ImmortalLegend527
The Messenger Of All Gods old and new
When looking into time and the evolution of history...humans are the aliens.Legend.
In my opinion the problem here is that we're all debating this question as if it's still 1970.Heard it all..
Aliens playing with us, dimensional gods playing with us, some entity playing with us... etc
Apparently professional skeptics and their cheerleading groups think its all in our heads mostly. Or everyone is mistaken all the time, people and equipment, everyone except them of course.
And some others think US government or some private groups are behind all of the anomalous stuff in all the countries, while they have managed to perfectly hide it all for 70+ years, of course.
I wonder if anyone has the big picture of what the hell is going on anymore?
.) Theoretical physics has essentially solved the problem of rapid manned interstellar spaceflight: using a gravitational field propulsion system we now know that it's possible to traverse vast interstellar distances in arbitrarily short timescales with no time dilation, no intrinsic energy expenditure (unlike the reaction propulsion principle) once the field is established, and no subjective g-forces regardless of the rate of accelerations or decelerations.
This is incorrect. The performance characteristics of a typical AAV precisely match all of the performance characteristics predicted for both types of gravitational field propulsion (GFP) systems that have been described in the language of general relativity. GFP systems are also the only method for superluminal spaceflight.General Relativity has next to nothing to teach us about UFOs.
This is incorrect. The performance characteristics of a typical AAV precisely match all of the performance characteristics predicted for both types of gravitational field propulsion (GFP) systems that have been described in the language of general relativity. GFP systems are also the only method for superluminal spaceflight.
And this will all still hold when we finally arrive at a quantum model of gravity, because just as classical electrodynamics still holds at the macroscale following the advent of quantum field theory, classical gravitodynamics will still hold at the macroscale when we learn how to engineer gravitational fields using a quantum theory of gravity.
You think that the effect of the magnetic field is less important than the cause? I can't see how you can defend that statement: the utility of magnetic fields is entirely in their effects, not their cause.Of course that general relativity will hold, but general relativity is effect not the cause. Exactly in the same way that magnetism is caused by quantum spin. Once we know the cause the effect will be less important.
You're making an egregious error of logic here: an artillery shell is accelerated by a powerful explosive reaction. AAVs like the Tic-Tac exhibit accelerations of 5600+ g's with absolutely no emission signature. So they're not reaction propulsion devices. And the only way an object can exhibit levitation or acceleration with no emission signature, is gravitational field propulsion.As a matter of the fact, in all my 4 years of investigations of trends in physical effects related to UFOs I only found some semblance of relativistic effect three times, out of, say, 500 times or so. High g turns that you are talking about could be simply a consequence of them flying remotely controlled drones without crew. It doesn't mean at all that they are relativistic machines. Electronics inside smart artillery shells can stand acceleration of 30,000 g and that's our own present day technology.
You think that the effect of the magnetic field is less important than the cause? I can't see how you can defend that statement: the utility of magnetic fields is entirely in their effects, not their cause.
You're making an egregious error of logic here: an artillery shell is accelerated by a powerful explosive reaction. AAVs like the Tic-Tac exhibit accelerations of 5600+ g's with absolutely no emission signature. So they're not reaction propulsion devices. And the only way an object can exhibit levitation or acceleration with no emission signature, is gravitational field propulsion.
And given that our primary international occupation consists of endless mass murder operations and global exploitation by a bloated and sociopathic neofeudal overlord class, it seems that our more advanced neighbors aren't interested in offering us the hand of galactic friendship...which is not a surprising decision.
So as I see it, the debate is settled. The only people still arguing about it are the cynics who can never admit that they're wrong even when the preponderance of scientific evidence and simple logic presents an insurmountable counterargument, and the superstitious simpletons who want to drag us back to the Dark Ages to argue that a Loki-like trickster god is toying with reality on a global scale just to confound us.
That's not true - we've been making very powerful magnetic fields and manipulating them just fine since long before the advent of quantum field theory. I doubt it would change a thing regarding magnetism if we had never discovered its quantum origin.Yeah, we are splitting rethorical hairs here. If you don't manage the cause, effect will manage you.
The main reason why I'm not so enamored as you are with Alzofon's theory is this: even if you could reduce the inertial mass of a device down to zero in the manner he proposed (which I very much doubt), the maximum speed it could ever attain is still limited to the speed of light."gravitational field propulsion" is ambiguous term. One can erase gravitational and inertial mass and achieve the same huge acceleration with trivial expenditure of energy. No need for hydrogen bomb or not even nuclear reactor. Only, in that case, gravitation will be zero, so it would be improper to call it "gravitational propulsion", but maybe inertial boyancy propulsion.
It's a pretty revealing indictment of our species that the worse-case scenario is the one where alien visitors are like us.Herein lays a point which concerns me about broadcasting ourselves in space or even putting plaques and information in our probes that could lead unknown species back to earth...What if some of these space faring alien races 'grew up' very similar to our species, through conquest and blood and developed highly advanced technology in the process, and now take that attitude out into space and slowly fight and conquer other species, perhaps even less developed species...Overall we are a violent species, killing each other off in droves but we are also developing more and more advanced technology, perhaps soon we will be able to traverse the galaxy, visiting other star systems...If we are out there in space, how long do you think it will take before we butt heads with another intelligent species, perhaps go to war with them, or find a less developed species on a planet living on top of precious metals and ore...How long before our esteemed leaders decide to pillage that place and take it for ourselves?...Apologies, I know this is a negative view but its also a valid one, we are literally burning our world down, how long before we take another world for ourselves and at who's expense?...
...
That's a good point. And a chilling one. We do seem to be hell-bent on assuring our own extinction (and taking countless other species with us along the way).Id think those kinds of species rarely even survive their infancy on their own world. Which might happen to us before we become spacefaring.
I was just enjoying this Richard Dolan talk about the status of the ETH - perhaps others will enjoy it as well - interesting stuff:
That's not true - we've been making very powerful magnetic fields and manipulating them just fine since long before the advent of quantum field theory. I doubt it would change a thing regarding magnetism if we had never discovered its quantum origin.
If you can confirm the effect experimentally, that would be cool. But I don't think it resolves the AAV propulsion issue.
Scientifically, do you think that life could evolve to prosper on a gaseous planet that we can not yet see?
Jo Ann Richards said there's gaseous beings that feel on methane & ammonia. She got that information from her husband Mark Richards.Scientifically, do you think that life could evolve to prosper on a gaseous planet that we can not yet see?
I think that life will arise wherever the required conditions for life exist. We're not yet entirely certain what those conditions are, but progress is being made, and from what we've learned so far I can see no reason why a warm and watery planet with a thick gaseous atmosphere couldn't evolve a thriving ecosystem.Scientifically, do you think that life could evolve to prosper on a gaseous planet that we can not yet see?
It's a little bit more complex than that - life needs to establish a foothold before it can adapt to harsh conditions. For example we find life in conditions on Earth which are more harsh than conditions on, say Mars. It's possible that life never established a foothold on Mars. But if the conditions on Earth would gradually become like conditions on Mars, it seems very likely that it would survive in some form via adaptation, probably beneath the surface.I've wondered if there is a solid core inside gas planets like Jupiter, Neptune, or Uranus, I would assume there is a core in those planets, a rocky core...Judging by how we find life here on earth in the most inhospitable places it seems plausible to me that life exists on those gas giants, perhaps forms of life we would not immediately recognize as life...
...