UFO Propulsion Question

reply to post by Cosmic911


Try not to think of it as anti-gravity. I tend to look at it as "space warping", oherwise known as the "warp drive". The space at the front of the craft is shrunk in front and expanded behind, or visa versa. This is not really anti gavity since gravity requires mass.

HTH, just my voice in the wilderness

For those of you that are not familiar with Charles Hall, here is a link to his theory that explains how UFO's propel themselves. Hall intercated with " Tall White " aliens at Area 51 back in the 60's and became a nuclear engineer and is quite well versed in physics. Check it out:


openseti.org...

reply to post by Cosmic911

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.

I don't really see why this is much of a problem, from many approaches of thought.

For starters - multiple means of propulsion are not all that uncommon in our current engineering designs. Designing some kind of vehicle to utilize multiple forms of propulsion within and outside an atmosphere is not really all that inconceivable from today's engineering capabilities.

For another... something such as aliens/UFOs do not have to operate according to the same limitations we do - presuming they are, in fact, here and visiting. They will do whatever it is they do whether we understand it or not.

So... as to that - I say keep a rational mind about it. Debunking aliens based on our understanding of physics and engineering limitations is a fundamentally flawed concept. "Physicists" (or as close to it as we had in the day) in the 1850s would have looked at you like you were insane if you suggested refining uranium to produce a reactor; a pretty "duh" concept to us. The idea of a rock that emits light (LED) when hooked up to direct current would have also had them quite skeptical.

Stuff we take for granted, today - but would not have been seen as a logical advance in technology, nor would it have been seen as practical.

You have to keep it all in perspective. If there are extra terrestrials with an interest in visiting this planet and remaining secretive about it; and they are actively doing it... they know a few things we don't, so our concepts of practical go right out the window.

Unless they aren't. .... but that's an entirely different debate that ends up boiling down to what you believe, rather than what evidence says (as there's quite a bit of "weird" that does go on... but not anything that decisively says "Extra terrestrials"). I'm inclined to believe that there likely have been visitors to the planet. What roles they have taken, however, are nearly impossible to discern; they are alien... it would be very difficult to assign them goals and/or priorities. To expect them to contact or recognize us as living is a concept born of our innate lack of contact with another sentient species. It's quite possible that few species out there really have the desire to communicate, and we are an anomaly in that regard.

Or, perhaps just as we don't take the time to talk to dogs - they don't take the time to talk to lesser developed conscious beings (or, perhaps they are just very skilled dogs and can't quite interact with a more developed conscious - I find the idea that aliens are always superior to us to be an irritating act of worship).

reply to post by Cosmic911


From what I understand it is some type of magnetic field generator. These would work well in any environment due to all atoms, muons, nutrinos, etc. having motion. The craft would generate a magnetic field and would create a sort of vacuum that would pull the craft in the desired direction instead of pushing it. I will be back to elaborate further I just had something come up. Be safe all.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"Take a sailboat for example. It can use the sails when there is wind, and when there isn't, many sailboats have an engine that can move the boat as a secondary means of propulsion."

Great point. Nice example. I had a fixed conception about this propulsion question. I posed the original question because I was considering the space shuttle. If I recall correctly, all of the shuttle's propulsion is for space flight. It has no propulsion on the ground or in the atmosphere. It returns to earth unpowered, functioning as a glider.

reply to post by Aim64C


To define gravity is to overcome time, gravity is what dominates time and all matter defeating it takes alot of energy its a war you can never really win
but you can save as much time as you can, "The most valuable thing i know is Time"

One way is to move fast on the surface like a car or a ship it runs on gas/fuel the faster is goes the more fuel it needs as travel across the surface of earth with only the wind to slow you down and gravity keeping and the ship on grounded, but you can travel in a submarine which is flying in density that rises pressure further down but keeps up against the pull of gravity

The air on the other hand is lighter and less dense the further up in sky this means that movement requires a plane to have wings to lift and control the craft which no matter how strong the engines and fuel is speed but it can only go one-way at any time

Unlike a helicopter by using a big rotor and a little horizontal one for control they can rise above the ground and move with ease although not extremely fast nor slow but dependent on fuel

