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.

 

UFO Propulsion. Does this video explain how it is done?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   


I understand that people have theorized that ET propulsion systems are based in the manipulation of space/time and gravity. I've always found this video an intriguing possible explanation of how ET propulsion systems operate. I have no idea if it has been featured before on ATS, but I'm curious what people's opinion is on the ideas as laid out above.




posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Heres a better video thats crappy.


edit on 7-1-2011 by jdmmade because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by adept2u
 


Another YT cut-together of the Bob Lazar Excerpts from the Government Bible.

Edit: someone got to it 1st.
edit on 7-1-2011 by igigi because: Antikythera mechanism I tells ya!



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Don't have time at the moment to watch the video the OP posted, but that Bob Lazar video is freaking awesome. Probably my favorite Lazar tape. He goes into significant detail, haven't seen anybody break down ET craft mechanics as well as in the video, besides some by AlienScientist (search youtube for that name and you'll find a TON of great videos). Of course, this is Bob Lazar, and it seems he has similar numbers of lovers and haters. I personally think he is quite genuine in his account, and he never exaggerates or changes his story in the least. Very consistent. This video on ET craft function is no different - it's actually almost boring with how cut and dry it is. Thanks for posting, I'll watch the first video tomorrow



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Nikola Tesla built the only space ship.
Ever hear of that one.
Gravity from radio signals.
Just learn about radio and you'll find out.
That should be as difficult as learning ET technology.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
While it's obvious to anyone capable of interpreting data that people are perceiving relatively consistent experiences regarding "UFOs," it's an entirely different ordeal to speculate on what the source of the phenomena is.

I am, in no way, attempting to 'debunk' ET-origin theories about UFOs - merely to present a case for why science stresses controls and experimental environments to determine cause and effect relationships.

For example: we know that magnetic fields, chemicals, and physical pressure can affect our neurology to the point of having relatively similar and consistent hallucinations. To completely rule out the idea that the UFO phenomena is, at least in part, caused by a combination of such effects, is bad logic and bad science.

Even going so far as presuming the majority of UFO cases are caused by some physical object with mass is not advised. We all have heard of "earth lights," "ball lightning," and my own profession is familiar with plasmas and the various 'funky' ways they interact. As an example - a "holotank" currently in production uses a pair of lasers to produce 'dots' of plasma in the free air. This type of volumetric display could, at least in theory, create balls of light that appear to travel faster than the speed of light simply by setting the focal point of the lasers at a distance where panning the lasers would sweep the zone of interference so that the 'dot' appeared to be moving faster than the speed of light.

Presuming that what is seen correlates with what is going on is a mistake.

Further - the UFO phenomena could be triggered, largely, as a side-effect of some other phenomena. While there is no reason to suspect this is the case - our particle accelerators could be causing all kinds of interesting phenomena on other planets, in other dimensions (presuming those exist), etc. We could simply be witnessing side-effects of another civilization's technology, our own technology, or even our own existence (if you want to get into the "quantum=mystic" line of thinking).

Trying to figure out what makes "UFOs" work may be like trying to figure out how they fit all of those people and places into such a small box (the TV). We don't even know what we are looking at, to begin with.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
This just in Tesla used gravity to propel his space ship.
Why all the other characteristic came along for the ride is another story but
the bright starlight appearance might be explained nicely.

Tesla used concentrated gravity or what Tesla did was mimic the source of
gravity by looping in a pulsing coil something normal mass gravity can not do.

Since voltage directly relates to force Tesla just increased and directed the force.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
i can tell you from persosonal experience this is NOT how UFOs fly through time/sapce



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



This just in Tesla used gravity to propel his space ship.


A colon is not just part of your anatomy related to poop. Proper use of both, however, makes life much more pleasant for everyone.

In either case - I've not heard of Tesla building a "space ship." Much less am I aware of any discovery he made related to "gravity."


Why all the other characteristic came along for the ride is another story but
the bright starlight appearance might be explained nicely.


Explaining it is only part of the challenge. Demonstrating your theory to be functional is another. I can explain jet engines to be powered by the flatus of a thousand bunny rabbits. In order for my explanation to gain any sort of plausibility, I would have to demonstrate functional principles, at the very least (IE - you can fit a thousand bunny rabbits into something the size of a jet engine and induce flatulence).


Tesla used concentrated gravity or what Tesla did was mimic the source of
gravity by looping in a pulsing coil something normal mass gravity can not do.


