The anatomy of gravity wave propagation in advanced extra terrestrial UFOs

Thought tht some of you may find this interesting:

www.indiadaily.com...

"The anatomy of gravity wave propagation in advanced extra terrestrial UFOs"
India Daily Technology Team
Sep. 13, 2009

"The advanced UFOs change from gravity wave propagation to something similar to plasma propulsion using electromagnetic techniques in the 3D Universe of ours. But for journey through the interstellar high ways and Universe-to-Universe, they use gravity waves.

The advanced propagation process of Type IV extraterrestrial UFOs using space time curvature manipulation is based on gravity wave implementation in higher dimensions. While Plasma propulsion provides virtually limitless travel options, the gravity wave propulsion provides fast propulsion.

Gravity waves are the ripple effect in the space-time curvature. What electromagnetism is to us in 3D, gravity waves somewhat similar in higher dimensions.

Scientists are trying to understand and reverse engineer gravity wave propulsion by looking at the UFO flight patterns, navigation and stealth characteristics.One way to achieve the same is to just break into higher dimension by use of particle accelerators. That is exactly what happens in the black holes. But with our terrestrial physics, it is not that easy. "

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Hi, here's more info that will help

Hyperspace applications;

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread475109/pg2
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread475511/pg1

Plasma is usually produced by electricity.
How do they get gravity waves from plasma.
Yeah, something is missing a step or two.

Plasma or lightning is surrounding these ship.
Yeah good start.
Like from 1943 its the same description yet the Foo were small
like VW Bugs or Peoples Car.
Just what else could they do with an airtight car.

Now we have large triangle ships and at least one flying wing
from the upper Hudson River that just had localized 'lights'
and were not entirely enveloped in lightning as they moved
slow and low.

There is an altitude change in electrical characteristics but the
slow is for not sparking too much.

I'd have to say that the article doesn't really say much that is testable.
There are no quotes, no citations, and no sources mentioned.

Is India Daily a tabloid?

Don't mean to be offensive, just curious.

Since the thread is about gravity though, I'm pretty sure that we don't know exactly how gravity propagates. Tom Van Flandern has made some calculations that it propagates faster than light (which are supported by Einstein's SR and GR...). These calculations make a lot of people fiesty, but I've yet to see them disproved using math, physics, or even a good thought experiment.

My take on gravity is this, pulling does not exist in physics. Newton never described how pulling could work, nor did Einstein. Pushing works rather well though, and is described as an external force applied to an object (either at rest or in motion).

If we look at Gravity as a pushing force, external to the Earth, pushing on all sides at once, as opposed to a pulling force, coming from the Earth (or any body with significant mass) then we can describe Gravity using current physics.

The equations remain the same, we humans IMHO just need to drop this myth about Gravity 'pulling', and understand that 'pulling' is just a human word that we use to describe 'pushing' something closer to us...

-WFA

Hi TeslaandLyne, this should be right up your alley


Gravitons logically exist in 11 dimensions - without the need for string theory (it's only a theory), if you want to fly

Logically gravity is faster than light, it has to be when applied within blackholes otherwise light can't "be sucked in" behind the gravity wave.

Think of a toroid electromagnetic venturi applications,

Simply, by "pulling" gravity it would follow that light is "dragged", if light was faster than gravity blackholes aren't possible.

Also the speed of light can changed by modifying the torque vectors of the photon spin, the same can also be applied to the hypothetical graviton.

By changing the torque vectors, spin diameters will change. Tight and small graviton spirals should induce a reduction in gravity as the torque increases.

And then there is the flipside.

An inverse application should "induce" gravity.

So, for us to navigate from A - B, hypothetically (cough - cough) we "think" we are being pushed to the destination not realising that we are also being "pulled" simultaneously (for the quantum boffins).

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


Nope. India Daily is a very well respected, albeit editorial heavy, periodical.

well, why can't you create gravity waves from plasma

light and gravity can affect each other.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
My take on gravity is this, pulling does not exist in physics. Newton never described how pulling could work, nor did Einstein. Pushing works rather well though, and is described as an external force applied to an object (either at rest or in motion).

