Faster than light propulsion using STS-75 evidence

Originally posted by JimOberg

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.

Jimbo,

I have read the letters - Nuth's determinations with regards to the identity of the objects in the footage are far from conclusive.

Dr Nuth appears to be unable to conclusively identify any of the objects in the video which he was asked about (STS-75 Tether UFO Footage):

"could probably account for..."

"could easily be part of..."

"Another possibility would be...."

"could easily be mistaken for..."


Sereda tried to use Nuth's educated speculations as evidence for his theories - this was poor form. Dr Nuth even told Sereda that his opinion was based upon what very little examination of the material he had time to perform; Sereda omits this fact.


*Jim, If you are going to use this correspondence in support of your position, please post pertinent excerpts and context or at least link to the letters... Don't be like Sereda.


Here is your correspondence with Joe Nuth on the matter of Sereda, which you should have linked to:
(Because Nuth does summarize the situation quite succinctly, I will do it for you this time )

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Exuberant1]

Faster than light travel...

Thats what this thread is about. Many let there personal views get in the way of actual science.

Is there anybody out there that can contest Sereda's theories from a scientific stand point? Merely attacking his character still leaves his theories up for debate.

I would like to get idea's on why his theories are feasible or not, in regards to high frequency mass states. Is there any body out there that can approach this subject without bias?

IMO....

I am not a physicist, however, I would consider myself knowledgeable in common sense.

It has been proven that mass can resonate at higher frequencies from a rest state.
So my question is if mass can resonate at a very high frequency, wouldn't mass start to exert different properties such as a lesser density or weightlessness such as in the Hutchinson effect? And if mass can show properties such as lesser densities, would it be possible to propel this mass to the speed of light or beyond?

reply to post by Overload


Check This out:

Mach's Principle and Impulse Engines: Toward a Viable Physics of Star Trek?

"To visualize how this works, imagine a child on a skateboard with a paddle-ball whose mass can be made to fluctuate periodically. The child hits the ball when it is slightly more massive than normal, and the elastic cord returns the ball to him when the ball is slightly less massive than normal.

Since the inertial reaction force experienced by the child is slightly greater when he hits the ball than when the cord returns it to him, he will experience a net stationary force.

However improbable this scheme may appear, it can actually be tested by experiment...."

(physics.fullerton.edu...)

NASA performed their own experiments to confirm this principle.

You can also buy it from NASA for $15 to $30...

We are a group that is challenging the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity: Super Relativity

Thats very interesting indeed
The PDF helped tremendously.
This is the very same or similar principle (I believe)that the Aura program functions under (IMO)

Just a few Q's though...

This type of propulsion ( impulse ) would still be limited to Special Relativity...Correct? Therefore, could not reach or exceed the speed of light, if I have read the documentation correctly.

None the less, that is very interesting and I thank you for that information**Boom, downloaded**

Reply to post by Overload

AH I seem to recall that now thanks well my mind cannot conceive how reducing the mass of a ship would be possible but I have to admit at one time I didnot think it would be possible to get lucky but then I found a chick who passed out after four winecoolers...joking the way i see it mankind has the ability to do the impossible maybe in my lifetime space travel will know no boundaries fingers crossed


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Hi Overload,

I am glad that you downloaded the pdf that is SR Theory's explanation for the Origin of Gravity. The article about traveling faster than light is the article "How to Build a Warp Drive". In that article I go into more detail about the mechanics of faster than light travel. Basically an intense magnetic field is formed around the ship. The field configuration is made to match the magnetic component of the photons field configuration. This field will be made to stretch space. Once that occurs the limitations caused by Special Relativity are modified as Time Dilation, Contraction of Length and Increase of Mass as determined by the Lorentz Transformations all become dynamic. According to the SR Theory if you modify space by stretching it, that will intern modify the speed of light which will no longer will be constant. Now the more you stretch space the more you can change the value for the speed of light and the more all the other transformations shift in accordance with the change in the speed of light. So to answer your question this type of travel modifies the tension of space which is connected to and effects all of special relativty's transformation formulas so we would in no way be bound by its restrictions.

I hope this explanation helps.

Originally posted by max.is.awake
Reply to post by Overload

 

AH I seem to recall that now thanks well my mind cannot conceive how reducing the mass of a ship would be possible but I have to admit at one time I didnot think it would be possible to get lucky but then I found a chick who passed out after four winecoolers...joking the way i see it mankind has the ability to do the impossible maybe in my lifetime space travel will know no boundaries fingers crossed

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

According to Sereda's theories, and using the sts-75 footage(first video on this thread) He theorizes that it may be possible to modulate your craft to a higher energy state(Similar to the Hutchinson effect) which would allow you in essence to be mass less or as light as a photon,PLEASE WATCH THE FIRST VIDEO.

