The Science of UFO Propulsion

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I found an article that described in very informative plausible scientific terms as to how a UFO might be propelled. I have read many articles on the subject but this one seemed more viable than the others. Especially since it deals mostly with magnetism and I have always believed magnetism and gravity went hand and hand on a certain level. I also found it strange since most reports you see re: the Dulce base state that the aliens use magnets for everything. This is not a discussion on proving or disproving aliens exist, nor is it a conversation in relation to the Dulce base. It is a UFO based scientific discussion regarding their method of propulsion. ENJOY!


Article Here




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I can only think of one question I might want to know. How do the UFO's fly in outer space where the magnetic fields fluctuate in some places and don't exsist in others? This would seem to suggest a secondary propulsion system is needed for inter-stellar travel.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
That was a pretty cool read...i appreciate you sharing this here w/ us...though technically we dont know if this is the way "UFO's" operate....this theory definitley seems plausible...Thanks again


Good Day
Skept!cal



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Stanton Friedman has a theory or two of his own;

UFO Propulsion Systems



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I agree. However, they seem to create their own magnetic field therefore perhaps they use the energy created by the magnetic field to rip a hole in space/time. Or maybe they can accelerate beyond the speed of light. Or maybe they use a different form of propulsion for interplanetary/intraplanetary and interstellar/galactic travel.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
ufo orbs seem to spin on their axis and are of a fiery nature. The large glowing white bright mothership seems to leave a candy floss substance behind in the air after it has left the scene of view, like fine hair slowly falling from the sky, somebody on this forum said it was the radiation produced by the ufo when departing for another dimension, I don't understand his science, I do know they do leave like this cotton wool stuff in the air.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I agree. However, they seem to create their own magnetic field therefore perhaps they use the energy created by the magnetic field to rip a hole in space/time. Or maybe they can accelerate beyond the speed of light. Or maybe they use a different form of propulsion for interplanetary/intraplanetary and interstellar/galactic travel.



Although only fiction, in Star trek they supposedly used impulse power for slow speeds and warp drive for faster than light speeds.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I have never heard of the hair like substance in the air before. Intriguing.. Do you have any info or references for this?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 
I believe they call it Manna/Gamma in the Bible, apparently it is translated as Angel hair/Gods food. Honest the mothership left this stuff slowly descending from the sky. I seen many other folk talking of it on ATS and I am a bit scared because if it's radioactive, does that mean it'll kill me?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I think the best theory is that the ships and all the mass in them are vibrated and spun by an internal instrument to a higher frequency - light. Steven Hawking states that an object approaching the speed of light would also approach a ridiculous amount of mass at the same time. This, of course, rules out all forms of propulsion we now have.

If the craft was indeed used for light-speed travel, or faster, this seems to be one of the only alternatives. The craft would need to eliminate all mass.

Now, can biology work after being transferred into pure light? I suggest yes. Look up Phantom DNA Effect.
twm.co.nz...

David Sereda has a good video, I'm sure its on youtube, that gets into this whole theory much more in depth, with solid science. I still can't understand why people think he isn't credible...along with David Wilcock...maybe someone can explain why ATS isn't trying to get those internet savvy, smart as hell people on these forums. In my dreams, I guess.

good vids with Boyd Bushman from Lockheed:
www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Also, check out Hutchison effect if you haven't.

There could always be multiple forms of craft, as well, with multiple advanced tech.

Good thread. Flag




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
There may well be a link to magnetism,as proclaimed by Boyd Bushman (look him up on youtube). Or just electric fields, gravitoelectrics.

Or it may be an effect of gravitomagnetism. This is an effect predicted by Einstein's general relativity. Where a moving mass current (analgy to electric current) produces a gravitomagnetic filed (in analogy to a magnetic field). The effect is very small though but is expected to get large if a mass reaches relativistic speeds.

This youtube video explains it quite well.


