This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Quantum Tunneling?

Does Quantum Tunneling (theoretically) have anything to do with this? I'm not sure, but what about the boat's supposedly brief trip to Virginia? This would not just be going invisible by means of the bending of energy, but actually getting the electrons to quantum tunnel very briefly. I'm not sure; just wondering.

isoluminace experiment?

what it there was some kind of a test invovlving isoluminance?CorvetteZ51 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that isoluminecence was an experiment to camouflage aircraft in daylight by rigging them with lights. This was supposed to work well on bombers used against U-Boats because the lights made the aircraft invisble against the glare of a clear sky. Obviously this would not work as well in bad weather, low light or against terrain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatkat357 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, we were trying to bomb U-Boats? Please at least TRY to make sense. A submarine is both faster and harder to find when submerged, so how did these bombers find them, and given the relative speeds, how does this make any sense at all? What we (and they) did do was paint the underside of aircraft a light color.

Also please check your spelling.

I realize this is old... But you're wrong about not bombing subs. Subs were bombed, and quite easily in the right conditions. In a shallow harbor it's quite easy to spot a submerged sub from the air... and drop a bomb on it. Jersey John (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted intro changes

I reverted the recent edit [1] to the introduction. It simply replaced a reasonably well sourced version with an (contradictory) unsourced claim. If you say that the Navy maintains a position, cite an official Navy document. I guess the article should be patrolled a bit... Averell (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OCR Critical Thinking Unit 1 January 2008

Congratulations, this article, or parts of it, were included in the resource booklet from OCR's Critical Thinking Unit 1 exam on January 2008, as a source requiring a credibility assessment. Mⁱc_ro chip ⁰⁸ 12:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting synopsis

I rewrote the synopsis in conditional in order to make clear that this refers to a hypothetical situations which may or may not have occurred. I don't know if I was truly successful, since I'm not a native speaker. However, it seems to me that this is a better way of describing it than simply stating everything as facts and then add an "alleged" in every second sentence. Averell (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with this edit - [2]. I'm not a native speaker so it may be that my use of "would" was extremely awkward. I never said it was perfect. The revised addition, however, states all the experiment mater-of-factly with just a small disclaimer that this is "alleged". I'm a bit at a loss on how to rewrite this in a proper way - but the whole text should be phrased in such a way that it's clear that this is the description of potential events that may not have happened. Averell (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely Lacks Credibility

The mythology of this whole thing feels like it was written by a comic book author. The name of the guy in charge was Dr. Reno Nevada? Give me a break. And where was his partner, Dr. Atlanta Georgia? Minaker (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Toned down again

I toned down some recently added section. Since this is an article about that experiment so it's all right to write about the "theories" people have about it. However, we should still assign due weight to those positions. E.g. when a book on the Experiment states that Einsteing might possibly have had a unified theory we can mention that, but it should still be clear to the reader that this is one fringe book against everyone else (and that since then, in sixty years of research, the world's leading scientists couldn't come up with this theory). Etc... Averell (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Painful

The article remains very difficult to read. The synopsis should establish a clearer dichotomy between the theory proponents and those who dismiss it.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"ONR funded a small printing of the volume by the Texas-based Varo Manufacturing Company"

Is the above a fact or a claim? It seems odd to me that a government agency would fund the printing of what would seem to be a science fiction work with crazy annotations on it, how would they justify the use of public resources in this manner? It needs to be clarified whether the Office of Naval Research admits to funding the printing of the book or not? HussaynKhariq (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Electronic Invisibility

Sounds like a Chines Whispers of an attempt at Electronic Invisibility. During WW2 both sides in the conflict protected their harbours with long lines of electronic detection wire. Whenever a submarine crossed these lines they would trigger a magnetic alarm. In raids using Mini-Submarines on Norwegian Atomic Installations British Mini-Subs were fitted with bands of metal plus some 'Gizmo's' to revers the polarity of their structure. They then passed over the under water lines without setting off the magnetic triggers. The U.S.Navy were probably trying to develop an upgraded version of this system.Johnwrd (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob Lazar commented on reading a Paper on the U.S.S. Eldridge Experiment (source of Bob Lazars comments YouTube 'Bob Lazar and Area 51'. Mr Lazar said that what was being tested on the Eldridge was Microwave Blocking Technology to distort enemy Radar thus rendering U.S. Ships 'invisisble' (on Radar). Mr Lazar went on to say that the reason for so much secrecy about the Eldridge was that many of the crew were 'burned' with Microwaves. Like many known U.S. experiments the Project was 'buried'.Johnwrd (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Another experiment?

