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: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Just a quick one here.

I was under the impression that everything including light has mass and nothing can have no mass.

So you would still get inertia unless you moved space and not yourself.




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I was asked why I don't find any of Sereda's claims worthy of belief. Here's some background:

No mention of any university degrees…
www.alienresistance.org...

Our March 12, 2001 debate: described very inaccurately here wakeupusa.netfirms.com...

He cites his book "Evidence: The Case for Nasa UFOs", Los Angeles, CA : Terra Entertainment, on Amazon

Comments on the book:
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245776159&sr=1-1
No customer reviews

Comments on the video:
www.amazon.com...=cm_cr_dp_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmission DateDescending



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SvenTheBerserK
 

There is much debate over this and the fact that photons have a "rest mass".This issue has been discussed to death in several threads in both the Quantum physics forum, and the SR/GR forum.



Photons have zero rest mass, however when in motion they have a non-zero mass as does all forms of energy including charge.


If you could “catch up” to a photon you would still measure its velocity as c, the speed of light, because c is an invariant. You would, however, measure its frequency as 0 due to red shift.

The second point is that anything that travels at the speed of light can ONLY travel at the speed of light. It can never be “at rest” because it IS light and the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant. Therefore, the “rest mass” of a photon is NOT zero; the photon has no rest mass because it can NOT be “at rest”.



To think that science has answered all the questions correctly at this point in history is unrealistic. I would say IMO "no" would be the short answer.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jvm222
You guys should check out the patents of Nikola Tesla and read the book 'The lost journals of Nikola Tesla' by Tim Swartz. All this stuff is around and has been possible in general. Just because humans hide stuff and take a long time to figure stuff out doesn't mean it isn't there. It just hasn't been 1. Found or 2. Made public.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I can't find that program on the Art Bell archives -- can anybody help?

The listener's comments may also no longer be on line, but here are some excerpts -- not the obscene ones, however:

Sally Stanton // 03-13-2001 03:00 PM
Just listening to the archive of Sereda's visitation on Art's program. I must say that I am profoundly unimpressed with his "facts", and find myself siding (yikes!) with Oberg! Sereda slithers, sidesteps, evades, and stoops to attacks ad hominem when cornered. "Well, I assume that there were knobs on it, and that the knobs were turned." Doh!!!!

Tom DeVange // 03-13-2001 03:47 PM
Let me start by saying that I think it is quite possible that alien spacecraft exist, are visiting earth and have been "shadowing" our space flights.
Having said that, I have to generally concur with your assessment, Sally. Sereda is obviously a zealous fanatic about this. He does not seem to realize that convincing others of a point involves THREE processes: 1)Solid facts; 2)Solid logic; and 3)Convincing presentation.
Sereda, like a lot of people who do well on the first two, fell flat on his face on the third. He came across as someone who is hypersensitive and hysterical. He was rude to Oberg by interrupting him on several occasions. These behaviors undermined his credibility.
Oberg came across as eminently reasonable and expert. I hold the opinion I expressed above because of years of research. But if I was a newbie, I might have gone away thinking Obeg was right.

Craig Engelhart
D. SEREDA, NASA UFO PIC'S
LISTENED TO SHOW WITH SEREDA AND SAW HIS NASA UFO PIC'S.
JAMES FROM NASA WAS CORRECT IN CALLING THEM BUNK. THEY ARE AN OPTICAL ILLUSION CAUSED BY THE OPTICS OF THE CAMERA, FOCUSING BEYOND INFINITY ON A LIGHT SOURCE IN THE BACKGROUND. THIS IS TRUE ALSO FOR THE BBC PIC'S. HAVE PROOF!
CREATED SAME OPTICAL DELUSION WITH A LOW END SONY DV CAMERA WHILE SHOOTING VIDEO OF JUPITER AND ZOOMING IN AND OUT. IF I ONLY KNEW HOW TO POST THE VIDEO CLIPS I WOULD. WILL TRY TO CREATE A AVI FILE TO PROVE OPTICAL DELUSION. THAT'S ALL!

Steven Nyland
I AGREE WITH CRAIG. I THOUGHT MR. SEREDA WAS FULL OF BALONEY. BUT THEN AGAIN, IT WAS PRETTY ENTERTAINING BALONEY AND THE DEBATE WITH MR. OBERG WAS VERY AMUSING. I ALSO AGREE WITH ALBERT IN THAT I HAVE NO OPINION ON MR. SEREDA'S CREDEBILITY BUT LISTENED WITH AN OPEN MIND. I WAS GLAD THAT ART BELL WAS SKEPTICAL ABOUT DAVID SEREDA'S MESSAGE, AND IT KIND OF HELPED REINFORCE MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION THAT SOMETIMES THE LOONEY ONES MAKE THE SHOW MORE INTERESTING. I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY ENTERTAINING EVENING, THOUGH I DON'T REMEMBER LEARNING MUCH.
Now I will stop shouting.


