� �
� �
�����������������������������ͻ
� T R U S T N O O N E �
�����������������������������ͼ
� �
� �
/\
+--+
+----+
/ \ //======//
===\\ / \ // //
\\ / \ //====//
==\\ +------------+ ///
\\======================================///
\\====================================///
Things to beware of in 1997:
Gradual acclimation of the public to the idea of 'extraterrestrial
life', possibly in the form of us somehow being martian progeny, all
for dubious political ends.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Forwarded from I_UFO
* Originally By: Mark Cashman
* Originally To: All
* Originally Re: The secret is out...
* Originally Dated: Friday September 13 1996 14:48
__________________________________________________________________
Reply-to: [email protected]
From: "Mark Cashman"
Originally to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Original Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 13:27:35 -0700
-> SearchNet's iufo Mailing List
" As discovered by Thomas Townsend Brown, electricity is directly related to
gravity (see his U.S. patents 1,974,483 and 3,187,206 in particular)."
The only relationship between EM forces and gravity that is currently accepted
by physics occurs at the so-called "unification energy", a level of energy so
far beyond current equipment that we may never be able to attain it. This level
of energy only existed in the first instant after the Big Bang.
Physicists have been able to demonstrate an experimental relationship between
EM, the weak force, and and strong force (both operating on the subatomic
levels), through the use of extremely large particle accelerators. A good
reference to this is at http://www.hep.net/documents/drell/sec3.html
A fundamental conflict between Einstein's General Relativity and quantum
physics lies in the area of gravity. According to the frequently verified
General Relativity, the force of gravity actually is a warping of space-time,
such that objects in a gravitational field which follow straight lines actually
find their paths curved. There are only two ways in GR to create gravitational
force - mass and acceleration. According to GR, gravity and acceleration are
actually indistinguishable within a particular frame of reference. On the other
hand, quantum physics postulates a quantum of gravity, the graviton (never
observed), the interchange of which between objects generates gravity, much
like the gluon binds quarks into protons and neutrons (strong force). The nice
thing about gravitons might be some method for producing them short of having
all the needed mass. This would, for instance, allow artificial gravity, and,
perhaps, some form of gravitty-based travel.
There is currently no support for "anti-gravity" in the physics community, but,
staying within the demonstrated laws of physics, one could assume that regular
gravity from the opposite direction (i.e. a focused graviton beam pointed at
the moon), could be used to suspend objects against a local gravitational
field. Such a UFO would balance the force of the graviton beam with the local
gravity to hover.
The only problem is that there are only a limited set of large enough (i.e.
larger enough than the UFO that the UFO would move more than the object) nearby
objects to use this way. So if such a method were used to direct UFO's, they
would have to be using, say, the moon, or some heavy orbital platforms which
they put in place for that purpose. Presumably, manuvering would be performed
by allowing some amount of the "real" gravity to attract some parts of the
object, or using the gravity beam to attract, say, a mountain on the horizon,
simultaneously with using the beam on the spaceborne object that provides the
"lift".
Such a propulsion method would explain the cases where things under the UFO
have been lifted into the air under the UFO. In those cases, rather than simply
letting in the earth's gravity in (i.e. reducing the attraction to the "lift"
object), the UFO would be using the beam on the earth as well as on the lift
object. The objects beneath would be subject to the beam and would be
gravitationally attracted to the UFO. The effect would pass if the beam were
shut off (at the end of a manuver) or if the beam passed the ground object in
question. Weightlessness would be felt by the witness where the beam was
exactly as strong as the earth gravity at that point.
One could assume that such a manuver would typically be a high-speed descent.
It would be interesting to see if the case profiles for this type of event
match that prediction.
Another type of case this would explain would be cases like one which I think
happened in France in the fifties, where the contents of a hole in a UFO ring
were apparently sucked out of the ground. The hole was small in relation to the
ring, and the action would be explained by the intense attraction of the beam
for the local area of ground (probably due to a misjudgement on the pilot's
part).
Would such a propulsion method lead to a particular observable flight pattern?
For instance, could it explain the "falling leaf" manuver frequently reported?
Reduction in the attraction to the lift object should cause the object to drop.
If the object were a disc, were of a particular weight relative to the density
of the atmosphere, it would tend to perform the falling-leaf manuver, much like
a quarter dropped into a tall column of water.
Considering other manuvers, the object would tend to act as if it were
suspended by a string from each of the objects on which the beam was focused,
with some possible influence from the earth as well. This would mean that
curved manuvers would be the norm (I believe this is NOT common in the data). I
suspect this is true even if multiple beams were used on multiple objects (i.e.
one to the lift object, and one on the horizon, for instance, to achieve level
flight). In that case, I think UFO level flight would tend to be an arc, pulled
flat by the degree of attraction to the ground and the degree of attraction to
the horizon object. However, if the objects involved were orbital objects just
above opposite horizons, it is possible that a true straight line travel,
relatively unaffected by the curvature of the earth (i.e. approaching closer to
the earth at the midpoint), would be the result.
Note that another effect one would see would appear during upward flight. If
the UFO were using its beam on an orbital object it would accelerate, and its
speed would increase as it went higher, if no change were made to the beam
strength, and assuming the beam attraction falls off at the same rate or at a
proportional rate to normal gravitational attraction.
Right angle turns are another feature of the UFO data. Are these predictable
from the graviton beam propulsion theory? Probably not. I tend to think that a
pilot using this system would tend to connect to two orbital objects (behind
and ahead) and then a piece of ground in the direction it wants to turn. This
would probably lead to a curved trajectory.
I think, then, that UFOs probably don't use gravity as propulsion. But the
observed effects in cases such as the lifting cases still require a
gravitational explanation. Since we probably can agree that UFOs are not, in
themselves highly massive (since such mass (sufficient to locally counteract
the earth's field) just makes the problem of explaining propulsion harder) we
would have to assume that these effects are side-effects of the use of an
artificial gravitational field for another purpose - for instance, to protect
the occupants against sudden manuvers and high speeds. In addition, an
artificial gravity field centered on the UFO probably could be used to protect
the object against the effects of traveling so rapidly through the atmosphere.
As in Lt. Plantier's theory (explained by Michel in "The Truth About Flying
Saucers"), the artificial gravity field might tend to form a slippery pillow of
air which might then generate laminar flow around the UFO, eliminating sonic
boom effects in most cases.
But, unfortunately, an artificial gravity field at the center of the UFO would
tend to attract objects to the center of the UFO. This would imply that the
optimal external layout for the UFO would be spherical, and the optimal
internal layout would be wrapped around the center of the sphere, heads facing
out. Obviously this does not account for the data either. We have enough
reports of the inside of UFOs to realize that they are laid out like aircraft
or normal rooms, with a floor of normal orientation.
We could, of course, imagine a field whose center was at the center of the UFO,
but which was more like a hollow sphere, exempting the objects inside the UFO,
which might be more conveniently be attracted to a set of fields emanating from
the floor. Such ideas definitely imply the ability to generate gravitational
fields from surfaces in addition to from points. This in turn implies that
surfaces can be caused to emanate gravitons under some appropriate stimulation.
Can this explain the general luminosity of UFOs in flight and the general
non-luminosity at lower velocities and at landing? Perhaps a by-product of the
stimulation is a spectrum of EM radiation, some of which is visible light?
Perhaps this also explains why interiors of UFOs in flight tend to be percieved
as painfully bright by witnesses watching from the outside (i.e. the floor
glows with graviton stimulation)?
Well, there are no easy answers, but I hope you'll find these thought
experiments interesting.
-> Send "subscribe iufo " to [email protected]
-> Posted by: Mark Cashman