Looping a pulsing coil, huh? ... like a wind chime? That's pulsing, and some of them are coils. Or, do you mean to pulse electricity (we are dealing with Tesla, here) through a coil of electrically conductive material (some type of wire, usually)?

That'd be an inductor, son. Tesla was famous for his research into the interactions of electromagnetic fields, and was one of the first pioneers of induction motors (what you would now call an AC motor - or a DC "brushless" motor; though those are not really DC, they are just a pulse-width modulator with some cascade circuits regulating power to an AC motor).

Many of our modern conveniences can, indeed, be traced back to Tesla and a few others pioneering the field of electromagnetics and electrostatics. Televisions, radios, radar, electric generators and motors - all have a basis in the kinds of work being done by Tesla.

However, never -once- has gravity and electricity been demonstrated to have any kind of relationship. In fact - there is still considerable confusion over what gravity really is. While it's been given the title of being a fundamental force, no one has ever really isolated the cause or source of gravity. It is becoming more popular to categorize gravity as a function of entropy as opposed to an actual force - which spells disaster for most commonly held notions about anti-gravity.


Since voltage directly relates to force Tesla just increased and directed the force.


Sounds like a radar, to me. That, or a specially designed Tesla Coil (basically the same thing as a radar, or a radio, just geared towards electrostatic voltages). Which doesn't have anything to do with gravity, though it will make your hair stand on end and cook you like you were in a microwave.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


We were not around in the 1930s and needless to say, I doubt the space ship craze would
be sourced at Tesla by anyone now but I am sure it was.

Who else on Earth or anywhere else would dare say they would make one, except Tesla.

I'm sure from the first winding of a motor, Tesla saw the possibilities.
All may doubt the Tesla creation according to some, however many hold the space ship is Tesla's.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



We were not around in the 1930s and needless to say, I doubt the space ship craze would
be sourced at Tesla by anyone now but I am sure it was.


The closest thing I can find to "Tesla" and "Spaceship" comes to this: www.greenoptimistic.com...

This is not, in any way shape or form, a 'creation of gravity' - even if it works (I have my doubts there - but there's only about a hundred different permutations to test - someone SHOULD have already hit on this aside from Tesla and it be in mainstream electronics).


Who else on Earth or anywhere else would dare say they would make one, except Tesla.


I, uh, have said I will build one. Not exactly the way everyone else has been trying to build stellar craft; I am going with a military design that will pretty well have to be built in orbit. Many others have said they would build space ships and various reactionless electromotive drives.


I'm sure from the first winding of a motor, Tesla saw the possibilities.


I'm sure, one day, people will consider me a deity, as well. While I will be flattered, it will be a title I do not deserve.

As an electronics major and enthusiast, I have a lot of regard for Tesla and admiration for his work; much as physicists have admiration for Einstein and Hawking - or Rock enthusiasts have an admiration/respect for Elvis. ... It seems like the 'thing to do' is believe your field's founder "didn't die - just went home."



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Have you heard the term "Electrogravatics" As in say "ion wind" etc.
Note A: Electrogravatics may be deemed "psuedoscience" to some
who only conform to mainstream science, others seem to be making
breakthroughs in the field like Dr. Harold E. Puthoff P.H.D.

You may want to look him up pal or should I say "son".
Enough poop er i mean colons for ya?


You do have a sense of humour rite?



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Since the widespread appearance of the saucer in the late 40s and 50s the unknown
ship was dubbed a space ship and I tend to agree with their designation only the
fact that everything about the ship says Tesla did it has at first been quite unknown
making the owners easily hiding the fact from everyone else.

So space ship it is.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthyaroura
 


Not only ions are used as there are 100 to 500 ions per cubic centimeter surrounding us
caused by cosmic rays and particles but everything else in space is put to use in the
propulsion system, that is the great thing about the Tesla system.

Lets see how wrong we have been steered.

The famous motor windings Tesla made to rotate is forced by back emf, a voltage that
opposes the 60 cycle powered windings. One can view this as strict electrostatic
induction and as voltage and frequency goes higher Tesla proved the mechanism.

Some how the back emf or pressure wave just propels a tuned wire through space.
I haven't seen it done unless the sparky flier I saw one time is a decedent mechanism.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


what's your take on john hutchinson and his experiments with high voltage
and the transmutation of metals and other strange goings on?

You have seen the video where all sorts of stuff levitates and fly's into the air?
he did have a lab set up and did work for the US DOD with this electronic research.