A blimps in principle an anti submarine since its flying through a medium of air instead of water like a plane which uses a propeller to take off and overcome gravity an Airship uses the same principals of a sub but the pressure of lighter then are gases against outside air keep the airship aloft with little energy expenditure but they tend to move slow and are hard to maneuver

i say combine them all and you to can make a UFO

All this is time traveling in away since your saving time in moving somewhere about the sphere of the earth and its bs time zones

a tower will observe that clocks at ground level tick slower, and observers on the ground will agree about the direction and the ratio of the difference. There is not full agreement, as all the observers make their own local clocks out to be correct, but the direction and ratio of gravitational time dilation is agreed by all observers, independent of their altitude.(remember if you put a clock on the bottom of the ocean 1 on the surface and then 1 on a mountain plus another in orbit going away as well
These clocks would keeping time at different speeds The closer to a significant gravitational mass the more pull it has on anything in relation to something further away, but the clock in the ocean would appear to slow down to an observer at the top which isn't because time has slowed but the clocks is now moving faster relative to thoughts above but the clock itself is moving faster in time to the surface clock that stays the same at any equal surface point of earth the 2 elevated clocks on the mountain and in orbit time to them would cause the clocks to appear to speed up to the surface clock observer this to the clock is actually because less gravity= your time slowing down your time the further one becomes from the surface(SGM) compared to the other clocks this would from the surface observer to look and see the clock not going fast but actually see the clock appear to slow down as i gets farther away

Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small but unexplained acceleration towards the Sun, of 8.74±1.33×10−10 m/s2. The two spacecraft were launched in 1972 and 1973 and the anomalous acceleration was first noticed as early as 1980, but not seriously investigated until 1994.[1] The last communication with either spacecraft was in 2003, but analysis of recorded data continues.

Both Pioneer spacecraft haven't slowed down we here on earth are moving faster then they are giving the appearance that they've slowed down

I found an interesting article called Critical Problems for Interstellar Propulsion Systems. It discusses four basic problems challenging interstellar travel.

Article Link

Originally posted by IblisLucifer
reply to post by Aim64C

 

To define gravity is to overcome time, gravity is what dominates time and all matter defeating it takes alot of energy its a war you can never really win
but you can save as much time as you can, "The most valuable thing i know is Time"

One way is to move fast on the surface like a car or a ship it runs on gas/fuel the faster is goes the more fuel it needs as travel across the surface of earth with only the wind to slow you down and gravity keeping and the ship on grounded, but you can travel in a submarine which is flying in density that rises pressure further down but keeps up against the pull of gravity

The air on the other hand is lighter and less dense the further up in sky this means that movement requires a plane to have wings to lift and control the craft which no matter how strong the engines and fuel is speed but it can only go one-way at any time

Unlike a helicopter by using a big rotor and a little horizontal one for control they can rise above the ground and move with ease although not extremely fast nor slow but dependent on fuel

A blimps in principle an anti submarine since its flying through a medium of air instead of water like a plane which uses a propeller to take off and overcome gravity an Airship uses the same principals of a sub but the pressure of lighter then are gases against outside air keep the airship aloft with little energy expenditure but they tend to move slow and are hard to maneuver

i say combine them all and you to can make a UFO

All this is time traveling in away since your saving time in moving somewhere about the sphere of the earth and its bs time zones

a tower will observe that clocks at ground level tick slower, and observers on the ground will agree about the direction and the ratio of the difference. There is not full agreement, as all the observers make their own local clocks out to be correct, but the direction and ratio of gravitational time dilation is agreed by all observers, independent of their altitude.(remember if you put a clock on the bottom of the ocean 1 on the surface and then 1 on a mountain plus another in orbit going away as well
These clocks would keeping time at different speeds The closer to a significant gravitational mass the more pull it has on anything in relation to something further away, but the clock in the ocean would appear to slow down to an observer at the top which isn't because time has slowed but the clocks is now moving faster relative to thoughts above but the clock itself is moving faster in time to the surface clock that stays the same at any equal surface point of earth the 2 elevated clocks on the mountain and in orbit time to them would cause the clocks to appear to speed up to the surface clock observer this to the clock is actually because less gravity= your time slowing down your time the further one becomes from the surface(SGM) compared to the other clocks this would from the surface observer to look and see the clock not going fast but actually see the clock appear to slow down as i gets farther away

"Time is the fire in which we burn." I love this quote and thought it fit nicely with you saying, "The most valuable thing i know is Time." (sorry, I couldn't resist lol)

"Unlike a helicopter by using a big rotor and a little horizontal one for control they can rise above the ground and move with ease although not extremely fast nor slow but dependent on fuel."

