Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

The Real Upcoming Space Wars?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1114 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 8, 2009 9:03:36 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 8, 2009 12:23:05 PM PDT
Zack G.C. says:
So all of this technology is coming from, dear God.... UFO's?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2009 12:40:42 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2009 12:44:21 PM PDT
Hi Zack!

The rumors of different governments and/or militaries trying to "reverse engineer" crashed UFOs (to figure out, and duplicate, how they operate) have been around a long time. Which is not to say scientists and engineers haven't been working independently on creating better propulsion systems, based on cutting edge science and technology, (like the classified Particle Collider projects). But conventional wisdom says that we had to "reverse engineer" enough crashed UFOs to finally figure out how their propulsion worked.

India Daily has its critics. But they also seem to have access to Chinese and Russian projects you probably can't read about elsewhere. For now, just approach their stories as a grain of truth wrapped in speculation. It may be later proven correct. It may be proven now, and just suppressed for "national security." (Although it makes a lot of sense to me, that world militaries wouldn't want to just stop with ET "propulsion", if there were also tie-ins to ET-type "weaponry".)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2009 1:31:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2009 1:32:12 PM PDT
yodainathong says:
I've heard they are working on a top secret program called "The Allen Parsons Project". It has something to do with "Lasers".

Posted on Oct 8, 2009 1:56:18 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 8, 2009 2:09:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2009 2:10:26 PM PDT
Zack G.C. says:
How can such projects be considered fact when then the general public doesn't even know for sure if ET's exist?
And technically, if the big G has them in possesion, they aren't UFO's, being identified and all. :D

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 8, 2009 3:13:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 8, 2009 3:18:18 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 8, 2009 3:41:27 PM PDT
Zack G.C. says:
So your saying that the concept of ET's being real is accepted, just not in the States?
Marilyn, I have to kindly disagree, I don't believe in aliens or anything else that's from another planet.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2009 7:18:57 AM PDT
Hi Zack!

Thanks for your courteous "kindly disagree" post. In this country, your opinion (and voicing it) is allowed and protected. So consider that living in this super-power country is a supreme privilege.

Personally, I think ETs have been on Earth, temporarily or permanently, for thousands of years. It's just that now, in our Electronics Age, and fledgling Space-faring Age, that we can finally understand, scientifically and technically, how some of ET's "magical" things work. Thus I believe secret contact is being sought out for purely selfish reasons. That's what this whole discussion is about.

Keep asking those questions!

Cheers!

Posted on Oct 9, 2009 8:06:35 AM PDT
Since this discussion is coming under-fire for referencing articles in India Daily, I have researched some of their assertions at more respectable sites. JANES.COM is the site for Jane's Defence, the well respected British site for global defense. Below are some articles I found that at least partially corroborate the articles from India Daily:

BOEING CONSIDERS FEASIBILITY OF PLASMA-BASED WEAPONS (3/01) "... it should prove feasible to "skim off" some of the plasma that forms naturally around a M8.0 aerospace vehicle for use by an onboard directed-energy weapon."

ANTI-GRAVITY PROPULSION COMES OUT OF THE CLOSET (2/02) Boeing's Phantom Works was working on luring/hiring a Russian scientist who was working on project GRASP (Gravity Research For Advanced Space Propulsion). The work on anti-gravity systems "... could be engineered into a radical new weapon."

Posted on Oct 9, 2009 11:37:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 9, 2009 11:39:36 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2009 12:04:17 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Several fairly recent articles in indiadaily.com, suggest that world militaries are already working on Black Projects using science and technology they deny even exists:"

Unfortunately, India Daily is a tabloid web paper, famous for the inaccuracy of its reporting and the low quantity of its 'journalism'. It is not a reliable source and propagates a multitude of at best inaccurate articles and re-uses stories from equally suspect sources.

"If a major super-power admits to the public that they know ETs exist and that they have actually recreated their technology, then a public outcry would demand to know everything."

The problem is that this requires a massive international conspiracy, with every nation and its officials keeping quiet whilst supposedly competing to utilize any alien tech they have. It simply isn't feasible.

"Just think of the countries who have "disclosed" or turned over their government UFO records: Brazil, France and England (that I know of)."

