Jump to content

Moontanman

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    11636
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Posts posted by Moontanman

  1. On 4/23/2021 at 8:52 AM, Enthalpy said:

    I suspect the cited Wiki article is complete cr*p. Either written by a waco or intentionally by some state agency to fool the enemy.
    Dynamic_armour
    I want to see the hyperfast electricity source capable of evaporating even a tank flechette - much bigger is possible. Worse, I want to grasp why a vaporized flechette is less penetrating than a solid one. The metal's strength plays no decisive role when a kinetic impactor penetrates an armour. If electricity shall disperse the flechette's mass over more area within tenths of microseconds, it demands more speed hence energy than the round has provided, in itself difficult, and vaporisation increases the pressure of the impact too.

    The other proposed protective measures, including the cited Trophy
    Trophy
    all need a slow small flechette launched by a battletank, but against a valuable battleship, faster bigger rounds would be used.

    I've been telling for years that fast big kinetic impactors can be built. Just a truck can launch a low-tech 20t missile that flies above the atmosphere and falls on the target. 16t of safe powder give 3.8km/s to the remaining 4t metal that have 700km range, prior to any optimization and staging. That's 20* more squared speed and 200* more mass than the battletank flechette. Or the truck can launch many missiles like a Katiushka did, and each one can be mirved, and the impactor designed to spread when piercing the first metal, so the holes below the waterline are bigger. More efficient, because a ship's armour doesn't need such a huge impactor.

    Maybe this is the kind of missiles the Chinese built after I suggested it. Anyway, this is the style of weapons against which I want to read an armour of any kind, because a big ship deserves such big weapons, and even bigger ones.

    The defence against the impactors should also be cheaper than the weapon. Presently, anti-missiles are hugely more expensive, because their target is more difficult to aim at. In a race between dumb mirved kinetic impactors and many super smart aiming anti missiles, the assailant wins.

    Until this threat is neutralized, all big surface ships are complete nonsense to my opinion. They were weapons in the mid-20th century, in the 21st they are only targets. This includes aircraft carriers. Insofar submarines aren't detected yet, they still make sense.

    Let me if I understand you, you are saying that kinetic impactors cannot be defended against in a reasonable way? Are such kinetic impactors as effective against a target that moves? How much more powerful would a laser defence have to be that what we already have to defend against such a weapon?   

     

  2. 8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

    What did you think about the purported physical evidence that they discussed?  This section is at timestamp: 1:18:00.  Dr. Jacques Valleé (PhD) and Dr. Garry Nolan (PhD) analyze the results of a multibeam ion imaging scan of several purported metallic fragments from a UFO.   This device can analyze substances down to their atomic structure.  

    Nolan stated that the results of the scan showed the isotopic composition of the elements in the metallic fragments did not match anything that exists on Earth.  To paraphrase Dr. Nolan:  "Whoever made this material created it at the atomic level, working with individual isotopes, and not just elements."

    My question:  Is there any technology that anyone is aware of that can construct a synthetic material by manipulating individual isotopes? 

    Dr. Nolan's credentials here:   https://profiles.stanford.edu/garry-nolan

    Here is an article explaining the technology they were using:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20753-5

    (Images below)

     

    Screen Shot 2021-04-16 at 09.19.33.png

    931669060_ScreenShot2021-04-16at07_27_30.png

    If the results Dr. Nolan got can be replicated it will be difficult to dismiss this out of hand. 

    16 hours ago, beecee said:

    Mostly I bypass documentaries on UFO's or UAP's as sensationalistic junk...mostly, not all. I will certainly try and watch this particular doco, as I have just watched a preview. As I have said previously, and as the question was answered in that preview, yes, some of the more notable  unexplained sightings should be thoroughly investigated, by all means at our disposal. I see it is on "Prime Video" if not I will certainly get my Son, who is educated and learned in IT, to get it for me. 

    In saying that, my built in cynicism and sceptism, keeps telling me and asking me the many questions I have mentioned in this thread, as to why they, visiting Aliens [if they exist] do not make their visitation official.

