Talk:Philadelphia Experiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

the movie

the 1984 movie is mentioned in the section titled Later publications of the story, but not in the section titled Audio Visual Media.

People using the table of contents will not find it quickly, especially since the 1984 movie is not a "publication" at all. - comment applies article text as of Aug 2, 2006

it should be linked at the top maybe? same name and all —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.162.48.37 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

New physical knowledge

Hi Folks!

I did some research on physics. So, here it goes:

- Invisibility uses no fiber optics. It is simply not possible. You'd have to do it in all directions and that is - say - out of reach of even today's tech.

- Solution A: Bending light - could be possible, but would require more energy that the sun's gravity. Forget it.

- Solution B: Every object has an electromagnetical field. Since atoms are both atomic and electromagnetic of nature, (just like light) you can only see light in the same phase, like you. (Ever watched Stargate?) So: shifting phase should render any object invisible. Reports say, that many ships around the U.S.S. Eldridge had em generators on board. These generators were bombarding the Eldridge with low energy, high frequency em-waves. This could have had the result, that the ship became invisible. Many reports state, that people fully controlling their auras, (em-fields) have the ability to become invisible as well.

ProClub 20:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In my research, I didn't find any specific claims for how the effect was created technically, and likely wouldn't have paid much attention to them if I had. Rather than speculate, we should probably stick to the supposed story here, and present the opposing points of view based on that. - Scooter 06:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)--scooter, you're story is base soley on your opinion and is completely open for blasting out of the water given the number of incorrect details, bad dates, false names, insufficient research and I can go on. Rip em up lydexia. As the man below states, this article should never have been written.

Ah, so you're saying that all light is just tunnelling past the ship? Read my contributions. lysdexia 15:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since atoms are both atomic and electromagnetic of nature, (just like light) you can only see light in the same phase, like you. (Ever watched Stargate?) Unless you're using some new definition of the word "phase" that I haven't heard of yet, this is patently untrue, Star Trek and Stargate notwithstanding. --David Wahler (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

David, this is patently not so--I just looked at your bio--a recent high school grad with interest in tecnology. Please do some research. Lysdexia is not talking about electromagnetic vs. atomic, s/he is simply stating that when disharmonies exist between waveforms, light and light refractions disappear or become invisible. I don't think you are talking about the same thing. And, I believe s/he is correct in stating that it is a possible outcome. It is also true that when waveforms are sped up, the visible light disappears. If the ship was blasted by several other ship with high speed energy thereby increasing the frequency of the light reflected from the ship, the ship could disappear. It may even be able to move. You do not know for certain that this is not possible.

I'm sorry but this demonstrates a pitiful comprehension of physics. This entire thing is conceptually just bullshit. Science fiction != reality.

Sorry to Chime in on your article, but where did you do this physics research? Where you differ from fact mostly is in the possibility of invisibility, specifically:

• Recent expierience done at the University of Michagan have shown that metamaterials (hybrid materials of composite ceramic and fabric, generally) can bend elements of the electromagnetic spectrum around them to produce what amount to limited invisibility. This means you can be invisible on radar, to human eyes, or both. But you will case a very small shadow as well.
• You say that bending light would require more energy than the suns gravity. This is not the case. Light bends (ever so slightly) as it goes around any object with mass, like your finger, or a planet. This is incidently how extrasolar planets are found, through a technique known as gravitational lensing.
• I have no idea where you come up with the idea that "atmoms are both electromagnetic and atomic in nature, like light." Light is not composed of atoms, it is composed of photons, which are massless particles (their lack of mass is why light is able to move so fast, no worries about e=mc2). And atoms, by themselves, are not electromagnetic in nature at all, you need to charge them with either negative or positive particles (electrons/positrons) or utilize atoms with decreased neutron activity.
• You say that "you can only see light in the same phase, like you"...I dont know what this means, but a human's ability to see light has nothing to do with phases, it concerns the absorbtion spectrum of what your looking at (the particles making up a red shirt tend to absorb more "red" light).
• You talk about "em-waves", which cannot be produced by generators, as they are the first waves to arrive at the epicenter of earthquakes (em waves are the waves that travel fastest through the semisolid medium of the mantle). References auras as real objects also is not based on known physics.
• Your grammar. Please stop abusing those poor commas. I'm going to guess by the grammar that you are in highschool and have a keen interest in technology, so keep up the schoolwork and dont write physics articles.

Most of the points above make little sense. English is not my mother tongue, so please bear with my grammar, it won't be at the level of the rest of this document for sure.

• • Metamaterials work as wave guides. That's the same principle of fiber optic. Nothing new at all in physics, it's just good old refraction, even though it's a major accomplishment in materials engineering.
  • Atoms (like everything) are both waves and particles. Photons behave the same way. And they totally do worry about e=mc2. Please have a look at special relativity. In addition, atoms are not electromagnetic in nature... electromagnetism is a theory of fields and forces, and atoms are matter. The interaction of particles within atoms is very well explained by electromagnetism (in its quantum variation, called QED, but that's another story). I don't understand what neutron activity is.
  • A red shirt tends to reflect red light, not to absorb it. If it adsorbed red light, how would this light get at your eyes?
  • Em waves are longitudinal waves. The theory of waves in matter, which has derives from elasticity, has nothing at all to do with the theory of electromagnetic waves, which is based on Maxwell's equations (in any of their numerous forms, from the classical one to the General Relativity 4-tensor form to the QED forms). The only analogies are formal.

Sorry for the dry tone, but one can't tell others to study physics if s/he doesn't know the basics.

** One last point: what is high-speed energy?????

Paolo 22:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

He might be a high school physics enthusiast, but at least he took the time to try and put his thoughts into the report. As far as grammar and the "abused commas," so what? You might want to run your replies through a spellchecker before firing them off into the unknown.

Come on people

I periodically visit pages I've writen in the past to see if they've been vandalized (one was last week). I arrived here to find what is basically a discussion in the main article, and none here on the discussion page.

Lysdexia, cudos for trying to give the article some balance, but I have to complain about the way you did it. I would be happy if you placed the text in it's own section, but doing it inline makes the artcle very difficult to read. The article is not a discussion page, this is a discussion page.

But my major concern is the attempt at "balance" at all. This story is told by a single mentally ill person, publicized by a number of authors cashing in on the paranormal craze of the 1970s. That's it. There's a major credibility problem here. Before you go on to offer explainations of how it all could have worked, you first have to state why you think it's worth bothering in the first place. No really, this is the most important issue.

I'll offer some headings here to get us started on the real discussion:

Is there any external evidence that anything even remotely like this event ever took place? I'm not even talking physical evidence here, is there anything at all?