Whilst Brazil, France and Britain have released their records, those of France and Britain don't include the information that many UFO and conspiracy sites describe. It was interesting comparing the details given on a UFO site with that given by the BBC news on the web: the BBC report described the hoaxes and unsubstaniated reports and the correlation of sightings with the popularity of sf movies (especially Close Encounters) and new aircraft (triangular stealth planes which flew regularly into USAAF air bases in southern England, or pilotless drones), but this was conveniently ignored by the UFO sites, which presented the reports as factual. And where there were genuine UFOs, there was no evidence that they were alien craft.

France and Britain do have the 'Bomb'.

One thing to bear in mind about Jane's, is that they regularly present a fringe report as light relief on the back page: the most famous was Project Aurora. People not in on the joke often mistake the back page articles as being as serious as those in the main part of the magazine.

Outer space or high tech weaponry is a reality, but it is very improbable that it is derived from retro-engineered alien tech. For one thing, it suggests the aliens are either highly incompetent pilots or despite their imagined technological advantage, can be easily shot down by puny human weapons.

The research all described is from cutting-edge human developments, no ETs... 8-(

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 9, 2009 4:47:51 PM PDT
To Marilyn Martin:
Re: "...Brazil, France and England (that I know of). No offense, but they aren't super-powers, and may not even have The Bomb."

I know it's off-topic, but I just wanted to point out that France and England both have The Bomb.

Posted on Oct 10, 2009 7:40:32 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Now Walter, don't bother Marilyn with DETAILS, she doesn't care for them! :D

Hey, Zack, are you starting to get the picture now? Marilyn believes everything she reads online. Keep protesting and soon she'll be calling you a "disinformation agent", too. ;)

(I KNEW this was another new Marilyn thread just from the title. Darn I'm getting good at spotting them!)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 10, 2009 7:42:25 AM PDT
Hi Walter!

Thanks for the clarification, as to France and England having The Bomb.

Any comments on the rest of this discussion?

Posted on Oct 10, 2009 9:55:14 AM PDT
Esgaldil says:
Martin - Thank you for introducing me to India Daily - this stuff is funnier than The Onion. From July 31, 2009 - "Advanced extraterrestrial civilizations are mostly in the dark matter universe." No need to speculate or provide any source, this is apparently something that is just known. I also like the term "dark matter universe", as though it is different from the "light matter universe" where intraterrestrial civilizations mostly are. This article ends with something for us all to consider - "They try and find the wisdom by integrating the multidimensional time, integrated consciousness, and genetic coding in singularities." I'm glad these aliens are doing that, it needs to be done. Unfortunately, the wisdom they have found so far has led them to tell human bodies to have cancer (as described the previous day - the India Daily Technology Team certainly doesn't rest on its laurels). I guess they know something we don't know.

It is possible that there is some amount of research that goes into these articles, and it is more likely that humans are making things up, but in the spirit of India Daily I will boldly assert the truth - "India Daily's technology articles are generated by the thought waves of a meditating Koala Bear received by an Apple II and decoded by scientists using a random language algorithm invented in 2137 and sent back to India for the purpose of global harmony."

Yes, Martin, there could be truth in an India Daily article, just as there could be truth in a 23 year old novel sitting in the book store 5 blocks from where you live RIGHT NOW - but that is not a reasonable claim, and you should give no more weight in reading it than I earned by writing it. The India Daily writers are doing nothing to earn the readers' trust - no interviews, no evidence, no crediting of sources, no admission that their speculation is just speculation, they are simply inventing fantastical claims that some readers will enjoy, and a smaller number will actually take seriously. If you want to understand the cosmos you live in, I would suggest starting with trained physicists (such as Brian Greene, who has already been mentioned in another of your threads) and learning to distinguish between reasonable claims and unreasonable claims, and relevant data versus irrelevant data.

Posted on Oct 10, 2009 10:50:59 AM PDT
Zack G.C. says:
Ronald, perhaps her views are different-- very different-- from mine, but she hasn't (yet) forced them on me, so I begrudge her nothing. And perhaps her sources are barely more credible than Star, but nonetheless, many of her discussions are actually scientific and thought provoking.
Disinformation agent? If that happens, I would then turn my guns and run to the other army. As yet, I don't see a reason to. I'll still, "pretend your simply being mean to a nice old lady". :D

Posted on Oct 11, 2009 6:46:23 AM PDT
Esgaldil:

If you read my later posts in this discussion, especially the corroborating information from jane's.com, you would have seen that the India Daily's articles had more than just a kernal of truth. I know these tabloids are written for titillation and shock, but many times that "kernal of truth" starts me thinking and searching. I share my "searchings" here, to see if intelligent others want to discuss the topic --- or just read and contemplate.

