Beyond The Drake Equation

[Standanista]

Many fellow Paracasters will be familiar with the Drake Equation, which predicts that there should be a lot more intelligent life in the cosmos than what we've found so far.

There has been stuff in the press this week about a coming antibiotic apocalypse, basically where we run out of drugs to treat some bug infections.

The Scots medic Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928; that's less than 90 years that we've had use of these remedies. Obviously the human race has got by for a lot longer than that, but I just wonder whether this is an indicator of how short-lived a lot of our industrial-era technologies actually are. Maybe Mother Nature allows nothing more than transient technological bubbles, and the gulf of space (to paraphrase H.G. Wells/Richard Burton) means we will never find ET, nor them us.

 

[Randall]

Many fellow Paracasters will be familiar with the Drake Equation, which predicts that there should be a lot more intelligent life in the cosmos than what we've found so far.

There has been stuff in the press this week about a coming antibiotic apocalypse, basically where we run out of drugs to treat some bug infections.

The Scots medic Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928; that's less than 90 years that we've had use of these remedies. Obviously the human race has got by for a lot longer than that, but I just wonder whether this is an indicator of how short-lived a lot of our industrial-era technologies actually are. Maybe Mother Nature allows nothing more than transient technological bubbles, and the gulf of space (to paraphrase H.G. Wells/Richard Burton) means we will never find ET, nor them us.

Feeling a little pessimistic today? But seriously, it's a valid thought, except for one thing: The aliens have already found us. Or maybe if I want to be pessimistic too. Maybe it's only their automated probes that have found us, and by the time they report back to their homeworld, everyone back there will have gone the way of their equivalent of the dinosaur.

 

[Standanista]

After the David Jacobs nonsense I am automated-probed right up, I shall never sleep soundly again.

You make a very good point of course, but only if they have - for me the jury is still out.

Some sort of self-replicating Bracewell Probe hegemonising swarm could propagate endlessly, it's all a bit Iain M. Banks. But then again, why aren't we inundated with them?

 

[Randall]

After the David Jacobs nonsense I am automated-probed right up, I shall never sleep soundly again.

You make a very good point of course, but only if they have - for me the jury is still out.

Some sort of self-replicating Bracewell Probe hegemonising swarm could propagate endlessly, it's all a bit Iain M. Banks. But then again, why aren't we inundated with them?

Fair questions. Unlike yourself where the jury is still out, I'm one of those who if we are to use same analogy, am a jury member who's seen the evidence first-hand. Not that I also think that there's plenty enough evidence to make belief reasonable anyway, so I have zero doubt. So why don't we have one of them in our possession? Some people say we do. I wouldn't be all that surprised. Why aren't we inundated with them? I'd have to suggest that although some of them are capable of intelligent behavior, perhaps even repair, they just aren't advanced enough to replicate themselves out of raw materials, and even if they are, there still needs to be all the right raw materials, and not everyplace in the galaxy has all the right raw materials. In other words creating a self-replicating interstellar probe is probably a lot harder than the sci-fi buffs make it sound.

 

[Standanista]

Interesting stuff, what was your first-hand experience?

 

[Standanista]

Why aren't we inundated with them? I'd have to suggest that although some of them are capable of intelligent behavior, perhaps even repair, they just aren't advanced enough to replicate themselves out of raw materials, and even if they are, there still needs to be all the right raw materials, and not everyplace in the galaxy has all the right raw materials. In other words creating a self-replicating interstellar probe is probably a lot harder than the sci-fi buffs make it sound.

A fair point. I don't buy the fact though that some technology capable of functioning after many centuries of travel through a harsh, destructive environment is not capable of self reproduction. I would proffer that in terms of nano tech, we're nearly there already. From a systems assurance/RAMS engineering perspective, the ability to self-replicate would be a primary control against the risk of natural attrition.

At the end of the day though, for me, the nuts and bolts UFO model is trying to put a human-experience paradigm on something a lot stranger.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Maybe it's only their automated probes that have found us, and by the time they report back to their homeworld, everyone back there will have gone the way of their equivalent of the dinosaur.

This gets into the physics of interstellar transport, which is my primary field of interest. And there’s a lot of confusion surrounding this subject, so I can offer some useful clarification.

First, let’s take the example of some form of reaction propulsion – a hypothetical kind of antimatter rocket for example. Even this is a terrible strategy for interstellar spaceflight, which NASA knows all too well, but it can be an instructive scenario for considering the basic concepts of special relativity. If this as-yet-unrealized form of rocket motor could get your craft very near the speed of light, the time dilation factor will indeed drastically shorten the duration of your trip from the on-board point of reference (the well-known “Twin Paradox”). In theory, you could make it to some star in an arbitrarily short time interval, if you could survive the acceleration required to reach a speed close to the speed of light (usually referred to by the letter “C” in these discussions). So if you’re in an accelerated reference frame, you can travel from Point A to Point B with speeds much faster than C from your point of reference (POR). You could, for example, circumnavigate the known universe within your own lifetime, simply by continuously accelerating at a mere 1G (the force of gravity at the Earth’s surface). Where many people get mixed up is the other side of the equation: the time that elapses from your origin point, say, the Earth. Time dilation can be extreme for the traveler, but that doesn’t necessarily make it extreme for the non-accelerated POR back on the Earth. If you could somehow zip to the Alpha/Proxima Centauri system and back in, say, one hour of on-board flight time, then the time that passes on Earth is still only going to be roughly 4.37 years each way, 8.74 years, plus one hour. It’s common for people to assume that an astronaut traveling to a fairly local star and back, moving at some crazy fraction of the speed of light, would find the Earth to have aged millions of years, but as you can see it doesn’t work that way.

