X-37 Funded by NASA.

NASA Press Release ^ | Nov 20, 2002 | Michael Braukus

[Quix]

PLEASE CONSIDER

Posts number 30, 33 & 35.

[Quix]

MY ERROR, SORRY, NEVERMIND.

I was just running off at the fingers from a memory in my cobwebs about the other thread over 300 posts.

Blessings,

[boris]

You did not read my post at #15 very closely, because I specifically referred to "lifter" devices, which is what these kids built. These are NOT "Anti-gravity" devices. They definitely work, but are incapable of generating much thrust.

They work by slowly accelerating air downward via an electrostatic field, and they are marvelous science-fair projects, because balsa wood is very light.

--Boris

[boris]

I have read most of the references cited; this paper says in essence nothing whatever. "Lifter" technology is well-known and works, but is simply not practical because of the small forces involved. Nobody knows how to harness the "zero-point field". I was a friend of the late Bob Forward, BTW. The Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff material is very interesting but has not been experimentally verified and the jury is out on the physics. To claim we have working propulsion systems based on H-R-P zero-point inertia nullification is simply false.

I've studied the Woodward claims and they are "interesting" but I am unaware of their replication/acceptance by other researchers.

So basically what you have is a bunch of buzz-words, speculation and unproven assertions, just like you had when you began this discussion by claiming:

"It sure seems like we waste enormous sums of money for appearances when we have SEVERAL technologies vastly superior." (#3) and

"I think another would be some sort of interdimensional mode.

"And another would reportedly be a kind of warping of the time/space continuum.

"As I understand it--at least one or two of those gets around the supposed faster than light "problem." (#9)

[MHGinTN]

Would you/could you please address the first three questions in post #31? Thank, boris. [#'s 4 and 5 were rant and don't need further airing, but I am interested in how a scientist answers the first three questions.]

One last question, also. Are you familiar with the work of Bernard Haisch re, Zero Point Field?

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

H.E. Puthoff ?????

Is this the same Puthoff who, along with Professor Targ, attempted to scientifically prove the psychic phenomenon of "remote viewing," and, in the end, were scammed by Uri Geller? Not a particularly encouraging record of achievement...

If it walks like a quack...

[Quix]

Welll Boris,

You certainly seem to do your homework well and write quite convincingly.

And you may plausibly assert that my reasoning is irrational.

And for sure there's plenty of quakery, disinformation and who knows what in this broad field.

And at the moment is kind of looks like we take 12 chickens times 6 igloos times 6 cacti and get 288 snakes with afterburners on their tails. It's easy to say it's all nonsense. It's easy to say nothing much makes clear sense.

Alas, from where I sit, there's just too much smoke from too many above average reliable people to sniff at it haughtily. It may be too early for much to surface in the "known, public" world. It may be we are on the brink of such knowledge becoming public.

In terms of the lifting effect--SOME UFO's are definitely light. If my memory serves me right, 2 men can lift a 30ft diameter vehicle. And, the critters in them are very light--supposedly bioengineered that way. And supposedly th power/energies involved are extreme enough that even the slight effect at those power uses is effective. But that's mostly boardering on conjecture--putting bits and pieces of the puzzle together. I don't recall reading anything that put all those pieces of the puzzle together quite as I did.

Guess in my gut--whether wishful thinking or what--who can say--but in my gut, I'm convinced there's a LOT more zero point stuff that's a dependable reality than we can perfectly, reliably guess at yet. And certainly, from a layman's position such as mine, plenty of it is guessing.

I could say that just from trying to filter through the data on the net. But when one adds one's personal relatives and closer friends who insist they have personal knowledge, the plot thickens.

I don't know how much of this whole ball of wax will turn out to be true--nor which parts. I am convinced it won't all turn out to be false.

I don't know that it relates to anything. But I did know there would be windsurfing boards maybe 8 years before they came out. And frisbee's 5-8 years before they came out. And I've been convinced long before it appeared convincing that UFO's were real--maybe because of my brother's assertions; maybe because of trying to distill convincing bits from just a vast amount of info.