I have a great respect for science and gentlemen scientists. But I am a Truth Seeker, and I will search thru every dusty corner, view umpteen You Tube videos, and give more than a passing glance at tabloids to get bits and pieces of that Truth. I'm not posting under a banner THIS IS THE TRUTH! I'm offering up unconventional ideas, lots of speculation and theories, and asking for enlightened, positive discussion. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions or rewrite scientific laws. If anything, I am entertaining myself and hopefully others with the age-old What If? approach. And possibly --- MAYBE --- crack open a few closed minds.

Hi Zack!

Keep 'em flying, young man! Don't let these shrill and negative debunkers stop you from posting and asking questions. If these gestapo-boot-heels squash, ridicule and insult your postings --- consider the source, and hit the old NO button asking "Do you think this post adds to the discussion?"

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2009 9:36:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 11, 2009 10:12:22 AM PDT
To Marilyn Martin:
RE: Los Alamos article on so-called "table top lasers"

Lasers (i.e., "death rays") have always been a favorite of those anticipating new developments in "space war." I, of course, am a pessimist; I think that war in space is inevitable, assuming that humanity ever gets into space on a permanent basis. A laser does have some obvious attractions as a weapon. All weapons transfer energy (yes, even edged weapons). A laser does this energy transfer faster than does any missile, bullet, shell, or even explosive.
For example, an M-16 rifle bullet typically has a muzzle velocity of 710 m/s. The WWII German FlaK 88mm multipurpose gun had a muzzle velocity of 790 m/s. The U.S. AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile travels at 850 m/s. The velocity of an ICBM at the end of its boost phase is typically 7,000 m/s. A very high speed explosive called DDF has a detonation velocity of 10,000 m/s. Whereas the velocity of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s!

One of the potential problems with a laser is targeting. Unlike with an explosive warhead, close is NOT good enough with a laser. Say a target is 1,000 km away and its velocity is 5,000 m/s. That means that within 0.01 s (10 milliseconds), it will have moved 50 meters, more than two times the overall length of, for example, the Soviet UR100N ICBM (NATO codename SS-19). This means that the laser must have an angular precision of less than 0.00286 degree! This may NOT be as hard as it might seem. Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI; a.k.a. "Star Wars") research with kinetic kill (hitting a bullet with another bullet) weapons had something called the Homing Overlay Experiment (HOE) hitting a Minuteman mock re-entry vehicle (RV) at a closing speed of 6,100 m/s at an altitude of more than 160 km.

A problem that is peculiar to all directed energy weapons is something called the inverse square law. In a nutshell, it states that the energy received on target is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the target and the laser. Doubling the distance cuts the energy to 25%; three times the distance means 1/9 the energy. So, if a laser is rated at, say, 10 megawatts (assuming a "base distance" of 1 meter), then at a range of 1,000 meters, the effective energy on target would be 10,000,000 W/(1,000^2) = 10,000,000 W/1,000,000 = 10 W. Not very impressive!

On the other hand, one could pulse the laser. If one compressed a 10 megawatt beam into a pulse lasting, say, a ten-thousandth of a second, the result is 10,000,000 Watts/0.0001 second = 100,000,000,000 Joules or 100 gigajoules of energy! (NOTE: 1 ton TNT = 4.2 gigajoules)

Regarding the Los Alamos article: First, the laser is a laboratory laser that's being focused over very small distances. Second, such very large power ratings are achieved because the laser is pulsed over a very small time frame (some as short as half a trillionth of a second). Third, the beam diameter is very small, 9.6 millionths of a meter or 0.0096 millimeter. The energy density of the beam therefore increases enormously as the diameter, thus the radius, thus the cross-sectional area of the beam decreases. In short, these are research conditions. The data will, no doubt, be useful for the future, but the system is in no way a weapon-capable laser.

