Deconstructing the anti-gravity drive

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Oh, and just for the record...

I don't think aliens don't exist. In fact, i think there is a high probability they do.

The probability of them visiting us is a bit lower, but still possible, since we might some day discover better and improoved theories in physics, that would allow this.


But people who are delusional or lie for money don't really help in this pursuit.

If we ever want to discover the REAL truth, we must weed out such "evidence" as hoaxes and mental illness, even tho that means there isn't much left.

But that little which is left, might eventually lead to real discoveries, while hoaxes and dellusions only distract from the truth.

Even worse! They can even make people discard the entire field of research, since it's easy to get the impression it's all just a figment of imagination.




posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I am not referring to the metaproperties of the 115, i am referring to the construction of the device itself. YOu report that it has impossible characteristics, yet ignore the possibility of amalgomated metamaterials providing these characteristics. One does not need a magnet if he can control the flow of electrons in some other way.


Dear BFFT, what I'm trying to clarify for you is that no amount of "amolgamation" will have bearing on the so-called cross sections, which are characteristics of nuclear reactions and reflect how probably/intense these are. Another example is that radioactivity is independent on temperature, electric field and contents of my W-2 form, amalgamated or not.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deezee
The probability of them visiting us is a bit lower, but still possible, since we might some day discover better and improoved theories in physics, that would allow this.

But people who are delusional or lie for money don't really help in this pursuit.



Thanks for making this point. I am also of the opinion that a lot of the abortive "disclosure" talk constitutes information noise, in which the few precious bytes of real data drown.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
When did science make that change? If we choose to assume that all things are possible, then all that is left is to discern how. keep a sharp eye and an open mind...the research may just be out there!!!

Actualy, real science never pretends to proffess the truth. Only the best explanations of it SO FAR!

At the same time, it is always on the lookout for a better, improoved explanation.

And when this happens, old laws and theories do not become obsolete. They still apply, but the new theory offers a better explanation of why and maybe shows where and when exceptions occur.

Of course the same can not always be said about scientists. They are only human. But there are always those, who are doing all in their power to discover more and add to the knowledge.

IMHO, this is the best way to ever get even close to the real truth. Wishfull thinking without basic knowledge never achieves much.


Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
One does not need a magnet if he can control the flow of electrons in some other way.

In that case, this new device should be drawn there instead of electromagnets, even if we don't understand how it directs the flow of electrons or other particles.

Without it the diagram is useless. Of course only if it was based in reality in the first place.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you read your source carefully, mind the future tense. "Will establish".... "will prove"...


Here we go again, its absolute not as you said “mind the future tense. "Will establish".... "will prove".
The fact is, they can “establish’ and they can prove their claims.
But the big million dollar question is,
“What is the real reason why the U.S. CONGRESS FOR HEARINGS & LEGISLATION don’t give them the asked opportunity to proof their claims?
What is the real deal here?
If the Ufo phenomenon is really nothing more then swamp gas, Venus, balloons and on, then here is the ideal opportunity to proof it for ones and for all, but they don’t.
Because, they know these people can proof it without a doubt, and that is the real reason why they “U.S. CONGRESS” are not allowed to do it [yet].


PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A CALL ON U.S. CONGRESS FOR HEARINGS & LEGISLATION
To hold open, secrecy-free hearings on the UFO/Extraterrestrial presence on and around Earth.

To hold open hearings on advanced energy and propulsion systems that, when publicly released, will provide solutions to global environmental challenges.


Source; www.disclosureproject.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Thanks for making this point. I am also of the opinion that a lot of the abortive "disclosure" talk constitutes information noise, in which the few precious bytes of real data drown.


I was just trying to say, that if we want to discover the truth about something, we have to be very critical about what we consider as evidence.

Otherwise the real evidence drowns in the enormous amounts of wishfull thinking, channeling, delusions and lies.

Unfortunatelly, people who WANT to believe, are always going to take anything that even remotely supports their beliefs.

But for those of us, who want to KNOW instead of just believing, this really is noise, like you said and makes it very hard to decide what we should even consider.

And when someone with actual knowledge of the subjects points out the obvious flaws in a "theory", he is often called ignorant and narrow minded, even tho all he is doing is VERIFYING the claims.

If anything ever IS true, it will be the so called "skeptic debunkers" that are going to proove it. And it's gonna happen by verification and not wanna-beliefs.

For this reason, those who want to know are gratefull to those, who analyze such claims scientifically. In real science it is important not only to support claims, but also to try to disproove them. Only then can we decide which is more likely.

But i also understand why believers get offended by this.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Hi bigfatfurrytexan, check your "quote", because I didn’t say that.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


DOH!!!! I am sorry...i hit the wrong tags on accident.


I have it fixed now. I apologize for any inconvenience.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 



Of course the same can not always be said about scientists. They are only human. But there are always those, who are doing all in their power to discover more and add to the knowledge.


Unfortunately, the ones who are doing all their pwer to discover more to not act as ambassadors very often. Thus, we are left with folks like Buddasystem to try and win over people who don't understand.

What he doesn't realize is that it is easier to push the string rather than pull it. Rude and obnoxious behavior, ridicule and insults...they are NOT the way to highlight the relevance of one's work.

For all the brains in the world, physicists seem to be missing some basic understanding of psychology.

i appreciate your clarification, Deezee....very well put.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Thus, we are left with folks like Buddasystem to try and win over people who don't understand.

What he doesn't realize is that it is easier to push the string rather than pull it. Rude and obnoxious behavior, ridicule and insults...they are NOT the way to highlight the relevance of one's work.


Was he really obnoxious and insulting? Maybe in response to someone calling him ignorant and narrow minded, as is often the case here on ATS.

But i guess i'll have to read it over again to see what you mean.


My point is, even tho i have a pretty good understanding of physics and science, it is not my expertise. So i would rather listen to someone who DOES understand it better than me, in order to learn more about something.

At the moment i think BuddhaSystem is the most qualified individual here, to analyze the "device" in question.

And if we want to learn anything from it, it is important to analyze it and point out the flaws if there are any. It's the only way to get even close to the truth.

Wishfull thinking and absurd speculations coming from imagination of misunderstanding of how physics work, doesn't bring us anywhere.


I also believe it is VERY important to ALWAYS have an open mind and consider ALL of the possibilities, before deciding on the most probable one.

And while many here often call those, who are scientifically inclined, narrow minded skeptics, it is often these "skeptic" people, who have the best understanding of the thing in question. And if they weren't open minded, they wouldn't even consider or analyze such claims.

Personally, i'm gratefull to these people, since as i've mentioned before, it is them, who are going to find the truth in any of these claims, if it is there at all.

In my oppinion it is always important to hear BOTH sides of an argument. And this is exactly what real science is all about.


P.S. I apologize, if i'm repeating myself. I'm multitasking several threads at the same time...



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Yeah, but...

Demotricus' hypothesis was not accepted in his day and age...if it had been, we'd be farther along technologically, methinks...


Sorry to interrupt, but who is the person?

Maybe you could supply a link to this hypothesis?

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Demotricus' hypothesis was not accepted in his day and age...if it had been, we'd be farther along technologically, methinks...


Sorry to interrupt, but who is the person?

Maybe you could supply a link to this hypothesis?


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
First off... whoever said that they had to weed out the mental illness and the liars from claims of UFOs.... you seem to indirectly be implying that most people who honestly report seeing flying craft of unexplained origin (I don't mean lights, but actual unmistakeable CRAFT) are either stupid or crazy. That's such an insult, man. I come on these boards, and every time I come here, I find skeptics disrespecting testimony by clear minded people who have seen something clearly unexplainable, and it really just disheartens me, because I would've liked to believed that humans had a little more faith in each other than that. I mean, we all act (as a whole human populace) as if everyone we meet is guilty until proven innocent.... and that's the problem with science. Things that don't fit in with science's current understandings are guilty until proven innocent. Therefore, people who claim such things are labeled accordingly. This is not how truth and justice is supposed to work.

If you wanna find truth, you have to be willing to take into consideration ALL testimony, even from menally ill or liars... and until the claims can be proven to be caused by mental illness or lies, they should not be reasily dismissed.

I'm not really talking about Bob Lazar's diagram. I'm talking about BuddahSystem and Deezee's (and quite a few other people's) complete lack of respect for honest and seemingly sane minded people's accounts of real aerial craft that seem to be performing maneuvers and feats that completely defy our current laws of physics. You have the mindset that it is slim to no chance that these devices exist, and that is so engrained into you, that your natural response is to try and debunk everything that doesn't fit into your trained version of reality, and don't you, as a very obviously highly intelligent person, see the flaw in your own thinking? You know so much more than me about physics and mathematics, yet your opinion doesn't sway me and I know your assumptions are flawed because I've SEEN things with my very own eyes that are just so completely out of the normal experience that we have on this planet, that I can no longer trust science as it is because there's just so many things that science as a whole is being guided into unconsciously avoiding....

