UFO propulsion, metric engineering, and horizon physics

[Realm]

If you listen to Realm he'll have you believe that there are no mysteries in the universe, nothing remains undiscovered, and every effort underway to expand the leading edge of theoretical development with an eye toward future applications, is nothing more than hopelessly misled pseudoscientific technobabble. That seems to be his sole purpose in life.

Thanks for making it crystal clear that you are selling a pseudo-scientific belief system here, not science, which is evident from how you once again defend it like religious beliefs, instead of even trying to answer to the actual arguments and information I have given. As is typical for debates with pseudo-scientists, you just try to insult your opponents and distort their views.

As for mysteries, science is full of genuine mysteries (like the true nature of dark matter and energy) and fascinating possibilities (like the existence of multiverse, and yes, aliens as well) that actually have a good chance of being true. What you are trying to sell instead are misguided and mispresented ideas that are bound to lead to disappointments and damaging public perception of science.

And he's pretty good at it - if I didn't know that he was talking out of his ass half the time, I'd fall for it too.

If I'm "talking out of my ass half the time", you shouldn't have such a hard time showing where. But instead, throughout the conversation, I have actually shown (with references and all) where you have gone wrong.

But the truth is, he overreaches constantly in his obsessive efforts to disparage any and all avenues toward real scientific progress.

Here's a reminder how you for example tried to defend the pseudo-science of remote viewing:

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 here's how you tried to defend that with some sort of quantum mysticism, just a few messages after you had criticised quantum mysticism:

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.

After I (and Hollywood Tomfortas) showed how various sources tell how "psychic" Ingo Swann actually got it all wrong, you appealed to yet another remote viewer (Joseph McMoneagle) and disparaged Wikipedia as follows:

Wikipedia is thoroughly infiltrated with disinformation agents

Was that you selling "leading edge of theoretical development" and "real scientific progress" by all those "psychics", scientologists and co-creators of remote-viewing pseudo-science?

For example, he has no understanding of general relativity or the stress-energy tensor, because if he did, he'd understand that mass is a variable in GR, and it's well-accepted that pressure (mechanical and electromagnetic and nuclear and gravitaitonal) alters the mass of a body: positive pressure increases mass, negative pressure (tension) decreases mass. Every time a chemical bond forms, or atomic nuclei fuse, or a gravitating body captures another body, the net mass of the particles/bodies involved in the reaction drops because of this simple underlying fundamental physical principle - so anyone who argues against it is only betraying their own ignorance of physics. He doesn't understand that we're not talking about new physics here, we're simply talking about new ways to utilize existing physical principles, because he doesn't understand physics at all.

So instead of actually being able to show something I got wrong in my actual arguments, the best you could build were straw men?

This subject has nothing to do with Podolskiy's research on waveguides

Oh really? Except that it was clearly the research Puthoff was pointing to and his ideas (according to you) that were based on that have been at the center of this conversation for quite some time now.

I'm sorry but it really is quite absurd how you are basically debating against yourself here. Here's what you originally said about that piece of metal LMH brough to Puthoff:

Look at that rubbish. How could anyone think that's a piece of recovered alien tech. Smh.

Then after I reminded you about Puthoff's role:

LMH's buddy Puthoff seems to have taken it seriously... So I guess there's your anyone...

You went into this sort of fanboy mode:

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.

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.

Now after I pointed out the research Puthoff actually found, which so impressed you, you are claiming it has nothing to do with the subject. I get it, you worship Puthoff, but the way you do it doesn't really make much sense.

(where he's not even considering any potential applications with the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor)

You really love that word, tensor, don't you? Is it because you know that for much of the audience it's a technical term they don't understand, so it obfuscates and unnecessarily complicates the discussion to the extent that you can for example easily represent addition of electromagnetic field energy as if it was about the same as anti-gravity? And suddenly maglev is an anti-gravity device.

Podletnov's bogus "gravity shielding" (aka "gravity mirror") claim that appears in his incredibly lame Quora citation (just look at the author of that quote - Quora is even less reliable than Wikipedia because anyone can post anything there, and they're often wrong and/or highly biased), and this has absolutely nothing to do with the reaction force that he mistakenly conflated with the mass reduction permitted by general relativity, in his dumb and inappropriate rocket analogy.

So you are picking parts that were not part of my citation to make a point that what wasn't even being presented has nothing to do with the conversation, just like that aforementioned research that actually is quite central to it. Nice.

He simply doesn't know the difference between science and pseudoscience, so he dismisses everything that he doesn't understand as pseudoscience, and then cites unrelated false claims or irrelevant information in a flailing effort to discredit potentially legitimate and interesting strategies for future research.

Sure, you know it better, like in this example, where you made the actual scientific Einstein-Cartan theory just "a form of" pseudo-scientific torsion field theories:

But there is a form of torsion field theory called Einstein-Cartan theory

The reality being:

-The torsion field theory was conceived in the Soviet Union by a group of physicists in the 1980s and was loosely based on Einstein-Cartan theory

Torsion field (pseudoscience) - Wikipedia

Oh sorry, that was Wikipedia again, so that was obviously written by idiots who are part of some conspiracy or something.

Also remember that I don't make any claims of being an expert, but you certainly try to make yourself as one. For some reason the contents of your posts seem to tell a bit different story. Like how you basically had two materials to choose from for propagating those waves in the waveguide. Puthoff talked about bismuth channels, I noted how a good conductor is more like the opposite to what was needed, yet you picked the wrong material, as evidenced from the actual research I found and quoted above. It was a question of much more basic physics, that you failed, and started to talk about those tensors you so like again.

I don't have time for that crap - I could waste my entire life responding to each and every effed up foible in his ill-spirited posts on this forum.

For what I have seen, you simply haven't been able to really answer to any posts by anyone who show where you go wrong.

Scientific progress is a difficult and messy business

Especially when impostors are mixing in pseudo-science and technobabble for further confusion.

There's a saying that has been (mis)attributed to various people and taken various forms with the same general idea, like this:

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother

There are people who try to make complex things understandable, and then there are those who try to sound like they know more than they do, and can only hope others don't find out. If you ask a simple question on a forum where most of the audience cannot be expected to be experts on the subject, and the answer looks like technobabble with repeating buzzwords, there's a good chance it actually is that, instead of a sign that the person actually knows what he's talking about. You have certainly provided good examples of that here.

the last thing that anyone needs is some passive aggressive OCD internet heckler

Sure, your active aggressivity is much better. Guess who else thinks it's heckling to bring forward actual information with valid sources that proves some claims that were made were wrong? Pretty much every pseudo-scientist and religious fundamentalist there is. Guess what actual scientists and honest people do? They either admit they were wrong, or answer with actual arguments that prove otherwise, instead of blaming the messenger.

who's out to convince the world that the mainstream academic community has already ruled out every interesting new possibility, and that everyone striving to expand the boundaries of human technological capability are just crackpots and asshats.

Guess who else has a tendency to make straw men and cry about it like that? Yep, it's that former group again.

F that noise. It's easy to argue that anything that hasn't been achieved yet in the lab is impossible.