But the rocket principle, aka “reaction propulsion,” is almost certainly not how these craft are visiting us from across the void (and there’s a long list of reasons to reach this conclusion which we can perhaps address sometime). There’s a far better way, which remains theoretical to human science, but has gained considerable traction in recent years and which is in fact mathematically consistent with the general theory of relativity – employing an asymmetrical spacetime distortion field, aka “gravitational field propulsion” aka “warp field” propulsion. We’ll look at that next.

A fair point. I don't buy the fact though that some technology capable of functioning after many centuries of travel through a harsh, destructive environment is not capable of self reproduction. I would proffer that in terms of nano tech, we're nearly there already. From a systems assurance/RAMS engineering perspective, the ability to self-replicate would be a primary control against the risk of natural attrition.

You’re basing your assumptions about interstellar spaceflight on the concept of reaction propulsion – apparently the apex of current human capabilities, but frankly I think that’s a terrible mistake. Because for one thing, the objects reported don’t emit any exhaust (I can only think of one case that involved a rocket-like exhaust, and I’m fairly convinced that it was a top secret military research project). Pretty much every inexplicable craft reported has employed a field propulsion mechanism that is beyond publicly known science. The most likely candidate for this field propulsion mechanism is gravitational field propulsion (perhaps we can discuss the rationale for this conclusion in more depth sometime).

By warping the field of spacetime to produce motion, all of the typical considerations regarding interstellar spaceflight go out the window. For starters, there’s no time dilation. Gravitational field propulsion allows a craft to travel, in theory, at arbitrarily high velocities, without incurring any Twin Paradox time penalties. For example, one could in theory travel to the Andromeda galaxy for lunch, and be back for dinner, and nobody would be the wiser, because your on-board clock time (known as “coordinate time” in general relativity discussions) never diverges from the rate of time at your origin (known as the “proper time”). Aboard your warp field craft, you wouldn’t feel any acceleration whatsoever, because all of the mass of you and your craft would be accelerated uniformly (gravitationally) – you’re in “free fall” the whole trip. This applies to acute angle turns as well. Feel like buzzing the White House at 50% the speed of light and instantly reversing course once you reach it? No problem. Because you’re not actually moving “through” spacetime, you’re simply “falling” along a gravitational field gradient (referred to as a “geodesic” in general relativity). Similarly, you could hover motionless and silently over one position, then “fall” in some direction so quickly that to the casual observer, you would simply appear to blink out of existence.

These are common flight characteristics reported by eye witnesses of ufos, and while they may seem magical to us now, these capabilities perfectly conform to the predictions of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which we could exploit if we could get over a couple of hurdles, the most confounding one being the problem of “negative mass-energy,” an exotic form of mass-energy that seems to be unknown to modern physics (but some recent observations and theoretical models appear to indicate that the universe employs something akin to this strange form of mass-energy, which is another discussion).

I say all of this simply to point out that our current human technological limitations are not absolute, or necessarily even fundamental. And according to our best theory of gravity, it’s not unreasonable to consider the possibility that alien races may be perfectly capable of dropping in from across countless light-years of distance to give us a closer look with about as much difficulty as you or I might take a drive to the local grocery store.

At the end of the day though, for me, the nuts and bolts UFO model is trying to put a human-experience paradigm on something a lot stranger.

I understand that this is a fashionable viewpoint around here, and there are some good reasons for it. But the range of explanations appears to be largely limited to these two possibilities:

1.) physical technological craft are visiting us from across the gulf of space with some frequency, and

2.) something stranger is going on.

Note that Option 2 isn’t actually an idea; it’s an absence of an idea – a placeholder for an as-yet unexpressed explanation. I think that it’s far wiser, especially considering the physical trace evidence and case testimony and radar confirmations, to assume that both are true: some alien spacecraft from various places and races are fairly frequently dropping by our planet, and, some other things are going on too. It’s a vast and ancient mysterious universe we reside in, and we haven’t begun to fully comprehend it. But with just the smallest step forward in our assumptions – that there are other intelligent beings out there and some of them are thousands or even millions of years ahead of us technologically - we’re immediately faced with the likelihood that they’re achieving the most exotic possibilities that our own best theories tell us are physically possible, and their technology can be glimpsed in our skies from time to time.

 

[Randall]

This gets into the physics of interstellar transport, which is my primary field of interest ...

