Jay Strellson

Have you ever tried to debate a "true believer"? Especially one in a tiny minority that is convinced they are right because "It's in the Bible!"? I get responses like this👇 It is even worse in spaces. Do you often encounter people like this? Actual reply to me: "You're an idiot. I have showed you plenty of proof, NASA and even the CIA has documents on flat earth. NASA also admits they use CGI to make models of a globe earth...Go sck a dck"

Anti-Gravity is a science fiction dream that can’t be fulfilled. TL;DR: This isn’t an engineering or math problem. It’s a “breaks the laws that make the universe work” problem. I already know the pushback this will get. Those flying orbs, “tic tacs”, and other various so-called UAP need lots of rule breaking to do what’s claimed - and A-G is the most common. For some people, ideas like “antigravity” propulsion and faster-than-light travel aren’t just interesting possibilities. They’re load-bearing assumptions. If those don’t work, a lot of other conclusions built on top of them don’t work either. That kind of dependency tends to produce very strong reactions, and not always for technical reasons. Don’t worry I won’t talk physics. And, before going further, a quick clarification: “antigravity” is an imprecise term. What most people mean by it isn’t literally canceling gravity. What they’re describing is a propulsion system that can lift, hover, and accelerate without expelling any reaction mass. In other words, a reactionless drive. That distinction matters, because the physics problems are different. And the one people actually care about most, the propulsion version, runs straight into the hardest limits we know. “Sure, that’s what physics says today. But what about the future?” Fair question. Science evolves. We don’t know everything. But this isn’t about missing a trick or needing better engineering. This is about breaking rules that everything else depends on. Reactionless propulsion doesn’t just require a clever breakthrough. It requires violating conservation of momentum. That’s not a niche assumption. That’s a consequence of spacetime symmetry, baked into every successful physical theory we have. If that breaks, you don’t just get advanced propulsion. You get a universe where the framework that predicts planetary motion, particle interactions, and energy transfer stops working. Could future physics revise our understanding? Of course. But “revision” in physics has always meant refining and extending existing laws, not casually discarding the ones that already explain reality with extreme accuracy. So yes, anything is possible in a philosophical sense. But some things would require so much of physics to be wrong that treating them as plausible today isn’t skepticism. It’s wishful thinking.