UFO propulsion, metric engineering, and horizon physics

[DROBNJAK]

NEGATIVE MASS IS IN TROUBLE​

This was one of the best UFO threads ever on TheParacast's forum. It would be pity for it to die down. So I have some new info.

I liked that negative mass idea very much, so I've done some googling around. There are some good and some bad news ;-)

Bad news first ;-)

Unfortunately, although negative mass is derived and permuted by GR, it seems that there are quite opposite opinions about how it behaves.

Basically, there are two camps. One group of physicists, lead by Bondi, claims that both gravitational and inertial mass can be negative. That makes two masses, one positive other negative, run away in a direction of the positive mass. That view is supported by Wikipedia's article on Negative Mass.

But “The truth is rarely pure and never simple”. Our beloved, but often hasty Dr. Martin Tajmar, claims that negative and positive mass will move in a direction of the negative mass!? Check here @9:58:

Basically, the second camp of physicists states that, while gravitational mass can be both positive and negative, inertial mass can only be positive. And thus the difference in "runaway motion's" direction. Apparently, "runaway motion" is than in the direction of the negative mass, like in Dr. Tajmar's example.

I, somehow, prefer this idea to the one on Wikipedia. In Standard Model of QM inertial mass is described as lumps of Higg's bosons attaching themselves onto mass particles and impeding their movement. Negative inertial mass would mean Higg's bosons magically detaching themselves from particles with mass and even opening up a clear path in front of mass particles. I would say that equivalence principle that states that gravitational and inertial mass are equal, is simply incomplete and that it (maybe) states that absolute values of gravitational and inertial mass are equal. Not trying to challenge Einstein, just looking for a good answer.

Now, my question is, which interpretation of negative inertial mass behavior is true?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, good news.

The above graph shows experimental results were negative effective mass was falling upwards in Earth's gravitational field!!!​

Et voila, In the above video, @15:51, Dr. Martin Tajmar talks about lab experiment where a beam of neutrons with positive effective mass bent downwards in a gravitational field. But a big surprise was that the beam with negative effective mass traveled upwards in the gravitational field. Just check two peaks, one for up beam and one for down beam, at the bottom of the above photo. That's phenomenal result, although mass was just "effectively" negative, it was still repelled by Earth's gravitational field. That experiment practically confirms existence of negative mass in laboratory!

Dr. Martin Tajmar here quotes a paper "Gravity and inertia in neutron crystal optics and VCN interferometry" by prof. Zeilinger, A., published back in Jun 1996 in the Journal of the Physical Society of Japan (ISSN 0031-9015, volume 65 (suppl.A); p. 277-280). I looked in vain at JPSJ's database of white papers and couldn't find anything. Most likely removed by MIBs ;-(.

Prof. Zeilinger worked at Vienna University and was quite well known and respected in Austria and Germany. His experiment was about EFFECTIVE mass of neutrons. He passed neutrons through a specially prepared crystal of Silicone (Si), and some neutrons, as predicted, came with positive effective mass and some with negative effective mass. Than prof. Zeilinger turned the experiment on the side, 90deg, so that neutron beam traveled horizontaly or, if you want, perpendicular to the gravitational field.

Don't take lightly papers coming from Vienna University. 6 out of 9 scientists that were crucial for Manhattan project graduated at Vienna University of Physics ;-) !

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And of course, in closing, one has to mention Daniel Fry and his description of the craft. Here Daniel Fry meets Dr. Martin Tajmar, who in the above video mentions that he experiments with electrets.

In short, Daniel Fry said there was one toroid on the top of the craft and another toroid at a bottom. Toroids are standard devices in electrical circuits that store magnetic field's energy. Both toroids were supplied by electric current from a device in a "big black box", that was akin to a capacitor, but it was not capacitor. Device just contained huge amount of electrons squeezed together, but was presumably able to deliver them as instantaneously as a capacitor would. It is important to say, that two toroids wold contain any magnetic fields almost 99% inside themselves, with negotiable leakage. Any external magnetic field would only come from pulsating electric field and currents traveling through conductive craft's hull.

Now, that "big black box" device sounds a lot as electret. Exactly what Dr. Tajmar is using. Electret is an electrostatic equivalent of permanent magnet and it can hold a dipole electric fields for a long time due its high internal resistance. Practically Daniel Fry described something which is very similar to well known LC circuit, only with electret instead of capacitor. As well, referring once more to my a link in my signature, it is very well documented by researchers that UFOs are surrounded by pulsating EM fields (stalling car engines, radio interference, muscle paralysis etc.).

What I am aiming at, Daniel Fry's structure of the craft seems to had been an LC circuit and the LC circuit was pulsating through the conductive hull of the craft (presumably some metamaterial) placed in circuit between toroids and electret. LC circuits are standard circuits in modern electronics that in their variations are used to produce EM fields for antennas and other kinds of EM field emitters. That would explain EM fields around a typical UFOs and pumping of metamaterials with EM energy to possibly create negative effective mass.

It is worth noting that Colonel Corso introduced a notion that US and UK were able to bring UFOs down when pointing extremely strong and focused tracking radars at UFOs. That one aids metamaterial theory very well, because electrical currents caused by tracking radar's microwaves would mess up pre-designed and finely tuned original currents and make UFO uncontrollable.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

This was one of the best UFO threads ever on TheParacast's forum. It would be pity for it to die down. So I have some new info.​

I liked that negative mass idea very much, so I've done some googling around. There are some good and some bad news ;-)

Bad news first ;-)

Unfortunately, although negative mass is derived and permuted by GR, it seems that there are quite opposite opinions about how it behaves.

Basically, there are two camps. One group of physicists, lead by Bondi, claims that both gravitational and inertial mass can be negative. That makes two masses, one positive other negative, run away in a direction of the positive mass. That view is supported by Wikipedia's article on Negative Mass.