Sure. I get all that. It doesn't change what I was saying. If a probe takes 90,000 Earth years to physically get here from some alien planet, and another 30,000 to report back via some form of radio or other mode constrained to light-speed, it doesn't matter how fast the probe is travelling. The planet it was launched from is still going to have to wait 120,000 years to get the data, and over that time entire civilizations can come and go.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Sure. I get all that. It doesn't change what I was saying. If a probe takes 90,000 Earth years to physically get here from some alien planet, and another 30,000 to report back via some form of radio or other mode constrained to light-speed, it doesn't matter how fast the probe is travelling. The planet it was launched from is still going to have to wait 120,000 years to get the data, and over that time entire civilizations can come and go.

I see what you were getting at now - my apologies, when you said "when they report back to their home world," I thought you meant "when they return to their home world," and that the delay you mentioned pertained to time dilation. I see that frequently in discussions of interstellar spaceflight because we habitually tend to limit our discussions to sublight speed transport, which invokes all of the usual thorny objections of special relativity.

But since the performance characteristics of these objects strongly indicate that they employ gravitational field propulsion, it's quite reasonable to assume that their transit speeds are far greater than the speed of light. And if there isn't a means of FTL communication (human science offers no method that I'm aware of, but perhaps that will change one day), I assume that alien probes would just physically return to their origin to deliver information and possibly samples.

There's no known theoretical limitation to the maximum speed of gravitational field propulsion, so it's possible that probes from a planet 90,000 light-years away could make the trip in a year, or a week, or an even hour - it only depends upon their technological capability to distort spacetime.

I tend to favor the view that many sufficiently advanced beings would reside upon large "home craft" to a greater extent than we tend to envision though. Because planetary environmental are rather unstable, and somewhat vulnerable. Abroad a warp-field-capable craft, they could safely enjoy ideal living conditions while enjoying a diversity of systems to visit and explore, and gather whatever resources they desire along the way, probably employing warp-capable drones operated from the safety of a mothership. Of course this is all speculation, but I find that's one of the more enjoyable aspects of this subject.

 

[Standanista]

Some very interesting stuff. Just to turn unfashionably nuts-and-bolts for a minute, what about this?:

Wolf 1061c: closest planet found orbiting in a star's habitable zone 14 light years from Earth

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Some very interesting stuff. Just to turn unfashionably nuts-and-bolts for a minute, what about this?:

Wolf 1061c: closest planet found orbiting in a star's habitable zone 14 light years from Earth

That's a good example of why this era is so exciting for discussions of the Drake equation - the better our exoplanetary detection methods become each year, the more habitable planets we're finding. A 2013 estimate by astronomers indicated that there's likely to be at least 40 billion habitable Earth-like planets within the Milky Way alone: Planetary habitability. And now we know that the building blocks of life, amino acids, are flying through space all over the place in ordinary comets, "seeding" planets everywhere.

I find it odd that discussions of exosolar intelligent life seems to be stuck in the 60-70's. Because with the latest information, it's virtually inconceivable to imagine a universe that isn't absolutely teeming with life. I'd go so far to say that the evidence is tilted so far in favor of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy that arguing otherwise would be irrational, if not indefensible. You'd have to be crazy not to believe in aliens in this day and age =)

That shifts the argument to the common "yeah but if they're out there, they can't traverse the stellar voids" objection. But that one's already theoretically rebuked, because we already know that there's a good theoretical argument for a warp field propulsion principle that's consistent with general relativity, and we're only one or two tweaks away from discovering a technology that will essentially render distance irrelevant.

 

[Randall]

I see what you were getting at now - my apologies, when you said "when they report back to their home world," I thought you meant "when they return to their home world," and that the delay you mentioned pertained to time dilation. I see that frequently in discussions of interstellar spaceflight because we habitually tend to limit our discussions to sublight speed transport, which invokes all of the usual thorny objections of special relativity.

But since the performance characteristics of these objects strongly indicate that they employ gravitational field propulsion, it's quite reasonable to assume that their transit speeds are far greater than the speed of light. And if there isn't a means of FTL communication (human science offers no method that I'm aware of, but perhaps that will change one day), I assume that alien probes would just physically return to their origin to deliver information and possibly samples.

There's no known theoretical limitation to the maximum speed of gravitational field propulsion, so it's possible that probes from a planet 90,000 light-years away could make the trip in a year, or a week, or an even hour - it only depends upon their technological capability to distort spacetime.

I tend to favor the view that many sufficiently advanced beings would reside upon large "home craft" to a greater extent than we tend to envision though. Because planetary environmental are rather unstable, and somewhat vulnerable. Abroad a warp-field-capable craft, they could safely enjoy ideal living conditions while enjoying a diversity of systems to visit and explore, and gather whatever resources they desire along the way, probably employing warp-capable drones operated from the safety of a mothership. Of course this is all speculation, but I find that's one of the more enjoyable aspects of this subject.

Hey no need to apologize. It's great to have another sciencey type thinker around here ... LOL. I hope you hang around and share some more of your insights. On the theoretical limitation of velocity for a gravitational propulsion system, that question remains open, and most physicists I've run across tend to assume that it cannot propagate beyond light-speed. But who knows for sure? Is there really a "cosmic speed limit"? Or is that just something arbitrary to make the math work in our present model? I dunno. What I do know is that UFO propulsion aint still workin' on the principle of combustion! And if they can figure it out, we can too. How long that will take could be a matter of years, or maybe it's already under secret development. Maybe we'll never live to see it materialize. What we need is some guy to invent it in his garage for cheap and then put it all over YouTube so that nobody can supress it.