Obviously it's easy. If only it wasn't just a straw man.

It takes zero scientific acumen to argue that position

Which obviously is why you made that straw man, because it would take a whole lot more scientific acumen to answer to the arguments that were actually made.

any idiot can look stuff up on Wikipedia and see what's already been accomplished, and vapidly declare that anything which hasn't been achieved yet must be impossible.

Here's a task for you, since you touted how you are a Wikipedia editor and all: Show me a relevant Wikipedia page that makes the sort of claim that "anything which hasn't been achieved yet must be impossible". After that we can discuss if all us "idiots" who use Wikipedia as a source would learn ideas like that there.

But it takes years of deep study and real scientific insight to see the possibilities that haven't appeared in all of the academic textbooks yet. But all of the stuff that's in those textbooks today was accomplished by the kind of people who dared to see new possibilities and took personal and professional risks to manifest them in reality.

Sure, you and your pseudo-scientific idols are always ahead of mainstream science and all the other Wikipedia editors etc.

Those are the real heroes.

You don't bother to name a few?

The sort of thinking you are actually trying to promote here is awfully disrespectful towards the whole scientific community and all those who are actually interested in understanding it all, sharing information, and sticking to the facts, instead of making overblown claims from fringe or pseudo-science they can't actually defend.

But people like Realm will never achieve anything new because they defeat themselves (and anyone else who listens to them) before they even get started.

As shown above, you have defeated yourself in this debate to the extent that I really can't take all the credit.

Progress takes courage and hard-won comprehension, not some pathological obsession with denouncing everything and everyone striving to reach higher on behalf of humankind. The internet is overrun with people like that, who think that Wikipedia or frickin' Quora makes them an effing expert on everything, and I'm sick to death of it.

So they should just listen to Puthoff instead? Or better yet, you?

There's nothing wrong with the engineering mindset - we'd get nowhere without it. As I see it, marduk does an excellent job in the adversarial role that's really at the heart of the scientific process.

He makes me work for it - like the Scully to my Mulder, lol. Frankly that kind of skepticism often helps me clarify my own thinking. I owe him a debt of gratitude for that.

Ah, the good old divide and conquer. So I guess you make all those condescending comments towards his posts as well just out of respect? Like these:

Arg. I do wish you'd read the papers that I provide - it would save me a lot of effort.

That’s fine, because it would probably take about three months of 12-hour conversations every day to lay the groundwork for a proper discussion about this. But maybe if I plant the seed of my viewpoint here, then after a few years of reading papers about general relativity and cosmology you’ll sit back and go “ohh…okay, that actually makes sense.”

While at the same time, you haven't been able to actually respond to for example his excellent argument about the conservation of energy (which was repeated in a couple of other forms), apart from vague references to the weird wonders of relativity, which sounded awfully similar to familiar evasions like "God works in mysterious ways".

Speaking of which, you also haven't really explained why you keep pointing to relativity (and tensors) even in cases where such effects are not expected to be significant.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I'm mostly just messin' . I've said more than once that maybe it won't be NASA that comes up with the answer, but some guy, perhaps not unlike yourself who's gotten to tinkering in his garage. Still, once in a while it doesn't hurt to hit the reset button and remind ourselves that we're ( speaking for myself here at the very least ) not astrophysicists or aerospace engineers, or theoretical physicists. We're just pop-science geeks who want to think we're doing something special. So occasionally it doesn't hurt to pop our heads out of the ketchup bottle and have a laugh at ourselves. If we don't put ourselves in our place once in a while, someone else will. Might as well beat 'em to the punch.

But bottom line: Creative minds inspire other creative minds and who knows what sort of ripples will come out of this thread? Personally I think it's one of the best in the forum .

I’m glad you feel that way, Mssr. You hit on precisely the right word: “creative.” Some foolhardy people think that science is the antithesis of creativity – that the tables and formulas which anyone can find in any academic textbook, are all there is to it. But scientific progress is actually a vibrant creative process – a competitive battlefield of conceptual models that are inherently tenuous and subject to dramatic upheavals as new and better models are envisioned and tested against previous models. So ultimately theoretical physics is a highly specialized form of conceptual art defined by rigorous mathematics and precise conformity with both existing and predictive observations. Those who try to elevate the status quo to some kind of immutable religion have no understanding of the scientific process, and no real proficiency with it either. But both pop-science geeks and true scientific geniuses like Feynman, and Wilczek, and Einstein, embrace the creative thought process at the heart of scientific progress with open arms, and relish the joy and wonder of asking impudent questions and dreaming up audacious new solutions.

We have no idea if the first real breakthrough in metric engineering will happen at a thriving laboratory like Los Alamos, or in the mind of some inspired geek digging around at an online chat forum like this one. The history of science is full of strange and serendipitous twists and turns.

But what I can tell you is that I’ve been intensely seeking any glimmer of a viable experimental path forward with this subject throughout my entire life, driven by my own childhood sighting experience which evidently proved that such a thing is in fact possible. And this idea about exploiting the components of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor to modulate the rest mass of a metamaterial is the first really exciting strategy that I’ve come across which we could actually experiment with right now using existing technology.

It’s obviously not the end of the road. But maybe, just maybe, it could be the first step on a thrilling adventure that could end many years hence with a human being setting foot on a distant inhabitable world.

So I get a little bit…shall we say “brusk?”…when some conceited knucklehead from the peanut gallery thinks that a few Google searches makes him an expert on this subject, and an overnight authority who can declare that this strategy is scientifically untenable. I know it’s not.

But absolutely none of my impatience is directed at you – in fact I’m delighted to enjoy so many vigorous debates about this and many other sophisticated concepts here at the Paracast forums. I wish that the mainstream science boards were populated with such open-minded and forward-thinking minds. But myopic and territorial self-appointed emperors have seized complete control of all of the online science boards, and they’ve literally banned discussions about any subject that isn’t already fully elucidated in the academic textbooks (which renders those boards completely redundant and useless, imo).

So this is one of the last online venues where we can actually have this kind of conversation. And I’ll fight like hell to keep it that way.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Some foolhardy people think that science is the antithesis of creativity – that the tables and formulas which anyone can find in any academic textbook, are all there is to it.

Yeah, I had so much pain with that attitude because early on I wanted to be painter/photographer and most of my friends were artistic. In reality, creativity is misnomer. What is in humanities called "creative" is nothing more than "decorative". It just a new, skin deep, way to re-arrange existing stuff.

Not to mention that in humanities they are all self-certified. Whatever they make does not to pass reality check. Some people ever overthink art, and than when nobody likes their work, simply declare that that's higher form of art not meant for plebs ;-)

What "creativity" means is making something out of nothing, while "decorative" means making something out of errr. something.

Science is without any question the only real "creativity". When a scientist comes up with a discovery, he/she is the first person who ever thought these thoughts. Like Dirac discovered anti-matter it didn't even exist in science fiction. There is nothing more creative than that. Scientists are truly the only humans who are directly stealing from Gods.

Those who try to elevate the status quo to some kind of immutable religion have no understanding of the scientific process, and no real proficiency with it either.

