tempests
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- May 25, 2013
- Messages
- 2,953
They pretty much debunked the alien explanation from what I read.
UFOs
- Thread starter Merlin
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 18,303
- Name
- Haole
One of the smokescreens coming out of this hearing is that these things could possibly be Chinese or Russian tech. That is completely laughable.
Chinese tech is well below Russian tech when it comes to aviation propulsion. Russian tech is WAY below European... and the US is WAY ahead of everybody.
The only way China or Russia could have this tech is by stealing it from someone else... and guess what....... they can't steal it from the US cause we don't have it.
We don't know what it fucking is... but we know damn well it's not one of our enemies' tech defying the laws of physics as we know it. Saying it could be Chinese or Russian is an outright lie. Most people would just believe that line though and it's the reason it's thrown in there... it's Damage Control.
So again, we don't know what it is... but we damn well know what it is not.
Chinese tech is well below Russian tech when it comes to aviation propulsion. Russian tech is WAY below European... and the US is WAY ahead of everybody.
The only way China or Russia could have this tech is by stealing it from someone else... and guess what....... they can't steal it from the US cause we don't have it.
We don't know what it fucking is... but we know damn well it's not one of our enemies' tech defying the laws of physics as we know it. Saying it could be Chinese or Russian is an outright lie. Most people would just believe that line though and it's the reason it's thrown in there... it's Damage Control.
So again, we don't know what it is... but we damn well know what it is not.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,990
- Name
- Stu
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 18,303
- Name
- Haole
Q729
Legend
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Messages
- 13,107
Time to start UFOing some other fuckers ourselves.
https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/revolutionary-helical-engine-could-reach-99-the-speed-of-light
[May 24, 2022: Michelle Starr]
When it comes to space, there's a problem with our human drive to go all the places and see all the things. A big problem. It's, well, space. It's way too big. Even travelling at the maximum speed the Universe allows, it would take us years to reach our nearest neighbouring star.
But another human drive is finding solutions to big problems. And that's what NASA engineer David Burns has been doing in his spare time. He's produced an engine concept that, he says, could theoretically accelerate to 99 percent of the speed of light - all without using propellant.
He's posted it to the NASA Technical Reports Server under the heading "Helical Engine", and, on paper, it works by exploiting the way mass can change at relativistic speeds - those close to the speed of light in a vacuum. It has not yet been reviewed by an expert.
Understandably this paper has caused buzz approaching levels seen in the early days of the EM Drive. And yes, even some headlines claiming the engine could 'violate the laws of physics'.
But while this concept is fascinating, it's definitely not going to break physics anytime soon.
As a thought experiment to explain his concept, Burns describes a box with a weight inside, threaded on a line, with a spring at each end bouncing the weight back and forth. In a vacuum - such as space - the effect of this would be to wiggle the entire box, with the weight seeming to stand still, like a gif stabilized around the weight.
Overall, the box would stay wiggling in the same spot - but if the mass of the weight were to increase in only one direction, it would generate a greater push in that direction, and therefore thrust.
According to the principle of the conservation of momentum - in which the momentum of a system remains constant in the absence of any external forces - this should be not completely possible.
But! There's a special relativity loophole. Hooray for special relativity! According to special relativity, objects gain mass as they approach light speed. So, if you replace the weight with ions and the box with a loop, you can theoretically have the ions moving faster at one end of the loop, and slower at the other.
But Burns' drive isn't a single closed loop. It's helical, like a stretched out spring - hence "helical engine".
"The engine accelerates ions confined in a loop to moderate relativistic speeds, and then varies their velocity to make slight changes to their mass. The engine then moves ions back and forth along the direction of travel to produce thrust," he wrote in his abstract.
"The engine has no moving parts other than ions traveling in a vacuum line, trapped inside electric and magnetic fields."
It sounds really nifty, right? And it is - in theory. But it's not without significant practical problems.
According to New Scientist, the helical chamber would have to be pretty large. Around 200 metres (656 feet) long and 12 metres (40 feet) in diameter, to be precise.
