"Top questions and doubts about UFO whistleblower, Luis Elizondo "

[Thomas R Morrison]

So, does that sound like it's something new that AATIP or TTSA found or have proper knowledge of?

Well, it's hard to say if prior evidence could've made its way to the AATIP for analysis. But regardless of any potential material recovered prior to the AATIP, I want to know what they have in that Las Vegas warehouse, and what they've learned about it, if anything.

LMH repeatedly stated how she has several different pieces, so DeLonge might be talking about some of her other samples, of which at least some supposedly came from some other crash that also wasn't Roswell:

Yeah that makes sense. But the idea that anybody would've sent a genuine fragment of alien technology to LMH is about as likely as somebody sending me the Hope diamond in the mail. I assume that some joker who works in a metal shop sent her that stuff with a hoaxed letter just to watch the ensuing fireworks over a cold brew and some hearty laughs with their buddies.

Here's a quick transcription of parts of that DeLonge interview, which already gives quite a good idea how much he actually understands what he is babbling about:

It definitely doesn't make any sense...

I try to be forgiving of people without a strong science background - it takes many years of hard work to get a reasonable grasp of the sciences, and most people just don't have the time in their lives to get up to speed. In fact I find Tom DeLonge's hapless enthusiasm for the subject sort of endearing - I really do think that he means well, and I totally give him props for getting Luis Elizondo to come forward, and for getting Steve Justice on board with this. If I wanted somebody to work on the problem of metric propulsion, I'd want to top-notch theoretical physicist well-versed in both quantum field theory and geometrodynamics to develop conceptual strategies, and a top engineer from Lockheed's Skunk Works to translate those strategies into attainable physical experiments. Honestly I think it's going to be way more complicated than irradiating some layered metals - from an engineering perspective, applied general relativity is a nightmarish problem to solve, which will likely involve huge energies and inventing entirely new classes of materials.

I was intrigued with DeLonge's statement about "atomically aligned" layers of metal, because I would expect any alien technology to exhibit precision ordering at that level. But now I think he's getting mixed up with Col. Corso's claims - he described the exact same atomic ordering in materials that he claimed had been analyzed...and I presume that Corso's story was a hoax. Add that to a discussion with Hal Puthoff where he might've told DeLonge "I'd like to see if this sample loses mass when exposed to terahertz radiation," and DeLonge simply assuming that he thinks that would work, and we get this extravagant claim about a material losing mass under those conditions. Similarly, he may have misunderstood a proposed test - seeing if the flight time is reduced for an electron sent close to a material with a negative value of stress-energy tensor (a valid test) - as a test that was actually performed. Because I don't think DeLonge could've figured that out on his own. It looks like he's picking up fragments from others, and putting them through the science blender of his mind, and thereby coming up with exotic claims. I would love to see the documents that he says he's seen about these kinds of materials analyses - somebody with a science background would be far better suited for properly understanding their significance and sifting the wishful thinking from the hard data.

LMH's buddy Puthoff seems to have taken it seriously... So I guess there's your anyone... Which is one of the reasons I'm about as interested in his ideas as I am about those of LMH or DeLonge.

I'm trying not to jump to conclusions - it seems that Puthoff and Davis et al. were simply doing their due diligence (see below), and they didn't actually find any interesting properties. But it does look like Hal Puthoff at least entertained some wildly optimistic speculations about that industrial floor scraping, which doesn't bode well for the theoretical side of things, unless this is one of those ridiculously serendipitous moments in science history akin to the discovery of penicillin. I'd like to hear what he has to say directly though, rather than getting it secondhand through people like LMH and Tom Delonge.

Because I think he's right to seriously consider the substantial physical ramifications if the theory of stochastic electrodynamics is in fact the underlying physics for quantum field theory, and in this response to LMH, he explains that they found no unusual properties with her sample - but he raises an interesting untested possibility that such thin layers of these metals could act as a waveguide for terahertz waves, and exhibit a negative refractive index. And a negative refractive index invokes a little-known possibility with regard to generating a negative Poynting vector, and a negative Maxwell stress tensor at a boundary, which would produce a series of negative terms in the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor - and this would indeed produce a drop in inertial mass (though it would take a very high level of energy propagating in this manner to produce a measurable effect, and I can't see how that would be possible without melting the sample long before any change in mass could be detected):

 

[CuCullen]

So what do you others think, should we for example make some thread here in which we could try to collect some sort of list of questions that Elizondo would be able to answer and that could bring valuable information for us?

I think that would be a good idea, if no one else wants to jump into Reddit. If you were to start a separate thread here with questions for Elizondo, they could be incorporated in the eventual AMA questions post at r/UFOs. I can facilitate that easily enough, being one of the moderators there.

 

[LiquidCoax]

I don't remember if this has already been discussed here, but someone in Reddit is trying to arrange a Reddit AMA or some other type of Q&A session with Luis Elizondo, and has apparently already received some sort of positive response from Elizondo over the phone:

Luis Elizondo Q&A in the Works (here is how YOU can help...) • r/UFOs

If and when this takes place, I'll be sure to keep everyone updated. It's looking more and more like it will be a pre-recorded interview, where some of our questions will be answered.

Thanks!

 

[Realm]

But regardless of any potential material recovered prior to the AATIP, I want to know what they have in that Las Vegas warehouse, and what they've learned about it, if anything.

Elizondo said somewhere they wanted to collect anything and everything that could have some significance, or something like that, and he used generic terms like residues when asked about those alloys. So my guess is that they have basically stored all that may have fallen from the sky and they couldn't identify, which may be metal rich meteorites, parts of satellites, drones, balloons etc. I would also guess that the modifications they needed for the buildings would refer to the need to arrange storage conditions that preserve the samples. So something along the lines of (but probably not quite so extensive) what NASA for example uses for moon rocks:

Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility - Wikipedia

So I don't really think it's as significant as some headlines have indicated.

Yeah that makes sense. But the idea that anybody would've sent a genuine fragment of alien technology to LMH is about as likely as somebody sending me the Hope diamond in the mail. I assume that some joker who works in a metal shop sent her that stuff with a hoaxed letter just to watch the ensuing fireworks over a cold brew and some hearty laughs with their buddies.

Agreed.

LMH for example described that the magnesium layers contained 2.4% zinc and while that doesn't seem to be a common alloy, it also doesn't seem to be anything special. Here's for example some analysis of alloys which included magnesium with 2.5% zinc:

Microstructural Development and Mechanical Properties in Wrought Mg-Zn-RE Alloys (PDF Download Available)

Maybe it was originally a stack of magnesium foil (similar thicknesses are readily available commercially) that was bathed in bismuth (low melting point, so easy to work with in that regard), which left those thin layers between the magnesium sheets, or something like that. It doesn't sound like there's anything that special in it.

In fact I find Tom DeLonge's hapless enthusiasm for the subject sort of endearing

It's the "we" part that transforms that into a problem for their company.

If I wanted somebody to work on the problem of metric propulsion, I'd want to top-notch theoretical physicist well-versed in both quantum field theory and geometrodynamics to develop conceptual strategies, and a top engineer from Lockheed's Skunk Works to translate those strategies into attainable physical experiments. Honestly I think it's going to be way more complicated than irradiating some layered metals - from an engineering perspective, applied general relativity is a nightmarish problem to solve, which will likely involve huge energies and inventing entirely new classes of materials.

Which brings us back to the outsmarting all the experts vs. having solutions falling from the sky conversation. If the latter doesn't actually happen, the experts most likely have better chances to figure things out when they work together within the academia, instead of some entertainment focused company with credibility problems.

