/diy/ - Do It Yourself

>>1448705
so other than shilling some videos what do you want to discuss?

>>1448819
well I was hoping somebody on here has some info/experience with orgonite or grebenikovs dialetric bug wings and discuss a way to make a prototype flying platform or small platform to test. I think if i make my own orgonite with the bug wings as the organiclayer and maybe copper or steel as the inorganic layers.

pic is the design of the bottom of the Beetle flying platform.

>>1448839
There rising not much to discuss, appearantly these magic bug wings fly/levitate by themselves so just glue them to a chair and fly away. Make sure to videotape it in sibiria with a potato cam to "document" it.

>>1448839
/diy/ is not for larp.

>>1448843
Those videos of the bug wings levitating are fake. I have around 400 of the blue/green bug shells but i know those are not the exact bug shells he used. They do have some interesting effects if given a charge(static electricity)

>>1448844
Im not larping. check for yourself. Both of these flying devices existed.

video showing legit footage of Grebennikovs anti gravity beetle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYYx4Kef3Tc&index=28&list=PL8dyWv5-s_6lcG5GVctLIUAqp_hbS6_aq

Better video showing repulsive force in bug wing shells
https://youtu.be/7lRB4YI5OWo

>>1448705
/sci/ here. There's no power source energy dense enough to make a properly usable jetpack/jet "platform" or hovercraft/hoverbike. If you want something that can hover, be very small for 1 person, leave ground effect, be flight effective for more than 1 hour, try one of these.

>>1448855
Ive seen these before but the bug wing flying platform would be way cheaper than one of those. Plus if i had the money to buy one of those little helicopters, I would probably end up trying to build the WASPII flying jet platform.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27HaGvHzbgQ

Wasp II General characteristics

Crew: One pilot
Length: ft (m)
Wingspan: ft (m)
Height: 4 ft 0 in (1.22 m))
Wing area: ft2 (m2)
Empty weight: 401 pounds (182 kg) (182 kg)
Loaded weight: 550 lb (250 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: lb (kg)
Powerplant: 1 × modified Williams F107 turbofan, 570 lbf (2.6 kN)

Performance

Maximum speed: 60 mph (96 km/h)
Range: endurance of 30-45 minutes ()
Service ceiling: 10,000 ft (3,049 m)
Rate of climb: ft/min (m/s)
Wing loading: lb/ft2 (kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 1.11

The US PATENT NUMBER 4,447,024 is designated for the Williams X-Jet. Technical information and drawings are available at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The WASP II uses a slightly modified and derated version of the WR-19-A7D which yields 600 lbs thrust from its micro turbofan engine and is designated WR19-7 ― rated at 570 lbs thrust, after minor modifications and said derating. Modifications to the WR-19-A7D included accessories (replacement of pyro starter with electric/air start) and exhaust system modifications. No internal modifications to the counter-rotating micro turbofans were performed. The first manned, untethered flight was conducted in April 1980. Ray Le Grande is one of the WASP II operators trained by Williams International to fly the X-Jet

>>1448705
>> bug wing antigravity
Is a load of fucking bullshit. All that crap about how we don't understand how bugs are able to fly has been disproven, we understand how insects fly and there is no need to invoke fucking crazy antigravity. Flying platforms like the wasp aren't rocket science. You use a powerful as fuck engine to push air down. Small jet engines have become powerful and common enough that well off people can actually buy them.
>>1448860
The bug wing platform does not fucking work

>>1448860
>but the bug wing flying platform would be way cheaper
yes it would. How about you try to build it and we help with our tecnical expertise along the way?

>>1448862
Are you an entomologist? Have you done any experiments that directly disprove the findings of victor grebennikov?Do You have information disproving the works ofvictor grebennikov?

if not then shut the fuck up and suck a dick to shut your crying fuck face.

>>1448871
A good idea. thank you. I still want to build a small prototype first to help me understand the forces better. ill make a orgone platform and a regular platform prototypes.