---

try the report written by the government that unfortunately is largely blacked out due to "security reasons" and interview other people who were actually eye witnesses. They exist. But you are right, for some people, this event never happened. If it didn't happen for you, don't write about it with mis- information. For some people, this is completely possible. It depends on what you believe. And then of course there is evidence to support either view--leanne

Is there any reason to believe this is anything more than the writings of someone with too much time on their hands? I could write a considerably more convincing story without the logical problems this one has, I could even mail it to the ONR.

If you can offer answers to those questions then perhaps it is worth trying to explain the rest. But you have to start with these!.

Maury 14:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, you misspelled its, explanation, and kudos. (And your addition was full of spelling mistakes. And Func incorrectly corrected two "typos", the -ise ending and the SkepDic site name.) Maury, read the extra information from the SkepDic entry, and the Naval schedule in the earlier link. There seems to be an allowance for the ship to be at Philadelphia. That Inquirer article had almost no details: Who were these sailors, what were they doing on the ship, and what is the evidence that the ship was never in Philadelphia, especially if it were to cross the channel?

I think you may be missing my point (hard to say in text). Ok, the ship COULD have been Philadelphia... and? It could have been in New York, England or the dark side of the moon as well. The only reason the word "Philadelphia" comes up at all is because of the story. See the problem? My point here is that there is no reason to believe the story in the first place. THAT is the important issue here. Until there's compelling evidence that this isn't what it seems to be -- a feeding frenzy -- then saying "well it COULD" have happened..." is premature.

Again, I'd like to return to my starting point. Is there any independant evidence that this actually happened? By this I mean anything that is not 1) a variation of the original story, 2) not directly or indirectly traced back to Allende, and 3) not an equally rediculous story that attached itself to every paranormal event to lend itself credibility.

You left the new headline in even though you don't want discussion in the article. Why don't you restore and reformat my text rather than delete it?

Complaints shouldn't be left in, or brought up at all, if there are their answers left out.

What? If you're going to complain about people's spelling, you might want to at least write your comments in English. (yes, I'm joking)

Oh, and New Scientist did an article finding a link between the Earth's magnetism and gravity over a year ago. lysdexia 10:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If someone walked up and told you the contents of the bottle they were holding would cure cancer, make your hair grow back and cure athlete's foot, would you believe them? Probably not, I'm guessing that you'd be very sceptical that any one medicine could have an effect on such widely differing complaints. You'd also be likely to think the person is trying to scam you. Skeptism is a powerful tool, it might just save your life some day.

So when someone says "magnets, gravity, Einstein", why would you lend it any credence? The description of the story sounds like a science fiction story -- it made the ship invisible, travel through time, caused mental problems and fused people with metal. Come on. Even if you're not a physicist it doesn't mean you shouldn't be saying "hmmmmm".

And as a failed physicist, take it from me, the story makes absolutely no sense. It's just a collection of scientific-sounding words strung together almost at random. Here, let me demonstrate: "due to the interactions of electromagetism on the upper atmosphere's ionized layers, gravity has been reduced, creating an inversion that we can use to escape the strong magnetic field!". This is how they write Star Trek episodes; the original author puts in a mark saying "insert technobabble here" and then the continuity people go over it later and make stuff up.

So again, kudos on really trying. My main complaint was the way, not the what, of your additions. But here in the discussion page I'd like to continue on the point at hand -- why would anyone think this story is anything other than what it seems -- a made-up tale by one guy. Don't talk about how it could have worked or that the ship could have been there, address the question as-is: is there any reason to believe this story at all. Maury 16:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

because dear skeptic some of us are forward thinking, believe that miracels can happen, trust that although technology has brought the human race to the brink of total disaster, it may also be the thing that applied with real consious and heart may save are skeptical, fearful, small thinking species. Lysdexia, thank you for pointing out that it may be possible. Read the report written by the government (tough though since it is mostly blacked out) about the experiment and talk to other people who know a lot more than you about it than you. This is lazy reporting.

Hi, Lysdexia. :) I used a spell checker, which I guess is why I didn't notice the "SkepDic" thing. I'm not sure what you mean about the -ise ending. Articles that concern US subjects are suppose to use US English. func(talk) 22:14, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well of course the burden of proof isn't in proving that something didn't happen is it? It's in proving that it did. Nobody can prove that I didn't turn into a leopard yesterday while I was on my own in the bath tub but then I can't prove I did either. Which is more likely? [[User:Andy Levett] 16:30, 13 Oct 2006

It is common to claim, as Andy did, that somehow the burden of proof is on "positive" claims rather than "negative". Frankly, this seems utterly strange to me, since the usual argument is something like: since it is harder to prove a universal (i.e., negative) claim, we shouldn't have to. What odd reasoning! If something is hard to prove, assume it is true?

But look at Andy's actual argument: which is more likely? Aha! Here, there is no bias for negative over positive claims! This is merely a question of likelihood and there are many positive claims which are more likely than their negative counterparts: there is almost certainly someone in my county sharing my birthday, even if I have no direct evidence for this fact. It is almost certainly the case that someone failed a spelling test yesterday, although I don't know anyone who did.

Not to single Andy out for this, but let's drop this nonsense about positive versus negative claims. One certainly can prove a negative, in certain circumstances. And in any case, the fact that one can't prove a certain claim has never counted as evidence the claim is true! Phiwum 14:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's ridculous Phiwum and I'm sure you don't really believe what you've written. We are talking here about a singular event without parallel. It has been proven that all people have a birthday and that spelling tests, of which many people fail, are taken every day. Therefore with the number of people in your state and at school generally, the laws of probability decree that those things being reality are a near certainty based on already proven possibilities. As the events described in The Philidelphia Experiment have no precedent, it's possibility has to be proven before probability can even be applied. The burden of proof is very definitely therefore on those wishing to establish this story as fact.

The most ludicrous thing about people believeing the TPE is the teleportation. People believe that the ship travelled from a point in space to another point in space some 600km away in an instant. Fine, I can handle believing that. However if you want to apply laws of probability ponder on this. Of all the random points in space which it could have reloctated at the given distance, the vessel supposedly ended up at one that was also at sea level seeing as it was spotted floating off the coast of Virginia. Even if you were to accept that teleportation was possible, that's another huge leap of faith.

Andy Levett 14:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)~NEW INFORMATION19:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)~ It IS possible, to make something invisible by using EM to warp light around an object. it is being done, RIGHT NOW. look it up.

Supposed or Documented?

From the article:

Researcher Jacques Vallee describes a supposedly documented experiment

Um, I think it should either be "a documented experiment" or "a supposed experiment". It can't be both, can it?

