3 ms·

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

by 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...
- egfx 5y ago
  > 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? Like I need to be your paralegal and go find you evidence. I left the breadcrumbs. Go find out the rest and share what else you find out. it's not about give me the evidence or I'll dismiss it. .. As for the comments regarding known phenomenon. I don't dismiss that. In fact even as an eyewitness of an object that moved in incredibly erratic directions I am interested to find out if these all can be explained by advanced projections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27405291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27405291 But saying that knowing what I know, I cannot take the comments such as bokeh effects or camera glitches seriously because the actual accounts from the Navy pilots track so closely to exactly what I witnessed. If your interested to learn more about that than read through my past comments. I'm not a scientist and not qualified to comment on the particulars of this patent. But clearly it was postulated on by the scientific community. And if you want to dismiss that argument with .. well you can get a patent for anything.. that's actually not true.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    > "I'm not a scientist and not qualified to comment on the particulars of this patent." Do you need to be a scientist to agre that "works by air pressure" and "works in space" are incompatible? > "But clearly it was postulated on by the scientific community. And if you want to dismiss that argument with .. well you can get a patent for anything.. that's actually not true." I dismiss that by the Wikipedia articles on Electrogravitics and Biefeld-Brown saying every attempt to demonstrate it in the last 100 years failed and concluded it was ionic wind. I want to dismiss your argument that "it's in patents so there must be something to it" with the facts that there are impossible ideas in patents, so that carries no particular authority. > "Like I need to be your paralegal and go find you evidence. I left the breadcrumbs. Go find out the rest and share what else you find out. it's not about give me the evidence or I'll dismiss it." Right, no. There's too many people claiming too many things - why aren't you out looking for the evidence on Eat right for your blood type, or timecube, or timewave, or an endless infinity of other ideas? You started off with "To all those downvoting. Do your due diligence first like I did ;)" - if you don't have any of that to hand to share, can't name anything specific to look at, don't have anything more convincing than a sci-fi story, repeatedly dodge around addressing flaws in the unrelated patent you did link, the preliminary Wikipedia links I found into Brown's work suggests it's misguided and not involved with gravity, the Wikipedia link on electrogravitics is just as critical, who would read this back and forth between us and conclude that it would be a good idea to spend hours or months trying to piece together "add rotation to electromagnets"? Refresh understanding of complex numbers, their use in describing electrical phase rotation, or rotating non-inertial reference frames? "Some scientists speculated this in some patents" - the US Patent Office grant ~400,000 patents every year, spend a few weeks sifting through millions of patents to find a quote where someone speculates this is how UFOs work? Who would conclude this is convincing enough to be worth investing more time in?

by egfx 5y ago

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...

egfx 5y ago
> 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? Like I need to be your paralegal and go find you evidence. I left the breadcrumbs. Go find out the rest and share what else you find out. it's not about give me the evidence or I'll dismiss it. .. As for the comments regarding known phenomenon. I don't dismiss that. In fact even as an eyewitness of an object that moved in incredibly erratic directions I am interested to find out if these all can be explained by advanced projections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27405291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27405291 But saying that knowing what I know, I cannot take the comments such as bokeh effects or camera glitches seriously because the actual accounts from the Navy pilots track so closely to exactly what I witnessed. If your interested to learn more about that than read through my past comments. I'm not a scientist and not qualified to comment on the particulars of this patent. But clearly it was postulated on by the scientific community. And if you want to dismiss that argument with .. well you can get a patent for anything.. that's actually not true.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  > "I'm not a scientist and not qualified to comment on the particulars of this patent." Do you need to be a scientist to agre that "works by air pressure" and "works in space" are incompatible? > "But clearly it was postulated on by the scientific community. And if you want to dismiss that argument with .. well you can get a patent for anything.. that's actually not true." I dismiss that by the Wikipedia articles on Electrogravitics and Biefeld-Brown saying every attempt to demonstrate it in the last 100 years failed and concluded it was ionic wind. I want to dismiss your argument that "it's in patents so there must be something to it" with the facts that there are impossible ideas in patents, so that carries no particular authority. > "Like I need to be your paralegal and go find you evidence. I left the breadcrumbs. Go find out the rest and share what else you find out. it's not about give me the evidence or I'll dismiss it." Right, no. There's too many people claiming too many things - why aren't you out looking for the evidence on Eat right for your blood type, or timecube, or timewave, or an endless infinity of other ideas? You started off with "To all those downvoting. Do your due diligence first like I did ;)" - if you don't have any of that to hand to share, can't name anything specific to look at, don't have anything more convincing than a sci-fi story, repeatedly dodge around addressing flaws in the unrelated patent you did link, the preliminary Wikipedia links I found into Brown's work suggests it's misguided and not involved with gravity, the Wikipedia link on electrogravitics is just as critical, who would read this back and forth between us and conclude that it would be a good idea to spend hours or months trying to piece together "add rotation to electromagnets"? Refresh understanding of complex numbers, their use in describing electrical phase rotation, or rotating non-inertial reference frames? "Some scientists speculated this in some patents" - the US Patent Office grant ~400,000 patents every year, spend a few weeks sifting through millions of patents to find a quote where someone speculates this is how UFOs work? Who would conclude this is convincing enough to be worth investing more time in?