 

[Standanista]

On the teeming-with-life hypothesis, I think we sometimes go for glory looking for big examples (SETI et al, or even Bracewell Probes or spacetime-bending galaxy questers) but don't pay enough attention to more mundane but strong evidence closer to home. I don't know if you fellas have come across the case of odd bacteria turning up periodically in springwater at an observatory in SW England between the 1930s and 1960s, which affected the emulsion on the observatory's photographic plates? The invasions came about periodically after there had been a solar storm while Venus was positioned between the Sun and Earth, leading to speculation that the bacteria may have been carried from Venus' clouds to Earth on the solar wind, eventually making their way into groundwater by rainfall.

The original article is here:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/D R Barber.pdf

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Hey no need to apologize. It's great to have another sciencey type thinker around here ... LOL. I hope you hang around and share some more of your insights.

Much obliged, ufology. I've enjoyed your questions in the Paracast interviews. Honestly I find that the field of ufology, with only a few glowing exceptions, exhibits some scientific blind spots that I hope will be filled in as the kinds of discussions we’re having here migrate into future writings on this subject. Because if ufology becomes rigorously scientific, we will gradually win back the support of the scientific community. And that could turn the tables in all kinds of unforeseeable ways.

On the theoretical limitation of velocity for a gravitational propulsion system, that question remains open, and most physicists I've run across tend to assume that it cannot propagate beyond light-speed.

This is a really pivotal point, so I'm glad you brought it up. Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light - there's an abundance of astronomical observations that support that conclusion, albeit indirectly, because the LIGOS detectors aren’t sensitive enough yet to detect them directly. But energy calculations of decaying binary star systems fit perfectly if gravitational waves propagate at C, so it's assumed to be proven.

Gravitational field propulsion is an altogether different matter though: there's no known upper theoretical bound for the rate at which spacetime can expand and contract, and that's the key. In fact it was the theory of cosmic inflation that inspired Miguel Alcubierre to write his seminal paper in 1994 titled “The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity” http://www.members.shaw.ca/mike.anderton/WarpDrive.pdf Provoked by a consideration of the expansion of spacetime in the early universe at billions of times the speed of light, Alcubierre sought a motive concept that would exploit this phenomenon to theorize a faster-than-light propulsion system consistent with Einstein's theory of gravitation. The takeaway here is that cosmic inflation proves that spacetime can expand billions of times faster than the speed of light. And so far, our science has succeeded in reproducing pretty much everything that the universe can do with applied technology. Another prime example is dark energy, which apparently pervades the entire universe: dark energy is accelerating galaxies far beyond the speed of light right now, forcing the most distant galaxies over the visible horizon of the universe from our point of reference.

So we have at least two mainstream physical examples illustrating cases of spacetime expansion substantially surpassing the speed of light. And on the other side of the equation, we have more than ample evidence for the existence of black holes, and we know that the gravitational acceleration within the event horizon exceeds the speed of light. Put the two together - an event horizon at the leading edge of a craft, and a region of cosmic inflation or dark energy astern, and you've got a gravitational field propulsion system with superluminal capability.

Of course, it sounds unreasonably ambitious when we look at it this way, until we consider that we don’t yet understand *how* matter curves spacetime, only that it does. And there may well be far more efficient methods of distorting spacetime once we understand the mechanism. This has been true in many areas of physics. In fact our current situation with regard to gravity is much like the Medieval understanding of magnetism: if Medieval experimentalists wanted a stronger magnetic field, their only option was to gather more load stone, and even then the upper limit of the field strength was modest at best. Likewise today, the only way we know how to increase the strength of a gravitational field is to gather more matter together, and the practical upper limit on that approach is minuscule. Eventually, in a rapid series of breakthroughs from 1820 to 1832 by Hans Christian Oersted to Joseph Henry yielded the electromagnet, and suddenly magnetic fields of formerly unimaginable intensity were being produced with tiny energies harvested from crude chemical reactions. Something analogous is going to happen with gravitational fields. And when it does, it's going to transform human civilization and open the door to interstellar spaceflight with an ease unimaginable to today's science. The insightful briefings by Robert L. Forward on this subject offer some exciting areas for research in this direction.

What I do know is that UFO propulsion aint still workin' on the principle of combustion! And if they can figure it out, we can too.

Precisely. Frankly, I suspect that this is why we're being given visible demonstrations of this technology: to show us that's it's possible. Because once we know that something can be done, we're halfway to reproducing it.

How long that will take could be a matter of years, or maybe it's already under secret development.

According to a controversial research scientist who worked on classified Skunk Works projects, we already have it. And I tend to believe it. And honestly it's unconscionable to me that such a crucial breakthrough - funded by our tax dollars - is being withheld from humanity. I also think that we have classified energy technology that harnesses an inexhaustible source of ubiquitous energy field, and withholding that strikes me as even more egregious. As Richard Dolan puts it, they're holding our future hostage.

