The Physical Science of Ufology

Discussion in 'Science, Tech, & Space Exploration' started by Thomas R. Morrison, Sep 24, 2018.

  1. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,203
    And this one is very promising. There was a progress in the developement of metallic hydrogen. Metallic hydrogen is the most potent fuel in the whole universe and can bring rockets closer to speed of light (don't remember how close).

     
  2. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,203
    Jack Safratti talks real stuff about how UFOs work with general relativity and metamaterials.

    To a credit of this forum, we talked here about these things one to two years before him.

    But this is a pretty good explanation of how the technology of UFOs works, based on Einstein's General Relativity (GR) and metamaterials:

     
  3. Spaceman spiff

    Spaceman spiff Honorable

    Messages:
    440
    Anton Petrov in one of those videos.... He is the same guy who suggested Nimitz UFO witnesses are lying for money and fame. Quite a bold claim, Anton. Fravor, Underwood and others might even have a case for defamation here.

    [​IMG][​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,203
    According to this new paper it is possible that small chunks or dark matter survive and even create meteorites. It had been recently discovered that small number of meteorites that hit Earth can not be explained as usual meteorites because there are no traces left: people in the area don't see any bright objects falling, no meteorites pieces are ever found, there are no chemicals that typically follow meteorite's collisions, there is just an explosion and crater:

     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,206
    Sarfatti is so wrong about this - and knows that he's wrong about this - that he won't even submit his ideas here for peer review. In fact I looked through his list of papers and he's never had a useful idea that anyone has cared to build upon. He only seems to write papers to stroke his own ego, and impress his New Ager friends with absurd ideas about consciousness and now UFOs.

    Dark matter models require the "matter" to remain diffuse around the galaxies like a tenuous cloud of gas - if it could aggregate into clumps then the model falls apart. Meteors that leave no trace are probably mostly either ice, or suddenly superheated rock that explodes into dust.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,203
    That sounds like a more probable explanation.

    Yeah, I've been made aware of Dr. Sarfatti's sins, but that idea that he proposed that energy requirements for warp-drive can be brought down to AA battery level by slowing the speed of light inside a material is a very powerful one.

    Without any knowledge of General Relativity, I came with the same intuition by making a catalog of physical effects that UFOs produce. There is about a half a dozen of highly credible UFO cases where ufonauts wear space-suits that enable them to move at about 120 km/h (about 80mph). Because spacesuits must be hollow in order to accommodate bodies, then if spacesuits can create gravity and inertia canceling than it follows that propulsion comes from the fabric that space-suits are made off. And from that, it follows that propulsion for the whole spacecraft comes from its wall.

    And that's where whole warp drive things drive it might be that whole idea is compatible with General Relativity. If Dr. Sarfatti is right then the wall of the hull would contain the warp-drive inside the material the wall is made off and the wall of the hull will be the warp-drive. That would explain both how alien spacesuits work and how their spacecraft cancel gravity.

    Essentially you talked about gravitational "lodestone" that should be able to enhance gravity. And that's what Dr. Sarfatti is suggesting.

    But even more, exciting thing that Dr. Sarfatti said is that the machinery of warp-drives can produce wormholes. And guess what, I followed that with research and almost immediately came across a veritable torrent of 20-30 cases in which UFOs apparently appear and disappear in the spots in a blue sky. One of these cases was this 1967 Crestview Elementary School, Miami, Florida, US case where UFO deliberately a show-off display in front about 100 witnesses where it was disappearing and coming back from a wormhole.



    And that's just one case. If I had more time I would be able to pull out at least 20-30 of similar ones.

    General Relativity pretty much explains everything that UFOs do. If we were able to master metric engineering to the same level with mastered electricity we would be doing what aliens are doing. It is just a big deal because we are rookies.

    It really gives me the motivation to properly learn General Relativity.
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,206
    If that were true, then a Bose-Einstein condensate would fall through the Earth when it reached the critical temperature. Since that has never happened, he's wrong.

