Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Andrew Meulenberg's message of Sat, 23 Jul 2022 09:50:22 -0500: Hi, [snip] >Both classical and quantum physicists get fixed within their own framework. >"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." If a hammer is all you have in your toolbox, then it's severely lacking. ;) [snip] If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Sat, 23 Jul 2022 13:55:04 +0100: Hi, [snip] >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. To pick nits ;) , this is actually angular momentum. h-bar doesn't have the correct dimensions for momentum. [snip] >TL;DR - you cannot introduce an effective CoM violation into an >otherwise-closed (isolated) system and not expect its net momentum to >change.. True, but are you sure that's what's happening? Consider e.g. the possibility that the craft inverts/nullifies the effect that gravity has on it. [snip] If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Sean, You asked "Is it meaningful to speak of "resonance" when something is rotating in only one direction?" Consider a car engine. Ignoring any internal resonances, it has a max-power point at some frequency. If you add a muffler, you have modified the external environment to the engine (most strongly at a given frequency). The engine+ muffler now has a resonant frequency that may differ from that of the muffler alone (e.g. with a different source). The muffler+engine resonance can be "tuned" to alter the max-power point (increase power at a given frequency or spread the max-power point to a larger frequency range). To address the issue of resonance of bodies at the sub-micron scale: Both classical and quantum physicists get fixed within their own framework. "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." To consider an electron to be a rotating rigid body creates problems with experimental evidence. Relativity changes the shape of the electron *E*-field and thus creates a magnetic field. The electron, being an EM creature, thus changes its shape and properties with velocity. *Spin is one of those properties.* It does not change in magnitude (except under extreme conditions - e.g., annihilation or combination); but, it does change direction. When an electron is accelerated, its spin axis nutates ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutation) and precesses about the velocity vector. When at high velocities (but w/o acceleration), its nutation will be "pure" (nodding, but with no precession). This precession and nutation exists at all v > 0. The nutation can be considered to be the basis of the deBroglie wavelength, where the wavelength is determined by the distance traveled in a single nutation cycle (my own definition). For a bound electron, which is accelerating all of the time, precession of the spin axis about the axis of rotation is a given. For a closed path in a conservative potential, an electron's total energy is conserved and is constant at the resonance point(s) of the orbit and precession. Thus, relativity, which also causes the magnetic field of a moving charge at v>0, is the "exterior" environment that produces the resonance for a stable orbit. The resonance is between the orbital frequency and the frequency of precession (causing the deBroglie wavelength). This resonance establishes the constant-total-energy orbits of atomic electrons. Understanding this and the resonances leading to photons and leptons provides a basis for gravitation and the possibility of null-gravity (as in photons), even if anti-gravity cannot be attained. Andrew _ _ _ On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 9:57 PM Sean Logan wrote: > I have a question about things that rotate: Is it meaningful to speak of > "resonance" when something is rotating in only one direction (Clockwise, > for example)? When I think of "resonance", I think of a guitar string > vibrating back and forth, or a parallel LC circuit, with the current > flowing back and forth. In both cases, the stuff is moving first one way, > then the other. We can talk about how many "back and forths" it makes in a > given amount of time. But what if you are spinning a flywheel in just one > direction? Is there some particular angular frequency which is > special, based upon other parameters of the system (maybe the flywheel's > mass)? I don't think I'd call it a "resonant frequency", but I would call > it something. I mean, is there a particular diameter or rate of rotation > at which a tornado can form and be stable -- any slower or faster and it > would fly apart? It sounds like that is what you are getting at with the > electron, Andrew. > > An old mechanic I used to live with said something to me once to this > effect: That there was a particular RPM of the flywheel in an engine at > which it was "resonant". That the engine and transmission worked best and > were happiest when the flywheel was rotating around this particular RPM. > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 5:01 AM Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: > >> I like your derivation. It appears to be another indication of the >> resonance giving stability to the electron at a specific "size". A similar >> >
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]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
I don't know. On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 8:46 PM Sean Logan wrote: > Dear Andrew, > >Thank you for the information on Falaco Solitons. Is Cartan the one > who introduced the idea of "rotating spacetime" into the theory of > Relativity? > >>
