Proof UFOs are Not for Idiots

If you read Timothy Goods "Above Top Secret" you will find an example of NORAD going on alert following a radar intercept of an object that went half way accross the US at 7000 mph. Pretty fast for a hydrogen balloon. Also we have some pretty good sightings of landing with occupants which do not match any humans; read the Soccora case. Also Trevous Watson case.


Now as far as trying to concider what the craft would look like. If there is one thing we know from the early days of the rockets we really have know idea what course science would take in developing technology it has always been that way.

I remember from reading about Steven Jobs and the computer mouse he took from the top people at Zerox. These great engineers thought the mouse was of no real value. We just don't know what the future of techology will hole and for those who think they do well I think they are in for a big supprise in the next hundred years especially in space flight.


rif
rif
 
The aliens in the media due portray what has been witness and called grays. I will answer you light travel argument with a simple truth as stated by Benard Haisch:
The Leading Theory-Based Rejectionist Argument (which we all know)
The speed of light is a universal upper limit. Distances between stars range from 4.3 light years to Alpha Centauri to a hundred thousand light years across the Milky Way galaxy to millions of light years between galaxies. These facts are incompatible with tens of thousands of apparent visitations

Comment on the Argument
I agree completely that if the only way to get from star system A to star system B is to travel at sublight speed, this rules out frequent visitation. You might expect a visit once every ten thousand years (to cite a number I believe Carl Sagan once pulled out of his hat) even if the galaxy is teeming with civilizations. The questions is, are there conceivable alternatives to slogging through space? Maybe.

The Alternatives Worth Considering
The speed-of-light limit only applies to motion through four-dimensional spacetime. Perhaps wormholes are possible. That is a concept for which Kip Thorne gets the credit (or the blame). It is an old, but still valid, argument for how traveling through vast distances might be circumvented. Perhaps spacetime itself can be stretched as proposed by the relativist Miguel Alcubierre. There is no speed-of-light limit to spacetime stretching. After all, spacetime beyond the Hubble horizon must be receding from us at v>c. The Alcubierre "warp drive" (Class. Quant. Grav., 11-5, L73-L77, 1994) shows that spacetime warping and stretching around a bubble of flat spacetime is mathematically consistent with general relativity. This sounds promising, but the energy requirements seem to be impossible, which is of course not a good thing. Modern superstring and M-brane theory imply the existence of numerous additional dimensions. Recent work indicates that these additional dimensions may be much larger than the Planck scale. The article "The Universe's Unseen Dimensions" by Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos and Georgi Dvali in the August 2000 issue of Scientific American, for example, is a good summary of some current thinking on additional spatial dimensions as large as a millimeter: "Our whole universe may sit on a membrane floating in a higher-dimensional space. Extra dimensions might explain why gravity is so weak and could be the key to unifying all the forces of nature." Perhaps it is possible to lift off the membrane-universe constituting our four-dimensional spacetime, move in one of the additional dimensions where speed-of-light limits may not apply, and reenter our membrane-universe very far away. All of this is speculation of course, but it is worth noting that disappearing in place, changing shape or sometimes jumping discontinuously from location to location is frequently reported in UFO observations. Such behavior could conceivably be associated with motion into and out of a perpendicular dimension.

Possible Conclusion
The speed-of-light limit argument against the UFO phenomenon is a theory-based one, but even without suspending the laws of relativity it may not be valid. We simply know too little about other possibilities to rule them out, and for that reason the appropriate thing to do is to suspend judgment based on this argument. end.


Also most of us who have been following astromomy of late find many purplexing problems with the way the universe is being explained in light(no pun intended) of the new discoveries. I would not be supprise if some of the cherrished laws of physicis fall by the wayside including a way to counter gravity.

Read futhur:

This is a complete set of exchanges between Tom Van Flandern (tvf) and S. Kopeikin (sk) facilitated by Stephen Speicher in connection with the 2002 September 8 Jupiter-quasar appulse and the "speed of gravity" issue. Further information about the views expressed here may be found in the just-published paper: “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002).

