It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Titanium UFO??

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 08:37 PM
I've been wondering for a while..Just in case a situation were to arise.
What do you think UFOs are made of? (eg: Titanium, paper)
Or maybe its made of a material never discovered?, Just curious

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 11:23 PM
According to witnesses, the Roswell debris was almost weightless, so I guess it was not Titanium, but some other yet to be discovered-borrowed from aliens material.

That, if the Roswell case was real (which I think it was).

posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 11:37 PM
the material would have to be able to survive space and maybe have to be able to sruvive light speed or more? one for surley nevers knows i doubt paper though nice guess though

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 01:14 AM
Firstly I dont know, but I can theorize, I think that an alien spacecreaft could be made of a mixture of metals, e.g. titanium steel alloy, they could be made of nanotubes, or an element not yet known of.

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:38 PM
from the roswell description it sounds like some combination of metal aerogel (look it up, it's cool stuff), shape-metal alloy, and 'tin' it's anyone's guess how it's put together, but odds are given that description that it's some sturdy metal or alloy (titanium, chrome vanadium, something else) put together with some kind of substrate that lends it the flexibility, shape retention, and spreads it out enough for lightness.

I've also seen someone (gazrok?) quote some stuff in other threads that says ufos were known to be "grown" in a similar fashion to the way you can grow crystals by supersaturating a fluid with the desired material and then disturbing that mixture with something foreign (a string, a pebble, whatever) to get a crystal to form around the foreign object...if the grown-like-crystals account is accurate, it's a bit of further evidence for the metals-on-a-strucutural-substrate theory: supersaturate some fluid with metal ions, and just dip your ufo-framework and wait for one perfect ufo to grow.

posted on Jan, 2 2005 @ 11:45 PM
Everything I have read states a variety of materials, but ones I have seen off hand seem to be some sort of polymer honeycomb/alloy honeycomb for frames. As well as the above stated super tin foil which could be Piezo electric material.

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:03 AM

I've also seen someone (gazrok?) quote some stuff in other threads that says ufos were known to be "grown" in a similar fashion to the way you can grow crystals by supersaturating a fluid with the desired material and then disturbing that mixture with something foreign (a string, a pebble, whatever) to get a crystal to form around the foreign object...if the grown-like-crystals account is accurate, it's a bit of further evidence for the metals-on-a-strucutural-substrate theory: supersaturate some fluid with metal ions, and just dip your ufo-framework and wait for one perfect ufo to grow.

Can't remember that, but I can say that many of the early accounts (especially regarding the egg-shaped crafts in the 50's), mention that ladders, doors, etc. seemed to form themselves and meld back into the craft. This was also reported by Lazar in regards to the main door, and windows of the craft.

As for debris, some have provided some bits they claim came from UFOs. So far, these are usually magnesium or bismuth of a very high refinement, and usually in microns thick layers...that may be able to be produced on Earth, but only by some of the top labs capable of such...which then begs the question how did some South American fisherman get some, etc.?

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 09:34 AM
As gazrok mentionned, bizmuth is a often repeated material associated with ufo's.

Another material, Boron, used to retard nuclear chain reactions, has been found in soil samples.

Magensium is also often in fragments.

Do a google with either one + "ufo" for plenty of additional info.

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:58 AM
Extremely interesting topic. Of course the only way to know for sure is to have an UFO and a fully stocked laboratory at hand and a crack team of researchers on payroll. Having studied my fair share of chemistry at college I am almost tempted to say that the materials used by aliens are both very simple and beyond our comprehension. Let me explain. At the moment we know probably 99% of the elements making up the universe. The remaining are either unknown isotopes or very heavy transatomic elements, with atomic number from 108 upwards. That's it. We also know quite well the three basic states of matter (solid, liquid and gaseous) and we've started peeking into some weirder states, like plasma, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc. Also, organic chemistry has made huge leaps in the last thirty years, synthetisizing or discovering incredible substances, like the fullerenes. What I am suggesting here is that either UFOs are made of known elements in a yet undiscovered state (if you read Jacques Vallee's novel "Fastwalker" you know what I am talking about) or that their are made of known elements arranged in a way yet unknown to us (for example a simil-organic structure using Silica instead of Carbon).