P.S. I live in Philly. I've noticed the tendency of my socks to disappear, while my coat hangers tend to multiply. Any connection? ;-) func(talk) 18:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, of course there's no connection. Everyone knows that it's paper clips which transform into coat hangers. Your socks are being confiscated by roving bands of Foot Ninja.  :-) Anyway, if Vallee alleges that he personally has documents which support his claim, and announces as such, but does not produce them, then I think that would be a "supposedly documented experiment". - Scooter 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This would only make it a "supposedly documented, supposed experiment"

Just because this is fun, and please hit me for doing this, but how about a "supposedly documented, supposed experiment of suspect credibility". Ya, that should work.....omg, I am even gonna sign this Dkriegls 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Marshall Barnes

Anon User:203.26.206.130 added the following discussion point to the article. I've moved it here to the talk page. func(talk) 14:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(This article does not include all relevant facts and should be updated to include Marshall Barnes's rebuttal to Vallee's claims. In short, the veteran who served on board the Engstrom is highly suspect, the Engstrom never berthed next to the Eldridge and the Eldridge was not where the veteran claimed it was at the time. Vallee's case is largely unsubstantiated and matches closely with the Official account, which is as credible as Air Force denails of the existence of Area 51.)

Slightly Different Verison

From what I heard the Philidelphia Experiment had no intention of making anything optically invisible. The entire point of the experiment was to make a ship invisible to radar and sonar using electromaginetic feilds. It's been a while since I looked into this, but the supposed reason everything went hay-wire was because they were using 3 huge generators to create the massive loads of electricity. Unfortunatly the experiment called for perfect syncronization of them (which is physically impossible back then, and today) and the offest is what caused the problems.

This I know for a fact from documents and pictures. The ship was decommisoned and given to Greece after WW2 as military aid. There are holes in the bulkheads for either pipes or wires that were never patched up, in the lower decks a giant room has huge bolts in the floor (like something heavy had to be secured... 3 generators?), and the ship has an ominous green glow at night time. I've heard other stuff about Aliens and Time Travel but nothing solid enough to hold up in a discussion here.

What Does This Mean ?

From the current article: "This time, Eldridge not only actually became almost entirely invisible to the naked eye, but actually vanished from the area entirely in a flash of blue light."

Apart from too many "actually"s, it seems to me that if it "actually vanished", then it would have been invisible, period. The two things mean the same thing, don't they? What, then, does "became almost entirely invisible" mean? Cheers JackofOz 03:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, my bad on that one, at least as far as "actually" goes. Anyway, what I was saying was not only could it not be seen, but it couldn't be detected in any other way either, because it had vanished. Relevant, since the idea was to make the ship invisible. Does that make better sense? (The grammar I mean - not the situation!) - Scooter 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for taking my time getting back here. I was abducted by invisible aliens and locked in a cosmic vortex for a few months there. (Lol :--)

Are you saying that, despite the fact that it was invisible and undetectable, it was somehow still there? Wouldn't science suggest it no longer existed in that time and place at all? JackofOz 06:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't it still take up space? I mean, basic physics, once matter is there, no other matter can occupy the space. Unless of course I don't understand this experiemnt like I think I do. It can be undetectable, but it would still occupy that space in that time.
--Rroepke 06:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you dont mind me stickin my nose on your discussion, I think what whoever wrote that ment to say is "not only it couldnt b visible, but stoped being there" as in it was not there anymore (that being called either "ceasing to exist", or "being instantly transported elsewhere"= teletransported, or so they call it). by this, im obviously not supporting it neither disproving the text in any way. just explaining the way i think it should b understood. cheers Hallaathrad 00:42, 30 October 2006 (gmt -5)

Role of mass in gravity

Small quarrel with the text:

The description of the system, which uses gravity to bend light around the ship, is theoretically possible, but would require a mass considerably greater than that of the Sun (which does bend light due to gravity, but only slightly - its mass does not warp space-time all that much).

if there is any evidence for such a thing as strong anti-gravity, as some of these TOE theorists suggest, then you could get away with a gradient.. perhaps a spherical or toroidal shell?

It's like that Issaac Asimov story: The scientist proves that a forcefield is impractical because it can't last more than 1/50th of a second. The engineer just makes a forecefield that flashes on and off a thousand times a second. The reason that the statement about the sun is spurious is because no one has claimed that gravity was used in the Phili experiment. A magnetic field was allegedly used--and according to modern physics, magnetic fields do not bend space as far as I know. Puddytang 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Puddytang, electromagnetic fields (in relativity there is no such thing as a pure magnetic field) do bend space, through the energy contained in them. But indeed, the energy that one would have to put into a magnetic field strong enough to bend light around a ship would be so much that the Earth's orbit would probably be disturbed... and most of North America's West coast would move a few feet westward... I bet somebody would have noticed. :-)

Paolo 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOST?

Has anybody been watching the ABC series Lost? I don't know about you but the more I read about the Philly experiment and the Montauk stuff the more it correlates with the plot of the show.

-- Specifically the Dharma Project and button operator Desmond... ?

Agreed. While I was pondering the Montauk Project the other day it ocured to me that there could be parallels. I think the Third Policeman angle is the main one and I've grabbed the bok to read, but I do wonder about something like this being added into the mix - it'd work well (Emperor 00:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

Same here. Especially with the finale last night. I mean...hello? Yeah, it's pretty much intense. Violet sky? Teleportaion. "Henry" said that Micheal would not be able to find them again. Invisability? Yeah. It's very close.
--Rroepke 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Gravity's Rainbow

While many things about Pynchon's novel are puzzling, and it certainly borrows heavily from paranormal speculation and conspiracy theory, the title of the book is explained pretty clearly in the text: the rainbow is the path followed by a projectile in free fall, such as a rocket after its motor cuts off (Pynchon describes it as a parabola, though for long distances it would be more accurately described as a section of an ellipse). I'm not sure other explanations are necessary. --Matt McIrvin 13:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Bold New Ground in POV

