Have you seen Michio Kaku's monopole based concept? His version would actually involve the zig-zag style flight that is often reported. BTW, I've been doing some reading about UFOs, and I'm getting increasingly interested.
If time is made of nothing, and space is made of nothing, then I have nothing to overcome and this whole topic of discussion thus becomes irrelevant ;)
If space isn't nothing and energy must be conserved within it (never create nor destroyed), and clearly we are in this "thing", then that sounds like the definition of an eternal prison to me.
I find both disturbing, so what sayeth you?
Energy and mass come from complete nothingness? They must also be nothing then hmm? Doesn't add up.
@ProjectRedBook Welcome to the club. If it gets too confusing you can always commit suicide ;o) ... or ... go to a movie ... or to the beach in the summer, etc.
Future generations will have to build such a propulsion system, OR... convert Jupiter into a fusion star to have enough energy in a dyson sphere to go between solar systems without chilling to -273 in the 100k years it would take to move at sub-light velocities.
The data would have to be made directly available to the public, not dispensed through some NASA oracle. Huge numbers of the press, especially those who don't believe, would have to be in the control room as the data came in. Computers of the 60's just weren't powerful enough to land those spacecraft with such precision. If expended landing stages are there, men landed them. That kind of proof would convince me UFO's are real, I'm not a "Flat Earther".
@1DanConnors That's true. The computing power then is now in your washing machine. Recently pics showed the tracks of the Lunar rover. They still bounce signals off the reflectors astronauts left to check distance changes from earth to moon (couple centimeters per year).
..invasion by IS aliens would be quick; we wouldn't know what hit us. There'd be no sneaking around, no hidden government. They'd simply dump a few tons of nanotech machines around the planet, machines set to act on humans only. In a matter of minutes every human being on the planet would be reduced to a pulpy mass of gelatinous matter. Game (war?) over. Your proposed inertialess drive (to paraphrase you) sounds like ruby slipper transportation. EE "doc" Smith thought it up in the 1920's.
@1DanConnors Again, all you are doing is looking into your own head and ... voila! ... you've got is all figured out. All the evidence is non-existent and can just be swept away by imperial decree. "It can't be ... therefore, it isn't."
@Bantokfomoki In the end all we have to go with is what's inside our heads. The process I've used to explain why we aren't being visited by IS aliens is called logic, and it's a very powerful tool. There is one object that can apparently exceed c and also make impossible maneuvers. That is a mirror image. A mirror image can be projected on glass, fog, clouds, or the infamous swamp gas. I've seen 2 UFO's in my life, and neither time did I believe I was seeing a craft from another star system.
@1DanConnors Your "logic" is going by what's inside your head. My "logic" is going by what's inside my head. I admit into my head the testimony of credible witnesses ... you don't accept their testimony ... hence, a difference of opinion. I guess there's nothing more to say. The answer waits on more evidence in your case. I've heard enough and I've placed my bet ... you're not wagering are you? ;o)
@Bantokfomoki The doubts I have on the testimony of "credible" witnesses stems from my US Navy days. I was told, with assurance, that Soviet nuke subs could outrun surface destroyers and aircraft carriers. I knew that this was a load of total BS, but you don't tell a 250 lb. muscular machinists mate that he's full of it. I was right of course; the subs could barely make 20 knots. Seemingly credible witnesses, in the grip of hysteria, can believe they're seeing things that just aren't there.
@1DanConnors What about credible witnesses NOT in the grip of hysteria? There are thousands of them ... tens of thousands ... up close and personal ... like from less than 100 yards away. Have you seen James Fox's two documentaries? ... "Out of the Blue" and "I Know What I Saw". It's hard to believe that someone with your levelheadedness would commit himself to the "ostrich position".
I standing on real solid ground here. I don't even think of UFOs as not being real anymore. ;o)
@Bantokfomoki There are also con men/women aching to make a quick buck off you. I read a "scientific" book on UFO's once in which the author said the aliens looked like gorgeous human beings and were from the planet Venus. Venus!! The first fatality inflicted on us by aliens was actually a USAF pilot who climbed above his oxygen support capability, passed out, and crashed. Do you also believe in Bigfoot. the Loch Ness monster, and ghosts? Many earnest alchoholics are eager to convince you..