    It is puzzling that they don't just warp into orbit and simply say "we're here" but alien motivations may not be similar to ours. On the other hand we do communicate with ants and they don't seem to recognize it. 

  3. On 4/12/2021 at 9:12 PM, Alex_Krycek said:

     

    Quite a fascinating documentary was released back in 2020 called "The Phenomenon", directed by James Fox.  Makes a very compelling case that Earth has and is being visited by some unknown intelligence.  

    Personally I think it's extremely naive to conclude that in our universe another intelligent species would not develop the means of interstellar travel before us.  An anthropocentric bias, so to speak.  Modern day geo-centrism.  

    I watched "The Phenomenon" last night, I have to say it was the best UFO documentary I've seen. It blowed my former fav out of the water and then some. It had lots of footage of people who ere involved back in the day and other footage I had never seen. I thought I'd pretty much seen them all but this one resets the bar. 

    It really too bad it's not on youtube so we could go through it by timestamp, lots of interesting things to discuss! 

    I would ask anything here who wants to discuss the UFO subject to watch this video, really great stuff and relatively unbiased, "just the Facts ma'am" (vague TV reference, Dragnet" 

  4. 2 hours ago, beecee said:

    Perhaps by some. And perhaps, the facts that so many reported sightings, kidnappings, anal probings etc, by less then reputable sources, could have "biased" the view/s of some scientists. 

    Again, personally I have not made a study or really researched any of this subject, but two cases do seem extraordinary without any real explanation....the Nimitz tic tac one, and another in Africa somewhere involving some school children, the landing of some craft and emerging of little green men. What are your views on these two? and do you have any other worthy of unbiased total scientific inquiry?

    The Zimbabwe school kids report is puzzling for sure, I've read attempts to explain it as mass hysteria or school kids fantasies but such explanations would seem to fall short so far. 

    The Tic Tac is puzzling but it has an air of some sort of military test more than extraordinary technology to me.

    The 1952 Washington, DC sighting is, I think, one of the most inexplicable sightings and it also showcases the dishonesty of the military at the time in how they tried to explain it way with things like temperature inversions when in fact it had multiple independent eyewitnesses, multiple independent radars, Air Force pilots, interaction with air force jets, commercial jets, and even had the president demanding to know what was above the white house. 

    The Coyne sighting as it is known was seen by the crew of a military helicopter and people on the ground and remains inexplicable as well. 

    The Japan Airlines sighting over Alaska is yet another interesting sighting and is still debated today as to the particulars. Considerable disagreement over how the government reacted, differing accounts of the sighting, and a supposed cover up make this one interesting but also confusing. 

  5. 2 minutes ago, beecee said:

    I'm all for complete scientific inquiry into that percentage that remain as UFO, obviously also as reported by reputable individuals and intriguing and unexplained evidence that tend to support it. But also while not an expert in this area, I would have presumed that such inquiry/investigations have taken place.

     

    Here is where most of my problems with the status quo come in. There have been some private studies by scientists but since the two main ones I am aware of suggested there is something to study at least but were dismissed out of hand by many in the scientific community due to the conclusion. Not as far as I or others have been able to show due to the evidence or lack thereof. J. Allen Hynek is probably the most famous scientist who supported the idea of extraordinary technology from place else. He started out as a debunker for the USAF but ended up, if not a believer, at least thinking something extraordinary was going on. 

    Some members of the science community pretty much poo pooed the entire idea out of hand which I always thought was somewhat less than scientific. Many scientists from this group participated in ridiculing anyone who suggested otherwise. 

    One study, The Condon Report, is thought by some to be the definitive study on UFOs but others cite problems with the methodology of the people involved, see Low Memo. 