-While helicopters and planes rely on fuel for combustion, the ability to obtain Lift and Flight rests with the main rotor disc, while the tail rotor is responsible for off-setting the torque created by the main rotor disc, or yaw. (The helicopter naturally wants to move in the direction opposite the main rotor is travelling). The helicopter's collective controls the pitch of the blades, which also controls its speed. For a helicopter, it's all about the lift that the main rotor disc produces. Without de-icing equipment, the blades will lose the ability to produce lift and not fly. Environmental factors such as heat and cold will also effect the helicopter's ability to produce/create lift. On extremely hot days, when the helicopter is carrying a full fuel tank it may not even want to get off the ground, vice versa, it flies extremely well when temperatures are cooler.

While I may not have the best grasp of interstellar physics and propulsion, I do fly on helicopters for a living so I thought I might contribute to your post.Thanks for posting and keep it coming!!

reply to post by Cosmic911

Good article.

I'm glad you found the sailboat example helpful. This is the type of thing you should be concerned about, rather than how many propulsion systems a ship can have (from your source):

Now, for a macroscopically useful warp drive, one might want the radius of the Warp-Drive Bubble to be at least 100 meters so that a space ship could fit inside. The authors calculate that for a bubble radius of 100 meters, the required amount of negative energy to create the warp drive bubble is ten orders of magnitude greater than the total mass of the observable universe.

Even if we could figure out a way to build that warp drive to travel faster than light, finding a power source with more energy than 10 times the mass of the entire observable universe might be a problem, don't you think?

I knew much of what was in that paper already because I've studied this. However I hadn't even considered the reliability problem, I guess because the other hurdles seemed so large I didn't even think about it. But he's right, designing things with a mean time between failures of 2000 years is something we don't have much experience with. I mean, what besides the pyramids lasts 2000 years?

That was a good paper, thanks for posting the link!

Two different types of propulsion. One to break the affects of gravity the other to bend space and time.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Power souce is an element not naturally occurring on this planet.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I'll probably have to re-read the article several times to have the information "sink in."

Originally posted by bodcausailor
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Power souce is an element not naturally occurring on this planet.

I don't think you understand the article.

They are saying it would take every single element both on and off the earth, in the entire observable universe, completely converted to energy (via E=mc^2) to power the faster than light warp drive, but that still wouldn't be enough power. It would take 10 times that much power. Your statement doesn't even begin to address the magnitude of the energy requirement.

By the way, no matter what element is used, the total energy of the mass of that element is defined by E=mc^2. So when you convert 100% of a mass to energy, it only matters how much mass you started with; the element is irrelevant. In other words, if you convert 10 kg of any element to energy, you get the same amount of energy, no matter what the element is.

Originally posted by Aliensun
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.

I like your idea that removing (or severely diminishing) mass means you have removed (or severely diminished) the force requirement both from F = ma and F = mg. However, all known physics suggests that mass is an inherent property of particles. Thus, I submit the following 2 issues which you have not addressed:

1.) The mechanism for removing the property of mass from the particles (to prevent materials tearing themselves apart)
2.) An analysis of subsequent effects of removing mass from particles, and why the situation wouldn't be completely untenable.

For instance, I am a living being. My body requires various things to survive (blood circulating oxygen, for instance.) How would a massless heart circulate massless blood and distribute massless oxygen?? It seems to suggest an almost endless amount of problems.

One alternative (while still using your massless idea) would be that the craft and its occupants are somehow shielded from the external effects of mass, both the gravitational and inertial force. Somehow, the craft moving nearly-instantaneously from one point to another does not splat its occupants against the viewscreen. So from an outsider's perspective, the occupants are completely violating all Newtonian laws. How? I'd like to at least hear a supposition as to how this could be possible.