No offense, but isn't this is a crackpot theory? I know a promoter of such a theory in France, Claude Poher with his "universons" theory. It doesn't explain why (if mass is opaque to the universons zipping through the universe from every direction) we don't float underground. It should be easy to shield from gravity just by going deep underwater or underground. Someone would have noticed by now that water pressure in submarines increase with depth less than expected.

Well there are as many theories as people can figure the way things work.

Since I work from the Tesla side of things and he worked out his
theories or promotions or stated devices or accomplished devices
based of his knowledge of what he says was a medium we may
call the ether, I have to bring everyone back to his time of thinking.

From my first signature link there is a statement that his plane would
be stable in wind and storm.
I say he tested a prototype that perhaps looked like his remote controlled
boat but have Sperry Gyros to offset an internal motor to power the
coils of electrical levitation.

I say Tesla tested his craft and that is what he found out, stable
in wind and storm.

But what does that mean. I say the voltage and charge flow have
caught the stable ether. The same ether giving force to bar magnets.
How fast do aligned electrons go make the bar magnet work.
How fast do the coils work still the ether.

Now that we have something electrical in the air what happens.
I say the light effects are lightning which is plasma which plague
the ship due to the voltage and also air being illuminated due to
frequency and voltage of the coil action.

The tuning of the coils are at 1/4 wave lengths for optimum force
and a red aura of positive charges, hydrogen without an electron,
will accumulate at the bottom of the ship as negative charge flow
enters, this is ac which flows one way as Tesla demonstrated, and
green lines of negative charge flow at the top of the ship.

I have not heard of much observation of the coil working and the
light from ether is so low Tesla dimmed his laboratory when he entertained
guests like Mark Train. Twain was fairly wealthy and in one PBS show
mentioned he lost money investing in inventors. The show did not
mention Tesla as usual mums the word on Tesla. Where Tesla is
concerned, think opposite in many cases.

So the plasma or illumination of the atmosphere is involved but so
is the old theory of Tesla's air charges which he would push back and
forth to power the world through the air wireless.
One example of force from high voltage Tesla gave was the rattle
of capacitor cans. another was the surface of oil after he submerged
a coil. Force upon the air by voltage coils was a fact according to Tesla.
Thus the Tesla air voltage interaction must indeed be kept secret if
that is indeed the way the UFO works.

Who can tell, only the coil builders.

ED: The coil involved has to be conical, football or two cones or
flat or the flow does not work.


[edit on 9/15/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

reply to post by nablator


No offense taken Nablator, it's actually something that fascinates me, and something that Humans don't really have figured out (gravity...)

I'm glad you're here in this thread, because I'd like to ask you this question.

How does pulling work in physics?

I'm not trying to be rude, but seriously I've spoken with some of the finest physicists alive today, and not one of them can describe a method of pulling to me that is not actually a by-product of a pushing force. For example:

A tornado, or cyclone vortex, 'sucks' which appears to be a pulling force, until you realize that the 'suck' is actually the result of a pushing force (high and low pressure systems that create the vortex).

The same thing with Magnets... It's not that they 'pull' each other together, the 'pull' is the result of the pushing force.

When you grab something with your hand, and 'pull' it towards you, you are merely exerting a 'pushing' force on the back of the object, pushing it closer to you.

Likewise, Centrifugal force is a myth, an illusion of the actual pushing force involved, Centripedal force.

I merely think it's possible that Gravity could be a similar such illusion (from the Human perspective), and that we're just looking at it exactly backwards.

I actually tend to think that 'Gravity is a pulling force' would be the more 'crackpot' theory, since pulling cannot be accurately described in physics (to my knowledge). And that 'Gravity is a pushing force' should be the correct interpretation of Newton and Einstein's equations (since neither of them specify the source of gravity, and since pushing works just fine in known physics...)

Nablator, I really would love to hear your comments on this.

If you can describe to me how pulling can work in physics, without being itself a byproduct of or illusion of a pushing force, I would LOVE to know how!

I've been thinking on this for some time now (years...) and it has me stumped...

