UFO Design

[marduk]

I also wondered about this, i was convinced before that if we are "being visited" by many different types of being it stands to reason they would use different shapes and types of craft,like we have different class and size of submarine and ship/boats and different types of airframes ETC.

was seeing if there was any record of different types of craft and if there were confirmed CE4 sightings that could positively identify the beings flying the craft, like the BILLY MEIER sightings they seem to resemble the so called "HAUNEBU" project that the NAZIS had designed and they were flown by the PLEIADIANS allegedly. like the BLACK TRIANGLES they could possibly be a black ops project.

might be worth trying to CREATE A TARGET PACK of possible craft and who's design they are ?

If they're 'grown' with nanotech or 3d printed, they may be one off devices. Maybe they can look like anything, maybe it's their fashion sense.

My point is that they might not be manufactured at all, and 'models' only really make sense if they're manufactured.

 

[mike]

There are plenty of these style charts online.

 

[mike]

You may need Google translate for this one

 

[technomage]

Although some of them look interesting, like the July 1947 one, the Enterprise looks better than all of these. I guess "aliens" have a different conception of beauty than we do.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Here's another one that's been reported...

 

[technomage]

Yeah, that one is from Planet XXX.

 

[Walter Bosley]

And let's not forget this one...

 

[ChrisJohnsen]

Here's another one that's been reported...

I believe Ray Stanford has a photo of this craft shooting plasma from its nose. It would certainly explain why he refuses to share his photos with the general public...

 

[Han]

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

So this article caught my eye today - astronomers have observed what appears to be a 3-billion-solar-mass black hole being ejected from the galactic center of a distant galaxy at 8 million kilometers per hour, following the collision of two supermassive black holes fusing into one. When I read the headline I assumed that this enormous ejection velocity had been acquired by the collision of a fast-moving supermassive black hole with the stationary one at the galactic center - but that's not what happened.

Instead, astrophysicists believe that the orientation of spins between the two orbiting black holes caused an asymmetric burst of gravitational radiation that launched the newly merged black holes on this incredibly fast trajectory on its way out of the host galaxy. The magnitude of kinetic energy required to propel 3 billion solar masses at that velocity is staggering, and I had no idea that gravitational radiation could be asymmetrically dispersed like that.

Which got me thinking - if that gravitational radiation pattern could be created technologically, it would make an excellent propulsion system. Matter propulsion like we use with our rockets requires the propellant to be accelerated with the rocket, causing a diminishing returns effect that bars the rocket principle from being a viable interstellar propulsion mechanism. And photon energy propulsion would roast whatever's behind you if you wanted to accelerate rapidly. But gravitational waves diminish in intensity by the inverse cube law, and pass through matter harmlessly, so they'd be an ideal reaction force mechanism.

A 3 billion solar mass black hole rockets out of a galaxy at 8 million kilometers per hour. Yes, seriously.

 

[DROBNJAK]

I am glad to see that this thread will seemingly never die ;-)

re: black hole - UFO witnesses might be all crazies, but they constantly talk about relativistic effects, like space contraction and time dilation. So whatever UFOs do, they manipulate space/time in some way.

 

[marduk]

I am glad to see that this thread will seemingly never die ;-)

re: black hole - UFO witnesses might be all crazies, but they constantly talk about relativistic effects, like space contraction and time dilation. So whatever UFOs do, they manipulate space/time in some way.

I'm one of them. Never seen space contract or any distortion effects at all from the few clear sightings I remember.

Time seemed only to distort when the interactions were more one on one. Not from the vehicles.

But that's just me - I know there are lots of reports.

 

[DROBNJAK]

UFOs should form something similar to gravitational lens. So there would be some light bending and distortions.

Light bending should be strongest around the central axis of the propulsion unit. For a standard disc shaped UFO that would be the main axis.

But problem is that most of sightings occur with UFO against a background of the sky. Because sky is flat in color, it is very hard to see any distortion. Same will apply to clouds as clouds have random shaped edges, and again if their shape was distorted we'll not know what was the original shape of the cloud's edge.

Most likely gravitational lensing would be seen if UFO is in a front of branches of a tree or some structure with straight lines, like roof eves etc.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

UFOs should form something similar to gravitational lens. So there would be some light bending and distortions.

I recall descriptions of odd visual distortions around the lights at the bottom of the craft seen in the Belgian ufo triangle flap. Sounded like thermal distortions to me, but it could've been gravitational.

