+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... (/thread-12918.html)
UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - Taem - 02-08-2011
Alright, so as you probably already know, a UFO was spotted and filmed by four different people in four different locations over the Dome of the Rock Shrine in Jerusalem (just Google "UFO Jerusalem" if you haven't already read about it). I've read a few sites trying hard to debunk it, claiming ONE of the videos shows proof of editing - a claim I dismiss as I'd edit the video too to get a better picture - but the others do not.
In any event, I want to talk about how one could survive the G-Force of that flight upward in the videos. Here's a good quality one from Fox News. I see only three possibilities:
1) Unmanned Robotic Device
2) Some form of gel-type substance in the cabin that absorbs the physical pressure of the G-forces.
3) A internal gravity stabilizer of some sort.
I'm not even talking about aliens here; the craft could have been American for all we know; top secret craft haven't been made public since that black super sonic jet in the cold war era, and technology has increased tremendously since then! Whoever made it, I don't care, because now its theorycrafting time. #1 seems most plausible, especially when you look at the size of the building and the size of the craft. #2 seems possible. #3 seems highly improbable, and I doubt this kind of technology exists to us yet. If it was a manned ship, then I see #2 as the only possibility, at least in our atmosphere.
Thoughts?
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - kandrathe - 02-08-2011
(02-08-2011, 05:55 PM)MEAT Wrote: Alright, so as you probably already know, a UFO was spotted and filmed by four different people in four different locations over the Dome of the Rock Shrine in Jerusalem (just Google "UFO Jerusalem" if you haven't already read about it). I've read a few sites trying hard to debunk it, claiming ONE of the videos shows proof of editing - a claim I dismiss as I'd edit the video too to get a better picture - but the others do not.Hoax.
In any event, I want to talk about how one could survive the G-Force of that flight upward in the videos. Here's a good quality one from Fox News. I see only three possibilities:
1) Unmanned Robotic Device
2) Some form of gel-type substance in the cabin that absorbs the physical pressure of the G-forces.
3) A internal gravity stabilizer of some sort.
I'm not even talking about aliens here; the craft could have been American for all we know; top secret craft haven't been made public since that black super sonic jet in the cold war era, and technology has increased tremendously since then! Whoever made it, I don't care, because now its theorycrafting time. #1 seems most plausible, especially when you look at the size of the building and the size of the craft. #2 seems possible. #3 seems highly improbable, and I doubt this kind of technology exists to us yet. If it was a manned ship, then I see #2 as the only possibility, at least in our atmosphere.
Thoughts?
http://www.space.com/10789-jerusalem-ufo-hoax.html
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - --Pete - 02-08-2011
Hi,
(02-08-2011, 05:55 PM)MEAT Wrote: In any event, I want to talk about how one could survive the G-Force of that flight upward in the videos. ... I see only three possibilities:
1) Unmanned Robotic Device
2) Some form of gel-type substance in the cabin that absorbs the physical pressure of the G-forces.
3) A internal gravity stabilizer of some sort.
I'm not even talking about aliens here; the craft could have been American for all we know; ...
I doubt it would be from the USA. We tend to keep our secret craft in the Nevada deserts and on the cover of Aviation Leaky.
I'm going to have to throw #3 out. Our present understanding of gravity is such that we have no way of manipulating it. While there may be classified work in the field that is advanced compared to what is available to civilians, to bridge that huge a gap would require an effort that makes the Manhattan Project look like a high school science fair. We're just nowhere near that, yet.
#1 is totally possible and totally boring. If by 'robotic' you mean totally self controlling, then the free-flight model airplanes of the '50s had the ability to transition between different flight modes using a clockwork timer and mechanical actuators. What can be done with modern materials and electronics would be hugely more impressive. And, if you're talking about 'robotic' as in 'radio controlled' then the possibilities are even greater. I know a guy who likes to play around with weird concepts (a flying lawn mower model) who has made an RC aircraft from a disk of hard foam. The thing will hang from its propeller, fly 'backward' if there's a wind, and climb straight up until it runs out of fuel or out of radio range. And, except for the price tag, (which terrified me), I haven't even paid any real attention to RC helicopters. Built light enough, with enough power, they probably can accomplish what is being described.