Now this does not in entail 'How' the propulsion works, but (from my understanding) it does show the possibility of a craft to attain such speeds through a mass less state.

Originally posted by mmfiore
Hi Overload,

I am glad that you downloaded the pdf that is SR Theory's explanation for the Origin of Gravity. The article about traveling faster than light is the article "How to Build a Warp Drive". In that article I go into more detail about the mechanics of faster than light travel. Basically an intense magnetic field is formed around the ship. The field configuration is made to match the magnetic component of the photons field configuration. This field will be made to stretch space. Once that occurs the limitations caused by Special Relativity are modified as Time Dilation, Contraction of Length and Increase of Mass as determined by the Lorentz Transformations all become dynamic. According to the SR Theory if you modify space by stretching it, that will intern modify the speed of light which will no longer will be constant. Now the more you stretch space the more you can change the value for the speed of light and the more all the other transformations shift in accordance with the change in the speed of light. So to answer your question this type of travel modifies the tension of space which is connected to and effects all of special relativty's transformation formulas so we would in no way be bound by its restrictions.

I hope this explanation helps.

I downloaded this pdf

MACH’S PRINCIPLE, MASS FLUCTUATIONS, AND RAPID SPACETIME TRANSPORT

I have not been through the entire 44 page doc, but just glanced through it and will go more in depth later.

Well, I have been to your site and surfed briefly. Basically, you believe the Standard Model is incorrect, is that right?

If I am not mistaken, you are referring to the slipstream theory, is that right?

This used to be my favorite theory for FTL Travel. But I could never get around the mechanics of manipulating space and the vast amounts of energy required to do such.

As I said before-I am not a physicist, but I do understand the principles involved with stretching and shrinking space-time(slipstream). Are you saying (theoretically) that an intense magnetic field is applied to the craft and essentially, a space-time bubble is formed---would that be a correct assumption from your post?

However, I do not understand this "field configuration is made to match the magnetic component of the photons field configuration".

First of, its to my understanding that photons do not have a net chargesource

Secondly, (from my understanding)magnetic fields do not interact with photons.

Third, How does producing a "synced" magnetic and photonic field produce any kind of interaction with space-time. From my understanding, Mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells mass how to move.

I am very interested in the slipstream theory and would like to know more about it, while my education is limited, I have a hard time breaking down the mathematical aspect of theories. But I can easy get past awkwardness of relativity(time dilation) and things like that.

Could you explain the Q's I have asked as I do not understand the connection to manipulate space-time.

Hello Overload,

You ask very good questions which tells me that you have a pretty good understanding already.


You said:
Basically, you believe the Standard Model is incorrect, is that right?

I say:
Yes, the Standard Model is incorrect according to my theory. The disagreement stems from the difference in the basic philosophies. The standard model is based on the concept that Force (action at a distance) is manifested as a result of particle interactions. So therefore force is mediated by particles. I say that force, action at a distance is because of a tensor like field that is continuous and mediated by the ether material or space itself. Mainstream Theory says that particles are the mediator of force. When the ether field is mechanically deformed it shows up as one of three different primary fields 1. electrostatic (the direct twisting of space), 2. magnetic field which is a spatial turning which is caused by the motion of charged objects through space. 3. The third primary field is gravitational which is caused by accelerating unbalanced charge objects such as quarks and electrons etc. Most important to note that the photon is a balanced charge object so it is not accelerating through space as it travels in a straight path and at a constant speed. That is why it is massless.

You said:

If I am not mistaken, you are referring to the slipstream theory, is that right?


I say:
Yes, I am referring to Super Relativity's Slip Stream Theory. Basically what I am saying is that the photon is the model which I used to design a concept in which you bias space magnetically to mimic the photon filed shape. Your concern that the photon is a chargeless particle is part of the Standard Model's and mainstream physicists misinterpretation of what a photon actually is. Please follow this line of thinking... The photon charge is equal to zero. But there are two ways to get a value of zero. One way is the value zero represents emptiness, the null set, nothing. The other way is when you have equal amounts of a positive value and a negative value. For example an object can be composed of 2 parts positive charge and -2 parts negative charge. When you add them together you get zero. That is the big difference. I am saying that the photon is an object that is its own anti-particle and is composed of equal amounts of positive and negative charge. That is why it is not effected by magnetic field and that is why it always travels in a straight line and finally that is why it is massless.