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Dear Andrew, Thank you for the information on Falaco Solitons. Is Cartan the one who introduced the idea of "rotating spacetime" into the theory of Relativity? >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Sean, You ask " Do you think we could make a macroscopic electron? I mean, one that's a couple feet across?" You have asked the right question. Sarfatti, at the end of his "update" ( https://www.academia.edu/s/18395c2bc3?source=ai_email ), includes his equations for a macroscopic wormhole. He attributes the UFO properties to this phenomenon. The immediate formation of an electron/positron pair creates a wormhole (perhaps the smallest possible?). A macroscopic simulation of this wormhole is seen in the Falaco soliton (http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre3.htm). This structure is simple to create and study. It is very instructive and teaches much about angular momentum. Some studies of wormholes indicate extreme energies required for their macroscopic formation. However, the ease of forming the Falaco soliton in water may indicate otherwise, if the correct "tool" is found for properly "moving" space. Andrew _ _ _ On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 12:36 AM Sean Logan wrote: > Oh, excuse me :) That message was meant for "Vibrator !" > > I like what you have to say about electrons. Do you think we could make > a macroscopic electron? I mean, one that's a couple feet across? > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 9:10 PM Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: > >> just an interested bystander >> >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Oh, excuse me :) That message was meant for "Vibrator !" I like what you have to say about electrons. Do you think we could make a macroscopic electron? I mean, one that's a couple feet across? On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 9:10 PM Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > just an interested bystander >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
just an interested bystander On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 10:00 PM Sean Logan wrote: > > Are you on the welcoming committee? > > Perhaps it's time you made liaison with the box orb pilots. > >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
This sounds like an example of the whirling of shafts "Whirling of shafts occurs due to *rotational imbalance of a shaft*, even in the absence of external loads, which causes resonance to occur at certain speeds, known as critical speeds." Large electricity generating turbines have to be taken quickly through these critical speeds on start up. On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 at 03:57, Sean Logan wrote: > I have a question about things that rotate: Is it meaningful to speak of > "resonance" when something is rotating in only one direction (Clockwise, > for example)? When I think of "resonance", I think of a guitar string > vibrating back and forth, or a parallel LC circuit, with the current > flowing back and forth. In both cases, the stuff is moving first one way, > then the other. We can talk about how many "back and forths" it makes in a > given amount of time. But what if you are spinning a flywheel in just one > direction? Is there some particular angular frequency which is > special, based upon other parameters of the system (maybe the flywheel's > mass)? I don't think I'd call it a "resonant frequency", but I would call > it something. I mean, is there a particular diameter or rate of rotation > at which a tornado can form and be stable -- any slower or faster and it > would fly apart? It sounds like that is what you are getting at with the > electron, Andrew. > > An old mechanic I used to live with said something to me once to this > effect: That there was a particular RPM of the flywheel in an engine at > which it was "resonant". That the engine and transmission worked best and > were happiest when the flywheel was rotating around this particular RPM. > > > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 5:01 AM Andrew Meulenberg > wrote: > >> I like your derivation. It appears to be another indication of the >> resonance giving stability to the electron at a specific "size". A similar >> >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Are you on the welcoming committee? Perhaps it's time you made liaison with the box orb pilots.
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
I have a question about things that rotate: Is it meaningful to speak of "resonance" when something is rotating in only one direction (Clockwise, for example)? When I think of "resonance", I think of a guitar string vibrating back and forth, or a parallel LC circuit, with the current flowing back and forth. In both cases, the stuff is moving first one way, then the other. We can talk about how many "back and forths" it makes in a given amount of time. But what if you are spinning a flywheel in just one direction? Is there some particular angular frequency which is special, based upon other parameters of the system (maybe the flywheel's mass)? I don't think I'd call it a "resonant frequency", but I would call it something. I mean, is there a particular diameter or rate of rotation at which a tornado can form and be stable -- any slower or faster and it would fly apart? It sounds like that is what you are getting at with the electron, Andrew. An old mechanic I used to live with said something to me once to this effect: That there was a particular RPM of the flywheel in an engine at which it was "resonant". That the engine and transmission worked best and were happiest when the flywheel was rotating around this particular RPM. On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 5:01 AM Andrew Meulenberg wrote: > I like your derivation. It appears to be another indication of the > resonance giving stability to the electron at a specific "size". A similar >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Did you check out https://www.academia.edu/s/18395c2bc3?source=ai_email ? On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 7:04 PM Vibrator ! wrote: > 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
