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.

 

Why are UFO's lit up at night??

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The NASA tether can be used as a reference to estimate size & distance.

video.google.com...




posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I can't tell jack from that awful Google video. It looks like a pond water sample under a microscope with the focus off. If everything moving around is a UFO, I can't imagine. It looks like Grand Central Station. The fact that NASA let it out sort of seems amazing.

There's got to be a better copy somewhere. I'll go look tomorrow. That's not the one I remember seeing, though.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I think they may be sensors or part of the navigation systems.
We sometimes use IR, maybe this visible light is due to them seeing light in a different spectrum to us. Who know what sensors or systems are on these things. This could also explain the many reports of 'multicoloured' or 'changing colour' lights



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
It would be unfair to ignore your questions although I’m still waiting for your opinion on the NASA UFO videos. Despite the poor quality in the video, what do you think of the pulsating UFOs?


Not trying to be nasty here, but do you really understand what a dielectric is?
Aluminum foil isn't one.


Do you know what aluminum foil is made of? Common household aluminum foil is not made of 99% aluminum. Other contents such as silica, zinc and titanium are usually mixed in. The foil has great dielectric properties for constructing small lifter models.


NASA's alternative propulsion group, before they were defunded, put a 'lifter' in the vacuum tank out on Redstone, and it fell like a brick……… Until then, it's not "electrogravitics".


Shhh, don’t mention that to the NASA UFOs in this video.
video.google.com...


What's the frame rate of the camera? It can't capture pulsations any faster than 1/2 that. I'd suppose that most cameras that catch UFOs are standard NTSC.


I was referring to the pulsation effect alone and our eye's ability to notice it. Without a camera we wouldn’t notice the effect and will see the UFO as a stable source of light with no flashes.

This is no different than the refresh rate in a CRT monitor. The computer user will not notice the images flashing on his screen unless it is recorded with a video camera. Video cameras can pick up interesting details where our eyes fail to receive.


You could get a glow from corona discharge, from causing the air to fluoresce, Cerenkov radiation, or plasma formation due to some sort of excitation.


Like exposure to a gas? I think our atmosphere qualifies. The NASA UFO tether incident is a prime example. The UFOs shown in the video were in our upper atmosphere and recorded with light sensitive cameras under 0 lux conditions.

Here is a NASA video showing UFOs leaving our atmosphere. Notice how the illumination dissipates? It is consistent with my posts.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 25-2-2007 by simonmagus]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonmagus
It would be unfair to ignore your questions although I’m still waiting for your opinion on the NASA UFO videos. Despite the poor quality in the video, what do you think of the pulsating UFOs?


I can't make out what anything is in the google video, seriously. There has to be a better copy. If I get through some of this paperwork I'm catching up on, I'll go looking for one. It's interesting, but Google video removes so much detail that I can't distinguish anything clearly.



Do you know what aluminum foil is made of? Common household aluminum foil is not made of 99% aluminum. Other contents such as silica, zinc and titanium are usually mixed in. The foil has great dielectric properties for constructing small lifter models.


No, it doesn't. A dielectric is a non-conductor. A metal foil is not a dielectric. A vacuum is a dielectric. Mica is a dielectric. Polypropylene is a dielectric. Dielectrics are not conductive. Dielectrics are not conductive materials with non-conductive bits in.




Shhh, don’t mention that to the NASA UFOs in this video.
video.google.com...


You've convinced yourself that is what you're seeing, and that is how they're propelled, on the basis of no input. Much as Naudin has convinced himself that a "lifter" is propelled by "electrogravitics" even though he has in the past admitted that no-one has had any luck making them work in vacuo, a failure that I have observed personally, although I don't have any web links for you. I invite you to find a reputable experimenter that has made that work, though. You won't find any.

As an engineer, I absolutely can't make such leaps. Nor, after I finally at long last have the time to finish this PhD in physics, will I be able to do that as a physicist. You can't look at something and make sweeping huge unfounded conclusions based on no data, then start making assumptions based on that. At least not as a working engineer.

Because in order to do your work as an engineer, or as a physicist, when you make these big unfounded leaps, you end up being wrong. If we're going to make wild leaps, I'll counter by saying they're some sort of life form we've never observed at low altitude. I have no data to back that up, but it's as valid as your leap. When you make these wild jumps into nowhere, you also don't have any way to test your unfounded conjecture. So the discussion degenerates into "it is!" vs "it isn't!".

Now, if you had one to look at, or had a lot of data you had collected on one, beyond what you see there, you might have enough to form a conjecture. But you don't have anything, really, from that video.

You look at a Google video, see UFOs, and decide that they're powered by "electrogravitics", the existence of which is only embraced by what I'll call the fringier element. I look at it, and I don't see enough detail to make out what the stuff is that's moving around. I make no conclusions as to what it is, because I not only don't have enough info to make a rational conjecture as to what's moving them, I don't even have enough to identify them. At least not from that godawful video.




I was referring to the pulsation effect alone and our eye's ability to notice it. Without a camera we wouldn’t notice the effect and will see the UFO as a stable source of light with no flashes.

This is no different than the refresh rate in a CRT monitor. The computer user will not notice the images flashing on his screen unless it is recorded with a video camera. Video cameras can pick up interesting details where our eyes fail to receive.


Well, they can pick up IR much better than my eyes can. But if it has a 60 Hz field rate, it can't accurately pick up pulsations faster than 1/2 that rate. If it has a fast shutter time, it might pick up a faster flicker as an alias. That would tell you it is flickering but nothing else useful.

However, there might be other reasons for the apparent pulsation. Such as the camera's autofocus or auto-iris 'seeking' constantly due to a lack of sufficient input.



Like exposure to a gas? I think our atmosphere qualifies. The NASA UFO tether incident is a prime example. The UFOs shown in the video were in our upper atmosphere and recorded with light sensitive cameras under 0 lux conditions.


No, the gas might be affected by whatever is powering your putative UFO, but that wouldn't be a characteristic of a dielectric. Which is what I said from the first post. Surely not the characteristic of a dielectric's "resistance" which at any case would be near infinite, if it's a proper dielectric.

I think your clinging to the dielectric thing is an artifact of your wanting to make them be "lifters", and you having seen that term on Naudin's site. I think you're trying to force the two together with assumption glue.



Here is a NASA video showing UFOs leaving our atmosphere. Notice how the illumination dissipates? It is consistent with my posts.


Even if I make the leap of faith with you, all I see is them fading as they move into the distance.

However, they're all pretty uniform in motion, and they're featureless dots. It could as well be small reflective particles near the camera. With no point of reference, there's not really any way to tell.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

You've convinced yourself that is what you're seeing, and that is how they're propelled, on the basis of no input. Much as Naudin has convinced himself that a "lifter" is propelled by "electrogravitics" even though he has in the past admitted that no-one has had any luck making them work in vacuo, a failure that I have observed personally, although I don't have any web links for you. I invite you to find a reputable experimenter that has made that work, though. You won't find any.


Forget about material classification or vision receptivity, which is of little significance. Focus should be on whether ionic wind is the sole explanation for thrust. Here is a quote from JLN about vacuum tests from Purdue University:

“The Lifter is not a simple ionic wind device as Seversky's Ionocraft or as the Hagen's Flying apparatus. The Lifter uses a special asymmetrical capacitor geometry to produce an asymmetrical flow of EM energy around itself. The Biefeld-Brown Effect has been tested successfully in vacuum at 10e-5 torr by the Purdue University - Energy Conversion Lab with accurate and deep measurements in Sep 2000. These tests have fully demonstrated that the ionic wind is not the source of the main thrust.... Today, after some deep investigations and many experiments, I am really convinced that this technology is worth to be developped. In atmospherical environment the major upward thrust is provided by an electrokinetic effect on the medium ( air ), but there is also a minor thrust ( not yet fully explained ) in vacuum which can't be explained by a simple ion wind effect, this residual thrust ( in a milli-Newton range ) can be used in deep space for space propulsion ...”

jnaudin.free.fr...
www.geocities.com...


You look at a Google video, see UFOs, and decide that they're powered by "electrogravitics", the existence of which is only embraced by what I'll call the fringier element.


