Are UFOs 'Nuts & Bolts' Or Spiritual?

Discussion in 'UFOs & Sightings' started by Georgek, May 30, 2019.

  1. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    1,177
    for verification of the idea, see the experiments of
    W. J. Hooper and Wilbert Smith
     
  2. pepe

    pepe Celestial

    Messages:
    1,159
    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.
     
  3. Georgek

    Georgek George

    Messages:
    482
    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.
     
  4. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    1,177
    we do have the technology.
    go look up the experaments
     
  5. Georgek

    Georgek George

    Messages:
    482
    I think this is what it is all about as well.

    Just a matter of belief.

    Yer...okay after thinking about it and nearly crashing into the car in front whilst driving it is MATHEMATICALLY possible.

    We have to destroy this 'M' and providing we can produce this anti-gravity field uni directional around the craft..then yes.

    We just cannot do it.

    Not as we know it Jim

    Otherwise we would be sending rockets to the moon this way.

    I still think it cannot be physically done as yet. To say that it has already been done is a load of @%@.

    Noddy toys are good on the bench...but that is all.

    George
     
  6. Georgek

    Georgek George

    Messages:
    482
    You recon?

    :)
     
  7. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    27,372
    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...

    ...
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Meh

    Messages:
    1,247
    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.

    The spiritual realm is internal, not physical. It doesn't manifest in the physical world, ever. I've never seen a credible photograph of a spirit or an angel or God or love. And nobody has ever manifested a photon or an electron or anything physical with their mind - the mind doesn't have the power to interact directly with the physical world through sheer will. Any belief otherwise is superstition.

    And superstition is a dangerous thing - it's a form of ignorance. In this day and age we should be far beyond that, and the witch burnings and Inquisitions that it spawns.

    But more importantly imo - a proper scientific analysis of everything we observe has led to major breakthroughs for humankind, both in our understanding and through technology. And if we examine this subject with the scientific method, the pay-off will be enormous: nothing less than manned interstellar spaceflight, which will revolutionize global civilization and assure the survival of the species.

    But when people like humanoidlord go around irrationally yapping about UFOs as a spiritual phenomenon, it only reinforces the stigma and the ridicule associated with this subject, and that prevents any reputable scientific investigation from being conducted.

    So in the final analysis, promoting cock-eyed theories about UFOs could doom the human race to extinction. That's why I feel obligated to argue in favor of science, reason and logic with regard to this subject.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. humanoidlord

    humanoidlord ce3 researcher

    Messages:
    4,327
    this thread is legendary
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  10. Georgek

    Georgek George

    Messages:
    482
    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...

    So now moving on to what you just said. Without being offensive I do not believe that you understand the 'experiments' enough to analyse them using high level of science because you had never been taught. I have.

    Now...hold on a sec.....

    That does not give you the right to decide what and what not to accept. It is purely your belief.

    I consider it an unjustified belief based on 'looking up' to others with a load of gab. They could probably turn butter into milk ?

    Good for them. That is because what they do, is to blind others with science. If they took the test of being questioned they would have b*g*red off. A bit like 'touch my robe before I am gone' They 'set people alight' with some half baked theory and then they are gone. Cos that is all that it is! No one has the ability to prove it, other than in mathematics.

    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.

    Now this is the difference....... the gentleman involved is not giving us the choice. He was saying (is he dead???) in plain grufallo that anyone who does not accept his views is an idiot and knows nothing what they are talking about.

    That what turned out to be a debate, is really do not corrupt the natives with your talk georgek as they are undergoing training.

    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"

    We would then have given him a cup of tea and Mr 'nivek's' computer monitor would have had no risk of an explosion.

    Moma told me there would be days like these...





     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  11. Georgek

    Georgek George

    Messages:
    482
    Hello nivek,

    I do support your point of view. The subject is so vast that we can only just touch the surface.

    These things I have also read about and although I cannot deny them, I go more from which I had personally experienced.

    To me...that is my 'foot stool' I cannot understand how they can get into my bedroom and office without leaving any physical trace ?

    Nor can I understand how they can leave a recording on my dictation machine as half an hour of my time disappears without even noticing.

