3 ms·

So let’s stop contemplating how planes really stay up in the air because it probably has something to do with wind. And let’s not even attempt to think about wh

by egfx 5y ago

So let’s stop contemplating how planes really stay up in the air because it probably has something to do with wind. And let’s not even attempt to think about what electromagnetism means to gravity. As there is insufficient public evidence so it’s not even worth hypothesizing about. I’m sorry but with that mindset we as a species would never make any new discoveries.

jodrellblank 5y ago
???? No. Not at all. Aircraft exist, we can fly in them, we can stick their wings into a wind tunnel and blow smoke over them and see how it moves. Let's keep contemplating better models of how it moves until we are happy we understand them as much as we want to. Let's stop saying "if UFOs are really alien space ships then it would be totally awesome if they flew by electromagnetic gravity manipulation, therefore that probably exists". Like, if you want to build magnetic coils and experiment to see if they affect gravity, because it would be cool if they did, knock yourself out. If you're going to post "do your research like I did ;) ;)" and then can't turn up a single link with anything relating to your claims in several days and multiple comments, don't do that. ---- > "As there is insufficient public evidence so it’s not even worth hypothesizing about" Yes, exactly, like all other woo from homeopathy to Scientology to phrenology to magnetic therapy to Dr Feelgood's Cure-All, the reason they aren't worth it is because there isn't good evidence that they are worth it. Hypothesizing based on secret evidence which you don't have, seems even sillier. And worse, there doesn't seem to be much reason to think electricity should interact with gravity. Earth has 5 trillion trillion tons of matter, and curves spacetime 400,000km out beyond the moon. What do photons or electrons have to do with that? > "I’m sorry but with that mindset we as a species would never make any new discoveries." I suggest the entire history of Western science is that - sticking to evidence and repeatable demonstrable effects, and working out what's happening.
- egfx 5y ago
  As far as turning up a link. It's all there in snippets. The complete theory A-Z is evidence dark matter. It's dark matter because you and me don't have access to it. To say it's not there and I can't turn up a link is dismissing the works of innovators like Thompson Brown who came up with an idea and spent the next 30 years working on it in secret with the US Air Force. He also got no real credit for it and ended up broke. It's also dark matter because UFO's are real. These supposed "objects" move in ways that are termed the defy the natural laws of known physics. It's stated in numerous patent documents that it is theorized to use gravitational manipulation technologies and elctrogravitic forces. We don't have to stick with what we know. We have already directly observed what we don't yet know. It is our responsibility to understand how to connect what we know with what we don't yet know as a greater civilization which is essentially what you seem to agree with too.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    > "To say it's not there and I can't turn up a link is dismissing the works of innovators like Thompson Brown who came up with an idea and spent the next 30 years working on it in secret with the US Air Force." Yes, I will dismiss the work of Thompson Brown based on the Wikipedia criticism section which has multiple convincing reasons to dismiss it and neither the Wikipedia page, nor you, have given any convincing reasons to think otherwise. Is that unreasonable of me? > "It's also dark matter because UFO's are real." I don't believe they are real[ly alien spacecraft]. There are good reasons for thinking they aren't, such as that they also move in ways that are exactly like bokeh effects, gimballed cameras with image stabilisation, and weather balloons: https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_pentagon_confirmed_uap_is_just_bokeh/ https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_p... https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_pentagon_confirmed_uap_is_just_bokeh/gytokt7/ https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_p... that there are no other signs of alien life from astronomy or radio telescopy or etc. And no good reasons to think they are, except it would be exciting. > "These supposed "objects" move in ways that are termed the defy the natural laws of known physics." If true, that does not give license to go from "it's moving unusually" to "I can invent whatever sci-fi mechanism I think sounds coolest to explain it". Why not think they work by Alcubierre Warp Drive, or McKenna-ian psychic interdimensional travel or teleportation or anything else? Still priviliging the hypothesis of "electromagnetic gravity manipulation" with no reason why that should have any privilege as the way they work, or why that should be a thing which exists, despite not fitting in with what we seem to think gravity is. > "It's stated in numerous patent documents that it is theorized to use gravitational manipulation technologies and elctrogravitic forces." What authority do you think this adds? Patents have been granted for perpetual motion machines. Being in a patent doesn't mean "the patent officer is a qualified physicist who agrees that the speculated mechanism of operation of UFOs is possible and likely". The patent you linked has glaring problems - the patent says it works by air pressure, and could work in space. Clearly something which works on air pressure cannot work in space, why do you gloss over that inconsistency? The patent says the drive would be inertialess and passengers would feel no acceleration, with no reason given for why that should be the case, despite passengers in vehicles moved by air pressure feeling acceleration. Why do you have no problem with that inconsistency? The author says there would be huge power generation by a giant pyramid, yet the Burj Kahlifa which is not-box-shaped[1] and is much taller so should have a much bigger voltage potential difference from base to peak, is not a power supply from atmospheric electricity - and nor is any other skyscraper. Why doesn't that bother you? > "We don't have to stick with what we know." Indeed, and we don't have to stick with putting food and water in our mouths, we can put mud, rocks, lava, fingernail clippings, Ewoks, clouds, the Orion Nebula, dreams - the possibilities are endless! The chain from "some people report seeing flying objects" to "those reports must be of real vehicles in the sky" to "the vehicles are alien craft" to "it's definitely impossible to build a machine which moves like this without new physics" to "the new physics involved is probably electromagnetic gravity manipulation" to "it is because if you think it isn't you hate progress - everyone says it is" is a long chain with many weak links. [1] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aj40LPiKjUI/UmjktpZMuLI/AAAAAAAAA7w/g83TN7W1mnQ/s1600/Burj+Khalifa+in+Dubai.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aj40LPiKjUI/UmjktpZMuLI/AAAAAAAAA7...