I was intrigued with DeLonge's statement about "atomically aligned" layers of metal, because I would expect any alien technology to exhibit precision ordering at that level. But now I think he's getting mixed up with Col. Corso's claims - he described the exact same atomic ordering in materials that he claimed had been analyzed...and I presume that Corso's story was a hoax.

Googling... Ok, Roswell stuff again.

It looks like he's picking up fragments from others, and putting them through the science blender of his mind, and thereby coming up with exotic claims.

That's how he seems to work. This for example is probably some blended version of some quantum experiment he has read about:

I read a really cool study about single photons and consciousness was interacting with it, just by thinking it was changing the way the photon went. Crazy.

he raises an interesting untested possibility that such thin layers of these metals could act as a waveguide for terahertz waves

How exactly is that working as a waveguide? He is talking about "Bi channels" and how that structure would permit the "signals to propagate freely through the waveguide". They can't actually propagate freely through those layers of metal, right?

 

[marduk]

Well, it's hard to say if prior evidence could've made its way to the AATIP for analysis. But regardless of any potential material recovered prior to the AATIP, I want to know what they have in that Las Vegas warehouse, and what they've learned about it, if anything.


Yeah that makes sense. But the idea that anybody would've sent a genuine fragment of alien technology to LMH is about as likely as somebody sending me the Hope diamond in the mail. I assume that some joker who works in a metal shop sent her that stuff with a hoaxed letter just to watch the ensuing fireworks over a cold brew and some hearty laughs with their buddies.


I try to be forgiving of people without a strong science background - it takes many years of hard work to get a reasonable grasp of the sciences, and most people just don't have the time in their lives to get up to speed. In fact I find Tom DeLonge's hapless enthusiasm for the subject sort of endearing - I really do think that he means well, and I totally give him props for getting Luis Elizondo to come forward, and for getting Steve Justice on board with this. If I wanted somebody to work on the problem of metric propulsion, I'd want to top-notch theoretical physicist well-versed in both quantum field theory and geometrodynamics to develop conceptual strategies, and a top engineer from Lockheed's Skunk Works to translate those strategies into attainable physical experiments. Honestly I think it's going to be way more complicated than irradiating some layered metals - from an engineering perspective, applied general relativity is a nightmarish problem to solve, which will likely involve huge energies and inventing entirely new classes of materials.

I was intrigued with DeLonge's statement about "atomically aligned" layers of metal, because I would expect any alien technology to exhibit precision ordering at that level. But now I think he's getting mixed up with Col. Corso's claims - he described the exact same atomic ordering in materials that he claimed had been analyzed...and I presume that Corso's story was a hoax. Add that to a discussion with Hal Puthoff where he might've told DeLonge "I'd like to see if this sample loses mass when exposed to terahertz radiation," and DeLonge simply assuming that he thinks that would work, and we get this extravagant claim about a material losing mass under those conditions. Similarly, he may have misunderstood a proposed test - seeing if the flight time is reduced for an electron sent close to a material with a negative value of stress-energy tensor (a valid test) - as a test that was actually performed. Because I don't think DeLonge could've figured that out on his own. It looks like he's picking up fragments from others, and putting them through the science blender of his mind, and thereby coming up with exotic claims. I would love to see the documents that he says he's seen about these kinds of materials analyses - somebody with a science background would be far better suited for properly understanding their significance and sifting the wishful thinking from the hard data.


I'm trying not to jump to conclusions - it seems that Puthoff and Davis et al. were simply doing their due diligence (see below), and they didn't actually find any interesting properties. But it does look like Hal Puthoff at least entertained some wildly optimistic speculations about that industrial floor scraping, which doesn't bode well for the theoretical side of things, unless this is one of those ridiculously serendipitous moments in science history akin to the discovery of penicillin. I'd like to hear what he has to say directly though, rather than getting it secondhand through people like LMH and Tom Delonge.

Because I think he's right to seriously consider the substantial physical ramifications if the theory of stochastic electrodynamics is in fact the underlying physics for quantum field theory, and in this response to LMH, he explains that they found no unusual properties with her sample - but he raises an interesting untested possibility that such thin layers of these metals could act as a waveguide for terahertz waves, and exhibit a negative refractive index. And a negative refractive index invokes a little-known possibility with regard to generating a negative Poynting vector, and a negative Maxwell stress tensor at a boundary, which would produce a series of negative terms in the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor - and this would indeed produce a drop in inertial mass (though it would take a very high level of energy propagating in this manner to produce a measurable effect, and I can't see how that would be possible without melting the sample long before any change in mass could be detected):

I don't think it would be possible to reduce the inertial mass by that mechanism. In fact, I don't think it's possible to reduce the inertial mass by any known - or even theoretical - mechanism.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I don't think it would be possible to reduce the inertial mass by that mechanism. In fact, I don't think it's possible to reduce the inertial mass by any known - or even theoretical - mechanism.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's absolutely incorrect. The stress-energy tensor defines the net mass, and the rest mass is only one component of the stress-energy tensor. Inertial mass (and therefore the gravitational mass, in accord with Einstein's definition of the equivalence principle), is not invariant (as it was within Newtonian mechanics) - any number of factors can either increase or decrease mass within general relativity, which we know to be true: pressure/tension/stress, potential energy, kinetic energy, momentum flux, the Poynting vector, and the Maxwell stress-energy tensor, among other components, all modulate the mass of a body or system of bodies.

Here's a very simple example: the sum of a proton mass and a neutron mass when separated, is higher than the mass of a deuteron (a hydrogen isotope consisting of a proton and a neutron united by the residual nuclear strong force). The difference, called the mass defect, is caused by their very strong negative potential energy, aka the binding energy. This principle is the key to fission energy, btw. Similarly, the high positive pressure within the Sun contributes positive mass to its gravitational field, and therefore its inertial mass. The stress-energy tensor is one of the greatest discoveries in the history of physics because it reveals precisely how a wide spectrum of physical factors influence inertial mass (and therefore the magnitude of the gravitational field) either positively or negatively (typically a combination of both, though usually to a degree that's not directly measurable).

In fact, one of the most stunning findings in theoretical physics in recent years can be found in these two papers, which theoretically demonstrate how a bubble of positive mass under sufficient tension (negative pressure) can in principle make such a body of positive mass produce a net negative value of stress-energy tensor, thereby exhibiting both negative gravitation (yes, antigravity) and negative inertial mass:

“On negative mass,” Jonathan Belletête and M. B. Paranjape, 2013
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.1566.pdf

“Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter space-time,” Saoussen Mbarek & M. B. Paranjape, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.1457.pdf

Put that in your pipe and smoke it: we now have a valid theoretical proof demonstrating that it's possible within the framework of GR to create a negative gravitational field without exotic matter - and a negative gravitational field is the “special sauce” required for gravitational field propulsion (and wormholes, time travel, etc). That's an exhilarating breakthrough in theoretical physics.

Elizondo said somewhere they wanted to collect anything and everything that could have some significance, or something like that, and he used generic terms like residues when asked about those alloys. So my guess is that they have basically stored all that may have fallen from the sky and they couldn't identify, which may be metal rich meteorites, parts of satellites, drones, balloons etc...

So I don't really think it's as significant as some headlines have indicated.

We can only guess, because we have insufficient information. But my impression after hearing all of the pertinent AATIP interviews conducted to date is that trivial materials and cases were filtered out before they reached the AATIP. So my assumption is that the program collected genuinely anomalous samples, like the residue left on the ground in the 1971 Delphos, Kansas case. I would assume that the odds of them collecting a piece of actual alien tech would be similar to the odds of being struck by lightning twice while being killed by a meteor, but you never know - no technology is infallible, so something *might* have crashed. Probably a <.0000000000001% chance of that though. We'll see, hopefully.

