spacecase0
earth human
for verification of the idea, see the experiments ofThere still is NO proof and cannot be done with Earth science but can be shown in mathematics.
W. J. Hooper and Wilbert Smith
for verification of the idea, see the experiments ofThere still is NO proof and cannot be done with Earth science but can be shown in mathematics.
Hello spacecase0because no one (including you) read the links I post, I will just tell you the theory and the tests that back it up
the websites that have the information are vanishing anyway, so go find it on your own if you want.
first assumption is that atoms have internal spin. (this can be verified pretty well, so it is really not an assumption)
second assumption is that lots of matter appear to make gravity, and this mass appears to have a measurable change to the flow of time, but some claim it is the gravity doing it... either way, the GPS system verifies that time is not the same on earth as it is in space.
so time is flowing faster over us and slower below us.
so the idea would be that in the internal orbit of the matter spends more time on the slower time field than the faster time field, so sort of like with diffraction, it ends up physically moving to the slower time field.
this would be what causes what we see as gravity.
next part.
if you create an unequal time field to move a craft, the craft thinks it is in freefall all the time.
so no internal forces are there when you make what seems to be a right hand turn at super high speeds.
as far as inertia, it is changed with the gravity field, just like the gravity of earth can create inertia in the down direction.
the device would appear to have been in freefall no matter what direction or turns it is tasked with going.
you can figure out all the math and logic for the same thing to happen with "warped space", it is just that I don't think that the warped space idea easily predicts as many useful devices as some alternate ways of looking at it. but the math plays out the same either way.
for verification of the idea, see the experiments of
W. J. Hooper and Wilbert Smith
either one says how it works a bit different than the other one, but the physical tests had the same field format and each had positive results with the tests.
there are other experiments that show this working as well (like the device I built), but they are not straight forward and therefor not very useful examples.
we do have the technology.Hello spacecase0
I think I just got there as you posted this.
The only trouble is...that these are mad theorise. It cannot be done on earthly space craft.
I can now see the maths but this is similar to when Einstein said that light bends.
We just do not have the technology.
I think this is what it is all about as well.I never understand why people go after another's beliefs, thoughts or understandings over topics that are 99% speculation. As if someone is on their turf and dealing dope, a certain righteousness emerges that always ends at the same destination.
Everyone must be allowed to understand things in their own fasion whether it is left of leftfield or closer to the mainstream mark. I believe in it all the same with equal amount as nothing is proven and nothing is impossible.
UFO's could be one or the other, both at the same time and not exist at all.
You recon?we do have the technology.
go look up the experaments
Here's my point in a nutshell: name one spiritual thing that has ever been photographed or tracked on radar. Any object that either emits or reflects light is physical - it takes a physical reaction to emit or reflect light. If it can cause a reaction in the retina or on film or with a radar system, then it's physical in nature by definition.I never understand why people go after another's beliefs, thoughts or understandings over topics that are 99% speculation. As if someone is on their turf and dealing dope, a certain righteousness emerges that always ends at the same destination.
Everyone must be allowed to understand things in their own fasion whether it is left of leftfield or closer to the mainstream mark. I believe in it all the same with equal amount as nothing is proven and nothing is impossible.
UFO's could be one or the other, both at the same time and not exist at all.
Hello spacecase0,we do have the technology.
go look up the experaments
Hello nivek,To me the technology obviously exists, the UFOs that just our military have encountered are supportive of that and that those they encountered were not 'spiritual'...They appear to be physical objects, nuts and bolts, tracked on radar performing feats that our currently manned military craft cannot hope to accomplish, and using our technology to track these things seems to verify they are solid physical objects...Could some UFOs be etherical or of mental constructs and projections, possibly...A mystic once told me he was sure some of the UFOs were mental projections, probes of this sort sent by and acontrolled by a group of highly evolved minds to explore other places in the galaxy, that they can gather all sorts of data from their projections...That may be quite possible, but I think many if not most of these craft (ufos) seem to be nuts and bolts physical and if I may add, with alien humanoid occupants, the countless decades of UFOnauts reports also support that...
...
