this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
55 points (96.6% liked)
UAP - The Most Active Community Discussing UAP/UFOs
1219 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
Featured Posts and User Investigations
Useful Links
- UAP Guide
- Disclosure Diaries
- UAP Timeline
- UFOs Wiki
- MUFON - Mutual UFO Network
- Investigate a Sighting
- Report a Sighting
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
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
I'm no physicist so your guess is as good as mine.
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.
I agree that it seems impossible that any chemical reaction could generate the amount of energy required to warp spacetime.
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?
I would consider it fair unless someone else chimes in to say otherwise :)