Maybe it was originally a stack of magnesium foil (similar thicknesses are readily available commercially) that was bathed in bismuth (low melting point, so easy to work with in that regard), which left those thin layers between the magnesium sheets, or something like that. It doesn't sound like there's anything that special in it.

I listened to a LHM podcast the other day with George Knapp, and she didn't seem to know anything about DeLonge's sample, which I found to be interesting. Maybe Hal Puthoff showed him her sample without her knowledge, when he ran those tests back in 2012.

The frustrating thing about the composition question (in general - not in the case of LMH's sample because that looks like rubbish to me), is that it may not require exotic atoms to produce exotic effects. We're seeing that now with the development of metamaterials and topological insulators (aka quantum materials). So it's definitely possible that a material made of mundane metals could exhibit exotic effects. The only certain way to determine if a material is exotic is if it exhibits exotic phenomenology.

It's the "we" part that transforms that into a problem for their company.

Tom DeLonge is clearly troublesome from a PR perspective. But to some extent that's balanced by his fame and, I feel, his sincerity. From my POV his presence in the group isn't a problem because he's not in charge of the scientific efforts, and I think that Luis Elizondo is doing an excellent job with his interviews, which lends tremendous credibility to all of this.

Which brings us back to the outsmarting all the experts vs. having solutions falling from the sky conversation. If the latter doesn't actually happen, the experts most likely have better chances to figure things out when they work together within the academia, instead of some entertainment focused company with credibility problems.

I agree completely. But even if they don't have an edge on the physics through some ridiculously fortuitous recovered alien tech, I strongly suspect that their phone lines are blowing up with top academic and former military research scientists calling in to lend a hand. Because this has all been highly visible, and working on gravitational field propulsion technology is even more exciting than the Manhattan Project was. Though I think it's likely that most academics will contribute anonymously to protect their careers.

That's how he seems to work. This for example is probably some blended version of some quantum experiment he has read about:

Yeah, but that's less egregious than the mistakes that he seems to have made conflating info about the bismuth/magnesium sample, because even trained academics often present ludicrous interpretations of quantum experiments. It's mind-boggling, the catastrophic damage done to physics by the Copenhagen interpretation - it'll be many decades before physics recovers from that blundering misstep into mysticism. Eventually history will remember Niels Bohr as a villain and a bully for bludgeoning sensible geniuses like Louis de Broglie into submission, and thereby derailing theoretical progress in physics for a century.

How exactly is that working as a waveguide? He is talking about "Bi channels" and how that structure would permit the "signals to propagate freely through the waveguide". They can't actually propagate freely through those layers of metal, right?

I presume that he means to say that subwavelength THz radiation could migrate along the magnesium in-between the bismuth layers, because magnesium's a good conductor but bismuth isn't. But THz radiation has unique properties and we're talking about metamaterial phenomena here, which is a very challenging specialty, so I can't offer anything definitive, unfortunately. One of those papers that I linked to in my last post does discuss metamaterial phenomena related to thin metal films though, so that might address some of your questions.

I'm just surprised and intrigued to find what appears to be a viable theoretical concept for mass reduction using layered metals - that hadn't occurred to me, so I have to give points to Hal Puthoff for coming up with it. I just started considering metamaterials for metric engineering recently, but I hadn't yet realized that thin metal layers could provide a theoretically valid approach to achieving the required effects, so I'm impressed that he's a step ahead of me on this. He may be the right kind of mind to crack this problem after all, working with expert specialists along the way of course.

 

[marduk]

I'm sorry to be blunt, but that's absolutely incorrect. The stress-energy tensor defines the net mass, and the rest mass is only one component of the stress-energy tensor. Inertial mass (and therefore the gravitational mass, in accord with Einstein's definition of the equivalence principle), is not invariant (as it was within Newtonian mechanics) - any number of factors can either increase or decrease mass within general relativity, which we know to be true: pressure/tension/stress, potential energy, kinetic energy, momentum flux, the Poynting vector, and the Maxwell stress-energy tensor, among other components, all modulate the mass of a body or system of bodies.

Here's a very simple example: the sum of a proton mass and a neutron mass when separated, is higher than the mass of a deuteron (a hydrogen isotope consisting of a proton and a neutron united by the residual nuclear strong force). The difference, called the mass defect, is caused by their very strong negative potential energy, aka the binding energy. This principle is the key to fission energy, btw. Similarly, the high positive pressure within the Sun contributes positive mass to its gravitational field, and therefore its inertial mass. The stress-energy tensor is one of the greatest discoveries in the history of physics because it reveals precisely how a wide spectrum of physical factors influence inertial mass (and therefore the magnitude of the gravitational field) either positively or negatively (typically a combination of both, though usually to a degree that's not directly measurable).

In fact, one of the most stunning findings in theoretical physics in recent years can be found in these two papers, which theoretically demonstrate how a bubble of positive mass under sufficient tension (negative pressure) can in principle make such a body of positive mass produce a net negative value of stress-energy tensor, thereby exhibiting both negative gravitation (yes, antigravity) and negative inertial mass:

“On negative mass,” Jonathan Belletête and M. B. Paranjape, 2013
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.1566.pdf

“Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter space-time,” Saoussen Mbarek & M. B. Paranjape, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.1457.pdf

Put that in your pipe and smoke it: we now have a valid theoretical proof demonstrating that it's possible within the framework of GR to create a negative gravitational field without exotic matter - and a negative gravitational field is the “special sauce” required for gravitational field propulsion (and wormholes, time travel, etc). That's an exhilarating breakthrough in theoretical physics.


We can only guess, because we have insufficient information. But my impression after hearing all of the pertinent AATIP interviews conducted to date is that trivial materials and cases were filtered out before they reached the AATIP. So my assumption is that the program collected genuinely anomalous samples, like the residue left on the ground in the 1971 Delphos, Kansas case. I would assume that the odds of them collecting a piece of actual alien tech would be similar to the odds of being struck by lightning twice while being killed by a meteor, but you never know - no technology is infallible, so something *might* have crashed. Probably a <.0000000000001% chance of that though. We'll see, hopefully.


I listened to a LHM podcast the other day with George Knapp, and she didn't seem to know anything about DeLonge's sample, which I found to be interesting. Maybe Hal Puthoff showed him her sample without her knowledge, when he ran those tests back in 2012.

The frustrating thing about the composition question (in general - not in the case of LMH's sample because that looks like rubbish to me), is that it may not require exotic atoms to produce exotic effects. We're seeing that now with the development of metamaterials and topological insulators (aka quantum materials). So it's definitely possible that a material made of mundane metals could exhibit exotic effects. The only certain way to determine if a material is exotic is if it exhibits exotic phenomenology.


Tom DeLonge is clearly troublesome from a PR perspective. But to some extent that's balanced by his fame and, I feel, his sincerity. From my POV his presence in the group isn't a problem because he's not in charge of the scientific efforts, and I think that Luis Elizondo is doing an excellent job with his interviews, which lends tremendous credibility to all of this.


I agree completely. But even if they don't have an edge on the physics through some ridiculously fortuitous recovered alien tech, I strongly suspect that their phone lines are blowing up with top academic and former military research scientists calling in to lend a hand. Because this has all been highly visible, and working on gravitational field propulsion technology is even more exciting than the Manhattan Project was. Though I think it's likely that most academics will contribute anonymously to protect their careers.


