• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

UFO Design



USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
"According to Russian declassified records --- During a routine operation...a Russian submarine detected six unknown objects traveling in formation at speeds in excess of 230 knots (265+mph)."

Source: UFO expert calls for probe as declassified Russian files list horror 'alien' encounters
Interesting, but tabloids aren't usually the most reliable of sources. Still. It seems reasonable to believe that many accounts are sincere and difficult to explain given what we know now.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
There has been zero observational data demonstrating gravity nullification as an effect anywhere in the observable universe.
That statement is demonstrably false. We now know that in the vast distances between the galaxy clusters, the gravitational interaction between the galaxy clusters reaches zero at a given distance, and beyond that distance, there's a gravitational repulsion acting between galaxy clusters. As you know, this repulsive gravitational field which nullifies the positive gravitational field, and even drops into the negative regime, has been dubbed "dark energy."

So we don't just have empirical evidence for gravity nullification, we now have empirical proof of antigravity. The only remaining questions pertain to the physical nature of this effect, and whether such an effect could be exploited technologically. And given that we humans have managed to exploit every other field of nature for our purposes, the safe bet is that yes, one day we will learn to harness the dark energy effect. It may take centuries, or eons, but if we continue to progress scientifically, it's all but certain that we'll either harness the effect or synthesize it somehow.

I betcha a ET flying saucer starship, can easily slice through the ocean depths, like a hot knife through Normandy butter.
That seems to be a key feature of myriad reports - Carl Feindt has a useful website where he's collected reports involving UFO interactions with large bodies of water, and they seem to operate underwater nearly as adroitly as they operate in the atmosphere: WATER UFO - A RESEARCH ENDEAVOR
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
That statement is demonstrably false. We now know that in the vast distances between the galaxy clusters, the gravitational interaction between the galaxy clusters reaches zero at a given distance, and beyond that distance, there's a gravitational repulsion acting between galaxy clusters. As you know, this repulsive gravitational field which nullifies the positive gravitational field, and even drops into the negative regime, has been dubbed "dark energy."

So we don't just have empirical evidence for gravity nullification, we now have empirical proof of antigravity. The only remaining questions pertain to the physical nature of this effect, and whether such an effect could be exploited technologically. And given that we humans have managed to exploit every other field of nature for our purposes, the safe bet is that yes, one day we will learn to harness the dark energy effect. It may take centuries, or eons, but if we continue to progress scientifically, it's all but certain that we'll either harness the effect or synthesize it somehow.


That seems to be a key feature of myriad reports - Carl Feindt has a useful website where he's collected reports involving UFO interactions with large bodies of water, and they seem to operate underwater nearly as adroitly as they operate in the atmosphere: WATER UFO - A RESEARCH ENDEAVOR
Welcome back to the forum. It's my understanding that although vast distances reduce the effect of gravity, I know of no calculations that "reduce it to zero" no matter how far separated the masses are. Maybe it's more a matter of practical application? Can you provide a reference? I did a quick search but found no supporting evidence for that claim. Also, I'm not sure it's safe to assume that dark energy = antigravity. Perhaps to clarify we should define what we mean by antigravity.
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
Welcome back to the forum.
Thank you Randall. I had to jump in because people were quoting that false statement without challenging it, and that’s how misconceptions proliferate.

It's my understanding that although vast distances reduce the effect of gravity, I know of no calculations that "reduce it to zero" no matter how far separated the masses are. Maybe it's more a matter of practical application? Can you provide a reference? I did a quick search but found no supporting evidence for that claim. Also, I'm not sure it's safe to assume that dark energy = antigravity. Perhaps to clarify we should define what we mean by antigravity.
Academic physicists are still reluctant to use the word “antigravity” because the academic science community has been shitting on ufo witnesses who described AAVs as “antigravity craft” for so long that the stigma is nearly impossible to overcome at this point. So they couldn’t describe the antigravitational acceleration between the galaxy clusters as antigravity without jeopardizing their careers, and therefore they chose the term “dark energy” instead – that focuses the attention on the (unknown) source of the effect, rather than the effect itself (antigravity). You’ll also see a lot of talk in the literature about “repulsive gravity” and “negative gravitation,” which are just politically correct synonyms for “antigravity.” The stigma is slowly beginning to dissolve now, 20 years after the discovery of antigravity acting between the galaxy clusters.

Antigravity is simply the negative pole of the gravitational field; whereas positive gravity accelerates bodies of matter together, antigravity accelerates bodies of matter apart. That’s what’s happening to the galaxy clusters – they’re accelerating away from each other driven by a negative gravitational field, aka antigravity.

Cosmological gravity and antigravity.jpg

The negative pole of gravity has always been a feature of the equations of general relativity, but it was ignored, and usually ridiculed, apparently for no other reason than the obvious association between UFOs and antigravity. I'll explain. The principles of gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) are codified within the Einstein field equation – simply put, this means that all of the dynamical laws that operate on electrical charge have an analogy in the form of the gravitational charge. So for example, if we spin a ring of electrical charges around in a circular manner, we create a magnetic field. A perfectly analogous effect happens when you spin a ring of matter around in a circle; you create a gravitomagnetic field (this is also known as “frame dragging” and “the Lense-Thirring effect”). Now, if you accelerate electrical charges around the small axis of a toroidal inductor (a donut-shaped inductor), you produce a positive electrical field on one side of the inductor, and a negative electrical field on the other side of the inductor. In an analogous manner, if you accelerate matter (gravitational charges) in that same fashion, you produce a positive gravitational field on one side of the toroid, and a negative gravitational field on the other side. So the negative pole of the gravitational field is a fundamental and inescapable feature of gravitational physics, and it always has been. Robert L. Forward elucidated this fact back in 1963 when he wrote this paper, which the academic physics community ignored more or less completely because he used the taboo word “antigravity” in the title:

