UFO Design

[marduk]

A very large percentage of UFO's mass is devoted to creation of EM energy. So it must be of some use in modifying gravity.

How do you know that?

 

[marduk]

UFOs have plasma around themselves, there is no second guessing about that.

I'm second guessing it. I don't assume they have a plasma around them at all.

Again, underwater or in space having a plasma envelope would be problematic. In space, there's nothing to make a plasma out of. In water (not buying the repulsive force of water story, sorry) it's *very* hard to make a plasma out of water, especially when water would short out any electrical charge on the skin of the craft.

 

[marduk]

Now, just this single detail is consistent with General Relativity. Because one of 24 differential equations in GR describes direct connection between gravity and magnetism.

I disagree.

Gravity and magnetism are not the same thing. In fact, they are completely separate forces. Gravity is a force that acts between any two objects with mass. No matter what they are made of, both objects get pulled towards each other just because they have mass. The reason it seems like gravity only pulls you towards the earth is because the earth is so big that the pull from you on it isn't enough to do much to its motion.

Unlike gravity, which occurs between any objects, magnetism depends on specific properties of objects. Magnetism can either pull the two objects together or push them apart, depending on which way the magnets point. Most importantly, it depends on what is going on with the electrons in the material, since each electron is like a tiny magnet itself. Most materials feel very little magnetic force because their electrons act like magnets that are pointing every which way, more or less equal numbers pulling or pushing.

Q & A: Gravity vs. Magnetism | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

 

[DROBNJAK]

I explained in detail in the previous post.

1) Because in the wast majority of cases, at least 90% or more, UFO was hovering or moving, while EM effects were present. So, if EM is ON, gravity modification is ON. Opposite to that, if UFO had landed and engine is off, both EM and G effects stop. So the two effects always turn up together.

2) Energy ratio of EM vs Gravitation is enormous. G-effects are limited to immediate vicinity of the craft itself, while EM effects span for miles. That implies that UFOs need lots of EM energy to produce relatively little G energy. There is no point putting heavy EM generator on a lightweight craft, if EM has no role to play in propulsion.

Stanford measured three data streams: Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational. Stanford did release one graph showing EM vs G. As well, in his Paracast interview Stanford specifically said that EM and G effects are correlated in his data. He verbally described the correlation.

Plasma is constant companion of UFOs. But it is managed according to the flight regime. If UFO is high up in the atmosphere or moving fast, than plasma is on. If UFO is close to the ground, than plasma is off. Plasma is easy to manage, just turn voltage up or down, or on and off. So plasma would create no problems.

Nobody said that magnetism and gravity are the same. I said that they have relationship in GR. You can not agree or disagree with relationship between magnetism and gravity in General Relativity, because equation is just there in Einstein's work.

In UFOs context University of Illinois quote is just a special case. UFOs know something we don't, otherwise they wouldn't be flying.

 

[marduk]

I explained in detail in the previous post.

Listen. I'm trying to help you in the sincerest way possible here. I want to crack their propulsion as much or more than anyone. And I think much of what you are saying might be right.

But you're making a tonne of assumptions here and you have to call them out, test them, and either accept or reject them.

1) Because in the wast majority of cases, at least 90% or more, UFO was hovering or moving, while EM effects were present. So, if EM is ON, gravity modification is ON. Opposite to that, if UFO had landed and engine is off, both EM and G effects stop. So the two effects always turn up together.

No. I'm sorry man, you're just plain wrong.

There is no UFO database that correlates EM/G readings and motion that I'm aware of.

That means that you can't say what you just said.

What you can say is something like 'in the data I have, they tend to get brighter when they move and darker when they don't.'

And then give your data that shows that correlation.

2) Energy ratio of EM vs Gravitation is enormous. G-effects are limited to immediate vicinity of the craft itself, while EM effects span for miles. That implies that UFOs need lots of EM energy to produce relatively little G energy. There is no point putting heavy EM generator on a lightweight craft, if EM has no role to play in propulsion.

No. Again, there is no data set that supports this that I'm aware of. If I'm wrong, show it to me.

And even if there was, correlation does not equal causation. The EM effects may be an unwanted by-product of the propulsion system just like CO is an unwanted by-product of internal combustion.

