…by Mark McCandlish,
Since the advent of Albert Einstein’s famous Theory of General Relativity in the early years of the last century, science has taken a decidedly negative view of the possibility that Mankind could ever find a detour around what has been described as the “universal speed limit”; that is, the speed of light. This speed, over 186,000 miles per second, has been thought of as the rate at which electromagnetic waves of all kinds travel through our universe, whether they are cosmic rays, radio signals, electricity and light itself. Even the various distances to stars in the cosmos were estimated in terms of the length of time that it would take for the light from those stars to reach our Earth- in a matter of “light years”.
Looking back to the lessons of classical physics, and the pronouncements of Dr. Einstein, one is faced with the conclusion that no physical object could ever be accelerated up to or beyond the speed of light. However, when one examines the underlying criteria and Einstein’s explanation for such a conclusion, it becomes evident under closer scrutiny, that there are a number of distinct vulnerabilities in this position.
In the first place, Einstein is thought to have said that one could never approach the speed of light, let alone surpass it, for the simple reason that, as a physical object, (having mass) is accelerated through space-time, its mass increases. For most of us outside the deeply discerning theoretical physics community, this has been largely accepted without any kind of substantive argument. But what is less well known is that this process reverses itself when that same object decelerates from an achieved rate of speed, after the initial act of acceleration. One can see clearly that the process is variable; that mass itself is a variable “effect” and not merely a fixed physical attribute of matter.
Now when one dissects matter down to its most basic components, namely atoms and the formation of groups of atoms called molecules, these building blocks can be subdivided into electrons, neutrons and protons. Exploring these components further through the employment of linear accelerators, it was found that buried within these atomic components were even smaller sub-atomic particles, including their dark matter constituent parts, known as “anti-matter”. The individual element of matter consists of a nucleus, having a fixed number of neutrons and protons, (so named for the neutral and positive electrical charges they carry respectively), and one or more electrons orbiting this nucleus, having a negative charge.
When reviewing the Periodic Table of known elements, one quickly begins to understand that matter is able to acquire a wide variety of characteristics based upon the total number of electrons, protons and neutrons embodied in each. The most basic element is hydrogen, having one of each of the basic atomic particles. As one climbs through the higher numbers of electrons, protons and neutrons, and an evaluation of their respective atomic weights, it quickly becomes obvious that the greater the number of atomic particles contained in each element, the greater it’s mass. Hydrogen can be thought of as having an atomic mass of “one” and Uranium 235, having an atomic mass 235 times greater by comparison.
As our knowledge and understanding of atomic structure began to grow, and various kinds of experiments were designed to test certain theories, it was found that, not only are the basic building blocks of matter orbiting around one-another, (both in the electron shell and within the nucleus of every atom), but these components themselves are spinning also. In point of fact, it was discovered that this spin and the direction of this spin relative to other particles could bestow additional characteristics. A child with a basic understanding of our solar system could easily picture the structure of an atom as being similar to planets orbiting the sun.
Over the centuries, Mankind has had the insight of many great thinkers and their explorations of the dynamic forces in nature, among them Sir Isaac Newton, who developed a number of laws regarding the motion of objects and the phenomena surrounding the forces involved. Experimentation eventually proved that these “Laws of Motion” and thermodynamics could be relied upon to draw certain conclusions about the behaviour of matter under a number of conditions or circumstances. Many of these earlier laws played an integral part in Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity and his theory of Special Relativity.
Through these observations, we learned that an object at rest, tends to stay at rest and an object in motion has a tendency to stay in motion. This characteristic became a description of inertia, itself dependent upon the character of mass. We learned that for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That energy and motion can dissipate over time through friction or other forces that are present in the environment, as in the Law of Entropy. For centuries, Mankind has been at odds with this last concept, seeking an endless source of power to propel oneself about or to drive the gears of industry with what became known as “perpetual motion”. The greatest minds in history have concluded that no such characteristic can be ever found in nature. What if they were wrong?
Right at the very heart of this declaration, in plain sight for all to see, is the understanding that the atomic particles of matter are constantly in motion; and that they never stop. In consideration of all the other laws affecting matter and its motion through space-time, this appears to be a significant oversight. The electrons orbiting the nucleus of every atom never slow down and never stop. The same is true for the activity within the nucleus of every atom in our universe. One can then reach the surprising conclusion that matter itself stands as a direct contradiction of the Law of Entropy. Matter appears to be the perfect example of “perpetual motion”. Its energy never dissipates. How can this be?