#2 is the interesting one. In considering that method for enduring long term g-forces or long term periods of forced bed rest, RAH 'invented' the modern water bed (although there were others long before) but never built one nor patented it. In a simple form, a water bed would help with reasonable acceleration. As the acceleration gets higher, it would reach a limit of utility since the differential pressure across, say, the chest cavity would crush your rib cage. To be able to endure even greater pressures, a total immersion process would be necessary. Theoretically, I know of no limit to how much acceleration could be taken under ideal total (internal and external) immersion. However, the application and removal of the acceleration (what engineers call 'the jerk') would be similar to descending and ascending in diving. It must be done slowly enough for the pressures to equalize.
--Pete
Hi,
(02-08-2011, 07:27 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Hoax.
Of course. But it does bring up the question of how we could endure large accelerations.
--Pete
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - Taem - 02-08-2011
This is the site I read about it being a hoax too, lol! They only cite ONE of the videos as having been edited - as does this site - but try hard to be obtuse and make it sound like all the videos were edited. I don't like that, makes it seem like they are trying too hard to debunk it instead of analyzing all of the facts. Other than that, I'm not sure I agree that the picture is fake because there are no people on the streets at 12:00-A.M. in the morning, or that the light was not on the temple (if the craft was slightly behind the temple?), so I can't agree their supposed debunking.
Do I want to believe it's real? I've seen enough anecdotal evidence of UFO craft technology reported from top media professionals, law enforcement, military personal, etc. to not believe there is technology out there not made public, rather invented by US or otherwise. I just want to understand how its possible to fly that fast and survive? There must be a way.
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - --Pete - 02-08-2011
Hi,
(02-08-2011, 08:08 PM)MEAT Wrote: They only cite ONE of the videos as having been edited ...
Kinda makes you suspicious of all the videos, though. Or, at least, it should.
(02-08-2011, 08:08 PM)MEAT Wrote: I don't like that, makes it seem like they are trying too hard to debunk it instead of analyzing all of the facts.
They are. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. And the only test of that proof is to try as hard as possible to debunk it. Otherwise, you find yourself helping Nigerian millionaires transferring money.
(02-08-2011, 08:08 PM)MEAT Wrote: Other than that, I'm not sure I agree that the picture is fake because there are no people on the streets at 12:00-A.M. in the morning, ...
Nobody on the streets except for four (three?) people that just happened to be carrying some form of video camera? And midnight is not that late.
(02-08-2011, 08:08 PM)MEAT Wrote: ... or that the light was not on the temple (if the craft was slightly behind the temple?), ...
Behind the temple in all the views? Not according to the geometry I know, but heck, they're probably four or five dimensional beings.
(02-08-2011, 08:08 PM)MEAT Wrote: I've seen enough anecdotal evidence of UFO ...
I see UFOs all the time. Sue says, "What kind of plane is that?" I look and reply, "I don't recognize it." Meets the definition: it's flying, it's an object, and it's unidentified (by me, at least).
Two factors. First, more and more DoD is looking for autonomous or remotely controlled weapons of war. The physical limitations of the human body is one of the reasons for that. Second, except on TV and the movies, no one does secret development, flight test, etc. over highly populated areas when there is so much desolate landscape to hide them in.
Really, aliens are more probable than secret aircraft in these situations. As Fermi asked, "Where are they?" Of course, they are less likely than Russell's teapot, unless, of course, they put it there.
--Pete
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - Taem - 02-08-2011
(02-08-2011, 08:37 PM)--Pete Wrote:(02-08-2011, 08:08 PM)MEAT Wrote: Other than that, I'm not sure I agree that the picture is fake because there are no people on the streets at 12:00-A.M. in the morning, ...
Nobody on the streets except for four (three?) people that just happened to be carrying some form of video camera? And midnight is not that late.
Good point.
(02-08-2011, 08:37 PM)--Pete Wrote:(02-08-2011, 08:08 PM)MEAT Wrote: ... or that the light was not on the temple (if the craft was slightly behind the temple?), ...
Behind the temple in all the views? Not according to the geometry I know, but heck, they're probably four or five dimensional beings.
Even better point!
(02-08-2011, 08:37 PM)--Pete Wrote:(02-08-2011, 08:08 PM)MEAT Wrote: I've seen enough anecdotal evidence of UFO ...
I see UFOs all the time. Sue says, "What kind of plane is that?" I look and reply, "I don't recognize it." Meets the definition: it's flying, it's an object, and it's unidentified (by me, at least).
Two factors. First, more and more DoD is looking for autonomous or remotely controlled weapons of war. The physical limitations of the human body is one of the reasons for that. Second, except on TV and the movies, no one does secret development, flight test, etc. over highly populated areas when there is so much desolate landscape to hide them in.
Really, aliens are more probable than secret aircraft in these situations. As Fermi asked, "Where are they?" Of course, they are less likely than Russell's teapot, unless, of course, they put it there.
--Pete
I believe almost all reported UFO's are either civilian planes, satellites, or elaborate hoaxes. That leaves a very small amount of authentic UFO sightings. Of these, if people want to argue they are aliens, fine. If people want to argue we took "alien" technology and are the ones who are using it now, fine. If people want to argue the government is the entity who has this technology, fine. I personally don't care where it came from; all I know is this technology exists. What I'd like to see is the technology used to help transport civilians - flying cars anyone? I don't know if this technology could be used for space travel, but if it could, I imagine mining for minerals on other planets would be very profitable. I think AUTOMATED flying cars would be safe, fast, and get rid of traffic. I think this technology would help expedite humanitarian efforts globally. If aliens could somehow survive G-forces that strong, then how could the technology be adapted so we could safely use it? Which brings me back to my original question of the technology behind surviving the G-force, and being able to go those speeds.
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - --Pete - 02-09-2011
Hi,
(02-08-2011, 09:03 PM)MEAT Wrote: I believe almost all reported UFO's are either civilian planes, satellites, or elaborate hoaxes. That leaves a very small amount of authentic UFO sightings.
No. That leaves a very small number of unexplained sightings. Technically, they are UFOs in the sense I used above. But I doubt that they are actually any different from the ones that have been explained.
(02-08-2011, 09:03 PM)MEAT Wrote: ... all I know is this technology exists.
What technology? Low observable materials? High bandpass quiet engines? Unmanned aerial vehicles? Those all really exist. They've been featured in the technical and common news for years.
Anti-gravity technology? FTL? Death rays? How would you know they exist? Where are you getting this information. Note, I'm not saying they don't exist (although I highly doubt their existence), I'm just asking you how you *know* they exist.
(02-08-2011, 09:03 PM)MEAT Wrote: I don't know if this technology could be used for space travel, but if it could, I imagine mining for minerals on other planets would be very profitable.
Possibly, but probably not. If I remember the theory, it is the churning of the crust that causes pockets of similar materials to clump together and form worthwhile mineral deposits. Earth is the only rocky planet that exhibits that behavior. And the Jovian planets would be a bit hard to set up even robotic mines on.
(02-08-2011, 09:03 PM)MEAT Wrote: I think AUTOMATED flying cars would be safe, fast, and get rid of traffic. I think this technology would help expedite humanitarian efforts globally.
All mechanical systems fail. All computer programs have errors. For flying cars to be safe, they have to have some system that will allow them to land under many types of failure. That's either wings (glide) or rotors (auto-rotate).
(02-08-2011, 09:03 PM)MEAT Wrote: If aliens could somehow survive G-forces that strong, then how could the technology be adapted so we could safely use it? Which brings me back to my original question of the technology behind surviving the G-force, and being able to go those speeds.
Well, there re a few things here. "If aliens ..." Since the existence of those aliens is yet to be shown, postulating their capabilities is a bit premature.
Now, you seem to be confusing 'speed' and 'acceleration'. An aircraft carrier catapult throws you out there so that you hit about 200 kt in a tad less than two seconds. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 6 g acceleration.
It doesn't take a big acceleration to get very high velocities. Consider 9 g (about the upper limit for a trained pilot with the appropriate gear. That will put you at about Mach 2.5 in about 10 seconds.
Earth to moon, going ballistic the way we did for the moon landings, took about three days. If we had engines capable of giving us a constant 1 g acceleration, it would take about a day and a half. At 9 g it would take about 1/2 day. The problem isn't high accelerations, the problem is getting any acceleration at all for a long period. And NASA is working on it, with ion engines, solar sails, and more exotic concepts (solar wind ramjets for one straight out of the SF world).
--Pete
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - Taem - 02-09-2011
(02-09-2011, 12:29 AM)--Pete Wrote:(02-08-2011, 09:03 PM)MEAT Wrote: ... all I know is this technology exists.
What technology? Low observable materials? High bandpass quiet engines? Unmanned aerial vehicles? Those all really exist. They've been featured in the technical and common news for years.
Anti-gravity technology? FTL? Death rays? How would you know they exist? Where are you getting this information. Note, I'm not saying they don't exist (although I highly doubt their existence), I'm just asking you how you *know* they exist.
"Anti-gravity" is not possible IMO. Everything I've read about the subject of Spacecraft using technology beyond what we currently know, from the more outlandish "The Philadelphia Experiment", to books from retired generals on their deathbeds, to Peter Jennings own accounts of UFO's during his career, leads me to believe that there is a technology to travel at extreme speeds in a matter of seconds by manipulating gravity. If black-holes are strong enough to suck in light, if gravity is strong enough to bend light, surly it can be used to propel or pull objects with enough force to move them faster than light. People often make the mistake of thinking the speed of gravity is terminal velocity of Earth's own pull, but this is not correct! I believe "this" technology can use gravity from any source, such as a distant star or the Earth's own gravity to create a buildup of energy that can allows FTL travel to pull or propel an object. By what means, I don't know; I have no resources to give - pure speculation on my part. My "knowing" this technology exists is based on my belief that far too many prominent people have come forward claiming to of seen spacecraft up close to ignore their statements, too many sources I believe to be credible. How do I provide links for references when I can't even remember half the names of the books I've read or the authors? Based on what I've said, in your shoes I might think of myself as a fanboy wanting nothing more than this technology to be true, having nothing to go on but fancy. I guess since I have no links to give, I'll have to live with that, even if in my heart, I know different.
(02-09-2011, 12:29 AM)--Pete Wrote:(02-08-2011, 09:03 PM)MEAT Wrote: If aliens could somehow survive G-forces that strong, then how could the technology be adapted so we could safely use it? Which brings me back to my original question of the technology behind surviving the G-force, and being able to go those speeds.
Well, there re a few things here. "If aliens ..." Since the existence of those aliens is yet to be shown, postulating their capabilities is a bit premature.
I was trying to leave extraterrestrials out of this argument completely. Rather they do or do not exist in the Carl Sagan universe has no merit over the theory of this technology. The only reason I mentioned aliens at all was because you brought it up.
(02-09-2011, 12:29 AM)--Pete Wrote: Now, you seem to be confusing 'speed' and 'acceleration'.
I was thinking when I saw that video, if a human were inside of that cockpit when it went up that quickly, they would probably loose consciousness. I got to thinking of The Abyss, and how they used a synthetic mixture of oxygenated fluid to dive deeper than you could breathing air, and I remember a report on the Discovery channel in which they confirmed the Military had developed this substance already (probably where the script idea came from), but the costs where prohibitively high. Then I started to imagine how a thicker fluid than air would be able to absorb much of the shock of the sudden acceleration. Anyways, I was just pondering things when I wrote out my post, and now I'm babbling. Time to do the dishes.
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - --Pete - 02-09-2011
Hi,
(02-09-2011, 05:03 AM)MEAT Wrote: "Anti-gravity" is not possible IMO.
Gravity is probably the least understood property of the universe. This is doubly true if either dark matter or dark energy have their origin in the behavior of gravity (an open question at this time). The accelerating expansion of the universe takes something analogous to pressure except that the pressure seems to be causing the expansion of the framework with everything in that framework being carried along. Since gravity is the structure of space-time caused by mass-energy, then whatever is causing the acceleration could be a potential for "anti-gravity". Which is why, on many of these issues, the best answer is "I don't know."
(02-09-2011, 05:03 AM)MEAT Wrote: ... using technology beyond what we currently know, ...
Hardly a good basis for anything but noodling or writing SF stories. In the '50s, everybody wrote fiction about interplanetary travel and even interstellar travel. And all those craft were piloted by people using slide-rulers. Sixty years later, we still have no interstellar travel and only the most primitive interplanetary travel. But the slide-rulers have disappeared, replaced by calculators that almost none of those '50s authors imagined.
(02-09-2011, 05:03 AM)MEAT Wrote: ... leads me to believe that there is a technology to travel at extreme speeds in a matter of seconds by manipulating gravity.
This is tough. To begin with, the equivalence principle says that in a local space, gravitational attraction and acceleration are the same thing (or, if you prefer, inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent). So, in that sense you are right. Second, there's the question of what you mean by 'extreme speed'. We are a 3 mph organism. Mach 1, over 200 times faster, is an extreme speed for us. But, even if you are speaking of FTL, the speed, the acceleration, the jerk, are all different entities.
One speculative (I refuse to call it theoretical, since while there is no known principle that renders it impossible, there is no developed theory that renders it possible) way of exceeding the speed of light is to move the frame. By contracting space-time in front if you and expanding it behind, you can move your reference frame at any velocity relative to the surrounding reference frame. Since it is the speed of light within a reference frame that is the limit, you can, potentially, achieve any speed your gravity generators/manipulators are capable of supplying. Within your reference frame, you remain stationary, so that you experience neither acceleration nor jerk. Of course, we have absolutely no way of knowing if this is even possible, much less of how to do it.
What I'm trying to say is that we're not like the Wright brothers, who knew they could achieve powered flight if they could refine an existing technology (internal combustion engines) to get an adequate power to weight ration. We are more like the Greeks that made up the story of Icarus. We think (or maybe hope is a better word) that someday man would fly, but we have no science or technology to support that hope.
(02-09-2011, 05:03 AM)MEAT Wrote: People often make the mistake of thinking the speed of gravity is terminal velocity of Earth's own pull, but this is not correct!
I'm not sure just what you mean by "the speed of gravity". The speed at which the effects of a gravitational event would propagate? That would be the speed of light in the appropriate reference frame.
(02-09-2011, 05:03 AM)MEAT Wrote: The only reason I mentioned aliens at all was because you brought it up.
And I only mentioned aliens because of the two choices, namely aliens or secret government research, a UFO over a populated area is more like the first than the second. Not that either is a high probability event.
(02-09-2011, 05:03 AM)MEAT Wrote: I was thinking when I saw that video, if a human were inside of that cockpit when it went up that quickly, they would probably loose consciousness.
We are very poor judges of velocities and, especially, accelerations. An aircraft taking off a few hundred meters away looks like it is moving very fast, but it's probably doing 200 kt or so. The same aircraft, going 550 kt or more at 30,000 ft looks like it is just loafing along.
(02-09-2011, 05:03 AM)MEAT Wrote: I got to thinking of The Abyss, and how they used a synthetic mixture of oxygenated fluid to dive deeper than you could breathing air, and I remember a report on the Discovery channel in which they confirmed the Military had developed this substance already (probably where the script idea came from), but the costs where prohibitively high. Then I started to imagine how a thicker fluid than air would be able to absorb much of the shock of the sudden acceleration.
I don't have anything to add to what I said on this subject in my first reply.
--Pete
RE: UFO over Jerusalem; G-Force... - kandrathe - 02-10-2011
Quote:Of course. But it does bring up the question of how we could endure large accelerations.Yes.
I've thought about that before in the context of gyroscopic force and the capture and redirection of angular momentum. G-forces(inertia) would make it an issue for a manned craft, but I believe theoretically one could accelerate to a velocity, brake quickly capturing the energy (somehow), then redirect it quickly in a different direction. You could probably even have a powerful engine adding energy to the storage device (an advanced flywheel, most likely) before activating whatever device redirects that force back into a directed velocity. But... I don't know how it stays airborne, or how it captures or releases its inertia. It might just be air pressure (e.g. high speed turbine fan blades without the fuel burning).
But, like you've also said, to survive stopping and starting without being crushed by inertial forces would be an issue. Solving some of our "unknowns" regarding gravity and generation/capture of gravitons would help in this area as well, if you could covert raw inertia into some other form of energy, and then back again without experiencing the inertial force. It would make for some awesome bullet train or air travel possibilities, where only resistance would affect fuel consumption.
But... who in their right mind would reveal something like this in that place, unless... they wanted to reveal this capability. And then, were it me, I'd do it during the Super bowl or some comparable verifiable public event where you know the media are already filming. Imagine even an unmanned device like that armed with an explosive device traveling at what seemed to be > Mach 5 instantly. It would be pretty much an unstoppable cruise missile that could fly in an erratic unpredictable pattern. Scary. Say goodbye to anti-missile systems.