-WFA

Originally posted by nablator
Someone would have noticed by now that water pressure in submarines increase with depth less than expected.

Interesting sentence that helps me to illustrate my point, nablator.

It doesn't increase any more than expected.

That's the primary problem I see with those who don't like the 'push' theory, is that they keep expecting the math to change.

The math is the same, I'm merely postulating the negative instead of the positive.

'Pull' is simple a word used by an observer to describe an object moving towards the observer. Another way to say pull (in fact the only way to say pull using known physics...) is to say 'to push from behind'.

The effects of Gravity upon an object are the same to the observer, whether the origin source of gravity is external (pushing) or internal (pulling) to mass. The equations that describe orbital mechanics do not imply a 'pulling force', it is merely an observer's interpretation of the equations, that adds in the word 'pull' instead of the actual physics description 'push from behind'.

If not for that simple human mis-translation, this would not even be a question, in my view.

So my point is, water pressure increases with depth, as expected by the push theory, just as expected by the pull theory.

The difference is that pushing works in physics, and pulling is simply a word in the human language that we call English/Standard American...

Does that make sense to you?

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
reply to post by nablator

 

No offense taken Nablator, it's actually something that fascinates me, and something that Humans don't really have figured out (gravity...)

I'm glad you're here in this thread, because I'd like to ask you this question.

How does pulling work in physics?

Actually to some degree it's a non-issue. I've studied physics in some depth while working on a physics degree and an engineering degree. Mathematically you draw an arrow to represent the size and direction of the force applied to the center of gravity of the object, and the math doesn't care if the force is generated by pushing or by pulling.

What we know of gravity, we largely know from observational evidence, and from Einstein's theories which have further been proven with observational evidence. We don't really understand everything about gravity, we can just calculate it's effects quite accurately to many decimal places.

The only reason one might prefer a thought of a "pulling force" of gravity over pushing is that there is at least an object in the direction of the force.

The vortex example you gave has no object in the middle so you can think of pushing more accurately there, but I don't think that analogy translates well into gravity.

The way scientists have people conceptualize gravity is by showing how it distorts space-time. Then the motions of objects are merely explained by the warping of space-time, as seen starting about 7 minutes into this video. With this concept it really doesn't appear to be a pulling force or a pushing force:



The object merely follows the space time curvature.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


The "Yin" also has a "Yang" push and pull to the positive and negative.
The Egyptians had their equiv.:Heqa and Nekhakha the attractor and the influencer.
The power to summon as well as the power to effect.Dark matter contains,and
Dark energy scatters the universe.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'm glad to see you're in agreement Arby, on the physics behind my statement.

The vortex example (and magnets, centrifugal force, etc) were merely examples of actions we commonly refer to as 'pulling', that are really the results of a pushing force.

The vortex in particular, literally pulls (like a tornado launching a cow into the air...) but only as a result of a high pressure system pushing on a lower pressure system.

As a fellow Engineer, often I run into the problem of draining a volume into another container (I work with bio-fuels, and bio-fuel machines). One way to do this is to use a 'draw' which also seems like a pulling force. It's also the result of a pushing force though.

In my research on how Gravity COULD work, I've studied just about every type of 'pulling' I can find, and none of it seems to work in physics without a push force causing the pull illusion...

I'm thankful to see your verification here Arby, that the math works for both descriptive terms. Even though Nablator clearly meant no offense, I often run across people who WILL intend offense, and call me a crack-pot without hearing the case weighed.

Thanks for confirming I'm not nuts! LOL

I think it is important to be able to accurately gauge the origin point of a force (gravity in this case) and understanding the force's propagation methods. In order to understand these aspects of gravity, I feel it's important that we first acknowledge that we don't KNOW the origin point. And that's not what most textbooks will teach.

We have yet to find any magic 'Graviton' particles hiding inside of the Earth (or any mass for that matter). It makes sense to me that mass interacts with the force of gravity, as opposed to being the origin point for gravity.

Einstein's 'curved spacetime' model fits well with this theory, as far as I can tell. At least as well as with the 'gravity is a pull' model.