Subj: Art Bell show
Date: 3/13/01 10:39:46 AM Central Standard Time
From: Sheriff508 To: JamesOberg
James, I caught your show Monday night, with Art Bell and that idiot Sareda. Good job. These techno-geeks that see a conspiracy in every shadow are wearing a bit thin. If they did not have a conspiracy, they would have to et a real job. Oh well, the world needs ditch diggers too. Have a nice day. // Marc

Subj: Re: Art Bell show
Date: 3/13/01 10:48:21 AM Central Standard Time
From: Sheriff508 // To: JamesOberg
James, I enjoyed listening to your very persuasive replies to that bozo. I really don't like the tenor of these late night shows, but when you work midnight shift, it sure beats rap music. I will bookmark your site, as I want to explore further. Have a good day, stay in touch. // Marc

Subj: Art Bell show
Date: 3/13/01 2:27:14 PM Central Standard Time
From: 74767.563@xxx.com (Charles F. Perego)
Mr. Oberg, Thank you for being on the Art Bell show last night to address the claims of David Sereda (Bell's guest). I am no scientist but I know nonsense when I hear it. Too many times that kind of misrepresentation and distortion goes unchallenged and is always very frustrating to hear. Such head on discussion should be the norm on Bell's show but I doubt that will ever be. Reflections, refractions and out of focus images do not an alien spacecraft make. Again thanks.

Subj: Re: Art Bell - Oberg/Sereda debate
Date: 3/13/01 3:33:38 PM Central Standard Time
From: rbotik@xxx (BOB BOTIK)
I just finished the extra ST-75 material. Fun reading. Thanks.
This whole episode is hilarious in its pettiness. It is impossible for this many people to be ignorant of the telltale images of out-of-focus source points. You don't have to own a Newtonian reflector with spider arms holding a primary, merely throw a video or digital camera out of the plane. Simply unbelievable.
We do indeed live in a world "queerer than we can imagine," but the current menagerie of UFOlogists don't display much imagination. So petty and provincial in what they see.
I wish you continued success. As more people abandon traditional religions, hunger for unique experiences, and religiously seek to connect those dots, you are going to be a very busy man.
Early radio broadcasting, before the F.C.C. and regulation, began with opportunists selling snake oil, cancer cures, and scaring money out of the less educated and discerning. It may just end its reign the same way it began.
Thanks, Robert Botik

===
Subj: Your valiant defense of rationality on Art Bell
Date: 3/13/01 2:17:48 PM Central Standard Time
From: regina-r@xx (Steve Waldee)
Dear James:
I listened live this morning to part of your debate with that idiot on Bell's show; I am replaying it now via the Bell website. It is *so* frustrating to hear such discussions, because the world-view of the raving, foaming-at-the-mouth believers is SO utterly different and unreachable that seldom is there any sense that any progress is made by a debate or argument. As usual, your opponent resorted to invective whenever you tried to point out a glaring mistake in his recounting of factual details...sad.
But the effect of your appearance was entirely positive, and showed the irrationality and childishness of the UFO guy.
For many years I was an avid amateur astronomer, observer, and optician. Having had this background, I looked with great interest at the so-called UFO pictures on the Bell website. Indeed, the alleged UFOs were star Airy disks. I have star-tested and collimated optics with Airy disks thousands of times, and have seen all kinds of strange obstructions, breakups, and irregularities in disks of bright stars produced by optical systems with various defects.
Pity that your opponent is so close-minded that he is incapable of reconciling this with the concept of "UFO images". He even claimed to have experience as an amateur astronomer and telescope user...SURELY he too would have seen out of focus star images and would see the similarities. But, no: this makes one suspect that he is simply a liar and is trying to make money from his dishonest publications. Shameful!
I wonder about the large, defocused Airy disks seen in the same field as *apparently* in-focus objects. Could it be that, in space, where there is no atmospheric refraction, even the slightest bit of imperfect focus will create a very discernible Airy disk from a point-source stellar image, while on Earth -- where the image has already been spread out into a smear by the atmosphere, having an angular diameter of at least a fraction of an arcsecond -- it will take a much larger focus error to produce a discernible disk? If so, then the discrete nearby objects, such as the tether, might
*appear* to be focused, even though they really weren't perfectly sharp, while the point-sources at a huge distance, so far that there was virtually no parallax to create a dimensionality to the point source, easily break up with the SLIGHTEST defocus into a noticeable Airy disk. Now, if this occurs to me -- an amateur having only experience with optics in a conventional Earthly environment -- surely the optical ex



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 

Thanks for the link...You and Dave go way back huh...
I don't want to start another StS 75 revealed thread...but apparently..