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:29 PM
gazrok: I did some searching and couldn't find the thread here where I saw someone claim ufos get grown in vats somehow...since you're basically the ufo go-to guy on this board I probably just assumed you posted that, but it must've been someone else. Does 'growing' ufos in vats as some kinda single-piece structure ring any bells to anyone else on this thread?

senshido and gazrok: Word, thanks for the specific

kakugo: Here's a thought: gazrok mentioned that the stuff claimed to be from ufos is in micron-thick layers (not sure what's between them...gazrok? air gaps? something else?). this is some neat stuff:

Jeremy Munday, one of Capasso's students, and Davide Iannuzzi, one of his post-doctoral fellows, are currently at work on "a beautiful experiment" that uses an effect related to that of Casimir to enable a precise measurement of the torque generated by quantum fluctuations. This torque was predicted decades ago, but never verified experimentally. Under certain circumstances, Capasso explains, things can be engineered so that two plates of suitable materials, with a suitable intervening liquid, develop a net repulsive (rather than attractive) force between them due to quantum fluctuations. If one plate is positioned above another, the two then settle close together at the point where the weight of the upper plate is counterbalanced by the repulsive force; the upper plate essentially floats above the lower one, in what Capasso describes as a "quantum mechanical bearing"like a ball bearing, but frictionlessan extraordinary feat of engineering in and of itself.
source: (Harvard Magazine)

Since all the accounts of disclike ufos involve them rotating rapidly, it would be interesting if what's actually happening is just one or a few layers of the 'shell' rotating (maybe in opposite directions so the net momentum is small -- like adding -5000 and 5000 to get zero) and not the entire craft, in which case some sorta frictionless system would, understandably, be ideal.

given that superconductivity (zero resistance conductors) has been possible in labs for decades and looks like its going to be commercially viable in another decade, it wouldn't surprise me if some advanced version of the 'frictionless bearing' described above will be usable on larger scales with another couple decades' work....and it's an open question how many of what we usually think of as inescapable physical constraints -- friction, resistivity, even distance with light (think lasers: minimal dispersion means minimal power loss -- at least in a vacuum -- even over large distances) -- we are going to eventually find work-arounds for. The quantum and mesoscale (right where the quantum effects start to taper off) worlds are weird, nonintuitive places...

kakugo, continued: have you ever looked at the crazy reactions you can get from organometallic chemistry? ie, heavy metals catalyze all kinds of organic reactions in unexpected ways (at least that's the picture I get from chemists) and the how-it-works is still poorly understood, unlike with biological catalysts where it's pretty clear how most of them work...Apparently the outer orbitals on the transition group atoms interact in all kinds of as-yet difficult to understand ways, especially compared to the s and p and their hybridizations.

with fullerenes, for example, the only hard part was figuring out that it's a possible shape for a carbon molecule, since each node in a carbon fullerene has three bonds coming off it, and combinatorially there's enough places in the surface for the extra valence electrons to spread out (ie, it's possible to draw the structure with all single bonds and then fill in the needed double bonds without ever winding up with some poor carbon atom with 5 bonds coming in). once you figure out that that shape's a possible molecule, all that's left to do is find a way to synthesize it and see what its properties are. Granted, that's no easy task, but at least you have some idea of what you're going for.

I'd imagine that even with our familiar metals that if you can bring in the d and f orbitals the space of possible molecules gets much more complicated and is much harder to understand, especially when compared to carbon...who's to say, for example, that there isn't some super-tough lattice configuration composed of, say, so many parts magnesium, boron, bismuth, etc...maybe with some hard-to-detect-from-a-sample trace defects that make the structure work (analagous in some sense to the way silicon has to be doped to be most useful). Moreover, there's the high end of the periodic table, and until we've synthesized our way to, say, element 200 and all the isotopes of all the elements from 1 to 200, there's no way to be certain that there's no nifty island of stability out there.

one last thing for the chemists (I'm not one, but am in the position that a lot of my girlfriends' social circle either are chemists or studied it in college): have you seen the boron-nitrogen compounds that mimic organic chemistry? (ie, borazine in place of benzene?) Expanding on your silicon 'organics', there's a whole world of ways to make chemicals similar to but different from known organic ones...imagine a B-N fullerene (I think it'd be like a carbon fullerene, but probably less stable...need a chemist's opinion), or a silicon fullerene and it's Al-P analogues, etc...

edit: forgot to close a bold tag.

