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.

 

TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

page: 14
22
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Originally posted by zorgon
What Company? Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, Boeing Phantom works, the US NAVY, even NASA


Nasa? They are a gaping security leak. ... You're guessing and throwing out popular names.
Maybe NASA isn't a very good guess, but Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is a good guess, not necessarily for the TR-3B which I suspect doesn't exist but possibly for other craft people might mistake for UFOs, possibly even the TR-3B claims. We know they've been making secret stuff for decades, and still are, they even bragged about it on their website, though the images of the secret projects are kind of fuzzy, but it could be the kind of stuff that's mistaken for UFOs:

I got that image from the skunk works website about a year ago and I forgot to note the url when I saved the image, I tried to find the url again but can't find it, sorry. I might have to use the wayback machine, they might have changed their site.

Aim64C and zorgon, thanks for the interesting discussion, I've enjoyed reading it!


Originally posted by Bobbox1980
I have now even begun to think that ZPE is total bunk, perpetrated on the scientific and UFO communities.
ZPE is quite real, it's the lowest possible energy state a system can have.

What's crazy is the idea that if you take the lowest possible energy state a system can have, that you can somehow extract energy from that. It is, by definition, already at the lowest possible energy state so extracting energy from it would make the energy level BELOW zero point.

To use an analogy, imagine digging a tunnel to the center of mass of the moon. Once you arrive at the center, that is the lowest possible point, just like zero point energy is the lowest possible energy level.

If at the center of the moon you say "let's dig deeper", that is impossible, you can make the tunnel longer, but you'd actually be digging away from the center. You can't go below the lowest possible point, whether digging a tunnel to the moon's center, or extracting energy from zero point energy.




posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
Now Puthoff is working at Bigelow just as Bigelow is getting serious in trying to figure out alien and new propulsion technologies, I can't help but think Puthoff's joined Bigelow to feed them disinformation, keep them on the wrong track, keep them in a holding pattern.


Hal Puthoff and Bigelow go way back, The Aviary and NIDS connection
Hal Puthoff's name comes up so many times in stuff I research that I am beginning to think he is to me like the smoking man is to Fox Mulder


Smoking man



Hal Puthoff



I would say Dang good casting job

edit on 15-10-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Just a thought but...

How about the testosterone fuelled "my dad is bigger than your dad" rhetoric and mentality that is currently being displayed in this thread gets canned, and you guys have a proper discussion?

Can't be too hard, can it?



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Maybe NASA isn't a very good guess, but Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is a good guess, not necessarily for the TR-3B which I suspect doesn't exist but possibly for other craft people might mistake for UFOs, possibly even the TR-3B claims.


YEAH!
your right Lockheed makes a lot of stuff people might think are UFO's






posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Hah, nice resemblance, I hadn't picked up on that before.

I don't peg Puthoff as a murderer like C.G.B. Spender (smoking man).

I figured George H W Bush as more C.G.B. Spender, especially with the X-Files ep that put C.G.B. Spender as responsible for murdering JFK and that Hoover memo out there showing Hoover orally briefed George Bush of the CIA the day after JFK was murdered.

But then again, that relative of Eisenhower was claiming Puthoff is in charge of the Mars colony that we supposedly secretly have so I could definitely see Puthoff as a big player in some SAP and not just disinfo.



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
But then again, that relative of Eisenhower was claiming Puthoff is in charge of the Mars colony that we supposedly secretly have so I could definitely see Puthoff as a big player in some SAP and not just disinfo.


Well It's time I make him my next project
Since all seems to lead to him anyway I might as well start there
I think he actually posted a few times on Pegasus's yahoo group, I will have to scan the archives.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Someone should submit the TR-3B to this:

"A Guide to NASA's Upcoming Grand Challenges"
spectrum.ieee.org...< br />

"Part of this new mandate will also involve resurrecting the defunct NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts—a program that encouraged revolutionary aeronautical and space concepts for NASA missions—which fell victim to budget cuts in 2007."

Then NASA could finally learn how to get humans off the ground properly - by using it's gravity shielding technology. But NASA could re-design the triangular shape into a circular shape. Then it would not be confused with the military version.


edit on 10/16/2010 by Larryman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Well for a spook you miss the point a lot... LSWONE works 'in the field' I really do love your posts... but sometimes I wonder your motives... You mention Lazar who has been out of the circuit for some time. But it is Ed Fouche who is presenting the TR3-B not me so perhaps your words would be better placed there


My motives are simple - to challenge the claims and support of the TR-3B. I'll go ahead and let a little of my conceited self-image out and say I'm something of a 'prodigy.' Society has never like me much, other than to exploit me - and I've never had much love for society or the little tales people seem to tell to try and make me impressed with them. It's one thing to make your job or experience sound more solid and well-versed than it actually has been - it's another to completely make things up. It's my nature to put people and their stories under the microscope and cross-examine with extreme prejudice. It's a psychological defense mechanism derived from learning people would pretend to like me just to tease me or exploit me for the answer to a question (or, later, in the adult world, for ideas and solutions to problems).

