This multi-part post is devoted to the issue of travelling between the stars within the lifetime of a human.  It does not necessarily mean that the propulsion method would be so fast as to exceed the speed of light, though that possibility does exist.  It simply is a discussion on how the great gulfs between the stars can be traversed using contemporaneous human technology.  As such, it purposely omits dimensional gates and transport portals. I most certainly do not have the answers regarding this most interesting of subjects.  This post discusses this issue because one of the first things a debunker does is complain that engineering solutions are unattainable.  I discuss these issues and more.  It is a good read.

The sections

This is part 4 of a four part post. This post consists of four sections as described;

• Part 1 – Introduction to FTL technology
• Part 2 – The Techniques
• Part 3 – Other FTL alternatives.
• Part 4 – Conclusion and Summary – You are here.

Some basics

Again, a review from the first part of this post…

First off, MAJestic as well as our benefactors have techniques and mechanisms that permit geographical travel anywhere in the universe without using a vehicle. This technology also enables such things as world-line travel, dimensional travel, and time travel.

This is a very powerful technology, but is not the subject at hand. Here, we will talk about technologies that can be used to traverse large physical distances in relatively short periods of time, without using dimensional portals or gates.

The benefit in this technology is obvious. You need to physically go to a location in order to establish “jump gate” coordinates for it. This will require physical presence, and that means physical travel. (Of course, there are other things that one can do, like trial by error, robots and probes, but please follow my train of thought on this.)

Here we discuss ways to travel “very fast” in our universe, by using existing and known technologies without using a dimensional portal or gate.

Summary

“If the space travel is at the top of a country’s agenda, that country is surely a very developed one!”

― Mehmet Murat ildan

The majority of open research paths involve further study of the fundamental properties of space-time and inertial frames, looking for candidate sources of reaction mass and the means to interact with it.

As much as these are basic areas of investigation for general physics, their investigation in the context of breakthrough spaceflight introduces additional perspectives from which to contemplate these lingering unknowns.

This alternative perspective might just provide the insight that would otherwise be overlooked.

It must be fundamentally understood that the relevant outcome per interstellar propulsion is that subspace exists, and this is how Nature implements probabilities. 

Note, neither quantum nor string theories ask the question, how does Nature implement probabilities? And therefore, are unable to provide an answer. The proof of subspace can be found in how the photon electromagnetic energy is conserved inside the photon.

Subspace is probabilistic and therefore does not have the time dimension. 

In other words destination arrival is not LFT constrained by motion based travel, but is effected by probabilistic localization. We therefore, have to figure out navigation in subspace or vectoring and modulation. Vectoring is the ability to determine direction, and modulation is the ability to determine distance. This approach is new and has an enormous potential of being realized as it is not constrained by LFT.  (This is the core point in this discourse.)

Yes, interstellar propulsion is feasible, but not as of the warp drives we understand today. As of 2012, there are only about 50 scientists on this planet working or worked towards solving the gravity modification and interstellar propulsion challenge.

Final Conclusion

The ability to travel geographically, in and out of different world-lines or to conduct apparent “time travel” are all possible.

There are those that are active doing so, and using these technologies to go to interesting places and to do interesting things.

Those that argue against this are simply ignorant.

Their time would be better served watching Ellen DeGeneres on television.

Do you want more?

I have more posts that fit this venue. You can find them in my MAJestic Index here…

MAJestic

Articles & Links

You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.

To go to the MAIN Index;

Master Index

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE .
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

Please kindly help me out in this effort. There is a lot of effort that goes into this disclosure. I could use all the financial support that anyone could provide. Thank you very much.

[wp_paypal_payment]

This multi-part post is devoted to the issue of travelling between the stars within the lifetime of a human.  It does not necessarily mean that the propulsion method would be so fast as to exceed the speed of light, though that possibility does exist.  It simply is a discussion on how the great gulfs between the stars can be traversed using contemporaneous human technology.  As such, it purposely omits dimensional gates and transport portals. I most certainly do not have the answers regarding this most interesting of subjects.  This post discusses this issue because one of the first things a debunker does is complain that engineering solutions are unattainable.  I discuss these issues and more.  It is a good read.

The sections

This is part 3 of a four part post. This post consists of four sections as described;

• Part 1 – Introduction to FTL technology
• Part 2 – The Techniques
• Part 3 – Other FTL alternatives – You are here.
• Part 4 – Conclusion and Summary

Some basics

This is part three.

This is the introduction that was provided in section / part one…

First off, MAJestic as well as our benefactors have techniques and mechanisms that permit geographical travel anywhere in the universe without using a vehicle. This technology also enables such things as world-line travel, dimensional travel, and time travel.

This is a very powerful technology, but is not the subject at hand. Here, we will talk about technologies that can be used to traverse large physical distances in relatively short periods of time, without using dimensional portals or gates.

The benefit in this technology is obvious. You need to physically go to a location in order to establish “jump gate” coordinates for it. This will require physical presence, and that means physical travel. (Of course, there are other things that one can do, like trial by error, robots and probes, but please follow my train of thought on this.)

Here we discuss ways to travel “very fast” in our universe, by using existing and known technologies without using a dimensional portal or gate.

Other Alternatives Worth Considering

The speed-of-light limit only applies to motion through four-dimensional spacetime.  Perhaps wormholes are possible. That is a concept for which Kip Thorne gets the credit (or the blame).  It is an old, but still valid, argument for how traveling through vast distances might be circumvented.

Wormholes

Wormholes were first theorized in 1916 (although they weren’t called that at the time), derived from Einstein’s equations for relativity.

A wormhole connects two points in space via a sort of tunnel through a higher dimension. An object entering one end of a wormhole would emerge almost instantly on the other end, even if the openings were separated by trillions of miles.

In the 1980’s, Thorne, who is the Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus, at the California institute of Technology, kicked off a serious discussion among physicists about whether or not an object (like a spaceship) could physically travel through a wormhole.

In other words, do the laws of physics forbid it?

Or, with unlimited resources and knowledge, could a civilization build a wormhole and use it as a cosmic highway?

Physicists, including Thorne, have made some progress on this question.

Scientists knew prior to the 1980s that if wormholes existed, they would evaporate before anything (even light) could pass from one opening to another. So sending something through a wormhole would require a kind of scaffolding made from “exotic matter” to hold the wormhole open.

In addition, wormholes for travel would likely need to be artificially constructed, because there is no solid evidence that they exist naturally.

“We see no objects in our universe that could become wormholes as they age,” Thorne writes in his book “The Science of Interstellar” (W.W. Norton & Co. 2014).

By contrast, scientists see huge numbers of stars that will eventually collapse to form black holes. There is a possibility that very, very small wormholes exist in the universe in something called “quantum foam,” which may or may not exist in the universe.

Thorne’s question on the possibility of interstellar travel through wormholes remains unanswered.

Spacetime stretching

Or, alternatively, perhaps spacetime itself can be stretched as proposed by the relativist Miguel Alcubierre (as discussed previously). There is no speed-of-light limit to spacetime stretching.  After all, spacetime beyond the Hubble horizon must be receding from us at v>c.

The Alcubierre “warp drive” (Class. Quant. Grav., 11-5, L73-L77, 1994) shows that spacetime warping and stretching around a bubble of flat spacetime is mathematically consistent with general relativity.

Dimensional Shifting

Modern superstring and M-brane theory imply the existence of numerous additional dimensions.  Recent work indicates that these additional dimensions may be much larger than the Planck scale.

The article “The Universe’s Unseen Dimensions” by Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos and Georgi Dvali in the August 2000 issue of Scientific American, for example, is a good summary of some current thinking on additional spatial dimensions as large as a millimeter:

"Our whole universe may sit on a membrane floating in a higher-dimensional space. Extra dimensions might explain why gravity is so weak and could be the key to unifying all the forces of nature."

Perhaps it is possible to lift off the membrane-universe constituting our four-dimensional spacetime, move in one of the additional dimensions where speed-of-light limits may not apply, and reenter our membrane-universe very far away.

All of this is speculation of course, but it is worth noting that disappearing in place, changing shape or sometimes jumping discontinuously from location to location is frequently reported in extraterrestrial vehicle observations.

Such behavior could conceivably be associated with motion into and out of a perpendicular dimension.

MAJestic Dimensional Portal

And now, I am going to talk about something in much more detail than I have in the past. I am going to discuss (just a little bit) about the fixed dimensional portal that I utilized during my egress back in 1981. I must admit that what I know of is limited in scope. As I was never specifically trained on this technology.

Never the less, I do know a few things.

Introduction

One of the most amazing technologies that I have encountered occurred during my first egress once I joined MAJestic. This was a fixed dimensional portal that was used as a transport node. It is my understanding that the technology enables anyone to travel to any geographic region, within any point in “time”, and upon any world-line, provided the proper coordinates are established and properly entered.

This technology is not a human invention. It is an acquired technology.

Now, I had initially thought that this technology was some sort of “off shoot” of earlier work in high-voltage physics, such as with the “Philadelphia Experiment” and other obscure mysterious events like the “Nazi Bell”, but to be truthful, I have no idea if any of those (well publicized) events actually occurred. Nor if they actually contributed to this technology in any way.

Instead, it is pretty clear to me that this technology is a gift from our benefactors to facilitate MAJestic interaction with them. It is not a derived human invention.

Essentially, this technology consists of an invisible “door”, that one can walk through. It will take you to another geographic location, or another time, or another world-line, as long as the coordinates are properly specified.

And that is the key. It is not enough to be able to have the mechanism and to be able to power it. You need to absolutely know your destination coordinates in exacting detail relative to your egress portal.

<redacted>

Basic Function of Operation

From what I can gather, the operation is rather simple. It requires a number of key components which work together to create the “door” or “portal” that appears.

The most important component is the <redacted>.

<redacted>

Upon leaving the portal, the individual will feel like they are covered in water and are all wet. I do not know why this is the case. But that feeling disappears within three seconds or so.

The Technology

<redacted>

Coordinates

To properly utilize this portal, it is imperative that the proper destination coordinates be input into the mechanism. As the device intuitively interacts with the “passenger”, it is important for the calibration of the particular “mapped travel sequence” be exacting and precise.

<redacted>

The way that the coordinates are compiled and established are alien to what one would expect. Instead of an alpha-numerical sequence of digits, there is a much more complex sequence. It’s complexity betrays it’s capability.

<redacted>

Conclusion

I am sorry that this explanation on this most substantive and interesting technology be so abbreviated. As I had mentioned previously, I was not trained in the operation of the device, or participated in any education regarding it. This technology is considered to be beyond the ability of mankind at this time, and thus the understanding of it’s operation is beyond the scope of most students of this matter.

As I have placed the caveats in regards to this, it is my understanding that the mechanism is quite robust and reliable.

Finally, there is absolutely no way that this technology will never make it to the public domain until long after the human sentience has been sorted out and the the human species is well pacified and established.

Some final notes and considerations on the Planck scale

The alternatives to the propulsive methods as described in parts one and two all operate on the Planck Scale. Indeed, this is the bedrock of our physical universe.

Planck’s length is the (tiny) dimension at which space-time stops being continuous as we see it. It is where things take on a discrete graininess made up of quanta, the “atoms” of space-time.

The universe at this dimension is described by quantum mechanics. Quantum gravity is the field of enquiry that investigates gravity in the framework of quantum mechanics.

Gravity has been very well described within classical physics, but it is unclear how it behaves at the Planck scale.

An interesting study published in Physical Review Letters (Key Name: Pranzetti), presented an important result obtained by applying a second quantization formulation of loop quantum gravity (LQG) formalism.

LQG is a theoretical approach within the problem of quantum gravity, and group field theory is the “language” through which the theory is applied in this work.

I tell the reader this; LQG should be applied to other areas to fully appreciate the benefits that quantum technologies can have on physical systems.

"The idea at the basis of our study is that homogenous classical geometries emerge from a condensate of quanta of space introduced in LQG in order to describe quantum geometries," Thus, we obtained a description of black hole quantum states, suitable also to describe 'continuum' physics—that is, the physics of space-time as we know it."

A “condensate” in this case is a collection of space quanta. All of which share the same properties so that even though there are huge numbers of them, we can nonetheless study their collective behavior. And do so by referring to the microscopic properties of the individual particle.

So now, the analogy with classical thermodynamics seems clearer—just as fluids at our scale appear as continuous materials despite consisting of a huge number of atoms, similarly, in quantum gravity, the fundamental constituent atoms of space form a sort of fluid—that is, continuous space-time.

A continuous and homogenous geometry (like that of a spherically symmetric black hole) can, as Pranzetti and colleagues suggest, be described as a condensate…

…which facilitates the underlying mathematical calculations…

…keeping in account an a priori infinite number of degrees of freedom .

"We were therefore able to use a more complete and richer model compared with those done in the past in LQG, and obtain a far more realistic and robust result, this allowed us to resolve several ambiguities afflicting previous calculations due to the comparison of these simplified LQG models with the results of semiclassical analysis as carried out by Hawking and Bekenstein". 

I view all this in a very simplistic manner. At the Planck scale, the LGQ is the nexus of time (world-line variations) and space (dimensional variations), and thus the control at the LGQ serves as the key to inter-dimensional transport.

