Curious as to what others here think about the idea that the Tic Tac UFO could be some sort of high energy particle beam being controlled from the ground? My mom unfortunately passed from cancer, but she was able to get proton beam therapy for a tumor that would have been inaccessible with traditional radiation. This, as I understand it, is because a proton beam sheds the majority of it's energy at the very end of it…
US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
71–80 of 97 posts
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots. How does that explain the radar readings? "The tic tac – so-called because of its rounded shape and white colour – was caught on video as the US Navy attempted to identify a series of objects spotted on radar flying off America’s west coast in November 2004. ... The sighting cam…
"deeply experienced radar operators": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw radar signals, like some WWII operator with an O-scope. They're looking at a computer-generated signal. And lots can go wrong between the radar signal and the computer screen. Likewise, "the most advanced flight technology ever created" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They could have been in a hot air balloon and seen the same…
"deeply experienced software engineers": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw binary code, like some WWII operator with a bank of lights and switches. They're looking at computer-parsed code. And lots can go wrong between the code and the bits.
I am not a deeply experienced radar operator but I suspect there is a lot more to it than just looking at blips on a screen.
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Publishing nonsense is a good way to spread disinformation to your adversaries and waste their resources, likewise to “explain” things you want to keep secret which have vaguely similar properties. But also in a large organization there will be pockets of incompetence which are more expensive to eradicate than they cost to leave be. If you’re making sure to do zero nonsense, you’re probably also preventing some unexp…
Really it's only public because they want it to be seen. Secret research doesn't just end up in a patent database. I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar.
> I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar.
My thoughts as well and the only reason I see for doing that is if they actually have something similar and send out this to pretend they are trying to distract everyone(, or are trying to fool everyone ;-)
(The above was meant to be confusing in a recursive way.)
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#74It’s rubbish, whatever propulsion method you have you still need to push the air out of the way to move the thing forwards which takes the same energy using imaginary gravitational waves or a jet engine. No magic is going to make the air get out of the way any faster
it's intended for use in space, phil.
The main idea is to make a ray of gravitons (or whatever equivalent in other possible extensions of general relativity). For theoretical reasons, the ratio of momentum to energy is fixed at 1/c, which is 3.3E-6 N/kW, that is very low compared to ion thrusters or chemical rockets.
Moreover it's the same value that you get with a photon rocket, i.e a laser or a flashlight in the back of your rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket
So even in space, it is not very useful and you can replace it with a more simple and more efficient device.
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor, or that it is fully disclosed in a patent application such that a reasonably skilled person could construct the invention. If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skill…
> My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor This is not the case at all.
Care to elaborate?
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Later, someone invents the stuff to make a related idea work. The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice. Patents are presumed valid. So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.
Doesn't the production of the related device show evidence that the original device could have been reduced to practice?
Not if new patentable inventions were required to make it work at all.
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#77This whole thing has a very boring, very likely answer described in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8&t=1300s Essentially, there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots.
The original observer of the tic tac defeats Mick West's ideas based on his expert knowledge of the equipment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=9001s
I still have no idea why Lex Fridman is an interviewer of any sort. His grasp of grammar and superb lack of vocabulary paired with a constant stoner monotone make him unwatchable for me.
How does he keep managing to snag such illustrious guests?
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original observer of the tic tac defeats Mick West's ideas based on his expert knowledge of the equipment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=9001s
I still have no idea why Lex Fridman is an interviewer of any sort. His grasp of grammar and superb lack of vocabulary paired with a constant stoner monotone make him unwatchable for me. How does he keep managing to snag such illustrious guests?
https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4439
How the fuck do you honestly utter a sentence like this and expect not to appear like a 15 year old stoner still in High School?
I don't even dislike him as a person, I'm just concerned for his mental health at this point. He seems to be really struggling to out sentences together in a coherent fashion.
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor This is not the case at all.
Care to elaborate?
Not much to add. This simply isn't the case. You usually get the patent so that you can build it without wasting your time. Alternatively, you get the patent to stop a competitor.
Re: US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of patents for things that are not yet known to work, but are plausible. Things that are in study stage often get patents if they are novel enough, to avoid someone else coming in and getting rich off your research before you've even had a chance to pay back your investors (let alone yourself). It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there…
This is exactly why I applied for patents on my novel fusion reactor design. I think it will work, I hope it will work, but it's still untested.
If you can describe your reactor design and the specific parts that are novel in detail, you can get a patent on these specific details, and pull together 50k for a robust patent application and review, you should get it.