And it would need to generate 165 megawatts of energy to produce 1 newton of thrust. That's the equivalent of a power station to produce the force required to accelerate a kilogram of mass per second squared. So a lot of input for a teeny tiny output. It is horribly inefficient.
But in the vacuum of space? It just might work. "The engine itself would be able to get to 99 per cent the speed of light if you had enough time and power," Burns told New Scientist.
And here's the other thing. Humans - not all of us, but still more than a few - desperately want to go to interstellar space. We may never get there. But if we never even try to think about it, that "may" becomes a "definitely." What's that saying - you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take?
Burns notes the efficiency problem in his presentation, and also adds that his work hasn't been reviewed by experts, and there may be errors in his maths. We don't exactly have the blueprints for a fully functional space travel engine here.
What we do have is a piece of groundwork that could be used to develop such an engine. What we have is a dream of the stars.
https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/revolutionary-helical-engine-could-reach-99-the-speed-of-light
Revolutionary 'Helical Engine' could reach 99% the speed of light
[May 24, 2022: Michelle Starr]
When it comes to space, there's a problem with our human drive to go all the places and see all the things. A big problem. It's, well, space. It's way too big. Even travelling at the maximum speed the Universe allows, it would take us years to reach our nearest neighbouring star.
But another human drive is finding solutions to big problems. And that's what NASA engineer David Burns has been doing in his spare time. He's produced an engine concept that, he says, could theoretically accelerate to 99 percent of the speed of light - all without using propellant.
He's posted it to the NASA Technical Reports Server under the heading "Helical Engine", and, on paper, it works by exploiting the way mass can change at relativistic speeds - those close to the speed of light in a vacuum. It has not yet been reviewed by an expert.
Understandably this paper has caused buzz approaching levels seen in the early days of the EM Drive. And yes, even some headlines claiming the engine could 'violate the laws of physics'.
But while this concept is fascinating, it's definitely not going to break physics anytime soon.
As a thought experiment to explain his concept, Burns describes a box with a weight inside, threaded on a line, with a spring at each end bouncing the weight back and forth. In a vacuum - such as space - the effect of this would be to wiggle the entire box, with the weight seeming to stand still, like a gif stabilized around the weight.
Overall, the box would stay wiggling in the same spot - but if the mass of the weight were to increase in only one direction, it would generate a greater push in that direction, and therefore thrust.
According to the principle of the conservation of momentum - in which the momentum of a system remains constant in the absence of any external forces - this should be not completely possible.
But! There's a special relativity loophole. Hooray for special relativity! According to special relativity, objects gain mass as they approach light speed. So, if you replace the weight with ions and the box with a loop, you can theoretically have the ions moving faster at one end of the loop, and slower at the other.
But Burns' drive isn't a single closed loop. It's helical, like a stretched out spring - hence "helical engine".
"The engine accelerates ions confined in a loop to moderate relativistic speeds, and then varies their velocity to make slight changes to their mass. The engine then moves ions back and forth along the direction of travel to produce thrust," he wrote in his abstract.
"The engine has no moving parts other than ions traveling in a vacuum line, trapped inside electric and magnetic fields."
It sounds really nifty, right? And it is - in theory. But it's not without significant practical problems.
According to New Scientist, the helical chamber would have to be pretty large. Around 200 metres (656 feet) long and 12 metres (40 feet) in diameter, to be precise.
And it would need to generate 165 megawatts of energy to produce 1 newton of thrust. That's the equivalent of a power station to produce the force required to accelerate a kilogram of mass per second squared. So a lot of input for a teeny tiny output. It is horribly inefficient.
But in the vacuum of space? It just might work. "The engine itself would be able to get to 99 per cent the speed of light if you had enough time and power," Burns told New Scientist.
And here's the other thing. Humans - not all of us, but still more than a few - desperately want to go to interstellar space. We may never get there. But if we never even try to think about it, that "may" becomes a "definitely." What's that saying - you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take?
