Warning, this article does contain some heavy-duty discussion of physics and astronomy. The people talking here work with cutting edge technology and their words are more difficult to understand without lots background in the sciences. I have tried here to reduce the discussion to something anyone can understand while at the same time revealing some of the background material that is not mentioned in the videos.
This section introduces another aspect of the UFO phenomenon. While we often think that UFOs are a product of atmospheric phenomenon or aliens from other solar systems (or our own solar system or even our own planet!) there is another valid explanation that often seems to have a low profile. Perhaps this is because of secrecy due to military or civilian (such as the search for new energy sources) reasons.
While the videos below seem to revolve around the aerospace industry, there are probably may ground based experiments that might cause various effects that may be also witnessed by people and misinterpreted as possibly a UFO or a ground based effect caused by aliens.
This section is not designed to explain away the idea that aliens might or do visit our planet. It merely points out another possible reason for the sightings of UFOs.
This section after investigation seems to be pointing at exploiting anti-gravity technology. the author does not currently do know of any such technology, but it is thought dark energy does have this property.
The Boyd Bushman Videos
This video, which is very long makes a number of claims. One of the most interesting claims is that a number of UFO sightings were caused by (what I assume is classified experiments–that were stored in area 51) experiments. This video was not accessible in 2014, so a new video was placed here–but there might be differences in some content.
The speaker in this video states that when an experiment turned out unexpected data, it was–eventually–decided not rejected it, but rather to record it in the data recordings as is. Some of the things not rejected are talked about in the video. I have summarized them here. Please note that I have not verified these claims though other means–yet.
Also note that this person claims to be a senior scientist (from Lockheed Martin) and senior research engineer for other significant people and organizations. These facts are checked out in 2011 and seemed to be true–however in 2014, no such details or references could be found. Indicating that security might have been increased, or that the previous check was a false lead.
1) States that alternative energy sources were exploited (but ones that we officially knew nothing about in 2008). These experiments were incorporated into aircraft.
2) That some of the experimental aircraft were spotted and thought to be UFO’s.
3) A Celt tends to rotate in one direction but not in another direction.
4) Feels that magnetism and gravity will interact–at least that is my interpretation of his experiment unless he was also working on the notion of a monopole and symmetry breaking. He joined to magnets together (north to north for example) so they wanted to part ways. The magnets were held together by drilling a hole through their center and using a (brass) bolt to force them together. The magnet pair was then encased in material that made the magnets look like a rock (I assume this was concrete, clay, plastic or shaped ceramic shell). The purpose of the encasement of the two magnets was to make the observers of the experiment unaware of if a dropped object held the magnets or not. He claims the magnets did interact with gravity in a different way then an object of a similar size (thus proving newtons law wrong in this case–that object of differing mass fall at the same rate in a gravitational field).
a) He dropped this magnet pair and found they did not obey newtons laws.
i) There has been some critics of this experiment that say he dropped the objects inside a copper tube or whatever–and the experiment is too expensive to repeat. I think one of the major faults of this type of critic is they state that cost of $10, 000 to repeat this experiment has prevented this theory from being re-tested. Money well in excess of this is regularly spent to find out the nature of gravity (CERN for example has scientist specifically looking for the graviton).
2) He suggests that there might be another force that has not been discovered by physicists in the year 2008. In the video there are 5 forces listed, but in physics there are only 4 forces listed.
None the less, he is not going into this, he suggest the fifth force is anti-gravity (thus stating indirectly and correctly that there are 4 known fundamental forces). This idea is in line with the repulsive force of dark energy–which is still a mystery at the publishing of this article. The connection of this dark energy repulsion and magnetism or monopole magnets & symmetry breaking is lost to me unfortunately.
3) Shows the dropping of several balls that are joined together. Once the group of balls are dropped, one of the balls (the smallest one on the top) disconnects and flies up well above the level that it was dropped at. The conservation of momentum (mass x velocity)–if no deformation or energy loss occurred (such as heat)–does not necessarily seem to be violated here as far as I can see and so I’m not entirely sure what this experiment points out.
To show you why I don’t feel amazed by this example would require me to show you an elastic collision between a super massive object and a very light object and it just so happens such collisions are useful in gravity assists to save fuel for space craft as shown below. It should be noted that the massive object does lose something from the interaction–it may be a tiny amount of spin and/or orbital velocity (the loss of orbital velocity results in the planet shifting its orbital distance from the sun slightly).