There is no relationship in GR that shows a manipulation of gravity with EM save one -- that energy distorts space time just like mass does.

It's just a *lot* less effective at it. And it has the *opposite* effect of nullifying gravity -- it increases the space-time curvature which increases mass.

In short, the more energy an object has, the more massive it is. If it's generating energy, the UFO should get *heavier,* not lighter.

Stanford measured three data streams: Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational. Stanford did release one graph showing EM vs G. As well, in his Paracast interview Stanford specifically said that EM and G effects are correlated in his data. He verbally described the correlation.

Number one, in my opinion Stanford is full of crap, full stop. And I say that with 100% respect to Chris who believes otherwise. Why? Because if he knew what he actually knew, he'd either be incredibly rich, or incredibly dead. He has no idea how their propulsion works, and no data to demonstrate it. He's never going to show it. And I say that secretly hoping I'm wrong. But every day that goes by makes me believe it even more.

Number two, how many UFO sightings have been done with measurable EM and gravitometers? Where's this data?

It doesn't (yet) exist.

Plasma is constant companion of UFOs. But it is managed according to the flight regime. If UFO is high up in the atmosphere or moving fast, than plasma is on. If UFO is close to the ground, than plasma is off. Plasma is easy to manage, just turn voltage up or down, or on and off. So plasma would create no problems.

You can't keep saying that. You're making an *assumption* the plasma is there. You can't prove it is. For the same reason we can't even prove that they're intelligent, or guided, or even there.

Because there's no verifiable data that demonstrates that. Zero.

So your assumptions in that one statement "Plasma is a constant companion of UFOs" are:

1. UFOs exist.
2. UFOs are intelligently guided machines.
3. UFOs are surrounded by plasma.
4. UFO propulsion uses AG and is related to that plasma.

Where I'm at is #1 is an assumption I'm willing to make. And that's the end of it. The rest is still a question in my mind and exists in terms of probabilities.

And I'm a guy that's seen something bigger than a city block gently glide by noiselessly less than 100 yards away. I didn't see any plasma. I didn't feel any gravitational effects. I didn't notice any lensing or distortion effect.

It was just there (to paraphrase Douglas Adams) floating like bricks don't.

Nobody said that magnetism and gravity are the same. I said that they have relationship in GR. You can not agree or disagree with relationship between magnetism and gravity in General Relativity, because equation is just there in Einstein's work.

Einstein was never able to unify EM and gravity. We do not have a grand unified theory that incorporates both.

What he did show is that EM distorts space time like mass, and that EM is distorted by space time just like mass is.

In UFOs context University of Illinois quote is just a special case. UFOs know something we don't, otherwise they wouldn't be flying.

I'm 100% with you there.

Call out your assumptions explicitly. Let's test them and move the ball down the field.

 

[DROBNJAK]

It is relatively easy to work out UFO's EM energy output. All you need is an estimate distance from UFO and field strength. Bruce MacAbiee made several such approximations. Gravitational energy, as well, can be approximated with relative ease. One just needs estimate of UFO's weight (from ground imprints) and acceleration (say from readings on the radar). Anybody who knows relevant equations can do it. Although these would be just estimates, they would provide a good starting point.

There is nothing in Ray Stanford's behavior that would suggest that he is a crackpot. Quite contrary, by managing to collect measured data, he is one of the people with largest contribution to this subject.

GR affirms that EM can create curvature of space time.That's what UFOs do. General Relativity is pier reviewed science and it brings science and UFOs together. UFOs curve space time, in the vicinity of the craft, with EM. Highly cured region of space-time would attract objects, like gravity, even if there was no mass inside that region.

There is a minute number of cases where witnesses reported gravitational lenses or strangely dense regions of space, Ray Stanford being one. Ted Phillips talked about such an observation, but I lost reference. As well, some other, less reliable cases keep mentioning relativistic effects. Gravitational lensing is difficult to observe because in most UFO observations background is a uniform blue sky. To observe any lensing, background needs to have some detail to itself, like trees or buildings.

