Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: US Navy Patent: Really??

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303

    US Navy Patent: Really??

    Not sure what to make of this as I'm not trained in the hard sciences... But I Want To Believe! https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en For a "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device."

    PDF of the "High frequency inertial mass reduction device" patent is here... https://patentimages.storage.googlea...US10144532.pdf

    And here is a Patent for a Gravity wave generator the Navy has from Pais…..
    https://patentimages.storage.googlea...80229864A1.pdf

    Hmmmm, Verrry Intertesting…

    This all started while on YouTube so....For those of you that youtube…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lml2D4eHbQ
    Which led me to the site below.....which led to the above Patents
    https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/...ufo-incidents/
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2019-Jul-13 at 05:22 AM. Reason: Rowan and Martin reference.... and youtube link

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,722
    well it is a lot of fun to read. At my level of understanding I see no explanation of inertia as such and no mention of the Higgs field which the standard model uses to generate mass. It is the case that the old fashioned idea of demonstrating a prototype to achieve a patent has been dropped so there are patents granted on convoluted ideas which boil down to perpetual motion machines. In this patent a reduction in mass presumably releases colossal energy from Einstein's equation which I guess still applies even when you are manipulating the vacuum energy. It is a basic of patent law that the government can use it for free so I see no need for the first statement. I will be interested to see what proper physicists make of it.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,839

    US Navy Patent: Really??

    Yes this is just one more example of the deeply flawed patent process which lets in anything that is deemed “original.”

    As for the YouTube...it reminded me of the video store scene in the second Men In Black movie.

    Where are the blueprints? Where are the prototypes? Etc...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303
    I wait with bated breath for working models at a press conference..... But I still Believe! The Patents Do have "blueprints/drawings" sort of.....

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    well it is a lot of fun to read. At my level of understanding I see no explanation of inertia as such and no mention of the Higgs field which the standard model uses to generate mass. It is the case that the old fashioned idea of demonstrating a prototype to achieve a patent has been dropped so there are patents granted on convoluted ideas which boil down to perpetual motion machines. In this patent a reduction in mass presumably releases colossal energy from Einstein's equation which I guess still applies even when you are manipulating the vacuum energy. It is a basic of patent law that the government can use it for free so I see no need for the first statement. I will be interested to see what proper physicists make of it.
    Yes, it IS a fun read....and video. As I've posted in the past, I've seen a UFO and watched it do things that required a drive which rendered it inertialess/massless, or at least almost so. If you believe as I do that we have in fact recovered and studied crashed UFO's for over 70 years, then it's not hard for me to believe that we've had enough time to start figuring out their drive system. I just hope that we can reproduce it with our own tech as I suspect it involves the use of some pretty exotic materials.....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303
    I did a little more digging on Salvatore Cezar Pais….. the only patents of his I found are all dated between 2014 and 2017 and all are "drive" related. Including one for a room temp Super Conductor. Here is another link to further revelations..... https://exonews.org/tag/salvatore-cezar-pais/ . Surprise surprise.... Salvatore WORKS for the Navy!

    Here is some of the article......

    ""by James Pero June 28, 2019 (dailymail.co.uk)
    • The US Navy has been assigned a patent on an aerospace technology for a ‘theoretical’ flying craft employing an unprecedented electromagnetic propulsion system that would be able to surround itself in a type of quantum field that subverts the laws of physics as we know them. Originally applied for in 2016 by Salvatore Cezar Pais, an engineer with the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, the patent application is entitled ‘Craft using an inertial mass reduction device’, referring to ‘anti-gravity’, as reported by “The Drive”.

    • Described as a ‘hybrid’ craft, it would be capable of “flying” through air, water, and even space. The description of the craft is eerily similar to a string of UFOs described by fighter pilots. A US Patent and Trademark Office examiner responded with skepticism that such a craft exists, only to receive a personal letter from the Chief Technology Officer of the US Navy who explained that Chinese researchers are ‘investing significantly’ in such a craft.

    • The urgency of the Navy’s desire for its patent approval coincides with an uptick in the number of ‘highly advanced aircraft’ encroaching on its air space, including ‘tic-tac’ like flying objects that seem to break the rules of physics much like the craft described the Navy patent.