But “The truth is rarely pure and never simple”. Our beloved, but often hasty Dr. Martin Tajmar, claims that negative and positive mass will move in a direction of the negative mass!? Check here @9:58:

Basically, the second camp of physicists states that, while gravitational mass can be both positive and negative, inertial mass can only be positive. And thus the difference in "runaway motion's" direction. Apparently, "runaway motion" is than in the direction of the negative mass, like in Dr. Tajmar's example.

I, somehow, prefer this idea to the one on Wikipedia. In Standard Model of QM inertial mass is described as lumps of Higg's bosons attaching themselves onto mass particles and impeding their movement. Negative inertial mass would mean Higg's bosons magically detaching themselves from particles with mass and even opening up a clear path in front of mass particles. I would say that equivalence principle that states that gravitational and inertial mass are equal, is simply incomplete and that it (maybe) states that absolute values of gravitational and inertial mass are equal. Not trying to challenge Einstein, just looking for a good answer.

Now, my question is, which interpretation of negative inertial mass behavior is true?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, good news.

The above graph shows experimental results were negative effective mass was falling upwards in Earth's gravitational field!!!​

Et voila, In the above video, @15:51, Dr. Martin Tajmar talks about lab experiment where a beam of neutrons with positive effective mass bent downwards in a gravitational field. But a big surprise was that the beam with negative effective mass traveled upwards in the gravitational field. Just check two peaks, one for up beam and one for down beam, at the bottom of the above photo. That's phenomenal result, although mass was just "effectively" negative, it was still repelled by Earth's gravitational field. That experiment practically confirms existence of negative mass in laboratory!

Dr. Martin Tajmar here quotes a paper "Gravity and inertia in neutron crystal optics and VCN interferometry" by prof. Zeilinger, A., published back in Jun 1996 in the Journal of the Physical Society of Japan (ISSN 0031-9015, volume 65 (suppl.A); p. 277-280). I looked in vain at JPSJ's database of white papers and couldn't find anything. Most likely removed by MIBs ;-(.

Prof. Zeilinger worked at Vienna University and was quite well known and respected in Austria and Germany. His experiment was about EFFECTIVE mass of neutrons. He passed neutrons through a specially prepared crystal of Silicone (Si), and some neutrons, as predicted, came with positive effective mass and some with negative effective mass. Than prof. Zeilinger turned the experiment on the side, 90deg, so that neutron beam traveled horizontaly or, if you want, perpendicular to the gravitational field.

Don't take lightly papers coming from Vienna University. 6 out of 9 scientists that were crucial for Manhattan project graduated at Vienna University of Physics ;-) !

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And of course, in closing, one has to mention Daniel Fry and his description of the craft. Here Daniel Fry meets Dr. Martin Tajmar, who in the above video mentions that he experiments with electrets.

In short, Daniel Fry said there was one toroid on the top of the craft and another toroid at a bottom. Toroids are standard devices in electrical circuits that store magnetic field's energy. Both toroids were supplied by electric current from a device in a "big black box", that was akin to a capacitor, but it was not capacitor. Device just contained huge amount of electrons squeezed together, but was presumably able to deliver them as instantaneously as a capacitor would. It is important to say, that two toroids wold contain any magnetic fields almost 99% inside themselves, with negotiable leakage. Any external magnetic field would only come from pulsating electric field and currents traveling through conductive craft's hull.

Now, that "big black box" device sounds a lot as electret. Exactly what Dr. Tajmar is using. Electret is an electrostatic equivalent of permanent magnet and it can hold a dipole electric fields for a long time due its high internal resistance. Practically Daniel Fry described something which is very similar to well known LC circuit, only with electret instead of capacitor. As well, referring once more to my a link in my signature, it is very well documented by researchers that UFOs are surrounded by pulsating EM fields (stalling car engines, radio interference, muscle paralysis etc.).

What I am aiming at, Daniel Fry's structure of the craft seems to had been an LC circuit and the LC circuit was pulsating through the conductive hull of the craft (presumably some metamaterial) placed in circuit between toroids and electret. LC circuits are standard circuits in modern electronics that in their variations are used to produce EM fields for antennas and other kinds of EM field emitters. That would explain EM fields around a typical UFOs and pumping of metamaterials with EM energy to possibly create negative effective mass.

It is worth noting that Colonel Corso introduced a notion that US and UK were able to bring UFOs down when pointing extremely strong and focused tracking radars at UFOs. That one aids metamaterial theory very well, because electrical currents caused by tracking radar's microwaves would mess up pre-designed and finely tuned original currents and make UFO uncontrollable.

That’s a terrific find – Dr. Tajmar is now looking at the subject of gravitational field propulsion with the same kind of pragmatic engineering perspective that I’ve been applying to this subject for decades. That’s a complete turnabout from his former views on this subject, which led me to dismiss him as a serious investigator in this realm for the last 14 years, following his publication of this disappointing paper:

"Hypothetical Gravity Control and Possible Influence on Space Propulsion," Tajmar, 2004
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0412/0412176.pdf

I’m going to have to earnestly dig into his references to confirm some of his ideas here, but at first blush they do appear to be legit. The acceleration interaction between positive and negative effective mass-energy photons seems to experimentally settle the question about negative inertia and, therefore, the core concept at the heart of this gravitational field propulsion model.

It may also be useful at this point to mention that we’ve already discovered practical means to greatly magnify the effective mass of electrons (a superconducting inductor does the job quite nicely), and we can also create negative effective mass electrons (in some varieties of semiconductors).

