Jump to content
Robert Wilson

US Navy UFO video

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

@MigLHere is another plausible form of technology that could have been used:  CODE (Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment)

CODE 1:  https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-01-21

CODE: 2https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2016-06-03

Except from the article:  DARPA’s Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) program seeks to help the U.S. military’s unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) conduct dynamic, long-distance engagements of highly mobile ground and maritime targets in denied or contested electromagnetic airspace, all while reducing required communication bandwidth and cognitive burden on human supervisors.

"CODE’s modular open software architecture on board the UASs would enable multiple CODE-equipped unmanned aircraft to navigate to their destinations and find, track, identify, and engage targets under established rules of engagement."

"During Phase 2, DARPA plans to implement an initial subset of the behaviors within each of the two open architectures and use those architectures to conduct live flight tests with one or two live UASs augmented with several virtual aircraft. If those tests are successful, DARPA could move to Phase 3, in which one team would test the capabilities using up to six live vehicles cooperating among themselves and with additional simulated vehicles.

 

These UAVs look very similar to what Fravor described.  Very similar indeed.

CODEPhase2-619-316a.png

20150121-619-460-code.jpg

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Why do many people always automatically correlate 'unidentified flying object'  with 'aliens'?

Because they want it to be true ("believe in magic you muggle")for any number of reason's, and cognitive dissonance keeps it real.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

That's religion, not science.

It's human.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, swansont said:

I take it that’s a “no”

It's a joke! But the Pentagon has this week declassified these films and admitted publicly they have no idea what they were but just between you and me the Pentagon would lie if their agenda required it.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

The incident showed up on radar of the aircraft?

I can say for a fact the incident showed on the radar of an advanced system destroyer, Arleigh Burke class I think. As for the aircraft radar, I'll try to dig it up if you are really interested.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Yes, well...physics.

Come on swansonT, you can do better than that, physics in no way prevents star travel...

15 hours ago, swansont said:

I take it that’s a “no”

 

 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/pentagon-ufo-videos/index.html

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2020/04/27/pentagon-releases-videos-of-encounters-between-ufos-and-navy-pilots/

https://www.wired.com/story/does-it-matter-that-the-dod-released-those-ufo-videos/

Different view points, guys I didn't post Caspers video to prove alien spacecraft are visiting but to show they were not bugs on the lens. 

Personally I think this smells a lot like a weird military exercise that was exposed and the pentagon is more than willing to let people's imaginations run wild about the Tic tac...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Come on swansonT, you can do better than that, physics in no way prevents star travel...

With what we currently know about physics, it seems to me at least, that any sustained interstellar space travel with living beings is so unlikely as to be essentially impossible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got an idea dudes and dudettes, lets drop the alien idea and see if we can just discuss if a unmanned drone would be capable of such maneuvers....

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

With what we currently know about physics, it seems to me at least, that any sustained interstellar space travel with living beings is so unlikely as to be essentially impossible. 

Please elaborate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I've got an idea dudes and dudettes, lets drop the alien idea and see if we can just discuss if a unmanned drone would be capable of such maneuvers....

Please elaborate...

 A 4-rotor job can do anything, just about that might allude to ufo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

That's not a logical rebuttal.  The field of physics is an ever changing / evolving field.  It's highly probable that physics can accommodate the phenomenon / technology described; human beings just haven't discovered it yet.  Given the evolution of knowledge and technology over the past few centuries it's irrational to think that humans have a totally complete understanding of physics.  That would be quite a limited mindset, actually.

Appealing to future discovery does not comprise evidence

54 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It's a joke! But the Pentagon has this week declassified these films and admitted publicly they have no idea what they were

And that’s all one can say. We don’t know what they are.

54 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

but just between you and me the Pentagon would lie if their agenda required it.

No conspiracy, please.

54 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I can say for a fact the incident showed on the radar of an advanced system destroyer, Arleigh Burke class I think. As for the aircraft radar, I'll try to dig it up if you are really interested.