Hello, Does anyone know if the experiment was repeated in similar conditions? That could show proof that it is a hoax (or, not of course). Xionbox (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Skeptic bias on authors part

The article has very few maybes and almost all of his claims are against there actually being a Philadelphia Experiment. Almost all of his citations lead to skeptic cites and all of his citations (excluding the picture) are skeptical in nature. I suggest that the author, instead of writing the article, should of let some one else do it, and then comment on the discussion page. I also suggest that this article be taken down and redone by someone of a more neutral view (not myself, I know I'm biased).

98.202.186.147 (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC) William King 1/31/10

Rewrite Needed

This article is horribly slanted. Sure, this experiment is more than likely fiction, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, even with the absurd. Someone needs to deeply clean this up. --71.189.224.108 (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, we do not need to pretend the absurd is reasonable. According to the policy WP:UNDUE, it is perfectly correct to present pseudoscientific nonsense without a shred of evidence as if it is pseudoscientific nonsense without a shred of evidence. Phiwum (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

i found this article to be very impartial and commend the author! 123.19.175.34 (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC) PFC Hahn

Origins

To imply it did or did not happen, is to validate the veracity of the claims that this page is bias. All I know, is I heard the story a long time ago as a fact. A story told by a Naval Wife and avid researcher. To attribute this topic as originating from the conspiracy theorist is to reveal your own lack of research, that you hide behind juvenile name calling.

I am a Navy brat and I grew up hearing about this incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.138.199 (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The top secret Philadelphia Incident of the Manhattan Project as a source for the rumors

The Atomic Heritage Foundation [3] states:

The Philadelphia Incident

"On September 2, 1944, three men entered the transfer room of the liquid thermal diffusion semi-works at the Philadelphia Navy Yard to repair a clogged tube. The tube they were working on consisted of two concentric pipes with liquid uranium hexafluoride circulating in the space between them; the innermost pipe contained high-pressure steam. ... Without warning, at 1:20 PM, there was a terrific explosion. As the tube shattered, the liquid uranium hexafluoride combined with the escaping steam and showered the two engineers with hydrofluoric acid, one of the most corrosive agents known. Within minutes, both Peter Bragg and Douglas Meigs, with 3rd degree burns over their entire bodies, were dead and Arnold Kramish, also burned, was near death. Thus began one of the most extraordinary events in the history of the Manhattan Project. Due to the extreme secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project in general and the experimental facility at the Philadelphia Navy Yard in particular, an immediate veil was drawn down over the incident by the highest authority available: General Leslie Groves.

"Due to the extreme secrecy surrounding the incident, even the Philadelphia coroner was not made aware of the actual causes of death. It was not until many years later that the true facts began to emerge. However, it was too late for the parents of Peter Bragg, who both died never knowing of how their son had died.

"On September 2, 1944, as the explosion ripped through the transfer room of the Naval Research Laboratory's thermal diffusion experimental pilot-plant, the battleship U.S.S. Wisconsin sat berthed not more than 200 yards away. Just back from its "shakedown" cruise, the sailors on board were never made aware that they had been exposed to a cloud of uranium hexafluoride. Although not highly-radioactive, the uranium-hexafluoride is nevertheless, toxic.

""Explosion at Navy Yard," The Philadelphia Record, September 3, 1944: "9 Are Injured; Blast Heard in Wide Area" SIDE OF BUILDING RIPPED OUT; FIRE EXTINGUISHED - Two specialists were killed and nine other men injured late yesterday afternoon when an explosion, followed by fire, ripped out the side of a building at the Navy Yard. The blast, heard throughout the Navy Yard and in some sections of South Philadelphia, occurred while Navy technicians were at work. Gas was released, burning the lungs of some of the men. They were given first aid at the scene and then sent to the Naval Hospital. At least one is in "a very critical condition," the Navy announced. Two other men, Navy Yard firemen, collapsed while fighting the blaze. Their condition is not serious ..."

The cloud of green colored uranium hexafluoride vapor and the extreme secrecy involved (the whole experiment was used to produce the uranium-235 dropped in the Hiroshima bomb), corresponds to the Philadelphia experiment rumors. Some hints that nuclear power was connected would have given rise to speculations linking the experiments being carried out at the Philadelphia dockyard in WWII to Einstein's theories of relativity. 82.21.58.162 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the Alternative Explanations section

Dering's suggestion that Bielek learned technical details of the project from Corum's 1994 booklet is contradicted by the fact that Bielek gave his first interview with Art Bell on Coast to Coast back in June of 1993 and had already spoken at a symposium sometime before that interview. Bielek was challenged on the Coast to Coast program by a caller concerning his knowledge about Maxwell's equations. At this point, Bielek disclosed what may have been his real source for technical knowledge being Colonel Tom Bearden.