I have been reading stuff on the internet and feel that perhaps I should expand on this concept a little more. If we pretend we are observers of the above collision, only we don’t get to see the collision (gravity assist) then what we see is that after the collision the satellite is traveling faster and our eyes (the limited instruments that they are) will see no other changes in the rest of the system (as the super massive object “seems” to be traveling at the same speed and distance from the sun that it always did). Thus we might conclude that a our satellite has gained speed for some unknown reason. We might go on to conclude that energy has been created (and that would be wrong according to science).
Here is an example of a collision that could be close be almost an elastic collision:
People then go on to say “oh yes, but in the example we drop a group of balls, and after they hit the table the smallest ball has gained energy because it has more kinetic energy (a fancy way of saying more velocity since it can travel to a higher level) then it did before it was dropped! Thus they conclude energy has been created in this case!
While this argument seems strangely familiar to me (having just described such a situation in very general terms above), I do actually see your point.
So I admit that I might have oversimplified the problem and will develop another example.
We can clearly see that there are two sections to this collision (at least).
a) Before the collision a group of balls fall together.
b) After the collision a small ball flies up.
c) We also have a group of balls that seem to lose all their energy in the collision and seem almost to stick to the table. These balls also seem to be the most massive part of the group of balls. I’m going to risk all and say they did stick to the table (not totally true)–some control theory person can explain the complex maths for the collision perhaps.
The problem here is that after the collision a miniscule amount of mass is added to the earth (the table) and a whole bunch of mass is lost leaving a small and very light ball to travel upwards. If we treat the aftermath of the collision as both an inelastic and elastic collision we get the spring energy transferred to the small ball to be whatever energy was left after the collision. This spring energy is converted into velocity that in turn makes the ball fly up to a certain height (in this case a height that is greater than the height the original bunch of balls was dropped at).
I don’t want to do this, but I can’t find a video that resembles this type of fall and collision.
this is a mathematical look at the problem (the masses and velocities have been made-up and do not represent the actual velocities and masses used for the Boyd Bushman example of a multi-ball drop):
m1 = 10 kg, v1 =5 m/s
kinetic energy is 125 J , momentum is 50 kg.m/s
m1 is made out of two joined parts:
m1a=1 Kg, v1a=5 m/s, kinetic energy is 12.5 J, momentum is 5 kg.m/s
m1b=9 Kg, v1b=5 m/s, kinetic energy is 112.5 J, momentum is 45 kg.m/s
We will represent the the table and thus the earth by this massive object.
m2=1, 000 Kg, v2= 0 m/s
After collision the 9 Kg mass sticks to the 1,000 kg mass and transfers any energy it has left to the m1a mass. These are the calculations for that event.
m1a’= 1 Kg, momentum of m1a is 45+5=50, speed of m1a is now v1a’= 50/1=50 m/s.
In reality, the sticking effect of the heavier falling body (to the 1,000 kg mass) would probably cause the loss of lots of energy so that the kinetic energy that converts to potential energy would probably be much less. This potential energy would then be used to propel the smaller and mush less massive ball so that it had a larger kinetic energy then what it started with. Also in a real system the 1009 kg mass would also receive some energy transfer and move off at a very low speed, but I will ignore this fact.
In simple English, the smaller ball flies away at a higher velocity and so also reaches a height that is greater then the height it was dropped from.
I feel that this complex system can ignore the more massive object. Thus a large group of balls transfer some energy to a smaller ball after the collision; this I feel is very similar to the elastic collision between two objects that in turn is similar to the gravity assist example I have given above.
On a bigger scale, a sun (star) can do a similar thing and shoot off a smaller mass at high speeds when it becomes a supernova as the following video demonstrates: “Supernova Ball Bounce –
4) In the fourth experiment a magnet is dropped through a copper tube and seems to slow down. While I did electronics and electrical engineering, this one is mysterious to me. I do know that a moving magnetic fields can induce a current in a coiled wire–and the current in turn sets up a field in a coiled wire (but I am unaware of this being so strong in a straight wire–copper tube).
According to the following videos, the slow down is explained by faraday’s law (a changing magnetic field creates a current–eddy currents in this case), and lenz’s law (a current produced by a magnetic field will flow in such a way as to produce a magnetic field that opposes the magnetic field that produced the current–the result in this case is magnetic braking).
Shortened link to video: Eddy Currents and Lenz’s Law : http://youtu.be/otu-KV3iH_I
Shortened link to video: Eddy Currents, Magnetic Braking and Lenz’s Law: http://youtu.be/otu-KV3iH_I
- This is the video that is examined in this article http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3874568473252816241&q=sereda+bushman&ei=lOk5SOjNCaLW-AHkxtDpAw#
- This video has had its account suspended but was simply a lot less detailed than the above video and hinted that Boyd Bushman was trying to hint at something. I suppose that this will feed conspiracy theories–oh well.