>>1448873
alright, if you run into any problems along the way feel free to ask, but make sure you are verry clear about your problems, we here at /diy/ often have a hard time understanding your strange world.

>>1448860
At best, you'd get no more than about 15-20 mins of actual flight time out of that. The main problem is the lack of anything using air for lift, like a wing or rotor. Due to this limitation, there's nothing in existence with enough safe power density in which to fuel the device for very long at all. Due to this limitation, the usefulness of such a device is also extremely limited. The best use, anyone has brought up in past threads, has been for first responders getting to local emergency situations. Even then it'd be hard to beat a standard Ambulance or Firetruck. Thus, it is further regulated to areas of less or no road access.

FYI, there are much better designs with better efficiency and range...

>>1448873
>Are you an entomologist?

Not him, but I am. "Bugs" use their Elytra to cover their real wings. The underwings are at the proper humeral angle in which to pivot and oscillate in order to achieve normal flight. Flight dynamics are rather simple, yet elegant. Mr. Grebennikov's platform if "fake" and nothing more than a powered pogo stick at best and him just jump-lifting it at worst; photographed while bouncing.

>>1448879
>platform iS "fake"

I corrected that twice, I think my keyboard needs replacing again.

>>1448879
What about if i made detattacable wings for the wasp or bug platform?

Feel free to share any other personal flight devices you know about.

idk, im not readyto give up on the bug wings yet. What about the chitin and cratered micro structure on the wings? David Davidson has a paper called shape power that reinforces grebennikovs findings.

I ended up in /x/ after deciding to find objective truth rather than majority/consensus idea of truth. Been stuck there with every other schitozo and larper on the internet. i try to stay away from ghosts and deamons and magic and junk. here is a thread with a bunch of info on supperessed sciences and hidden (occult means hidden) knowledge .

>>>/x/21289831

>>1448855
bugs wings and Grebnifuckkoff are bullshit, but H202 jetpacks are very much a thing. tourist attraction rides in many places, few practical uses

>>1448891
I dont get how so many people have heard of this anti gravity beetle, and already have completely debunked it beyond any point of doubt.

I try to look at all the information and test it for myself. Otherwise you might risk the chance of passing on the greatest discovery in ones life because you listened to a negative nancy that was just reactively ridiculing and shitting on something they failed to understand or even try to understand. We fear and then attack that witch we do not understand.

>>1448873
>Are you an entomologist? Have you done any experiments that directly disprove the findings of victor grebennikov?Do You have information disproving the works ofvictor grebennikov?
>if not then shut the fuck up and suck a dick to shut your crying fuck face.

Is this how science speaks, or how an angry 12 y/o with unsupervised access to the internet speaks?

>>1448893
I'm pretty much on board with evolution and the ancient age of the universe, I don't have to reinvent carbon dating to convince myself.

go look up the dude that can make dry leaves do the same thing as bug wings with static electricity.

If shit like this worked, it would be in mass production by now and we'd be farming beetles like corn. For that matter, we already know how to do antigravity, we can lift entire trains off the ground and float them through the air, it's called "magnetism"

>>1448891
>H202 jetpacks

Those are tethered to their fuel source and have unlimited flight capability within the range of their tether. Again, the problem is power density. Untethered, they are useless.

>>1448889
Nothing wrong with "bug" wings, per se. The best design would be dragonfly wings, though scaling that up is rather difficult due to the lack of proper materials science. The wings themselves flex and bend greatly. The closest things I can think of are slightly-articulating wings of some jet craft and shape-memory alloys that change shape when a current is applied. While not used specifically for wings, that technology is used in aeroplanes. I can see it being used for very tiny craft similar to tiny drones and such.

