It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

A VERY good explanation to UFO propulsion & >lightspeed

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
mrk

posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Today I actually sat down and watched through the "Evidence - Case of NASA UFOs'" 2part series and must say it does open your eyes somewhat.

The theories and evidence put forward were not only beleivable but once explained become plausable and actually makes the offificials who brush it off as "debris or dust" laughable.

I have extracted one segment from part 2 that explains how the disc shaped "dropa stone" like UFO's recorded by NASA in space propell themselves at faster than light speed.

At first I was scratching mmy head over the 1st half as I did not understand it myself but once the video of the cannon ball levitating due to its mass being decreased through artificial gravity was shown it instantly made sense.

Have a look for youselves!

www.fixit-4u.net... (9mb wmv)

It also poses ideas on future vehicles too, a car for example of the future, by decreasing its mass via this method you would need a miniscule amount of energy to drive it!

[edit on 24-10-2005 by mrk]




posted on Oct, 24 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
What about element 115, or just sucking all the good stuff out of everything? I have an idea, lets get one of those signaling lights, sit on it, and turn it on..that MAY just work



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Sounds very plausible from a theroretical standpoint. I'm not too versed on such scientific knowledge but i do know that the lighter something is, the less energy it takes to moveit and the faster it can go. I f this is true then I am sure that our government has/is experimentng with the technology.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
The theory described its true, it existed. Everything in the vedio is true, or would be true, providing the existence of UFOs or even non-human spacecraft.

Too add to what is in this video
I have seen the documents concerning the design of some disc shaped craft. They show this type of propulsion that is in the video, but in three generators that swing to any angle independently. This would allow for the craft -if it were using this type of anti gravity generator- to move at super fast acceleration rates with zero gravity force (or Gforce), effecting the inside of the craft. It would also explain why the craft seem to light up the air around them. If this video is factual, the propulsion system would push some of the particles out of the air, causing the air around them to burn or light up. The shade and brightness would depend on the density and type of particles and the speed the field moved them at (example a UFO in fog or fire smoke would be brighter).

=Drake=



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Manipulating gravity waves has long been postulated as a means of hyperlight travel. But there are some problems with it. How much energy was required to lift the 75 pound ball a few inches?

There is a big difference between levitating a ball a few inches and getting a several ton vehicle up to the velocities necessary for interstellar travel. The power generator necessary would be larger and weigh more than the craft itself. And it would require a fuel tank the size of a small planet, even using technologies not yet discovered (there is a finite amount of energy in any matter. With assuming 100% efficiency it still requires a LOT of a fuel source). It's not an engineering problem, it's a physics problem.



posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Hutchinon was that crazed nut I saw On " invent this" on TECH TV. Why isn't MIT duplicating these levitating balls and whatnot?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Why would you need alot of fuel for propusion? The change in the gravitational pull is only one part but from my understanding, the " tunneling photon effect" would make a craft lighter than it actually is. Also the only gravity in space are the forces effected by heavenly bodies.


mrk

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave_54
Manipulating gravity waves has long been postulated as a means of hyperlight travel. But there are some problems with it. How much energy was required to lift the 75 pound ball a few inches?

There is a big difference between levitating a ball a few inches and getting a several ton vehicle up to the velocities necessary for interstellar travel. The power generator necessary would be larger and weigh more than the craft itself. And it would require a fuel tank the size of a small planet, even using technologies not yet discovered (there is a finite amount of energy in any matter. With assuming 100% efficiency it still requires a LOT of a fuel source). It's not an engineering problem, it's a physics problem.


Indeed but then one could also say that if these types of craft exist then the means of Zer Point energy also exists, think about it though, if someone was smart enough and had the technology to build a vehicle that can affact gravity around it then they are more than likely to be aware and be using zero point energy, something that scientists today have only recently began to look into and research into its theories



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I can't believe people here actually believe this guys claims. Just becuase of some trick with a levitating steel colored ball. I though this site was about denying ignorance. If this effect really existed UPS would be transporting mountain sized warehouses across the ocean and we would have levitating cars. mining would be a snap. There would be so much money to be made from this. it would not be likely that somebody is keeping it under wraps. Please Get Real!

