Of course I can. I see no reason why not. Why? Who says, I can't?
Erm, Einstein, for one. You're forgetting that time and space have no independent existence in relativity, and some things just don't work out the way you'd like. For instance, when your car is driving at 100 mph, the speed of light from your headlights is still c, not c + 100mph. Both you in the car and the hitchhiker on the side of the road will measure the same speed c for your headlights. This is extremely counter-intuitive, but it has been experimentally proven (Michelson-Morley experiment, measurement of speed of light is independent of speed of earth's rotation + orbit around sun).
Of course we do. Distant galaxies travel with 0.3 c or more.
But we don't interact with distant galaxies in a way that makes relativistic effects obvious. Besides, the expansion of the universe is in the GR realm, so the effects are a bit more involved than just time-dilation and shortening. Incidentally, the relativistic equation for redshift is different from the classical equation, and this provides yet another proof of relativity.
Which one indicated the shrinking?
Plenty of particle accelerator experiments have shown reactions occuring over larger distances than they could if the particles were at rest, indicating that distances are different in the moving particle's frame of reference.
Since you are obviously quite interested in the subject, you ought to do some more research and reading. If you'd like, post some questions on sci.physics.relativity newsgroup - the folks frequenting that newsgroup are quite a bit more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.
The problem arises, when all the wagons (let say 360 of them) are so contracted, that they _all together_ need only 1/100 of second to pass - instead 1/7.5!
You can't measure the length of the 'wagon' by the time it takes to go by when it's going by at relativistic speeds, because time and space are getting mixed up. Events which appear simultaneous to you do not from the perspective of the train, and vice-versa.
Nor me, nor the lions don't see any weird geometry around us - which had to save the SR.
And I don't see a train circling the equator at near-light speed. This is why relativity is hard to fathom - it doesn't match our normal experiences, because we don't generally see anything moving more than 0.001% of light speed. Nevertheless, every experiment ever performed to test relativity has indicated that these effects do occur.
There's a lot of great reference material on relativity on the web. You will probably learn a lot more searching it out than you will reading these replies on slashdot.
I take it you haven't studied non-Euclidean geometry. Here's an example:
Take a curved surface, let's say the size of Earth. Now, look at it from the perspective of two-dimensional beings on its surface. Draw a circle centered on the north pole with a circumference of 1,000 miles. Now measure the radius of the circle - on the curved surface of the Earth - and you will get a value slightly greater than the ~159 miles you would expect, because you aren't measuring on a straight line. The circumference is less than 2pi*radius.
Incidentally, if a degree is defined as 1/360 of a circle, you still see 360 degrees. Keep in mind, you have to bend your protractor to measure an angle on the curved surface.
Another interesting fact: on a curved surface, the angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees. If you draw a equilateral triangle on the Earth with one points at the North Pole, and two points on the equator, so that each side is 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, all three angles will be right angles, and the sum is 270 degrees.
This is exactly what happens with the circular train. The circular motion (which is equivalent to acceleration or gravity) curves space in such a way that the track is non-Euclidean and the circumference does not equal 2pi radius.
As a matter of fact, the question is of the radius! I've found an explanation that should satisfy you. To be brief, under GR spacetime is curved, geometry is non-Euclidean, and the circumference of a circle does not necessarily equal 2pi*r. So the train can contract lengthwise without the radius changing.
Well, there was a good point there - every theory except the ones we have now has been proven wrong at some point. There's not really any reason to believe that the theories we have now should be different. Judging from past results, it is probably true that we will find problems with relativity at some point.
If you think if the fact that you have a bunch of differnt rules, some apply here, some apply there, nothing really works all of the time.
Actually, General Relativity works all the time*. It's just that in the case of uniform motion, it's easier to use Special Relativity (which is just a subset of General). And, at low speeds, Newtonian mechanics is much easier than even Special Relativity.
And its great to wonder and explore, but maybe we should focus more on other problems?
I hardly think the relatively (heh, heh) tiny amount of time, money, and thought put into this experiment would make a dent in any of the world's "real" problems. Besides, what are the scientists going to do, release a paper on how people should be decent to each other? That's been done before on several occasions by non-scientists, and the results have been arguably less than satisfactory. One of those "papers" has been used to justify 9/11, another was used to justify the Spanish Inquisition**.
