Welcome to the New Research Forums

[wallarookiller]

Welcome to the new research forums! Please feel free to discuss any UFO Alien or paranormal ideas sightings and events while we start to build a giant community.
Over the next few weeks were going to add lots of new features and forums for discussion. Sign up now, get your post count up, and become a leader here at Alien-UFO-Research.com

[iceman]

As our Friend, A. Einstein discovered space/time are mutually exclusive in their existence. Also Gravity has a direct impact or effect on space/time.

Considering the above, it is claimed to the readers, light speed is not a constant, which is at this point initially opposed to Einstein’s claim!

As we are told E is equal to M.C squired. This means for us to obtain light speed or anything near it in a craft would require the energy available to be all but infinite.
Having said this, we are working on an assumption that conventional thrust power systems are to be used, thus equally opposing forces are at work. Nevertheless, the laws of physics state that you cannot have (X) force of say a factor of (5) or any other amount without an equally opposing force, in this case (5) in the opposite direction!
This creates a dilemma as if these sighting are real and are correct, UFO’s have a tendency to all but instantly accelerate from a stationary position to incredible speeds in less than a blink of an eye! This being the case, we are left considering how they overcome the G, force of the acceleration as don’t forget what ever force is exerted in (1) direction it is equally matched in the opposite direction. Therefore, instantly accelerating from (0) to say 40,000 MPH achieving the speed in less that say 2 seconds would render anything living in the craft most defiantly dead! If the ship had a mass weight of say 5 tone it would be like drop that weight on your head at 40,000 MPH, Sad to say there would be nothing left to find of the occupants who were inside it. The above is a simplistic situation under the laws of physics as we know it. Laws are constant and to all intensive purposes cannot be changed. As a result, either these craft are not occupied by any living entity and are controlled remotely or by computer or (AI) artificial intelligence, or they just don’t exist.

So ends the human logic! If I may, I would like to explore anti gravity drive systems, nevertheless, with the principle of almost (0) gravity we are still left with the problems of mass! The craft has mass therefore weight Matter has density therefore mass! So if we can see it does have mass and density. This means it becomes subjected again to the laws of physics and so we go round the above problem wheel again. Anti gravity drive is just another form of propulsion, different, but the same as saying we have propeller and piston engine driven aircraft opposed to say a liquid rocket system or jet driven engine. The physical laws still have the same effect of any occupants within them.

The above aside, Regarding travelling large interstellar distances, I feel the only why this could occur would be through the progression of speed, space time can collapse rather like folding space time. This is almost self explanatory! If one travels fast enough near to light speed. Contrary to media based physics claims, space collapses thus linear distances become none effective as they almost don’t exist at such high speeds. Therefore, 5 light years could be travelled with only a few hours .

It is proposed, by focusing an antigravity beam on where you wish to leave synchronized with and gravitational draw beam to where would wish to go you effectively cancel all normal above physical effects and laws, as one cancels out the other, and the traveler occupies the void which exists between the two.

Next time, I hope to examine some of basic principles of how a controllable anti gravitation drive works. Which is not too difficult.

But I am interested in others reception of the above and questions, before we move on the next stage.

[muzamil_mpc]

The theories of the IPCC have not, in point of fact, passed through anything like the scrutiny given to the work of Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein. It’s only in the popular press that an “overwhelming consensus” exists for anthropogenic climate change; among scientists the question is still open.

May I suggest that you not throw people out unless they ignorantly question theories that have been settled for, say, fifty years? Excepting CS, in which you are yourself an expert, and need not appeal to another’s authority.