    The one physical time I did have a physical encounter with them, was the time they played about with my tape recorder and then altered the wiring when I made it a transmitter. I ran upstairs as fast as I could, swung the bedroom door wide open and all I could see was where they had shaved wiring with a kitchen knife that I used as a screwdriver.

    How the heck could they have disappeared so quick if they were physical?

    No one saw them either come or go.


    I tell you with 100% honesty and no imagination...that what I am telling you is the gospel truth.

    My UFOs have always treated me with the utmost respect. (never praised me) They have always been polite and have mastered our language as I had written about my abduction.

    I tell you with all honesty that I just glanced across my table and saw my dictation machine running with the red LED.

    They entered my office and took me. I have no memory of anything apart fro9m what I can hear on my dictation machine.

    I was just spell bound listening to the recording as I had a conversation with them . No panic...just like a normal conversation.

    The 'bottom end of it' is that I cannot deny what you are saying. I just do not understand it. My UFOs are probably different to others?

    They will not discuss themselves .

    There are things that I do not know the answer.
     
  12. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Meh

    Messages:
    1,247
    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.

    As far as other outstanding questions, like how alien beings can appear and disappear, and perhaps move people through walls etc., we don't have any good theories to explain those stories yet (assuming that they're actual physical events as witnesses claim). Such things may be possible - after all, the average age of a habitable Earth-like world in our galaxy is over 2 billion years older than our planet...plenty of time for a civilization arising on such a world to vastly exceed our technological capabilities, and even our wildest technological aspirations.

    This is all high school physics stuff George. It's Newtonian physics, not general relativity (which is far more interesting and precise, and as it turns out, much more versatile and multifaceted). And some of this is just plain wrong and/or unintelligible.

    None of it touches on the good stuff like gravitational time dilation, frame-dragging and other gravitoelectromagnetic phenomena, the correct gravitational deflection of light (Newtonian gravity predicts only half of the correct value of light deflection), or the full ten components of the stress-energy-momentum tensor that describe all of the contributing factors to gravity (not just the rest mass, which is only one of the ten components, but also pressure and momentum flux and shear stress etc.).

    Here are some corrections:

    That's one too many second units. It's 9.81m/s/s or 9.81m/s^2, not 9.81/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.

    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.

    Centrifugal force only comes into it with the Earth's rotation, and points away from the Earth not toward it. The equator bulges a bit because of the Earth's rotation, making it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere.

    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.

    Gravity is the acceleration in that Newtonian approximation, not the force.

    I have no idea what you mean by "resetting the gravitation pull through weightlessness," but whatever.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    No, UFOs are using the laws of gravitation vis-a-vis general relativity; they're not "defying" anything.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    UFOs/AAVs are physical technological devices exploiting the principle of gravitational field propulsion, and we could replicate their performance characteristics perfectly if we had the technological capability to engineer the spacetime manifold in the manner first described by Miguel Alcubierre in 1994, or in some other manner that provides motion. So we have an excellent theoretical understanding of how UFOs fly, we simply don't have the technology at this point to engineer with the physics of general relativity yet. Some day we'll get there. Clearly many other civilizations figured it out long ago.

    For the interested reader - we've made much more progress on the theoretical physics of antigravity and gravitational field propulsion than most people realize. For example here's a paper by Dr. Robert L. Forward that was published in 1963, which shows how we could in theory generate an antigravitational field via gravitoelectric induction, using nothing more exotic than very high-density fluid matter moving at a high rate of speed through a large toroidal coil:

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d436/f39ac992cb61d578ec5851c5407ffaada21d.pdf

    At the end he explores some intriguing ideas about how we might amplify the field intensity of such a device by exploiting the intrinsic spin of atomic particles.
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  13. Georgek

    Georgek George

    Messages:
    482
    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!!!!!
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  14. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Meh

    Messages:
    1,247
    The Large Hadron Collider runs on 200 megawatts of electricity, so we're already harnessing energies at that scale.

    Taking a closer look at LHC - Energy consumption
     
    • Awesome Awesome x 3
  15. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,368
    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.

    Simply put @Thomas R. Morrison has broader view of gravity than you do, because he made initial investment of time to learn GTR and you haven't. If you want to talk gravity with him, you should match his initial effort and learn what Einstein said. GTR predictions had been proven right to one part in 10,000. That is a percent of percent. 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. So if you want to change science, there is a room for new points of view, as long they are based on sound rational reasoning.