* - except on very small scales where Quantum Mechanics gets invovled. Maybe someday this will read "String Theory (or the like) works everywhere, it's just that it's easier to use Relativity on big stuff and Quantum on small stuff and only use String to figure out singularities" ** - yes, I know the motivations behind these acts aren't entirely (or perhaps at all) religious. The point is that the books don't work to make their readers decent to each other.
Special Relativity, concerning things moving uniformly fast relative to one another, can be shown to be a special case of General Relativity, concerning things accelerating, or in a gravitational field, or rotating.
Unfortunately, while the effects of Special Relativity can be deduced in relatively (heh) simple algebra, the effects of General Relativity require very complex math, which is why you're not going to get a good answer on Slashdot. There might be folks here that can figure it out, but they probably won't get back to you for a while.
Best guess is that, if you're standing next to a hypothetical train going around the Earth at half the speed of light, you'll mostly just see Special Relativity effects - clocks on the train appear slow to you, the cars look short, and the mass of the cars is increased. Observers on the train (assuming the centrifugal force* doesn't turn them into chunky salsa) would see your watch running slow, and you would appear shortened, as would the tracks around the Earth.
The catch is, the circular motion around the Earth creates a pseudo-gravitational field** inside the train that has its own set of effects, and calulating how they are perceived by an outside observer is more difficult.
I think your earlier confusion was that if the train cars shrink as seen by an outside oberver, how does the train stay attached? The best answer that can be given in a few minutes on slashdot is that the General Relativity effects balance it out somehow. This is the same answer that has to be given for the Twins Paradox, except that that one isn't too difficult to explain since there's no rotation involved.
* - yes, I know centrifugal force doesn't really exist, but is an observational by-product of inertia. ** - the pseudo-gravitational field is the same as the acceleration caused by the centrifugal force that doesn't really exist.
It's a common misconception that Einstein's theories prohibit FTL travel - they do not.
Technically, no they don't. Practically, they might, because the transformation of time/space coordinates screws up causality. For example, we send a spaceship from Earth to Neptune faster than light. It leaves Earth at 1:00pm and arrives at Neptune at 1:06pm (Central Daylight Time, before you complain about time zones - we're launching from my backyard). In the frame of reference of an alien spacecraft moving past Earth at a high sublight speed, 1:06pm at Neptune occurs earlier than 1:00pm at Earth. This is because of the transformation of space-time coordinates. If the aliens have to wait for light from Neptune to get to them to see it, we're OK, but if they have some kind of subspace sensors that can see the event as it happens (in their reference frame), they can prevent the launch after they've seen the arrival at Neptune. Oops.
A good space-time diagram is worth a thousand words, so look here for more. The example he uses is different, but the idea is the same.
His site also has an explanation of how FTL might work without these paradoxes. It hypothesizes a special reference frame (subspace, of course) for objects traveling faster than light. This reference frame would match that of nearby massive objects (planets, stars, etc). In this model, the information that our ship had arrived at Neptune could not go backward in time relative to our solar system, so the aliens could not know the ship arrived at Neptune in time to stop it.
Incidentally, this means that a ship moving at sublight speed through a solar system would be able to use its subspace sensors to see things that have just happened in our reference frame, but are actually in the future in theirs. But, they can't do anything with the information to prevent the event before it happens.
Unfortunately, we have no way to verify any of this sort of speculation, and probably won't for the foreseeable future. It's clear that if relativity as we understand it is correct, then FTL travel can violate causality. Whether this means it's impossible, no one knows.
I know of someone who got a small bottle of cold medicine that had a couple of packets of silica gel on top to keep the pills dry. Not seeing the pills underneath, she opened one of the packets and swallowed the contents.
After what must have been a horrendously disgusting experience, she called my other friend who had recommended the medicine. She told him how horrible it was, and it took about five minutes talking about it before he figured out what she had done.
So, I perhaps know one of the people responsible for silica gel packets being labeled with the "Do Not Eat" warning.
As I recall, it was proven wrong by the detection and acknowledged existence of Tachyon particles travelling at over the speed of light when detected...
References? I somehow missed the scientific article on the detection of tachyons.
If you really want to test the theory, build an ion engined probe with small nuclear battery and atomic clock, transmitters, etc... and enough fule to acclerate to relativistic speeds.
