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 Question

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
In my understanding, if you can warp space-time, you are effectively creating gravity out of thin air. There is actually no mass, or little mass, present. This is how I have always thought of it, but I am not a physicist, although I generally understand scientific concepts rather well.

I would think that systems like this may run into problems when actually presented with a mass based gravitational space-time curvature, such as around a planet or star, but they should in theory still be able to function, with some different settings most likely. I don't know how many buttons or mind-links or whatever would be used are required to operate a system like this, but I imagine it would not be able to just start up and run without some form of calibration.




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Required01
 


I think gravity has a constant influence over matter the more mass the more influence

The rotation curve of a galaxy can be represented by a graph that plots the orbital velocity of the stars or gas in the galaxy on the y-axis against the distance from the center of the galaxy on the x-axis.

A general rule or law of particle disk rotation can be stated as; Galaxies with uniform distribution of mass have a rotation curve sloping up from the center to edge. Galaxies with a central bulge in the disk (line B in illustration) have a rotation curve sloping horizontally flat from center to edge, whereas systems with most of their mass concentrated in the center of their rotation disk (dotted line A in illustration), such as the Solar System of planets or the Jovian System of moons, have a rotation curve that slopes down from the center to the edge.

Stars are observed to revolve around the center of some galaxies at a constant speed over a large range of distances from the center of the galaxy. Therefore it can be calculated that they are revolving around a disk of matter with a central bulge. Most Low surface Brightness (LSB) galaxies rotate with a rotation curve that slopes up from center, indicating little core bulge.

The galaxy rotation problem is a discrepancy between the interpretation of the observed luminance to mass ratio of matter in the disk portions of spiral galaxies and the luminance to mass ratio of matter in the cores of galaxies. This discrepancy is currently thought to betray the presence of dark matter that permeates the galaxy and extends into the galaxy's halo. An alternative explanation is a modification of the laws of gravity, such as MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics).[1] A less controversial solution to the luminance to mass ratio problem is; due to the greater density of matter in cores there is a greater probability that a higher ratio of core matter is in stars undergoing fusion than in the disk therefore a higher luminance to mass ratio in core matter than in the disk.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
For those of you interested in the dynamics of antigravity, i would suggest this book;
It was written in the '50's and explains the effects one would achieve with gravity (and inertia) control.
This could, in theory, be done by projecting a small black hole above the ship.
Since gravity is a purely attracting force, the ship will be attracted to the black hole, away from earth.
The saucer shape is ideal for atmospheric flight, and the outer skin would be ionized to a very high potential, to avoid air friction (this is now being used in black projects).
Note that this high charge will cause the ship to glow
Get the idea?
A good book for the layman, minimal equations & some nice diagrams.....
Have fun with it!



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I would like to take this opportunity to enterject what may be a side issue, but I think should garner some attention when planning to travel at velocities greater than the speed of light.

One issue I have never seen discussed is navigation. If we are going to travel beyond the speed of lighht how will the matter of time be effected. Will earth be "here" when we come back?

Everything in the universe is moving. Many of them are not moving in the same direction at the same speed. I, for one, would like to come home from a trip to another world. How do we develope a navigation system which will know where earth will be when we return.

Just getting back to our own solar system may be a bit of a challenge. The positions of the stars will be slightly different over time and during our return they should be reversed, to say the least, from when we left.

I don't know if this would be as relevent as I think, but I thought I would ask.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


A very good point

Everything is travelling at thousands of miles a second, so the longer you are gone, the more they will have moved. Also, the faster you move, the more time will stretch......
Not only earth, but Sol and even the whole galaxy will have moved.
I guess the 'galactic Tom-Tom' of the future will need a huge holographic memory, and some advanced computing built in.
Of course, it won't let you know that NGC2131 is closed for resurfacing......



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic911
 


A gravity drive theoretically would work by creating an independant gravity source that could be phased to either repel or attract to other gravity sources. This is how it would be used for atmospheric travel.

It can also be used to create 'gravity folding' of the spacetime continuum in front of the craft causing the apparant lessening of the distance from point to point in interstellar space, thus creating a stardrive that does not violate E=MC^2.

As far as I know, this is still all theoretical.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
there are many different ways you can travel between planets. I would think bigger ships would be better for interplanetary travel and small ships for atmosphere travel. why bigger ship for interplanetary travel the thought of hitting a pepple @ Faster or close to light travel. Plus you need storage to make a long travel worthwhile. small ships would travel to a planet surface for trade and resupply or loot n pillage. out there somewhere 2 aliens are drinking at FTL and tosses out the bottle and it hits a planet vaporizing that solar system



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by warsight
 


Could Elenin be a sort of galactic beer?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
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...


I believe his paper is wrong, in an elementary way.

Take the example on figure 1. He makes the statement that

"Assuming that the toroidal coil is uniformly wound and properly constructed, it is easily
demonstrated that no electric fields and no magnetic fields physically exist in
the space outside the coil. Therefore, there are no magnetic lines of force and
no electric lines of force physically connecting the secondary loop of wire,
D, with the primary toroidal coil"

The last statement is true only when the current is unchanging.

When the current is changing there is an electric field generated outside the coil, from the Farday induction law, curl E = -dB/dt. It is a physical fact that a changing magnetic field will make an electric field without the necessity of moving charges, and that the electric field can be generated where the driving magnetic field is zero. This electric field induces the current in the secondary coil in Figure 1.