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Dear Sean, I like your derivation. It appears to be another indication of the resonance giving stability to the electron at a specific "size". A similar exercise gives its angular momentum to be 1/2 that of the photon simultaneously forming it and the positron. I think of a sphere of the classical radius (~2.8 fm) as enclosing some large percentage of the electron mass (its electromagnetic energy) and that of the 386 fm radius (the reduced deBroglie wavelength and the wavelength of the 511 keV photon forming it) as being the range of the potential where it is reduced to some small value of the electron's maximum electrostatic potential. Andrew On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 2:44 PM Sean Logan wrote: > > Dea Robin, > >I ran the numbers, and the radius comes out even larger than the > "Classical Electron Radius". Here I wrote up my work in Latex so it's easy > to read: > > https://spaz.org/~magi/appendix/electron-latex.html > > > > I got an electron radius of: > > r = 3.863395 x 10^-13 meters > > Whereas the CODATA value for the "Classical Electron Radius" is: > > r_e = 2.817 940 3262 x 10^-15 meters > > which is 2.8 times the radius of a Proton! > > > Please let me know if I made a mistake in my calculations. I thought > maybe I did something unsavory with the angular frequency, Omega. But on > second thought it all seems legit. > > Robin sez: > >> I think that's only if you make the electron smaller than it actually is. >> Try doing the reverse. Assume that the maximum >> is the speed of light, then calculate the size of the electron that would >> be needed to satisfy the equations. >> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) >> >>
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Sean Logan's message of Tue, 12 Jul 2022 16:09:28 -0700: Hi Sean, Frankly I'm not sure what it means myself, but it can't be a coincidence, and is likely a clue to the nature of space-time, or at least the nature of the electron. "mean something" was both meant to be taken literally (i.e. it must be important) and also the number you calculated is the geometric mean between the classical electron radius and the Bohr radius, so to that extent it was a play on words. >Hello, > > Are you suggesting that long ago, in the time of Classical Physics, >someone performed the same simple algebraic calculation I just did, and >looked with consternation upon the result? "Hmm, you guys, this number >seems to be off. Let's multiply it by a correction factor. We'll call it >the Fine Structure Constant." > > Or, what *are* you saying? What do you mean, by, "mean something"? > > I was about to say, "I'm actually not that interested in electrons," but >I guess if you're making analog electronics, it may be wise to learn a >thing or two about the humble electron. > > > > @ @@@ @@ @ @ @ @ @@ @@@ @ @ >Sean P. Logan https://spaz.org/~magi >Fountain Giving Life >paco66551, gmail comWave Articulation Matrices for >503-660-5616Hyperdimensional Light If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Hello, Are you suggesting that long ago, in the time of Classical Physics, someone performed the same simple algebraic calculation I just did, and looked with consternation upon the result? "Hmm, you guys, this number seems to be off. Let's multiply it by a correction factor. We'll call it the Fine Structure Constant." Or, what *are* you saying? What do you mean, by, "mean something"? I was about to say, "I'm actually not that interested in electrons," but I guess if you're making analog electronics, it may be wise to learn a thing or two about the humble electron. @ @@@ @@ @ @ @ @ @@ @@@ @ @ Sean P. Logan https://spaz.org/~magi Fountain Giving Life paco66551, gmail comWave Articulation Matrices for 503-660-5616Hyperdimensional Light
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Sean Logan's message of Tue, 12 Jul 2022 12:44:55 -0700: Hi, BTW I wonder if relativistic mass increase should be taken into account, if it's spinning at the speed of light (or close to it), and if the fine structure constant is related to that? [snip] If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Sean Logan's message of Tue, 12 Jul 2022 12:44:55 -0700: Hi Sean, If you multiply your value by the fine structure constant, you get the classical electron radius. If you divide by the fine structure constant, you get the Bohr radius. This has to "mean" something. ;) >Dea Robin, > > I ran the numbers, and the radius comes out even larger than the >"Classical Electron Radius". Here I wrote up my work in Latex so it's easy >to read: > >https://spaz.org/~magi/appendix/electron-latex.html > > > >I