    The constant "c" cannot be arbitrarily redefined to suit Sarfatti's whims about making warp-field propulsion achievable with the power of a AA battery. The "c" in general relativity is the same "c" as in special relativity - and we know that the "c" in e =mc^2 is the constant "c" and not Sarfatti's whimsical definition "the speed of light in a physical medium" because it has been tested under laboratory conditions to extremely high precision with no variation detected.

    Although "c" is commonly defined as "the speed of light in vacuo," I would argue for this superior definition: "c" is the proportionality constant between time and space. Similarly, c^2 is the proportionality constant between matter and energy. The c^4 in the Einstein gravitational constant can likewise be viewed as a proportionality constant between the magnitude of the stress-energy-momentum tensor and the curvature of spacetime. So in my view, thinking of "c" in terms of speed is a crude Newtonian understanding of a more fundamental underlying theoretical physics concept. And I say "approximation" as a statement of fact - there is no such thing as a pure vacuum so defining "c" as "the speed of light in vacuo" will always involve an imprecise and approximate measurement; but defining it as the proportionality constant between time and space invokes an underlying fundamental pillar of relativity that transcends inexorably imperfect experimental conditions.

    I think it's highly probable that the field propulsion of UFOs/AAVs is produced by the hull of the craft - I've been considering this for years. This doesn't mean that Sarfatti's idea about how the hull produces gravitational field propulsion is correct; in fact, his idea would require GR to be wrong. On the contrary, I think that GR is correct (a view which is supported by all of the experimental data) and the explanation for the gravitational field propulsion of UFO/AAVs depends on the validity of GR.

    Interestingly, according to theories of gravitational field propulsion based on GR, this form of propulsion requires no energy expenditure at all, once the field is established, other than whatever energy is lost to systemic/technological inefficiencies. So a hyperadvanced civilization should in theory be able to travel between the stars without expending even the energy of a AA battery by exploiting lossless quantum processes like superconductivity.

    You're making an indefensible assertion unsupported by the facts - just because an object seems to disappear because the human eye couldn't follow its motion, doesn't mean that it went through a wormhole. When you fire a gun, you can't see the bullet leave the barrel - but it's no longer in the gun. So do you think that a bullet goes through a wormhole to reach the target? Of course not - it simply accelerated too quickly to observe with the human eye. Besides, wormholes require machines at both ends to keep them open. Gravitational field propulsion on the other hand allows you to basically "tunnel through spacetime" without the need for an apparatus at the destination, so in my view it's a vastly superior mode of travel than a wormhole (if wormholes can be sustained at all, which is debatable).

    Yes. And the problem with Sarfatti's theorizing is that it isn't GR, and it doesn't even pass the chuckle test as a possible replacement for GR.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,203
    I said I have 20-30 cases, just don't have time to go through it all. But I have them. If you can see all of 30 cases you'll see the irresistible trend. I'm saying its wormholes because that's the only mechanism that modern science offers for macroscopic objects to disappear from plain sight. I am always trying to explain UFOs with existing scientific knowledge.

    Mistake that practically everybody who looks at UFO phenomena on a one-by-one basis, because one can always dispute this or that detail. A transient phenomena, like UFOs, can only be studied statistically. One has to group UFO cases by a specific physical effect, like the crackling of radio, stalling of car engines, reflections on the radar, rumbling of the ground, time dilation, gravitational pull, wormholes, bending of light beams, etc. 90% of researchers look only at geometric and mechanical UFO effects, simply because they don't understand electricity and general relativity. That means that these researchers unintentionally create a cognitive bias that leaves 2/3 of UFO physics out from consideration. If everybody understood metric engineering to your or David's level we would be all taking UFOs as the most ordinary thing in the world.

    It's really strange that very few people research UFOs statistically, when that's more or less standard scientific procedure in medicine, economy and even quantum mechanics. I guess its because it requires lot more work.

    Here are two more cases ...