The beginning of this article is absolutely ridiculous; not only does the material not 'calmly' discuss what the issue is about, it comes out as all but openly trying to correct anyone on 'thinking it might be real'. It also does not take into account notions such as all the names or even places being changed (there was once a show that claimed to tell stories like that), but the original reality of the material being factual. Not saying that it is, but the write up in this article should be wiped out and started anew, especially in the way it presents the opposing viewpoints. --Chr.K. 01:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"closed minds should come with closed mouths" Thank you for this comment. I agree, the author starts off by stating his personal belief that he doesn't believe the experiments ever happened or that the results of the experiments are not possible. Who would have ever thought it was possible to take photos of Uranus or cure cancer via "energy medicine" or lay down a million miles of hot tar across the continent and drive cars over it? But all of these things currently are true. To state personal dis-belief immediately limits the possiblity to accurately or fairly report. And, clearly it limited the authors research. BTW, here are a couple corrections: a) the bermuda triangle problems are not believed to be a result of the Philidelphia project, rather other experiements conducted in that area in 1913 are believed to have triggered WW1 in 1914, b) there were actually at least two other eye witnesses who claimed to be on the ship and who have come forward. Neither one is mentioned in this article and as you can imagine both seem to have some neurological problems. That seems very consistent to me given the government cover-up and the nature of the experiments, c) Those who have read the government reports, which are not mentioned in this article, say that the pages are mostly blacked out 'for security reasons" They report that there is enough information left to get the gist of the experiment and what happened including that the ship did disappear. d) The experiment was originally headed by Nikola Tesla who died and was replaced by John Van Neumann. Dr. Geno is perhaps one of many who helped run the experiments, the point being that this article is not thorough or the research is not thorough. Tesla was a visionary who claimed he could provide (which he proved) free electricity but there was money to be had and he was bought out and hushed.

It is constantly amazing to me how many people on this earth still believe despite what we know now, that humans are the most intelligent species in the "known" universe. This article smacks of this underlying belief--writing from the point of view that the technology described is more than likely not available. Does the author know this to be absolutely true? Given that scientist have proven that what we as a speices don't know far exceeds what we do know; that Politicians have proven that human beings are not always trustowrthy (and sometimes downright liars and themselves conspiritorial to the public detriment); that psychologist and modern cultural antrhopologist have proven that our belief systems can severely limit our understanding of daily events not to mention universal truths; and, that journalists have proven that reporting from a truely objective point of view is incredibly difficult and takes enormous integrity, it is a wonder that people can still write with such scepticism and get away with it. So, note to the author-- check your belief system , watch your language, make sure you do your research and if you are going to write about science, study it--at least a little. We have known about wave interference for a long, long, long time now. Wave interference or vibrational disharmony has been known since Leonardo as far as I know at least since the first musical instrument. Why couldn't the ship have disappeared after creating disharmonic wave forms, or increasing the energy field until the reflection can no longer be seen? Even the Egyptians new about this and none of us know whether or not this incredible society applied it or not. We just do not know. And we just do not know how honest our government or military is. Of course the people involved are a little wonky--how would you feel if you disappeared and then reappeared accidentally and the government/military tried to convince you it didn't happen. So com'on people,open your minds:). The possibility of invisibility or teleportation could actually contribute to saving our poor human butts from suffering if applied from a place of good will. And, It could contribute to our magnificence as a race if we apply our technologies with heart. So give it some room and, read the right reports. And, remember, our government, military and corporate conglonmerations are not interested in releasing information about technologies that are underdeveloped and can't be charged for. Until, one of those bodies figures out how to make a profit, it is unlikely that any such technology will be shared with the general public. And oops! it doesn't sound like it went all that well for a few human rats involved in the testing. Not something to bragg about, eh? It's happening, read sacred geometry, optic sciences, quantum physics and then decide. We are amazing beings on the brink of some absolutely mind boggling realities--your positivity in all things makes a difference. Leanne

Leanne, I totally agree with you. I think we should listen to everybody, and evaluate it. Major progresses in human knowledge have been produced against the so-called "common sense" how things worked. But honestly, reading your statement, I don't find anything at all that even remotely hints at any proof that this has been done. The day one proves that invisibility can be attained by electromagnetic fields, I will happily burn everything written from Maxwell on. But in order to reject the theory of electromagnetism, which is used daily by me and you and by the eyes of thousands of living animals, I think one would need something more than saying "you know, all papers have been destroyed". Then why don't we say that on that ship the Navy was communicating with the dead? Or that experiments were executed to produce cheesecakes out of steel? These seem equally plausible.

I'm sorry - I'm not trying to ridicule you, bear with me. What I'm trying to say is that this really looks like a total hoax.

On your points:

a) I don't comment it for lack of knowledge on my side

b) Who are these witnesses?

c) Who read the government reports? Is it possible to scan a copy and post it on the article site?

d) Nikola Tesla never provided free electricity, as far as it's known. If any form of energy could be produced "free", all we knew about the universe (not joking - seriously all) would be false. This can well be, but some evidence would be nice to have.

Paolo 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the "criticism" section?

The Philadelphia Experiment is a mere exaggeration of Degaussing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degaussing

Degaussing did take place on this particular ship. It did make the ship invisible, but not to radar or to the eye, but to MAGNETIC MINES.

This, by the way, is the Navy's explanation as to how this conspiracy came to be. There should be mention of it in the page. 69.111.19.31 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's Hollywood mangling science via a filter of practical jokes and cheap fiction. Interesting in it's own way. Hakluyt bean (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes in line with recommendations below

Some significant changes to the text in response to the concerns highlighted below: general reorganisation/restructuring + corrections to grammar and punctuation. Also, rewording of some of the prose to bring it in line with more of a "peer review" protocol and quality. I've left the basic informative elements and the fundamental foci of the discussions intact (as I'm very much a newcomer to this topic as a whole). The story-telling elements which some may argue to be long-winded, I've left intact for various reasons. Apologise sincerely if I've stepped on anyone's toes; please raise any new concerns you have in this paragraph. Monitor712

Horrible layout and style of writing

I was just reading through this out of interest and I've noticed more spelling mistakes, grammatical mistakes, and outright back and forth than I have time to fix. This article really needs taking down and rewriting by one person objectively - the information is there, the structure isn't. To describe 'back and forth' a touch more, it seems like there are people fighting over this being factual and this being a nutters conspiracy theory; to put it bluntly it should be neither and probably read more like a story ('it is said the ship went bye bye'), if anything, with facts clearly outlined as such ('this man said this') and bickering over 'allegedly' and 'unproved to be false' be kept to a minimum. This is a story for all purposes until proven otherwise, this isn't the legal system. And quickly to note my bias for the above comments; I personally think there is a bit of truth to all things like this and I wouldn’t put it past the navy to at least be interested in a project like that – though if it was that the ship simply sailed up a canal or that it did in fact disappear is beyond my knowledge and I don’t expect to find out. -- eps 0204, 03/08/06 (UTC)

WRT to style it should probably be mentioned that nowhere in the summary paragraphs it says what the 'experiment' was about. It can be inferred that it was tried to render a ship invisible, but it is not stated explicitly. Eventhough this is consistent with the coherency of the theory outlined, it does not make a good article. --84.150.103.233 03:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Through a special application of the theory, it was thought possible, with specialized equipment and sufficient energy, to bend light around an object in such a way as to render it essentially invisible to observers. (Imagine a straw in a glass of water.)"