He could have said that George, but if he had, he would've been wrong, because what you've described is a hypothetical form of magnetic field propulsion...which is very different from the theoretical physics of gravitational field propulsion. So the concept you've described cannot involve antigravity or free-fall, which are gravitational and not magnetic in nature. Among other things, you can't get acute-angle trajectories at thousands of miles per hour using a magnetic field propulsion system like that, without imparting staggering g-forces to the craft and any possible occupants. Only the physics of gravitational field propulsion readily predicts all of the key observed performance characteristics of a typical AAV sighting.He could have simply come along and said:-
"It is my understanding that a new theory had been proven regarding 'free fall' anti-gravity by which a magnetic field could be radiated round an object such as a UFO causing a repelling action with the earth's magnetic field, hence counteracting gravity which would allow the external pressures of the earth's atmosphere as to allow that object to do high speed manoeuvring using a principle similar to a Tesla Coil through magnetic induction"
Mass In relation to Gravitational Force
That's one too many second units. It's 9.81m/s/s or 9.81m/s^2, not 9.81/s/s^2.2) With earth science we have what we call acceleration due to gravity which iss rated at 9.81m/s/s^2
It reads like you're describing a velocity and not an acceleration. The acceleration of gravity means that the speed will be 9.81m/s after the first second, and 19.62m/s after two seconds of fall, and so on.It means that an object within the earth's gravitational pull will fall at 9.81 meters every second through the distance that it will fall.
No that's wrong, centrifugal force isn't the "mainly attributed" factor in the Earth's gravitational field - the rest mass accounts for most of the acceleration field. Kinetic energy and pressure are also small contributing factors.3) The earth's mass is pulling us down at this rate mainly attributed by what is called centrifugal force
No, free fall is experienced anywhere. For example NASA's "Vomit Comet" is an airplane that descends at the acceleration of gravity so astronauts can experience free fall for short periods of time. And a falling rock is basically in free-fall, neglecting the small atmospheric friction at low velocities.4) When we go higher into space, this gravitation pull becomes diminished and we weigh less. This weightlessness allows 'free fall'
Gravity is the acceleration in that Newtonian approximation, not the force.7) Force =M X A meaning that our force is based on the accelerated rate of change.
I have no idea what you mean by "resetting the gravitation pull through weightlessness," but whatever.8) Looking at our spacecraft it would appear to be at a set volume. Admitted free-fall can be set accordingly inside the spacecraft by resetting the gravitation pull through weightlessness although the mass will remain constant.
There's zero evidence of other physical dimensions beyond the known 4D spacetime manifold. CERN has looked for them using the LHC and found no signs of them, so Vegas money is betting that they don't exist after all.10) This can be attained through multi dimensions on a none physical earth basis allowing manoeuvrability to increase. For example like turning a feather as opposed to a brick.
No there's the intrinsic rest mass-energy of the matter itself, plus the kinetic energy given by its velocity. Force isn't used to calculate the total energy because a force acting on a body is changing its energy. The velocity is what matters, not the force.12) The amount of energy stored in an object is based on the force acting on it's mass.
In primitive 18th-century Newtonian physics that would be true. But with the gravitaitonal field propulsion principle described by general relativity, which you still haven't bothered to read about, that last statement is not true: with gravitational field propulsion a craft can zigzag at any speed and neither the craft nor the occupants would feel the slightest acceleration, because they're not being subjected to a force, they're being subjected to a uniform field of acceleration. This may seem counterintuitive but it's well-established physics.We call this POTENTIAL energy as it travels a distance to convert that potential energy into kinetic energy.
In order to divert that mass at right angles a force in lateral vector quantity would be required oppose that force.
No, UFOs are using the laws of gravitation vis-a-vis general relativity; they're not "defying" anything.13) It is agreed that a relatively heavy object will become lighter as gravitation is decreased and add to weightlessness.
However UFOS have been noted to turn and twist defying the laws of gravity which therefore must be attributed to either weight or mass which in effect is connected to density.