In 2001, long after the Art Bell show, Sereda queried James Oberg about the camera test again. Oberg, realizing the depth-of-field problem did not support his own out-of-focus theory, wrote Sereda...



James Oberg was losing the debate clearly. NASA was at a standstill. They had to come up with something to make their theory hold and prevent public embarrassment.....

Here is the source

Clearly there is a conflict of interest here......I cannot ignore the fact that you are the actual James oBerg or; he is clearly somebody you admire as it is your Username.

These two go way back and obviously have opposing idea's on this very matter.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Once again, you have provided no insight to the actual thread other than trying to discredit somebody.


You have not said one thing about his theories and why you think they are wrong.


Thats fine if you think he is not creditable, but other than using "other peoples words" to get your point across, lets hear it strait from the horses mouth.

We are trying to discuss faster than light travel, and all you do is keep coming on this tread and trying to discredit somebody, while completely ignoring the discussion at hand. Thats fine if you want discredit somebody, but speak of why you think so,what don't you believe is possible, why you disagree with his theories.

Are you capable of this...or is it just gonna be a bunch of quotes from outside sources about a completely irrelevant subject



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jvm222
 


I'm downloading it now....will get back with ya



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
That's another reason why I don't believe statements from Sereda -- when I check with people he claims to be quoting, they deny telling him what he claims.

Example: Joe Nuth at the NASA Goddard Center. Sereda claims Nuth told him about the CCD camera on the shuttle, but Nuth says to me (and anyone else who asks) he had no idea what kind of camera was in use for those images... and the NASA tech manuals for the cameras, used by specialists in Mission Control, describe them as standard imaging tubes [vidicons] ... not CCDs.

Yet so much of Sereda's speculation is based on "UV images invisible in normal light" -- except that to protect the astronauts' eyes, the shuttle's windows were deliberately shielded in solar UV. Yet the astronauts could see the tether and the particles just fine, and neither puzzled them -- they recognized them for what they really were.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Overload
Thats fine if you think he is not creditable, but other than using "other peoples words" to get your point across, lets hear it strait from the horses mouth.


Let's see how this work -- you provide quotes from somebody discrediting me, that's OK.

I provide other quotes from other people rebutting that opinion.

You whine that providing quotes from people attacking other people is so unfair...

What I'm saying here that any speculation based on opinions and allegations from Mr. Sereda is a total waste of time until you can determine if those original assertions have any credibility.

But it's your time. Feel free to waste it.

The bigger picture is this: until more UFO buffs develop a better judgment about what stories they read are worthy of basing conclusions on, they will remain where they are now -- and other people will reap the benefits of his credulity.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thats fine that you don't believe what he says....

But state why as this is the purpose of a forum, and this particular thread happens to be about a theory of his, which you still have not said why you disagree with his theories.

are you that stubborn that you will ignore any kind of theories if it comes from "that" person or "this" one?

So there could be breaking evidence to support some new theory and you would not have anything to do with it because it is from a certain person?

?????????

How is that logical...in anyway



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Overload
So there could be breaking evidence to support some new theory and you would not have anything to do with it because it is from a certain person?

?????????

How is that logical...in anyway


It's practical, which makes it logical. There are plenty of wild-and-crazy theorizers out there whose results I am not convinced about but who deserve serious attention -- more serious than mainstram science pays -- because they are fanatics on accuracy as well as imagination. They shouldn't be ignored because of the company they keep...

It's because my intuition tells me there COULD WELL BE momentous insights lurking out among the noise and garble and bogosity, that I get fierce about slicing my way through the drivel.

I'm particularly proud of my role in establishing the scientific credibility of 'electrophonic sound' -- the centuries-old reports of real-time 'meteor noises' that sizzle across the sky during bright bolide overflights. That used to be data ignored and thrown away -- not any more, thanks to Colin Keay and some of the work I did with him. So it can be done.

As the optimistic kid said, Christmas morning, "With all this manure around, there's GOT to be a pony nearby!"

It doesn't GOT to be true, but it's worth the shot -- and time-wasting detours make it more likely we'll all die of old age before getting there.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Overload
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thats fine that you don't believe what he says....


You shouldn't believe him or not based on believing ME or not -- I'm not the gatekeeper of your judgment here. You need a wider familiarity with existing science and technology, and practice, to be able to judge people such as Sereda as [perhaps] sincere smooth-talking time-wasters, and focus in on the serious folks with ideas even weirder -- ideas almost weird enough to turn out to be actually true. Find them and encourage them.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I appreciate that deep insight...