[edit on 3-1-2005 by sisonek]

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:48 PM
Sisonek, I welcome your intervention and commend your effort and learning. I clearly remember the first year in college, when the organic chemistry professor (and a very good at that) struggled to explain us how one of the simplest organometallic reactions (Grignard's) worked. In the end he said "these are the currently accepted theories; of course we'll learn more about them in the future, perhaps from one of you!". I also remember clearly many texts having serious problems giving good explanations for reactions involving f-layer orbitals, to the point that I was more confused than ever. I welcome your notation about transatomic elements: you are probably right in pointing out that there maybe an island of stability or some really weird behaviours up there. Anyway, the resulting elements would be unbeliavably dense (and heavy), giving rise to all sorts of practical problems. About the boron-nitrogen compounds: there's one text dealing with them, albeit in a short manner. Here's the reference: I.Anders, chap. 1.21 in A.R. Katritzky and C.W.Ress (eds) Comprehensive Heterocyclic Chemistry, Pergamon, Oxford, 1984, pp 629-63. I seem to recall that the B-N unit is isoelectronic with C-C and that the size and electronegativity of the three atoms are similar. Also borazine (or inorganic benzene) has a regular plane haxagonal ring structure and its physical properties closely resemble those of the isoelectronic compound benzene. Although some use Kekul type structures to describe the borazine, the weight of chemical evidences suggests that borazine has very little aromatic character. Fascinating, I could go on forever.

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:24 PM
sisonek, thanks for bringing up the point about the very fast spinning motion observed with UFO's. It reminds me a lot of the supposed TR-3B aircraft that some say scientists reverse engineered from a wrecked alien spacecraft. I'm not saying that I belive this, but there might be something to this spinning thing and antigravity. According to the link below, in the TR-3B, there is a plasma accelerator, much like an electron accelerator in its structure that moves mercury based plasma at incredible high speeds:

The requirement for a dense material moving at relativistic speeds would explain the use of Mercury plasma (heavy ions). If the plasma really spins at 50,000 RPM and the Mercury ions are also moving in a tight pitched spiral, then the individual ions would be moving probably hundreds, perhaps thousands of times faster than the bulk plasma spin, in order to execute their "screw thread" motions. It is quite conceivable that the ions could be accelerated to relativistic speeds in this manner. I am guessing that you would probably want to strip the free electrons from the plasma, making a positively charged plasma, since the free electrons would tend to counter rotate and reduce the efficiency of the antigravity device.

One of Einstein's postulates of GR says that gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent. This is consistent with Mr. Fouche's claim that inertial mass within the plasma ring is also reduced by 89%. This would also explain why the vehicle is triangular shaped. Since it still requires conventional thrusters for propulsion, the thrusters would need to be located outside of the "mass reduction zone" or else the mass of the thruster's reaction material would also be reduced, making them terribly inefficient.

Its definately an interesting read, but since I don't exactly have a degree in physics or aerospace engineering I can't say how accurate this information is. It would be interesting if spinning the outside of the UFO's is done to serve the same purpose. With their advanced techology they would probably achieve close to 100% instead of 89% inertial mass reduction and house the thing is a much smaller body. Plus, plasma on the outside would aid greatly in stealth technology since plasma has the ability to absorb radar (look at the plasma stealth articles).

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:18 PM
Perhaps there craft are made of AeroGel spray painted grey!

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 11:35 PM
zhangmaster: thanks for that link; it's interesting to me in two ways. First, I'd never heard of the TR-3B aircraft, but it sounds like a natural candidate for the 'black triangle' phenomena, including my hometown favorite the phoenix lights (which got me back interested in UFOs even though I didn't see them at the time and no longer live in phoenix).

Also, the mention of mercury plasma is interesting in it's own right; it's another piece of information to add to a thread I started a month or two ago in which I noted a couple of disparate places mentioning mercury as a major part of ufo propulsion:

You don't happen to have the .pdf from your link laying around, do you? It looks like it's no longer hosted there -- probably the original host moved to a new ISP from what I can figure out -- and although I can dig up the book in one of the libraries at my disposal (Boston has tons) it'd certainly be more convenient if I just got the .pdf...

Some random thoughts on the article/contents:

I agree there might actually be something to spinning and antigravity; there's the infamous guy from finland (podlnekov?) with the rotating superconducting disk and weak antigravity...that's apparently a pretty irreproducible effect for the moment, but since spinning really fast seems to be part of every 'ufo' or similarly high-performance aircraft sighting on record (I'm excluding the aurora and other planes from high performance; they're fast, but they can't stop on a dime, hover, accellerate almost instantaneously, etc...) I'm inclined to believe there might be something about super high velocity spinning and antigravity (or propulsion by some other means we're overlooking).

For now, though, I'm not sure how to investigate further; since the podlnekov experiment is apparently pretty impossible to get working (you'd have to believe in bigger conspiracies than I'm inclined to do to think all the journal results are fudge) and so either there's something else needed to get it to work or you need a much bigger disk and correspondingly bigger power source; either way, I'm not inclined at the moment to buy a huge superconducting ceramic disk, some vats of liquid nitrogen, some super-powerful motors, and get that thing spinning...even if I had space I couldn't afford it, and without either some third-party confirmation of his initial results or some insight into what he needs to add it seems like his work's a deadend street branching off of an interesting road, if you see what I'm saying.