Next…

This was part three of a four part post. To continue to part four, please go HERE.

Do you want more?

I have more posts that fit this venue. You can find them in my MAJestic Index here…

MAJestic

Articles & Links

You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.

To go to the MAIN Index;

Master Index

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE .
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

Please kindly help me out in this effort. There is a lot of effort that goes into this disclosure. I could use all the financial support that anyone could provide. Thank you very much.

[wp_paypal_payment]

This multi-part post is devoted to the issue of travelling between the stars within the lifetime of a human.  It does not necessarily mean that the propulsion method would be so fast as to exceed the speed of light, though that possibility does exist.  It simply is a discussion on how the great gulfs between the stars can be traversed using contemporaneous human technology.  As such, it purposely omits dimensional gates and transport portals. I most certainly do not have the answers regarding this most interesting of subjects.  This post discusses this issue because one of the first things a debunker does is complain that engineering solutions are unattainable.  I discuss these issues and more.  It is a good read.

The sections

This is part 2 of a four part post. This post consists of four sections as described;

• Part 1 – Introduction to FTL technology
• Part 2 – The Techniques – You are here.
• Part 3 – Other FTL alternatives
• Part 4 – Conclusion and Summary

Some basics

(This section is a review of the introduction from the first section.)

First off, MAJestic as well as our benefactors have techniques and mechanisms that permit geographical travel anywhere in the universe without using a vehicle. This technology also enables such things as world-line travel, dimensional travel, and time travel.

This is a very powerful technology, but is not the subject at hand. Here, we will talk about technologies that can be used to traverse large physical distances in relatively short periods of time, without using dimensional portals or gates.

The benefit in this technology is obvious. You need to physically go to a location in order to establish “jump gate” coordinates for it. This will require physical presence, and that means physical travel. (Of course, there are other things that one can do, like trial by error, robots and probes, but please follow my train of thought on this.)

Here we discuss ways to travel “very fast” in our universe, by using existing and known technologies without using a dimensional portal or gate.

The Techniques

“If gravity modification is real, it will alter the entire aerospace business.”

-Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion” (GRASP), Boeing 2012

The following are some of the areas of pursuit that engineers might want to investigate towards obtaining FTL flight ability.  I compiled this list in 2014, and periodically updated it subsequently.  It is provided here as avenues of investigation only.  This list is in no way complete, but is merely suggestive of avenues of investigation. 

I do recognize that many extraterrestrial species in our solar system have mastered space flight (among other things) and that they assist MAJestic in transporting personnel within our solar system.  I also understand that we are busy developing our own home-grown versions of these vehicles through the study of loaned craft.  But that should not simply suffice.  We need to pursue our own designs, and our own investigations independent of extraterrestrial influence.  To that end, I make and posit my suggestions herein.

In general, there are two basic techniques. 

There are numerous avenues to pursue, not only the two listed here.  The avenue to investigate, like anything else, will depend on political pressures, funding, the individuals involved, the social-economic situation, and (perhaps) a little luck.

The first [1] involves moving space-time boundaries.  Such is the propulsive techniques that have made news in the last few years. 

The second [2] involves a reduction in the effect of gravity.  If one can control gravity, they can create nearly inertia less vehicles and technologies of great efficiency, yet that work within our space-time envelope.  Currently advanced American aircraft such as the B-2 use technologies based on this principle.  These are the electrogravitic principles based on the Biefeld-Brown Effect.  (The Biefeld-Brown Effect is based on the research of Thomas Townsend Brown who in 1928 gained a patent for his practical application of how high voltage electrostatic charges can reduce the weight of objects.)

Robert Lazar claimed that gravity propagates instantaneously.  If one thinks about that, it actually makes perfect sense logically.  Gravity warps or bends space and time.  

We measure the speed or velocity of an object by observing the distance that the object travels in a given time interval.  If the very parameters that we use to measure distance and time are significantly affected by strong gravitational fields, then it would be impossible to actually define a finite speed to the propagation of gravity.  

A recent article, “Rethinking Relativity,” had stated that Associate Professor Tom Van Flandern from the University of Maryland issued a document, “The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say,” demonstrating that gravity propagated at least 20 billion times faster than light and may very well propagate instantaneously.

Let’s just play around with some potential possibilities…

The SMART Drive

The SHARP Drive is the fictional drive that propels his third millennia spaceships across the immense distances between stars. Writer Arthur C. Clarke coined the terms SHARP from the initial letters of the four physicists who he jointly credits with originating the concepts and discoveries that make the drive possible Sakharov, Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, and Hal Puthoff.

The concept is named after the dreamers whom inspired it.

Andrei Sakharov is the distinguished Russian physicist who first suggested that space is not empty but is full of energy, the so-called ‘ zero-point field ‘.   This suggestion was taken up by astrophysicist Bernhard Haisch of Lockheed’s Research Laboratories and physicists Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University at Long Beach, and Harold Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin 

Their article ‘Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz Force’ appeared in the February 1, 1994 issue of the eminent journal Physical Review A, and it offered a radically new interpretation of the origin of the strange quality of inertia.  

This new concept of inertia also points to a new understanding of gravity, since gravity and inertia are inextricably intertwined.   Hal Putoff goes even further.   Pointing to recent success in manipulating atomic processes by controlling zero-point fields in the lab, Puthoff says;

"…If we are right that both gravity and inertia stem from the zero-point field, then someday we might be able to manipulate both."

-Hal Putoff

The Alcubierre Drive

In 1994 Miguel Alcubierre, a theoretical physicist at the University of Wales published a paper called “The Warp Drive: Hyper-Fast Travel Within General Relativity.” This should be well known to anyone reading this manuscript.  If not… I would seriously reconsider the pedigree of these who is considering this manuscript.

M. Alcubierre, Class. Quantum Grav. 11, L73 (1994); see also I.A. Crawford, Q. J. R. Astron. Soc. 36, 205 (1995).

Alcubierre showed it is theoretically possible to distort space to allow warp speed travel: to literally expand the volume of space-time behind a starship, while compressing it up ahead — like feeding a tent pole through its sleeve by bunching up the fabric ahead, and pulling it along behind.   Alcubierre showed that space-time could be similarly manipulated. The position of a starship within such a distortion would change, relative to its destination – yet the ship itself need not actually “move” at all.

Miguel Alcubierre. The Warp drive: Hyperfast travel within general relativity. Class. Quant. Grav., 11:L73–L77, 1994.

What was so spectacularly different was that  Alcubierre realized  that one needs to take into account the possibility of engineered dynamic space-times within the context of general relativity. 

Specifically, Alcubierre showed by example that by distorting the local space-time metric in the region of a spaceship in a certain prescribed way, it would be possible to achieve motion faster than the speed of light.  (As seen by observers outside the disturbed region, without violating the local velocity-of-light constraint within the region.)

Furthermore, the Alcubierre solution shows that the proper acceleration along the spaceship’s path would be zero and the spaceship would suffer no time dilation.  This is of great importance due to the great distances between the vast gulfs of space between the stars.

When one combines the technologies associated with the Alcubierre Drive and that of a possible variable speed of light; a very favorable solution presents itself towards travel beyond apparent light speed.

Therefore, the proper conclusion to be drawn by consideration of engineered metric/vacuum-energy effects is that, with sufficient technological means to appear “magic” at present (to use Arthur C. Clarke’s phrase characterizing a highly advanced, technological civilization), travel at speeds exceeding the conventional velocity of light could occur without the violation of fundamental physical laws.

And, we might add, this could in principle be done without recourse to concepts as extreme as wormhole traversal.  (However, clearly, exotic matter/field states, e.g., macroscopic Casimir-like negative-energy-density vacuum states, would be required.)

See  A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 35, 898 (191 1); K. Scharnhorst, Phys. Lett. B 236, 354 (1990); P. Wesson, Space Sci. Rev. 59, 365 (1992); A.M. Volkov, A.A. Izmest'ev, and G.V. Skrotskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 32, 686 (1971); T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory (Harwood Academic, London, 1988), p. 826; M. Morris, K. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1446 (1988).

As a result, the possibility of reduced-time interstellar travel, either by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations at present or ourselves in the future, is not fundamentally constrained by physical principles.

The key to Alcubierre’s warp drive is something called exotic matter.

Exotic matter has the curious property of having a negative energy density, unlike normal matter (the stuff that makes up people, planets and stars), which has a positive energy density. Two bits of matter that have the same energy density are attracted to each other by gravity.

In contrast, bits of positive and negative energy matter would be repelled by gravity. It is the negative energy density of exotic matter that powers the warp drive.

A negative energy density is not the nonsensical thing it appears to be. Indeed, in 1948 the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir first predicted that one could observe the effects of negative energy densities. He reasoned that if negative energy densities existed, two closely spaced parallel conducting plates in a vacuum would be attracted to one another.

This phenomenon, now called the Casimir effect, was measured in 1958 by M. Sparnaay, and is usually taken to be a confirmation that negative energy densities are possible.

Exotic matter of a slightly different type is also invoked in the modern theory of cosmology known as inflation.

According to the theory of inflation, exotic matter in the early universe (moments after the big bang) had a positive energy density, but a very large negative pressure. The negative pressure was so large that it counteracted the effects of the positive energy density. The result was an expansion of space-time so rapid that two observers originally very close to each other would be carried apart faster than the speed of light.

This was all ground breaking, but not really practical.  That was, until other physicists began to look at the equations.

"I suddenly realized that if you made the thickness of the negative vacuum energy ring larger — like shifting from a belt shape to a donut shape — and oscillate the warp bubble, you can greatly reduce the energy required — perhaps making the idea plausible."

-physicist Harold White

White had adjusted the shape of Alcubierre’s ring which surrounded the spheroid from something that was a flat halo to something that was thicker and curvier.

Harold White presented the results of his Alcubierre Drive rethink a year later at the 100 Year Starship conference in Atlanta where he highlighted his new optimization approaches — a new design that could significantly reduce the amount of exotic matter required. And in fact, White says that the warp drive could be powered by a mass that’s even less than that of the Voyager 1 spacecraft.

That’s a significant change in calculations to say the least.

The reduction in mass from a Jupiter-sized planet to an object that weighs a mere 1,600 pounds has completely reset White’s sense of plausibility — and NASA’s.

Oscillation Thrusters & Gyroscopic Antigravity

Mechanical devices are often claimed to produce net external thrust using just the motion of internal components. These devices fall into two categories, [1] oscillation thrusters and [2] gyroscopic devices.

Their appearance of creating net thrust is attributable to misinterpretations of normal mechanical effects. The following short explanations were excerpted and edited from a NASA website about commonly submitted erroneous breakthroughs.

[1] Oscillation Thruster

Oscillation thrusters move a system of internal masses through a cycle where the motion in one direction is quicker than in the return direction.

When the masses are accelerated quickly, the device has enough reaction force to overcome the friction of the floor and the device slides. When the internal masses return slowly in the other direction, the reaction forces are not sufficient to overcome the friction and the device does not move.

The net effect is that the device moves in one direction across a frictional surface. In a frictionless environment the system’s components would simply oscillate around their center of mass.

[2] Gyroscopic Thruster

A gyroscopic thruster consists of a system of gyroscopes connected to a central body. When the central body is torqued, the gyros move in a way that appears to defy gravity. Actually the motion is due to gyroscopic precession and the forces are torques around the axes of the gyros’ mounts. There is no net thrust created by the system.

To keep an open, yet rigorous, mind to the possibility that there has been some overlooked physical phenomena with such devices, it would be necessary to explicitly address all the conventional objections and pass at least a pendulum test.

Any test results would have to be impartial and rigorously address all possible false-positive conclusions.

There has not yet been any viable theory or experiment that reliably demonstrates that a genuine, external, net thrust can be obtained with one of these devices. If such tests are ever produced, and if a genuine new effect is found, then science will have to be revised, because it would then appear that such devices are violating conservation of momentum.

Hooper Antigravity Coils

Experiments were conducted to test assertions from US Patent 3,610,971, by W. J. Hooper that self-canceling electromagnetic coils can reduce the weight of objects placed underneath.  

“Dr. late William J. Hooper, BA, MA, PhD in Physics was affiliated with the University of California at Berkley, and was Professor Emeritus, when he died in 1971. His works are documented and he gained two U.S. patents for his "ALL-ELECTRIC MOTIONAL FIELD GENERATOR". 

He claimed use of the "Motional Electric Field" to produce gravity and anti-gravity for use in SPACECRAFT and AIRCRAFT. 

Indeed, in U.S. patent #3,610,971 you can see a Flying Saucer diagram is used as an example in Figure 7.” 

