'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[MarkE]

@Mark E
I would say that near or far is irrelevant with respect to the fact one craft made a controlled turn at extremely high speed then accelerated near vertically until it was out of sight. Near of far it accelerated from horizontal to vertical like a bat out of hell with no sound, no plume and no vapor trail. In any case millions of people have observed similar things and many are trained observers like policemen, the military and aviators of unquestionable credibility. I would think a trained observer seeing an object at relatively close range would have the ultimate in credibility versus someone who has never actually observed anything, wouldn't you agree?.
I understand your point I really do however I know what I saw and many others have seen very similar things as well and to say it is impossible is to presume hundreds of thousands of people are somehow misguided. I dispute that anyone would think so many professional people who are trained observers are mistaken in what they saw based on others opinions who have never observed anything. You cannot argue facts when you have none, the fact is I saw it for myself first hand and there is no mistaking it was not conventional in any sense of the word.
Saying what I saw cannot be real just because you have never seen it is not a valid argument because that would mean everything you have never seen cannot be real either. You are highly illogical.

AC

One can't estimate speed without knowing distance.  I don't see any means that you would have had to set distance. 

Observers can only perceive what their faculties allow.  Our brains apply all kinds of biases.  If our faculties could not be readily fooled then people like magicians would have a hard time making a living. 

I've told you that there is insufficient reliable data to agree with your conclusions.  If you want to build and strike down a straw man; then have a great time slaying such beasts. 

That many people think that they have seen something suggests a common phenomenon.  It does not suggest what the phenomenon is. 

[Pirate88179]

One can't estimate speed without knowing distance.  I don't see any means that you would have had to set distance. 

Observers can only perceive what their faculties allow.  Our brains apply all kinds of biases.  If our faculties could not be readily fooled then people like magicians would have a hard time making a living. 

I've told you that there is insufficient reliable data to agree with your conclusions.  If you want to build and strike down a straw man; then have a great time slaying such beasts. 

That many people think that they have seen something suggests a common phenomenon.  It does not suggest what the phenomenon is.

Exactly right.  I could fly a small quad copter drone 1,000 ft. from your position at night, make it hover, and then blast up into the sky at thousands of miles and hour.  Well, not that fast obviously but, if you thought my drone to be 20-30 ft. in diameter, and ten miles away...your mind would be fooled into thinking it was going upwards that fast.

No point or frame of reference, to size and distance, means all of those observations are meaningless.

A friend of mine once called me outside to see a real ufo.  He was serious and he had not been drinking.  (I can't speak for AC)  After watching this greenish glowing light dart all over the night sky for about 5 minutes, performing all sorts of impossible maneuvers like instantly reversing direction, going straight up at high speed, diving again and then hovering...all with no sound whatsoever.

I went inside and got a high powered flashlight and showed my friend he was simply watching a lightning bug.  He was dumbfound and surprised.
The mind is easily fooled.

Bill

[MarkE]

@All


On reading my last post I now understand how pointless it was because the fact remains that the odds of anyone proving to me that I did not actually observe what I know I did as a fact is basically zero. It is absurd and pointless and it is what it is , you cannot convince someone to un-observe what they have already observed as a known fact. However if 80% of the population believes a bearded man in a white dress created the universe in six days and maybe 40% believe in wormholes, warping space-time and virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes then maybe just maybe my believing I saw an unknown craft/object doing some strange shit in the sky I don't fully understand doesn't seem like a big deal in comparison.


As well the hypocrisy is mind boggling because many people who would believe a supposed god created the universe in six days routinely judge other people who claim to have seen an unidentified(unknown)flying(it's relative) object(again it's relative) as crazy or misguided. I find this hard to fathom and it just seems so utterly ridiculous that it defies the imagination, apparently god doesn't believe in other intelligent life or UFO's either... go figure. Then we have that other kind of religion based on supposed science that never actually was and people say they require proof to believe but don't actually have any...  again go figure. The common thread here is people who judge others as crazy for believing without proof despite the fact they don't actually have any real proof either way about much of anything.


It is without a doubt in my mind the most messed up scenario of logic I could possibly image and I'm just not feeling the vulcan type deep logic I expected here. It is a superficial quagmire of the truly illogical where people try to disprove a concept by challenging the credibility of the individual despite the fact they claim the concept must stand on it's own. In effect we have turned science into a pissing contest and while I'm not against such things I still believe it must have it's place in the proper context.


At which point we are left with the question as to why nobody would touch my simple question concerning Inertia with a ten foot pole. That is what is inertia specifically, fundamentally?, I know you want to run and avoid it like the plague and you have no idea where to even start however in this respect I may be able to help. So let's go there, to that place you fear most... I'm sure Mark thinks he is up to it however thinking and believing rarely resemble the true facts of any matter, time will tell. Let's get in on... Brother.


From the Urban Dictionary
Brother: a person whom you are related to. sometimes a role model. sometimes an ass. sometimes a friend. a person who you are stuck being related to until the day you die through good or bad


AC

First:  Your conclusions as to what you think you saw are extraordinary.  Your evidence consists of your personal perceptions.  Human perceptions are highly error prone.  Faulty human perceptions are what cause things like experienced pilots to put a plane into a near vertical stall and keep it there from 35,000 feet to the ocean surface.

People who believe in a hairy fonderer or cosmic muffin will one day have to answer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  He will take care of them appropriately.  Much of the rest of what you argue is based on the the gap of the gods logical fallacy.  Science is based on obtaining reliable evidence.  It has the risk of being as wrong as the evidence is consistent.  What it overcomes is postulates that do not hold up to reliable evidence.  It is because it adjusts to reliable evidence as that evidence is found that every year science expands rather than misdirects our feeble understanding of the universe.

Inertia is like many things: an observed behavior. 

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

Inertia is like many things: an observed behavior. 

Oh well that explains a lot..... It's  just an observed behavior that's all, thanks for that great insight mark.... well done.



AC

[Jimboot]

First:  Your conclusions as to what you think you saw are extraordinary.  Your evidence consists of your personal perceptions.  Human perceptions are highly error prone.  Faulty human perceptions are what cause things like experienced pilots to put a plane into a near vertical stall and keep it there from 35,000 feet to the ocean surface.

People who believe in a hairy fonderer or cosmic muffin will one day have to answer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  He will take care of them appropriately.  Much of the rest of what you argue is based on the the gap of the gods logical fallacy.  Science is based on obtaining reliable evidence.  It has the risk of being as wrong as the evidence is consistent.  What it overcomes is postulates that do not hold up to reliable evidence.  It is because it adjusts to reliable evidence as that evidence is found that every year science expands rather than misdirects our feeble understanding of the universe.

Inertia is like many things: an observed behavior.

there's still that whole big bang thing though. Seems to me they're leaving that up to the holy triumphant Godmeiseter. Can't find where the extra energy is? Invent some dark energy. There must be more matter too... ahhaaa dark matter! Oh yeah and black holes . Sorry been watching too much EU stuff.