I do appreciate folk like you. We certainly need such to keep our flights of fancy in the neighborhood of sane. You are a frefreshing difference from those who are "agin it" regardless of any evidence. THANKS for that.

[Quix]

IS THIS PLAUSIBLE TO YOU, Boris?

In 1956, a British research company, Aviation Studies (International) Ltd. published a classified report on Electrogravitics Systems examining various aspects of gravity control. They summarized the pioneering work of Townsend Brown and then described the use of electrogravitic thrust as follows:

“The essence of electrogravitics thrust is the use of a very strong positive charge on one side of the vehicle and a negative on the other. The core of the motor is a condenser and the ability of the condenser to hold its charge (the K-number) is the yardstick of performance. With air as 1, current dielectrical materials can yield 6 and use of barium aluminate can raise this considerably, barium titanium oxide (a baked ceramic) can offer 6,000 and there is a promise of 30,000, which would be sufficient for supersonic speed.”[4]

In one of their conclusions, based on Brown’s work, they suggested that: “Electrostatic energy sufficient to produce a Mach 3 fighter is possible with megavolt energies and a k of over 10,000.”[5]

[Quix]

I recall reading that point but you're right--when I was posting the others, I forgot it or minimized it.

[boris]

"And I've been convinced long before it appeared convincing that UFO's were real"

Shhhsh. Don't tell anybody but the REAL UFOs are in disguise: they look exactly like commercial airliners.

Think about it. If you wanted to "fade into the crowd" so to speak, would you wear a rainbow wig and spin about like a dervish?

The saucer thingies are decoys. It's the 747s that bear watching!

Sarcasm mode off.

--Boris

[boris]

"1- An electron travels at close to the speed of light (very close, if I recall); what is the shape of an electron?

Electrons are funny things. I don't know if they have a "shape"; they have a "distribution", i.e., a wave-length. But some of the electron slops out of the "wave length". Remember the wave/particle duality. You can "force" the electron to look and act like a particle but you lose information. You can "force" it to look like a wave but again you lose information. The physics texts usually show them as spherical thingies that have a gradient of density that corresponds to their probability or wave function.

I've read somewhere that both photons (in particle form) and electrons (ditto) have no spacial extent. You should really ask Physicist.

2- When a photon is emitted, what does it 'come out as' ... how does it exist in stasis, then take an angular vector from it's state of inertial existence prior to being emitted?

I have no idea. I assume you are talking about a photon emitted from an electron in an excited state. The electron drops to a lower-energy state and a photon is emitted which carries the energy difference away. Emitted from what? The electron, I guess. Not sure what you mean by "exist in stasis" since photons--once created--immediately have the speed of light. And I am not sure what you mean by "taking an angular vector". When a photon is emitted from an atom (the electron shifting energy states) I believe it can be emitted in any direction, at random, with no preference at all about the direction.

3- Assuming that an object could accelerate so suddenly as described in theory with Quix's posting, what would be the reason for cancellation of the inertial characteristics of anything inside such a craft, and since an acceleration field acts to 'stretch the temporal field, how would the assend keep connected to the nose?

Good question. Someone once asked me to imagine a solid-steel bar one light year long. Move the near end an inch and the far end moves an inch, right?...Nope. The speed of sound in the iron bar is far slower than the speed of light, and so a wave of compression moves down the length of the bar until--eventually--the far end gets the message, in the form of a compression wave, to move an inch forward. Alas, it will take thousands or millions of years to do that. Only if there existed an infinitely rigid body (speed of sound inside it would be infinite) could this idea work.

E.E. "Doc" Smith wrote SF space opera in which the inertia of a space ship and all its contents was nullified. Having zero inertia, a tiny force caused it to zoom off to distant stars. If only.

--Boris

[boris]

Oh, btw: LINK

Ask A Scientist©
Physics Archive

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

speed of electrons

Question: Exactly how fast do electrons travel?

