Theories on Propulsion used by U.F.O's

I Think I discussed this with Tate, I'm not certain, I feel that if there is a spin at all, There must be some gyroscopic reason. My assumption is, If one does spin, Which I don't think they all do, But if one does, Maybe the spin is just to create a mathmatical gyroscopic leveling point, That could somehow help maneuver the craft, But that's me giving the spin some value anyway, It probably has next to no importance on any level, But If I had to give it some reason, I would assume a gyroscopic reference point for some sort of enhanced stability, ..

Possibly to keep the weight inside the craft from becoming imbalanced? Maybe. I could imagine if the weight in the craft were imbalanced this would affect trajectory.
That explanation doesn't work for me because if that were true, then they could just have an internal gyro spinning at a much higher speed to accomplish the same purpose: no need to spin the whole craft.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
I have a Theory that They are using a Nuclear process, "This may even be why there are reports of activity around Missile sites" <--- Speculation.

But I believe they are using a fusion process to create a very dense matter, "Maybe not a black hole," But a very dense material that pulls at space-time with great force, Admittedly like a black hole. In a way since Gravity pushes and a Blackhole actually pulls, Then yeah, It's basically antigravity, But, I feel they are simply using a manufactured singularity to pull themselves around.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
That explanation doesn't work for me because if that were true, then they could just have an internal gyro spinning at a much higher speed to accomplish the same purpose: no need to spin the whole craft.

Good point, I was thinking the inside is stationary while the outside spins in some cases, but you are right a powerful internal gyro would be not only preferable, It would be a better option, I'd think.
 

Tate

Honorable
Yes, that's special relativity, which applies to things like rockets and bullets and particle accelerators.

I know brother, I was just stating it at this point to begin the conversation. I am a red stater. lol. Guns and projectiles are something we learn at age seven.

No, the choice of rest frame is relative: there is no absolute state of rest or motion in relativity. So if you accelerate a body to some speed relative to its original reference frame, it keeps moving at that speed until acted on by another force - this is the law of inertia in Newtonian physics.

This would apply in a environment without external forces. I am stating more about objects not in sterile vacuums.

Gravitational field propulsion acts on the field of spacetime, not the object itself. So there's no increase in mass, and no increase in momentum. The body never experiences any force - it's conveyed from one position to another by distorting the spacetime around it.

"Time, Has the longest definition in the dictionary, that i have seen to describe the space between breaths" This concept intrigues me. why would the craft also not us a gyroscopic motion to maintain its own internal gravity?

Lots of UFOs don't spin. I don't think that the rotations that have been reported, have anything to do with the propulsion - it may have something to do with scanning the environment; we can only guess.

You make a good point.
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
Umm...

How good is the evidence that UFOs rotate?

How certain is it that they really rotate and it isn't some optical effect?

And a Morrison question:

What is your opinion of the work of Russian scientist Eugene Podkletnov of Tampere University of Technology in Finland?

The NASA replication experiments (from what I can tell) can be discounted. Podkletnov was a metallurgist who was really good at sintering superconductor disks.

NASA's antigravity research.
NASA's replication effort was problematic. They had problems building the disks. They then had to turn them mechanically at 30 RPM.

http://www.ptep-online.com/2007/PP-10-13.PDF
Podkletnov rotated his disks at 5000 rpm using electromagnetic induction.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Umm...

How good is the evidence that UFOs rotate?

How certain is it that they really rotate and it isn't some optical effect?

And a Morrison question:

What is your opinion of the work of Russian scientist Eugene Podkletnov of Tampere University of Technology in Finland?

The NASA replication experiments (from what I can tell) can be discounted. Podkletnov was a metallurgist who was really good at sintering superconductor disks.

NASA's antigravity research.
NASA's replication effort was problematic. They had problems building the disks. They then had to turn them mechanically at 30 RPM.

http://www.ptep-online.com/2007/PP-10-13.PDF
Podkletnov rotated his disks at 5000 rpm using electromagnetic induction.