Bear in mind that the magnitude of the gravitational field of the Earth is tiny - we can't even detect the gravitational lens effect of the Earth against the stellar background. So if a craft is hovering above the Earth using a polarized gravitational field to counteract the field of the Earth, it wouldn't have to be very strong at all, so we wouldn't necessarily be able to detect any optical distortion.

The physical effects would be readily apparent with USO cases though, because the force on surrounding matter would be significant. And I've looked through as many of those cases as I could find (there's a website dedicated to these accounts online somewhere...here it is: WATER UFO - A RESEARCH ENDEAVOR) and indeed we do have some fascinating accounts of ufo's exerting perceptible influences on the surface of water. I recall an especially fascinating account of a ufo creating a visible depression on the surface of the ocean as it hovered above the surface (perhaps it was the U.S.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt case?). That effect could only be created by two mechanisms that I'm aware of: either the craft was using a high-frequency electromagnetic field to levitate over the electrically conductive saltwater via Lenz's law, or the craft was floating on a negative (antigravitational) force field that was repelling the water underneath the craft. And given the other performance characteristics of these craft, I tend to favor the latter interpretation. Because a craft that could generate a polarized gravitational field would be perfectly capable of high-velocity hairpin maneuvers with no on-board G-forces, as well as practical manned interstellar spaceflight exceeding the speed of light (and that's not speculation, our best theoretical physics model of gravity, general relativity, permits faster-than-light travel using polarized gravitational field gradients, which is why everyone got so excited about the Alcubierre warp drive concept).

 

[DROBNJAK]

I recall descriptions of odd visual distortions around the lights at the bottom of the craft seen in the Belgian ufo triangle flap. Sounded like thermal distortions to me, but it could've been gravitational.

Bear in mind that the magnitude of the gravitational field of the Earth is tiny - we can't even detect the gravitational lens effect of the Earth against the stellar background. So if a craft is hovering above the Earth using a polarized gravitational field to counteract the field of the Earth, it wouldn't have to be very strong at all, so we wouldn't necessarily be able to detect any optical distortion.

Exactly, the effect would be so small that it would be difficult to distinguish from any thermal effects produced by the heat of engine or UFO's hull. Particularly against flat background of sky, with no details. But the effect shows itself over the water and on dust particles and debris. Possibly even on grass.

There is a small number of cases which talk about GR effects. The best one came from Mark McCandlish right here in this video:

https://youtu.be/FDjE9ME452c?t=4955

And the most mysterious GR effect, where two UF riverine patrol boats, in Vietnam, got caught up in a fire-fight with a single UFO. UFO was capturing bullets fired from boats, curving their path 180 degrees and sending them back at the boats.
https://youtu.be/G8-V9idspi4

Story apparently came from USAF Chief of Stuff. George S. Brown on a press conference held on Oct 16, 1973 in Illinois. ref:

Just imagine how strong space/time curving around UFO must be to actually turn 1/2" bullet's trajectory 180 degrees.

The physical effects would be readily apparent with USO cases though, because the force on surrounding matter would be significant. And I've looked through as many of those cases as I could find (there's a website dedicated to these accounts online somewhere...here it is: WATER UFO - A RESEARCH ENDEAVOR) and indeed we do have some fascinating accounts of ufo's exerting perceptible influences on the surface of water. I recall an especially fascinating account of a ufo creating a visible depression on the surface of the ocean as it hovered above the surface (perhaps it was the U.S.S. Franklin D. Roosevelt case?). That effect could only be created by two mechanisms that I'm aware of: either the craft was using a high-frequency electromagnetic field to levitate over the electrically conductive saltwater via Lenz's law, or the craft was floating on a negative (antigravitational) force field that was repelling the water underneath the craft. And given the other performance characteristics of these craft, I tend to favor the latter interpretation. Because a craft that could generate a polarized gravitational field would be perfectly capable of high-velocity hairpin maneuvers with no on-board G-forces, as well as practical manned interstellar spaceflight exceeding the speed of light (and that's not speculation, our best theoretical physics model of gravity, general relativity, permits faster-than-light travel using polarized gravitational field gradients, which is why everyone got so excited about the Alcubierre warp drive concept).

I am grateful for finding an informed soul. So many people try to impose their ignorance. Yeah, till one reads Carl W. Feindt's Water UFO cases one can't really express an informed opinion. I completely agree that UFO propulsion is derivative of the general relativity. Specifically, its called gravitomagnetic field and that field exists in GR. I wouldn't call it anti-gravity, because there is no such thing. It is just gravitomagnetic field, or artificial-gravity. Gravitomagnetic field is the same shape as magnetic field, that's why the name.

