How do you travel THAT Fast? Here's how!

What is the source of their Spacecraft Power?
___________________________________________________


This is one that really surprises me that we haven't begun
some serious research into. A lot of theoretical work has
already been done and the observed evidence confirms the
math. Here goes:


Assumptions:

Again I did research of witnessed events from all over the world.
It is important to get them from different cultures to
validate the reports. When the same data comes from
cross-cultural boundaries, the confidence level goes up.

Unfortunately, the number of contactees includes a lot of
space cadets and dingalings that compound the validation
problem. I had to run some serious research to get at a
reliable database of witnesses. I found that the most
consistent and reliable reports seem to increase as the size
of their credit rating, home price and tax returns went up.
When cross-indexed with a scale of validity based on
professions and activities after their reports, my regression
analysis came up with a 93% reliability factor.


What descriptions are common are these:

The craft makes little or no noise

It emits a light or lights that sometimes change colors

There is no large blast of air or rocket fuel ejected

Up close, witnesses have reported being burned as if
sunburned.

The craft is able to move very slow or very fast

The craft is apparently unaffected by air or lack of it


We can also deduce that:

the craft crossed space from another solar system

they may not have come from the closest star

their craft probably is not equipped for multi-generational
flight

there may be more than one species visiting us

--------------------------------------------

What conclusions can be draw from these observations:

If you exclude a force in nature that we have no knowledge of
then the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the
craft use gravity for propulsion. Feinberg, Feynmann, Heinz,
Pagels, Fritzsche, Weinberg, Salam and lately Stephen Hawking
have all studied, described or supported the existence of the
gauge boson with a spin of two called a graviton. Even
though the Standard Model, supersymmetry and other theories
are arguing over issues of spin, symmetry, color and
confinement, most agree that the graviton exists.

That gravity is accepted as a force made up of the exchange
of fundamental particles is a matter of record. The
Weinberg-Salam theory of particle exchange at the boson level
has passed every unambiguous test to which is has been
submitted. In 1979, they got the Nobel Prize for physics for
their model.


Repulsive Gravity:

We know that mass and energy are really the same and that
there are four fundamental interactions and that the
interactions take place by particle exchange. Gravity is one
of these four interactions. IF we can produce a graviton, we
can control it and perhaps alter it. Altering it in the same
way we can produce a POSITRON out of a proton. This is an
electron but with a positive charge. It seems logical that
we can do the same with gravitons. It is, after all, gravity
that is the only force that has not had an observed repulsive
force and yet it doesn't appear to be so very different than
the other three fundamental interactions.

Einstein and Hawking have pointed out that gravity can have a
repulsive force as well as an attractive force. In his work
with black holes, Hawking showed that quantum fluctuations in
an empty de Sitter space could create a virtual universe with
negative gravitational energy. By means of the quantum
tunnel effect, it can cross over into the real universe.
Obviously, this is all theory but parts of it are supported
by evidence. The tunneling effect is explained by quantum
mechanics and the Schrodinger wave equations and is applied
in current technology related to thin layers of
semiconductors. The de Sitter-Einstein theory is the basis
of the big bang theory and current views of space-time. In fact, the most recent studies of the universe have concluded that there is a massive amount of "repulsive or dark energy" that is causing the universe to expand.


Recipe to Make Gravity

We already know how to make gravitons. It has been described
by several scientists. It would take a particle accelerator
capable of about 10 TeV (10 trillion electron volts) and an
acceleration chamber about 100 Km long filled with
superconducting magnets.

The best we can do now is with the CERN and the FERMI
synchrontrons. In 1989 they reached 1.8 TeV at the FERMI
LAB. The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) that was under
construction in Ellis County, Texas would have given us 40
TeV but our wonderful "education president" Mr. Bush (the first one) , killed the project in August 1992. With the SSC, we could have created, manipulated and perhaps altered a graviton.


We Need A Bigger Oven

The reason we are having such a hard time doing this is that
we don't know how else to create the particle accelerators
than with these big SSC kind of projects. Actually, that's
not true. What is true is that we don't know how to create
the particle accelerators except with these big SSC kind of
projects, SAFELY. A nice nuclear explosion would do it
easily but we might have a hard time hiring some lab
technicians to observe the reaction up close.

What do you think we will have in 50 or 100 or 500 years.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that we will have better,
cheaper, faster, more powerful and smaller ways of creating
high energy sources? Isn't it reasonable to assume that a
civilization that may be 25,000 years ahead of us has already
done that. If they have, then it would be an easy task to
create gravitons out of other energy or matter and
concentrate, direct and control the force to move a craft.


