UFO propulsion, metric engineering, and horizon physics

[Thomas R Morrison]

Ok, so what do you think would happen if you stood underneath a saucer the size of a city block and they shut the motor off? Nothing?

As soon as you shut off the propulsion system (I presume that you mean that the negative effective mass is terminated) then you're just dealing with ordinary physics again. Technically, the craft never moved through spacetime - rather, the distortion in spacetime it rested within simply changed its position without the application of any force or momentum or energy. So it falls, transforming its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy as it drops, and then shares that kinetic energy with the Earth when it hits. Energy is conserved just as a energy is conserved with a meteor strike.

Another thought experiment. Take two 5kg masses, one positive, one negative. Let them accelerate for free to .99C in empty space.

Aim it at me, who sardonically sits on his asteroid home base denying anything that he can't see.

The -5kg mass will hit me first. This should in theory reduce my entropy. How it does that is anybody's guess, but it should result in a more ordered state. Very much so, because -5kg moving at .99C should do a lot. So in a nanosecond, it will wash my dishes, make my bed, fold my clothes, and balance my check book. Or something - that results in an entropy reduction.

Then along comes the 5kg mass a nanosecond later, which vaporizes me, my asteroid base, and my smug grin.

Where did all that come from?

Actually the positive mass leads the negative mass, but this is the key point - for every positive energy increase, the negative mass produces an equal and opposite negative energy increase. So with negative mass-energy you get into weird stuff like negative temperatures, and as far as I've seen the thermodynamics works out. But I haven't seen much in the mainstream journals about the entropy in specific physical scenarios like this - usually such papers focus on cosmological scenarios rather than collisions etc.

 

[marduk]

As soon as you shut off the propulsion system (I presume that you mean that the negative effective mass is terminated) then you're just dealing with ordinary physics again. Technically, the craft never moved through spacetime - rather, the distortion in spacetime it rested within simply changed its position without the application of any force or momentum or energy. So it falls, transforming its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy as it drops, and then shares that kinetic energy with the Earth when it hits. Energy is conserved just as a energy is conserved with a meteor strike.


Actually the positive mass leads the negative mass, but this is the key point - for every positive energy increase, the negative mass produces an equal and opposite negative energy increase. So with negative mass-energy you get into weird stuff like negative temperatures, and as far as I've seen the thermodynamics works out. But I haven't seen much in the mainstream journals about the entropy in specific physical scenarios like this - usually such papers focus on cosmological scenarios rather than collisions etc.

I don’t think so, the positive mass should be attracted to the negative one, and the negative one should be repulsed, right? So the negative one would lead, I think?

In the situation above, where would the potential energy come from?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I don’t think so, the positive mass should be attracted to the negative one, and the negative one should be repulsed, right? So the negative one would lead, I think?

Dude! You haven't read any articles or papers about this yet? C'mon.

Positive matter gravitationally attracts all kinds of mass-energy, both positive and negative. Negative matter gravitational repels all forms of mass-energy, positive and negative. So the positive mass is pushed away from the negative mass, and the negative mass chases after it because it's attracted to the positive mass, and off they go, positive leading negative.

Paranjape's example was a little odd though - a 5kg mass isn't going to have much in the way of a gravitational field. But you could couple those bowling-ball-sized bodies of positive & negative mass together with a spring, or an electrical field, and produce very powerful accelerations that way. Which is why I'm so excited about the more near-term prospect of negative inertial mass, rather than the negative gravitational field aspect, which presumably could take a super long time to develop (assuming that we're on the right track to replicate the performance of ufos, and they're living proof that it's possible/inevitable technologically).

In the situation above, where would the potential energy come from?

Okay for simplicity let's say that the positive mass component of the spacecraft has a free-space rest mass of 1000kg, and you eject your equivalent magnitude -1000kg negative mass horizontally (you'd actually have to pull on it to eject it, so your resulting momentum would be horizontally toward the ejected negative matter). Now your craft suddenly goes from zero net mass to 1000kg...almost. Because the craft is in the Earth's gravitational field, so there's some gravitational binding energy there, and the actual net mass of your craft is around 999.999999-something-something kilograms (sorry I'm just not in the mood to calculate the gravitational mass defect tonight, but it's the negative equivalent of the escape velocity energy at whatever altitude it's at). And as it drops, some tiny fraction of its ~999.999999...kg is converted into kinetic energy, because it's falling deeper into the gravitational well. Nowhere in here do we get any "free energy," so the energy accountants are happy.