I don't know what you're trying to say here but if I had to guess I'd say that it's probably irrelevant and/or incorrect.14) The point that I am making, is that we are talking about the OUTSIDE of an object not the freefall taht contains inside if we substitute the gravity.
This is completely wrong. UFOs exhibit precisely the performance capabilities predicted for a gravitational field propulsion device, and Alcubierre provided the equation for it in terms of general relativity, i.e. differential spacetime geometry. You're simply unaware of this advancement because apparently you think that you already know everything that there is to be known.15) Density is the main factor here in relation to mass and earth science cannot explain how physical UFOs work.
Wrong. You arrived at an incorrect conclusion because you refuse to read up on the subject of gravitational field propulsion, first formulated in terms of GR 25 years ago.It literally cannot be done unless they are spiritual/inter dimensional by which they transfer their energy into a different world.
I was just thinking if perhaps a solid UFO had an anti-gravity field around it?
Similar to the way your headlamps would illuminate the road in front of you?
Let us say that this anti-gravity field was uni-directional in all axis including X, Y and Z. Then mass-weight would become minimal and right angled turns would be possible?
I cannot argue that point, a sit is purely down to belief. I think they are spiritual .
It would have to be a Tesla Coil.
Just put a search and I found this:-
Did Tesla Discover the Secrets of Antigravity?
There is a picture of my dad as you open it up.
THAT IS THE ONLY way it would work.
Gravitation would allow mass to to become weightless.
We just do not have the technology here to do it...so it cannot be done!
UFOs could perhaps do this?
If you think about it......levitating an animal by UFOs???
This would also account how UFOs suck electrical power. By INDUCTANCE and the reason why car batteries go dead
There still is NO proof and cannot be done with Earth science but can be shown in mathematics.
It would have to be this above.
Or factor E energy is dependent on mass 'M' relating to the radius squared by the amount of radians squared.
If by anti gravity the mass 'M' is diminished the amount of energy require would also be reduced.
Maths says it can be done but that would depend also on the radius
So there would be a small amount of opposition energy and reduced friction
The Large Hadron Collider runs on 200 megawatts of electricity, so we're already harnessing energies at that scale.That is about 265 million watts of electricity!!!!!
Oh heck we would be looking at over 264,870,000 Joules energy to create a field taking weight as 9.81 based on 'M' being at zero to create ca field around a craft approx 15 meters diameter and spinning at about 30,000 revs as to free fall gravity.
Where do we get that amount of energy?
What do you mean Lucozade?
Hence transposition of M =8.1
M=2E/MR^2 w^2 (long time...hope I have got it correct?)
That is about 265 million watts of electricity!!!!!
I'd substitute the word "physics" for "science" in this assessment, but you've made a good point. My primary interest now is in finding ways to lay the groundwork for an entirely new discipline: engineering with the physics of general relativity. That's a very difficult problem because we don't yet have the techniques for manipulating very high densities of mass-energy, and/or, a proven approach to modulating the Einstein coupling constant in Einstein's field equation. But in my mind AAVs demonstrate that one or both of these things are technologically achievable. Recently Jack Sarfatti has been working this problem and he thinks he's found a way to rewrite the Einstein field equation so that the Einstein constant can be dramatically modulated using metamaterials, but I'm a bit skeptical of his approach - I'd like to see it pass through peer-review but I gather that he hasn't been willing to submit it for publication.Your problem is that you are being stuck in your specialization. Mechanical engineer knows mechanics, electronics engineer knows electronics, chemist knows only chemistry and so on. One con only extrapolate a small number of principles from mechanic to electronics, or from electronics to chemistry. None of these specializations is universal.
But what is universal is science. You can reduce any of big scientific knowledge theories to many different engineering applications. One can reduce GTR to Newtonian mechanics, where you are expert. One can reduce Quantum Mechanics to chemistry. And one can reduce electrodynamics to electronics. So if one has scientific knowledge, GTR, QM and ED, his mind has a broader view than just engineering.
Actually with some kinds of observational tests we've confirmed its accuracy to 10^13 or more. Clifford Will maintains a living review paper of all of the observational tests of GR where he quantifies the accuracy for each variety of test, and also compares the predictions of GR with the predictions of the other contending theories of gravitation that haven't been completely ruled out yet:GTR predictions had been proven right to one part in 10,000.