got an electron radius of: > > r = 3.863395 x 10^-13 meters > >Whereas the CODATA value for the "Classical Electron Radius" is: > >r_e = 2.817 940 3262 x 10^-15 meters > >which is 2.8 times the radius of a Proton! > > >Please let me know if I made a mistake in my calculations. I thought maybe >I did something unsavory with the angular frequency, Omega. But on second >thought it all seems legit. > >Robin sez: > >> I think that's only if you make the electron smaller than it actually is. >> Try doing the reverse. Assume that the maximum >> is the speed of light, then calculate the size of the electron that would >> be needed to satisfy the equations. >> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) >> >> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Dea Robin, I ran the numbers, and the radius comes out even larger than the "Classical Electron Radius". Here I wrote up my work in Latex so it's easy to read: https://spaz.org/~magi/appendix/electron-latex.html I got an electron radius of: r = 3.863395 x 10^-13 meters Whereas the CODATA value for the "Classical Electron Radius" is: r_e = 2.817 940 3262 x 10^-15 meters which is 2.8 times the radius of a Proton! Please let me know if I made a mistake in my calculations. I thought maybe I did something unsavory with the angular frequency, Omega. But on second thought it all seems legit. Robin sez: > I think that's only if you make the electron smaller than it actually is. > Try doing the reverse. Assume that the maximum > is the speed of light, then calculate the size of the electron that would > be needed to satisfy the equations. > If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) > >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Sean Logan's message of Mon, 11 Jul 2022 18:15:19 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Hurricanes have cores too. Called the 'eye'. Would it be possible to make >a macroscopic electron, by stirring the Natural Medium around fast enough? >Don't electrons rotate at something like 790 times the speed of light? I >mean, if you look at their magnetic moment of an electron, and you know how >much charge an electron has, and you say, "Ok, how fast does this amount of >charge have to spin around a circle this big, in order to create this much >magnetic flux?" And the answer is waay faster than 3*10^8 m/s. I think that's only if you make the electron smaller than it actually is. Try doing the reverse. Assume that the maximum is the speed of light, then calculate the size of the electron that would be needed to satisfy the equations. If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
> > > With a quasi solid core where the speed of rotation exceeds the > information transmission speed of the fluid/field (FLEID). > > Bit like an apple really. :-) > Hurricanes have cores too. Called the 'eye'. Would it be possible to make a macroscopic electron, by stirring the Natural Medium around fast enough? Don't electrons rotate at something like 790 times the speed of light? I mean, if you look at their magnetic moment of an electron, and you know how much charge an electron has, and you say, "Ok, how fast does this amount of charge have to spin around a circle this big, in order to create this much magnetic flux?" And the answer is waay faster than 3*10^8 m/s.
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
> > I would be more inclined to say that electrons are eddies, rather than > whole atoms. I think of the other particles in > the zoo as composite eddies. (Wheels within wheels as it were.) With a quasi solid core where the speed of rotation exceeds the information transmission speed of the fluid/field (FLEID). Bit like an apple really. :-) On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 at 23:48, Robin wrote: > In reply to Sean Logan's message of Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:24:06 -0700: > Hi, > [snip] > >Ahh, so even atoms are made of this stuff? I like your description of > them > >as ''eddies'' in the liquid. When you're paddling a canoe, as you pull > the > >paddle out of the water, (after a stroke), there is sometimes a little > >whirlpool flowing away. Didn't Rene Descartes propose the idea that atoms > >are simply vortices in the aether? > > I would be more inclined to say that electrons are eddies, rather than > whole atoms. I think of the other particles in > the zoo as composite eddies. (Wheels within wheels as it were.) > > If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) > >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Sean Logan's message of Mon, 11 Jul 2022 14:24:06 -0700: Hi, [snip] >Ahh, so even atoms are made of this stuff? I like your description of them >as ''eddies'' in the liquid. When you're paddling a canoe, as you pull the >paddle out of the water, (after a stroke), there is sometimes a little >whirlpool flowing away. Didn't Rene Descartes propose the idea that atoms >are simply vortices in the aether? I would be more inclined to say that electrons are eddies, rather than whole atoms. I think of the other particles in the zoo as composite eddies. (Wheels within wheels as it were.) If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Ahh, so even atoms are made of this stuff? I like your description of them as ''eddies'' in the liquid. When you're paddling a canoe, as you pull the paddle out of the water, (after a stroke), there is sometimes a little whirlpool flowing away. Didn't Rene Descartes propose the idea that atoms are simply vortices in the aether?