     

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condon_Committee

    Low memo controversy[edit]

    In July 1967, James E. McDonald, a confirmed believer in the validity of UFO sightings, learned from a Committee member about a memo Low had written on August 9, 1966, in which he reassured two University of Colorado administrators that they could expect the study to demonstrate that UFO observations had no basis in reality.[15] McDonald, after locating a copy of the memo in the project's open files, wrote to Condon, quoting a few lines from it.[2]

    In response to the memo, on April 30, 1968, NICAP severed its ties with the Committee and Keyhoe circulated copies of Low's memo. Press coverage included an article in the May 1968 issue of Look, "Flying Saucer Fiasco", that presented interviews with Saunders and Levine, detailed the controversy, and described the project as a "$500,000 trick."[16] Condon responded that the article contained "falsehoods and misrepresentations."[17] Scientific and technical journals reported the controversy.[18] Representative J. Edward Roush said the Look article raised "grave doubts as to the scientific profundity and objectivity of the project."[19] He held a hearing dominated by critics of the Project.[20] Low resigned from the Project in May 1968.[21]

    Some later critics of the Committee's work saw little reason to make much of the memo. Committee member David Saunders wrote that "to present Low as a plotter or conspirator is unfair and hardly accurate."[22] Project investigator Roy Craig's later wrote that the memo did not trouble him because Condon had not known of the Low memo for eighteen months and it did not reflect his views.[23] Condon wrote in the Project's Final Report that the memo's description of the Project as emphasizing the "psychology and sociology" of those who report UFO sightings showed how completely Low misunderstood the Project when he wrote the memo.[24]

    There have been scientists who supported the idea of UFOs as extraordinary and others who do not. 

    My own take on this is that a unbiased scientific study has yet to be done. 

  6. May be a cartoon of text that says 'GIVE A MAN A FISH AND FEED HIM FOR A DAY FEED A MAN το A FISH AND FEED YOUR FISH FOR LIKE SIX MONTHS! E'

    May be an image of text that says 'WHATS IS BEST IN LIFE? ASKED PIGLET CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES. SEE THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATIONS OF THEIR WOMEN. REPLIED POOH imgflip.com'

    A man boarded an airplane and took his seat. As he settled in, he glanced Up and saw the most beautiful woman boarding the plane. He soon realized She was heading straight towards his seat. As fate would have it, she took The seat right beside his. Eager to strike up a conversation he blurted out, “Business trip or pleasure?”
    She turned, smiled and said, “Business. I’m going to the Annual Nymphomaniacs of America Convention in Boston."
    He swallowed hard. Here was the most gorgeous woman he had ever seen Sitting next to him, and she was going to a meeting of nymphomaniacs!
    Struggling to maintain his composure, he calmly asked, “What’s your Business at this convention?”
    “Lecturer,” she responded. “I use information that I have learned from my Personal experiences to debunk some of the popular myths about sexuality.”
    “Really?” he said. “And what kind of myths are there?”
    “Well,” she explained, “one popular myth is that African-American men are The most well-endowed of all men, when in fact it is the Native American Indian who is most likely to possess that trait. Another popular myth is That Frenchmen are the best lovers, when actually it is men of Mexican Descent who are the best. I have also discovered that the lover with Absolutely the best stamina is the Southern Redneck.”
    Suddenly the woman became a little uncomfortable and blushed.. “I’m Sorry,” she said, “I shouldn't really be discussing all of this with you. I don’t Even know your name.”
    “Tonto,” the man said, “Tonto Gonzales, but my friends call me Bubba".
  7. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    Based on what definition of viable?

    viable: capable of working successfully, feasible

    How can you say something is capable of working successfully if it's never been shown to work successfully? (feasible is even worse; possible to do easily or conveniently - nothing easy or convenient about it)

     

    Ok, point taken, how about "within the realm of possibilities"? 

  8. 31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    Theoretical range for nuclear propulsion is 150-350 km/s*. Did a quick calc for travelling to Proxima Centauri at the maximum speed and turned up a figure of around 5815 years. I wouldn't call that a reasonable time, and that's with technology that's still a pipe-dream. That's just 4.37 LYRS covered.

    https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3303

    Yes, travel times are more likely to be in several tens of thousands of years at much slower speeds. This is the basis for my own dog and pony show about aliens and planets but once humans begin to live in artificial habitats planets will not longer be necessary or even desirable. Star travel via slow moving habitats would result in colonising things like asteroid belts and kuiper belt objects or, if it exists, oort clouds for raw materials. Planets would no longer be needed and would only be objects of study, a life bearing planet might be interesting enough to study but colonising a planet might be avoided for many reasons.   