And pushing works in physics (I'm calling 'pushing' an external force acting upon an object.)

I find it important to be able to back up my theories with known physics (otherwise a new Physical model of the universe is required, and I'm a fan of the current one LOL). To do so, I'd need to understand how 'pulling' can work in physics, in order to include a pulling force originating internally (from mass) in my list of possibilities.

To date I've not seen such a mechanism described, however I have seen pushing described, and so I can reconcile the 'push' model of Gravity with known physics (Newton, Einstein, et al.)

Hope that helps explain my position...

Thanks for adding to this thread Arby!

-WFA

OK I misunderstood your sentence, WFA. A force is a vector, it does not more push than pull. The analogy with something pushing or pulling as I understood it is a repulsive or attractive force. Obviously gravity is attractive. However there is a way to interpret it as a lack of a pushing force from the direction of another mass. So I thought you had a similar or identical idea to the one by a french scientist Claude Poherabout a constant universal pushing by mysterious particles he called "universons". Our planet, for instance is large enough to shield us partly from universons coming from underneath. More universons from above hit us therefore pushing us towards the ground. Newton's equation of gravity can be derived from the solid angle of an object varying with the inverse square of the distance. I don't remember the details of how the shielding is supposed to work, so maybe I got the idea wrong. Anyway the idea was not well received. There may have been some problems with it that I don't remember.

reply to post by nablator


no worries nablator! I often mix up terminology myself.

What I meant to say was the force = gravity, the propagation method of the force would be unknown (to me LOL, I'm not afraid to admit it...) and the method the force would use to affect mass would be a 'push'.

I've actually never heard of this person you've quoted, I'll have to read their work. Thanks for the linky

Universons is a strange word to use to coin gravity particles though, IMHO lol.

But from the outset, I would see a similarity in the theory, being that gravity's origin point would be external to mass in both his and my theory, whereas the 'pull' theory maintains that gravity is a byproduct of mass.

As I read Einstein, he speaks of Mass interacting with the medium, which to me implies an external origin for the force of gravity. (External from mass, and acting upon it), Einstein theorizes that Mass warps timespace, to account for planetary motion, however his equations would allow for mass to be affected by gravity as an external force.

In fact, if I'm remembering my Einstein correctly, it was in seeking to unify the 4 known forces (the Unified Field Theory), that Einstein had so much trouble. In classifying gravity as one of these four forces, I read Einstein as interpreting Gravity as an external force, that is acting upon mass. Since he doesn't directly contradict Newton (nor offer a new mechanism for 'pulling') the only described method for a force to act upon mass is through a 'push'.

At any rate, that's what I was trying to express. To be perfectly honest, I don't know one way or the other. There might well be a way that pulling works in nature without being an illusion of a hidden pushing force, and I just don't know about/understand that mechanism...

It's just that in my personal experience with physics here on Earth, I've never seen pulling in action, true pulling, that is not a byproduct of pushing.

-WFA

p.s. It's hard to read in a written message sometimes, so just to be clear, if anyone can describe how pulling can work in physics without pushing, PLEASE let me know! I'm truly interested and stumped!

reply to post by nablator


After a bit of comparison, I'd say that the theory I'm describing would have whatever is surrounding the universe acting like a high pressure weather system, on the lower pressure weather system that is the universe itself.

This Claude seems to express that these particles are the source of gravity, whereas I'm suggesting that it might be the result of two natural systems.

If the universe is truly flat (as current science predicts...) then I don't see why the origin point for gravity might not merely be some sort of friction (can't think of a better word) working against the expansion of the universe itself...
map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

At any rate, just thought I'd chime back in to say that my theory seems to differ slightly from Claude's, from your report. I read the wiki link, and he seemed like one heck of a qualified individual though! If a man in that position seriously thought that gravity acted as a push, and not a pull, I'd tend to give that person credence. I'd at least read the theory, if you can find it around online...

