He wasn't talking about my personal theoretical work; he was referring to the many discussions we've had here about the theoretical physics of gravitational field propulsion. There's a litany of published peer-reviewed papers relating to that subject dating back to Hermann Bondi, then advancing through Robert L. Forward's papers, fully manifesting in the form of Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 paper on the subject, and more recently making advances through the discovery of dark energy, and Manu Parajape's papers, and some interesting new theoretical advancements in the study of the exotic properties of photonic metamaterials and certain experiments with Bose-Einstein condensates and some other experiments which Martin Tajmar has written and spoken about.
My advocacy for the pursuit of a gravitational field technology is based on the published academic literature on the subject, and the perfect one-to-one match that I see between the performance characteristics and capabilities predicted by our current theoretical physics, and the performance characteristics most widely reported in the most compelling eyewitness and radar-visual accounts. From my perspective it seems very clear that eyewitnesses are seeing the technological embodiment of a theoretical physics concept that appears to be very sound in principle, but remains unattainable with contemporary human science and technology.
I often think that once we humans learn to build our own gravitational field propulsion systems, it will seem obvious that other civilizations have been employing that technology to visit our planet for a long time. And that exposes our profound conceit as a species: most of us think that this kind of technology is impossible, simply because we haven't figured out how to build it yet. But just look at how many things are technologically possible today, that would have sounded impossible only one century ago.
Oh okay - I don't even think about those people: the David Wilcock's and Corey Good's of the world. They're just sideshow carnies turning a buck by selling crazy stories and silly BS to credulous crowds.
I was being facetious, but I like to leave the door open to all kinds of possibilities. It seems very unlikely that any variety of life can exist in space without a technological enclosure to provide a suitable biosphere, but I don't rule it out completely.
Projectile speed isn't the problem: it's targeting. The Navy has some great laser canons where the energy "projectile" travels at the speed of light: there's no way to defend against that kind of system unless you monitor its activation from a distance.
These craft tend to exhibit erratic and extreme accelerations - so extreme in fact that a targeting lock is impossible. No matter how fast your projectile is, such maneuvers totally defeat such an approach.
In my opinion, what you need is an area-of-effect energy weapon, if you want to try to bring one of these puppies down.
Sometimes I think about the grave concerns that our military must have had as early as the 1940s when they discovered that the airspace over our most sensitive nuclear and other installations was routinely being violated by anomalous targets with radical evasive capabilities. I think it's reasonable to consider that any capable scientist tasked with a defensive solution against such intrusions, would likely arrive at the same conclusion that a wide-angle field-effect weapon would be the best approach for defending our installations against such intrusions. With such a weapon aboard a rapid-response jet interceptor, you could try blaring a bunch of broadband energy at one of these anomalous intruders to see if you could interfere with its operation enough to bring it down - with some quality engineering you could blast an EMP beam at these things: if their systems aren't hardened against an attack like that, you might be able to send them crashing to the ground. Or perhaps you could try a wide-angle electron beam - we had that kind of technology even back then. With the kinds of brains and financing available to the US military, it wouldn't surprise me if we tried a variety of novel offensive weapons against these craft, and got lucky once or twice in the process.
Last edited:
.