Strangely, for someone who generally distrusts people - I voluntarily talk to them a lot. I've yet to develop a theory that satisfies the observed.

So - when someone comes to me with stories of "what I got to do at work today" and it involves all kinds of awesome-sauce secret technology - I'm generally skeptical. Such as Lazar.

The connection I was attempting to make between Lazar and Fouche is that both proposed (at the time) mechanics of a system that were beyond the ability to verify - but were not so hideously an affront to known physics to be dismissed off-hand. Many portions of Lazar's claims have since been capable of being put to the test - and have failed (stability of element 115 among them). While his claim of an "island of stability" turned out to be correct - it was also a theory put forth by more than a few nuclear physicists - though Lazar took the idea to the extremes.

The connection to Fouche is the claim that this device uses plasma - another big-splash area of physics that we can look forward to seeing a lot of news about over the next decade. The claims cannot be tested directly or indirectly through comparison to related research. That doesn't make him completely wrong - but it is a running trend among the "I worked with aliens" crowd.

Perhaps that is all a distrusting, anti-social person like me needs to raise the red flag and call BS. However - I can tell you, the times I have ignored that analytical instinct of mine, it's come back to bite me in the rear because I trusted people who I knew (but didn't want to believe) were giving me a song and dance. Not that I don't enjoy performances and acting as a form of entertainment - but I prefer it be communicated and understood that it is such.


Now when did I say I browse at SiPRNET


Let me find the quote...


I don't look in public areas I lurk around .mil site


Explicitly implied you had -direct- access to privileged information.


You mean at nic dot mil? Nah thought never crossed my mind


Referenced a NIPR site related to network service/security for the DoD and then used a phrase many people would take as sarcasm (considering the site was never mentioned).


Thanks... been there several times.. have a different door though... They did close the 'enterprise' link though


Again implied -direct- access to privileged information.


I do however have contacts who do have such access


But now you've encountered someone who actually knows how the military does things, and now take the pressure off of yourself. You do it either consciously or unconsciously (people used to making up stories do it unconsciously and without regard for their own personal identity).

I'm a low-man on the totem pole. I just pay attention when they give us death-by-powerpoint about network security and "For God's sake, stop losing laptops and flash drives with personnel records on them, already!" Not to mention - all of this information is available through public records.


Now about that CAC card you have, mind if I see it? I mean after all anyone could create something like that good enough to pass off on the internet, right?


Yes, let me photo-copy my military ID. Sounds like a great idea. If we were in person, I'd have no problem - however, ORM and OpSEC would suggest it's a bad idea to photo-copy my ID and even privately message it to someone.

Every military ID has one. Every person in the military has encryption certificates on their CAC for access to NIPR and their own signed e-mail. Most NIPR simply involves billeting (CMSID), personnel management (BUPERS), and record management (NSIPS - though I think that one is Navy-specific). And I only have access to my records (or, admin personnel can have access to admin functions, obviously).


not that I doubt you, BTW, but as you say anyone with a little smarts can build a good story and find many facts in documents to support it. Funny thing is I have someone that has the same name as me, about the same age as me, who works at Lockheed Martin skunkworks and holds several secret patents... I only found out due to a confusion of names when someone wrote me. Now how cool is that?


Pretty cool, I suppose.


Oh yes without a doubt... but the BIG question is WHO is disinfo and who is trying to leak out some good info? With all the in fighting and calling each others stories BS how do you even begin to sort it all out?


The simple solution is to apply Occam's Razor. The more presumptions musts be made, the higher probability of being incorrect. It's a concept that has been used and abused - but just states what should be common sense. If you have to go "out on a limb" to believe a story - don't believe it.

The problem with much of the "Antigravity/UFO/Alien/secret-squirrel" stuff is the disconnect between the known and the theory. People see all kinds of weird things in the sky - I'm sure a number of them are secret aircraft, aliens, and/or whatever - statistical probability suggests no flying aircraft is going to go completely unnoticed for long. We know the military has many secret programs - some of which are bound to involve things that fly. Thus - the idea that some of the "things that act weird" in the sky are, in fact, secret projects, is not that difficult to believe.

However - to go from believing you saw a top-secret airplane to believing someone who tells you they work on one, is completely different. Sure - statistical probability suggests there are people out there who work on them and that a few are bound to say more than they are supposed to - it happens. But they are saying it uses technology that may as well be considered magic to fly. ... How does that even begin to compare? It is understandable to think secret programs would be working on technology that is little known, if not unknown - but so far outside of our present capability? None of the core technologies used on even the most top-secret aircraft to date were ever incapable of being reproduced by the civilian market - the solutions were specific, but composite materials and RAM were never so advanced as to be impossible to reproduce.

That is kind of why they are secret... because they can be reproduced with knowledge of what they are made out of. Spending billions to develop something then giving it away so others can blow you up with it is kind of silly.



It's all well and good for a spook such as yourself with a CAC card access to SiPRNET (accepted without proof ) to make such statement, but most here at AST don't have that luxury and must 'speculate' with the snippets we can find.