Apart from the data Stanford collected, but doesn't want to release, there is a EM data Claude Poher, director of French CNES collected. As well Bruce MacAbiee collected and interpreted EM data. I am not aware of anybody else who used gravimeter apart from Standford.

As Freedman Stanton said, ufology is a field study of transient phenomena. Most of G data is just human observations. That means that there are always going to be several probable solutions, not just one. We need to discuss data we have and than split up in various niches and test the most plausible hypotheses one by one.

Plasma is constantly present in most of medium distance, 200-300m (600-900ft) observations. Usualy starts with orange plasma, than changes to bluish-white and finally goes to white. That would be a typical observation. Sometimes its reported that plasma is swirling.

 

[marduk]

It is relatively easy to work out UFO's EM energy output. All you need is an estimate distance from UFO and field strength. Bruce MacAbiee made several such approximations. Gravitational energy, as well, can be approximated with relative ease. One just needs estimate of UFO's weight (from ground imprints) and acceleration (say from readings on the radar). Anybody who knows relevant equations can do it. Although these would be just estimates, they would provide a good starting point.

I actually did this somewhere on this forum. Turns out, you'd need the gravitational effect of a small asteroid or something to hang something in the air.

The energy it would take to distort it was measurable in seconds of energy output by the sun or something. A lot, in other words.

The other problem is that it would cause a distortion spherical in shape above the object (so the object was falling up at the same rate it was falling down). So stuff above the object would get pulled downward.

In other words, UFOs flying under aircraft would likely destroy them. It would also cause a significant downdraft in the air above it, which isn't seen.

Lots of problems.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Really good.

I actually did this somewhere on this forum. Turns out, you'd need the gravitational effect of a small asteroid or something to hang something in the air.

"Small asteroid" ... Excellent, that is not much of requirement.

The energy it would take to distort it was measurable in seconds of energy output by the sun or something. A lot, in other words.

If we assume that UFOs exist, than some of GR equations most certainly are amiss. Most likely it is just one or two equations in GR, or maybe just one term.

The other problem is that it would cause a distortion spherical in shape above the object (so the object was falling up at the same rate it was falling down). So stuff above the object would get pulled downward.

Now this is extremely interesting. Not just interesting, It is phenomenal.

What you said about "distortion spherical in shape above the object" is exactly what had been confirmed across at least dozen of UFO cases.

Possibly the most reliable case ever, the "The Coyne UFO Incident, Mansfield, Ohio 1973" displayed exactly indications of such behavior. A 9,040 lb (4,100 kg) gross weight, Huye helicopter with four crew members was pulled up 1,800ft (600m) upwards, while UFO was hovering above it. That illustrates that artificial G field around UFO can pull other objects in a vicinity.

As well, there are dozens of of UFOs & water cases, where a "dome" of water appears before UFO comes out of water. When a conning tower of normal submarine comes out, water immediately splashes to the side and conning tower comes out without any thick water envelope. Apparently, with UFOs, first this water dome envelope comes up and only when a large part of UFO's body is out, than water splashes over the sides.

This dome can only be explained by existence of an attractive gravitational "focal point" above the UFO and at least two different researchers who specialize in water cases, had described these "domes".

It would be nice if you can elaborate a bit on these equations of yours. I was looking for physics that can explain these "water domes".

As well, there is some evidence, that when UFOs come close to land, they attract small rocks and loose vegetation, like fallen branches, moss, grass etc. After the Stefan Michalak, Falcon Lake case researchers photographed pile of small natural debry just under the central spot where UFO landed. There was a pile of debry in a center, while a broader perimeter of the rock was literally wiped clean of any loose material.

In other words, UFOs flying under aircraft would likely destroy them. It would also cause a significant downdraft in the air above it, which isn't seen.

You have tendency to see problems where there are obvious solutions. Sky is a big place, one can easily fit aircraft and UFO close enough without them affecting each other. There was a case in Australia, where UFO flew above small Cesna aircraft and caused crash. But its more likely it was caused by interruption of the engine. There is a video of a basketball size UFO, possibly drone, flies around Concord. Small UFO, big plane, and everything is ok.

As well, how can one "see downdraft" of the air, which is itself transparent? We can not see winds, even if they are there.

Lots of problems.