You’re essentially on the right track regarding Daniel Fry’s description of the gravitational field propulsion mechanism: it definitely involves the electrodynamics of an LC (inductance-capacitance) circuit. I reached that same conclusion about 25 years ago. However, that’s not very helpful, in and of itself, because an LC circuit doesn’t give us any insight into gravitational field propulsion. It’s just one ingredient. The key mysteries remain A.) how to generate the negative gravitational pole, and B.) how to amplify Einstein’s gravitational constant - the coupling constant between mass-energy and spacetime. It seems that he gave us an important clue when he specified the antiparallel energy flux created by the force rings at the top and bottom of the craft – in fact he cites this as the key to all gravitational fields, both natural and synthetic. Elucidating that phenomenological mechanism that would supplant the T00 term of the Einstein tensor as the primary causal component of the gravitational field, is the current focus of my study on this subject. Because on the off-chance that Fry is correct on this point, arriving at a formulation of this point would give us the key that we need to make a transition with gravitation that would be analogous to the transition with magnetism that we made when we leapt from using lodestones to building energized electromagnetic inductors. And the technological revolution that would follow such a transition would make the global transformation precipitated by the development of applied electromagnetism look like a dress rehearsal.

The last part of Tajmar’s lecture was particularly fascinating to me – the part about the expanded Weber equation. Because I’ve actually heard that idea before, in the handful of interviews with Boyd Bushman before he deployed one of the most successful PsyOps in world history, for reasons that still completely elude the public at large.

Thank you for sharing your excellent work in this direction DROBNJAK – I’ll post a more detailed follow-up after I study Tajmar’s citations in detail, to verify their significance. It’s inspiring to see that he’s now “got the bug” to transition these revolutionary theoretical possibilities into the realm of experimental physics.

 

[DROBNJAK]

It may also be useful at this point to mention that we’ve already discovered practical means to greatly magnify the effective mass of electrons (a superconducting inductor does the job quite nicely), and we can also create negative effective mass electrons (in some varieties of semiconductors).

Do you have any reference for an article or paper, please?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"antiparallel energy flux", @Thomas R. Robinson, can you please de-jargonize this for me. There must be a simpler description. Is it like a conically shaped field that is denser on one side than on the opposite side?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've spent days trying to dig up that paper "Gravity and inertia in neutron crystal optics and VCN interferometry" by prof. Zeilinger, A., published back in Jun 1996 in the Journal of the Physical Society of Japan (ISSN 0031-9015, volume 65 (suppl.A); p. 277-280). But I can only find citations, not the paper itself. It is essential to the whole "negative effective mass flying upwards in the gravitational field" theme since it was demonstrated on neutrons which are 1,800 times heavier than electrons. Can you please try to locate it. Maybe you know some other routes than those ones that I've tried.

That paper is almost a smoking gun ;-) !

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OK, obviously I am not a physicist. I am more inclined to believe that the hull's material of UFO plays the major role in AG. The reason for that is that actually aliens in spacesuits are better documented than UFO crafts themselves. If alien spacesuit can hover an alien, than spacesuit material is the key, because suits are mini-spaceships having only the absolute minimum of components to keep suit flexible and to keep the weight & energy requirements down. About 90% of spacesuit report don't mention any voluminous bulging protrusions. There was just one case where spacesuit had something like a life-boat doughnut, but I forgot the reference.

Because of spacesuits, I am inclined to believe that those toroids are discharging alternating currents into the UFO's hull. These alternating currents in the hull than produce massive EM fields that stall petrol car engines, interrupt radios for hundreds of yards around and bend wheat stems to the ground in crop circles. Spacesuits produce the same effects as the crafts itself.

Actually, external fields around UFOs are very well documented in dozens of cases. We know that there is an attractive field between the crafts (like you and @murdock observed). As well, we know that these fields are flipped depending on flight stage. When they are flying, attractive field is bellow the craft. When they are lending repulsive field is bellow the craft. Remember in Paul Hill's book, when UFO took off, windscreen on the car broke up and imploded inwards towards car's cabin. Basically, UFO pushed itself off the ground and off the unfortunate car that was there.

I found a case here in UK, where a small football size UFO drone approached a glass door at a Tesco supermarket and the door exploded towards the UFO drone. Practically glass door was sucked in towards UFO. Because it was just a very small drone, a height of about 1-2 yards for actually a cruising height for that drone, not a landing height which would be maybe 4-6 inches.

It is easy to see how hull can be made of metamaterial which, when pumped with EM currents and fields, creates positive and negative mass needed for a warp drive. Warp drive is created inside the metamaterial's thickness of the hull or spacesuit material.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Actually I was trying to match all the cases that I know with the idea of the negative mass. In almost 99% of airborne cases, cases at some height off the ground, it appears that gravitationaly negative mass is consistently above the UFO, while grvitationaly positive mass is bellow crafts. During the landing negative mass is bellow craft, otherwise witnesses would be reporting that small rocks and debris are jumping off the ground and attaching to the craft. So, when they want to land they reverse the arrangement and make repulsive field bellow the craft and than they float on repulsive field about 1 yard off the ground.

Again this is supported by observed cases. Karl Feindit quotes one case where an UFO made a channel about 3 meters deep and 7-10 meters wide in a mud of a dry river bed. Most likely that was that repulsive field used to cushion the landing.

Problem for me aroused when I found disagreement between physicist about direction of the runaway motion. For the above observation Dr. Tajmar's interpretation is the correct one. But if runaway motion is in the direction of the positive mass, than the observations I collected are incompatible with negative mass concept.

Can you tell which interpretation is right? Is runaway motion towards negative or positive mass?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Do you have any reference for an article or paper, please?

The increased effective mass of electrons in superconductors goes at least as far back as a 1951 paper on the subject, which is paywalled at a cost of $199, which is obviously outrageous.

