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