We are getting there.

 

[Han]

When a conning tower of normal submarine comes out, water immediately splashes to the side and conning tower comes out without any thick water envelope.

I have a feeling that a Submarines conning tower is specifically designed to make as little "disturbance" to the water as possible, for reasons of "stealth".

Maybe a better comparison would be to examine footage of a "missile" being launched from underwater?

 

[Randall]

Something to ponder: Why the bluish glow reported around many UFOs?

CO2 dissipates its energy by collision and transfer processes that are broadened by rotational motions to create a blue background emission. You can see the background in this spectrum ( graph below ) for example, along with lesser contributions from Swan bands.

So the question then becomes: What sort of mechanism apart from combustion would cause the naturally occurring CO2 in the air to dissipate it's energy through collisions broadened by rotational motion? We have noticed that a similar effect is St. Elmos Fire, which is a luminous phenomena created by the presence of a strong electric field that results in the ionization of air molecules. So the inference is that an electric field ( or EM field ) could indeed be part of such a mechanism.

The question is what is the other part that affects gravity? My hunch is that it has something to do with the movement of the EM field. The levitation of the superconducting magnet ( experiment alluded to earlier ) didn't show signs of gravitational variance until the disk was rotated at high speed. However, my proposal would be that rather than rotating the disk ( magnet ) itself, simply rotate the field instead. This could be accomplished by high-speed electronic switching. Such technology is already in use in some electric motors. This approach would reduce the energy requirement substantially.

I'll mention here that although a connection between EM fields and gravity has not been firmly established, there have been serious scientific efforts to unite these forces, and therefore I think it can be safely assumed that simply because we haven't unified the them yet doesn't mean there isn't some way to do it, and if rotating the field has something to do with it, then the math would have to consider temporal factors, which sort-of points us back to Einstein's spacetime model. So the formula would work out to something like: Effect on gravity = strength of EM field in some relation to it's movement through time. And of course this movement would need to be circular in order to facilitate the suspension of a fixed object within the field.

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

DISCLAIMER: I'm not making any claim that this is "science" or that I'm a scientist, and simple references to scientific facts and ideas during informal discussion do not automatically make every such discussion pseudoscience. To qualify as pseudoscience, the content in question must carry with it sufficient evidence that the intent is to impart the idea that genuine science is taking place, when in fact it's not. This disclaimer makes it clear that no such activity is going on here. It's just an open and informal discussion, the scientific value of which can only be determined by genuine science, should anyone feel so inspired to explore that path.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Something to ponder: Why the bluish glow reported around many UFOs?

CO2 dissipates its energy by collision and transfer processes that are broadened by rotational motions to create a blue background emission. You can see the background in this spectrum ( graph below ) for example, along with lesser contributions from Swan bands.

EXCELLENT! This is a bingo. I was a bit at a loss myself to simply find a chart with plasma color changes. Some witnesses describe it as "indigo blue" plasma. So it is CO2 that is braking up under high voltage.

Yeah, top shield/dome of the "standard" lenticular UFO is under very high electric voltage. That voltage goes through several stages, both in strength and possibly location. Interesting thing is that plasma on a UFO rotates.

Now, a typical sequence actually start in Orange color. UFOs are typically described as orange in color from a large distance.

Do you have any idea, can air produce orange plasma at some voltage? Is that possibly Nitrogen?

The question is what is the other part that affects gravity? My hunch is that it has something to do with the movement of the EM field. The levitation of the superconducting magnet ( experiment alluded to earlier ) didn't show signs of gravitational variance until the disk was rotated at high speed. However, my proposal would be that rather than rotating the disk ( magnet ) itself, simply rotate the field instead. This could be accomplished by high-speed electronic switching. Such technology is already in use in some electric motors. This approach would reduce the energy requirement substantially.

Rotating magnetic field is the most popular guess. Many people who like to think about this subject have suggested that idea. Nazi Bell, Podklednov and Searl have certainly pointed in that direction.

I read yesterday an interesting paper saying that gravity is second order (acceleration) relativistic effect of the flow of the moving electric charge. It is well known that magnetism is is first order (velocity) relativistic effect of the moving electric charges. Paper didn't go into rigorous mathematical analysis, but idea is elegant one. Practically electric charges moving at constant speed, first make magnetism, and when they accelerate they make gravity.

