be called a theory. A theory is not a idea that is like some sort of educated guess see we keep testing general and special relativity, because there is no such thing in science is something is proven true we don’t look for truth what we look for is fact that it’s constantly and consistently is consistently challenged working Models are consistently challenged by another working model that could claim to do it better So nobody looks for doubt you know that’s not how science works. We don’t doubt stuff that we’ve proven with evidence like what you seem to suggest we confirm things constantly by testing the theories constantly that’s your first big blunder in this podcast.

What a bunch of horse slush. You and you alone have dreamed this up. Not seeing too much work on this right now. 🤨

Hi there, surprised to see your recommended vlog today. How about to build new personal beamships to exports? I have 70+ drafted beamship structures, looking forward to new perspectives on ship value chains.