So I'm skeptical about this rotation + superconduction -> antigravity, but for the moment if antigravity is possible some weird effect that pops out at high rotational speeds is pretty much the only even mildly plausible 'lead' I've seen.


I need to think more about the mechanism described in the link before I post a conclusion...whatever I wind up thinking about it should be taken with a grain of salt because I'm no physics expert by a long shot, but it might take me a few days to turn this one over in the back of my head. Offhand, I'm definitely curious as to these things:

a) say this spinning mercury plasma reduces effective mass like claimed; how much energy does this take? As in, say I weigh 100 pounds and use this machine to 'weigh' 11 pounds for a while; hw much energy does it take to make that change? how much does it take to keep weighing 11 pounds? This is basically a conservation of mass and energy we have:

i) an antigravity system works by creating 'negative' gravity, which when added to the gravitational attraction felt by an object cancels some of that attraction
ii) an antigravity system works by directly reducing the impact of gravity on an object, thereby reducing its inertial mass (possibly by decoupling or interfering with the coupling of gravitational and intertial mass...)
iii) something else?

In case of i) we might arguably need ungodly amounts of energy -- basically we wind up at the ugly end of the e = mc^2 for this, b/c we'd hypothetically need .89 m c^2 for a 600 foot, mutiton vessel; that's probably more power output than the sun by a couple orders of magnitude), but in case of ii) we'd apparently have a working free energy machine: reducing the intertial mass of an object by X effectively liberates X c^2 worth of energy -- where it goes I can't say...maybe once you get it started the system's self-powering, which would be neat. Lord knows what other ways are possible...

So I'd like to understand the TR-3B energetics if possible; the two 'how does antigravity work' mechanisms above are each pretty problematic scenarios, the former b/c of the insane energy requirements and the latter because it's an apparent violation of the conservation of mass-energy...

If anyone particularly knowledgable about physics (which I'm not, unfortunately) cares to comment, it'd be greatly appreciated: it's all too likely that either there's some fancy bookkeeping you can do to get around the conservation issues I think this raises or that there's a major conceptual flaw with how i) would work...the more I think about antigravity the more it throws my limited understanding of the law of conservation of energy for a total loop.

b) continuing a), what powers this thing?

c) the helical motion of some of the mercury plasma seems pretty believable; I'm thinking of a much nastier version of the whirlpools that form in drains -- the overall body of fluid is rotating at speed X, but the walls of the whirlpool go much faster...(as radius goes to zero velocity increases proportionally to 1/r...) now I'm wondering if:
i) like the article says you pull out the free electrons leaving a very positively charged plasma
ii) because it's self-repulsive, the plasma tries to spread out uniformly
iii) as you speed up the spinning, you have some way of narrowing the center of the spinning part to speed up the spirals around it...visual picture: using magnetic confinement in an otherwise vacuum, you have the plasma trapped on the inside of a torus (or donut) entirely composed of magnetic force, with a near vacuum where the hole is (maybe that's where something else goes...the electrons? mystical magical element 115) and inside the torus the helical paths of mercury plasma are winding around the inner wall (ie, around the hole) and you can not only speed up the rotation of the plasma but also narrow the hole's diameter to directly speed up the helical paths...

The above is a bit of a flight of fancy; you've basically got an all-magnet (read: no walls, just 'vacuum' and a magnetic field) tokamak-like-thing, which you rotate (maybe by spinning the magnetic field to 'push' the plasma inside) and also have the option of narrowing the inner hole's diameter to approach zero and thus push the helical jets of mercury plasma to insanely high speeds...not sure what this does for you (maybe some kind of 'singularity' effect as the inner hole's radius goes to zero and the mercury streams start to self-intersect/crash into each other). It'd make good science fiction or background info for a videogame, not sure that the physics actually make sense or that this design would even be implementable...

Now I'm rambling and so am going to sign off for now...hopefully my wild speculation here hasn't ruined my good name or revealed too much of my ignorance of physics. After I think about the stuff described at the rense link some more I'll post again if I think of anything more...thanks all, this is turning into a real fun thread.