    • The Navy has recently exhibited an increasingly transparent attitude toward UFOs. Earlier this year, the US Navy unveiled new guidelines for sailors to report UFO sightings amid fears that mysterious unidentified flying objects could actually be ‘extremely advanced Russian aircraft.’ The Drive reports that the amount of energy required to power such a craft, however, is currently beyond the realm of possibility on earth.

    • According to The Drive, letters from the Navy to the US Patent Office seem to suggest that tests of technology have already been conducted by Pais, who holds other mind-bending patents like a ‘force-field’ to fend off an incoming asteroid.

    • In February, Pais was granted a patent for a room temperature superconductor that can transfer energy without any degradation over time. The patent document reads: ‘This concept enables the transmission of electrical power without any losses and exhibits optimal thermal management (i.e.: no heat dissipation).’ Chief Technical Officer of the Naval Aviation Enterprise, James Sheehy, doesn’t believe that such a superconductor is possible at this time, but this could change. Writes Sheehy, “As you well know, everything in time, if of significance, which this certainly is, grows in power and magnitude.”

    The U.S. Navy has been assigned a patent on an aerospace technology that is eerily similar to a string of UFOs described by fighter pilots.
    A technology patented by an aerospace engineer working at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) describes a ‘hybrid’ craft that is capable of flying at breakneck speeds in the air, water, and even space using an unprecedented electromagnetic propulsion system.
    As reported by The Drive, when looking over a patent on the technology, an examiner for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office responded with skepticism that such a craft exists only to receive a personal letter from the Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Navy, who explained that Chinese researchers are ‘investing significantly’ in the craft.
    The patent application, titled ‘Craft using an inertial mass reduction device’ lists Salvatore Cezar Pais, a NAWCAD engineer, as the inventor and describes a mind-blowing technology that ‘can engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level (thus affecting a physical system’s inertial and gravitational properties).
    In short, the patent says a ship using the outlandish technology would be able to surround itself in a type of quantum field that subverts the laws of physics as we know them.
    This would theoretically allow the craft to move through air, water, or space, without succumbing to any of the effects of thermodynamics, or in the case of water, hydrodynamics.
    According to The Drive, letters from the Navy to the U.S. Patent Office seem to suggest that tests of technology have already been conducted by Pais, who holds other mind-bending patents like a ‘force-field’ to fend off an incoming asteroid.
    While the patent — which was originally applied for in 2016 — is only theoretical, the urgency of the Navy’s desire for its approval coincides with an increasingly transparent attitude toward UFOs on the part of the U.S. military.
    READ ENTIRE ARTICLE""
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2019-Jul-13 at 04:52 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Yes, it IS a fun read....and video. As I've posted in the past, I've seen a UFO ...
    We have a forum for that topic and this isn't it.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,722
    It strikes me that if there is a technology like this, breaking all the science we think we know about, then the US navy would be unlikely to publish it, it would be very secret. I did wonder if it had an April 1st date. It is a good example of a really bad patent. My view of whoever in the office of IP thought this was worth the time and money, has gone down a notch.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    We have a forum for that topic and this isn't it.
    Sorry.... Move it to wherever you like of course....However I deleted my UFO experience reference as the rest of the post(s) seem to report facts....
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2019-Jul-13 at 05:29 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    It strikes me that if there is a technology like this, breaking all the science we think we know about, then the US navy would be unlikely to publish it, it would be very secret. I did wonder if it had an April 1st date. It is a good example of a really bad patent. My view of whoever in the office of IP thought this was worth the time and money, has gone down a notch.
    Unless the Navy knows that certain other Governments already know what we do.... and believe Patenting it is advantageous to them somehow. Are you sure these patents would "break" the science we know? The "materials" science to make the craft may be so far down the road the Navy doesn't care that the "theoretical" tech is out there.... In fact they may hope that these Patents encourage research into the tech and theoretical aspects …...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Unless the Navy knows that certain other Governments already know what we do.... and believe Patenting it is advantageous to them somehow. Are you sure these patents would "break" the science we know? The "materials" science to make the craft may be so far down the road the Navy doesn't care that the "theoretical" tech is out there.... In fact they may hope that these Patents encourage research into the tech and theoretical aspects …...
    Yes the ideas are not possibly mainstream in my view and military patents make very little sense. The other way round: if you patent a something which the military think might be useful or indeed sensitive, they come calling. It happened to me. The state deal in all patents is that you get protection from the state in exchange for the state being able to use it free. Why publish otherwise? This is gobble-de-gook.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,594

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    And concluding that.....