But Jim, if you would just tell me why it is you disagree with his theories, I would respect you opinion far more than you just telling to go buy his books or as you say...



If you find Sereda's theories plausible -- or even just mind-expanding -- by all means encourage his work and go to his website and buy his videos and books. I'm sure he'd appreciate the encouragement.

sign his on-line petition to put him aboard a space flight, too, so he can observe the dots phenomena.



A simple couple of paragraphs would be sufficient(from a scientific point of view) and we could continue a grown up conversation. As you sad on this thread


I'm trying to figure out the most effective ways of communicating the full story to a lot of people who are really 'space nuts' and love many of the same subjects I do -- but who have gotten side-tracked into dead-ended intellectual detours that will lead nowhere. They represent too much brainpower -- and enthusiasm -- to waste.


I am a space nut totally, and love to have intelligent conversations about the subjects I enjoy, not to engage in meritocracy. But still as of yet, while most people say they agree for this reason or that, you continue to give sarcastic remarks and avoid the point of this thread( Faster than light propulsion). How about giving us your insight that you feel is the most plausible way to go about it...



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 



What I'm saying here that any speculation based on opinions and allegations from Mr. Sereda is a total waste of time until you can determine if those original assertions have any credibility.


That is exactly what we are trying to do here, debating if it is possible for Sereda's theories to be correct or have any kind of bearing to them. It doesn't matter who came up with the theory, its what the theory is about that is important.[sigh]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Overload
A simple couple of paragraphs would be sufficient(from a scientific point of view) and we could continue a grown up conversation. As you sad on this thread


It's a deal, I owe it to you... and since i've intended to add to my home page a roster of why i find some people's testimony unworthy of belief (while not alleging they are liars or con artists, which I do not believe), I'll go ahead and do the section on sereda soon and post it -- or u2u it -- when it's done. Pester me if I take too long -- the ball is in MY court on this, your request was fair and fair-minded.

Has anybody found a link, maybe in a wayback site, to the Sereda-Oberg mud-wrestling show?



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Thank you, and I look forward to it



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I need someone to clarify or verify something i was taught in school...in space there is no resistance , no wind , no air , so if a ship maintains a constant propulsion it will continually increase its speed, therefore making it possible to eventually go beyond the speed of light. Is this true or not? Thank you in advance to the member who can clear this up for me.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by max.is.awake
I need someone to clarify or verify something i was taught in school...in space there is no resistance , no wind , no air , so if a ship maintains a constant propulsion it will continually increase its speed, therefore making it possible to eventually go beyond the speed of light. Is this true or not? Thank you in advance to the member who can clear this up for me.


Sure, I'll be happy to clarify.

Short answer, No

Long answer-If a ship continuously maintains propulsion it will keep accelerating, but only to a point. This is where Einstein and the famous theories of Relativity(special for that matter) come into play.
You see, as you accelerate, your mass actually becomes larger or heavier for a better lack of a word. When you start to approach the speed of light your mass gets to be so huge or heavy, that the amount of energy to "push that mass" grows exponentially as well as the mass itself.The energy required to go faster approaches infinity as you approach the speed of light, therefore, using conventional means such as rockets, sadly, will not do the job.


So we must seek out different methods for reaching and surpassing this "speed limit", which is exactly what this thread is about. David Sereda (apparently highly controversial) has come up with a theory that suggests taking mass out of the equation. If it is possible to reduce the mass of a "craft" to a high energy state, then in theory, it would be possible to travel as fast, if not faster than the speed of light.

Thats pretty much it in a nutshell..Of course there are numerous sources on this subject, just google it, or, for the lazy ones...
SETI
Virgina Tech
ATS..



posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
It's a deal, I owe it to you... and since i've intended to add to my home page a roster of why i find some people's testimony unworthy of belief (while not alleging they are liars or con artists, which I do not believe), I'll go ahead and do the section on sereda soon and post it -- or u2u it -- when it's done. Pester me if I take too long -- the ball is in MY court on this, your request was fair and fair-minded.

Has anybody found a link, maybe in a wayback site, to the Sereda-Oberg mud-wrestling show?



I can't wait to see it Jimbo - You and I share similiar views on Sereda.


I have located an Art bell show where you address every famous bit of anomaly footage released right up until the date of the interview. It is from 2000-04-13 .

Here is the whole thing - You and Art begin the interview in the second hour and go for another three:

Show title: Space Objects With James Oberg

coast.gmms.ca...

coast.gmms.ca...

coast.gmms.ca...

coast.gmms.ca...




Jim, what year and month did you debate Sereda?

(It may be in my archives)


[edit on 24-6-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join