- James Hartman, CaluNET Future Science Administrator

Related Documents

• US Patent #3,610,971. “All Electric Motional Electric Field Generator”, Awarded to William Hooper, April 1969
• US Patent # 3,656,013. “Apparatus for Generating Motional Electric Field”, Awarded to William Hooper, April 1972
• Hooper, W. J. (1974). New Horizons in Electric, Magnetic and Gravitational Field Theory, Electrodynamic Gravity, Inc. 1969
• Frances G. Gibson, “THE ALL-ELECTRIC FIELD GENERATOR AND ITS POTENTIAL”, Electrodynamic Gravity, Inc., 1983
• “Electric Propulsion Study”, Dr. Dennis Cravens, SAIC Corp, prepared for USAF Astronautics Lab at Edwards AFB, August 1990 — Section 3.7 Non-Inductive Coils

Summary

During the late 60’s William J. Hooper put forth an interesting theory involving the v x B terms dynamic electrical circuits. There was and is uncertainty as to the exact physical understanding of the Biot-Savart-Lorentz law and Ampere’s law involving the set of reaction forces. Peter Graneau has studied these expressions. Hoopers view was that there are three different types of electric fields due to the distribution of electric field, and two due to induction.

At the heart of the issue is the connection of the magnetic field and its source in the charged particles. EM theory is presently consistent with the idea that spinning magnetic dipoles create effects indistinguishable from charged particles.

There has been no critical experiment which can disprove whether a magnetic flux rotates with its source.

If it does co-move with its source then it is logical to assume that a motional electric field in a fixed reference frame of the current induces a magnetic field. This concept is likewise consistent with a field-free interpretation such as Ampere’s original laws.(with 4 pages more about Hooper’s theories)

FREE FALL OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES: ON MOVING BODIES AND THEIR ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES, by Nils Rognerud 1994 (nils@ccnet.com) (available at the elektromagnum web site)

This paper is a review of the problem of the observable action of gravitational forces on charged particles. The author discusses the induced electric fields and the sometimes overlooked unique physical properties. He analyzes several experiments, showing the reality of the induced electric fields.

The current interpretation, based on the idea of only one electric field, with certain characteristics, is compared with alternative approaches.

The Hooper Coil: The author has tested a setup by pulsing strong currents, opposite and equal, through multiple parallel conductors.

The configuration of the conductors in this type of experiment will cancel the B-fields, while still producing an Em field, in accordance with Eq. 4.2. This is similar to an experiment by Hooper (W. J. Hooper), who successfully predicted and measured the motional electric field – all in zero resultant B-field.

Interestingly, all of the above experiments can influence an electron with a zero B-field, in the region of the electron.

This has some profound implications – one of which is that the motional electric force field is immune to electrostatic or magnetic shielding.

Experimentally, it can be confirmed that the motional electric field is immune to shielding and follows the boundary conditions of the magnetic (not electric) field. The only way to shield a motional electric field is to use a magnetic shield around the source of the magnetic flux – containing it at the source.

These effects are not startling if one remembers that the motional electric field is a magnetic effect and that a magnetic field has a different boundary condition than the electric field.

The Investigation

This was investigated by NASA and discounted with no further studies ever attempted. 

The “official explanation” is that no weight changes were observed within the detectability of the instrumentation.  

Officially, it is believed that Hooper may have misinterpreted thermal effects as his “Motional Field” effects.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS OF HOOPER’S GRAVITY-ELECTROMAGNETIC COUPLING CONCEPT

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH. MILLIS, MARC G. WILLIAMSON, GARY SCOTT JUN. 1995 12 PAGES Presented at the 31st Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 10-12 Jul. 1995; sponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE NASA-TM-106963 E-9719 NAS 1.15:106963 AIAA PAPER 95-2601 Avail: CASI HC A03/MF A01 

Experiments were conducted to test assertions from Patent 3,610,971, by W.J. Hooper that self-canceling electromagnetic coils can reduce the weight of objects placed underneath.

No weight changes were observed within the detectability of the instrumentation.

More careful examination of the patent and other reports from Hooper led to the conclusion that Hooper may have misinterpreted thermal effects as his ‘Motional Field’ effects. There is a possibility that the claimed effects are below the detection thresholds of the instrumentation used for these tests. CASI Accession Number: N95-28893.

Investigational Fraud

I have two problems with the methodology used by the NASA scientists in the above experiment.

Firstly [1] The amount of ampere-turns used in the NASA experiment was substantially lower than the amount used by Hooper.

Their experiment did not try to replicate his results. 

They did not even attempt to find out why the results were different.  Hooper found that his effect increased in proportion the square of the current. If you were motivated to verify that the Hooper effect exists, would you not try to conduct the experiment with MORE current, rather than less?

Secondly [2],  NASA conducted it’s tests by energizing the coils and making measurements in an immediate on-off mode, rather than letting things run for a while as Hooper did. NASA’s reason for doing this was to avoid errors due to thermal effects.  (They did not follow the advised protocol as provided for in the patent.)

It makes sense for the researchers to do this, however what does not make sense is that if you are trying to verify an original experiment and you make changes, you have an obligation to also conduct the experiment in it’s original mode. To do otherwise is bad science.

But what could be wrong with testing things in an immediate on-off mode? Well, it can be seen in other experiments that a gravitational effect sometimes results from macroscopic spin alignment of the quantum angular momentum of a large number of microscopic particles. It has been demonstrated in other experiments that it takes time for these particles to come into alignment. For example in the inventions of Henry Wallace it sometimes took minutes for the “kinemassic” gravito- magnetic field to fully manifest itself.

The reason that it takes time for particles to come into alignment, could be much the same reason that it takes time to permanently magnetize a magnet. Wallace found that the “kinemassic” effect occurs with elemental materials which have a component of unpaired spin in the atomic nucleus. This includes all common isotopes of copper, which of course is the material used in Hooper’s coils.

Conclusion

I remain skeptical. 

That is because, the moment that something looks to be of value by MAJestic, or the Military, or the United States government, it is quickly disparaged and the research thrown into a SAP program. 

So when a theory is tested, only once, and then quickly discounted, it becomes suggestive of this kind of process. 

I strongly urge the reader to revisit this issue.  I strongly suspect that this kind of technology, or ones related to it is already incorporated in a number of highly classified aerospace aircraft designs.  I believe that this NASA report is specifically designed to thwart research along these avenues.

Millis, M. & Williamson. 1995. Experimental Results of Hooper’s Gravity-Electromagnetic Coupling Concept. NASA TM-106963.

Schlicher Thrusting Antenna

“Experiments were conducted to test the claims by Rex L. Schlicher et.al. (Patent 5,142,861) that a certain antenna geometry produces thrust greatly exceeding radiation reaction, when driven by repetitive, fast rise and relatively slower decay current pulses. “

Tests of a specially terminated coax, that was claimed to create more thrust than attributable to photon radiation pressure, revealed that no such thrust was present.  Again, NASA found no benefit in further investigations of this matter.

Fralick G. & Niedra. 2001. Experimental Results of Schlicher’s Thrusting Antenna. AIAA-2001-3657. (NASA TM-2001-211207)

“We conclude, in agreement with the momentum theorem of classical electromagnetic theory, that any thrust produced is far below practically useful levels. Hence within classical electrodynamics, there is little hope of detecting any low level motion that cannot be explained by interactions with surrounding structural steel and the Earth's magnetic field.”

The testing showed agreement with classical theory, and no further tests or studies were planned. 

The scientists have spoken!

However, they ended the report with the most signifigant statement that they could have made:

“The simplicity and import of the electromagnetic momentum theorem underscore the hopelessness of any space reaction scheme strictly within classical electrodynamics. 

This severe bottom line strongly suggests that for practical, globally fast mass/energy transport, one must work around the classical limitations of momentum conservation by digging into the deeper layers of spacetime structure itself---the so called "spacetime engineering". “

Podkletnov Gravity Shield

“The trouble started when Robert Matthews, science correspondent to the British Sunday Telegraph, got hold of the story. Matthews, like any journalist, relies on contacts, and he's disarmingly honest about it. 

"You don't get stories by digging for them," he now says with a laugh. "This isn't like Sherlock Holmes, that's a lot of bollocks. It's like, you hope a little brown envelope turns up in the post, and if it does, you're in luck."

“In his case the little brown envelope contained page proofs of Podkletnov's paper, leaked by a man named Ian Sample who worked on the editorial staff of the Journal of Physics-D. Although Podkletnov's paper hadn't been published yet, Sample and Matthews decided to break the story in the Sunday Telegraph, which printed it on September 1, 1996. 

The first sentence was key: "Scientists in Finland are about to reveal details of the world's first antigravity device."

“Antigravity? Podkletnov never used that word; he said he'd found a way to block gravity. Maybe this seemed a trivial distinction, but not to the staid professors at the Institute of Materials Science in the University of Tampere, to whom "antigravity" sounded like something out of a bad Hollywood movie.”

-Breaking the Law of Gravity By Charles Platt.  Wired Magazine.

A controversial claim of “gravity shielding” using rotating superconductors and radio-frequency radiation was published based on work done at Finland’s Tampere Institute. (i.e. an object placed above this spinning disc would lose weight.) 

Podkletnov E. & Nieminen. 1992. A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBCO Superconductor. Physica C. 203: 441-444.

A privately funded replication of the Podkletnov configuration “found no evidence of a gravity-like force to the limits of the apparatus sensitivity,” where the sensitivity was “50 times better than that available to Podkletnov.”

Hathaway, Cleveland, & Bao. 2003. Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields. Physica C. 385: 488-500.

But this information is completely unfounded and meaningless.  Boeing Aerospace is actively developing this technology and is doing everything in it’s power to retain Mr. Podkletnov and his work .

See below.

Publicly available papers describe this technology as having potential, but needing further engineering research and studies. Just as the exact details of impulse gravity beam propelled spacecraft cannot yet be determined with existing information, there are many unknowns in what the exact characteristics of a mature impulse gravity beamed propulsion transmitter design will be. 

Existing impulse gravity generator technology only generates the impulse gravity beam for a very short period of time, on the order of 10-4 seconds. For a practical propulsion system, the transmitter will need to greatly increase the amount of time it provides propulsion to the target spacecraft. 

This increase might be achieved with the development of an impulse gravity generator that is able to operate in a steady state condition. If such a generator cannot be built, then pulsing one or more generators at a high frequency could still achieve a high average acceleration of the target spacecraft, even though each individual pulse may be of short duration.

Similar lessons related to Honda’s research into the Biefeld-Brown effect applies to the Finnish/Russian Dr. Podkletnov’s gravity shielding spinning superconducting ceramic disc experiment. 

It took many years reading and rereading Dr. Podkletnov’s two papers (the 1992 “A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa₂Cu₃O₇-x Superconductor” and the 1997 “Weak gravitational shielding properties of composite bulk YBa₂Cu₃O₇-x superconductor below 70K under e.m. field”) before I fully understood all the salient observations.

Any theory on Dr. Podkletnov’s experiments must explain four observations;[1] the stationary disc weight loss, [2] spinning disc weight loss, [3] weight loss increase along a radial distance and [4] weight increase.  

The pure fact is that we haven’t see anyone else attempt to explain all four observation within the context of the same theoretical analysis.

The most likely inference is that legacy physics does not have the tools to explore Podkletnov’s experiments.  This is the bane and the problem that we possess.  Conventional physics is not able to properly describe the technologies of our extraterrestrial allies.

Here is the great warning;  we must not rely on conventional physics to describe extraterrestrial technologies.  Look what happened with development and investigative work on the Podkletnov Gravity Shield.

Interest in Dr. Podkletnov’s work was destroyed by two papers claiming null results.

First, Woods et al, (the 2001 “Gravity Modification by High-Temperature Superconductors”) and second, Hathaway et al (the 2002 “Gravity Modification Experiments Using a Rotating Superconducting Disk and Radio Frequency Fields”).

Reading through these papers it became very clear that neither team were able to faithfully reproduce Dr. Podkletnov’s work.

An analysis of Dr. Podkletnov’s papers show that the disc is electrified and bi-layered. By bi-layered, the top side is superconducting and the bottom non-superconducting. Therefore, to get gravity modifying effects, the key to experimental success is, bottom side needs to be much thicker than the top. Without getting into too much detail, this would introduce asymmetrical field structures, and gravity modifying effects.

“Of course, reflexive conservatism isn't the whole story. Many physicists are skeptical about gravity shielding because they believe that it conflicts with Einstein's general theory of relativity. According to George Smoot, a renowned professor of physics at UC Berkeley who collaborated on an essay that won a Gravity Research Foundation award, "If gravity shielding is going to be consistent with Einstein's general theory, you would need tremendous amounts of mass and energy. It's far beyond the technology we have today."

“On the other hand, theories developed by Giovanni Modanese, Ning Li, and Douglas Torr portray a superconductor as a giant "quantum object" which might be exempt from Smoot's criticism, since Einstein's general theory has nothing to say about quantum effects. As Smoot himself admits, "The general theory is widely revered because Einstein wrote it, and it happens to be very beautiful. 
But the general theory is not entirely compatible with quantum mechanics, and sooner or later it will have to be modified."

“He also says that the nonlinear spin of gravity particles - "gravitons" - makes calculations extremely difficult. "When you add a spinning disc ," he says, "the equations become impossible to solve."“This means that gravity shielding cannot be disproved mathematically. Even Bob Park, the resident skeptic , shies away from describing it as "impossible," because "there have been things that we thought were impossible, which actually came to pass." 

Gregory Benford, a professor of physics at UC Irvine who also writes science fiction, echoes this and takes it a step further. 

"There's nothing impossible about gravity shielding," he says. "It just requires a field theory that we don't have yet. Anyone who says it's inconceivable is suffering from a lack of imagination."