Silent Operation

Now let's go back to the observations. The movement is
silent. That Fits - gravity is not a propulsive force based
on thrust of a propellent. I imagine the gravity engine to
be more like a gimbaled searchlight. The beam being the
attractive or repulsive graviton beam with a shield or lens
to direct it in the direction they want to move.


Sunburns from the UFOs

How about the skin burns on close witnesses - as if by sunburn?
OK lets assume the burn was exactly like sunburn - i.e.
caused by ultraviolet light (UVL). UVL is generated by
transitions in atoms in which an electron in a high-energy
state returns to a less energetic state. Now we have to get
technical again. We also have to step into the realm of
speculation since we obviously have not made a gravity engine
yet. But here are some interesting subjects that have a
remarkable degree of coincidence with the need for high
energy control necessary for the particle accelerator and the
observed sunburn effects.

The BCS theory (Bardeen, Cooper & Schrieffer) states that in
superconductivity, the "quantum-mechanical zero-point motion"
of the positive ions allows the electrons to lower their
energy state. The release of energy is not absorbed as heat,
implying it is not in the infrared range. Recently, the
so-called high temperature ceramic and organic
superconducting compounds also are based on electron energy
state flow. Suppose a by-product of using the
superconductors in their graviton particle accelerator is the
creation of UVL?

Perhaps the gimbaled graviton beam engine is very much like a
light beam. A MASER is a LASER that emits microwave energy
in a coherent and single wavelength and phase. Such
coherency may be necessary to direct the graviton beam much
like directing the steering jets on the space shuttle for
precision docking maneuvers. A maser's energy is made by
raising electrons to a high energy state and then letting
them jump back to the ground state. Sound familiar. The
amount of energy is the only difference between the microwave
energy and the UVL process. In fact, microwaves are just
barely above the UVL in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Suppose the process is less than perfect or that it has a
fringe area effect that produces UVL at the outer edges of
the energy field used to create the graviton beam. Since the
GREYs would consider it exhaust, they would not necessarily
shield it or even worry about it.


But It has got to GO FAST!

Finally, we must discuss the speed. The nearest star is
Proxima Centauri at about 1.3 parsecs (about 4.3 light
years). The nearest globular cluster is Omega Centauri at
about 20,000 light years and the nearest galaxy is Andromeda
at about 2.2 million light years. Even at the speed of
light, these distances are out of reach to a commuter crowd
of explorers. But just as the theory of relativity shows us
that matter and energy are the same thing, it shows that
space and time are one and the same. If space and time are
related, so is speed. This is another area that can get
real technical and the best recent reference is Hawking's A
Brief History of Time. In it he explains that it may be
possible to move in unique ways. He described the
idea of traveling from point A to point B by simply curving
the space-time continuum so that A and B are closer. In any
case we must move fast to do this kind of playing with time
and space and the most powerful force in the universe is
Gravity. Let's take a minor corollary:


Ion Engine

In the mid 60's a new engine was invented in which an
electrically charged ion stream formed the reaction mass for
the thrusters. The most thrust it could produce was 1/10th HP
with a projected maximum of 1 HP if they continued to work on
improvements to the design. It was weak but its Isp
(specific impulse - a rating of efficiency) was superior. It
could operate for years on a few pounds of fuel. It was
speculated that if a Mars mission were to leave Earth orbit
and accelerate using an ion engine for half the mission and
then decelerate for half the distance to Mars, they would get
there 11 months sooner than if they had not used it. The
gain came from a high velocity exhaust of the ion engine
giving a small but continuous gain in speed.

Suppose such a small engine had 50,000 HP and could operate
indefinitely. Acceleration would be constant and rapid. It
might be possible to get to .8 or .9 of C (80% or 90% of the
speed of light) with such an engine. This is what a graviton
engine could do. At these speeds, the relativistic effects
would take effect and space-time would be warped.

We Got all the Ingredients

Super String theory and other interesting versions of the
space-time continuum and space-time curvature are still in
their infancy. We must explore them in our minds since we do
not have the means to experiment in reality. We make great
gains when we can have a mind like Stephen Hawking working on the ideas. We lose so much when we have politicians like
Bush stop projects like the SSC. We can envision the concept
of travel and the desire and purpose but we haven't yet
resolved the mechanism. The fact that what we observe in
UFOs is at least consistent with some hard core leading edge
science is encouraging.

