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.


Physics of "UFO" travel

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:53 PM
The idea of centrifugal force was a good idea, but not all UFOs (ETVs) spin, ( Triangles and cigar shaped objects aren't said to spin) and yet they all have the same flight charactoristics.

So the propulsion system theories we come up with would have to work for all the objects that have the same flight charactoristics.

Thats why I think a Gravitational Meissner Effect ( ME means that a superconductor creates a Magnetic field , that cancels out all other magnetic fields, or an isolated field) would give you the flight charactoristics , and doesn't dictate the materials or shape of a craft.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:27 PM

That Marc Millis guy is a crack!

I LOVE this comment:

"Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful..."

Hmmm...based on that comment Marc, you shouldn't have even developed your website as you are saying that space travel isn't possible at all

And I especially loved this one:

"No branch of the United States Government is currently involved with or responsible for investigations into the possibility of alien life on other planets or for investigating Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO's)."

LOL...tears are still running from my eyes're a very very funny man!

You will find that if you study *real* UFO footage, you can at least get an idea of *what* form of propulsion they are using...and steering...

I hope you are reading this Marc as I will give you some advise:

Work out how our gravity is *really* generated and you will unlock the key to how UFO's can fly and how they least within our atmosphere...and, at the same time, you will even find out how our ionosphere is formed...and how our North and South poles are formed...and, well...many other interesting things
Now Marc, if you are reading this and want to know the answer to these questions send me a U2U and we can at least start talking



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:44 PM
I do believe working out our thoughts on gravity would prove a great leap for such travels.

I have always been interested in the graviton.

Time will tell about this supposed particle.

Interesting to look into, but the idea is as much guesswork as ufo's themselves.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:47 PM
For those interested in the Meissner Effect:

Note: I have not looked into this, I have little knowledge of this. I am only providing sources I find.

The effect

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:51 PM
Also String Theory should be brought up. Most likely the breakthroughs will come after more research is done into string theory.


This info should keep you occupied on the subject. I will not go into explaining it myself. I believe string theory is something each individual has to look into. There are many variations of what could be the outcome.

Nothing is really concrete.

If you are new to string theory, it may open you up to new thoughts.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:57 PM
I don't know if it's too late for me to chime in or not but I will anyway.

The "they can't get here from there" argument has even been acknowledged to be insufficient by the skeptics.
(Click on the link of the right titled "The Speed-of-Light Limit Argument")

Might want to read this too.

Physicist Paul Hill also explains how UFOs could possibly travel in his book Unconventional Flying Objects:

Michio Kaku has several theories as well that he details in his books Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:59 PM
I can't believe I forgot about this resource:

Google Scholar

Search for anything you may find useful. I started with "space travel", minus the quotation marks.

Good wealth of research.

Heres one I found interesting.

Deep space travel energy sources

Exploration of the planets beyond Mars and their surroundings is already planned. Astronomy researchers are citing important information that can be obtained with instrumented spacecraft that fly beyond the planets of our solar system. Spacecraft flying these missions need power for performing their functions and communicating with Earth stations. Sunlight in these zones is so weak that alternative energy sources are needed. An alternative power source for deep-space missions is radioisotope heated energy converters.. The choice of heat-to-electric power conversion is narrowing to: 1) the Stirling engine; and 2) a combined cycle with thermionic and alkali-metal thermoelectric (AMTEC) heat-to-electricity conversion. For propulsion into deep space, a nuclear-reactor-heated AMTEC energy converter that powers ion engines can become the best alternative to hoisting tons of rockets into Earth orbit.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:22 PM
Heres a word to describe it," electromagneticaly charged heat wave conductors"

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by menguard
Heres a word to describe it," electromagneticaly charged heat wave conductors"

Could you elaborate your statement?


posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:47 PM
This is what helps keep them in motion.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:04 PM
I mean how does this principle apply. Could you explain how you believe it applies.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:07 PM
It's applied to most of their technology.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:09 PM
Do alien toasters use this same concept?

I just want to know why you believe this concept applies. If this is all you have to say about the subject thats ok, but I would like some reason behind a belief.

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:13 PM
It's what I" know"not believe to know.As far as the whole scientific data to be put in the wood works,I wouldn't have the foggiest .

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:32 PM
Perhaps we give physics to much credit. i am sure a few hundred years from now we will laugh at this concept of physics. aliens are not bound my our small minded concepts but by true physics. what everthat might be . we may find that the path to rules leads to a place with no rules

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:51 PM
I really dont see many of our fundamental physics beliefs changing. What do you think is wrong or could change?

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:26 PM
well, wormholes seem to be the only plausible means of interstellar or intergalactic travel. And it is known thatwormholes do exist at sub atmoic levels. as far as faster than speed of light travel, it is impopssible becuase your mass becomes infinite and you need infinite energy to move infinite mass but you cant get inifinite energy, unless the universe is infinte or there are infinite universe that there would be infinite energy but taking energy fomr a whole universe or from another universe all together seems kinda hard. although it is known that particles communicate information on their spin and polarity instantly ( faster than the speed of light). And i belive i read some where that it is theorectically is possible to change the propertoes of one atom with trhat of another so u could flip your atoms with that from another place. But thats also sounds kinda hard and probably dangerous. ANd i think the star trek refernces are unneccesary, because lets remember it is TV

posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 10:49 AM


Can't argue with that


One area of modern physics is based on "rouding off" formulas. Rouding off scalar values is fine to understand our world better from a base point-of-view, however rounding off multi-dimensional formulas is not good if you want to "play"...If some of these formulas were looked at in their entirety, then playing would be fun...however it *could* be dangerous if you generated certain waves and got in their way. The area that's been discussed here is based a lot on the original Maxwellian theories...look back at one of my previous posts to further info.



A couple of questions:

1) Do quarks (or whatever) = the beginnings of wormholes = the beginning of black holes?

2) Do we have to manipulate these "things" so that they become a balanced "electromagnetically charged heat wave conductor"?

Regarding the speed of light; Einsteins' formula is probably good for 99.99999 % and more...however, I do believe that his famous law warps (sorry for the pun) at certain levels.

Dangerous? LOL...possibly

I believe that if you have enough "mass" in your mini-wormhole, then it could possibly be dangerous if:

1) You reached a critical mass, and;
2) You didn't know how to control it

I don't know the exact figures about the critical mass part - if they are known at all - but it would be interesting to work in that field...I expect the question; "I wonder how far we can go before it "pops" has come up a few times in the labs...along with possibly "will I die today?"...LOL...sorry

Anyhow, I think that to form a "instantaneous" black hole that starts to suck everything up, you would need shltloads of mass to be "absorbed"...along with an extra special electomagnetic orchestration.


1) Do quarks (or whatever), when spun correctly, form a black hole when enough "mass" is introduced?

2) If we create a wormhole that is possibly WAY distant from creating one of those nasty uncontrollable, "earth killing" back holes, then can these be used as shortcuts to travel vast distances?

3) Would you like to volunteer to jump in a craft and go through one of these little wormholes?

Hmmm...the mind ponders



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:12 AM
For those who want to know more:


posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 12:06 PM
Interesting thread. The one thing I want to comment on right now is earlier it was mentioned that the speed of gravity is c. (Light speed) Uhh.. Wrong.

A very good read, save this web site:

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in