I am not sure where you pick up that I implied I have access to SIPRNET. That's not a CAC function, anyway - SIPR has its own terminals labeled with the appropriate classification level. Green is unclassified for-official-use-only (fun is secured on all DoD terminals until further notice). Red is Secret. Orange is top-secret. There is, generally, no mixing of colors. And everything from the terminal to the mouse is labeled with the appropriate classification level (it honestly strikes me as overzealous).

SIPR terminals are also limited in their function. It's not like you get to access the "Navy Website, Secret You-are-special Version (Beta)" Compartmentalization. And the Navy knows about that... we don't have 'rooms' - they are compartments XP


Unless of course, your willing to give us a nice juicy tidbit that won't get you a visit to that nice vacation resort the CIA runs.


Talk about spoiled. Here I am, telling you (and everyone else who may be reading), how DoD networks function. It's not like it's any big secret, but, man. "Oh, he claims to be in the military and have access to the NIPRNET - let's try and make him share some really big secret to believe him!"

Alright - fine, there's a closely guarded secret that comes with the use of the PRIMS website. When asked by your command to fill out a PARFQ, you have to go into this site within BUPERS. There, you'll see your physical fitness records. You need to add a new record to be able to fill out the PARFQ as requested, but can spend the whole day pushing every button and clicking every part of the screen, trying to figure out how to do this. The solution is so simple it's almost insulting - right-click on your record (because this is such a commonly used method), then select 'add new record' from the menu.

You have no idea how many man-hours are wasted on that every PRT cycle.

Or, when you're in NSIPS, managing your ESR (Enlisted Service Record), in order to change information, you have to locate this obscure 'link' within the list of directories on the left-hand side of your screen. The default mass of directories is a read-only - editing your record (such as your address, phone number, etc) needs to be done through this option at the bottom, obscured by all of the redundant links above.

If you want, I can also share with you some secrets of effectively searching the CANTRAC and CANTRACII database of DoD schooling.


No? Hmmmm well you can no more DISPROVE the TR3-B than those who say they worked on it can PROVE it. And the caveat is, that IF you knew it existed, you wouldn't be able to even speak of it


That's some rather twisted logic. Of course no one can ever prove a negative. Try as I might, I could never prove the TR-3B to not exist - because I cannot ever test all possible scenarios. However, one can test the positives another asserts, or at least challenge the basis on which they are founded. IE - one can prove someone's statements to be false. Someone can say: "I have the hair of big-foot" - and that claim can be tested. The results of that test have little bearing on the existence of big-foot, just the claim that the hair belonged to big-foot.

Likewise - I could never prove there to not be a craft of similar function to the TR-3B. The claim that it is called the TR-3B, that it uses a form of gravity manipulation, and any/every other comment about it can be tested (once we have the capability to test them) and proven to be correct or in error. Likewise - the statements one makes about their career can be analyzed and put to the test, as well. Yes - even my own.


Nope never hacked anything... just have friends in high places that send me stuff. or more to the point, point me in the right direction and give me the right question to ask


Perhaps you could share an example of one such question and the resulting answer?


Well there you go again Herr Spook, making assumptions with no basis in fact... does that not make your motives as suspect as those you debunk? As to target, well I already had a 'visit' spent 3 days 'chatting' (and yes he had proper ID and even parking decals on his windshield) I survived to tell about it


You are the one who implied you had direct access to a restricted network (without authorization).

You can't blame me for entertaining the possibility you were telling the truth. However - it is unlikely you were visited by anyone since all of your 'access' has been indirect. Not that it can be proven either way by either of us. You are allowed to ask all the questions you want to anyone you want - they are the ones who would be visited if their responses were out-of-line and managed to catch someone's eye.

Harassing the person asking questions about secret programs is not a very effective response to the problem. The problem would be you getting answers you shouldn't... which have nothing to do with you, and everything to do with where the answer came from.

I'd make a better prosecuting attorney than a spook. I talk too much.


Well Herr Spook... if that were true, then why do those I contact at many DoD sites seem so very helpful at getting me the information I seek?


Depends upon what you are seeking, and if you are actually finding what you seem to think you are. Often, a cake is just a cake - no guns, files, etc baked into them.


One request to a NASA librarian resulted in that person sending my request 'up the line' Got 6 different replies to that one letter, one from NASA and 5 others from various agencies. The final one came from USArmy-SMDC in Huntsville providing me with the location of said files and how I could get them

Declassified, but where does the public see this stuff unless someone like me does the legwork


And... what did you find?

Any real aircraft has a paper trail. Even the F-117 and B-2 had some pretty big trails of paper pointing to their existence prior to their public debut. What have you found relating to this particular aircraft?


Really?
See: Compartmentalization.


I was simply stating I'd never heard of it, so wasn't really sure what you were asking about. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


That is the Boeing/Energia joint venture. Not the one I am looking for. You quoting wikipedia? Now then Herr Spook which three letter club did you say that card was from?


You're bonkers.