SUMMARY: Kopeikin uses the expression "the speed of gravity" for the speed of travel of changes in the gravitational potential field responsible for light-bending and radar/radio signal delay, also known as the speed of gravitational waves. No current dispute exists about this speed, which must be the speed of light (c). The Jupiter-quasar appulse may indeed be the first direct measurement of that speed. By contrast, the appulse can provide no information about the propagation speed of gravitational force, which is bounded by many experiments to be much faster than light, and by the most sensitive experiment to exceed 20 billion c. In general relativity, when the solutions to the Einstein equations (which govern the potential) are converted to equations of motion (which describe gravitational acceleration), the assumption of infinite speed of gravitational force is implicitly adopted by setting aberration in the gradient of the potential equal to zero.

In the following email exchanges, “the paper” refers to S. Kopeikin’s paper in ApJ Letters 556, L1-L5 (2002).



INITIAL LETTER:

[tvf]: The paper’s introduction makes some very confusing statements about the meaning of the concept “the speed of gravity”, because it speaks of the speed of gravitational waves interchangeably with the speed of gravity. Indeed, most of the paper is about the potential field and its consequences (light-bending and radio signal propagation delay), and not at all about gravitational force propagation. Of course, neither I nor anyone else that I know of has a credible notion that the speed of gravitational waves can be anything but c. That speed is pretty much undisputed. But at several later places in the text, references are made to consequences of a speed of gravity different from c (which must mean the speed of gravitational waves because standard GR doesn’t have any propagation delay for gravitational forces.) Then there is explicit mention that the propagation “speed of gravity” is infinite in Newtonian gravity (which must mean gravitational force speed because Newtonian gravity has no gravitational waves). I find that I am not able to separate out the confusing consequences of the lack of clarity on this point. Whenever the speed of gravity is mentioned in the paper, which places mean the propagation speed of waves in the potential (the space-time medium), and which places mean the propagation speed of gravitational force? (The latter, of course, does not even exist in the geometric interpretation of GR.)

[tvf]: Now let’s look specifically at SK’s equation (2). In essence, this says the time delay is the integral of 2Gm/(rc^2) dt, where only time spent close to significant masses is a major contributor to the delay. The fact that retarded times are used in the integral’s limits is irrelevant because (a) those are the retarded times for the electromagnetic signals, not for the active masses or their gravitational forces; and (2) the integral’s end points are of little concern because most of the action of interest occurs while the signal is passing Jupiter. I see nothing in distance that appears in the denominator of that equation to indicate that Jupiter acts from anything but its instantaneous position as the signal passes Jupiter. If there were any retardation to Jupiter’s gravitational force field, it would have to show up as a delay in the value of r proportional to Jupiter’s velocity (to the first power) and to the force field propagation speed. I see no such term.

[tvf]: Clearly, my first impression, based as it was on Kopeikin's own descriptions of what his results meant, was completely erroneous. Kopeikin repeatedly uses ambiguous terminology and is oblivious to the on-going discussion of the "speed of gravity" issue. For him, "gravitational field" means "gravitational potential field" and "the speed of gravity" means the propagation speed of changes in the "nearfield" potential. While it is true, as he says, that this latter speed has not been measured experimentally before now, I am unaware of any serious challenge to the idea that the propagation speed of these changes is the speed of light.

[tvf]: Kopeikin shows his unfamiliarity with the speed-of-gravity issue in many places, but perhaps none more telling than this candid remark: he says the Lienard-Wiechert potential "accounts for all possible effects in the description of the gravitational field". If that were true, there would be no controversy over the speed of gravity. But in fact, the L-W potential describes only the potential field, and by itself has nothing to say about the force field. To describe the force, one must at least take the gradient of the potential, which then (for the first time) raises the question of which gradient, instantaneous or retarded, that is so intimately tied up in the propagation-speed-of-gravitational-force question. Kopeikin never goes there.
http://www.metaresearch.org/ for futhur reading.

continued debate means theory only theroy.

rif
 
When I was a child my whole family watched about eight of them fight, or play in space.. small glittering spects that flew rapidly like a blurr, then do a complete 90 degree turn, no slowing down! then one at a time they did the same, from a stop to a zip at a fraction of a secnod to a full turn, no arch, then zip aprx two, to three inches judging by the horizon, to a dead sudden stop, remain motionless then take off again.. We watched for a good fifteen minutes, then they all dissapeared away from earth..

Last year while traveling through Missouri at about 3 am on a clear nite, I was on the river in the bottoms at a conoe rental place, I saw a huge Ball, full moon size ascend slowly into the treetops about a mile distant, it had flames slowly flickering behind it..