If this were a discussion of law and judicial matters, you wouldn't dismiss witness testimony so easily, would you? I don't see why science can be so much more discriminating. Why is science holier than the people who experience things? Most people who experience strange things have no agenda, and obviously are risking their reputation by claiming these things... but all science seems to be doing is defending their agendas and their reputations, and to get people to agree. If nobody agrees, science is useless. Like it or not, most people seem to disagree with science's current view that UFOs and aliens are highly unlikely to be visiting Earth. Whether or not people readily admit and discuss it is another matter altogether... because, again, here comes that pesky reputation to uphold.

Therefore, this does, in part, have to do with Bob Lazar's diagram. How can you pretend to know for sure that it is wrong? The only thing that assures you of anything is what you've been trained to be assured in. It gives you self confidence, and that's great... but it seems to me you are borderlining arrogance.

I really hope I'm not offending anyone, because it's really not BuddahSystems or any other overly-educated person's fault that they can not see fault in their way of thinking. A year or two ago... I would've completely agreed with you, BuddahSystems. I would've said "You are a genius, and we need more people like you cutting away this BS fantasy that's ensnaring the young people into years of fruitless pursuits of sci fi pseudo-truth."

But, as of today, I am just not sure I can trust highly educated minds telling me what reality is anymore, because it's so much different when something completely clashing with everything you know about reality happens to you.

Bob Lazar may be lying, he may be describing something so bizarre that it is far too complicated to be done justice by a diagram, he may be mixing truth with disinfo, he may be just a complete loon...

but you cannot say he's guilty of anything before really understanding what EXACTLY he has laid out in front of you. I'd suggest maybe talking to John Lear, and possibly finding a way to get a hold of Lazar, so he can better explain to you what he has laid out in his diagrams himself.
Don't label it as a hoax just because you can't figure out how it could possibly work using your knowledge.

I think, in all likelihood, the diagram could be intentionally skewed, seeing as how laying out the designs for an anti-gravity device that works online for public consumption might pose a small degree of a security risk.

But I do know these devices exist. I've seen "physics defying" craft in action before, and there's no conventional explanation for it.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
I come on these boards, and every time I come here, I find skeptics disrespecting testimony by clear minded people who have seen something clearly unexplainable


I, being a skeptic, do not recall myself dissing anybody's clear minded account of a UGO encounter. Moreso that I've had one myself. So I hope you didn't direct this statement at me.


I'm not really talking about Bob Lazar's diagram. I'm talking about BuddahSystem and Deezee's (and quite a few other people's) complete lack of respect for honest and seemingly sane minded people's accounts of real aerial craft


I think you really need to start reading posts before you accuse deezee or myself of any such things. Just a few posts above deezee said that he/she is in favor of the existence of aliens and all that. I'm on the fence but totally agree with deezee that it's possible, UFO and all nine yards, but am not sure at this point.

And you have to face the fact that the thread is about the Lazar's diagram. Bob's explanation of its function is physics-based, like it or not. I deconstructed this explanation to show that this is, in my personal opinion, a fabrication, as Bob's physics is bogus.



You have the mindset that it is slim to no chance that these devices exist, and that is so engrained into you, that your natural response is to try and debunk everything that doesn't fit into your trained version of reality


If I am offered a theory (and Lazar's theory of elementary particles, if I'm not mistaken, was presented by John), I subject it to same tests as any other theory that I encounter in the field of physics:

(a) it must not contradict the observed exp. data
(b) it must have predictive power

What I saw offers neither.


Therefore, this does, in part, have to do with Bob Lazar's diagram. How can you pretend to know for sure that it is wrong? The only thing that assures you of anything is what you've been trained to be assured in.


Right. I have been trained, admittedly a long time ago, in nuclear physics and particle physics. I know that phenomena in that realm oh physical reality are truly fascinating and blow the minds of people who went to trouble of studying the subject. Now, Bob presents hist explanation of what's taking place in the reactor which is in fact based on known physics, such as transmutation and annihilation. I point out that his physics exposition is inconsistent with physics. If he told us he saw a glowing blue sphere, I would have no desire to try and disprove him. But he went as far as to concoct a diagram with a silly attempt at physics attached to it.


Bob Lazar may be lying, he may be describing something so bizarre that it is far too complicated to be done justice by a diagram


You have no idea how complex things are, handled by modern science. Sure as hell that any diagram, no matter how complicated, can be understood by scientists, maybe by better scientist than my humble person.


But I do know these devices exist. I've seen "physics defying" craft in action before, and there's no conventional explanation for it.


Would you be so kind as to send more info? Any factual material is of great importance to me.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by indierockalien
First off... whoever said that they had to weed out the mental illness and the liars from claims of UFOs.... you seem to indirectly be implying that most people who honestly report seeing flying craft of unexplained origin (I don't mean lights, but actual unmistakeable CRAFT) are either stupid or crazy.