------------------------------------------------

Answer: Electrons can have a wide range of speeds. A slow case: we know that electrons move when there is a current flow in a wire, but the speed at which the electrons themselves move in the wire -- the so-called electron drift velocity -- surprises most people. For example, for a copper wire of radius 1 mm carrying a steady current of 10 amps, the drift velocity is only about 0.024 cm/sec ! On the fast side: the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom has the (bound) electron zipping around the nucleus at about 2 million meters/sec. And on the very fast side, some examples are: beta particles, which are emitted by some radioactive materials; and the innermost elec- trons of atoms of elements having large atomic number, such as uranium. In these cases the electrons are traveling at very nearly the speed of light. (about 300 million meters/sec).

Rcwinther

[Quix]

Cute Boris. Very cute.

Actually, there are a number of stories of craft somehow appearing as planes and then the image disolving or some such and the typical UFO shapes being visible.

Certainly a phenomenon with plenty of . . . possibilities.

[Quix]

One ofthe articles was reading last 48 hour insited ET's insisted that light does not travel-that it only looks that way because of our observational context in our region of reality--same about time--that time is different in different regions, dimensions--not much at all as we construe it.

Interesting ideas. I certainly don't know!

Blessings,

[Quix]

JUST FOR YOUR INFO . . .

---

I SAW A UFO SAYS AIR FORCE CHIEF US air force chief admits mystery lights buzzed his Suffolk airbase

By Bob Roberts


A HIGH-ranking US air force officer and his troops reported seeing a brightly shining UFO in an English forest, it was officially admitted yesterday.

The triangular craft was said to have a pulsing red light on the top and blue lights underneath. It was either hovering or on legs before slipping through the trees as the men closed in. The sighting, featured on TV programmes about unexplained UFOs, was finally revealed by the Government yesterday under the Freedom of Information Act.

The mysterious craft was spotted on December 27 1980 by American airmen at RAF Bentwaters, Woodbridge, Suffolk.

In a report called Unexplained Lights, deputy base commander Lt Col Charles Halt said he saw a "red sun-like light" moving through the trees in Rendlesham Forest.

Three security policemen were given permission to investigate.

Lt Col Halt said: "They reported seeing a strange glowing object in the forest.

"The object was described as being metallic in appearance and triangular in shape, approximately two to three metres across the base and approximately two metres high.

"It illuminated the entire forest with a white light. The object itself had a pulsing red light on top and a bank of blue lights underneath. The object was hovering or on legs.

"As the patrolmen approached the object, it manoeuvred through the trees and disappeared. At this time, the animals on a nearby farm went into a frenzy."

The UFO was spotted an hour later near the back gate to the base.

Next morning, Lt Col Halt and his men discovered three 7in circular depressions in the ground. Radiation around them was 10 times higher than normal.

Lt Col Halt told how the UFO returned. He said: "Later in the night, a red sun-like light was seen through the trees.

"At one point, it appeared to throw off glowing particles, then broke into five separate white objects and disappeared.

"Immediately thereafter, three star-like objects were noticed.

"The objects moved rapidly in sharp, angular movements and displayed red, green and blue lights."

URL TO FOLLOW IN NEXT POST

[Quix]

URL FOR ABOVE BENTWATERS POST:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12412273&method=full&siteid=50143

[MHGinTN]

Thank you very much, boris. I really do appreciate the responses. But, oh my, so many more questions arise! ... If the photon and electron have no spatial extent (a zero spatial variability) then what is left is the temporal, which scientists have been calling the wave function ... and when the function collapses, a 'present' temporal phenomenon is at hand. This is the very reason I've been contending for some time now that every particle (even those presumed to have no spatial characteristic, thus actually having a point spatial limit), as it exists in our universe, has a temporal, a spatial, and an energy component, and the continuum defined by the temporal variability and the spatial variability defines the manifestation of the energy as that energy effects space and time from the spacetime continuum in which the energy exists. The photon did or didn't exist in the electron prior to being emitted? In my conceptualization, the complexity of the spacetime continuum of the electron allows for a lesser complexity to manifest as the spacetime continuum for the photon to manifest, thus a 'vector' or directional component is non-essential and only determined by the observer ... quantum non-locality.