It also may lead to the conclusion that all these space cadets and dingalings that profess to have seen a real UFO may not all be that crazy. Why, for instance, would one of these weirdos make observations that appear to be consistent with complex aspects of physics that he could not possibly have understood?

If you believe that something is possible until you prove it is not, then there is now no other conclusion that you can draw except that there are UFOs and they did travel here from a long way away.


____________________________________________________

So, What do you Think?
____________________________________________________

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

cool

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have a few thoughts that when placed can debunct that what people see as bright lights aren't UFO's, because they aren't even objects.

Take for instance, you must have bene to a bar with a neon light advertising something like Beer. What they are is sealed glass tubes with a gas, that is excited with electricity and causes a friction that creates luminousity.

This can be created through the use of Frequencies and equipment that might have previously been communciations arrays. Through the use of parallel processing computers, satellites and ground based antenna's it's possible to create shapes of light from certain gases that are present within our atmosphere, and make them move at speed and in directs without any regard to gravity.

(This might of originally been contemplaited as a method to create false doppler signals on RADAR and SONAR. which could make Aircraft appear where they aren't etc)

The explaination also explains how people get a tan from these balls of light or Doppler matrices, because of it's overall radiation. It's the reason why there is no blasts or rocket ventura's.

There are also possibilities that these light matrices can cause scares on individuals and Electromagnetic flux can cause alsorts of dips and bumps, or even make things clatter and bang, shake etc.

It's even known that experiments in the field of energy transmition were tested. Namely sending electricity through the "airwaves", this pretty much means the energy within something could quite easily be sucked out, thus watches, engines, radio's stop and people can pass out.

There are a few other things that I've contemplated but I tend to keep them up my sleaves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Stryderunknown,

Meaning no disrespect, but you have mixed up a lot of different physics and SciFi in your response.

Nikola Tesla was the first to try to pass energy (electricity) thru the air - in the same manner that a transformer moves trons from one coil to anohter. In fact, it was based on his "Tesla Coil" design. He was working for Edison at the time and wanted to show that power could be delivered to houses without wires. He did it.....unfortunately, it took tens of thousands of watts of power at his coil to reach out just over 1 mile maximum. After that, the energy was so weak it would not light a bulb.

Such energy transmission was also harmless - there is a famous picture of him sitting reading a book with 30 foot sparks firing all around him. I have built a Tesla Coil and can draw a 400,000 volt spark to my bare hand.

The other thing you mentioned is called an Electro-Magnetic Pulse or EMP. It is an electrical phenonenom that happen during an atom bomb blast. It puts out a very high voltage but extremely short duration EMP. On the order of 50,000 to 200,000 volts per meter for durations up to 200 nanoseconds. Volts per meter means that if you hold up the probes of a volt meter in the air, 1 meter apart, that is the voltage you read as the pulse passes by. It zaps all electronics by frying the PN junctions of transistors and other semiconductor parts. Watches, TVs, electronic fuel injection systems in airborne aircraft, etc.

An EMP is not a natual event and cannot be created without the effects of an atomic blast.

Finally, there is such a thing as gases that give off light. They are called Plasmas. An example of these is one of those really cool looking novelty lights in the store that has this hazy looking gas that gives off light moving around inside a globe or tube. Geologists have confirmed that under just the right conditions, such lights have been seen just prior to an earthquake. The earth is just beginning to move a little but at the fault line, the pressure is tremendous. It can squeeze rocks and gas pockets deep within the earth and cause them to rise to the surface. There they are somehow ignited by the energy of the movement of the faultline. Scientist are not really sure exactly how but they think it has to do with the electrical activity created by the friction of the two sides of the fault line sliding past one another.

There are places in the US that are supposedly haunted but it is believed they just have regular plasma releases. One is called the Marfa Lights in Texas. Another is called the Joplin Spook of Joplin MO. There are others.

These different scientific events are mostly understood and have been examined by scienctists. In the more serious studies of UFOs, all these have been considered but even if you discount 99% of the sightings as either hype, lies, mistakes or natural events, there is always that 1% (that represents 100's of sightings), that cannot be explained.

 

Firstly I explained that they were transfering electricity, I didn't say that it was as electricity during it's transfer, it can be microwaves when it's transfered.

Also I said Electromagnetic Flux, Not Electromagnetic Pulse. Flux can be cuased by using such frequencies as Microwaves to cause a friction atomically within mass, thus causing their natural levels of electromagnetics to increases, so something can actually act heavier than it would normal when in relationship to something of greater mass.