Here’s a news article where you can read a bit about it:
https://phys.org/news/2012-06-mass-scientists-electrons-heavy-speedy.html

And Carver Mead has published an excellent book called Collective Electrodynamics that gets into it. I think he also mentions it in this lecture about his G4v theory (and he’s a brilliant guy – listening to him talk about this stuff is highly educational and easy to follow):

Briefly put, it’s about coupling. Electrons in a superconductive coil, for example, couple strongly to all of the others in their vicinity, so when you push on one, you push on many – the coupling gives them a much higher effective mass in the material than they would have in free space, for example.

On the negative effective mass side of this, you can find some discussion of negative effective mass electrons in semiconductors exhibiting a negative energy band gap in this paper:
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1671&context=ese_papers

You might also find this earlier paper interesting:
http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1196/article_18048.pdf

"antiparallel energy flux", @Thomas R. Robinson, can you please de-jargonize this for me. There must be a simpler description. Is it like a conically shaped field that is denser on one side than on the opposite side?

If you’re familiar with acoustic levitation, then you’re familiar with the nodes in standing waves which behave as negative energy regions: these nodes attract all matter (of the proper dimensions relative to the wavelength of the standing wave) just like a gravitational field does. This acoustic phenomenon is known to be analogous to certain electromagnetic systems. I’m currently designing an experiment to test this concept because I think it may be the key to Daniel Fry’s gravitational field propulsion system.

I've spent days trying to dig up that paper "Gravity and inertia in neutron crystal optics and VCN interferometry" by prof. Zeilinger, A., published back in Jun 1996 in the Journal of the Physical Society of Japan (ISSN 0031-9015, volume 65 (suppl.A); p. 277-280). But I can only find citations, not the paper itself. It is essential to the whole "negative effective mass flying upwards in the gravitational field" theme since it was demonstrated on neutrons which are 1,800 times heavier than electrons. Can you please try to locate it. Maybe you know some other routes than those ones that I've tried.

It’s paywalled and if I get caught sharing it with anyone I’ll lose my access. Perhaps this paper by Tajmar will suffice:
Particles with Negative Mass: Production, Properties and

OK, obviously I am not a physicist. I am more inclined to believe that the hull's material of UFO plays the major role in AG. The reason for that is that actually aliens in spacesuits are better documented than UFO crafts themselves. If alien spacesuit can hover an alien, than spacesuit material is the key, because suits are mini-spaceships having only the absolute minimum of components to keep suit flexible and to keep the weight & energy requirements down. About 90% of spacesuit report don't mention any voluminous bulging protrusions. There was just one case where spacesuit had something like a life-boat doughnut, but I forgot the reference.

Because of spacesuits, I am inclined to believe that those toroids are discharging alternating currents into the UFO's hull. These alternating currents in the hull than produce massive EM fields that stall petrol car engines, interrupt radios for hundreds of yards around and bend wheat stems to the ground in crop circles. Spacesuits produce the same effects as the crafts itself.

Actually, external fields around UFOs are very well documented in dozens of cases. We know that there is an attractive field between the crafts (like you and @murdock observed). As well, we know that these fields are flipped depending on flight stage. When they are flying, attractive field is bellow the craft. When they are lending repulsive field is bellow the craft. Remember in Paul Hill's book, when UFO took off, windscreen on the car broke up and imploded inwards towards car's cabin. Basically, UFO pushed itself off the ground and off the unfortunate car that was there.

I found a case here in UK, where a small football size UFO drone approached a glass door at a Tesco supermarket and the door exploded towards the UFO drone. Practically glass door was sucked in towards UFO. Because it was just a very small drone, a height of about 1-2 yards for actually a cruising height for that drone, not a landing height which would be maybe 4-6 inches.

It is easy to see how hull can be made of metamaterial which, when pumped with EM currents and fields, creates positive and negative mass needed for a warp drive. Warp drive is created inside the metamaterial's thickness of the hull or spacesuit material.

I don’t know what to make of the spacesuit cases you’ve mentioned. I do however feel that the external fields that have been observed are probably secondary by-products of the propulsion system. That would be consistent with my current working model of Daniel Fry’s field propulsion system. It does seem that high-energy alternating currents and the nature of the hull material are likely key factors in the operation of the system, but as I’ve said many times before, that doesn’t tell us much. The key to everything is understanding the action principle at work to create the requisite energy field gradient for propelling a material body in this manner, without reaction mass. I think we could study the secondary effects from these devices until the cow’s come home and get nowhere with it. That’s like trying to understand how a nuclear submarine works by studying the waves it makes. First we have to understand the method for generating the field. Then we can go back and see if the secondary field effects of that method conform to the observations that we have of the secondary field characteristics of these anomalous devices, and if they match, then we would have some tentative level of confirmation that we’re on the right track.

By my thinking, there's no way around it - if we're going to figure out how these things work, then we have to understand the physics behind their operation first. Right now we don't even have a viable theoretical model that's plausible within anything resembling our foreseeable technological capabilities. Which means that we're missing the key to all of this. And without that key, the secondary field effects are meaningless. You can't "back engineer" new physics from trace observations. New physics requires a deeper understanding of physical law, and that's a long and hard process with no shortcuts. Now, if that metamaterial is a real thing, and I very much think that it is at this point, then it would be possible to study how it works and replicate it. But short of actually having a piece of technology in the lab that exhibits the behavior that you're looking for, studying ufo cases to try to understand advanced physics concepts is a dead end, imo. That's why I switched modes decades ago - this is a theoretical physics problem, which requires a deep level of theoretical physics understanding.

"Actually I was trying to match all the cases that I know with the idea of the negative mass. In almost 99% of airborne cases, cases at some height off the ground, it appears that gravitationaly negative mass is consistently above the UFO, while grvitationaly positive mass is bellow crafts. During the landing negative mass is bellow craft, otherwise witnesses would be reporting that small rocks and debris are jumping off the ground and attaching to the craft. So, when they want to land they reverse the arrangement and make repulsive field bellow the craft and than they float on repulsive field about 1 yard off the ground.

Again this is supported by observed cases. Karl Feindit quotes one case where an UFO made a channel about 3 meters deep and 7-10 meters wide in a mud of a dry river bed. Most likely that was that repulsive field used to cushion the landing.

The only way that this makes any sense to me is if the positive gravitational pole leads the craft, and the negative gravitational pole repels it. Because metric propulsion is all about generating a field gradient such that the craft is on a slope; the attractive pole can be modeled as a depression and the repulsive pole behind the craft is a hill, and so the craft falls forward. The exact same principle works for hovering as well: the positive gravitational field is above the craft and the repulsive gravitational field is below the craft, and if the gradient is in the opposite direction of the Earth’s gravitational field, and of the same magnitude, then the craft will hover. Intensify the gradient and the craft falls upward.

Honestly this can be very confusing because what we call "a positive gravitational field" actually represents a region of negative energy - it's a binding energy field. That's why two gravitating bodies bound together have less total mass than they have when they're separated. So we should call ordinary gravity "negative gravity" and call the repulsive gravitational field associated with negative mass "positive gravity." Heck, we even graphically depict ordinary gravity as a well - it's in the negative-y direction on our graphs. But as usual, the conventional terminology is exactly backwards, and we're stuck with it.

Problem for me aroused when I found disagreement between physicist about direction of the runaway motion. For the above observation Dr. Tajmar's interpretation is the correct one. But if runaway motion is in the direction of the positive mass, than the observations I collected are incompatible with negative mass concept.

Can you tell which interpretation is right? Is runaway motion towards negative or positive mass?

In all of the literature that I’ve studied, the positive mass leads, and the negative mass chases. That description is fully consistent with general relativity, and makes perfect intuitive sense, so I'm sticking with that model.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Thanks for the explanation.

Studying UFO cases is just much easier than learning Maxwell, GR and QM from scratch. It would take me at least full year of concentrated full time effort to grasp the basics. Actually quite "passionate" about learning these theories well enough that I can derive practical design solutions etc. These theories are pinnacle of classic physics. But your explanations helped me a lot to shed more light on this subject.

Yeah, when I shall be able to put aside whole year, I'll definitely jump into Maxwell and GR till I get a good and detailed grasp. I found a GR book with abridged GR mathematics, that can well shorten whole journey.

As far as acoustic levitation was concerned, actually I am not quite sure that that is what they are using. Electromagnetic equivalent of acoustic levitation would require so much energy it would start turning soil into liquid lava.

Re: "Gravity and inertia in neutron crystal optics and VCN interferometry" by prof. Zeilinger, A. where is it paywalled? Do you have a link? I don't mind paying for it, if it is reasonably priced.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Thanks for the explanation.

Studying UFO cases is just much easier than learning Maxwell, GR and QM from scratch. It would take me at least full year of concentrated full time effort to grasp the basics. Actually quite "passionate" about learning these theories well enough that I can derive practical design solutions etc. These theories are pinnacle of classic physics. But your explanations helped me a lot to shed more light on this subject.

Yeah, when I shall be able to put aside whole year, I'll definitely jump into Maxwell and GR till I get a good and detailed grasp. I found a GR book with abridged GR mathematics, that can well shorten whole journey.

As far as acoustic levitation was concerned, actually I am not quite sure that that is what they are using. Electromagnetic equivalent of acoustic levitation would require so much energy it would start turning soil into liquid lava.

Re: "Gravity and inertia in neutron crystal optics and VCN interferometry" by prof. Zeilinger, A. where is it paywalled? Do you have a link? I don't mind paying for it, if it is reasonably priced.

You're in luck - it took a little more digging to find, but somebody uploaded a scanned copy of that paper online here:
http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/1996-23.pdf

And I wouldn't let the scope of all that overwhelm you - nobody knows all of that physics. The expanse of all the work being done in a zillion different directions is mind-boggling. So once you understand the basics you can focus on the stuff that really interests you and learn as you go; that's what everyone else is doing. Honestly I'm kinda stunned that Tajmar made the journey from "gravitational propulsion denier" to "inspired gravitational propulsion advocate" in just a few years.

If you study acoustic levitation a little more closely you'll see that the node is a negative energy region, not a positive energy region - it's actually measurably colder at that spot than the ambient temperature. The electromagnetic analogue works the same way.

 

[DROBNJAK]

And I wouldn't let the scope of all that overwhelm you - nobody knows all of that physics. The expanse of all the work being done in a zillion different directions is mind-boggling.

Yeah, I know that ;-) I read somewhere (or heard) that there is 30,000 white papers published in physics every month. There is no person alive who can keep pace with that and read all 30k papers ;-) Problem are physics televangelists, who for brevity, over-simplify science that is spoon fed to general public. Than general public walks away with notion that physics is set in solid stone. While truth is that science is very fuzzy around the edges of knowledge, otherwise there would no constant progress.

I am pretty sure you are not right in all your interpretations, but at least you opened my mindset to new avenues.

Honestly I'm kinda stunned that Tajmar made the journey from "gravitational propulsion denier" to "inspired gravitational propulsion advocate" in just a few years.

Dr Tajmar is a very lucky guy. It was just lineup of coincidences. He is actually not teaching on a physics university, but on aerospace engineering university in Dresden. Because there are no conservative detractors around him, he is allowed to fail. And he fails with earnest vengeance. Most of his experiments, so far, had ended in fiasco. Luckily, his PhD students have to do some projects for their thesis anyway, so nobody complains when Tajmar gives them ideas that essentially come from "quack" scientists.

Although "quack" scientist is a nasty misnomer in itself, awaiting anybody who dares to do science with his private means, outside of academic establishment. Tesla is good example. Wright brothers are there as well. I would say, even Einstein, was a "quack" scientist while he still worked in the Swiss patent office and hasn't yet received official recognition.

Just quickly, consider Writght brothers and aerofoil. Bernulli's equations, that are theoretical underpinning for the flight of aeroplanes, were known from early 18th century. Yet, for more than 100 years none of academics dared to suggest attaching an engine with propeller to a simple wing. Academics can be quite stuck up in their own arrogance.

Thanks for the link to the prof. A. Zeiliger's paper. It's surprisingly short.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I am pretty sure you are not right in all your interpretations

Like what? I'm not aware of making any controversial assertions, so I'd be interested to see what you disagree with.

Dr Tajmar is a very lucky guy. It was just lineup of coincidences. He is actually not teaching on a physics university, but on aerospace engineering university in Dresden. Because there are no conservative detractors around him, he is allowed to fail. And he fails with earnest vengeance. Most of his experiments, so far, had ended in fiasco.

I'm aware of his spinning superconductor/gravitomagnetism claim turning out to be experimental error, but that's the only one I know about. What are the others? I haven't followed his work closely so it sounds like I missed something.

Thanks for the link to the prof. A. Zeiliger's paper. It's surprisingly short.

You're welcome, I hope it was useful.

 

[DROBNJAK]

I'm aware of his spinning superconductor/gravitomagnetism claim turning out to be experimental error, but that's the only one I know about. What are the others? I haven't followed his work closely so it sounds like I missed something.

Towards a new test of general relativity? - GSP

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Towards a new test of general relativity? - GSP

Yeah that's the spinning superconductor gravitomagnetic effect that turned out to be experimental error that I mentioned before. You said "Most of his experiments, so far, had ended in fiasco" so I wanted to know if you knew about more than that one experimental failure.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Like what? I'm not aware of making any controversial assertions, so I'd be interested to see what you disagree with.

Like when you said that if spaceship was to keep constantly accelerating for 80 years, it would be able to circumnavigate all the visible universe. And after 1g acceleration for a year, it would be able to reach speed "c". Well, I would say that after reaching speed "c" in 1 year, ship would not be able to accelerate any further, beyond "c". Because acceleration is second derivative, speed is first derivative and if you integrate acceleration, you step back to speed.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Like when you said that if spaceship was to keep constantly accelerating for 80 years, it would be able to circumnavigate all the visible universe.

Oh okay – you’re wrong to disagree with that. You’re forgetting about time dilation, which would become increasingly significant as the velocity approached C, so that the subjective time on board the ship would permit a human being to circumnavigate the observable universe within one human lifetime:

“Theoretically, time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to advance further into the future in a short period of their own time. For sufficiently high speeds, the effect is dramatic.[2] For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years on Earth. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime.”
Time dilation - Wikipedia

There’s a handy online calculator for calculating distance and acceleration and time within the context of special relativity (SR) here:
Space travel calculator

Inputs:
acceleration: 9.8m/s^2
circumference of the observable universe: 292.796435315BLY (radius of the observable universe: 46.6 BLY)

Outputs:
time passed aboard the craft: 1,617,279,351.1529717 seconds, which is 51.24849 years.
time passed wrt the observer: 9,239,952,787,157,828,000 seconds, which is 292,796,435,317 years.

And after 1g acceleration for a year, it would be able to reach speed "c".

You’re wrong to disagree with that too. According to special relativity no material body can ever reach the speed of light because the energy required to produce the same level of acceleration (wrt the observer frame) at near-C velocities approaches infinity.

But if it were possible to produce a constant acceleration of 1g, then it would take slightly less than one year to reach the speed of light. Here’s an online acceleration/time/force/speed calculator:
Acceleration Calculator - Omni

There are roughly 31,557,600 seconds in one year. The speed of light is roughly 3x10^8 m/s. It would take 30,615,245 seconds to reach that speed at 1g, which is 354.343 days.

Because acceleration is second derivative, speed is first derivative and if you integrate acceleration, you step back to speed.

That’s true but it refutes your point: at an acceleration of 1g for 354.343 days you’d reach the speed of light. But that’s not practicable of course because it’s impossible to maintain a constant acceleration as one approaches the speed of light, according to SR.

I should probably mention that if you had a warp drive ship, then it is theoretically possible to reach (and exceed) the speed of light, because there is no relativistic mass increase with gravitational field propulsion. So if you had such a ship and accelerated at a constant 1g, it would take just over 354.343 days to exceed the speed of light.

 

[Erno86]

Oh okay – you’re wrong to disagree with that. You’re forgetting about time dilation, which would become increasingly significant as the velocity approached C, so that the subjective time on board the ship would permit a human being to circumnavigate the observable universe within one human lifetime:

“Theoretically, time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to advance further into the future in a short period of their own time. For sufficiently high speeds, the effect is dramatic.[2] For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years on Earth. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime.”
Time dilation - Wikipedia

There’s a handy online calculator for calculating distance and acceleration and time within the context of special relativity (SR) here:
Space travel calculator

Inputs:
acceleration: 9.8m/s^2
circumference of the observable universe: 292.796435315BLY (radius of the observable universe: 46.6 BLY)

Outputs:
time passed aboard the craft: 1,617,279,351.1529717 seconds, which is 51.24849 years.
time passed wrt the observer: 9,239,952,787,157,828,000 seconds, which is 292,796,435,317 years.


You’re wrong to disagree with that too. According to special relativity no material body can ever reach the speed of light because the energy required to produce the same level of acceleration (wrt the observer frame) at near-C velocities approaches infinity.

But if it were possible to produce a constant acceleration of 1g, then it would take slightly less than one year to reach the speed of light. Here’s an online acceleration/time/force/speed calculator:
Acceleration Calculator - Omni

There are roughly 31,557,600 seconds in one year. The speed of light is roughly 3x10^8 m/s. It would take 30,615,245 seconds to reach that speed at 1g, which is 354.343 days.


That’s true but it refutes your point: at an acceleration of 1g for 354.343 days you’d reach the speed of light. But that’s not practicable of course because it’s impossible to maintain a constant acceleration as one approaches the speed of light, according to SR.

I should probably mention that if you had a warp drive ship, then it is theoretically possible to reach (and exceed) the speed of light, because there is no relativistic mass increase with gravitational field propulsion. So if you had such a ship and accelerated at a constant 1g, it would take just over 354.343 days to exceed the speed of light.

A starship should be able to reach the speed of light and continue beyond into the superluminal realm, with constant acceleration by the use of an infinite fuel source; along with an addition of a magnetic shield that mimics no rest mass, thusly negating the negative effects of the speed of light barrier.

I pretty much agree with this assessment:

"Why Time Dilation Must be Impossible"

"SR proponents would have us believe that the fountain of youth awaits us inside a high-speed rocket ship, or on a lifetime of non-stop jet travel, if only we can make them fast enough. Nice if it were true.

Based on the reasoning that any time-shift which might occur as the result of moving bodies should occur equally in each, because each body moves in equal relation to the other, I conclude that time dilation between moving bodies must be impossible."

Source: "Why time dilation must be impossible"

Sorry...I can't get the quoted link to work.

 

[DROBNJAK]

A starship should be able to reach the speed of light and continue beyond into the superluminal realm, with constant acceleration by the use of an infinite fuel source; along with an addition of a magnetic shield that mimics no rest mass, thusly negating the negative effects of the speed of light barrier.

I pretty much agree with this assessment:

"Why Time Dilation Must be Impossible"

"SR proponents would have us believe that the fountain of youth awaits us inside a high-speed rocket ship, or on a lifetime of non-stop jet travel, if only we can make them fast enough. Nice if it were true.

Based on the reasoning that any time-shift which might occur as the result of moving bodies should occur equally in each, because each body moves in equal relation to the other, I conclude that time dilation between moving bodies must be impossible."

Source: "Why time dilation must be impossible"

Sorry...I can't get the quoted link to work.

Only problem is that time dilation was experimentally confirmed over and over again. Both in SR and GR. Its unquestionable physical fact. A guy you are quoting must had been living in a very deep cave.

 

[Erno86]

Yes...clocks --- at speed --- do run more slowly, and short lived particles that travel a fraction of a percent of c survive for much longer than their lifetime when at rest in the lab; with the same comparison to the human body physical and chemical processes. But with a starship that is encased in it's own magnetic field that mimics no rest mass, the human crew and craft will not be affected by relativistic speeds, because it is safely cocooned within it's own magnetic shield and not affected by time dilation at all.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

A starship should be able to reach the speed of light and continue beyond into the superluminal realm, with constant acceleration by the use of an infinite fuel source; along with an addition of a magnetic shield that mimics no rest mass, thusly negating the negative effects of the speed of light barrier.

Okay you're getting some things mixed up so let's go over them one at a time.

"A starship should be able to reach the speed of light and continue beyond into the superluminal realm, with constant acceleration"
This part is correct if we're looking at the performance of a gravitational field propulsion system, like the one that Miguel Alcubierre described in his 1994 paper:
[gr-qc/0009013] The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity

However there's still a heated debate about whether it's possible to travel faster than light in this manner, because the opponents have a very good argument: any field used to create the warp bubble in his model would be limited to the speed of light (even gravitational fields only propagate at the speed of light), so it's hard to imagine how any field could travel faster than its own propagation speed. But I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. If the field were contained within the material of the hull of the craft, then it might be possible for the craft to free-fall at superluminal speeds. I haven't seen an analysis of that approach in the literature yet, so for now I'm putting it in the grey basket.

"by the use of an infinite fuel source"
This part is mixing up apples and oranges: a gravitational field propulsion system doesn't require any additional energy to accelerate once the field is set up. Only rockets and other reaction propulsion systems require energy to accelerate. And in the context of special relativity, it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach C, so superluminal spaceflight is ruled out in that theory anyway.

"an addition of a magnetic shield that mimics no rest mass"
I have no idea what you're talking about here; nobody's proposed a model for a magnetic field that can mimic zero rest mass. And in fact, magnetic fields possess positive energy, so this appears to be a contradictory notion.

"thusly negating the negative effects of the speed of light barrier."
This doesn't make any sense. In special relativity, we see that photons have no rest mass, and yet they're limited to the speed of light. So we're back to the gravitational field propulsion concept, which is the only tentatively viable theoretical approach to superluminal travel. And in that model it doesn't matter what the mass of the spacecraft is; the relevant factor in this model is the dipolar gravitational field that propels it.

I pretty much agree with this assessment:

"Why Time Dilation Must be Impossible"

"SR proponents would have us believe that the fountain of youth awaits us inside a high-speed rocket ship, or on a lifetime of non-stop jet travel, if only we can make them fast enough. Nice if it were true.

Based on the reasoning that any time-shift which might occur as the result of moving bodies should occur equally in each, because each body moves in equal relation to the other, I conclude that time dilation between moving bodies must be impossible."

Source: "Why time dilation must be impossible"

Sorry...I can't get the quoted link to work.

You shouldn't agree with that assessment because it's completely wrong. For example, take a look at the unlabeled "depart Earth...arrive planet...return Earth" diagram on that webpage:
Why Time Dilation Must Be Impossible

That's a common misunderstanding among first-year physics students. He's showing the return trip at a velocity of -C. Velocity is always positive, or zero, not negative.

