A VERY good explanation to UFO propulsion & >lightspeed

Originally posted by scienceguy94
SHow us some real peer reviewed papers. I will paypal 50 dollars to whoever shows something published of a bonafide experiment of a subatomic particle moving faster than the speed of light published in a established physics journal. this means the eperiment has to be replicate by a PHD and not a whacko scienist wannabe.

NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US:
news.bbc.co.uk...
physicsweb.org...




[edit on 27-10-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]

Originally posted by anorwegianguy1972

Originally posted by scienceguy94
SHow us some real peer reviewed papers. I will paypal 50 dollars to whoever shows something published of a bonafide experiment of a subatomic particle moving faster than the speed of light published in a established physics journal. this means the eperiment has to be replicate by a PHD and not a whacko scienist wannabe.

NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US:
news.bbc.co.uk...
physicsweb.org...




[edit on 27-10-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]

This experiment was not replicated.

Originally posted by scienceguy94

Originally posted by anorwegianguy1972

Originally posted by scienceguy94
SHow us some real peer reviewed papers. I will paypal 50 dollars to whoever shows something published of a bonafide experiment of a subatomic particle moving faster than the speed of light published in a established physics journal. this means the eperiment has to be replicate by a PHD and not a whacko scienist wannabe.

NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US:
news.bbc.co.uk...
physicsweb.org...

[edit on 27-10-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]

This experiment was not replicated.

Yes it has, here NASA replicated it using a different vapor:

www.grc.nasa.gov...

did you read the whole paper?"
signal (information) may be detected sooner
than t xc 0 = can be seen via contour
integration of an expression such as Eq. (8).
Equation (8) describes the field at the
position x and time t for a wave packet
"
this means that you can't send lottery numbers and have them to play with.The cesium gas acts a a material with negative refractive indices. within that material id goes faster. but this is a far cry from sending a 30 foot wide saucer at 30times the speed of light.

Because it's only CURRENT tecnology, silly...

A hundred years from now NO ONE can predict what advancements will be made in this area, 100 year back NO ONE except a very few with dreams though space flight was possible in the same way today some people think light speed is impossible with our current understanding of physics

Originally posted by scienceguy94
this means that you can't send lottery numbers and have them to play with.The cesium gas acts a a material with negative refractive indices. within that material id goes faster. but this is a far cry from sending a 30 foot wide saucer at 30times the speed of light.

You wanted a published paper for a "subatomic particle" going faster than the speed of light, thats what I gave you. Enough said

Why need propulsion and physical movement if UFOs can telepost themselves through space, mass and time? There is no need for speed.

Traveling through the skies are only needed for strategy, showup and to look around. Not for important purpose of need. UFOs don't "travel" that great distance to different galaxies. Why would they?

Originally posted by dave_54
Manipulating gravity waves has long been postulated as a means of hyperlight travel. But there are some problems with it. How much energy was required to lift the 75 pound ball a few inches?

There is a big difference between levitating a ball a few inches and getting a several ton vehicle up to the velocities necessary for interstellar travel. The power generator necessary would be larger and weigh more than the craft itself. And it would require a fuel tank the size of a small planet, even using technologies not yet discovered (there is a finite amount of energy in any matter. With assuming 100% efficiency it still requires a LOT of a fuel source). It's not an engineering problem, it's a physics problem.

I think now we have discovered nano technology that many obstacles will disappear. Look how computers have dramatically been reduced in size over the years.
Its not a question of if , its a question of when.

Originally posted by scienceguy94
I can't believe people here actually believe this guys claims. Just becuase of some trick with a levitating steel colored ball. I though this site was about denying ignorance. If this effect really existed UPS would be transporting mountain sized warehouses across the ocean and we would have levitating cars. mining would be a snap. There would be so much money to be made from this. it would not be likely that somebody is keeping it under wraps. Please Get Real!

I am amazed that the moderators have let this thread live as long is it has. Please deny ignorance and try to pass 5th grade physics for once!

You get real, Its probably some classified project that is withheld from the world due to national security issues.
In other words they dont want their rivals (Russia,China) to have this technology for obvlious reasons.
This policy of the US is well known and not at all far fetched.

I have a hard time believing such technology exists when our own goverment wastes billions of dollars on NASA. Unless you have a conspiracy theory that the government is using rockets to make our enemies think that we are still in the stone age and all of the cool gadgets are hidden away somewhere. never to been seen.


You see, I have a physics degree. When i don't see an experiment replicated by hundreds of scientists it usually means that there was an experimental error or it is unimportant. Especially since that paper you just showed me came from a for profit company and not a university;where your reputation can cost you a job if you screw up. You see again that there were not followups on that research by him or anybody else.
Im calling this thread BULLS*iT

Originally posted by scienceguy94
Im calling this thread BULLS*iT

It is clear that you are a very knowledgable person, I do however expect some perspective on science issues from the scientific community, remeber that the knowledge we have today are still "theories", until the Unified Theory that combines Quantum Mechanic Theory with the Relativity Theory we can hardly say we really "know" anything about the true nature of physics.

I can give a simple example that underlines my path of thought; a person in the Rennesance with no knowledge of rocket engines would have a hard time understanding space travel, as the only means of transport at that time was either by ship or by animal. I only beg people to have an open mind.

I can give a simple example that underlines my path of thought; a person in the Rennesance with no knowledge of rocket engines would have a hard time understanding space travel, as the only means of transport at that time was either by ship or by animal. I only beg people to have an open mind.

for the most part you are correct but people were aware of chinese rockets and fireworks. they also had Hero's steam engine. It wasn't like you went back in time and flew a helicopter. even then i still think that the more learned folk can see that it is a type of mechanical bird. I think the only thing that would appear like magic would be TV and possibly cars.

Originally posted by scienceguy94

Originally posted by anorwegianguy1972

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
2. You can't go faster than the speed of light. Ever. End of story.

You are wrong. There are many accepted experiments where quantum particles have been seen moving faster than the speed of light, and experiments with photons have also been able to send waves faster than the speed of light. This is just with current technology.


[edit on 27-10-2005 by anorwegianguy1972]

SHow us some real peer reviewed papers. I will paypal 50 dollars to whoever shows something published of a bonafide experiment of a subatomic particle moving faster than the speed of light published in a established physics journal. this means the eperiment has to be replicate by a PHD and not a whacko scienist wannabe.

yeah because no PHD's are "whacko scienist wannabes"

get off your high horse oh mighty science guru...open your mind. i know all of your superior science journals dismiss this as rubbish, but take a minute to open your mind to other possibilites.

Its interesting that Bob lazar has far more credibility than hutchinson.