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.

 

Faster than light propulsion using STS-75 evidence

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I think the answer is not 'faster than light propulsion' I think the answer is 'moving space'. I really don't think we understand what 'space' is and it's connection with time. We are 3 dimensional creatures that for all practial purposes just stepped out of the stone age. Perhaps what we see is based on our '3 dimensional' interpretation by our brains...that were made to order for our 3D needs.

I think it is a mistake to spend a lot of time developing a rocket engine and fuel to propel a vehicle 186,282 m/sec when probably a much more efficient and faster mode of moving from point A to point B could be at our fingertips. Even at light speed...the distances calculated are staggering and would take many of thousands of years to reach distant points. Notice the characteristics of a UFO moving across the sky if you have seen a good video of one...note the way it moves...note how some fade in and fade out from STS mission video which makes me feel some other physics is at work here.

We intrpet what we see based on our brains ability to comprehend...and the comprehenison is based on known physics. I am no expert...this is just my humble opinion and contribution to this interesting thread.

best regards,
seax125




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by seax125
 


You articulated what I tried to a little earlier a lot better.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13
reply to post by seax125
 


You articulated what I tried to a little earlier a lot better.


Hello fls12


Thanks...you did a very good job yourself...on this subject.

best regards,
seax125



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by seax125

Hello fls12


Thanks...you did a very good job yourself...on this subject.

best regards,
seax125


Well I always trust my highly scientific gut feelings on these technical matters.


[edit on 22-6-2009 by fls13]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Hey...when all else fails go by gut instinct...
if it works...it works..a good friend of mine much older than me..told me a few years ago that when he was a Bomber pilot in WWII they were told to rev the engines to a specific rpm for the plane to fly more efficient and better...they threw the book out the window and he said when the vibration quit that is when they leveled off.
So...like you said gut instinct...sometimes overrides someone else's reason.

best regards,
seax125



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
There are several "ideas" to faster than light travel. Wormholes, the stretching and shrinking of space around a craft and others. While I agree these are all possible methods of travel, one problem of these methods is the amount of energy required to manipulate space like that. I'm not saying they are not possible.

But with regards to this thread and David Sereda's ideas, I have not heard of this type of travel (thus the thread) that seems to have similarities to the Hutchinson effect.(Which also by the way,have striking similarities to the Philadelphia Experiment).

This is the first time I have heard of this type of travel(Even though its been out for a while).



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by fls13
There was a time not so many years ago that a lot of people, experts even, didn't think the sound barrier could be cracked. Well, it was cracked and now it gets cracked on a regular basis and in multiples. We didn't do it by manipulating sound frequencies, we did it with kick ass rockets and jet engines.


New ideas in physics is formed all the time.

EPR Paradox

Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics as a "real" and complete theory, struggling to the end of his life for an interpretation that could comply with relativity without complying with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. As he once said: "God does not play dice",

en.wikipedia.org...


But Einstein's defeat represents one of the highest points of scientific research in the first half of the twentieth century because it called attention to an element of quantum theory, quantum non-locality, which is absolutely central to our modern understanding of the physical world.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Until recently...it has ben determined that each galaxy rotates around a wormhole. Question is where do these wormholes go...if you believe energy can't be destroyed then it goes somewhere else or is 'changed' or moved to another realm of conciousness to those dimensions we can't look at and see because we are seeing an effect of a physics we can't understand. Speed is really in my opinion a quantity of Newtonian Physics that does not apply in Quantum Physics. works well here on Earth..in a 3D environment but out there other forces are present...I feel...we aren't entirely aware of and can't utililize. We don't even know how the universe is shaped. We don't know where it ends...and if it ends what is beyond that?

Just my thoughts on a mind boggling subject..perhaps some of you more learned than me can offer an explanation or at least bring out more questions to answer.

best regards,
seax125



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by seax125
 

Actually it's thought that most, if not all galaxies have a central black hole. A black hole is not the same thing as a wormhole. If wormholes exist they consist of a paired black/white hole pair. While there is much evidence for the existence of galactic black holes, there is no evidence for the existence of white holes or wormholes. So far both are purely theoretical and speculative.

The energy which is "ingested" by a black hole does not go anywhere. It stays in the black hole along with the matter which is drawn in. However, according to Stephen Hawking, over a very long period of time black holes may evaporate by the process which is now called Hawking radiation.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by seax125
 

Actually it's thought that most, if not all galaxies have a central black hole. A black hole is not the same thing as a wormhole. If wormholes exist they consist of a paired black/white hole pair. While there is much evidence for the existence of galactic black holes, there is no evidence for the existence of white holes or wormholes. So far both are purely theoretical and speculative.

The energy which is "ingested" by a black hole does not go anywhere. It stays in the black hole along with the matter which is drawn in. However, according to Stephen Hawking, over a very long period of time black holes may evaporate by the process which is now called Hawking radiation.


