UFO news

i am still stuck on what i learned in physics regarding the constraints that would be encountered for space travel.

1) that even at the speed of light, distances between solar systems are still great
2) (especially) any object of mass cannot travel at the speed of light
3) travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible.
4) any kind of wormhole/bending of space time would require enormous amounts of mass (which may squish the traveller anyway)

any changes to points 2 and 3 would totally re-write what we know about the universe.

that being said, i'm sure explaining the Internet and microchips to a Neanderthal would probably yield the same skeptism as i'm feeling now.
 
Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis by Paul Hill ( head research scientist at NASA's langley center for 20 years)
ISBN-10: 1571740279
I cant find the page number, but I have it in my notebook:
" Dr. Kames Harder Of the University of California Engineering Department analyzed a piece of Magnesium26 recovered from crash of UFO in Brazil. He noted that it was free of silicon or calcium, two elements that are the most difficult to remove when trying to purify magnesium. Dr. Craig, (I think who worked on the Condon committee) noted that the sample had high concentrations of barium and strontium, which are not normally found in Magnesium, indicating that it was produced and not natural."
(Official speak for "the real thing.")

When asked about Magnesium26, Dow chemical could not replicate the sample they were given.
Specifically, Dow MG26 was 4.8 ppm Manganese and the Brazillian sample was 35ppm. (The chemical list is rather long..)
Something to note is that a gram of pure Mg26 is worth about 15,000$.
Some guy and his son just pick up finger-sized pieces on the beach one day?

The same day they happen to see a UFO crash and rain down particles of this material..Smooth, flat pieces of an isotope we are unable to reproduce.
(We may be able to do it now, but not 50 years ago)
 
Dave Hahn said:
i am still stuck on what i learned in physics regarding the constraints that would be encountered for space travel.
1) that even at the speed of light, distances between solar systems are still great
2) (especially) any object of mass cannot travel at the speed of light
3) travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible.
4) any kind of wormhole/bending of space time would require enormous amounts of mass (which may squish the traveller anyway)
any changes to points 2 and 3 would totally re-write what we know about the universe.
Click to expand...

As I understand it:
1. Were you to travel at the speed of light, the on-board time would be nil, almost instantaneous.
2. No object can be pushed at or beyond the speed of light. That is, you cannot use relative acceleration to exceed c. However, we may be able to fall faster than c. Uniform acceleration is a different concept. Being inside the field of an isotropic uniform acceleration field (your own gravity) would allow you to travel at any speed relative to an observer outside of your field. It also allows you to make what appear to be right turns and sudden stops. A ship that can reflect or create it's own gravitational field is a separate frame of reference.
4. Enormous amounts of mass and energy are abundant. The universe s full of gravity. If gravity is the source of propulsion, which is my belief, then there is no need to stop for gas.

Granted, I have no training in physics other than what I have taught myself and a few cosmology lectures I attended.
 
time dilation at the speed of light might be OK for those on board, but when they get home again, they might find their whole society gone or changed beyond recognition. not very attractive. might be ok for generation ships seeding planets.
maybe we are about to be invaded. i'm sharpening all my sharp pointy things again justincase.

science fiction writers have been hypothesising various ways around the speed of light conundrum for at least a century, some of them may be possible. just because a steve ferguson look-alike and some guy called Lorentz said it's impossible to accelerate past the speed of light doesn't mean there is not a way around it. tachyons do it all the time, in fact they cannot travel below the speed of light.

as above, FTL travel is not possible in our current state of knowledge. doesn't mean that it is impossible ever, even if we never find out how to do it.
 
DannyinJapan said:
Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis by Paul Hill ( head research scientist at NASA's langley center for 20 years)
ISBN-10: 1571740279
I cant find the page number, but I have it in my notebook:
" Dr. Kames Harder Of the University of California Engineering Department analyzed a piece of Magnesium26 recovered from crash of UFO in Brazil. He noted that it was free of silicon or calcium, two elements that are the most difficult to remove when trying to purify magnesium. Dr. Craig, (I think who worked on the Condon committee) noted that the sample had high concentrations of barium and strontium, which are not normally found in Magnesium, indicating that it was produced and not natural."
(Official speak for "the real thing.")

When asked about Magnesium26, Dow chemical could not replicate the sample they were given.
Specifically, Dow MG26 was 4.8 ppm Manganese and the Brazillian sample was 35ppm. (The chemical list is rather long..)
Something to note is that a gram of pure Mg26 is worth about 15,000$.
Some guy and his son just pick up finger-sized pieces on the beach one day?