Statistical evidence that UFOs rotate is absolutely first class. At least 50% of UFO witnesses reported rotation of the body of UFO. There were even cases where witnesses stood 10m (30ft) from the craft and reported rotation. Though, not all of them rotated, but 50% is extremely high.

Plus, what optical effect would that be? I don't really know of any effect that can create illusion of rotation, particularly if surface had some imperfections and patches.

But rotation is not the issue here. There is a different observation that gentleman made, about 1,000 times more important, that we should be discussing.

@Thomas R. Morrison this is your 5 minutes of fame ...
 

CasualBystander

Celestial
That explanation doesn't work for me because if that were true, then they could just have an internal gyro spinning at a much higher speed to accomplish the same purpose: no need to spin the whole craft.

Yeah, spinning a whole vehicle to keep it gyroscopically balanced is sort of crazy.

Don't see the outside of a Segway spinning and they stay upright just fine.

The real question is what theory would require the outside of the vehicle to spin?

It isn't propulsion per se since the vehicles are claimed to dart at all angles to the direction of rotation.

It could be generating an EM field of some kind, but I'm not up to speed on theories about why they are doing this.
 
Statistical evidence that UFOs rotate is absolutely first class. At least 50% of UFO witnesses reported rotation of the body of UFO. There were even cases where witnesses stood 10m (30ft) from the craft and reported rotation. Though, not all of them rotated, but 50% is extremely high.

Plus, what optical effect would that be? I don't really know of any effect that can create illusion of rotation, particularly if surface had some imperfections and patches.

But rotation is not the issue here. There is a different observation that gentleman made, about 1,000 times more important, that we should be discussing.

@Thomas R. Morrison this is your 5 minutes of fame ...
Er, sorry G, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Care to specify?

Yeah, spinning a whole vehicle to keep it gyroscopically balanced is sort of crazy.

Don't see the outside of a Segway spinning and they stay upright just fine.

The real question is what theory would require the outside of the vehicle to spin?

It isn't propulsion per se since the vehicles are claimed to dart at all angles to the direction of rotation.

It could be generating an EM field of some kind, but I'm not up to speed on theories about why they are doing this.
This is why we need to solve the theoretical problem first, and then see if it helps us make sense of the observations after that - because otherwise we don;t know what's relevant to propulsion, and what may be relevant to a completely unrelated factor.

For example, these devices might spin simply because they're continuously scanning the environment. Or for some other reason entirely. From a physics point of view, rotation of a device doesn't seen to relate to propulsion since angular momentum and linear momentum are conserved separately, but we can't be sure of anything until we figure out how these craft are propelled.

Same goes for EM effects. EM energy can can be indicative of a bewildering range of technological activities from communications broadcasting to sensing systems of various kinds to possible propulsion involvement to energy system leakages, just to name a few.

Regarding UFO/AAV propulsion, we can have high confidence in only one thing: these craft (of all shapes and sizes) are using gravitational field propulsion: the performance characteristics match the theoretical predictions perfectly, and are very unique/distinguishing. But even that doesn't tell us much, because there are a variety of propulsion schemes that fall under the umbrella of gravitational field propulsion. The best-known and most theoretically sound gravitational field propulsion concepts in the academic literature right now are wildly different concepts; the Alcubierre metric and Jack Wisdom's "swimming in spacetime" model. Lately I'm of the opinion that we will discover other models of gravitational field propulsion as-yet unknown to modern theoretical physics. And of course we won't be able to even vaguely understand the specific technological signatures from sch systems until we have the theory in hand.

So in my opinion, trying to understand the specific meaning of the energy fields and mechanical actions of AAVs at this point is akin to trying to figure out the operation of a Formula One race car by studying its carbon monoxide emissions. You could drive yourself crazy trying to work backwards from a by-product like that. You need to have a pretty good understanding of a combustion engine before you can appreciate the significance of the CO its emitting.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Er, sorry G, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Care to specify?