This should be clarified. What is the connection between the imaginary straw and what is presumed to have happend during the Philly Experiment? Straws don't become invisible, and while light does strange things as it travels through the fluid medium in the glass (one might also imagine boat oars in the water), that's not really the issue with the Experiment either. C d h 05:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thin Air = fiction?

I spotted an update on this [1] - the authors of Thin Air have now admitted that their work is fiction. This leaves to leave people like Al Bielek hanging as they claim to have tracked down and talked to people now revealed not to exist. The site linked to [2] has been picking apart the various related threads (tracking down crews of vessels, etc.) and the whole thing looks to be either made up or the product of fantasy prone individuals who seem to actually seem to believe what they are saying. I'll leave it to someone else to work out how to incorporate this information into the entry (and possibly creating the Al Bielek entry to outline what we know about him. (Emperor 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Fiction or Non?

Hi, I attempting to write a research paper for college on this very controversial subject. I read "The Philadelphia Experiment: Project Invisibility" by William L. Moore in consultation with Charles Berlitz. Although this book is obviously more sided with the idea that this experiment really did occur, it also seems to have very specific information that would be difficult to fabricate. My question is this: How accurate is this information and how reliable are the sources? Is this something I can include as a resource for a paper or is it a bunch of made up junk? I am very interested to learn more on the subject. Any help would be greatly appreciated.--67.128.92.10 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

When you read "Philadelphia Experiment", what should grab you is the almost total lack of substantive information. Worse, the authors seem to disregard the need to follow-up any of the information they do get. Allende is the main witness to the experiment, with little if any efforts expended to contacting other crew members of either his ship or the DE that the Navy actually experimented on. Apparently, the Navy so tightly clamped down on the project that Allende was the only witness. The authors never once explain how Allende came forward when others hadn't. Neither do the authors explain Allende's other claims - such as Einstein's confession to Bertrand Russell that he had suppressed the solution of his "Unified Field Theory". Allen/Allende's account goes far beyond being an observer, with no basis for the information in his rambling letters.Fatkat357 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Fatkat357

The consensus is that the information is not reliable, and much of it has been made up. Some of the people involved have been revealed to not have existed at all. Do you know that the information that is difficult to fabricate actually has corroborating evidence outside of the book? Coyoty 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I havn't read the book but take a look in "Lost science" by Gerry Vassilatos

ISBN 0-932813-75-5 which have some good info about the prehistory for the experiment. --130.225.29.254 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A quote from www.bielek-debunked.com...

It really is a pain in the ass for somebody who is looking for a tiny peace of background information in the internet, to dig through the thousands of Bielek-infected web pages. If Bielek was placed as major part of a dis-information campaign driven by US authorities, I have to admit, that this goal was achieved almost completely. Bielek and the Philadelphia Experiment have become one in the minds of most of the interested people. After you have seen what an intense and thorough investigation into Al Bielek`s claims has left of his story, you might ask yourself "Well, if Al Bielek made up all this, then the Philadelphia Experiment never happened, right?"

Wrong, because there is enough left beside Al Bielek and what ever he did to the whole field of the Philadelphia Experiment. What can be found (and was found and verified already) are manipulated records of the US Navy, the statements of an scientist, who was partially involved in the planning stage of the Philadelphia Experiment, the complete technical and military history of the degaussing technology, which led to the Philadelphia Experiment and at least one excellent documented scientific review of the technological background of the Philadelphia Experiment, which makes the Philadelphia Experiment a true and sound part of the scientific race between the Allied and the German scientists during WW II. So true and sound as the application of radar and the Manhattan Project were.

taken from http://www.bielek-debunked.com/Statements.html

--69.148.116.209 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just an Anonymous User's View

This is freaking scary. FUSED to the deck? Fused? Mental illness? Teleportation? By god... 199.126.134.144 07:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Scary? No. Absurd? Yes. I'm surprised this has even been, at any stage, taken seriously.

This is the best science fiction story ever. Elements of the story were borrowed by the creators of Delta Green, a Cthulhu-meets-X-Files RPG. It's always scary when you have a story firmly set in reality with hard-headed and realistic people who are then presented with evidence that frankly violates every law of nature that they ever thought existed. Sure, in our reality, most of this evidence ranges from sketchy to outright forgeries. In a story, we can say it's rock-solid. So oh, crap, what does that mean? Where do we go from here? That's what makes these kinds of stories so much fun! --Gmuir 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We are living in an era of both reality and fiction. Philadelphia experiment, do we have enough evidents that it never happened? Moon landing, do we have enough evidents that it indeed happened? There is one thing in common for the above two. Why didn't we do it again in so many years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.172.60 (talk) 19:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, conspiracy theorist would have us believe that the probable moon landing never happened and the improbable space warping ship did.Dkriegls 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, that was a useless comment taking up useless page space and bandwidth. SorryDkriegls 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

EM radiation, quantum theory etc

Erm... The article is written from a POV that suggests that there is ABSOLUTELY no way of affecting EM radiation (i.e. light, radio...) by intense electric or magnetic fields, while that most certainly isn't so. Light IS an EM phenomenon and some of it's aspects (i.e. polarization) CAN be manipulated by magnetic and electric fields (Kerr effect, Faraday effect etc.). It may be a good idea to at least mention that. Also, the article suggests that the objective of the (rumored) Project Rainbow was to attain optical invisibility, while the widespread belief is that it was merely an accidental sideffect (the true objective being radar invisibility - i.e. something that might mesh well with the idea of repolarizing an incoming EM emission by a very strong magnetic field). -- Orcinus, 0:40, 19 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you Orcinus, the article is incorrect by implying that intense electric or magnetic fields can't bend light. The Quantum Field Theory provides that index of refraction can be changed by magnetism. (see, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_gp_elm.html#maglight). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.105.48.207 (talk)

Sorry, but these effects (Kerr & Faraday effects mainly, together with their quantum counterparts) only occur when light is propagating in media. An electromagnetic field as such can have no effect whatsoever on the propagation of light -- it can only affect the characteristics of the medium it propagates in, leading to extremely subtle effects. (Ok, for the physicists: this is not 100% correct as per General Relativity, the energy contained in a electromagnetic field does change the Riemann tensor and thus metrics, but if one did such an experiment near Philadelphia, long before detecting deflection of the rays of light, the whole city and a nice piece of the crust would be moving, right?).