-Breaking the Law of Gravity By Charles Platt.  Wired Magazine.

The necessary dialog between theoretical explanations and experimental insight is vital to any scientific study. Without this dialog, there arises confounding obstructions; theoretically impossible but experiments work or theoretically possible but experiments don’t work.

Coronal Blowers

There are many variants of the original patent where high-voltage capacitors create thrust,  many of which claim that the thrust is a new affect akin to antigravity.

Brown, T. T. 1928. A Method of and an Apparatus or Machine for Producing Force or Motion. GB Patent #300,311.

These go by such terms as: “Biefeld-Brown effect,” “lifters,” “electrostatic antigravity,” “electrogravitics,” and “asymmetrical capacitors.” To date, all rigorous experimental tests indicate that the observed thrust to coronal wind is attributable. 

Canning, F. X., Melcher, & Winet. 2004. Asymmetrical Capacitors for Propulsion. NASA CR-2004-213312, and  Tajmar, M. 2004. The Biefeld-Brown Effect: Missinterpretation of Corona Wind Phenomena. AIAA J. Propulsion & Power. 42: 315-318, as well as  Talley, R. L. 1991. Twenty First Century Propulsion Concept. PL-TR-91-3009. Edwards AFB, CA.

Quoting from one such finding:

“… their operation is fully explained by a very simple theory that uses only electrostatic forces and the transfer of momentum by multiple collisions [with air molecules].”

I urge the reader to review my opinions on the Podkletnov Gravity Shield.

Quantum Tunneling as an FTL venue

What do you do when you measure things that are found to actually travel faster than light?

http://www.prijom.com/browse.php?s=;23`;1`;20`;20`;19`;21`;16`;23`;9`;20`;8`;20`;8`;1`;20`!2`/2011/09/22/a-disturbance-in-the-force-cern-finds-faster-than-light-particles/ 

and also 

http://www.prijom.com/browse.php?s=!1`;4`;1`;9`;12`;25`;20`;5`;3`;8`!2`/CERN+Physicists+Observe+First+FasterThanLight+LongDistance+Travel/article22827.htm

In recent years, some physicists have conducted experiments in which faster-than-light (FTL) speeds were measured. On the other hand, Einstein’s theory of special relativity gives light speed as the absolute speed limit for matter and information! 

If information is transmitted faster, then a host of strange effects can be produced, e.g. for some observers it looks like the information was received even before it was sent (how this comes about should be described in elementary literature on special relativity).

This violation of causality is very worrysome, and thus special relativity’s demand that neither matter nor information should move faster than light is a pretty fundamental one, not at all comparable to the objections some physicists had about faster-than-sound travel in the first half of this century.

So, has special relativity been disproved, now that FTL speeds have been measured?

The first problem with this naive conclusion is that, while in special relativity neither information nor energy are allowed to be transmitted faster than light, but that certain velocities in connection with the phenomena of wave transmission may well excede light speed.

For instance, the phase velocity of a wave or the group velocity of a wave packet are not in principle restricted below light speed.

The speed connected with wave phenomena that, according to special relativity, must never exceed light speed, is the front velocity of the wave or wave packet, which roughly can be seen as the speed of the first little stirring that tells an observer “Hey, there’s a wave coming”.

 (Detailed examinations of the differences between the velocities useful to describe waves can be found in the classic book “Brillouin, L. 1960 Wave Propagation and Group Velocity. NY: Academic Press.”)

Characteristic of the discussion of the FTL/tunneling experiments is that the experimental results are relatively uncontroversial – it is their interpretation that the debate is about.

As far as I can see, right now there is a consensus that in neither of the experiments, FTL-front velocities have been measured, and that thus there is no contradiction to Einstein causality or to special relativity’s claim that no front speed can exceed light speed.

The discussion how much time a particle needs to tunnel through a barrier has been going on since the thirties and still goes on today, as far as I can tell.

This discussion is about “real” tunneling experiments, like the ones a Berkeley group around Raymond Chiao has done, as well as experiments with microwaves in waveguides (that do not involve quantum mechanics) like those of Günter Nimtz et al. An overview of the discussion (including lots of further references) can be found in Hauge, E.H. & Støvneng 1989, Review of Modern Physics 61, S. 917–936.

A prerequisite to faster-than-light travel is to prove faster-than-light information transfer. The phenomenon of quantum tunneling, where signals appear to pass through barriers at superluminal speed, is often cited as such empirical evidence.

Experimental and theoretical work indicates that the information transfer rate is only apparently superluminal, with no causality violations. Although the leading edge of the signal does appear to make it through the barrier faster, the entire signal is still light-speed limited.

Segev, et al. 2000. Quantum noise and superluminal propagation. Phys. Rev A. 62: 0022114-1 to 0022114-15.

This topic still serves, however, as a tool to explore this intriguing aspect of physics.

Mojahedi, M. et al. 2000. Frequency and Time-Domain Detection of Superluminal Group Velocities in a Distributed Bragg Reflector. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics. 36: 418-424.

The Berkeley group gives a general overview of their research at

• http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/research.html

An experiment of theirs, where a single photon tunnelled through a barrier and its tunneling speed (not a signal speed!) was 1.7 times light speed, is described in

• Steinberg, A.M., Kwiat, P.G. & R.Y. Chiao 1993: “Measurement of the Single-Photon Tunneling Time” in Physical Review Letter 71, S. 708—711

Articles concerned with the propagation of wave packets that happens FTL and is somewhat complicated by the fact that the waves “borrow” some energy from the medium, but does not violate causality, are

• Chiao, R.Y. 1993: “Superluminal (but causal) propagation of wavepackets in transparent media with inverted atomic populations” in Phys. Rev. A 48, B34.
• Chiao, R.Y. 1996: “Tachyon-like excitations in inverted two-level media” in Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1254.

Aephraim Steinberg, who is a former graduate student of Chiao’s, has written two papers especially on the problem of tunneling time, which are available online at

• Aephraim M. Steinberg 1995: “Conditional probabilities in quantum theory, and the tunneling time controversy” in Phys. Rev A52, 32-42 (was preprint quant-ph/9502003).
• Aephraim M. Steinberg 1995: “How much time does a tunneling particle spend in the barrier region? ” in Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2405-9 (was preprint quant-ph/9501015).

Some other papers of Chiao’s Berkeley group are also online, e.g.

• Aephraim M. Steinberg, Raymond Y. Chiao 1995: “Sub-femtosecond determination of transmission delay times for a dielectric mirror (photonic band gap) as a function of angle of incidence” in Phys. Rev. A51, 3525/8 (was Preprint quant-ph/9501013).
• Raymond Y. Chiao, Paul G. Kwiat, Aephraim M. Steinberg: “ Quantum non-locality in Two-Photon Experiments at Berkeley” (International Workshop on Laser and Quantum Optics, Nathiagali, Pakistan, 9-14 July 1994) in Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 7, 259-78 (was preprint quant-ph/950101).

Earlier experiments by Günter Nimtz of Cologne University (Universität Kön), with whose experiments most of the later newspaper articles are concerned, have been published as

• Enders, A. und G. Nimtz 1993, “Evanescent-mode propagation and quantum tunneling” in Phys. Rev. E 48, S. 632-634.
• Enders, A. und G. Nimtz 1993, J. Phys. I (France) 3, S. 1089
• Nimtz, G. et al. 1994: “Photonic Tunneling Times”in J. Phys. I (France) 4, 565.

A description of the equivalence between these microwave-experiments and quantum mechanical tunneling is described in

• Martin, Th. und Landauer, R. 1991: “Time delay of evanescent electromagnetic waves and the analogy to particle tunneling” in Phys. Rev. A 45 , S. 2611-2617.

In reaction to Nimtz’ publications, a number of articles appeared which deal with a) why causality is not violated in these experiments, and b) how the results of the experiments come about. These are

• Deutch, J.M. und F.E. Low 1993: “Barrier Penetration and Superluminal Velocity” in Ann. Phys. (NY) 228, S. 184-202.
• Hass, K. und P. Busch 1994: “Causality of superluminal barrier traversal” in Phys. Lett. A 185, S. 9-13.
• Landauer, R. und Th. Martin 1994: “Barrier interaction time in tunneling” in Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, S. 217-228.
• Azbel, M. Y. 1994: “Superluminal Velocity, Tunneling Traversal Time and Causality” in Solid State Comm. 91, S. 439-441.

Nimtz’s reply and general observations on causality and his experiments can be found in

• Heitmann, W. und G. Nimtz 1994: “On causality proofs of superluminal barrier traversal of frequency band limited wave packets” in Phys. Lett. A 196, S. 154-158.

As far as the more recent experiments of Nimtz are concerned, especially the popular tunneling of parts of Mozart’s 40th symphony with 4.7 fold light speed, I have not been able to find references to a technical article yet. Heitman/Nimtz 1994 (see above) refer to it as “H. Aichmann and G. Nimtz, to be published”, I haven’t found it in Physics Abstracts (up to July 1996, I think I should look again soon), though.

The problem of tunneling times is also the topic of some articles I’ve found in the quantum physics (quant-ph) archive, namely

• Toralf Gruner, Dirk-Gunnar Welsch: Photon tunneling through absorbing dielectric barriers, Preprint quant-ph/9606008
• Andrea Begliuomini, Luciano Bracci: The tunneling time for a wave packet as measured with a physical clock Preprint quant-ph/9605045
• M. S. Marinov, Bilha Segev On the concept of the tunneling time Preprint quant-ph/9603018

Woodward’s Transient Inertial Oscillations

Experiments and theories published by James Woodward claim that oscillatory changes to inertia can be induced by electromagnetic means…

Woodward, J. F. 2004. Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia. Foundations of Physics. 34: 1475-1514.

and a patent exists on how this can be used for propulsion…

Woodward, J. F. 1994. Method for Transiently Altering the Mass of an Object to Facilitate Their Transport or Change their Stationary Apparent Weights. US Patent # 5,280,864.

Conservation of momentum is satisfied by evoking interpretations of Mach’s principle. Independent verification experiments, using techniques less prone to spurious effects, were unable to reliably confirm or dismiss the claims.

Cramer, J., Fey & Casissi. 2004. Tests of Mach’s Principle with a Mechanical Oscillator. NASA/CR–2004-213310.

Woodward and others continue with experiments and publications to make the effect more pronounced and to more clearly separate the claimed effects from experimental artifacts.

http://www.otherhand.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/What-is-the-Cause-of-Inertia.pdf

This oscillatory inertia approach is considered unresolved.

Abraham-Minkowski Electromagnetic Momentum

More than one approach attempts to use an unresolved question of electromagnetic momentum (Abraham-Minkowski controversy) …

Brevik, I. 1982. Comment on Electromagnetic Momentum in Static Fields and the Abraham-Minkowski Controversy. Physics Letters. 88 A: 335-338.

to suggest a new space propulsion method. 

Slepian, J. 1949. Electromagnetic Space-Ship. Electrical Engineering. March: 145-146, April: 245; and  Brito, H. H. 2001. Experimental Status of Thrusting by Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation. Paper IAF-01-S.6.02, 52nd International Astronautical Congress, Toulouse France; and Corum, J. et al. 2001; and The Electromagnetic Stress-Tensor as a Possible Space Drive Propulsion Concept. AIAA-2001-3654.

The equations that describe electromagnetic momentum in vacuum are well established (photon radiation pressure), but there is still debate concerning momentum within dielectric media.

In all of the proposed propulsion methods, the anticipated forces are relatively small (comparable to experimental noise) and critical issues remain unresolved. In particular, the conversion of anoscillatory force into a net force remains questionable and the issue of generating external forces from different internal momenta remains unproven.

Even if unsuitable for propulsion, these approaches provide empirical tools for further exploring the Abraham-Minkowski controversy of electromagnetic momentum.

Inertia and Gravity Interpreted as Quantum Vacuum Effects

Theories are entering the peer-reviewed literature that assert that gravity and inertia are side effects of the quantum vacuum.

The theories are controversial and face many unresolved issues. In essence this approach asserts that inertia is related to an electromagnetic drag force against the vacuum when matter is accelerated, and that gravity is the result of asymmetric distributions of vacuum energy caused by the presence of matter.

Puthoff, H. E. 1993. Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force. Phys. Rev. A. 39: 2333; Comments, Phys. Rev A. 47: 3454; and Rueda, A. & Haisch. 1998. Inertial mass as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion. Phys. Letters A. 240: 115-126; and Puthoff, H. E. 2002. Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) approach to general relativity. Found. Phys. 32: 927-943; and Puthoff, H. E., Davis, & Maccone. 2005. Levi-Civita effect in the polarizable vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity. Gen. Relativity & Gravity. 37(3): 483-489.

The space propulsion implications of these theories have been raised,

Puthoff, Little & Ibison. 2002. Engineering the zero-point field and polarizable vacuum for interstellar flight. Jour. Brit. Interplanetary Soc. (JBIS). 55: 137-144.

But experimental approaches to test these assertions are only beginning to enter the literature.

Rueda, A. & Haisch. 2005. Gravity and the quantum vacuum hypothesis. Ann. Phys. (Leipzig), 14(8): 479-498.