The radar you link to is a missile defense radar intended to link with sea and shore based missile defense platforms. If you're talking about the Navy's anti-ballistic missile system, it's not a single platform but a VLS-compatible upgrade to the RIM-161 - the SM-3 designed to work with AEGIS (which supports advanced combat networking - IE - what this big radar of see-all knows about, so can the rest of the AEGIS-equipped fleet - and they can shoot at it, too).

The radar would have nothing to do with a sea-to-orbit launch platform, anyway - it's simply not necessary as most of the radars equipped on cruisers and destroyers can track satellites and orbital launches to a practical standard. But, sure, if they can hide a whole battalion of anti-gravity space ships with no mission, then I guess they can hide a mobile version of Cape Canaveral on the open ocean.

reply to post by Larryman
 


The problem I have with "gravity shielding" is that we have the concept of gravity all wrong.

What 'creates' gravity? Mass? Sort of - more specifically, the distribution of mass creates 'gravity.' Gravity is a representation of the amount of energy a local object must lose before/upon becoming part of another local mass. IE - a ball on the surface of the earth could be considered to be at maximum entropy - the ball has no more energy to 'give' by falling. Likewise - throwing the ball into orbit would add energy to the ball to be 'stored.'

Thus - 'shielding' from gravity is impossible, as it's a representation of entropic potentials as opposed to a radiating field of (or lack thereof). There could, however, be other means of introducing energy to a mass and allowing it to assume a location reflecting its entropic state. A "reactionless" drive that inherently ignores inertia. The effect would be similar to 'antigravity' - but would really just be a method of uniformly controlling the acceleration/deceleration of the affected mass and potentially still subject to relativistic limitations. I am also not sure that it would be a very convenient method - you're manipulating energy potentials, which is determined by location (not necessarily what determines location, heading, velocity, etc). So control would probably be rather limited in function.

Though I don't think we've really found a method of accomplishing this - aside from the tried and true 'classic' methods of acceleration.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Here's the patent tree

Patent Tree

Those alien aeronautical engineers sure follow rules well.

edit on 16/10/2010 by Trexter Ziam because: fix URL



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C


For someone that says he is anti social, you do have a lot to say. Some great stuff, but I will have to answer later.

Just going to drop in one quicky

You mention 'anti-gravity' and 'gravity shielding'

While you say it's not possible, yet our government shows us the documents..

William Lear and Lear Corp worked with TT Brown for the DoD in 1952 on anti gravity
Project Winterhaven
www.thelivingmoon.com...

Gravity Shielding papers
Los Alamos National Archives
lanl.arxiv.org...

All kinds of work on that and gravity waves
Gravity Shielding

Warp Drives
Warp Drives

Gravwave LLC with Buzz Aldrin as Senior science advisor working on anti gravity and gravity waves with the Chinese
www.gravwave.com...

So to just say 'It ain't so" doesn't work for me


I will reply to the rest later



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



For someone that says he is anti social, you do have a lot to say. Some great stuff, but I will have to answer later.


I suppose it's my fascination with humans. Individually - there is a lot of diversity and depth... well - spare for a number of females in my age-group... I find many to lack an identity, and thereby lacking in personality and any integrity that would be related to that personality (IE - they've watched too much MTV and place their value in other people). That rant aside - a person is interesting. A different way of looking at something is interesting. When I talk to people - I create a sort of 'mental clone' to bounce ideas off of, based on what I can discern about another's way of thinking. It's something of an adaptation of the "invisible friend" concept that I have apparently never grown out of.

I can't stand people. Someone with a megaphone starts preaching and getting a few people to preach with him, and suddenly people are willing to throw away their personality, identity, and integrity. It's disgusting when people cannot commune without abandoning everything that makes them interesting.


You mention 'anti-gravity' and 'gravity shielding'

While you say it's not possible, yet our government shows us the documents..


We've funded a lot of research into ideas only to discover they were fundamentally flawed. I'm reading through these as I respond, but I'm not seeing anything that says "We've found gravity waves and can block them."


William Lear and Lear Corp worked with TT Brown for the DoD in 1952 on anti gravity
Project Winterhaven
www.thelivingmoon.com...


There is quite a bit here, and I'll google Project Winter Haven, but it's exploratory research focused on the concept of gravity being a fundamental force (like electromagnetism). There was a lot of interest in the link between electromagnetic forces and gravity.

Now - simply because you can use specific applications of electromagnetism to influence the dynamics of gravity doesn't necessarily mean gravity is a wave any more than temperature is.


Gravity Shielding papers
Los Alamos National Archives
lanl.arxiv.org...


I'm not seeing what you're wanting me to, there, I don't think. I'm getting a list of topics and none of them contain the word "gravity" in whole or in part.

There's one for general relativity and quantum cosmology (strange pairing)... but I'm not sure what you're wanting me to see, there.


All kinds of work on that and gravity waves
Gravity Shielding


There are some studies on the propagation of gravitational effects, formations of gas, and how to shield against particle radiation and other things.

