UFO message boards
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!udel!sbcs!eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu!dtiberio
From: dtiberio@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy,sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.skeptic,misc.misc
Subject: Re: INFO: How To Build A UFO - T Pawlicki, Nikola Tesla
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.033544.10621@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 91 03:35:44 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.044153.23799@bilver.uucp> <1991Apr24.151848.3696@watmath.waterloo.edu>
Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 36
Xref: ns-mx alt.alien.visitors:575 alt.conspiracy:5106 sci.energy:3965 sci.electronics:12289 sci.skeptic:10576 misc.misc:4091
In article <1991Apr24.151848.3696@watmath.waterloo.edu> mwtilden@watmath.waterloo.edu (Mark W. Tilden) writes:
>
>In 1978 I caught a hitchike with an engineer who, during an interesting
>discussion, gave me a photocopy of an article describing the
>construction of a 'Searle generator', a device which exhibits
>all the properties associated with flying saucers.
>
>The basic principle is that two flat rotating conductive disks form
>a charge-capacitive effect which generates obsene amounts of static
>charge, sufficient to lift the device from the ground. The article
>shows several devices built by Searle and a discription of what happened
>(flight, bizarre pink halo, disappeared into distance).
>
>For years I have been keeping an eye out for appropriate flat disks to
>prove or disprove this theory. Anybody know anything more about it?
>Is it the crank I think it is?
>
Yes, I know a little about it. I will post later; I have to go build a
saucer :). Seriously, I will.
>Is all.
>
>
>--
>Mark Tilden: _-_-_-__--__--_ /(glitch!) M.F.C.F Hardware Design Lab.
>-_-___ | \ /\/ U of Waterloo. Ont. Can, N2L-3G1
> |__-_-_-| \/ (519) - 885 - 1211 ext.2454,
>"MY OPINIONS, YOU HEAR!? MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE! AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!"
--
David Tiberio SUNY Stony Brook 2-3481 AMIGA DDD-MEN Tomas Arce
Any students from SUNY Oswego? Please let me know! :)
Un ragazzo di Casalbordino, Italia.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!ugle.unit.no!okloster
From: okloster@lise.unit.no (Oddvar Kloster)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Skepticism
Message-ID: <1991Apr24.225506.27737@ugle.unit.no>
Date: 24 Apr 91 22:55:06 GMT
References: <2969@shodha.enet.dec.com>
Sender: news@ugle.unit.no
Organization: University of Trondheim
Lines: 30
In article <2969@shodha.enet.dec.com> timpson@shodha.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson) writes:
>
rticle <09Do12w164w@swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca>, ford@swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca (Scott Young ) writes...
> is claimed to be a "Face" was taken by the Mars Orbiter. It is
> not possible to photograph this object from Earth with any
> equipment currently available. This should point out that for
> some Martian Civilization or whatever to build this as a beacon
> would be saying that they are expecting someone to send a probe
> which would be able to see it. What a monumental waste of effort.
>
> My personal beliefs are that those who want to believe in "the
> Face" are barking up the wrong tree. Look here for indications
> of ET visitations not on Mars or Venus. If and when they want to
> reveal themselves it will be here.
I do not believe that the 'face' is an artifact of ET's, at least not
until it's been investigated better and found to be a _very_ close
match. But I want to point out that in case it really IS a message to
us, there is nothing illogical about putting it on Mars. If the stars
wanted to contact us, I guess they would hardly gain much from doing
so before the human race has achieved a certain level of science and
technology. When we have conquered space, we will probably be ready
(though some may argue against this) for contact with
extraterrestials. So why not make a face on Mars, that will only be
discovered when we can send our probes there. When the first men who
visit the face, they may find a button there for alerting Them that we
are ready.
Well, not my idea; read A.C.Clarke's short story 'The sentinel'.
