is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?
- Thread starter duendy
- Start date
- Status
Mr Anonymous, ... wouldn't compressing space create gravity waves? And we are looking for those, there are at least two separate experiments I'm aware of.
Wormhole detection, yes, all sky surveys, like the network used to home in on sources of Gamma Ray Bursts would spot that for sure.
Not sure about shuttle craft propulsion, but I'll let the believers propose what they think makes that work, ands see if it should be detectable.
Wormhole detection, yes, all sky surveys, like the network used to home in on sources of Gamma Ray Bursts would spot that for sure.
Not sure about shuttle craft propulsion, but I'll let the believers propose what they think makes that work, ands see if it should be detectable.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Gustav said:
... Well, I think we could all stand just a spot of actual discussion for a while longer yet, y'know, just to actually get somewhere with a topic for once. As to that latter though, pish! You're not afraid to actually research, to dig around, get your hands dirty as it were. If anything pushes up the bar, it's that. Mmmm, tend to agree with you there. The numbers sited are just reflect gross UFO reports filed by the public either to the RAF or one of the plethora of UFO groups up and down the country. BUFORA compile more accurate yearly Tally's - relatively speaking very few gross reports ever get investigated, they're just filed, it's only instances of multiple sightings pertaining to the same object in the same area that get the any kind of further scrutiny - and even then you're dealing with volunteers doing the background work out of their own pocket.
It's in the main a very hobbyist sort of a pursuit and subsequent follow up on that usually reveals little more than a mountain out of a mole hill or else just plain sloppy enquiry. Which happens an awful lot, it must be said.
With regard to "that professional types should be accorded more weight in their testimony over joe blow (expert witnesses testifying in court)" indeed, it both should and does, from an investigative stance at least, offer a far better likelihood of getting something that's both accurate and relatively complete - problem being of course by in large you're looking at largely anecdotal testimony only, nothing but a service record to back it up, which is a christless shame in my book because over the years I've had the opportunity to interview a number of chaps whom I don't actually doubt for a second regarding their observations but without independent third party to back the events up...
Film, camera and video footage on the other hand, this gets trickier. It's awfully easy to fake things, the media itself lends itself perfectly to act of deceit - both crude, gross and surpassingly cleaver and there are so many of these out there that one could actually be looking at the genuine article and assume it fake perfectly legitimately, one can never actually tell. I've personally seen both still and live action images which have literally had the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end, what I've appeared to be seeing has just appeared to be so... real.
And yet....
.. And I should imagine that all the skinny arsed grey little bastard did was disclose the secret of edible wallpaper paste and five really, really decorative things to do with toe nail clippings and spent nuclear fuel rods. Yup. It all comes down to ones own sense of both credulity and likelihood, and being as that's wholly a judgement call on the part of the individual I doubt very much any form of actual consensus, over and above the very broadest of general givens, will ever likely be achieved through pursuing the subject towards any particular, given end.
Far, far in the main people aren't looking for UFO's, ET's or any of the paraphernalia associated with the subjects thereof - they're looking for a plot, a narrative thread, something with a beginning, a middle and an end and covers that can be closed with all the pages neatly in order inbetween and an index page and an apendix...
If there's a story to any of it, the one thing I somehow doubt very seriously is that it's in anyway actually ours.
phlogistician said:
With regards to that first, I should imagine you'd also get a gravitational lensing effect to boot if y'happened to be looking at the right part of the sky whilst you're alien equivalent of the Enterprise was blitzing its way Solward - however, I'd put the likelihood of anyone actually squinting in the exact direction of such fabulous thing as an oncoming warp ship about as likely as the very few deep field gravitational wave detection set-ups we've actually got hitting the mark bang on equally - damnably specialised astronomical field, very, very few people actually know what they're doing with it, far more likely to be put down as being a rogue singularity or some other equally interesting bit of cosmic fluff than anything guided....
Quite how the devil ones supposed to park something capable of such extraordinary feats of travel in orbit around the Earth and slip something, or several somethings, into the atmosphere without every major nuclear power instantly going to def-con 1, god only knows. We've got enough junk and meteor tracking satelights up there to constitute a navigational hazard.
Speaking of which, with regards to that last. I don't actually see why a UFO would need a propulsion system frankly. Dropping into atmosphere from orbit hardly requires an engine, all that's actually required is a means of controlling and maintaining altitude whilst in it and with the degree of inertial velocity an orbitally deployed vehicle would inherently possess simply in being released, slapping a spooky-physics engine on the thing just to live up to ufological expectation seems somewhat... obliging rather than necessary.
Release the "shuttle" vehicle unpowered from orbit, give it the means to generate a weak magnetic field. Control the onset of gravitational pull Earthward by the controlled use of a simple breaking thruster arrangement and as gravity very gradually wants to pull the vehicle down in the micro gravitational environment of space resistance between the field being produced by the vehicle and the magnetosphere is allowed ti express itself as electromagnetic resistance - providing the decrease in orbital inertia is brought about in parity with the onset of gravitational pull gravity should bring about a proportional increase in the degree of electromagnetic Resistance occurring between the two fields - in short, gravitational force is being incrementally constrained to work against itself in exactly the same way physical force is constrained to work against itself when one pushes two handheld magnets of similar polarity together.
As a simple mechanism it provides a vehicle entering the atmosphere from space a means of controlling its rate of descent considerably prior to hitting atmosphere thus facilitating a far safer, more controlled entry and a means of maintaining altitude indefinitely thereafter without the requirement of expending energy in constant thrust.
In a previous post Giambattista makes note that - "The maneuverability of many UFOs defies explanation if you apply any kind of normal propulsion designs. For example, instant changes in trajectory at sharp angles while at very high speeds. These characteristics have been reported over and over again for decades. I fail to see how VTOL craft are capable of that, without killing someone or exploding." a reported observation indeed common in UFO reports, the onus being some hitherto fabulously exotic alien propulsion system must be the only possible explanation - but if you consider at all the notion of a vehicle travelling under inertia already applied, if the principal of that vehicles mass was at the onset induced to spin, as would be desirable in order to maintain inertial stabilisation without developing the tendancy to tumble arse over tip as it went, that mass isn't particular bothered about which particular direction its travelling in, moreover it retains the capacity to conserve, rather than loose, its initial inertia.
Thus, a brief burst of a simple manoeuvring thruster would be enough to produce this precise characteristic in any vehicle applying these exact sort of very simple physical principals.
Not exactly startrek I know, but curiously applicable physics nevertheless...
Gustav said:
Did you read the link Mr. Anonymous gave about how saucers COULD perhaps perform the tricks they do using ordinary physics?
I don't know for sure, but I believe he may have written it himself, given the style of language and writing.
I admit I didn't read it all! I got halfway through, but was in the process of posting some other things, so I got sidetracked. I did kind of skim through the final half, but have yet to read it in depth.
What do you think of that link, assuming you have seen it?
Okay, I finished reading it all!
Mr. Gustav, your comments, please, before I say anything further on the matter.
Mr. Gustav, your comments, please, before I say anything further on the matter.
If you're referring to the authorship of the link I referred to, I was just noting the similarity in style, since he did not say explicitly who the author was.
It was interesting. I assume you read it as well?
It was sometimes hard to follow, to be honest. I'm not a big fan of physics (more out of lack of great interest than anything else), though what was presented wasn't too difficult. It was more the writing style, maybe? Wordy, I believe is the wordy. Not to say that it was bad!
I am familiar with many many reports, descriptions, and analyses of those reports and descriptions. Some of these come from very credible witnesses. That doesn't prove, as I am well aware, that the craft or light or object sighted was actually mysterious or of alien origin. It just differentiates between those reports we should consider seriously, and those that we should probably keep away from our persons! Fraudulence is radioactive; I've tested it many times.
Okay. You stated this:
You terminated the sentence with correct punctuation, but forgot to capitalize the "T" at the beginning, so I'm going to discard everything you say from now on.
Just kidding.
It sounds like you were referring to the theory (or a similar one) that I just read. Is this true?
Inertia gathered from being pulled to the earth from high in the atmosphere would probably ("probably" is probably not a strong enough word!) not account for hovering and shooting off, nor landing and taking off.
It should not be forgotten that most UFOs/saucers do these things without any dramatic acceleration/deceleration, which would be expected.
Accelerating past the sound barrier would also create a noise which is noticeably absent from most high-speed anomalous air vehicles!
Even stranger, is that small percentage (I'm assuming small because we rarely hear about them) where UFOs do indeed making peculiar noises, and are actually seen emitting some discharge or exhaust, if that is what it truly is.
The Zamora/Soccoro New Mexico sighting is applicable hear. The small elliptical or egg-shaped craft... actually, descriptions and pictures differ on this, I believe the correct version is a horizontal oval, rather than an upright.
After watching two humanoids in coveralls, they entered the craft, and it emitted a jet of flame (blue and/or orange) and a roar.
Here is his description of the ascension:
This emission of flame from the bottom of the craft is a very rarely reported characteristic, as was the accompanying noise.
I'll write more in just a little bit...
It was interesting. I assume you read it as well?
It was sometimes hard to follow, to be honest. I'm not a big fan of physics (more out of lack of great interest than anything else), though what was presented wasn't too difficult. It was more the writing style, maybe? Wordy, I believe is the wordy. Not to say that it was bad!
I am familiar with many many reports, descriptions, and analyses of those reports and descriptions. Some of these come from very credible witnesses. That doesn't prove, as I am well aware, that the craft or light or object sighted was actually mysterious or of alien origin. It just differentiates between those reports we should consider seriously, and those that we should probably keep away from our persons! Fraudulence is radioactive; I've tested it many times.
Okay. You stated this:
Gustav said:
You terminated the sentence with correct punctuation, but forgot to capitalize the "T" at the beginning, so I'm going to discard everything you say from now on.
Just kidding.
It sounds like you were referring to the theory (or a similar one) that I just read. Is this true?
Inertia gathered from being pulled to the earth from high in the atmosphere would probably ("probably" is probably not a strong enough word!) not account for hovering and shooting off, nor landing and taking off.
It should not be forgotten that most UFOs/saucers do these things without any dramatic acceleration/deceleration, which would be expected.
Accelerating past the sound barrier would also create a noise which is noticeably absent from most high-speed anomalous air vehicles!
Even stranger, is that small percentage (I'm assuming small because we rarely hear about them) where UFOs do indeed making peculiar noises, and are actually seen emitting some discharge or exhaust, if that is what it truly is.
The Zamora/Soccoro New Mexico sighting is applicable hear. The small elliptical or egg-shaped craft... actually, descriptions and pictures differ on this, I believe the correct version is a horizontal oval, rather than an upright.
After watching two humanoids in coveralls, they entered the craft, and it emitted a jet of flame (blue and/or orange) and a roar.
Here is his description of the ascension:
This emission of flame from the bottom of the craft is a very rarely reported characteristic, as was the accompanying noise.
I'll write more in just a little bit...
Gustav said:
Thanks. I guess I try.
Okay, continuing with Zamora...
When the site was examined, and mind you, this was a very well investigated sighting, probably due in part to both the Air Force's Project Blue Book (which was still active), and the fact that Lonnie Zamora was an on-duty police officer when the event occured. He radioed in after first spotting the craft.
The famed J. Allen Hynek had also visited the site.
Apparently, the scorch marks were examined closely, and it was determined that for an object of that size (the indentations left by the 4 legs probably helped determine the size) there hadn't been enough thrust to lift off. If so, what was the purpose of the blue flame? There was no smoke, other than, I believe, some dust thrown up into the air.
There is no description that I can find of whether there was an outlet or some type of thruster on the bottom for the jet to escape from. He noted that it was smooth, with no outer features except for the landing legs and the red insignia. I have seen a painting that is easily found on the net, and apparently this was shown (or the preliminary sketches it was based on) to Zamora, and he verified that it was accurate.
Dr. Hynek said this of the case:
The only viable down to earth explanation I have noted is that it was a NASA vehicle test (Lunar Surveyor?). However, there are certain key traits missing from Zamora's observation that he could hardly have missed if that was indeed what it was. The most visible of these would have been the small helicopter engine and of course, the rotor! Hard to miss, yet his description and the drawings based on them (as well as Zamora's own sketch) show something quite different.
It was also noted, as in this excerpt from a report:
Measurements taken by police verified that there were 4 indentations on the ground; the distance between them formed a quadrilateral whose diagonals intersected at exactly 90 degree angles.
The lander supposedly being tested actually had three legs, not four. Apparently, and humorously, the infamous Phil Klass had dismissed the entire case as a hoax because the landing marks did not correspond to any NASA landers. He just KNEW from the start that it had to be NASA or it HAD to be a hoax. Such objective thinking, Mr. Klass!
Here is a link about the skeptical attempt to explain the landing.
http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm
A strange coincidence perhaps, but a few days later, other witnesses in northern New Mexico, this time a family, reported having seen something very similar. An investigation showed that the landing site was basically identical to the one at Socorro!
Well, that's the details of the Zamora case, more or less. I mentioned it because of the strange "thruster" and the noise, which he insisted did not sound like a normal jet.
The article about inertia and magnetism being the main forces behind flying saucer propulsion (excuse me, apropulsion!) also mentioned some type of small thruster.
This is one of the few cases where anything of the kind has been noted. It is also peculiar that this was an ellipsoid that was not reported to have been spinning. Non-saucer shaped craft are not all that rare, though ones emitting fire and a loud roar are!
When the site was examined, and mind you, this was a very well investigated sighting, probably due in part to both the Air Force's Project Blue Book (which was still active), and the fact that Lonnie Zamora was an on-duty police officer when the event occured. He radioed in after first spotting the craft.
The famed J. Allen Hynek had also visited the site.
Apparently, the scorch marks were examined closely, and it was determined that for an object of that size (the indentations left by the 4 legs probably helped determine the size) there hadn't been enough thrust to lift off. If so, what was the purpose of the blue flame? There was no smoke, other than, I believe, some dust thrown up into the air.
There is no description that I can find of whether there was an outlet or some type of thruster on the bottom for the jet to escape from. He noted that it was smooth, with no outer features except for the landing legs and the red insignia. I have seen a painting that is easily found on the net, and apparently this was shown (or the preliminary sketches it was based on) to Zamora, and he verified that it was accurate.
Dr. Hynek said this of the case:
The only viable down to earth explanation I have noted is that it was a NASA vehicle test (Lunar Surveyor?). However, there are certain key traits missing from Zamora's observation that he could hardly have missed if that was indeed what it was. The most visible of these would have been the small helicopter engine and of course, the rotor! Hard to miss, yet his description and the drawings based on them (as well as Zamora's own sketch) show something quite different.
It was also noted, as in this excerpt from a report:
Measurements taken by police verified that there were 4 indentations on the ground; the distance between them formed a quadrilateral whose diagonals intersected at exactly 90 degree angles.
The lander supposedly being tested actually had three legs, not four. Apparently, and humorously, the infamous Phil Klass had dismissed the entire case as a hoax because the landing marks did not correspond to any NASA landers. He just KNEW from the start that it had to be NASA or it HAD to be a hoax. Such objective thinking, Mr. Klass!
Here is a link about the skeptical attempt to explain the landing.
http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm
A strange coincidence perhaps, but a few days later, other witnesses in northern New Mexico, this time a family, reported having seen something very similar. An investigation showed that the landing site was basically identical to the one at Socorro!
Well, that's the details of the Zamora case, more or less. I mentioned it because of the strange "thruster" and the noise, which he insisted did not sound like a normal jet.
The article about inertia and magnetism being the main forces behind flying saucer propulsion (excuse me, apropulsion!) also mentioned some type of small thruster.
This is one of the few cases where anything of the kind has been noted. It is also peculiar that this was an ellipsoid that was not reported to have been spinning. Non-saucer shaped craft are not all that rare, though ones emitting fire and a loud roar are!
Okay, now, I got sidetracked with the rather well-documented Zamora case.
What I was trying to do actually was to demonstrate effects besides simply hovering, stopping, accelerating, and decelerating, noisily, or silently.
These are just various effects I have noted over the ages that would suggest something more exotic than inertia and magnetic force as a propulsive means for saucers AND non-saucer shaped anomalous craft.
Burnt patches left by landed craft, often very precise and even throughout, which do not suggest any type of rocket or jet-type thrust as seen in the Socorro case.
Sometimes not burnt, but more crop circle like. Strange substances or residues. Ectoplasm, Dr. Venkman told me.
Possibly elevated levels of radioactivity. Aversion of dogs and/or other animals to the site.
I don't know, magnetic interference sometimes, other times free from that.
There have been reports of changes in size or shape, and noted distortions of the image of the craft. Cloaking? As in, Klingon Bird of Prey?
Also, at night, change in intensity of glow, rate of pulsing (if any) and change in color, sometimes very rapid. Change in color has also been known to coincide with change in velocity.
Has anyone ever heard about time distortions from people who have been near an operating craft? I vaguely remember some people standing underneath one, and they felt they were in slow motion. This could have been an actual temporal alteration, or purely a psychological effect.
Intense heat.
Dirt or other debris being picked up and carried in the air around the craft, not merely being blown around by exhaust.
At least one case where a hole was bored into the ground under a craft, though there were no physically protruding appendages to be seen, and the manner and measurement of the hole didn't lend itself particularly well to that explanation. This highly suggests some type of invisible force.
More telling, and numerous as far as cases go, are when they involve large bodies of water. Water has been seen to be drawn towards craft when they fly above it.
Actually, I'm just getting started on doing some serious study on water based Ufo sightings.
Anyone familiar with Shag Harbor?
Oh, and did I forget to mention the landings where occupants or entities are seen, or even interacted with? Get one of those puppies, and they're far more bizarre than any mere flying saucer sighting!
How about the non-saucer entities? Chupacabra?
Oh, let's not even talk about Varginha!
Really, let's not talk about it.
What I was trying to do actually was to demonstrate effects besides simply hovering, stopping, accelerating, and decelerating, noisily, or silently.
These are just various effects I have noted over the ages that would suggest something more exotic than inertia and magnetic force as a propulsive means for saucers AND non-saucer shaped anomalous craft.
Burnt patches left by landed craft, often very precise and even throughout, which do not suggest any type of rocket or jet-type thrust as seen in the Socorro case.
Sometimes not burnt, but more crop circle like. Strange substances or residues. Ectoplasm, Dr. Venkman told me.
Possibly elevated levels of radioactivity. Aversion of dogs and/or other animals to the site.
I don't know, magnetic interference sometimes, other times free from that.
There have been reports of changes in size or shape, and noted distortions of the image of the craft. Cloaking? As in, Klingon Bird of Prey?
Also, at night, change in intensity of glow, rate of pulsing (if any) and change in color, sometimes very rapid. Change in color has also been known to coincide with change in velocity.
Has anyone ever heard about time distortions from people who have been near an operating craft? I vaguely remember some people standing underneath one, and they felt they were in slow motion. This could have been an actual temporal alteration, or purely a psychological effect.
Intense heat.
Dirt or other debris being picked up and carried in the air around the craft, not merely being blown around by exhaust.
At least one case where a hole was bored into the ground under a craft, though there were no physically protruding appendages to be seen, and the manner and measurement of the hole didn't lend itself particularly well to that explanation. This highly suggests some type of invisible force.
More telling, and numerous as far as cases go, are when they involve large bodies of water. Water has been seen to be drawn towards craft when they fly above it.
Actually, I'm just getting started on doing some serious study on water based Ufo sightings.
Anyone familiar with Shag Harbor?
Oh, and did I forget to mention the landings where occupants or entities are seen, or even interacted with? Get one of those puppies, and they're far more bizarre than any mere flying saucer sighting!
How about the non-saucer entities? Chupacabra?
Oh, let's not even talk about Varginha!
Really, let's not talk about it.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Gustav said:
.... Unless the vehicle in question was deployed from a geostationary orbit, in which case, despite physically actually travelling at many, many thousands of miles an hour, your UFO travelling under inertia already applied would appear to be perfectly stationary. Radar would equally confirm that observation. Until it slowed down from its initial speed.
Then it would appear to move in a given direction, due East actually, at an apparent velocity directly proportional to its actual degree of deceleration - the slower the thing actually travels, the faster it appears to move.
The world is a ball and it spins. Yourself, being on it, are part of that constant rotational motion. Consequently you never physically experience it. Neither does ground based radar tracking equipment calibrated to monitor normal airspace.
Altitude makes absolutely no difference to the underlying basic principal - maintaining a geostationary position over any given point on the Earths surface at lower than orbit altitude physically requires far less of the inertia the vehicle would have began with when deployed higher up. It would still actually be travelling at some considerable speed, the degree of which depends exclusively on the altitude it would be maintaining - the higher the altitude, the greater the degree of inertia the vehicle would retain in order to maintain a geostationary position.
But in appearing to be stationary in the first place, in order to maintain that geostationary position over what is a rotating surface, that vehicle has to be travelling at a given speed quite despite what the eye, or ground based radar, may relay.
Counterintuitive to consider, I know. But not a suggestion arrived at merely to satisfy the merely convenient details relayed through eyewitness descriptions concerning UFO behaviour - Giambattista's point regarding UFO's apparent manoeuvrability omits a key observation regarding this business commonly relayed, notably described by the more trained observer or else those more familiar with aeronautics - that when observed undertaking one of these unconventionally tight changes in course at apparently very high velocity the vehicle in question often appears to actively increase speed in the direction of its initial whilst actually making the change in course to its new heading.
Were that actually true, what the witness would be describing would constitute a breach of a very fundamental physical law - Newtons 1st Law of Mass & Motion to be precise - "Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force."
Basically what it means in regard to aeronautics is that when a vehicle acting under constant propulsion changes course, as it does so, it looses speed in its initial heading and only acquires speed in its new heading once sufficient force has been expended to overcome the vehicles tendency for its mass to want to continue travelling in the direction it originally was.
UFO's would appear to possess the capacity to completely ignore this very basic physical law - instead of slowing down in the direction of their initial heading when changing course they actively appear to speed up, the inference being, of course, this simply must be the consequence of physics beyond our current level of understanding and therefore, consequently, the product of ETI.
The problem with that assessment lies with a woeful lack of understanding concerning what the word propulsion actually means - it doesn't physically matter a stuff how the engine of a thing physically works, if you're dealing with a vehicle acting under any form of constant propulsion in this kind of context it physically conforms to Newtons 1st Law.