As @marduk correctly warned us, we should not be jumping into conclusions. We can't really tell which role EM fields have in creation of the artificial gravity. Maybe its just an side effect of say power generation. Or maybe its both? It requires a careful study.

I didn't know that Alcubierre warp drive can produce faster-than-light speed? Do you have any reference?

 

[Han]

I am glad to see that this thread will seemingly never die ;-)

re: black hole - UFO witnesses might be all crazies, but they constantly talk about relativistic effects, like space contraction and time dilation. So whatever UFOs do, they manipulate space/time in some way.

I think that is what keeps me being interested in the paranormal in general, it is an absolute impossibility that all UFO/Paranormal witnesses are "Crazy" or "Liars".

In my mind it is debatable whether UFO's actually have a "physical" presence but either by accident or intentionally there seems to be a definite effect on the observers "perception", this may sound like I am belittling these events, but I actually think the opposite, because "perception" is all we have.

I believe that a paranormal event requires a Human, because that is the only constant across all cases I have heard of, but untangling what is going on is far more complicated than "chicken and egg"* scenarios.

As an afterthought the title of this thread is UFO "Design" which implies (to me at least) that they are "crafted" as opposed to "evolving", to be more clear: design implies that there was a "thought" process behind their "creation" rather than natural actors. For example: a Bird has evolved to fly, but an Aeroplane was "designed" to. What I am getting at is maybe UFOs are not "constructed" but rather "grown" or it could be a combination of both, think Horse selective breeding.

In a nutshell maybe UFOs are not designed at all, and evolved alongside, if not before us? or maybe even as "part" of us (our perception at least).



*as in: "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" (it is now possible to prove beyond any doubt that the egg came first)

 

[marduk]

I don't buy at all that the distortion effects would be low.

I mean we're talking about dozens of tons of mass energy compressed into very small volumes. Enough to keep a few dozen tons in the air that doesn't want to be there.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Exactly, the effect would be so small that it would be difficult to distinguish from any thermal effects produced by the heat of engine or UFO's hull. Particularly against flat background of sky, with no details. But the effect shows itself over the water and on dust particles and debris. Possibly even on grass.

Thanks for the links; I look forward to watching them. I think it was Paul Hill’s book “Unconventional Flying Objects” that got into some interesting effects of ufo’s on incidental matter near the craft. As I recall he also concluded that the propulsion system was comprised of some kind of quasi-static gravitational field mechanism.

And the most mysterious GR effect, where two UF riverine patrol boats, in Vietnam, got caught up in a fire-fight with a single UFO. UFO was capturing bullets fired from boats, curving their path 180 degrees and sending them back at the boats.

I’m not convinced that this is a gravitational effect: lead is a pretty good electrical conductor, so a high-amplitude high-frequency electromagnetic field would induce a strong repulsion effect. And then there’s the issue of shielding – an interstellar craft would have to possess some kind of field that would repel high-speed particles in space to prevent hull damage. It could be a very short-range force; the nuclear strong force has a repulsive pole at subatomic scales – perhaps they’ve learned how to use that somehow.

I am grateful for finding an informed soul. So many people try to impose their ignorance. Yeah, till one reads Carl W. Feindt's Water UFO cases one can't really express an informed opinion. I completely agree that UFO propulsion is derivative of the general relativity. Specifically, its called gravitomagnetic field and that field exists in GR. I wouldn't call it anti-gravity, because there is no such thing. It is just gravitomagnetic field, or artificial-gravity. Gravitomagnetic field is the same shape as magnetic field, that's why the name.

Thanks, yes I’m well-acquainted the principles of gravitoelectromagnetism, and I think those second-order gravitational phenomena (which most people aren’t even aware of) likely play a key role in all of this. I think that gravitomagnetism gets its name more from its inductive aspects and its gravitoelectric nature, which are analogous to magnetism, but they’re very similar in shape as well. And there are some other good sources out there – I don’t rule out anyone’s opinion just for missing out on Feindt’s intriguing collection of reports ;

And gravitoelectromagnetism describes two gravitoelectric poles, a positive and a negative, just like electric charge. If we call ordinary gravitational charges "positive," then the other one, the negative pole, would repel all ordinary matter. Colloquially, most people know this concept as "antigravity," although it is more technically accurate to call it "gravitoelectric repulsion." But let's not allow the government's massive PsyOps campaign to dissuade us from speaking plainly - we're talking about antigravity here, and it's a theoretically valid concept, regardless of what the "noisy negativists" have to say: most of them have a crappy grasp pf physics anyway.