Yeah, but that's less egregious than the mistakes that he seems to have made conflating info about the bismuth/magnesium sample, because even trained academics often present ludicrous interpretations of quantum experiments. It's mind-boggling, the catastrophic damage done to physics by the Copenhagen interpretation - it'll be many decades before physics recovers from that blundering misstep into mysticism. Eventually history will remember Niels Bohr as a villain and a bully for bludgeoning sensible geniuses like Louis de Broglie into submission, and thereby derailing theoretical progress in physics for a century.


I presume that he means to say that subwavelength Thz radiation could migrate along the magnesium in-between the bismuth layers, because magnesium's a good conductor but bismuth isn't. But Thz radiation has unique properties and we're talking about metamaterial phenomena here, which is a very challenging specialty, so I can't offer anything definitive, unfortunately. One of those papers that I linked to in my last post does discuss metamaterial phenomena related to thin metal films though, so that might address some of your questions.

I'm just surprised and intrigued to find what appears to be a viable theoretical concept for mass reduction using layered metals - that hadn't occurred to me, so I have to give points to Hal Puthoff for coming up with it. I just started considering metamaterials for metric engineering recently, but I hadn't yet realized that thin metal layers could provide a theoretically valid approach to achieving the required effects, so I'm impressed that he's a step ahead of me on this. He may be the right kind of mind to crack this problem after all, working with expert specialists along the way of course.

All I think you just said is that maybe it’s possible by using a state of matter that may not exist in the universe - or be possible to create - under highly specific energetic conditions - might exhibit a small change in inertial mass. In theory.

I’m not trying to be facetious, but you haven’t swayed my opinion.

 

[Han]

long haired Himalayan

01101100 01101111 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101000 01100001 01101001 01110010 01100101 01100100 00100000 01001000 01101001 01101101 01100001 01101100 01100001 01111001 01100001 01101110

=


"long haired Himalayan" in Binary apparently:

((source)): Convert text to binary - Converters

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

All I think you just said is that maybe it’s possible by using a state of matter that may not exist in the universe - or be possible to create - under highly specific energetic conditions - might exhibit a small change in inertial mass. In theory.

I’m not trying to be facetious, but you haven’t swayed my opinion.

That's fine - it's impossible to change someone's opinion when they're determined not to change it.

You're simply not understanding what I've given you. Those papers prove that it's theoretically possible to create so much tension in a material body with positive mass, that its mass not only drops to zero, but actually becomes negative. No exotic matter required. That's a fundamental theoretical leap forward for metric engineering.

But of course, those papers only address an idealized scenario - a body of matter known as a perfect fluid, because that's the easiest approach to modeling general relativistic effects (which aren't easy to calculate even when employing an idealized body of matter). Calculating the stress-energy tensor for any form of specific material is vastly more complicated for all kinds of reasons (internal thermal friction, dissipation, cohesion, etc).

It'll probably require the manipulation of many terms in the stress-energy tensor in order to physically engineer a body of positive matter to exhibit negative mass, but in my estimation, the existence of UFOs proves that it's possible, so it's a technological inevitability for us as well.

And thanks to Robert Forward's 1990 paper "Negative Matter Propulsion," we're aware of a pretty amazing intermediary step to true gravitational field propulsion - a sort of hybrid concept. Let's say that you can induce a sheet of metamaterial under tension to exhibit negative inertial mass. Now give it a negative electrical charge, and place it below an ordinary conductive plate also charged negatively, and attach them together with a nonconductive material. That will give you the key feature of a gravitational field propulsion system that you really need - the two will accelerate together indefinitely as long as you maintain their conditions, driven by the electrostatic and inertial interactions working in concert. A passenger between the two plates will still feel the accelerations, but at a cozy 1g acceleration they'll reach the speed of light within one year. But if instead you make a solid-state drone, you could get a probe to light speed in far less time, because a drone could easily withstand dozens of g's of acceleration.

 

[marduk]

That's fine - it's impossible to change someone's opinion when they're determined not to change it.

Just healthy skepticism, my friend.

I’ve read a number of papers - and even discussed with some folks - about the ability to reduce mass, and whether inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.

And let’s just say that in these papers there’s a lot of hand waiving going on, special states of matter, and contrivances to make it all work.

You're simply not understanding what I've given you. Those papers prove that it's theoretically possible to create so much tension in a material body with positive mass, that its mass not only drops to zero, but actually becomes negative. No exotic matter required. That's a fundamental theoretical leap forward for metric engineering.

Lol. I love your enthusiasm man.

I do actually understand what you’ve sent. I just come to a completely different conclusion than you to.

These aren’t proof of anything. They are interesting ideas and concepts. And like the ‘proof that the universe is spinning’ paper, may be totally wrong.

Proof happens on a workbench in a lab. Or with experimental measures. That are repeatable and meausurable. It took decades to prove that nature behaved the way Einstein predicted. I hope these papers are right - because if so, defeating inertia may be possible. Which would be pretty sweet.

But being intellectually honest about it, there’s many steps yet to go, especially when trying to screw around with some of the fundamental ideas about how things work.

 

[marduk]

Hey serious question though, what’s your thinking on the em drive?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Just healthy skepticism, my friend.

I’ve read a number of papers - and even discussed with some folks - about the ability to reduce mass, and whether inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.

And let’s just say that in these papers there’s a lot of hand waiving going on, special states of matter, and contrivances to make it all work.

You clearly haven’t spoken with a relativist about this subject – I think you should do so, and prepare to be enlightened about the theoretical and experimental validity of general relativity, and the many astounding implications of it.

For starters, the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is experimentally established to within 10^-13 (one part in ten trillion), the current limit of experimental precision. Likewise, the stress-energy tensor is as valid as the metric predictions of GR (they're mathematically equivalent), so it's well proven at this point. Every conceivable form of hammer has been taken to GR, and it always prevails. There’s no doubt that it’s correct for modeling all of the effects that we’ve discussed here. When it's superseded by an even more general theory someday (a grand unified theory, presumably), we already know that any future developments won’t obviate its mathematical validity, just as we know that Newtonian mechanics holds true within the nonrelativistic regime. If GR isn't accurate at some level, then we know that it'll only deviate in extremely strong gravity regimes such as neutron stars and black holes, because no deviations from prediction have emerged in all of the regimes that we have been able to test to extremely high precision (which is basically everything short of neutron stars and black holes). If you study it, you’ll find that the better you understand it, the more you’ll agree with me on this.

And there’s no hand-waving in those papers – they’re solid. They’re derived directly from general relativity – there’s no new theory in there. It’s akin to deriving the concept of a suspension bridge using Newtonian physics – you now it’ll work before you build it because you know that Newtonian mechanics works for structural engineering (except in this case, you’re engineering the spacetime metric instead of steel and concrete). And they were published in the most respected peer-reviewed physics journal on the planet, Physical Review. It’s been three years since those papers came out, and I haven’t seen a single challenge to them in the academic literature (typically it takes less than a year for somebody to find an error that slips past the review panel). And there are no contrivances either – this is fundamental physics, not wild speculation. So it’s safe to say that they’re as credible as general relativity itself, because they were derived directly from the general theory of relativity. And to date, every prediction derived from general relativity has eventually been proven correct - gravitational waves being the latest confirmed prediction among many.

Also, tension isn’t a special state of matter: you use it every time that you use a rubber band.

Lol. I love your enthusiasm man.

I do actually understand what you’ve sent. I just come to a completely different conclusion than you to.

These aren’t proof of anything. They are interesting ideas and concepts. And like the ‘proof that the universe is spinning’ paper, may be totally wrong.

Proof happens on a workbench in a lab. Or with experimental measures. That are repeatable and meausurable. It took decades to prove that nature behaved the way Einstein predicted. I hope these papers are right - because if so, defeating inertia may be possible. Which would be pretty sweet.