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:00 PM
very impressive post sisonek, you obviously put a lot of effort into it. I like the point brought up concerning E = MC^2, because it implies that, like you said, you would need ungodly amounts of energy if you were to do what was specified in part 1. However, now that I look back to the main article, I'm wondering if E=MC^2 is the right equation to use, based on the following logic:

The plasma is rotated at 50,000 RPM. This creates an "antigravity flield" of some sort within a definite vicinity (being the area immediately in and around the ship). In this vicinity, all objects, regardless of mass would have their inertial mass reduced by 89%. So, in achieving this reduction, you would need no more energy to reduce the inertial mass of 1000KG to 111KG as you would to reduce 10000 KG to 1111 KG. The article never mentions any RPM faster than 50,000, or specifies any mass, so it seems as though mass may have no effect on RPM and thus energy input. However, I could be wrong, so if I am please correct me.

The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent...

I'm still trying to find contact info for a physicist who could help shed some light on the subject, but so far all I have found is "ask a physicist" for K-12 grades, and asking a question such as "would rotating a mercury based plasma at 250,000 atm and 50,000 RPM in screw-thread motion around a toriodal structure result in an 89% inertial mass reduction if within a stong magnetic field?" might be a little different from "what is the speed of light?"
However, my father, a retired AP physics teacher with a Masters in Physics may have a clue as to what's going on. But then again, he took classes so long ago that I doubt he has kept up with new research. I'll keep you updated on what I hear though.

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:13 PM
just a quick point: there's this paper

and apparently a (small) school of thought centering around the author (Haisch) that intertia arises from 'electromagnetic friction' between matter and zero-point vacuum fluctuations...if you're not familiar with the zero-point stuff, in a vacuum you've always got tiny particle-antiparticle pairs popping into and back out of existence (ie, out of all the configurations with net zero charge, most of them are of the form +1 -1, +2 -2, etc., instead of 0), and so accellerating matter woulqd 'drag against' this background fluctuation (kinda like sandpaper).

Since the friction'd be basically electromagnetic, it's not impossible to imagine that some kind of heavy electromagnetic disturbance might break down gravitational effects somehow; apparently the paper above got pretty demolished:

Google Groups

but if the inertial-rest mass comes about via some kind of electromagnetic effects then it's not hard to imagine some crazily-twisted electromagnetic field might disrupt that...


Re: e= mc^2, you're right: for option i) it applies and winds up leaving you requiring tons of energy. My objection to the way you're describing the energetics is that it winds up giving you what looks like an energy loophole:

you could basically make a (2-piston, say) engine that pumped itself: the downward impetus would come from your local gravity source, but you could use the antigravity system to reduce the piston's weight for the upstroke to very little, which means that (ignoring for a second the antigravity system's energy cost) each up-stroke/down-stroke combo would wind up adding to the system's total energy.

even if you include the energy cost for running the antigravity system, all that's needed is some smarts (ie, the 2-piston model keeps swapping the energy back and forth between the pistons, so you only need half as much) and to make this system big enough that the engine generates a positive energy balance.

I'd love a free energy machine as much as the next guy, but as a general rule for evaluating proposed devices if they offer you a way to cheat conservation of energy you're probably overlooking something...and it certainly seems like option ii) and your explanation let you get free enegery.


You're right about the article not mentioning any correlation between the mass, rpm of the plasma, or what have you; it might even be the case that the rotation + super high pressure give you some other exotic state of matter (maybe a giant quantum system, like Bose-Einstein condensates) in which case my intuition's pretty worthless.

Check with your father; I'm not sure where else to go asking at the moment...I can follow the math in these papers just fine (I studied math in college) but I don't know any physics beyond a pretty elementary level, so I can never tell how reasonable the claims underlying the equations are when I'm browsing physics papers...I've always wished I knew physics (and not just math), maybe it's time to start now before I'm too old.

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:55 PM
haha, you beat me to the post! I realized I had made a mistake and wanted to correct it before you posted. I came to the conclusion that even if mass is reduced by 89%, there is still that 11% left to deal with, and if you had a craft of that size (600 feet in diameter) and for ease of numbers say it had a mass of 1 million Kg, there is 111,111 Kg left to move and you'd need one heck of a secondary propulsion system to do it. This makes the TR-3B impractical in my eyes unless it's possible to achieve near 100% inertial mass reduction (essentially anti-gravity) which the UFO's have probably done if they have a similar system.

But then you still have your valid point that it makes a loophole in energy. I'm not really sure about how to account for that. But you know, we've got to come to terms with the fact that we are dealing with physics that is way out of the college leage here. If this thing really exists, then it will have been made by the best minds in physics with which we can't really compete. But I still have no problem in trying to discuss it
. Just want to let you know that I believe your knowledge in the area is better than mine. I wish that someone else would comment on this as well, but I'm afraid the title "Titanium UFO's" isn't really that appealing lol! I'll read the articles you gave later tonight if I get the chance, right now I don't really have the time

new topics

top topics


log in