Oh, I'd love to, but I have to mow the lawn tomorrow, maybe I'll get to it next week. Um, don't you think if we could do that, we'd find something better to do with it than test relativity... say, fly to Mars?
The theory has to be wrong because we have observed multiple instances of the violation of conservation of energy and the hard and fast rules around C speeds.
And I assume you have some references here as well?
Be cause I can't see, what happens with a circular train around the Earth. How does it shrink, when it's velocity approaches c?
Oh, Einstein was wrong because you can't see?
Special relativity concerns only objects in uniform straight-line motion. A circular train around the Earth is not straight-line motion, so general relativity comes into play.
On a small scale, an observer would see the effects of special relativity on the train cars nearby (shrunken in the direction of motion, clocks appear slow) but on the scale of the earth, these effects would be offset by general relativistic effects.
Muslims are practioners of Islam. Islamists are followers of political Islam. They are attempting to establish Islamic states.
While I've never heard the term used like that before, it does at least make sense to have it, because there are more political than religious motivations to some of these groups.
It is extremely unlikely that Christian Americans like Oklahoma City and the Unabomber would detonate a nuclear device in this country. That would advance either individual's aims.
I don't know that it's so unlikely. Everyone thought it was the Arabs when Oklahoma City happened, but it turned out to be Mr. McVeigh. Who's to say that some other American with an agenda might decide to blow up a building or three with a small fission weapon instead of a truckload of fertilizer? Granted, a truckload of fertilizer is easier to use. Of course, for exactly that reason, I'd be more worried about terrorists of any race buying large amounts of fertilizer than raiding breeder reactors.
Don't lecture me on dictionary definition, or call me a racist, just because you don't really understand what is going on.
I don't recall calling anyone a racist. I was just pointing out that if you're against building breeder reactors because "Islamists" might get hold of plutonium, you should consider that they aren't the only people who might try it.
New Jersey citizens have been up in arms about the sh*t Canada Geese are dumping on them en masse for months.
Really? I thought the New Jersey folks were just pissed about the ass-whipping the Devils were given by the Carolina Hurricanes (the Team Formerly Known as the Hartford Whalers).
Breeder reactors cannot be used until we have the Islamists eliminated.
And then we'll be perfectly safe, because white Christian Americans would never try to blow shit up. Oh, except that one in Oklahoma City. Oh, and that Unabomber guy.
By the way, the religion is Islam, and its practioners are called Muslims, not Islamists.
Here in the USA it is pretty much the natives that run the country too. Immigrants can eaily become citizens, only natives may become president.
That's funny, I don't remember any Native presidents. But, Ralph Nader's running mate in the 1996 and 2000 elections was Winona LaDuke, an Anishinaabe, so there is hope.
You might also point out that when you steal a video card from Best Buy, they no longer have it to sell. When you steal software, the software company still has it.
Britney and N'Sync are good musicians playing good music.
I hope this is a joke, I see someone modded it funny. Neither Britney nor N'Sync are good musicians. They aren't musicians at all. Have you ever seen any of them play an instrument?
I'm not even sure you can classify them as singers. Has anyone ever heard any of them sing by themselves, without a studio full of equipment?
When last I checked, Q4 starts in October. It is now pretty much June and we are only 4 months from Q4 which is not even close to a year.
Ans when was the last time a company announced a product available 'Q4' and actually shipped it before the last week of December? In this business, Q1 means March/April, Q2 means June/July, Q3 means Sept/Oct, and Q4 means "God I hope we get it out the door by Christmas!"
They laughed at Newton. They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Real scientists always publish and share their work. When someone says they have something brand new that no one has ever thought of before, and claims it will change the world, but won't tell you what it is, they are a fraud 99.9% of the time. That's what the bullshit detector picked up on.
And why does the link on his site about flying saucer propulsion point to a Popular Mechanics article about a 40 year old US Military project?
Slashdot Mirror
as the unfortunate trio of star voyagers (just adding color commentary here)
Shouldn't that read "space voyagers", since their travel obviously remained inside the solar system (just adding pedantry here)?
fyi, the car uses methanol, not hydrogen. still highly flammable, but at least you get a bit of a kick out of it.
Until you go blind and insane...
And grow hair on your palms.
Oh, wait, that's something else...
Of course I can. I see no reason why not. Why? Who says, I can't?
