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.

 

REAL Alien TECHNOLOGY Explained

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   

REAL Alien TECHNOLOGY Explained


www.youtube.com

"Explanation of Materials from Roswell crash debris, basic sceintific overview of Anti-Gravity Propulsion, Meta-Invisibility, Quasicrystals, Photonic computer circuits, & basic Alien Anatomy."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
This video seems to be of higher quality than most, very informative - some of the terminology I didn't follow at first but I'm sure I won't be able to grasp the whole of alien tech in single video, still interesting stuff!

Touches on the current progression in nano technology and how it could tie into the technology behind the aliens - we can actually use current science to theorize!

www.youtube.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Is this breaking news? And wouldn't this be better posted in the Aliens and UFOs forum? EDIT: Post moved.

Interesting video, though I've always believed that the general consensus was rather close-minded when it came to alien tech. When people say that it's not even feasible to travel across space because it violates the laws of physics, consider that the the physics that we base our reality on could be as simple as adding two and two for an advanced civilization.

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Mekanic]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Completely nonsensical.

First off its not a news article its a youtube video..the media often actually investigates things andlooks for evidenc, which this video gives none..

Secondly do you actually understand ay of the physics being alleged? I doubt it. But Ill start by saying that gravity is a function of mass and is not effected by super fluids with ultra high viscocity. said fluids are subject to the laws of gravity to, whether or not a fermion or a Boson.

Bosons are not these elite uber anti gravity particles this video makes them out to be

The difference?
The nucleus of an atom can be fermion or boson depending on whether the total number of its protons and neutrons is odd or even. Thats VERY basic. It does get deeper and you get into determining the state of individual sub atomic particles based on their spin, and boson particles act as force carriers (strong/weak nuclear etc) but they themselves do not act to create anti gravity.

So this notion of usng a super fluid being converted into a boson to creat a gravity well is completely bogus.

Do you really believe that all the scientists across the US are still spo far behind in technology, yet this one guy on youtube figured out what they couldnt? wow.. he should get a patent!

Another bogus caim is with the quasi crystals which he says he craft were made out of, and indeed this is a hole in the Roswell story itsef:

The witnesses allege the Roswell material was so strong, that it could not be cut with a blow torch or bent with a sledgehammer, yet it blew into pieces so easily with a crash???? this doesnt make sense.
Also quasi crystals are not in destructible. This does not explain the aleged Roswell material, and like I said leaves holes.

This video is pure bunk, the author through in some highly technical language that most of the viewership wont understand but will be extremly enamored by to the point of belief, and it is utter nonsense.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I think his (AlienScientist @ Youtube) speculations could well be pointing to the right direction, but he seems to be overreaching. He has produced more recent videos.

His idea basically is ferrofluid superfluid centrifuge. There has been work by Podkletnov (mid-1990s) and Tajmar (early 2000s) with rotating superconductors, claiming gravity effects.

Before them, there was the video statement by "whistleblower" Fouche on the rumored TR3B black-project craft at Area51, which according to him uses a rotating super-pressurized and super-cooled mercury based plasma as "Gravity Disruptor".

These are looked at UFO physics page.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dhatz
 


However the work of the two you mentioned was considered supect as no one was veer able to replicate their "results".

This is all just more pseudo science.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
"UTTER NONSENSE" "REDICULOUS"


I see your spreading love and joy from thread to thread there eh?



Typical.


How bout you show somethiing else besides the same trolling routine?



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 

Wow you take the first part of my threads and ignore the rest.

How about you actually looki into the meat of my threads for once, you know where i talk about the issue at hand. If something is nonsense i will call it what it is. get over it.

Such as in this thread I was very elaborate in explaining just why it is bunk, I am not a troll.
The UFO field is filled with such nonsense already, and I will not let any that I see go un challenged.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I would be the last on this lone world in the entire universe to stand in your way to challenge anything.

Now that you know where I stand, at least let the rest try to come to their own conclusions. So far, dispite what you post in the topics, they all seem to end with the same thing...nonsense.

