UAP - The Most Active Community Discussing UAP/UFOs

1214 readers

1 users here now

A community for civil discourse related to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. Share your sightings, experiences, news, and investigations. Everyone is welcome here, from believers to skeptics and everything in between.

New to Lemmy?

See the Getting Started Guide

Want Disclosure?

Declassify UAP offers a tool that automatically finds your representatives and sends them a prewritten message.

Community Spotlight

Useful Links

Community Rules

Follow the Code of Conduct.
Posts must be on-topic.
No duplicate posts.
No commercial activity.
No memes.
Titles must accurately represent the content of the submission.
Link posts must include a submission statement (comment on your own post).
Common Question posts must include a link to the previous question thread if previously asked.
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Off-topic political discussion may be removed at moderator discretion.

Other Communities

[email protected]

If you're interested in moderating or have any suggestions for the community, feel free to contact SignullGone or HM05_Me.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Seth Shostak, the senior astronomer for the SETI Institute, shares his thoughts. (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think gravity based propulsion could be a part of it. Is the speed of light constant if someone can mess with the M in E=MC²? Would a piloted craft be unbound by inertia and make impossible maneuvers, accelerate from 0-1000 mph. with no problems if it had no mass?

Gravity based propulsion would explain a few of the unexplainable things. And recent scientific discoveries surrounding gravity does more to support the possibility than disprove it.

Energy are rumored to come from zero-point energy, tech close indistinguishable it or stabilized Moscovium. Whatever it is, based on what we publicly know it's not using any propulsion system we're familiar with - So that rules out chemical rocketry from the start.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think gravity based propulsion could be a part of it. Is the speed of light constant if someone can mess with the M in E=MC²? Would a piloted craft be unbound by inertia and make impossible maneuvers, accelerate from 0-1000 mph. with no problems if it had no mass?

I'm no physicist so your guess is as good as mine.

Gravity based propulsion would explain a few of the unexplainable things. And recent scientific discoveries surrounding gravity does more to support the possibility than disprove it.

Dr. Hal Puthoff and Dr. Eric Davis have written several papers detailing this exact concept. Essentially, they posit that all the phenomena observed can be explained through gravity-based propulsion. I'd have to find them, but they are published scientific papers.

Energy are rumored to come from zero-point energy, tech close indistinguishable it or stabilized Moscovium. Whatever it is, based on what we publicly know it’s not using any propulsion system we’re familiar with - So that rules out chemical rocketry from the start.

I agree that it seems impossible that any chemical reaction could generate the amount of energy required to warp spacetime.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m no physicist so your guess is as good as mine.

Considering the theory is based on emerging physical sciences and even you refer to papers detailing the concept, would it be fair to say it's more than a guess while not proven science?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I would consider it fair unless someone else chimes in to say otherwise :)