But I should mention that gravitomagnetism alone can’t explain the levitation we observe with these craft – just like magnetism, it’s a conserved field with two polarities and no net gravitoelectric charge, so a gravitomagnetic field alone doesn’t explain the momentum changes of these craft. Sonny White, the research director at NASA’s Eagleworks program in Houston, has published a number of interesting papers that develop Alcubierre’s field propulsion concept – and that actually does offer a plausible (albeit highly speculative) theoretical propulsion concept.

As @marduk correctly warned us, we should not be jumping into conclusions. We can't really tell which role EM fields have in creation of the artificial gravity. Maybe its just an side effect of say power generation. Or maybe its both? It requires a careful study.

We have a lot more to learn than we know, that’s for sure. But the principles of gravitoelectromagnetism do seem to be the first real light of understanding what we’re dealing with, technologically. And it's worth noting that every electromagnet creates a minuscule gravitomagnetic field, because electrons have mass, and mass moving in a circle generates a gravitomagnetic field. It's just too small to detect in the case of ordinary inductors, unless perhaps you're using an extremely high current and a core with a very high gravitomagnetic susceptibility and nonlinear permeability to amplify the field.

I didn't know that Alcubierre warp drive can produce faster-than-light speed? Do you have any reference?

Yeah it’s in his original paper, “The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity.” If you haven’t read it yet I’d think you’d enjoy it, and it’s an easy read, which is unusual for papers on general relativity:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0009013v1.pdf

I think that is what keeps me being interested in the paranormal in general, it is an absolute impossibility that all UFO/Paranormal witnesses are "Crazy" or "Liars".

In my mind it is debatable whether UFO's actually have a "physical" presence but either by accident or intentionally there seems to be a definite effect on the observers "perception", this may sound like I am belittling these events, but I actually think the opposite, because "perception" is all we have.

I believe that a paranormal event requires a Human, because that is the only constant across all cases I have heard of, but untangling what is going on is far more complicated than "chicken and egg"* scenarios.

As an afterthought the title of this thread is UFO "Design" which implies (to me at least) that they are "crafted" as opposed to "evolving", to be more clear: design implies that there was a "thought" process behind their "creation" rather than natural actors. For example: a Bird has evolved to fly, but an Aeroplane was "designed" to. What I am getting at is maybe UFOs are not "constructed" but rather "grown" or it could be a combination of both, think Horse selective breeding.

In a nutshell maybe UFOs are not designed at all, and evolved alongside, if not before us? or maybe even as "part" of us (our perception at least).

It’s become fashionable lately to question the physicality of the objects reported by eyewitnesses, which is a shame: there are all kind of cases involving radar confirmation and physical trace evidence and so forth. Some sightings may be unknown forms of energy fields and others may be psychological phenomena, but certainly not all of them. Some of them are solid, and appear to be machines. I think it’s very plausible that they could be living machines of some kind, and perhaps even be conscious in some sense – I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these things were smarter than we are; some kind of highly advanced artificial intelligence (and after all, what’s the real difference between artificial intelligence and organic intelligence anyway? It could very well be superior to the flawed and messy brand of consciousness generated by our peculiar mushy neurological soup).

I don't buy at all that the distortion effects would be low.

I mean we're talking about dozens of tons of mass energy compressed into very small volumes. Enough to keep a few dozen tons in the air that doesn't want to be there.

Dozens of tons of matter is gravitationally insignificant, even at high densities – the Earth has a mass of roughly 6x10^21 metric tons, and we can’t detect any gravitational lens effect around it, in fact we can barely detect the gravitational lens of the Sun.

Think of this way: the gravitational deflection of light is directly proportional to the magnitude of the gravitational field. So if you had craft that generated a gravitational field so strong that you could see the gravitational lens effect with the naked eye, then what would keep the craft from collapsing under that enormous gravitational field gradient (and sucking you into it in the process)? The tidal forces alone would rip any material structure to shreds.

The only way I can make sense of it is if they’ve figured out how to modify the coupling constant between mass-energy and spacetime, with respect to the second-order gravitoelectromagnetic effects that we mentioned earlier. If you could engineer a material that had an extremely high and nonlinear gravitomagnetic permeability, for example, you could generate powerful gravitomagnetic effects using a modest magnitude and density of mass-energy. It’s analogous to putting an iron core in an electromagnetic coil – using a small current you suddenly get a much more powerful field. And if that’s the case, you might be able to generate a polarized gravitational field for propulsion purposes, without having to harness the mass-energy of a neutron star to do it. Which would mean that you wouldn’t wipe out an entire planet every time one of your craft suffered a modest containment failure.