A lot don't buy it but i like it and i think he is on to something but i don't think he
really understands what he is tapping into.
maybe the DOD scientists observed what hutchingson had done and stole his work?
ala tesla



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthyaroura
 


High voltage can do a lot of things but I think the preferred frequencies of Tesla are
around 10k and 50k cps for safety sake.
I assume those frequencies are also involved in the Tesla levitation and propulsion.
Since Tesla worked with those frequencies and he is assumed to making a machine
by the Lyne researches and theories as his life long project then why talk about
something other than the main project of his flying machine turning out space ship.

Would the US like a Tesla space ship after War with Germany.
Here you go Hitler said.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthyaroura
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


what's your take on john hutchinson and his experiments with high voltage
and the transmutation of metals and other strange goings on?

You have seen the video where all sorts of stuff levitates and fly's into the air?
he did have a lab set up and did work for the US DOD with this electronic research.

A lot don't buy it but i like it and i think he is on to something but i don't think he
really understands what he is tapping into.
maybe the DOD scientists observed what hutchingson had done and stole his work?
ala tesla


I think the Tesla researchers consider most experiments not agreeing with the
the assumed Tesla way to be misguided.
This assumes only one way to make a saucer.
A rotating platform with an attached camera perhaps helped some levitation effects.
There is an entire theory of operation and studies that are not be assumable in known
science to reach what Tesla discovered as he never disclosed any except to von Braun
to make saucers in the 1940s.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthyaroura
 



Have you heard the term "Electrogravatics" As in say "ion wind" etc.


I've heard it. An "Ion wind" is considerably different from 'electrogravitics.' Namely, Ion-based propulsion systems utilize a reaction mass - ions (charged atomic particles). Different systems work a little differently, but the basic idea behind your classic ion propulsion system is to have a noble gas ionized by a high voltage cathode. Electrostatic principles will diffuse the charged gas far more rapidly than through thermal expansion, alone - and will be drawn to materials possessing fewer charge carriers. In most cases, an ion drive system has an anode in the form of a grid to improve the thrust yield and overall engine efficiency.

Note that the system does not work without a source of ions - meaning that it does not work in a vacuum without a supply of reaction mass.

To date, no one has ever successfully replicated claims of devices that operate via manipulating or emulating gravity.


Note A: Electrogravatics may be deemed "psuedoscience" to some
who only conform to mainstream science, others seem to be making
breakthroughs in the field like Dr. Harold E. Puthoff P.H.D.


There is no such thing as "psuedoscience" to me. There are merely ideas that lead to the creation of successful devices, and ideas that do not. Until an idea produces a device (working or not) - it's not really much more or less than an idea. The fact is, however, that no one has built a working device that produces something that can be described as 'electrogravitic.'

If it were as simple as "just make a coil of wire and pulse electricity through it" - your computer would be halfway to Andromeda.


You may want to look him up pal or should I say "son".
Enough poop er i mean colons for ya?


Already did. His notable achievements involve his work with the project codename Star Gate. He's now the CEO of Earth Tech International out of Austin, Texas. www.earthtech.org...

I have nothing harsh or bad to say about someone willing to dabble in topics that have attained a near-taboo status. However, I'm not creaming my pants about electrogravity because of doodles on paper and theories. For every one person who has doodled the right doodles and chanted the right theory, a thousand others have gotten it wrong. The proof has to be in the pudding, for me.


You do have a sense of humour rite?


It comes and goes. I generally do not appreciate being lectured about my lack of understanding of electronics from someone who doesn't know the difference between ions and gravity because you've "done your research" on YouTube.

It's not about mainstream versus the occult. It's about knowing what you're talking about. I'd enjoy a chat with Dr. Puthoff - I may not agree with the conclusions he comes to, but at least he's not brimming with forbidden knowledge gained via YouTube. He also seems rather willing to apply science to theories and ideas. Which places him in the category of people that deserve my respect.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 



Not only ions are used as there are 100 to 500 ions per cubic centimeter surrounding us
caused by cosmic rays and particles but everything else in space is put to use in the
propulsion system, that is the great thing about the Tesla system.


Great. Where can I buy one?


Lets see how wrong we have been steered.


We? You're obviously not one of us who have been misguided.


The famous motor windings Tesla made to rotate is forced by back emf, a voltage that
opposes the 60 cycle powered windings. One can view this as strict electrostatic
induction and as voltage and frequency goes higher Tesla proved the mechanism.


You're getting induction confused with the collapse of a magnetic field, there, sparky.