“Guidelines to Antigravity,” Robert L. Forward, American Journal of Physics, 1963
https://mlpol.net/vx/src/1510434945245-0.pdf

The now-proven dark energy effect, regardless of its source, is an antigravitational effect – that’s not in question. The galaxy clusters are being gravitationally accelerated away from each other. This means that as an observer recedes from any given galaxy cluster, the attractive acceleration of gravity diminishes slightly faster than the inverse square law, and reaches zero at a specific distance from the galaxy cluster (in other words, the dark energy effect nullifies the gravitational field of the galaxy cluster at that distance). And beyond that distance, an observer would be accelerated away from the galaxy cluster – in other words, an antigravitational field now exists between the observer and the galaxy cluster. And the farther the observer moves away from the galaxy cluster, the greater the gravitational acceleration away from it becomes. Here’s a small sample of the myriad citations about it:

“Such cosmological observations have indicated that the universe undergoes accelerated expansion during recent redshift times. This accelerating expansion has been attributed to a dark energy component with negative pressure which can induce repulsive gravity and thus cause accelerated expansion.”

“Comparison of cosmological models using recent supernova data,” S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, Physical Review D, 2004​

“Now a group of astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that billions of years before this mysterious antigravity overcame cosmic gravity and sent the galaxies scooting apart like muscle cars departing a tollbooth, it was already present in space, affecting the evolution of the cosmos.

‘We see it doing its thing, starting to fight against ordinary gravity,’ said Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute about the antigravity force, known as dark energy. He is the leader of a team of ‘dark energy prospectors,’ as he calls them, who peered back nine billion years with the Hubble and were able to discern the nascent effects of antigravity. The group reported their observations at a news conference today and in a paper to be published in The Astrophysical Journal.”

“Scientists Examine ‘Dark Energy’ of Antigravity,” Dennis Overbye, New York Times, 11/06/2006​

The astrophysicist quoted above, Adam Riess, won the Nobel Prize in 2011 for his co-discovery of dark energy, aka antigravity.

“The expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, and the mysterious anti-gravity agent of this acceleration has been called “dark energy”. To measure the dynamics of dark energy, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) can be used.”

“Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Intensity Mapping as a Test of Dark Energy,” Chang et al., Physical Review Letters, 2008​

“We have proposed that the dark energy and the recent cosmic acceleration can be the result of the existence of local antigravity sources associated with astrophysical matter configurations distributed throughout the universe.”

“A solution of the dark energy and its coincidence problem based on local antigravity sources without fine-tuning or new scales,” G. Kofinas and V. Zarikas, Physical Review D, 2018​
It’s probably worth mentioning that the Big Bang also appears to be a manifestation of antigravity. You’ll hear astrophysicists talk about “the exponential expansion of spacetime” during the cosmic inflation era, which is now the cornerstone of the Big Bang model. Nobody has been able to explain this dramatic rate of acceleration in the early universe, and cosmologists weakly suggest the existence of a new particle coined the “inflaton” to explain it. But cosmic inflation has all of the earmarks of antigravity. The Big Bang is poorly named because it wasn’t an actual explosion – it was the rapid expansion of spacetime itself, and that’s what antigravity is: it’s the metric expansion of spacetime. Just like the Hubble expansion.

So in retrospect it seems obvious that antigravity has been an essential feature of cosmic evolution from the very beginning, and astrophysicists are only slowly growing to accept that fact. Once the mainstream astrophysics community accepts that cosmic inflation, the Hubble expansion, and dark energy are all various manifestations of a single antigravitational field phenomenon, then I think we’ll finally be in a position to understand its operational principles and exploit them technologically, as so many of our unearthly visitors have clearly already done.
 
Last edited:

Erno86

Paranormal Maven
My hypothesis on U.F.O. design...is mainly based on fireball foo fighter sightings from the past --- including my own eyewitness nighttime sighting of one back in November of 1976.

Basically...it's a interstellar capable photon propulsion, micro-mini black hole ET starship, that has the ability to travel in the superluminal (ftl - faster than light) realm.

The micro mini black hole (about the size of a proton) is captured or manufactured, and safely installed in a stasis sphere, inside the center bottom hull of the saucer ship. The BH (black hole) creates it's on gravitational and magnetic fields surrounding the starship; that might give the ship anti-gravitational capabilities; because it mimics no rest mass.

A photon receptor or receptors are installed on the outside hull of starship. The receptor lens points towards a star studded field, and funnels the starlight photons to the BH. The photons are swept onto the accretion disc of the BH and eventually expelled to the BH's two polar jets. The polar jets are guided towards the thruster tubes an outlets, and expelled from the starship at or near the speed of light. Since the starship has the capability of constant acceleration from the photon fuel...it can increase it's speed --- exponentially squared --- to the speed of light barrier and beyond into the superluminal realm.
 
Last edited:

Erno86

Paranormal Maven
On explaining 90 degree turns an instant stops and starts: The photon receptor closes it's lens, thusly depriving the BH of it's photon fuel. The non integral upper hull rotates anywhere along it's 360 degree circle --- the receptor lenses reopen --- and the BH's polar jets are guided again into the thruster tubes and outlets that should give the starship multidirectional capabilities.

In places that lack starlight photon fuel...the saucer must be able to store a small or significant amount of seawater; that is injected between the two offboard magnetic shields. One shield compresses the deuterium loaded seawater against the other until the fusion reaction occurs; which provides ample photon plasma for the hungry BH. The starship is protected from neutron radiation caused by the fusion plasma reaction, with a small layer of seawater between the outer hull and the inner magnetic shield.
 