There isn't any physical way around that - unless, of course, one either re-writes the physics book or consider the notion that what the eyewitness appears to be seeing isn't physically what actually transpires at all.
Now with this inertially powered, a-propulsive model of a UFO the appearance of its physical speed in practice is actually a consequence of it's deceleration from a previously far, far higher inertial speed - the slower it actually travels, the faster it appears to move in a given direction.
Consequently, when changing heading in the manner described previously, as the vehicle changes course it physically looses velocity in the direction of its apparent initial heading - perfectly in accordance with Newtons 1st Law.
With that decrease in actual physical speed comes the appearance of an increase in velocity in that initial direction - exactly as eyewitness relay.
Rather than actually breaking any cherished physical laws, an a-propulsive vehicle of this kind would be giving rise to the observation of this precise kind of apparently "impossible" manoeuvre simply by physically conforming to the exact same physical law both eye and radar would dictate in some mysterious and unfathomable way is being being magically broken...
A for once genuine indicator that what eyewitnesses have been relaying actually pertains to the behaviour of real physical objects conforming to real world physics.
Viewed in such terms, real world physics actually backs them up. For once.
Assuming, of course, anyones actually prepared to let it...
Giambattista said:
... M'dear, that you persevered at all does y' great credit - although I'll give you a hint. If y'just read the subject heading and just follow the animations, y'get the gist without half the blather.That was the most bastard article I've ever had to pitch to an editor in m'life, and I've pitched a few. Nothing really compares to it. Indeed, I did do the wording and the published version got to be a damn site more concise - but without doing it with both the animated bits and the blather trying to run it by an editor was like piddling up a bladdy rope.
I'm pleased y'found what you did manage to take on board interesting though, that's always a terribly gratifying thing to hear. And thank you.
I've got a couple of bits to add with regards to what you've been discussing with Gustav, if you've no objections. Y'might find them helpful, y'never know, but it's been a long day and this last has pretty much knackered m'head up for the rest of the night - G's perfectly right though, you've been having a damnably good influence since you've been taking part - usually we're all busting each other in the teeth with the nearest barstool if we talk UFO's for more than three pages consecutively.
Keep up the good work.
Mr Anonymous said:
I will state, in reference to the nearest barstool, that I really dislike it when people resort to personal attacks with insults and epithets. If people think this bolsters the credibility of their argument or their "rightness" I think they've misplaced significant portions of their brains.
Contrary to masculine common sense, swearing and insulting does make not make you look smarter!
If that's what you're talking about, then I'm glad I can serve as an example of sorts! Oh, lawdy! Or at least refrain from the lower levels of argument.
I'll say it again, this quick on the draw name-calling appears to be a trait almost exclusively particular to the male gender. Maybe they should be more lady-like?
Last edited:
Mr Anonymous said:
Pardon me, I'm not the physics scholar, but wouldn't this effect you're describing only be applicable if the direction in question was OPPOSITE the direction of the Earth's rotation?
I see how it would work if you were in, like you say, a geosynchronous orbit, but slowing down would only make you appear to be moving in one direction.
You seem to imply that this would be observable in every direction the craft travels in, but would that not make it necessary for the earth to be moving in all directions at once?
I don't see how this optical illusion, as it were, could apply to north-south, only east-west, being that the earth rotates in a westerly direction.
I am perfectly prepared to be mistaken on this one!
Giambattista said:
I believe it has the opposite effect!
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Giambattista said:
Not all, it's a perfectly valid question. If I'm at all giving the impression that every time, in every direction, a UFO was observed to change course that what would be observed would appear to be the vehicle in question breaking Newton’s 1st Law - that's just merely a lack of eloquence on my part and wouldn't in practice at all be the case - were the objects initial heading in observation given as being a generally East-West transit, indeed one would expect to observe the appearance of this particular behaviour and, where such reasonably reliable testimony exists, observation would appear to bear out prediction.
However, please don't allow my lack of adequate description to instil at all the impression that a vehicle operation under this sort of a-propulsive method would in practice only be capable of travelling in the one given direction - this wouldn't at all be the case.
Describing such a thing being launched from a geo-synchronous orbit is done so only to illustrate the point regarding how, even though a an object can actually be physically travelling at many, many thousands of miles an hour, to all physical appearance in these particular circumstances it will appear perfectly stationary and that at an altitude of far lower (essentially atmospheric orbit) to be observed in a stationary or "hovering" position only requires the vehicle in question to be maintaining a velocity in synch with the Earths rotation at whatever given altitude - a velocity far lower that that applied too it initially on deployment.