@1DanConnors There are kooks in every area of inquiry. That doesn't mean we're swappin' spit. If people from other planets are here they could mess with us for fun and set up a big foot, loch ness monster or ghosts and take 'em out when we brought a camera. That would be fun. Maybe we have some practical jokers among them, eh?
Or, the Loch Ness Monster could be guys from Oxford or Cambridge towing a good fake through the water. That's fun too.
@Bantokfomoki Good to see you're not a "true believer" in the other fringe groups. I quit believing in Santa Claus when I was 7. A few years later I quit believing in God for the same reason-no proof. Pictures aren't proof. As cameras have gotten better the ability to doctor pictures has also improved (witness the cell phone camera). If "area 51" exists it would be manned and supplied by thousands of people. There would have been deathbed confessions by now. There haven't been; it doesn't.
@1DanConnors I often wonder about that. If we had a crashed UFO ... it would probably be because they wanted us to have it. I don't think they crash at all unless it's on purpose. There have been a few deathbed confessions. I don't close off the option that they don't exist ... I just think that option is the least likely based on what I've read and seen on the net. I may have seen one myself back in the 80s. It was either a UFO or a faked night UFO by hang gliders (Hudson Valley).
@Bantokfomoki As I read this I see off to the right captions for 5 explanations of how UFO's work. Every one of them claims they have the "TRUE" details. Most of them have to be wrong. It reminds me of the "Moon landing was a hoax" argument. Millions now believe we never went to Luna. I watched the last Moon launch, but I realize that's no prooof--it could have been unmanned. Conclusive proof could be obtained if Hubble trained its lens on the landing sites and saw the expended landing modules.
@1DanConnors I just watched a Moon Hoax video last night. It was very well made ... had some good points ... excellent facts ... but I wasn't the least impressed. The Moon hoaxers really try hard to make something with almost nothing. I wish they'd put their time into something useful. They could have a good effect.
@Bantokfomoki There is one idea that might work. Humans, as human as we, have existed on Earth over 100,000 years. It's possible that when a civilization reaches the point where the Earth can no longer support its energy use, it uproots, takes to space, leaving only diehard tree huggers behind. These with no tools, no recording devices, so that knowledge of the parent civilization is quickly lost. This could have happened 4 or 5 times, and the "aliens" might be human relatives checking us out.
@1DanConnors I was just thinking along those lines yesterday ;o) Very coincidental. Like this ... suppose we solve all our present problems and reduce the population to maybe 1/2 billion. There's then lots of open space and we say, "We're not gonna' use this. Leave it wild."
After a million years, will the chimps in the reserve evolve into humans? When we left the ecosystem we also left an ecological niche for "intelligent omnivore". Wouldn't nature fill the niche again?
@Bantokfomoki Additionally I'm not making that judgement alone. The vast majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and just plain pysicists believe as I do. I would add government officials, but I believe that would weaken my case. Having worked in the US government for 35 years, I wouldn't believe a word I heard from any government official.
@1DanConnors Would you have a reason to invade every ant hill you came across? Would you bend down and ask them: Take me to your leader?
You might step on a few buy accident or take a few samples back to the lab for study. If you found something interesting you might come back periodically and check.
Coming to a realization that universe might contain intelligence that makes us comparable to ants is profound and challenging. Not hard to believe that someone from outer space tasted human meat.
@stiki123 Men are not ants. Ants don't wield nuclear weapons. If aliens wanted us to know they were here, we'd know. If they didn't want us to know, we wouldn't. If they didn't give a damn one way or the other, we'd know. None of these possibilities is now operative except possibly the second. A species able to cross IS space could take us out in a few minutes, all of us. If they heedlessly stomped around, making a nuisance of themselves, one nuke bomb would take out one UFO.
Not wanting to rain on the parade, but flying saucers flown by intersteller aliens are pure BUNK. Item 1: If the aliens wanted us to know they were here, they would land in downtown Manhatten with parades and media events. Item 2: If they didn't want us to know they were here, we wouldn't know. A race capable of IS flight would send probes smaller than mosquitoes to observe us. Why kidnap a whole human, when a single drop of blood, drawn by the probe, could produce a cloned human? Item 3: an....