To be fair though:But GTR is an incomplete theory: 1) it can not explain galactic rotational curves, 2) it doesn't satisfy energy conservation laws in some cases, 3) frame dragging wasn't really properly proven, because the main sensors failed and they had free parameters to shoehorn outcome as they liked.
I'm glad to hear that Dejan. I should mention that anyone familiar with the equations of Maxwell's theory and electrodynamics can use the equations of the Parametrized Post-Newtonian (PPN) formalism, which is a linearized approximation for the tensor field equations of general relativity, to calculate the effects of gravitomagnetism and gravitoelectric induction and soforth, and the answers gotten that way are valid within the weak field regime (where we're likely to start trying to engineer with general relativity). In cases where velocities approach a significant fraction of the speed of light, or where the gravitational field intensity is much greater than that of the Earth, the correct magnitudes will simply be higher than the results acquired through the equations of the post-Newtonian formalism, which has also been known as gravitoelectromagnetism. The basic idea is that one can view mass as "a positive gravitational charge" in which case a massive flowing fluid becomes analogous to an electrical current. So there are analogues for all of the inductive phenomena of electrodynamics in general relativity using "mass currents" and soforth.Actually, Thomas' comprehensive knowledge of GTR made me to start reading GTR's math and it was a fascinating eye opener.
there is a reason I keep talking of experiments.Hello spacecase0,
Moving forward to your your answer.......
I am a mechanical engineer in training and education. This makes me somewhat different to a person being educated in Astro-Physics (and I do not even know how to spell it...lol) Yet.....
The subjects overlap by which you talk about density or sparsity of molecular structures...but it still points to the same answer.
In retrospect a degree is a degree and a BSc whether that be in astro dynamics or geometry will normally get you a job in either field. We as engineers have to take things apart. It is a mad cap thing...so do not leave your wrist watch behind. We have been known to take your washing machine to9 bits before putting it back together again just to understand the technology. Whilst you guys had been playing with pop guns as kids shooting dad up the rump...we had been playing with mechano sets.
What I am trying to say here before I set fire to Mr nivek's' computer monitor is that we cannot simply be told what works and what does not work. It is a madness what all mechanical engineers have. This is why mechanical engineers make the worse UFO believers. In order to exist we have to 'poke holes' through things or set fire to them.
This was why I had to think about this 'nuts and bolts' thing before realising that the mathematics does prove it in THEORY.
Notice the word 'theory'
Now before you may think that this is hypocritical of me...I still think the same as I did...only this time I had gained recognition in your favour. This makes me adaptable because I can change whilst others are stuck in their ways.
If for example I saw my posting of 'The Storms' it would convince me that it was a marvel. That is because I am able to analyse info by looking at it. Whereas some people can stare at things and their brain washed ideas will not alter.
How are we doing?
Okay...
I don't think this is true at all,Otherwise we would now be sending our rockets to the moon by anti-gravitation.
We simply do not have 'the know how' to accumulate all this energy for a large object to defy gravity.
what I said has nothing to do with the earth's magnetic field or repelling from it at all."It is my understanding that a new theory had been proven regarding 'free fall' anti-gravity by which a magnetic field could be radiated round an object such as a UFO causing a repelling action with the earth's magnetic field, hence counteracting gravity which would allow the external pressures of the earth's atmosphere as to allow that object to do high speed manoeuvring using a principle similar to a Tesla Coil through magnetic induction"
The frame-dragging effect around the Earth is ridiculously minute and to try to measure it directly they had to invent almost perfectly spherical gyroscopes for the Gravity Probe B satellite. Unfortunately during their operation, unexpectedly strong patches of static electric fields built up on the surface of these little gyroscopes, showering the signal with noise.Yeah, but what about 3) Gravitation Probe B. They screwed up the numbers, than they made them look nice?
Scientists were completely free to fudge anything they wanted and make GTR look perfect. I would like to know what really happened there, because it's so suspicious.