I am amazed that the moderators have let this thread live as long is it has. Please deny ignorance and try to pass 5th grade physics for once!



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I think the explanation in the video sounds a bit dubious, but its not far off the explanation of how UFO's work in the disclosure project briefing document:

"
Every atom in the universe is just like a little gyroscope: it’s got all these electrons spinning
around the nucleus, and they have a gyroscopic effect, which is the effect we call inertia and
mass. We have one nucleus with a proton and a neutron and one electron — hydrogen —
spinning around like that: not very much mass, not too much inertia. If you take uranium 235,
[with] 235 electrons all spinning around in their different clouds, there is a lot of mass; there is a
lot of inertia, because it’s like a bigger gyroscope, in a way. At least, that’s the analogy that I’ve
kind of picked up here. But, if you have a way of interfering with that absorption of zero-point
energy so those electrons become de-energized, they begin to slow down. The effect of that
inertia, that gyroscopic effect, begins to drop off, and the mass drops off too, even though the
atomic structure is intact; and it’s still there — it’s still uranium, but it’s not as heavy."



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Its a valid theory, but Einstein was not wrong mind you. In theory a craft can travel close to the light speed^2; thus far beyond the speed of light. The reason for this is that reducing mass of a craft when it already is in motion will increase its speed (and also its size from an outsiders viewpoint); thus if a craft can reach near light speed with regular propultion methods and then decrease the mass of the craft one can travel close to light speed^2.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Hi aNorwegian guy, where does the square come from?



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
Hi aNorwegian guy, where does the square come from?


From the E=MC^2

When reducing mass, the energy is transformed into speed in the direction the craft is travelling. As with all energy in science it does not disseapear but only take a different form, in this case "speed".



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Hi sorry to dispute your physics :-),
But Einstein said that the maximum speed of a particle with mass is c. From the equation for total energy E=gamma*m*c^2.
But it is the Lorentz function, gamma that imposes the limit at c as
gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) which tends to infinity as v -> c.
This describes the relativistic increase in mass as light speed is approached.

If we consider the full relativistic energy equation of a particle then
E^2 =p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4

as m -> 0 then the energy would transfer to the other term increasing the momentum (and making particle more wavelike like a photon??)
hmmmm...



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Don't forget that the mass can also act as a einstein bose condensate. But why do people take such rubbish as this seriously? this guys invention has never been replicated. I am calling Pseudoscience BS of the highest order.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr X
Hi sorry to dispute your physics :-),
But Einstein said that the maximum speed of a particle with mass is c.


The energy that is provided to decrease mass will also keep the atoms together even at higher speeds that the speed of light. I choose to look at it this way; consider looking at it as a bubble. On the inside of the bubble the relative theory will never show the craft on the inside of the bubble to travel faster than the speed of light, on the outside of the bubble the object would seem never to travel faster than the speed of light but would also seem to have less mass than is actual. So, the rules of the relativity theory are never broken.

[edit on 27-10-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Okay, I can't watch the video as It's not worth waiting two hours to download on a terrible stream, however, I will say this:

1. Levitating balls is an old parlor trick. It's nothing special at all.
2. You can't go faster than the speed of light. Ever. End of story.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
2. You can't go faster than the speed of light. Ever. End of story.


You are wrong. There are many accepted experiments where quantum particles have been seen moving faster than the speed of light, and experiments with photons have also been able to send waves faster than the speed of light. This is just with current technology.


[edit on 27-10-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by anorwegianguy1972

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
2. You can't go faster than the speed of light. Ever. End of story.


You are wrong. There are many accepted experiments where quantum particles have been seen moving faster than the speed of light, and experiments with photons have also been able to send waves faster than the speed of light. This is just with current technology.


[edit on 27-10-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]


SHow us some real peer reviewed papers. I will paypal 50 dollars to whoever shows something published of a bonafide experiment of a subatomic particle moving faster than the speed of light published in a established physics journal. this means the eperiment has to be replicate by a PHD and not a whacko scienist wannabe.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
My idea is that they move outside the atmosphere by creating some kind of boundary around the volume of the spaceship. Then it is able to move as a single particle, like quantum tunneling.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join