Patrick ... An hour very well spent. You speak with such clarity and facility that I was fascinated by everything you discussed. It just reminds me what a big impact your information has made on me during the past several years. My great thanks to you and The Committee. And, I'm really looking forward to Part 3 of your Q&A.
In part 3 I am channeling, 1st time ever on camera. Thank you Cooper.
Oh! Hope they put Part 3 up soon.
I like the dining room format. I think they should do their radio show there. ;)
Once upon a time in the Dark Ages you would be burned at the stake for channeling (as you watched yourself of course!) Here in Scotland, the famous psychic Helen Duncan was convicted and imprisoned in 1944 under the Witchcraft Act of 1735. Now in 2018 channeling is commonplace, funky and cool. One day it might be mainstream! Doubt it will be in my lifetime but I'm happy just to play a tiny, tiny part in opening people's eyes to the true nature of reality.
@Alex I'm sure it will become mainstream sooner than any of us realize it might be considered a groundswell of support even now
It might. This left-leaning journalist wrote about her recent shock at seeing a few conservative political commentators suddenly start talking about Eastern mysticism recently.
I'm sorry to say this, but your idea of balloons to travel very fast is not supported by physics.
This was one of the subjects I pick and wanted to address time ago, when I was still reading your e-books, but it was left behind and almost forgotten...
Here the reason: a ballon that lifts in the atmosphere (we will leave behind air friction for now) starts with the same tangential velocity of Earth surface, for the entire time of fly.
That is, when he reaches a certain level, up in the atmosphere, there is truly a differential in local tangent velocity, but this defferential is not so big as one would assume.
Let's say that R is the Earth radius (approx 6378 Km), then the tangential velocity (in a circular uniform motion) is
where 2*Pi*R is the Earth local circumference around the rotation axis, T is the circular time period (24 hours for Earth). On the equator, we have around 1.660 K/h, prettty impressive, isn't it?
So, the the balloon will conserve this tangential velocity (barring air friction) going up.
Now let's say the ballon is on equator, an will go up in the very high atmosphere, or 40.000 meters.
An object that wants to stay "still" on the vertical of takeoff position, should need a tangential velocity as
Said that, the differential velocity (that is, the rate by which the balloon will be "left behind" by surface takeoff point) between the spot and the balloon is
ANd we should notice that the differential velocity is simply 2*pi*30/T
If we "stand still" (that is, no windm no engines to move the balloon) for an entire cycle of 24 hours, the distance "traveled" by the ballon (or the distance the balloon is left behind by the takeoff point) is around 250 Km.
250 Km in 24 hours is not so a impressive velocity, I have to say...
That is, around 10 km/h , the mean velocity of a bicycle during a calm bike ride...
Sorry to let you down, but this idea does not work.
Have a nice day
Sorry, said 40.000 m and then used 30.000 in my equations... THis is a mistake, but the reasoning is not really much affected by this... staying at 40.000m the distance after 24 h would be 250 Km, while staying at 30.000 the distance will be 188 Km
This is a wonderful WONDERFUL example of science blocking the advancement of science. Just a WONDERFUL EXAMPLE.
This is just a little exercise in cinematics, with an underlying of the basic three laws of dynamics.
If something in my reasoning is wrong, I'm open to corrections ;)
Have a nice day
@Pierluigi Why is the tangential velocity of the balloon not changing as it rises in the atmosphere to then become nul when the balloon reaches no gravity pull ?
I now understand that I have to explain more in detail, because my mindset gives a lot of things as taken for granted, and they are not for a lot of people.
FIrst of all, the three Newton's law of motion:
First law: If there is no net force on an object, then its velocity is constant. The object is either at rest (if its velocity is equal to zero), or it moves with constant speed in a single direction.
Second law: The rate of change of linear momentum P of an object is equal to the net force Fnet, i.e., dP/dt = Fnet.
Third law: When a first body exerts a force F1 on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force F2 = −F1 on the first body. This means that F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
these three laws are more than sufficient to give a good prediction, given a clear definition of the setup, that is
1) the ballon starts on ground on location A somewhere on the equator
2) no air/wind drag on the ballon, no engines on the ballon to provide push and horizontal motion
3) the ballon lift from point A (the time of lifting is dismissed for simplicity), stays afloat for 24 hours, then lowers again to the ground on point B (the lowering time is also dismissed for simplicity).
Whe would know the distance between the point A and B
When the ballon is grounded on A, the Earth and the ballon are connected, so the local velocity of the ground and the ballon are the same (united bodies). When the ballon begins to float, it disjoints from Earth. It is important now to describe what the status of the ballon is: the ballon has a certain amount of kinetic energy, that NOT dissipates by friction (we have excluded it). THis implies that the velocity of the ballon is pretty much the same of when it was grounded. The direction of this velocity is the same as before, given by the rotation direction of Earth. The ballon is not free of forces exercited on it: the gravity pull is still there, but it is balanced (and also overcome) by the floating force, that pulls up the ballon. But we have also to notice that NO horizontal forces are affecting the ballon. By the first law of motion, the horizontal velocity is unaffected. For a guy standing on point A, it seems that the ballon is simply lifting vertically: for a guy that is observing from space, he sees the point A and the ballon just some meters above it, moving with the same speed, so with zero relative speed each other.
Now we have to visualize the ballon that reaches in a small ampnt of time the high atmosphere (30.000 meters). Let's say for the sake of simplicity that he made there swift enough to still remain on the vertical of point A. The ballon is still subject to the gravity pull, that avoid the ballon flinging in the open space: it would have the ballo crash on grounf, save for the flotation pull that balances it, so the forces balances on the vertical, and the ballon is bind to stay at 30.000 meters from the ground, rotating arounf the Earth.