So what makes the previous posts any different when they all end with the same thing from you? I just want to know if you have anything else to end a post with other than nonsense.

JFYI...I used to be a worse skeptic than you are displaying here. But one day I woke up and looked out the 8x11 box and went byond the puppet strings of "Nasty Anomaly Scene Airbrushers" game a long time ago.

And also JFYI...not all things I see here I find to be real either. But I dont end every single post I have about them with utter nonsense.

Its almost like we dont have to even read your posts because the pattern is becomming regular that we already know what your going to say.


See the point now?


Hope so. Post away.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


wow i usuaully start and end on the same note! wow such a big disocvery, revealed right here on ATS! stop the presses!



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by newatlasmason
 


I think this might have been discussed already, I know there were a few threads and some videos on ATS here about AlienScientist and his theories.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Have a look at the UFO Physics link I sent.

Perhaps the most interesting work on "UFO technology" is the book "Unconventional Flying Objects" written by NASA aeronautical engineer Paul R. Hill in the 1970s and published in 1994 after he died.

Being an aeronautics eng, Hill evaluated UFO maneuvers and found them to be exactly right, making the (admittedly big) assumption that UFOs use a repulsive force field, much like gravity (which according to our understanding of Physics can be attractive only).



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by dhatz
 


I have the book. Though it oesnt esemble anything the youtube video.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
*wonders if the UFOs seen are nothing more than large rotating superconductors taking advantage of a phase differential of the magnetic lines of the earth itself... able to move independantly thereof by harmonizing with key points on the magnetic fields of the planet*...


Don't listen to me. I have no idea what I'm speaking of, but I have a good idea that NavalFC doesn't really either. I've yet to see that dude give an opinion on ANYTHING... Even if you agree with something he says/she says, it will still argue with you.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 

You havent seen me give an opinion on anything> really? you obviously havent been readig too much on ATS or this thread.

I guesss the difference between us is my opinions that I hold are done so out of actual evidence, not just conjecture and BS'ing.

I gave a good explanation of why the premise of his thead is BS.

It always amazes me how when ome proonents cn not find anyevidence to back their claims they turn their attacks towards the skeptics themselves.
Wont work.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
No, I HAVEN'T seen you give an opinion on anything. I have seen you ride the OP of each thread you have participated in.

In THIS CASE, the OP was giving information and said, upfront, that they aren't up on the physics jargon.
You took the opportunity to ride he/she into the ground.

I am not "attacking the skeptic". I am stating the obvious. Read the post before you attack the messenger. It makes you look weak. It makes you look like you're basing your skepticism on fear.

Furthermore, out of curiousity, are you drunk tonight?

When someone says: "Hey guys, I'm not sure what this stuff means, any help" (which was in essence what the OP stated) it is CHILDISH to ask them "Furthermore, do you even UNDERSTAND the physics being applied here?"

Give me a break, dude.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Oh, and btw, I'm not a "proonent" of this thread, whatever that means...

As I said before, I don't know enough about the physics either. Although I understand a little, I'm not knowledgable enough to know for certain... (and I don't think you are either)

So, like all things, I file this away and study it at my leisure. If something comes up, I have learned something.
On the other hand, you simply wish to regurgitate the same thing in each thread you visit. Each with just a different justification for doing so. You don't know either.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 



I did not attack the OP. I did not ride them. I attacked their arguments, I took the physics behind it and used physics to ride their argument into the ground. I did not ride the Op. If you can not tell the differnce then you are the one with a problem.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
For anyone interested, here is something about the application of rotating superconductors and superfluids from Harvard.
"Experiments carried out on rotating superconductors, based on the quantization of the magnetic flux in rotating superconductors, lead to a disagreement with the theoretical predictions derived from the quantization of a canonical momentum without any gravitomagnetic term."

adsabs.harvard.edu...



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
"This video seems to be of higher quality than most, very informative - some of the terminology I didn't follow"... newatlasmason


"Secondly do you actually understand ay of the physics being alleged?"... NavalFC

Yes, you DID use the opportunity to simply argue for no reason. There was no call for it.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join