Drones Research Team - Research > Theories and Speculation

A Taste of UFO Physics

(1/2) > >>

onthefence:
I was anonymously given the following email:

--- Quote ---I appreciate the work you are doing (and documenting) on the California drone.

I am attaching a document that might be relevant to the scientific portion of the investigation. It is titled "A taste of UFO Physics". It is in the form of 12 .jpg files. It is inconvenient to read, but very interesting for anyone with a background in physics. The author assures me that there is nothing "classified" in the document, nor is it taken from classified sources. He says the information is plentiful and "right under your nose, just presented in a form you do not recognize, and scattered throughout the literature". (The article gives two or three examples). It is okay to post the .jpg files at websites.

There may be more such documents floating around out there. Please let me know if you find any that are similar to this one.

Somebody somewhere knows something about this --probably quite a lot. . .
--- End quote ---

You can see the jpg files here: droneteam.com/images/UFOPhysics_2014

Some people here may recognize some very interesting ideas in that paper as they relate to description of the Strange Craft that Raj, Issac, and others described.

HPO:
Sounds interesting, downloading them now.

algae:
Do you know if the original author, "he who shall not be named," is available for follow-up discussions on this or EVS's IPS site? I'd like to learn how these ideas could be applied in practice.

The equations on page 6 are interesting. The expression for γ (gamma) is the familiar Lorentz correction factor for relativistic speeds that scientists have been using for years, but rewriting it as c2 = c2/γ2+v2 is novel. It says that a particle's total velocity is always c, and related to its spatial and temporal velocities in the same way that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is related to its sides.

Unfortunately this also means that velocity in space is limited to c, since neither side of a right triangle can be longer than its hypotenuse. The author claims that speeds above c are possible, but how?

onthefence:

--- Quote from: algae on September 05, 2014, 06:57:58 PM ---Do you know if the original author, "he who shall not be named," is available for follow-up discussions ...

--- End quote ---

I am reaching out right now, hopefully someone will respond.

By the way, I'll point out to everyone here that your work can be found here:
  http://evs4u.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=sg&action=display&num=1376931186&start=

majicbar:

--- Quote from: algae on September 05, 2014, 06:57:58 PM ---Do you know if the original author, "he who shall not be named," is available for follow-up discussions on this or EVS's IPS site? I'd like to learn how these ideas could be applied in practice.

The equations on page 6 are interesting. The expression for �³ (gamma) is the familiar Lorentz correction factor for relativistic speeds that scientists have been using for years, but rewriting it as c2 = c2/�³2+v2 is novel. It says that a particle's total velocity is always c, and related to its spatial and temporal velocities in the same way that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is related to its sides.

Unfortunately this also means that velocity in space is limited to c, since neither side of a right triangle can be longer than its hypotenuse. The author claims that speeds above c are possible, but how?

--- End quote ---
It is my opinion that this piece is bogus, or at the very least based on scientific principals that will not hold much longer.

I have reanalyzed the Michelson interferometry experiment of 1881 and the Michelson Morley interferometry experiment of 1887 and I discovered that Michelson used a wholly wrong basis for establishing his experiment. Michelson ignored the Doppler Effect, he assumed that the wavelength of light in space was always the same. As the lamps that supplied the light that he used were in motion Michelson Morley had to account for the change in wavelength imparted to the light by the motion of the lamp, but they DID NOT.

When correctly analyzed the experiment proves that the Earth moves in a fully entrained ether, that therefore the speed of light is not absolute c, but relative c. Think about it, there is no Doppler Effect in the laboratory yet if that same wave is looked at once it has entered space it will have a Doppler Effect: where did the Doppler come from? This also means that ether exists throughout space, and it has to have some impact on Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

This may well indicate that there were two big Bangs, the first Big Bang being the release of ether and the next Big Bang being the creation and release of matter. It means that there has only been one event of the Big Bang, there would be nothing to bring back the ether to start another Big Bang. The combined Big Bangs easily afford explanation of Cosmic Inflation, and perhaps already a large proportion of the Universe has moved far enough away to form an event horizon where we cannot see it because it's relative velocity is beyond local c.

This conclusion also means that if one can somehow concentrate ether locally to a spaceship, then that ship can pass through the Universes ether and not be bound by the Universe's c, but can travel beyond the local c of the Universe, almost like having a wormhole on demand.

Because the Michelson Morley experiment shows c in the laboratory as a constant, because of the fully entrained ether, we do not see that you can have superluminal c in absolute space. Once the wave enters space it again is c to that relative space. Another thing we will have to bring back is the notion of absolute space. In order to have relative space one needs to have the notion of absolute space, even if you can't plant you flag and say see it is here.

As this paper conflicts with the science as I have found it to be, I do not believe that it is true as it is purported to be.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version