Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
> If you want to believe in little green men, be my guest. ..so you haven't looked at any of the evidence? Just wanted to say hello eh.. Well on the off-chance you ever get bored, or really want answers to these big questions, maybe take a look in your own time.. I don't see anyone else making these connections.. The links won't last forever tho (none of them are mine).. I suspect you only clicked that one link with a complete URL, showing two tethered cubes, every comment below exclaiming it was fire lanterns.. that was your perusal of the evidence, and the basis for your conclusion.. ..if i may insist however, this thing below is not a fire lantern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiowRwpwVAQ=6s I didn't want to bomb-post embedded videos, hence the truncated links. Check 'em out, tho, they'll tickle you i promise.. > But don't look up to the sky while riding that motorbike. > You might finish up like the astronomer in Aesop's fable. Thing is, criss-crossing the country all day and night for three decades, i've seen Chinese lanterns many times.. always assuming this was the most prosaic explanation for orange orbs. No matter how far out in the sticks or how late at night, basically presuming that most fire lanterns were released by farmers.. for reasons.. because they're a thing, and LGM aren't. But what the evidence above shows is that a) some actually ARE aliens - these flying orbs DO exist - and b) that they're the same phenomenon as the flying cubes. They're squares by day, disco lights by night. As such, this is much bigger news than LENR, OU or reactionless propulsion - likely encompassing all these things, but certainly more besides - here's copious, visual evidence of new physics, beyond the SM, in action. We don't understand anything of these visitors' technology - what they're doing, how or why. Their evident presence however prioritises these questions. It's the alternative - wilful ignorance - that's dumb. It's much like discovering that Bessler's wheel was actually a genuine case of mechanical OU, now forgotten and entirely dismissed.. evidence of physics BTSM, right under our noses, if not low-hanging fruit; a tantalising tease on what's possible, outside the box of today's paradigm.. there in the offing.. How many times have YOU seen and ignored orange orbs on the assumption fire lanterns were the most-likely explanation? Because in retrospect, given the evidence here.. maybe they've seen you too..? :P
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
I didn't put any on tick tok. I didn't 'put' any anywhere. Again, every day for the last few weeks i've come home from work and checked YouTube for the last 24 hrs' UAP uploads. I skip the dross, and categorise the rest. So, 'this one goes under this header, this one belongs on that list, this is the same type from that vid last week', etc. etc. This very basic methodology - a simple case of 'having to start somewhere' with such an enormous data set available - has revealed that most sightings, currently, if not historically, are of these mysterious box-orbs. This is a new type of UFO, to me, anyway. In fact, i don't see ANYONE else describing it as a widespread phenomenon - as i say, most only seem to get reported, and commented upon, as if they were unique examples - no one else has made the link that they're actually ubiquitous! This thus qualifies as a new scientific discovery, one that directly speaks to the deepest, most profound questions of natural philosophy (not least conservation of momentum and energy). So i'm here presenting that list - primarily drawing attention to the prevalence of these hitherto unheard-of 'box-orb' captures. What's so stunning is that most of the boxes / cubes are caught in broad daylight, or at least, twilight. This enables us to clearly identify that they're the same type of craft - obviously harder to do when all you can see is a glowing orb at night. If you click on the link to the list in the first post, it'll pop up a test file full of URL's - all you need do is copy-paste them into a browser. What you'll see is DOZENS of independent video captures of flying fish-tanks in broad daylight. Mostly, they're cubes by day, and glowing orbs by night. However this rule is not absolute - some vids show cubes by night, and orbs by day. Most orbs are orange or white, yet many other colours are seen; some are seen changing colour. Some behaviours seem colour-typed. So the Tik Tok link you actually clicked on - the one, single link i hadn't truncated (how lazy are we?) - i only referenced because it's a second example of two box-orbs linked by a tether. If you complete the YT link of the other example, you'll see the same thing, different time and place. I'm well aware all of the comments on Tik Tok identify it as fire lanterns - social media is for numbskulls, i've never had any social media accounts and never will, it's a horde of mindless ignoramuses and no one else has seen this list of related examples; like me when i saw what i thought were fire lanterns, it seems the most likely explanation if you don't know any better - Chinese lanterns are a thing, and UFO's are woo - precisely your logic too, perfectly rational response - but the whole point of this list is to PROVIDE that context necessary for proper analysis, ie. comparison with other phenomenon. Show me a type of fire lantern that looks anything like these things.. i mean, it's a glassy, iridescent, semi-opaque box or rectangle - a hexahedron, bashically - sometimes appearing dark-metallic or titanium-like - often seen rotating or tumbling on all three axes, that momentarily disappears then reappears as it flies. When seen in groups, this optical 'phasing in/out' sometimes synchronises between objects. After adding dozens of examples to the list, last week YT threw up the first one showing a tethered pair. I'll repeat the full link here so you can just click on it (sorry if this is video-bombing the page for anyone else): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw Note how, like the others, they phase in and out in sync - again, use comma and period keys (< and >) for frame advance/back while paused. These are categorically the same type of craft seen in many of the other links. The only difference is that clearly-visible tether. People see tethered flying boxes and think "fire lanterns!" by default - as i say, i would've too, if i didn't know any better. Getting folks informed, in order to be able to analyse these things in their proper context, is my whole raison d'etre, here.. But that was just one, perhaps freak, example of the tethering behaviour - maybe one had broken down and was under tow or something. So you can appreciate my excitement when i found another, again on YT, this time in a compilation video. That video referenced its sources, and the segment showing this second tethered pair happened to come from Tik Tok, so, since it didn't require a sign-up to view, i linked the source rather than the timestamped YT video segment.. So, while everyone else is stuck on "what is it?" and "it's fire lanterns!", i'm the only person (apparently) aware of this broader context, and other related examples. I'm perhaps the only person who realises that it's most definitely, categorically NOT fire-lanterns. That's way too much responsibility, hence why i'm here, trying to SHOW (not just 'tell') other smart people. That's why i'm reporting it here, and not on