Here is a good list of UFO witness testimonials. If you care to count how many times witnesses, who observed an UFO, mentioned that UFO was spinning it will be roughly about 50% of cases:

UFO Çizimleri

UFO Çizimleri-2

As well, one can get some good books full of UFO cases, like Paul Hill's, Peter Sturrock's, James McCampbell's etc., and than do the count there. Basically that was my method, how I learned about relationship between UFOs and science.

Yeah, they can be spinning because they are simply observing environment and want to check their 6'oclock from time to time.

But spinning somehow got in the way of much more important observation. That video above, that I posted and asked for comments, is showing red, yellow and blue light shift bellow the UFO. For those who know a tiny bit about GTR (General Theory of Relativity), like myself, that would immediately mean that UFOs are bending spacetime bellow the UFO. So we have major confirmation between GTR and UFOs.

For the tenth time in a raw we observed agreement between UFO witness testimonials and our scientific knowledge.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Only problem with that all important video, that is puzzling me, is that the spacetime bellow the UFO is bent: red > yellow > blue. Practically spacetime oscillates from attractive to repulsive, similar to alternate current or sinusoidal centered around zero. That's somehow impossible, because average would be zero, and UFO would still be falling as attracted by Earth's gravitation.

I was expecting to see an offset oscillation. Like yellow > blue > yellow > blue. That would be going from neutral to repulsive and thus UFO would be able to hover.

Another problem, I see, is that there is no light bending above the UFO. UFO can be pulled up, not just supported from bellow.

Just a side-note, in nature only yellow and red gravitational light shifts occur, but blue light shift must be completely artificial or alien made.

Just some food for thought.
 
Last edited:
Only problem with that all important video, that is puzzling me, is that the spacetime bellow the UFO is bent: red > yellow > blue. Practically spacetime oscillates from attractive to repulsive, similar to alternate current or sinusoidal centered around zero. That's somehow impossible, because average would be zero, and UFO would still be falling as attracted by Earth's gravitation.

I was expecting to see an offset oscillation. Like yellow > blue > yellow > blue. That would be going from neutral to repulsive and thus UFO would be able to hover.

Another problem, I see, is that there is no light bending above the UFO. UFO can be pulled up, not just supported from bellow.

Just a side-note, in nature only yellow and red gravitational light shifts occur, but blue light shift must be completely artificial or alien made.

Just some food for thought.
In my view it makes no sense for the wavelengths to shift through the spectrum from red to blue if the effect is gravitational in nature.

But it makes perfect sense if the effect is related to the energy level of the material, just as metal radiates from the red to the blue regions of the spectrum as it gets hotter.

And given what we're seeing in the area of photonic metamaterials, it makes a lot of sense that the gravitational effects are being generated with greater intensity as the activation energy of the metamaterial is increased - the two are directly related:

“Electromagnetic stress at the boundary: photon pressure or tension?” Shubo Wang, Jack Ng, Meng Xiao, and C. T. Chan, 2015
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.06227.pdf

“Electromagnetic stress tensor for amorphous metamaterial medium,” Neng Wang, Shubo Wang, Jack Ng, 2018
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.00942.pdf
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
In my view it makes no sense for the wavelengths to shift through the spectrum from red to blue if the effect is gravitational in nature.

But it makes perfect sense if the effect is related to the energy level of the material, just as metal radiates from the red to the blue regions of the spectrum as it gets hotter.

And given what we're seeing in the area of photonic metamaterials, it makes a lot of sense that the gravitational effects are being generated with greater intensity as the activation energy of the metamaterial is increased - the two are directly related:

“Electromagnetic stress at the boundary: photon pressure or tension?” Shubo Wang, Jack Ng, Meng Xiao, and C. T. Chan, 2015
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.06227.pdf

“Electromagnetic stress tensor for amorphous metamaterial medium,” Neng Wang, Shubo Wang, Jack Ng, 2018
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.00942.pdf

But red, yellow, blue patch is always outside of the body of the craft. Craft is metallic silver color and it's color never changes. Photonic or not, material that craft is made of doesn't play any role here, because red, yellow, blue patches are outside of the craft's body.