Over the last century and a half, with the advent of cryogenics, (the science of super cooled fluids), it was found that matter carries with it a certain amount of hidden or “latent” heat, that is derived from molecules or atoms colliding with one-another.
This phenomenon was later termed as “Brownian Motion”. The extreme reduction in temperature using cryogenics, anticipated that there would be a complete elimination of all latent heat due to this Brownian Motion, but some movement persisted, even at the lowest achievable temperatures, approaching the so-called “absolute zero”. The famous German Physicist, Max Planck described this remaining unresolved movement as “Zitterbewegung”, roughly translating to “jiggle”. Over time, this jiggle was attributed to an electrical “flux” or charge that remained even as temperatures in the studied materials approached absolute zero. Thus originated the phrase, “Quantum Zero-Point Fluctuations of the Vacuum”.
Within the body of more recent scientific research, it has become apparent that this same energy form, (the Quantum Zero-Point Energy- sometimes more simply referred to as “Zero-Point Energy”), is itself responsible for the “effect” of mass. It is in fact the absorption of this energy by the structure of sub-atomic particles that provides them the power to remain in constant motion. This absorption process appears to be nearly instantaneous, while the degree of absorption can vary with the acceleration of the atomic structure through space-time. It is in this way, that Albert Einstein visualized the mass of an object increasing as it accelerated, since the rate of interaction with the ambient Zero-Point Energy in the environment increases. Under deceleration, that mass is given up, but how?
Now if the mass of an object is relative to the degree of acceleration of that object through space-time, one might want to consider how this observation would pertain to inertia. It happens that inertia itself can also be modelled as a Zero-Point Fluctuation force as well. These are the very attributes one must attempt to overcome if one is intent upon somehow capturing the seemingly “perpetual” energy of motion within the structure of the atom as a source of power and putting to use, performing work.
Though largely circumstantial, the countless eye-witness testimonies of anomalous flying objects in our skies have become more and more persuasive with time. One can even find depictions of these sightings in ancient tapestries and artwork going back centuries. This presents an interesting conundrum for the mainstream, hardcore scientist, well-schooled in the limitations imposed upon us by a number of well-tested physical principles. And the scientific consensus on these limitations has become more solid over time, making the notion that off-world spacecraft, are visiting our planet less and less convincing to such individuals. The assumption here is that our hypothetical extra-terrestrial beings are conceptualized as physical entities and that they travel about in physical machines in the here-and-now universe that we see around us. The flight performance of these machines included in various reports describe instantaneous accelerations from a hovering position to tremendous velocities exceeding 5,000mph, making right angle turns while maintaining such a velocity, and traveling faster than the speed of sound through the atmosphere without producing so much as a super-sonic shock wave in the process.
Given what we think we know, how on Earth could this be possible? And that is exactly the question one needs to ask if such performance is ever to be understood in scientific terms; even more so if one is to develop the technology to produce such performance using the best engineering and materials science available.
And though General Relativity may be “well tested” it surprisingly still remains a theory, not a law of Physics. Even Einstein reversed himself on the issue of the all-pervasive “aether” for the acceptance of this “plenum” under the new label, “spacetime metric” in developing the construct we call general relativity. And, while the “relativity principle” may be considered fact, “general” relativity is not. As solid as the scientific consensus may be, there are those that acknowledge that GR is not complete.
In an earlier correspondence you stated, (and I paraphrase here), that some of these “principles” have been a foundation of the scientific mainstream for upwards of 400 years and that this therefore establishes a basis for their level of credibility. The longevity of an idea’s acceptance is irrelevant when it comes to the legitimacy of its truth.
Consider the “flat Earth” viewpoint or the long-held notion that
the sun, moon and stars orbited the Earth. These were beliefs that
were sanctioned, (brutally in some cases), by the Vatican and
supported by quite erroneous observations, even after superior
evidence was gathered by Galileo Galilei through his telescope.
As you may know, he was placed under house arrest for his
opposing viewpoint, well-supported though it was.