With respect to Maxwell's equations, Bearden has maintained that Einstein failed to use Maxwell's original equations and, instead, used a reformulated version by Oliver Heaviside. In this account, Heaviside's vectorization of Maxwell's equations removed the scalar coordinate; which, in the absence of a calculator or a computer, made crunching the numbers easier but resulted in Einstein's abandoning the ancient concept of the aether in favor of a less "fluid" model based on the "fabric" of space/time. This was unnacceptable to many of Einstein's contemporaries, including and, especially, Nikola Tesla, who claimed to be able to bend light without the need for a large mass. Recent experiments conducted at Duke University and CalTech confirm this to be true while the work of Russian scientists in the earlier part of the twentieth century and later by the American physicist Dr. Bruce DePalma in the field of torsion physics posed challenges and sought to reformulate Relativity. Recently released documents show that Einstein qualified Relativity as the observation of "natural" events and conceded that it was possible to engineer events that went beyond natural laws (i.e. super-technological events bordering on the supernatural). To accomplish this bending of light, Tesla developed a technology that alternated an electric and a magnetic field to produce a higher order of harmonic, scalar waves that redirected light around an object like the water of a stream moving around a stone protruding from it's surface.

While Bielek makes Tesla the director of the project, he also contends that Tesla was aided by the mathematician and engineer, John Von Neumann, who acted as an intermediary between Tesla and Einstein. Furthermore, there is the contention that Von Neumann and his former graduate student, Alan Turing, may have invented the electronic computer as early as the late 1930s. During WW2, Bletchley Park may have housed the first programmable electronic computer used to break German submarine codes (the Enigma machine could encrypt, but it could not decrypt without pre-existing knowledge of the key settings) while the Nazis may have succeeded in stealing much of its design to produce Conrad Zuse's Z1 computer.

With the computer at hand, Von Neumann subsequently used the orginal quaternion algebra (abandoned by Heaviside) that Maxwell had used to formulate the orignal equations and by restoring the scalar coordinate the data revealed to Tesla, Einstein and Von Neumann that contained within Maxwell's original equations were the seeds of a unified field theory. Pvsalsedo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

How about some third party RS about this. Not material that appears to origonate with the poster.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pruned Cultural references again

I removed some stuff from the cultural references section again. It is enough to say that the experiment is widely referenced, if we include every single instance of reference there will be nothing else in the article. Averell (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree; that is trivia.Parkwells (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In Regards to Timeline inconsistencies regarding ONR

I would ask that when defining the inconsistency regarding the office of navel research that you would include that although the ONR was not founded until 1943 that it also be included under evidence that the sub agency the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) was founded in 1923. The NRL in this instance would've been conducting the Philadelphia Experiment at that time. Also i would like to point out in regards to this mans timeline the current same misconseptions regarding DHS. The Department of Homeland Security as stated in Wikipedia itself was formed on November 25, 2002 but in fact on there own website http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/brief_documentary_history_of_dhs_2001_2008.pdf that in fact stated "The plan outlined the time frame for the organization of the new department, setting January 24, 2003, as the effective date of establishment for the Department of Homeland Security" it wasn't established till 2003. Also of fact i reference news outlets stating the DHS controlled TSA establishing rules in 2001 which is a common misconseption of our time because as stated DHS was established in 2003 but in accordance to human understanding the DHS TSA as we know it was established by the DOT in 2001

regarding this i would like someone to add a part including that in reference to ONR based on the confusion in our own current state regarding dates of DHS and other agencies being blended together that a possiblity is referance to in fact NRL established in 1923 conducting in not based on misconseptions then in regards to NRL being only sub-agency of the navy that would've conducted these tests and therefore would be a non bias possiblity to a naval test being possibly done.69.23.96.170 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

¿Why Philidephia Portal?

I know it's called "The philidephia Expiriment" but beyond the name has as much to do with Philly as it does with New York. A REDDSON

First sentence is clumsy

The first sentence has "alleged" and "supposedly" both in the same sentence. I think one of the other conveys the intended meaning, but using both sounds a bit over-dramatic. We got it. Maybe it didn't really happen. One of those is enough.````Jonny Quick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny Quick (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible source of the story

Possible source of the story- The ship was demagnetized at a U.S. Navy deguassing station in the Chesapeake Bay near Cape Charles Va. The purpose was to make it "invisible" to enemy mines designed to be triggered magnetically. It involved docking over a series of suspended heavy copper cables which, when electrified, induced a magnetic field in the ships hull. This field was then cancelled by simply reversing polarity. This little understood process later became the source of rumors that the boat had been made "invisible"! The Cape Charles facility was later demolished and today lies under water in the Chesapeake Bay. Local fisherman occasionally retrieve thick coils of pure copper cable from the site, although it was officially declared "off limits" by the United States Navy long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.A. Hirshorn (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating - what we need are sources (see WP:RS) suggesting this as an explanation. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the USS Engstrom's degaussing and that being a possible source, are you sure the Eldridge was also degaussed? Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Such degaussing wouldn't have caused the physical effects claimed by supposed eyewitnesses to the event. In fact, if an alternating current is being used, a person aboard a steel-hulled ship while it is being degaussed might hear a hum and feel a vibration at the same frequency, but suffer no ill effects whatsoever — certainly not the "electronic fog" and teleportation described in the story. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Commonly-accepted physics"