 

[marduk]

Dude! You haven't read any articles or papers about this yet? C'mon.

Positive matter gravitationally attracts all kinds of mass-energy, both positive and negative. Negative matter gravitational repels all forms of mass-energy, positive and negative. So the positive mass is pushed away from the negative mass, and the negative mass chases after it because it's attracted to the positive mass, and off they go, positive leading negative.

Crap, yes, you're right, thanks. Had them flipped in my mind. Wine helps visualize this.

A surprisingly good description is here:
Negative mass - Wikipedia

This behaviour can produce bizarre results: for instance, a gas containing a mixture of positive and negative matter particles will have the positive matter portion increase in temperature without bound. However, the negative matter portion gains negative temperature at the same rate, again balancing out. Geoffrey A. Landis pointed out other implications of Forward's analysis,[13] including noting that although negative mass particles would repel each other gravitationally, the electrostatic force would be attractive for like charges and repulsive for opposite charges.

Forward used the properties of negative-mass matter to create the concept of diametric drive, a design for spacecraft propulsion using negative mass that requires no energy input and no reaction mass to achieve arbitrarily high acceleration.

Forward also coined a term, "nullification", to describe what happens when ordinary matter and negative matter meet: they are expected to be able to cancel out or nullify each other's existence. An interaction between equal quantities of positive mass matter (hence of positive energy E = mc2) and negative mass matter (of negative energy −E = −mc2) would release no energy, but because the only configuration of such particles that has zero momentum (both particles moving with the same velocity in the same direction) does not produce a collision, all such interactions would leave a surplus of momentum, which is classically forbidden. So once this runaway phenomenon has been revealed, the scientific community considered negative mass could not exist in the universe.

Which is basically where I'm at. This is why Hawking called BS on it.

 

[Randall]

It's a possibility, but I'm not sure how useful one.

The usefulness of being in a sub-realm run on some vast supercomputer is probably one of the most underestimated aspects of the discussion. The first thing to point out is that if it's the case, then distance has no meaning. From the point of view of the system everything is all in one place at pretty much the same time, which means that if there is a way to access the system, we could simply cut and paste ourselves from here to anyplace in the universe in an instant. No need for warp drive. Imagine the possibilities for interstellar, even intergalactic exploration.

Depends on whether one can invent a way to distinguish a simulated universe from a real one. If not, it doesn't seem that helpful. I know there are some ideas about that and even claims of findings that might support this being a simulation, but they are hardly convincing.

True. It's very circumstantial. But the circumstantial evidence is also hard to dismiss, which is why some academics take it seriously. The Asimov Memorial Debate on this topic is a good example. Those are really credible people.

Such simulation also doesn't answer to the fundamental questions why there's any universe anyway and why it has the features it has. It pretty much makes it impossible to get such answers, as the "simulation layer" would hide all that is actually "real".

On a philosophical level that's a fair comment, and that's what that tends to get the focus. The biggest mystery of all overshadows the simulation hypothesis so much that few people see just how big a step it would be to determine the truth of it and go on to make practical use of the knowledge ( like mentioned above ).

Also, is there something positive that could or even should be said about attempts to advertise and defend old scams and junk/pseudo science? And I don't mean some honest mistakes but those that resort to conspiracy theories about Wikipedia and all when the nature of such claims is revealed? As I tried to say before, giving positive signals to stuff like that is a major problem in itself, and bad idea for the credibility of this forum, this subject matter, and for all of us really.

That's a fair point. I don't like to discourage participation, but then at some point there's a line that should be drawn. I like the Paracast because it is very free, but even I've been banned a couple of times. It's a constant battle between critical thinking and emotional intelligence. I like to think I'm really good at both, but I know I also have blind spots where I walk straight into the fountain because I'm too focused on the facts ... lol ...

 

[Realm]

I’d go off that post from 2009 - that means it took place in 2007, more than 10 years ago. Memory is what it is.