So the ship is in an (positively) accelerated reference frame in both directions. The magnitude of the velocity relative to the Earth (which is always positive) and the amount of time spent at that rate of acceleration, determine the total amount of time dilation that the traveler experiences with respect to the Earth observer. So the Grandfather paradox is correct, and it's not actually a paradox after all - it's just a demonstration of the time dilation effect, which is proven beyond any doubt as DROBNJAK stated (in fact the GPS system proves both forms of time dilation all day long every day).

Yes...clocks --- at speed --- do run more slowly, and short lived particles that travel a fraction of a percent of c survive for much longer than their lifetime when at rest in the lab; with the same comparison to the human body physical and chemical processes. But with a starship that is encased in it's own magnetic field that mimics no rest mass, the human crew and craft will not be affected by relativistic speeds, because it is safely cocooned within it's own magnetic shield and not affected by time dilation at all.

"short lived particles that travel a fraction of a percent of c survive for much longer than their lifetime when at rest in the lab"
That's not right. Time dilation is insignificant at a fraction of a percent of C. It takes speeds very close to C to see the really significant time dilation that we find at CERN and with muons created by cosmic rays, etc.

"But with a starship that is encased in it's own magnetic field that mimics no rest mass, the human crew and craft will not be affected by relativistic speeds, because it is safely cocooned within it's own magnetic shield and not affected by time dilation at all."
Replace the "magnetic field that mimics no rest mass" with Alcubierre's warp bubble that's defined by its positive and negative gravitational potential, and then you'll be correct: there is no time dilation with gravitational field propulsion. At least in purely theoretical terms, it might be possible to circumnavigate the entire galaxy and be back home in time for lunch, using such a system. But unfortunately nobody's come up with an even remotely viable approach to actually building such a thing, though I remain hopeful, because in my view the AAV phenomenon proves that it can be done.

 

[Erno86]

Okay you're getting some things mixed up so let's go over them one at a time.

"A starship should be able to reach the speed of light and continue beyond into the superluminal realm, with constant acceleration"
This part is correct if we're looking at the performance of a gravitational field propulsion system, like the one that Miguel Alcubierre described in his 1994 paper:
[gr-qc/0009013] The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity

However there's still a heated debate about whether it's possible to travel faster than light in this manner, because the opponents have a very good argument: any field used to create the warp bubble in his model would be limited to the speed of light (even gravitational fields only propagate at the speed of light), so it's hard to imagine how any field could travel faster than its own propagation speed. But I'm not entirely convinced by this argument. If the field were contained within the material of the hull of the craft, then it might be possible for the craft to free-fall at superluminal speeds. I haven't seen an analysis of that approach in the literature yet, so for now I'm putting it in the grey basket.

"by the use of an infinite fuel source"
This part is mixing up apples and oranges: a gravitational field propulsion system doesn't require any additional energy to accelerate once the field is set up. Only rockets and other reaction propulsion systems require energy to accelerate. And in the context of special relativity, it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach C, so superluminal spaceflight is ruled out in that theory anyway.

"an addition of a magnetic shield that mimics no rest mass"
I have no idea what you're talking about here; nobody's proposed a model for a magnetic field that can mimic zero rest mass. And in fact, magnetic fields possess positive energy, so this appears to be a contradictory notion.

"thusly negating the negative effects of the speed of light barrier."
This doesn't make any sense. In special relativity, we see that photons have no rest mass, and yet they're limited to the speed of light. So we're back to the gravitational field propulsion concept, which is the only tentatively viable theoretical approach to superluminal travel. And in that model it doesn't matter what the mass of the spacecraft is; the relevant factor in this model is the dipolar gravitational field that propels it.


You shouldn't agree with that assessment because it's completely wrong. For example, take a look at the unlabeled "depart Earth...arrive planet...return Earth" diagram on that webpage:
Why Time Dilation Must Be Impossible

That's a common misunderstanding among first-year physics students. He's showing the return trip at a velocity of -C. Velocity is always positive, or zero, not negative.

So the ship is in an (positively) accelerated reference frame in both directions. The magnitude of the velocity relative to the Earth (which is always positive) and the amount of time spent at that rate of acceleration, determine the total amount of time dilation that the traveler experiences with respect to the Earth observer. So the Grandfather paradox is correct, and it's not actually a paradox after all - it's just a demonstration of the time dilation effect, which is proven beyond any doubt as DROBNJAK stated (in fact the GPS system proves both forms of time dilation all day long every day).



"short lived particles that travel a fraction of a percent of c survive for much longer than their lifetime when at rest in the lab"
That's not right. Time dilation is insignificant at a fraction of a percent of C. It takes speeds very close to C to see the really significant time dilation that we find at CERN and with muons created by cosmic rays, etc.

"But with a starship that is encased in it's own magnetic field that mimics no rest mass, the human crew and craft will not be affected by relativistic speeds, because it is safely cocooned within it's own magnetic shield and not affected by time dilation at all."
Replace the "magnetic field that mimics no rest mass" with Alcubierre's warp bubble that's defined by its positive and negative gravitational potential, and then you'll be correct: there is no time dilation with gravitational field propulsion. At least in purely theoretical terms, it might be possible to circumnavigate the entire galaxy and be back home in time for lunch, using such a system. But unfortunately nobody's come up with an even remotely viable approach to actually building such a thing, though I remain hopeful, because in my view the AAV phenomenon proves that it can be done.

I'm speculating that a magnetic shield around a starship would give it anti-grav potential, thus mimicking no rest mass.

I'm not so sure that a gravitational field propulsion system could get a starship up to significant interstellar capable speeds. I think it's much on the par with some sort of impulse power, at somewhat below hypersonic speed ratings.

I'm a proponent of a reaction propulsion system for a starship that is capable of using both finite and infinite fuel sources. And I'm speculating that reactive propulsion system is based on a micro-mini black hole photon propulsion unit, that uses starlight photons or self generated fusion plasma for fuel.