Erm, Einstein, for one. You're forgetting that time and space have no independent existence in relativity, and some things just don't work out the way you'd like. For instance, when your car is driving at 100 mph, the speed of light from your headlights is still c, not c + 100mph. Both you in the car and the hitchhiker on the side of the road will measure the same speed c for your headlights. This is extremely counter-intuitive, but it has been experimentally proven (Michelson-Morley experiment, measurement of speed of light is independent of speed of earth's rotation + orbit around sun).
Of course we do. Distant galaxies travel with 0.3 c or more.
But we don't interact with distant galaxies in a way that makes relativistic effects obvious. Besides, the expansion of the universe is in the GR realm, so the effects are a bit more involved than just time-dilation and shortening. Incidentally, the relativistic equation for redshift is different from the classical equation, and this provides yet another proof of relativity.
Which one indicated the shrinking?
Plenty of particle accelerator experiments have shown reactions occuring over larger distances than they could if the particles were at rest, indicating that distances are different in the moving particle's frame of reference.
Since you are obviously quite interested in the subject, you ought to do some more research and reading. If you'd like, post some questions on sci.physics.relativity newsgroup - the folks frequenting that newsgroup are quite a bit more knowledgeable on the subject than I am.
The problem arises, when all the wagons (let say 360 of them) are so contracted, that they _all together_ need only 1/100 of second to pass - instead 1/7.5!
You can't measure the length of the 'wagon' by the time it takes to go by when it's going by at relativistic speeds, because time and space are getting mixed up. Events which appear simultaneous to you do not from the perspective of the train, and vice-versa.
Nor me, nor the lions don't see any weird geometry around us - which had to save the SR.
And I don't see a train circling the equator at near-light speed. This is why relativity is hard to fathom - it doesn't match our normal experiences, because we don't generally see anything moving more than 0.001% of light speed. Nevertheless, every experiment ever performed to test relativity has indicated that these effects do occur.
There's a lot of great reference material on relativity on the web. You will probably learn a lot more searching it out than you will reading these replies on slashdot.
I take it you haven't studied non-Euclidean geometry. Here's an example:
Take a curved surface, let's say the size of Earth. Now, look at it from the perspective of two-dimensional beings on its surface. Draw a circle centered on the north pole with a circumference of 1,000 miles. Now measure the radius of the circle - on the curved surface of the Earth - and you will get a value slightly greater than the ~159 miles you would expect, because you aren't measuring on a straight line. The circumference is less than 2pi*radius.
Incidentally, if a degree is defined as 1/360 of a circle, you still see 360 degrees. Keep in mind, you have to bend your protractor to measure an angle on the curved surface.
Another interesting fact: on a curved surface, the angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees. If you draw a equilateral triangle on the Earth with one points at the North Pole, and two points on the equator, so that each side is 1/4 the circumference of the Earth, all three angles will be right angles, and the sum is 270 degrees.
This is exactly what happens with the circular train. The circular motion (which is equivalent to acceleration or gravity) curves space in such a way that the track is non-Euclidean and the circumference does not equal 2pi radius.
As a matter of fact, the question is of the radius! I've found an explanation that should satisfy you. To be brief, under GR spacetime is curved, geometry is non-Euclidean, and the circumference of a circle does not necessarily equal 2pi*r. So the train can contract lengthwise without the radius changing.
Well, there was a good point there - every theory except the ones we have now has been proven wrong at some point. There's not really any reason to believe that the theories we have now should be different. Judging from past results, it is probably true that we will find problems with relativity at some point.
I've found this explanation which seems reasonable and short, but GR is used to explain it.
If you think if the fact that you have a bunch of differnt rules, some apply here, some apply there, nothing really works all of the time.
Actually, General Relativity works all the time*. It's just that in the case of uniform motion, it's easier to use Special Relativity (which is just a subset of General). And, at low speeds, Newtonian mechanics is much easier than even Special Relativity.
And its great to wonder and explore, but maybe we should focus more on other problems?
I hardly think the relatively (heh, heh) tiny amount of time, money, and thought put into this experiment would make a dent in any of the world's "real" problems. Besides, what are the scientists going to do, release a paper on how people should be decent to each other? That's been done before on several occasions by non-scientists, and the results have been arguably less than satisfactory. One of those "papers" has been used to justify 9/11, another was used to justify the Spanish Inquisition**.