    "CA new theory, quantized inertia, predicts there is a minimum acceleration of 2c2/θ ~ 2×10-10 m/s2 even at the speed of light. This implies the speed of light limit can be broken. The residual QI-acceleration (immune to the effects of special relativity) is tiny, but it may be possible to use metamaterials to bend Unruh radiation back towards a spacecraft reducing θ and enhancing the QI-acceleration, or cancel the Unruh radiation using conventional em radiation or spin, allowing the craft to break the speed of light limit with greater acceleration. Acknowledgment Many thanks to DARPA for funding grant HR001118C0125. "

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,722
    May I point out that 10 to the power minus 10 is a very small acceleration and the cosmic radius theta implies a power of 28 so there is a big intellectual step from using MOND or modified inertia in stars around a galaxy, to have a counter argument to dark matter, to a patent for a reduced inertia space craft. The step is from the galactic to the mundane where tiny errors in empirical measurements are not meat for a patent. The cosmic work on anomolous rotation is fascinating but the patent is a joke.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,156
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    May I point out that 10 to the power minus 10 is a very small acceleration and the cosmic radius theta implies a power of 28 so there is a big intellectual step from using MOND or modified inertia in stars around a galaxy, to have a counter argument to dark matter, to a patent for a reduced inertia space craft. The step is from the galactic to the mundane where tiny errors in empirical measurements are not meat for a patent. The cosmic work on anomolous rotation is fascinating but the patent is a joke.
    It's kind of:
    If we accept that MOND works despite the evidence that it doesn't
    And If we accept that there is a minimum acceleration derived from galactic rotation curves (which doesn't work for all of them and falls apart completely for clusters)
    And if we accept that the inertia we see is due to Unruh radiation
    And if we accept that we can somehow measure/predict the properties of Unruh radiation really well
    And if we find a way to 'cancel out' Unruh radiation using just the right photons
    And if we assume that either the effect can be made larger or that we are happy to wait several times the age of the universe for a measurable effect
    Then we can have reduced inertia spacecraft and FTL travel!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    It's kind of:
    If we accept that MOND works despite the evidence that it doesn't
    And If we accept that there is a minimum acceleration derived from galactic rotation curves (which doesn't work for all of them and falls apart completely for clusters)
    And if we accept that the inertia we see is due to Unruh radiation
    And if we accept that we can somehow measure/predict the properties of Unruh radiation really well
    And if we find a way to 'cancel out' Unruh radiation using just the right photons
    And if we assume that either the effect can be made larger or that we are happy to wait several times the age of the universe for a measurable effect
    Then we can have reduced inertia spacecraft and FTL travel!
    That is well put and the patent is equivalent to a patent based on antigravity using shields like H G Wells time machine trying to protect a fanciful future technology today. It is not what patents should be used for. How many of these speculative patents does the US Navy seek to secure. It's bizarre. Maybe the fun challenge is to write sufficiently obstruse blocks of text that the examiner just says "whatever" and takes your money. Maybe if I was taking a Navy salary to sit dreaming stuff up I could patent cold fusion, telekinesis and strategic reincarnation? They pass the useful application test and diagrams with numbers are pretty easy for an old hand like me. The back page of New Scientist in the old days had plenty of starter ideas from Daedalus, sadly missed.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,790

    Too Many Things To Go Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    It's kind of:
    If we accept that MOND works despite the evidence that it doesn't
    And If we accept that there is a minimum acceleration derived from galactic rotation curves (which doesn't work for all of them and falls apart completely for clusters)
    And if we accept that the inertia we see is due to Unruh radiation
    And if we accept that we can somehow measure/predict the properties of Unruh radiation really well
    And if we find a way to 'cancel out' Unruh radiation using just the right photons
    And if we assume that either the effect can be made larger or that we are happy to wait several times the age of the universe for a measurable effect
    Then we can have reduced inertia spacecraft and FTL travel!


