@Mark E

Your analogy breaks down unless you can come up with a "momentum wind" that acts on something that does not eject propellant.

I would agree it was kind of a lame analogy relative to the topic at hand.


As I said in a prior post I believe I have seen this technology first hand in a working craft however since that time I have still been trying to wrap my mind around the concept. Fundamentally I cannot see how a craft could accelerate and turn at such extreme rates without negating inertia in some way. Which would lead me to speculate it is a field related phenomena however it must also act on matter on the most fundamental level in order to negate inertia.


It's still a quagmire at this point however what I saw was a closed system which can produce a propulsive force and makes absolutely no sound. If the device in question does work then I can only think that it is directly related to what I saw.


AC

@Mark E

I would agree it was kind of a lame analogy relative to the topic at hand.


As I said in a prior post I believe I have seen this technology first hand in a working craft however since that time I have still been trying to wrap my mind around the concept. Fundamentally I cannot see how a craft could accelerate and turn at such extreme rates without negating inertia in some way. Which would lead me to speculate it is a field related phenomena however it must also act on matter on the most fundamental level in order to negate inertia.


It's still a quagmire at this point however what I saw was a closed system which can produce a propulsive force and makes absolutely no sound. If the device in question does work then I can only think that it is directly related to what I saw.


AC

Maybe the craft travels in a time dilation bubble?.To us it may look like it's going quite fast,but to the beings in the craft,maybe there just cruising around at 30MPH.

Magnetic fields can bend/twist light,so maybe it has some sort of effect on time as well.

Funny thing about a fan blowing on the sail of a boat-the boat will actually move,and the direction is opposite to that of the air traveling through the fan blade-->aint that a hoot.

Maybe the craft travels in a time dilation bubble?.To us it may look like it's going quite fast,but to the beings in the craft,maybe there just cruising around at 30MPH.

Magnetic fields can bend/twist light,so maybe it has some sort of effect on time as well.

Funny thing about a fan blowing on the sail of a boat-the boat will actually move,and the direction is opposite to that of the air traveling through the fan blade-->aint that a hoot.

I just watched a mythbusters last night and they showed that if the fan's velocity is fast enough, it does not move in the opposite direction, it moves in the direction the fan is blowing.  This takes a lot of moving air and is no where near as efficient as turning the fan around and removing the sail.

Bill

@Mark E

I have always been interested in aviation for as long as I can remember more so as an engineer and I like the technical aspects. In fact I have observed a 30' ground to ground missile take off from a couple miles away and it was over the horizon in about 3 seconds.


This was nothing like that, it was a clear calm winters night and the craft had no plume from the rear, no vapor trail and made no sound going from hover to at minimum 10 times the velocity of a missile. It is so far removed from what we know of current technology that they are simply not comparable. Have you ever seen a shooting star fly across the horizon?, now imagine a shooting star with no tail hovering in place then accelerating and making a sweeping turn upward and out of sight... it was moving that fast.


I understand most people don't believe this is possible which is why I have said you have to see it to believe it. That is the only acceptable proof in my opinion.... you have to see it to believe it and I have. It makes my life easier because I don't have to wonder if it is possible because I know it is so the only question which remains is how?.


I also saw another oddity in the sky last fall, it was a set of three dull red beacon type lights in a perfect triangle which were not flashing. I saw it on the horizon and it went directly overhead at high altitude. As you may know law requires a red, green and white light as well as an anti-collision strobe none of which were present on the craft I observed. I think the reason most people may not see these things is because almost nobody actually spends any amount of time outside at night anymore while I enjoy watching the stars. Do the math... I spend way more time stargazing than most everyone I know and I have only seen two events which make no sense in my lifetime.