Last edited:

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
On explaining 90 degree turns an instant stops and starts: The photon receptor closes it's lens, thusly depriving the BH of it's photon fuel. The non integral upper hull rotates anywhere along it's 360 degree circle --- the receptor lenses reopen --- and the BH's polar jets are guided again into the thruster tubes and outlets that should give the starship multidirectional capabilities.

In places that lack starlight photon fuel...the saucer must be able to store a small or significant amount of seawater; that is injected between the two offboard magnetic shields. One shield compresses the deuterium loaded seawater against the other until the fusion reaction occurs; which provides ample photon plasma for the hungry BH. The starship is protected from neutron radiation caused by the fusion plasma reaction, with a small layer of seawater between the outer hull and the inner magnetic shield.
The physics of gravitational field propulsion explain all of the key performance characteristics of AAVs reported around the world for at least 70 years:
  • Silent hovering with no atmospheric turbulence or other form of reaction mass-energy below the craft
  • Dramatic instantaneous or at least virtually instantaneous accelerations
  • Hairpin accelerations at hypersonic velocities with no subjective g-forces
  • Transmedium travel between space, air and sea
  • Absence of sonic booms regardless of speed
  • Superluminal spaceflight without any time dilation effects
In fact, once a gravitational field propulsion system is charged, it requires no energy to accelerate the craft, because the craft doesn't technically acquire any momentum or energy - it simply distorts the field of spacetime to change position.

If you'd like to know more, you can read this thread: UFO propulsion, metric engineering, and horizon physics

Or you could simply start with this academic physics paper which covers the basic principles in the context of general relativity:

The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity,” Miguel Alcubierre, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 1994

Or you could read this much simpler paper which conveys the same basic ideas in the language of Newtonian physics:

Negative matter propulsion,” Robert L. Forward, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 1990

Both papers convey the central operational principle of these craft with equal physical validity, but theoretical physicists generally prefer the Alcubierre form of the concept because it's a bit more rigorous.
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Thank you Randall. I had to jump in because people were quoting that false statement without challenging it, and that’s how misconceptions proliferate ...
Interesting stuff. For those who are unfamiliar and want to skip the part where you try to determine whether electrogravitics and gravitoelectromagnetism ( GEM ) are the same thing, they're not. The former misrepresents the effect as antigravity, when in fact, it's ionic. However in reviewing a number of other articles it seems that gravitoelectromagnetism is being conflated with electrogravitics, so caution is advised there. GEM itself appears to be a serious area of scientific study. But there are some issues to consider.

The first issue is what is meant by the term "antigravity". If we're talking about a force ( any force ) that counters gravity, then airplanes and balloons also work on antigravity. So there remains the question of what exactly it is we're referring to when we say 'antigravity'. GEM doesn't really refer to anything concrete. According to the literature and scientific papers, it is an analogy that attempts to describe gravitational effects similar to the way EM effects are described. We know EM is associated with particle physics by way of the electron and positron, but those particles alone don't explain gravity. A graviton has been theorized, but none have been found.

The alleged discovery of the Higgs Boson remains controversial, and contrary to what is often assumed, it isn't the 'cause' of gravity. Rather it's theorized to impart mass, which is related mathematically to the presence of gravity. Essentially what we're still dealing with is a "fundamental force of nature", meaning nobody knows exactly what gravity is composed of ( if anything ). It just exists as a phenomenon of nature that is described ( as opposed to explained ) by mathematical models that outline it's relationship to other things, particularly massive objects.

On the idea that gravitation has a limited range, there is a difference between the claim that gravitation has a limited range, and it being cancelled out by some unknown opposing force, be it dark matter or 'actual' antigravity ( whatever that is ), and the illustration in your post makes that readily apparent. Great post. You always make me think! Here's another paper you might find relevant:

Gravitoelectromagnetism: Basic principles, novel approaches and their application to Electromagnetism ( PDF - 2016 )
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
On explaining 90 degree turns an instant stops and starts: The photon receptor closes it's lens, thusly depriving the BH of it's photon fuel. The non integral upper hull rotates anywhere along it's 360 degree circle --- the receptor lenses reopen --- and the BH's polar jets are guided again into the thruster tubes and outlets that should give the starship multidirectional capabilities.

In places that lack starlight photon fuel...the saucer must be able to store a small or significant amount of seawater; that is injected between the two offboard magnetic shields. One shield compresses the deuterium loaded seawater against the other until the fusion reaction occurs; which provides ample photon plasma for the hungry BH. The starship is protected from neutron radiation caused by the fusion plasma reaction, with a small layer of seawater between the outer hull and the inner magnetic shield.
It all sounds very scientifical ;) .
 

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
Interesting stuff.
I’m glad you feel that way; gravitational physics is fascinating stuff – we’ve barely scratched the surface here. When you get into the really interesting facets of this subject, it sounds like magic – the applications of a gravitational field technology are that dazzling and unfamiliar to most people. I hope we live to see some of them, as unlikely as that may be.

For those who are unfamiliar and want to skip the part where you try to determine whether electrogravitics and gravitoelectromagnetism ( GEM ) are the same thing, they're not. The former misrepresents the effect as antigravity, when in fact, it's ionic. However in reviewing a number of other articles it seems that gravitoelectromagnetism is being conflated with electrogravitics, so caution is advised there. GEM itself appears to be a serious area of scientific study.
Actually “electrogravitics” has nothing to do with ion wind – people who are awful at physics have simply misapplied that term to those lifter thingies.