You said:
As I said before-I am not a physicist, but I do understand the principles involved with stretching and shrinking space-time(slipstream). Are you saying (theoretically) that an intense magnetic field is applied to the craft and essentially, a space-time bubble is formed---would that be a correct assumption from your post?


You have it partially correct. The key to getting this to work is that understanding that the photon is always in motion. Physicists can not tell you why that is so nor do they even think about it. I say that this is a very important thing. In fact all charged objects are always in constant motion. Why? Charged objects form an irresolvable pressure wave in space. Since space is an finite but unbounded structure there is no where for charged objects to unwind so the best they can do is move constantly in a direction determined by their field shape and the direction that the poles are pointed toward. So by shaping a magnetic field in the proper way, an intense magnetic field about a simply shaped geometric object such as cigar shape we should be able to make it weightless and then propel it as well. Make space look like the same type of field that surrounds the photon wrap that around a space craft and you get light speed and beyond.

I will have to finish the rest of my statement in another post.


[edit on 24-6-2009 by mmfiore]

[edit on 24-

[edit on 24-6-2009 by mmfiore]

To complete my thoughts..



You said:
However, I do not understand this "field configuration is made to match the magnetic component of the photons field configuration".


First of, its to my understanding that photons do not have a net chargesource

Secondly, (from my understanding)magnetic fields do not interact with photons.

Third, How does producing a "synced" magnetic and photonic field produce any kind of interaction with space-time. From my understanding, Mass tells spacetime how to curve and spacetime tells mass how to move.


The above paragraph answers all of those questions. Your third statement refers to the phenomenon of gravity. My theory goes deeper than that analogy. To restate it more correctly, configured space (charged particles) make particles move. Particles in motion in particularly accelerated unbalanced charge particles makes space warp (gravitationally).

Forget the higgs boson and the graviton they will never find them. Gravity is created by unbalanced charge in accelerated motion.


[edit on 24-6-2009 by mmfiore]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by mmfiore]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by mmfiore]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by mmfiore]

Well...that s a lot to take in all at once.I'm gonna have to chew on that one for a while. But anyways...

First off, thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts.
I believe you are right when saying no scientist will tell me "why" photons move. interesting side note though...
Scientists slow down the speed of light....
Scientists Freeze beam of light...

I would like to put FTL travel on the back burner for a minute. A couple things you stated interested me. But to further reveal your theory to me and anybody else reading this, I think we need to come down to a more fundamental level. Specifically....photons

First off, just to make sure we are both on the same page. Sometimes I think of photons as being a particles which is easily done due to human nature; (which to my understanding is incorrect) were as a photon is a Quanta of energy, its neither a particle nor a wave, but is actually both(wave-particle duality). As has been proven by the double slot experiment(Thomas Young) and also the photo electric effect. Again, this is just what I've picked up from the coffee shop

So to investigate your theory deeper, you(theorize) that the photon does in fact have a charge, but as you stated

the photon is an object that is its own anti-particle and is composed of equal amounts of positive and negative charge.

and that is where the plot thickens...


Ok, so, as I understand it, an anti-particle is a direct and equal opposite of its self in mass, charge, ect. An example would be matter and anti-matter, or more specifically, a hydrogen atom with positive protons and neg electrons and the mirror image as in hydrogen atom with negative protons and positive electrons(positrons). BUT...its to my understanding that when these two meet, its done in a blaze of glory, with the perfect conversion of mass to energy.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5a306a864ad.jpg[/atsimg]

So right at that point, I have to ask you how or why you think photons contain their own anti particle, as to my understanding, it goes against mainstream physics. Do you have any evidence or experiments to support this theory? I'm just curious how you have come to this point, thats all.



[edit on 24-6-2009 by Overload]

reply to post by mmfiore


Also...how about you take a look at the first video posted on this thread and give us your insight

Hello Overload,

Yes I knew you would bring up light slowing experiments. I am familiar with that work. Its not a big deal as it does not contradict any Theory of Relativity either mine or Einstein's. This experiment is a special case where they cause light to interfere with itself, basically creating a medium with a very high refraction rate. Not a problem.

Ok, Your second point is also good. It is also an argument that has been presented to me before. This is why I like posting on science sites so I can get people to propose arguments or questions that challenge my theory. So lets get down to it. Yes, I have experimental evidence that supports what I am saying. First thing to do is to clear up a common misconception. When matter and anti-matter are forced together they do not annihilate each other. The meaning of the word annihilate is to obliterate, extingish, eradicate. That is not what happens. The matter does not just cease to exist. It converts from matter to energy, usually photons of some sort. Thats where my proof is found. Look at this electron positron collision.