Your correspondence continued:
Crudely stated, the limitations that concern us are:
- No object travels faster than light (the Einstein speed limit).
- No object can be made to move without forcing some other object to move in the opposite direction (Newton’s 3rd law of motion).
- No object can move through the atmosphere at bullet-like speeds without creating a sonic boom (a direct consequence of the Doppler effect).
- Gravity pulls; it can’t be made to push.
Complex living beings don’t survive instantaneous accelerations from a standing start to thousands of miles per hour, nor do they survive instantaneous sharp turns at those speeds (direct consequences of inertia).
True, “nothing can travel faster than light”. But it is how you say that phrase that makes the difference between science fiction and reality. In his 1994 paper, Miguel Alcubierre describes how it might be possible to modify a local spacetime, (“nothing” – the vacuum), “within the framework of general relativity and without the introduction of wormholes…..in a way that allows a spaceship to travel with an arbitrarily large speed.
By a purely local expansion of spacetime behind the craft and an opposite contraction in front of it, motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region is possible”. (1)
Alcubierre, asserts that nothing in GR prevents a “dynamically engineered local spacetime”, ( think of it as a spacetime “bubble”), from being moved through space by influencing the curvature of the surrounding spacetime through a polarization process that includes an “expansion” and “contraction” of spacetime along the flight path of the disturbed region of space. In the two dimensional model often used to represent the gravitational influence of a large mass on the surrounding spacetime, this might be visualized as the depression under a bowling ball placed on a thick sheet of foam rubber that has been graphically lineated.
Alcubierre’s proposal would appear in this representational format as a curved ridge behind the bowling ball, a small intervening flatspot where the ball rests, and a curved depression ahead of the ball. This compression and expansion of the surrounding spacetime imparts a vector to the spacetime “bubble”, encapsulating the spaceship that created it. Time dilation, the violation of causality and the EPR Paradox do not occur under
the conditions that Alcubierre outlines in his proposal.
Harold E. Puthoff, PhD. of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin elaborated on Alcubierre’s proposal with two papers that examined methods by which “The Alcubierre Warp Drive” or something like it, might be accomplished. (2), (3), (4)
There are extensive citations in these and other papers I will send you. Unlike Alcubierre, I do not believe that “exotic matter”, (read anti-matter), is required to accomplish the proposed “dynamically engineered local spacetime”. From those physicists whom I have spoken with and the physics literature available to us, I have seen expressions of the energetic density of Zero-Point Fluctuations imbedded in spacetime being as high as 10 to the 26th power Joules per cubic meter, or as having a mass equivalency of 10 to the 94th power grams per cubic centimeter.
This is the very reason Einstein maintained that spacetime is curved. Just as mass, (represented by the bowling ball on a sheet of foam) will curve spacetime, so will vast amounts of energy imbedded within the fabric of spacetime. If tapped as a propulsive energy source, it would clearly have enough power to perform the function that Alcubierre proposes in the use of “exotic matter”. This, then is the methodology that Puthoff and others envision in the papers cited.
The “crudely stated…limitations” that concern you and your associates can all be answered very simply. The “effect” of mass is variable. Otherwise, Einstein’s velocity-of-light limitation would not exist. Numerous scientific papers have been published on the clear relationship that exists between matter and “quantum electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum”. (ZPF)
The proper mass of any object, whether it be a spacecraft or its pilot can be variable depending on the dynamic interaction between these zero-point fluctuations and the atomic structure of those objects. (5), (6), (7), (8), (9).
2. No object can be made to move without forcing some other object to move in the opposite direction (Newton’s 3rd law of motion).
With all due respect to Mr. Einstein and Mr. Newton, this is certainly true in the case of a bullet fired from a gun and the resulting recoil, or the car accelerating down the road by pushing against it, and the now archaic use of propellant filled rockets “blasting off” into space. But all of this depends on your frame of reference, whether it is linear, non-linear, inertial reference frame or noninertial reference frame. (Rotating or otherwise accelerating reference frames are noninertial frames). Consider the soccer ball left on a rotating merry-go-round; it imparts no thrust and yet is driven outward by centifugal force.