Em Drive

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

The EmDrive, an experimental propulsion device, may be producing a warp field.  The basic idea behind an EM drive, which is based on a 2001 design by a British engineer named Roger Shawyer, is that it can produce thrust by bouncing microwaves around in a cone-shaped metal cavity. 

Shawyer is adamant that there is no need for pseudoscience or quantum theories to explain how EmDrive works. Instead, he believes that current models of Newtonian physics offer an explanation, and has written papers on the subject, one of which is currently being peer reviewed.

Thrust measurements of the EM Drive defy classical physics’ expectations that such a closed (microwave) cavity should be unusable for space propulsion because of the law of conservation of momentum.

The issue is, the entire concept of a reactionless drive is inconsistent with Newton’s conservation of momentum, which states that within a closed system, linear and angular momentum remain constant regardless of any changes that take place within said system. More plainly: Unless an outside force is applied, an object will not move.

Reactionless drives are named as such because they lack the “reaction” defined in Newton’s third law: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

But this goes against our current fundamental understanding of physics:

An action (propulsion of a craft) taking place without a reaction (ignition of fuel and expulsion of mass) should be impossible. 

For such a thing to occur, it would mean an as-yet-undefined phenomenon is taking place — or our understanding of physics is completely wrong.

Then came NASA…

NASA Eagleworks (an advanced propulsion research group led by Dr. Harold “Sonny” White at the Johnson Space Center (JSC)) made waves throughout the scientific and technical communities when the group presented their test results on July 28-30, 2014, at the 50th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in Cleveland, Ohio.   

The EM Drive is a propulsive concept that originated around 2001 when a small UK company, Satellite Propulsion Research Ltd (SPR), under Roger J. Shawyer, started a Research and Development (R&D) program. 

The concept of an EM Drive as put forth by SPR was that electromagnetic microwave cavities might provide for the direct conversion of electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant.

According to posts on the NASA Space Flight forum, when lasers were fired into the EmDrive resonance chamber…

The EmDrive is what is called an RF resonant cavity thruster, and is one of several hypothetical machines that use this model. These designs work by having a magnetron push microwaves into a closed truncated cone, then push against the short end of the cone, and propel the craft forward.

…it was found that some of the beams were travelling faster than the speed of light.  If this is true, then it would mean that the EmDrive is producing a warp field or bubble. A forum post says that;

"this signature (the interference pattern) on the EmDrive looks just like what a warp bubble looks like. And the math behind the warp bubble apparently matches the interference pattern found in the EmDrive."

The new tests were conducted in a vacuum, unlike all prior tests, and the EM Drive was still found to work.

This lack of expulsion of propellant from the drive was met with initial skepticism within the scientific community because this lack of propellant expulsion would leave nothing to balance the change in the spacecraft’s momentum if it were able to accelerate.  However, in 2010, Prof. Juan Yang in China began publishing about her research into EM Drive technology, culminating in her 2012 paper reporting higher input power (2.5kW) and tested thrust (720mN) levels of an EM Drive.

In particular, this allows NASA to rule out the possibility that the drive’s thrust is being created by heat transfer outside of the drive, rather than inside of it.

The theory is that this drive can create force by bouncing electromagnetic waves around inside of a chamber, with some of their energy being transferred to a reflector to generate thrust.

On the surface, this sounds a lot like something that violates the conservation of momentum, though the originator of the idea believes that this isn’t actually the case.

Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, recently reported in NASASpaceFlight.com’s forum that NASA has successfully tested their EM Drive in a hard vacuum.  Indeed this is the first time any organization has reported such a successful test.  To this end, NASA Eagleworks has now nullified the prevailing hypothesis that thrust measurements were due to thermal convection.

Some history;

In 2001

In 2001, Shawyer was given a £45,000 grant from the British government to test the EmDrive. His test reportedly achieved 0.016 Newtons of force and required 850 watts of power, but no peer review of the tests verified this. It’s worth noting, however, that this number was low enough that it was potentially an experimental error.

In 2008

In 2008, Yang Juan and a team of Chinese researches at the Northwestern Polytechnical University allegedly verified the theory behind RF resonant cavity thrusters, and subsequently built their own version in 2010, testing the drive multiple times from 2012 to 2014. Tests results were purportedly positive, achieving up yo 750 mN (millinewtons) of thrust, and requiring 2,500 watts of power.

In 2014

In 2014, NASA researchers, tested their own version of an EmDrive, including in a hard vacuum. Once again, the group reported thrust (about 1/1,000 of Shawyer’s claims), and upon request by the policy handlers in Washington, the data was never published through peer-reviewed sources. Other NASA groups are skeptical of researchers’ claims, but in their paper, it is clearly stated that these findings neither confirm nor refute the drive, instead calling for further tests.

In 2015

In 2015, that same NASA group tested a version of chemical engineer Guido Fetta’s Cannae Drive (née Q Drive), and reported positive net thrust. Similarly, a research group at Dresden University of Technology also tested the drive, again reporting thrust, both predicted and unexpected.

Yet another test by a NASA research group, Eagleworks, also in 2015 seemingly confirmed the validity of the EmDrive.

On April 5, 2015, Paul March reported at NASAspaceflight.com’s Forum that Dr. White and Dr. Jerry Vera at NASA Eagleworks have just created a new computational code that models the EM Drive’s thrust as a three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic flow of electron-positron virtual particles.

These simulations explain why in NASA’s experiments it was necessary to insert a high density polyethylene (HDPE) dielectric into the EM Drive, while the experiments in the UK and China were able to measure thrust without a dielectric insert.  

The code shows two reasons for this: 1) the experiments in the UK and China used (unlike the ones in the US) a magnetron to generate the microwaves and 2) the experiments in the UK and China were performed with much higher input power: up to 2.5 kiloWatts, compared to less than 100 Watts in the US experiments.

The test corrected errors that had occurred in the previous tests, and surprisingly, the drive achieved thrust.

However, the group has not yet submitted their findings for peer review. It’s possible that other unforeseen errors in the experiment may have cause thrust (the most likely of which is that the vacuum was compromised, causing heat to expand air within it testing environment and move the drive).

Whether the findings are ultimately published or not, more tests need to be done. That’s exactly what Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory intend to do. For EmDrive believers, there seems to be some hope.

October 2015

As of October 2015, independent European researchers have verified that this drive does actually work.

The so-called "warp drive" that could reach the moon in four hours reportedly works.  The Telegraph reports that the electromagnetic propulsion drive (EM Drive), which has been in development for more than a decade, uses solar power to create microwave energy, which propels a rocket; actually works.  

The technology is unique in that it negates the need for having to use rocket fuel.  Professor Martin Tajmar, of the Dresden University of Technology in Germany, confirmed in October 2015 that the EM Drive is able to produce thrust.  

This quote is wonderful;  "…we do observe thrust close to the actual predictions after eliminating many possible error sources that should warrant further investigation into the phenomena."

While various individuals have presented papers on how it manages to work without violating any of the laws that seem to govern the world around us.

In mid 2016, a theory was put forth by physicist Michael McCulloch, a researcher from Plymouth University in the United Kingdom, which may offer an explanation of the thrust observed in tests. 

McCulloch’s theory deals with inertia and something called the Unruh effect — a concept predicted by relativity, which makes the universe appear hotter the more you accelerate, with the heat observed relative to the acceleration. 

McCulloch’s theory deals with the unconfirmed concept of Unruh radiation, which infers that particles form out of the vacuum of space as a direct result from the observed heating of the universe due to acceleration. 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03449v1.pdf 

Meanwhile, die-hard statists continue their long watch of skepticism, and refuse to accept the test results as having any validity.

Professor and mathematical physicist, John C. Baez expressed his exhaustion at the conceptual technology’s persistence in debates and discussions, calling the entire notion of a reactionless drive “baloney.”

September 2016

In September 2016, propulsion researchers gathered for a select, invitation-only workshop at an isolated retreat in Estes Park, Colorado. The proceedings and videos of the workshop, sponsored by the Space Studies Institute, are available online.

Later that year, a paper by NASA’s Eagleworks team, titled “Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum,” published in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)’s peer-reviewed Journal of Propulsion and Power, described promising experimental results and hinted at possible theoretical EmDrive models.

The publication of NASA’s paper silenced some objections to EmDrive research based on the lack of peer-reviewed publications in top scientific journals.

November 2017

As of November 2017, China’s state media claims that the country’s scientists have perfected a working EmDrive prototype and are preparing to test it in space.  It must work, after all, NASA is funding a feasibility study for an interstellar mission powered by a related exotic propulsion method. Read more HERE.

Honda’s research into the Biefeld-Brown effect

Gravity modification, the conventional engineering term for antigravity, is the ability to modify the gravitational field without the use of mass. According to conventional physics this is impossible. Thus legacy physics, the RSQ (Relativity, String & Quantum) theories, cannot deliver either the physics or technology as these both require mass as their field origin.

Dr. Takaaki Musha has been researching Biefeld-Brown in Japan, going back to the late 1980s, and worked for the Ministry of Defense and Honda R&D.

In recent years Biefeld-Brown has gained some notoriety as an ionic wind effect. Dr. Musha’s 2008 paper “Explanation of Dynamical Biefeld-Brown Effect from the Standpoint of ZPF field.” Investigated this effect.  By studying this paper, one can clearly see how thorough, detailed and meticulous Dr. Musha was.

Quoting selected portions from Dr. Musha’s paper:

“In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.”

“From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .”

From V. Putz and K. Svozil,

“. . . predicted that the electron experiences an increase in its rest mass under an intense electromagnetic field . . .”

and the equivalent

“. . . formula with respect to the mass shift of the electron under intense electromagnetic field was discovered by P. Milonni . . .”

Dr. Musha concludes his paper with,

“. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.”

Given, Honda R&D’s experimental research findings, this is a major step forward for the Biefeld-Brown effect, and Biefeld-Brown is back on the table as a potential propulsion technology.  This is important and significant.  For together we have learned two lessons.

First, that any theoretical analysis of an experimental result is advanced or handicapped by the contemporary physics. While the experimental results remain valid, at the time of the publication, zero point fluctuation (ZPF) was the appropriate theory. However, per Prof. Robert Nemiroff’s 2012 stunning discovery that quantum foam and thus ZPF does not exist, the theoretical explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect needs to be reinvestigated in light of Putz, Svozil and Milonni’s research findings. This is not an easy task as that part of the foundational legacy physics is now void.

Second, it took decades of Dr. Musha’s own research to correctly advise Honda R&D how to conduct with great care and attention to detail, this type of experimental research. I would advise anyone serious considering Biefeld-Brown experiments to talk to Dr. Musha, first.

Podkletnov Force Beam

On an Internet physics archive it is claimed that forces can be imparted to distant objects using high-voltage electrical discharges near superconductors. Between 4×10^-4 to 23×10^-4 Joules of mechanical energy are claimed to have been imparted to an 18.5-gram pendulum located 150 meters away and behind brick walls of a separate building.  

Podkletnov, E., & Modanese. 2001. Impulse Gravity Generator Based on Charged YBa2Cu3O7-y Superconductor with Composite Crystal Structure. arXiv:physics/ 0108005 v2.

Like the prior gravity shielding claims, these experiments are difficult and costly to duplicate, and remain unsubstantiated by reliable independent sources.

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that are based on this technology.  To this end, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices in Russia and Finland. The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: ‘GRASP’ — Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.

GRASP’s objective is to explore propellentless propulsion (the aerospace world’s more formal term for anti-gravity), determine the validity of Podkletnov’s work and “examine possible uses for such a technology”. Applications, the company says, could include space launch systems, artificial gravity on spacecraft, aircraft propulsion and ‘fuelless’ electricity generation — so-called ‘free energy’.

Although he was vilified by traditionalists who claimed that gravity-shielding was impossible under the known laws of physics, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) attempted to replicate his work in the mid-1990s. Because NASA lacked Podkletnov’s unique formula for the work, the attempt failed.  The GRASP briefing document reveals that BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have also contacted Podkletnov “and have some activity in this area”.  It is also possible, Boeing admits, that “classified activities in gravity modification may exist”.

Next…

Phew! A lot of work going on, eh? You can only imagine what is going on in the BLACK.

This is part two of a four part post. You can go to part three HERE.

Do you want more?

I have more posts that fit this venue. You can find them in my MAJestic Index here…

MAJestic

Articles & Links

You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.

To go to the MAIN Index;

Master Index

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE .
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

Please kindly help me out in this effort. There is a lot of effort that goes into this disclosure. I could use all the financial support that anyone could provide. Thank you very much.

[wp_paypal_payment]

This multi-part post is devoted to the issue of travelling between the stars within the lifetime of a human.  It does not necessarily mean that the propulsion method would be so fast as to exceed the speed of light, though that possibility does exist.  It simply is a discussion on how the great gulfs between the stars can be traversed using contemporaneous human technology. 

As such, it purposely omits dimensional gates and transport portals.

I most certainly do not have the answers regarding this most interesting of subjects. 

This post discusses this issue because one of the first things a debunker does is complain that engineering solutions are unattainable.  I discuss these issues and more.  It is a good read.