What we need is some guy to invent it in his garage for cheap and then put it all over YouTube so that nobody can supress it.

It's going to take a genius to make the breakthrough in the public domain. Fortunately, those tend to come along once in awhile. I don't know if it can be done in a garage on a shoe-string budget, but I hope so. It worries me that the confiscation of discretionary income, and therefore time, is making it nearly impossible for independent researchers to pursue this kind of work. And I worry that if it does happen and go up on YouTube, that the NSA or similar agency could somehow take it down and confiscate all of the downloaded copies. It would be interesting to see which side wins that battle: the national security state, or the people. A decade ago I would’ve bet on the people, but today, I’m not so sure.

On the teeming-with-life hypothesis, I think we sometimes go for glory looking for big examples (SETI et al, or even Bracewell Probes or spacetime-bending galaxy questers) but don't pay enough attention to more mundane but strong evidence closer to home. I don't know if you fellas have come across the case of odd bacteria turning up periodically in springwater at an observatory in SW England between the 1930s and 1960s, which affected the emulsion on the observatory's photographic plates? The invasions came about periodically after there had been a solar storm while Venus was positioned between the Sun and Earth, leading to speculation that the bacteria may have been carried from Venus' clouds to Earth on the solar wind, eventually making their way into groundwater by rainfall.

The original article is here:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/D R Barber.pdf

That’s a fascinating summary Standanista, thank you – I’d never heard of that before. I look forward to reading up on it. Discovering simple life forms elsewhere in the solar system would be another critical brick to fall in our cultural wall of rejection facing the notion of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy. We may even find life forms that expand our narrow parameters of expectation for the emergence of life under non-Earth-like conditions, which would greatly impact our assessments of the Drake equation. I’ve heard that Mercury may present favorable conditions for the emergence of silicon-based life forms, for example, since the higher temperatures there are favorable for complex molecules based on silicon rather than carbon. Conditions in the Venusian atmosphere and elsewhere in our solar system may likewise be ideal for the emergence of life forms that we haven’t even imagined yet. One of my favorite questions is “how many varieties of life based on alternative chemistries can exist in this universe?”

 

[Ron Away]

Great discussion from you guys,your educating me no end.Pity my limited intellect struggles with so much of it.I shall persevere.Cheers.

 

[Standanista]

We may even find life forms that expand our narrow parameters of expectation for the emergence of life under non-Earth-like conditions, which would greatly impact our assessments of the Drake equation.

We may already have such organisms on Earth, in the form of desert varnish and other candidates for an RNA-based shadow biosphere.

Conditions in the Venusian atmosphere and elsewhere in our solar system may likewise be ideal for the emergence of life forms that we haven’t even imagined yet.

Very true. However, there are strong indicators that conditions for Earth-type life exist in the cloud tops of Venus, even before we start looking for more exotic life forms. There is liquid water, and enough thick and cloudy sulphur compounds to provide anything living there with some protection from solar radiation. Tantalisingly, there is also a disequilibrium in gases - a potential biomarker, a bit like the methane plumes on Mars - which is not (yet at least) explained by non-biological processes, as far as I understand it.

We can study potential Venusian lifeforms from Earth right now using data such as the Sidmouth example above, without the need for a space mission, plus it's close if we did then find something compelling enough to warrant sending another probe up.

 

[Randall]

Much obliged, ufology. I've enjoyed your questions in the Paracast interviews. Honestly I find that the field of ufology, with only a few glowing exceptions, exhibits some scientific blind spots that I hope will be filled in as the kinds of discussions we’re having here migrate into future writings on this subject. Because if ufology becomes rigorously scientific, we will gradually win back the support of the scientific community. And that could turn the tables in all kinds of unforeseeable ways.

Hey thanks. It's always nice to know someone is paying attention ... LOL. On ufology and science. I'm of the view that it can never become a science unto itself. At best it can make use of established science, and it would be best to do that at arms length from the field via independent scientific testing. I think this is the most logical way to establish scientific credibility and respect for it as an academic field of study. There are a couple of significant reasons to back-up my view, and they've been expressed a number of times elsewhere, but in a nutshell, because much of ufology is largely cultural, historical, and anecdotal, it simply can't all be jammed into the scientific method. That doesn't mean however, that we shouldn't raise the bar where scientific thinking is concerned. Absolutely!

This is a really pivotal point, so I'm glad you brought it up. Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light - there's an abundance of astronomical observations that support that conclusion, albeit indirectly, because the LIGOS detectors aren’t sensitive enough yet to detect them directly. But energy calculations of decaying binary star systems fit perfectly if gravitational waves propagate at C, so it's assumed to be proven.

Yes I've looked into that, and the waves from binary star systems aren't representational of the speed of the propagation of gravity, but are more linked to the frequency of the system's rotation.

Gravitational field propulsion is an altogether different matter though: there's no known upper theoretical bound for the rate at which spacetime can expand and contract, and that's the key ...