Come on swansonT, you can do better than that, physics in no way prevents star travel...

Claimed (again) without evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Appealing to future discovery does not comprise evidence

And that’s all one can say. We don’t know what they are.

Now that is word!

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

No conspiracy, please.

Sorry, just poking a bit of at you...

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

Claimed (again) without evidence.

Umm, which claim? I can't find anything confirming the aircraft radar but then I never claimed it...

42 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 A 4-rotor job can do anything, just about that might allude to ufo.

How about the speed claims?

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Please elaborate...

Well let's look at the speed of space craft first.  The fastest manned spacecraft flew at about 25,000 mph, back in the 1960's.  The fastest space craft ever attained a speed of about 150,000 mph.  That is an increase of about 5X, not bad.  To get to 10% the speed of light we would need an additional increase of about 4000x.

Where would we go?  The chances of finding a planet that has an environment that we could survive in with out some sort of protective suit is nil.  Think Mars or Venus.  In all likelihood the trip would take hundreds of years so the ship would be absurdly huge.  Even if we assume that the closest extra solar system to earth had a planet to land on, that would be a trip of more than 45 years.

The cost would be staggering and the benefit (other than feeling good) to the people footing the bill would be nothing.  We have trouble funding space flight now, think of trying to convince the public that every family should pay several thousand dollars a year to the government to send a few people out into space with a reasonable chance of utter failure.

There are radiation issues and others the list of problems is huge.

Personally, I think the world should start realizing that there is no new frontier outside of a few individuals being sent on missions to the moon, mars and some asteroids.  We ain't getting off of this rock and we should start treating the Earth based on that realization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bufofrog said:

Well let's look at the speed of space craft first.  The fastest manned spacecraft flew at about 25,000 mph, back in the 1960's.  The fastest space craft ever attained a speed of about 150,000 mph.  That is an increase of about 5X, not bad.  To get to 10% the speed of light we would need an additional increase of about 4000x.

Where would we go?  The chances of finding a planet that has an environment that we could survive in with out some sort of protective suit is nil.  Think Mars or Venus.  In all likelihood the trip would take hundreds of years so the ship would be absurdly huge.  Even if we assume that the closest extra solar system to earth had a planet to land on, that would be a trip of more than 45 years.

The cost would be staggering and the benefit (other than feeling good) to the people footing the bill would be nothing.  We have trouble funding space flight now, think of trying to convince the public that every family should pay several thousand dollars a year to the government to send a few people out into space with a reasonable chance of utter failure.

There are radiation issues and others the list of problems is huge.

Personally, I think the world should start realizing that there is no new frontier outside of a few individuals being sent on missions to the moon, mars and some asteroids.  We ain't getting off of this rock and we should start treating the Earth based on that realization.

 

You've been watching too much star trek, ever hear of generational ships? Or exploration by AI machines? Slow boats are perfectly good and of course some think that Oneal cylinders are the best way to colonise the solar system. All you need to do is add a fusion drive and you can slow boat it to alpha centauri. It would be possible to colonise the entire galaxy in the time it takes the sun to rotate once around the galactic core... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You've been watching too much star trek, ever hear of generational ships?

Yes I have heard of them.  Did you know that generation ships don't exist, except in science fiction, like Star Trek.

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Or exploration by AI machines?

I think that may be possible, but it course there would be no astronauts involved.

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Slow boats are perfectly good and of course some think that Oneal cylinders are the best way to colonise the solar system.

Except they don't exist and the cost is so prohibitive

 

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

All you need to do is add a fusion drive and you can slow boat it to alpha centauri.

Yep, just invent something that doesn't exist and we are on way.   Of course it would still be too expensive and too slow.

15 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It would be possible to colonise the entire galaxy in the time it takes the sun to rotate once around the galactic core...

If interstellar space travel existed maybe, but there isn't any.  There has literally been billions of years for an alien species to have colonized the galaxy, it hasn't happened because unfortunately it simply appears, you can't get there from here...

There is nobody that would love to have interstellar space travel more than me, but the physics and the economics at this point and in the foreseeable future make it essentially impossible.  I will have to enjoy going to other stars in the pages of sci-fi books.☹️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Now that is word!

Sorry, just poking a bit of at you...

Umm, which claim? I can't find anything confirming the aircraft radar but then I never claimed it...

How about the speed claims?

They can move subjectively fast with lights on in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Umm, which claim? I can't find anything confirming the aircraft radar but then I never claimed it...

physics in no way prevents star travel”

Quote

How about the speed claims?

Were any claims made based on measurements?  

45 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You've been watching too much star trek, ever hear of generational ships? Or exploration by AI machines? Slow boats are perfectly good and of course some think that Oneal cylinders are the best way to colonise the solar system. All you need to do is add a fusion drive and you can slow boat it to alpha centauri. It would be possible to colonise the entire galaxy in the time it takes the sun to rotate once around the galactic core... 

As with Alex’s comment earlier, how about not relying on unproven technology or science that is not currently confirmed. 

Conjecture is not evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Yes I have heard of them.  Did you know that generation ships don't exist, except in science fiction, like Star Trek.

Yet they can exist unlike ftl star ships?

6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I think that may be possible, but it course there would be no astronauts involved.

Who says astronauts have to be involved?

6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Except they don't exist and the cost is so prohibitive

The cost of setting up a place to manufacture them is costly, once you have that infrastructure the cost falls off. Can you think of how costly building a modern car would have been in the 19th century?

6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

 

Yep, just invent something that doesn't exist and we are on way.   Of course it would still be too expensive and too slow

    

  Why is it too expensive and too slow? I have not suggested any impossible technology and only fusion has yet to be invented and you could do it with nuclear power, it would just be more difficult...

6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

If interstellar space travel existed maybe, but there isn't any.  There has literally been billions of years for an alien species to have colonized the galaxy, it hasn't happened because unfortunately it simply appears, you can't get there from here...

So if something hasn't been invented yet it's impossible? Tell that to Einstein...

6 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

There is nobody that would love to have interstellar space travel more than me, but the physics and the economics at this point and in the foreseeable future make it essentially impossible.  I will have to enjoy going to other stars in the pages of sci-fi books.☹️

The economics will be a problem but not forever.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

physics in no way prevents star travel”

I honestly don't know how to answer this, it's like you are asking me to prove physics doesn't prevent space flight...

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Were any claims made based on measurements?

I'm not sure what you mean

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

As with Alex’s comment earlier, how about not relying on unproven technology or science that is not currently confirmed. 

Conjecture is not evidence

Other than fusion, which I admitted wasn't a thing yet, I think you need to elaborate about what you mean by "science that is not currently confirmed" and "conjecture"... Until you do something it's conjecture but as long as the conjecture isn't impossible I think you are incorrect. I can conjecture from a knowledge of physics that orbital insertion of a satellite is possible without doing it... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I'm not sure what you mean

Were any of claims regarding speed the result of measurement?

21 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Other than fusion, which I admitted wasn't a thing yet, I think you need to elaborate about what you mean by "science that is not currently confirmed" and "conjecture"... Until you do something it's conjecture but as long as the conjecture isn't impossible I think you are incorrect. I can conjecture from a knowledge of physics that orbital insertion of a satellite is possible without doing it

 

That’s almost equivocation. 

One can cite hypothetical technology like Dyson spheres under the same notion, but it ignores all of the technological steps that are required to work that get glossed over, since there’s no analysis being done. Orbital insertion, OTOH, relies less on specific technology and more on physics analysis. Can you offer up either one (detailed analysis of technology, or physics)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Were any of claims regarding speed the result of measurement?

Wasn't my claim...

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

That’s almost equivocation. 

One can cite hypothetical technology like Dyson spheres under the same notion, but it ignores all of the technological steps that are required to work that get glossed over, since there’s no analysis being done. Orbital insertion, OTOH, relies less on specific technology and more on physics analysis. Can you offer up either one (detailed analysis of technology, or physics)?

First I am going to assume you mean a dyson swarm and not an actual sphere which is beyond any known materials physical strength, actual or theoretical. A dyson swarm is just physical application of known materials and physics. 

Orbital insertion requires technology much the same way a dyson swarm does as does a O'Neil cylinder. To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel.... 

An O'neill cylinder is well within the boundaries of current technologies much the same as sending something into earth orbit is,  just on a larger scale...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Wasn't my claim...

You asked “How about the speed claims?” I want details.

You don’t get to back out by saying they weren’t yours.  You brought it up. You need to defend it.

 

57 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

First I am going to assume you mean a dyson swarm and not an actual sphere

No, assume I meant what I said.

57 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

which is beyond any known materials physical strength, actual or theoretical. A dyson swarm is just physical application of known materials and physics. 

My point. Have your claims been tested to a degree that would allow one to see if there is a similar violation? Or are they flights of fancy with similar disregard?

 

57 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Orbital insertion requires technology much the same way a dyson swarm does as does a O'Neil cylinder.

And yet one of these actually exist (using technology from ~60 years ago) and the others do not.

 

57 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel.... 

Don’t be moving the goalposts. I did not claim anything was impossible, especially in the context of physics laws being violated. My first response was to the claim about people who “think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth”

You talked about physics preventing it. (I noted that you don’t have any analysis to support that.)

And now we’re at “impossible”

Nope. Not letting you get away with that, especially on top of you backing out of other claims. Every time you are asked to support claims, you start tap-dancing.

 

57 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

An O'neill cylinder is well within the boundaries of current technologies much the same as sending something into earth orbit is,  just on a larger scale...

Scale is often a problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC an O'Neill cylinder actually consists of 2 counter-rotating ( once about every 2 min ) cylinders, about 5 mi in diameter, and 20 mi in length. Each cylinder is divided lengthwise into 6 alternating transparent and habitable areas,, for a total habitable area of almost 1900 mi^2.

Since these cylinders rely on sunlight just as the Earth does, any travel away from the Sun would need not only propulsive power, but also a replacement for sunlight. You mentioned nuclear power ( fission ), but that would involve carrying all of the fuel for the long journey with you, as well as the shielding. Your original idea of fusion ( from a Bussard ramjet type of propulsion/power source ) seems more practical, other than the fact that it doesn't exist yet ( fusion in a hi-speed flow ), and may never exist; and you would still need an alternate means of propulsion ( chemical or fission ) to get up to sufficient speed for the 'scoops' to be efficient, and establish orbit at your destination. Then you would need landing craft, and fuel to make all the landings ( and take-offs ) to transfer the ( by then ) large colony of the two cylinders.

Once you actually start considering the scale and logistics of such a project, you realize how immense an endeavor it actually is.
But it does seem simple enough to say " You take an O'Neill cylinder, slap a fusion reactor on one end, and you have your slow boat."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moontanman said:

The economics will be a problem but not forever.

Yes the future will be just glorious. 

In 1968 when 2001 A Space Odyssey was written most people (I sure did) believed that by 2001 we would have space liners taking tourists to the moon, like the book.  I mean it made sense; in less than 10 years we were on the cusp of people landing on the moon, imagine what would happen in the next 30 years.  Well not much happened.  It is now almost 50 years since anyone has been on the moon.  Why?  The public lost interest and funding dried up.  That's reality.  Frankly, at this point I think we should stop human space travel and instead of pouring money into human space flight use that money to concentrate on robots and ai to explore.  By the way 'pour in money' in this case is about 0.2% of the federal budget.  NASA budget is 0.47% of the federal budget and human space flight is 48% of NASA budget

I hope I'm wrong and we colonize the galaxy.  I would really like to have drink in a bar on Tatooine.😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're in the wrong 'Universe', Bufofrog.
You can't get Romulan, or Cardassian, ale on Tatooine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MigL said:

You're in the wrong 'Universe', Bufofrog.
You can't get Romulan, or Cardassian, ale on Tatooine.