But being intellectually honest about it, there’s many steps yet to go, especially when trying to screw around with some of the fundamental ideas about how things work.

I’m glad to see that you appreciate my enthusiasm. It’s just a shame that you can’t share it.

You are a stubborn man, marduk. That can be advantageous in the treacherous world of ufology, but when it comes to understanding theoretical physics, it’s a major liability. Because you tend to dismiss all of it, even the rock solid stuff. You’re not going to believe that anything is possible until somebody proves it experimentally, which honestly makes these kinds of discussions exasperating, because you’re impervious to everything including peer-reviewed academic findings directly derived from the most successful physics theory in human history. It’s just a personal temperament thing, I suppose. I have the opposite kind of temperament: I’m enthralled with landmark theoretical breakthroughs because I can see their significance and the inevitably of their future developments and applications. This reminds me of the days when physicists first calculated that we could send a man to the Moon: some people guffawed at the "paper proof" that it could be done, while others bristled with enthusiasm. It's up to you to choose which one you want to be - so choose wisely, my brother.

Yes we have many steps to take before we can effectively engineer with applied general relativity. Trust me – I’m keenly aware of that, and I brainstorm about those steps relentlessly. But it’s already inevitable. I recently saw a paper proposing a currently achievable experiment to create a gravitational field in the laboratory using a pair of large superconductive magnets and a Michelson interferometer to detect the gravity generated by its electromagnetic field. So experimental general relativity is about to step through the door.

Hey serious question though, what’s your thinking on the em drive?

I think the Em Drive is the most embarrassing invention since Steorn’s Orbo, except it’s collected many more scalps. Everything that we know about physics indicates that it’s just a weirdly shaped microwave oven that tends to produce tiny measurement errors that beguile experimentalists. The alleged “force” that its proponents claim that it produces, is equivalent to the weight of a grain of sand resting on your palm. It would be a miracle if a searing hot buzzing contraption didn’t produce an elusive jitter in the signal that looked like some kind of anomalous force. But it has about as much theoretical validity as the Dean Drive: total horse pucky. Which is a shame, because the central focus of my intellectual life is the dogged pursuit of a field propulsion system. Sadly, this isn’t it.

Stuff that has no cogent theoretical foundation, like that spinning universe paper and the Em Drive, turn out to be errors about 99.99999% of the time. But that’s why I pay such close attention to that kind of stuff – because when one of them turns out to be valid (which happens about once per century), it changes the game. At his point though it’s going to take a higher level of sophistication than a funny-looking microwave oven to change the game, imo.

 

[Realm]

In fact, one of the most stunning findings in theoretical physics in recent years can be found in these two papers, which theoretically demonstrate how a bubble of positive mass under sufficient tension (negative pressure) can in principle make such a body of positive mass produce a net negative value of stress-energy tensor, thereby exhibiting both negative gravitation (yes, antigravity) and negative inertial mass:

“On negative mass,” Jonathan Belletête and M. B. Paranjape, 2013
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.1566.pdf

“Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter space-time,” Saoussen Mbarek & M. B. Paranjape, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.1457.pdf

Put that in your pipe and smoke it: we now have a valid theoretical proof demonstrating that it's possible within the framework of GR to create a negative gravitational field without exotic matter - and a negative gravitational field is the “special sauce” required for gravitational field propulsion (and wormholes, time travel, etc). That's an exhilarating breakthrough in theoretical physics.

More like a speculative theoretical possibility than proof. Here's a recent easier to read article about those ideas from Manu Paranjape, who is an author of both of those papers (the other authors are his students):

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20170524a/full/

Tom DeLonge is clearly troublesome from a PR perspective. But to some extent that's balanced by his fame and, I feel, his sincerity. From my POV his presence in the group isn't a problem because he's not in charge of the scientific efforts, and I think that Luis Elizondo is doing an excellent job with his interviews, which lends tremendous credibility to all of this.

I don't think credibility works like that. It's one of those things that's hard to earn, harder to keep, but very easy to lose. Even if you do almost everything right, you can lose most of it with just a couple of stupid mistakes, as that's what people remember you from. In my opinion, TTSA has already dug themselves so deep into the hole, that they have lost the game already as far as credibility is concerned.

As for Elizondo, I agree, he is handling those interviews very well, just like Fravor (who of course isn't actually part of TTSA but linked to it nevertheless). In my opinion they should realize their great work is negated by others and head for the escape pod of the mothership already.

I strongly suspect that their phone lines are blowing up with top academic and former military research scientists calling in to lend a hand. Because this has all been highly visible, and working on gravitational field propulsion technology is even more exciting than the Manhattan Project was. Though I think it's likely that most academics will contribute anonymously to protect their careers.

I very much doubt that. I really don't see TTSA has much to offer. There's one ex Lockheed manager and one 81 year old engineer/physicist, who doesn't even work full-time for them, and is known for his adventures in pseudoscience. That's about it really. Their funding depends on more than questionable "investments"/donations, which have already more or less stalled to the sort of levels they expect to scale back or stop project work altogether. And as you said, most likely wouldn't want to be associated with them publicly, which in itself is telling. So what exactly can they offer?

Yeah, but that's less egregious than the mistakes that he seems to have made conflating info about the bismuth/magnesium sample, because even trained academics often present ludicrous interpretations of quantum experiments. It's mind-boggling, the catastrophic damage done to physics by the Copenhagen interpretation - it'll be many decades before physics recovers from that blundering misstep into mysticism. Eventually history will remember Niels Bohr as a villain and a bully for bludgeoning sensible geniuses like Louis de Broglie into submission, and thereby derailing theoretical progress in physics for a century.

Yep, that is a pretty embarrassing story in the history of science.

I presume that he means to say that subwavelength Thz radiation could migrate along the magnesium in-between the bismuth layers, because magnesium's a good conductor but bismuth isn't.

Doesn't that just make it a good shield for such radiation, instead of letting it "propagate freely"?

But Thz radiation has unique properties and we're talking about metamaterial phenomena here, which is a very challenging specialty, so I can't offer anything definitive, unfortunately. One of those papers that I linked to in my last post does discuss metamaterial phenomena related to thin metal films though, so that might address some of your questions.

Do you mean this one?
https://www.osapublishing.org/Direc...5-21-14219.pdf?da=1&id=144196&seq=0&mobile=no

That link isn't working for me.

There's one article in the same place about a planar waveguide made from bismuth walls, but I think the actual wave is just transferred in the empty space between them, which makes sense:
Captcha

I'm just surprised and intrigued to find what appears to be a viable theoretical concept for mass reduction using layered metals - that hadn't occurred to me, so I have to give points to Hal Puthoff for coming up with it. I just started considering metamaterials for metric engineering recently, but I hadn't yet realized that thin metal layers could provide a theoretically valid approach to achieving the required effects, so I'm impressed that he's a step ahead of me on this. He may be the right kind of mind to crack this problem after all, working with expert specialists along the way of course.

They obviously begin with the desired outcome of mass reduction and try to invent any way that could happen with the lump of scrap they have. I'm no expert by any stretch of imagination, but I doubt he can actually connect the dots on a more detailed level.