As for the gases, as I kind of mentioned the gases can be excited and cause a friction that can produce a light, Again using frequencies such as microwaves and that that can create electromagnetic flux.

Now you are right that these are man made frequencies but you are wrong they don't just come from Bombs, they can come from creating a matricing effect (Namely having multiple antenna's outputting a certain level of frequency that all meet at one position from their different directions.)

This equipment can be used to project sounds, and by no means is limited to the frequencies I mentioned. If you say "X antenna can't go beyond Z frequency and is under Y frequency", then it might only cater for a preortion and a sat might fill in the rest.

 

This addresses the idea of using the power of an SSC to make a gravity engine for a starship. Actually, it is the simpler than a car engine.

We tend to think in terms that everything runs on our timescale. The reality is that we are but a wink in time as compared to the universe.

Imagine where we will be in 25,000 years. It is nearly impossible to even speculate what might be discovered. That is longer by 20,000 years than recorded history! Advance today's technology by as much as we have advanced from caveman!

Now consider this....

We know that our evolution was interrupted by a series of mass extinctions - 5 so far have been counted. Each time, evolution was set back millions of years and often redirected into a new direction of evolution such as the switch from dinosaurs to mammals.

It is NOT true but let us assume for a moment that all the planets in the universe formed about the same time and a few of them formed life. It is perfctly logical to assume that some had these massive extinctions and some did not or some had none and some had 20. We had 5. If we had had only 2, but had continued to follow our present evolution line, we would be 10's of 1000's of years more advanced now than we are simply because we would have gotten started earlier. Our industrial age might have occured 20,000 years ago. Our primitive space age might have been 19,000 years ago.

So where would be be now?

Now consider that there are other planets out there that have done exactly that. They got started before us - by 10's of 1000's of years, perhaps millions of years. It is hard to relate to that but it is a fact that planets formed over millions of years and as rare as life, as we know it, is likely to be, when it started here, it certainly started elsewhere also but at a very much different time.

One quick example. Power Density. We can make a battery that contains about 15,000 watts of power and it weighs 50 lbs and is the size of a car battery. Scientist believe that in about 100 years, we will have the power of the Hoover Dam or the power of an Aircraft Carrier in the size of a D-Cell battery. We can imagine that NOW. We can invision how it might be made NOW. What incredible Power density would be possible in 25,000 years? Could be put the power of a nuclear blast into a match box? Could be perfect cold fusion? I think yes.

In that context, what visitors from other planets might be able to do is virtually limitless.

That D-Cell size power source could easily be as powerful as the SSC and might very well be what they use for a gravity engine.

 

All of this is only relative to our experiences on this earth. Of course there is other life around us. There is no big idea in that..... If there isn't it is one distasteful joke. But then who would be pulling the joke?
I have a feeling though, I feel that if my alien neighbors showed up and looked at the world ( of course they would not call it that) it would be called m23 or something stupid like that.. they would only see a parasitic life form killing its host. They do not want to communicate with us! We look like cancer from orbit......
We need to watch out. There could be planetary Doctors..........

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb2.htm

e-bombs and emp do not have to be nuclear powered.

 

It is a good idea to look into these methods of propulsion; gravitons and higgs bosons are particularly interesting as potentially powerful spaceship drive elements, while in the near term ion engines are already being used (but have very low thrust).
Here is one place to start when considering space propulsion;
http://www.orionsarm.com/ships/propulsion.html
another
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion

However there is no point trying to guess what propulsion method UFO's use because they are all illusions of one sort or another.

 

On ion engines...

Ion engines produce marginal units of thrust, on the order of a dozen newtons from a modern system. The advantage, however, is that they require no local propellant, or onboard fuel. They use electric fields to propel negatively charged ions down a positively charged thrust vectoring nozzel. These ions have a negligent mass and can be aquired locally (a scoop or ramjet system). The advantage is two fold: compared to chemical rockets, which have specific impulses of 100 seconds at best, they are highly efficient, with specific (edit: oh lord i said specifical) impulses of 1,000 seconds or so. And because they use individual ions as their power source, fuel is much less of a problem. Deep Space 1, the Mercury probe, uses Xenon gas, for example. A small quantity of gas takes up very little space, has almost no mass, and is sufficient for 10 months of continuous operation. The bad news? Well, it only generates 1/50th of a pound of thrust. Reaching 90% light speed even with a massive ion engine (Deep Space 1 draws 2,500 Watts of electrical power) would take decades in itself. And once you reached any considerable fraction of light speed (say, 10%), the increase in the mass of your payload would start to decrease your rate of acceleration, as in F=ma. So, yeah, not the best choice.