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
> Obviously no one has heard of them, because you just invented the name. I first saw that term in reference to the box-shaped object that flew uncomfortably close between two military jets travelling in the opposite direction - this particular incident often given as an example of why the phenomena may pose a risk to flight, and hence justifying proper study, funding and congressional hearings etc.; what the pilot described was 'a dark metallic-looking cube in a transparent sphere, the cube's corners touching the inside surface of the sphere'. Dall-E 2 found it an evocative description anyway: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ge245DlIXrrab5GtsjBZWPVJa57--jlg/view?usp=sharing If you check out the objects i'm listing under that category, these things look quite distinct from tic-tacs per the Nimitz / Fravor encounters. I've watched quite a few perplexing tic-tac vids since then, even though i've not got around to adding them on the list yet; the only reason for this however is that i'm simply compiling from the daily round-up - whatever's been uploaded to YT in the past 24 hrs, i scan past the junk and list whatever's left under whichever category best fits.. IE. YouTube's been showing me a lot of box-orbs, but very few tic-tacs (that weren't actually aphids 10 mm from the lens, anyway). The box-orb videos OTOH couldn't be explained by anything else - did you see the 'tethered' pair i added to the list last night? watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw Incredible, yet so enigmatic, unlike anything one could dream up.. much less conflate with a tic-tac.. So sure, tic tacs are fascinating.. but just on the basis of what's actually getting documented on video by multiple independent sources, box-orbs seem to be increasingly ubiquitous. A sighting in London was uploaded the other day (it's on the list), caught by what looks like some builders in south London somewhere, the day before, one in Scotland.. so since i work in central London i've been looking up all day whenever outside, just on the off-chance.. that non-zero probability that an alien craft might just suddenly appear overhead, right there in the middle of Fitzrovia on a bright summer's day, derp.. seriously tho, on the commute in and out, on me lunch break, i'm scanning the skies, potato-cam at the ready.. craning me neck all day, ain't seen a thing all week.. Came home tonight, did the usual search on last 24 hrs uploads, and whaddya know, another sighting in London, this time slap-bang in the middle of - you guessed it - Fitzrovia: watch?v=oGs6JgFzD0M=19s - basically right over my workplace! WTF? I must've been indoors at the time, how frustrating is that though eh? Trolling me.. like i say, you couldn't make it up. Can't make out much detail from that potato cam either, but i doubt mine would be much better. Besides, do you risk taking eyes off it to fumble for the camera in the first place? Dilemma.. There's other folks filming it around him tho so maybe clearer vids will surface from this incident.. On the subject of potatoes, don't bother trying to watch these on a phone as you need a decent monitor, especially for ie. Engine TwentySeven's 4K videos: watch?v=1_1FcVD6KmI - the problem is that modern phones have great resolution but lack optical zoom, so you can only 'zoom in' on the fixed-resolution image, not 'true' zoom, hence you need to be able to use browser zoom (ie. hold ctrl and spin the mousewheel or tap the '+' key or whatevs) - otherwise you're just seeing white dots on an already-tiny phone screen.. much like tic-tacs i guess. These particular UAP i'm most concerned about are characterised by this consistent 'square', cubic or rectangular / polyhedron aspect, and transient disappearance / reappearance, usually while rotating or tumbling, their axial motions independent of their flightpaths, so ie. not apparently a matter of flight-control for example. The recent UAP at Miami beach may have been widely-mentioned as a tic-tac incident, however it looks to me more like another box-orb: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UNK0rhKxsE This is far from exact science of course but as a mere identification / classification exercise - just placing like with like - the existence and sheer prevalence of these craft seems an amazing yet unnoticed revelation right under our noses.. IOW, some term describing this particular phenomenon - as distinct from tic-tacs, orbs, saucers, cigars or black triangles etc - SHOULD be familiar to all, yet isn't, as you well illustrate. That, sir, is entirely my point. How many shiny metal saucers or black triangles that didn't look instantly gake and fay have been uploaded lately? Or tic-tacs for that matter? Fast-movers make for ropey vids by their very nature, usually reduced to an indistinct streak. Yet there's unambiguous CUBES the size of family cars floating about in our skies, pretty much everywhere, daily.. and so a conspicuously-absent category of UAP in the popular conscience. You're
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
> Every moving thing on the planet does the same thing. However the net effect
> is
> zero..
Reciprocity is obviously broken for effectively-reactionless
accelerations however. Let me try restate the conundrum more clearly:
• gravity's a mutual attraction between masses / inertias as observed
from the zero momentum frame
• from within either inertial frame it's a uniform acceleration
(Galileo's principle)
• a hovering UFO exhibiting no reaction matter is nonetheless a
massive body in a gravity field, thus being accelerated downwards at 1
G like anything else
• ..it's just also applying a cancelling 1 g upwards acceleration..
• ..yet because this acceleration is effectively reactionless, the
craft is now towing the planet
So although it appears, from ground observation, that the craft is
hovering motionless, in reality it is specifically holding height
relative to the ground / planet, and although it's not accelerating
towards the earth, there's nothing to stop the mutual gravitation of
the planet back into the gravity well of the suspended craft..
The instant you have a unilateral force or momentum change active in
an otherwise-closed system, the net system momentum is no longer
constant..
So if a ship's hovering over earth, counteracting its own gravitation
does nothing to impede the mutual gravitation of the planet, relative
to which if it is holding distance, it must, therefore, be
accelerating away from at equal speed to its approach.