Just as a general tip - when using search engines and typing in two separate words, such as my name "Aim" "64C" (yes, this is my real name - see above, where I excluded myself from the human race - I'm a DoD AI program - how else could I create such massive walls of text?
- I'm being silly, in case you didn't catch that) - the search engine will return any pages with both "Aim" and "64C" included in them - but the two can be anywhere on the page.

If you were wanting to search for information on Have Blue, you could simply type those two words into the search engine, and it will return forums with people asking "do you have any blue suede shoes?" or other such nonsense you weren't looking for. To fix this, use quotations - "Have Blue" will search for that specific string of text - meaning only where have and blue appear right next to each other, separated by a space.

In this case, "Gravity Shielding" would have been what you should have typed into the search field.

Doing so returns two papers in the entire archive.

Both predictably relate to research with superconductors - NASA has a lab (or, at least, had a lab) researching superconductivity and attempting to replicate the results of a scientist now living in Finland (I forget his name) who published results of smoke exhibiting odd behavior in a region of space directly over a superconducting ring.

The results have never been replicated satisfactorily - and while I personally believe the original paper and results were genuine - exactly what the cause and relation to superconductivity cannot be determined until the effect can be reproduced and studied further.

I'll look through the relevant returns to see what can be gleaned from them.


Warp Drives
Warp Drives


This deserves its own sub-forum. The debate on these is purely mathematical and academic until we can actually reconcile the math with observed phenomena.

Since you included all papers in your search, some are merely studies on the cultural heritage and psychology of challenging known physics.

I'll post interesting returns for "Warp Drive" and Superluminous or Superluminal.

Two in particular have piqued my interest:

lanl.arxiv.org...

lanl.arxiv.org...

- I have my doubts that the second is even related (it sounds like they are using a strange-attractor model and are getting values that require superluminous velocities to satisfy the model) - but it piqued my interest.

Further skimming has me looking at these:

lanl.arxiv.org... - Semiclassical instability of dynamical warp drives

lanl.arxiv.org... - The speed of gravity in general relativity

(This is rather important - as the "speed of gravity" often appears to be the speed of light.... you can't move faster than your warp field's effects can)

lanl.arxiv.org... - Putting the Warp into Warp Drive

lanl.arxiv.org... - Causality, Measurement, and Elementary Interactions

lanl.arxiv.org... - Superluminal, subluminal, and negative velocities in free-space electromagnetic propagation

lanl.arxiv.org... A lower bound for the velocity of quantum communications in the preferred frame

- I'll keep looking through those - but there's not a whole lot on the idea of gravity shielding and antigravity. A 'warp drive' is not the same as antigravity - it's the manipulation of gravity (or a gravity-like force) to skirt relativity.


Gravwave LLC with Buzz Aldrin as Senior science advisor working on anti gravity and gravity waves with the Chinese
www.gravwave.com...


They've got a mission statement, some nice ideas.... but not much else. There are a few perpetual energy-seeking companies out there. Some are scams, others are doing the same things - exploring ideas. Granted - gravwave llc is likely to have a much easier time getting investors.

Fusion research groups are a dime a dozen - everyone is jumping onboard the fundamentally flawed idea of attempting to recreate a sustained solar environment and then harness energy from it. And people are still naive enough to throw money at them. Don't get me wrong - fusion has a lot of potential - but the way we are going about it is akin to attempting to harness the power of a raindrop after seeing the power of a waterfall.

Now - I'll link to the ideas of "Entropic Gravity."

I will introduce you to the wikipedia entry, first. Not because it's the end-all be-all, but because it's a decent base to start and expand from (if for no other reason than to pick up more keywords to make more accurate searches).

en.wikipedia.org...

It's relatively new - within the past 40 years, and has recently exploded with the work of Erik Verlinde who put it into terms with the holographic principle. There are so many implications that come along with this that - if demonstrated correct - would make the future technological landscape impossible to envision. It would be like trying to envision the year 1955 from the year 1855. You're looking at reconciliation of classical and quantum physics on top of an entire revision of the understanding of classical physics. It would be like getting the Software Development Kit (SDK) for much of the known universe.

staff.science.uva.nl...

- Many of his papers and some back-and-forth physics talk.

www.wired.com...

- A wired article on the matter.

The problem we currently face in physics is that we are carrying around a lot of presuppositions about our universe. The most common ones I am adamantly opposed to are these:

Locality - IE - that two objects are separated by both space and time due to the "speed limit" imposed by the speed of light. This is simply an archaic view of things that was improperly extrapolated from Einstein's theories and has been jealously coveted beyond reason. Recent experiments in entanglement demonstrate that time has very little/no relevance upon space. Thus - instantaneous or superluminous travel would be merely what it is, and not translate to violations of causality. Further tests in entanglement will be required to demonstrate this principle - simply, it will have to be demonstrated that the 'link' between entangled pairs acts separately from standard metrics of time - just because uranium decays at a different rate when in orbit above the Earth doesn't mean the switching of subatomic properties is going to be influenced.

So, if I were to go through a worm-hole, the possibility of time-travel is simply absurd, as time and space are completely independent entities - what we use to measure time is a space-dependent function (decay of atomic particles), and space-time is merely an emergent pseudonym for the effects of field propagation.