While I am not familiar with research into the interactions of EMF in free space, there is some merit to the idea of experimenting with topographically phased waveforms attempting to structure electromagnetic potentials in 3d space.

Of course, this is well beyond the technological capability of Tesla, and would require operational frequencies in the gigahertz. You have to have frequencies that produce usable wavelengths - in the centimeter range. Radios operate in the megahertz range and have wavelengths in meter ranges - 60 cycles produces something like a five thousand kilometer wavelength... not really useful for our scale of engineering, and also a poor choice as each cycle is relatively weak in terms of radiated energy (why modern devices often use far higher frequencies, since it enables the use of smaller components and improves efficiency).

He may have certainly seen the same merit in the idea as I do, but would have likely had extreme difficulty engineering methods of experimenting. To accurately experiment, you need -very- tight frequency control and physical metrics (where antennae are placed and the like). The mechanical constraints could have been met in his era - the electrical, however, would have been an entirely different story. Working with a one centimeter wavelength, you would have to be able to manipulate the leading and trailing edges of standing and 'running' wave forms within a millimeter, which requires accurate frequency control out to 30 gigahertz.

We also call that a microwave oven.



Some how the back emf or pressure wave just propels a tuned wire through space.
I haven't seen it done unless the sparky flier I saw one time is a decedent mechanism.


What you are describing sounds more similar to induction. When any conductor is exposed to a changing magnetic field, an electrical current will begin to flow through it. This is, precisely, how transformers work. The induced flow of electrons will generate a magnetic field in the opposite direction as the source - creating two like poles facing each other, and repelling.

Back in one of my early electronics classes, we had a device that was simply a coil of wire around a steel bar. The coil was connected, almost directly, to the mains. An aluminum ring was placed around the bar and atop the coil. When turned on, the aluminum ring would 'shoot' away from the coil, almost as high as the ceiling, under the right conditions.

It wouldn't really work as a form of propulsion in space, however. Unless you were planning to shoot bits of metal out the back of your ship as a reaction mass. The other option would be if you could somehow create free-standing magnetic fields - such as through some manipulation of waveforms as I described above (and, again, I have no idea if that would actually work). If this were the case, you may be able to find a little loophole in physics and get acceleration without a reaction mass. You would have to make up for it, though - the raw power necessary to accelerate an object has to come from somewhere.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C


However, never -once- has gravity and electricity been demonstrated to have any kind of relationship. In fact - there is still considerable confusion over what gravity really is. While it's been given the title of being a fundamental force, no one has ever really isolated the cause or source of gravity.


That isn't quite true, depending on your meaning of "isolated".

General relativity is still the best explanation of gravitation known, and the source term is the stress-energy tensor, which (classically) adds up pretty much everything that's physically real---masses & fields.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

The left side is the "response of spacetime", and the right side is the "source" . If you mean "nobody has discovered a way to predict rest masses without axioms" (except maybe Heim theory which few people understand and may have its own problems), then sure, but that's a more general problem then gravitation.

If "metric engineering" were to be possible (i.e. making warp drive for real) we'd need to discover something new which goes on the right hand side with a much, much larger coupling constant, or something different on the left side.

So far, no prediction of general relativity has ever been invalidated---except perhaps the unusual Tajmar experiment, but nobody really knows what that means.


It is becoming more popular to categorize gravity as a function of entropy as opposed to an actual force - which spells disaster for most commonly held notions about anti-gravity.


What exactly do you mean by this? Is this Verlinde's stuff?

Is this deriving GR from thermodynamic considerations?

One thing for sure to distinguish true "anti-gravity"/"metric engineering" from BS:

a) Levitation is not 'anti-gravity'
b) Engineerable inertia is, or is good enough.
c) Engineerable space-time metric means unavoidable gravitational lensing. If it doesn't LOOK optically like something you've never seen before, it's not working. That's why those "ion lifters" don't mean squat.
edit on 13-2-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


HA i actually like you. nice comeback very tidy.

yes your actually quite bright arnt you, I see no holes in your arguments
and see you have actually taken the time to do the research.

Though I myself tend not to pick up nasty habits off "youtube" as you put it
I prefer books or even better learning from people who work in the field such
as my father and my uncle who are/were brilliant electricians.

And no they did not just wire ring mains if that's the conclusion you were thinking?
a little more high tech than that. RAF fylingdales. so I understand your quip about radar.

whilst I love the work of Nicola Tesla I see it for what it is! though the myth's I do find
entertaining But I consider the man a true Genius.
Keep that sense of humour, you really will live longer




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join