Its so unfortunate that science is best when its done one step at a time. I should really much more enjoy science as a thriller, with a lot more of action. Most of scientist make one big discovery per lifetime. Its real pity that the source of all modern wealth is so starved of resources for research.

We have no idea if the first real breakthrough in metric engineering will happen at a thriving laboratory like Los Alamos, or in the mind of some inspired geek digging around at an online chat forum like this one. The history of science is full of strange and serendipitous twists and turns.

IMHO, that naturally born geek is John Hutchitson. Maybe, just by accident, he stumbled on reduction of mass by doping material with EM waves, similar to negative refraction metamaterial stuff we are discussing here. Although it might be just some good old electrostatic effect.

But lets not ruin great thread by digressing.

 

[Randall]

I’m glad you feel that way, Mssr. You hit on precisely the right word: “creative.” Some foolhardy people think that science is the antithesis of creativity – that the tables and formulas which anyone can find in any academic textbook, are all there is to it. But scientific progress is actually a vibrant creative process – a competitive battlefield of conceptual models that are inherently tenuous and subject to dramatic upheavals as new and better models are envisioned and tested against previous models. So ultimately theoretical physics is a highly specialized form of conceptual art defined by rigorous mathematics and precise conformity with both existing and predictive observations. Those who try to elevate the status quo to some kind of immutable religion have no understanding of the scientific process, and no real proficiency with it either. But both pop-science geeks and true scientific geniuses like Feynman, and Wilczek, and Einstein, embrace the creative thought process at the heart of scientific progress with open arms, and relish the joy and wonder of asking impudent questions and dreaming up audacious new solutions.

We have no idea if the first real breakthrough in metric engineering will happen at a thriving laboratory like Los Alamos, or in the mind of some inspired geek digging around at an online chat forum like this one. The history of science is full of strange and serendipitous twists and turns.

But what I can tell you is that I’ve been intensely seeking any glimmer of a viable experimental path forward with this subject throughout my entire life, driven by my own childhood sighting experience which evidently proved that such a thing is in fact possible. And this idea about exploiting the components of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor to modulate the rest mass of a metamaterial is the first really exciting strategy that I’ve come across which we could actually experiment with right now using existing technology.

It’s obviously not the end of the road. But maybe, just maybe, it could be the first step on a thrilling adventure that could end many years hence with a human being setting foot on a distant inhabitable world.

So I get a little bit…shall we say “brusk?”…when some conceited knucklehead from the peanut gallery thinks that a few Google searches makes him an expert on this subject, and an overnight authority who can declare that this strategy is scientifically untenable. I know it’s not.

But absolutely none of my impatience is directed at you – in fact I’m delighted to enjoy so many vigorous debates about this and many other sophisticated concepts here at the Paracast forums. I wish that the mainstream science boards were populated with such open-minded and forward-thinking minds. But myopic and territorial self-appointed emperors have seized complete control of all of the online science boards, and they’ve literally banned discussions about any subject that isn’t already fully elucidated in the academic textbooks (which renders those boards completely redundant and useless, imo).

So this is one of the last online venues where we can actually have this kind of conversation. And I’ll fight like hell to keep it that way.

Another fabulous post . Keep on hitting them out of the park!

 

[Realm]

Some foolhardy people think that science is the antithesis of creativity – that the tables and formulas which anyone can find in any academic textbook, are all there is to it. But scientific progress is actually a vibrant creative process – a competitive battlefield of conceptual models that are inherently tenuous and subject to dramatic upheavals as new and better models are envisioned and tested against previous models. So ultimately theoretical physics is a highly specialized form of conceptual art defined by rigorous mathematics and precise conformity with both existing and predictive observations. Those who try to elevate the status quo to some kind of immutable religion have no understanding of the scientific process, and no real proficiency with it either. But both pop-science geeks and true scientific geniuses like Feynman, and Wilczek, and Einstein, embrace the creative thought process at the heart of scientific progress with open arms, and relish the joy and wonder of asking impudent questions and dreaming up audacious new solutions.

No wonder you have voiced your support for TTSA and their plans to mix science and facts with entertainment and fiction. Obviously you are creative, not with the science, but how you try to find ways to insult me and twist my words and thoughts, in your desperate attempts to defend your true believer type of views. In reality, you only manage to remind how you are in denial and unable to respond to actual arguments.

But what I can tell you is that I’ve been intensely seeking any glimmer of a viable experimental path forward with this subject throughout my entire life, driven by my own childhood sighting experience which evidently proved that such a thing is in fact possible. And this idea about exploiting the components of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor to modulate the rest mass of a metamaterial is the first really exciting strategy that I’ve come across which we could actually experiment with right now using existing technology.

Prepare to be disappointed then, as your idea is quite clearly based on fundamental misunderstandings. But obviously your fantacy worlds are more important to you than the real one, as is typical for beliefs of that nature.

You should also realise how you are constantly proving to be the closed-minded one, being stuck with some idea of anti-gravity, as if such a thing has to necessarily exist, and as if that would be the only way some highly advanced craft could perform outlandish maneuvers.

If you as an obvious non-expert could figure out how they work now, with tech that just happens to be fashionable right now, it would be very probable that the military and their actual experts would have figured it out years before, which means such craft would be more likely just military tech. So what you are trying to sell as exciting discovery would more likely be the ultimate buzzkill.

So I get a little bit…shall we say “brusk?”…when some conceited knucklehead from the peanut gallery thinks that a few Google searches makes him an expert on this subject, and an overnight authority who can declare that this strategy is scientifically untenable. I know it’s not.

You should also check some relevant research that was made famous by Justin Kruger and David Dunning.

As I have stated repeatedly, I'm not the one who claims to be an expert on anything here. You on the other hand are claiming to actually know things like these better than the actual real experts. Which in this case includes the person who originally proposed negative-index materials half a century ago and already back then explained how those materials do not work like you seem to think they do.

But hey, of course YOU know it better than him, YOU know it better than any expert anywhere. It's not at all surprising to you that none of the experts who have made their careers in the relevant fields have come up with the idea, picked up their millions and Nobel Prizes etc. For you it's perfectly natural that YOU are so much above their levels that YOU would notice something like that before them. And just as obviously all of them who have actually made the analysis and calculations and explained why your ideas are unphysical are wrong, or part of some conspiracy.

I wish that the mainstream science boards were populated with such open-minded and forward-thinking minds. But myopic and territorial self-appointed emperors have seized complete control of all of the online science boards, and they’ve literally banned discussions about any subject that isn’t already fully elucidated in the academic textbooks (which renders those boards completely redundant and useless, imo).

I presume that means your junk science has been debunked elsewhere as well.

So this is one of the last online venues where we can actually have this kind of conversation. And I’ll fight like hell to keep it that way.

You are fighting a losing battle if you think you can continue to market misinformed pseudo and junk science while disrespecting actual hard-working scientists and insulting others without being exposed as a charlatan. And hopefully at some point you realize what you are doing is no way forward but backwards. As in:
Rampaging Pseudoscience Turning Russia into 'Medieval State' — Q&A

 

[Realm]

Another fabulous post . Keep on hitting them out of the park!