Hovering ('anti-gravity' in the naive conception), reactionless
propulsion or energy creation / destruction via the exploitation of
unilateral forces, alters the planets resting momentum state.
You could arguably undo a change afterwards by applying an equal
opposing change some time later, but any non-zero period between
alters our trajectory or axis or spin rate or whatever over what it
would've been if we'd stuck with aerodynamics and rocketry..etry
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
If you check the 'box-orbs' list, i now have at least two that clearly show tethered pairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw https://www.tiktok.com/@draw_my_town/video/7104013293471304965?lang=en Same flight config too.. as if the lower one were perhaps siphoning some fluid from the upper one..? JK, no idea what these things are, what they're doing, or why. Bloody exciting time to be alive tho eh? To be able to cross-reference UAP corroborations from independent encounters the world over, updating on a daily basis like this.. All i'm doing is LOOKING at available evidence. And categorising what i see. Little else. Ain't spent a dime on it, yet within weeks i've achieved a level of certainty NASA and SETI could only dream of: this is definitely real, technological, and not us.. Just like that, the greatest mysteries answered.. i'm reeling, dazed, in a slight state of shock here.. awake to a new reality.. What it means, and what to make of it, pffft.. where to start? Best not think about it and carry on? The further questions though - not least the potential for communication - is too alluring.. seeing these things is literally paradigm-shifting..
[Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
I've been trying to bite my tongue for fear of lowering the tone, but the sheer weight of corroborating evidence for this phenomena must by now be worthy of Vorts' attention. Some weeks back, YT began showing me suggestions for UAP videos. I'd watched the David Fravor interviews after the NYT exposé on the Nimitz encounters, curious, but never been any kind of UFO nut. So i began watching some of these YT suggestions, and quickly found myself bookmarking one or two that seemed extraordinary, yet legit. Now i'm hooked - all the old bookmarks have gone into a list of URL's of vids i've 'confirmed' (obviously documenting the same phenomena, and not obviously composited, edited or faked in any way), and every day i check for the most recent UAP / UFO sighting uploads and add the latest URL's to the bottom of each list under each categorised sub-section. I'd recommend anyone with an interest have a gander at ALL of these links, but i especially want to draw your attentions to those listed under 'boxes / box-orbs'. There's substantial visual evidence here to suppose that many of the various 'glowing orb' sightings - perhaps 'ghost rockets' too - are actually one and the same entities as these 'box-orbs'; that they appear as these shadowy polyhedra by day, and orbs of various kinds by night. If so then there's too many different headers in my list, however the number of new headers isn't really increasing; the number of entries listed under each one IS, and none moreso than 'box-orbs'. If not every day, then every other day, new examples are uploaded to YT. But regardless of whether they may all be the same thing in different guises, all i can do is categorise by what i can see, and yet on the basis of that evidence alone, most UAP are box-orbs; there's no two ways about it. That section now boasts 19 different videos, all showing the same enigmatic phenomena - flying boxes, either alone or in groups, with certain distinct visual characteristics such as appearing in 'lighter' and 'darker' shades - perhaps showing different faces whilst rotating - as well as some degree of morphing, mostly into 'rectangular' polyhedra (hexahedra?) and periodic disappearance / reappearance (at least in optical wavelengths - it seems many UAP retain persistent IR profiles however, even when invisible to optical range, but most sightings are obviously captured on cell phones). Some are caught close-up, others only as indistinct white dots in 4K vids, but which you can thus zoom-in on to see more details.. it's definitely the same phenomena being recorded, the world over.. So here's the list: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RXOssOGtruFqA1h8TA_eWqMaPgF4unUQ/view?usp=sharing I'm updating it daily - again, most new additions are joining the bottom of the 'box-orb' list, so work bottom-up from that first list for the latest sightings. This thing's global, and like Luis Elizondo says, seems to be increasing in frequency and number. It's obviously technological, and not 'us'. They don't just float or meander, but also demonstrate spectacular non-Newtonian controlled manoeuvres, moving with intent and purpose in coordinated ways. No one else seems to be talking about them, or even noticing the predominance of this particular UAP. You've got your basic saucers, your cigars and various 'foo-fighter' and 'ghost rockets' etc.. but who ever heard of 'box-orbs' before? Yet they're the pre-eminent UFO by far.. just look at the numbers over the short period i've been at this. Fermi's paradox is at least partly solved, then; they're here already! We're not alone.. and we're very much the upstarts by the looks of things. There's no longer any room for ambivalence or agnosticism as far as i can see, the sheer weight of independently-corroborating evidence here is undeniable. They now seem so common there's every chance you or anyone you know may see them, if you just look up often enough. I'm following skywatchers using all-night CCTV trained on the sky who are catching sightings most nights. YouTube channel k'eyush The Stunt Dog - a channel i've known for years that's never had anything to do with any kind of woo - posted a sighting the other day (it's on the list), they're literally EVERYWHERE, all skies in all countries. 'Invasion' doesn't necessarily imply 'attack', but they certainly seem to be on recon if nothing else.. More than this, one can only speculate.. yet we're talking about an intruder we now know is in our house! This, surely, should disconcert us.. Sooo.. anyone make it through those links? Am i taking crazy pills here or what?
[Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Turning the subject 45° on an axis for a moment, a large hovering diamond was filmed by multiple witnesses in Columbia the other day, links added to the list. Could it be the same hovering diamond-shaped craft from Nick Pope's infamous office poster of a similar sighting in Scotland? Reverse-engineering somewhat from first principles: the object has mass and thus *is* gravitating - shedding momentum to gravity and time at a rate of 9.80665 kg-m/s per kg of gravitating mass, per second - yet if it's not accelerating relative to earth and its mass is also constant, then it is simultaneously accelerating upwards, gaining momentum from _some other_ fundamental force constant (such as the EM constant, alpha), in equal opposite magnitude. To put it another way, it must be applying an upwards acceleration - ie. a time rate of change of velocity being a rate of signed momentum exchange, or +/- dp/dt - thus implying that it must also be sinking equal rates of counter-momentum to gravity and time. We should reserve a degree of concern however that arresting an object's gravitational acceleration by any means of inertial suspension *does nothing,* in principle, to prevent the earth's own mutual gravitation towards _it._ Obvioushly, gravitational interactions are mutually inter-reactive - the larger body's accelerations are smaller, but real and non-trivial - and nested within each gravitational interaction there is an inertial interaction, N3 demanding perfect symmetry of momentum and counter-momentum deltas at all times; lifting a weight 'up' pushes the planet 'down' - we're really just prising 'em apart - and likewise both masses accelerate back together when the weight's dropped. _In other words,_ levitating masses may be 'towing' the planet. These things may be tug-boats, of sorts, applying small steering corrections to Earth's trajectory or resting momentum state.. even inadvertently, if not purposefully, this is a seemingly-inevitable implication of the physics we know. The act of merely hovering a massive body like this is not entirely passive, the object is _not_ stationary, but is rather holding constant distance to ground, which along with the rest of the planet is continually accelerating into the gravity well of a massive body that is not counter-accelerating reciprocally back towards it. As such, this behaviour should not be regarded as entirely passive, but rather interactive / manipulative.. and the fact that it is also 'surreptitious' (self-evident from basic physics but not negotiated with or communicated to us), naturally raises suspicion. Are these permanent changes to our resting momentum state, and the ultimate fate of the planet? 'Momentum' being among the most conserved of field properties.. are they an incidental and inconsequential side-effect of a benevolent scientific mission, or else the mission objective itself? And _then_ is the purpose in our interest or theirs? These things potentially have us on a leash.. basic physics tells us that what superficially _looks_ like 'anti-gravity' is, in practice, more akin to a tug applying a course-correction via a tractor-beam.
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Some incredible updates to report on: • the list now includes many more examples of box-orbs linking up like this You can watch as two box-orbs approach one another, touch and partially merge, then extrude the tether out between them as they part. Then they fly off together as a unit. There's multiple videos of whole clouds of these craft, veritable armadas, captured from all manner of angles - from ground, air (from above and below) and sea. Most astonishing revelation thus far is that the tech base appears to be scale-invariant: box-orbs can be TINY! You can watch incredible footage of what are clearly box-orbs - having all of the typical weird properties and characteristics - yet only ~ 1³ mm in size! Another anomaly that's becoming much more apparent is what i call the clown-car paradox - orbs that emit many other box-orbs, which are almost as large as it; how'd they all fit inside, then? TARDIS-like abilities or something? There's obviously a simpler explanation that would seem to tie all these observations together - the fact that the extruded tether appears to be made from the same semi-translucent, iridescent material as the cubes themselves, the diminutive yet fully-autonomous fairy-like box-orbs, and the clown-car paradox: • we're looking at a meta-material that can be assembled and disassembled on the fly, perhaps using largely environmentally-sourced materials IOW, perhaps this material's largely fabricated from the components of the surrounding air - my feeling is not so much 'nanotech', as something that perhaps crystallises or precipitates out from a highly-controlled plasma of ie. air or seawater or whatever's available.. This might also be consistent with observations of 'morphing' between different shapes.. as well as their ability to 'summon' more box-orbs, apparently ex nihilo.. Hence we'd be dealing with macroscopic quantum-classical systems, highly-entangled photo-electric couplings - polaritons, magnons and spinons etc. - aggregate low-entropy states with large-scale baryonic ensembles sharing few, unitary wave-functions, tightly controlled, but still susceptible to ie. the observed position / momentum indeterminacies and resulting quantum leaps; where the object disappears then reappears either instantaneously, or sometimes even within the same video frame, thus appearing to be in super-position. Yet another fascinating observation re. their mutual interactions is that they can enter a mode in which two or more box-orbs appear to become coherent - their precise motions and quantum-jumps clearly paired, across some distance - obviously temporarily sharing the same inertial reference frame but also, clearly-entangled wave-functions; in this mode more than ever, the visual impression is of some kind of projection, its actual source far away, if meticulously (but imperfectly) focused on this location.. hence the 'jitter' - as if they're not actually bound to Earth's inertial frame, at least, not the ground anyway. All these observations are categorised in commented links on the list, see for yourselves. Gotta say though, the most shocking revelation to me is these miniature