UFOs (UAPs): Explanations?

Q-reeus said:
As mentioned in that Wiki article under Theory:
"Reaction wheels can rotate a spacecraft only around its center of mass (see torque); they are not capable of moving the spacecraft from one place to another (see translational force)."
A reaction wheel can't generate any thrust, as distinct to 'not enough'. Eric Laithwaite thought differently. No idea who the manly hippy 80's character is or was.
Click to expand...

Well, that's isn't strictly true - utilizing gyroscopic precession, one can generate transnational force via Newton's Third Law of Motion - by that, I mean, since a stable gyroscopic object will resist being turned against it's axis, you can apply force to a spinning, weighted wheel and cause the craft in question to move.

Now, it will be an extremely limited movement, and certainly not in a straight line without some serious mechanical linkages to translate the motion. It also would only work in Space, using the Gyroscope as a "fixed object" off which the craft would move.

Of course, it would also only work on certain axis of the 'scope.

Upon thinking it over more, I believe it would be less an example of gyroscopic precession (the transcribing of a cone by the axis) and more an example of gyroscopic stability and/or angular momentum. Regardless, the amount of motion one could get out of such a setup would be minimal, the devices required overly complex, and the amount of thrust extremely limited (plus, the weight of the reaction wheel needed to move an entire space ship any significant amount would be obscene I'm sure).

James R said:
Yazata,

I'd be surprised if the military was not working on more advanced drones.

In the not-too-near future we will face the terrifying prospect of autonomous drones that can make their own decisions about killing human beings. That is, unless new treaties are drawn up outlawing them, in similar to the ones outlawing the use of chemical and biological weapons. In my opinion, it is quite important that countries think about these laws now.
Click to expand...

These sorts of treaties will be meaningless... countries will simply find ways around them (ex - Star Wars Defense Initiative - while the various treaties outlawed militarizing space, none of them included laser based weapons) or, as we are seeing now, ignore them outright (see Donald Drumpf and his "Space Force" military branch idea.

I have very little optimism about the future of our species, given the current direction the world is headed.
 
Kittamaru said:
Well, that's isn't strictly true - utilizing gyroscopic precession, one can generate transnational force via Newton's Third Law of Motion - by that, I mean, since a stable gyroscopic object will resist being turned against it's axis, you can apply force to a spinning, weighted wheel and cause the craft in question to move.

Now, it will be an extremely limited movement, and certainly not in a straight line without some serious mechanical linkages to translate the motion. It also would only work in Space, using the Gyroscope as a "fixed object" off which the craft would move.

Of course, it would also only work on certain axis of the 'scope.

Upon thinking it over more, I believe it would be less an example of gyroscopic precession (the transcribing of a cone by the axis) and more an example of gyroscopic stability and/or angular momentum. Regardless, the amount of motion one could get out of such a setup would be minimal, the devices required overly complex, and the amount of thrust extremely limited (plus, the weight of the reaction wheel needed to move an entire space ship any significant amount would be obscene I'm sure).
Click to expand...
The way reaction/momentum wheels are setup and used, all they can do is help to stabilize and/or shift attitude/orientation, not altitude/destination. By trading angular momentum between that initially imparted to the wheel, and rest of space craft. Overall center of gravity never moves.
Unlike with linear momentum conservation, which forbids any shift in overall position via internal forces, nothing in angular momentum conservation forbids reorienting a spacecraft via internal gyroscopic torques. What can't be altered is the net spin momentum.
Like with angular momentum, conservation of linear momentum is pretty fundamental and gyros/flywheels offer no means to get around that.
Roger Shawyer's EM Drive and variants, which claim to provide 'propellantless thrust' as a way around it, have got mixed results in tests. Only the Chinese team seem upbeat with consistent claims of definite positive results. From initial EM Drive announcement 2006 till now with nothing really settled, anybody's guess when or if consensus will finally arrive.
These sorts of treaties will be meaningless... countries will simply find ways around them (ex - Star Wars Defense Initiative - while the various treaties outlawed militarizing space, none of them included laser based weapons) or, as we are seeing now, ignore them outright (see Donald Drumpf and his "Space Force" military branch idea.