Or the electrons spinning endlessly about the nucleas of the atom. They are not propelled by little jet engines, and they never stop. Would you consider this a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? (Entropy) I doubt it. Obviously, the components of atomic structure gather their energy from somewhere.
Electrons are responsive, as is the nucleus of every atom to the
energy in the environment around them, most particularly quantum electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum. It is the interaction between the atomic structure of matter and the ZPF that is in fact the underlying cause of the effects we call mass, inertia and gravity. (7), (8), (9)
If one could control the interaction of the atomic structure of matter, and the zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum, then one might expect that it would be possible to modify an object’s mass during the process of acceleration. It appears that the most simple yet dramatic way to carry out this process would be to block this interaction from occuring or absorb the zero-point energy from the environment to prevent the interaction from occuring at all.
If one proposes to make the incredibly distant journey across interstellar space, what better way to propel oneself than to draw your energy from the environment, rather than carry along tremendous reserves of fuel? Considering that gravity, mass and inertia have all been shown to be effects created in the matter-ZPF interaction, and that mass and inertia increase with acceleration through spacetime as a direct result of an increased rate of interaction with the ZPF, it follows that if you absorb zero-point energy from the environment as a source of propulsive power while accelerating, you accomplish…
1. The mass and inertia of the craft and its contents are reduced, as ZPE is converted to work; (energy is conserved)
2. The rate of spacecraft acceleration increases as a result,
3. The availability of additional ZPE to tap into as a propulsive power source increases with added acceleration, and
4. Propulsion system efficiency is maximized as the electrons moving through an electro-gravitic type propulsion system are mass-cancelled as well, creating the ultimate, high-temperature super-conducting circuits…
In the instance of atmospheric flight, air molecules that pass through the spherical event horizon of the “dynamically engineered local spacetime” that surrounds the craft would also, temporarily be rendered mass-cancelled/ inertialess and as such would experience no friction, nor energy transfer while undergoing displacement by the craft’s hull. Thus, there would not be a super sonic shock wave or “sonic boom”.
In addition, drawing the ZFE from a fixed, region around the vehicle would yield a reduction in localized “Brownian Motion” resulting in a distinct temperature reduction in the vicinity. This is consistent with Brad Sorensen’s account of the ARV display at Norton AFB on November 12, 1988 where external temperatures were 102 degrees Farenheit. (I checked with the National Weather Service to confirm this). Other parts of the hangar were comfortably warm, yet in the section set apart for the ARV three craft display, Brad noted that it was much colder; perhaps 70 to 75 degrees.
The event horizon between air molecules of proper mass and those within the affected region with mass-cancelled properties would also account for refractory distortion, (often described during UFO sightings), due to the differing air “density”, since mass-cancelled air would have a natural buoyancy over unaffected air outside the disturbed region. This would be particularly noticeable while a craft is motionless or hovering.
This phenomenon and its influence on the surrounding air would also account for “shape-shifting”, variable morphology in night sightings, since energetic/rapid accelerations would lend a spherical shape to the appearance of such a vehicle, caused by ionization/photon emission at the periphery of the spherical event horizon around the craft, subsiding to the typical saucer shape while hovering.
James Giglio continues:
How well-settled is the idea that nothing travels faster than light? Very well indeed, actually, and getting better established all the time. Back in 1947 when the UFO issue first came to prominence, relativity and Dr. Einstein’s speed limit were only about 50 years old, and only a handful of experiments
had been performed to test their validity. Since then, we’ve educated several new generations of physicists, many of whom have worked at “pushing the envelope” of relativity. Experiments and theoretical studies have proliferated over this time, but unfortunately no exception has been found to this fundamental limiting principle of physics. In fact, there’s not even a realistic hint pointing to the possibility of an exception.
In view of my previous citations and those included here, some of
which you apparently were not aware of. (10), (11 )
A counter to this argument is the claim that maybe we don’t know all the physics there is to know. Of course we don’t. But we DO know a lot, and for almost a century now the evidence has been accumulating that the Einstein speed limit is both intractable and permanent.