Really?

You really think it's cool to argue by insulting and mispresenting others instead of responding to actual arguments, and to sneer at actual science, scientists and science-minded people while marketing pseudo and junk science?

I understand people here want to have one big happy family of UFO enthusiasts, but even though Thomas doesn't seem to care about it, you others should realise how your family looks to the outside and what the consequences are. I have witnessed during a short time and in just a couple of threads how people here have believed and supported among other things:

- Scientologist "psychic" trying to, for example, measure feelings of chicken eggs with E-meters
- Scientologist "psychic" remote viewing Jupiter (seeing e.g. mountains and crystals there)
- Russian torsion field pseudo-scientists, who have been proven fraudulent decades ago
- Number of other scammers who have been already exposed or even admitted some frauds themselves

I have seen how way too large portion of the conversation isn't about rational evidence based arguments, but of the type familiar from religious circles. That is, a lot of fallacies, self-contradictory statements, beliefs based on hopes, instead of facts, and all so much credulity.

You all know UFOs have that giggle factor, and stuff like that just makes sure it will continue to be so. There's little chance of others taking any of it seriously, if it is so widely connected to pretty much all pseudo-science there is, and the community as a whole is seen to support that. It's easy to see why actual scientists, who in reality are quite commonly open to the possibility of alien life, rather just laugh it off, as any kind of support for that idea would be so easily used to amplify all that connected stuff that rational people laugh at. There really is no hope of mainstream, let alone scientific support as long as fringe types are ignoring real science with mainstream support and embracing nonsense that others couldn't and shouldn't support.

Do you actually want to keep it that way, along the same lines what Jason Colavito said about the TTSA?

I want to note that, like other fringe ventures, this one is also begging for cash, but that unlike most it is a remarkably corporate enterprise. In generally glowing fringe media coverage of the company’s launch, no one has followed the money to see where the cash is going. This speaks both to the laziness of journalists—who focus on celebrity and “access” over facts—and to the tacit agreement of fringe types to protect their gravy train at all costs.

Not Quite a "UFO IPO": Tom DeLonge Is Seeking Your Investment in "To the Stars" to Give Himself a $700,000 or More Payday

 

[Randall]

Really? You really think it's cool to argue by insulting and mispresenting others instead of responding to actual arguments, and to sneer at actual science, scientists and science-minded people while marketing pseudo and junk science?

Sorry but I don't have time to read every post and argument going on, so perhaps I didn't see what you're complaining about. Can you be more specific? Bullet point a set of particular comments with links and I'll review them.

I understand people here want to have one big happy family of UFO enthusiasts, but even though Thomas doesn't seem to care about it, you others should realise how your family looks to the outside and what the consequences are. I have witnessed during a short time and in just a couple of threads how people here have believed and supported among other things:

- Scientologist "psychic" trying to, for example, measure feelings of chicken eggs with E-meters
- Scientologist "psychic" remote viewing Jupiter (seeing e.g. mountains and crystals there)
- Russian torsion field pseudo-scientists, who have been proven fraudulent decades ago
- Number of other scammers who have been already exposed or even admitted some frauds themselves

In a forum like this you're bound to get all sorts of people with controversial opinions and beliefs. That doesn't make the whole forum or every individual participant a Scientologist or scammer. Personally I value fair minded skepticism and don't want to discourage you from that if that's what you're trying to do.

I have seen how way too large portion of the conversation isn't about rational evidence based arguments, but of the type familiar from religious circles. That is, a lot of fallacies, self-contradictory statements, beliefs based on hopes, instead of facts, and all so much credulity.

Same answer as the last one

You all know UFOs have that giggle factor, and stuff like that just makes sure it will continue to be so. There's little chance of others taking any of it seriously, if it is so widely connected to pretty much all pseudo-science there is, and the community as a whole is seen to support that.

Yes there are definitely problems when it comes to the ufology community. Mind you, that doesn't mean the scientific community sings a pitch perfect tune either. Pseudoscientists are as much the quacks of the scientific community as they are a problem for serious ufology. And there have been exposés on fraud and misrepresentation in science as well, particularly in medicine. That's why they call it pseudoscience.

In fact that It's easy to see why actual scientists, who in reality are quite commonly open to the possibility of alien life, rather just laugh it off, as any kind of support for that idea would be so easily used to amplify all that connected stuff that rational people laugh at.

Actually I think many "real scientists" support pop-science and would be of the opinion that it's something that should be encouraged. But I agree there is a line that gets crossed. I couldn't stop myself from getting into this issue with an acquaintance just the other day who was into Deepak Chopra and had no idea what the observer effect was really about. I just couldn't get it through to him. So you are right. Some people get into a religious like mindset over their beliefs, and it becomes impossible to shake them out of it. I find it can be very frustrating.

There really is no hope of mainstream, let alone scientific support as long as fringe types are ignoring real science with mainstream support and embracing nonsense that others couldn't and shouldn't support.

I think that's a fair point.

Do you actually want to keep it that way, along the same lines what Jason Colavito said about the TTSA?

What I've always advocated is that "real science" be done at arm's length from ufology. In other words, don't try to compete with mainstream science but instead learn to work with it by providing evidence that they can do real science with in independent labs. Science isn't the enemy here. Skeptics who happen to also be mainstream scientists who misrepresent the field are however no better in principle than those in the field who misrepresent science.

Not Quite a "UFO IPO": Tom DeLonge Is Seeking Your Investment in "To the Stars" to Give Himself a $700,000 or More Payday

Yes. I believe I commented on that someplace else. So far as I'm concerned if there's no outright fabrication or misrepresentation, and nothing illegal taking place, then how the TTSA raises funds and what they do with the money is their business. I don't particularly like their business model. I think Zabel would agree. I asked why they had no serious ufologists on their team and they refused to comment. So it seems they're not out to add any respectability to the field, but to do as much grandstanding as possible in order to get attention. Whether the final fallout is positive or negative remains to be seen.

 

[Realm]

Sorry but I don't have time to read every post and argument going on, so perhaps I didn't see what you're complaining about. Can you be more specific? Quote or link to a specif comment or set of comments?

Look at the first post on this page which is my lengthy response with prior examples. It doesn't really matter that much how he tries to insult me by calling me an idiot and stuff like that. The problem is that he is trying to mislead people into believing stuff that just isn't true, and isn't even trying to respond to actual arguments that show just that. He's just preaching misinformation to the gullible, and that sort of thing isn't helpful for any community.

In a forum like this you're bound to get all sorts of people with controversial opinions and beliefs. That doesn't make the whole forum or every individual participant a Scientologist or scammer. Personally I value fair minded skepticism and don't want to discourage you from that if that's what you're trying to do.

Obviously so, but the problem seems to be that such beliefs are very common and the community as a whole just seems to accept it like that. On more science oriented forums most want to make a clean break from pseudo and junk sciences, as those are seen as harmful for scientific understanding, credibility etc. On those forums it is generally enough to point to a Wikipedia page that states something is pseudo-science or proven false etc. (which of course have references for further information). Here a more typical response seems to be that there's a conspiracy and Wikipedia is just an awful awful thing that only idiots use.

