ebtx reaches a philosophical impass
In either case, I have made a huge mistake in judgement. I review my understanding of both ... constantly ... and cannot come up with any satisfactory answer. But I have mananged to narrow down the possibilities. I must do a simple experiment and face the music (of the spheres?).
I watch the TV (satellite)
Here is Bryant Gumbel interviewing Jim Penniston about Rendlesham Forest (the 1980 English sighting). He says he went right up to the thing ... touched it ... made drawings in his little notebook and pencilled in observations. From my experience he appears to be telling the truth. I would say the same of Travis Walton ... and a hundred others. If they are telling the truth ... the conservation laws need to be revised.
Observers see these things making very sharp high velocity turns and accelerations that are physically impossible by any stretch of the imagination. I'm not talking 4 or 10 G's here ... more like 300-800 G's. You can't make chemical bonds that will hold up under those kinds of loads in a macroscopic object. So, the accelerations must be applied uniformly throughout the entire object not from the back like a rocket. These craft are not pushed or pulled ... they must be displaced evenly atom by atom.
We can take the tactic of science that these observers are "mistaken" but that would be the coward's way out. Given the circumstances of some serious cases, one must hit the nail with the hammer directly and say, "You, sir, are a liar". Bluntness is in order when no other realistic option is possible. I see that the case made by skeptics has become much weaker with time and the accumulation of startlingly, undeniable cases.
What are they trying to tell us?
They've been around for a very long time. Now that we have some expertize they seem to be showing us some moves ... almost as if they were impatient for our development. Why else perform these nonsencical maneuvers? For what reason would a UFO transport itself in wild zigzag patterns if not to show off for the locals? They move at times like drunken sailors without a purpose. A scientist would say they do so because they are not there ... they are in your mind. Really?
There is the third possibility, which is that our universe is a secondary construct and not a "real" universe ... as in Matrix ... or the Catholic Church's vision of a place that is "not heaven". But I can't buy into that solution because I have no way to proceed intellectually or philosophically ... in principle. We cannot come to any understanding of this condition except through the agency of the "constructors". In the view of the Chruch ... we need "faith" to understand God's (the "Sim" Universe programmer's) plan for man.
The conservation laws are extremely robust
Over the past few centuries tens of thousands of experimental verifications have occurred with no counter-examples whatsoever. No one has ever detected the slightest nuance of violation in the conservation of linear momentum. Well, there is the case of the neutrino which is a telling example of the attitude of scientists to the conservation laws ... the "neutrino" was specifically theorized to explain the observed angular momentum discrepancy in beta decay. In other words "It can't be ... therefore it isn't". In this case, the skepticism of scientists then was rewarded with the discovery of the neutrino. The law of angular momentum conservation was saved.
What is interesting is that there is no acceptance of any possibility that these laws can be false in any circumstance. This opinion is grounded in the above experience. Then, in the 20th century, if there were such an experimental discrepancy ... and if it were very small ... it might have passed unnoticed ... and ... if it were noticed ... it would be ascribed to experimental "noise".
At best, this strains credulity. Experiments are extremely precise now and even a hundred years ago. How could such things go unnoticed? I can see the possibility that Faraday or Hertz or Tesla might have missed something but it's difficult to imagine the entire spread of 20th century science as having failed to "see" anything anomalous at all.
Here's the biggest problem.
There are only a few fundamental things you can do with matter. You can:
1) Shake it back and forth
And that's it. Everything else conceivable is some combination of the above. And all this has been done in thousands of experiments ... and ... nothing ever happened that violated any major conservation law. There are just the problems, in particle physics, with the weak interaction (parity, etc.) ... and even these never encroach upon Newton's laws of motion. I have stated a theorem before that I believe to be universally true ... "If all the parts of a mechanism obey the laws of physics ... then ... the mechanism as a whole must obey the laws of physics". (I'm probably not the first to say this either). So ... if ... a UFO does not obey the known laws of motion ... then ... some part of it, right down at the atomic level, must not obey those principles. And they've ramped it up to perform in a gross way at the macroscopic level. This, in turn, means that we can, in principle, perform some of the above 5 operations in a tabletop experiment to achieve the same result ... and at some level they will be measureable.
So, what can I do that has not been done before?
I can't ... that's "el problemo". Whatever the UFOs use as a propulsion mechanism is already known at some level by the scientific community ... and, no ... there isn't any conspiracy. Whatever means by which UFOs operate must already have been observed many times over. Hence, it must be some small effect that has been ascribed to some other cause ... and ... has not been recognized as a conservation law violator. That is, if this effect is seen and there is a violation occuring ... scientists will universally consign it to experimental "noise". It must be a very small effect to go unchallenged for so long. It may even have a name ... but no one runs any momentum experiments on it because "it can't be, therefore it isn't and we don't have to do those type experiments because we already know the outcome".
Admittedly, this is a stretch. So, I have to basically do the simple experiment that Tesla, Hertz, Faraday shoulda-coulda done a century or more ago.
I already know what I'm going to do ... I've designed and redesigned my set up. I'm ready to do the thing ... but ... where do I go after it fails? I have zero confidence in this (or next to zero).
My options when failure occurs is to join the scientific community in its "can't be therefore it isn't" chorus ... which is to turn my back on my own judgement of witnesses, i.e. a moral dilemma ... OR ... postulate that we live in a Matrix-Sim Universe which is almost comical to me (but not disprovable) ... OR ... postulate that there is "some other process" by which UFOs can operate, which goes against my 44 years of experience at figuring things out.
In short, I'm philosophically hogtied.
My guess is that I will end up using my new computer to do music for the remainder of my existence (but not the music of the spheres) and pretty much abandon working on this site, i.e. I'll make an entry now and then but stay away from anything controversial as I shall no longer be able to trust my own judgement (or anyone else's either). Well, I've always wanted to score my symphony. I'll do just that and post it on the net some years hence. All that remains to do is ... get off my ass and set the gizmo up and running ... fail ... and get it over with.