    1966 B-52 flight, South Vietnam over China Sea

    upload_2020-10-5_6-23-17.png
    © Mark McCandlish

    This UFO case was discovered by Mark McCandlish when a former B-52 crew member approached him after a public lecture. Around 1 am on a moonlit night, with perfect visibility in the cloudless sky, the crew of B-52 was flying over the south-western Pacific ocean from Guam towards South Vietnam. At some point, the crew noticed this large spacecraft that was shadowing their flight path. The crew of B-52 flew closer to the spacecraft in order to examine it without any reaction from the large spacecraft. The spacecraft had lots of its hardware visible from the outside and hardware consisted of conduits and pipes crisscrossing the top and ventral sides of the craft. Crew estimated the craft's diameter to be a minimum quarter of a mile and a whole half a mile at maximum. On top of the spacecraft, there was a large, lit up dome with 27 distinct levels with apparent shadows of crew members walking around and busying themselves with some unspecified work.

    As well, the spacecraft had a large slot around its circumference that was filled with a vertical turbine blades. Space between blades was as large as bypass doors on aircraft hangars for planes as big as B-52 itself. During the initial encounter blades of the turbine were moving very slowly, but as the spacecraft was getting ready to depart, it first moved about 1/4 of a mile to the south of B-52. After apparently deliberately increasing the distance between itself and B-52 craft started accelerating turbine blades faster and faster. Eventually, the rotation of the blades was so fast that only a blur can be seen inside the turbine slot. At that point, the spacecraft shot away at an oblique angle leaving a shimmering tunnel of distorted imagery in its wake. The spacecraft remained in the darkness of the night, but its wake was showing a blue daylit sky with white puffy clouds. So, the tunnel that wake crated looked like a wormhole connecting to some other location on Earth or somewhere else. A short time afterward image of the blue sky and clouds folded onto itself and the night sky returned to its normal appearance.


    1972 Taize, France

    upload_2020-10-5_6-30-46.png

    This French case, occurred when a group of Christian youths went to celebrate a religious holiday by camping together in fields near Taize. They observed UFO for several minutes and one of the witnesses pointed his torch towards UFO only to see the torchlight light beam turning back on itself.

    I hope that you can see. There are extraordinary cases out there. That's why I asked @waitedavid137 can warp drives create a relativistic effect in their vicinity and he succinctly said 'yes'. As a matter of fact UFOs bend light beams all over the place, which is a purely relativistic effect. But very few people know about that. The most recognized relativistic UFO effects are 'lost time' and 'stillness'. 'Lost Time' might be caused simply because watches stop working because of a strong magnetic field near UFO. But 'Stillness' where all sounds of animals, like birds, stop and trees stop moving in the wind is probably purely relativistic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,206
    I already explained why that's not true with the bullet analogy. If the presence of a gun powder explosion behind a bullet is hanging you up, then we could instead describe a charged metal sphere that's accelerated by a powerful electrostatic field, or a permanent magnet rapidly accelerated by a changing magnetic field, or a body of matter accelerated by a steep gravitational field gradient - in all of those cases an object can appear to vanish because its acceleration is too extreme for the human eye to follow. So no - wormholes are not the only possible explanation; nor are they even the most probable explanation.

    First - you're improperly equating "the statistical analysis of verifiable empirical data" (which is how science works), with "the statistical analysis of unverifiable anecdotal testimony" (which isn't how science works). No analysis of a very noisy and possibly completely false data set is going to yield scientific conclusions. You have no idea if 50% or 80% or 99% or even 100% of the UFO reporting testimony is false/hoaxed/erroneous/etc.

    Besides - and I've pointed this out to you before - trying to understand UFO/AAV propulsion by studying EM effects is like a Neanderthal trying to understand the inner workings of a clock by listening to the ticking sound it makes. The ape man might conclude that the ticking sound makes the hands move forward - an absurd but seemingly rational analysis based on the data available. But without being able to open it up and examine the gears and springs, the physical principles that make the clock work would remain totally unknowable. Similarly, without even a viable conceptual understanding of how a technological device can produce gravitational field propulsion, the incidental acoustic and EM nose generated by a UFO/AAV sheds no understanding on its physical operation.

    Ok, first of all - that's not what wormholes look like in GR. They don't trail behind a moving object; they look like a sphere of optical distortion somewhat like a clear crystal ball, with the destination reflected on the surface.

    I have a hard time believing that an interstellar craft would require turbines, of all things, to move around. But for the sake of argument if that description is true, then it sounds more like a temporal distortion field than a wormhole - as if the daytime sky from a few hours earlier or later in the day had become visible in that region behind the craft. It sounds bogus to me though - that description sounds more like something Jules Verne might've come up with, than an interstellar-capable spacecaft.

    That could be explained by an intense negative gravitational field, or some other effect, perhaps involving extremely hot air to produce optical distortion. But it definitely doesn't resemble any description that I've ever encountered of a wormhole.

    Or the animals went quiet in response to infrasound generated by the object and it was a windless day. Without having precision scientific data recordings of multiple physical features from a UFO/AAV event, it's far too easy to ascribe incorrect explanations to anecdotal testimony. That's how confirmation bias obliterates any meaningful objective analysis.

    Warp drive propulsion is a relativistic effect, so clearly relativistic effects are involved - but what we don't know is whether the incidental effects would be observable to the human eye. I tend to doubt it, because any gravitational field gradient steep enough and intense enough to be observable with the human eye would seem to involve tidal forces that would rip any proximal matter to shreds like a black hole would do.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,203
    @Thomas R. Morrison check this out:

    Upon well-timed recommendation from @karl 12 I am currently reading "Visitors from Time" by Marc Davenport which keeps on giving as a real treasure trove of rarely talked about UFO physical effects, including relativistic effects. Now, Davenport seems not to be aware of GR, but from detailed observation of the UFO phenomena, he developed his own phenomenological theory. Obviously that theory of his is not right, but it is qualitatively in the right direction.

    Now, in previous conversations with @waitedavid137 @ #2 he explained that if UFO is a warp drive then gravitational spacetime distortion will spill out into the vicinity of the craft and then quickly vanish due to some inverse distance exponential law. Davenport intuited the same conclusion and concluded that this gravitational field that surrounds UFO must produce what he called a Doppler effect on the EM radiation that is coming off the surface of the UFO hull. What Davenport calls the Doppler effect in the same thing that in GR is known as gravitational redshift.

    And this gravitationally redshifted EM radiation's around UFO is very interesting!

    What it means is that when we are watching UFO we see a redshifted image. When UFO is blue, we see green, when UFO is green we see yellow, when UFO is yellow we see red and importantly :) when UFO is red we can not see infrared and we feel the heat and don't see the UFO at all. Additionally, as UFO is passing near the observer, because of the strong curvature of the gravitational field, this gravitational redshift will be constantly changing and we'll see moving UFO as changing colors.

    Now the other, higher energy side of the above-mentioned redshifted spectrum is very interesting as well. It means that we see violet-bluish UFO, then UFO is really shining in invisible Ultra-Violet. Davenport provides a large number of cases that strongly correlate UFO's color with UFO's energy state. And the fact that UFOs are producing the invisible UV light strongly ads to indicate that somehow UFO hull's EM radiation is related to producing gravitational warp drive.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,206
    But here's the thing. Let's take the simplest example: a UFO hovering over the ground. And we'll suppose that it's levitating by employing a static gravitoelectric field to counterbalance the gravitational acceleration of the Earth. In that case;

    1.) the spacetime distortion required to hover motionless is minuscule; on the order of a 4.92 x 10^-15 shift in wavelength...totally imperceptible without making a very precise spectrographic analysis - the human eye wold never be able to detect a gravitational wavelength shift of that magnitude. Even at fairly high (observable) accelerations, the gravitational wavelength shift would be imperceptible to the human eye.

    2.) the gravitational shift would be a blueshift (a negative gravity field, to counter the Earth's ordinary positive gravitational field which produces a redshift).

    So we have a conundrum. If the gravitational distortion field around these craft were powerful enough to be detectable with the human eye, then they'd be powerful enough to either swallow the entire Earth like a black hole, or rip it apart like a pinata. Obviously that has never happened, so if these craft are indeed shifting light frequencies around the craft enough for the human eye to notice it, then the effect is not gravitational in nature. Perhaps it's a thermal effect, or an ionization effect - a plasma. In other words, when we see an anomalous craft change its radiant color from red to blue, it's more likely that the hull has simply gotten much hotter, or, it's gotten a much higher electrical charge which is ionization the air to higher and higher energy levels, which we can see with our eye when those ionized atmospheric molecules cool off as they try to reach the ambient energy level of the Earth's atmosphere.

    As I've said before, the EM effects that have been observed could be a totally secondary and meaningless by-product of the propulsion system. Consider an analogy: imagine that an ancient Roman could see a Ferrari drive past. He sees that smoke is being emitted from the exhaust tube, and making an intuitive leap many centuries ahead of his time, he concludes that the Ferrari is being propelled by emitting smoke out of the exhaust tube. It's a brilliant guess, but it's completely wrong - the smoke from the exhaust is just a secondary by-product of the engine and the drive train, which he can't see hidden away inside of the Ferrari. That's the position that we're in if we try to figure out how these craft operate by analyzing their emissions.

    We need to understand the physical principle that makes these craft fly, and then see if the observations that you're talking about make sense within that larger theoretical context. Otherwise, we'll be doomed to our own confirmation bias, and arrive at all kinds of inaccurate explanations that have no real bearing on the theory of operation behind these craft.

    It's a really annoying situation - we need to figure out how these craft work, before we can understand why they produce the kinds of EM signatures that are being reported. Because trying to work backward from the observations...without a theory of operation..is frankly impossible.

    The physics has to come first.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,203
    @Thomas R. Morrison

    Yeah, that is the downside of my "qualitative" only research.

    What formula did you use to calculate the exact gravitational shift needed for hover? Just interested into the stuff.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,206
    In fairness, I should mention that if we had high-precision scientific observations of these craft (like the military must have), then we might begin to resolve some crucial clues regarding the operation of these craft. But the kinds of data we're getting from eyewitnesses, and even ordinary cameras, just doesn't have the kind of resolution that we would need to learn anything useful.

    That's why I'm focusing on potentially viable theoretical explanations. For example, if David Waite's idea about the inverse-cubed antigravity field of an electrostatic field plays a role in the propulsion system, then we should expect to see intense ionization of the atmosphere around the craft. And in many cases that does seem to be evident, so there may be a connection. And perhaps a rapidly oscillating electrical field could explain why the electrical field gradient doesn't rip the conductive material to shreds - the field might be reversing too quickly for the material to disintegrate under the electrostatic stress.

    That's how we're going to crack this puzzle, imo - first we're going to come up with a viable theoretical model of operation, and then the observational signatures will be found to fit with that explanation. The only real downside to this approach is that it requires at the very least a working understanding of the principles of GR, which few people possess, and which even fewer people have actually mastered.

    I got that numerical estimate from the Pound and Rebka experiment at Harvard that measured the gravitational redshift at the surface of the Earth relative to an emission source 22.6 meters above the detector - that's a reasonably good order-of-magnitude scenario for explaining just how small the gravitational redshift is near the Earth (and the order of magnitude gravitational distortion that would be required to nullify the gravitational field at the surface of the Earth and thereby allow a craft to hover in place).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Celestial

    Messages:
    1,203
    @Thomas R. Morrison @waitedavid137

    In more or less 5 hours from now, at 7pm GMT, 02:00pm EST (GMT-5), 12:00 MST your noon (GMT-7) physicist Dr Sabine Hossenfelder will be holding an open chat room about new paper about warp drives, written by Alexey Bobrick and Gianni Martire from Advance Propulsion Lab at Applied Physics, 47 Madison Av. New York. Paper is on it's way to be peer reviews, so no link.

    Here is the full blog post where Q&A chat will be held today: Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Warp Drive News. Seriously!

    Here is the abstract:

    upload_2020-11-22_14-0-25.png

    Here is a full video by Dr Sabine Hossenfelder


    Here is a warp drive geometry, as proposed by Alexey Bobrick, Gianni Martire. For all practical purposes they described an UFO! Here is their previous paper, from 2019: https://indico.ict.inaf.it/event/751/contributions/5483/attachments/2655/5207/BobrickTorino2019.pdf

    upload_2020-11-22_14-4-46.png
    Above is the image of the new warp drive shape, proposed by the above authors, made of yet unknown material.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 22, 2020

Share This Page