UFO videos

Gambeir

Celestial
It's a hugely more complicated problem than that. Even if you could accelerate charged particles to speeds very close to the speed of light in some kind of vortex, the centripetal acceleration would pull the particles away from the center and you'd lose containment long before you could generate a detectable gravitational field.

It's only as complicated as either physics or I can make it seem. Of the two mine is probably the simpler to understand when all is said and done. Now to begin with let's look at the assumptions; one, that you need a containment vessel, two that the gyroscopic inertial forces would exceed any ability to contain particles, charged or otherwise, but these ideas are based on conventional thinking, as well as unproven notions about the way things may actually work, and one of which is gravity.

Gravity is magnetism, and it is likely that it is magnetism set to the correct orbital path of gyroscopic rotations acting upon motive electrons and nothing more: If applied at an atomic level this can result in what we here inside an already existing gravitational field would call levitation; as demonstrated by pyrolitic graphite when place over a suitably strong magnet.

When the magnetic field is increased then it is reasonable to think that the strength of the gravitational field will also increase, and this increase is measured by the cube. Which brings us to the next assumption about gravity.

That assumptions is what creates diamagnetism. Some materials like graphite are diamagnetic; that they are said to repel a magnetic field but is this at all logical? It is to say a diamagnetic material acts as a room temp sort of super conductor, that it acts as a super cooled piece of super conducting material would.


Diamagnetic materials oppose magnetic fields without being magnetic: How? These materials are neither super cooled, nor superconductive, and neither are they actually prone to eject magnetic fields. Materials which are not superconductive are, in fact, still magnetic and can be measured.

This says that a diamagnetic material has it's own magnetic field just like any other form of matter, but that it is also doing something else which non~diamagnetic materials do not do, and which super conductors do not do.

To say that a diamagnetic material does what it does by rejecting or opposing a magnetic field does indicates that diamagnetic material interact against an exterior magnetic field as if they somehow were able to detect either pole of a poised magnet, and to then react alternatively to oppose that field, which is highly unlikely, and so a more logical deduction might be that all diamagnetic matter already have an existing micro~gravitational field. It would therefore be a mistaken idea that the electrons in some material, such as pyrolitic graphite, are somehow induced to suddenly become superconducting like without being superconducting, and or producing eddy currents such that the otherwise un~powered and non~supercooled chip of inanimate matter begins levitating. Therefore an alternative explanation might exist.

Isn't it more logical to suppose that graphite and other diamagnetic materials are actually exhibiting a gravitational field of their own? Isn't it actually a nonsensical notion to think that a magnetic field could induce an opposed magnetic field in a material which is itself not magnetic, or in some instances neither magnetic nor even a conductor of electricity and are therefore both diamagnetic and dielectric.

A more sensible and logical deduction might be that the magnetic field flowing in to diamagnetic material, such as graphite for example, might instead by akin to powering up the gravitation field of that material? Could magnetism itself be the empowering energy that creates the reaction by transferring part of it's own magnetic field to that of another weaker magnetic field which is inside an existing micro~gravitational field? If that's what's going on then the so called opposing or repelling magnetic field is actually created by an opposed gravitational field, and which is then repelling itself away from one linked together by the existing magnetic field link which formed between the two masses! One would have been the one giving part of itself to the other, and independently of the gravitational field commonly thought of as being diamagnetic.

A supporting bit of evidence of an independence of gravitational field in diamagnetic materials such as graphite is that it can be steered by laser light , and since light creates heat, it's the heat which weakens the magnetic field in a specific location and results in causing dipping in the direction of weakened magnetic influence.


Think about it: it takes the entire rest mass of the Earth to produce an acceleration of 1g. Trying to relativistically increase the mass of ions to that magnitude would require the energy equivalent of the Earth's mass, which is vastly beyond any foreseeable human technology.

I don't think that's necessary and if you did it would probably be very upsetting for all involved. Why are you making that assumption? You don't need to recreate the relative mass of the entire planet, only the mass relative to the mass of the material you wish to levitate is what is called for, or alternatively you might find a way to decrease the mass as has been hypothetically formulated. A soap bubble levitates does it not? It is highly unlikely that one would need to get remotely near the speed of light to induce a sufficiently strong enough gravitational field to become useful.