  9. 10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

    But it's necessary technology for interstellar distances to be traversed in reasonable time.

    Depends on what you mean by a reasonable time, the slow boat idea is still viable, in fact near light speed velocities brings on problems with encountering dust and even atoms. The destruction and radiation brought on by such encounters could very well make near light speed travel problematic.   

  10. 12 hours ago, beecee said:

    Life certainly without doubt exists in this Universe.😉

    We have no evidence that any such device is possible, nor whether it exists. Whereas with life beyond Earth, the general logic that it should exist is of course the near infinite extent of the universe, the near infinite content of the universe [stars, planets] and the stuff of life being everywhere we look. If conditions are right, evolution of life may have taked place elsewhere. Certainly not the extraordinary evidence we would like to 100% convince us, but plenty of reason.

    UFO's are just that...UFO's with the emphasis on "Unidentified"

     

    Of course out of the thousands of reported UFO's, most have been scientifically explained, leaving a small percentage remaining as unidentified. Venus, comet/meteor, trickery/skull duggery, illusions, mirages, weather phenomena, sprites clouds etc etc......or yes, even Aliens. But essentially just unidentified.

    The two biggest barriers against any supposed Alien visitation, are of course time and distance.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_studies_of_UFOs

     

    Category/Case Quality All Excellent Good Doubtful Poor
    Astronomical 22% 24% 23% 19% 23%
    Aircraft 22% 19% 22% 25% 16%
    Balloon 15% 12% 17% 17% 13%
    Light phenomena 2.2% .9% 2.4% 2.9% 1.1%
    Birds 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% 1.2% 0.7%
    Clouds, dust, etc. 0.4% 0% 1.0% 0.4% 0%
    Psychological 2.0% 0% 0.5% 3.3% 3.3%
    Other 5% 5% 5% 5% 6%
    Insufficient information 9% 4% 4% 14% 21%
    Unknown origin 22% 33% 25% 13% 17%
    3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

    It is reasonable, I think, to think life of some form  exists elsewhere, but just a WAG to conclude they can travel between stars. The rate of evolution may limit how far an organism can develop at this point, anywhere. You work with the physics you know... you are assuming they have near-luminal travel nailed as well.

    I'm not that sure near light speed travel has been suggested or assumed here so far. 

    12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

    It all depends on how one views the Drake equation.  Originally Carl Sagan cast aspersions on the idea that any two intelligent civilizations could exist simultaneously.  However, with SETI estimating the current number of habitable planets in our galaxy at 300 million, I think the odds of intelligent civilizations existing simultaneously are much higher than Sagan predicted.  

    Regarding near speed of light travel or unknown physics, nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman demonstrated that practical interstellar travel can be accomplished using known physics, primarily a nuclear fusion reactor.  Of course that wouldn't be "near speed of light" but it would get us from point A to point B. 

    Yes, here it is:

    https://www.amazon.com/Phenomenon-John-Podesta/dp/B08HR9BVNM/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+phenomenon&qid=1618328526&sr=8-1

    Thank you.

  11. 14 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

    A confident and conclusive statement...based on what?

    Quite a fascinating documentary was released back in 2020 called "The Phenomenon", directed by James Fox.  Makes a very compelling case that Earth has and is being visited by some unknown intelligence.  

    Personally I think it's extremely naive to conclude that in our universe another intelligent species would not develop the means of interstellar travel before us.  An anthropocentric bias, so to speak.  Modern day geo-centrism.  

    Any chance you have a link to that documentary? 

  12. 10 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

    For this purpose, submarines with cruise and ballistic missiles are more suitable. They have an advantage over aircraft carriers and battleships, which is the ability to covertly go to a given area on the line of attack.

    Very much not cost effective for amphibious landing support. 