There are many ways to gather information; do you actually believe I base everything on Google videos? Haha. How or where I get my information is not important. The video links are mainly used as a simple introduction. People are free to research further and conduct their own tests.

Extra background info on the typical "flying saucer" UFO
video.google.com...


Now, if you had one to look at, or had a lot of data you had collected on one, beyond what you see there, you might have enough to form a conjecture.


I’ll page you as soon as I get my hands on a spare spacecraft. Until then, my observations and reasoning will be consistent with currently known physics.

OP’s question was regarding the purpose for UFO illumination. I feel it was sufficiently answered and supplemented with many links. Your attempts to argue at every step will prove ineffective. This technical knowledge is available for anyone willing to search.

Sol omnibus lucet

[edit on 25-2-2007 by simonmagus]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonmagusHere is a quote from JLN about vacuum tests from Purdue University:

“The Lifter is not a simple ionic wind device as Seversky's Ionocraft or as the Hagen's Flying apparatus. The Lifter uses a special asymmetrical capacitor geometry to produce an asymmetrical flow of EM energy around itself. The Biefeld-Brown Effect has been tested successfully in vacuum at 10e-5 torr by the Purdue University - Energy Conversion Lab with accurate and deep measurements in Sep 2000. These tests have fully demonstrated that the ionic wind is not the source of the main thrust....


Ok, watch the contradictions here...he just said that the ion wind is NOT the main source of thrust and yet...


...the major upward thrust is provided by an electrokinetic effect on the medium ( air ),


But immediately after says that the ion wind IS the 'major upward thrust', even though he's trying to smoke you by calling it 'an electrokinetic effect'. Electric fields won't displace unionized air, moving ions with a field to produce air flow is ion wind. QED.



but there is also a minor thrust ( not yet fully explained ) in vacuum which can't be explained by a simple ion wind effect, this residual thrust ( in a milli-Newton range ) can be used in deep space for space propulsion ...”


So, he's admitting that all except a milliNewton of thrust is in fact ion wind.

Now, who at Purdue did this test? An aircraft mechanic named Serrano borrowed some lab equipment from a friend of his that is a professor at Purdue, John Rusek. No measurements other than "we saw it sort of move". No published paper. No "deep and accurate measurements" at all. This is sort of like Naudin saying that the papers he lists on his site "prove" that various research agencies have "proved it is real". No, go read the papers he links to. They don't prove anything, mainly they are pitches for funding within the agency to go look at "unlikely technologies".



I’ll page you as soon as I get my hands on a spare spacecraft. Until then, my observations and reasoning will be consistent with currently known physics.


That's my point as it regards you in particular. You say that you are basing your observations and reasoning on "currently known physics" when it's nothing of the sort. Electrogravitics is fringy junk with little grounding in known physics. It would be great if it worked. But proof requires a little more than an aircraft mechanic borrowing some bell jars and a pump and seeing something twitch. It might have been really meaningful if they had instrumented it. But you didn't see Rusek publish it, and there's a reason.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   
When a UFO (standard disc)craft leaves our atmosphere, their shell will glow less because of the medium it travels in. They are known to go through space, water and our atmosphere. The electrical calculations by physicists are estimated at billions of volts according to the behavior they commonly display.

The most telling fact about their propulsion system is when they are stationary and underwater. Hydrogen bubbles are formed on the outer shell and rise to the surface. This is how I know they use high voltage electricity for propulsion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you listening? My last sentence was not speculation. That is all I have to say. Thanks for the interesting chat and good luck on your PhD.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by simonmagus]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
(I hope I spelled "razor" correctly.)
The easiest explanation is that the UFOs are lit up at night so that our airplanes won't run into them! They don't want accidents.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

No, it doesn't. A dielectric is a non-conductor. A metal foil is not a dielectric. A vacuum is a dielectric. Mica is a dielectric. Polypropylene is a dielectric. Dielectrics are not conductive. Dielectrics are not conductive materials with non-conductive bits in.


Yes, as commonly described, though of course unless you are comparing a superconductor to vacuum (and you don't have enough heat energy to boil off electrons or E field to create e+e- pairs!), the conductivity of real materials is on a scale and you can't say "is or isn't" technically.

I've seen both conductors and 'dielectrics' described with complex-valued susceptibilities (related to dielectric coefficient) in the fourier representation.


You've convinced yourself that is what you're seeing, and that is how they're propelled, on the basis of no input. Much as Naudin has convinced himself that a "lifter" is propelled by "electrogravitics" even though he has in the past admitted that no-one has had any luck making them work in vacuo, a failure that I have observed personally, although I don't have any web links for you. I invite you to find a reputable experimenter that has made that work, though. You won't find any.


I agree with you, unfortunately. It would be great, but I too have never seen any strong physical replication of the mythical Biefield-Brown effect. I do seem to remember reading a NASA funded (maybe in the past) attempted replication which gave null results.

Let's remember that to reduce gravity on a physical level, this is NOT just providing a force, like ionic wind.

Altering gravity means altering INERTIA in the Einteinian relativistic sense, and so a true test for gravity/metric engineering ought to be able to distinguish a force (there are plenty of known ones) from this supposed gravity manipulation.



No, the gas might be affected by whatever is powering your putative UFO, but that wouldn't be a characteristic of a dielectric. Which is what I said from the first post. Surely not the characteristic of a dielectric's "resistance" which at any case would be near infinite, if it's a proper dielectric.


We know of course that real substances are not "proper dielectrics", if the strength of the electric field is sufficiently high. After all, there ARE lightning bolts across clear air! Such things naturally do not obey a linear time independent Ohm's law.

I have also looked at these NASA UFO pictures from the shuttle, and I've also never seen anything but featureless junk in them.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Ice crystals stream around the shuttle all the time, sometimes blasted in different directions by orbital maneuvers. Where do the ice crystals originate? The sewage port. What you're seeing is frozen urine and fecal matter, politely referred to as "debris," just outside the shuttle observation ports.

When you try to focus through this blizzard of doodie, you capture and exaggerate all sorts of distorted artifacts on video. That's why video isn't a reliable medium for detailed imaging — it's just the fastest and most convenient medium for cursory examinations. You wouldn't see those blurry blobs out there if they were using low-light, high speed film.

Unfortunately, the shuttle doesn't come equipped with a full film processing lab. So, they fall back on quick & dirty video. For more on the unreliability of video imaging, see the work of José Escamilla.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Yes, as commonly described, though of course unless you are comparing a superconductor to vacuum (and you don't have enough heat energy to boil off electrons or E field to create e+e- pairs!), the conductivity of real materials is on a scale and you can't say "is or isn't" technically.


Ah, true, but the general definition of a dielectric is a substance with less than 10E-6 S of conductivity. The desired characteristic of a dielectric is caused by the plasmon motion around the atoms of the material and not the free electron motion. Indeed, free electrons in a dielectric cause undesirable side-effects. Such as dielectric breakdown.



I've seen both conductors and 'dielectrics' described with complex-valued susceptibilities (related to dielectric coefficient) in the fourier representation.


Don't they all? If they didn't, you wouldn't have dispersion.




I agree with you, unfortunately. It would be great, but I too have never seen any strong physical replication of the mythical Biefield-Brown effect. I do seem to remember reading a NASA funded (maybe in the past) attempted replication which gave null results.


I'd pay real money to see one work. Hell, I'd pay real money if Steorn's perpetual motion machine worked. It's not that I don't WANT one of these things to be real, I just don't think BB effect devices work. That's not strictly prejudice, IIRC there's a mathematical proof that any "reactionless thruster" such as the putative Biefeld-Brown can be used to violate C, and that's usually considered a proof of non-existence.

I think it was sort of a mix between 'haha' and 'aw!' when the "lifter" hit the bottom of the vacuum tank at Redstone.

edit: Not strictly true, when it was obvious that it was starting to drop, I went into sound effect mode. "I'm givin' ya everythin' she's GOT, Capn'!" "My poor bairns!" "whoop whoop PULL UP"



Altering gravity means altering INERTIA in the Einteinian relativistic sense, and so a true test for gravity/metric engineering ought to be able to distinguish a force (there are plenty of known ones) from this supposed gravity manipulation.