Are you saying that the air bellow and outside of the craft is becoming red and blue because of heating up?

Maybe it's just plasma forming because some electromagnetic effect. But, to be honest, it doesn't look very much as plasma, to my eye. Plasma would be much brighter and it would emit it's own light. These patches are pretty dull, so they don't emit any light of their own making.

But it is equally puzzling that there is no symmetrical patch on the opposite end above the craft.
 
Last edited:
But red, yellow, blue patch is always outside of the body of the craft. Craft is metallic silver color and it's color never changes. Photonic or not, material that craft is made of doesn't play any role here, because red, yellow, blue patches are outside of the craft's body.

Are you saying that the air bellow and outside of the craft is becoming red and blue because of heating up?

Maybe it's just plasma forming because some electromagnetic effect. But, to be honest, it doesn't look very much as plasma, to my eye. Plasma would be much brighter and it would emit it's own light. These patches are pretty dull, so they don't emit any light of their own making.

But it is equally puzzling that there is no symmetrical patch on the opposite end above the craft.
Idk man - that noisy low-rez video clip is pretty dicey evidence. It could be some kind of video artifact, or there could be a light underneath the device illuminating the air under humid conditions. It takes a Very powerful gravitational field to produce enough redshift or blueshift to see with the naked eye. And why would it be oscillating so slowly that a camera could pick up the oscillations?

For a moment I considered that maybe there's some as-yet unknown gravitational effect akin to the Lenz law, where an oscillating region of spacetime produces represents an energized region that repels matter, but if that were the case I would expect the frequency to be extremely high to produce the maximum acceleration field with the minimum energy level, and to prevent the device from shaking violently as the field oscillated. But I'm unaware of any such force field in GR. I'll look into it though just in case.

Most of the credible eyewitness reports that I'm aware of don't involve the kind of color field that you're talking about. No such field was reported in the Nimitz case, even under high accelerations. In the Delphos, Kansas case the object itself glowed. In the Hannah McRoberts photo there's no glow at all. In most of the reports I'm familiar with there's either no glow at all, or some or all of the physical craft itself glowed, and in tons of cases the craft have some kind of landing lights or navigation lights. I'm not aware of many cases where the air around the craft had colored light without the craft itself glowing.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Idk man - that noisy low-rez video clip is pretty dicey evidence. It could be some kind of video artifact, or there could be a light underneath the device illuminating the air under humid conditions. It takes a Very powerful gravitational field to produce enough redshift or blueshift to see with the naked eye. And why would it be oscillating so slowly that a camera could pick up the oscillations?

For a moment I considered that maybe there's some as-yet unknown gravitational effect akin to the Lenz law, where an oscillating region of spacetime produces represents an energized region that repels matter, but if that were the case I would expect the frequency to be extremely high to produce the maximum acceleration field with the minimum energy level, and to prevent the device from shaking violently as the field oscillated. But I'm unaware of any such force field in GR. I'll look into it though just in case.

Most of the credible eyewitness reports that I'm aware of don't involve the kind of color field that you're talking about. No such field was reported in the Nimitz case, even under high accelerations. In the Delphos, Kansas case the object itself glowed. In the Hannah McRoberts photo there's no glow at all. In most of the reports I'm familiar with there's either no glow at all, or some or all of the physical craft itself glowed, and in tons of cases the craft have some kind of landing lights or navigation lights. I'm not aware of many cases where the air around the craft had colored light without the craft itself glowing.

I agree with you. This is the only case that I know with such effect. There is total luck of other independent cases. I just wanted to get to the bottom of it.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
There are few revolutionary technologies coming our way that press hasn't yet discovered.

This is one such thing, direct production of electric current from Hydrogen-Boron fusion. Normally, in all energy sources known to a men, energy is converted into heat, heat into water steam and than steam drives turbines. That's how coal, natural gas and nuclear power stations work.

If we ever make UFOs this will most likely be power source:

 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
71Zd8xhvoML._AC_SY741_.jpg
 
Top