Gravity as a force - seriously, it's getting old. You could fill up a football stadium with all of the publications regarding the curious issues of gravity being a fundamental force - and how greatly it differs from all of the other fundamental forces. Then, no one seems to be able to reconcile gravity (as a fundamental force) with subatomic physics. Get a damned clue, already, you over-paid calculator junkies.

There are more - but listing others takes us even further off the topic related to the mechanics and existence of any government vehicle utilizing "antigravity" or something of the like.
edit on 17-10-2010 by Aim64C because: Fixed some URLs

edit on 17-10-2010 by Aim64C because: Unable to insert URLs to yield search results at arxiv.org - ammending to reflect.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Most of this is over my head. But since you said:

"Gravity as a force - seriously, it's getting old. You could fill up a football stadium with all of the publications regarding the curious issues of gravity being a fundamental force - and how greatly it differs from all of the other fundamental forces. Then, no one seems to be able to reconcile gravity (as a fundamental force) with subatomic physics."

... I will add the Extended Heim Theory for you to evaluate.

Listing of papers by Häuser, J., Dröscher, W.,
www.hpcc-space.de...

In the "Emerging Physics for Novel Space Propulsion Science (AIP 2010)" paper, gravity force is depicted as composed of three components. And that gravity force is 'reconciled' with the three remaining common forces. This is shown in figure 2 of that paper.

My understanding of the Extended Heim Theory (EHT) is that spinning a superconductor magnet of 30 Tesla will reduce a ship's mass, and force it into hyperspace for FTL speed. And my understanding of the TR-3B is that spinning a mercury plasma in a synchrotron will create a magnetic vortex (strength unknown to me), which will also reduce a ship's mass by 89 percent. Both theories have a spinning magnetic field, reducing a ship's mass. So, I suggest that the Extended Heim Theory is the physics behind the TR-3B's levitation/hovering flight function, albeit by using an alternative medium to produce the spinning magnetic vortex.



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Larryman
... I will add the Extended Heim Theory for you to evaluate.

Listing of papers by Häuser, J., Dröscher, W.,
www.hpcc-space.de...
I don't have a lot of time to spend on this but I was a little curious so I did some research. Here's a 2006 paper:

Extended Heim Theory, Physics of Spacetime, and Field Propulsion Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser 10 April 2006

When Einstein proposed that gravity bent light he figured he needed some evidence to back him up which is why he was trying to get eclipse measurements to prove his theory before he published it. He didn't get the needed data before he published, but eventually did get the measurements from astronomers, and it wasn't until he got those measurements, that he became famous overnight.

When I hear other theories I'm always looking for the equivalent of Einstein's eclipse measurements, where is the data that show the theory has a basis in reality? I don't see any of that in the paper, and the only thing I found was this website:

www.heim-theory.org...

which has a bullet that says: "Collection of empirical data that may support Heim Theory" and that's the basic Heim theory. I can understand why you have to register to post which is normal, but why do you have to register to read it? (Rhetorical question), and apparently only 204 people in the world know the secret data you have to register to read, because that's how many people registered.

Then there's a separate link for EHT and there's not even any claim of empirical data to support that in any of the bullets, so my question is, is there any?

I can make a long list of theories by others, and I can add my own. If they are peer reviewed that's a nice plus but by no means guarantees the theory is correct, it only means to me that it's not so obviously contradicted by known data that it is automatically rejected, etc. What is more important to me is if there is real world data to prove a theory, like the eclipse measurements made to prove Einstein's theory. And EHT makes some bold claims, like Einstein is wrong, Heisenberg is wrong, etc which may in fact be true but to get anyone to believe this is going to take some data which I can't find.

But I'm not finding any evidence any of the EHT papers are peer-reviewed, are they? Maybe submitted for peer review? And no data to support EHT? If there is any please help me find it.

And if there isn't any, then it's just one among hundreds of ideas any one of which might be right but the vast majority must be wrong (if for no other reason than they can't all be right because they contradict each other).
edit on 17-10-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Oct, 17 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Larryman
 


The problem I have with these concepts is the link between electromagnetism and gravity. There doesn't seem to be a very predictable link, if any at all.

Present experiments into high-density electromagnetic fields (dynamic and static), have not really shown any apparent link between electromagnetism and gravity. Of course - field densities of the kind you describe are difficult to generate.

As for a torroid plasma - I'm not sure how that's going to generate multi-tesla magnetic field densities. I believe there are likely such states as superconducting plasma (and it will play a major role in space exploration - plasma is very convenient for containing an atmosphere, shielding against many forms of radiation, and for use as a dish for radio-telescopes) - but even then, the problem with such high field densities is that the amount of electrical current necessary to generate them simply cannot exist inside of a superconductor compact enough to generate the necessary field density.

The interesting thing about plasma, in particular, is that its size/distribution is very closely linked to its own magnetic field and the amount of current flowing through the filaments (which is also linked to the strength of the magnetic field). I don't think it is going to be possible to use plasma to generate such high field densities - as plasma has a tendency to diffuse as current increases.