I have been trying to make the point in various places that the hypothesis of extraterrestrial life visiting here in itself has nothing to do with pseudo-science, supernatural etc. and you don't need to be some credulous true believer type to take that possibility seriously. It's pretty damn hard to make that point at the moment.

For what I have understood, the members of this forums include quite a many of those who are considered to be the most serious researchers on this subject. Could you imagine me saying to some science minded guy or better yet a scientist that they could have a serious no-nonsense discussion about it here? Do you think they would take this place seriously after reading just a couple of pages that contain stuff like I listed above?

The Nimitz incident as an example would in itself be quite credible, but it's already tightly connected to whatever nonsense DeLonge is saying, all that remote viewing etc. stuff that Puthoff has done, that scammy fundraising TTSA is doing, and all sorts of beliefs that are connected through the people who are involved or supporting them. People like Elizondo and Fravor seem to be rational about it, but now they are damaging their credibility with connections to the TTSA. As a result, those who don't know all the details and what the connections actually are, including the media, just see it as yet another mess of nonsense.

That's the way credibility and reputation work in practice, it's not just a matter of what you say or believe, but also who you support and are connected with.

Yes there are definitely a problems when it comes to the ufology community. Mind you, that doesn't mean the scientific community sings a pitch perfect tune either. Pseudoscientists are as much the quacks of the scientific community as they are a problem for serious ufology. And there have been exposés on fraud and misrepresentation in science as well, particularly in medicine. That's why they call it pseudoscience.

Which is why the scientific community takes that problem so seriously and tries to tackle it.

Actually I think many "real scientists" support pop-science and would be of the opinion that it's something that should be encouraged.

Which certainly isn't the same as junk or pseudo-science.

But I agree there is a line that gets crossed. I couldn't stop myself from getting into this issue with an acquaintance just the other day who was into Deepak Chopra and had no idea what the observer effect was really about. I just couldn't get it through to him. So you are right. Some people get into a religious like mindset over their beliefs, and it becomes impossible to shake them out of it. I find it can be very frustrating.

Exactly. Oh and I could have added to that list of mine that someone here also fiercely supported some energy healing guy who was connected to Chopra as well.

What I've always advocated is that "real science" be done at arm's length from ufology. In other words, don't try to compete with mainstream science but instead learn to work with it by providing evidence that they can do real science with in independent labs. Science isn't the enemy here.

Also, you really couldn't compete with science, that sort of idea would be delusional. But that's just what I have seen here, and to some extent the TTSA is also trying to sell that sort of idea, leap-frogging science by looking at how blobs move in low-quality videos and building whatever anti-gravity craft... And it's not just delusional, but hugely disrespectful towards the whole scientific community.

 

[Randall]

Look at the first post on this page which is my lengthy response with prior examples ...

I honestly don't have the interest or time to tackle all the back and forth between you and Morrison, but it looks like a fairly civilized debate compared to some I've seen. Maybe take a break from it and let's talk about what you think we can do to address some of the points we talked about? I don't want to discourage creative intelligent minds from putting forth their ideas even if they seem "out there" and I don't want to discourage fair minded skeptics from pointing out weaknesses. In my view those two elements working together constructively should actually be really beneficial. The tough part is keeping it about the issue and not the person, and conveying concepts accurately. I think Morrison and I are both fairly intelligent, but even we have had a difficult time getting our concepts across to each other equally well. Still. We've remained civil and constructive. I think that's the key. Ideas?

 

[DROBNJAK]

Yeah guys, lets not digress too far from UFO propulsion. "Creativity" can wait.

We have a great thread here. I just found something interesting, doing more digging.

 

[marduk]

Problem is because @marduk insists on being stuck in engineering mindset: nuts, bolts and screwdrivers. But topic of this thread is "near horizon" speculative physics.

It's true that if you have nuts and bolts handy you can make something simply by trial and error, even without knowing theory. For example, Romans made fantastic cupolas on public buildings, that stood up for centuries, without knowing equations for stresses in spherical membranes. Even the guys who made first aeroplanes didn't know much about Bernuli's principle.

But trial and error has its limitations. You can't build Hadron Coliders by trial and error. And more modern technology is, more you depend on successful theory and maths. Here, General Relativity is that successful theory. So successful that it will stand unquestioned for at least another century.

On the end of the day it all goes back to the math. Even physics is secondary to math. Only problem is one has to has right model and that is what physicists are wrangling about.

@marduk no offense, but you are simply missing the opportunity to expand your horizons beyond nuts & bolts.

Lol.

I'm a materialist. I literally don't think there is anything but nuts and bolts.

Speculative physics is science fiction. There's some underlying framework stuff here, but I'm not buying some of it. And I'm not holding that position simply because I don't buy it, but because some people I actually know and talk to in the physics community don't, either. If I were to sit down for beers with folks in PhD's in theoretical physics and show them some of this stuff, their reaction would likely be to literally to laugh their ass off at everyone here. Basic and fundamental mistakes are being made. Some of them are mine, and I own that. But many of them are not, and many of them have to do with the speculative aspects.

And talking about math is a thing. My degree is in math. Everybody talks about math like it's a thing they grok - and from a guy with a pure math background, it's a lot hairier than that. I'm no math mega-genius, but if you can't explain it to me, I suspect you won't be able to explain it to very many people.

The difference is that you can take the math and physics and speculate a hadron collider... and then build it. It requires a lot of power and very precise engineering, but it can be done.

Once you need to invent materials that may or may not exist in the universe at all, or be even possible to exist... now you're just making shit up as far as I'm concerned. Now you're talking faith, not science.

Plus, the media has so messed up this whole area with junk science and 'warp drive possible' and all that, that it's nearly impossible to say. Science has become a partisanship exercise all it's own.

 

[marduk]

If you listen to Realm he'll have you believe that there are no mysteries in the universe, nothing remains undiscovered, and every effort underway to expand the leading edge of theoretical development with an eye toward future applications, is nothing more than hopelessly misled pseudoscientific technobabble. That seems to be his sole purpose in life. And he's pretty good at it - if I didn't know that he was talking out of his ass half the time, I'd fall for it too.

That's not true, and is just inflammatory and an ad hominem attack. Which isn't cool at all and you're better than that.

Which demonstrates that you've reached the end of your point as well, as far as I'm concerned.

If you can build it, go build it. Prove it. I'll be one of the first to give you a beer and champion you if you do.

But please lay off the "you don't understand" and "talking out your ass" comments because they're not helping your argument. Quite the opposite.

 

[Realm]

I don't want to discourage creative intelligent minds from putting forth their ideas even if they seem "out there" and I don't want to discourage fair minded skeptics from pointing out weaknesses.

Creativity or out there ideas aren't really the problem here, that was just one of the red herrings, apparently a successful one.

Here's a good example of an actual creative "out there" idea of us living in a hologram from an article that was published yesterday (not that it's a new idea):
Are We Living in a Hologram?

What's relevant to this conversation is how that idea is based on actual science and observations, so there's a chance it is in fact true, and even if it isn't, it's the sort of idea that pondering it may advance our understanding and result in new ideas.