This seems to be one good reminder of extraordinary claims and so on:

CAVEAT EMPTOR! There has been a large amount of popular semi-technical literature published over the last 25 years covering the topic of extracting energy from the quantum vacuum field. The literature is mostly composed of self-published books or pamphlets found in bookstores or on the internet, and there are also professional society conference papers that are largely not peer-reviewed. Unfortunately, much of this literature is published within the context of free energy and antigravity devices with claims that the vacuum ZPE is the source that drives free energy devices or powers an antigravity craft, or powers gravity/mass modification or repulsive gravitational force beam devices, etc. A number of these claims have been evaluated over the years by credentialed scientists and were falsified. Much of this literature is self-serving marketing propaganda, and the language describing the physics or engineering principles for these claims is often couched in what we call “technobabble.” Credentialed scientists interested in seriously pursuing a laboratory investigation of the vacuum ZPF should be forewarned that many of the claims being made in the non-peer-reviewed literature are fraught with pathological science, fraud, misinformation, disinformation, and spurious physics. This is the reason why the present authors were very selective about which ZPE extraction approaches to consider for our research program.

http://www.bu.edu/simulation/publications/dcole/PDF/Davis et al_STAIF06_Log063.pdf

The authors of that paper include H. E. Puthoff and E. W. Davis.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

More like a speculative theoretical possibility than proof.

Now I get it – you and marduk are hung up on my informal use of the phrase “a valid theoretical proof.” The correct formal terminology would have been “a valid theoretical derivation,” because technically there isn’t even a formal proof for general relativity - nobody’s ever come up with a purely axiomatic derivation of it:

"The axiomatic formulation of general relativity (or gravitational theories in general) seems to resemble the myth of the Holy Grail. Serious attempts have been made to find it and everybody seems to be interested in it, but nobody actually knows where to look for it."
"Theory of Gravitation Theories: A No-Progress Report," International Journal of Modern Physics D, 2008
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.2748.pdf

My position is simple: Paranjape’s derivation of a negative mass condition via the pressure terms of the stress-energy tensor is as unassailable as GR itself, unless somebody can identify a feature of his derivation that extends beyond the core mathematical edifice of GR.

So on what basis do you assert that his findings are less valid than GR? There’s no new theory in these papers, just the application of the stress-energy tensor. Ergo, I see no logical basis for your objection to the validity of this concept unless you take exception to the stress-energy tensor, and therefore, GR. Which you could do, but frankly I think that would be absurd, because GR has been verified to the maximum precision of every test conducted to date, as you can see in this highly reputable review paper:

“The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7377.pdf

Here's a recent easier to read article about those ideas from Manu Paranjape, who is an author of both of those papers (the other authors are his students):

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20170524a/full/

That’s a good article, Parajape has clearly done his homework on this subject.

But trying to impugn the credibility of a paper published in Physical Review because he worked with his post-grad students on it, is lame and unwarranted. If you’ve been to college then you should know that professors work with their post-grads on papers all the time, and it has zero negative connotations for the quality of the work. In fact many if not most physicists are at the top of their game in their post-grad years.

In any case, to simplify this debate significantly, let’s set aside the net negative mass concept for a moment. There’s zero doubt that 15 of the 16 components (or 9 of the 10 components depending on how you look at it) of the stress-energy tensor provide mechanisms for attenuating the mass of a body or system of bodies. The pressure terms are in this category. So the old Newtonian notion that the rest mass of a body or system of bodies is invariant, has been abolished for over a century now. That was marduk’s basic objection, and he was wrong about it. There’s no shame in that; he was just unfamiliar with the mechanics of the stress-energy tensor, as most people are. But mass is a variable in GR because of those other 15 terms in the stress-energy tensor – that’s established physics; it’s not speculative or hypothetical.

As for Elizondo, I agree, he is handling those interviews very well, just like Fravor (who of course isn't actually part of TTSA but linked to it nevertheless). In my opinion they should realize their great work is negated by others and head for the escape pod of the mothership already.

There’s no way that he could pursue his other objective of sparking interest in finding a viable approach to replicating the performance characteristics of the exotic devices that he’s investigated for the last ten years, without a team that includes people like Hal Puthoff and Steve Justice.

I really don't see TTSA has much to offer. There's one ex Lockheed manager and one 81 year old engineer/physicist, who doesn't even work full-time for them, and is known for his adventures in pseudoscience. That's about it really. Their funding depends on more than questionable "investments"/donations, which have already more or less stalled to the sort of levels they expect to scale back or stop project work altogether. And as you said, most likely wouldn't want to be associated with them publicly, which in itself is telling. So what exactly can they offer?

TTSA strikes me a viable vehicle for attracting serious public interest in this subject, and for attracting serious scientific involvement as well. And the reason I think academics will likely keep their interest private, is because the subject of UFOs has been so intensely stigmatized by the Deep State for 70 years – not because of TTSA’s public image.

I don’t know why you have it in for TTSA, even though you’re very excited about the USS Nimitz case – that’s a paradox to me: they’re intimately linked. But I don’t care to debate it with you – your mind is obviously made up, so let's not waste each other's time.

Doesn't that just make it a good shield for such radiation, instead of letting it "propagate freely"?

Actually - as weird as this may seem - at high frequencies like THz frequencies, photons can penetrate layered metamaterials composed of thin metal films which exhibit a negative refractive index. Check out the paper below; it's rather fascinating stuff. I'll have to study photonic metamaterials for awhile before I can add anything to the conversation about it; at this point I can only say that the properties involved here bring new possibilities to the exploitation of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor of general relativity, because that much is clear via the Poynting vector and the Maxwell stress tensor, the values of which depend on the refractive index, and in this case it's negative, apparently.

Do you mean this one?
https://www.osapublishing.org/Direc...5-21-14219.pdf?da=1&id=144196&seq=0&mobile=no

That link isn't working for me.

Sorry about that – apparently they don’t permit direct links to the .pdf, so you have to go through their abstract page to get to it:
OSA | Negative beam displacements from negative-index photonic metamaterials

They obviously begin with the desired outcome of mass reduction and try to invent any way that could happen with the lump of scrap they have. I'm no expert by any stretch of imagination, but I doubt he can actually connect the dots on a more detailed level.

Man, your bias against these people is so thick it’s blinding. Sure, 40 years ago Puthoff got fooled by Uri Gellar - a lot of very smart people did. And as far as the remote viewing program goes, I'm not convinced that's pseudoscience - what I've heard about it suggests that a couple of people in that program occasionally/spuriously demonstrated a very intriguing ability (I'm pretty sure that Ingo Swann described the rings around Jupiter before astronomers discovered them, for example). It's possible that they were exploring an elusive, but real, phenomenon. But I can't say for sure either way - trying to evaluate any intermittent effect is damned difficult.

And you can’t just “dream up” exotic metamaterials properties that represent components of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor which permit mass reduction. Frankly it’s impressive that Puthoff did the research and found the metamaterials studies that relate to this composite structure, and that he understood its potential significance within the context of GR. Sure, he was looking for any features of this material that could be anomalous – that was his task. The fact that he succeeded in seeing a viable prospect for something anomalous is a credit to his scientific acumen, not an indictment of his methodology.

It’s not like he was given something like the sole of a tennis shoe, and then rigged some crazy hypothesis to imbue it with an exotic physical property via some bogus pseudoscience theory. He found a credible anomalous possibility within well-established physics. That kicks ass. Because even if his idea doesn’t apply to the sample that he studied, it’s a fascinating avenue to explore theoretically and perhaps even experimentally. I hope and expect that they'll do that.

This seems to be one good reminder of extraordinary claims and so on:

http://www.bu.edu/simulation/publications/dcole/PDF/Davis et al_STAIF06_Log063.pdf

The authors of that paper include H. E. Puthoff and E. W. Davis.

Except they haven’t made any extravagant claims – they’ve only identified one particularly interesting avenue to investigate with regard to metamaterials and mass modulation within the context of GR. Neither of them has claimed that it has actually worked, as far as I’ve seen anyway.

Tom DeLonge is the only one who made the claim that the experiment had already been performed successfully, and frankly it looks like he was all mixed up about that (as usual).