I'd like to think so, but minds are still divided on that. Plus there is the issue of the huge amount of energy required. So I'm still waiting for more evidence by way of engineering. Great comparison with magnetism there! I've been using a similar comparison in the thread on consciousness.

According to a controversial research scientist who worked on classified Skunk Works projects, we already have it. And I tend to believe it. And honestly it's unconscionable to me that such a crucial breakthrough - funded by our tax dollars - is being withheld from humanity. I also think that we have classified energy technology that harnesses an inexhaustible source of ubiquitous energy field, and withholding that strikes me as even more egregious. As Richard Dolan puts it, they're holding our future hostage.

I'll believe it when I actually see it. We might have antigravity propulsion in secret labs happening, but I'm really skeptical about it. I think we'd be seeing it use instead of still building combustion type technology like F-35s.

It's going to take a genius to make the breakthrough in the public domain. Fortunately, those tend to come along once in awhile. I don't know if it can be done in a garage on a shoe-string budget, but I hope so. It worries me that the confiscation of discretionary income, and therefore time, is making it nearly impossible for independent researchers to pursue this kind of work. And I worry that if it does happen and go up on YouTube, that the NSA or similar agency could somehow take it down and confiscate all of the downloaded copies. It would be interesting to see which side wins that battle: the national security state, or the people. A decade ago I would’ve bet on the people, but today, I’m not so sure.

A lot of breakthroughs are also just stumbled on, so who knows? Maybe some drone builder playing with magnets, superconductors, and pulsed LEDs will accidentally get the right combination and induce some sort of antigravity effect. I think those are the right kind of ingredients, and they're not that expensive anymore, but we just haven't got the recipe worked out. I think there's a real possibility that if it hasn't happened yet, that's how it's going to happen.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

We may already have such organisms on Earth, in the form of desert varnish and other candidates for an RNA-based shadow biosphere.

… there are strong indicators that conditions for Earth-type life exist in the cloud tops of Venus, even before we start looking for more exotic life forms. There is liquid water, and enough thick and cloudy sulphur compounds to provide anything living there with some protection from solar radiation. Tantalisingly, there is also a disequilibrium in gases - a potential biomarker, a bit like the methane plumes on Mars - which is not (yet at least) explained by non-biological processes, as far as I understand it.

We can study potential Venusian lifeforms from Earth right now using data such as the Sidmouth example above, without the need for a space mission, plus it's close if we did then find something compelling enough to warrant sending another probe up.

Man, you have a lot of fresh info that I’ve never heard before, thank you Standanista.

Honestly I’d rather see our space program focusing on Venus rather than Mars, and your information only fortifies that opinion. Venus is much more dynamic and interesting, imo, and it holds a wealth of chemical and energy resources virtually absent on Mars. Solar panels in orbit around Venus would have a feast of energy available for consumption, for one thing. I’d love to see more research on its atmosphere, which as you say seems like a warm chemically dynamic ocean.

On ufology and science. I'm of the view that it can never become a science unto itself. At best it can make use of established science, and it would be best to do that at arms length from the field via independent scientific testing. I think this is the most logical way to establish scientific credibility and respect for it as an academic field of study. There are a couple of significant reasons to back-up my view, and they've been expressed a number of times elsewhere, but in a nutshell, because much of ufology is largely cultural, historical, and anecdotal, it simply can't all be jammed into the scientific method. That doesn't mean however, that we shouldn't raise the bar where scientific thinking is concerned. Absolutely!

That’s exactly how I feel about it too, and I’m alarmed by the jumble of science with woo that I frequently see in ufology discussions. Far too many ufologists in the mainstream media are really awful at scientific reasoning, and have poor grasp of well-known scientific facts and principles, especially pertaining to physics. Ufologists don’t all have to be scientists, of course, but when scientific topics come up, a working familiarity with the applicable field is crucial.

As you say, independent scientific testing is a good start. And I’m thrilled that some people working within the field make a point of observing rigorous chain of custody and other controls that preserve scientific integrity. But I’d like to see a professional forensic scientist within the field, and a general adoption of the forensic protocols and techniques employed by law enforcement. If we could achieve this as a research community to the extent that we could one day see something like a “UFO Forensic Files” program that shows serious empirical research being conducted on these cases, that would have professional forensic analysts nodding their heads in agreement, then we could imbue this work with a level of reputability that would open new doors and start to wash away the credibility stains that the counter-intelligence efforts have employed to silence open public discussion.

Yes I've looked into that, and the waves from binary star systems aren't representational of the speed of the propagation of gravity, but are more linked to the frequency of the system's rotation.