variants - i'm not kidding, no more than a cubic millimeter, yet possessing ALL of the characteristic properties of the larger versions.. so, just what are the limits, there - how small can they get? Final thought: now this IS crazy - i mean, even i have little confidence in what i'm about to relate, but it is what it is so i'm just throwing it out there - the JWST calibration shots of Jupiter show myriad large, box-shaped IR silhouettes clustered around Europa's orbit (links in the list); i could find no official explanation, thus far.. but hopefully there's a perfectly prosaic one eh.. On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 7:08 AM Robin wrote: > In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 4 Jul 2022 11:12:33 +0100: > Hi, > [snip] > > > >..if i may insist however, this thing below is not a fire lantern: > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiowRwpwVAQ=6s > > Indeed, but it may be a box-kite with an essentially invisible nylon > tether. They come in a variety of shapes, sizes, > and materials. > [snip] > If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) > >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
The issue is that a graviton would be a spin-0 gauge boson, commuting only attractive force; a spin-1 mediator of both attractive and repulsive forces is obvs already fulfilled by photons or virtual photons. Qualitatively, 'gravity' reduces to a time-constant rate of exchange of signed momentum, or ± h-bar. 'Reactionless' refers to these craft's propellant-less accelerations; no reaction matter appears in optical, IR or thermal imaging. They must, therefore, be exchanging momentum directly with some fundamental force constant (EM constant alpha?) and time. F=mA reduces to an I/O ± dp/dt differential, and so effectively-unilateral forces are thus possible; the tangible example i keep coming back to being 'pumping a swing', wherein you can auto-accelerate the swing by applying reactionless torques via the ice-skater effect (changing mass radius) to cause an upswing vs downswing period asymmetry, the per-cycle momentum gain equal to that difference times the gravitational constant; obviously, non-constant angular momentum about a fixed axis is only so useful, but it's a proof of principle that momentum can be sourced or sunk from / to fundamental force constants and time, and again, insofar as UAP are solid flying objects, they're another demonstration of that principle. So i believe i'm correct - a hovering UAP that is reflecting radar and light must be composed of baryonic matter, even if in a controlled, low-entropy state - meta-materials are obvs implied by the observed properties - and is thus susceptible to mutual gravitation; if it's not actually falling then by definition it's accelerating upwards at exactly 1 G. This does nothing to impede the reciprocal mutual gravitation of the planet towards the UAP, hence if it's holding precisely-constant altitude then the entire system - UAP, planet and everything bound to it - must be accelerating 'upwards' relative to that point on the globe; the acceleration obvs equal to the gravitational pull of the UAP divided by the mass of the Earth, hence infinitesimal, yet real and non-trivial.. TL;DR - you cannot introduce an effective CoM violation into an otherwise-closed (isolated) system and not expect its net momentum to change.. On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 7:28 AM Robin wrote: > In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Sat, 2 Jul 2022 01:41:55 +0100: > Hi, > >> Every moving thing on the planet does the same thing. However the net > effect is > >> zero.. > > > >Reciprocity is obviously broken for effectively-reactionless > >accelerations however. > >Let me try restate the conundrum more clearly: > > > > • gravity's a mutual attraction between masses / inertias as observed > >from the zero momentum frame > > > > • from within either inertial frame it's a uniform acceleration > >(Galileo's principle) > > > > • a hovering UFO exhibiting no reaction matter is nonetheless a > >massive body in a gravity field, thus being accelerated downwards at 1 > >G like anything else > > This statement contains a couple of unproven assumptions. > 1) You don't know that's is reactionless. > 2) You don't know that it's being accelerated upward as well as being > pulled down by gravity. It may actually be > canceling the effect of gravity on the craft. After all, we don't really > know anything about the actual nature of > gravity, or any of the forces for that matter. > We have a few constants and some nice formulae, but no real understanding > of the actual nature of forces. E.g. why do > like charges repel, and unlike charges attract? > [snip] > If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) > >
Re: [Vo]:Another Irish FE Firm?
The Anomalous Magnetization of Iron and Steel, B. Osgood Peirce 1912: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20022770?seq=2 The effects seem to pertain to high dv/dt impulses however.. not to mention antique metallurgical samples (the high-Sv kind). Modern electrical steels OTOH are designed to be high-mu, high-freq and hence low-Sv inductors with minimal remanence / retentivity. Anomalous self-induction must be arising under some very a-typical circumstances if no one's noticed it previously.. and we're not talking micro-teslas here, he's claiming a 400 - 500% gain in flux density, sufficient to turn a gennie.. The claim seems eminently falsifiable though, reducing to this singular putative exploit - whatever the specific grade of material he's sourcing will have a B/H graph in its spec sheet, since this is its whole raison d'etre, the very properties it's designed and purposed for. So, find out exactly which material it is, download the spec sheet, and check for a sudden 500% jump halfway up the B/H plot that nobody else but this genius PhD has noticed for some reason, square in the middle of its designed operating range there. Job done, next..
Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics
> So progression from 18th century theory of Boscovich to modern physics Fascinating, i was unaware of Boscovich's contributions, great first-principle reasoning though.. There's still a good bit of unfinished business with certain 18th-century breakthroughs that've languished, but don't get me started..
[Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics
> I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated > emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the concept in > 1917. > Therefore you might think that it is only possible in a quantum theoretical > context. However, subsequent mathematical work has shown that a form of > stimulated emission can also arise in a classical (pre-quantum) setting > when a suitable model of the atom is used. The key point about stimulated emission is that it exploits the suspension of superposition exclusion to enable an aggregate system to cohere under a unitary wavefuntion; the corollary effect being coherent absorption, such that the initial plasma system can be classically described right up to the population inversion: from which point all electrons are bouncing between peak energy and stable bottom, emitting and absorbing essentially the same photons in sync.. ..so the quantum / classical threshold there is Pauli exclusion; the spontaneous photomultiplication resulting from collective coherence of the electron population is a pretty fundamental kind of 'resonance', not your average harmonic oscillator. On this key point about coherent absorption as well as emission, see Green at al "Limiting photovoltaic monochromatic light conversion efficiency" 2001, noting that in PV cells for which recombination is mainly radiative, a stimulated emission regime could take efficiency arbitrarily close to the Carnot limit; his team down in Oz are currently up to ~70% - again, for monochromatic (basically laser) light - with increasing applications in ie. wireless power transmission, electrical isolation / firewalling etc., and obvs much greater range (albeit limited to LoS) than classical inductive transmission techniques. A stimulated emission mode / regime is an inherently quantum-classical system, a unique means of corralling quantum systems distinct from Faraday and Maxwell et al; the system's propensity to begin lasing a direct consequence of the quantisation of energy & momentum: in the tensioned 'population inversion' state, ideally at least, a single photon of further input energy will inevitably trigger a cascade of absorption and emission because there's nowhere else for this conserved quantised energy to go, ie. further input energy catalyses a cyclic phase transition between high and low-energy states, because the transitions are quantised, and because a whole bunch of fermions are behaving as a kind of extended quasi-boson, holding the same quantum-energy states at the same time. It's that force-feedback dynamic, like a turbine, generating this low-entropy livewire state of perfect photoelectric synchrony.. coherent emission AND absorption, en masse.. On a bit of a tangent perhaps, but in his later years GC Huth posited that the retinal cells of the fovea may form a kind of phase-conjugate mirror, which may have thought-provoking implications for ie. the nature of eye contact between sentients, optic nerves essentially being extensions of cortex: what if electrons in remote rhodopsin discs are entangled by the same photons? 'A twinkle in the eye'.. 'windows on the soul'.. (woo-wavy hands)
Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics
> here is an example > Absorption and Stimulated Emission by a Thin Slab Obeying the Lorentz > Oscillator Model It's a quantitative formulation from classical first principles, sans Schrodinger.. whereas the wave equation approximates the time evolution of the wavefunction; you could describe a stimulated emission / absorption mode as playing the predictability of wavefunction's evolution by constantly resetting it at a fixed freq.. or you could probably describe the behaviour in terms of QED and Feynman diagrams too i expect, all complimentarily w/o conflict. You can describe orbital transition energies classically / relativistically, or Lenz's law in terms of relativistic self-interaction of a current loop invoking length contraction / time dilation, or in terms of time-conservation of ambient quantum momentum, charge and energy.. the whole point about zombie-cat-boxes being that they're an over-extrapolated conclusion from what is only a formal approximation; atoms and photons are obviously real, but is the wavefunction? So there's no real dichotomy.. all roads lead to Rome, we know the SM's incomplete and we're not seeing all the pieces yet, but the realism / objectivism debate is divided along more fundamental lines on the nature of causal determinism and the outstanding possibility (if not logical prerequisite) of non-local hidden variables.. which in turn segues into philosophical debate re. distinctions between 'indeterminability' as an inevitable consequence of conservation and finite nature of quantum information (ie. per Zeilinger et al), versus the nihilistic anarchy of objective indeterminism; you can guess which side of the fence i'm on (tho not a Bohm fanatic; pilot waves or some variation, perhaps.. but his later metaphysics stuff i don't subscribe to). The classic DSE using an electron gun and phosphor-plated screen has to remain the benchmark gold-standard for demonstrating the limits of classical physics though - ie. it cannot explain how particles / waves self-interact even when their transits are separated out in time. If not for this singular crazy (dumbfounding!) result, we wouldn't be in a situation where most physicists are ready to accept such an oxymoronic imposition as 'acausal determinants'.. but in for a penny, in for a pound eh..
Re: [Vo]:Stimulated emission and Pre-Quantum Physics
in add: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html IE. equivalent, not conflicting..
Re: [Vo]:Current Findings on the Undeniable Alien Presence
? I know, i know, not blind; i'm obvs asking in the wrong place.. On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 2:19 AM Terry Blanton wrote: > Intervention is nigh: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Earth_(novel_series) > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 7:53 PM Robin > wrote: > >> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Sat, 27 Aug 2022 20:49:36 +0100: >> Hi, >> [snip] >> > >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RXOssOGtruFqA1h8TA_eWqMaPgF4unUQ/view?usp=sharing >> >> It would be nice if the URL's listed here were actually clickable. :) >> Next to each entry you have a 1 line summary. You could make the summary >> the visible portion of the URL, and the actual >> URL itself would be the link. >> In short make >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RXOssOGtruFqA1h8TA_eWqMaPgF4unUQ/view >> document an actual html document. >> [snip] >> Regards, >> >> R. van Spaandonk >> >> Crops, not towns, should be planted on floodplains. >> Even the ancient Egyptians knew this. >> >>
[Vo]:Current Findings on the Undeniable Alien Presence
Lots of amazing discoveries to plough through so i'll try keep it brief, however a certain minimum of word-space is required just to summarise current findings: • there are multiple different alien beings visiting constantly • there are multiple different humanoids using saucer craft ie. implying independent co-discovery of convergent solutions, or else some degree of cross-pollination • these include bug-eyed bipeds of various sizes, but predominantly smaller • there may be at least one distinctly human-like form, air-breathing, caucasian-like.. • our relationship to these particular folk remains opaque; we may be in contact, albeit in very much a subservient role • the overwhelming majority of sightings may be related to one of the above races; which, remains unclear • the alien in question i can only thus far identify as 'the box-orb people' - their saucers deploy and collect box-orbs • their saucers each appear able to accommodate perhaps a dozen 'normal'-sized box-orb craft: accordingly, box-orb sightings may be 10x more common than saucers • both box-orbs and saucers make extensive use of metamaterial constructions, sharing many advanced features and abilities • this metamaterial technology is very highly scalable - craft as large as anything in sci-fi are regularly imaged by various systems... • ...conversely, units as small as insects are also occasionally captured on film..! • these miniature alien craft present a particularly compelling study specimen, as encounters invariably occur at point-blank ranges For instance, with multiple independent 1080p / 60 Hz captures we can observe refraction anomalies / warping of background imagery, photo-electric interactions with ambient or applied lighting, material interactions with their surrounding environment, kinematic characteristics (how they move), and perhaps deduce something more of their behaviour, purpose and intentions. One particular hypothesis that appears bolstered by these most remarkable captures is a potential solution to the so-called 'five observables': • we're seeing a