But that shouldn’t reflect poorly on Puthoff or Davis. To the contrary, in fact. Eric Davis is an excellent relativist, and Puthoff’s idea is the first really intriguing proposal for a mass reduction experiment that I’ve ever seen. I hope they pursue it. We need a breakthrough in metric engineering, and even a very modest success in this direction would spark a massive wave of development around the world.

 

[Constance]

A really excellent post, Thomas. Torsion physics, as I recall from reading about it ten years ago, was developed first by Russian scientists. Is that correct? Has it since become a part of standard physics in this country, or are there some physicists here [perhaps old-school types] that dispute, resist, ignore, or fail to understand it?

 

[Realm]

GR has been verified to the maximum precision of every test conducted to date

And how many of those tests experimentally validated anti-gravity/negative mass? Was it zero or none?

Paranjape and others have shown that certain equations can be made to work with negative mass, which makes it a mathematical possibility, not physical reality. We know those equations are not the whole story, especially when it comes to gravity. You try to make it sound like anti-gravity/negative mass would be some sort of mathematical necessity from those equations, or that the other successful predictions of GR would verify those as well, but that quite obviously isn't the case, as is already evident from how the scientific community in general views those concepts.

But trying to impugn the credibility of a paper published in Physical Review because he worked with his post-grad students on it, is lame and unwarranted.

It just shows how defensive you are about the subject that mentioning who the authors were (as told in that article I linked) results such a response.

TTSA strikes me a viable vehicle for attracting serious public interest in this subject, and for attracting serious scientific involvement as well.

I have followed the coverage quite closely, and for what I have seen, it has been almost entirely about the AATIP and the money they spent, Elizondo, Fravor, Nimitz incident, and that other video. TTSA and their plans on spaceships has been some sort of rarely mentioned side note at best.

There's really no escaping of the fact that TTSA really is just a small group of people, even smaller if you count only those working full-time, and the services of those two that at least have knowledge of physics have been available for others all this time outside the TTSA, and most likely still are. AFAIK, Puthoff is still working for EarthTech (like Davis) and listed as contractor for TTSA. So why would the academics contract him through some entertainment focused company with bad public image, if they could contract him directly through his own company, with bad public image?

Similarly, if academics or industries where so hugely interested in some ex Lockheed manager, why wouldn't they contact Lockheed and work together with their teams? You wouldn't think that one man was the sole reason for their successes, would you?

Seriously, what else does the TTSA have to offer for the academics or serious industries?

I don’t know why you have it in for TTSA, even though you’re very excited about the USS Nimitz case – that’s a paradox to me: they’re intimately linked.

They are linked basically only because Elizondo joined TTSA and information was published on their site. That's about it really. And pretty much all of that information was already leaked ages ago, and for the rest we can mostly thank Fravor and Slaight, who are not part of TTSA.

If the actual investigative report is eventually published through the official channels, as it should, it would pretty much cut out TTSA as an unnecessary middleman regarding that incident, and one that quite apparently is already withholding and delaying information to maximize their publicity. Their interview with Fravor, for example, was already done in November, yet released only in January, after most of it had already been reported by the media.

And as far as the remote viewing program goes, I'm not convinced that's pseudoscience

You don't happen to have any idea of any sensible mechanism with which something like that could work even in theory?

(I'm pretty sure that Ingo Swann described the rings around Jupiter before astronomers discovered them, for example).

According to Swann, his ability to see Jupiter took about three and a half minutes. In the session he made several reports on the physical features of Jupiter, such as its surface – which he said was covered in crystals and studded with huge mountains – atmosphere and weather. Swann claimed to see bands of crystals in the atmosphere, which he likened to the rings of Saturn. The Voyager probe later confirmed the existence of the rings of Jupiter, although these rings are not in the planet's atmosphere.[36] Most claims made by Swann were shown to be untrue - Jupiter has no rocky surface, and could not sustain mountains or crystals.[37]

Ingo Swann - Wikipedia

I'll return to those metamaterials and waveguides as needed once I have looked at that article.

 

[Realm]

A really excellent post, Thomas. Torsion physics, as I recall from reading about it ten years ago, was developed first by Russian scientists. Is that correct? Has it since become a part of standard physics in this country, or are there some physicists here [perhaps old-school types] that dispute, resist, ignore, or fail to understand it?

Do you mean this one?
Torsion field (pseudoscience) - Wikipedia

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

And how many of those tests experimentally validated anti-gravity/negative mass? Was it zero or none?

Positive and negative mass modulation is a central feature of GR. Literally the only thing new about Paranjape’s model is the magnitude of the negative components, and he justified that by proving that the positive energy theorem doesn’t apply to our accelerating universe.

Paranjape and others have shown that certain equations can be made to work with negative mass, which makes it a mathematical possibility, not physical reality.

Name one mathematical prediction of GR which can be tested, which hasn’t been proven to exist in nature. I’ll wait.

We know those equations are not the whole story, especially when it comes to gravity.

Quantum gravity only promises to expand and integrate the applicability of GR – not to refute any of its mathematical predictions within the realm of applicability that we’re discussing here, which is everything shy of quantum dynamics.

You try to make it sound like anti-gravity/negative mass would be some sort of mathematical necessity from those equations, or that the other successful predictions of GR would verify those as well, but that quite obviously isn't the case, as is already evident from how the scientific community in general views those concepts.

Ah yes, the appeal to authority logical fallacy. The scientific community was dead wrong about that, which is why they were caught with their pants down when we discovered cosmological acceleration (which is a real-world manifestation of negative gravitation aka antigravity that’s fully consistent with GR and always has been). The inflationary epoch is yet another manifestation of repulsive gravity. And Robert L. Forward's gravitational dipole generator is yet another and absolutely unambiguous, totally uncontroversial mechanism for generating repulsive gravitation which requires no exotic matter or any other kind of dubious factor (although magnitude is a clear technological challenge).

That anyone stills scoffs at the idea only proves how uninformed and obtuse they are, because you literally can’t explain cosmological evolution without it.

It just shows how defensive you are about the subject that mentioning who the authors were (as told in that article I linked) results such a response.

Don’t play dumb. You mentioned it because you thought it would win you a point, obviously. And I pointed out that it was a cheap shot, because it was.

Similarly, if academics or industries where so hugely interested in some ex Lockheed manager, why wouldn't they contact Lockheed and work together with their teams?

Because Lockheed never extended the invitation to the scientific community at large, as the TTSA has done.

You don't happen to have any idea of any sensible mechanism with which something like that could work even in theory?

There’s the theory of quantum retrocausality proposed by Dr. Yakir Aharonov in his book Quantum Paradoxes, which permits future boundary conditions to influence quantum measurements in the present. So perhaps it’s possible to somehow sense future knowledge in the present. Hell if I know. Consciousness is probably the least understood phenomenon in all of science, so it’s definitely premature to define constraints around it.

According to Swann, his ability to see Jupiter took about three and a half minutes. In the session he made several reports on the physical features of Jupiter, such as its surface – which he said was covered in crystals and studded with huge mountains – atmosphere and weather. Swann claimed to see bands of crystals in the atmosphere, which he likened to the

rings of Saturn. The Voyager probe later confirmed the existence of the rings of Jupiter, although these rings are not in the planet's atmosphere. Most claims made by Swann were shown to be untrue - Jupiter has no rocky surface, and could not sustain mountains or crystals.

Ingo Swann - Wikipedia

That’s not how I heard the account in an interview with someone who was actually there (Joe McMoneagle, iirc).