AC

So this was a light in the sky that you saw moving?  What did you have available to fix: distance, size, and speed?  Without the aid of something like a radar, I don't know how I would be able to judge distance in the sky, particularly at night.  I know that my eyes are easily fooled.  As to lights:  I think that if someone wanted to hide a vehicle, I don't think they would turn on any kind of indicators.  I am not trying to sell you a swamp gas story before your complimentary eye exam.  I just don't see anywhere near enough information to draw any conclusion as to what it was that you saw.

@Mark E
For clarity I am going to make this a separate post, what I observed has never left my mind since that time and over the years I have come to understand how it may be possible.
 
Now consider the facts, an unknown craft accelerates from hover at low altitude and makes a wide sweeping turn upwards to a very high altitude and out of sight in around 1.25 seconds. This impossible acceleration implies two scenario's in my mind, one it has a very low mass and an extreme energy source or two the inertial effects of matter have been changed or negated in some way. Do the math, Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and it requires a known amount of work (Force x Distance) to change the velocity of a mass. So either the craft required an astronomical amount of energy to accelerate to ultra high velocity without ejecting mass or a small accelerating force is required and the properties of the mass have changed in some way ie. it's inertial properties.
 
I have always found it strange that many claim to have great knowledge and understanding however their claim breaks down when asking even the most basic questions. For instance Inertia is claimed to be the resistance of any physical object (mass) to any change in its state of motion (velocity or direction). However to my knowledge not one person anywhere can tell me what inertia is fundamentally or why or how it acts on a mass the way it does. So here's a good question... if the change in motion of a mass is "resisted" then how exactly is it "resisted" and by what and from where because as we all know the most fundamental law is that something may not act on nothing any more than nothing may act on something.
 
Extreme accelerations and greater than light speed are not thought possible because the energy input is supposedly equivalent to the change in motion which is "resisted" ie, Inertia, however nobody anywhere can seem to tell me exactly how or why it is "resisted". Aparrently it just is and there is no rhyme or reason or real understanding to it in any sense of the word. At which point we may apply some simple logic... if the claim that the property of inertia always applies in every instance is true then it must be proven that it applies in "every" instance of an infinite number of possibilities or it is a false claim. The fact that nobody knows what this "resisting" force of inertia is should have been our first indication that all is not known and we have more unanswered questions than we do answers.
 
The fact of the matter is that if for any reason the change in motion of a mass is not resisted due to the property of Inertia then all bets are off and impossible acceleration and greater than light speed are well within the realm of possibility. So I will put the question to everyone here... can anyone explain how and why the change in motion of a mass is resisted?. Note the conservation of energy is not a valid answer because interia reinforces the fundamental nature of the conservation of energy thus the argument becomes circular and a false claim. We cannot use one concept to reinforce a second then use the second to prove the first because that's all bass ackwards.
 
AC
 
 

@picowatt

What you describe witnessing does not seem to rule out the possibility that what
you saw were conventional aircraft and associated landing/navigation
lights. 

To my knowledge convential aircraft cannot climb from low altitude to a very very high altitude near vertically in 1.25 seconds in complete silence... unless of course you know otherwise?. There is no possibility these were conventional aircraft because of the velocity and altitude involved, no sound, no jet plume and no vapor trail.
 

Note that you easily use the word "craft" to describe what you saw, when,
apparently, all you can say for certain is that you saw "lights".

Yes I did make the assumption that the lights were attached to something...wouldn't you as well?. I mean they were hovering in place then another accelerated to high altittude in a sweeping arc so yes I assumed the lights were attached to a "craft" of some sort.
 

Did you actually see any "craft"?  It is very easy for the mind to fill in
the blanks with facts not in evidence.

 
Again, lights do not generally just hover in place or fly around at high velocity, make sweeping arcs upward to high altitude all on their own. I have never seen a 100w lightbulb or flare do this and I don't expect I ever will unless of course you know different?. So yes I assumed the lights were attached to a "craft" which I could not see because it was night. I should note the four white lights were intense and brilliant like a star while the dull orange craft was not like a light. The dull orange craft was perfectly spherical more like an object which was glowing orange rather than a light bulb type of illumination.
 