Coming back to the point... not only there is no known technology that would allow doing anything like that. The concept is that every single experiment done on light and electromagnetism in history, the Maxwell theory of waves, quantum mechanics and in short all we know about the nature of light would have to be wrong if anything like that were true. I'm open to discussing this, sure... but I would need some evidence before throwing away a theory proven every day by my eyes, my binoculars, compasses, cameras, radars, radios, Wi-Fi cards and particle accelerators.

I forgot mentioning it - there is no need to mention the Quantum Field Theory. Kerr and Faraday effects are purely classical phenomena, known and well explained since a long time.

Paolo 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the atmosphere (aka "thin air") of our little planet is, in fact, a medium of propagation, and electromagnetic field effects can and do have a measurable effect on the propagation of light (such as the photoelectric effect), which is, itself, like gamma rays, UV, and microwaves, an electromagnetic wave form. Much the same as the crests and troughs in water waves, the oscillating electric and magnetic fields constitute an EM wave. The wavelengths of visible light range from 400 nm to 700 nm, and merely heating an object will force it to radiate EM waves, including visible light (eg. red hot, white hot, blue hot, etc).

There is also a quantum effect known as Delbrück scattering, a process where, for a short time and in the presence of a very strong EM field, the photon disintegrates into an electron and positron pair. The charged pair interacts with an EM wave and then recombines into the photon with a changed direction. Thus, the EM wave bends the light. A positron (an anti-electron) has the same mass and charge magnitude as an electron of ordinary matter but the anti-electron has a positive charge. It quickly reacts with an electron. The two annihilate each other and produce two or more photons in the observed cases. However, more probably the charged pair will annihilate into two or more photons—this process has been observed under extreme conditions—but, then, the light ray is not bent but rather split into several rays. fallout11 12:59 1 March 2007

I just realized I tried to address a red herring. The supposed goal of the Philadelphia Experiment was to make the ship invisible to RADAR. Radar waves are easily influenced by strong EM waves and fields. Active electronic jamming (see the wikipedia entry for radar jamming), the creation of radar interference by transmitting EM signals and/or altered feedback, uses this principle as a matter of functionality. Fallout11 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Urban legend or urban rumour?

Why did you change "urban legend" to "urban rumor"? "Urban legend" is the much-more common term. A Google check of "urban rumor" turned up 80 pages. "Urban rumour" turned up 20 more. "Urban legend" turned up 85,200. -- Zoe

Eldridge launch date

Eldridge's launch date seems to be disputed: "Some researchers say she was launched on 27 Aug. 1943, while others say it was 25 July[3]...According to the Greek records, the Eldridge was launched in June of 1943, not in July nor August. Her displacement was 1,240 ton standard and 1900 full load, a discrepancy of 660 tons[4]"

Those 2 links are broken. I'm not sure if a geocities page is 100% reliable. Is there a site from the greek navy itself? Meanwhile, this site[5] lists the Eldridge as being launched in July 1943, in sequence with other ships of its class. Totnesmartin 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the greek navy site [6] which says the ship was launched in 1944. Just t. Totnesmartin 21:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

And here's the dockyard owners' site [7]. Wow, the cover-up is everywhere! Totnesmartin 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

Rewrote the entire page due to some inaccuracies (such as Jessup's attribution of "Mr. B" and "Jemi") and a general mocking POV. Sure, it's pure nonsense, but we still have to hold to NPOV. Scooter 09:19, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Carl Allen

All the "Carl Allen" links in this page were linking to a Carl Allen who is a US jazz drummer born in 1961. Since Carl Meredith Allen (in this article) was involved in incidents taking place in 1957, he can't be the same guy. I'll just add a disambiguation note to the Carl Allen article, so people don't get confused. --AaronW 20:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Appreciate it; thank you. - Scooter 06:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In Video Games

What made me read the article is because I'm a huge fan of Red Alert. Don't you think mirage tanks were also derived from this experiment. I mean the tanks become camoflauged by its ability to copy objects like trees with the use of light. This was mentioned in the allied campaign where the allied forces are instructed to protect Einstein's lab to the success of the Chronosphere project.

In response to the above: What any of us think does not make it factual. To the Video Games section: The section states that the Chronosphere kills all organical material. This should be edited to something along the lines of "kills all passengers in an APC" (and possibly Chinook) as the drivers of those vehicles survive. "The experiment led to two devices, based on its two variations." Three actually, the Phase Tank in Red Alert and the Stealth Tanks in Tiberium Dawn/Sun. Does the Red Alert 2 article need to be that detailed? I should at least not include any spoilers. MCV 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the Philadelphia the ship on the Playstation 2 game Splashdown 2, the level set in Bermuda? Norgy (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is referenced in Red Alert One, the allied mission introduction to level eight. The chronosphere is used on a ship. The ship disappears in a green for, and reappers hundreds of k's away.

Back in reality...

The story is fascinating and I admit that I would like to believe it just because of how cool it would be. But all verifiable evidence seems to point to this story being totally false. However, in more recent experiments, which are verified, it looks as if the U.S. Government is tinkering with a similar theory as is allegedly tested in the Philadelphia Experiment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5016068.stm

It might be something worth adding to the article, with the proper notation that the two are completely unrelated except for in general principle. Joe 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The two would be "completely unrelated" only if the Philadelphia Experiment were fiction. If it really happened, the Navy would know about it (at high levels) and the current experiments would be simply a continuation.

Please, read my post on the next thread: there is no connection whatsoever between the principles behind the alleged Philadelphia experiment and the principles behind the "cloaking device" discussed in the BBC article.

Paolo 21:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

(possibly a new section?) I have a few thoughts about the big bang theory and dark matter. They are only hypothesis, perhaps only speculation, and chances of these ideas being correct are low.

During the earliest stages of the big bang, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, and this period is called inflation, right? When did it end? Was it when photon could exist? After all, if the limitation on speed is the speed of light (photons), this would not apply if conditions in the universe do not permit photons to exist, right? So the universes initial energy and matter could have spread out pretty far, right?