Which brings us nicely back to the point that even though I have absolutely no reason to question your honesty or suspect there's anything wrong with your memory, there are obviously some details that chance over time and hence limits on what kind of conclusions one can make from them. The Nimitz incident also happened more than a decade ago, and Jim Slaight (the other pilot) seems to think the event happened 150 miles to the North from what the log and other accounts indicate and that they were flying to the opposite direction than what Fravor has said. I'm guessing his memory has mixed in some details of some other flight he also made or something.

Similar inaccuracies don't even need time for the memories to fade. If you have watched the Mayday/Air Crash Investigation series, it illustrates quite nicely how air crash eyewitnesses also tend to have all sorts of incorrect memories even if they are interviewed right after it happened. There may be multiple witnesses who say they saw the plane was on fire or a missile hit it, and it turns out those things didn't actually happen, and they just inadvertently mislead the investigators.

Details related to observed sizes, altitudes and speeds are notoriously difficult to estimate, especially when there are no proper reference points. There's not that much difference in seeing a small object that's close as compared to a huge object that's far, especially if you don't recognize the object and hence don't know the expected size. In the O'Hare case the estimated diameters for the UFO varied from 6 feet to 88 feet (so almost 15x difference), and according to the NARCAP report, one eyewitness took a good look at it and thought it was just a bird and walked away. For what I understand, all of them saw it roughly from the same distance and locations, yet there is quite a lot of variation what they thought they saw.

All those inaccuracies just accumulate if one tries to derive accelerations and other performance characteristics from them. They can easily be way off. In my mind, such estimates require at least some sort of reference points before we can have any confidence in them. For the Nimitz case, we at least know the UFO was far faster than the jet that chased it. That radar data obviously could provide a much more accurate picture, if only we had that. I haven't really seen cases that would provide better chances for estimating the performance, and I don't think that's good enough for making proper conclusions on how it worked, or what it was.

 

[Realm]

Approx a mile or so away, say 300-500 feet up. Viewed towards the east from the intersection of 162 ave and Macleod at about noon on a Saturday. If you know Calgary, they were probably either over the industrial area in Sundance or in the Sikome part of Fish Creek.

It's 2018, the only thing we need to know anymore is how to use Google .

So was this where you were, looking at those things over the buildings on the right:
Google Maps

Note that I linked to image data from 2009 (oldest available), since the intersection has changed since then.

 

[Realm]

The usefulness of being in a sub-realm run on some vast supercomputer is probably one of the most underestimated aspects of the discussion. The first thing to point out is that if it's the case, then distance has no meaning. From the point of view of the system everything is all in one place at pretty much the same time, which means that if there is a way to access the system, we could simply cut and paste ourselves from here to anyplace in the universe in an instant. No need for warp drive. Imagine the possibilities for interstellar, even intergalactic exploration.

It's obviously hard to say how such a simulation would work and what would be possible. Pretty much anything I guess, including whoever is running it rebooting it or changing all the laws of physics at any point.

I'm inclined to think it would be something like a simulation that has a huuuuuuuuuge amount of memory and processing power and it just calculates how each and every small particle moves over time at each possible location according to the common rules we know as laws of physics. So it would closely match what we have found out about our universe so far. The simulation started from the big bang and after a whole lot calculation we appeared and our brains and thoughts work like the rest of the physics, so they are fundamentally also particles moving according to those rules etc.

In essence we would have no clue who is running it and on what sort of hardware, and the laws of physics would be all we can see about the program code that runs it. Everything else, including us, would be just data. So we couldn't really control the system in any way, it just controls us, and does that by just calculating all the bits that make us in a similar way to anything else, rocks and stuff. We would be just bits in the system like everything else.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Which is basically where I'm at. This is why Hawking called BS on it.

Ehh - that doesn't actually mean much, because there's no indication that negative mass particles exist - and even if they did, they'd have to have the exact equal magnitude of rest mass that the known particles have, for this to be a problem. And although he offered a solution to that problem (below), Paranjape's concept for producing net negative effective mass is a whole other ball of wax, because in that scenario the negative curvature is produced by positive matter under tension, not by exotic particles with an intrinsic negative inertia.