propulsion mode that eschews classical translation - and, thus, acceleration, inertia, momentum, KE and dissipation - for a process of controlled, continual high-frequency quantum tunnelling; the frequency constantly variable, but generally above ~60 Hz That is, 60 FPS video of these craft at a range of a few centimetres from the camera clearly shows accelerating motion as a series of 'quantum leaps' rising in frequency into an effectively-continuous motion.. thus implying higher frame-rates will push back that illusion of translation a little further.. In principle each jump might be as small as a Planck length, with a very high cycle frequency.. conversely however this would also account for the larger-scale flitting about observed when these saucers engage their hyperdrives - an effect i'd somewhat-awkwardly dubbed 'transient positional indeterminacies', assuming it a consequence of en masse position / momentum covariance - but it would also obviate the questions re. sourcing and sinking of KE and momentum, absence of dissipation effects etc. For reasons i'll expand on below, high-speed IR footage would seem the ideal way to test this conjecture, however this kind of kit ain't cheap.. • saucers - the ones responsible for the box-orbs, at any rate - appear to switch between at least two distinct forms of propulsion, characterised as 'red glow' mode, and 'white glow' mode; the former associated with general flight, landing, deployment and collection of box-orbs, the latter with non-Newtonian characteristics and macro-scale quantum effects • white-glow mode involves hypersonic acceleration, and spontaneously hyperspacing in a brilliant flash of rapidly-shrinking white light, sometimes square-shaped • additionally, often square-shaped flashes of white light are seen to pop off around the craft in this mode • a white-glowing square shape may envelope the saucer, only the rim / flange protruding at the sides • the actual position of the craft may appear to jump around erratically within a finite radius, reminiscent of a quantum object • the red glow is predominantly reported as more pronounced from the craft's lower portions or underside, often together with a red light on top • the red glow can vary in intensity, from a dull brown to bright orange, perhaps indicative of thermal load.. At this point it may be worth noting a point Rossi's paper invokes: cold plasmas induced via high dv/dt electrostatic impulses spontaneously form low-entropy states consolidating Fermi numbers, and so restricting thermal degrees of freedom for expressing / embodying heat energy; cooling / heat exchange might thus pose a critical engineering problem in mass-scale quasi-bosonic aggregates, and inadvertent over-heating may be a common failure mode in saucer crashes. One such incident caught on video seems highly consistent with such a
Re: [Vo]:Current Findings on the Undeniable Alien Presence
Multiple independent captures in HD and 60 Hz, using fixed focal length phone cams with fixed apertures, showing macroscopic quantum effects at ranges down to a few centimetres, are all out of focus butterflies? And this is just one type of mini-UAP - there's others indexed in the list that don't look anything like this. Bit of a weak theory, no? Either you're being facetious or the MiB have got to you, but get yer specs on.. worth putting your 'serious' hat on, for this.. Moving swiftly on, a capture was recently posted of box-orbs entering the atmosphere over the great pyramids in the form of a giant cross-shaped construction that dissociates into multiple independent units upon reaching lower altitude: • https://youtu.be/uDx-S8TqDOo?t=2371 (part of a compilation, i'm just referencing that one short scene) ..prior to this, i'd only seen captures of box-orbs being released or recovered by saucers / related craft, apparently as probes or drones, so was assuming that was their principle means of arrival. What that video above shows however is some kind of ferrying / transport configuration for en masse insertions, perhaps crossing interstellar space like that, or else released by one of the larger craft closer nearby. Now, if you search the list for the keyword "fleet", you'll see that there's packs of hundreds of these things being seen at a time, and moreso the higher in altitude you go. This obviously raises serious red flags over just how many may now be here, not just in our atmosphere and oceans but throughout the system - we see them actually on the moon, for instance, and not just high in the sky silhouetted against it (though there's plenty of such shots too); given how fast they can move - and besides, given that they can teleport and hyperspace - they obviously don't need to be in 24 hr visual range to pose an implicit potential threat, yet they're still increasing in number at an alarming rate.. arrivals like the one above could be going on daily, yet mostly dismissed as meteors, if even seen; most of the planet's surface is desolate open water - how many such insertions are simply never witnessed? Or are they perhaps also returning home, if unseen, with basically stable numbers doing short tours on rotation? But what if there's millions deep in our oceans, each able to suddenly radiate megawatts for sustained periods - they could just boil up a load of water and steam us overnight, or swoop down in legions deploying chemical or biological agents, or just remote-controlling or incapacitating everyone remotely etc. etc. (all capabilities they've claimed or demonstrated) - again, there's no question we're being invaded by any reasonable definition of the word - this is an interstellar extraterrestrial civilisation making an outpost of our system with apparent impunity at the very least - the only question is whether it's malign or benign in intent. If it's the latter, why on earth would they need such numbers? I mean, if they're not here to physically interfere in some way, why so many of them? If they're uncrewed then that would seem to eliminate innocent tourism. So why the big shift of materiels here? They're obviously prepping for something, some task that requires large numbers of them. 'Surveillance' alone doesn't seem to cut it - the smaller cubes and related probes would seem more than sufficient, not to mention stealthier. These larger units are obviously far more capable and numerous than a mere cartography or scouting expedition would require. Not to mention brazen. And they're obviously not merely passing through, en route to some other star, if deploying such a dedicated insertion system; it would seem most unlikely they'll later reform that 'cross' structure and move on to Alpha Centauri or whatevs; that was some serious, here-to-stay unpacking going on there. Even if they came right out and said "nope, no invasion planned here, uh, we're just on exercises?" - remember how that worked out last time: first rule of invasion - keep schtum and misdirect, even while amassing forces in plain sight.. The sheer scale of the incursions, together with the near-absence of wider cognisance and not least the denialism demonstrated above, all makes for a perfect storm.. and remember, they have quantum teleportation / hyperspace (the latter being distinctly more energetic), GR thus implying they could be all over our timeline, with full prescience, our defeat already a fait accompli in some imminent day-z, just making small precise manipulations throughout our 'present' to keep us obliviously on-track to an inevitable date with destiny.. basically caught with our trousers round our ankles still treating every box-orb sighting as if it were an isolated case without precedence. Whatever IS happening, here, it's not simply that we clearly lack the upper hand.. we're largely oblivious there's even anything afoot..!We're crawling through molasses in even
[Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust
Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame. The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high number and you're good - and power density is basically that number times how many cycles a second you'd like. As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and CoAM. Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in tandem, mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta. If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed for three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity, there could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the corporeal and sublime - i would not argue with you.. ..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved. It's just an inertial interaction! Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and energy from and to inertia and time! See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major advance on what was previously a completely-outsider theory. Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let alone a physics one..