The article uses the phrase to imply cloaking isn't possible. This is patently false. It might take "exhaustive" research to find references but the physics behind stealth technology has been demonstrated using visible light. The objects hidden weren't as large as the stealth fighter or stealth bomber. Nevertheless, "commonly-accepted" physicists tend to believe what they observe. If memory serves here, the article was published I read was in Spectrum Magazine sometimes after 2001 and before 2011. And, was quite small. (Maybe 1/6th to 1/8th of a page). 71.211.232.159 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I updated the text to state "that the alleged claims do not conform to known physical laws". This language is closer to the original source. If you have a source that states otherwise feel free to add it in. 199.46.198.230 (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Citation needed" & Reliable sources.

I've removed the claims that much of the history needs reliable sources and citations, as by the definition of the story reliable sources don't really exist - which is why it states at the top of the section "Note: Several different and sometimes contradictory versions of the alleged experiment have circulated over the years. The following synopsis recounts key story points common to most accounts" - which has a source attached to it.

I wouldn't be up in arms over reversion, but I'd like to know the reasoning behind it if so, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is written from a skeptics view point. It insists that the experiment doesn't exist, and proceeds to be written off of little evidence for the experiment and much more evidence against it. In fact, the so called "evidence" section seems more like a "disproof" section judging from its content. Now, you could call me a "believer" in this, but I read the article and it seems like it was written for the sole intent to disprove the existence of it. 173.75.216.173 (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't CNN. It doesn't provide two sides of the story as if they have equal weight. 216.246.130.20 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC) THERE YOU GO. THAT'S THE MUCH VAULTED "NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW" OF WIKI! Life is short, but the years are long! (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is written from a neutral point of view. It doesn't say, "The story is a hoax." It says, "The story is widely regarded as a hoax," with three citations from reliable sources. Are there reliable sources who say the story is not a hoax? If there are, add them. But I don't think there are. Sometimes, there just are not two sides to every argument. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Joegoodfriend uses false logic. If something is widely regarded as a hoax and is backed up by "reliable sources", then those that disagree are often discounted as unreliable. Personally, I am of the belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But, I would agree that the article is biased to the hoax POV. As in all things where government secrecy is involved, it is often difficult to dig up incontrovertible proof, that cannot be silenced by a government bent on protecting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.222.189 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The story is a hoax, as referenced. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise please add them in. 199.46.198.230 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is a sense that supporters of the theory are foolish in this article. Someone coming here to find information on the supposed event will be confronted by a damning tone. Putting quotation marks around the word researchers when referring to the proponents of the theory shows naked disdain. Let the reader see how ridiculous the claim is based on the strong evidence against it, not by the author's self-assured brashness. People look to Wikipedia as a definitive and neutral source, and the tone of this article has a very personal and vindictive feel to it.

Furthermore, the lack of proper citation allows the author(s) to include whatever foolishness they want in the supposed event. Including uncited references to Nazis and UFOs will unfairly push the reader to believe to believe proponents are not only incorrect, but looney. In writing the articles, we should constrain ourselves to referencing authoritative sources. If that cannot be done, that part of the article should not be written.

I am not a supporter of the seemingly supernatural claims in this supposed event. I am a person who came here to find out more about it and found the article improperly cited in general and sometimes condescending in tone.2602:306:3461:ECC0:8893:76BB:3EAF:4BEB (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Putting quotation marks around the word researchers" - The relevant sentence start with "According to some accounts, unspecified "researchers" thought".

This means that nobody knows who those "researchers" are or if they even exist. Those people are nothing but a rumor. Thus, the quotation marks are entirely justified. Obviously, your idea of "neutral" is not the same as Wikipedia's idea of "neutral". There are people who know how to evaluate extraordinary claims, and one of the questions they have to ask is "how reliable are the sources". You don't seem to be interested in that question. That is your problem, not the article's. There is nothing wrong with the "tone". --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Philadelphia Experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia Experiment conducted with Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla's confiscated papers, and the leading American electrical engineer Gabriel Kron

I added to the opening paragraph... Through the combination of Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla's confiscated papers, and the leading American electrical engineer Gabriel Kron... 2601:580:E:EE23:95FA:7D5C:764E:9D99 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Needs sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)