There's no physical necessity per say for a vehicle operating in these terms to simply have to be deployed exclusively at all from a geostationary orbit - it's given merely to illustrate the underlying principal. I suspect in practice deployment from a geostationary orbit would be the most likely strategy to adopt given the circumstances, but principally there's no prohibitation regarding deployment from an a-synchronous, counter-rotational or indeed longitudinal orbit if indeed the practice proved at all useful.
All would yield an overall initial heading for the craft in question quite opposite to the other.
Sticking with just the geostationary deployed scenario for simplicities sake - indeed, as you correctly observe, the vehicle in question it would have the tendency to adopt an overall heading of West-East. The craft in question isn't expending any energy in maintaining that course and can remain "airborne" via the method described indefinitely. On such a heading in overall terms in order to, say successfully undertake a full geo-physical sweep of the entire planet's surface, the only direction over and above that overall Westerly heading necessary for that vehicle to undertake its assigned task would be the capacity to track longditudally either North or South - a tendency it would acquire actually from the very onset due to the fact that in using electromagnetic resistance between a field being generated by it and that of the Earths own magnetic field, whichever repellent polarity it would generate occurring on its underside the attractant polarity it would equally generate at the same time would be occurring on its skyward surface directly opposite to the direction of the Earth which would at all times remain attractant too that portion of the Earth magnetic field remaining above it.
In being deployed from orbit in the fist place the vehicle in question is being released still well within the confines of the Earths magnetic field which of itself possess an overall direction of flow, either North-South or South-North depending on whichever way you look at it.
Being as the principal of the vehicles mass is described as being in a state of gryrocentric spin in order to maintain inertial stability, even though constrained on release to be travelling (in this case) in a due Westerly direction that mass as a whole doesn’t give a stuff particularly which particular direction it’s travelling in – along 360º of its horizontal plane momentarily the inertia applied to that mass is being constrained by the act of spinning it to be working in every direction regardless of its initial direction – overall, it will maintain that applied given course, but with a brief kick from a directional thruster that mass as a whole will happily go in the direction it’s nudged in whilst at the same time conserving its initial inertia – not entirely unlike the behaviour of a billiard ball on a table after you’ve qued off your shot.
In the short term, certainly throughout the relatively narrow window of opportunity observation of anything actively engaged in the act of transit provides, the ludicrously limited degree’s of physics involved provide absolutely no prohibitation at all to the observation of a vehicle operating in these sorts of terms as being capable of moving radically and swiftly at uncommonly high speeds in any given direction.
In the longer term, extending beyond that relatively limited window wherein one can actually observe any kind of vehicle travelling at all, maintaining say a South-North or North-South heading over a due West heading would be attained simply by via acquiring inertia in either of these given directions directly from the flow of the Earths own magnetic field – as the vehicles attractant magnetic polarity occurring above the vehicle would constantly be inducing it to want to move given the incentive to do so.
Thus the vehicle can travel both latitudally and longditudally - its observed speed variable across a range. In some instances that speed will be the consequence of actually deceleration from a previously far higher speed, in others the consequence of acquiring new inertia from whatever source remains available to it, be that short term via manoeuvring thrusters or else long term as acquired from the flow of the magnetic field surrounding it, as outlined, or indeed from the actual rotation of the Earths surface itself.
At an altitude low enough, and at a low enough rate of inertia, there remain many feature both on or near the Earths surface which either demonstrate magnetic properties or in some way remain influenced by the effects of the same. In being fixed on the Earths surface any degree of attraction between the vehicles field and such as, say, a naturally occurring load deposit, iron ore, an open body of water, sources of electrical power generation, amplification and transition, could only serve to influence the overall direction such a vehicle would want to travel in - in exploiting that degree of magnetic attraction the vehicle in so doing would equally acquire a degree of inertia acting upon its mass to move it in a direction equal to the rotation of the Earths surface, if indeed desired, applying inertia in an Easterly direction to the mass of the craft as a whole.
Thus, discursively at least, you have an a-propulsive craft capable of transit in any given direction, a range of speeds available to it and, moreover, unlimited range over the surface of the entire planet - we're used to seeing propulsed craft, it's perfectly natural for us to assume anything else we happen to see behaving in ways similar to those we are used to as being, no matter how unconventional in design, in some way an extension of the methods we have conceived to tackle the problems we want to over come based on what we have done previously and what we know works - we haven't been sending people up into space for terribly long and getting them back again is still based on the afterthought that was the engineering solution to overcoming that first, major physical problem - getting people up into space to begin with.