But still no horizontal (with respect to the ground) force is applied to the ballon (also, remember, no wind drag).
Now whe have this:
the point A on the ground, is bent to a circle having the Earth radius.
The ballon, on the other side, is bent on a circle having the Earth radius+30 Km
This implies that point A and the ballon have same horizontal velocities, but the ballon has a longer circunference to cover.
After 24 hours, the point A and the ballon will cover the same amount of space, having the same velocities, do you agree?
But point A has made a full circle, while the ballon has been left behind on its own circle, it has still to cover the difference between the smaller corcle and its own bigger circle.
this "bigger circle" to cover, is the reason why the ballon will progessiveli be left behind by point A on land.
this can be easily calculated, because after 24 hours it is simply the difference between the full bigger circle (2*pi*R+30) and the full smaller circle (2*pi*R)
this gives us 2*pi*(R+30-R) = 2*pi*30 or 188 Km after 24h.
THis is the more detailed explanation, given the simplifications and the assumptions made to make the explanation as simple and clear pssible
Now concerning your question:
"Why is the tangential velocity of the balloon not changing as it rises in the atmosphere to then become nul when the balloon reaches no gravity pull ? "
As you can desume brom above, the tangential velocity does not change because no horizontal force is exerted on the ballon when it is afloat. Also, the gravitational pull is ALWAYS present, it exerts its pull (down) all the time, but it is balanced by the buoyancy of the ballon into the atmosphere.
I hope this more detailed explanation is clearer
Have a nice day
@Pierluigi Dear Pierluigi, thank you for the info and your time for such a detailed answer, will read and reread this until I understand it thoroughly.
Don't burst my bubble, Pierluigi. ;)
When I first read about rising up in a balloon and watching the earth spin below, I thought it was the most wildly romantic way to travel I ever heard of.
I would prefer floating on a butterfly wing, as for Eben Alexander
Riding on a butterfly's wings would be nice, but after reading an expose on Eben Alexander, I'm a skeptic when it comes to him.
It should be funny to consider.
I started this wonderous travel into the uncharted lands of spirituality, afterlife and all the rest, just because of him (between other things ) who gave me the decisive nugging :D
(then it came Erik, whose interview appeared on one of my websearch, but this is another story).
nudging not nugging :D
In 1987 Sir Richard Branson and Per Lindstrand flew across the Atlantic from the USA to the UK in a hot air balloon, a distance of 4947 km, in 31 hours and 41 minutes, with an average speed of 156 km/hour, aided by the Jetstream and prevailing winds...
You got it: jet streams!
They are located mostly on 11.000 m (just above the tropopause), that can blow even to 400 km/h (or 250 mph) but usually their speed is lower, 55 km/h (35 mph) in Summer, and 120 km/h (75 mph) in Winter conditions.
For sure, they will give a conspicuous amount of horizontal force to move a ballon horizontally :D
Pierluigi, I don't understand the science behind your explanation, so throwing scientific words at me won't help.
The astronauts in the space station see the sunrise and sunset every 90 minutes. That's 16 sunrises and 16 sunsets per day.
I realize the balloon wouldn't be as high above the earth as the space station, but wouldn't it be high enough that it would still beat a jet plane?
I'm sorry that my explanation feels like "throwing scientific words to you", because certainly I do not intend to do this...
Concerning the space station, this structure is really ORBITING around earth, and his tangential velocity is 27 600 km/h (17.250 mph) and it completes 15,5 orbits/day
Its altitude is comprised between 330 and 410 km above sea level (this is because orbits are really ellipses, not circles).
The space station is nowere near "afloat" like a ballon would be: it is istead like a bullet shot at super-hypersonic speed, its tangential velocity is so high that falling on the earth it continuosly misses our planet (this is the very concept of an object orbiting around another object in space).
The discussion about the ballons suspended in the atmosphere (no tangential velocity) is completely different from an artificial satellite, that needs extreme tangential velocity to remain orbiting around the Earth.
Sorry about flinging aother scientific words, but to describe precisely something, there is a lower limit on word choice, under wich the concept become confuse or even misleading, so i tend to remain jut a little bit technical to avoid this unfortunate possibility.
Have a nice day
concerning the second part of your post:
Yes, it is certainly possible for a "suspended object" (like a balloin), to travel faster than a jet. It simply has to lift much, much higher.
If you recall my example using a simplified setup, after 24 hours
the difference between the point A (starting location of balloon) and B (ending location of same ballon), is given by
2*pi* H , where pi=3.14 and H is the height reached by the balloon.
If we could lift an object much higher, say 3000 km, we will have that point B will be 18840 Km far from A, that is, we would have "traveled" at a mean speed of 785 Km/h (490 mph), a speed pretty much comparable with a common Jet plane.
The problem is that by no means we are able to send a ballon this high. We need something similar to the "magnetic defying gravity" devices that Patrick has alredy mentioned every now and then.
THis kind of vessels (not ballon) would really do the trick of efficiently use the revolution movement of our planet
Have a nice day
If true, then wouldn't it be better to say, "We are not able to send a balloon this high YET"?
As far as the prediction goes, I don't know when this was supposed to occur. Maybe in a time when gravity defying technology is "invented" here?
the point is that whatever this vessel will be, it surely will not be a balloon, considering that above 100 km from sea level, there is nearly no atmosphere to sustain something using the good old Archimedes' principle.
The point is that Patrick was talking about balloons, or maybe zeppelins, and those vessels need a sustaining medium to make use of the Archimedes' principle. Technically speaking, it is extremely difficoult to go beyond 40.000 m and current civilian record for a stratospheric ballon is just a little below 50.000m
Even doubling this, we would need 30 times more, to reach a Jet speed equivalent.
Have a nice day