The speed and the energy of gravitational waves and the orbital decay of a binary star system are all inseparably interdependent within the framework of general relativity. The changes in the orbital frequency indicate the rate of orbital decay. The energy of the gravitational waves that radiate from a binary star system can be precisely calculated with Einstein’s field equation because it defines the energy of the quadruple radiation that orbiting bodies emit. This emission of energy in the form of gravitational waves causes the orbit to decay. And this orbital decay is equivalent to gravitational damping which strongly depends on the propagation speed of the radiation. So it’s an excellent observational test of general relativity and the speed of gravitational waves – using this method astrophysicists have confirmed that gravitational waves propagate at a speed within 1% of the speed of light. Here’s a nice summary by Steve Carlip Steve Carlip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at John Baez’s website:

“While current observations do not yet provide a direct model-independent measurement of the speed of gravity, a test within the framework of general relativity can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The orbit of this binary system is gradually decaying, and this behavior is attributed to the loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. But in any field theory, radiation is intimately related to the finite velocity of field propagation, and the orbital changes due to gravitational radiation can equivalently be viewed as damping caused by the finite propagation speed. (In the discussion above, this damping represents a failure of the "retardation" and "noncentral, velocity-dependent" effects to completely cancel.)

The rate of this damping can be computed, and one finds that it depends sensitively on the speed of gravity. The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all is a strong indication that the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite. If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%. (Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system, PSR B1534+12, confirm this result, although so far with less precision.)”
Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?

Gravitational field propulsion is an altogether different matter though: there's no known upper theoretical bound for the rate at which spacetime can expand and contract, and that's the key.

I'd like to think so, but minds are still divided on that.

Can you provide a source? I’ve never seen a credible objection to this point, because to raise such an objection, we’d have to throw out cosmic inflation. And at this point cosmic inflation is a cornerstone of the Big Bang model. Cosmic inflation is our only model to explain everything from the large-scale structure of the universe to the homogeneity of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and it’s the only viable solution we have for the horizon problem and the flatness problem. So if spacetime *can’t* expand at billions of times the speed of light, then we’d have to throw out all of modern cosmology: Cosmic Inflation - A. Albrecht I’d be happy to go along with that, if someone has a better model to explain all of these observations, but I’ve never even seen a plausible alternative.

Plus there is the issue of the huge amount of energy required.

I still see this objection from some skeptics online, but they haven’t kept up with recent developments. It turns out that by expanding the width of the region of spacetime distortion around a craft, the energy requirements drop drastically. When Alcubierre made his initial calculations, the requisite energy he estimated was in the range of the mass of Jupiter(!) because he modeled a thin shell of distortion that takes a great deal of energy to confine (in other words, a steeper gravitational gradient requires a higher energy density than a flatter slope). He hadn’t bothered to optimize the size and shape of the warp bubble, which Dr. Sonny White has done using computer software. Dr. White’s optimized warp bubble reduces the energy requirement from the mass of Jupiter to the mass of a Pioneer space probe – about the mass of a Volkswagen bug. And this is without the benefit of understanding the mechanism by which mass distorts spacetime. It’s likely, if not certain, that the energy requirement to produce the distortion will drop much further once we can target the specific mechanism by which mass curves spacetime, akin to how we learned to produce high-intensity magnetic fields with modest energies once we discovered electromagnetic induction.

The “negative mass’ requirement is generally considered to be the most substantial hurdle, because none of the particles in the Standard Model possess negative mass. But for some reason most people seem to be lagging in the realization that dark energy and cosmic inflation offer alternative routes to producing negative spacetime curvature without relying upon a fictional form of matter. Perhaps that’s because we still don’t understand the mechanism(s?) behind either one. However, they are both real phenomena, according to our best observations and cosmological understanding. So we’ll figure them out one day, and when we do, we may discover that we can harness these effects. And once that happens, the rest is just engineering.

So I'm still waiting for more evidence by way of engineering.

Actually Dr. White is currently experimenting with a warp field generator prototype at NASA’s Johnson Space Center right now. I’m not optimistic, because his device depends upon the validity of a higher dimensional model of spacetime that has no supporting evidence that I know of, but there’s no evidence against it either, AFAIK. So it’s experimental speculation, but I’m glad he’s giving it a shot. I just wish they could’ve built it bigger – at the energies they’re using it’s unlikely that we’ll learn anything, imo. I see this as a prime example of vital research being grossly underfunded due to the success of psyops programs in stigmatizing research into gravity manipulation.

Great comparison with magnetism there!

I confess that I stole that analogy from a 1950s book by an alleged contactee, Daniel Fry, and it may have been given to him by a magnanimous alien 0.o

I've been using a similar comparison in the thread on consciousness.

Another one of my favorite subjects. I’ll have to check that out.

I'll believe it when I actually see it.

Well sure, but then who wouldn’t? By the time it’s on CNN the fun part is over.

We might have antigravity propulsion in secret labs happening, but I'm really skeptical about it. I think we'd be seeing it use instead of still building combustion type technology like F-35s.

I’m sorry but I just don’t think that’s reasonable. Why would we deploy a breakthrough technology into a combat situation and risk having it captured by our enemies? Not to mention exposing it to the public. There are serious implications for the energy sector to consider, for one thing, and taxes on oil are the primary source of revenue for world governments, if I’ve heard right. Besides, conventional fighter jets do a fine job over the battlefield; it would be crazy to squander an interstellar-spaceflight-capable technology on something as mundane as a skirmish in the desert when conventional aircraft, cruise missiles, and drones are so effective.