If you believe this, then perhaps you don’t understand the basis of the Einstein speed limit. It postulates that no physical object, (having mass), can exceed the speed of light because its mass increases during acceleration through spacetime. The rate of this increase in mass is variable, and is directly proportional to the object’s acceleration through spacetime and its interaction with quantum zero-point fluctuations imbedded within that environment. It should be noted that this increased mass is an effect. The object doesn’t become larger or experience the addition of more matter. In a sense, the object’s structure becomes more “energetic”. I agree with you that this process certainly seems “intractable”, when your propulsion system uses massive quantities of liquid propellant. But certainly not “permanent”, since the elevated effect of mass subsides under deceleration.
To circumvent such a process, one would clearly have to look beyond Newton’s third Law of Motion and the present, action/reaction approach to acceleration using rocket engines. It seems obvious that the solution to this challenge would be to rely on dynamic forces within the environment, and exploiting their energetic nature through a “polarization process”, something that was predicted (12), then successfully demonstrated to be possible with the Casimir Effect. The late Robert L. Forward, H.D. Frohning and others have proposed that this effect, or the process it demonstrated, had great potential for energy production and new propulsion
technology. (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19).
The clear advantages of such an approach are that you don’t need to carry a large mass of propellant on board your vehicle, and that the movement produced is uniform, powerful, and instantaneous. By this I mean that such a system would accelerate the craft, its contents and a portion of the surrounding space together, in unison. This results in no dynamic stresses (G-forces) on the craft, its contents and most importantly, its pilot. The G-forces you are concerned about are typical of our current aircraft designs that use jet engine thrust and control surfaces on the wings to push a pilot’s body around through the air. (Been there, done that). The inertia of the pilot’s body itself is ultimately what can cause him so much harm.
The United States Air Force recognized the advantages of this “uniform acceleration” and to that end, commissioned a study, from 21 September to 30 November 1989 entitled “Electric Propulsion Study”, authored by D.L. Cravens of Science Applications International Corp., 21151 Western Avenue, Torrance CA 90501-1724, Report FO4611-88C-0014, prepared for the AIr Force Astronautics Lab (AFSC) Air Force Space Technology Center, Space Systems Division, Air Force Systems Command, Edwards AFB, CA., 93523-5000 Report AL-TR-89-040/ AD-A227 121, and was designated “Approved For Public Release” by the Defense Technical Intelligence Center, (DTIC) Oct. 4, 1990.
Anyone who holds that the limit might be bypassed by some “new physics” at some time in the future, or that ET’s may already have developed that physics, has a very heavy and rapidly growing burden of proof to bear; solid and convincing evidence, not speculation, is required to support that burden.
On this point, you will find me in agreement with you. Until a disc lands on the Mall in D.C. (ala The Day The Earth Stood Still), or a crash recovery occurs in down town L.A., I doubt that we will have absolutely conclusive proof that any Extra-Terrestrial civilization has made it to Earth. It is for this
reason, that my publicly spoken view on this one issue has been that the vast majority of unidentified aircraft witnessed are of terrestrial origin, and more than likely are military in nature.
I do not rule out the possibility, having personally seen the incredible performance of these craft, that a small percentage may be from off-world civilizations.
With regard to the permanency of our current understanding of physics, I am reminded of two rather well known quotes. The first, by “The Man” himself:
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible he is very probably wrong”.
Arthur C. Clarke
Taking the case studies as a whole, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a witness observing something unusual, even a “trained observer,” has a near-zero ability to interpret that observation correctly and describe it accurately. It is also difficult to escape the conclusion that reliable individuals, pillars of the community with solid reputations for integrity, pull off UFO hoaxes with surprising frequency.
Here again, you will find me in agreement with you. In 1992, I stood side by side with binoculars in hand, next to William Hamilton III a UFO investigator, near the Northrop RCS test facility at the base of the Tehachapee Mountains N.W. of Palmdale, and watched as he called out the landing lights of commercial airliners on final approach to the Burbank Airport, (south of that location) and declare to other observers that their landing lights were UFO’s. “Look, look! See Them dance?”, he said. The “dancing effect” was caused by the stiff wind at the location, creating turbulence around our binoculars.
Then he tried to convince the gullible individuals standing around us the a C-141 Starlifter on approach to Edwards AFB, (east of our position) was a “Triangular UFO”. Through my own binoculars I could clearly see the formation lights on the fuselage and vertical stabilizer while everyone else
just saw the three large lights on the landing gear, forming a triangular pattern. It was interesting to observe the observers.