That was where our focus in wanting to put man into space stayed the longest, even today astronauts constitute hardly a decimal place in terms of how many people have actually experience space travel in comparison to how many, one day, will - consequently, we've never really applied serious thought into either changing or adopting any other way of tackling the problems associated with re-entry into the atmosphere from space.
We adopted a simple, bare-bones strategy at the onset and have stuck with it ever since.
Time and further development is going to change that by necessity - the fact that re-entry into the atmosphere at present physically requires a returning space vehicle to smack into it red hot and at a speed of over Mach 15 limits the size and capacity of ships we can build and send up, and is inherently dangerous.
The notion that a Century from now we will still be adopting the same approach, worrying.
In seeking alternative strategies in going about the business of seeking safer re-entry what we're looking at is the development of vehicles operating along these exact sorts of lines - not spooky UFO's at all but simply vehicles doing a job of work for the purpose they were designed for.
If, in our generation, UFO's are indeed vehicular means, they are no less exactly that - conventional in the terms in which they were conceived, built to fulfil given roles and purposes. Not in the slightest designed to confound and be all spooky and mysterious.
Whatever else a UFO is, if it's a vehicle it is, after all, just another box designed to do a job of work.
Some ways of going about things work a little bit differently and a little bit better than others - the physics outlined at least exist and stand in support of what eyewitness have been saying pretty much from the onset - highly manoeuvrable, highly generalised, fast moving craft, no visible means of propulsion present.
With what has been outlined, you get all that - but you also get an idea of how it works.
Hello, Anonymous! I still have yet to read everything you just wrote, because I have been absorbed with other things this last day or so. Read my latest posts, if you're adventurous enough! I'll respond in a day or so!
I'll respond in a day or so!
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Giambattista said:Hello, Anonymous! I still have yet to read everything you just wrote, because I have been absorbed with other things this last day or so. Read my latest posts, if you're adventurous enough!
... How delightfully polite. My word, you certainly are shooting to the very top of the "Members We'd All Like To Have Cloned, Immediately" shortlist. Rest assured I have every intention of giving your most recent posts the once over, as has become something of a pleasurable habit I'm often guilty of indulging myself with as a matter of simple course - as to anything you have to say specifically, naturally I'm more than happy to read your thoughts on most subjects, but please, I do entreat you - simply because I'm an old gas bag who will waffle on for pages worth at a stretch with no other excuse than I can, don't ever feel obliged to respond even if it is the done thing to do - life indeed is far too short, besides, it only encourages me....
All the best,
A.
Okay, I think I was under the impression that you were implying some initial speed increase everytime the object changed course, a characteristic, that, embarassingly, I don't think I have ever paid attention to! And by that, I thought you were also implying predominately east-west trajectories.
As for magnetic propulsion, I'll say I have also had the same idea pop into my noggin more than once. Since I am not an expert on electromagnetism and field strengths (of the earth etc), I'll have to take your word for it.
To be honest, I may have heard something similar to this before. I actually think it was supposedly "insider" information direct from non-human sources!
I remember something about the intra-atmospheric ships operating in a different manner or principal. The source specifically mentioned that their usual "warp drives" would cause serious problems anywhere near the earth.
I wouldn't necessarily trust any sources that claim insider information, whether human or otherwise. These sources have spouted all the colors of the rainbow, all claiming that they're white (white = right?)! And indeed, they ARE, theoretically when blended together...
However, I do wonder about the lack of any typical supersonic sounds from these craft. I noted earlier in the Socorro case that UFOs typically are silent, and rarely make noises. Does this simply imply that they AREN'T breaking the sound barrier? The speeds of some of these objects witnessed would SEEM to indicate a very high rate of speed.
As for magnetic propulsion, I'll say I have also had the same idea pop into my noggin more than once. Since I am not an expert on electromagnetism and field strengths (of the earth etc), I'll have to take your word for it.
To be honest, I may have heard something similar to this before. I actually think it was supposedly "insider" information direct from non-human sources!
I remember something about the intra-atmospheric ships operating in a different manner or principal. The source specifically mentioned that their usual "warp drives" would cause serious problems anywhere near the earth.
I wouldn't necessarily trust any sources that claim insider information, whether human or otherwise. These sources have spouted all the colors of the rainbow, all claiming that they're white (white = right?)! And indeed, they ARE, theoretically when blended together...
However, I do wonder about the lack of any typical supersonic sounds from these craft. I noted earlier in the Socorro case that UFOs typically are silent, and rarely make noises. Does this simply imply that they AREN'T breaking the sound barrier? The speeds of some of these objects witnessed would SEEM to indicate a very high rate of speed.
- Status