 

[DROBNJAK]

I don't buy at all that the distortion effects would be low.

I mean we're talking about dozens of tons of mass energy compressed into very small volumes. Enough to keep a few dozen tons in the air that doesn't want to be there.

That's not the issue. Issue is, that even if distortion is massive, its projected towards a blue sky. If you turn even the strongest glass made lens towards the sky, you will not see any distortion. Simply because of the flatness of the background sky's color.

Another thing is, because how gravitomagnetic field works, in a form of torus, there is a column aligned with a central axis of the craft. Imagine a cylindrical bar magnet. Magnetic field would form a torus, with a very dense column of parallel magnetic lines going right through the bar magnet. That's how gravitomagnetic field looks like. Only flux lines are made of gravitational field, not magnetic. Just google "gravitomagnetic".

So, you don't have one lens bellow the craft and another lens above. It doesn't actually work like Alcubiere's drive. No, you have a column of gravitomagnetic flux lines going right through the middle of the craft, along the central axis of rotational symmetry. That's why distrtions would be minimal on the outside.

Actually, there is thread here on this forum, where a lady, who was abducted as a child, described engine room inside UFO. She said there was a huge "tank", like a swimming pool full of murky gel like material. Such "swimming pools" were described by few other abductees. I know its far fetched, but my current thinking is that these central "swimming pools" are used as a ballast, as something for gravitomagnetic column to grab on and lift the craft.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Thanks for the links; I look forward to watching them. I think it was Paul Hill’s book “Unconventional Flying Objects” that got into some interesting effects of ufo’s on incidental matter near the craft. As I recall he also concluded that the propulsion system was comprised of some kind of quasi-static gravitational field mechanism.

Paul Hill's book was the first one where an qualified enginner took a look. Problem was, he was a mechanical enginner, so he had seen all the ghings through mechanics' prism. So he got electro-magnetic part completely wrong.

I’m not convinced that this is a gravitational effect: lead is a pretty good electrical conductor, so a high-amplitude high-frequency electromagnetic field would induce a strong repulsion effect. And then there’s the issue of shielding – an interstellar craft would have to possess some kind of field that would repel high-speed particles in space to prevent hull damage. It could be a very short-range force; the nuclear strong force has a repulsive pole at subatomic scales – perhaps they’ve learned how to use that somehow.

OK, that's a good point. But they seem to be able to form beams out of whatever fields they have and lift cars, cows and people. Sometimes UFOs can be funny, I now. There was a case where a farmer was hit on a forehed, like with a fist, but from 50m (150ft) away.

Thanks, yes I’m well-acquainted the principles of gravitoelectromagnetism, and I think those second-order gravitational phenomena (which most people aren’t even aware of) likely play a key role in all of this. I think that gravitomagnetism gets its name more from its inductive aspects and its gravitoelectric nature, which are analogous to magnetism, but they’re very similar in shape as well. And there are some other good sources out there – I don’t rule out anyone’s opinion just for missing out on Feindt’s intriguing collection of reports ;

Fendt is the key. We must invite him to this forum.

Can you please elaborate more on "second-order". I am into that for a long time, but don't have enough depth in that area.

And gravitoelectromagnetism describes two gravitoelectric poles, a positive and a negative, just like electric charge. If we call ordinary gravitational charges "positive," then the other one, the negative pole, would repel all ordinary matter. Colloquially, most people know this concept as "antigravity," although it is more technically accurate to call it "gravitoelectric repulsion." But let's not allow the government's massive PsyOps campaign to dissuade us from speaking plainly - we're talking about antigravity here, and it's a theoretically valid concept, regardless of what the "noisy negativists" have to say: most of them have a crappy grasp pf physics anyway.

OK, OK, are we talking here about dipole (like in magnetic field, so no point charges) or two opposite particle charges, like in electric field?

But I should mention that gravitomagnetism alone can’t explain the levitation we observe with these craft – just like magnetism, it’s a conserved field with two polarities and no net gravitoelectric charge, so a gravitomagnetic field alone doesn’t explain the momentum changes of these craft. Sonny White, the research director at NASA’s Eagleworks program in Houston, has published a number of interesting papers that develop Alcubierre’s field propulsion concept – and that actually does offer a plausible (albeit highly speculative) theoretical propulsion concept.