    "Snakes. You first, Indy." - John Rhys-Davies as Sellah in Raiders.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    May I point out that 10 to the power minus 10 is a very small acceleration and the cosmic radius theta implies a power of 28 so there is a big intellectual step from using MOND or modified inertia in stars around a galaxy, to have a counter argument to dark matter, to a patent for a reduced inertia space craft. The step is from the galactic to the mundane where tiny errors in empirical measurements are not meat for a patent. The cosmic work on anomolous rotation is fascinating but the patent is a joke.
    Well.... unless over 100+ (ex and serving) military personnel as well as many other professional and reputable persons starting in the 40's and continuing till present are mistaken, "somebody" has craft which exhibit reduced mass/inertia characteristics. Now we just need to figure out how they do it! Hence the Navy's interest in these types of Patents......
    Last edited by Grant Hatch; 2019-Jul-15 at 01:59 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,722
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Well.... unless over 100+ ex military personnel and many other professional and reputable persons are mistaken "somebody" has craft which exhibit reduced mass/inertia characteristics. Now we just need to figure out how they do it! Hence the Navy's interest in these types of Patents......
    I feel you are concatenating a series of assumptions there and even if taken at face value it does not justify a patent that assumes non mainstream science. Even if there is a secret department studying exotic technology, it makes no sense to publish, except as misinformation perhaps. Do you think this is part of a funding request? (method in the madness?)
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wa. state
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I feel you are concatenating a series of assumptions there and even if taken at face value it does not justify a patent that assumes non mainstream science. Even if there is a secret department studying exotic technology, it makes no sense to publish, except as misinformation perhaps. Do you think this is part of a funding request? (method in the madness?)
    Perhaps.... if you discount all of the last 70 years of "evidence" a resourceful researcher might see an opportunity to get funding for their pet theory after reading sci fi all their life!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,220
    Closed pending moderator discussion.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,220
    Given how close this thread is to advocating non-mainstream ideas, it is being moved to the CT forum (since it seems more related to UFOs). It is one thing to note the existence of a strange patent, it is another to use it as evidence of a multi-decade conspiracy.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,220
    Quote Originally Posted by schlaugh View Post
    Yes this is just one more example of the deeply flawed patent process which lets in anything that is deemed “original.”
    Yes
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,634
    The existence of the patents does not support the idea that the US Navy has any idea how to build a flying saucer, or that it has been studying these supposed technologies in any coherent fashion. In fact it seems to indicate the opposite; this chap Salvatore Cezar Pais has simply submitted his own wild speculations. In fact if the Navy had any official program of investigation into these supposed technologies, they wouldn't be publishing this sort of vague nonsense at all.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8,634
    Quote Originally Posted by Grant Hatch View Post
    Well.... unless over 100+ (ex and serving) military personnel as well as many other professional and reputable persons starting in the 40's and continuing till present are mistaken, "somebody" has craft which exhibit reduced mass/inertia characteristics.
    Yes, they absolutely are mistaken. Take the three recent videos released by the To The Stars Academy; FLIR, GOFAST AND GIMBAL. All three seem to depict "craft which exhibit reduced mass/inertia characteristics", and some of the miltary personnel who have viewed them seem to agree with that impression; but careful analysis by the people at Metabunk and elsewhere has shown that these short clips can be explained by entirely mundane events, with no need for inertialess drive.

    I would go as far as to say that every other strange and apparently inexplicable sighting made by 'military personnel ... other professional and reputable persons' are also in error. These sightings could potentially be explained if enough information were available - but in most cases this information is not available, and never will be. This is why releasing film clips of this kind is a good idea, because it allows sensibly skeptical commentators the chance to deduce the true facts.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,754
    Many moons ago (~40 years),I followed the perambulations of a retired engineer/scientist who thought to investigate some of the anecdotal reports of unkowns. He traveled to Alaska after a large group of Inuits, hunting seals on the spring ice pack, had witnessed a disk, hovering silently, landing, humanoids went through an extravehicular activity, they re-entered the disk, it lifted up,hovered, and then accelerated rapidly, turning sharply, silently out of sight.
    As a culture which lived and learned largely on oral tradition, I thought it quite clever of them as a group to recognize that if they reported an object seemingly out-of-this-world, in design and kinematic capabilities, they should report not only that it had defied characteristics of gravitational mass, but because of the principle of equivalence, the founding insight in GR, that it also had characteristics that defied simultaneously...inertial mass. Since none of them had ever had a physics course, aeronautics course, or one in SR or GR.....that was pretty clever of the whole group....don't you think? It did leave a deep, circular impression in the freshly fallen snow, and a vivid memory to Nanook and his friends. pete

