Black Triangle UFOs and an Alleged Breakaway Civilization- Discuss

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

It started with hydrogen (actually H3)

No. Tritium is not part of the initial sequence. That's just 1H + 1H

And contrary to belief, the sun does not fuse hydrogen!

The Sun fuses hydrogen. Your statement was incorrect.

a reply to: Baddogma

Interesting fella and easy to listen to.

a reply to: Phage

Deuterium (hydrogen-2) and a proton (hydrogen-1) fuse, producing helium-3 and energy,

forbes.com - The Sun's Energy Doesn't Come From Fusing Hydrogen Into Helium (Mostly).

1 out of 4 ways fusion happens on the sun. This reaction makes helium the others are hydrogen related and the others are helium. The beryllium step ends up helium.

The article maps out all the steps and is meant to explain it is not as simple as people say.

Yes, you sir are correct, tritium is what we are attempting in our reactors. My bad.

And I finally placed Mr Vogt on the crackpot meter... and he rates higher than a cursory glance suggested, unfortunately (or fortunately for us).

Oh well, doesn't mean he's wrong, necessarily, but strange correspondences, carelessness and error doesn't bode well for fringe theories.

I won't mention where I rate on the meter.

a reply to: Baddogma

Then to assuage that discovery... Atothe0 said "current models use light to fly around" well, here is another story that seems to back up that claim (they do point out it is theoretical, and they are a far way from creating such a propulsion device... but it is the thought that counts!)

Ognjen Ilic, postdoctoral scholar and the study's first author, gives an analogy: "One can levitate a ping pong ball using a steady stream of air from a hair dryer. But it wouldn't work if the ping pong ball were too big, or if it were too far away from the hair dryer, and so on."

With this new research, objects of many different shapes and sizes—from micrometers to meters—could be manipulated with a light beam. The key is to create specific nanoscale patterns on an object's surface. This patterning interacts with light in such a way that the object can right itself when perturbed, creating a restoring torque to keep it in the light beam. Thus, rather than requiring highly focused laser beams, the objects' patterning is designed to "encode" their own stability. The light source can also be millions of miles away.

"We have come up with a method that could levitate macroscopic objects," says Atwater, who is also the director of the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis. "There is an audaciously interesting application to use this technique as a means for propulsion of a new generation of spacecraft. We're a long way from actually doing that, but we are in the process of testing out the principles."

phys.org - Levitating objects with light.

It is an extension of light tweezer work and is out of Cal Tech.

Again, it was said on the thread and here is another story that has science now saying it is possible. It hasn't been done but like the Field of Dreams...

As yuppa said, all these bread crumbs seem familiar because we have already been told.

Good photo up at Mufon of BBT from July, 2018 in Kansas.

Oh to be surfing a wave of light across universe!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I wonder if using the light as a "push" is what was meant, tho? Maybe using the same "aether" light "waves" in as a medium- assuming the old "light needs a medium to propagate through" is valid?

I guess if one had a light emitting source close to the craft, then it might be practical, like a portable fan blowing a sailing ship, heh, but relying on a far away source of light seems unreliable on a cloudy day, heh again.

I shall leave the technical details to you, though, as I suck in those matters.

a reply to: Baddogma

I've only seen his one movie on the "periodical nova" every 12,000 years.

Odd how the moon is just the right size and in just the right orbit to block such an event.

Ever watched a solar eclipse?

a reply to: Baddogma

In space, no one can hear you sunscreen!!

That is why solar sails are theoretically possible. And is kind of a hint at that Pais guy and “pushing the EM pressure off the surface” with whatever his patents said (too drunk to live, to dumb to die! One of God’s own! A unit not made for mass production!).

One more step, let light flow around you like a bar of soap in water. That is the dreams of the aerospace guys and prolly the source of The Green Lady (and maybe even that “donut on a rope” contrail... which can happen under the right atmospheric conditions w/o the pulsed engine).

Same concept but different mediums!

PS - I am not an expert but an enthusiast (until I get “disappeared”!! Yeah, I hope that they figure that out!)

a reply to: AlanHenderson

Yes to eclipse and yes to Luna being in the right place/time-frame for a close fit, but what about the 99.9999% of the time when the Moon is not at the right place for a eclipsing shield or the areas of Earth not in shadow? Pee poor planning!

The arguments for the moon being somewhat artificial aren't completely loony, tho.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Heh.

Lack of friction for the win.

One thing, if they're letting light flow around them, how do they see where they are going or read the menus in the galley?

Questions... too many questions.

Like, if this program of A's was true-ish, then was there a mission to drop off Apollo junk on the Moon to keep up appearances? Did Kubrick really do the film and the whole Apollo program was an "op?"

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: AlanHenderson

Yes to eclipse and yes to Luna being in the right place/time-frame for a close fit, but what about the 99.9999% of the time when the Moon is not at the right place for a eclipsing shield or the areas of Earth not in shadow? Pee poor planning!

The arguments for the moon being somewhat artificial aren't completely loony, tho.

What if the moon is just in a parking orbit?

The idea of an artificial moon is possible.

If the fourth state of matter is plasma where the bonds holding atomic partcles together are no longer present, one can disassemble and reassemble any elements you desire.

A step beyond fission and fusion as we understand it.

There was a crazy Australian, who hasn't posted here for a while, who spoke of watching greys swimming in their reactors assembling and disassembling matter. Plasma reactors? Plasma entities?

So if the Ancients could create an artificial star, a plasma reactor, and feed it a large asteroid. Then they might make a Dyson sphere just the right size to shield the earth from somethong such as Voit's novas.

a reply to: AlanHenderson

If the fourth state of matter is plasma where the bonds holding atomic partcles together are no longer present, one can disassemble and reassemble any elements you desire.

No. It is a state of matter in which electrons are separated from their nuclei. Which remain intact. Ionization is the term.

If you want to disassemble a nucleus you use fission. If you want to assemble a nucleus you use fusion.

a reply to: Phage

Hello mister phage.

Understanding particle physics isn't my strong point, hardly even so much as a weak point.

However, if one can weaken the bonds that hold electrons to the nucleus, take that a step further and weaken the bonds that hold the neucleus together.

I would suggest the first step would be to strip away the orbiting electrons, put them aside, and then simply pull apart the neutrons and protons.

Then you could turn a house brick into three piles of particles. Make all sorts of stuff then.

To make a Dyson sphere you would begin by creating the negative shell by stripping electrons. Then start adding the neutral and positives to make say; a metal shell. All with an artificial star in the center.

But really, one can think of fission and fusion as just doing disassembly and assembly.

Conversion. The word "reactor" is wrong.

Star do both don't they phage? Fission and fusion?

Then a star is not a big "reactor", but rather a big "converter"?

Think big phage!

a reply to: AlanHenderson

However, if one can weaken the bonds that hold electrons to the nucleus, take that a step further and weaken the bonds that hold the neucleus together.

That is not how plasma is created. The bond is not weakened, the electrons are torn away.

Sure, if one were able to manipulate the strong nuclear force one could do lots of cool things, I guess. But it has nothing to do with plasma.

While you're at it, could you do something about gravity and inertia? They're sort of pesky.

A star is a fusion reactor, fusion resulting from very high temperatures and pressures. Thanks to gravity.

a reply to: Phage

Hmmm.

What your describing is the current state of scientific knowledge. The way things are thought of at this point in time by us humans.

Why not look at it speculatively?

That is not how plasma is created. The bond is not weakened, the electrons are torn away. 

That is how humans create plasma now. But your thinking in terms of plasma being a "thing" and not a "state".

Sure, if one were able to manipulate the strong nuclear force one could do lots of cool things, I guess. But it has nothing to do with plasma. 

We do things violently, like smashing atoms. KABOOM!

Early days for science phage. Just banging rocks together when one thinks of what "aliens and flying saucers" can do.

Try to look beyond that. Look at those "cool things". Then work backwards.

While you're at it, could you do something about gravity and inertia? They're sort of pesky.

I am good at falling down, but that is about it.

A star is a fusion reactor, fusion resulting from very high temperatures and pressures. Thanks to gravity.

So fision does not occur in the sun at all?

Only the fusion of hydrogen? Nothing more?

a reply to: AlanHenderson

But your thinking in terms of plasma being a "thing" and not a "state".

It is a thing. It's a cloud of ions and electrons. Like a puddle of water is a thing, a bunch of water in a liquid state.

Only the fusion of hydrogen? Nothing more?

Pretty much. Though there is probably some helium fusion going on now, as the Sun gets older and its hydrogen gets used up, that reaction will predominate.

a reply to: Phage

Jeez phage, you are incorrigible.

I wonder phage, might CERN be looking at more than just smashing particles and looking at the broken bits?

Bang two pieces of flint together and you get a spark hot enough to start a fire. Then you work out the best kindling for your spark to work.

How do you ignite a star phage? Just squish it together untill it ignites?

Diesel motors use compression. But does a star gave a cylinder and sleeve around it in astrophysics?

a reply to: AlanHenderson

How do you ignite a star phage? Just squish it together untill it ignites?

Pretty much.

But does a star gave a cylinder and sleeve around it in astrophysics?

No. But as I said, it does have a lot of gravity. Whole lot of squeezing.

a reply to: Phage

Incorrigable . . . .

Astrophysicists worldwide will cry when they learn that a star is nothing more then a diesel motor without the motor.

a reply to: AlanHenderson

Diesel motors do not fuse hydrogen. They oxidize hydrocarbons.

Astrophysicists worldwide know this.

You probably do too.