Oddvar Kloster
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy,sci.energy,sci.electronics,sci.skeptic,misc.misc
Subject: Re: INFO: How To Build A UFO - T Pawlicki, Nikola Tesla
Message-ID: <11391@uwm.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 91 03:35:39 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.044153.23799@bilver.uucp>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Followup-To: alt.alien.visitors
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 38
Xref: ns-mx alt.alien.visitors:577 alt.conspiracy:5115 sci.energy:3967 sci.electronics:12292 sci.skeptic:10577 misc.misc:4093
In article <1991Apr22.044153.23799@bilver.uucp> dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes:
(Forwarded description of making a UFO that pulls itself up or forward by its
bootstraps):
> All we have managed to do is make the whole ball of wire wobble around
> the common center of mass between the axle and free end of the spoke. To
> solve this problem, now that we have come to it, we need merely to
> accelerate the spoke through a few degrees of arc and then let it
> complete the cycle of revolution without power.
And the center of mass will still stay perfectly still.
That sucker's going nowhere, except by a fortuitous application of...
(drum roll)
> The primary principle ... traction.
where
> The traction engines depend upon friction against a surrounding
> medium to generate movement...
Why? Conservation of momentum. The change in momentum of any system varies
with the amount of *external* force applied to it. The center of mass will
remain perfectly still, if it was originally still, regardless of what internal
forces the centrifuge creates. If you're lucky, the friction of the surface
it's on will catch the action of the motor and drive it forward.
The only reason rockets even work in the first place, is because they expel
part of the system out the back door, so to say. So while the expelled part
goes backwards, the rest of the rocket goes forward, and the REAL center of
mass (expelled fuel + rocket) is actually in free fall towards the ground(!)
And any mechanism that does violate this law of momentum conservation
(or what amounts to the same: action-reaction), IS by that very fact using
means unknown to humankind.
Hey, but the one about climbing up the Earth's electromagnetic field's has
a lot of potential (pun intended).
Path: ns-mx!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Validated perpetual motion machines (was: Re: INFO: Extract on Perpetual Motion)
Message-ID: <11392@uwm.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 91 03:45:53 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.041737.23332@bilver.uucp> <2529@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 19
In article <1991Apr22.041737.23332@bilver.uucp> dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes:
|>----Begin Included Text----------------------------------------------------
|>
|> As of this date there has been no known account of a working
|> perpetual motion machine which can be built and demonstrated by
|> anyone other than the inventor. Although, we have heard many
|> claims, we have yet to see a working model. This does not rule
|> out the possibility that one could actually be made and
|> practically demonstrated.
|>
In article <2529@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> mitch@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Robert R. Mitchell (SEAS admin)) writes:
>What about a breeder reactor? (Maybe I'm just ignorant.)
I think it still uses matter-energy.
Technicall, I believe a superconductor is considered a perpetual motion machine
(the only known kind then). An electrical current in a superconductor will
never die down.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!herald.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!draco!swrdpnt!ford
From: ford@swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca (Scott Young )
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Faces at Mars
Message-ID: <qg8V12w164w@swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca>
Date: 24 Apr 91 01:22:49 GMT
Organization: Swordpoint BBS, Winnipeg MB (204) 474-6531
Lines: 15
Ooops! Thanks, Steve, I forgot about the Hubble photo in Sky and Tel. That
does give incredible resolution, but doesn't show the face or the so-called
"Pyramids of Elysium" nearby. The civilization who allegedly built the face
would have had to count on someone with interplanetary travel. Perhaps it
was built by a faction of Martians much like the Earthlings who believe in
them...a minority who don't think their actions through before they try
them...
Scott Young
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to: ford%swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca@niven.cc.umanitoba.ca
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!herald.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!bison!sys6626!draco!swrdpnt!ford
From: ford@swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca (Scott Young )
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Secret flights
Message-ID: <7ZNX11w164w@swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca>
Date: 24 Apr 91 20:17:41 GMT
Organization: Swordpoint BBS, Winnipeg MB (204) 474-6531
Lines: 12
Benno: what kind of flights are you refering to? Is this to do with
the "face" on Mars, or the UFO debate? I don't know of any documents
covering secret military test flights that have been made public, as
the military is pretty hush hush about anything that even looks a bit
like a flying saucer.