The third abduction claimant, Licia Davidson, has had numerous fully conscious encounters, and I was at her home when one occured on December 12, 1989.
Does that mean you saw the aliens? Unfortunately, no. Licia had predicted their arrival, because, (she said) the implant in her ear had “gone off” a sensation that usually induced nausea and dizziness in her. I witnessed a similar reaction caused by the device while she and I were driving past a high-voltage transformer substation north of the community of Victorville, CA on another occasion.
What I witnessed in her home, was the sensation of instantly being immobilized while fully awake, and while focusing my mind on being able to move, managed to free myself from an overpowering notion that I should “Lie still”. I lifted up onto my elbows while laying on the sofa in her living room, then was suddenly rendered unconscious. At the moment that this happened, there was a sound that. I heard in the center of my head, that would be very much like the auditory bone conduction of sound you might hear if you placed your clenched fist against your temple, then pressed firmly and quickly causing your knuckles to “pop”. That’s what I heard as I passed out.
Immediately prior to this event, every dog in the neighborhood began shieking and howling as if being eviscerated (I noticed your fans like that word so I couldn’t help but use it here). This noise lasted exactly 90 seconds, then stopped abruptly, as if a switch had been thrown. Ten minutes later, I came out of the unconscious state, but once again, was unable to move, no matter how hard I tried. And believe me I wanted to because my bladder felt like it was about to explode.
This inability to move lasted for about fifty minutes, at the end of which the sound of the neighborhood dogs shieking resumed, again, lasting about 90 seconds. Just as before, it ended abruptly. As soon as it stopped, I could move again. It was a very strange experience. According to Licia, she had experienced a face-to-face encounter in her bedroom while this happened to me.
A mundane possibility is that she was the victim of domestic violence, and she would rather make up a paramilitary squad than admit to you that she gets beaten up with some regularity by an ex. A reality check is in order; did she go to the hospital? Is local law enforcement aware of her injuries? How about local mental health clinics? Friends and family? If there’s domestic violence going on, there’s probably a paper trail and a number of acquaintances who know her history.
These issues I have not pursued, because my primary interest in her case was to secure details about propulsion system technology, since she made the claim of “fully conscious” encounters in her home and on various craft. Surprisingly, she described components that were consistent with those outlined by Brad Sorensen, and she offerred these details before I shared any of that information with her.
I realize, James, that from your perspective, she could simply have spent a fair amount of time reading the truckload of UFO literature that is available to come up with some ideas. Still, her unique details in certain areas gave an air of authenticity to her testimony. (In my view).
You declared your skepticism regarding the corroborating testimony of the Lancaster Sheriff’s Deputy who described closing off the streets around Air Force Plant 42 and witnessing the same events described earlier by a Northrop B-2 Production Facility employee:
Word may have gotten out, to the effect that “that fellow McCandlish, he’ll believe anything you tell him about UFOs; let’s go have a little innocent fun.”. At the time of the ticket writing incident, outside plant 42, (1994) I had not appeared anywhere in the public domain posing as a “UFO Investigator”. In fact, I have not ever characterized myself in that way, since as I have said before, my interest was in the technology I have witnessed. Not in chasing down little gray aliens.
… retired Col. Thomas Hornung is being harassed for any knowledge he has about the November 12, 1988 Norton AFB airshow.
Who’s harassing him, and what’s the nature of the harassment?
His phone number and address were tracked down by a young man, Mike Schratt, an engineer working for an aerospace company up in Illinois. He began corresponding with me in 1995 after my first or second appearance on the Art Bell Coast To Coast radio program. He seems a bit driven by this subject matter, but I didn’t expect that he would call up the colonel and ask him point blank about three flying saucers in a hangar at Norton AFB in 1988. I think his blunt technique alone probably scared the guy off. The Colonel’s response was that he didn’t care to comment on [that}.
In closing, I realize that in the end, much of this will strike you as “speculative”. Perhaps that is true. But I think you are mistaken in your assessment that these things are not possible or considered worthy of investigation by the military and the aerospace industry as a whole. The reports and physics papers which I have cited should stand as a testament to the inaccuracy of that viewpoint. If the foundation of our knowledge in physics is so “solid” why would the Air Force commission two different studies in the last fifteen years alone on the idea of massless, inertialess propulsion derived from the energetic vacuum?