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Sean Logan's message of Mon, 11 Jul 2022 12:14:14 -0700: Hi Sean, [snip] >Robin, > > Would you like to propose an experiment, to help us learn about the >nature of this Ocean? If you start with a uniform fluid, then the only way to introduce particles is through rotations within the fluid. Rotation implies movement, and thus energy. The mass energy of the universe. I have a suspicion that the Reynolds number may be related to the fine structure constant, but haven't really looked into it properly. In short particles are the eddies that result from turbulent flow. I think this is why the masses of fundamental particles appear to correlate with the inverse fine structure constant. However I can think of no observed phenomenon that represents laminar flow, unless that's related to gravity? If someone can come up with a mathematical relationship that expresses these notions, then I think experiments may follow from that. See also, related: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=109316 https://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0016v4.pdf > > My pet theory is that the medium, through which radio waves travel, >exists in more than three dimensions of space. I don't think you are alone in that. ;) Actually some Googling reveals that there are many papers on this topic. If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Robin, Would you like to propose an experiment, to help us learn about the nature of this Ocean? My pet theory is that the medium, through which radio waves travel, exists in more than three dimensions of space. Sean
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Frank Grimer's message of Sat, 9 Jul 2022 07:32:55 +0100: Hi Frank, I don't think these are just questions for philosophers. If we ever hope to manipulate gravity, or inertia, then we need to have a better understanding of the "ocean". [snip] If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Thanks for your reply. Robin (my favorite garden bird :-)). A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!" I'll leave such questions to the philosophers. As far as I'm concerned we are simply building models of material behavior. I find my model more powerful than the conventional one. The discovery of the three equations of state for water, for example, should have been made by physicists or chemists, not by a retired engineer. It's not rocket science is it? On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 21:51, Robin wrote: > In reply to Frank Grimer's message of Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:21:32 +0100: > Hi Frank, > >> > >> why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract? > > > > > >Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep > ocean. > > That's certainly one possibility. However it raises even more questions. > E.g. what is the ocean? (made of?) > Or delving even deeper, what is reality? > [snip] > If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) > >
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:51 PM Robin wrote: > In reply to Frank Grimer's message of Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:21:32 +0100: > > >> why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract? > >Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep > ocean. > Yes, that's the way I think about it, when I write DIV E = ... But you gotta wonder: Where is the water in the source coming from, and where does the water in the sink go?
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
In reply to Frank Grimer's message of Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:21:32 +0100: Hi Frank, >> >> why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract? > > >Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep ocean. That's certainly one possibility. However it raises even more questions. E.g. what is the ocean? (made of?) Or delving even deeper, what is reality? [snip] If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
> > why do like charges repel, and unlike charges attract? Because one is a source, the other is a sink at the bottom of a deep ocean. Unlike charges have a Bernoulli flow between them. One is a source - the other is a sink This leads to their apparent attraction. In reality they are being repelled towards each other by the surrounding electric field. This is a Casimir class of effect. Like charges create a high pressure region between them from the inflowing field. This repels them. Likewise with the much higher pressure field of magnetism. If we were able to carry out an accurate field pressure test we would be able to tell whether the "North" pole was the sink and the "South" pole the source - or the other way around - because there must be a pressure gradient between source and sink. The housewife's vacuum cleaner does not suck up the dust. The surrounding air field blows it up. Attraction (at all scales) is simply a negation of surrounding field pressure. On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 at 07:28, 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]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
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]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
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..
1747 words - in the middle of the night. One can't help but applaud your enthusiasm, Vibrator. On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 01:04, Vibrator ! wrote: > 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
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..
I did look at some, not all, of the ones you put on tick tock. As for this one - blue skies - flashing like a semaphore - ergo - a firelantern with reflecting panels tumbling around in the wind. Not rocket science is it. On Mon, 4 Jul 2022 at 11:13, Vibrator ! wrote: > > 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..
> 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..
If you want to believe in little green men, be my guest. But don't look up to the sky while riding that motorbike. You might finish up like the astronomer in Aesop's fable. On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 at 03:36, Vibrator ! wrote: > Latest additions under "indistinct boxes / orbs / others" include this > gem, uploaded just now: > > watch?v=QJkMBZq41Yo > > ..so, these are unambiguously your standard flying orbs; definitely not > drones, yet under intelligent control, and certainly not floating passively > like Chinese lanterns. > > They periodically disappear then reappear, just as the cubes do when seen > in broad daylight. > > Like the other video caught at dusk / dawn, the low light here places the > objects right in their cube / orb transition zone, if my association of > these UAP is correct. > > So, let's take a closer look at what happens when they disappear and > reappear, OK? > > In this first shot, we see five objects; to my eyes at least, they have > an approximate 'square' outline, but most folks are just going to identify > these as amorphous 'glowing orbs': > > https://i.ibb.co/yy5JRzM/frame1.png > > > In the very next frame, the four orange orbs have dimmed substantially; > the greener one to the right remaining bright. The square outline of the > dimmed orbs is now clearer: > > https://i.ibb.co/60T3J4y/frame2.png > > > In the subsequent frame, the fading orbs disappear completely: > > https://i.ibb.co/YyZBg08/frame3.png > > ..momentarily the green orb remains alone, for six more frames, until the > others begin to fade back in again: > > https://i.ibb.co/VqbfySm/frame4.png > > Here, the square outlines are clearer still. > > The 'glowing orb' UAP *is* the 'cube' UAP, folks.. *this is no longer a > hunch.!* > > Are they boxes, or orbs? > > *Yes*! Yes, they are. > > Apart from when they're invisible. (or 'sky-coloured', anyway.. active > camo maybe?) > > Cubes by day, orbs by night, but same-same, and birds of a feather.. > > Anyone still think i'm seeing things? Just 9 hrs ago, another video was > posted, this time showing how these things are arriving here: > > watch?v=ozVk-I-WThg > > So, continuing the basic premise that if we could watch that in daylight, > we'd see block-shaped drones dropping out of - god knows what, a saucer? - > whatever the upper red orb was actually concealing.. just last week, a > video was uploaded that on first impressions i would assume had been > composited, owing simply to being 'too good to be true', however look at > what it shows: > > watch?v=UM8BfiLSgAc=99s > > ..in broad daylight, this video's showing us precisely what the > already-confirmed hypothesis predicts - white, square / rectangular child > objects released by a saucer, all of which exhibit non-Newtonian motion.. > so if this last one is a hoax, it seems remarkably prescient regardless.. > > I'm not resting a case on any one piece of evidence, but the plurality and > consistency of examples here - sufficient for making testable (verifiable!) > hypotheses - seems overwhelming.. it's basically categorical, no? > > Might not be an 'attack', but by any reasonable definition, Earth is > currently under alien invasion; they're being seen everywhere, on a daily > basis. > > Lue Elizondo notes that they're increasing in frequency and number. > Although i've only been at this a few weeks, it seems hard to disagree. > > In recent weeks i've seriously considered Elizondo's suggestions of, > perhaps, a 'shadow biosphere' that was somehow also native to Earth, or at > least Sol, if perhaps with an inter-dimensional aspect.. however i don't > think he was espousing the idea so much as including it by way of example > of 'all things on the table'. Isn't it just much more plausible however > that these box-orbs are being deposited by larger craft, as the last two > vids there imply? Pretty classic 'invasion-y' type behaviour, no? Maybe > the payloads are just recon drones, for now.. maybe these are mostly what > we're seeing.. > > As already alluded to in the list, box-orbs seem to be associated with > saucers.. it's the same tech-base, not different / other aliens.. the > same ones are responsible for saucers, cubes, and orbs.. (and probably > ghost rockets and tic tacs too, IMHO) > > It's not some cosmopolitan mix of local techno-cultures.. but one, > particular guest, that we have. > > And right now, they seem very interested in us indeed.. (woo-wavy hands) > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:44 PM Vibrator ! wrote: > >> > Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the >> > world. It wouldn't surprise me if you even have a small Chinese >> community >> > in W3. >> >> Always appreciate your thoughts, but these things defy such easy >> dismissal. >> >> I've specifically avoided listing most orange-orb sightings for just this >> reason; sure, some may be consistent with Chinese lanterns or flares, but >> neither can repeatedly switch on and off, or demonstrate the controlled >>
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Latest additions under "indistinct boxes / orbs / others" include this gem, uploaded just now: watch?v=QJkMBZq41Yo ..so, these are unambiguously your standard flying orbs; definitely not drones, yet under intelligent control, and certainly not floating passively like Chinese lanterns. They periodically disappear then reappear, just as the cubes do when seen in broad daylight. Like the other video caught at dusk / dawn, the low light here places the objects right in their cube / orb transition zone, if my association of these UAP is correct. So, let's take a closer look at what happens when they disappear and reappear, OK? In this first shot, we see five objects; to my eyes at least, they have an approximate 'square' outline, but most folks are just going to identify these as amorphous 'glowing orbs': https://i.ibb.co/yy5JRzM/frame1.png In the very next frame, the four orange orbs have dimmed substantially; the greener one to the right remaining bright. The square outline of the dimmed orbs is now clearer: https://i.ibb.co/60T3J4y/frame2.png In the subsequent frame, the fading orbs disappear completely: https://i.ibb.co/YyZBg08/frame3.png ..momentarily the green orb remains alone, for six more frames, until the others begin to fade back in again: https://i.ibb.co/VqbfySm/frame4.png Here, the square outlines are clearer still. The 'glowing orb' UAP *is* the 'cube' UAP, folks.. *this is no longer a hunch.!* Are they boxes, or orbs? *Yes*! Yes, they are. Apart from when they're invisible. (or 'sky-coloured', anyway.. active camo maybe?) Cubes by day, orbs by night, but same-same, and birds of a feather.. Anyone still think i'm seeing things? Just 9 hrs ago, another video was posted, this time showing how these things are arriving here: watch?v=ozVk-I-WThg So, continuing the basic premise that if we could watch that in daylight, we'd see block-shaped drones dropping out of - god knows what, a saucer? - whatever the upper red orb was actually concealing.. just last week, a video was uploaded that on first impressions i would assume had been composited, owing simply to being 'too good to be true', however look at what it shows: watch?v=UM8BfiLSgAc=99s ..in broad daylight, this video's showing us precisely what the already-confirmed hypothesis predicts - white, square / rectangular child objects released by a saucer, all of which exhibit non-Newtonian motion.. so if this last one is a hoax, it seems remarkably prescient regardless.. I'm not resting a case on any one piece of evidence, but the plurality and consistency of examples here - sufficient for making testable (verifiable!) hypotheses - seems overwhelming.. it's basically categorical, no? Might not be an 'attack', but by any reasonable definition, Earth is currently under alien invasion; they're being seen everywhere, on a daily basis. Lue Elizondo notes that they're increasing in frequency and number. Although i've only been at this a few weeks, it seems hard to disagree. In recent weeks i've seriously considered Elizondo's suggestions of, perhaps, a 'shadow biosphere' that was somehow also native to Earth, or at least Sol, if perhaps with an inter-dimensional aspect.. however i don't think he was espousing the idea so much as including it by way of example of 'all things on the table'. Isn't it just much more plausible however that these box-orbs are being deposited by larger craft, as the last two vids there imply? Pretty classic 'invasion-y' type behaviour, no? Maybe the payloads are just recon drones, for now.. maybe these are mostly what we're seeing.. As already alluded to in the list, box-orbs seem to be associated with saucers.. it's the same tech-base, not different / other aliens.. the same ones are responsible for saucers, cubes, and orbs.. (and probably ghost rockets and tic tacs too, IMHO) It's not some cosmopolitan mix of local techno-cultures.. but one, particular guest, that we have. And right now, they seem very interested in us indeed.. (woo-wavy hands) On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:44 PM Vibrator ! wrote: > > Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the > > world. It wouldn't surprise me if you even have a small Chinese > community > > in W3. > > Always appreciate your thoughts, but these things defy such easy dismissal. > > I've specifically avoided listing most orange-orb sightings for just this > reason; sure, some may be consistent with Chinese lanterns or flares, but > neither can repeatedly switch on and off, or demonstrate the controlled > independent flight seen in some of those examples. > > In spite of this, as i say, i suspect some, if not most orange / red orbs > that aren't easily written off are in fact these same craft - box-orbs - > albeit seen to glow by night. > > And quite independently, the orange-orb vids are at least as common as > box-orbs in their own right. You could easily string together a list of > perhaps 20 or more videos showing
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
> Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the > world. It wouldn't surprise me if you even have a small Chinese community > in W3. Always appreciate your thoughts, but these things defy such easy dismissal. I've specifically avoided listing most orange-orb sightings for just this reason; sure, some may be consistent with Chinese lanterns or flares, but neither can repeatedly switch on and off, or demonstrate the controlled independent flight seen in some of those examples. In spite of this, as i say, i suspect some, if not most orange / red orbs that aren't easily written off are in fact these same craft - box-orbs - albeit seen to glow by night. And quite independently, the orange-orb vids are at least as common as box-orbs in their own right. You could easily string together a list of perhaps 20 or more videos showing orange orbs moving in concert, winking out one by one then reappearing, moving against the wind or holding perfectly stationary despite it. A few such examples also demonstrate extreme accelerations too. I haven't seen anyone else suggest they may be the same craft as the box-orbs, but either way one could argue that orange lights by night are more eye-catching, and visible over greater distances, than any of these box-orbs