Can you please elaborate a bit more.
I tend to think that the dark energy effect is a negative gravitational effect produced by specific physical conditions. The pertinent conditions and relevant mathematical relationships are as-yet unknown, but could include any number of interacting factors; the mass-energy distribution of surrounding galaxies, their angular momentum and radiance, gravitational lensing, the interstellar medium, large-scale quantum interactions, the velocity distribution of matter at cosmological scales, the acceleration profile of the universe over cosmological timescales, etc.
But I think that when we figure out how it works at cosmological scales, we'll be able to produce the same effect - and amplify it substantially, through technological means.
I am currently digging deep into Dr Eric Virlande's entropic gravity in which gravity is not a fundamental force caused by some particle, thus no "stuff", but gravity is phenomenon emerging from quantum entanglement in similar way to temperature.
So indeed emergence might need less energy than if gravity was mediated by particle.
When I make list of both good and bad critiques of emergent vs dark stuff gravity, emergent gravity wins by a steady margin. And it has a lead when it comes to confirmation by astronomical observations.
I haven't studied his theory with any rigor yet, so I can't comment on it at this point. I'll put that on my to-do list.
There is nothing complicated about what I said. Anybody familiar with radars would immediately understand.
In order to launch missile one first has to have a radar lock otherwise one is shooting missile into blue yonder.
Yeah but any zig-zagging motion makes that impossible, regardless of the specific flight trajectory relative to the radar transmitter. That's my point.
Reason you've seen no pursuit aeroplanes is because ufo avoided radar detection with these zig zag moves, in the first place.
That doesn't hold up; AAVs are detected by radar all the time moving in these erratic ways - we heard about this in the Nimitz case. Objects don't need to move perpendicular to the radar tower in order to elude a target lock - any sufficiently rapid and random motions will do the trick.
And in most areas there's more than one radar system operating, both civilization and military, so they'd have to choose which tower to move perpendicular to, and then follow large circular trajectories around that point. I've never heard of them doing that.
Weather ufo was over urban suburb or not matters very little because Ufonauts most likely would rather be safe than sorry. Most likely there was a military airbase with radar within 200-300 miles.
Eh, maybe. It seems a bit much to zig-zag across the clear blue sky to evade a target lock, when they can easily evade any incoming object long before gets close enough to pose a threat.
That was like that during WW2. Nowadays when plane is locked scanning stops and beam follows locked plane's every move. That's why it's called "lock".
But none of our targeting laser systems can re-acquire a target that suddenly changes position at hypersonic velocity. Nor can any radar system "tag" an object that's zig-zagging across the sky. Such motions break any target lock instantly. So they don't need to become radar invisible by moving perpendicular to the tower. Nor have I heard any reports of them doing that. That's what's I'm saying.