And even if you could do such a thing, it wouldn't generate any directional motion, because the conservation of momentum still applies. The only way to get around that is by using an equal magnitude of negative energy,

Let's first get to the gravitational solution and then worry about steering, after all, you're telling me it isn't going anywhere in the first place right? Lol~ sort of a double meaning there.


and if that actually exists, we only know of very tiny scales of negative energy, like we find with the Casimir effect. Alternatively, you could induce negative values in the pressure terms of the stress-energy tensor; recent theoretical work on photonic metamaterials has revealed tension (negative pressure) terms in these materials under photonic activation when they possess a triangular microstructure.. But those terms have a very small value - we have no idea how to make them so large that they surpass the positive rest mass of the material to produce a net negative inertial/gravitational mass.

Well I can see right away what the problem is; you boy's just need some military oversight where, one, failure is not an option and, two, there's always an alternative solution to every problem, and, three, force multiplier is a law that trumps all others: refer back to number 2 in the chain of problem solving solutions when necessary.


In any case, we're confronted with a key requisite for ever achieving gravitational field propulsion: we have to figure out how to attenuate the coupling constant between mass-energy and spacetime, aka, the Einstein constant. Nobody really has any idea how to do that, although Robert L. Forward, and more recently Jack Sarfatti, have proposed some interesting ideas in that direction (though frankly I'm highly skeptical of Dr. Sarfatti's proposal for low-power warp drive).

It's probably safe to say that gravitational field propulsion is the most daunting problem in theoretical physics. I probably wouldn't even entertain the possibility of ever achieving it, if I hadn't seen it with my own two eyes as a child, when two aerial objects executed zig-zag maneuvers in perfect formation at thousands of miles per hour in the clear daytime sky, as the neighborhood kids and I stared awestruck by the performance.

Seriously I have no idea if anything I've written is the least bit logical to you or anyone else, but seems entirely reasonable to me right about now, however my eyes are starting to do 360 degree brodies, and I find myself becoming annoyed, so I'm going to have to call it quit's but hopefully this provides some entertainment and things to think about.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Gravity is magnetism

Wow. You are a new Einstein. Do you care to share how did you get that one?

When the magnetic field is increased then it is reasonable to think that the strength of the gravitational field will also increase, and this increase is measured by the cube. Which brings us to the next assumption about gravity.

I think you are in an urgent need of reality check. Do you have a faintest idea about how much 'magnetism' do you need to pull off just 1g? Can you please show us your calculations, that would support what you are talking about.

Why are you making that assumption? You don't need to recreate the relative mass of the entire planet, only the mass relative to the mass of the material you wish to levitate is what is called for, or alternatively you might find a way to decrease the mass as has been hypothetically formulated

Well, if your spaceship is visiting Earth to chase some abductees, than you need to produce at least 1g. That is, if you want just to hover in one spot and wait for air deffence to come and blow you up. If you want to avoid inevitable mingle with Earthlings' military, you'll be in a dire need of 10g++.

Producing 0.000001g would be of a great value in laboratory, though.
 
Last edited:

Gambeir

Celestial
Wow. You are a new Einstein. Do you care to share how did you get that one?

Not unless you care to stop insulting.

I think you are in an urgent need of reality check. Do you have a faintest idea about how much 'magnetism' do you need to pull off just 1g? Can you please show us your calculations, that would support what you are talking about.

You don't need pure magnetic G force. Reread the post. You're not following. This is about gyroscopic force of moment multipliers which one would rationally think might involve magnetism. I think you're not following is all.


Well, if your spaceship is visiting Earth to chase some abductees, than you need to produce at least 1g. That is, if you want just to hover in one spot and wait for air deffence to come and blow you up. If you want to avoid inevitable mingle with Earthlings' military, you'll be in a dire need of 10g++.

Producing 0.000001g would be of a great value in laboratory, though.

1G force is the same as sitting in a chair.
 
Last edited:

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher


I don't know much abut this video, but it looks very genuine to me.

i am sorry, but this is a know old cgi fake that has been in the internet since at least 2008
if you pause the video frame by frame when it disappears you can see the UFO briefly glitch out
also solid UFOs flashing off and disappearing aren't quite common, most times you will hear of them becoming trasnparent or dematerializing
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
do you have a link to the original? something? never saw any debunking of this video before.
i don't remenber where to find it anymore, just that back in 2008-2009 there were a bunch of links talking about how its fake
maybe some of the internet wizards here can help us?
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
if you pause the video frame by frame when it disappears you can see the UFO briefly glitch out

Would it be possible for you to capture the exact frame where you think it glitches out and post it here, or at least tell me the video time where it happens so I can have a look.
 

humanoidlord

ce3 researcher
Would it be possible for you to capture the exact frame where you think it glitches out and post it here, or at least tell me the video time where it happens so I can have a look.
somewhere in the 0:55 to 0:56 period
also i noticed another anomaly: the UFO doesn't follows the camera panning around, making it jerk around in the sky
 
Top