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,836
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Many moons ago (~40 years),I followed the perambulations of a retired engineer/scientist who thought to investigate some of the anecdotal reports of unkowns. He traveled to Alaska after a large group of Inuits, hunting seals on the spring ice pack, had witnessed a disk, hovering silently, landing, humanoids went through an extravehicular activity, they re-entered the disk, it lifted up,hovered, and then accelerated rapidly, turning sharply, silently out of sight.
    As a culture which lived and learned largely on oral tradition, I thought it quite clever of them as a group to recognize that if they reported an object seemingly out-of-this-world, in design and kinematic capabilities, they should report not only that it had defied characteristics of gravitational mass, but because of the principle of equivalence, the founding insight in GR, that it also had characteristics that defied simultaneously...inertial mass. Since none of them had ever had a physics course, aeronautics course, or one in SR or GR.....that was pretty clever of the whole group....don't you think? It did leave a deep, circular impression in the freshly fallen snow, and a vivid memory to Nanook and his friends. pete
    I'm not grasping what you're trying to say. Are you saying that they somehow came up with a theory of relativity and relayed this to the engineer? That seems pretty difficult, as the math is quite hard. Is there any record of the calculations they made?
    As above, so below

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,754
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I'm not grasping what you're trying to say. Are you saying that they somehow came up with a theory of relativity and relayed this to the engineer? That seems pretty difficult, as the math is quite hard. Is there any record of the calculations they made?
    Jens. No, what I remember is thinking that it was a very odd thing for a group of men from a very primitive subsistance culture to make a report of an unusual event in their hunting expedition, and that they reported kinematic effects from an object, which was not an airplane, helicopter, or blimp, but was occupied by biped of different stature from them, and that their description of the motion of the object indicated that it seemed to violate gravitational effects, and also inertial effects. Nobody had ever discussed the Principle of equivalence with this group. They had no schooling. Yet their collective report to the investigator indicated a visit from sentient beings, who had constructed a device that manipulated inertial and gravitational masses. That was something none of them understood, or cared about, and they laughed about how odd the day had been hunting seals. The naivete, and honesty of their report was both bewildering, and at the same time, compelling, to the investigator.
    Similar reports arose out of other venues he pursued. Much like J. Allen Hynek, he slowly dropped his view of media- starved crackpot reporting, and began to wonder about the commonality, and the science involved.
    pete

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,836
    I see what you're saying. In which case, I don't really see why it matters whether you have heard about inertial masses or things like that. Children report seeing things like ghosts and flying objects and fairies, which all violate those types of physical law, and I think that when I was a kid of would just report what I saw without thinking about the cause. Objects like ghosts that go through walls are doing some serious disregard of what we know of physical laws, but I think that both adults who understand such things and kids that don't will both report seeing them. So I would not give any extra credibility just because something was seen by "primitive" people. I wouldn't say that it necessarily makes is less credible either.
    As above, so below

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,220
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I see what you're saying. In which case, I don't really see why it matters whether you have heard about inertial masses or things like that. Children report seeing things like ghosts and flying objects and fairies, which all violate those types of physical law, and I think that when I was a kid of would just report what I saw without thinking about the cause. Objects like ghosts that go through walls are doing some serious disregard of what we know of physical laws, but I think that both adults who understand such things and kids that don't will both report seeing them. So I would not give any extra credibility just because something was seen by "primitive" people. I wouldn't say that it necessarily makes is less credible either.
    Generally agree, except maybe with the last sentence. A primitive culture might not recognize a helicopter or a blimp and think it unusual or weird, whereas we would think it pretty ordinary.

    On top of that, we have a third-hand verbal description from some undescribed Inuit group, at an undescribed place and time, reported by an undescribed engineer/scientist. I find that completely uncompelling.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •