UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

[Amok]

That link is broken Dotini.

 

[christopherV]

I would like to add a comment mostly to the mod about a post of mine that was deleted for speculation.

electrostatic levitation is no longer speculation.

http://rsi.aip.org/resource/1/rsinak/v77/i5/p053901_s1

and was used most publicly on gravity probe-B and Robert Millikan's oil drop experiment.

I would ask you to change the definition of what you consider to be electrogravitics, to keep in line with the current thinking of the physics community.

F= K_e {q₁ q₂}/ h²

and if you use the calculated value of 500,000 c for the Earth and for simplicity assumed it to be an infinite plate, electrostatic levitation becomes not only plausible but quite real (obviously), it is however unstable and must be adjusted continuously (Earnshaw's theorem).

 

[FlexGunship]

I would ask you to change the definition of what you consider to be electrogravitics, to keep in line with the current thinking of the physics community.

F= K_e {q₁ q₂}/ h²

and if you use the calculated value of 500,000 c for the Earth and for simplicity assumed it to be an infinite plate, electrostatic levitation becomes not only plausible but quite real (obviously), it is however unstable and must be adjusted continuously (Earnshaw's theorem).

"Electrogravitic" already has a definition: Electrogravitics is a failed hypothesis proposed by Thomas Townsend Brown and Brown's subsequent extensive experimentation and demonstrations of the effect.

Do you have an alternate definition?

Where did you get that value for Earth's net electrical charge? Also, I believe that Coulomb's law is actually an approximation and is only valid for point charges. I'm confident you would need to solve this as a Gaussian surface (well, the "electrowhatsit" equivalent).

 

[christopherV]

Do you have an alternate definition?

Yes electrogravitic claims specifically involve effects produced by the Meissner and tolman effect of a rotating superconductor. All electrogravitics claims should be measured against this yard stick to separate them from electrostatic and magnetic levitation, both of which do not claim to produce gravity only counteract it's force with an opposite force.

Where did you get that value for Earth's net electrical charge?

Polk C (1969). Coroniti SC, Hughes J. ed. Relation of ELF Noise and Schumann Resonances to Thunderstorm Activity, In: Planetary Electrodynamics. Gordon & Breach. pp. 55–83.

Hill RD (Nov-Dec 1971). "Spherical capacitor hypothesis of the Earth's electric field". Pure Appl Geophys. 84 (1): 67–74. Bibcode 1971PApGe..84...67H. doi:10.1007/BF00875454.

Also, I believe that Coulomb's law is actually an approximation and is only valid for point charges.

no it works for charged plates, integral of the total area of the plate. It's how capacitors work.

The proportionality constant k_e called the Coulomb constant (sometimes called the Coulomb force constant), is related to defined properties of space and can be calculated based on knowledge of empirical measurements of the speed of light:

k_e = \frac {1} {4\pi\epsilon _0} = \frac {c^2 \mu _0} {4\pi} = c^2 \cdot 10^{-7} H \cdot m^{-1} = 8.9875517873681764 \cdot 10^9 \frac {N.m^2}{C^2}

in any classical field theory you can think of k_e as the permittivity of space in the field \epsilon _0

I don't believe what I'm saying is filled with crackpottery or anything like that, I simply want a definition that excludes serious research into the field of electrostatic levitation, so that we can discuss topics of a serious scientific nature without fear of having our post deleted because it is misunderstood.

 

[FlexGunship]

no it works for charged plates, integral of the total area of the plate. It's how capacitors work.

The formula you posted previously is for the force between two charged point particles.

 

[christopherV]

imagine that you have a test point charge q and it is hovering above an electric field of an infinitely large plate, you can through linear algebra define a "test spot" on the plate and triangulate the force in the vector of \hat{j} with the height of the charge, the radius from a point directly beneath the point to the test spot and the hyp of the q charge to the test spot. you may then integrate the plate as a summation of that "test spot", you may also reverse the process to obtain an integral of the area of the upper plate.

I'm sorry if that was not clear to you. I apologize.

 

[FlexGunship]

...

By your method the minimum "r²" component of Coulomb's law is 4.07×10¹³ m²

I'm not drawing the same conclusion are you are here:

and if you use the calculated value of 500,000 c for the Earth and for simplicity assumed it to be an infinite plate, electrostatic levitation becomes not only plausible but quite real (obviously)

One Coulomb of net charge on Earth's surface doesn't generate 109N of upward (or downward) force. Either the application of the formula is wrong. Or the value of the Earth's net electrical charge is wrong.

 

[christopherV]

By your method the minimum "r²" component of Coulomb's law is 4.07×10¹³ m²

I'm not drawing the same conclusion are you are here:


One Coulomb of net charge on Earth's surface doesn't generate 109N of upward (or downward) force. Either the application of the formula is wrong. Or the value of the Earth's net electrical charge is wrong.

http://rsi.aip.org/resource/1/rsinak/v77/i5/p053901_s1

This is crackpottery on your part and I'm assuming it's non intentional. I really wouldn't care to walk you through a full derivation of the formulas, but that is not the correct Newton force for the real earth, only if you assume the size of Earth to be infinite.

 

[christopherV]

ah here we go Sal Kahn has a full derivation at:

http://www.khanacademy.org/v/proof--advanced---field-from-infinite-plate--part-1?p=Physics

enjoy.

 

[nlsherrill]

Pardon me for not reading through all 44 pages of this thread, but who has actually read this book? I heard from multiple sources it is actually pretty good.

 

[FlexGunship]

Pardon me for not reading through all 44 pages of this thread, but who has actually read this book? I heard from multiple sources it is actually pretty good.

I've read it. I believe I gave it a brief review somewhere around page 3 of this thread.

 

[Dotini]

The sighting began when my brother noticed a light in the sky. He called our attention to it, and this is what we all saw: a softly glowing ball of light, moving slowly and silently, apparently over the water, at a position slightly to the north of us. The light was basically white, but slightly tinged orange, appeared bigger than planets or stars, but smaller than the moon. The edges of the object were fuzzy and indistinct, and not sharp.

Shortly, the object seemed to split in two, but did so such that the two objects were of a size no different that the original object. One of the objects was now of a different color. Over the next approximately 20 minutes, this process of the objects dividing was repeated several times. What resulted was approximately ten objects, all of different colors. The objects continued to move slowly, but making occasional sharp 90 degree turns. They all appeared to be more or less over the water, spreading out from north to south, making distinctive zig-zagging movements. At one point, some of the objects appeared to be over the restricted area of the sub base.

The sighting ended when the objects slowly began to merge together again, into what seemed to be the original object at its original location. At the end, the light seemed to turn off or blink out.

I ran across a video which seems to replicate many of the features of my own sighting back in '64: a glowing ball of light splits into many, then shortly merges back into one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hcXDWObNkc&feature=related

Of course its impossible to qualify this particular video as real or faked, but it does look much like what I saw. I was intrigued to note the cumulonimbus clouds seen at the start. Since thunderclouds hold the potential for energetic discharges beyond lightning, including ball lightning and gamma ray generating electron beams, these clouds may be a clue as to the nature and energy source of whatever it is we are seeing. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[longitude]

Pardon me for not reading through all 44 pages of this thread, but who has actually read this book? I heard from multiple sources it is actually pretty good.

Are you sure that you actually read the book? You will have to upload your photo where you are handing the book to pass the first filter :)

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Hmm. I can say that I have read the book. It is pretty good. Most of the events chosen apparently have good eye witness testimony, and evidence of effected avionics systems. There are some evaluations of those events that attribute the avionics effects to incompetence on the part of the pilots/operators.

I also knew one of the witnesses. Fairly serious guy. Officer, decently educated, pretty sharp, good manager. Not much of a sense of humor, even with a couple of beers in him.

Never seen a UFO in my life. Have seen way too many airplanes at way too close a distance in the air. Near misses aren't much fun.

 

[longitude]

I also knew one of the witnesses. Fairly serious guy. Officer, decently educated, pretty sharp, good manager. Not much of a sense of humor, even with a couple of beers in him.

Interesting. Are you referring maybe to Jafari? (or Halt - after some checking)

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Col Halt. He's long retired now. He's currently running some gated retirement community down in Florida if I remember correctly. I worked for, and had almost daily contact with, him for a year back in 1986 in Belgium. People can change a lot in 30 years, but not usually.