by egfx 5y ago

jodrellblank 5y ago

???? No. Not at all. Aircraft exist, we can fly in them, we can stick their wings into a wind tunnel and blow smoke over them and see how it moves. Let's keep contemplating better models of how it moves until we are happy we understand them as much as we want to. Let's stop saying "if UFOs are really alien space ships then it would be totally awesome if they flew by electromagnetic gravity manipulation, therefore that probably exists". Like, if you want to build magnetic coils and experiment to see if they affect gravity, because it would be cool if they did, knock yourself out. If you're going to post "do your research like I did ;) ;)" and then can't turn up a single link with anything relating to your claims in several days and multiple comments, don't do that. ---- > "As there is insufficient public evidence so it’s not even worth hypothesizing about" Yes, exactly, like all other woo from homeopathy to Scientology to phrenology to magnetic therapy to Dr Feelgood's Cure-All, the reason they aren't worth it is because there isn't good evidence that they are worth it. Hypothesizing based on secret evidence which you don't have, seems even sillier. And worse, there doesn't seem to be much reason to think electricity should interact with gravity. Earth has 5 trillion trillion tons of matter, and curves spacetime 400,000km out beyond the moon. What do photons or electrons have to do with that? > "I’m sorry but with that mindset we as a species would never make any new discoveries." I suggest the entire history of Western science is that - sticking to evidence and repeatable demonstrable effects, and working out what's happening.

egfx 5y ago
As far as turning up a link. It's all there in snippets. The complete theory A-Z is evidence dark matter. It's dark matter because you and me don't have access to it. To say it's not there and I can't turn up a link is dismissing the works of innovators like Thompson Brown who came up with an idea and spent the next 30 years working on it in secret with the US Air Force. He also got no real credit for it and ended up broke. It's also dark matter because UFO's are real. These supposed "objects" move in ways that are termed the defy the natural laws of known physics. It's stated in numerous patent documents that it is theorized to use gravitational manipulation technologies and elctrogravitic forces. We don't have to stick with what we know. We have already directly observed what we don't yet know. It is our responsibility to understand how to connect what we know with what we don't yet know as a greater civilization which is essentially what you seem to agree with too.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  > "To say it's not there and I can't turn up a link is dismissing the works of innovators like Thompson Brown who came up with an idea and spent the next 30 years working on it in secret with the US Air Force." Yes, I will dismiss the work of Thompson Brown based on the Wikipedia criticism section which has multiple convincing reasons to dismiss it and neither the Wikipedia page, nor you, have given any convincing reasons to think otherwise. Is that unreasonable of me? > "It's also dark matter because UFO's are real." I don't believe they are real[ly alien spacecraft]. There are good reasons for thinking they aren't, such as that they also move in ways that are exactly like bokeh effects, gimballed cameras with image stabilisation, and weather balloons: https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_pentagon_confirmed_uap_is_just_bokeh/ https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_p... https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_pentagon_confirmed_uap_is_just_bokeh/gytokt7/ https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_p... that there are no other signs of alien life from astronomy or radio telescopy or etc. And no good reasons to think they are, except it would be exciting. > "These supposed "objects" move in ways that are termed the defy the natural laws of known physics." If true, that does not give license to go from "it's moving unusually" to "I can invent whatever sci-fi mechanism I think sounds coolest to explain it". Why not think they work by Alcubierre Warp Drive, or McKenna-ian psychic interdimensional travel or teleportation or anything else? Still priviliging the hypothesis of "electromagnetic gravity manipulation" with no reason why that should have any privilege as the way they work, or why that should be a thing which exists, despite not fitting in with what we seem to think gravity is. > "It's stated in numerous patent documents that it is theorized to use gravitational manipulation technologies and elctrogravitic forces." What authority do you think this adds? Patents have been granted for perpetual motion machines. Being in a patent doesn't mean "the patent officer is a qualified physicist who agrees that the speculated mechanism of operation of UFOs is possible and likely". The patent you linked has glaring problems - the patent says it works by air pressure, and could work in space. Clearly something which works on air pressure cannot work in space, why do you gloss over that inconsistency? The patent says the drive would be inertialess and passengers would feel no acceleration, with no reason given for why that should be the case, despite passengers in vehicles moved by air pressure feeling acceleration. Why do you have no problem with that inconsistency? The author says there would be huge power generation by a giant pyramid, yet the Burj Kahlifa which is not-box-shaped[1] and is much taller so should have a much bigger voltage potential difference from base to peak, is not a power supply from atmospheric electricity - and nor is any other skyscraper. Why doesn't that bother you? > "We don't have to stick with what we know." Indeed, and we don't have to stick with putting food and water in our mouths, we can put mud, rocks, lava, fingernail clippings, Ewoks, clouds, the Orion Nebula, dreams - the possibilities are endless! The chain from "some people report seeing flying objects" to "those reports must be of real vehicles in the sky" to "the vehicles are alien craft" to "it's definitely impossible to build a machine which moves like this without new physics" to "the new physics involved is probably electromagnetic gravity manipulation" to "it is because if you think it isn't you hate progress - everyone says it is" is a long chain with many weak links. [1] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aj40LPiKjUI/UmjktpZMuLI/AAAAAAAAA7w/g83TN7W1mnQ/s1600/Burj+Khalifa+in+Dubai.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aj40LPiKjUI/UmjktpZMuLI/AAAAAAAAA7...