Re: [Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust
In the last config the best CoP seemed to converge to around 3.5. Bessler indicated CoP's of 4 were possible, in one passage seemingly implying a factor of 16: Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen, Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen, Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt, Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. x Wer dieses aus kann spekuliren, Wird bald den Lauf perpetuiren; "He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high." The latest sim which i finished last night, is designed to be infinitely adjustable, so i'm going to use it to explore the gradient, find its upper bounds. As mentioned though, the gain is constant per cycle, so net gain is just the per-cycle gain multiplied by the number of elapsed cycles. Any help getting from here to the first devices would be cool - i'm just an obsessive hobbyist with no idea how to get this where it needs to be.. This warrants serious attention! On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > We all wait for the first device with COP >2! > > > J.W: > > On 04.12.2023 09:59, Vibrator ! wrote: > > Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held > > objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame. > > > > The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high > > number and you're good - and power density is basically that number > > times how many cycles a second you'd like. > > > > As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and > > CoAM. Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in > > tandem, mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta. > > > > If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within > > classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed > > for three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity, > > there could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the > > corporeal and sublime - i would not argue with you.. > > > > ..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved. It's just an inertial > > interaction! > > > > Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and > > energy from and to inertia and time! > > > > See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major > > advance on what was previously a completely-outsider theory. > > > > Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let > > alone a physics one.. > > > > > > > > > -- > Jürg Wyttenbach > Bifangstr. 22 > 8910 Affoltern am Albis > > +41 44 760 14 18 > +41 79 246 36 06 > >
Re: [Vo]:Mech OU & Inertial Thrust
's possible to limit the amount of the KE gain harnessed as PE this way, keeping it as KE on the over-unity body instead. This in turn allows the gain to be correlated back to the velocity component of the anomalous momentum delta - so you can see the gain, and what's causing and embodying it, together in an empirical way. Prior to the current 'sustainable' dual-rotor config i was testing single rotors; immediately upon confirming OU i attached one of these to a virtual planet - a mass heavy enough to be all but stationary, yet its motion and position still discernable to many digits precision - and found that it continually accelerates whilst running. Upon ceasing the interaction, the planet then continues to coast at its new angular and linear velocities. You can see the results of that test here: https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1=9300=15 ..hence why i've now moved to dual reciprocating systems which mutually self-cancel these stray momenta. Ultimately, we have a CoE break contingent upon an effective CoM break, with the exploit confirmed at every stage in that process. The experiment confirms the theory, literally mechanising the maths of OU. This isn't a false-positive, it's the real deal.. On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 1:36 PM Vibrator ! wrote: > In the last config the best CoP seemed to converge to around 3.5. > > Bessler indicated CoP's of 4 were possible, in one passage seemingly > implying a factor of 16: > > Der wird ein großer Künstler heißen, > Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kann schmeißen, > Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt, > Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. x > Wer dieses aus kann spekuliren, > Wird bald den Lauf perpetuiren; > > "He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a > heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds > four quarters high." > > The latest sim which i finished last night, is designed to be infinitely > adjustable, so i'm going to use it to explore the gradient, find its upper > bounds. > > As mentioned though, the gain is constant per cycle, so net gain is just > the per-cycle gain multiplied by the number of elapsed cycles. > > Any help getting from here to the first devices would be cool - i'm just > an obsessive hobbyist with no idea how to get this where it needs to be.. > This warrants serious attention! > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote: > >> We all wait for the first device with COP >2! >> >> >> J.W: >> >> On 04.12.2023 09:59, Vibrator ! wrote: >> > Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held >> > objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame. >> > >> > The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high >> > number and you're good - and power density is basically that number >> > times how many cycles a second you'd like. >> > >> > As predicted, it's also a reactionless thruster, breaking both CoM and >> > CoAM. Latest version of the interaction runs opposing systems in >> > tandem, mutually self-cancelling all stray momenta. >> > >> > If you'd struggle to believe there was sufficient complexity within >> > classical mechanics for the possibility of over-unity to go unnoticed >> > for three centuries - that within Newton's three laws, plus gravity, >> > there could lay hidden the kernel of an interface between the >> > corporeal and sublime - i would not argue with you.. >> > >> > ..yet the fact is, gravity isn't even involved. It's just an inertial >> > interaction! >> > >> > Believe it or not, it's possible to source and sink momentum and >> > energy from and to inertia and time! >> > >> > See my thread on the BW forum - it's all sims for now, but a major >> > advance on what was previously a completely-outsider theory. >> > >> > Mechanical over-unity is no longer even an engineering problem, let >> > alone a physics one.. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- >> Jürg Wyttenbach >> Bifangstr. 22 >> 8910 Affoltern am Albis >> >> +41 44 760 14 18 >> +41 79 246 36 06 >> >>