A lot of breakthroughs are also just stumbled on, so who knows? Maybe some drone builder playing with magnets, superconductors, and pulsed LEDs will accidentally get the right combination and induce some sort of antigravity effect. I think those are the right kind of ingredients, and they're not that expensive anymore, but we just haven't got the recipe worked out. I think there's a real possibility that if it hasn't happened yet, that's how it's going to happen.

I see that your veneer of skepticism masks an inner optimist =) You might be right; a lot of good discoveries happen by accident. Have you ever seen the cool indie film Primer? But I tend to think that a major leap like gravitational field propulsion technology is more likely to require some brilliant and creative scientific thinking. Or maybe I’d just hate to see Joe the Plumber beat me to the punch line after a lifetime of obsessive study and tedious experimentation %P

 

[Randall]

That’s exactly how I feel about it too, and I’m alarmed by the jumble of science with woo that I frequently see in ufology discussions. Far too many ufologists in the mainstream media are really awful at scientific reasoning, and have poor grasp of well-known scientific facts and principles, especially pertaining to physics. Ufologists don’t all have to be scientists, of course, but when scientific topics come up, a working familiarity with the applicable field is crucial.

Totally.

As you say, independent scientific testing is a good start. And I’m thrilled that some people working within the field make a point of observing rigorous chain of custody and other controls that preserve scientific integrity. But I’d like to see a professional forensic scientist within the field, and a general adoption of the forensic protocols and techniques employed by law enforcement. If we could achieve this as a research community to the extent that we could one day see something like a “UFO Forensic Files” program that shows serious empirical research being conducted on these cases, that would have professional forensic analysts nodding their heads in agreement, then we could imbue this work with a level of reputability that would open new doors and start to wash away the credibility stains that the counter-intelligence efforts have employed to silence open public discussion.

I'm mostly with you there. I think there is room within the overall framework of ufology for serious scientific research, but I'm also of the opinion that independent testing at arm's length from the field is essential if the evidence is to be taken seriously by the scientific community. By taking this approach, rather than competing with scientists for what little funding is out there, we'd be hiring them for their expertise on their terms, which would lead to greater respect right off the bat.

This does still leave the issue of evidence gathering something to be worked out, and your points about chain of custody and so on are really great. MUFON has a field manual that their people are supposed to follow which is pretty good actually, but the problem of quality material evidence still remains. Ideally what we need is for an independent & reputable scientist/skeptic to have a firsthand experience in which material evidence meeting accepted scientific standards can be gathered.

The speed and the energy of gravitational waves and the orbital decay of a binary star system are all inseparably interdependent within the framework of general relativity .... The rate of this damping can be computed, and one finds that it depends sensitively on the speed of gravity ...

OK, but that still doesn't change what I was saying. But it does add new information. Let's try to clarify. In binary systems, gravitational waves and the rate of damping are related, but still two different issues. The kind of waves I've run across are a reflection of the orbital period of the system. This makes perfect sense. Wave like changes should be expected. But that's not proof that gravity is a wave any more than it proves water is a wave, nor does the frequency reflect the actual speed of gravity. There might be another type of wave they are studying that I've missed, but the article doesn't mention it. It does however mention gravitational waves from a supernova, which is a different story. There you have a sudden change in mass from a single point source.

The damping factor is another matter. On first inspection it looks like it's something they plugged general relativity into to see if it worked, and it seems pretty good. However relativity has it's own issues. It doesn't prove that space is literally curved or anything else like that. It is a mathematical analogy that basically says: If we look at space in this way ( as if it is curved ) the results are useful in making more accurate predictions. I'm with those who say actual space remains a 3D coordinate system with time as a separate variable that isn't really a "spatial dimension" ( though you'll hear them debate that too ).

As you can tell, I'm a bit of an armchair science type myself ... LOL

Returning to FTL. My favorite idea is a sort of Stargate that works on the idea that this universe is in fact a complex simulation, and that with the right access to the OS, you can cut and paste yourself around anyplace you want almost instantly. So no wormhole, huge energy requirement, or anything like that required.

 

[Randall]

I’m sorry but I just don’t think that’s reasonable. Why would we deploy a breakthrough technology into a combat situation and risk having it captured by our enemies?

Why use it? Why not? That's what the F-35 represents, and the YF-12a, and the U-2, and the rest of the stuff in history that were breakthrough technologies. If it's better and it can be built, it gets built, and if it works, they don't tend to leave it sitting around doing nothing, but I suppose there could be exceptions. I'm not insisting I have to be right here.

Not to mention exposing it to the public. There are serious implications for the energy sector to consider, for one thing, and taxes on oil are the primary source of revenue for world governments, if I’ve heard right. Besides, conventional fighter jets do a fine job over the battlefield; it would be crazy to squander an interstellar-spaceflight-capable technology on something as mundane as a skirmish in the desert when conventional aircraft, cruise missiles, and drones are so effective.

The same propulsion we use in the military is also used in space launches. Historically whatever type of technology is available and applicable for the job gets used for that job. Sure there is stuff that is kept secret. I'll grant that much, but as you point out, the benefits of going anti-gravity are just too huge not to deploy. IMO it would be in use by now. But this is also a rare case where I think there is room for differing opinions. I'll admit you have a good point and that it could be that way ;-)