There is some ideas that ufos have a spinning ferrofluid at close to the speed of light which would become superconducting, and a superfluid producing huge magnetic fields and gratiomagnetism too.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Great find Dr. X, I always thought the two some how went hand in hand. I wonder how much work is being done on the study of geomagnetism. Would be nice to see more of the scientific community try to crack the space travel paradox.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I so glad this topic has come up again.....I am currently reading a book by Paul Laviolette who is a PHD in quantum kinetics titled, "Secrets of Antigravity propulsion: Telsa, UFO's and Aerospace Technology".

This book basically deals with an American scientist named Thomas Townsend Brown who worked on the Philadelphia Experiment for the Navy, and for the aerospace industry in black projects. He accidently found a way to create a gravity field around an object during his electrical experiments in the 50's and how the military came to find out and hire him as a consultant. the book addresses the B2 bomber and how the author believes that the plane has anti-gravity capabilities and the science behind the building of the plane. He also talks about UFO's and different secret projects the government has had over time dealing with anti-gravity issues.

There is quite a bit of science in the book, but there is also plenty of discussion about people and topics that have been at the forefront of UFO and military issues in the last 50 years or so.

I highly recommmend this book for anyone who is interested in the scientific aspects of anti-gravity propulsion, regardless of whether you have a scientific background or not.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I think (barely) that it may be possible to magnetize a light source and then project that source from around the object (UFO) and use the opposite field as a catalyst to pull the object (UFO) in the desired direction. This, if possible, would eliminate faster than light travel because you could not project the magnetized light faster than it's self.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
When they get to the facts of using words like traditional downward thrust and the like then they lose me.
Because the way I see it is, the whole thing needs to actually be the thrust.
Like you are actually inside an electromagnet controlling its magnetic field to move around, and its magnetic field protects you like the earths does.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by aLiiEn
 


I was thinking the same thing, and the only thing I could think of would be to project a magnetic field and to use polarization to traverse that field independently of any other magnetic field.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Unfortunately the description in the original poster makes no sense physically according to any physics we know today.

You can presuppose all sorts of manipulations of magnetic and electric fields which accelerate particles (creating plasmas), but none of that is going to change gravity as far as we know.

Also, shooting these and electrons ions outside the craft is going to dissipate an enormous amount of energy---you will be heating the atmosphere. Sure, you can create a force ("ion wind") but it is extremely inefficient compared to a propeller or a turbojet.

And in any case, creating a force is totally different from changing gravity---for propulsion's sake one needs to change *inertia*, not create a new force. Forces are everywhere, but it is inertia which keeps us stuck to the planet.

By the way, people have misunderstandings about what the words "gravitomagnetism" and "gravitoelectric" mean. They are used by physicists to describe terms in Einsteinian general relativity which have certain *analogies* in a mathematical sense to more familiar phenomena in Maxwellian electrodynamics. "gravitoelectric" == the usual gravity which comes from having mass itself, "gravitomagnetic" == the terms which come from having moving masses. Just as electric fields are generated by static particles on their own due to intrinsic nature, magnetic fields are generated by moving charges, i.e. current. The *analogous* effects in GR are "gravitoelectric" (usual) and "gravitomagnetic".

They do NOT mean that there actually is any actual physical link other than the usual inclusion of E&M in the stress-energy tensor, which in practical effects is stupendously insignificant.

We have turned on very high currents and fields in particle accelerators, and we have never seen any actual gravitational effects---if there were, since gravity affects absolutely everything, all sorts of thigns would be different. Beams wouldn't converge in the right place, particles would have energy shifts, etc, etc etc.

Real 'gravitomagnetic' effects (frame dragging, etc) are incredibly tiny at at the limit of detection in extremely expensive and precisely made satellites.

Simply put, if there are any ETs coming here, and they do know how to manipulate gravity, it is a huge matter of physics at the most fundamental particle level that we don't understand in the slightest, and so far, have no evidence for. There is not any simple explanation "gee it's all magnetic fields or something". No. Magnetic fields couple to charges, not mass.

If it were, then we'd observe optical gravitational lensing around those huge transformers. Nope.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

And in any case, creating a force is totally different from changing gravity---for propulsion's sake one needs to change *inertia*, not create a new force. Forces are everywhere, but it is inertia which keeps us stuck to the planet.


Are you saying that gravity is just centripetal force and nothing more?

[edit on 25-3-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I agree with the general theory in this thread that UFO propulsion has to do with some kind of gravitomagnetic technology. It is clear from the description of UFO that they are manipulating gravity, else they would be crushed by their sudden and abrupt turns at supersonic speeds.

I think they are creating artificialfields that surround their aircraft which cause some kind of weigh-reduction effect. Similar to the experiments on using spinning superconductors to reduce the weight of an object up to 80%. If the UFO can reduce the weight of an object by 100%, it is no longer subject to the inertial forces of gravity and could make as abrupt turns at supersonic and hypersonic speeds as it likes.

We know the only barrier stopping spacecraft from FTL is the mass-effects predicted by GR. I wonder if these anti-gravity technologies are able to affect mass-effects. There may well be a connection between mass-effects and gravity and magnetism. I remember when I use to do my channeling exercises a few years back(still available on ATS) I wrote that the mass-energy field of an object can be manipulated by magnetism, so as to decompress the mass-energy field and converting the object into a wave equation(i.e., no mass, instant velocity) sounds similar to quantum teleportation. In a quantum system, all effects in the universes are just exchanges between information states, no space and time conditions apply. These exchanges between information states take place instantly. Hence, via quantum teleportation it is possible to travel millions of light years in an instant.

The UFO may use other propulsion systems as well such as a warp-drive. To warp space it would have to create a gravitational field to warp the space between destinations. Its speed would then be dependent on how strong the gravitational field it could generate.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod

Originally posted by mbkennel

And in any case, creating a force is totally different from changing gravity---for propulsion's sake one needs to change *inertia*, not create a new force. Forces are everywhere, but it is inertia which keeps us stuck to the planet.


Are you saying that gravity is just centripetal force and nothing more?

[edit on 25-3-2009 by DaMod]


No, not in the slightest.

The point is that changing gravity is a very profound thing in modern physics, which is very different from creating a force and movement which has to obey conservation of momentum and inertia.

If you want to go to the stars, you have to not get squished---inertia does that to you. If you can "warp spacetime" with warp drive, then you need only a modest rocket, but it happens to get you further.

You step on the gas pedal in your car and you go zero to 60 in 8 seconds say. But suppose that before you did that, you could shrink the space in front of you so that what before was a meter was only 10 cm relative to your tires. You'd end up going much faster (as in covering ground difference), but you wouldn't have had to expend any more fuel or have any greater acceleration from your own point of view.


I agree with the general theory in this thread that UFO propulsion has to do with some kind of gravitomagnetic technology. It is clear from the description of UFO that they are manipulating gravity, else they would be crushed by their sudden and abrupt turns at supersonic speeds.


Yes precisely. Notice also that if they are manipulating gravitation then there must be optical effects as well. Essentially what would look like plain air or vacuum would act as if it was made out of a thick and wavy lens and refract light in odd ways. This is because in modern gravitation, absolutely *everything* in physics is affected by it (the genius insight of Einstein, and why gravity is different from all other physical forces).

Gravitational lensing has been seen in observations of very far off galaxies. The amount of mass necessary to create it is equal to that of another galaxy---according to general relativity as we know it.

Also, this means that if you are observing a craft which can modify gravitational fields, then where it "appears to be" in your regular experience may not be where it actually is, because of the warping of sight lines that we have no human experience with. It's possible that 'winking out' and 'winking back in', is not really what's happening---the thing just plain flew from X to Y, but in the process of doing so the gravitational fields which were created resulted in the optical sightline not intersecting you and then intersecting you again. Also there would be redshift effects too, changing of colors potentially.

The whole point though is that we humans have no conceivable idea how to do this---we would have to discover some kind of source term in gravitation which is trillion trillion trillion times stronger than the one we know.

And if such a power or coupling did exist in the laws of physics which is so big, how come we haven't seen any evidence for it yet in our mainstream scientific experiments? If it's that strong, why hasn't it smacked us in the face? That's my problem with all of this as a scientist.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by mbkennel]





top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join