I have a couple of Videos downloaded from the spaceshuttle cameras, the best is titled STS48.. It clearly shows two UFO's, both approaching one another, one makes a circle and speeds up rapidly away from the other while avoiding what looks like a spray, or shotgun blast type particle spray directed from the one to the retreating UFO... this was in the orbit of the Shuttle.. I don't think this site will hold the download..
 
Thank yo I've seen the video. UFO Magizine has a whole tape called the "NASA tape the smoking gun" which has many examples of these object in space film by the shuttles but clearly absent from the tapes they show.

My experience was in the daytime. I lived in Atlantic City New Jersey. In 1963 I was down the beach with a friend Eddie. We were puting down the blanket when he shouted for me to look over my shouder behind me. I was not ready for what I saw. Two flying disks very close flew over our heads. One behind the other. They were not far up. They were copper colored and cupped on the bottom. The sun was shinning off their metallic surface and the bottom was dark and shadowed. No noise. We watched astonished as they went out over the Atlantic Ocean. As the two disk went out over the ocean they seemed to stop for a second and excellerate along the ocean line at great speed in fact the speed I observed I have never seen duplicated even though I've seen the Blue Angels on the same beach.

I met my friend and we talked about it 25 years later and he remembered it as I have for all these years.

I know for certain there are at least two flying disk somewhere and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

rif
 
When you experience somthing like that firsthand, it will leave you with an unqestionable certainty that we are not alone! matter of fact I think the universe is very much alive! one of my favorite was alienjoes.com this site is noe defunct due to money.. this site had links to SOHO, the sun observer in space.. A researcher from Mexico was allowed to go over the film that came from it, possibly several were able to access this shared film. anyway, the "Spacejunk" that cruised past was anything but! He took the film and ran tests for untrviolet rays, scanned the objects he thought were anomalies with infared for heat, and some of the things he found were Huge and with a formation that was obviously manufactured by something intellegent.. some of these were like a quarter to a half mile in lenght, and emmitted heat. some were tubular like a flouresant light Bulb, and very long, and the course they took was unlike a comet or anything drifting.. Some of them left a trail of particles and look like a beetle or such..a space craft! they were always explained away or Debunked as dust on the lense, or other idiotic explainations.. that was a great site... It may come back up again, maybe renamed. I have some great links to some good sites. and have many pics that don't look like fakes to me.
 
Thanks rif.. I KNOW there is somthing to UFO's.. only a fool would think we are the only simi intellegent beings in this vast universe! I have theories of controlled magnetizm to push-pull through the universe coupled with gyros at slow flight speeds.. the power source leaves me blank, to energize a magnetic field, and of course must be targeted and controlled... I must ask an Alien.. :D seen one?

I think we are regularly being visited, but they hide or cloak themselves because, either we shoot at them out of fear, or they are waiting for the time for us to become less barbaric and hostile, and grow into the knowledge they already possess.. you don't give a suicidal maniac the means to kill himself and/or others.. we are simply not ready yet. so they wait! I also believe they escape meteor showers in our atmosphere, or solar system, and or view the earth as a garden, or for tourism, or mining, undersea experiments..but beware of the cranky inhabitants.. backwards as we are..
 
This is interesting, I've long thought that portals make play a role in travel in space. I think mankind may be limiting himself with theories of speed of light Travel in trying to explain voyaging to the far reaches in the short lifespan of humans.. I think the Alien ships, which are of many classes, and shapes are of different species of Aliens throughout the Galaxie, the Idea that gravity is nullified would explain any form composed of flesh or having weight would not be able to stand the g forces exerted by the sharp turns and eratic behavior exibited by many of the Alien Craft. I also have a theory about the small highly Mobil orbs that accompany the mother ships and are seen entering and leaving the Mother ship. There were instances of minuteman missles being reprogramed off target shortly after a UFO activity in certain areas.. also some wittnesses notticed no noise, a roaring noise, vibrations, humming, rocket type thrusts, and glowing, changing shape type. the pilots of WW2 reported green balls of fire, called foo fighters, that accompanied them on their missions and were highly mobil and were hardly large enough for a human, or form of that size to fit in.. I feel that these were robots of a sorts, or maybe programed energy that was used as a tool by the visitors for monitoring the air Quality or scouting missions. much like a remote controlled device or a form of Trained energy. that may sound like idiotic ranting, since I have no degree or doctorate of anything but a dreamer.. I hope I don't appear to be an idiot like this thread is titled.. I'm interested is all..
 