This is why an electromagnetic wave exists, and why the set of Maxwell equations were so important: the combination of them could explain induction and predict electromagnetic waves.

In any case he appears to be unaware of the vector potential.

Besides any classical fields would would have coupled strongly with the electromagnetic fields as he proposes would result in thermodnamics of photon gases being very wrong as there would be more degrees of freedom than are actually observed.

If there is some way to engineer the metric, it must be very obscure to us now.


.
edit on 15-10-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-10-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Absolutely.
There will be some coupling (albeit weak) to the coil D
However, it is interesting to note that Maxwell's equations were demolished by people like Heaviside and Lorentz, and our modern EM theory is based on these derivatives, not the original sets of equations.
I am definitely NOT a mathematician, but it has been inferred by mathematicians that we are not seeing the whole story.
And THAT i agree with.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The Secret is you can control the speed of light by the power of "Thought"

im pretty sure thats how ufos do it.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Absolutely.
There will be some coupling (albeit weak) to the coil D
However, it is interesting to note that Maxwell's equations were demolished by people like Heaviside and Lorentz, and our modern EM theory is based on these derivatives, not the original sets of equations.


They are mathematically equivalent and the later forms are more convenient to compute with.

And actually neither Maxwell's original or Heaviside version are what is now commonly believed to be most "real" or fundamental. Here they are all two of them.

dF^(ab)/dx^a = mu J^b, 0 = epsilon^(abcd) dF_[ab)/dx^c

en.wikipedia.org...

Blame Einstein for this one. Why was his paper on special relativity named "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies?" Relativity is all about electromagnetism. Everybody talks about clocks and rulers but that's only half of it. The point is that what used to be electric fields in one frame appear as magnetic fields in others frames in relative motion and vice versa.

Again, if there were more hidden degrees of freedom in E&M, we'd know it this way too, they'd pop out in new frames and cause new physical effects.


I am definitely NOT a mathematician, but it has been inferred by mathematicians that we are not seeing the whole story.
And THAT i agree with.


Physics is not the same as mathematics---it uses mathematics, but things can be true or not true independent of the mathematics.

The point is that if the Maxwell equations through Lorentz etc were physically wrong, we would see new and different physical effects, and they would be enormous if the coupling were O(1).

We know E&M waves are vector and not scalar because of, e.g. polarization and birefringence in crystals. If there were even more degrees of freedom somehow hidden then there would be other *physical* effects. Antennae would not work as we know they do.
edit on 16-10-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RA777
The Secret is you can control the speed of light by the power of "Thought"

im pretty sure thats how ufos do it.


Think Different, eh?



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
The technology needed for this type of propulsion should be classified as "gravitics". Which means the applied manipulation of gravity. It's not super or anti gravity, but control over it. Consider it a theory developed on the applied usage of physics knowledge much in the same way as electrical and electronics engineering. Most likely it is a spinoff branch of high energy physics and things like nuclear research. (Once you understand all the intricacies of matter-energy conversion, it should become more obvious as to what the underlying mechanism of gravity is. Consider it an effect of energy density, as mass is just really concentrated energy.) But publicly we're just not there yet. (Black budget research may have figured it out already.)

As for propulsion types in spaceships? I think it would be varied by application. Look at various types of watercraft for instance. You're not going to use a 2-stroke outboard engine on an aircraft carrier, and likewise you're not going to use a nuclear reactor and steam powerplant on a small pleasure boat. Some ships also have various gasoline, diesel, diesel electric, or gas turbine based powerplants. No power system scales the same or provides an ideal efficiency throughout a full range of scales.

So I think you'll have some propulsion methods that will be more effective in localized gravity, and others which work better long range. Also different propulsion methods for different scales. A small UAV probe isn't going to use the same system as a mother ship type craft. Yet the despite all their outward differences, gravitic propulsion systems will apply the same underlying theory in order to produce the effects needed for desired operation.

In my opinion, the sensible answer to a question of "Will UFO propulsion and power systems vary?" is "Yes, and they will have quite a wide variety of designs and applications."



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I see what you mean, but i still have the feeling that something was lost in the translation.
Math is fine for proving, or arriving at a theory, but if i can prove mathematically that black is white, does that make it so? (Deja-vu, i've posted this before
.
If i could prove, mathematically, that pink elephants live in walnut trees, would it be correct?
It is only when the actual physical observed effect corresponds with the mathematical prediction, that we have a 'working theory'-and even then it can only be a theory of 'what we understand at this moment to be true'.
I think that most people accept what they are told by scientists, but the scientists should always be their own debunkers, looking for proof that supports OR debunks a particular theory.
If i see tomorrow's headline "Pink Elephant Found in Walnut Tree" i would not believe it, even if it was my own theory, i would need to go there myself, or speak to someone who has, who i could believe.
We, as a race, have learned so much, but it's just the tip of the iceberg



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
there are other ways you could make a disc 400 miles across spin it at 7000 rpm and jump off the side and look your moving at the speed of light lol.. I know unlikely it would rip itself apart. Then your stuck at light speed with no brakes



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
When I posted the original question about propulsion I did not expect the wealth or depth of answers that this thread has generated. I think thats the whole point of a website like this. The awesome experience of sharing thoughts and ideas, ideas that bring utter strangers together, if only for a brief moment in this construct we call life. So I just wanted to say thank you and keep up the good work!



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join