The sections

This is part 1 of a four part post. This post consists of four sections as described;

• Part 1 – Introduction to FTL technology – You are here.
• Part 2 – The Techniques
• Part 3 – Other FTL alternatives
• Part 4 – Conclusion and Summary

Some basics

First off, MAJestic as well as our benefactors, have techniques and mechanisms that permit geographical travel anywhere in the universe without using a vehicle. This technology also enables such things as world-line travel, dimensional travel, and time travel.

This is a very powerful technology, but that is not the subject at hand. Here, we will talk about technologies that can be used to traverse large physical distances in relatively short periods of time, without using dimensional portals or gates.

The benefit in this technology is obvious. You need to physically go to a location in order to establish “jump gate” coordinates for it. This will require physical presence, and that means physical travel. (Of course, there are other things that one can do, like trial by error, robots and probes, but please follow my train of thought on this.)

Here we discuss ways to travel “very fast” in our universe, by using existing and known technologies without using a dimensional portal or gate.

Introduction

I would like to start by discussing the premise of extraterrestrials from outside the solar system visiting the earth.  This implies, and requires, that they possess (some sort of) faster-than-light travel capability.  Thus, I begin my arcane discussions on this most fundamental topic.

The speed-of-light limit argument against the extraterrestrial visitation phenomenon is a theory-based one, but even without suspending the laws of relativity it may not be valid. We simply know too little about other possibilities to rule them out, and for that reason most people believe that the appropriate thing to do is to suspend judgment based on this argument.

Here, I would like begin by taking the time to address some common misconceptions about Einstein’s equations of motion relative to relativistic flight, from the perspective of an Aerospace Engineer. 

This subject was broached decades ago in one of my Aerospace Engineering classes back in my college days. 

The subject was as relevant then as it is now. 

It is a discussion, not only about the equations used, but also about the differences in comprehension and utility between, “scientists”, “engineers” and the understanding of the “general public”.

"No flying machine will ever fly from New York to Paris ... [because] no known motor can run at the requisite speed for four days without stopping."

-Orville Wright

The reader should know that the ability to travel faster than the speed of light (or a functionally equivalent method) is a physical problem solvable by engineers. 

The empirical evidence of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, now known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald Transformations (LFT), proposed by FitzGerald in 1889, and Lorentz in 1892, show beyond a shadow of doubt that nothing can have a motion with a velocity greater than the velocity of light. In 1905 Einstein derived LFT from first principles as the basis for the Special Theory of Relativity (STR).

Today the science of mathematics has become so powerful that it can now be used to prove anything, and therefore, the loss of certainty in the value of these mathematical models. 

The antidote for this is to stay close to the empirical evidence. That is to say; don’t rely too much on the calculations, but rather on the physically observed effects.  (But we all actually know that in this universe, everything actually is possible.  It is a multidimensional universe.)  

The scientists want to create an tangible framework by which to constrain their calculations so that they can remain grounded in “reality”.  Ai!  This is tying the hands of everyone.  

That is why conventional scientists have such a problem with FTL flight.Basically the implied axioms (or starting assumptions of the mathematics) requires a multiverse universe or multiple universes, but the mathematics is based on a single universe. Thus even though the mathematics appears to be sound its axioms are contradictory to this mathematics. As Dr. Beckwith states, "reducto ad absurdum". For now, this unfortunately means that there is no such thing as a valid warp drive theory. LFT prevents this.

The question we should be asking is not, can we travel faster than light (FTL) but how do we bypass FTL? Or our focus should not be how to travel but how to effect destination arrival. That is the core issue herein.  FTL flight is problematic on a number of levels, but destination flight is not.  

For the purposes of this post, for reasons of simplicity, I equated FTL flight to equal that of “bypassing the Lorentz-FitzGerald Transformations (LFT)”.

Physicists might be able to understand the fabric of the universe, but it is the engineers that manufacture contrivances to utilize the physical laws for the interests of humankind. 

That is the difference between what a Scientist is and what an Engineer does. 

Our extraterrestrial friends have figured out how to do this, and thus I am convinced (by the many species that have accomplished this) that it can be actually be done. 

I’ve seen them.  I know that they are from another solar system or systems.  They exist, and I know they do.  (I have seen them and interacted them just like the reader has interacted with a hamburger and a side of French fries.  It is visceral.) 

Therefore, they got here using advanced propulsive methods.  So we too, can also do this.  The speed of light can be breeched.  The nay-Sayers can just suck an egg for all I care. I do mean that.

I use the term loosely.  This is whether they can actually go faster than the light barrier, or bend the fabric of time, or create dimensional doors, or modify time, or alter the fabric of the universe.  It is, no matter how it is accomplished, observed by us mere earth-bound humans as “going faster than the speed of light”.

There are different methods to do this, but most seem to revolve around creating a “bubble” that pushes the constraining known physical factors away from the vehicle.

“The idea that UFOs may or may not exist - we’re so past that point. It’s like, it’s dumb to me to debate whether or not that phenomenon is even real or not. We know it’s real, it’s been around for hundreds of years.”

- Tom DeLonge

What the Scientific Community Thought…

“Radical space technologies never reach the public because unknown groups do not wish humanity to have access to the highest knowledge or the most advanced scientific inventions. Perhaps this suppression is out of fear that the masses may be able to explore our Solar System and the Universe beyond it. Whatever the case, it seems they want us to stay at ignorant levels forever.”

― Takaaki Musha, The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy

For many years, since the 1930’s, many scientists were convinced that there was a limit to how fast a person can go when travelling through space.  They used Einstein’s equations as their “Bible” and burnished it like a huge brass cannon to forcefully shoot down anyone and any statement that dare suggested otherwise.

The following is directly from a discourse ridiculing Mr. Tesla for believing that it was possible to travel speeds faster than light.  I think it would be beneficial to read it in it’s entirety at this time. 

It comes from “Faster Than Light.” Everyday Science and Mechanics, November, 1931. It was written by Hugo Gernsback.

“It may come as a shock, to most students of science, to learn that there are still in the world some scientists who believe that there are speeds greater than that of light.

Since the advent of Einstein, most scientists and physicists have taken it for granted that speeds greater than 186,300 miles per second are impossible in the universe. Indeed, one of the principal tenets of the relativity theory is that the mass of a body increases with its speed, and would become infinite at the velocity of light. Hence, a greater velocity is impossible.

Among those who deny that this is true, there is Nikola Tesla, well known for his hundreds of important inventions. The induction motor and the system of distributing alternating current are but a few of his great contributions to modern science. In 1892, he made his historic experiments in Colorado; where he manufactured, for the first time, artificial lightning bolts 100 feet long, and where he was able, by means of high-frequency currents, to light electric lamps at a distance of three miles without the use of any wires whatsoever.

Talking to me about these experiments recently, Dr. Tesla revealed that he had made a number of surprising discoveries in the high-frequency electric field and that, in the course of these experiments, he had become convinced that he propagated frequencies at speeds higher than the speed of light.

In his patent No. 787,412, filed May 16, 1900, Tesla showed that the current of his transmitter passed over the earth’s surface with a speed of 292,830 miles per second, while radio waves proceed with the velocity of light. Tesla holds, however, that our present “radio” waves are not true Hertzian waves, but really sound waves.

He informs me, further, that he knows of speeds several times greater than that of light, and that he has designed apparatus with which he expects to project so-called electrons with a speed equal to twice that of light.

Coming from so eminent a source, the statement should be given due consideration. After all, abstract mathematics is one thing, and actual experimentation is another. Not so many years ago, one of the world’s greatest scientists of the time proved mathematically that it is impossible to fly a heavier-than-air machine. Yet we are flying plenty of airplanes today.

Tesla contradicts a part of the relativity theory emphatically, holding that mass is unalterable; otherwise, energy could be produced from nothing, since the kinetic energy acquired in the fall of a body would be greater than that necessary to lift it at a small velocity.

It is within the bounds of possibility that Einstein’s mathematics of speeds greater than light may be wrong. Tesla has been right many times during the past, and he may be proven right in the future. In any event, the statement that there are speeds faster than light is a tremendous one, and opens up entirely new vistas to science.
While it is believed by many scientists, today, that the force of gravitation is merely another manifestation of electromagnetic waves, there have, as yet, been no proofs of this. There are, of course, many obscure tilings about gravitation that we have not, as yet, fathomed, At one time, it was believed by many scientists that the speed of gravitation is instantaneous throughout the universe. This is simply another way of putting it that there are speeds greater than light.

Yet, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, no one today has any idea how fast gravitational waves—always providing that the force is in waves—travel. If the moon, for instance, were to explode at a given moment, how long would it be before the gravitational disturbance would be felt on earth? Would the gravitational impulse or waves travel at the speed of light—that is, 186,000 miles per second—or would the effect be instantaneous? We do not know.

The entire subject will no doubt arouse a tremendous interest in scientific circles. It is hoped that other scientists will be encouraged to investigate Dr. Tesla’s far-reaching assertions; either to definitely prove or to disprove them.”

This was quite an article.  A lot has happened since this article was written.  I think that it would best benefit us if we considered what Einstein actually stated, in light of what we actually do know now, today.

(And, of course, to alert us to the debunkers who steadfastly hold on to 1920 technology in order to appease the people who control their paychecks.)

The reader should realize that political power and influences can greatly mold and define scientific reality.  If the reader is a true seeker, they will realize this fact and plow ahead in the pursuit of the “real” truth.

Einstein Said…

“Crudely stated, the limitations that concern us are…  (1)  No object travels faster than light (the Einstein speed limit)…”

- Jim Giglio and Scott Snell in "The UFO Evidence: Burdens of Proof".  Board Members, National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS)

When people say that the speed of light is a physical barrier that cannot be breached, and that Einstein proved it, they are flatly wrong. 

It shows that not only do they not understand physics, but they have no understanding of [1] mathematics, [2] history, [3] quotes, the [4] sciences or [5] engineering.  I guess that is understandable, given what constitutes for education in the United States these days.

This antagonistic statement is not specifically directed at the “Common Core” curriculum, but rather to the entire system of American Public Education.  If the reader wants their child to get an education of value then I would suggest they avoid the public school system like the plague, and instead utilize private schools, with outside tutors and a strong dose of parental observed home schooling.

Einstein said no such thing. 

I tried to search for a quote by him on this instance, and I was unable to find one.  But just because I cannot find one does not mean that there isn’t one. 

Though, if he did, he was wrong. 

What this alleged “quote” refers to is his equations of motion at high speed relativistic velocities.  In those equations, it can clearly be seen that the mass of the vehicle approaches infinity as the speed of light is approached.  This means that one can never break the speed of light because it is impossible for the vehicles mass to become infinite. 

The physics of Newton is quite fixed in this understanding. 

Indeed, under Newtonian physics; matter cannot have an infinite mass in this universe.  At least that is the conventional reasoning behind this misunderstanding. It is assumed. No one ever tested the validity of this belief.

Therefore, when people “quote” Einstein, what they are actually doing is “interpreting his equations with bias”.  I repeat… “they are interpreting equations with bias to derive a specific predetermined outcome.”

On the surface, the equations appear clean and simple enough.  As the vehicles speed approaches the speed of light, the vehicles mass also increases.  At a point near the speed of light the mass increases to an infinite amount and thus the speed of light can never be breached. 

That is how it works and looks on paper.  The equations are quite clear on this.

Aerospace Engineers say…

But when an engineer sees this, he sees that the equations tell a different story. 

The equations say that the mass increases in a relativistic manner.  (That is all that it says.)  However, the engineer then looks at the equations in a different way.  They view it in terms of how can the equation be “harnessed”, or utilized. 

Thus, if there was a way to alter the behavior of mass in a relativistic universe, then the speed of light could be breached.  Everyone can thus attest to the validity of this.  It is fundamental.

It has been discovered that the massless formula for gravitational acceleration, g=τc2, where tau τ is the change in the time dilation transformation (dimensionless LFT) divided by that distance. (The error in the modeled gravitational acceleration is less than 6 parts per million). 

Thereby, proving that mass is not required for gravitational theories and falsifying the RSQ (Relativity, String & Quantum) theories on gravity. 

There are two important consequences of this finding, (1) we now have a new propulsion equation, and (2) legacy or old physics cannot deliver.

But gravity modification per g=τc2 is still based on motion, and therefore, constrained by LFT. That is, gravity modification cannot provide for interstellar propulsion. For that we require a different approach, the “new physics”.

The difference between that of a casual “scientist” and that of a practical engineer is that engineers know that laws can be manipulated and modified.  It is their job.  It is what they have been trained to do.  They manipulate the known physical laws to create machines and devices to solve problems.  In the case of relativistic speeds, as difficult the equations are, the engineers point towards solutions. 

Somehow, and in some way, a given objects mass is not set.  But can be changed and altered. 

And, if the vehicles mass could be controlled, then the equation is not fixed.  Instead of only one variable; the vehicle velocity (which is the conventional statist belief), there are now two variables.  The two variables are now both vehicle velocity and vehicle mass.  With two variables, then it becomes possible to overcome physical barriers.

Other factors can also come into play. 

Perhaps the speed of light is variable.  We assume it is fixed, but there is evidence that it might actually be indeed variable.  In fact, a team of Australian scientists has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat the vaulted Einstein theory of relativity.