I don't know if you look around ufoskeptic but it is one of the most interesting site around. Bernard Hasich is a top scientist who not only worked for NASA but was head of many NASA research teams. He has an impressive scienitfic backround with many not only many per-reviewed pub. but he has been on science boards to do peer review.

At one time he was called a crackpot at this site by people who couldn't hold a candle to his credentials. Look at his backround and you will be most impressed. Anyway his contacts in the governments some very high up have related the truth behind Roswell that it was a spaceship. He also claimes they think mainstream scienctist are very naive.
This of course scientist do not want to hear. He also states that he feels those in the intelligence community are truly the most intelligent people on the planet. I believe they have done a remarkable job with the UFO phenon. they have made looking at the possibitlity of objects in our skies in a true scientific objective manner the leprosy of the tech age. Not only by the scientific community but by the press and TV. If for one minute you intertain this notion publicly you are banned forever in getting research money(the very blood of scientific investagation).

Even today after fifty years of claiming "There isn't a scarp of evidence that UFOs pose any threat to our security" Most of the UFO documents released are black out many 60% or above. Others have never been released. When you have someone high up in the government claim they know we have captured spaceships they become crackposts the minute they open there mouths. No one with any real power has the courage to call the press and the debunkers on it. They can use science so full of holes a six grader could challange their reasoning, yet they get away with it(at least with the mainstream).

I say this to the debunker and skepptic. You should be joining us in demanding the US government release all document pertaining to UFOs unsensored. You the skepptic and debunker who claim there is nothing to the government coverup. If you really believe that is.

rif
 
Rif

Bernard Hasich is a top scientist who not only worked for NASA but was head of many NASA research teams.

Bernie did not work for NASA. Check out his resume:

http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/resume.html

At one time he was called a crackpot at this site by people who couldn't hold a candle to his credentials. Look at his backround and you will be most impressed.

You mean the songwriter Bernie Sims:

http://www.una-aria.com/CommonGround/

If for one minute you intertain this notion publicly you are banned forever in getting research money(the very blood of scientific investagation).

That would be considered the rational and reasonable thing to do.

Even today after fifty years of claiming "There isn't a scarp of evidence that UFOs pose any threat to our security"

Actually, there isn't a scrap of evidence to suggest UFOs (ie. alien spacecraft) even exist.

They can use science so full of holes a six grader could challange their reasoning

Perhaps you should reevaluate your position on taking sides with sixth graders.

You the skepptic and debunker who claim there is nothing to the government coverup. If you really believe that is.

Skeptics don't make claims - they question claims.

And if anyone is interested, here are a couple of wacky papers submitted by the infamous Bernard Haisch (aka Bernie Sims.)

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0108/0108026.pdf

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0106/0106075.pdf
 
You are wrong about what you said and I will prove it. If a skeptic offers an explanation then he/she has taken a possition. The science he/she uses is open to the same scientific scuntiny as those who offer alien spacecraft as an explanation. We know there are spacecrart we have built them. What I see and what makes you an idiot is that you and your fool debunkers wouldn't think of examining the explantion put forward by your friends because the explantion is only important enough to fool those who wouldn't dare beleive. Most of the times you have to make liers out of the witnesses or partonise them to make youself sound very superior.

That is why my friend in a recent pool the majority feel the government is lying about UFOs.

As far as Bernard goes you were right I do believe he was on NASA committees. As far as some of his writting are conserned that is known as freedom of thought something you don't have a simple notion of. As far as his creditials match them:

Chief Science Officer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ManyOne Networks, Inc. (2002-present)
Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, Palo Alto (1999-2002)
Staff Scientist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lockheed Martin, Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Palo Alto (1979-1999)
Scientific Editor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Astrophysical Journal (1993-present)
Deputy Director
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for EUV Astrophysics, Univ. Calif., Berkeley (1992-1994)
Visiting Fellow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterr. Physik, Garching, Germany (1991-1994)
Visiting Scientist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Astronomical Institute, Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht, the Netherlands (1977-1978)
Research Associate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joint Inst. Lab. Astrophysics, Univ. Colorado, Boulder (1975-1977, 1978-1979)
Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Astronomy (1975)
B.S. with High Distinction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana University, Bloomington, Astrophysics (1971)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Principal Investigator experience:

