Enmos
Valued Senior Member
A.k.a. ball lightning, could be.
However, I did briefly believe back then that they were "ufo's". Mostly because it was a cool idea, I guess.
What are UFOs?
- Thread starter farell
- Start date
A.k.a. ball lightning, could be.
However, I did briefly believe back then that they were "ufo's". Mostly because it was a cool idea, I guess.
Fusion reactors are workable, they have been since 1954 i believe. But they are not useful because their main purpose is to produce electricity, but MODERN ones take more electricity to use than they produce. I said modern ones because they are getting close to making it so they can produce more power than they necessitate, so essentially they are workable just not useful.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Such topics do hold my attention too, paranormal happenings, weird incidents do interest me. I had heard some news too about the abductions that had taken place related with UFO. I am not sure if they are really true, but if you are interested in more information on this topic, check out which has abduction reports that will help you to know more.
people just saying words like "paranormal" and "undefined" and "undefinable" and "unknown" will not let us deduce what it is that UFO's are indeed.
Now I already gave 2 hypothesis backed up by scientific proof for what UFO we/some of us see might be:
1) magnetohydrodynamics engine using a fusion reactor or a nuclear reactor of some sort utilizing the Lorentz Law (engineering by humans/aliens...whatever)
2) plasma balls created from lightning...
NOW...anyone there suggesting it to be something else? like bunch of traveling fireflies?
Now I already gave 2 hypothesis backed up by scientific proof for what UFO we/some of us see might be:
1) magnetohydrodynamics engine using a fusion reactor or a nuclear reactor of some sort utilizing the Lorentz Law (engineering by humans/aliens...whatever)
2) plasma balls created from lightning...
NOW...anyone there suggesting it to be something else? like bunch of traveling fireflies?
lets keep it serious, dude.
When was it ever
well your cartoon is not real, so its not serious. Meanwhile ball lightning actually does exist and magnetohydrodynamics engine is a reality.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
See, the problem with this particular reality is that "scientists" cannot reach out and grab a UFO, put them in a petri dish and zoom in with their favorite microscope. To many that means "does not exist" or "silly". Truth be known, if all scientists adapted to these lazy and sub ludicrous egotistical tactics, the microscope would have never been invented in the first place.
Believe it or not, MOST, not all, but MOST of those here that come off as close minded skeptics are merely those that have had a somewhat deep past interest in the phenomenon, reached a wall of frustration, and subsequently have reached for the absolution of resolve, surrender. They gave up.
I have already posted exactly what are the three bottom line distinct possibilities for what UFOs are from a technological perspective.
here they are again:
1) There exists a completely secret air/space program that is tremendously ahead of where we are currently at with respect to standard (yet cutting edge) military technology. This organization would almost have to consist of a globally represented body of participants. I really doubt this but I cannot completely rule it out considering we successfully developed and successfully tested nuclear propulsion in the late 60s. Can you imagine where that technology is today?
2) These UFOs are primarily a visual representation of that which is operated by ET. There is far more information in the form of validated testimony and authenticated photo/film/digital info/etc. than there is for the above hypothesis. No question.
3) These UFOs (at least some) are a visual result of interdimensional navigation. It's very import to make the distinction that this could be of a human origin. It could also be of a species of being that inhabits a multi dimensional habitate that includes the one we are presently bound by. In this sense, these beings would be no more "ET" or "Space Aliens" than ourselves. They hypothetically would be much like ourselves navigating a submarine within the ocean.
Granted, some UFOs are most assuredly plasma related or other natural unfamiliar phenomenon, but ASSUREDLY, not all. There is simply too much evidence that fully supports the contrary.
Believe it or not, MOST, not all, but MOST of those here that come off as close minded skeptics are merely those that have had a somewhat deep past interest in the phenomenon, reached a wall of frustration, and subsequently have reached for the absolution of resolve, surrender. They gave up.
I have already posted exactly what are the three bottom line distinct possibilities for what UFOs are from a technological perspective.
here they are again:
1) There exists a completely secret air/space program that is tremendously ahead of where we are currently at with respect to standard (yet cutting edge) military technology. This organization would almost have to consist of a globally represented body of participants. I really doubt this but I cannot completely rule it out considering we successfully developed and successfully tested nuclear propulsion in the late 60s. Can you imagine where that technology is today?
2) These UFOs are primarily a visual representation of that which is operated by ET. There is far more information in the form of validated testimony and authenticated photo/film/digital info/etc. than there is for the above hypothesis. No question.
3) These UFOs (at least some) are a visual result of interdimensional navigation. It's very import to make the distinction that this could be of a human origin. It could also be of a species of being that inhabits a multi dimensional habitate that includes the one we are presently bound by. In this sense, these beings would be no more "ET" or "Space Aliens" than ourselves. They hypothetically would be much like ourselves navigating a submarine within the ocean.
Granted, some UFOs are most assuredly plasma related or other natural unfamiliar phenomenon, but ASSUREDLY, not all. There is simply too much evidence that fully supports the contrary.
Quite simply: a power plant that doesn't actually produce power comes under the technical heading of "not working".
It's an engineering distinction and may be too abstruse for you...
Haven't we been through this?
There are no workable fusion or MHD power plants for aerospace vehicles.
Aliens are speculation.
What engineering aspects?
How do you decide engineering aspects of unproven and possibly fictitious vehicles?
They're powered by jelly babies, running in little wheels like hamsters
Complete poppycock.
Some of us that might once have been UFO enthusiasts but found ourselves looking at things from more than one angle and then defining an outcome which only those looking from one angle alone object to.
You would understand a more accurate truth by debating other angles, for instance rather than say they can't all be man made, debate why they Can be man made. You will realise that this method of arriving at a truth does not require you to believe, it requires you to collect evidence, to remain impartial and arrive eventually at a common truth.
This is what I'd love to see done by those that "Believe", unfortunately they don't want to arrive at a truth, just harp on about some fantasy. That is why they might feel bullied or singled out, because the bubble they live in doesn't extend to everyone else.
And any speculation is merely that: and mostly unjustified.
Ion thrusters? You do know how much (i.e. how little) thrust they actually produce don't you?