The term electrogravitics refers to the idea that there might be some way to create significant gravitational field effects using some application of electrical charges – as far as we know, that’s never been achieved. And it may turn out that this is the wrong approach to produce a viable gravitational field technology: at this point we just don’t know. However, the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor of general relativity does describe the gravitational field induced by electromagnetic fields, so we do know that they're connected. And it does appear that AAVs employ some kind of artificially produced gravitational field to produce lift and dramatic accelerations, so some kind of advanced application involving electromagnetic fields and perhaps very specialized materials, interacting in some way, might explain how these devices can do what they do.

The first issue is what is meant by the term "antigravity". If we're talking about a force ( any force ) that counters gravity, then airplanes and balloons also work on antigravity.
That’s not what physicists mean by “antigravity.” The term simply refers to the negative pole of the gravitational field, which is dipolar, just like the electrical field. Ordinary matter has a positive gravitational charge, so it’s attracted to the Earth. If you could endow a body of matter with a negative gravitational charge, it would fall away from the Earth as readily as ordinary matter falls toward the Earth. We simply haven’t figured out how to do that yet. But I assume that one day, we will, because AAVs exhibit that capability all over world - and if they can do it, then we can figure out how to do it too, eventually.

I should also mention that gravity isn’t a force; it’s an acceleration. That’s a fundamental difference. If gravity were a force, then heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects. That doesn’t happen because gravity is an acceleration field, not a force field like the electrical field is.

GEM doesn't really refer to anything concrete.
That’s not true – it’s every bit as concrete and well-defined and empirically confirmed as electrodynamics.

According to the literature and scientific papers, it is an analogy that attempts to describe gravitational effects similar to the way EM effects are described.
It doesn’t attempt to do that; it actually does that. GEM is established and well-understood mainstream physics, and its many different varieties of predictions have been observationally confirmed – most recently gravitational waves, but lots of other astronomical observations have confirmed it for a long time, and experiments like the Gravity Probe B have also confirmed it.

It's really fascinating to study it, and to see the direct corrections between electrical inductive phenomena, and gravitational inductive phenomena.

We know EM is associated with particle physics by way of the electron and positron, but those particles alone don't explain gravity. A graviton has been theorized, but none have been found.
This is a little bit mixed up. The nature of the electrical field is as much a mystery as the underlying nature of the gravitational field; we have very accurate mathematical models that describe how both of these fields work in practice, but we don’t have much insight into their fundamental natures. I should also probably mention that it may turn out that antimatter has a negative gravitational charge - we don't know the answer to that question yet. They've been trying to measure the gravitational interaction of antimatter for decades, but it's very hard to do, so we haven't seen any meaningful experimental results yet. I'm dying to see what they find; we may see some results in the next few years. It would be so cool if positrons and antiprotons fall upward in the Earth's gravitational field :)

Anyway, we can describe electrical field interactions as the result of virtual photon interactions, and that works well, but we don’t really know what the electrical field is; we only know what it does. The same is true of gravity. And we suppose that the gravitational field will be modeled using gravitons, analogous to the way that photons mediate the electromagnetic field, but even that won’t explain the field itself, namely: how does mass-energy curve the metric of spacetime?” We can quantify it, but we don’t understand the mechanism. Maybe we never will – maybe we’ll never have to: after all, we exploit electromagnetism very effectively without understanding the nature of the electrical charge, so the same may be true of gravity.

And let's not argue about the metric curvature of spacetime again - it's a tedious and pointless argument. And you really need to read this before we can have a meaningful, symmetric debate on the subject:

The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014

The alleged discovery of the Higgs Boson remains controversial
No that's not true - the Higgs boson was detected to a statistical certainty of 5-sigma back in 2012, and that's the standard for a scientific discovery. I don't think that any 5-sigma particle signal has ever turned out to be an error. In fact they're even detecting the Higgs boson decaying into bottom quarks now. There's always a handful of contrarians willing to dispute anything under the Sun - like the crappy scientists who get paid to lie about the global warming crisis, but that doesn't mean that there's any actual scientific controversy about it. I know that you like to argue about the validity of the Higgs boson discovery, but it only makes you come off as a crank: you should stop.

Essentially what we're still dealing with is a "fundamental force of nature", meaning nobody knows exactly what gravity is composed of ( if anything ). It just exists as a phenomenon of nature that is described ( as opposed to explained ) by mathematical models that outline it's relationship to other things, particularly massive objects.
Sure but like I said above, the same can be said of the electrical field - our equations only describe it, they don't explain it. But that didn't stop us from inventing smartphones or the internet. A description is perfectly useful in lieu of an explanation, which may turn out to be more of a philosophical concern than a scientific one.

On the idea that gravitation has a limited range, there is a difference between the claim that gravitation has a limited range, and it being cancelled out by some unknown opposing force, be it dark matter energy [fixed] or 'actual' antigravity ( whatever that is ), and the illustration in your post makes that readily apparent.
We know that it's not a question about gravity having a limited range, because beyond the point of null gravity, the field becomes repulsive, and accelerates the galaxy clusters apart. If it were simply an issue of limited range, there wouldn't be any cosmological acceleration. But there is, so we know that the gravitational field is being actively counteracted by an antigravitational field at those distances (oddly, spacetime itself appears to be the source of that antigravitational field effect - but I won't feel confident about that until we see the results of the Dark Energy Survey after the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope collects data for a few years).

I'm glad that illustration was useful. As you can see, "dark energy" is synonymous with "antigravity." We don't yet understand the cause of this antigravitational field, which is why astrophysicists gave it the placeholder nickname "dark energy," but there is an antigravitational field; that's not in dispute.