Because that idea is compatible with the best available information we have, those supporting such idea would be in a much better position to argue that has to be the case than any pseudo-scientist out there. But they don't, they state it like it is, it's just a possibility, and we can't just jump into unjustified conclusions or assume that something that fits some math exists in physical reality.

Even more importantly, popular articles like that are intended to be understood. Not by scientists, but the rest of us. If you think about those real pop stars of science, people like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku and so on, they are so valuable for the rest of us because they have the knowledge and skills to explain and simplify complex things so that we can actually understand them to sufficient degree. If they just tried to sound smart and spoke to us in technical jargon, it would just waste both their time and ours, and we wouldn't even know if what they say makes any sense.

All that is basically the opposite to the discussion we have had here about that supposed piece of alien scrap and its connection to anti-gravity. It begins with unsupported assumptions, there's no scientific basis for such links, nobody has quoted any experts making such claims, and even pseudo-scientist Puthoff didn't actually make those claims that have now been attributed to him. It seems to be just a hastily made hodgepodge of loose bits that is not put together with math but incorrect assumptions how some amount of negative numbers could make a negative result. That's not creative, or even sensible. And in reality those negative numbers do not result negative energy if that was the assumption (I just have to assume that was the misguided idea, since the claims are so vague and don't have any references or proper rationale).

So in short, there's not much reason to talk about it at all. But that's just where the problems begin. What was initially rubbish that can't be taken seriously suddenly became credible possibility since Puthoff seemed to think so. Similarly the research that made him think so was initially an impressive kick ass finding from him, but suddenly had nothing to do with the whole subject once I found out who actually made it and what it actually stated. How can you argue with something like that? Do we even have a subject to talk about anymore, if it now apparently doesn't have anything to do with that supposed material and it's properties that have been at the center of it all?

Even more importantly, is this conversation useful and understandable, so that it could actually result in sensible ideas from those creative minds, or is it blind leading the blind? I have seen somewhat similar cases in other contexts. It starts with someone who has learned some technical details and terms here and there and doesn't really have the necessary deep understanding on what those actually mean and how they are connected, but instead invents connections of his own that would support some unfounded beliefs. When he tries to present those among the real experts, he's the small fish that gets thrown out from the big pond, but when he finds an audience of non-experts, he has a chance of being the big fish in a little pond. Then at some point a bigger fish emerges, and it turns into a familiar story that involves one naked emperor, who tries to continue to brag about his clothes at all cost.

 

[Realm]

On the end of the day it all goes back to the math. Even physics is secondary to math. Only problem is one has to has right model and that is what physicists are wrangling about.

That's the thing with equations. They are attempts to model how the universe works, but they may not be completely accurate, and they may also be too permissive. That is, if an equation allows something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's possible in the physical world, which has other rules and equations that need to be fulfilled as well.

The equations for general relativity are a good example of that:

In general relativity and allied theories, the distribution of the mass, momentum, and stress due to matter and to any non-gravitational fields is described by the energy-momentum tensor (or matter tensor) {\displaystyle T^{ab}}

. However, the Einstein field equation is not very choosy about what kinds of states of matter or non-gravitational fields are admissible in a spacetime model. This is both a strength, since a good general theory of gravitation should be maximally independent of any assumptions concerning non-gravitational physics, and a weakness, because without some further criterion, the Einstein field equation admits putative solutions with properties most physicists regard as unphysical, i.e. too weird to resemble anything in the real universe even approximately.

The energy conditions represent such criteria. Roughly speaking, they crudely describe properties common to all (or almost all) states of matter and all non-gravitational fields which are well-established in physics, while being sufficiently strong to rule out many unphysical "solutions" of the Einstein field equation. (It does not hold for matter described by a super-field, i.e., the Dirac field.)

Energy condition - Wikipedia

In practice that means you can't do what Thomas tries to do, that is use successful tests of general relativity as indication that negative mass exists. It's the same for all those other speculative ideas that are compatible with GR.

 

[Randall]

Creativity or out there ideas aren't really the problem here ... Are We Living in a Hologram? ...

The idea that reality in this realm is the product of some vast simulation is IMO the most reasonable. That's a bit different than the hologram idea, but basically it's still about some sort of construct within a larger system. Given the complexity it's hard to accept that it could be the case, but in principle it doesn't seem impossible.

The most important thing here on the forum is to keep the point and counterpoint positive and as matter-of-fact as possible without resorting to personal arguments. I know that's difficult sometimes when things get intense, and FWIW I think it's perfectly fair to judge people personally if there is sufficient reason. It's just that here isn't the best place to do that.

 

[Realm]

The idea that reality in this realm is the product of some vast simulation is IMO the most reasonable. That's a bit different than the hologram idea, but basically it's still about some sort of construct within a larger system. Given the complexity it's hard to accept that it could be the case, but in principle it doesn't seem impossible.

It's a possibility, but I'm not sure how useful one. Depends on whether one can invent a way to distinguish a simulated universe from a real one. If not, it doesn't seem that helpful. I know there are some ideas about that and even claims of findings that might support this being a simulation, but they are hardly convincing.

Such simulation also doesn't answer to the fundamental questions why there's any universe anyway and why it has the features it has. It pretty much makes it impossible to get such answers, as the "simulation layer" would hide all that is actually "real".

The most important thing here on the forum is to keep the point and counterpoint positive and as matter-of-fact as possible without resorting to personal arguments. I know that's difficult sometimes when things get intense, and FWIW I think it's perfectly fair to judge people personally if there is sufficient reason. It's just that here isn't the best place to do that.

That's pretty hard to do when someone doesn't actually answer your arguments in any other way than insults, ad hominems and misrepresented views.

Also, is there something positive that could or even should be said about attempts to advertise and defend old scams and junk/pseudo science? And I don't mean some honest mistakes but those that resort to conspiracy theories about Wikipedia and all when the nature of such claims is revealed? As I tried to say before, giving positive signals to stuff like that is a major problem in itself, and bad idea for the credibility of this forum, this subject matter, and for all of us really.

 

[marduk]

That's the thing with equations. They are attempts to model how the universe works, but they may not be completely accurate, and they may also be too permissive. That is, if an equation allows something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's possible in the physical world, which has other rules and equations that need to be fulfilled as well.

The equations for general relativity are a good example of that:

Energy condition - Wikipedia

In practice that means you can't do what Thomas tries to do, that is use successful tests of general relativity as indication that negative mass exists. It's the same for all those other speculative ideas that are compatible with GR.

One of my pure math profs liked to say "math intersects with reality, and usually describes it. But there's no underlying reason or expectations that it's always right." Or something to that respect.

His point is that nature does what it does no matter how we think it does what it does.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I'm a materialist. I literally don't think there is anything but nuts and bolts.

That's fine. But this thread is by definition about theoretical physics. So if you're unwilling to recognize the validity of theoretical physics like general relativity or quantum field theory, then why bother debating this subject? Are you trying to convince us that general relativity is just some worthless theory? You're not going to convince anyone here of that. Thank god.