    Actually, Thomas' comprehensive knowledge of GTR made me to start reading GTR's math and it was a fascinating eye opener.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
    • Awesome Awesome x 3
  16. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Meh

    Messages:
    1,247
    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.

    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:

    “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014
    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7377.pdf

    To be fair though:

    1.) We don't yet know if the unexpectedly flat galactic rotation curves are a failure of GR, or perhaps a failure in its application to the system, or if there's another factor altogether at work like some magical invisible dark matter (which is the prevailing mainstream theory).

    2.) The energy conservation laws only apply to flat Minkowski spacetime; once gravitation comes into it, it becomes impossible to correlate energies between topologically different reference frames. In some cases this proves to be very advantageous. For example using the Alcubierre metric - he showed that a spacecraft could remain at rest on a kind of island of flat spacetime, and move by distorting the spacetime outside of that bubble-like region, so the craft never gains any momentum or relativistic mass-energy increase and can therefore move faster than the speed of light to any destination without expending any energy beyond setting up the initial conditions of the metric itself. We find the same counterintuitive physics in the 2003 paper "Swimming in Spacetime" by MIT astrophysicist Jack Wisdom, which is especially interesting because he shows how a device could climb up the gravitational field by changing shape and without any negative matter.

    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.

    If anyone wants to play with those equations they can be found in the Clifford Will paper above, and in the "Guidelines to Antigravity" paper by Robert L. Forward that I cited earlier.

    The Parametrized Post-Newtonian formalism is a magnificent tool because it allows anyone who's capable of using Maxwell's equation to engineer spacetime effects with the same ease as designing an electromagnetic circuit. For example, a coil of rapidly flowing dense fluid produces a spacetime distortion effect called gravitomagnetism that's perfectly analogous to the way that an electrical current flowing through a conductive coil produces a magnetic field. The possibilities of engineering spacetime in this way are boundlessly fascinating, and while we can only do this on paper right now, someday humanity will be building practical applications using this new field of applied general relativistic engineering.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,368
    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.
     
  18. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    1,177
    there is a reason I keep talking of experiments.
    I am not talking only theory.
    experiments are not theory.
    are you even reading what I write ?
    So now moving on to what you just said. Without being offensive I do not believe that you understand the 'experiments' enough to analyse them using high level of science because you had never been taught. I have.

    Now...hold on a sec.....

    That does not give you the right to decide what and what not to accept. It is purely your belief.
    [/QUOTE]
    you really got what I said wrong.
    I suggested you look at the experiments because I am quite sure you will understand them.
    they are not complex at all.
    also, I take the results of the experiments at face value. no lofty theory needed or wanted here.
    did you even go look at them at all ?
    I don't think this is true at all,
    just look at how much money is spent to support dead end ideas in physics,
    where is the funding for other ideas ?
    my best guess here is that someone figured this all out and does not want others to follow.

    what I said has nothing to do with the earth's magnetic field or repelling from it at all.
    I am starting to think that you might want to read what I wrote again if you want to know what I was saying.

    at this rate I suppose that I will never get the point of how this all works across so I can move on to the spiritual aspects of the UFOs
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Meh

    Messages:
    1,247
    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.

    I think that they tried their best to cull the signal from this noisy data. Apparently the procedure was so complicated and involved so much statistical modeling that nobody has tried to confirm how accurate their final results were. They spent years on it.

    But there have been other missions that measured the same gravitomagnetic effect to about 10% precision, and they're striving to get that down to about 1% precision:

    "Towards a One Percent Measurement of Frame Dragging by Spin with Satellite Laser Ranging to LAGEOS, LAGEOS 2 and LARES and GRACE Gravity Models," Ciufolini et al., 2009

    And if I recall correctly a number of binary stars system observations also confirm the effect to a reasonable level of precision. I see no room for doubt that it's a real effect: just as radio broadcasting wouldn't work without magnetism, gravitational waves wouldn't work without gravitomagnetism, and we've detected several of those now. At this point the real challenge is getting the direct experimental acuity down to the <1% uncertainty range.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,368
    One more Q:

    Does gravitomagnetisam have 2 poles, one attractive one repulsive, by analogy to electromagnetic magnetism that has North & South poles?
     

Share This Page