examples which by day show only glassy, iridescent-metallic cubes, which, already faint to the eye, periodically disappear then reappear. UAP that 'might' seem consistent with Chinese lanterns or flares are a dime a dozen (major sightings in the US this week), but i'm specifically NOT listing them, in order to avoid that ambiguity. This is why multiple independent vids of these cubes by daylight are so compelling - 'Chinese lanterns' seems the LEAST consistent potential explanation. By 'iridescent' i mean that they display flecks of green / purple and other flashes of colour, but without appearing to 'glow' or radiate much light themselves. The appearance may be of a semi-transparent titanium-like texture, or if further away, something like a flying fish tank or fridge. But pictures are worth a thousand words, so if you haven't checked out the list already (worth it i promise!), i'll copy here a quick list of 'box-orb' highlights,, Here's some single ones seen by day (head over to YT and complete the URL's): watch?v=TiowRwpwVAQ=6s watch?v=z3FL98gBF=15s watch?v=8UNK0rhKxsE watch?v=Pfhm4fyRBZk=12s watch?v=Y7Rv92Mfwvo watch?v=z3FL98gBF-s=14 watch?v=G9kURVaty4w watch?v=fIRrPXjzbrM watch?v=e5obs5slhxU watch?v=cdcevb5aFv8 Etc. etc. - note the last one above is either seen at dawn or dusk, so if i'm right, is either about to become a glowing orb, or else has just resumed a cubic appearance.. Please use a big screen (not a phone) for these, as they're only the size of a car and usually at least a few hundred meters away from the phone-camera (ie. so none feature optical zoom). Are those anything like Chinese lanterns you've ever seen? That's the great thing about day-time captures; these aren't just indistinct orbs of light, but have a clear 'square' aspect or 'cubic' profile. In the close-up examples, you can see this iridescence i mention - a key feature, and quite unlike anything else. A highly-polished fish-tank, perhaps, but beyond that..? Seen in clusters, they look like this: watch?v=Rw1oSHed1Mk watch?v=BsukTV7aGPM watch?v=wv9m9qxkhDM watch?v=kn9EdEsSWJ8=7 watch?v=1_1FcVD6KmI (incredible display of non-Newtonian controlled flight here!) watch?v=JHQp9YGFUkM=128s watch?v=wPIvgOgXv7U=217s (check out this whole video, it includes other examples) Etc. etc. - they're ubiquitous and multitudinous. They also tumble / rotate on all three axes (or should i say at least three axes), transiently disappear then reappear, and may be the same entities behind many if not most 'orb' sightings (ex: watch?v=bouEV1fBxlk ), perhaps 'ghost rockets' too; flying orbs with all-sparkly trails, like these: watch?v=GL_W8x81amU watch?v=UeIK6iZTzOo watch?v=oVs1q1_8JXs watch?v=xGug7Y7faM0=309s ..you get the drift. Do check out the list if you'd like to see more examples of any of these. Note that when seen in groups, they seem to alternate between 'paler' and 'darker' shades of what could be grey-white, or else semi-translucent, basically sky-colours.. Groups of up to a hundred UAP's have been swarming US Navy groups; suffice to say, these things must be top suspects. But do any of these groups of flying fridges look anything like Chinese-bloody-lanterns to you mate? :P YouTube user Engine TwentySeven's vids are particularly special as they show clear manoeuvering over great distances and velocities (but without a big screen you'll be staring blankly at blue sky, wondering what all the fuss is about). So now re-check those 'tethered' examples: watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw https://www.tiktok.com/@draw_my_town/video/7104013293471304965?lang=en Still think they're just Chinese Lanterns? Note how the tether itself also displays flashes of iridescence
Re: [Vo]:It's Time We Talked About the Box-Orbs..
Chinese fire lanterns. Which explains why they are seen all around the world. It wouldn't surprise me if you even have a small Chinese community in W3. On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 at 01:59, Vibrator ! wrote: > 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.. >
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..
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..
In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:10:08 +0100: Hi, [snip] >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. [snip] Every moving thing on the planet does the same thing. However the net effect is zero, because "what goes up must come down". The only way these things might have net effect is if they come from space. Even so, the effect is still totally insignificant, due to their small mass relative to that of the planet. Don't forget meteors/meteorites also move the planet, and they have been bombarding us for billions of years. The motion of the planet is also influenced by the gravitational forces of the other bodies in the Solar system, in fact by that of everything in the Universe. If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
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..
In reply to Vibrator !'s message of Mon, 27 Jun 2022 22:48:03 +0100: Hi, [snip] >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. Obviously no one has heard of them, because you just invented the name. Most people call them "Tic Tac"s because they look like the candy. Cylindrical with hemispherical end caps. I think they are trying to help by modifying the weather to ameliorate the worst effects of climate change. This may be beyond our capabilities, but not theirs. That's why there are so many of them, and why they are everywhere. Probably either remote controlled, or powerful AI, or both. [snip] If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