-WFA

-WFA

reply to post by WitnessFromAfar


Gravity is one subject where we have more questions than answers, I think, so we should be open to entertain theories if they answer the questions we have. We think our model that gravity warps space-time is pretty good. But what nobody seems to understand as far as I know, is WHY and HOW gravity warps space-time, that's the real mystery, and the mechanisms are not understood. It's one of the biggest mysteries in the physical world that's never been solved as far as I know.

But I still think you're a little too obsessed with these terms "push" and "pull" that seem to have little meaning in the mathematical or physical realm (or in vector physics as Nablator said).

To use an analogy outside gravity, think of a car on a flat road. The car is out of gas and we want to move it forward to a gas station down the street. Look at 3 cases:
1. a person behind the car pushes the car forward with a force of 50 pounds.
2. a person in front of the car pulls the car forward with a force of 50 pounds.
3. A person behind pushes with a force of 25 pounds, and a person in front pulls with a force of 25 pounds for a net total force of 50 pounds.

Will the net effect of any of these 3 methods be any different? from a vector physics perspective in describing the car's acceleration, no. An engineer designing a propulsion system like a rocket motor would have engineering considerations on where to attach the rockets to move the car forward, but still the concept of pushing versus pulling seems irrelevant.

So no of course I don't think you're crazy, you have some interesting ideas, but I do think you're a little too obsessed with the terms "push" and "pull" which have little meaning from the mathematical aspects of gravity as far as I can tell.

Once we do figure out more about gravity, our understanding may open a lot of new doors for propulsion systems. But even though we understand how controlled fusion is theoretically possible, we have yet to build a fusion reactor that has an output greater than its input, not to mention all of the materials engineering challenges. So likewise even discovering gravity's secret may just be the first baby step to designing new propulsion systems based on our more enlightened understanding.

And while I do think it's possible other advanced civilizations in the universe may have unlocked gravity's secrets and developed propulsion systems which utilize that knowledge, we still have no real proof that such beings have visited Earth (That's why some of us look in the UFO threads trying to find that evidence). So the premise in the OP seems grounded more in conjecture than in fact.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
To use an analogy outside gravity, think of a car on a flat road. The car is out of gas and we want to move it forward to a gas station down the street. Look at 3 cases:
1. a person behind the car pushes the car forward with a force of 50 pounds.
2. a person in front of the car pulls the car forward with a force of 50 pounds.
3. A person behind pushes with a force of 25 pounds, and a person in front pulls with a force of 25 pounds for a net total force of 50 pounds.

Will the net effect of any of these 3 methods be any different? from a vector physics perspective in describing the car's acceleration, no.

Please don't think I'm trying to be argumentative here Arby, because I'm not.

I just want to make sure you actually understand what I'm saying here...

In your example (according to my theory)
1 assumes total push force from the same source.
2 assumes total push force from the same source (remember, pulling a car is actually pushing it from behind...)
3 assumes half push force from one source and half from another push force.

So what I'm saying is that the reason it doesn't influence the math is because the 'pulling' you describe doesn't exist in physics.

When you tow a car, you attach clamps to the vehicle. The back of those clamps is what transfers the force to the towed vehicle, even though the tow-truck is in front of the towed vehicle.

It's pushing from behind.

I only point out the minute here because to thinkers like you and nablator, and Einstein for that matter, or Newton, hawking or einstein...

For great thinkers, though experiments are very important, and understanding each physical interaction as is occurs is very important within those thought experiments, or models.

I want to make sure that we're clear that there is no way to 'pull' from the front. It's still pushing from behind, with a source in front exerting the force...

Sorry if I sound argumentative, I really don't mean to be. Just want to really have this discussion with the both of you. you are both great thinkers!

-WFA

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Gravity is one subject where we have more questions than answers, I think, so we should be open to entertain theories if they answer the questions we have. We think our model that gravity warps space-time is pretty good. But what nobody seems to understand as far as I know, is WHY and HOW gravity warps space-time, that's the real mystery, and the mechanisms are not understood. It's one of the biggest mysteries in the physical world that's never been solved as far as I know.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So the premise in the OP seems grounded more in conjecture than in fact.

I could not agree more with these statements!!!

Well said Arby!

-WFA

[edit on 15-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]