UFOs and the laws of physics (split from Reactionless Drive that conforms to Newton's 3rd laws.)

[Aquatek]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

I agree, but we also know it doesn't work as advertised. And there's the issue of someone who is not well-versed in physics who is also simultaneously insisting on what the important physics concepts are.

For all we know, the device works by heating the air around it, and it's able to direct the heated air in one direction, causing the box to recoil.

Ok, well a question for all those here that are well versed in physics, and believe they are absolutes. In July this year, we had the Pentagon it self admit to the existence of UAP's (UFO's). These UAP's have mass, as they show up on all forms of radar. They also have no visible means of propulsion. Along with that, they perform maneuvers that the current  known laws of physics do not allow for. Perhaps those here well versed in the laws of physics can explain all this ?.

Quote: He views the UAP/UFO phenomena as a scientifically interesting problem, driven in part by observations that seem to defy the laws of physics. https://www.space.com/unidentified-aerial-phenomena-scientific-scrutiny.

How is it that it is well believed that electrical energy can be converted into mechanical rotational energy, and then into linear thrust by accelerating a mass, but the opposite cannot happen, where electrical energy converted into mechanical rotational energy is used to decelerate that very same mass. Surely those here, well versed in these laws of physics, can see how gyroscopic forces-deflection and angular momentum can be used to decelerate a linear flowing mass, and change the direction of that reaction force of that mass to being at right angles.

I didn't join up here to have my device fully disclosed. I joined in the hope as to get some guidance as to how to go about getting it peer reviewed etc.

I expected some criticism, which is understandable. But i hardly think throwing turkeys at walls during xmas is helpful criticism. Some say it took me a while to disclose the fact that it required a power source, but i did that in the very first post. This makes me think that some do not actually read before making comments.

Anyway, perhaps I am in the wrong place. But regardless, I hope you guys all have a great xmas.

[Bufofrog]

50 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

Ok, well a question for all those here that are well versed in physics, and believe they are absolutes. In July this year, we had the Pentagon it self admit to the existence of UAP's (UFO's).

Bringing up UFOs to bolster your ideas doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

[Aquatek]

3 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Bringing up UFOs to bolster your ideas doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

But if we use the laws of physics that most here believe cannot be circumvented, then we can dismiss any possibility that UAP's even exist, regardless of what the pentagon tells us, and regardless of what 10s of 1000s have witnessed. It's just a blanket-No, because they do not conform to what we understand about physics. And these are not !ideas! I am presenting here, this is a working device. !Experts! get it wrong all the time, even after years of knowing what is true. For example, how long have we been dealing with DC circuits, and the flow of DC energy/power?. But even now, some cannot use common sense or some of your known physics to work it out--they still get it wrong. Take this video for example, in which Veritasium gets it wrong, and even has !so called! experts back him up. The simplest of things still escape the experts every now and then.  I am an amateur in electronics and such, and have my own electronics lab at home with all the fruit. But even i know he is wrong in this one.

 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Aquatek said:

These UAP's have mass

How do you know this? Surely there are sightings that are a “trick of the light”

 

Quote

as they show up on all forms of radar.

All UFO sightings show up on radar?

 

Quote

Perhaps those here well versed in the laws of physics can explain all this ?.

There’s not enough evidence, but that cuts both ways. There’s also not enough evidence to draw other conclusions as well, and yet some are willing to do so.

But as the label indicates, these are unidentified objects/unexplained phenomena 

3 hours ago, Aquatek said:

But if we use the laws of physics that most here believe cannot be circumvented, then we can dismiss any possibility that UAP's even exist

That’s flawed reasoning. There will always be unexplained phenomena. That doesn’t mean they violate the laws of physics.

You seem to be equating UAPs with aliens, and that’s not what UAP means. It means the phenomenon is unexplained. 

3 hours ago, Aquatek said:

Take this video for example, in which Veritasium gets it wrong

I agree there are issues with the video, but I’m curious as to what you think he got wrong.

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Aquatek said:

But if we use the laws of physics that most here believe cannot be circumvented, then we can dismiss any possibility that UAP's even exist, regardless of what the pentagon tells us, and regardless of what 10s of 1000s have witnessed. It's just a blanket-No, because they do not conform to what we understand about physics. And these are not !ideas! I am presenting here, this is a working device. !Experts! get it wrong all the time, even after years of knowing what is true. For example, how long have we been dealing with DC circuits, and the flow of DC energy/power?. But even now, some cannot use common sense or some of your known physics to work it out--they still get it wrong. Take this video for example, in which Veritasium gets it wrong, and even has !so called! experts back him up. The simplest of things still escape the experts every now and then.  I am an amateur in electronics and such, and have my own electronics lab at home with all the fruit. But even i know he is wrong in this one.

We recently discussed this video and its rights and wrongs here

 

[beecee]

14 hours ago, Aquatek said:

But if we use the laws of physics that most here believe cannot be circumvented, then we can dismiss any possibility that UAP's even exist, regardless of what the pentagon tells us, and regardless of what 10s of 1000s have witnessed. It's just a blanket-No, because they do not conform to what we understand about physics.

I don't think that is at all factual. While most UAP's and UFO's can be explained away as mundane sources, there is a small percentage that remains as unexplained or unidentified.

After 1000's of supposed and imagined sightings, of kidnappings and anal probings, you would think by now we would have something more positive to validate Alien piloted UAP's and UFO's, if that is what you are proposing. 

To find out that we are not alone in this big wide wonderful universe, would answer an age old question for mankind, asked since we first climbed down out of the trees and walked on two feet. Such extraordinary claims, require equally extraordinary evidence.