Now you're getting defensive and snotty.....it has many meanings, but let's go with general relativity for now. did you click the underlined/highlighted links in the article? I'm no scientist, but I do comprehend what I read, and those links bring things into focus...and you STILL are just denying the FACTS of the new age difference due to one twin's time in orbit. You essentially are just refusing what is for what you think should be. Bad science, that.
Let us know when military radar document mosquito's that can do right angle turns flying faster than anything mankind has put into air or orbit, then you might have a point.
I clicked the link and saw a superficial explanation. Did you read the actual scientific explanation of the test I cited and linked stating that the clocks GAINED Time. That is real science. Dumbing it down to the twin paradox is simply wrong.
As the OP stated, similar stories for years now by ex-military...but all to be denied, ignored or scoffed at because the current officials either no comment or say it never happened or it was a weather balloon, mistake by officials, yada, yada, yada Damned things have to land in Central Park for the gov't to cop.
No, there was more than "a link"....they went to explain Einsteins theory (for the general public), time dialation and other "briefs" and fuller explanations. Your scientific explanation link holds for WITHIN A STABLE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. The brothers were in slightly different fields and speeds....and one by fractions is biologically "younger". If you are saying the NASA scientist are wrong or lying in their conclusions, then put up an article to Science Alert for debate. As I said, I'm not knocking your credentials, but I find disagree with your conclusions on this point. As far as the OP goes in general, we're pretty much in sync.
how do you know they can't??? Just because you haven't seen it? Maybe they just don't want you to know. (queue the mysterious music)
It violates the laws of physics as we know them. It isn't just a matter of engineering secrets like stealth. Stealth didn't require new physics. Nor has any jet ever designed and built. Could we have super advanced technology based on a secret physics? UFOs like this have been around for 70 years now [actually thousands of years but we can stick to the modern era]. We certainly didn't have technology like that even 30 or 20 years ago. Even the physics behind the first atomic bomb was understood by physicists. The principle [the physics] was known by 1933. But the specific design was highly classified.
In the case of Malmstrom AFB, where UFOs appeared over the base and ten of their Minuteman nuclear missiles went offline. It is key to understand that these were all on independent systems. They had no physical connection through the power or controls. The missiles were spread out over many miles. And no cause for the failure was ever identified. I read the Boeing engineering report myself. There was only one point in the system that could take a missile offline like that. It was located 60 feet underground and each one is completely isolated. Even today we could not create the failure observed. In short, there is no known explanation and it appears to be impossible. But objects were hovering just outside the gate when it happened. After the missiles failed, the UFOs disappeared.
Edgar Mitchell, one of the astronauts who walked on the moon and who was dramatically changed by his trip, claimed that ET had intervened at one point to prevent a nuclear war.
As you know them. And there could also be other alternate explanations. Your military equipment could be faulty. There could be new technology built by another organization or even your own military that this other part of your military doesn't know about etc. Have they?
That right there is the key. You don't have an explanation. That doesn't mean space aliens, gods, or whatever else you may imagine are behind it. It merely means we don't know.
And you don't think we have ruled out prosaic explanations in the most interesting cases? And I explained that these objects have been darting around in the modern era since 1947. No, we certainly didn't have any technology like this 50 years ago. Yes.
No, but as the European team of experts concluded [militiary, space agencies, scientists, etc] in The COMETA Report, the most likely explanation is the ET hypothesis. There are no other competing explanations that can account for the known facts. Interestingly, even as far back as Project Sign [1948], US military arrived at the same conclusion. But General Vandenberg refused to accept that. So he ordered Project Grudge in response.
An excerpt from The Twining Memo, from Project Sign ...a. The phenomenon is something real and not visionary or fictitious. b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as man-made aircraft. c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors. d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely. http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/twining.htm So yes, this has been going on for a very long time.
Likewise, we know that no one on earth had this technology in 1976 https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/docu...ified-documents/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf
This is a very dry but very informative and accurate documentary about the early days of the modern UFO era.It is the first-hand account given by Al Chop, the Press liaison at the Pentagon and assigned to cover the UFO story back in the late 40s and early 50s. It is all factual and the information can be confirmed through historical documents and films. The climax of the documentary occurs at the end when the UFOs appeared over Washington DC, in 1952. For old MASH and even Dragnet fans, you may recognize the voice of the one fighter pilot in the reenactment as a very young Harry Morgan. The names were not changed to protect the innocent. All of those named in the documentary were real people and on the record. UFOs The True Story of Flying Saucers 1956
Dr. Jacques Vallee reveals UFO materials currently studied in Silicon Valley Lab Apparently Lue Elizondo, former head of the Pentagon's secret UFO program, revealed that we have obtained metal samples with isotopic ratios not of this earth. We will have to see if this is revealed in the upcoming report.
Since you're a physicist, could you dumb down an explanation of "isotopic ratios not of this earth?" What exactly does that mean? Is there a range of terrestrial ratios that cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the universe? Does each planet have it's own "ratio?"
Too funny because I never watch this show. But I happened to tune in and physicist Brian Greene was just interviewed on Sunday Morning, on CBS. They had a segment about time travel. He happened to mention the twins and the space station. The one on the space station got a little older compared to the twin on earth. Just like I had said regarding the atomic clocks on jets, gravity dominates. Time runs a little faster for the twin on the Space Station because the gravity is reduced. This increase in time is greater than the decrease in time due to velocity.
This commemorates the flight and death of Captain Thomas Mantell, who died while chasing a UFO in his P-51 fighter plane over Kentucky, on Jan 7th, 1948.
In the Halt memo, Halt describes a military encounter with a craft that landed, made depressions in the ground, and left evidence of increased radiation.Halt was then a Lt. Col and the Deputy Base Commander at a nuclear weapons facility. We know now there was no such a craft made by humans in 1981. I was lucky enough to spend an hour on the phone with retired Col Halt. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/UFOsandUAPs/dep_ba1.pdf?ver=2017-05-22-113454-777