Regardless of what you create, the power density issue is what is stopping every good idea and all those cool sci-fi ideas. That is why in sci-fi you have the technology using something that only really exists in that sci-fi universe to make all the cool shit happen. That may be magic, unobtainium, Iron Man's arc reactor, zero-point energy, cold fusion, anti-matter, etc. Basically, the power source hold up is what borks everything for everyone. Hence all flying craft using wings and rotors of some kind. That is also why fossil fuels are use above everything else for serious business. Its power density and easy of use is better than everything else.

>>1448879
Fuck i want one of these. Need hot swap battery packs tho for hours of fun

>>1448889
Kek, that guy looks insane

>>1448889
Honestly. I feel like if bug wings levitated china would have bug farms.

>>1448913
Why not both.

>>1448947
FUCKING BADASS!

>>1448891
>H2O2 jetpacks
>hydrogen peroxide
Kek

You seem rather unfamiliar with fields you are attempting to approach and the interplay of between them such as aerodynamics and energy. The kneejerk reaction would be to take your conspiracy theory at face value, to call you stupid, and jump to the next thread; as some have and will do here. >>1448873 Your response here especially belies your age. But you have a dream of owning a personal aircraft and I can respect having a dream. However, you need to learn when to be objective. This beetle wing theory has all the hallmarks of being a hoax.

1) research was done by a foreigner with a different language
This makes it easy to claim things that are harder to verify due to the language barrier. (Bonus points for Russians and Germans)
2) research was done alone
Any scientist worth his salt would collaborate, confirm, THOROUGHLY DOCUMENT, and patent his research.
3) Sounds like there's money involved
Not sure where you got your beetle wings, but I bet it's from someone who claims to have successfully repeated the experiments without solid proof or documentation of their own.

Not you have 2 options going forward. Realize you've made mistakes and cut your losses, maybe have a good laugh about it later on in life; or ignore everyone who disagrees with you and your unfounded beliefs and blame your failures on others.

You want my advice? Start small. Have fun. Make a quad copter. Or else you're going to spend all your money on wings that will never fly.

>>1449008
Meant to link to op
>>1448705

>>1448851
>The field of static electricity will activate the protoplasm in the chitin wings, and help the scarab to manipulate time and gravity.
This is why heavy beetles can fly.

lol

>>1449008
>>>1448891
>>H2O2 jetpacks
>>hydrogen peroxide
>Kek


>mfw he doesn't know that hydrogen peroxide is rocket fuel
>laughingwhores.jpg

https://youtu.be/6DvvZOtLLK8?t=38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtaCrWTuSEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGcRgEuCocQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZrMwMHxgiQ

sad!

>>1449008
I think he meant "H2O" since that is what those jetpacks do use at the theme parks and such. "H2O2" is an alt name for "Oxyhydrogen" which is mixture of H2 and O2, but they are not bonded together as actual H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), but normies don't know the difference so they call oxyhydrogen, "H2O2". The oxyhydrogen is made from electrolysis and is crazy explosive and extremely power hungry to make. It is what you see people rigging up their vehicles thinking it gives them better fuel mileage. It is terrible as a booster fuel because you can't store it for long term. You need to create it then use it or it will actually leak out through the walls of any container you place it in.

This anon >>1449039 doesn't realize this and thinks these are rides you can ride yourself, which isn't true. Only stuntmen performers do that stuff since it can end in an unspectacular death pretty quickly.

However, this webm shows an H2O jetpack you can use at theme parks. They are awesome. There are jetpack versions and flyboard versions. Google, "Jetlev Flyer."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O44qlNDd4I

you can find the old Scorpion plans online
follow the plans, weld some pipe together
slap on an old subaru engine, or an evinrude
and be flying in no time

>>1448947
oh the humanity

>>1449076
You never seen a Bell Rocket Belt?
They were powered by hydrogen peroxide breaking down as it flowed through a catalyst. Had about 30 seconds of flight time.

>>1449112
Can you not read: "tourist attraction rides in many places"

Those are not H2O2 or oxyhydrogen. They are just H2O. Your fuckup, not mine.