What did the three observed white lights do?  Did you watch until they were gone
and if so, how/when did they leave/disappear?

The four very intense white lights came on in an instant then hovered in place for a few minutes making no sound what so ever. As well just before the smaller dull orange craft left from the right side of the white lights they became super intense and seemed to light up the whole sky. The white lights then returned to there normal intensity as the smaller orange craft hovered in place. The smaller dull orange craft then started accelerating like a bat out of hell horizontally to the west, made a sweeping or arcing turn upwards vertically and continued accelerating upward until it left our sight at very high altitude. The four white lights continued to hover in position making no sound for maybe another 30 seconds and then they simply went out. They did not fade out and they went out as abruptly as they first came on and the show was over.
 
The fact remains that lights do not just fly about on there own accord not attached to anything and conventional aircraft cannot accelerate from low altitude to very high altitude near vertically in about one second... no sound, no plume, no vapor trail.... you tell me because I would love to hear a reasonable explanation.
 
 
AC

@Mark E
...
 
 I have seen hundreds upon hundreds of airplanes flying at night at various altitudes and in fact is very easy to judge the relative distance and velocity. So long as it is clear and the stars are visible in the background we use this as a reference just as we use a known background such as land behind a moving car. It is very easy and I have absolutely no issue with it , you have seen airplanes fly over on a clear night have you not?. I would hope you would be able to tell if it was at 1000 feet or 30,000 and whether it was moving at 100 mph or 600 mph because I have no issues with it what so ever.
 
AC

This I dispute based on the science of vision.  Absent a good reference, and a clear night sky offers virtually none, there is no good way to judge distance.  A common illusion makes people think things are much closer than they are.  See for example the Ponzo illusion.

@All


On reading my last post I now understand how pointless it was because the fact remains that the odds of anyone proving to me that I did not actually observe what I know I did as a fact is basically zero. It is absurd and pointless and it is what it is , you cannot convince someone to un-observe what they have already observed as a known fact. However if 80% of the population believes a bearded man in a white dress created the universe in six days and maybe 40% believe in wormholes, warping space-time and virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes then maybe just maybe my believing I saw an unknown craft/object doing some strange shit in the sky I don't fully understand doesn't seem like a big deal in comparison.


As well the hypocrisy is mind boggling because many people who would believe a supposed god created the universe in six days routinely judge other people who claim to have seen an unidentified(unknown)flying(it's relative) object(again it's relative) as crazy or misguided. I find this hard to fathom and it just seems so utterly ridiculous that it defies the imagination, apparently god doesn't believe in other intelligent life or UFO's either... go figure. Then we have that other kind of religion based on supposed science that never actually was and people say they require proof to believe but don't actually have any...  again go figure. The common thread here is people who judge others as crazy for believing without proof despite the fact they don't actually have any real proof either way about much of anything.


It is without a doubt in my mind the most messed up scenario of logic I could possibly image and I'm just not feeling the vulcan type deep logic I expected here. It is a superficial quagmire of the truly illogical where people try to disprove a concept by challenging the credibility of the individual despite the fact they claim the concept must stand on it's own. In effect we have turned science into a pissing contest and while I'm not against such things I still believe it must have it's place in the proper context.


At which point we are left with the question as to why nobody would touch my simple question concerning Inertia with a ten foot pole. That is what is inertia specifically, fundamentally?, I know you want to run and avoid it like the plague and you have no idea where to even start however in this respect I may be able to help. So let's go there, to that place you fear most... I'm sure Mark thinks he is up to it however thinking and believing rarely resemble the true facts of any matter, time will tell. Let's get in on... Brother.


From the Urban Dictionary
Brother: a person whom you are related to. sometimes a role model. sometimes an ass. sometimes a friend. a person who you are stuck being related to until the day you die through good or bad


AC