But that's not why Hawking had a problem with it - Hawking had a problem with cosmic instability in a universe with negative mass particles. And Paranjape offered a solution to that in the article you cited previously:

“Another frequent concern expressed over the existence of negative mass is that it would cause an untenable instability of the universe. Stephen Hawking once told me that if negative mass existed, “the universe would be unstable and we would not be here to this day.” But negative mass exists only in an expanding universe, and because of energy conservation it can only be produced in positive–negative mass pairs. If there is a backreaction of the production of these pairs on the background cosmological energy, the production of negative mass should drive that energy density to zero, thus terminating the possibility of its production and quenching any instability. This mechanism could offer a means of resolving the long-standing problem of why the cosmological constant is so small.”

And I kinda hate to say this, but if you've followed his many wagers with other theoretical physicists, he usually loses. It's best not to tie your carriage to any one physicist anyway - nobody is an authority on everything, and often top authorities disagree about bleeding-edge subjects.

And Wikipedia can be a very useful tool for well-established subjects, but it's also very limited in many ways, because A.) it trails new developments, and B.) it's only as good as the editors who work on a topic (and a great many of them aren't even qualified to contribute on subjects like this).

The usefulness of being in a sub-realm run on some vast supercomputer is probably one of the most underestimated aspects of the discussion. The first thing to point out is that if it's the case, then distance has no meaning. From the point of view of the system everything is all in one place at pretty much the same time, which means that if there is a way to access the system, we could simply cut and paste ourselves from here to anyplace in the universe in an instant. No need for warp drive. Imagine the possibilities for interstellar, even intergalactic exploration.

I suppose that we can't rule out the prospect for "hacking the laws of physics" somehow. But I think if it were realizable, we'd see a lot more ufos "blinking in and out" instead of zipping off at high speeds, and dropping in and out of the atmospheric envelope from above. Why travel at all, if they could just appear and disappear at will?

That's a fair point. I don't like to discourage participation, but then at some point there's a line that should be drawn.

No - the only line that should be drawn pertains to gross violations of civil conduct, like personal threats, doxxing, spamming, etc. Freedom of speech isn’t just a good social policy; it promotes interest and understanding as well. People should feel free to bring up whatever they find interesting, so we can talk about it and debate it, and may the best memes win.

Once you start banning topics for discussion, it just goes underground and unchallenged in sad little online echo chambers where nobody learns anything, and tragic cults of ignorance flourish.

I want to hear about people’s crazy ideas and their unexplained experiences. Once you “draw the line,” it quickly turns into banning people for raising the kinds of discussions that we enjoy here. Bring up the ETH? Banned. Mention something like “the co-creation hypothesis?” Banned. Question the theory of general relativity? Banned. Antigravity? Banned.

That’s how it is at *every mainstream science board on the internet* now, and it sucks. If Realm prefers that kind of wicked little fascist echo chamber, then he can go participate there, and he’ll find myriad kindred spirits who have no patience for speculative discussions, and who gleefully use their authority to stomp down any opposing viewpoints or topics of real public interest, like this one.

 

[DROBNJAK]

The reason why I asked was it UFO that you've seen disk shaped was, because there is a trend in UFO physical evidence that suggests that there is a toroidal structure inside these craft. One can see that from grass rings, flat top water bulges when submerged UFO's are surfacing out of a body of water and phenomenological field that surrounds UFO appears to be in a toroidal dipole shape (like magnetic field around loop of wire).

I would say that cylindrical shape is much easier to build in any civilization and it is much better at avoiding and defending craft from micro-meteorites during a space flight. So practical reason favor cylindrical shape over disc shape.

If above thinking is correct, than it would mean that there is a machinery on inside, that is essential for the craft's function that only works as a toroid.

Now it doesn't necessarily mean that AG is created by that toroid. Fusion reactors lend themselves to toroidal shapes. So it could be that UFO power source is a fusion reactor. But, fusion reactors don't produce radiation, so there would be no grass rings and fusion reactors contain magnetic fields (am I right here?) so there would be no flat-top bulge in water when UFOs are surfacing out of it.

So, it might be that that toroid is used as a propulsion device.