Speculative physics is science fiction.

Sorta but not really. General relativity isn't "speculative physics," it's theoretical physics, and one of the most well-tested and widely accepted theories in all of human history. So taking a long hard look at its myriad potential implications is a well-founded approach to progress, not mere "science fiction."

There's some underlying framework stuff here, but I'm not buying some of it. And I'm not holding that position simply because I don't buy it, but because some people I actually know and talk to in the physics community don't, either. If I were to sit down for beers with folks in PhD's in theoretical physics and show them some of this stuff, their reaction would likely be to literally to laugh their ass off at everyone here. Basic and fundamental mistakes are being made. Some of them are mine, and I own that. But many of them are not, and many of them have to do with the speculative aspects.

Please: go ahead and have your theoretical physicist friends have a look, and let us know where we're wrong, because I honestly want to know.

I've provided peer-reviewed academic papers published in highly reputable journals like Physical Review D, to back up my key points, and I've cited the precise terms in the stress-energy tensors that professional academics are currently scrutinizing as credible paths forward toward metric engineering. Granted, photonic metamaterials is a new subject for me, so right now I'm trying to figure out if features like negative refractive index and negative energy fluxes might be legitimate avenues for manipulating the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor to yield an observable mass reduction effect. And some of the papers that I'm reading look encouraging in that regard. But the question isn't "will creating negative values in the stress-energy tensor reduce a body's inertial and gravitational mass?" - that's a given, imo. The question is "can metamaterials produce negative values in the Poynting vector and/or Maxwell stress tensor components of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor?" It's a very interesting question, and like I said, some of what I'm seeing looks promising. And whichever way it goes, it's fascinating reading in an area that's fun to learn about, so I'm glad that I'm making the effort, and when I get my head around it, I'll post an update so we can talk about it.

Quick update: recent papers I'm seeing describe metamaterials with a range of strange properties like negative phase velocities, negative group velocities, and Poynting vectors antiparallel to the wave vector, but counterintuitively, any combination of these factors still results in a positive Poynting vector (new formulations of the Poynting vector had to be devised for metamaterials to determine this result) - though there are other interesting methods of generating a negative Poynting vector. However, the boundary stresses within a metamaterial can be either positive or negative, which was another very recent and altogether unexpected finding that also bears on the stress-energy tensor, so I have more reading to do about this to try to determine which is factor is stronger:

"The results of the boundary stress are shown in Fig. 6D, which shows that it is positive for square lattice. We then repeat the calculation for a triangular-lattice arrangement (for both LHS/RHS), with the lattice constant adjusted so that Eeff =(mu)eff =-0.135 at the same frequency. As shown in Fig. 6D, the stress now becomes negative."
"Electromagnetic stress at the boundary: photon pressure or tension?" Science Advances, 2016
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.06227.pdf

In any case, this is a different issue than Paranjape's papers that opened the door to metric engineering by illustrating that the positive energy theorem is inapplicable in de Sitter universes like our own, and that bubbles of positive matter under tension can produce a negative effective mass within the context of general relativity - two key findings that make all the rest of this stuff suddenly look so promising. So if those papers are wrong, or if there are legitimate theoretical arguments that prove that metric engineering is fundamentally impossible, then I want to know about it. Ask your friends/professors/theorists to jump in anytime.

The difference is that you can take the math and physics and speculate a hadron collider... and then build it. It requires a lot of power and very precise engineering, but it can be done.

This is a terrible example, because it undermines your own point. The LHC was designed based on quantum field theory (which includes special relativity) - theoretical physics - and it works perfectly. That proves the legitimacy of the underlying theories. All we're doing in this thread is exploring an equally valid theory, general relativity, and considering the implications if it's correct - which we have every reason to conclude that it is, in the regimes that we're talking about here.

Once you need to invent materials that may or may not exist in the universe at all, or be even possible to exist... now you're just making shit up as far as I'm concerned. Now you're talking faith, not science.

We've been over this. Paranjape showed in his papers that exotic matter is not required to produce effective negative mass using positive matter. That's a huge step forward theoretically. Just because we haven't drawn up a blueprint for a metric propulsion device, doesn't mean that's impossible, or an invalid area for theoretical development.

At first we only had the mass-energy equivalence to consider the possibility of building a bomb that converted a small fraction of mass into energy. Theorists worked on the idea until they arrived at uranium enrichment as a method of actually doing it, and within just a few years it was done. If we'd listened to people who said "bah, that's mere theoretical speculation science fiction stuff!" it would never have happened. You're that guy in this debate, and so is Realm.

Plus, the media has so messed up this whole area with junk science and 'warp drive possible' and all that, that it's nearly impossible to say. Science has become a partisanship exercise all it's own.

If you're basing your opinion on pop science sites like gizmodo, then yeah, it's impossible to say. But if you're reading reputable peer-reviewed academic papers, then it's actually pretty promising, for the long haul. And if you include sightings of advanced aerial devices that make hairpin accelerations at thousands of miles per hour and hover silently with no emissions, then it's inevitable.

So that's my take on it. Now I'm focused on how it's possible. I don't know yet, but I'm looking to find out. And I'm confident that someday, somebody will figure it out. Maybe not this year, maybe not in this century. Maybe not even this millennium. But it's worth pursuing, because the advent of a viable metric engineering technology will change everything.

That's not true, and is just inflammatory and an ad hominem attack. Which isn't cool at all and you're better than that.

Which demonstrates that you've reached the end of your point as well, as far as I'm concerned.

If you can build it, go build it. Prove it. I'll be one of the first to give you a beer and champion you if you do.

But please lay off the "you don't understand" and "talking out your ass" comments because they're not helping your argument.

I explicitly showed where every objection that he raised was based on irrelevant examples and mistaken parallels to fake claims. As far as I'm concerned, that proved my point. And frankly I'm here to debate these subjects rationally and constructively, but all I've gotten from Realm is a relentless stream of meaningless derisive rubbish about both the physics - which he doesn't understand and I've demonstrated that - so he has nothing to offer in this debate, and irrelevant ad hominem attacks against Hal Puthoff and others, which have no bearing whatsoever on the physics that we're talking about here.

Yeah, I was pretty harsh about it, perhaps too harsh. But I wasted many hours debating with Realm in another thread, until I realized that he has no interest at all in these subjects - he's simply out to convince everyone here that his endless negativism is the only way to look at things, and he won't back down until you share his opinion, which is simply never going to happen because he's wrong about the science - and that's all that counts here.

And I also think it's BS for him to berate people interested in torsion physics just because some Russian physicists have some crazy ideas about it. Einstein-Cartan theory is a torsion field theory and it's a legitimate area of theoretical development. Cherry-picking the negative examples in order to justify abusive/insulting attacks on the other members here is an intellectually dishonest, under-handed tactic, which only demonstrates the depths he's willing to stoop to in order to promote his own relentless negativism here at the forums. I think it's despicable.

I'm done arguing about this. I'm here to discuss ideas, not to get into pointless personal conflicts that bore me, and everyone else here, to tears.

One of my pure math profs liked to say "math intersects with reality, and usually describes it. But there's no underlying reason or expectations that it's always right." Or something to that respect.