I thought i was clear on what i meant.

I wasn't talking about people witnessing UFOs in the sky.

I was explicitly talking about people, who believe they were abducted and then go on to claim it was aliens that caused their mental illnes, without even considering the possibility that it was the other way around.

I've seen many cases of mental illnes, i've been personally involved with such people and their families and i've heard all of their ideas, not just the edited abduction stories.

For this reason, i claim schizophrenic people CAN NOT be used as evidence for UFOs.

At the same time i mentioned that I DO believe in alien life. I also mentioned i accept the possibility they might be visiting us.

But my point is, that if we really want to KNOW anything about this phenomenon, we have to limit ourselves to the best evidence available.

Why? Because if we add delusions and hoaxes to the mix, we don't know what the REAL information is. To analyze something you have to analyze the KNOWN facts about it and not the imaginary ones.

Also i did not claim ALL the abductees are psychotic. If the aliens are visiting it's possible some of it is true. But due to lies and psychotic episodes it's hard to decide which cases to accept as facts in order to learn from them.


Another thing i would like to make clear is, that i do not use the words "mental illness" as an insult. Due to my personal involvement with such people i have a LOT of compassion for them. But i can also tell you, that it's very painfull, when you see them hurting themselves and their family and even children with their delusions.

If you would have to spend years taking care of someone elses family because the only parent is schizophrenic, you might understand my position.

If you still don't understand what i'm trying to say, i'd be more than happy to elaborate. And i can promise you, when i'm done elaborating, there's a high chance you might even agree with me.

Unless of course you think mental ilness doesn't exist...



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by indierockalien
 


Actualy, it's very possible to decide a theory like this is bunk, especially when you see the person promoting it having a very bad understanding of physics and science.

This "device", like many other such claims is nothing more than an assortment of pseudo scientific terms, specifically designed to do nothing more, but convince people without much knowledge in this area, that it is scientifically valid.

I'm sorry to say, but it falls almost in the same category as tachionated underwear.

Still, both BuddhaSystem and me would LOVE to see a working device like this and analyze it, because it would be fantastic and amazing.

I'm sure we would both love to learn new and better theories and maybe even try to test them and build something based on them.

I work with electronics and i'm constantly building stuff, when not for work, simply for fun and out of personal interest.

In the past i've tried to build many devices with extraordinary claims but unfortunatelly found out there was nothing special about them.

But i'm constantly on the lookout for something new, otherwise i wouldn't be here.

So please explain to me how BuddhaSystem or me are narrow minded..



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by deezee
 


Don't misunderstand me. I am nothing even resembling a physicist. I am a business manager, working in the outsource call center industry. But, i am also no dummy.

I, too, choose to listen to those who know what they are talking about. As a matter of fact, i carry on daily email correspondance with a few of them (both as a member of Pegasus, as well as personally outside of Pegasus).

You know what some of them tell me? That most often, accomplished physicists do not frequent these types of forums.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
You know what some of them tell me? That most often, accomplished physicists do not frequent these types of forums.


This is exactly what i meant, when i said all the hoaxes and dellusions can drown out any truth, if it's even there.

They can make a less open minded person simply turn away and dismiss the entire field.

This is why i find it sad, when people here call those of us, who are scientifically inclined, narrow minded. If we were, we wouldn't be here, like the accomplished physicists you mentioned.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by deezee

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
You know what some of them tell me? That most often, accomplished physicists do not frequent these types of forums.


This is exactly what i meant, when i said all the hoaxes and dellusions can drown out any truth, if it's even there.

They can make a less open minded person simply turn away and dismiss the entire field.

This is why i find it sad, when people here call those of us, who are scientifically inclined, narrow minded. If we were, we wouldn't be here, like the accomplished physicists you mentioned.


Deezee, i call you nothing. You seem to interact in an overall friendly manner.

But others here seem to embody close mindedness, and often pettiness.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I do not believe in personal sniping. I came into this forum, when I discovered it only a few months ago (October) and thought I was arrogant enough to know everything. (What attracted me first was the 9/11 discussion threads).

Having said that, I have learned a great deal in just a few months. The greatest lesson, I suppose, is to be so much more tolerant, and less quick to judge. We all have intellects, but we also have emotions. They are in constant conflict, as we know...I am of the mind to tell my emotions where to go, and let my intellect thrive...

As a side bar, when I discovered ATS I had been emotionally wrapped around the axle, so to speak, after seeing the 'dredge' on many other sites. What a breath of fresh air is ATS! Darn it, that didn't come out the way I intended...just trying to say that the decorum and level of discussion on ATS is far and away better than the others'.

'Nuf Said.






top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join