NASA Guest Investigator Programs:
IUE, Einstein, Exosat, ROSAT, EUVE, ASCA, XTE
NASA Research Program:
Inertia and Gravitation in the Zero-Point Field Model: Tests and Implications

Hardware Program:
AFGL/AURA Program: Solar X-ray Multilayer Telescope


Memberships:

International Astronomical Union
American Astronomical Society
Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society
European Astronomical Society
Associate Fellow, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Patron, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
American Association of Physics Teachers
Society for Scientific Exploration
Phi Beta Kappa
Sigma Xi
Phi Kappa Phi


Biographical References:

Who's Who in America (52nd edition onward, 1998)
American Men and Women of Science
Who's Who in Science and Engineering


Over 120 papers in:

Astrophysical Journal, Physical Review, Physics Letters,
Nature, Science, Astronomy & Astrophysics,
Astronomical Journal, American Journal of Physics, J. Geophysical Research,
Publication of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific,
Annual Reviews Astron. Astrophys., Foundations of Physics,
Irish Astronomical Journal, Solar Physics,
J. of the Astronautical Sciences, Sky and Telescope,
Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society,
Annalen der Physik,
Advances in Space Research,
Journal de Physique,
Comments on Astrophysics,
J. of the British Interplanetary Society,
various Conference Proceedings.


Books:

Solar and Stellar Flares. B. Haisch and M. Rodono (eds.), Kluwer Acad. Press, (1989).
The Many Faces of the Sun: A Summary of the Results from NASA's Solar Maximum Mission. K. Strong, J. Saba, B. Haisch and J. Schmeltz (eds.), Springer Verlag, (1999).


Annual Reviews Astron. Astrophys. Article:

"Flares on the Sun and Other Stars" (1991)


Co-Chairman:

Intl. Astron. Union Colloquium 104: Solar and Stellar Flares, Stanford Univ. (1988)
Intl. Astron. Union Colloquium 152: Astrophysics in the Extreme Ultraviolet, U.C. Berkeley (1995)


Member, Sci. Org. Comm.:

9th Cambridge Cool Star Workshop, Florence, Italy, (1995)


Member Editorial Board:

Solar Physics (1992--1995)
Speculations in Science & Technology (1995--1999)


Committees:

NASA SADAP Review Comm. (1987)
NASA ADP Review Comm, Panel Chair (1989)
AIAA Space Sciences and Astronomy Technical Comm. (1991-1994)
NASA ROSAT Review Comm. (1992)
NASA MSFC Space Transportation Review Panel (1998)


Invention:

U.S. Patent No. 4,941,252: Anchor Bolt Extractor


Personal:

Born in Stuttgart, Germany; U.S. Citizen; married to Marsha Sims Haisch; daughter: Katherine Stuart Haisch; son: Christopher Taylor Haisch; stepdaughter: Elizabeth Ann Henderson
Semi-professional songwriter, producer, publisher as Bernie Sims.
Co-writer with Marsha Sims of Common Ground
President, Una Aria Music (BMI).

Foreign Languages:

Speak German; Read Dutch, French, Latin

rif



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





:eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Interesting quite good. I also know that experiments were done on spittting protons. It seemed that once the protons were split if you created a spin to one of the protons the other protons would spin in the opposite direction the communication would be faster then light almost instantanously. So my question is? if this proves to be so then is it not possible to have instant communcation anywhere in the universe. Example: If you could split protons send some onboard a ship contained and contain some in a lab on earth you would have the bases of instant communcation by the way you would spin the protons. almoust like 1 and 0 in a binary system. Is that a possibitlity? What is your take on that?

rif
 
if you were the craft, or the craft were energy itself, you could possibly bend time, space, and objects in your path.. space travel is not as we see it, but as we don't.
 
I agree with both of you Dwayne and Rif.
If the craft were energy itself, you could possibly bend time, space, and objects in your path..once the protons were split if you created a spin to one of the protons the other protons would spin in the opposite direction the communication would be faster then light almost instantanously. Therefore in reality or a higher dimension of harmonics..time does not exist...travel would be easy....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top