I'm glad we could get the neurons firing with this discussion - it is an amazing subject, and there's so much to learn about it. It's been pretty thrilling to see our understanding of these things make a few big strides just in our lifetimes alone. Back when we were kids, mainstream scientists laughed at the notion of antigravity - now it's a proven fact, and a few brave theorists are even starting to use the term in academic papers being published in the most reputable physics journal on the planet. And just in the last 20 years or so, GEM has gone from an obscure area of physics known by only specialists in general relativity, to now being a prominent feature of gravitational field physics that's taught at the undergrad level.

Maybe with a little luck, we'll live to see the first gravitational effects being produced in the lab. Exciting times ahead.
 
Last edited:

Erno86

Paranormal Maven
Why no sonic booms heard or detected from supersonic or hypersonic ET foo fighters in flight?

My take on this issue...is that the magnetically contained plasma, that surrounds the starship, simply absorbs or dissipates the pressure shock waves that create a sonic boom.

Why do these fiery balled foo fighters, when they land, not cause massive forest or grass fires?

Why the different lighted color types of foo fighters in flight? Is it because of the different power requirements required for sustained flight including landings & takeoffs?
 
Last edited:

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
Why no sonic booms heard or detected from supersonic or hypersonic ET foo fighters in flight?

My take on this issue...is that the magnetically contained plasma, that surrounds the starship, simply absorbs or dissipates the pressure shock waves that create a sonic boom.

Why do these fiery balled foo fighters, when they land, not cause massive forest or grass fires?

Why the different lighted color types of foo fighters in flight? Is it because of the different power requirements required for sustained flight including landings & takeoffs?
Paul Hill, a NASA aeronautical engineer, spent years quietly researching the AAV phenomenon, and his book, Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis, was published after his death. This page summarizes his findings with regard to the notable absence of sonic booms in supersonic AAV reports:

“In an effort to examine the force-field propulsion hypothesis yet further, Hill analyzed a number of cases involving near-field interactions with an apparent craft in which some form of force was in evidence. These include examples in which a person or vehicle was affected, tree branches were parted or broken, roof tiles were dislodged, objects were deflected and ground or water were disturbed. Under close analysis the subtleties of these interactions combine to point unequivocally to a repulsive force field surrounding the craft, while discriminating against propulsion mechanisms involving jet action, pure electric or magnetic effects, or the emission of energetic particles or radiation (although the latter may accompany the propulsive mechanism as a secondary effect). Further detailed investigation indicates that the particular form of force field propulsion that satisfied observational constraints is what Hill labels a directed acceleration field; that is, a field that is, in general, gravitational-like in nature, and, in particular, gravity-canceling.3 Such a field acts on all masses in its sphere of influence as does a gravitational field. Corollary to this conclusion is that observed accelerations ~100g relative to the environment could be sustained without on-board high-g forces.

One of the consequences of the above identification of field propulsion type by Hill is his conclusion, supported by detailed calculation, computer simulation and wind-tunnel studies, that supersonic flight through the atmosphere without sonic booms is easily engineered. Manipulation of the acceleration-type force field would, even at supersonic speeds, result in a constant-pressure, compression-free zone without shockwave in which the vehicle is surrounded by a subsonic flow-pattern of streamlines, and subsonic velocity ratios. An additional benefit of such field control is that drops of moisture, rain, dust, insects, or other low-velocity objects would follow streamline paths around the craft rather than impact it.”
UFO physics, UFO propulsion, technology