@1DanConnors The evidence is overwhelming that you are wrong. They are here and have probably been here for millions of years. Reasoning about "what they ought to do" goes nowhere and doesn't detract one jot from the evidence accumulated in the past century. All you have to do is look at it.
What you are saying is that the best way to understand something is not to look at it.
You can't rain on this parade. It's waterproof. ;o)
And id like to pose this also. Ive seen videos where they speak of alien craft having helmets with no wires (or a head band persay_ and inside the craft, basically, No mechanical parts in order to operate the craft what so ever..
This is where biotechnology steps in and also the decisions of the driver..
Certaincy must be practiced and learned then on top of that weve all been told its uncertain, This beleif must fade before these things will really work to their maximum.
@RobMonty248 I don't know if reports about the inside of craft are genuine or not. I tend to believe that therre wouldn't be much of anything in the way of mechanical contrivances.
PS: I tend to agree with you about not much progress toward this technology till we're philosophically "right".
I pose this... What if the un-certaincy principle is certain and the one must so choose that in order to overight the (uncertaincy with the minds decision).
Telekentic connection to matter. Mind over matter would first require the decision that you are able to alter this process.. Therefore its not always going to be uncertain depending on ones such beleifs, faith in self and ability to see its basically ALL WE CAN DO... Noticing this is very important before any of this will work properly.
And may i add your videos are fascinating, i have no background in physics or the applied sciences but you convey these complex theories in such a way that i am able to grasp the principles without a thourough understanding of the laws, my only complaint is that you dont have enough video's, you and michio kaku have a very rare talent my friend, has any of your work been published?
Is it the fact that no companies apart from military contractors have tried to develop engine's/propulsion unit's such as this? Or is it that if a company DOES try to develop such thing's then they are immediately gobbled up into the military industrial complex and shrouded in secrecy? I have seen a ufo myself recently and it WAS NOT extraterestial in origin, thank you
@REPADIGITAL I don't know who does what, where, when, why or how. I'm completely on the outside looking in ... just like you and most of those who visit here. And ... what did you see? I'm interested in first hand reports.
The effect of electrical polarisation of spinning object was known for a long time. Any force on the spinning dipoles is created by the reaction of the magnetic field of the magnet, that is if there is repulsive force on the dipoles that is between the magnet (the cause of the magnetic field) and the spinning disc, both object beeing pushed away from each other with the same force. It will not work. An asymetrical strong, pulsed electric field would rather be able to move through an aether gas.
@nfexp I don't quite understand what you are saying. Is it something about a Lenz force? If so, that's not what I'm talking about.
Two charges must form on opposite ends of the same particle when it's stretched into an ellipsoidal field. If the two charges are not within the same particle ... it can't work in principle. This is NOT something "known for a long time".
the other important thing is that neuton is not made of proton, electron and electron neutrino, it is made of quarks, two down and one up quark, and I'm not shure if quarks can be polarised at all.
to test that we first need to messure neutron electric dipole moment, which is still not messured, and I'm not sure that it will be mesured for some time to come. we would need to expand the quantum chromodynamics
theory which explains interactions between quarks and gulons
ufos or flying saucers doesn´t work by means of inertia. the crafts manipulate energy by makeing the energy they use added back to itself in only one direction. its like a donut. the extraterestials discovered how stars and planets worked and merely duplicated artificially the natural process in a spacecraft. ufos don´t violate conservation. they use the same energy indefinetly. according to the laws of energy conservation you have not lost any energy by moving mass from one place to another.
Your post is simple ... non-functional ... blather. All you've done is make an assertion based on "floating abstractions". You have no valid intellectual argument, i.e. you're neither right nor wrong ... just "hunh??".
@Bantokfomoki your main problem is that you think mass is the answer. its not mass that create inertia, its energy. gravity is no quantities of mass. you can have a dust particle with gravity as strong as a star. what happend when you fill a balloon with a constand stream of water and there is no way the water can escape and the balloon can stretch infinitely? think of instead of adding water in to the balloon your adding energy? thats what gravity is. waves of energy become force.