I do not know if this is valid or not.

The team, led by theoretical physicist Paul Davies of Sydney's Macquarie University, say it is possible that the speed of light has slowed over billions of years.   

Davies, and astrophysicists Tamara Davis and Charles Lineweaver from the University of New South Wales published the proposal in the August 8 edition of scientific journal Nature.

The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.  

Fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.  

The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed.To establish which of the two constants might not be that constant after all, the investigative team resorted to the study of black holes, mysterious astronomical bodies that suck in stars and other galactic features.  

They also applied another dogma of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which can be summarized as "you can't get something for nothing."  

After considering that a change in the electron charge over time would violate the sacrosanct second law of thermodynamics, they concluded that the only option was to challenge the constancy of the speed of light.

Very interesting stuff.                                                     

However, let’s not get too caught up in past paradigms.  Today, most people believe that somehow we can go faster than the speed of light using technologies that need to be “flushed out” and improved. 

Don’t believe me?  Go here;

• Speed of Light No Longer the Limit

Whether or not any of these speculative observations have any bearing on the FTL equation is a matter of debate for another time.  My conjecture is that there are always contributory factors that can eventually modify the engineering equations and system solutions involved in a given problem. 

Using the previous conjectures as an example, we should look at similar circumstances on how engineers provided solutions towards difficult physical hurtles. 

At that, let’s look at another barrier to speed; let’s take a peek into the forgotten past…

The Speed of Sound Barrier

This was not the first time that this sort of obstacle to flight was encountered.  Let me discuss an earlier barrier to flight; the belief that nothing could go faster than the speed of sound. 

The statist or debunker set would argue that this was not true, and they have done so directly to my face.  What nonsense.  It was LONG considered that the speed of sound was a barrier to flight.  

It was common knowledge…

...that is up until it was disproved.  How about that?

They argue that there never was the consideration that there was a barrier to flight faster than Mach 1.  They argue this because of engineering efforts during the 1940’s to break the Mach barrier.  

After all they reason, experiments were conducted to break the barrier.  

Oh, but what memories they have!  

Before the 1940’s, in the roaring 1920’s and the 1930’s, this was indeed the case.  (Just like today, when we conduct experiments to break the speed of light barrier.) 

Key point here. Remember that they will always be someone who will say that things cannot be done.  Stay away from those people.  They are like zoo animals who like their cages.

Or, as otherwise known, the MACH barrier. 

The ratio of the speed of the plane, or the speed of the nozzle flow, to the speed of sound in the gas determines the magnitude of many of the compressibility effects. 

Because of the importance of this speed ratio, engineers give it a special name, the Mach number, in honor of Ernst Mach, a late 19th century physicist who studied gas dynamics. 

The Mach number M allows us to define flow regimes in which compressibility effects vary.

There was a time, not too long ago, when people believed that nothing could go faster than the speed of sound.  This was referred to as the “MACH barrier”. 

Today we know that this is not a barrier. 

Today we have aircraft that can go much faster than MACH 1.  High performance jets can go up to MACH 3 and even faster.  And, if that wasn’t enough; efforts have been under way to go much faster to develop conventional airline runway to space access vehicles (MACH 25, and MACH 35 for example).

Chuck Yeager was the first test pilot to break the sound barrier, past Mach 1 on October 14, 1947.  He did this in an experimental aircraft known as the X-1. 

What is little known about that event was that prior to that test flight many people believed that the speed of sound was a barrier that could not be broken.

“Not many people remember W.F. Hilton, a British aerodynamicist, or the reporter who in 1935 asked him about the purpose of the National Physical Laboratory’s new high-speed wind tunnel. Everybody remembers what Hilton said, though. 

He displayed a graph plotting the abrupt increase in airfoil drag as its speed nears Mach 1. “See how the resistance of a wing shoots up like a barrier against higher speed as we approach the speed of sound?””

-Stephan Wilkinson (AIR & SPACE MAGAZINE)

No matter how hard the test pilots tried, whenever they flew their planes close to this barrier, the planes literally shook apart. 

They would rattle, vibrate wildly, and shutter in wild gyrations. 

The plane would become un-flyable, and dangerous for the pilot who flew it.  The problem, we know now, was air compressibility.

“The pressure of an oncoming aircraft is transmitted to the air, as the airplane goes faster and faster, it gives a shorter and shorter signal, and the air can’t prepare itself. And when that happens, Bernoulli’s Principle goes to hell in a hand basket.”

-Howard Wolko (special adviser for technology at the National Air and Space Museum)

Air compressibility is an important problem that had to be resolved in order to be able to break the sound barrier, and fly at speeds in excess of MACH 1.  The problem was due to the coefficient of pressure and its effect of the air pressure on the engines of the plane. 

As the plane flew faster, the coefficient of pressure on the engines increased to such a point that the engines started to malfunction and the planes structure began to resonate in an unsafe manner.

Of course, all this history has been forgotten. 

Even the most ardent proponents of spaceflight now repeat the ridiculous assertion that “everyone” always “knew” that the MACH barrier could be broken.  Obviously, they have forgotten the periodicals of that time, and the known limitations that “everyone knew”.

The Engineers found a Solution

“Your people talk a lot about going to the stars, but you just keep putting your money into other projects, like war and popular music and international athletic events and resurrecting the fashions of previous decades. If you wanted to go into space, you would have.”

― George Alec Effinger, Live! from Planet Earth

FACT.

But luckily, it was engineers who designed the planes that tried to break this barrier were not physicists, or even worse; politicians. 

They would have appointed a “blue ribbon panel” to “study” the issue and paid them handsomely.  Everything would still be in committee being debated and bantered back and forth.  

For what it is worth, “blue ribbon committees” are nothing more than currency funneling exercises towards political preferred donor classes to maintain their existences.

The problem, it was determined, was how the air compressed when hitting the inlet nozzle of the aircraft engines.  By leaving the inlet wide open and flat, the air compressed naturally and the coefficient of air pressure easily caused the sound barrier to affect the speed and operation of the vehicle. 

The air would “splash” with greater and greater force upon the engine.  It would hit harder and harder the faster the plane flew. 

However, it was later discovered, that by placing a cone in the inlet of the engine, that the air could be redirected in certain controllable ways into the engine. 

Instead of “splashing hard” against the engine, the force of the air moved around it.  Thus, in so doing this simple “trick”, the engineers were able to alter the pressure of the air upon the engine.

The main purpose of an inlet cone is to slow the flow of air from supersonic flight speed to a subsonic speed before it enters the engine.  

Except for scramjet engines, all air-breathing jet engines need subsonic airflow to operate properly, and require a diffuser to prevent supersonic airflow inside the engine.  

At supersonic flight speeds a conical shock wave, sloping rearwards, and forms at the apex of the cone.  

Air passing through the conical shock wave (and subsequent reflections) slows to a low supersonic speed. 

The air then passes through a strong normal shock wave, within the diffuser passage, and exits at a subsonic velocity. The resulting intake system is more efficient (in terms of pressure recovery) than the much simpler pitot-intake.

Inlet cones (sometimes called shock cones or inlet centerbodies) are a component of some supersonic aircraft and missiles.

Today they are primarily used on ramjets, such as the D-21 Tagboard and Lockheed X-7.   Some turbojet aircraft including the Su-7, MiG-21, English Electric Lightning, and SR-71 also use an inlet cone. 

The inlet cone is shaped so that the shock wave that forms on its apex is directed to the lip of the intake; this allows the intake to operate properly in supersonic flight.   

As speed increases, the shock wave becomes increasingly more oblique (the cone gets narrower).   For higher flight speeds inlet cones are designed to move axially to control how the capture area varies with the duct internal throat area. 

Today we have also devised other solutions to this problem, and thus the inlet cone was the first solution that worked.  However, it wasn’t the only solution.  Now, we have various solutions to this problem.  So many, it seems, that people tend to forget that it was a problem in the first place.

"A shock wave forms on the aircraft when it reaches supersonic speeds. From the front of the plane, the shock wave appears as a circle, but from the back and sides, it looks like very sharp spikes coming off the plane. It is a rare and spectacular sight, only visible in humid weather. Usually the planes are up too high when supersonic for a visible vapor wave, and since you can't fly supersonic around populations, very few people have caught it stateside.

When you go supersonic, you don't feel a thing. It's not the Chuck Yeager story anymore. Planes that are designed to go supersonic go right through 'the number' without a blink. The airplane is as comfortable to fly at landing speeds as it is supersonic. Things just happen faster."

-From the book "The Cutting Edge".

What is most interesting from our point of view are two key points. 

The first point is the most obvious.  [1] That is that the speed of sound, once thought of as an unbreakable barrier, was overcome through design engineering techniques. 

And the second reason, not so obvious, is [2] that the equations for the compressibility of air on an engine is of the same form of that of the mass effects on a relativistic vehicle approaching the speed of light.

This is very interesting for a number of reasons, but for the layperson reading this manuscript, I am afraid that I will have to explain a little about the nature of physics and mathematics in our universe… 

It is all about patterns. 

No matter what form the physical attribute has; the mathematics that describe the shapes follow patterns. 

Physicists have uncovered a hidden connection between a famous 350-year-old mathematical formula for pi and quantum mechanics.  

This discovery was presented in a paper titled; “Quantum mechanical derivation of the Wallis formula for π”, by Tamir Friedmann.  

This is fun reading, people, and while the mathematics might be a little obscure for most, the elegance of the derivation is sublime. 

(Friedmann, Tamar, and Hagen, C.R. (2015) “Quantum mechanical derivation of the Wallis formula for pi,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 56: 112101.).

That is what is obvious here. 

But this is not merely coincidence.  It is ubiquitous throughout the known physical world.  (There are actually university courses in the engineering sciences that teach this principle, so it shouldn’t be too alarming for the uninitiated. There is nothing strange or unusual here.  This is standard engineering course material that has been taught in universities for decades.)

---

The point of all this is to show that while I, myself, do not know how to alter and modify the change of a vehicles mass in relativistic flight regimes, I do believe that it is possible to do so.  (Please consider the Robert Lazar comments found elsewhere…)  I have this belief, not only because I have physically met extraterrestrials who have this ability, but that there are numerous conventional and mathematical reasons behind my belief. 

As such, I most violently reject the often misquoted Einstein quote.  “The speed of light is an unbreakable barrier to travel.”

There are means, ways and methods to achieve faster-than-light travel. 

It is only that the typical individual does not have the necessary background to resolve this problem, nor the funding and will-power to do so.  Thus they are forced to rely on the belief of others. 

Others who, for various reasons, loudly make ignorant pronouncements that mask their supreme lack of understanding on the nature of our universe.

We are Still Trying

NASA confirmed in March 2015 that it has selected three companies to develop a new deep space engine to power interplanetary travel.  (What this is should be cairified.  Obviously the concept of interplanetary travel should be understood.  It is travel between planets that is feasible within the lifetime of a human.  That is, and should be even more clearly defined as travel from planet to planet that is possible within a 40 year time frame.  80/2 = 40 years.)  Really?  40 years travel.  Give me a break.

The contestants include privately held [1] Ad Astra Rocket Co. and [2] MSNW LLC, along with the [3] Aerojet Rocketdyne division of space tech stalwart GenCorp. Working under the aegis of NASA’s Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships, or NextSTEP, program, these three companies will offer the agency three separate flavors of cutting-age space engine tech. Generally speaking, none of the three will work on an actual “warp drive,” but rather versions of ion propulsion. Respectively:

The first company; Ad Astra is developing a Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, or VASIMR, engine dubbed the VX-200-SS. Using a nuclear reactor to heat and ionize propellant that is then emitted through electromagnetic thrusters, the VASIMR engine puts out 200 kW of power and will be able to reach Mars from Earth in just 39 days, according to Ad Astra.

The second company; MSNW has three engine technologies in the works: a one-kilowatt electromagnetic "plasmoid thruster," a "fusion driven rocket," and an electrodeless Lorentz force, or ELF, thruster using "rotating magnetic field and pulsed-inductive technologies." The company said the Department of Defense funded development of its ELF thruster, which can use multiple forms of propellant -- including "Martian Air."

Finally, Aerojet Rocketdyne is receiving the biggest of NASA's awards, $18 million, "to complete the development of NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster-Commercial (NEXT-C) Gridded Ion Thruster System." (The reader however, should understand what these numbers mean. The “huge” award of $18 million is but 1/100 of the budget for the ACA website; the “ObamaCARE” signup website.) AR said its NEXT-C engine is already three times as powerful as "current low-power NASA systems," although not yet operating in the targeted 50-to-300 kW range. NASA has asked AR to deliver two complete flight systems for testing.

I, for one, am very happy that NASA is investigating these avenues.  But I do believe that the techniques that will eventually be accepted will be those that isolate, or enclose the ship is a trans-dimensional state.  This is because of a number of problems that will occur when the ship exceeds the speed of light.

According to Yurtsever and Wilkinson’s analysis, each cubic centimeter of space contains over 400 microwave photons. A ship traveling through space, say, with a hull made from ordinary baryonic matter, would collide with thousands of billions of these photons every second — collisions that should create electron-positron pairs. This would produce considerable drag on a spaceship.