I assume that AAVs don't start fires when they crash because they're not actually hot - there are number of possible explanations for why they often glow. For example, our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, and nitrogen glows when stimulated with a high-frequency electrical field.
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
I’m glad you feel that way; gravitational physics is fascinating stuff – we’ve barely scratched the surface here. When you get into the really interesting facets of this subject, it sounds like magic – the applications of a gravitational field technology are that dazzling and unfamiliar to most people. I hope we live to see some of them, as unlikely as that may be.
I'm all for living as long as possible just to see what sort of amazing things the future will bring.
Actually “electrogravitics” has nothing to do with ion wind – people who are awful at physics have simply misapplied that term to those lifter thingies.
It's a matter of usage and context - To clarify: "Electrogravitics is claimed to be an unconventional type of effect or anti-gravity force created by an electric field's effect on a mass. The name was coined in the 1920s by the discoverer of the effect, Thomas Townsend Brown, who spent most of his life trying to develop it and sell it as a propulsion system. Through Brown's promotion of the idea it was researched for a short while by aerospace companies in the 1950s. Since apparatus based on Browns' ideas have often yielded varying and highly controversial results when tested within controlled vacuum conditions, the effect observed has often been attributed to the ion drift or ion wind effect instead of anti-gravity." - Wikipedia
That’s not what physicists mean by “antigravity.”
It depends on what physicists you're talking about and what theory they're talking about, and there are more than one of both.
I should also mention that gravity isn’t a force; it’s an acceleration. That’s a fundamental difference. If gravity were a force, then heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects. That doesn’t happen because gravity is an acceleration field, not a force field like the electrical field is.
You seem to be conflating the issue of what gravity is with the way it's measured and described: Britannica - Gravity, also called gravitation, in mechanics, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter. It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter ... Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects ...
That’s not true – it’s every bit as concrete and well-defined and empirically confirmed as electrodynamics.
That's not the context of the word "concrete" my comment was made in. By it's very nature any analogy isn't the thing itself, and in this case ( GEM ) is an analogy between gravitation and EM. However we still don't know what imparts gravity or any of the fundamental forces of nature onto nature. They simply exist and are associated with scientific models that describe ( not to be confused with explain ) the behavior of measurable things like bodies in space which are concrete. In other words a planet is something concrete. Gravity is associated with planets, but the two are distinctly different concepts.
It doesn’t attempt to do that; it actually does that. GEM is established and well-understood mainstream physics, and its many different varieties of predictions have been observationally confirmed – most recently gravitational waves, but lots of other astronomical observations have confirmed it for a long time, and experiments like the Gravity Probe B have also confirmed it.
By "attempt", I mean that there are inconsistencies in the gravito-electromagnetic analogy and that while the analogy is interesting, believing it to be perfect would seem to be an overestimation, while believing it to be unremarkable would be underestimating it. Here's a reference - http://cds.cern.ch/record/681993/files/0311024.pdf
This is a little bit mixed up.
While your follow-up is accurate, I think the term "mixed-up" isn't. It's more likely that the interpretation of what is said doesn't fit with the assumptions made in the discussion. In other words, it seems to me that the objections you make and attribute to the other person being wrong, stating something untrue, or being misinformed, may not have anything to do with those reasons, but are due to differing perspectives on the same issue, each of which may be valid within their own right, but seemingly incongrunent with each other. The challenge then isn't to prove either person is wrong or right or misinformed, but to bridge the conceptual gaps.
And let's not argue about the metric curvature of spacetime again - it's a tedious and pointless argument. And you really need to read this before we can have a meaningful, symmetric debate on the subject:
The discussion about the concept of spacetime is another example of what I was just saying above.
No that's not true - the Higgs boson was detected to a statistical certainty of 5-sigma back in 2012, and that's the standard for a scientific discovery. I don't think that any 5-sigma particle signal has ever turned out to be an error. In fact they're even detecting the Higgs boson decaying into bottom quarks now. There's always a handful of contrarians willing to dispute anything under the Sun - like the crappy scientists who get paid to lie about the global warming crisis, but that doesn't mean that there's any actual scientific controversy about it. I know that you like to argue about the validity of the Higgs boson discovery, but it only makes you come off as a crank: you should stop.
There you go again. I simply said that the discovery is controversial. I didn't specify exactly how it's controversial because I don't have time to write pages and pages of logical analysis on the reasons along with all the related citations, but essentially it boils down to what appears to be a lot of fudging by the scientists who claim the Higgs has been found. By fudging, I mean that it wasn't actually "detected". Rather it's been "inferred", mainly by statistical analysis of something presumed to be the decay of the Higgs Boson into bottom quarks, and that the variables for defining the Higgs Boson, particularly its mass aren't anything close to what has actually been measured. Therefore because the results of experiments don't match the predictions, what justifies the assumption that what was predicted has actually been found? This is a perfectly valid question. Here are some links that might help:

- https://wwwf.imperial.ac.uk/~dvandyk/Research/14-reviews-higgs.pdf
- The 7 biggest unanswered questions in physics
- The incredible lightness of the Higgs | CERN

None of these articles appear to be by "cranks" and IMO it's perfectly reasonable given the situation to agree with others about the controversy over the issue. Simply writing it off with epithets isn't the kind of discussion that gets us anywhere. So maybe rather than suggesting I stop talking about it, you might try another approach.
 
Last edited:

Erno86

Paranormal Maven
Paul Hill, a NASA aeronautical engineer, spent years quietly researching the AAV phenomenon, and his book, Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis, was published after his death. This page summarizes his findings with regard to the notable absence of sonic booms in supersonic AAV reports:

“In an effort to examine the force-field propulsion hypothesis yet further, Hill analyzed a number of cases involving near-field interactions with an apparent craft in which some form of force was in evidence. These include examples in which a person or vehicle was affected, tree branches were parted or broken, roof tiles were dislodged, objects were deflected and ground or water were disturbed. Under close analysis the subtleties of these interactions combine to point unequivocally to a repulsive force field surrounding the craft, while discriminating against propulsion mechanisms involving jet action, pure electric or magnetic effects, or the emission of energetic particles or radiation (although the latter may accompany the propulsive mechanism as a secondary effect). Further detailed investigation indicates that the particular form of force field propulsion that satisfied observational constraints is what Hill labels a directed acceleration field; that is, a field that is, in general, gravitational-like in nature, and, in particular, gravity-canceling.3 Such a field acts on all masses in its sphere of influence as does a gravitational field. Corollary to this conclusion is that observed accelerations ~100g relative to the environment could be sustained without on-board high-g forces.

One of the consequences of the above identification of field propulsion type by Hill is his conclusion, supported by detailed calculation, computer simulation and wind-tunnel studies, that supersonic flight through the atmosphere without sonic booms is easily engineered. Manipulation of the acceleration-type force field would, even at supersonic speeds, result in a constant-pressure, compression-free zone without shockwave in which the vehicle is surrounded by a subsonic flow-pattern of streamlines, and subsonic velocity ratios. An additional benefit of such field control is that drops of moisture, rain, dust, insects, or other low-velocity objects would follow streamline paths around the craft rather than impact it.”
UFO physics, UFO propulsion, technology

I assume that AAVs don't start fires when they crash because they're not actually hot - there are number of possible explanations for why they often glow. For example, our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, and nitrogen glows when stimulated with a high-frequency electrical field.
"NASA CHAT - Taking the 'Boom' Out of Booms"

"Burin: Is there any chance a laser or plasma beam could be appended to the nosecone of a plane to help pierce the atmosphere and prevent the pressure wave from even forming?

Ed: Yes, plasma would change the gas constant of the air, potentially reducing the sonic boom. Unfortunately a small powerplant would be needed to generate that plasma."