Ah, Cardassian Big Big Butt Ale.

I don't mean to hijack, please continue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Yes the future will be just glorious. 

In 1968 when 2001 A Space Odyssey was written most people (I sure did) believed that by 2001 we would have space liners taking tourists to the moon, like the book.  I mean it made sense; in less than 10 years we were on the cusp of people landing on the moon, imagine what would happen in the next 30 years.  Well not much happened.  It is now almost 50 years since anyone has been on the moon.  Why?  The public lost interest and funding dried up.  That's reality.  Frankly, at this point I think we should stop human space travel and instead of pouring money into human space flight use that money to concentrate on robots and ai to explore.  By the way 'pour in money' in this case is about 0.2% of the federal budget.  NASA budget is 0.47% of the federal budget and human space flight is 48% of NASA budget

I hope I'm wrong and we colonize the galaxy.  I would really like to have drink in a bar on Tatooine.😃

What I am saying is that once we establish a manufacturing base in space that uses in situ materials the economics of space flight will change. Right now everything has to be dragged out of the Earth's gravity well, the economics of that is truly staggering but building a brobdingnagian object in space using materials already there will cut costs considerably. 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

IIRC an O'Neill cylinder actually consists of 2 counter-rotating ( once about every 2 min ) cylinders, about 5 mi in diameter, and 20 mi in length. Each cylinder is divided lengthwise into 6 alternating transparent and habitable areas,, for a total habitable area of almost 1900 mi^2.

Since these cylinders rely on sunlight just as the Earth does, any travel away from the Sun would need not only propulsive power, but also a replacement for sunlight. You mentioned nuclear power ( fission ), but that would involve carrying all of the fuel for the long journey with you, as well as the shielding. Your original idea of fusion ( from a Bussard ramjet type of propulsion/power source ) seems more practical, other than the fact that it doesn't exist yet ( fusion in a hi-speed flow ), and may never exist; and you would still need an alternate means of propulsion ( chemical or fission ) to get up to sufficient speed for the 'scoops' to be efficient, and establish orbit at your destination. Then you would need landing craft, and fuel to make all the landings ( and take-offs ) to transfer the ( by then ) large colony of the two cylinders.

Once you actually start considering the scale and logistics of such a project, you realize how immense an endeavor it actually is.
But it does seem simple enough to say " You take an O'Neill cylinder, slap a fusion reactor on one end, and you have your slow boat."
 

Perhaps I dumbed down the concept a bit, I am trying to avoid as much typing as possible since I almost sliced off my thumb a few days ago. Yet trying to type fast to avoid the boss, my wife my wife hits me in the head with a ball bat, plastic thank god, when she catches me... Actually, if you on a slow boat fuel requirements are smaller and a solar sail could be used to slow down at the end.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You asked “How about the speed claims?” I want details.

I am honestly unaware of where I made any claims about speed, please let me where and I'll either defend to admit i was wrong.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You don’t get to back out by saying they weren’t yours.  You brought it up. You need to defend it.

See above...

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, assume I meant what I said.

An actual dyson sphere consisting of a solid sphere covering the sun violates all known and hypothetical physics...

1 hour ago, swansont said:

My point. Have your claims been tested to a degree that would allow one to see if there is a similar violation? Or are they flights of fancy with similar disregard

https://www.space.com/38031-how-to-build-a-dyson-swarm.html

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

And yet one of these actually exist (using technology from ~60 years ago) and the others do not

Sending small objects in orbit to build larger structures is currently being done, the international space station is an example.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

Don’t be moving the goalposts. I did not claim anything was impossible, especially in the context of physics laws being violated. My first response was to the claim about people who “think it likely that extra terrestrials may have visited Earth”

????