On "gravity drives"...

The primary, indeed only, theory behind "gravity drive" is dependent upon a connection between gravity and electromagnetism. What is clear is that there exists some kind of link between these two forces, speaking definitively. Just as electromagnetic fields bend and interact with heavy particles, gravitational fields bend and interact with photons, or light. What is not clear, however, is the physical connection between electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields. Certainly the very notion is not unheard of. We use electric fields to create and control magnetic fields (hence electromagnetism), so why not use magnetic fields to create and control gravitational fields? All hard science says this is either impossible or, at best, not explainable according to our present understanding of physics. Zero Point Energy was one 20th century theory which claimed to establish the necesarry connection, but I believe it has been largely abandoned as pseudoscience. Now, the preceding is for using gravitational fields to bend space-time and cheat general relativity. You refer extensively to the "at-will" creation of "gravitons," which can be vectored out of a nozzle, creating forward thrust via Newtons "equal and opposite" rule, something altogether different. Even assumeing one had the capacity to create any sort of elementary particle such as the graviton (this isnt simply smashing particles to make different particles, the graviton is an elementary particle - to small to be observed, let alone smashed into things), using it to power a spacecraft in the manner you describe is a lesson in self-defeatism. For all that high technology, these aliens have (gasp) harnessed the weakest force in the universe to power their interstellar spaceships. They'd need an infinite supply of gravitons to get 1g of acceleration. The only good news is that gravitons are theoretically universal, so the mass-growth effects of relativity would be irrelevant. Nonetheless, better to stick with the ion engines above.

So, according to our best understanding of physics, it simply is not possible for a UFO to behave in the manner "ufologists" would like to claim. They... don't.... exist. Sorry guys. This doesnt mean ET isnt up there somewhere. Simply means he hasnt visited us in magical discs.

 

Zero Point Energy was one 20th century theory which claimed to establish the necesarry connection, but I believe it has been largely abandoned as pseudoscience.

Not completely abandoned; but seriously downgraded in value.

ZPE nowadays seems to have a value dictated by the Cosmological constant; that is, very small, but enough to drive the expansion of the universe.

 

Why is this not in pseudoscience?

Gravity drive indeed!
Dee Cee

 

Yes why the fuck is it not in pseudoscience?!?!

 

Ahhh new meat for the grinder of SciFoolems. Welcome to the Subculture of those of us that really want to question and discuss. Now you will find out about information acquisition and control tactics.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good try though Moses

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

its not about speeding up and going faster than the speed of light.

it only looks that way to a stationary observer.

the trick is dialating time and cutting thru that.
but it does have to do with gravity.

 

"I imagine the gravity engine to be more like a gimbaled searchlight. The beam being the attractive or repulsive graviton beam with a shield or lens to direct it in the direction they want to move."

How in God's name do you "shield" or "direct" gravity?! We still have problems working with gamma rays! Let alone, even if we could somehow fit a particle accelerator and it's power supply into a vehicle, we'd have to probably do decades more research to find out how to reflect and refract gravity! If there's an invention or something I'm missing, Moses, please let me know, but if we could find out how to reflect gravity, then why couldn't we just use Earth's gravity, aim it backwards or whatever, and lift off that way! Maybe you could fit this "mirror" onto the bottom of a snowboard and have hoverboards! Just sounds odd, that's all I'm saying.

 

sounds odd because we are not that advanced yet.

but no worries, the Greys have been inserting their technology and techniques into the the world via secret government/military black projects.

once the oil runs dry, the power players will have no choice but to release the wealth of knowledge they've been guarding.

 

Simple Logic... The "Spacecraft" that our Government uses quite frequently is explained easily they control gravity it's that simple they use the same means of controlling it as the man from Coral Castle. I will not go in depth with equations and such but I have seen them fly up close, and when they use their "engines" they emit a blue-green light when they are on full power they emit a yellow-orange light this is a type of conductivity from their engines being used. I don't call them U.F.O.'s because they are not unidentified our dear Government knows exactly what they are.

If you want to see a Object I would suggest investing in high quality N.V. or F.L.I.R. because if they don't want you to see them you won't unless you have something that will. Strawberry Ice Cream is Good...