Wikipedia is thoroughly infiltrated with disinformation agents – I’ve seen it first-hand; I’m an editor at Wikipedia. So it’s suspicious that they don’t provide a direct quote of his actual description – for all we know they’re discrediting a bogus recounting of his words. I’ve heard other intriguing anecdotes from that program as well, and given the nature of the US military and intelligence agencies I find it hard to believe that they’d fund such a controversial program for 20 years without producing some compelling results.

But frankly I haven’t made it my personal mission in life to discredit every anomaly in the public eye, and it’s probably impossible to get the documentary evidence from the Army and the DIA that would be required for a proper evaluation, so I’m comfortable leaving it in my grey box, rather than getting my panties all in a twist about it. Besides, life is more interesting when you leave a few of the darkened doorways unlocked. You should try it sometime. Maybe you’ll lighten up a little bit in the process.

A really excellent post, Thomas. Torsion physics, as I recall from reading about it ten years ago, was developed first by Russian scientists. Is that correct? Has it since become a part of standard physics in this country, or are there some physicists here [perhaps old-school types] that dispute, resist, ignore, or fail to understand it?

Thank you Constance – I’m glad you enjoy these kinds of discussions. Usually when theoretical physics comes up, people’s eyes glaze over and they start glancing toward the door.

There have been many attempts to introduce additional degrees of freedom to the metric, beyond those defined by general relativity. I’ve looked at many of them. All of them have failed to make any successful new predictions, to date. And the primary reason that I’ve disregarded them is that these theories tend to produce “ghosts,” that is, additional phenomena within well-known dynamic systems, like the solar system, which aren’t actually observed. Lots of intricate mechanisms have been tacked on to these theories to explain why these effects might be suppressed, but they all seem rather contrived – generally they have to scale perfectly across a wide range of dynamics, and their theoretical justifications strain credibility as they’re forced to conform to widely disparate regimes.

And there are already some really fascinating effects within GR like frame dragging, which I prefer to discuss in terms of gravitoelectromagnetism because the analogy with electromagnetism is highly intuitive and in the weak field limit perfectly conforms to Maxwell’s equations. Beyond that limit, the effects still persist, but they’re stronger because GR is nonlinear. So, for example, if you place a gravitating body next to test mass, and then spin it rapidly, the test mass will also begin to spin – this is sometimes called gravitomagnetic induction, which is analogous to electromagnetic induction. All kinds of fascinating phenomena can be explored by modeling mass as a form of charge, and simply flipping the sign of Maxwell’s equation to calculate the interactions. This analogous but oppositely signed parallelism between electric charge and mass charge and their equivalent dynamics, is probably the most beautiful and fascinating mystery in all of physics, imo.

So I just don’t see any phenomenological utility in torsion field physics, because it hasn’t predicted anything that we’ve observed in nature – not that I’ve ever seen anyway. The only person I’ve ever heard talk about it seriously is Richard Hoagland, and I think he’s out of his gourd, honestly.

But there is a form of torsion field theory called Einstein-Cartan theory, which evades ghost/phantom fields by confining the torsion field to the region inside of spinning matter, and it has some very attractive features that resemble exotic matter effects. And it’s possible that this theory could dovetail better with quantum field theory, according to its advocates. But nobody’s shown any compelling theoretical or observational motivation for running with it yet. So it all just looks like tilting at windmills to me, until one of those two things change.

If you’ve seen anything which gives you cause to consider its utility, I’d like to see what you’ve got.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

That’s not how I heard the account in an interview with someone who was actually there (Joe McMoneagle, iirc).

Wikipedia is thoroughly infiltrated with disinformation agents – I’ve seen it first-hand; I’m an editor at Wikipedia. So it’s suspicious that they don’t provide a direct quote of his actual description – for all we know they’re discrediting a bogus recounting of his words.

Dear Brother Morrison, please do not lament and then sulk about the sorry disinformational state of Wikipedia (yes, we scurrilous disinfo types have wreaked our best havoc there, but I digress) for there are other sources you know, for example, this Scientolipedia entry which reproduces the verbatim and h:m:s time-stamped transcript of Ingo Swann’s famous “fly-by Jupiter” (by Jove!) including mild kibitzing remarks by Hal Puthoff who monitored the session back in 1973. (Scrolling about halfway down the page, its sub-heading is “Experiment 46”)

OT's and the History of Remote Viewing - Scientolipedia

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Dear Brother Morrison, please do not lament and then sulk about the sorry disinformational state of Wikipedia (yes, we scurrilous disinfo types have wreaked our best havoc there, but I digress) for there are other sources you know, for example, this Scientolipedia entry which reproduces the verbatim and h:m:s time-stamped transcript of Ingo Swann’s famous “fly-by Jupiter” (by Jove!) including mild kibitzing remarks by Hal Puthoff who monitored the session back in 1973. (Scrolling about halfway down the page, its sub-heading is “Experiment 46”)

OT's and the History of Remote Viewing - Scientolipedia

Okay, well that’s a weird page to cite, Padre Tomfortas. And before I move on, if you doubt that Wikipedia is overrun with operatives who have a clear agenda to discredit and purge anything and everything that the government considers to be sensitive information, then you’ve either never edited at Wikipedia, or if you did, you weren’t paying attention to the way the game is played there. In a similar manner, Google is effectively now a US intelligence asset, and I’m sure that facebook is as well. He who laughs does so at his own peril, and there’s ample evidence that this shit is really happening right now:

BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'

Wiki Thought Control: The CIA, The Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Encyclopedia | HuffPost

Julian Assange - Google Is Not What It Seems

(the original SourceFed video has vanished from YouTube, apparently: SourceFed )

Google's rigged search engine results (you can check this for yourself):


How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept, 2014

Leaked by Edward Snowden:
The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations - The Intercept

Now back to your source material. After the transcript of Ingo Swann “remote viewing” Jupiter (where he sounds like he’s on some good drugs, lol), I found this:

“Much of this operational data is still highly classified, however in an interview conducted by Tom Snyder on Joe McMoneagle one of the most gifted of INSCOM's remote viewers February 1st, 1996:

"Joe: One of the amazing things about remote viewing is the specific targets that they're probably most accurate with, are high energy type targets, or targets that have high energy chain state. And uh, nuclear material has that kind of energy. And historically we've always done very, very well with nuclear targets. So in this age of the attempts for venting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or the spread of nuclear material, remote viewing could provide a substantial help for that.

Tom: You say we've had remarkable success, could you give us an example of something that's come from remote imaging that's turned out to be truly useful information that has helped us in terms of our national security?

Joe: Oh sure, in one case we were targeting a building, that was a very large building in the northern part of the USSR. And, no one knew what was going on inside the building. And targeting that building, I drew out a drawing of a submarine, I described its uh (canad) tubes, how many tubes it had, a large flat area on the rear deck, described it as a large submarine, and it was a new Typhoon Class Submarine. We were able to predict when it was actually going to be rolled out of the building, and in that way they were able to target other collection systems.

Tom: And all this you did doing remote viewing?

Joe: Yes, from Virginia.(67)"

The inherent difficulty with RV or Remote Viewing is that it required objectivity and confirmation, although all the above examples given were amazingly correct.”

Huh, “all the above examples given were amazingly correct.” So are you trying to discredit my position, or provide evidence that supports it? Because I can’t tell anymore.

Anyway, here's how Ingo Swann compares the transcript of his session, to the subsequent scientific discoveries about Jupiter - pretty interesting: The Ingo Swann 1973 Remote Viewing probe of the planet Jupiter

And here's the drawing he made at the time, which does clearly indicate a proximal ring around Jupiter, which is contrasted with a drawing of Saturn: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f9/13/a7/f913a71c30151a058393cb95246b8fd2.gif