When you have a coherent model of your idea maybe you can propose an experiment. Till then, I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. If you design an experiment ... then ... I'll be able to see what you mean.
The posigravity, or KK-drive, , re author alan dean foster . alandeanfoster . com .love his sci-fi as such somone else posited the theory of this type of space drive long ago , early 80/s . so far the nuts and bolts hasnt been worked out .
Segments of a regular polygon are placed along a logarithmic spiral. The positions of the segments are determined by the angular advance of the subsequent segments. The edges of the segments lie along various spirals. When the angular advance is proportional to the golden ratio, the number of spirals are Fibonacci numbers (8, 13, 21 in the default case). Many plants (including pine cones, leaves, and branches) exhibit this arrangement of segments.
Thank you. The more I investigate the matter, the more I am convinced that a ufo's primary propulsion system must be reactionless. It's the math that kills all other "conservative" propulsion mechanisms.
I came across some of the most basic ideas that you covered in order to explain what kinetic energy is(could be). I did this intuitively by examining wave propagation. Now that I've looked up similar insights, I wonder at why we do not have a reactionless propulsion device. What mechanical devices have been proposed in order to exhibit these supposed mechanics? It's dumbfounding to think we haven't gone further.
Only a few reactionless systems have been proposed ... none work. The one I proposed may be the last because there are so few things you can do in this universe. You can spin things around, shake 'em back & forth, subject them to electric and magnetic fields, heat them up or cool them down. That's it ... ain't no more. If this idea doesn't work ... I haven't got a clue. Certainly, you can't go to other solar systems if the conservation laws hold ... unless you travel very, very slowly.
@Bantokfomoki After watching the rest of the video I saw that you didn't have the same idea. I guess I got a little jumpy. I can't tell you where you're wrong because if the idea I and my brothers are working on works, we should get credit. You know, lay back and eat shrimp or something. Credit just amounts to an ever lasting supply of seafood. The problem with an object moving with out a reactionless process is that objects do it all the time when impacted (reaction I know).
@lordjavathe3rd some kind of repulsive force field,antigravitons ? seems to explain it the best,but there maybe multible propulsion engines,devices,etc.
Thank you. It's the only idea I've ever encountered that fits the observations ... and ... breaks the horrible logjam created by the conservation laws. These "laws" make it all but mathematically impossible to do what they do in our atmosphere ... and ... get here from another star system. No electro-gravitic effect can produce those accelerations. And ... no reaction system can sustain them. It must come from the force in a rotating wheel released out of the plane of rotation.
Have you seen Michio Kaku's monopole based concept? His version would actually involve the zig-zag style flight that is often reported. BTW, I've been doing some reading about UFOs, and I'm getting increasingly interested.
SimKoning 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
there is also a gravitic field that can be acheaved with just a mechanical drive
you can acheave a dia-graveitc effect with out useing any electronic fields
check out Proffesor Eric Laithwaite and his gyroscopic findings
I would suggest useing something with strong dia-magnetic properties like graphite
or something with a high protonic to electron ratio
I hope this helps you find some answers that will add to your electric field propalsuin
If you have any questions please dont be affraid to ask
djdrackon 2 months ago
If time is made of nothing, and space is made of nothing, then I have nothing to overcome and this whole topic of discussion thus becomes irrelevant ;)
If space isn't nothing and energy must be conserved within it (never create nor destroyed), and clearly we are in this "thing", then that sounds like the definition of an eternal prison to me.
I find both disturbing, so what sayeth you?
Energy and mass come from complete nothingness? They must also be nothing then hmm? Doesn't add up.
ProjectRedBook 2 months ago
@ProjectRedBook Welcome to the club. If it gets too confusing you can always commit suicide ;o) ... or ... go to a movie ... or to the beach in the summer, etc.
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
Future generations will have to build such a propulsion system, OR... convert Jupiter into a fusion star to have enough energy in a dyson sphere to go between solar systems without chilling to -273 in the 100k years it would take to move at sub-light velocities.