I know that magnetic field is conserved. But gravtational field creates accelerations. My understanding is that gravitomagnetic field acts like a smoke ring, from a cigarette smoke or nuclear bomb. In both cases it seems that rotational momentum of the smoke ring is transfered into linear momentum of movement in one single direction. So smoke ring moves in a direction opposite of the inside side rotation.

We have a lot more to learn than we know, that’s for sure. But the principles of gravitoelectromagnetism do seem to be the first real light of understanding what we’re dealing with, technologically. And it's worth noting that every electromagnet creates a minuscule gravitomagnetic field, because electrons have mass, and mass moving in a circle generates a gravitomagnetic field. It's just too small to detect in the case of ordinary inductors, unless perhaps you're using an extremely high current and a core with a very high gravitomagnetic susceptibility and nonlinear permeability to amplify the field.

Please elaborate on this: "gravitomagnetic susceptibility and nonlinear permeability". What are these in layman terms?

It’s become fashionable lately to question the physicality of the objects reported by eyewitnesses, which is a shame: there are all kind of cases involving radar confirmation and physical trace evidence and so forth. Some sightings may be unknown forms of energy fields and others may be psychological phenomena, but certainly not all of them. Some of them are solid, and appear to be machines. I think it’s very plausible that they could be living machines of some kind, and perhaps even be conscious in some sense – I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these things were smarter than we are; some kind of highly advanced artificial intelligence (and after all, what’s the real difference between artificial intelligence and organic intelligence anyway? It could very well be superior to the flawed and messy brand of consciousness generated by our peculiar mushy neurological soup).

The main thing to keep in a mind is that univers is 13.5 billion years old. There was plenty of time for intelligent life to develop in many places. UFOs are not all made in the same factory. There are civilisations with very different levels of developement. Some UFOs appear verly primiteve, with lots of pipes etc. While other appear to be solid-state tech. This creates a difficulty in a research, because creates lots of variations to deal with.

Dozens of tons of matter is gravitationally insignificant, even at high densities – the Earth has a mass of roughly 6x10^21 metric tons, and we can’t detect any gravitational lens effect around it, in fact we can barely detect the gravitational lens of the Sun.

@marduk was maybe thinking along lines: air would get compressed by gravitational lense, and than air would create a lens.

Think of this way: the gravitational deflection of light is directly proportional to the magnitude of the gravitational field. So if you had craft that generated a gravitational field so strong that you could see the gravitational lens effect with the naked eye, then what would keep the craft from collapsing under that enormous gravitational field gradient (and sucking you into it in the process)? The tidal forces alone would rip any material structure to shreds.

Now, this is the best thought I ever read on this subject. Thank you for helping me understand subject better.

The only way I can make sense of it is if they’ve figured out how to modify the coupling constant between mass-energy and spacetime, with respect to the second-order gravitoelectromagnetic effects that we mentioned earlier. If you could engineer a material that had an extremely high and nonlinear gravitomagnetic permeability, for example, you could generate powerful gravitomagnetic effects using a modest magnitude and density of mass-energy. It’s analogous to putting an iron core in an electromagnetic coil – using a small current you suddenly get a much more powerful field. And if that’s the case, you might be able to generate a polarized gravitational field for propulsion purposes, without having to harness the mass-energy of a neutron star to do it. Which would mean that you wouldn’t wipe out an entire planet every time one of your craft suffered a modest containment failure.

Actually, there is thread here on this forum, where a lady, who was abducted as a child, described engine room inside UFO. She said there was a huge "tank", like a swimming pool full of semi-transparent gel like material.

I was doing specific research on engine rooms. However abductees can be of questionable reliability, such "swimming pools" and "columns with blue liquid" were described by few other abductees. I know its far fetched, but my current thinking is that these central "swimming pools" are used as a ballast, as something for gravitomagnetic column to grab on and lift the craft. That might be that high gravitomagnetic susceptibility & permeability material you talked about. Otherwise, its inexplicable why would they carry so much of stuff that is neither fuel, nor food across intergalactic space.

Here is a link to abductee lady who had been in the engine room:

Want to hear a CRAZY story ? ... Here goes!

I am not saying that her account is Holly Grail. Just an extra data point.

@Thomas R Morrison Here is a list of less known technical papers by people who followed in Paul Hill's steps:

List of Technical Papers Related to UFOs and Electro Magnetism