>>1448979
Underage ban

>>1448947
nice insight, thanks for commenting.

>Regardless of what you create, the power density issue is what is stopping every good idea and all those cool sci-fi ideas

There are ways of getting around this fact/ this isnt always completely true.The hutchensin effect has shown to levitate a 50lbs steel ball with about 14w of power or as much as a light bulb needs to power. Bob Lazarand the element he said powered the ufo reactors he worked on. magnets with copper wire generating enough power to light a light bulb. Oronite witch is a combination of organic and inorgaic materials in concurring layers has also shown a decent power affect. There is also the stuff about the joe cell and water flow and sound dynamics achieving a huge rate of efficiency through simple means of tuning forks and certain angles to maximize fluid movment. i think if you combined a few of these it would easily be possible.

>hutch effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPYCKySAePQ

>Bob lazar and element 115
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4SN1WJKQE

>Free Energy Light Bulbs Using Magnet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eztczlXnSdQ

>orgonite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_opWZtEqA

>the joe cell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7TI4JmPGU&t=7s

>cut stone with sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H2-BawRLGw

>Schauberger's Secret
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlpG88iPcBI&t

A cool contribution from the paranormal board.
>>21324326

a cool contribution from /x/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqIMePCGWmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evwkqU3rqOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHZgofUCN04

>>1449583
>>hutch effect
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPYCKySAePQ [Embed]

fake and gay

>>Bob lazar and element 115
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj4SN1WJKQE [Embed]
kook

>>Free Energy Light Bulbs Using Magnet
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eztczlXnSdQ [Embed]

no shit, you went to 5th grade science class too?
>>orgonite
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy_opWZtEqA [Embed]

fake and MK-Ultra gay

>>the joe cell
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7TI4JmPGU&t=7s [Embed]
bahahaha

>>cut stone with sound
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H2-BawRLGw [Embed]
Astonishing. Astonishing. Did you know we can also cut stone with WATER!!??!!??

>>Schauberger's Secret
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlpG88iPcBI&t [Embed]

amazingly, fish float in the water. I am fucking gobsmacked right now.

>>1449583
>t. never taken any physics papers

>>1449611

Have you consodered investing in real estate to generate passive income and free up more time for your scientific endevours?

If so, I have a bridge to sell you. Guaranteed income, cash over the barrel, minimal running costs. Got it cheap from the city, deed's right here.

>>1449583
>There are ways of getting around this fact

No, there are none in current science. There are billions upon billions of money being spent in power density research each year to make all those sci-fi power sources a reality. No one has been able to succeed yet. We haven't even come very far with all the time and money spent on research since the industrial age; hell, not even since the Baghdad battery actually. Too bad nuclear shit is so damn deadly to people.

>>1449646
Well the issue of energy density isn't necessarily the problem here, like it is with laser weapons or photon propulsion. Hovering theoretically takes no energy at all (from a classical perspective at least); since you are not accelerating across a distance no work W=m*a*d is done. To move a 100kg machine+human up 10m it would take 10kJ, which is about the energy stored in a high capacity 18650. It's a lot, but not unfeasibly so. Switch to combustable fuels and it's shit-all. The problem is that 0-energy hovering requires some sort of support force. Buildings do this with the physical strength of concrete and steel, but to do so without contact you will need a force field of some sort. Electromagnetic and gravitational fields are about all that fit the bill, and both come with big problems.

Creating an "anti-gravity field" is impossible without several hundred thousands of dollars of equipment and still won't be able to effect anything not on an atomic scale. Non-gravitational fields need some sort of reference to push against, be it the natural magnetic/electric fields of the Earth or artificial ones. Using artificial fields has been done countless times successfully, just look at those active hovering pot-plants on ali, standard bismuth/superconductor diamagnetic levitation experiments, and electrostatic levitation like the oil drop experiment. But making such a system stable without using extra energy and making it able to carry significant weight is the issue with all of these. A magnetic levitator needs to use diamagnetism to be passively stable, since a diamagnetic (permeability < 1) material will expel magnetic fields regardless of polarity, so there is no inherent instability caused by the hovered magnet flipping over. We don't have such substances when it comes to electric permittivity, but thankfully we have electric monopoles/charges, which is what causes the stable hovering of moon dust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_levitation..

>>1449683
In addition, ionocraft and the Biefeld-Brown effect hover by way of imparting momentum to particles, so are not passive and require power to run.

The reason why rockets fight against gravity while accelerating as much as possible (ignoring air resistance) is because 9.81m/s^2 will always be subtracted from your gross acceleration, regardless of whether it's 11m/s^2 or 100m/s^2. Each m/s^2 of acceleration ideally takes the same amount of energy, so going slow or hovering is innately inefficient. The efficiency (amount of acceleration dedicated towards accelerating upwards as opposed to fighting gravity) can be expressed as E = a_net/a_gross = a_net/(a_net-9.81) = 1/(1-(9.81/a_net)), so as a_net increases the (9.81/a_net) will approach 0 hence the total fraction E will approach 1. Helicopters and tilt-rotors and VTOL jets all have this issue that they're burning fuel when they're not going anywhere, which is why electromagnetic levitation is so appealing compared to the aforementioned jetpacks.

>>1449683
>>1449691
>Well the issue of energy density isn't necessarily the problem here,

It really is the only issue at all. The rest of your post(s) is completely meaningless because you are ignorant of even the most basic laws of thermodynamics.

>>1449694
But it's relevant to the thread. Bug wings do not make something hover like OP thinks they do, only way to get stable electrostatic levitation would be with a very high voltage since bug wings will be a dipole if anything. Plus the planet's electric field will hardly be uniform.

>you are ignorant of even the most basic laws of thermodynamics
Not one bit.

>>1449696
>Not one bit.

Then post like it.

>>1449697
>Law 1: Energy is conserved; no perpetual motion machines that keep gaining energy.
Check, I only described things that had a static support force for hovering, so no work was required since W = F*d.

>>1449700
They are being powered.

>>1449694
>>1449704
Let me clarify. For helicopters, jets, etc. hovering then yes energy density is the main concern because you're always wasting energy on imparting momentum to the ground inelastically. But in this thread there is both discussion of that sort of hovering device and electrostatic hovering. Just as a magnet can hover in steady state between two slabs of bismuth, the same can happen with electrostatics. Simply an equilibrium between repulsion and attraction forces. The Earth constantly produces a force of gravity, and as do magnets with magnetic forces. This produces a potential energy gradient around which things can be attracted or repelled from. By creating an equilibrium between two or more fields you're not requiring that anything use up any energy other than its own potential energy. To change that equilibrium and move the hovering craft you do need to put in energy, but my original statement "energy density isn't necessarily the problem" was alluring to the fact that this energy is likely insignificant compared to that wasted on hovering inelastically.

>>1449708
I'm not seeing anything in this entire thread that doesn't use energy to maintain loft in any lofty manner whatsoever.

>>1449646
>>1449605
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoXW_3vPBiI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYqudIDNEnA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0AtWOUItaQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPoeOBgupBU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu8VflqvHFM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HewSdyqbX0U

>>1449712
But that's what >>1448708, >>1448709, >>1448839, >>1448851 is all about.

>>1449717
>>1448850 and the OP too. All utter tripe, but electrostatic levitation does seem to be a topic he's looking into.

>>1449717
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-XywyJGNI0

>>1448860
Bitch, by any chance do you teach data structures?

>>1449721
you can buy those for 20c

also sorry for bumping the thread

>>1449715
every single one is hot garbage, tested, disproved, discarded.

here, have some real levitation/antigrav in action

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_fJY6WScmk

it's been 50 years, fool, you think other technologies haven't been tried?