ProjectRedBook 2 months ago
The data would have to be made directly available to the public, not dispensed through some NASA oracle. Huge numbers of the press, especially those who don't believe, would have to be in the control room as the data came in. Computers of the 60's just weren't powerful enough to land those spacecraft with such precision. If expended landing stages are there, men landed them. That kind of proof would convince me UFO's are real, I'm not a "Flat Earther".
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors That's true. The computing power then is now in your washing machine. Recently pics showed the tracks of the Lunar rover. They still bounce signals off the reflectors astronauts left to check distance changes from earth to moon (couple centimeters per year).
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
..invasion by IS aliens would be quick; we wouldn't know what hit us. There'd be no sneaking around, no hidden government. They'd simply dump a few tons of nanotech machines around the planet, machines set to act on humans only. In a matter of minutes every human being on the planet would be reduced to a pulpy mass of gelatinous matter. Game (war?) over. Your proposed inertialess drive (to paraphrase you) sounds like ruby slipper transportation. EE "doc" Smith thought it up in the 1920's.
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors Again, all you are doing is looking into your own head and ... voila! ... you've got is all figured out. All the evidence is non-existent and can just be swept away by imperial decree. "It can't be ... therefore, it isn't."
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
@Bantokfomoki In the end all we have to go with is what's inside our heads. The process I've used to explain why we aren't being visited by IS aliens is called logic, and it's a very powerful tool. There is one object that can apparently exceed c and also make impossible maneuvers. That is a mirror image. A mirror image can be projected on glass, fog, clouds, or the infamous swamp gas. I've seen 2 UFO's in my life, and neither time did I believe I was seeing a craft from another star system.
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors Your "logic" is going by what's inside your head. My "logic" is going by what's inside my head. I admit into my head the testimony of credible witnesses ... you don't accept their testimony ... hence, a difference of opinion. I guess there's nothing more to say. The answer waits on more evidence in your case. I've heard enough and I've placed my bet ... you're not wagering are you? ;o)
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
@Bantokfomoki The doubts I have on the testimony of "credible" witnesses stems from my US Navy days. I was told, with assurance, that Soviet nuke subs could outrun surface destroyers and aircraft carriers. I knew that this was a load of total BS, but you don't tell a 250 lb. muscular machinists mate that he's full of it. I was right of course; the subs could barely make 20 knots. Seemingly credible witnesses, in the grip of hysteria, can believe they're seeing things that just aren't there.
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors What about credible witnesses NOT in the grip of hysteria? There are thousands of them ... tens of thousands ... up close and personal ... like from less than 100 yards away. Have you seen James Fox's two documentaries? ... "Out of the Blue" and "I Know What I Saw". It's hard to believe that someone with your levelheadedness would commit himself to the "ostrich position".
I standing on real solid ground here. I don't even think of UFOs as not being real anymore. ;o)
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
@Bantokfomoki There are also con men/women aching to make a quick buck off you. I read a "scientific" book on UFO's once in which the author said the aliens looked like gorgeous human beings and were from the planet Venus. Venus!! The first fatality inflicted on us by aliens was actually a USAF pilot who climbed above his oxygen support capability, passed out, and crashed. Do you also believe in Bigfoot. the Loch Ness monster, and ghosts? Many earnest alchoholics are eager to convince you..
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors There are kooks in every area of inquiry. That doesn't mean we're swappin' spit. If people from other planets are here they could mess with us for fun and set up a big foot, loch ness monster or ghosts and take 'em out when we brought a camera. That would be fun. Maybe we have some practical jokers among them, eh?
Or, the Loch Ness Monster could be guys from Oxford or Cambridge towing a good fake through the water. That's fun too.
I haven't seen it so I don't know.
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
@Bantokfomoki Good to see you're not a "true believer" in the other fringe groups. I quit believing in Santa Claus when I was 7. A few years later I quit believing in God for the same reason-no proof. Pictures aren't proof. As cameras have gotten better the ability to doctor pictures has also improved (witness the cell phone camera). If "area 51" exists it would be manned and supplied by thousands of people. There would have been deathbed confessions by now. There haven't been; it doesn't.
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors I often wonder about that. If we had a crashed UFO ... it would probably be because they wanted us to have it. I don't think they crash at all unless it's on purpose. There have been a few deathbed confessions. I don't close off the option that they don't exist ... I just think that option is the least likely based on what I've read and seen on the net. I may have seen one myself back in the 80s. It was either a UFO or a faked night UFO by hang gliders (Hudson Valley).
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
@Bantokfomoki As I read this I see off to the right captions for 5 explanations of how UFO's work. Every one of them claims they have the "TRUE" details. Most of them have to be wrong. It reminds me of the "Moon landing was a hoax" argument. Millions now believe we never went to Luna. I watched the last Moon launch, but I realize that's no prooof--it could have been unmanned. Conclusive proof could be obtained if Hubble trained its lens on the landing sites and saw the expended landing modules.
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors I just watched a Moon Hoax video last night. It was very well made ... had some good points ... excellent facts ... but I wasn't the least impressed. The Moon hoaxers really try hard to make something with almost nothing. I wish they'd put their time into something useful. They could have a good effect.
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
@Bantokfomoki There is one idea that might work. Humans, as human as we, have existed on Earth over 100,000 years. It's possible that when a civilization reaches the point where the Earth can no longer support its energy use, it uproots, takes to space, leaving only diehard tree huggers behind. These with no tools, no recording devices, so that knowledge of the parent civilization is quickly lost. This could have happened 4 or 5 times, and the "aliens" might be human relatives checking us out.
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors I was just thinking along those lines yesterday ;o) Very coincidental. Like this ... suppose we solve all our present problems and reduce the population to maybe 1/2 billion. There's then lots of open space and we say, "We're not gonna' use this. Leave it wild."
After a million years, will the chimps in the reserve evolve into humans? When we left the ecosystem we also left an ecological niche for "intelligent omnivore". Wouldn't nature fill the niche again?
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
@Bantokfomoki Additionally I'm not making that judgement alone. The vast majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and just plain pysicists believe as I do. I would add government officials, but I believe that would weaken my case. Having worked in the US government for 35 years, I wouldn't believe a word I heard from any government official.
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors Would you have a reason to invade every ant hill you came across? Would you bend down and ask them: Take me to your leader?
You might step on a few buy accident or take a few samples back to the lab for study. If you found something interesting you might come back periodically and check.
Coming to a realization that universe might contain intelligence that makes us comparable to ants is profound and challenging. Not hard to believe that someone from outer space tasted human meat.
stiki123 2 months ago
@stiki123 Men are not ants. Ants don't wield nuclear weapons. If aliens wanted us to know they were here, we'd know. If they didn't want us to know, we wouldn't. If they didn't give a damn one way or the other, we'd know. None of these possibilities is now operative except possibly the second. A species able to cross IS space could take us out in a few minutes, all of us. If they heedlessly stomped around, making a nuisance of themselves, one nuke bomb would take out one UFO.
1DanConnors 2 months ago
Not wanting to rain on the parade, but flying saucers flown by intersteller aliens are pure BUNK. Item 1: If the aliens wanted us to know they were here, they would land in downtown Manhatten with parades and media events. Item 2: If they didn't want us to know they were here, we wouldn't know. A race capable of IS flight would send probes smaller than mosquitoes to observe us. Why kidnap a whole human, when a single drop of blood, drawn by the probe, could produce a cloned human? Item 3: an....
1DanConnors 2 months ago
@1DanConnors The evidence is overwhelming that you are wrong. They are here and have probably been here for millions of years. Reasoning about "what they ought to do" goes nowhere and doesn't detract one jot from the evidence accumulated in the past century. All you have to do is look at it.
What you are saying is that the best way to understand something is not to look at it.
You can't rain on this parade. It's waterproof. ;o)
Bantokfomoki 2 months ago
And id like to pose this also. Ive seen videos where they speak of alien craft having helmets with no wires (or a head band persay_ and inside the craft, basically, No mechanical parts in order to operate the craft what so ever..
This is where biotechnology steps in and also the decisions of the driver..
Certaincy must be practiced and learned then on top of that weve all been told its uncertain, This beleif must fade before these things will really work to their maximum.
RobMonty248 4 months ago
@RobMonty248 I don't know if reports about the inside of craft are genuine or not. I tend to believe that therre wouldn't be much of anything in the way of mechanical contrivances.
PS: I tend to agree with you about not much progress toward this technology till we're philosophically "right".
Bantokfomoki 4 months ago
I pose this... What if the un-certaincy principle is certain and the one must so choose that in order to overight the (uncertaincy with the minds decision).
Telekentic connection to matter. Mind over matter would first require the decision that you are able to alter this process.. Therefore its not always going to be uncertain depending on ones such beleifs, faith in self and ability to see its basically ALL WE CAN DO... Noticing this is very important before any of this will work properly.
RobMonty248 4 months ago
dipoles will rotate.
if u try stop dipole then ur suspension will work like torsion.
the end.
please to continue study physics.
RobotN001 5 months ago
How do you make neutral particals go around in a circle?
schwoazi 5 months ago
@schwoazi ?!??! They reside in the nucleus of nearly all atoms. How do you rotate a wheel? Answer: you spin it.
Bantokfomoki 5 months ago
And may i add your videos are fascinating, i have no background in physics or the applied sciences but you convey these complex theories in such a way that i am able to grasp the principles without a thourough understanding of the laws, my only complaint is that you dont have enough video's, you and michio kaku have a very rare talent my friend, has any of your work been published?
REPADIGITAL 7 months ago
@REPADIGITAL Yes, all my work is published ... on the internet ;o)
Bantokfomoki 7 months ago
Is it the fact that no companies apart from military contractors have tried to develop engine's/propulsion unit's such as this? Or is it that if a company DOES try to develop such thing's then they are immediately gobbled up into the military industrial complex and shrouded in secrecy? I have seen a ufo myself recently and it WAS NOT extraterestial in origin, thank you
REPADIGITAL 7 months ago
@REPADIGITAL I don't know who does what, where, when, why or how. I'm completely on the outside looking in ... just like you and most of those who visit here. And ... what did you see? I'm interested in first hand reports.
Bantokfomoki 7 months ago
The effect of electrical polarisation of spinning object was known for a long time. Any force on the spinning dipoles is created by the reaction of the magnetic field of the magnet, that is if there is repulsive force on the dipoles that is between the magnet (the cause of the magnetic field) and the spinning disc, both object beeing pushed away from each other with the same force. It will not work. An asymetrical strong, pulsed electric field would rather be able to move through an aether gas.
nfexp 10 months ago
@nfexp I don't quite understand what you are saying. Is it something about a Lenz force? If so, that's not what I'm talking about.
Two charges must form on opposite ends of the same particle when it's stretched into an ellipsoidal field. If the two charges are not within the same particle ... it can't work in principle. This is NOT something "known for a long time".
Bantokfomoki 10 months ago
awesome video, thank you explaining something so complex in a simple style.
mikeatcapo 10 months ago
@mikeatcapo Thank you. And I think everyone agrees with you ... I'm "simple" minded ;o)
Bantokfomoki 10 months ago
it seem to me that you have ignored the strong nuclear force
jaMig01O 1 year ago
That's correct ... I ignored it because it has no value as a propellant force ... only as a source of energy for some unknown "other" scheme.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
@Bantokfomoki .
the other important thing is that neuton is not made of proton, electron and electron neutrino, it is made of quarks, two down and one up quark, and I'm not shure if quarks can be polarised at all.
to test that we first need to messure neutron electric dipole moment, which is still not messured, and I'm not sure that it will be mesured for some time to come. we would need to expand the quantum chromodynamics
theory which explains interactions between quarks and gulons
jaMig01O 1 year ago
Quark theory is completely irrelevant to the simple theory I posited.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
ufos or flying saucers doesn´t work by means of inertia. the crafts manipulate energy by makeing the energy they use added back to itself in only one direction. its like a donut. the extraterestials discovered how stars and planets worked and merely duplicated artificially the natural process in a spacecraft. ufos don´t violate conservation. they use the same energy indefinetly. according to the laws of energy conservation you have not lost any energy by moving mass from one place to another.
coldarc 1 year ago
Your post is simple ... non-functional ... blather. All you've done is make an assertion based on "floating abstractions". You have no valid intellectual argument, i.e. you're neither right nor wrong ... just "hunh??".