Current estimates of the size and mass of the universe are based on how far we can see, right? What if the universe, because of the faster than light inflation, is spread out beyond where we can see? Of course, the mass of the universe would be proportionally increased (or maybe not as much). Since we think we can only see 20% of the mass of the universe, for a first approximation lets say the universe was this mass, but the 80% we cannot see is simply beyond viewing range. Due to the early faster than light inflation, possibly beyond viewable range. This matter is so far away that its light can never reach us. Remember the 2.7K infared readings from the big bang date from when photons could be emitted. So this energy and matter in those parts of the universe cannot be detect by photon, because they could not yet exist. How do this help us? This is the missing dark matter that is pulling our portion of the universe apart. It is just ordinary matter beyond our viewing (viewable) range. How would we try to model this? Model 1: A nested set of ballons blowing up, speeds in reference to the mythical center point. A 1 foot ballon at 50% the speed of light inside a 10 foot weather balloon at 90% the speed of light inside a 100 foot hot air ballon at 130% the speed of light. But any galaxy at any particular layer can only see to nearby sections of the next inner and outer layers, and each galaxy thinks that is the limits of the universe, and nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Model 2: think of this as 1 inch balloons expanding to 1 foot balloons held snugly together in a net. From a particular galaxy, they can only see from the center of a balloon to the outside of the balloon, where speeds approach the speed of light. All matter with viewable range within the bubbles obeys the speed of light, yet if you try to compare to a bubble 5 bubbles over it is travelling 4 times the speed of light compared to you.

Have you ever heard of the Pauli (?) exclusion principle? This is a principle (eg rule) that says 2 particles cannot occupy the same place at the same time Eg, in a Neon atom, there can be 1 electron in the 1st spherical shell with a clockwise spin, and 1 in an anti-clockwise spin. Same with the 2nd spherical shell and the 3 p-orbits. The three different orbits are really best described as an energy wave with the Schrodinger (sp?) equations. The subatomic speeds are so fast and the distances so tiny and the Hisenburg uncertainy constant so large in comparison that each electron could be at any point in the orbit that any attempt to locate the electron does not change the probability of it being in any particular location and must be considered a wave. How strong a wave is this? You cannot push two atoms together and make the orbits overlap, instead the two atoms will share the electron and form a chemical bond. You link up a bunch of Carbon atoms in a tetrahedral structure, we call those diamonds. And so these electron waves around a nucleus form what are call hard surfaces. To overide this wave, you have to pile on about 10% of the sun's mass before you can start to force a few electons into the nucleus and form H2 then He4, etc. in nuclear fusion. If you pile up about 4 sun's mass and wait a few billion years for the energy to be released and enough iron to be formed, a collapse of the center portion of the start will all collapse into one huge atom, a neutron star.

This exceeding the speed of light when photons cannot be present does present another idea too. Photons, in the waveform (vs particle) consideration also have magnetic and electrical characteristic. This is how generators, motors, electromagnets, and other electronic devices work. What would happen if a strong magnectic or electric field where set up around an object? So strong that photons inside the field cannot get out and photons outside cannot get in? Well, would your bubble of space be free to travel? Since photons inside and outside cannot interact relative speeds can no longer be compared. If you were to apply a slight directional force, you might be transported hundreds of miles away, or to another star system, or galaxy. We really don't have a theory on what keeps the arrow of time proceding forward. If you cut off a bubble of space away from the rest of the with such a strong field, when it re-intergrates it might possible be forward or backward in time. I have no possible idea about what force could propel you forward or backward in time. Another possible effect would be to override the Exclusion principle. Eg the force that keeps atoms apart might be suppressed enough that electron orbits around can overlap. You would have to design the field so that you have a clean bubble around the object, and not let the field inside be strong enough to supress the exclusion principle. If you did, a person in such a field might put thier hand into a suddenly soft wall, or sink into a sponge that used to be a floor. Scary aint it? Also sounds just like the Philadelphia experiment. Could also explain Star trek warp fields and transporter beams and transporter accidents.

User:MASchwab 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that Star Trek almost always has the source for its stories in current sociological situations and the human condition, rather than hard science? Warp speed without the effects of time dilation is a way to allow the crew to visit multiple worlds and explore what it means to be alive, not because it was based on any actual scientific theory. Current studies might exist that study if warp drive is at all conceptually feasible, but Star Trek writers had it first, not the other way around. On an somewhat random note, I think the way in which the article describes it as a hoax is what needs to be fixed, rather than proclaiming it to be so; simply put, if the Eldredge was not even stationed in Philadelphia on the day (or even year) in question, it's pretty safe to say that the Berlitz claim is not true. On the other hand, I am completely for bringing up the idea that the whole story actually happened, but on undisprovable notions of the ship having a different name, being stationed somewhere else, and nearly everyone involved (other than Einstein, harbinger of the theories themselves) having completely different names....IF that were found and referenced from a notable source...and this, from a rather extreme WP:Para member. --Chr.K. 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The UNIVERSE expanded at a faster than light speed. Matter couldn't exist yet, which left exotic particles and energy. Energy in photon form moved at light speed, the exotic matter moved quite a bit slower. By definition, the universe is our space/time environment. While matter and energy are IN that environment, they are not the universe. Only a part of it. As for time, without time, there is no causality. Without causality, nothing happens. Nothing happens is what was just before the big bang. Add time into the equation and you get cause and effect. Expansion can occur and as a result, the big bang. Oh, space warps are real. Space is warped all over the universe. Mass causes space/time to warp. The effect is used in astronomy for observing distant object and is called gravitational lensing. It doesn't make an object any closer, but light bends enough around large objects (such as stars) that the effect behaves like a lense to see an object behind the object that warped space/time. As for Star Trek, if we ever DID come up with some FTL travel form, but whatever means it gets around special relativity, I'd be more inclined to think that the intelligences out there would be more like the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, massive Vogon civil service... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SVillano (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

New experiments enable 'cloaking' devices

This is possibly related to this issue: Sorry that I dont have time to write anything up, but this news story suggests that at least invisibility (radar AND vision) may be possible.

Yahoo! News

Also here...

Baltimore Sun website

Sorry, but this story has nothing to do with the supposed Philadelphia Experiment. The cloaking technique described in the above mentioned articles involves wrapping an object in a sheet of other materials that would guide light around it - which does not seem to be the thing described in the Philadelphia Experiment, right?

Just to summarize, This is a really incredible feat in terms of materials engineering, but there is no new physics behind it al all: fiber optic wires work exactly this way, just as any pair of glasses or any lens of any kind.

Paolo 21:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

this says that "invisibility" would be very difficult to do, even today. In 1943 it would have been impossible. Totnesmartin 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I think you'll find that this technology employs materials either structured on a nanoscopic level (in similar principle to fibre optics) or by using materials with negative refractive indexes. This has nothing at all to do with warping space-time in funky ways with magnets. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.79.169 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Tone of first section

This article is messy in many ways, but the worst section is the first. It describes the standard story relating to the experiment, but is unclear about what is real or not. As far as I can tell from the article as a whole, none of this story is considered true by the Navy, or any other mainstream source. The section should read something along the lines of: "Most accounts of the experiment claim that..." It would be nice if those accounts could be referenced. Later sections could explain objections to this story (eg. scientific problems, ship's records, crew testimony, etc.). Finally, the "In Popular Culture" section. If there are no valid objections, I will go ahead and change the first section in a few days. Makerowner 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed passage without citation.

