You would have a healthy skepticism and not be close minded and cynical, you would have an open mind for new ideas and enough curiosity to investigate plausible concepts.
You are talking about aliens and I am talking about saucer shaped aircraft.
There are thousands of eye witnesses to events where they have seen "saucer" shaped craft flying in the air.
Were these craft piloted by aliens (illegal or otherwise) is not the question, there are remotely controlled winged aircraft, so I suppose that 'saucer' shaped aircraft could be controlled in a similar manner.
Are there any saucer shaped aircraft flying around already as the eye witnesses say, does it really matter, IF we can build such devices.
You said:can a 'saucer shaped aircraft' be built? OF COURSE-
I take it from that response that, you mean: The saucer shape is not an impossible shape for an aircraft.
You also agreed in another thread that a 30 foot diameter saucer shape would be able to lift about 1.4 million pounds if all the air could be removed from the top of it.
Now suppose that the saucer shaped craft's weight was only two thousand pounds, how high could it go and still hover there?
Or figure out how quickly such aircraft would accelerate if all the air could be eliminated from the topside instantly.
Sure these are WHAT IF scenarios, but still within the realm of mathematical manipulation.
Now if we lower our expectations on the amount of air we can remove from the top of the craft within a certain length of time and figure how much such a craft would weigh, we can then calculate the amount of air we need to remove (or accelerate) on the top side in order to make it hover at a certain height, then from those figures we can advance to the calculations of how much power is needed to achieve these desired effects.
Naturally the power at this stage of development would come from conventional power sources such as combustion engines, jets, or rockets.
I believe that the saucer shape and the thrust from the top of the craft would make the craft far more maneuverable and nimble and perhaps faster in the air that the harrier jet or any helicopter.
To further the development so that we could approach or match the "witnessed behavior" of the unidentified craft, we can start by...................
OOPS........ I better find out what you think of this idea so far. After all, if I happen to be a "lunatic" and what I am asking is "impossible" to accomplish, then there is no need to explain the idea to you.
Please read this post.
Flame » in reply to re: How do you know that all these people are lunatics.
re: IF you were a scientist
The whole thread (109 posts)
- Symptoms of Pathological Skepticism.
- re: Symptoms of Pathological Behaviour (n/t)
- Just for the record:
- No...
- In Defense of Pathological Skepticism.
- That's not "pathological" skepticism
- Hoagland, the one thing you can't say about him is that he doesn't Believe.
- "Semantic"?
- 'Argument by dictonary definition' isn't an argument
- "And there, bunkie, I got ya: My definition of "lie" can be found in a dictionary. Where in the universe did you get yours?"..... Does the Mirriam-Webster dictionary count? You will, of course apolog…
- Yes, Damn it....
- "Semantic"?
- On the other hand...
- Hoagland, the one thing you can't say about him is that he doesn't Believe.
- re: Perhaps you are not a PATHOLOGICAL skeptic.
- Easter has been cancelled this year. They found the body.
- re: Perhaps I was wrong.
- No, I don't concede that.
- re: "Do you concede that UFO's don't necessarily violate any known physical laws?"
- re: Perhaps I was wrong.
- Easter has been cancelled this year. They found the body.
- That's not "pathological" skepticism
- The burden of proof is, as it has always been, on the most extraordinary claims. (n/t)