>>1449696

I can levitate all of the hair on my body with a simple rubber balloon. AND pieces of paper, plastic wrap and numerous other items


checkmate, skeptilardo

>>1449726
it's actually pretty neat how you're turning your body into an electroscope

>>1449726
There's no practical application using that for human flight.

>>1449730
Unless you're the size of a hair compared to a mass of charge, that is.

>>1449583
>>hutchison effect
can be easily replicated, all you do is tape a camera to a box, throw stuff in, and shake the box around:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WyULc3jCgg
You're grasping at straws mate. Grasping at straws
>>1449076
H2O2 stands for hydrogen peroxide not oxyhydrogen. Hydrogen peroxide is a monopropellant. You pass it over a bed of catalyst and it turns into hot steam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_pack#Hydrogen_peroxide-powered_rocket_packs

They are probably the easiest personal flying device to make. Really all it takes is a bit of plumbing, hydrogen peroxide, and some balls. A rocket belt is just a pressure tank, H2O2 tank, catalyst bed, nozzles, control valve, and straps. The most difficult part isn't even building it, it's obtaining and handling high purity hydrogen peroxide. You have to make a special still to purify it from the stuff you can actually buy. It's crazy dangerous stuff too, light sensitive, heat sensitive, corrosive, reactive with organics, it can even turn organic stuff explosive too.

>>1448947
Power density isn't the problem here. Hydrogen peroxide, lithium ion batteries+brushless motors, hydrocarbon+ic engine have enough power density to lift their own weight plus a human. The problem is that they cannot do so for very long because of the energy density. Of course the energy of gasoline won't be changing anytime soon, but we can find ways to use it more efficiently. Those small jet engines probably aren't operating at their thermodynamic limits. If we can find a way to make them run hotter, say by making them out of ceramic rather than metal we could push the efficiency up. Even better would be if we found a way to directly use the chemical energy of gasoline rather than having to convert it to heat first. There is nothing that says we can't directly convert the chemical energy of gasoline to mechanical work!

>>1449784
>>1449683
>>1449076
>>1448855
>>1449084
>>>1449008
Thanks for the input. A personal flying device like the jet pack or even a platform or board are too inefficient.

so what about the best/cheapest design for a personal flying craft/vehicle? like a doc brown,s delorean, jet set moto 1/2 flying/hoovering jet ski ps1 racing game, or even like a mini heli or something.

p.s. Also discovered a pretty interesting paranormal being/history yesterday. If the info is correct, then its probably one of the biggest red pills out there so be careful. If you dare to look go to google and search "Emerald Tablets of Thoth". Most questions you will have are surprisingly easy to get. but dont google "thoth" or "emerald egyptian tablet" search exactly what i wrote.

This machine is probably just propaganda to make a rival country waste some resources trying to "build the same thing".

>>1449795
>best/cheapest design for a personal flying craft/vehicle
I'm thinking a mini autogyro, since you don't need a large supported wing. Props are almost certainly the way to go, but trying to make a tiny high-bypass turbofan could be interesting. A tiny helicopter could be good, though fixed-wing aircraft are usually not very spatially efficient, at least for storage.

Electric vs internal combustion vs jet vs rocket is a question for another post, but all have at least some merit.

>>1449784
>Power density isn't the problem here

Anyone who says this has no fucking no clue at all about anything. This is the worst thread on /diy/ in a long time that isn't outright trolling. Holy shit you people are ignorant. Nay, you are WILLFULLY ignorant.

Enjoy your shit thread OP.

>>1448705
>>1448706
>>1448707
>>1448708
>>1448709
Fake and Gay. Also you can't have "anti-gravity" when gravity doesn't even exist.

>>1448839
It's "dielectric"you stupid faggot and all you need are fucking magnets copper and induction. Remember that word because it's humanities lack of understanding it is the biggest conspiracy in the world.

