Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UFO Propulsion Question

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I thought there might be some intellectuals in this forum so I pose this question here. I have only a limited grasp of physics so I can't answer this question. Please help!

How many types of propulsion would a UFO travelling through space and entering Earth's atmosphere require? If they utilize anti-gravity propulsion for atmospheric travel, would anti-gravity work in the vaccuum of space? Would an anti-gravity propulsion-driven craft work in space? Is space devoid of gravity? How would it work? Is gravity limited to celestial bodies like planets, because of magnetic fields?

Please & thank you!




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
My grandma told me it was a torus filled with magnetic fluid.

Pour some in, give it a try . . .



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


I find the idea of a gravity drive quite interesting. I suppose that if it was to be employed in deep space, there would need to be some way of focusing the drive on a large body, such as a star cluster or galaxy.

However, I think for interstellar or intergalactic travel, another mode of propusion would be required. I am personally in favour of the matter/anti matter engine or employing zero point energy propulsion.
edit on 10/10/2011 by TheLoneArcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLoneArcher


...or employing zero point energy propulsion.

 


ZPE only works for Stargates....



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


But...they're not real(?)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Would an anti-gravity propulsion-driven craft work in space? .. How would it work?

Well, show me an anti-gravity propulsion-driven craft and I'll see if I can figure it out, hehe.


Is space devoid of gravity?

Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. Yes there is gravity in space.


Is gravity limited to celestial bodies like planets, because of magnetic fields?

Gravity is not magnetism. Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
From a theoretical standpoint, it's kinda like arguing if a light saber can cut through adamantium.
We can't and won't know until we can get real light saber, and some adamantium to conduct such an experiment.
In regards to propulsion, it'd be the same. Find us a spacecraft and we'll have the answer in no time.

If, you want to just use your imagination, you can make up anything you want of course, even a spaceship powered by imagination.

Then there's this guy that seems to have a fix on how to build an antigravity engine. You could always ask him:
Antigravity Explained



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by n00bUK
reply to post by boncho
 


But...they're not real(?)


I think you might be on to something.




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by n00bUK
reply to post by boncho
 


But...they're not real(?)


I think you might be on to something.



Really........ You should just accept that you're wrong and shutup.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


It does not take an Einstein to understand clearly what method that UFOs, thus, their deep space vehicles, use to putt-putt about the stars. The UFOs give every evidence of cancelling the entire mass of the ship. No one needs to be a genius to see a UFO make instant stops, starts and changes of direction to see that such maneuvers are impossible without having that feature. It is as simple as that.

So called "anti-gravity" is a term frequently used by those that have a limited grasp of physics (gravity versus mass). I suspect that short-sighted view is actually promoted by TPTB because it is just plain wrong, a red herring. You mention a key point, what good is anti-gravity when you are out between stars where gravity is miniscule?

You can talk about "anti-gravity," "worm holes" and "dimensional jumping," etc. until the UFOs finally do land, but the simple fact that they can shield the mass of their ships is answer enough.

When the late Ben Rich of Lockheed's famed "Skunk Works" stated that we now have the technology to go to the stars, he wasn't talking about rockets.

If you totally remove any thought about any kind of rocket as being our ticket to anywhere out there, then you will be ahead of what TPTB want you to know. Forget alien contact for an instant and consider that the capabilities of their space drive alone is the greatest secret weapon that any earthly government can attain at this stage in our technology. As much as anything else, that is why we still deny the reality of UFOs. And now, we have our own, similar ships, the triangles.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
When they stop trying to make antigravity and start trying to create gravity they will find their answers. The first craft made by humans to exceed light speed will be a gravity creating craft not antigravity which is like trying to unfold the univerese.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The op is right, an anti-gravity drive would be less and less useful for propulsion as you climb out of a planet's gravity well. If it "pushes against" gravity, then obviously it wont do well in deep space, where there is not gravitational force to "push against".

If there are abductees who report ships has having only an AG drive, then it isn't an interplanetary craft.

However, such a craft could still be used as a time-machine.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by dr_strangecraft
 


I love your name

sooooooooo cool!



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by n00bUK
reply to post by boncho
 


But...they're not real(?)