That's why theories like general relativity are subjected to the most comprehensive and precise tests that can be devised - so we can find the limit of its predictive power. And so far, it's passed every test with flying colors. At some point we know it that fails, because it can't be the final answer in quantum regimes like the black hole singularity (and it might need to be modified at cosmological scales and in very low energy regimes to explain dark energy and/or dark matter).

But we're just looking at the basic implications of the Einstein field equation here, and we have every reason to think that it's valid in these regimes. And if it's not, that would be big news, and very important to know. So there's literally zero downside to pursuing this concept, because if we humans can devise a valid strategy to experiment with these ideas, and it fails, then we'll have created the first dispositive test of general relativity, and the Nobel committee will be handing out prizes, and the theoretical physics community will be invigorated to develop a superior theory based on that finding.

I'm good with all of that.

 

[marduk]

That's fine. But this thread is by definition about theoretical physics. So if you're unwilling to recognize the validity of theoretical physics like general relativity or quantum field theory, then why bother debating this subject? Are you trying to convince us that general relativity is just some worthless theory? You're not going to convince anyone here of that. Thank god.

Lol, you know that's not what I'm doing at all. You're just trying to make some kind of bipartisan debate here about beliefs, not reality.

Reality literally does not care what you believe, and neither do I.

GR isn't a belief system because it's been proven. Unlike string theory which probably should go on the garbage heap, even though it's very interesting and satisfying, mathematically. Why do you think the scientific community just spent more money proving gravity waves exist? Most physicists - theoretical and experimental - assumed they existed. But they still checked because reality might surprise us.

I'm not unwilling to recognize validity of things that have been tested. Or even that things that have yet to be tested might be real. I'm unwilling to recognize the validity of things that are untestable.

You're essentially claiming much of this is resolved, and an engineering problem. I'm saying the basic science has yet to be done. You have a bad habit of tying interesting frameworks together in novel ways - which is great - and then basically saying the problem is solved... when they unfortunately require a lot of unobtanium to make work.

The AC drive (I'm tired of trying to spell it at this point) isn't an engineering problem. It's a basic science problem. I hope we crack it.

But we haven't. And the whole line of thought - like string theory - might yet be fraught with dragons and as elegant and interesting as it might be, might have little or nothing to do with reality.

I'm being very skeptical here because this thread - and line of thought - is increasingly becoming messianic, instead of interesting. Which is why it's degrading into ad hominem attacks instead of being dialectical.

You assume too much, Thomas. I hope it won't be your undoing. But it is a weakness in your logic.

 

[marduk]

Please: go ahead and have your theoretical physicist friends have a look, and let us know where we're wrong, because I honestly want to know.

Already done. But you know that already, right? You know that you'll just say that they 'don't get it' or are 'talking out their ass' or whatever.

Basic science has yet to be done. Every single one I've talked to say the AC drive likely won't work in reality. Every one I've talked to say that much of the things you point as done are in fact not done, not repeatable, not tested or proven, and some aren't testable at all.

Go talk to some yourself. I'm sure you've already done so.

I've provided peer-reviewed academic papers published in highly reputable journals like Physical Review D, to back up my key points, and I've cited the precise terms in the stress-energy tensors that professional academics are currently scrutinizing as credible paths forward toward metric engineering. Granted, photonic metamaterials is a new subject for me, so right now I'm trying to figure out if features like negative refractive index and negative energy fluxes might be legitimate avenues for manipulating the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor to yield an observable mass reduction effect. And some of the papers that I'm reading look encouraging in that regard. But the question isn't "will creating negative values in the stress-energy tensor reduce a body's inertial and gravitational mass?" - that's a given, imo. The question is "can metamaterials produce negative values in the Poynting vector and/or Maxwell stress tensor components of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor?" It's a very interesting question, and like I said, some of what I'm seeing looks promising. And whichever way it goes, it's fascinating reading in an area that's fun to learn about, so I'm glad that I'm making the effort, and when I get my head around it, I'll post an update so we can talk about it.

The ones I've talked to say that you can't engineer the tensor at all in ways that you describe. I'm not going to get in a he said-you said debate with you.

Put the papers down and describe how you'd engineer the tensor to produce the effects you want in a material that exists in the universe. Using energetic states known to exist in the universe. And what exactly you predict it would do.

And then build it and test it, because now you have a science problem you can solve with engineering.

Quick update: recent papers I'm seeing describe metamaterials with a range of strange properties like negative phase velocities, negative group velocities, and Poynting vectors antiparallel to the wave vector, but counterintuitively, any combination of these factors still results in a positive Poynting vector (new formulations of the Poynting vector had to be devised for metamaterials to determine this result) - though there are other interesting methods of generating a negative Poynting vector. However, the boundary stresses within a metamaterial can be either positive or negative, which was another very recent and altogether unexpected finding that also bears on the stress-energy tensor, so I have more reading to do about this to try to determine which is factor is stronger:

"The results of the boundary stress are shown in Fig. 6D, which shows that it is positive for square lattice. We then repeat the calculation for a triangular-lattice arrangement (for both LHS/RHS), with the lattice constant adjusted so that Eeff =(mu)eff =-0.135 at the same frequency. As shown in Fig. 6D, the stress now becomes negative."
"Electromagnetic stress at the boundary: photon pressure or tension?" Science Advances, 2016
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.06227.pdf

In any case, this is a different issue than Paranjape's papers that opened the door to metric engineering by illustrating that the positive energy theorem is inapplicable in de Sitter universes like our own, and that bubbles of positive matter under tension can produce a negative effective mass within the context of general relativity - two key findings that make all the rest of this stuff suddenly look so promising. So if those papers are wrong, or if there are legitimate theoretical arguments that prove that metric engineering is fundamentally impossible, then I want to know about it. Ask your friends/professors/theorists to jump in anytime.

I'm sure they're very interesting.

This is a terrible example, because it undermines your own point. The LHC was designed based on quantum field theory (which includes special relativity) - theoretical physics - and it works perfectly. That proves the legitimacy of the underlying theories. All we're doing in this thread is exploring an equally valid theory, general relativity, and considering the implications if it's correct - which we have every reason to conclude that it is, in the regimes that we're talking about here.

I never once said that I don't believe in QM. I said that the LHC was a science problem that was solvable by engineering. This is not a belief problem, man!

We've been over this. Paranjape showed in his papers that exotic matter is not required to produce effective negative mass using positive matter. That's a huge step forward theoretically. Just because we haven't drawn up a blueprint for a metric propulsion device, doesn't mean that's impossible, or an invalid area for theoretical development.

K. How are you proposing to theoretically develop it?

If you're basing your opinion on pop science sites like gizmodo, then yeah, it's impossible to say. But if you're reading reputable peer-reviewed academic papers, then it's actually pretty promising, for the long haul. And if you include sightings of advanced aerial devices that make hairpin accelerations at thousands of miles per hour and hover silently with no emissions, then it's inevitable.

Ad hominem attack and not interesting.

I've seen these things move. And I don't think what you're describing necessarily gets at the problem.