In doing some quick digging into self-interactions between plasmas, I've run across a rather interesting phenomena where it seems to be implied a magnetic field actually breaks free of the source - sort of projected. Predicting and controlling the behavior of this phenomena would go a long way towards practical application of plasmas (being able to 'project' a magnetic field and thereby 'project' plasma). I could be placing too much emphasis on that particular way of describing it.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry Arbitrageur, I don't know of any peer review or empirical data collection to link to for the Extended Heim Theory. For what it's worth, there is a statement of "All papers have been peer reviewed" on the 1st page of this February 2010 paper:

"Emerging Physics for Novel Space Propulsion Science (AIP 2010)"
www.hpcc-space.de...

Anyway, you need to update from that 2006 link you posted. I think the EHT back then predicted two 'unknown' forces. The EHT now identifies those two forces as Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
And as for that German website you linked to... I don't bother with that. I just watch for new EHT papers to be posted to here:

www.hpcc-space.de...

... all papers listed there are for the Heim theory. Too many papers (too much theoretical work) to be a farce, in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I think the link between electromagnetism and gravity occurs in the zero-point-field medium of the extra physical dimensions. But like I said... it's all over my head, so I'm just guessing.

Anyway, thanks for your evaluation of the Extended Heim Theory. But I'm still holding out hope for it to be a valid theory. A theory that unifies General Relativity with Quantum Physics, predicts dark matter and dark energy, provides anti-gravity lift (by any terminology) and hyperspace FTL space travel... is too much for me to blow off without solid proof that it is in-valid.

Oh... and that FTL travel is a 'low-power-consumption' FTL, due to the physics of hyperspace. It does not require burning up half of the universe to power FTL - like the Star Trek Warpdrive. You only need to use enough energy to create and spin a 30-Tesla strong magnetic field. The physics of the universe does the (hard work) rest of the job.
Something to do with releasing an energy that transforms the ship into some funky matter that the normal space-time don't like, and therefore forces the ship into hyperspace existance - where light 'naturally' travels faster than the speed of light. That's my (limited) understanding of it.

edit on 10/18/2010 by Larryman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Larryman
 



I think the link between electromagnetism and gravity occurs in the zero-point-field medium of the extra physical dimensions. But like I said... it's all over my head, so I'm just guessing.


This doesn't sound all that different from the theory of emergent gravity.... although the context is different. I could go way into it - but holographic theory (the basis of emergent gravity) stipulates that space, itself, is comprised of 'nodes' that are interlinked - a sort of mesh comprised of the smallest physical units this universe allows. This, is, itself an emergent property of other dimensions and that whole jig (a 'hologram' is a 2d structure with 3d information encoded into it... the 3d is an emergent property of the actual 2d structure). Emergent gravity supposes that gravity is merely an emergent property of entropic function (the nature of the universe to seek a uniform potential - everything existing at the same energy state).

This theory - if proven with more accurate predictions, removes dark matter and dark energy completely - they are no longer necessary to describe the universe (cosmological models revised utilizing this theory pretty much makes most of the problems with classical gravity disappear). It also links Relativity to quantum physics almost perfectly and allows for a far less troublesome models of event horizons and gravitational phenomena in general. It would also allow for far more accurate predictions of field interactions - for example, a way to make "antigravity" (or, more accurately, a more direct way of controlling the acceleration and motion of an object - making "G-suits" and restraints unnecessary).

Technically, no - you couldn't make antigravity. In practice, however, you could generate very similar, arguably superior, effects.



Anyway, thanks for your evaluation of the Extended Heim Theory. But I'm still holding out hope for it to be a valid theory. A theory that unifies General Relativity with Quantum Physics, predicts dark matter and dark energy, provides anti-gravity lift (by any terminology) and hyperspace FTL space travel... is too much for me to blow off without solid proof that it is in-valid.


The problem with any theory that attempts to predict dark matter or dark energy is that the two are just simply undefined values - they simply don't have any constants applied to them. Further - dark matter and dark energy tend to require different values to work with different galaxies - further observation of the Milky Way shows that the entire model of dark matter and dark energy is horribly off and requires a spherical distribution (and complete revision of the theory).

It's too arbitrary of an explanation - it's the bogeyman of cosmology.

That said - I don't think FTL travel in the context of "warp" will ever really be a reality. Mostly because it is based around a lot of archaic principles of physics and a very linear thought process. The way around the speed of light is to simply not move at all, and instead change location. Moving is different than a change of location or change of address. You 'simply' tell the universe that you are wherever you want to be. Now - because gravity is an emergent property of entropy, you won't be able to do this without investing enough energy to compensate for the change of location (therefor, you couldn't just make a "waterfall of infinity") and all that it implies - but there is no real restriction to how far away one could move (other than how much energy would be necessary to make the change).