That begs a question, which of solutions discussed so far would need a toroidal source?

I would say only Forward's solution of a super-dense mass rotating around the minor axis of toroid. Which, suffice to say, we trashed in another thread.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

​

Fig. 1 - Robert L. Forward's gravitoelectric dipole generator. As a dense fluid accelerates in the solenoid surrounding a toroid (preferably composed of a material with high and nonlinear gravitomagnetic permeability), a positive gravitational field is produced on one side of the device, and a negative gravitational field (antigravity) is produced on the other side. This was the first theoretically viable concept for the production of a negative gravitational field without any exotic energy requirements or any exotic physics. And it was also the first truly compelling proof that negative gravitation is an intrinsic feature of general relativity, but the academic physics community chose to ignore it instead, which is probably why everyone was so shocked when we discovered the dark energy effect.

I would say only Forward's solution of a super-dense mass rotating around the minor axis of toroid. Which, suffice to say, we trashed in another thread.

No - nobody "trashed" that idea. The concept itself is 100% valid. But unless we can develop a material with a property analogous to ferromagnetism (we'd need a material with a very high and nonlinear gravitomagnetic permeability, akin to how iron has a high and nonlinear magnetic permeability), it will remain physically impractical. I'm very optimistic that this will happen, if it hasn't already begun: I suspect that Dr. Ning Li has made progress in this direction with her company "AC Gravity LLC," which went dark the moment that she got defense research funding.

The only thing that we said in that thread, is that a gravitoelectric dipole generator is not a propulsion device. But nobody claimed that it was. It is, however, a legitimate conceptual model for producing a negative gravitational field (antigravity) on one side of the device, without any negative mass-energy or any exotic physics. Curiously, these kinds of gravitoelectromagnetic dynamics were originally discovered before general relativity, in the late 19th century, by a breathtakingly brilliant autodidact named Oliver Heaviside. Heaviside recognized that mass can be viewed analogously to electric charge as gravitational charge. And in the weak field limit we can substitute gravitational charge for electric charge in Maxwell's equations, flip the interaction sign, and predict the whole range of inductive behaviors that we exploit every day with electromagnetic technologies. And the nonlinearity of GR actually amplifies those effects in the strong-field regime. The Lense-Thirring effect (aka frame dragging aka gravitomagnetism) is only one of many known examples of these dynamics, which are now accepted mainstream scientific fact.

There may be many useful ways to exploit this area of physics once we reach the technological capability required to engineer with applied general relativity. It would be crazy to expect otherwise, akin to saying "the theory of electromagnetism has no practical applications."

 

[DROBNJAK]

Yeah "trashed" was a wrong choice of word.

Oliver Heavside is my favorite as well. I thing special relativity discovery belongs to him, because its him who proposed contraction of the ellipsoid (length contraction) in Maxwell equations and that than kicked off Lorenz and Einstein to explore it deeper.

There is one UFO case where ufonauts landed to get some water from farmer's pond. Farmer let them take all the water they wanted and they invited him in to show him the craft. Anyhow, farmer was curious to how craft works and aliens (very human looking) told him that there is a tube going around the perimeter of the craft that has some liquid spinning at a speed of light.

I always wandered how can something rotate at speed of light? That again, would need a huge energy and if that touched the walls of the tube it would evaporate the whole craft. If one had rotation of something so heavy, either around minor or major toroid's axis, that would produce gyroscopic effect and it will be quite hard for UFO to wobble or even maneuver. UFO's wouldn't be so nippy.

As well, I read somewhere that theoretical maximum for rotation speed at the edge is 80% of the speed of light.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

There is one UFO case where ufonauts landed to get some water from farmer's pond. Farmer let them take all the water they wanted and they invited him in to show him the craft. Anyhow, farmer was curious to how craft works and aliens (very human looking) told him that there is a tube going around the perimeter of the craft that has some liquid spinning at a speed of light.

I always wandered how can something rotate at speed of light? That again, would need a huge energy and if that touched the walls of the tube it would evaporate the whole craft. If one had rotation of something so heavy, either around minor or major toroid's axis, that would produce gyroscopic effect and it will be quite hard for UFO to wobble or even maneuver. UFO's wouldn't be so nippy.