* - except on very small scales where Quantum Mechanics gets invovled. Maybe someday this will read "String Theory (or the like) works everywhere, it's just that it's easier to use Relativity on big stuff and Quantum on small stuff and only use String to figure out singularities"
** - yes, I know the motivations behind these acts aren't entirely (or perhaps at all) religious. The point is that the books don't work to make their readers decent to each other.
Special Relativity, concerning things moving uniformly fast relative to one another, can be shown to be a special case of General Relativity, concerning things accelerating, or in a gravitational field, or rotating.
Unfortunately, while the effects of Special Relativity can be deduced in relatively (heh) simple algebra, the effects of General Relativity require very complex math, which is why you're not going to get a good answer on Slashdot. There might be folks here that can figure it out, but they probably won't get back to you for a while.
Best guess is that, if you're standing next to a hypothetical train going around the Earth at half the speed of light, you'll mostly just see Special Relativity effects - clocks on the train appear slow to you, the cars look short, and the mass of the cars is increased. Observers on the train (assuming the centrifugal force* doesn't turn them into chunky salsa) would see your watch running slow, and you would appear shortened, as would the tracks around the Earth.
The catch is, the circular motion around the Earth creates a pseudo-gravitational field** inside the train that has its own set of effects, and calulating how they are perceived by an outside observer is more difficult.
I think your earlier confusion was that if the train cars shrink as seen by an outside oberver, how does the train stay attached? The best answer that can be given in a few minutes on slashdot is that the General Relativity effects balance it out somehow. This is the same answer that has to be given for the Twins Paradox, except that that one isn't too difficult to explain since there's no rotation involved.
* - yes, I know centrifugal force doesn't really exist, but is an observational by-product of inertia.
** - the pseudo-gravitational field is the same as the acceleration caused by the centrifugal force that doesn't really exist.
It's a common misconception that Einstein's theories prohibit FTL travel - they do not.
Technically, no they don't. Practically, they might, because the transformation of time/space coordinates screws up causality. For example, we send a spaceship from Earth to Neptune faster than light. It leaves Earth at 1:00pm and arrives at Neptune at 1:06pm (Central Daylight Time, before you complain about time zones - we're launching from my backyard). In the frame of reference of an alien spacecraft moving past Earth at a high sublight speed, 1:06pm at Neptune occurs earlier than 1:00pm at Earth. This is because of the transformation of space-time coordinates. If the aliens have to wait for light from Neptune to get to them to see it, we're OK, but if they have some kind of subspace sensors that can see the event as it happens (in their reference frame), they can prevent the launch after they've seen the arrival at Neptune. Oops.
A good space-time diagram is worth a thousand words, so look here for more. The example he uses is different, but the idea is the same.
His site also has an explanation of how FTL might work without these paradoxes. It hypothesizes a special reference frame (subspace, of course) for objects traveling faster than light. This reference frame would match that of nearby massive objects (planets, stars, etc). In this model, the information that our ship had arrived at Neptune could not go backward in time relative to our solar system, so the aliens could not know the ship arrived at Neptune in time to stop it.
Incidentally, this means that a ship moving at sublight speed through a solar system would be able to use its subspace sensors to see things that have just happened in our reference frame, but are actually in the future in theirs. But, they can't do anything with the information to prevent the event before it happens.
Unfortunately, we have no way to verify any of this sort of speculation, and probably won't for the foreseeable future. It's clear that if relativity as we understand it is correct, then FTL travel can violate causality. Whether this means it's impossible, no one knows.
Oh, darn, I've already posted my commentary on silica gel instructions.
I know of someone who got a small bottle of cold medicine that had a couple of packets of silica gel on top to keep the pills dry. Not seeing the pills underneath, she opened one of the packets and swallowed the contents.
After what must have been a horrendously disgusting experience, she called my other friend who had recommended the medicine. She told him how horrible it was, and it took about five minutes talking about it before he figured out what she had done.
So, I perhaps know one of the people responsible for silica gel packets being labeled with the "Do Not Eat" warning.
As I recall, it was proven wrong by the detection and acknowledged existence of Tachyon particles travelling at over the speed of light when detected...
References? I somehow missed the scientific article on the detection of tachyons.