Scott
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to: ford%swrdpnt.bison.mb.ca@niven.cc.umanitoba.ca
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Path: ns-mx!uunet!infonode!hychejw
From: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: INFO: Extract on Perpetual Motion
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.133440.2692@infonode.ingr.com>
Date: 25 Apr 91 13:34:40 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.041737.23332@bilver.uucp> <2529@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Lines: 11
mitch@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Robert R. Mitchell (SEAS admin)) writes:
[ Nuked: Junk about perpetual motion ]
>What about a breeder reactor? (Maybe I'm just ignorant.)
What about gravity?
--
// Jeff Hyche
There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com
\X/ Freenet: ap255@po.CWRU.Edu
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!watserv1!sunee!rlbell
From: rlbell@sunee.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: INFO: Extract on Perpetual Motion
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.152720.908@sunee.waterloo.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 91 15:27:20 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.041737.23332@bilver.uucp> <2529@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 13
In article <2529@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> mitch@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Robert R. Mitchell (SEAS admin)) writes:
>What about a breeder reactor? (Maybe I'm just ignorant.)
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCLAIMER:
>"Don't blame _me_, _I_ didn't do it!" --Krusty the Clown
>"Ididn'tdoitnobodysawmeyoucan'tproveanything!" --Bartman
The breeder reactor converts U238 into Pu239. It does the conversion at a
faster rate than it burns its own Pu239 fuel. In the end, you do have more
fuel than you started with, but you do not have more energy; as U238 has a
lot of potential energy to begin with.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!midway!msuinfo!eecae.ee.msu.edu!grimm
From: grimm@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Jerry Michael Grimm)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,sci.electronics,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,misc.misc
Subject: Re: INFO: Bio and discoveries of John Keely, Inventor. *****
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.001319.652@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 91 00:13:19 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.045954.24246@bilver.uucp>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 18
Xref: ns-mx alt.alien.visitors:583 alt.conspiracy:5131 alt.activism:12646 sci.electronics:12319 sci.physics:9096 sci.skeptic:10591 misc.misc:4105
Just my two bits on John Keely:
Aether? Aether? Aether?
{Next ten minutes of side-splitting laughter deleted}
{next five minutes of lines like "What incredible bulls**t
deleted}
Unfortunately, the idea of aether was disproved by experiments
of Michaelson and Morley, which are REPRODUCIBLE in a lab. Also,
General Relativity invalidates aether (or is it special relativity,
I forget, I'm only an electrical engineer, not a physicist), and
again, these are reproducible.
I'll take the reproducible evidence any day.
Mike Grimm
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!emory!ducvax.auburn.edu!raymond
From: raymond@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: RE: Faces of Mars
Message-ID: <1991Apr25.161237.4025@ducvax.auburn.edu>
Date: 25 Apr 91 21:12:37 GMT
References: <2947@shodha.enet.dec.com>
Lines: 32
In article <2947@shodha.enet.dec.com>, timpson@shodha.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson) writes:
>
> In article <671780236.0@egsgate.FidoNet.Org>, Joseph.Jackson@f728.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Joseph Jackson) writes...
>>
>> Hear the utter wisdom of his Word! All praise!
>>
>> Nuff said.
>>
>> Jackson OUT
>>
> I see you had to put in in here twice to attempt to get your
> pseudo point across. It is responses like yours that drives the
> nail home as to the mental level of those who accept at face
> value (without question and reason) that which is presented as
> fact with little or no supporting evidence. I am in the process
> of looking up some of the sources mentioned in previous postings.
> What are you doing blindly following the blind?
>
> The all seeing Carnak has spoken
Hi,
I agree with Steve. What is wrong with checking out the facts before
commiting onself. I for one like to take everything I hear with a gran
of salt.
I do notice that there does seem to be a fear factor to aliens
here on the list. Personaly, I do not know that aliens exist, I have no
facts (Personal) that they are here, yet. But if they are, why be afraid
of them? If they have arrived, then it would be obious that their technology
would far exceed ours. And if they wanted to take over, they could do so
directly without much effort. So, since they have not, I would assume that
they mean us no harm.
Sincerely
Raymond Erdey
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!eecae.ee.msu.edu!grimm
From: grimm@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Jerry Michael Grimm)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Validated perpetual motion machines (was: Re: INFO: Extract on Perpetual Motion)
Message-ID: <1991Apr26.003050.2156@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 91 00:30:50 GMT
References: <1991Apr22.041737.23332@bilver.uucp> <2529@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> <11392@uwm.edu>
Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 47
markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
>In article <1991Apr22.041737.23332@bilver.uucp> dona@bilver.uucp (Don Allen) writes:
>|>----Begin Included Text----------------------------------------------------
>|>
>|> As of this date there has been no known account of a working
>|> perpetual motion machine which can be built and demonstrated by
>|> anyone other than the inventor. Although, we have heard many
>|> claims, we have yet to see a working model. This does not rule
>|> out the possibility that one could actually be made and
>|> practically demonstrated.
>|>
>In article <2529@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> mitch@mott.seas.ucla.edu (Robert R. Mitchell (SEAS admin)) writes:
>>What about a breeder reactor? (Maybe I'm just ignorant.)
>I think it still uses matter-energy.
>Technicall, I believe a superconductor is considered a perpetual motion machine
>(the only known kind then). An electrical current in a superconductor will
>never die down.
Now, of course, it takes SOOO much more energy to make a material super-
conductive that it can perpetually store. And now, where does this super-
conductor get its "perpetual motion". These "perp. motion" machines have
to disavow (violate is such a strong word, don't you think) either one or
both basic laws of Thermodynamics.
Now, if we could generate a stable wormhole (based in Quantum Gravity thy),
and move one of its ends below the other end, and stick in a paddlewheel,
then start a stream of water flowing, we get gravity providing energy with
no loss back up to the top.
=========== top of wormhole w f t w
a l h a
| t o i y
--- paddlewheel e w s |
| r s |
\|/
=========== bottom of wormhole, instantaneously connects to the top.
Of course, those who tout the perpetual motion machines usually ignore
quantum physics (or say that it isn't applied correctly)
Ya'll take care now, y'hear.
Quantum Cowboy.
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Accepting it at *face* value (was; Re: RE: Faces of Mars)
Message-ID: <11430@uwm.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 91 05:23:09 GMT
References: <2947@shodha.enet.dec.com>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 16
In article <2947@shodha.enet.dec.com> timpson@shodha.enet.dec.com (Steve Timpson) writes:
> It is responses like yours that drives the nail home as to the mental level
> of those who accept at face value (without question and reason) that which is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> presented as fact with little or no supporting evidence...
PUN ALERT!
PUN ALERT!
PUN ALERT!
Damn the torpedos. Sink the timpson@shodha.enet.dec.com account.
Feuer Eins!!!
> The all seeing Carnak has spoken
Feuer Zwei!!!
Direct hit, Herr Capitan.
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!markh
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Validated perpetual motion machines (was: Re: INFO: Extract on Perpetual Motion)
Message-ID: <11432@uwm.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 91 05:37:44 GMT
References: <2529@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> <11392@uwm.edu> <1991Apr26.003050.2156@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 16
In article <1991Apr26.003050.2156@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> grimm@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Jerry Michael Grimm) writes:
>Now, if we could generate a stable wormhole (based in Quantum Gravity thy),
>and move one of its ends below the other end, and stick in a paddlewheel,
>then start a stream of water flowing, we get gravity providing energy with
>no loss back up to the top.
A wormhole acts basically like a diverging lens (on account of the Uncertainty
Principle), so that there will still be some unavoidable attenuation in energy
on each traversal of the wormhole tunnel...
Actually, it's this diverging lens property that allows stable self-consistent
solutions to be constructed around closed time loops in the first place ...
sorta like the Quantum Theoretic solution of the time traveler's paradox at
work here.
Sorry to burst your wormhole. :)
Comments
Post a Comment