Source: NASA Chat: Taking the "Boom" Out of Booms
 
Last edited:

Erno86

Paranormal Maven
The fusion plasma...surrounding the ET starship, can be used as a plasma radar stealth process.

"Plasma Stealth - Defence Aviation"

"Plasma stealth is a proposed process that uses ionized gas (plasma) to reduce the radar cross section of an aircraft."

Source: Plasma Stealth
 
Last edited:

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
I'm all for living as long as possible just to see what sort of amazing things the future will bring.
Wouldn’t it be nice if our governments invested even half the money that we spend on killing strangers abroad, on improving the quality and longevity of human life? I wonder what we could accomplish if life extension were an actual priority.

It's a matter of usage and context - To clarify: "Electrogravitics is claimed to be an unconventional type of effect or anti-gravity force created by an electric field's effect on a mass.
That part’s correct.

The name was coined in the 1920s by the discoverer of the effect, Thomas Townsend Brown, who spent most of his life trying to develop it and sell it as a propulsion system. Through Brown's promotion of the idea it was researched for a short while by aerospace companies in the 1950s. Since apparatus based on Browns' ideas have often yielded varying and highly controversial results when tested within controlled vacuum conditions, the effect observed has often been attributed to the ion drift or ion wind effect instead of anti-gravity." - Wikipedia
Another example of Wikipedia’s shitty limitations, given that it’s edited by anonymous people who tend to be wrong on everything that’s even slightly on the fringe of mainstream knowledge.

The term “electrogravitics” grew and spread significantly throughout the 40s, 50s, and 60s, and it was understood to mean "any electrical method of manipulating the gravitational field and/or producing an antigravitational effect" – as such, it was widely regarded as an unrealized scientific ambition, not an achieved technology.

Only since the lifter thingies became popular for a brief time in the first years of the 21st Century, did the term suddenly (and wrongly) come to refer to ion wind effects, which were originally explored by T. Townsend Brown.

For some reason that remains unclear, people got completely mixed up about the real origin of the term “electrogravitics” – this term arose in association with a different T. Townsend Brown device, British patent #300,311, called a “cellular gravitator,” which appears to be little more than a heavily insulated stack capacitor. Brown had claimed in this patent that this device produced a directional gravitational thrust when electrically charged. Oddly, I’ve never seen any credible experiments with this cellular gravitator concept, but Mark McCandlish bases his design on this concept. Note that this device doesn’t even have a superficial similarity to the ion wind devices that Brown experimented with decades later at Bahnson Labs, so the term electrogravitics predated the ion wind effect, and originally referred to a completely different type of research. You can still find lots of references to “electrogravitics” in publications and radio interviews throughout the 50s and 60s, and it was always used to describe electrical approaches to producing gravitational field propulsion and possible explanations of UFO antigravity.

It depends on what physicists you're talking about and what theory they're talking about, and there are more than one of both.
Physicists don’t mistake the ion wind effect for electrogravitics – but a large number of online amateur UFO enthusiasts made that error about 15 years ago, so now it’s all over the damn internet, further confusing an already confusing subject.

You seem to be conflating the issue of what gravity is with the way it's measured and described: Britannica - Gravity, also called gravitation, in mechanics, the universal force of attraction acting between all matter. It is by far the weakest known force in nature and thus plays no role in determining the internal properties of everyday matter ... Gravity is measured by the acceleration that it gives to freely falling objects ...
It’s no wonder that the public is by and large scientifically illiterate when even the encyclopedias can’t get the basic facts straight. Gravitation is an acceleration field, not a force field. The weight we measure on a scale (our mass x the acceleration of gravity) is a force, and gravity was called a force in Newtonian physics for centuries, but we now understand that it’s an acceleration field, not a force field. That’s why photons, which have zero mass, are accelerated around the Sun by the gravitational field by twice the magnitude predicted by Newtonian physics.

That's not the context of the word "concrete" my comment was made in. By it's very nature any analogy isn't the thing itself, and in this case ( GEM ) is an analogy between gravitation and EM.
I explicitly stated that it’s an analogy, so I don’t know what you’re complaining about. Gravitoelectromagnetism is a verified field of physics which makes explicit predictions about the gravitomagnetic field (aka frame dragging aka the Lense-Thirring effect) and a variety of inductive gravitational field effects, which are analogous to the full range of inductive electromagnetic effects. Both are real, concrete, well-formulated and observationally verified areas of physics. The linearized approximation is only that - an approximation which is only reasonably numerically accurate in the weak field and low-velocity limit. The fully correct predictions of gravitoelectromagnetic field dynamics are expressed with the Einstein field equation.

By "attempt", I mean that there are inconsistencies in the gravito-electromagnetic analogy and that while the analogy is interesting, believing it to be perfect would seem to be an overestimation, while believing it to be unremarkable would be underestimating it. Here's a reference - http://cds.cern.ch/record/681993/files/0311024.pdf
Oh ffs – I said: “A perfectly analogous effect happens when you spin a ring of matter around in a circle; you create a gravitomagnetic field (this is also known as “frame dragging” and “the Lense-Thirring effect”).” I didn’t say that GEM is a perfect analogy to EM overall. GR is nonlinear, for example, so the inductive GEM effects actually intensify logarithmically in the strong-field and high-velocity regime. And of course quantum effects are outside the scope of the analogy, because quantum phenomena like the Meissner effect are not inductive in nature.

"NASA CHAT - Taking the 'Boom' Out of Booms"

"Burin: Is there any chance a laser or plasma beam could be appended to the nosecone of a plane to help pierce the atmosphere and prevent the pressure wave from even forming?