I have very little optimism about the future of our species, given the current direction the world is headed.
Click to expand...
With that I agree almost totally. Fear of being 'left behind', lust for 'full spectrum dominance', plus MIC corporate greed will guarantee continued headlong R&D and deployment. Black budgets or not.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
The way reaction/momentum wheels are setup and used, all they can do is help to stabilize and/or shift attitude/orientation, not altitude/destination. By trading angular momentum between that initially imparted to the wheel, and rest of space craft. Overall center of gravity never moves.
Unlike with linear momentum conservation, which forbids any shift in overall position via internal forces, nothing in angular momentum conservation forbids reorienting a spacecraft via internal gyroscopic torques. What can't be altered is the net spin momentum.
Like with angular momentum, conservation of linear momentum is pretty fundamental and gyros/flywheels offer no means to get around that.
Roger Shawyer's EM Drive and variants, which claim to provide 'propellantless thrust' as a way around it, have got mixed results in tests. Only the Chinese team seem upbeat with consistent claims of definite positive results. From initial EM Drive announcement 2006 till now with nothing really settled, anybody's guess when or if consensus will finally arrive.
Click to expand...

Aye - I may be using the wrong terminology for what I'm trying to convey - my mistake.

I'm looking at the idea of a stable gyroscopic object - take the common experiment of a bicycle wheel that you hold and spin - when you go to "twist" it, the gyroscopic force of the wheel resists the motion.

If memory serves, you could "push" off this resistance to move - it wouldn't be to any significant amount of thrust, and would only be in very specific directions relative to the rotation of the object.

Granted, it's been over a decade since I've done any such experiments with that, so I could be mis-remembering bits and pieces.

Q-reeus said:
With that I agree almost totally. Fear of being 'left behind', lust for 'full spectrum dominance', plus MIC corporate greed will guarantee continued headlong R&D and deployment. Black budgets or not.
Click to expand...

eeyup
 
gamelord said:
If you don't have anything else to say then stop complaining about me doing the same.
Click to expand...
I don't complain about your blathering, I have fun with it. And, btw, if you're in a position of authority where you can tell me what to do I'm going need so evidence of that.
 
sweetpea said:
I and quite a few others have been trying to penetrate Area 51 for years with our 'remote viewing sense' (RVS), the area is even shielded from these.
River may be 'one of them', that is, he may be under the same gagging restrictions as Krash661.
Click to expand...

How do you shield anything from RVS ?
 
river said:
Anti-gravity is when an air-craft has its own gravity separate from Earth's or any celestial body .
Click to expand...
Every object has its own gravity separate from Earth's or any celestial body.
Every lump of matter generates a gravity field, irrespective of where it is.
The issue then is which field dominates a given location.

What I think you are referring to, river, is artificial gravity, the notion of creating a field that mimics the effects of a gravity field.
One might include the notion of centripetal acceleration mimicking gravity, such as in the classic rotating orbital stations of 2001 etc, but this is not due to the creation of a field.
Personally I would include it but I've had discussions with people who don't.

Either way it is a different concept to anti-gravity, which is the notion of cancelling out the actual gravity field of something, not just overcoming it.
 
river said:
How do you shield anything from RVS ?
Click to expand...
I hesitate to gab about this stuff, but what we (my fellow RV buddies) have so far managed to 'see', is that RVS shielding technology is something to do with retro-engineering, you know, using the knowledge gained from the saucers and whatnot stuff at A51.
river said:
Get informed about the secrecy of area 51 .
Click to expand...
river said:
For goodness sake man , the area 51 secrecy has been going on for 70yrs at least . Get informed .
Click to expand...
River, how much do you know of Area 51?
If I tell you anymore about these things, I may have to go into hiding, or at least change my avatar here.
 
sweetpea said:
I hesitate to gab about this stuff, but what we (my fellow RV buddies) have so far managed to 'see', is that RVS shielding technology is something to do with retro-engineering, you know, using the knowledge gained from the saucers and whatnot stuff at A51.


River, how much do you know of Area 51?
If I tell you anymore about these things, I may have to go into hiding, or at least change my avatar here.
Click to expand...
Being serious there (ditto with #1512) or just baiting river?
 
Last edited:
sweetpea said:
OMG. Their on to me already. I knew I shouldn't of blabbed.
Click to expand...
Did you mean 'They're on to me already. I knew I shouldn't have blabbed.'? I understand that stress from prospect of secret agenda exposure can lead to spelling errors. Still, a straight answer would be helpful. Just for the record.
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
'They're on to me already. I knew I shouldn't have blabbed.'?
Click to expand...
Their on to you too? It's every man for himself.
Q-reeus said:
I understand that stress from prospect of secret agenda exposure can lead to spelling errors. Still, a straight answer would be helpful. Just for the record.
Click to expand...
A straight answer to you? Who the F*** are you? And are you so naïve to think River doesn't bait?
Having read some of your posts on this site, I don't need your respect. That's what it's about here for you isn't it? I recently read one of your posts telling James R he has lost your respect.
Have you tried SciVillage? And, to think I liked one of your posts the other day, I now take back that ''like''.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top