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You talked about physics preventing it. (I noted that you don’t have any analysis to support that).

I was answering the idea that physics prevent star travel when in fact it does not.We currently have two space craft on the way to doing it.  Time and energy are what it's all about, which do you have the most of?
 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And now we’re at “impossible”

"To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel....

If you did not say these things were impossible I apologize

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Nope. Not letting you get away with that, especially on top of you backing out of other claims. Every time you are asked to support claims, you start tap-dancing.

Please show me were I am tap dancing around anything?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 

Scale is often a problem

Building things in microgravity redefine scale...

I cannot find where I claimed much of the stuff you are asking about,sadly there appears to no way to tell what number post I said these things, I feel overwhelmed swansonT but I will say,and please take note of this I am hear to learn not to convince people of things not true but answering this post makes me feel like you have mistaken I said either out of context or attributed to me something someone else said. I need help here, please show where I claimed these things. I have labeled them with question marks for your benifit...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I should learn to speel as welll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I've got an idea dudes and dudettes, lets drop the alien idea and see if we can just discuss if a unmanned drone would be capable of such maneuvers....

Please elaborate...

Indeed.  How could a UAV out-maneuver an F 18? 

Further, Commander Favor described seeing a vehicle with no exhaust (which would have shown up on the FLIR), no stabilizer fins of any kind, or no other discernible means of propulsion.  He described a capsule like object - hence the "tic-tac" moniker.  It simply moved at will where it wanted to go in such a way that the Black Aces squadron could not keep up with it.  

 

Edited by Alex_Krycek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

What I am saying is that once we establish a manufacturing base in space that uses in situ materials the economics of space flight will change. Right now everything has to be dragged out of the Earth's gravity well, the economics of that is truly staggering but building a brobdingnagian object in space using materials already there will cut costs considerably. 

Have we done any manufacturing in space? 

Have you presented an analysis to support the claim that it will cut costs to do so?

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I am honestly unaware of where I made any claims about speed, please let me where and I'll either defend to admit i was wrong.

I didn’t say you made a claim about speed. You referred to a claim about speed. I want to know details about what you’re referring to.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120270-us-navy-ufo-video/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-1140011

 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

See above...

An actual dyson sphere consisting of a solid sphere covering the sun violates all known and hypothetical physics...

All known physics? Freeman Dyson was able to popularize an idea that violates all known physics? How does it violate the laws of thermodynamics? Newton’s laws? 

 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I never mentioned a Dyson swarm. Stop pretending I did. (funny how the don’t mention how a Dyson sphere violates all physics, though)

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Sending small objects in orbit to build larger structures is currently being done, the international space station is an example.

I never claimed otherwise.

Is the ISS a Dyson swarm? 

 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

????

I was answering the idea that physics prevent star travel when in fact it does not.We currently have two space craft on the way to doing it.  Time and energy are what it's all about, which do you have the most of?
 

Straw man. My comment was regarding extraterrestrials visiting, and these are not crewed vessels.

 

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

"To say anything is impossible you must point out something about it that supports that idea. Neither space travel, dyson swarms, O'Neil cylinders, or star travel has any impossible or even yet to be invented aspects but controlled fusion would be a nice touch for star travel....

If you did not say these things were impossible I apologize

Are you not capable of determining whether or not I called something impossible?

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Please show me were I am tap dancing around anything?

You have not answered questions, and provided jokes instead. Not acknowledging that you made a reference to speed.

Every reference of mine to a logical fallacy is tap-dancing.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Building things in microgravity redefine scale...

Based on our experience building things in space? You say pithy things like this, but provide NO analysis to back it up.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I cannot find where I claimed much of the stuff you are asking about,sadly there appears to no way to tell what number post I said these things, 

You can search this thread. The search box is in the upper right corner (choose the “this topic” radio button)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.