If you really want to test the theory, build an ion engined probe with small nuclear battery and atomic clock, transmitters, etc... and enough fule to acclerate to relativistic speeds.
Oh, I'd love to, but I have to mow the lawn tomorrow, maybe I'll get to it next week. Um, don't you think if we could do that, we'd find something better to do with it than test relativity... say, fly to Mars?
The theory has to be wrong because we have observed multiple instances of the violation of conservation of energy and the hard and fast rules around C speeds.
And I assume you have some references here as well?
That's my bet.
Be cause I can't see, what happens with a circular train around the Earth. How does it shrink, when it's velocity approaches c?
Oh, Einstein was wrong because you can't see?
Special relativity concerns only objects in uniform straight-line motion. A circular train around the Earth is not straight-line motion, so general relativity comes into play.
On a small scale, an observer would see the effects of special relativity on the train cars nearby (shrunken in the direction of motion, clocks appear slow) but on the scale of the earth, these effects would be offset by general relativistic effects.
Muslims are practioners of Islam. Islamists are followers of political Islam. They are attempting to establish Islamic states.
While I've never heard the term used like that before, it does at least make sense to have it, because there are more political than religious motivations to some of these groups.
It is extremely unlikely that Christian Americans like Oklahoma City and the Unabomber would detonate a nuclear device in this country. That would advance either individual's aims.
I don't know that it's so unlikely. Everyone thought it was the Arabs when Oklahoma City happened, but it turned out to be Mr. McVeigh. Who's to say that some other American with an agenda might decide to blow up a building or three with a small fission weapon instead of a truckload of fertilizer? Granted, a truckload of fertilizer is easier to use. Of course, for exactly that reason, I'd be more worried about terrorists of any race buying large amounts of fertilizer than raiding breeder reactors.
Don't lecture me on dictionary definition, or call me a racist, just because you don't really understand what is going on.
I don't recall calling anyone a racist. I was just pointing out that if you're against building breeder reactors because "Islamists" might get hold of plutonium, you should consider that they aren't the only people who might try it.
Come on down anytime and we'll give you a big hug.
Oh, and make sure to bring some beer with you. And some real maple syrup, too.
New Jersey citizens have been up in arms about the sh*t Canada Geese are dumping on them en masse for months.
Really? I thought the New Jersey folks were just pissed about the ass-whipping the Devils were given by the Carolina Hurricanes (the Team Formerly Known as the Hartford Whalers).
they would be better off investing in wind generators ( no they do NOT generate wind ).
Right, the things that generate wind are called politicians.
Breeder reactors cannot be used until we have the Islamists eliminated.
And then we'll be perfectly safe, because white Christian Americans would never try to blow shit up. Oh, except that one in Oklahoma City. Oh, and that Unabomber guy.
By the way, the religion is Islam, and its practioners are called Muslims, not Islamists.
Here in the USA it is pretty much the natives that run the country too. Immigrants can eaily become citizens, only natives may become president.
That's funny, I don't remember any Native presidents. But, Ralph Nader's running mate in the 1996 and 2000 elections was Winona LaDuke, an Anishinaabe, so there is hope.
You might also point out that when you steal a video card from Best Buy, they no longer have it to sell. When you steal software, the software company still has it.
Britney and N'Sync are good musicians playing good music.
I hope this is a joke, I see someone modded it funny. Neither Britney nor N'Sync are good musicians. They aren't musicians at all. Have you ever seen any of them play an instrument?
I'm not even sure you can classify them as singers. Has anyone ever heard any of them sing by themselves, without a studio full of equipment?
When last I checked, Q4 starts in October. It is now pretty much June and we are only 4 months from Q4 which is not even close to a year.
Ans when was the last time a company announced a product available 'Q4' and actually shipped it before the last week of December? In this business, Q1 means March/April, Q2 means June/July, Q3 means Sept/Oct, and Q4 means "God I hope we get it out the door by Christmas!"
They laughed at Newton. They laughed at Einstein. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Real scientists always publish and share their work. When someone says they have something brand new that no one has ever thought of before, and claims it will change the world, but won't tell you what it is, they are a fraud 99.9% of the time. That's what the bullshit detector picked up on.
And why does the link on his site about flying saucer propulsion point to a Popular Mechanics article about a 40 year old US Military project?