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
@Bantokfomoki your main problem is that you think mass is the answer. its not mass that create inertia, its energy. gravity is no quantities of mass. you can have a dust particle with gravity as strong as a star. what happend when you fill a balloon with a constand stream of water and there is no way the water can escape and the balloon can stretch infinitely? think of instead of adding water in to the balloon your adding energy? thats what gravity is. waves of energy become force.
coldarc 1 year ago
When you have a coherent model of your idea maybe you can propose an experiment. Till then, I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. If you design an experiment ... then ... I'll be able to see what you mean.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
The posigravity, or KK-drive, , re author alan dean foster . alandeanfoster . com .love his sci-fi as such somone else posited the theory of this type of space drive long ago , early 80/s . so far the nuts and bolts hasnt been worked out .
1abcrr1 1 year ago
dude...interesting, but YOU NEED TO TALK MORE ENTHUSIASTICALLY i almost fell asleep
coolermasterpro 1 year ago
I'm getting old and ... "Enthusiasm is the prelude to disaster" - EBTX
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
Lol. People. iPad is mess in with me. Non
Lwood961 1 year ago
Only po in the universe
Lwood961 1 year ago
This video i amazing. Great job my friend. Every video, genius. How can anyone be so selfish tonthink we are the
Lwood961 1 year ago
Segments of a regular polygon are placed along a logarithmic spiral. The positions of the segments are determined by the angular advance of the subsequent segments. The edges of the segments lie along various spirals. When the angular advance is proportional to the golden ratio, the number of spirals are Fibonacci numbers (8, 13, 21 in the default case). Many plants (including pine cones, leaves, and branches) exhibit this arrangement of segments.
UtherPendragan 1 year ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 1 year ago
Comment removed
carlosewm 1 year ago
great explanation about "inertia" displacement - 2 thumbs up ;)
djk4tt 1 year ago
Thank you. The more I investigate the matter, the more I am convinced that a ufo's primary propulsion system must be reactionless. It's the math that kills all other "conservative" propulsion mechanisms.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
What's the name mentioned at 9:22. Sounds russian... potklanov?
bandmine 1 year ago
I came across some of the most basic ideas that you covered in order to explain what kinetic energy is(could be). I did this intuitively by examining wave propagation. Now that I've looked up similar insights, I wonder at why we do not have a reactionless propulsion device. What mechanical devices have been proposed in order to exhibit these supposed mechanics? It's dumbfounding to think we haven't gone further.
lordjavathe3rd 1 year ago
Only a few reactionless systems have been proposed ... none work. The one I proposed may be the last because there are so few things you can do in this universe. You can spin things around, shake 'em back & forth, subject them to electric and magnetic fields, heat them up or cool them down. That's it ... ain't no more. If this idea doesn't work ... I haven't got a clue. Certainly, you can't go to other solar systems if the conservation laws hold ... unless you travel very, very slowly.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
@Bantokfomoki After watching the rest of the video I saw that you didn't have the same idea. I guess I got a little jumpy. I can't tell you where you're wrong because if the idea I and my brothers are working on works, we should get credit. You know, lay back and eat shrimp or something. Credit just amounts to an ever lasting supply of seafood. The problem with an object moving with out a reactionless process is that objects do it all the time when impacted (reaction I know).
lordjavathe3rd 1 year ago
@lordjavathe3rd Anyway, hopefully one of us knuckle heads will stumble upon the mechanism that causes matter waves.
lordjavathe3rd 1 year ago
@lordjavathe3rd some kind of repulsive force field,antigravitons ? seems to explain it the best,but there maybe multible propulsion engines,devices,etc.
inagod 1 year ago
Thank you. It's the only idea I've ever encountered that fits the observations ... and ... breaks the horrible logjam created by the conservation laws. These "laws" make it all but mathematically impossible to do what they do in our atmosphere ... and ... get here from another star system. No electro-gravitic effect can produce those accelerations. And ... no reaction system can sustain them. It must come from the force in a rotating wheel released out of the plane of rotation.
Bantokfomoki 1 year ago
Nice video.
Bryanmusa 1 year ago