Agree. Grant you, I was pretty hot on Dr Ning Li's work (also in Huntsville at that time) and the scuttlebutt was hot and heavy on whether she actually achieved what she was trying to do. There is some speculation on where she ended up working after that contract ended.



We know of course that real substances are not "proper dielectrics", if the strength of the electric field is sufficiently high. After all, there ARE lightning bolts across clear air! Such things naturally do not obey a linear time independent Ohm's law.


So, are you saying the characteristic of a dielectric that makes UFO's glow is that they're arcing over in dielectric breakdown?
That's almost as good as the other guy saying they were resistance heating due to the dielectric's resistance. HAHA maybe the displacement current is reappearing from "var space" in a region around the hull as fluorescence.





I have also looked at these NASA UFO pictures from the shuttle, and I've also never seen anything but featureless junk in them.


I'd hope that the originals were better, if not, I don't see the point of having the camera. That video sucked ass.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Doc, normally I'd agree with you but the UFOs seen in the NASA tether incident are also photographed elsewhere. They typically are metallic, round, small dark round center and a side notch (probably its "front" side). Unlike the triangular UFOs, the shell is known to generate hydrogen bubbles when submersed underwater, cause air ionization and disrupt nearby electronics. They are also known to glow with extreme heat. These behaviors are consistent with the use of high voltage electricity. Coincidence?

video.google.com...


[edit on 26-2-2007 by simonmagus]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonmagus
Doc, normally I'd agree with you but the UFOs seen in the NASA tether incident are also photographed elsewhere. They typically are metallic, round, small dark round center and a side notch (probably its "front" side). Unlike the triangular UFOs, the shell is known to generate hydrogen bubbles when submersed underwater, cause air ionization and disrupt nearby electronics. They are also known to glow with extreme heat. These behaviors are consistent with the use of high voltage electricity. Coincidence?


Who knows they generate hydrogen? Who instrumented it?

Who knows they're glowing with heat when they glow, if they do? For all you know, they could be emitting plasma for some reason. Or maybe they're just covered with LEDs.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
From various UFO case files. One such case involved a UFO stranded underwater. A nearby fisherman got in his boat and went closer to the object. He noticed a constant stream of white foam appear from the craft and tried to contain it with a fishing net. He was unable to get a sample since it dissolved quickly.

Obviously, it was HHO gas bubbles he was looking at. I know, I know, he should have had the proper scientific instrumentation or maybe even light a match. Unfortunately, he was just a fisherman and was incapable of carrying out the stringent tests that would satisfy you.

[edit on 26-2-2007 by simonmagus]



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonmagus
From various UFO case files. One such case involved a UFO stranded underwater. A nearby fisherman got in his boat and went closer to the object. He noticed a constant stream of white foam appear from the craft and tried to contain it with a fishing net. He was unable to get a sample since it dissolved quickly.

Obviously, it was HHO gas bubbles he was looking at. I know, I know, he should have had the proper scientific instrumentation to test it and maybe even lit a match. Unfortunately, he was just a fisherman and was incapable of carrying out the stringent tests that would satisfy you.


I just don't see how it's obvious. It could be air venting. Subs release bubbles when they vent but it's not hydrogen. Or Brown's gas.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Lol, I knew you were going to say that. It was a steady stream of foam and not in short bursts. In addition, submarines can't fly and this craft flew away after the incident.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by simonmagus
Lol, I knew you were going to say that. It was a steady stream of foam and not in short bursts. In addition, submarines can't fly and this craft flew away after the incident.


They were venting space sewage, and the bubbles were flatus.

That would explain the foam, as well.

It's not that they were broken down, or stranded, they stopped to pump out the holding tanks and the fishermen got a big whiff of ET air biscuit.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Example of persistent hydrogen "foam" from simple electrolysis.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
But pretty much anything that bubbles in sea water makes foam. I think the technical term for the reason why is "fish pee".




Said Indra to the demon Namuci,
"I will slay thee not by day or night,
neither with the staff, nor with the bow,
neither with the palm of the hand,
nor with the fist,
neither with the wet, nor with the dry"

But he killed him in the morning twilight,
by sprinkling over him the foam of the sea.


Sea foam works even better when you put ET poop in it.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join