The following passage was uncited for two months. I removed it.

Present day conspiracy proponents propose that the generators rigged to the ship may not have been designed to warp space/time. Instead they may have been deployed to heat up the air and water around the ship, creating an artificial mirage, thereby rendering the ship “invisible” to the human eye. This would still leave visible the ship's wake, in addition to the greenish colored fog described in some accounts.

Phiwum 12:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Total Nonsense

"Albert Einstein never fully developed his Unified Field Theory. The Unified Field Theory, now called M-Theory has only recently come forth from the scientific community. Incidentally, M-Theory resolves the four energy forces (The Strong Nuclear Force or Strong Interaction and Weak Nuclear force or Weak Interaction, Gravity and Electromagnetism) through the incorporation of 11 spacial dimensions and multiple universes. M-Theory, quantum mechanics and relativity all allow for many of the things the Philadelphia Experiment are thought to possibly be. While perhaps extremely unlikely, nothing attributed to the Philadelphia Experiment is outlawed by our most current understanding of the laws of physics."

This is total nonsense. M-theory is not "the unified field theory" by any means. It does not "resolve the four energy forces..." in any physically meaningful way - aside from the fact that "energy forces" sounds... absurd. This should be removed.

My god, this article. Can someone with proper dopamine levels fix this page? Myrkkyhammas 08:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fix it? How about delete it? While fun to listen to the Al Bielek interview on [8]Coast to Coast AM (now a fundraiser for Al B. is being waged,)[9] listening to Al's later interviews on the radio, he said he was sent back and forward in time and had his memory erased, his ID changed, and now he's so broke spinning his story Coast to Coast has resorted to donating money for him by way of new subscriptions to After Dark (the coast "newsletter"). I don't doubt there have been attempts at invisibility but this entire story, though fun to imagine, really isn't encyclopedia material. Kidshare 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, for heavens sake. It was a nice wacky idea for a movie and a couple of dodgie books, but anyone with even the slightest understanding of science should be able too see this is all crap. Unified field theory is nice but there's no way it can do that, especially back in the 40's. Bite the bullet and delete it. Spgoo1 13:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Once something has established notability, it does not lose that notability later. It does not degrade over time. It's total nonsense, but notably entertaining nonsense, so it can't be deleted. • Lawrence Cohen 13:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This story, nonsense or otherwise, is a fixture of latter American history. It would be irresponsible to delete it merely because it's made up. It should be noted that Big Foot and Nessie aren't very grounded in reality either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.203.30.141 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Where would American history be without the parts that are made up... But seriously, I think the article should stay; it's a kind of public service. I like the first paragraph atm eg "the story is widely regarded as a hoax". That's fairly clear. Hakluyt bean (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting for one reason. In 1982 my employer described the Philadelphia experiment in detail mirroring the movie that was released in 1984. I suspect that some experiment may have been conducted, I doubt that it was for optical invisiblity though. Perhaps RF field generation in an attempt to interfere/jam the crude radar of the time. It wouldn't fuse people into a bulkhead, but could cause horrific burns that would resemble melting in flesh, cause severe CNS problems due to heating, etc. I'd even buy in on mistaken identity of the ship, it's not like the Navy lets folks wander around then or now near their research projects. Especially in wartime! As for a cover up, it's likely if there was major loss of life and major numbers of disabled personnel, again, especially during wartime. It would be a major embarassment to the government and something to be avoided. And then the tale grew...

As a side note: There is some evidence that the velocity of light may not be truely constant over the life of the universe. As the majority of constants tend to be linked to the velocity of light, they would be variable as well. That leaves us with only one constant that is invariable: The constancy of idiocy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SVillano (talk • contribs) 06:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible copywrite issues

See World Mystery The World Mystery page is either taken from a previous version of this article, or this article is taken from them. From what I've seen in the article history it is more likely the former. Scottanon 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Neutrality of The Article is disputed

Ya think??

Where to begin..... articles such as this biased myopic rant actually does more to fuel the lunatic fringe than anything else. If one is to write an encyclopedic article one does not use phrases as "widely regarded as a hoax," one also doesn't keep hammering home how the story is basically BS, and back it up with false information, which anyone with rudimentary knowledge of physics can prove as false. (not that I'm saying that Fallout11 and MASchwab aren't versed in the study of course)

It's pretty much a given that Al Bielek is a disinformationist ether a compensated one or just a run of the mill nut-job that Coast to Coast AM is so famous for spotlighting. Further; there has been a significant body of work that claims that the stories of fusing humans to decks and Time Warps are pretty much invention of the ONR. What many scientist and historians believe is that Project Rainbow, was about RADAR jamming, and was successful; but given the current events, and the treaties that the United States had with its Allies that stipulated that we share major technological discoveries; there was no way in hell they would share the fact that yes we can fit our ships and perhaps soon our Aircraft with a device that would make them Invisible to that generations RADAR especially with our pals the Russians. The propaganda or absurdities that the ONR put forward worked far beyond even the grandest desires of The U.S. government, it's like an old ex FBI agent once told me, scratch a Tale tale and you will nine times out of ten find a Government cover up. Or ...UFO's = Stealth Aircraft, Roswell=Spying on Russia, Project Rainbow= RADAR jamming, Camp Hero = LSD/Biological experiments on transient citizens.

Martinj63 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Um...

Slightly lacking in that fundamental aspect all good articles include... LEAD, anyone? Seegoon 03:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The ship was fitted with with a large but simple electromagnet. It ran most of the length of the keel. The test was run before commisioning. The purpose of the experiment was to test large scale deflection of radio waves with an electromagnet field. If succesful, the result might have been possible "radar invisibility". The results were negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

witness?

S. Berliner, III on his website http://home.att.net/~Berliner-Ultrasonics/dudgeon.html wrot:

I really should warn those with a serious interest in the Dudgeon automobile that there are many links out there to one Edward Dudgeon, who was in the U. S. Navy from 1942 through 1945, and who testified about the alleged disappearance of the destroyer USS Eldridge, DE 173, from Philadelphia harbor, due to mysterious devices brought on board under extreme security precautions, and the alleged disappearance of two sailors from a nearby tavern! New reference link (23 Oct 00). Oh yeah! Herr Gauss would turn over in his grave!

What do y'all think? Vampromero (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)