The mass of the craft doesn't need to be zero when it's built. You're asking us to explain technology that seems to be centuries ahead of our own which is silly. Clearly the craft has technology beyond our understanding, it appears to be breaking physical laws but it most likely isn't, we just don't understand the methods it's using to manoeuvre.
Pentagon releases UFO footage
- Thread starter Doobedoo
- Start date
The mass of the craft doesn't need to be zero when it's built. You're asking us to explain technology that seems to be centuries ahead of our own which is silly. Clearly the craft has technology beyond our understanding, it appears to be breaking physical laws but it most likely isn't, we just don't understand the methods it's using to manoeuvre.
The problem is, there's no known theory - for any propulsion system that can do the things witnessed by the pilot, that can be theorised or designed - if you apply the known laws. It just can't be done.
You can't just conveniently brush all the known laws under the table, and legitimately have an argument for how this 'UFO' might actually behave, unless you go into the realms of science fiction. Nor can you say 'oh it just appears to be breaking physical laws, but likely isn't'
That's just sci-fi talk, which we all love - but it gets you absolutely nowhere, when actually trying to theorise on how such a thing might operate, because you end up stuck against mother nature's rules at every turn.
So essentially, it has to be science fiction (anti-gravity machine of some sort) in order to be conceivable.
You don't know it's breaking the laws of physics. I said it most likely is using technology that we don't understand and most likely isn't breaking any laws of physics.
I'm not brushing any known laws aside. A drone would appear to be defying gravity to someone who didn't understand how they work.
We don't need to theorise how it works, you don't win the argument by getting us to be unable to explain how it operates, of course we can't do that.
Yes it seems to be using some sort of anti-gravity machine, we would expect technology that is centuries ahead of our own to appear to be something out of science fiction. I'm not sure why you're struggling to understand that technology that could be centuries ahead of our own would be impossible for someone in 2020 to explain with a theory. Our inability to explain it doesn't mean it's impossible.
Last edited:
Anti-Gravity machines are the perfect example; They cannot exist in the known laws of physics, the law of gravitation simply does not allow for the existence of anything remotely resembling an anti-gravity machine.
The only way an anti-gravity machine can exist, is if literally everything that is currently known about physics is incorrect, until that happens and someone discovers a new law - they can't theoretically be built. (of course, by anti-gravity machine, we're talking about something which is actually defying the force of gravity, not like a bird or plane)
I don't care about your initial question, from 5+ pages ago it's irrelevant.
I'm far more interested in your theory on gyroscopic propulsion
How telling.
It was actually asked and answered on page 9.
I could turn the question around and fire it back at you; How does the Pilot's clear account of;
- Something accelerating away in less than a second
- Disappearing
- Appearing 60 miles away in 30 seconds
- Hovering around above the sea
- Doing all of the above without seemingly generating any heat, or exhaust plume.
Presumably your theory of Gyroscopes will provide a satisfactory explanation for the above things, or what other technology could be at play, which would explain that kind of phenomena?
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,767
For those Bob Lazar fans, watch this video at 7pm. Guy is expert at body language and psychology.
Strawman argument again - I never claimed that something more advanced than what we know is automatically breaking the laws of physics, and you know it.
The claim I made, is that if the pilot's account was true - there is nothing known in physics that could explain an object performing in the ways he says it performed;
- Something accelerating away in less than a second
- Disappearing
- Appearing 60 miles away in 30 seconds
- Hovering around above the sea
- Doing all of the above without seemingly generating any heat, or exhaust plume.
They do if you are using a 10.4 Ghz signal, or an 80nm gold prism surface material (2015). But that's been known for years.
Or before those two methods, the New York researchers 2014 version:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-27/new-york-scientists-unveil-invisibility-cloak/5773528
Last edited:
Well, I think you said it yourself. Known constraints. We're always finding things that, at first, appear to break our understanding of physics. But then we figure it out and it either does fit our models or the models/methods are adjusted.
For instance, Newtons laws about gravity don't hold up too well today.
I'm not sure what would be gained from making a hoax out of all this. One that could fool the pentagon into releasing faked footage from their own, military hardware. Along with pilots who are giving first hand accounts?
If they're all in on it, why the conspiracy to deceive?
I don't doubt they saw what they think they did, and what there instruments seemed to pick up.
What was it actually? Guess we may never find out.
My guess is it's terrestrial and some defence company are testing some toys. Who better than on your own, top of the line navy? You know where they are and that they're not carrying live ordinance. Actually, interesting that the pilot said he was asked to confirm if he had live weapons or not before being told to go take a look.
Maybe it only appears to be doing the impossible because their eyes and sensors were being tricked. Bit like those tanks that can change their infrared signature to look like a car when viewed through a scope.
If it is local we'll find out eventually when others start figuring out the tech and it eventually becomes commercialised. If it's not local then, kewl.
Soldato
You have a very poor understanding of science if you think scientific laws can't allow for anomalies existing in nature. Water doesn't always boil at the same temperature and the speed of light isn't necessarily a constant.Anti-Gravity machines are the perfect example; They cannot exist in the known laws of physics, the law of gravitation simply does not allow for the existence of anything remotely resembling an anti-gravity machine.
The only way an anti-gravity machine can exist, is if literally everything that is currently known about physics is incorrect, until that happens and someone discovers a new law - they can't theoretically be built. (of course, by anti-gravity machine, we're talking about something which is actually defying the force of gravity, not like a bird or plane)
I don't care about your initial question, from 5+ pages ago it's irrelevant.
I'm far more interested in your theory on gyroscopic propulsion
I completely agree.
At the end of the day, if somebody observes something that behaves in a way that's unexpected. We have to adjust our models and methods to account for it - because they're wrong, for example how Newton was wrong about light - he was proven wrong.
And that's sort of what I'm saying here;
In the case of the pilot, if he saw the thing behaving in the ways he described, then according to current knowledge - we'd have to go back and re-write all the text books and account for it in the various laws, and I have no problem with that if it's true. Because it's always possible, that just like Newton's theory of light, somebody may come along later and succeed in proving it wrong - but the bar for doing that, is very very high.
What I'm saying fundamentally - the chances of us having to do all of that, because the pilot really did observe something as incredible as it seems - is far less likely than him telling lies, or simply being mistaken, because the other explanation requires such a high burden of proof for it to get through.
The law of gravitation, does not allow for the existence of anti-gravity machines, period, anomalies aside. They are impossible according to the law of gravitation.
The day somebody actually managed to build an anti-gravity machine, everything we know about gravity would be proven wrong, and the entire law would have to be re-written.
iPhone pffffft; Goose managed just fine with a polaroid camera. Just go inverted and maintain velocity, jobs a good'un.