Now rotation is constant acceleration. So that might be the trick.

An interesting observation might be, from many many cases is that UFOs have a pretty consistent modes of operation. Without going into detail, this scenario is frequent: 1) UFO is stationary 1-15m (3-45ft) of the ground, with plasma in OFF state, 2) suddenly sound of rotating machinery is heard. Sometimes sound sounds like well balanced high speed turbine, sometimes its like scraping sound of an old washing machine. 3) after 5-20 seconds UFO takes off at huge speed.

So, there are indications that UFOs have rotating parts, that can be heard from outside. Obviously that "rotating thing" is accumulating energy, while getting ready for a high speed jump.

I'll mention here that although a connection between EM fields and gravity has not been firmly established, it has been a long sought scientific quest to unite these forces, and therefore I think it can be safely assumed that simply because we haven't unified the them yet doesn't mean there isn't some way to do it, and if rotating the field has something to do with it, then the math would have to consider temporal factors, which sort-of points us back to Einstein's spacetime model. So the formula would work out to something like: Effect on gravity = strength of EM field in some relation to it's movement through time. And of course this movement would need to be circular in order to facilitate the suspension of a fixed object within the field.

One of the 24 differential equations in GR is connection between gravity and magnetism. As well there is a solution go GR differential equations done by a Russian mathematician done, I think, in late 1940's.

 

[Randall]

... Do you have any idea, can air produce orange plasma at some voltage? Is that possibly Nitrogen? ...

My guess is that temperature and air purity have something to do with the color. The more clean the air and hotter the temperature, the more to the blue spectrum the color will be. Lower temperatures combined with smog or particulate will be more orange. This also implies that the more bluish, to white the color is, the more energy is being applied to the field. Not all reports however include this coronal type effect. It seems to be something that the craft can manipulate at will, perhaps to confuse radar or perhaps as a byproduct of propulsion maintenance. I don't know. It's all conjecture based on what little we know. I like to think it's still possible for some tinkerer to stumble upon the secret while playing in his garage .

 

[DROBNJAK]

... Lower temperatures combined with smog or particulate will be more orange. This also implies that the more bluish, to white the color is, the more energy is being applied to the field. ... .

You are onto something here. It might be something to do with humidity. I have an impression that lots of Orange Globes are seen in Florida and they would have a very humid air there. There must be a vertical change in the distribution of humidity in the air. Like closer to the ground air is very humid and higher up it gets drier. So low flying UFOs, surrounded by humid air and smog, would glow orange and when they go higher up, they glow white-bluish because air is colder and dryer.

There is a whole book written on Orange Globes of light "The Complete Story of the Worldwide Invasion of the Orange Orbs" by by Terry Ray

... Not all reports however include this coronal type effect. It seems to be something that the craft can manipulate at will, perhaps to confuse radar or perhaps as a byproduct of propulsion maintenance. I don't know. It's all conjecture based on what little we know. ... .

From all the accounts, plasma around UFOs is a transient phenomenon. Sometimes UFO are visible on the radar, sometimes they are not. Plasma is mostly connected with a flight mode UFOs are in: speeding about, hovering, getting ready to move on, etc. Almost as if they have a gearbox: neutral, 1st gear, 2nd gear etc. I don't think they are worried by radars too much, because UFOs had been clocked flying at a steady 15,000 km/h (about 1,000 miles/hour) and the majority of our missiles are flying around 2,000-3,5000 miles/hour. UFO can easily outpace any missile.

My personal opinion is that plasma plays minimal role in the propulsion.

 

[len1867]

They may not be "flying" crafts but viewing or access portals into our reality; the movements we assume they are performing may actually be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[len1867]

(Con't) manipulation of our reality for better access[emoji89]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Martyn Stubbs]

I have seen what appears to be a shape & then like an Octopus, it changes. The shape shifts are like re shaping one's fist in Rock ..Paper...scissors !Same hand! If we are dealing with a living spaceship it re shapes but remains the same. Other smaller objects again are shaped rather than having things like running boards! We are dealing with more than one unknown. We have a pre conceived notion that spacecraft are like star wars! Conditioning is at work. I believe that the powers to be promote this to keep us looking away from the strange crafts we do see on videos & in our skies. UFOs that hide in plain site!

