Maybe you didn't see my comment on page 109, comment 1085. I figure you either didn't read it, disagreed with it, or didn't understand it. I think it shows a good potential answer to how it would be possible to travel great distances in short time intervals. It also agrees with almost all the anecdotal evidence experienced by witnesses of UFOs. Another benefit - it doesn't disagree with quantum physics and general relativity. It just exploits a loophole. Kind of like when GR exploits a loophole in Newtonian mechanics for when matter travels at approximately the speed of light.
Last edited:
Would it be fair to characterize what you wrote as an "opinion"? A credible theory must be backed up by rigorous mathematics.
No, I don't think so. I've already had correspondence from physicists who take it seriously. Often the start of understanding comes not from the mathematics but the conceptual understanding. If I showed you the mathematics would you even understand it?
I thought you said Brian Greene never got back to you.
This may be true but ultimately any theory has to be confirmed by mathematics.
I am not sure but your mathematics would have to be peer-reviewed. If your theory has merits, it would have already appeared on reputable journals.
Last edited:
You certainly seem fond of mathematics over all other kinds of scientific knowledge. Also, you are very meticulous about my credentials. Michael Faraday is one of my heroes and he didn't know mathematics. He was a visual thinker and made huge progress using just that facility. I'm very similar in how I think. All I can say is that I hope that can satisfy you. I'm not claiming proof. I'm claiming understanding with the confidence that validation will come sometime later. I have a lot of confidence.
I sure hope you apply the same critical questioning to your own speculations. You said no one has answers to the UFO question and we should all give up on thinking about UFOs. I'm merely saying that I have significant knowledge of physics and have spent a lot of time thinking about it over many years and have tried to apply those principles. If you think that's worthless and require others to validate me that's your right. So far you have not convinced me that you have even understood what I said in my referenced physics explanation. Maybe you do understand it though. I'd feel better about your criticism if you'd try to convince where I'm wrong in my argument based on your understanding of the substance of my physics argument.
If you don't understand it then just say so. There's no need to denigrate me on the basis of my being a nobody. That's essentially what you're doing. Everybody is a nobody at some point in their life, even people who later become distinguished.
Physics aside, it seems we're a long way away from a 'Wormhole Drive' in engineering terms.
That's very possibly true. My point was that I think that is the direction to follow. The magnetic field required would be huge. Maybe beyond our current ability in materials science. I shouldn't have minimized it. Only that the theoretical physics direction points in the direction I indicated. The witnessed accelerations of UFOs would destroy most structures, not to mention any human or alien inside.
Last edited:
In "Project Outgrowth", released to the public by the US Airforce in 1972, there is a section on launching a 10 m diameter hollow metal sphere into space by electrostatic means.
The mathematics included in the technical report show that the repulsive lift force would raise the charged sphere to an altitude of 1,000 km (space officially starts at 100 km).
Once there, the report claims, the sphere could be continually supported at that height with little loss of energy. By extension, I wonder if the sphere's position in the sky could ultimately be manipulated?
There's nothing to suggest in the report that the US Airforce actually sent metal spheres flying into the sky, but if they did that would explain some UFO sightings!
Unlikely though, as the report does say "Handling and producing charged objects of the magnitude assumed for the analysis may be well beyond the reach of technology for decades to come".
A bit like your conclusion of "Maybe beyond our current ability...", exeric. 😎
The mathematics included in the technical report show that the repulsive lift force would raise the charged sphere to an altitude of 1,000 km (space officially starts at 100 km).
Once there, the report claims, the sphere could be continually supported at that height with little loss of energy. By extension, I wonder if the sphere's position in the sky could ultimately be manipulated?
There's nothing to suggest in the report that the US Airforce actually sent metal spheres flying into the sky, but if they did that would explain some UFO sightings!
Unlikely though, as the report does say "Handling and producing charged objects of the magnitude assumed for the analysis may be well beyond the reach of technology for decades to come".
A bit like your conclusion of "Maybe beyond our current ability...", exeric. 😎
A 2006 study published by the American Institute of Physics includes a conceptual 2050 vehicle that features hypothetical inertial mass reduction technology which extracts energy from the quantum vacuum.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.2169305
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.2169305
One of the most commonly researched areas is in hypothetically reducing a craft’s mass, preferably to zero, using electromagnetism.
Here's one theoretical study into altering inertial mass.
(PDF) Advances in the proposed electromagnetic zero-point field theory of inertia
Here's one theoretical study into altering inertial mass.
(PDF) Advances in the proposed electromagnetic zero-point field theory of inertia