>>1448855
Coherency is multiplicative, not additive. Same reason computers capacity to store and read information increased exponentially.

>>1449715
I love how you watch Ken wheeler and still believe that bug wings would work on a large scale. He is the only one on the goddamn planet that knows how fucking magnets work, go watch him some more.

>>1450049
*should have added this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSMCZhRlhdo

>>1450049
>Ken Wheeler
Girlslaughing.bmp

>>1449795
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev7K8GtWnks

>>1450072
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUT-d_ZmIPY

>>1449979
>confusing power density for energy density

>>1450049
>you can't have "anti-gravity" when gravity doesn't even exist
But you can reverse spacetime curvature and/or whatever dark energy is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Space_travel_and_gravitational_shielding looks interesting.

>>1450218
>spacetime curvature and/or whatever dark energy is.
Meme terms, discovery channel talking points...None of what you said means anything. Space is a pressure mediation, time doesn't fall out of the realm of concepts (it doesn't exist). "Dark energy", "Dark matter"...these are more empirically untrue than particles themselves, it is nothing other than corrections in equations.

>>1450070
Tell me how he's wrong about magnetism because I don't know if you took note but ICP raised a serious question. No one really knows how fucking magnets work, so obviously anyone who claims they do is going to receive skepticism. However some facts to back up skepticism is always a plus,

lol this fucking thread.
it's ok OP, i fell for the magic tricks when i was a kid as well.

>>1450244
Are you the "Maxwell's equations + electron spin doesn't count" guy? The "but why do Maxwell's equations work" guy?

>>1450323
The "Maxwell's equations only describe what a field does not what it is" guy.

>>1450350
Right. But that's a meaningless position to take, because not only does it work regardless of why it works, but we have an understanding of almost exactly how (not why) it works and wondering why it works is as meaningless as wondering whether there are other universes out there, or whether intelligent design or the anthropic principle are the case. All are outside our ability to ever perfectly understand, at least as far as I see it. If we obtain a perfect theory of everything that explains exactly how all forces work there will still always be a question "but why?" that will remain unanswered, lest we actually find evidence of intelligent design or some other improbable explanation of why something exists. We just have to deal with what we've got.

>>1449979
Power density isn't the main problem here and your video proves it. We can make very power dense devices like that helicopter, but due to limited energy density it cannot carry out maneuvers like that for very long. That helicopter uses a 5.1 KW motor and has 2 22.2 volt 5200 milliamp hour batteries. So the stored energy is 22.2 volts *2*5200 milliamp hours=831,168 joules. So if we're running our helicopter at full power, it will last at the very max about 831,168 joules/5.1 KW=2.7 minutes.

>>1449646

those little bombs dropping down look incredibly small

>>1449979
>This is the worst thread on /diy/ in a long time that isn't outright trolling.

OP continues to post about a hovering platform powered by bug wings. Anons continue to reply.

>>1450356
>Right. But that's a meaningless position to take

>wondering why it works is as meaningless as wondering whether there are other universes out there, or whether intelligent design or the anthropic principle are the case.

You're right, instead of figuring out why things work, we should just leave it in the realm of human concepts and make assumptions and hypothesize on false premises. Then we can continue limiting ourselves on using concepts not based in reality. We will quantify things of qualitative value simply because things in our reality must be countable. The quality of things will not matter, only what quantitative separate and indivisible units they have.
>we don't know what causes it
>but we know what it is
>because we translated our already flawed observations of it(due to incommensurability) into a language
>that somehow the universe understands and uses, it plugs numbers into a calculator and outputs motion
Useful for recreating the same flawed observations, but an absolute failure at explaining them.

>All are outside our ability to ever perfectly understand
Yes, that is the point. Also it is why particles do not exist. This was all discovered quite a long time ago by the Greeks who dubbed it "Incommensurability" or "no common measure". You can measure it all you like, it's still fucking wrong because all you're measuring is the QUALITY of something.