    10 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

    From the point of view of the strictness of the terminology, we should say "semi-ballistic". The head of such a missile must be able to maneuver and be homing on radiation from the aircraft carrier's electronic equipment. According to this scheme, it is possible to make a long-range surface-to-air missile against flying AWACS radars.

    Anything that homes in on radar can be confused by radar jamming and in a time of attack ships can also go radar silent (as can awacs). ABM's do exist and a battleship sized platform, possibly nuclear powered could be fitted with things like railguns, Lasers and other power hungry systems and could be fitted on a large ship and used to defend the Carrier group. While these systems can be mounted on smaller vessels they do demand huge amounts of power and ABMs would need a large magazine to hold multiple missiles.  

    10 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

    The shells are cheap, but the guns will be expensive. The firing range does not depend on the projectile and depends only on the length of the gun barrel. German super-guns "Colossal" and "Dora" were almost useless.

    No, the new guns do not depend on the length of the barrel, the shells are self propelled please see the links in the OP. 

  13. 3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

    To answer the question about the return of battleships, it is necessary to answer the question, and what combat tasks are these ships supposed to solve? If this is a fight against enemy carrier strike groups, then there are more promising solutions for this. For example, there have been reports on the Internet that China is developing ballistic anti-ship missiles with a range of 2,000 km

    I would think as a platform for shore bombardment, air defence, ABM, and anti ship missiles. 

  14. 2 hours ago, MigL said:

    Wars without human casualties tend to go on as long as money/resources last.

    My opinion on the matter was formed by an episode of Star Trek:TOS, 'A Taste of Armageddon'.
    Read the plot here     A Taste of Armageddon - Wikipedia
    And I think it is the wrong direction to be heading.

    As for battleships, they have evolved.
    A small aircraft carrier can be as short as 600 ft, with a displacement of 15000 t, and in addition to cannon/missile armament, can field 8-12 L-M F-35B off a ski-ramp deck, for self defense. So who needs a battleship ?

    Here is a typical example        Italian aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi - Wikipedia

    A taste of armageddon was a good episode, it did show that possibility for sure. 

    A battleship was once supposed to be used for fighting other ships but that seldom happened, only once or twice in WW2. Mostly they were used for shore bombardment and in that role battleships excelled but long range weapons now require them to be too far offshore to really be a threat. A big gun that is accurate out to as much as 120 miles (some reports indicate it's more like 250) would put them further out of danger and not endanger aircraft pilots. Increased accuracy would make this a devastating weapon while new close in defense weapons would allow the battleship to survive in modern ship to shore and ship to ship battles.  

  15. 2 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

    Hardly. The development of military technologies is moving in the direction of removing living soldiers from the battlefield. Unmanned aerial vehicles, tanks without crews......

    I would say you could be correct, the newest aircraft carriers do seem to be going in a direction that needs fewer men. But I haven't seen any huge shift towards those technologies in war ships. Can you provide some information on that? 

  16. Could the advent of long rage ramjet powered artillery shells, Laser point defense, nuclear power, and light weight armor as used in aircraft carriers be used to bring back the battleship? New technologies would seem to indicate that a powerful battleship platform could again be an important part of the Navy, the idea of either redeploying old battleships and or redesigning the old battleships has been around a long time but vulnerability to air power and missiles has always stopped the idea from fruition. New technologies could turn that around. This development might be part of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure)

     

  17. Anyone else read this book? Vernor Vinge does a great job making you believe in an apocalypse brought about by a private contractor working for Livermore Labs. A great read, I'll discuss his premise if anyone is interested.   

  18. I know most of you are aware of the wastewater spill in Florida, if not there is a short video at the end of this you can watch. My concern is that it keeps coming up that this waste water is radioactive, is it, and if so why? It would appear this wastewater is being dumped into canals that are channeling it into Tampa Bay, how dangerous is this really? I've heard so many conflicting reports it seems to be either an environmental disaster or just harmless. Does anyone have any evidence other than what the authorities are giving or the people who claim it is a disaster are giving? Some truth should be brought out on this and if there is deception on the part of state and federal agencies who do we believe? 

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.