As well, I read somewhere that theoretical maximum for rotation speed at the edge is 80% of the speed of light.

It seems like every description that we get from the case reports, about how the propulsion system works, is different, and implausible. If for the sake of argument we assume that this guy is telling the truth (but I'm always super skeptical about close encounter cases that go public - how can we possibly separate the signal from the noise?).

I think it would be highly unlikely that any alien being would give us a straight answer about their propulsion system. Just imagine the enormous responsibility involved with giving us the key to that kind of technology. Our military would weaponize it immediately. Which would totally destabilize the balance of power. The Russians might decide to strike before we created a nuclear delivery system far beyond their defensive capabilities. And even if we presume that humanity would survive the ensuing military power crisis - suddenly human beings would have the capability to go off hassling other interstellar civilizations. And we slaughter each other indiscriminately just to funnel our tax dollars to the war profiteers - so how are we ever going to prevent the sociopaths who run this world from declaring war on the nice peaceful octupi folks over at Arcturus 5?

Any alone intelligent enough to make it here from another star system is going to know better than to give us the breakthrough physics to lay siege upon the local galactic neighborhood. So I think we're on our own. If we can't figure it out for ourselves, before we're either wiped out by an asteroid or by own our incalculable hostility and stupidity, then we don't deserve to have it at all. I can only assume that they'd see it the same way.

 

[marduk]

It's 2018, the only thing we need to know anymore is how to use Google .

So was this where you were, looking at those things over the buildings on the right:
Google Maps

Note that I linked to image data from 2009 (oldest available), since the intersection has changed since then.

Yup, although they were straight ahead in line with the road. I was waiting to turn left.

 

[marduk]

Ehh - that doesn't actually mean much, because there's no indication that negative mass particles exist - and even if they did, they'd have to have the exact equal magnitude of rest mass that the known particles have, for this to be a problem. And although he offered a solution to that problem (below), Paranjape's concept for producing net negative effective mass is a whole other ball of wax, because in that scenario the negative curvature is produced by positive matter under tension, not by exotic particles with an intrinsic negative inertia.

But that's not why Hawking had a problem with it - Hawking had a problem with cosmic instability in a universe with negative mass particles. And Paranjape offered a solution to that in the article you cited previously:

“Another frequent concern expressed over the existence of negative mass is that it would cause an untenable instability of the universe. Stephen Hawking once told me that if negative mass existed, “the universe would be unstable and we would not be here to this day.” But negative mass exists only in an expanding universe, and because of energy conservation it can only be produced in positive–negative mass pairs. If there is a backreaction of the production of these pairs on the background cosmological energy, the production of negative mass should drive that energy density to zero, thus terminating the possibility of its production and quenching any instability. This mechanism could offer a means of resolving the long-standing problem of why the cosmological constant is so small.”

And I kinda hate to say this, but if you've followed his many wagers with other theoretical physicists, he usually loses. It's best not to tie your carriage to any one physicist anyway - nobody is an authority on everything, and often top authorities disagree about bleeding-edge subjects.

And Wikipedia can be a very useful tool for well-established subjects, but it's also very limited in many ways, because A.) it trails new developments, and B.) it's only as good as the editors who work on a topic (and a great many of them aren't even qualified to contribute on subjects like this).


I suppose that we can't rule out the prospect for "hacking the laws of physics" somehow. But I think if it were realizable, we'd see a lot more ufos "blinking in and out" instead of zipping off at high speeds, and dropping in and out of the atmospheric envelope from above. Why travel at all, if they could just appear and disappear at will?


No - the only line that should be drawn pertains to gross violations of civil conduct, like personal threats, doxxing, spamming, etc. Freedom of speech isn’t just a good social policy; it promotes interest and understanding as well. People should feel free to bring up whatever they find interesting, so we can talk about it and debate it, and may the best memes win.

Once you start banning topics for discussion, it just goes underground and unchallenged in sad little online echo chambers where nobody learns anything, and tragic cults of ignorance flourish.