 

[DROBNJAK]

In ufology we have a whole lineup of problems: 1) hoaxes, 2) real, but incomplete testimonies and 3) great variety of UFO crafts. These factors make many combinations, because there is no "standard" UFO case. In a sense people who study this phenomena need to specialize only for a particular subgroup of cases that have one aspect in common.

At least to myself, when all the believable testimonials, photos and videos are combined, it looks that we are visited by civilizations that enormously vary in their own level of technological development. I might be wrong, but many UFOs look as plain primitive machines, almost Victorian. While on other hand, witnesses describe ultimately sophisticated tech.

 

[Burnt State]

UFO's do come in a variety of shapes and forms and sizes; appendages and textures vary as do malleability and density. Really, whatever weirdness you can imagine UFO's have done it and been it.

That so many people at various points in history seem to report specific shapes is a rather curious question. Is it about specific races of aliens or are they buying from the same limited interstellar dealerships, so the models are what they will be year over year? Maybe one decade there's some really good sales on discoidal shaped craft.

Or the other way of considering it is that there's something about the people doing the looking, and the time and place that they are in, that causes them to report the shapes they do.

Or it is some kind of collaboration between human perception and whatever that external stimulus may be, though really it has to be a collaboration as all acts of seeing are, and the question really is what is the nature of the participation between stimulus and percevier and how significant is each role in the process of seeing things like a flying saucer.

 

[Han]

I sometimes wonder about "elemental" UFO's, by this I mean "craft" constructed from water, ice or Crystals* for example.

My understanding is that water could potentially be "harnessed" and used as material.

I believe there was a plan to make an Iceberg/Aircraft Carrier in WWII:

"Initial concept
Geoffrey Pyke was an old friend of J.D. Bernal and had been recommended to Lord Mountbatten, Chief of Combined Operations, by the Cabinet minister Leopold Amery. Pyke worked at Combined Operations Headquarters (COHQ) alongside Bernal and was regarded as a genius by Mountbatten.[1]


Pyke conceived the idea of Habbakuk while he was in the United States organising the production of M29 Weasels for Project Plough, a scheme to assemble an elite unit for winter operations in Norway, Romania and the Italian Alps.[1] He had been considering the problem of how to protect seaborne landings and Atlantic convoys out of reach of aircraft cover. The problem was that steel and aluminium were in short supply, and were required for other purposes. Pyke realized that the answer was ice, which could be manufactured for only 1 percent of the energy needed to make an equivalent mass of steel. He proposed that an iceberg, natural or artificial, be levelled to provide a runway and hollowed out to shelter aircraft."

Project Habakkuk - Wikipedia

*as in: "Crystallography is the experimental science of determining the arrangement of atoms in the crystalline solids (see crystal structure). The word "crystallography" derives from the Greek words crystallon "cold drop, frozen drop", with its meaning extending to all solids with some degree of transparency, and graphein "to write"."

Crystallography - Wikipedia

&

Crystal structure - Wikipedia

 

[Randall]

I have seen what appears to be a shape & then like an Octopus, it changes. The shape shifts are like re shaping one's fist in Rock ..Paper...scissors !Same hand! If we are dealing with a living spaceship it re shapes but remains the same. Other smaller objects again are shaped rather than having things like running boards! We are dealing with more than one unknown. We have a pre conceived notion that spacecraft are like star wars! Conditioning is at work. I believe that the powers to be promote this to keep us looking away from the strange crafts we do see on videos & in our skies. UFOs that hide in plain site!

I think you're onto something there, but actual shape shifting isn't required. All that is required is sufficiently advanced active camouflage, and our own technology is in the early stages of that already. So it's more like Star Trek than Star Wars. In Star Trek cloaking and holographic illusions are used several times to confuse adversaries. There's no need to invoke alternate dimensions ( as Vallée did to promote his book ) or even mind manipulation, although at least unlike alternate dimensions, mind manipulation is at least possible.