Burns notes the efficiency problem in his presentation, and also adds that his work hasn't been reviewed by experts, and there may be errors in his maths. We don't exactly have the blueprints for a fully functional space travel engine here.
What we do have is a piece of groundwork that could be used to develop such an engine. What we have is a dream of the stars.
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,514
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #266
Relativistic speeds won't really help us due to time dilation. We are going to need to bend space. Good thing is all these UFOs are doing that so it is possible.
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,514
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,514
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #268
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,514
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #269
This Australian reporter is great, he's got a real nice grasp of how to approach this stuff:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM3kxeU_oDE&ab_channel=TheoriesofEverythingwithCurtJaimungal
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM3kxeU_oDE&ab_channel=TheoriesofEverythingwithCurtJaimungal
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,514
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,514
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #271
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 30,869
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 49,461
- Name
- Burger man
China Says It May Have Detected Signals From Alien Civilizations - BNN Bloomberg
China said its giant Sky Eye telescope may have picked up signs of life beyond Earth, according to a report by the state-backed Science and Technology Daily, which then appeared to have deleted the report and posts about the discovery.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca
China Says It May Have Detected Signals From Alien Civilizations
(Bloomberg) -- China said its giant Sky Eye telescope may have picked up signs of life beyond Earth, according to a report by the state-backed Science and Technology Daily, which then appeared to have deleted the report and posts about the discovery.The narrow-band electromagnetic signals detected by Sky Eye -- the world’s largest radio telescope -- differ from previous ones captured and the team is further investigating them, the report said, citing Zhang Tonjie, chief scientist of an extraterrestrial civilization search team co-founded by Beijing Normal University, the National Astronomical Observatory of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of California, Berkeley.
The suspicious signals could, however, also be some kind of radio interference and requires further investigation, Zhang added.
It isn’t clear why the report was apparently removed from the website of the Science and Technology Daily, the official newspaper of China’s science and technology ministry, though the news had already started trending on social network Weibo and was picked up by other media outlets, including state-run ones.
In September 2020, Sky Eye, which is located in China’s southwestern Guizhou province and has a diameter of 500 meters (1,640 feet), officially launched a search for extraterrestrial life. The team detected two sets of suspicious signals in 2020 while processing data collected in 2019, and found another suspicious signal in 2022 from observation data of exoplanet targets, Zhang said, according to the report.
China’s Sky Eye is extremely sensitive in the low-frequency radio band and plays a critical role in the search for alien civilizations, Zhang is reported to have said.
Calls by Bloomberg News to Science and Technology Daily weren’t answered.
- Joined
- May 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,514
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #275
This vid below is discussion of Robin Hanson's model of grabby aliens, which is based on expansionist species snapping up real estate and otherwise behaving the way life typically seems to behave. Robin Hanson is a professor with GMU and associate of the FoH Institute of Oxford, so this guy isn't a nutjob. Some background on his model here.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBZP4rLk6bk&ab_channel=LexFridman
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBZP4rLk6bk&ab_channel=LexFridman
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 30,869
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 30,869
I found a @Merlin UFO story, along with Naval ships (added perk!).
All I can say is these Naval intelligence types better get their shyte together and figure out what the swarm of UFO's was and why they didn't shoot these little bastids down with Phalanx CWIS!
www.dailymail.co.uk
All I can say is these Naval intelligence types better get their shyte together and figure out what the swarm of UFO's was and why they didn't shoot these little bastids down with Phalanx CWIS!
Naval crew confirm warships were swarmed by 100 'other worldly' UFOs
Naval crew have told documentary maker Jeremy Corbell that US warships were swarmed in 2019 by 'at least 100' UFOs with unexplainable capabilities.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 49,461
- Name
- Burger man
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2010
- Messages
- 18,303
- Name
- Haole
"FLOATING LIGHTS"
They were either flares... which would be my guess... especially since the video doesn't show how the lights finally disappeared. That's always a sign for me. Or... someone sent up some Chinese lanterns from the beach.