I want to hear about people’s crazy ideas and their unexplained experiences. Once you “draw the line,” it quickly turns into banning people for raising the kinds of discussions that we enjoy here. Bring up the ETH? Banned. Mention something like “the co-creation hypothesis?” Banned. Question the theory of general relativity? Banned. Antigravity? Banned.

That’s how it is at *every mainstream science board on the internet* now, and it sucks. If Realm prefers that kind of wicked little fascist echo chamber, then he can go participate there, and he’ll find myriad kindred spirits who have no patience for speculative discussions, and who gleefully use their authority to stomp down any opposing viewpoints or topics of real public interest, like this one.

Why do you do that?

You make some good points, and then go off the deep end again with the ad hominem BS insults.

Nobody’s going to listen to you if you keep that up. It’s pointless and irrational.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Why do you do that?

You make some good points, and then go off the deep end again with the ad hominem BS insults.

Because he's still taking swipes at me, and ignoring the evidence that I've already provided to him to do it, for example, this is an ad hominem attack against me:

And I don't mean some honest mistakes but those that resort to conspiracy theories about Wikipedia

We argued about that in another thread. I showed him the evidence from Wikipedia Scanner that proved him wrong, then soon realized that debating with the guy is like talking to a wall, so I abandoned the thread and I've avoided him ever since. And now this prick has followed me over here to keep taking swipes at me, even though it's plain as day that I want no part of him, and that he has nothing to offer on this subject.

If some dude wants to be my own petty and intellectually dishonest little forum stalker, then I'm going to defend myself.

Even though I effing hate having to do it, and disrupt the conversation. This guy does not know how to take a hint.

 

[DROBNJAK]

It seems like every description that we get from the case reports, about how the propulsion system works, is different, and implausible. If for the sake of argument we assume that this guy is telling the truth (but I'm always super skeptical about close encounter cases that go public - how can we possibly separate the signal from the noise?).

I know that.

But one filters rubbish by using accepted scientific knowledge. For example, when I heard that one, I simply put it on the waiting list. Six months later I heard from you about Forward's idea and it I moved it from 'waiting list' to 'interesting list'. If witness, unwittingly, talks advanced physics than there is at least something to it.

Motivation for the most people who report UFOs anonymously is out of feeling of civic duty and loyalty to their country. IMHO their opinions may not be a proof, but have same at least face value.

That one stands out. But sometimes there is a steady trend on the 'interesting list', like pulsating EM fields coming from different witnesses, in different countries, of which some had instruments like Ray Stanford or some pilots etc. One basically has to use statistics as tool, because UFOs are transient phenomenon.

 

[Realm]

Yup, although they were straight ahead in line with the road. I was waiting to turn left.

You estimated them to be about a mile away and 500 feet up, which would mean something like a 5 degree angle. So those who were going straight through the intersection and would have been looking at the traffic lights that were quite high too should have seen them easily, right?

I think that the angle to view those traffic lights would be quite close to that actually, at least for those in the front.

 

[marduk]

Because he's still taking swipes at me, and ignoring the evidence that I've already provided to him to do it, for example, this is an ad hominem attack against me:


We argued about that in another thread. I showed him the evidence from Wikipedia Scanner that proved him wrong, then soon realized that debating with the guy is like talking to a wall, so I abandoned the thread and I've avoided him ever since. And now this prick has followed me over here to keep taking swipes at me, even though it's plain as day that I want no part of him, and that he has nothing to offer on this subject.

If some dude wants to be my own petty and intellectually dishonest little forum stalker, then I'm going to defend myself.

Even though I effing hate having to do it, and disrupt the conversation. This guy does not know how to take a hint.

Come on, man.

There’s a giant difference between disputing your logic and insulting him as a person.

You know that.

What I’m trying to tell you is all that does is undermine your own argument.

 

[marduk]

You estimated them to be about a mile away and 500 feet up, which would mean something like a 5 degree angle. So those who were going straight through the intersection and would have been looking at the traffic lights that were quite high too should have seen them easily, right?

I think that the angle to view those traffic lights would be quite close to that actually, at least for those in the front.

Yup, that’s how I noticed them. They were above the lights, not too much, in terms of my line of sight.

I was watching the lights, so was everyone else presumably. I looked around in shock expecting everybody else to be watching them, and nobody seemed to notice but me.