Georgek
George
Obviously you do, George. I'm not expressing opinions here I'm explaining well-trodden physics that you don't yet understand. I provided a key academic paper, Alcubierre's seminal 1994 paper about gravitational field propulsion, that explains the physics here in detail and with mathematical rigor. The Alcubierre metric within that paper is widely accepted as a theoretically valid mechanism for producing dramatic accelerations without any subjective g-forces for the craft or any occupants within it - if you read it that's what you'll find.
Gravity isn't a force, it's an acceleration field:
If gravity isn't a force, how does it accelerate objects? (Advanced) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
It's useful to neglect considerations of atmospheric friction when discussing gravitation because it's totally unrelated, and it's pointless to get distracted with irrelevant details that only obscure the fundamental physics involved.
That's perfectly understandable flight behavior in the context of a gravitational field propulsion system. Maneuvers that would destroy any ordinary craft involving reaction propulsion, like rapid acute-angle maneuvers, would exert zero strain on a craft that's employing a spacetime propulsion system.
Okay apparently you know absolutely nothing about gravity. The range of gravitational fields is infinite, so there is no "above the Earth's pull." Spacecraft orbiting the planet are simply following the curved goedesic around the Earth - they're in free fall. Gravity provides the curvature in a satellite's trajectory. If they didn't keep falling around the planet - if they stopped relative to the Earth at any height - they would fall toward the Earth because the range of gravity is infinite.
No they're not. That's what I'm trying to explain to you, and it's clearly evident from the observations: UFOs/AAVs aren't using any form of reaction propulsion like a rocket or a missile or an airplane or a helicopter because there are no emissions or winds associated with their lift or their accelerations. The only method of reactionless propulsion - the kind of propulsion that we observe - is gravitational field propulsion. And none of the considerations of Newtonian physics apply to that form of propulsion, which is why it looks like "magic" to us.
It's not my opinion; it's a common feature in the literature, such as Paul Hill's brilliant 1995 book Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis. The most likely explanation for the absence of superheated air or sonic booms in UFO incidents is that the artificially generated gravitational field surrounding the craft and propelling it, also accelerates the air immediately surrounding the craft, producing a kind of atmospheric cushion that diffuses heat and prevents the formation of a shockwave.
No, it's an acceleration - see the Cornell University link above. Most first-year physics students understand this.
You're speaking in terms of Newtonian mechanics, which is obsolete in regard to gravitational fields. This is Einstein's geodesic equation which replaced our incorrect Newtonian equation of gravitation that was based on false assumptions such as "gravity is a force." General relativity showed us that gravity is actually an acceleration field generated by the metric curvature of spacetime, described by this equation:
View attachment 7236
Geodesic - Wikipedia
I think the leading reason why so many people mistakenly resort to superstitious/spiritual explanations of the UFO/AAV phenomenon is because most people (understandably) don't comprehend the advanced theoretical physics of gravitational field propulsion. So the behavior of UFOs/AAVs seems to defy "the laws of physics." But in reality, this is untrue: the performance characteristics of AAVs are a perfect one-to-one match for the theoretical predictions of a gravitational field propulsion system. It only seems exotic to us because we haven't yet learned to technologically engineer gravitational fields - so just as quantum teleportation would seem like magic to a 19th-century engineer, gravitational field propulsion seems like magic to a 20th-century engineer. But once you become familiar with the physics of gravitational fields and their propulsion applications, it's very sensible and well-modeled mathematically. And one day we too will learn how to build gravitational field propulsion devices that exhibit the exact same performance characteristics that we're seeing in our skies, and that technology will throw open the door to the stars and spawn the age of superluminal manned interstellar exploration.
You know something Mr Morrison, I find your replies extremely rude and offensive.
Especially how you insinuate that I know nothing about gravitation.
I spent years at university having gained the highest qualifications at degree level and you do not discus your points, but merely try and denounce others who have already proven their worth as to substantiate your own theories.
The correct method is to discus/explain or ignore a post not denounce a person' reputability
I assure you, that I had studied gravitation, Laplace, differentiation , integration and up Level III at high standard mathematics up to MSc level in engineering. My qualifications are here on this forum.
I had attended 3 years at Demontfort University, One year at Trent University whilst gaining computers skills in C&G \HND and practical engineering 228 advanced.
I had learnt everything about propulsion systems, materials and even Einstein's relativity and beyond.
What makes it insulting, is that you come along from nowhere and insult me!
What the heck gives you the right to rattle on about a subject of hypothetical values and extreme mind boggling thoughts and treat others as idiots who challenge your authority???
I am hearing:- "Clear evidence...blah..blah" Do you not have thoughts of your own and debate what YOU think instead of condemning others on what is clear to you?
What YouTube says....
Who cares a sod?
Have you got no points of your own which is not cut in stone, that you can discus, except challenging others to believe in what you believe?
You rattle on like a dictionary...years of reading from books, YouTube and so on.
How about 'The Thoughts of Mr Morrison' ?
I would normally be happy to discus some of your points...but the more I read about you, the greater disrespect I have and what the 'powers that be had said'
No doubt I am gonna get told off for this...and I say this without being egoistic...so here I end my discussion with you.
You are just beginning to annoy me and the few choice words that I may be thinking, I would rather just walk away from your debate.
George