The point of the original question, which I guess I should have clarified, was to help establish (or debunk) the possibility of extraterrestrial life travelling to Earth in space. I was trying to figure out how realistic the possibility is. Not understanding propulsion, anti-gravity, physics, etc, I figured that chances of interplanetary travel is nil if a craft required more than one type of propulsion; one to drive it through space, and another to travel in an atmosphere.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I am not a science buff or anything to do with anything to do with technology, but I have always believed that magnets are the answer to movement. I believe the placing of magnets is a way of propulsion... I don't know why, I just do...I also believe that mirrors could be used to move an object from one place to another obviously utilised with other materials...maybe I am talking out of my bottom, but these components have been within my dreams for years. If only I was scientific, then maybe I could invent something.......



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


It does not take an Einstein to understand clearly what method that UFOs, thus, their deep space vehicles, use to putt-putt about the stars. The UFOs give every evidence of cancelling the entire mass of the ship. No one needs to be a genius to see a UFO make instant stops, starts and changes of direction to see that such maneuvers are impossible without having that feature. It is as simple as that.

So called "anti-gravity" is a term frequently used by those that have a limited grasp of physics (gravity versus mass). I suspect that short-sighted view is actually promoted by TPTB because it is just plain wrong, a red herring. You mention a key point, what good is anti-gravity when you are out between stars where gravity is miniscule?

You can talk about "anti-gravity," "worm holes" and "dimensional jumping," etc. until the UFOs finally do land, but the simple fact that they can shield the mass of their ships is answer enough.

When the late Ben Rich of Lockheed's famed "Skunk Works" stated that we now have the technology to go to the stars, he wasn't talking about rockets.

If you totally remove any thought about any kind of rocket as being our ticket to anywhere out there, then you will be ahead of what TPTB want you to know. Forget alien contact for an instant and consider that the capabilities of their space drive alone is the greatest secret weapon that any earthly government can attain at this stage in our technology. As much as anything else, that is why we still deny the reality of UFOs. And now, we have our own, similar ships, the triangles. [/quote

So, you've seen a UFO, confirmed it was or wasn't terrestrial, shook hands with the pilots, and inspected their method of propulsion. Simple as that, huh? Thanks for the clarification!



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by rigel4

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by n00bUK
reply to post by boncho
 


But...they're not real(?)


I think you might be on to something.



Really........ You should just accept that you're wrong and shutup.


In what way was I wrong?




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I agree with Aliensun. Reducing and eliminating the mass of the ship (and all within it) is the way for ET space flight. And "Extended Heim Theory" is the physics for eliminating mass from matter, for F-T-L travel and the illusion of anti-gravity performance. This is done by way of a spinning (strong) magnetic super-conductor mass. In the case of "Extended Heim Theory", the magnetic super-conductor mass is in the form of a disk. But as AlienScientist.com describes it, it can be in the form of a mercury-plasma in an accelerator torus.

And I would not rule out a power supply (to feed the super-conductor mass rotation), as being from a zero-point energy source. They have already produced light from ZPE (vacuum energy).



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911

Originally posted by n00bUK
reply to post by boncho
 


But...they're not real(?)


The point of the original question, which I guess I should have clarified, was to help establish (or debunk) the possibility of extraterrestrial life travelling to Earth in space. I was trying to figure out how realistic the possibility is. Not understanding propulsion, anti-gravity, physics, etc, I figured that chances of interplanetary travel is nil if a craft required more than one type of propulsion; one to drive it through space, and another to travel in an atmosphere.


Two types of propulsion being used wouldn't change the probability of space travel being feasible. In many of the ideas that are currently being considered for future long distance space flight, they include different stages and/or methods of travel with either one or more vehicles.

For instance, the solar sail idea which needs chemical components to get the space vehicle away from the Earth, then using solar large sails to continue the propulsion needed throughout the trip.


But since we are speculating about aliens, I gather you are talking along the lines of, "would anti-gravity work around/on the Earth as it does in space?"

Because it is a hypothetical form of transportation, I don't surmise there will be a definitive answer.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Larryman


They have already produced light from ZPE (vacuum energy).

 


How much energy did they use to "produce" that light?





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join