The same day they happen to see a UFO crash and rain down particles of this material..Smooth, flat pieces of an isotope we are unable to reproduce.
(We may be able to do it now, but not 50 years ago)
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Here is my problem with some of the information you reference. The "particles" came from and unknown source. The same unknown source is the only witness for the UFO exploding over the water. Some fragments were retrieved from the beach? The metal didn't float on to be beach so I'm guessing the unknown source is speculating the metal retrieved was from whatever they say exploded. A Brazilian reporter receives what might as well be an anonymous letter containing metal fragments and an unconformable account of an explosion.

Although I find the lab analysis of the metal interesting, the lack of credible sources and origin make this suspect right from the start. The source could have seen a meteorite explode (which they can do after being super-heated).
 
Morrow, can you give me isbn numbers and page numbers for your version?
Like I said, I dont use the internet for this subject. It is too important to trust to the internet.
 
DannyinJapan said:
Morrow, can you give me isbn numbers and page numbers for your version?
Like I said, I dont use the internet for this subject. It is too important to trust to the internet.
Click to expand...

I was simplying reading from varies sources on the internet that can easily found by googling "Ubatuba brazil ufo"

They all pretty much say the same thing in regards to the origin of metal fragments. This is a good example....

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case829.htm
 
No offense, but like I said, I dont use the internet for this. I am sure your link is entertaining, but I have rules about info sources for this subject.
I approach my study with all the skepticism of a person who does not believe.
I don't like to just believe in things that might not be real.
When a 20 year veteran of NASA (Indeed, NACA and NASA) tells me the answer to the big question is "Yes," then I believe him)
The internet just isnt good enough for me.
 
DannyinJapan said:
No offense, but like I said, I dont use the internet for this. I am sure your link is entertaining, but I have rules about info sources for this subject.
I approach my study with all the skepticism of a person who does not believe.
I don't like to just believe in things that might not be real.
When a 20 year veteran of NASA (Indeed, NACA and NASA) tells me the answer to the big question is "Yes," then I believe him)
The internet just isnt good enough for me.
Click to expand...

So the information is only valid if it's in a book with an ISBN number? Someone better tell every major university to stop allowing their students to use the internet as an information source.

You are mixing two different issues. We've not begun to discuss the analysis but only where the samples originated. They don't even know when the supposed crash occurred as this incident is dated from when the anonymous letter with the samples was received. All that is really known is some pieces of metal with a letter were delivered to a Brazilian reporter. All the other information (not the chemical or metallurgical analysis) was derived from the anonymous letter itself which is impossible to confirm. This is passed off as fact surrounding the recovery of UFO artifacts.
 
I have two full accounts of the incident in two different books. What you have written here is not what the books say. One of these books is written by a NASA scientist. That is why I dont use the internet. If you want to discuss this stuff with me, then I need you to use sources other than the internet. It's not that hard to do.
I look forward to it, in fact. My grad school didn't allow us to use "the internet" as a source citation. Gotta be in a book.
 
DannyinJapan said:
I have two full accounts of the incident in two different books. What you have written here is not what the books say. One of these books is written by a NASA scientist. That is why I dont use the internet. If you want to discuss this stuff with me, then I need you to use sources other than the internet. It's not that hard to do.
I look forward to it, in fact. My grad school didn't allow us to use "the internet" as a source citation. Gotta be in a book.
Click to expand...

Two books....two different stories. Would you please post the two different accounts of how the metal fragments came to be presented for analysis? Which one do you think is accurate?

How long ago did you go to grad school?
 
i have to commend you on your very academic approach this this subject danny, you clearly know your stuff.

i think that one of the advantages to using a book ref vs Internet ref is that you actually have to convince someone to invest and publish it. =)
 
Thanks for the interesting stuff, Danny. That's the first I'd heard of it.

It's the 1898 sighting in Aurora TX that still gets me. No planes or airships then.
 
Oh man, the circus has started. Now the USAF says they were mistaken, they DID have fighters over Stephenville, 10 of them, flying in formation. Must have been flying in slow-motion and glued together into one large oblong shape...
Clowns.
Too many witnesses and the Air Force starts saying stupid things. At least they didnt say weather balloon this time.
 
Yeah, i'm not one to say "da gubment iz fibbin' to us!"...but this is really odd.

It seems like they are trying to stop the media bleeding.
 
DannyinJapan said:
Oh man, the circus has started. Now the USAF says they were mistaken, they DID have fighters over Stephenville, 10 of them, flying in formation. Must have been flying in slow-motion and glued together into one large oblong shape...
Clowns.
Too many witnesses and the Air Force starts saying stupid things. At least they didnt say weather balloon this time.
Click to expand...

They're just starting to prepare folks for Dec. 21st. 2012.:D
 
2012 hell, we won't make it past Jan 29 this year with TU24. :confused:

"Hot fudge sundae falls on a Tuesday" for any Niven readers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top