Ed: Yes, plasma would change the gas constant of the air, potentially reducing the sonic boom. Unfortunately a small powerplant would be needed to generate that plasma."

Source: NASA Chat: Taking the "Boom" Out of Booms
The fusion plasma...surrounding the ET starship, can be used as a plasma radar stealth process.

"Plasma Stealth - Defence Aviation"

"Plasma stealth is a proposed process that uses ionized gas (plasma) to reduce the radar cross section of an aircraft."

Source: Plasma Stealth
Sure, plasma can bend radar signals around a craft. And a powerful laser beam could create an aerodynamic buffer against sonic booms. But nobody has reported powerful laser beams setting the air on fire in front of AAVs so evidently that’s not the method they’re using.
 
Last edited:

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Wouldn’t it be nice if our governments invested even half the money that we spend on killing strangers abroad, on improving the quality and longevity of human life? I wonder what we could accomplish if life extension were an actual priority.
Absolutely.
Another example of Wikipedia’s shitty limitations ... It’s no wonder that the public is by and large scientifically illiterate when even the encyclopedias can’t get the basic facts straight.
A convincing argument doesn't simply criticize and dismiss references. Reasonable counterpoint requires that the content of references be shown to be inaccurate. This can be done by providing a coherent logical analysis of your own, or by making reference to more substantial references than the references in dispute that can be shown to contradict the claims made by the references in dispute.

In the case of Wikipedia, there are references to sources, and those sources are in some cases well known and accepted. In other cases they are less reliable, but either way, if you choose to dispute a reference, then the above still applies.

In the case of the Britannica reference, the article was written by two professors of physics at Montana State University. Therefore a successful counterpoint to that content requires something more substantial than declarations of their incompetency, and BTW, there are dozens more similar descriptions out their for what gravity is and how it's measured that agree with them.

So rather than wasting our time on that, perhaps it might be better to simply accept that the equivalency principle is a way of looking at gravity as equivalent to acceleration, but that the two concepts are fundamentally very different. So when you say, "I should also mention that gravity isn’t a force; it’s an acceleration." That can be true in the context of how it's measured in keeping with the equivalency principle, but not in the case of the fundamental force known as gravity.

The logical truth of this is that a non-accelerating massive object still has gravity, therefore if gravity exists in the absence of acceleration, acceleration cannot be gravity. Numerous examples of this are evident in everyday life. When you accelerate in your car, you are not pushed back into your seat by gravity. Acceleration is a constant change in velocity. Gravity has nothing to do with it other than by way of the equivalency principle which draws a comparison between the effects of gravity and the effects of acceleration within arbitrary frames of reference.

For the math geeks out there, you might find this paper worthwhile: Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the general Theory of Relativity
 
Last edited:

Thomas R Morrison

Paranormal Adept
A convincing argument doesn't simply criticize and dismiss references. Reasonable counterpoint requires that the content of references be shown to be inaccurate. This can be done by providing a coherent logical analysis of your own, or by making reference to more substantial references than the references in dispute that can be shown to contradict the claims made by the references in dispute.
Here you go:

“So, what good is this geodesic description of the force of gravity? Can't we just think of gravity as a force and be done with it?

It turns out that there are two cases where this description of the effect of gravity gives vastly different results compared to the concept of gravity as a force. The first is for objects moving very very fast, close to the speed of light. Newtonian gravity doesn't correctly account for the effect of the energy of the object in this case. A particularly important example is for exactly massless particles, such as photons (light). One of the first experimental confirmations of general relativity was that light can be deflected by a mass, such as the sun.”
If gravity isn't a force, how does it accelerate objects? (Advanced) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

“Since then, general relativity has been acknowledged as the theory that best explains gravity. In GR, gravitation is not viewed as a force, but rather, objects moving freely in gravitational fields travel under their own inertia in straight lines through curved space-time – defined as the shortest space-time path between two space-time events.”
Fundamental Physics/Force/Gravity Force - Wikiversity

“In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line. If you draw a line on a sheet of paper, and then twist or bend the paper, the line will no longer appear straight. In the same way, the straight path of an object is bent when space and time is bent. This explains why all objects fall at the same rate. The gravity warps spacetime in a particular way, so the straight paths of all objects are bent in the same way near the Earth.”
How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force - Universe Today

You’ll see people talking about “the force of gravity” all over the place, but it’s a misnomer. Here in the post-Newtonian world of physics, gravitation is understood to be an acceleration field, not a force field, but old habits die hard and it’s easier to say “force of gravity” than “the acceleration field of gravity,” so it’ll probably never completely go away.

The logical truth of this is that a non-accelerating massive object still has gravity, therefore if gravity exists in the absence of acceleration, acceleration cannot be gravity. Numerous examples of this are evident in everyday life. When you accelerate in your car, you are not pushed back into your seat by gravity. Acceleration is a constant change in velocity. Gravity has nothing to do with it other than by way of the equivalency principle which draws a comparison between the effects of gravity and the effects of acceleration within arbitrary frames of reference.
No – the equivalence principle is not simply a comparison between gravitation and an accelerated reference frame, it’s a true equivalence, and that equivalence is a fundamental postulate of general relativity. That’s why gravity is called an acceleration field: an observer at a point in spacetime cannot distinguish between an acceleration produced by the curvature of spacetime, and an acceleration of the observer’s reference frame. Even Wikipedia gets it right occasionally:

“The equivalence principle was properly introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body that would be observed on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g. Einstein stated it thus:

we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.
— Einstein, 1907

That is, being on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines.”
Equivalence principle - Wikipedia

Anyway this has all gone off-topic, and debating basic undergrad physics concepts is a boring, tedious, and thankless chore. I’m done here.
 



Top