The result of a collision between matter and anti-matter is typically high energy photons. So hear we have a case where we start with particles with equal masses and opposite charge. We force them together and the final result is a direct conversion to partilces that now have zero mass and are composed of equal amounts of opposite charge. Now suddenly the new particles go from being particles with mass to no mass. Because of the conservation of energy and charge we know that the charge was not destroyed. Where did it go? It is still there, now equally divided and coupled in a stable geometry we call the photon. Which now does not deflect in a magnetic field and travels in a straight line.

Hopefully you will see what I am saying here.

Now I will go see the video and let you know what I think later.

I tried to look at the video and could not it as it has been moved out of YouTube because of copyright infringement. Do you have a copy or a link to somewhere else so I can see the video.

[edit on 25-6-2009 by mmfiore]

reply to post by mmfiore


Ya, I know the slow light exp is unrelated but I just figured I'd bring it up on a side note.

Also...as I said

BUT...its to my understanding that when these two meet, its done in a blaze of glory, with the perfect conversion of mass to energy.

Are you sure that photons are the only energy released?(according to your model) couldn"t other particles carry the charge?
I do understand that (matter-anti-matter) it just does not go into oblivion, it has a perfect conversion from mass=energy

Now which forms of energy, and how much of each, is not my forte but I agree that photons is "one" of the energies (electromagnetic)released(which is related to emp's in nukes).

Now in your second paragraph, I believe you where trying to demonstrate that photons have an equal (canceling) charge, after the annihilation(conversion) of a positive and negative particle. Would this be a correct assumption?
If so....

I think there are a lot of particles that are ejected from a + - collision( i think, and will be researching to confirm), NOT just and limited to high energy photons, how do you know the "charge" did not escape with the other particles?(as I said, must confirm) Who says the the photon has to be the "carrier" of that particular attribute?

At any rate, I think I get what your saying(theoretically) about the "charge" aspect of it. So moving on, Are you saying that "charge" is in direct relation to space-time?

The issues of Sereda's credibility, and of faster-than-light travel, are separate.

I'll discuss my critiques of Sereda on a new section of my home page. Please be patient.

Regarding FTL speculation, I don't mean to be a 'wet blanket' on the discussion, because history has taught us that explorers sometimes came across important stuff when they were looking for something else (e.g., America), and that inventers occasionally come up with workable devices because they were not schooled enough to recognize that the process was 'impossible'.

The classic SF novel "The Gold At Starbow's End" illustrates this point delightfully and I highly recommend it.

It's not the general rule that the heretics win out eventually -- most people who get laughed at really deserve it -- but it happens often enough to respect the fringers. Nobody has the right to squelch imagination a priori, especially by quoting (or misquoting) scientific authorities, and if I seemed to be, in any way, doing that -- I apologize.

reply to post by Overload


You Said: Are you sure that photons are the only energy released?(according to your model) couldn"t other particles carry the charge?

There are many many posible outcome for the collision in the picture. This one I am showing you is for a reason. If the energy is correct and the collision is dead on this is a very popular outcome for that particular collision. I have shown you with that example that it is not only possible but highly probable that when a positron and electron collide at the right energy you will transform 2 oppositely charged particles with mass into 2 particles with balanced charge and no mass. Just as long as you get that that is all I am trying to get you to consider. It is showing you that the photon construction is made up of purely matter and antimatter. We cam manufacture them with this mass to energy transformation.

You Said:

I do understand that (matter-anti-matter) it just does not go into oblivion, it has a perfect conversion from mass=energy

Don't worry about that it is just something I try to clear up. It is a common misconception that some people have.

You Said:
Are you saying that "charge" is in direct relation to space-time?

I am not sure what you mean by that statement...

Where is that video? Is it working now.

Sorry everyone for the lack of interaction, I was on vacation.

mmfiore, I don't understand why you can't see the vids, but here is the link to them all.

The Secret NASA Evidence on ufo Technology...

I suggest getting a cup of coffee and watching these video's part 1-9

From what I understand the "ships" are just particles being pushed around by the shuttles orbital thrusters.

I was very excited when I first saw this and some them change direction mid-flight but the explanation given seems very plausible.

Scientists did recently make radio waves go faster then the speed of light though. There is a thread somewhere around here about it.