96 replies to this topic

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Before we go any further, this has got unnecessarily personal. I apologise for my part in that and hope that we can carry this conversation in a more civil manner.

My comment about ether was not meant to be sarcastic (please stop telling me what I meant). It was short and sweet because I had to rush to the shops before they closed. I apologise if that led to a misunderstanding. I believe, however, that it was a legitimate question given that you had not put forward in medium for the refraction. There are still those that believe in the ether and I was trying to find out if that was what you were referring too.

We both agree that our understanding of the Laws of Nature are subject to change. I also agree that the orthodoxy should be questioned. However your posts seem to suggest that you reject Relativity simply because it is the orthodox belief. Is that a fair assumption? Very early on I asked if your rejection of Relativity was based on evidence or belief. I have to say that whilst you have put forward your postulate I simply see no evidence to support it. Given that, is it an unfair assumption to assume your rejection of Relativity is not based on the weight of evidence?

Thought exercises are a wonderful thing in science but science must be evidence led. Forgive me if I don't accept your postulate for two reasons, firstly because I don't see the supporting evidence and secondly because we are at the edge of my knowledge of theoretical physics. I simply do not have the knowledge to go further with this.

[DONTEATUS]

Bloody good on you mate ! THats the Waspie we all Love and Know !

[keithisco]

Waspie... I offer my own apology for reading more into your posts than you obviously meant to convey. Textual - based discussions have the obvious drawback in that intonation and meaning is very difficult to convey, as is nuance.

I have enormous respect for your knowledge in matters astronomical and cosmological and continue to have such respect.

I will be the first person to agree that String Theory, Superstring Theory, and Super symmetry has no irrefutable evidence to support it, but as experimentation develops there are tantalising hints (it is difficult to accredit stronger terms) that something of its nature is underpinning the Standard Model and MAY redefine it with greater fidelity and precision.

No ill - feelings Waspie

[Waspie_Dwarf]

keithisco, on 26 September 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

No ill - feelings Waspie

None at all.

[TheMacGuffin]

I think there are others in the the military space program who do indeed have a more advanced understanding of these things than is commonly known.

Ben Rich said:

“We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects, and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity. Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do.”

“We now have the technology to take ET home. No, it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars. First, you have to understand that we will not get to the stars using chemical propulsion. Second, we have to devise a new propulsion technology. What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong.”

When Rich was asked how UFO propulsion worked, he said, “Let me ask you. How does ESP work?”The questioner responded with, “All points in time and space are connected?” Rich then said, “That’s how it works!”




Lockheed Skunkworks Engineer USAF, and CIA Contractor Admitted : UFO Are Real


"Don Phillips, “These UFOs were huge and they would just come to a stop and do a 60 degree, 45 degree, 10 degree turn, and then immediately reverse this action”. During the Apollo landing, Neil Armstrong says, “They’re here.They are right over there and looking at the size of those ships., it is obvious they don't like us being here”. When I was working with the Skunkworks with Kelly Johnson, we signed an agreement with the government to keep very quiet about this.

Anti-gravitational research was going on. We know that there were some captured craft from 1947 in Roswell, they were real. And, yes, we really did get some technology from them. And, yes, we really did put it to work. We knew each other from what we call an unseen industry. We can term it black, deep black, or hidden.

The knowledge I have of these technologies came from the craft that were captured here. I didn`t see the craft, nor did I see the bodies, but I certainly know some of the people that did. There was no question that there were beings from outside the planet.
Are these ET people hostile? Well, if they were hostile, with their weaponry they could have destroyed us a long time ago. We got these things that are handhold scanners that scan the body and determine what the condition is. We can also treat from the same scanner.

I can tell you personally that we’ve been working on them. And we have ones that can diagnose and cure cancer. One of the purposes I had for founding my technology corporation in 1998 was to bring forth these technologies that can clean the air and can help get rid of the toxins, and help reduce the need for so much fossil fuel. Yes, it is time. I can tell you personally that it has already started."


http://www.google.co...xJ5YPdRtzpws4Tw

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 27 September 2012 - 02:14 AM.

[keithisco]

From the article you reference:

McDonald said: “Well Hal, you asked for it! Now that legendary Lockheed engineer and chief model kit designer for the Testor Corporation, John Andrews, is dead, I can announce that he personally confirmed the design connection between the Roswell Spacecraft and the Lockheed Martin Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs), spyplanes, Joint Strike Fighters, and Space Shuttles.

I see no connection between these projects and some "supposed" basis in alien technology that apparently was used. All of these projects evolved (still evolving) from well described engineering practise. All are based on simple reaction mass technology, the avionics are straightforward developments (I worked myself on JSF, and UAV avionics - nothing alien about them).

Why use reaction - mass if some super-duper instantaneous alien drive is available??

There is no coherence between the claims and reality of these projects.

Edited by keithisco, 27 September 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[Render]

How NASA might build its very first warp drive

Quote

A few months ago, physicist Harold White stunned the aeronautics world when he announced that he and his team at NASA had begun work on the development of a faster-than-light warp drive. His proposed design, an ingenious re-imagining of an Alcubierre Drive, may eventually result in an engine that can transport a spacecraft to the nearest star in a matter of weeks — and all without violating Einstein's law of relativity. We contacted White at NASA and asked him to explain how this real life warp drive could actually work.

http://io9.com/59632...irst-warp-drive