So, you wanna get into UFO's... No doubt, there are few subjects that will throw a discussion group into the weeds better than UFOs. UFOs are the 2nd most searched item on Google. Nacherly, xxx sex is the first.
Look upthread at my electrogravitics approach to the NASA proposals. Then do a search for electrogravitics and UFOs. You'll find plenty of answers. But the vast majority of readers will reject such answers. If you are truly "skeptical of both of these issues at this time!" then you'll want further information and you will acquire it, read it, and then report back on it. 85% of the folks I have corresponded with have not made it through that "supposedly skeptical" route. Because they were lazy and already had their minds made up. Are you Ready, then? Flying saucers were an extension of Ludwig Prandtl's experiments in boundary layer control theory that the Germans performed in WWII. It was the Allies who won WWII, and coincidentally, took all those boundary layer control experimental results & 2 years later there were correspondingly shaped experimental craft flying over America. CoInkkDINKY? I don't think so. How is it that a supposedly extraterrestrial craft covers the impossible feat of zillions of light-years of distance only to crash near a military base 2 years after such experiments? Nope. Those weren't aliens, they were secret experimental aircraft. So at this point, the average alien visitation believer is so worked up that they want to engage me in all kinds of ridiculous rhetoric. But they never seem to be able to argue without employing simple logical fallacies. They also refuse to examine the evidence. So here's the best evidence so far: Read the book "Intercept UFO" by Renato Vesco. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FIntercept-UFO-Renato-Vesco%2Fdp%2FB0006WI572&ei=MI3cU_70McL2oATXwIKQAQ&usg=AFQjCNGoW1oN-Licmx6EMac0gFNwZTs75Q&sig2=48YqVXYw6PWJEIbP5cot3g If you aren't willing to read such a book, you've become a UFO alien believer and there's no real debating with such people. Read the book. On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:27 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > If the UFO phenomena is real, and there seems to be a lot of mounting > evidence to that effect, then the aliens must have some form of drive that > does not require rocket fuels that we are familiar with. Perhaps this is a > glimpse of how it is accomplished. Unfortunately, I remain skeptical of > both of these issues at this time! Maybe someone would like to add > discussions about UFOs to the list unless that is out of bounds for some > reason. I suspect that we have many vorts that can contribute. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> > To: Vortex List <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 7:22 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive > > this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross > checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...) > > as Ed Storms says in his books, when a phenomenon survive to the change > of the measurement setup(shawyer, chinese, nasa), and is similar in > different setup(emdirve, qdrive) that share a common thing (resonance, > asymmetry, microwave), there is a great chance something real linked to the > core technology is happening... and not independent artifacts that > conspires independently to fool scientists. > > however the ideas of shawyer about the theory have no strong reason to > be good, so his computation on how to improve it... he have good hint, no > more... > > about the theory the idea that the EmDrive is surfing, rowing, sculling > on the virtual particles of the void is the most reasonable I've heard. > > I don't need no violation of any conservation law... just less unchecked > assumption (as for LENR). > > > 2014-07-31 23:45 GMT+02:00 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>: > >> I have a hangup about the conservation of momentum that makes me >> skeptical of this device. My guess is that the thrust will be shown to be >> an error once everything is taken into account. The power to generate the >> large amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely >> the root of the thrust. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: leaking pen <itsat...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive >> >> Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now? >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> See: >>> >>> >>> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >> >