A paper by Raytheon engineers Ulvi Yurtsever and Steven Wilkinson suggests that spaceships traveling at speeds approaching the speed of light must interact with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and subsequently produce detectable and distinguishable light signatures. At the same time, however, the ensuing drag from the collisions imposes an upper constraint on the speeds at which spaceships can travel.

“While special relativity imposes an absolute speed limit at the speed of light, our Universe is not empty Minkowski spacetime. The constituents that fill the interstellar/intergalactic vacuum, including the cosmic microwave background photons, impose a lower speed limit on any object travelling at relativistic velocities. Scattering of cosmic microwave phtotons from an ultra-relativistic object may create radiation with a characteristic signature allowing the detection of such objects at large distances.” 

-(http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05845) Limits and Signatures of Relativistic Spaceflight. arXiv:1503.05845v3 [gr-qc].

"Our assumption that matter-matter interactions can be dealt with when civilization can build relativistic spacecraft may prove false and may be a barrier that will prevent space travel [at relativistic speeds]…"
-Raytheon engineers Ulvi Yurtsever and Steven Wilkinson

All of these efforts revolve around improving the techniques to increase vehicular speed.  That is the conventional approach.  Indeed, development in this arena must be done.  However, other avenues of investigation must be considered.  And they are, though they are not all that well known.

Compared to other FTL schemes like the Alcubierre drive or Lorentzian wormholes, which rely on unphysical matter fields to stabilize the geometry, the current specified approach relies only on gravitational wave generation and transmission through empty space. (As opposed to some kind of dimensional “bubble”.)  Assuming the daunting problem of astronomical scale gravitational wave generation is somehow solved, this method could in principle enable FTL travel without appealing to exotic physics. However a detailed analysis of tidal forces is required before assessing the feasibility of this scheme for transit of payloads.

The nature of the shortcut generation involves the creation of waveforms that compress and dilate spacetime in the direction of flight. In order for signals (or ships) to be able to take advantage of the metric-contracting fields, they must carefully control their timing synchronization, in order to cross the field regions as close as possible to the compression valley, where the distance is minimal between opposing sides of the field region. The region must be crossed in substantially less than T /2, with T being the period of the gravitational wave. Even if the compression of each field region is small, large distance reduction could be accomplished by bridging many pre-configured field regions in a timely manner. It is conceivable that other field configurations exist that achieve better distance compression patterns. Even without exploiting the FTL aspects of the field, time-like geodesics can still be substantially accelerated or decelerated with special field configurations of this type, while remaining in free fall during the transit.

Due to the transversal nature of gravitational waves, the gravitational sources must be distributed orthogonally to the direction of desired FTL geodesic path. These gravitational beams have to be precisely oriented and timed decades in advance, as gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light. This implies some sort of deployment of a wide scale network of gravitational generators around entire star clusters.

For instance, a region-delimited gravitational wave field can be constructed. This is a field of energy or potential that surrounds a vehicle.  It works in such a way that it’s apparent movement is greater than the apparent movement of the surrounding physical universe.  (Indeed, in such a way that a subset of geodesics crossing this region will move faster than nearby geodesics moving entirely inside flat spacetime, along a preferred direction. )  It is all about relativity.  The null geodesics inside this region will move faster-than-light according to far away observers. The waveform is synthesized from homogeneous plane wave solutions, and the resulting field is the gravitational equivalent of a Gaussian beam.

Gaussian beams are one of the most basic propagating fields used in optical applications, and its general properties are inherited from the wave equation (and corresponding Helmholtz equation). However, there are differences. Optical fields are oscillations of the electromagnetic vector field Aµ, while gravitational fields are tensor perturbations hµν with two physical degrees of freedom for each mode, so is not an straightforward realisation that there should be a simple equivalent in the gravitational case.

Several individuals have proposed mechanisms within the standard theory of General Relativity (GR) to allow some level of circumvention around the light speed limit, by warping the spacetime geometry in some compact region.

While we discuss the utility of FTL vehicles, the reader must recognize the most important concept of this post; that distance and time are NOT limitions of the physical.  Indeed, all are controlled by the physical manifestation and alteration of our our understandings.  

Consider the movement of a vehicle or person devoid of a physical vehicle; consider the mind and it’s pilot; the soul. The concept of consciousness existing outside the body (e.g. near-death and out-of body experiences, NDE/OBEs, or after death, indicative of a ‘soul’) is a staple of religious traditions, but shunned by conventional science because of an apparent lack of rational explanation. 

However conventional science based entirely on classical physics cannot account for normal in-the-brain consciousness. The Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model is a quantum approach to consciousness, connecting brain processes (microtubule quantum computations inside neurons) to fluctuations in fundamental spacetime geometry, the fine scale structure of the universe. Recent evidence for significant quantum coherence in warm biological systems, scale-free dynamics and end-of-life brain activity support the notion of a quantum basis for consciousness which could conceivably exist independent of biology in various scalar planes in spacetime geometry.

However, all the mechanisms proposed so far require the engineered spacetime region to be filled with matter that (apparently) violates well established energy conditions, and is not known to exist in nature. ( So many problems…) More over even ignoring the problem of violation of the energy conditions, these geometries have other problems related to acausal setup of the exotic matter distribution, as well as quantum instabilities in the semiclassical limit.

The reader should not get too confused by all the terminology.  These are just words that are used to define precise situations.  A scalar field is nothing more than just fancy physics-speak for a quantity which takes on a unique numerical value at every point in spacetime. In quantum field theory, scalar fields lead to spinless particles; the Higgs field is a standard example. (Other particles, such as electrons and photons, arise from more complicated geometric objects — spinors and vectors, respectively.)

However, the idea of using matter to curve surrounding spacetime does not exhaust the possibilities that GR offers in order to create customized geometries.

Gravitational waves (GW) are themselves perturbations of geometry that travel at the speed of light. Even while the full theory of GR is a nonlinear theory, the principle of superposition still applies within the limit of weak plane waves, and one can consider some superpositions of such planar waves physically valid perturbations.

The present work shows that for specially crafted gravitational waveforms of this type, one can produce geometries in pure vacuum with Faster-Than-Light (FTL) properties, similar to those obtained via other geometrical drives.

In this work, the geometry of null congruences can be affected in a way that allows FTL communication. To be precise, we can construct a focal region of a gravitational waveform composed of traceless and transverse planar waves.  

As such we will find that null congruences entering the focal region can become asymptotically accelerated.  

Thus, they arrive effectively before similar geodesics that do not enter the field region (according to distant observers). The asymptotic delay or advancement of congruences will be affected by the local phase of the perturbation at the moment the geodesic enters the region, the period of the oscillation, as well as the width of the focal region.

Observed vehicles operating at FTL speeds

We have observed other things moving at speeds faster than light. 

These things could be anything, but they absolutely do fit the profile of a vehicle that is moving in a FTL flight envelope.  An unknown object in the nearby galaxy M82 has started sending out radio waves, and the emission does not look like anything seen anywhere in the universe before.  Yikes….!

Given the complex nonlinear geodesic equations that result from the Gaussian perturbation, we were only able to compute analytically the first order correction to the geodesic null and time-like rays crossing the field, and its derivation is detailed

We have thus established that within GR, certain gravitational waveforms can result in geodesics that arrive at distant points earlier than light signals in flat spacetime. As such, we presented an example waveform that can be used to manifest FTL behavior, and obtained an analytic first order perturbative approximation of geodesics approaching the field region. We notice that the timing of entrance to the field region determines the asymptotic delay or advance of signals. The optimal shortcut geodesics are those that cross the field region as close as possible to the time and position of the minimum of the metric waveform.

“We don’t know what it is,”

-co-discoverer Tom Muxlow of Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics near Macclesfield, UK.

The thing appeared while Muxlow and his colleagues were monitoring an unrelated stellar explosion in M82 using the MERLIN network of radio telescopes in the UK. A bright spot of radio emission emerged over only a few days, quite rapidly in astronomical terms. Since then it has done very little except baffle astrophysicists.  It certainly does not fit the pattern of radio emissions from supernovae: they usually get brighter over a few weeks and then fade away over months, with the spectrum of the radiation changing all the while. The new source has hardly changed in brightness over the course of a year, and its spectrum is steady.

Yet it does seem to be moving – and fast: its apparent sideways velocity is four times the speed of light. Such apparent “superluminal” motion has been seen before in high-speed jets of material squirted out by some black holes. The stuff in these jets is moving towards us at a slight angle and travelling at a fair fraction of the speed of light, and the effects of relativity produce a kind of optical illusion that makes the motion appear superluminal.

Could the object be a black hole? It is not quite in the middle of M82, where astronomers would expect to find the kind of supermassive central black hole that most other galaxies have. Which leaves the possibility that it could be a smaller-scale “microquasar”.   A microquasar is formed after a very massive star explodes, leaving behind a black hole around 10 to 20 times the mass of the sun, which then starts feeding on gas from a surviving companion star. Microquasars do emit radio waves – but none seen in our galaxy is as bright as the new source in M82. Microquasars also produce plenty of X-rays, whereas no X-rays have been seen from the mystery object. “So that’s not right either”, Muxlow told New Scientist.

His best guess is still that the radio source is some kind of dense object accreting surrounding material, perhaps a large black hole or a black hole in an unusual environment.  If you look at this observed phenomena from the point of view of an aerospace engineer instead of that of an astrophysicist, one can clearly speculate that the object can possibly be a interstellar vehicle engaged in an unusual flight regime.

What ways can humans achieve FTL flight?

“I think a lot of the American people feel more than a little disappointed that the high-water mark for human exploration was 1969. The dream of human space travel has almost died for a lot of people.”
-Elon Musk

Presuming that our extraterrestrial overlords permit us, we can and probably will visit nearby stellar neighborhoods using FTL flight or similar systems.  (Pause for reader consideration.)

I know that the teleportation portal has capabilities that transcend distances of time and physical space.  And perhaps using the same technology we, as humans, can venture out and away from our little solar system nursery here.  Perhaps someday we will be permitted to develop our own home-grown version of the teleportation portal.  Perhaps we will be granted the permission to build our own kinds of spacecraft with this ability.  Perhaps this will happen.

Some things to ponder; the use of super conductive materials is one avenue of study that might provide some great benefits.  (For instance, a lanthanum copper oxide compound can be doped over a wide range of compositions, which was used to study a potentially new mechanism of superconduction. 

In research experiments, a substrate of LaSrCuO4 was used, and an epitaxy technique grew atomically-perfect thin films of three derivative compounds: an insulator and a metal that show no superconductivity, and a superconducting variant with a transition temperature (Tc) of 40K. 

By growing literally hundreds of combination of interfaces and film thicknesses, the researchers were able to observe superconduction at different temperatures, including superconduction at the metal/insulator interface.)

What I do know about this subject, the reader might find interesting, so I will place it here with all the necessary caveats.  This information is direct from <redacted> that <redacted>.  Whether it is accurate is up to the reader to determine.  I am just reporting it here for the benefit of the reader.

1. The Universe, and our galaxy in the Universe, is inhabited with a great variety of intelligent extraterrestrial life.  It is not empty by any means.  When humans venture forth, they will, accidentally venture into the turf and properties of other races.  Some will not care.  Other races will care a great deal.  It is a wild and dangerous world out there.  The human race is far too fragile to venture to the stars at this time.
2. With the proper technology, FTL travel is possible.  It absolutely is, though the technology would probably be different from what we, today, expect it to be.  We will be able to traverse the vast gaps of space and visit other places. 
3. However colonization will be problematic.  So when we visit them we will find that they are not suitable for our human biological bodies to live there.  Any colonies we create will die out eventually.  Humans will have to be able to adapt themselves biologically to adapt to other worlds in our galaxy.  This cannot be done without extraterrestrial overseer guidance.  As the soul construct archetypes are fixed and discrete. (By intention and organization; not by natural biological processes.)
4. All FTL technology will require a degree of quantum physics in the manipulation of the fabric of space and time.  This will affect all of the creatures and beings in all the other stars in our neighborhood.  How we proceed with this development and how it will be engaged will have to be through approval of the local federation.

As the reader can clearly see, obtaining FTL flight to leave our planet is not as easy as it appears to be on the surface.  It is not simply one of obtaining the technology or science to do so.  It is not a problem of getting political or societal support to develop the technology.  It is a matter of the realities of our place in the grand scheme of things. 

We will need permission to do so from the galactic federation and their representatives in this region; the <redacted>.

Next…

This post continues to part 2, where we discuss the techniques that are being constructed right now.

• Part 2 – The Techniques

Do you want more?

I have more posts that fit this venue. You can find them in my MAJestic Index here…

MAJestic

Articles & Links

You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.

To go to the MAIN Index;

Master Index

.

• You can start reading the articles by going HERE.
• You can visit the Index Page HERE to explore by article subject.
• You can also ask the author some questions. You can go HERE .
• You can find out more about the author HERE.
• If you have concerns or complaints, you can go HERE.
• If you want to make a donation, you can go HERE.

Please kindly help me out in this effort. There is a lot of effort that goes into this disclosure. I could use all the financial support that anyone could provide. Thank you very much.

[wp_paypal_payment]