I stand corrected Phage
..I meant to say 'blackhole' my mistake. When my wife called for 'supper' I lost my concentration


What is curious about the blackholes is what is the physics behind them. What propels these whirlpools in space and why are they surrounded by stars..solar systems..ect. like islands in an ocean? If you believe that nature waste nothing and for everything there is a purpose one must ask why. As I said earlier...maybe we are seeing an 'effect' of a physics we cannot even comprehend..you know from chaos comes order..we can comprehend only what we can imagine. Thank you for correcting me.

best regards,
seax125



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
How can I take this guy seriously? Hes analysing out of focus dust/ice particles. You can even see them become out of focus when the camera zooms in. The guy needs to look up bokeh



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
In regards to blackholes, this does have some bearing on what he is saying, if I understand correctly. The Black that you see, is just electromagnetic field in a higher energy state.

Unlike traditional theory of blackholes, the energy does not "go" anywhere. It is merely oscillating at an infinitely higher energy state that is not visible to the naked eye or average cameras.

I believe this is where his theory differs in that the traditional idea of a blackholes in that -Gravity is bending the light back in on itself and nothing escapes the event horizon and the center of the hole goes to oblivion, or another dimension or wherever, whereas he's saying its still there, just oscillating at an infinitely high energy state.

I believe what David Sereda is saying is that the same effect that he believes is taking place with the "objects" in sts75 and the pulsating and such; is directly related to there propulsion which has very similar characteristics as our own galaxy and blackholes.
He demonstrates this theory using a galaxy clock and showS that it is possible for MASS to "TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT".


[edit on 22-6-2009 by Overload]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Here is the problem I have with that mindset about blackholes, Phage: Matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It can however change states. I have a firm belief that matter ingested by a blackhole must go somewhere. It cannot be simply annihilated. That being said as to a previous poster "moving space" (i.e. contracting/expanding space or "warp drive") is inherently dangerous in my eyes. Especially with all we don't know about dark matter or the effects of altering timespace in such a way. Push in one direction and the wave has to go somewhere and affect something. I think, my opinion here, as was talked about in BTS, that the "gravity drive" may be a more realistic theory.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by djvexd
 

Who said anything about matter being created or destroyed? Aside from the fact that matter can be destroyed and converted into energy, that is not what happens in a black hole. The matter does not "go" anywhere. What ever it is after the effects of extreme gravity are done with it, it's still there...inside the black hole. If it went somewhere the black hole would not be there either.

A black hole is not a "hole" it is an extreme concentration of matter.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I understand what you guys are saying about black holes....

But this is the point I'm trying to get across....


Matter has been proven to be able to resonate at a higher frequency when injected with energy (i.e. micro waves,radio waves, x-rays) from the electromagnetic spectrum. Matter in motion has a higher frequency than at rest.

Take that same basic principle and amplify it tremendously, and as David Sereda theorizes, the mass will actually start to become "lighter" and in his words,be as light as a photon. If this were the case, it would then be able to travel faster than light because of no mass, and avoid Einstein's laws of relativity.

I also find it interesting that the Hutchinson effect displays the same characteristics(in regards to making mass resonated at a higher frequency).



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage


So what's all this stuff that is beaming out of the poles?




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So you are essentially saying that the basic tennets of physics as well as physical science are bunk? "Destroying matter" is not possible. Matter is a form of energy that has tangible (as we know it) effects on our perception and reality. You can alter matter to become energy or plasma or any of the other forms of being. Mass being compressed into utter nothingness that annihilates any form of matter it contacts is illogical. Blackholes radiate energy as well as suck up physical matter.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Matter can be converted to energy ....

As well as energy being converted to mass....

Via E=mc2

But umm...I think the main point here is that mass can also resonate at different states. And that is the main focus here. Mass resonating at a very very high frequency has the ability to become lighter. When mass resonates, it actually becomes lighter by shedding its mass in the form of radiant heat, which is energy--Energy = mass Mass = Energy Shedding energy means shedding mass.

What is up for debate is, can mass vibrate or resonate at such a high frequency that it actually becomes mass less like a photon. This is what David Sereda is referring to, if I am not mistaken. This is also were the Hutchinson effect starts to be interesting, and can be found to be very similar.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
My question is why all the chaos..what creates the rotation.. a whirlpool in a river is either caused by separate currents meeting...rather violently with a deep hole below..or either a hole in the floor of the river..lake whatever. Now..we understand a blackhole is in the center of a concentration of rotating stars..solar systems and all other matter involved. Seems our universe likes rotation. Planets rotate with exception but generally planets rotate..the sun rotates the planets revolve around the sun and our solar system revolves around the milky way galaxy. If it were not for the blackholes in the center of the galaxies...could you imagine all the planets...suns..comets ..all debri just floating aimlessly in space? Perhaps without the blackholes there would be no planets...suns...solar systems. I may be wrong...but we may be labeling blackholes as sinister entities in our ignorance. As I said before..nature has a reason for everything...nature may be giving us a pass to the universe and we can't see it.

best regards,
seax125



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Overload
 


Overload I was responding to Phage's post in that and apologize if I accidentally derailed your thread. You are correct in my opinion that causing a subatomic particle to vibrate at various frequencies will cause different effect not readily known to open science. Different particles vibrate at different frequensies and unknown things happen when those natural states are changed. Also the higher the frequency the more energy is shed.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by djvexd]



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join