There is another explanation, other than the problematic removal of mass, which is my personal theory about UFO propulsion: the drive system employs a method of manipulating spacetime and the effects of relativity, such that they can experience the benefit of time dilation without travelling near the speed of light. In a state of time dilation, a craft could seem to make "impossible" maneuvers to the outside observer, when in reality it is just making very possible maneuvers but doing so in an accelerated time frame.

My theory is based on theoretically workable physics (we understand relativity, all we'd have to do is make the effects controllable), and is bolstered by the many claims of "missing time" by observers of UFO/ET craft.

The common conclusion to "missing time" is that you have been abducted for that period of time. Instead, I propose that there was no "missing time", but that you were simply in close proximity to a relativity drive, experiencing its "time dilation exhaust":

(outside of craft - slowed time) ... [Craft - faster time] ... (outside of craft - slowed time)

- Operating in a faster time frame, the craft can make "impossible high-speed maneuvers"
- To achieve local balance in the spacetime continuum, the space around the craft moves at slowed time. This causes "missing time" effects in observers who get close enough.

Additionally, controlling spacetime means you also control gravitation. It also means you could make interstellar voyages.

So, OP, there's my theory. It explains pretty much all the observed and speculated effects of ET craft. As to how one would build a relativity drive, well that's the trillion-dollar question.

reply to post by Cosmic911


The original craft were designed to use nuclear fusion to create a plasma drive, but they were having trouble getting the sub-light ion drive to build sufficient speed. The next design was to use nuclear fission for the launch phase, but the people of the planet protested that it was too dangerous and insisted that they could only use green energy.

After a ten thousand year delay, the aliens finally compromised and went with a hybrid drive system using a diesel power plant to charge the batteries. This caused them to go way over budget and depleted their oil reserves. The project continued anyway. After forty-seven years charging the batteries with a very long extension cord, they intrepid crew finally set off for earth at a top speed nearing 50 miles per hour.

Arriving here in 1947, some 4,000,000,000 years after leaving in search of intelligent life they were thrilled to find Earthlings already developing nuclear power, and certain their fusion reactor plans would work and allow them a return trip in less than ten years... only to find out that the Terran public would demand "green energy."

I heard the propulsion is way over unity and thus uses free energy.
I also heard the engine sets up physical waves in the fine matter
surrounding the engine of the crew and ship and fly thorough the
air with the greatest of ease at 6,000 to 16,000 mph making 90
degree turns if they want to or drop thousands of feet in a second
and be unharmed and this is with humans like you and me.
And made by humans from scratch from plans.

reply to post by Cosmic911

Could you build an aircraft like the love child of an airship and a helicopter with wings more like fins lite enough to use helium to maintain lift buoyancy using double balloon or balloon within a balloon all inside the crafts structure With the outer ballon Helium and it inner one air [ that also has to be pressure adjustable from within it to counter act barometric air pressures rise/fall in order to maintain buoyancy
All the top being solar cells for some power while still being strong enough to lift the equipment like computer, control, battery and internalized rotor system based on Bernoulli’s principle which lifts and thrust this craft as well as controlling internal pressure as needed in addition to maintaining level stability over all and in the wind or how much wind i could take and carry 2 or more people safely

reply to post by Cosmic911


I thought everyone knows they actually work by folding space.

I made a Flapping Crane.

Of course if you aren't careful, it will undo your belly button and then your bottom will fall off.

Somewhat embarrassing to have to explain at them big intergalactic, interspecies soirée's.

reply to post by Cosmic911


I don't know if you question has actually been answered properly yet (probably has) but you are correct. A craft using anti-gravity would only work inside a gravitational field, because they apparently work by using inverted gravity waves to cause destructive interference of normal gravity waves. I personally don't even believe anti-gravity propulsion would be very stable or useful. I think it's possible the Government experimented with anti-gravity propulsion a few decades ago and a lot of those wobbly disk type UFO's were the result. They probably have better propulsion systems today. Just my opinion of course.

Originally posted by Cosmic911

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!

Honest answer? Nobody here can answer that! Some may think so, but i have yet to see a human made model in working conition.

So sorry but we can't answer that. All theories and speculation.