The thing that disappoints me most about my situation, and many others like me, is that I know that the objects I saw were real. They were clearly machines of some kind. They exhibited performance that was clearly beyond the scope of what we generally consider to be “state of the art”. If these objects are manned vehicles, or an exotic weapons system, I can understand why they remain so highly classified. The items I saw are virtually untouchable by any defenses I am aware of, other than perhaps a
high energy laser beam. Even so, target acquisition would be very difficult.
> *_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ *
> (1) Miguel Alcubierre,
> Class. Quantum Grav. 11 (1994) L73-L77.
> “The Warp Drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity”.
> Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wales, College
> of Cardiff, P.O. Box 913, Cardiff CF1 3YB, UK;
> (2) H.E. Puthoff, PhD.
> “SETI, The Velocity-of-Light Limitation, and The Alcubierre Warp
> Drive: An Integrating Overview”, Phys. Essays, 9, p.156, 1996.
> (3) H.E. Puthoff, PhD.
> “Can The Vacuum be Engineered for Spaceflight Applications?
> Overview of Theory and Experiments” ; NASA Breakthrough Propulsion
> Physics Workshop, Aug. 12-14, 1997; NASA Lewis Research Center,
> Cleveland, Ohio; Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, 4030 West
> Braker Lane, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78759-5329
> In 2002, Puthoff, Little and Ibison expanded yet further on the
> concept of Superluminal (SL) spaceflight in their paper published in
> the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society ,(JBIS) under the title,
> “Engineering the Zero-Point Field and Polarizable Vacuum for Inter-
> stellar Flight. (4)
> (4) JBIS, Vol. 55, pp.137-144, 2002.
> (5) Prigogine, I and Nicolis, G., Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium
> Systems, Wiley, New York, (1977)
> (6) Sakhorav, A., (1968) Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations in Curved
> Space and The Theory of Gravitation, Sov. Phys.-Dokl., 12, 11, 1040.
> (7) Puthoff, H. E., (1987) Ground State of Hydrogen as a
> Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State; Phys. Rev.D, 35, 10, 3266.
> (8) Puthoff, H. E. (1989, !993); Gravity as a Zero-Point- Fluctuation
> Force. Phys. Rev. A, 39, 5, 2333.
> (9) Haisch, B., Rueda, A., and Puthoff, H.E. (1994) Inertia as a
> Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force Phys. Rev. A, 49, 2, 679.
> (10) Chiang, C.C., On a Possible Repulsive Interaction in
> Universal Gravitation, The Astrophysical Journal, 1985, 87, (1973)
> (11) DeBroglie, L., The Reinterpretation of Wave Mechanics,
> Found. Phys. 1 (1), 5-15 (1970)
> (12) Casimir, I.: Proc. Ned. Akad. Wet. 51,973 (1948)
> (13) Forward, Robert L., Extracting Electrical Energy and Heat
> from The Vacuum by Cohesion of Charged, Foliated Conductors,
> Phys. Rev. B, Vol. 30 No. 4 (1984)
> (14) Forward, Robert L., Mass Modification Experiment
> Definition Study, (1996) Advanced Concepts Office of The
> Propulsion Directorate of Phillips Laboratory, Edwards AFB
> j. Scientific Exploration 10, 3, 325
> (15) Forward, Robert l., and Miller, L.R., (1967) Generation
> and Detection of Dynamic Gravitational-Gradient Fields,
> J. Appl.Phys. 38, 2, 512.
> (16) H.D. Frohning, Use of Vacuum Energies for Interstellar
> Space Flight, 36th Inter. Astro. Congr.., IAA-85-492, (1985)
> (17) Milonni, P.W., Radiation Pressure From The Vacuum:
> Physical Interpretation of The Casimir Force, Phys. Rev. A,
> 38, pp 1621 (1988)
> (18) Shoulders, K.R. (1991) Energy Conversion using High
> Charge Density. U.S. Patent No. 5,018,180.
> (19) B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, AAIA 98-3143;
> Advances in the Proposed Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field
> Theory of Inertia. 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
> Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit
> July 13-15, 1998 Cleveland, Ohio