You have to understand the difference between moving and changing position, however. When I move - I impart a force with inertia - the force will persist through time. Due to a number of things - this means I cannot break the speed of light in any classical sense of motion. Nothing can -move- faster than the speed of light (not even gravity, itself - this has been observed on several occasions). To move is to persist to change location without any additional force applied - it is to have inertia, an entropic state. To change location is simply to exist some place else.

Thus - practical FTL would be a "jump" drive that simply changes your location from where you are, to where you want to be. You have not moved faster than the speed of light - you haven't moved at all, really - even though you are at a location that would have required you to move faster than the speed of light to get there in the time it took you to arrive there.

Emergent gravity also, therefor, modifies the concepts of relativity to prevent violations of causality due to jumping from, say, near the event horizon of a black hole to a less extreme region of the universe. It adjusts the concept of molecular and atomic-based time to reflect entropy - varying rates of atomic decay in different gravitational densities is a function of entropy, not time - it's no different than heating or cooling chemicals to change the rate at which they react (this is why using warm water with a number of cleaning agents works much better than using cold water, why sugar/salt dissolves faster in warm water, etc). Thus, time is also constant - but not to invalidate the principles of relativity (Einstein was also caught up in the wrong context of gravity and its impact on subatomic activity was, strangely, predicted yet completely overlooked).

[Quote]Oh... and that FTL travel is a 'low-power-consumption' FTL, due to the physics of hyperspace. It does not require burning up half of the universe to power FTL - like the Star Trek Warpdrive. You only need to use enough energy to create and spin a 30-Tesla strong magnetic field. The physics of the universe does the (hard work) rest of the job.

www.magnet.fsu.edu...

I'm not certain if this is in the correct orientation - but it should give you an idea of what kind of power involved, here. The strongest electromagnetic field that has been sustained non-destructively is 45 Tesla. Those are generally confined to a small space. I'm not sure how large this 30-tesla field has to be... but depending upon the dimensions of your source for the field - magnetic field densities inside of your craft would end up being four or more times greater than 30 tesla.

I'm not sure what research has been done regarding the effects of such high magnetic fields on biological organisms.... but water is diamagnetic (goes away from magnetic fields) - and we're about 70% water.... we levitate frogs in 16-tesla magnetic fields....

Though energy has to be conserved - moving from low-orbit to high-orbit indicates a change of energy state (whether dealing with emergent gravity or classical - it requires you to have a certain amount of energy just to be there unless you want to violate laws of conservation) - so at the bare minimum, it will require enough energy to compensate for where you end up. Otherwise you could 'warp' water to the top of a waterfall being used for hydro-electric power for less energy than the water obtains by attaining its new position atop the waterfall.

Unless you are somehow drawing energy in from some other source... but there's no precedent to expect or predict such a reaction (such 'mysterious fountains of limitless energy' would have to be stumbled upon as they cannot be reasonably predicted through any existing model).


Something to do with releasing an energy that transforms the ship into some funky matter that the normal space-time don't like, and therefore forces the ship into hyperspace existance - where light 'naturally' travels faster than the speed of light. That's my (limited) understanding of it.


That's all well and good... but, again, there's no precedent for this. To my knowledge, we've never observed a complete change of matter through anything but particle accelerators (and even that is not a full conversion of matter - just subatomic particles, or all that predictable). To create a field that universally transforms everything inside of it into this type of matter (and that the exchange doesn't make everything fall apart ... another important little detail - changing forms of matter could also change physics to make us all fall apart)... and, more importantly - allows for a change back into normal matter - is just completely unprecedented.

I'm getting visions out of Neon Genesis: Evangelion, here - seeing the people inside of this thing burst apart into LCL when they turn this thing on.... provided it even somewhat works as advertised. That, or they start floating around and having seizures due to interference with neural transmissions in such a massive magnetic field. There may even be some interesting effects on hemoglobin due to it having a high iron content.

I mean - I'm not going to call anyone stupid for trying to build it - far more ludicrous ideas have panned out (selling bottled water) ... I'd just say not to be too disappointed if/when it doesn't work.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This is nonsense IMO. This technology can best be described as theoretical at best. It has never made it past the drawing board. There's no sufficient power source. There is no way to explain it in terms of terrestrial engineering.

I suspect what the TR3B and other UFOs use for propulsion isn't electromagnetic. It is a field that acts on all matter not just charged particles. Probably derived from Quantum gravity. But that is speculation.

More speculation... The TR3B (and probably other UFOs) can't generate the power necessary for FTL. They are stuck slogging through space. This is why I conjecture that wherever these triangles and saucers come from, they are best explained in terms of Type 2 civilizations "working for" a Type 3 civilization.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
from the Indian Vimanas to the TR-3B

mercury + vortex

Why do I think Edgar Fouche embellished the ancient Indian Vimana craft in his TR-3B description ?



The strange thing is we know something real that looks like a TR-3B has been pictured in many places.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mysteryskeptic
 


TR-3B doesn't exist, how can one based the existance of something on speculations or a freaking drawing?
Come on really, I've seen videos of UFO and 1 yes (ONE) lame computer generated picture of a suppose existing craft knickname the TR-3B!!!!




edit on 24-10-2010 by 2ndSEED because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join