Posted on Oct 11, 2009 9:51:22 AM PDT
Esgaldil says:
India Daily does not add any information or reliability to the information you can find elsewhere. In your search for truth, it is a distraction containing no clues - it might be amusing, but it should never be uncritically cited as news in the manner of your first post. It would be more honest and just as thought-provoking to reference works of admitted science fiction, although I will agree that news from the India Daily Technology Team belongs in this forum. Looking at the India Daily articles and the articles from Jane's, I have absolutely no idea what corroboration you are referring to, unless it is that "scientists are trying to invent new things for the military". What specific corroboration do you see? Here, for contrast, is a Wired article talking about the work done by Podkletnov discussed in the Jane's article you refer to from 2002:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.03/antigravity_pr.html

Notice the difference between an article that includes interviews and sources and one that makes giant assertions vaguely credited to "scientists".

I have yet to read any work of fiction that did not contain many true statements. You could read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, for example, and then discover that many statements in the early part of that book regarding England during World War II are absolutely true - that tells you nothing about the reliability of the information regarding magic wardrobes. If you are a seeker of truth, however, it would be a good idea to pay more attention to sources that demonstrate a commitment to the truth. The amount of time you describe could be used to go beyond what journalists present to the general public by learning doctorate-level physics - it is not a subject closed to anyone who has access to the internet and at least average intelligence. If you are uncritically absorbing everything you stumble across, though, the most likely outcome is that your impression of the truth will include many lies that are entertaining to read and tell you what you want to hear. There are plenty of those out there, for any worldview you care to name. Skepticism about the news reported by the mainstream media should not become a lack of skepticism about news reported by other sources.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2009 10:26:08 AM PDT
To Marilyn Martin:
Just a word of advice. Rather than copying & pasting the headline & blurb, as you have been doing, how about copying & pasting the URL (the Web address or link), instead. That way, people can look over the article for themselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2009 10:42:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Nov 6, 2010 7:12:36 AM PDT
To Marilyn Martin:
Re: "Personally, I think ETs have been on Earth, temporarily or permanently, for thousands of years."

OK, show me a wrecked spaceship or a fossilized ET corpse and I'll agree to the validity of your supposition. Without HARD data (fuzzy photographs don't count), I'll have to remain a skeptic.

Please note, however, that I am NOT saying that there is no life elsewhere in the universe. When one considers the enormity of the universe, in both space and time, it becomes extreme arrogance to assume that planet Earth is the only life-bearing planet that has ever existed. I'm even pretty optimistic regarding the existence of intelligent and technological life-forms elsewhere in the universe. It's just that, without hard evidence, I have to be skeptical as to whether ETs have ever interacted with humans.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2009 10:46:54 AM PDT
cybertext says:
Insanity.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2009 11:05:50 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Esgaldil,

"Here, for contrast, is a Wired article talking about the work done by Podkletnov discussed in the Jane's article you refer to from 2002"

Podkletnov was discussed on the 'Anti-gravity Out of Magnetics?' thread, and the disputed nature of his claims (including being refused readmittance to the research facility) was described in detail.

I, and several others tried to explain to Marilyn the difference between (real) magnetic levitation and (yet to be achieved) antigravity. One of the primary bones of contention on that thread was the declaration that the B-2 bomber uses antigravity retro-engineered from alien tech. My explanation of the real reasons the B-2 might use electrostatic forces resulted in some... unpleasantness.

[In the 60s Northrop was evaluating the use of electrostatic forces to control the airflow over a wing; in '68 they submitted a paper to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics entitled "Electro-Aerodynamics in Supersonic Flow". This paper identified two effects: a reduction in drag over the wing and heat friction, resulting in more efficient use of fuel; the effect on the aircraft's radar cross section, meaning that it is more difficult to detect with radar. In the late 70s Northrop upgraded its wind tunnel and RCS facilities and subsequently won the contract for the B-2A Spirit stealth bomber over the competing bid from Lockheed, in part probably because of the claimed fuel consumption and reduced RCS.]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16822646.300-plasma-stealth.html

Real human scientific and engineering achievements don't require imaginary ET assistance.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 11, 2009 12:35:31 PM PDT
To M. Helsdon:
Re: "Real human scientific and engineering achievements don't require imaginary ET assistance."

Right on, right on!
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 45 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


ARRAY(0x98f195c4)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  57
Total posts:  1114
Initial post:  Oct 8, 2009
Latest post:  Nov 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions