Tic-Tacs, Quantum Drives, USAF vs Navy, EM vs Inertia

In one of the prior W.O.O.D. postings a discussion of unusual physics and odd potential drives for spaceships and things got started:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2021/03/07/w-o-o-d-7-mar-2021/#comment-141185 h/t Simon.

Well tonight I was “in that kind of mood” and started chasing some parts of it. Thinking it likely to be similar to chasing Cold Fusion Stories… (Wonder if Leonardo Corp is still promising “Real Soon Now”?;-)

There’s a lot of strange stuff out there, and I’m still wondering how much of it is a crock, or how much is just about to be commercial… So this is going to be a semi-random collection of odd bits.

First up, a 2 hour interview with a guy who says the “Tic Tac” UFOs are real, and are produced for the USAF. That the USA was trying to gently acknowledge the tech is real without disrupting the whole economy when they admitted the video of them from F-18 Navy Fighter Jets was real. But then everybody just kind of didn’t care. Here was the military saying “yeah, that shit’s real, might even be space men” and nobody blinked, or really even talked about it much.

Yeah I watched the whole thing. Where I had specific knowledge; none of his claims contradicted what I already know. I know that’s weak tea for saying the more exotic bits are real, but it’s a much of a validation as I can make.

From: https://exopolitics.org/evidence-grows-that-tic-tac-ufos-are-secret-air-force-spacecraft/

IF what he says is true, then the USA has had a method of using EM fields to cancel inertia for about 20 years. The “tic-tack” video was released in 2017, but of an event in 2004, which means the craft were constructed before that…

Then there’s this odd patent the reference. Some of it reads like baffle-gab, but QM is like that…


I don’t expect the Navy to be making bogus patent claims and doing deception of the patent office… OTOH, I don’t know for a fact that this is a real patent and not just “some web page”… But if it IS real…

Craft using an inertial mass reduction device

Apr 28, 2016 – The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy
A craft using an inertial mass reduction device comprises of an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The electrically charged outer resonant cavity wall and the electrically insulated inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave emitters create high frequency electromagnetic waves throughout the resonant cavity causing the resonant cavity to vibrate in an accelerated mode and create a local polarized vacuum outside the outer resonant cavity wall.
The microwave emitter(s) 300 may be an electromagnetic field generator. The preferred electromagnetic generator is the one described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/807,943, entitled “Electromagnetic Field Generator and Method to Generate an Electromagnetic Field,” filed on Jul. 24, 2015. The application is herein incorporated by reference, and has the same inventor. However, the microwave emitters 300 may be any type of microwave emitter or radio frequency emitter that is practicable.

As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the craft 10 has a plurality of microwave emitters 300. The microwave emitters 300 are arranged within the resonant cavity 150, and may be antennas (high radio frequency emitter sources) in the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum range of 300 Megahertz to 300 Gigahertz. The plurality of microwave emitters 300 are arranged within the resonant cavity 150 such that the required electrical charge is present through the resonant cavity 150 in order to cause the outer resonant cavity wall 100 to vibrate in an accelerated mode.

As described, in one of its embodiments, the craft 10 utilizes microwave-induced vibration within a resonant annular cavity (the resonant cavity 150). The manner and effectiveness with which the microwave energy couples with the outer resonant cavity wall 100 is called the cavity Q-factor (the inner resonant cavity wail 200 is electrically insulated and does not vibrate). This parameter can be written as the (energy stored/energy lost) ratio and is in the range of 104 to 109 (and beyond), depending on whether ordinary metal (Aluminum or Copper at room temperature) or cryogenically cooled superconducting material (Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide or Niobium) is used for the outer resonant cavity wall 100 and outside mold line skin of the craft. One must realize that the high energy/high frequency electromagnetic field generator responsible for the inertial mass diminution effect would generate a repulsive EM energy field while in earth’s atmosphere, thereby repelling air molecules in its path of ascent/flight. Consequently, once in orbital space, by local vacuum polarization (quantum field fluctuations’ modification/coherence), a repulsive gravity effect (recall the negative pressure of the polarized vacuum) would permit swift movement of the craft 10 (which can be, but without limitation, a cone or lenticular triangle/delta wing configuration).

It is possible to envision a hybrid aerospace/undersea craft (HAUC), which due to the physical mechanisms enabled with the inertial mass reduction device, can function as a submersible craft capable of extreme underwater speeds (lack of water-skin friction) and enhanced stealth capabilities (non-linear scattering of RF and sonar signals). This hybrid craft would move with great ease through the air/space/water mediums, by being enclosed in a vacuum plasma bubble/sheath, due to the coupled effects of EM field-induced air/water particles repulsion and vacuum energy polarization.

It also has some discussion of theory, but it again reads a lot like baffle gab (though I do recognize some of the QM terms as things I’ve heard before).


There are four known fundamental forces which control matter and, therefore, control energy. The four known forces are strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and gravitational force. In this hierarchy of forces, the electromagnetic force is perfectly positioned to be able to manipulate the other three. A stationary electric charge gives rise to an electric (electrostatic) field, while a moving charge generates both an electric and a magnetic field (hence the electromagnetic field). Additionally, an accelerating charge induces electromagnetic radiation in the form of transverse waves, namely light. Mathematically, as well as physically, electromagnetic field intensity can be represented as the product of electric field strength and magnetic field strength. Electromagnetic fields act as carriers for both energy and momentum, thus interacting with physical entities at the most fundamental level.

Artificially generated high energy electromagnetic fields, such as those generated with a high energy electromagnetic field generator (HEEMFG), interact strongly with the vacuum energy state. The vacuum energy state can be described as an aggregate/collective state, comprised of the superposition of all quantum fields’ fluctuations permeating the entire fabric of spacetime. High energy interaction with the vacuum energy state can give rise to emergent physical phenomena, such as force and matter fields’ unification. According to quantum field theory, this strong interaction between the fields is based on the mechanism of transfer of vibrational energy between the fields. The transfer of vibrational energy further induces local fluctuations in adjacent quantum fields which permeate spacetime (these fields may or may not be electromagnetic in nature). Matter, energy, and spacetime are all emergent constructs which arise out of the fundamental framework that is the vacuum energy state.

Everything that surrounds us, ourselves included, can be described as macroscopic collections of fluctuations, vibrations, and oscillations in quantum mechanical fields. Matter is confined energy, bound within fields, frozen in a quantum of time. Therefore, under certain conditions (such as the coupling of hyper-frequency axial spin with hyper-frequency vibrations of electrically charged systems) the rules and special effects of quantum field behavior also apply to macroscopic physical entities (macroscopic quantum phenomena).

Moreover, the coupling of hyper-frequency gyrational (axial rotation) and hyper-frequency vibrational electrodynamics is conducive to a possible physical breakthrough in the utilization of the macroscopic quantum fluctuations vacuum plasma field (quantum vacuum plasma) as an energy source (or sink), which is an induced physical phenomenon.

The quantum vacuum plasma (QVP) is the electric glue of our plasma universe. The Casimir Effect, the Lamb Shift, and Spontaneous Emission, are specific confirmations of the existence of QVP.

It is important to note that in region(s) where the electromagnetic fields are strongest, the more potent the interactions with the QVP, therefore, the higher the induced energy density of the QVP particles which spring into existence (the Dirac Sea of electrons and positrons). These QVP particles may augment the obtained energy levels of the HEEMFG system, in that energy flux amplification may be induced.

It is possible to reduce the inertial mass and hence the gravitational mass, of a system/object in motion, by an abrupt perturbation of the non-linear background of local spacetime (the local vacuum energy state), equivalent to an accelerated excursion far from thermodynamic equilibrium (analogous with symmetry-breaking induced by abrupt changes of state/phase transitions).
The physical mechanism which drives this diminution in inertial mass is based on the negative pressure (hence repulsive gravity) exhibited by the polarized local vacuum energy state (local vacuum polarization being achieved by a coupling of accelerated high frequency vibration with accelerated high frequency axial rotation of an electrically charged system/object) in the close proximity of the system/object in question. In other words, inertial mass reduction can be achieved via manipulation of quantum field fluctuations in the local vacuum energy state, in the immediate proximity of the object/system. Therefore it is possible to reduce a craft’s inertia, that is, its resistance to motion/acceleration by polarizing the vacuum in the close proximity of the moving craft.

Polarization of the local vacuum is analogous to manipulation/modification of the local space tie topological lattice energy density. As a result, extreme speeds can be achieved.

If we can engineer the structure of the local quantum vacuum state, we can engineer the fabric of our reality at the most fundamental level (thus affecting a physical system’s inertial and gravitational properties). This realization would greatly advance the fields of aerospace propulsion and power generation.

Is it a real device? Or just the ravings of a mad Ph.D. Student who got one over on the patent office? Ought to be possible to test it as 300 MHz is not hard to make these days. You can buy 5 GHz WiFi routers.

Then there’s this one:


I think I’ve seen this one before, but at least it has some simple drawings in it.

U.S. Navy Patents Triangular Craft Powered by ‘Quantum Vacuum Plasma’

APRIL 24, 2019

A recent patent filed by the U.S. Secretary of the Navy, and approved by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, shows the schematic diagram for a craft powered by “quantum vacuum plasma”.

According to the patent’s summary:

The present invention is directed to a craft using an inertial mass reduction device. The craft includes an inner resonant cavity wall, an outer resonant cavity, and microwave emitters. The outer resonant cavity wall and the inner resonant cavity wall form a resonant cavity. The microwave emitters create high frequency electromagnetic waves throughout the resonant cavity causing the outer resonant cavity wall to vibrate in an accelerated mode and create a local polarized vacuum outside the outer resonant cavity wall.

It is a feature of the present invention to provide a craft, using an inertial mass reduction device, that can travel at extreme speeds.

The craft would generate “high energy electromagnetic fields…[which] interact strongly with the vacuum energy state.”

This interaction would “give rise to emergent physical phenomena…based on the mechanism of transfer of vibrational energy.”

According to the patent, “The transfer of vibrational energy further induces local fluctuations in adjacent quantum fields which permeate spacetime…Matter, energy, and spacetime are all emergent constructs which arise out of the fundamental framework that is the vacuum energy state.”

“Everything that surrounds us, ourselves included, can be described as macroscopic collections of fluctuations, vibrations, and oscillations in quantum mechanical fields,” the document explained. “Matter is confined energy, bound within fields, frozen in a quantum of time. Therefore, under certain conditions…the rules and special effects of quantum field behavior also apply to macroscopic physical entities.”

This could result in the “possible physical breakthrough in the utilization of the macroscopic quantum fluctuations vacuum plasma field (quantum vacuum plasma) as an energy source.”

Essentially, the craft would warp reality around itself in order to travel with no frictional resistance.

Such technology is often speculated by researchers to explain the propulsion of UFOs, assuming they represent physical craft from another world. That speculation, along with the frequency of triangular UFO reports, has led some to wonder if the patent is based off of extraterrestrial technology.

Part of the December 2017 release regarding the Pentagon’s UFO program was the revelation that most of the $22 million allocated to the program went to an aerospace research company ran by Robert Bigelow.

The money was used by Bigelow Aerospace to modify buildings held in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that former program head and Department of Defense intelligence officer Luis Elizondo claimed were recovered from UFOs.

It is unclear if this patent could be related to Bigelow Aerospace’s research, but speculation exists that the patented design could be based on a recovered craft.

Then, just to make it worse, we have Name Names with Credentials who were in position to know such things, claiming Space Aliens are real…


Former Israeli space security chief says extraterrestrials exist
, and Trump knows about it
A “galactic federation” has been waiting for humans to “reach a stage where we will understand… what space and spaceships are,” Haim Eshed said.

Dec. 8, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC / Updated Dec. 8, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC
By Adela Suliman and Paul Goldman

A former Israeli space security chief has sent eyebrows shooting heavenward by saying that earthlings have been in contact with extraterrestrials from a “galactic federation.”

“The Unidentified Flying Objects have asked not to publish that they are here, humanity is not ready yet,” Haim Eshed, former head of Israel’s Defense Ministry’s space directorate, told Israel’s Yediot Aharonot newspaper. The interview in Hebrew ran on Friday, and gained traction after parts were published in English by the Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

A respected professor and retired general, Eshed said the aliens were equally curious about humanity
and were seeking to understand “the fabric of the universe.”

Now the only way travel between the stars is going to work is with some kind of really really fast space ship, and that’s not going to be a chemical rocket.

But an inertia free craft that can tap QM for energy from the fabric of space and get going near the speed of light WHILE deflecting any particles surrounding it, that could do the job nicely.

So IF Space Aliens are here having discussions with world leaders, then the QM Drive is almost certainly the way they did it.

FWIW, there’s also a Wiki on QM Drives with some of the same baffle gab like word use:


History and controversy
The name and concept is controversial. In 2008, Yu Zhu and others at China’s Northwestern Polytechnical University claimed to measure thrust from such a thruster, but called it a “microwave thruster without propellant” working on quantum principles. In 2011 it was mentioned as something to be studied by Harold G. White and his team at NASA’s Eagleworks Laboratories, who were working with a prototype of such a thruster. Other physicists, such as Sean M. Carroll and John Baez, dismiss it because the quantum vacuum as currently understood is not a plasma and does not possess plasma-like characteristics.

IF the Chinese are known to be working on it, and we’ve already got one, that’s the kind of timing where we start doing the releases of proof prior to their getting patents so we capture the commercial uses.

Theory of operation

Prototype resonant cavity thruster built by NASA Eagleworks

A vacuum can be viewed not as empty space but as the combination of all zero-point fields. According to quantum field theory the universe is made up of matter fields whose quanta are fermions (e.g. electrons and quarks), and force fields whose quanta are bosons (i.e. photons and gluons). All these fields have some intrinsic zero-point energy. Describing the quantum vacuum, a Physics Today article cited by White’s team describes this ensemble of fields as “a turbulent sea, roiling with waves associated with a panoply of force-mediating fields such as the photon and Higgs fields”. Given the equivalence of mass and energy expressed by Albert Einstein’s E = mc2, any point in space that contains energy can be thought of as having mass to create particles. Virtual particles spontaneously flash into existence and annihilate each other at every point in space due to the energy of quantum fluctuations. Many real physical effects attributed to these vacuum fluctuations have been experimentally verified, such as spontaneous emission, Casimir force, Lamb shift, magnetic moment of the electron and Delbrück scattering; these effects are usually called “radiative corrections”.

Casimir forces on parallel plates due to vacuum fluctuations

The Casimir effect is a weak force between two uncharged conductive plates caused by the zero-point energy of the vacuum. It was first observed experimentally by Lamoreaux (1997) and results showing the force have been repeatedly replicated. Several scientists including White have highlighted that a net thrust can indeed be induced on a spacecraft via the related “dynamical Casimir effect”. The dynamic Casimir effect was observed experimentally for the first time in 2011 by Wilson et al.

So some macro effects of QM have been observed and played with. AND Replicated.

This cumulated with Birkeland & Brevik (2007) who showed that electromagnetic vacuum fields can cause broken symmetries (anisotropy) in the transfer of momentum or, put another way, that the extraction of momentum from electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations is possible in an analogous way that the extraction of energy is possible from the Casimir effect. Birkeland & Brevik highlight that momentum asymmetries exist throughout nature and that the artificial stimulation of these by electric and magnetic fields have already been experimentally observed in complex liquids.

Has citations, so ought to be easy to check them and see if they are valid.

As an aside: In addition to the Tic-Tac videos and events off of San Diego, California, the “Gimbal” craft the first video talks about is from an incident off Florida:


The Encounters

According to Lt. Graves, there are more than 50 witnesses of multiple UAP encounters. Five of them spoke to The New York Times but only Graves and Accoin allowed to be named.

Graves and others report that the objects demonstrated outstanding flying capabilities, such as 12 hours in air operation at high speeds, and no visible engine or infrared exhaust plumes. Also mid-air tilting like a spinning top without losing altitude, as well as low visual observability is mentioned. They appeared almost daily, high in the skies over the East Coast, and were noticed by the pilots after their radar systems were upgraded to the latest iteration.

In late 2014, a Super Hornet pilot had a near collision with one of the objects, and an official Mishap-Report was filed. The pilot of that aircraft told Lt. Graves that he and his wingman were flying in tandem about 100 feet apart when something flew between them. The pilot decribed the obejct as “a sphere encasing a cube”.

So we seem to have a lot of observed events of craft behaving like they have little or no inertia. We have patents filed for such a craft. We have folks in positions of authority saying the video of them is real. And we have Respected Names saying space aliens are real but bashful.

Then they tell the world, and nobody really seems to care.

Somehow I get the impression that a fleet of Space Aliens could land at the UN and give a speech and other than some decent news ratings, nobody would react much. We are the Star Trek generation after all…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Energy, Science Bits, Tech Bits. Bookmark the permalink.

272 Responses to Tic-Tacs, Quantum Drives, USAF vs Navy, EM vs Inertia

  1. David A says:

    “Somehow I get the impression that a fleet of Space Aliens could land at the UN and give a speech and other than some decent news ratings, nobody would react much. We are the Star Trek generation after all… ”

    “Fascinating” (-;
    And the computer game generation, and the Marvel – DC movie generation. And now the Wuflu generation as well.

    With the current administration, if such systems are real, I suspect China has the inside leverage with our current forced leadership.

    Yet at some point as world power games look like they have a chance to become political realities, I expect very real struggles between the disparate factions to manifest as they contend with “who will really be in authority”. ( I hope, yet don’t expect it to end well.)

    But ” Galactic Federation” now that would be a new cog in the wheel.

  2. rhoda klapp says:

    I’ve been reading such stories all my life. They never turn out to be true. So far.

    I’ve always been an SF fan, and I’ve seen all these plots before. As for inertialess drive, I read that in EE Smith long before I read it in EM Smith.

  3. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics, have served us well for centuries and it’s hard for anyone to consider that they might be a bit wrong. Even questioning them is generally a good sign of a crackpot who is chasing rainbows and expecting to find a pot of gold at the foot. I’d also discounted all the stories of alien visitations, given that they were internally inconsistent when I dug deeper into them. Around 5 years ago, though, a friend of mine (a top-notch engineer who I totally trust to tell the truth) told me of a visit from an old colleague of his who demonstrated what I’d decribe as a UFO drive, able to hover and move with no external propellers etc.. Power requirement around 6W, and it could also carry a person. The colleague was somewhat paranoid, and worried about MiB watching him. The device had an effect on compass-needles for maybe 50 feet around, and this could be why the guy was paranoid – I’ve noticed that people who work with high EMP tend to be paranoid and mercurial. Sadly, the colleague didn’t explain exactly how it worked, and AFAIK is still running from the MiB.

    Given a choice of saying that there may be a loophole in what I knew about physics, or that my friend was mistaken or lying about something he watched up close and personal and where he had known the inventor a long time, I chose to try to figure out how it worked. There’s some clue in that the colleague was an expert in phased-array radar, and had presumably seen something unexpected during his work. In the course of thinking about this conundrum I came to the realisation that momentum is only conserved when it is transferred from one object to another using a constant field. Since almost all momentum transactions use a non-varying field, we see momentum as being conserved, but in fact each object interacts separately with the field between them. If the field is changing fast-enough relative to the dimensions of the apparatus, then the system becomes non-conservative for momentum (and thus energy as well). See https://revolution-green.com/conservation-of-momentum/ (I’ve linked this before, but it’s relevant here) for the logic used.

    I’ve tried ideas using resonant cavities and 5.6GHz microwaves, since logically if you can get the phases right then momentum will not be conserved and a thrust will be measurable. RF is however a deep subject and there’s a lot to get competent with. Bearing in mind the brain-damage and paranoia problem, I need to make sure that there is no leakage of microwaves outside the kit.

    Then there was https://revolution-green.com/alzofon-gravely-go/ where I started by thinking this was tinfoil hat brigade and found out that Fred Alzofon was a brilliant physicist and engineer (also somewhat Aspie) and that the theory made sense after I’d spent some difficult weeks trying to understand it. David has personally seen one of those triangular craft flying over him, and I have no reason to doubt him (and he wasn’t alone at the time). That craft is almost certainly human-made. Plus there was the fact that I saw some blue/green object flying over my house one night in July 2017, and since I’m used to the French airforce flying over here as part of their practice I don’t expect I could mistake that silent flight for a normal aircraft.

    What Alzofon proposed was that using what is effectively a refrigeration cycle and aligning the nuclei of an element such as Aluminium or Magnesium using Electron Spin Resonance, you could drain the local virtual particle field of energy. Whereas the matter-wave needs that virtual particle field to give a medium for it to exist in, if we take the energy out of the virtual particle field then the matter-wave must have a node at that point. If all the nodes of possible waves have a node at one point, that has the same effect as a Rindler horizon and no information can pass that horizon.

    Alzofon’s maths is beyond me. In explaining things, he also expected people to know as much as he did (that Aspie quality) and didn’t use two words when one would do. The theory is thus *difficult*. Maths developed from one dimension (normal numbers) and added imaginary numbers to get to 2 dimensions. Later on, quaternions were used that allowed 4 dimensions in the maths and allowed us to calculate in 3 dimensions and time. Alzofon used octoniums (shades of Terry Pratchett there) that allow working in 8 dimensions. Makes for some compact equations where each symbol stands for a lot of stuff, and would take years and some genius to really understand it. I suspect that if we add Mike McCulloch’s QI theory in to Alzofon’s theory, and identify the Unruh waves with Alzofon’s particle description where at the centre the waves are more matter-like and as you go out they become more wave-like, and that instead of spreading to infinity (Alzofon and quantum theory) they instead stop at the Rindler horizon (normally the Hubble radius, but we can maybe create such horizons a lot closer), then we’re getting a lot closer to the actual reality.

    Net result is that the patents from Pais come close to making sense, though I get the feeling that there are some lies/misdirections built in to that to send people down the wrong (thus non-workable) path. The range of frequencies that Pais states is somewhat wide – Alzofon specified 3GHz and actually tested at about 9.8GHz (because that’s what kit he could borrow). The higher the frequency, of course the stronger the magnetic field you need to use to get the Larmor frequency of precession of the atomic magnetic field vectors right, so it gets more difficult to get that field uniform and you need huge coils and currents.

    If Alzofon was right, then inertia and gravity can be controlled, and the way this is done is by creating Rindler horizons (thus limits to the extent of the matter-waves of particles) where we want them to be rather than where they naturally are. It’s maybe relevant that explaining inertia itself has been pretty hard in standard physics, and the standard explanation for this is the Higgs field which exists everywhere and is really just another name for Aether. Before Higgs, there was no explanation for inertia in the Standard Model, which is why he got a Nobel prize.

    Inertia is basically the interaction of a particle with the entire universe as far as the Rindler horizons around it (this implies that the Higgs mechanism is not a good description of what really happens). If you can engineer where the Rindler horizons are, then a particle only interacts with the part of the universe it can now see, and if those horizons are the shell of a spaceship then that spaceship is not limited to the speed of light. People inside it also won’t experience any inertial effects from that spacecraft undergoing extremely high accelerations when seen from outside the craft.

    The human-manufactured craft using these ideas seem to be pretty strong sources of microwaves, if you can take the information as being true. As I said earlier, this could cause brain damage and be somewhat unsafe to use in civilian situations or with large numbers of such craft (also unsafe for the military, of course, but that might be ignored to gain a military advantage). May also mean that the people working on it get paranoid and secretive, and that the normal cover-ups have gone to excessive lengths. If you then work out what happens to people inside a Rindler horizon that’s only a few feet distant rather than at the Hubble radius, then inertia will have some pretty large quanta and the minimum acceleration will be large enough to cause problems in blood circulation and the processes of life. Making a small spacecraft looks like a bad idea unless you put robots in it. Incidentally, that also makes the idea of the “silver suit” that shields people against the problems somewhat counter-productive, being even smaller.

    The Chinese have also experimented with Shawyer’s EMDrive concept, and got the expected results. Of course, mainstream science still won’t accept that these things work, since they break CoM and can thus also violate CoE. Must be experimental error….

    I figure that if aliens were real there would be a lot more evidence, though there are tantalising oddities as written about by Erich von Däniken and others. There does however seem to be enough evidence that humans have made (and flown) some pretty odd stuff and that some of the UFO stories are unexplainable without positing that such craft actually exist. Looking at the theory side, the quantisation of inertia depending upon the distance of the Rindler horizon implies that there could well be dangers involved too, if you don’t get the design right. Thus people who find a way to do this, but don’t allow for the problems, would probably tend to go mad or die. Could be a reason why these things aren’t used often.

    A photon in a gravitational field violates CoM, and Feynman noted that if two electrons approach on orthogonal paths then CoM is also violated – he hand-waved that away and “left it as an exercise for the student” to explain why momentum was overall conserved in this situation. Feynman also didn’t do the full working of his ratchet idea with Brownian motion, but again left it as an exercise for the student to dig into it but assured them that 2LoT was nevertheless true. The stuff such giants avoid explaining (presumably because they can’t) is naturally interesting, and is a big “dig here” sign. I’ve come to the conclusion that there are indeed exceptions to these Laws if we engineer the right conditions, and found experimental evidence that small violations happen reliably. Thus in trying to do these things, we’re trying to improve the performance of something that is possible rather than attempting something that’s actually impossible.

    OK, somewhat of a big and prolix dump of information there. There does however seem to be enough truth in this that I expect that at some point we’ll solve the problems and have both almost-free energy and cheap space-travel, maybe even to stars and travelling FTL. The properties of the vacuum are actually pretty important.

  4. Tregonsee says:

    As a retired USAF and commercial pilot, as well as having spent some research years at a four letter agency, I have always been somewhat agnostic on the issue of UFOs. The smug dismissal of all sightings seems as irrational as some of the more credulous acceptance of nearly everything reported. The needle slowly seems to be shifting toward the “more likely than not” side of the gauge with recent disclosures.

    Speaking of which, in the UFO community, the term Disclosure, always capitalized, has always implied something like a global press conference in which The Truth would be broken to the world. However, the slow drip of these sorts of stories, even if they are not all true, would be a good way to lessen the shock. After all, it has worked well in political scandals where incriminating information is leaked, and then when announced officially, the claim is always made that there is nothing new here.

    Personally, I have maybe 10 year left, and hope to know. Unless the truth is something I would really rather not know. :)

  5. A C Osborn says:

    I think the issuing of those Navy patents was linked to their testing of Shawyer’s em drive and realized that the cat was out of the bag.
    They needed a way to protect what they already had.

  6. jim2 says:

    Patents won’t stop the Chinese from stealing it and, anyway, a patent doesn’t make it real. People probably aren’t reacting because they’ve heard so much BS already, they are BS proof.

  7. cdquarles says:

    About that ratchet, as it turns out, biochemists think that muscle action is just such a molecular ratchet that uses electron transfer to twist the actin and myosin complex at its contact point to do a ratchet action during contraction and then undo the contact point at relaxation. It is known, in the macro case, that you can get more force out of a muscle if you tension it just right or stretch it just right. Exceed that point, though, weakens the muscle (Starling curve). Could that be generalized into some kind of a quantum effect? I don’t know; but wouldn’t completely discount it, given the proper conditions. Conditions matter!

  8. E.M.Smith says:


    I’m also pretty sure that prolonged exposure to microwaves causes cancer. High School Friend enlisted in the Navy with some other friends ( I chose not to be group-motivated and wait for my lottery number, that was 340-something…) He gets assigned to work on radar sets. These have shielding covers. He is told to remove the covers and work on them right in front of his… self.

    After a year+ he is home to die with testicular cancer…

    So there’s got to be some kind of shielding for the occupants (that “insulated” bit?) and there’s got to be a low enough exposure outside that it doesn’t rapidly fry observers ( least squares and limited time of exposure?)

    There’s a reason microwave ovens are shielded and it isn’t so your chocolate bar doesn’t melt in your pocket…


    I don’t see my microwave oven levitating when I turn it on so it isn’t enough just to have microwaves bouncing around in a metal box. (though I’ve never had it on a scale when making oatmeal… AND it is only one layer…) Might be interesting to put a cookie tin in the microwave and see what happens. (Note to self: Check fire extinguisher status & find low cost chain mail ;-)


    Kyrylenko S.1, Chekhun V.2, Sidorik E.3, Yakymenko I.4

    1Masaryk University, Kamenice 5, A6, Brno 625 00, Czech Republic
    3National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
    4Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University, Soborna square 8/1, Bila Tserkva 09117, Ukraine

    Summary. In this review we discuss alarming epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of long term exposure to low intensity microwave (MW) radiation. Recently, a number of reports revealed that under certain conditions the irradiation by low intensity MW can substantially induce cancer progression in humans and in animal models. The carcinogenic effect of MW irradiation is typically manifested after long term (up to 10 years and more) exposure. Nevertheless, even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among population living nearby. In addition, model studies in rodents unveiled a significant increase in carcinogenesis after 17-24 months of MW exposure both in tumor-prone and intact animals. To that, such metabolic changes, as overproduction of reactive oxygen species, 8‑hydroxi-2-deoxyguanosine formation, or ornithine decarboxylase activation under exposure to low intensity MW confirm a stress impact of this factor on living cells. We also address the issue of standards for assessment of biological effects of irradiation. It is now becoming increasingly evident that assessment of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on physical (thermal) approach used in recommendations of current regulatory bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, requires urgent reevaluation. We conclude that recent data strongly point to the need for re-elaboration of the current safety limits for non-ionizing radiation using recently obtained knowledge. We also emphasize that the everyday exposure of both occupational and general public to MW radiation should be regulated based on a precautionary principles which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure.

    So there’s that…

  9. Nancy & John Hultquist says:

    Haim Eshed thinks he knows the mind of aliens.

    Reminds me of Einstein and other famous physicists:
    “One of his most popular quotes is “God does not play dice”. The quote made its first appearance in the Fifth Solvay International Conference. Einstein remarked “God does not play dice” (to indicate his refusal to accept quantum probabilities), to which Niels Bohr, another brilliant physicist, replied “Einstein, stop telling God what to do” Later, in a 1942 letter to Cornel Lanczos, Einstein wrote “It seems hard to sneak a look at God’s cards. But that He plays dice and uses “telepathic” methods… is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.” Decades later, in an interview, Stephen Hawking stated: “Not only does God play dice, but… he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.”

  10. p.g.sharrow says:

    The ultra high frequency is not really needed, it merely reduces the resonate distance from the transmitting body but the voltage of the pulse is important to establish “traction” It is the secondary rotating field that reduces the effective mass/inertia. It is the inherent internal spin in Mater that creates the field of mass/inertia within the local Aether. To create a EMF drive you must “confuse” The local Aether mass/inertia field caused by Mater…pg.

  11. philjourdan says:

    Back in the 60s when AWACS (and the Navy equivalent which escapes at the moment) came out, the military denied they existed and made the people who saw them think they were nuts (my grandmother was one such as she traveled to the NNAS quite frequently since my grandfather was a Retired Master CPO and now running the NCO club).

    These “sightings”? Are more area 51 (and I am not talking about aliens) stuff. Pilots are seeing them, but they are ours – experimental. In 20 years everyone will know about them. But for now, instead of DENYING their existence (which would never work), they are doing a X-Files number on us.

    They no more believe in ET than the man in the moon.

    BTW: My grandmother thought the E-2 was a flying saucer trying to steal one of our planes. She was not that old them (in her 50s). Once the truth was revealed, she laughed about it.

  12. p.g.sharrow says:

    IIRC it was general Lamay that told a joint session of congress in a security briefing in the vlate 1960s when asked about UFOs said that” They were not ours and they were no danger to us”.
    American pilots never shot at them. Russians did.

  13. philjourdan says:

    @P.G. – what was the result of the Russians shooting at them? I have not heard this story before.

    I am not negating the possibility of ET (but I am of the school that why would anyone fly lightyears for a dull place like this? In Galactic terms, we are), but so far, I have yet to see that any advanced civilization has decided we are worth the massive undertaking to get here.

    Just MHO

  14. p.g.sharrow says:

    Well their space launch facility was destroyed a few weeks later and they abounded their moon landing project.
    Earth is the mother planet for all life in the Peleidian group. It is a Garden of Eden compared to the others also very rich in heavy metals. Most of the visitors are scientists The Earth is also an living island in a vast sea of empty nothing.. As to interactions with humans, there is the Prime Directive. Now that space travel and Alien life humand are ready

  15. Compu Gator says:

    Maybe the UFOs are from such an advanced planetary culture that they’ve exhausted all physical & cultural anthropology topics on their home world. So they’re eager for their extraplanetary astronomers & explorers to discover & confirm previously unknown inhabited planets. I suspect that ongoing UFO visitors are predominately extraterrestrial-alien Ph.D. students in anthropology doing research for their dissertation topics.

    They might find some Terran cultures more interesting than we do at the moment, e.g.:
    • Technically advanced Western Civilization, which have most of a century of a corpus of t.v. &radio broadcasts radiated into outer space: The former U.S. republic, the bureaucrat/technocrat-ruled E.U.
    • Others more challenging, having a skimpy corpus of t.v. &radio broadcasts, e.g., militant Islam, subSaharan tribalism, or N.-American, Andean, Asian, or Australian aboriginals.
    • Terran cultures with a corpus of t.v. &radio broadcasts that falls in between the other 2 categories.

  16. p.g.sharrow says:

    They have known about us for a very long time.. We will soon be joining their club. We are as diverse as they are the same, so we are very interesting to study. The American Republic will survive the Democrats/ Communists the year will not end well for them…pg.

  17. E.M.Smith says:

    Just figure that traveling light-years is hard and expensive and it all makes more sense. You simply can’t justify sending 1 M tourists and merchants, but you can justify sending 1/2 dozen (as Compu Gator put it) Ph.D. Students and their adviser to study the ant colony…

    I’m fairly certain we’ve been visited; but it is much like a remote Pacific Island society living in an isolated jungle… We don’t know what the silver thing is up in the sky, but it reminds us of lobster.

    (All the tasty bits are on the inside ;-)

  18. jim2 says:

    But, the Chinese ARE the aliens. Just sayin’.

  19. Compu Gator says:

    A wee bit short on antecedents, wouldn’t you agree?

    I suspect that you mean the Soviet “Catastrophe at Cosmodrome Baikonur” (Катастрофа на космодроме Байконур), a.k.a. “Nedelin Catastrophe”, on 24 October 1960 [†] [††]?  The latter name refers to Chief Marshal of Artillery Mitrofan Ivanovich Nedelin, who was the highest ranking of the numerous military officers, enlisteds, and technical civilians killed in the massive explosion. It happened quickly in the test launch of the R-16 ICBM prototype when its 2nd stage accidentally ignited over its fully fueled 1st stage.

    A deep & well-kept Soviet secret, it was not officially admitted until 1989. Easily explainable now without recourse to vengeful extraterrestrial aliens.

    Note † : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe.

    Note †† : Consider also these:
    Air & Space Magazine (December 1990):  http://www.astronautix.com/t/thenedelincatastrophe.html.
    • NASA PDF:  https://sma.nasa.gov/docs/default-source/safety-messages/safetymessage-2005-11-01-nedelinrocketdisaster-vits.pdf.
    • Parvenue article in WIREDhttps://www.wired.com/2011/10/oct-24-1960-soviet-rocket-explodes-killing-top-engineers-technicians/.

  20. Ossqss says:

    I have been watching “Altered Carbon” on Netflix. I don’t know how, but it fits here, even though it appears to have been cancelled :-)

  21. Sera says:

    Aliens are not interested in me- I’m still using copy *.*

  22. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – Friends of mine over here have a set of rather large military (and currently unused) comms dishes on their vineyard, and were worried about what would be the effect on them if they were brought back into use. I suggested plastering in Faraday cages into their house walls, but not to worry unless the dishes went live. In any case, I said, it’s OK if the last owner didn’t die of a brain tumour. He did…. Non-ionising radiation can be a a problem, and the guy who worked on the first cell-phones for BT also died of a brain tumour. Since then, the allowable power emission for phones has gone down quite a bit, but RF remains a bit tricky since the brain is largely water and the curves of the skull can produce odd focus-points. Your experience with 5.8GHz wifi and quality of sleep points to there being effects even at the “officially safe” levels. Once you get into the hundreds of GHz, it looks like the risk goes down because that gets absorbed in the odd mm or so of skin, so 6G comms may in fact be safer than 5G.

    So yep, shielding of the experiments is pretty critical. As far as I can see, with the reactionless drive experiments, you want as high a Q as possible anyway, so any radiation leakage means you’re needing to put more power in to get to the right field strengths. You’ll find one of those alt-propulsion dot com Zoom conferences has Mark Sokol intending to use the odd kW of several GHz RF to try to see an effect in a waveguide that is effectively open-ended, which means he’s going to have to absorb that power in the room somewhere. I have mentioned that to him….

    The point about a photon in a gravitation field violating CoM is something I’ve never seen pointed out before, and it’s possible that no-one noticed. Maybe anyone who noticed thought that the momentum was somehow carried off by something else, as you suggested, since violation of CoM is almost-unthinkable.

    One of the oddities of Unruh radiation is that (in theory) it can only be sensed by the particle that’s producing it. That also applies to the Rindler horizons that are a result of acceleration of the particles. This isn’t explained, as far as I’ve seen. However, if you take the QM description of a particle, where the boundary between particle and not-particle it at infinity and the probability-density just drops off with distance but never reaches zero, and instead of saying that it’s a mathematical probability we instead suggest it’s actually a wave-like matter-density that drops off with distance, and anything that affects any point of that wave will affect all of it (including the centre where it’s dense-enough for us to see a particle there), then this problem of only that particle seeing its own Unruh waves is explainable. We’re altering the wave-function of that particle. Of course, that also implies that all the particles in the universe overlap each other, and if we propose that time runs slower the greater the matter-density at a point, then that produces a force that we’d see as gravity. Einstein said that time runs slower in a gravitational field, but I’m suggesting that the gravitational field is a result of time being slowed more the denser the matter-field. Largely the same predictions, except that at a Lagrange point, where there’s zero net gravity (so Einstein says that time runs at maximum rate), the matter-density there implies that time will run slower. Nice thing is that this can be experimentally verified.

    I’d also identify that composite matter-wave of all particles as being Aether. Since the particles closest to a point will have a larger contribution, frame-dragging drops out of that without any difficulty. With the GPS satellites’ timekeeping only working out correctly when you use the Sun-Earth frame as the reference, there is experimental evidence for frame-dragging and that straight Relativity isn’t the whole story.

    A newly-created particle will have a lower inertia, since its boundary spreads out at the speed of light. Might be experimentally verifiable, but creating particle from energy normally needs a gamma of twice the energy of the particle, and happens in the vicinity of another particle that absorbs momentum when the new particle and antiparticle shoot off. I figure this won’t apply when you split an existing particle; This effect might be experimentally verifiable as an anomaly in the path of a new particle that quickly changes to the path that’s expected for the mass.

    This is a somewhat-different picture of how the universe works than we’re used to. This viewpoint allows CoM and CoE to be violated, and also allows FTL travel, if we manipulate the boundaries of the particles that compose it. Enough of this speculation may be correct to give us very cheap energy, as well as very fast and cheap travel anywhere we want to go.

    As regards there being nothing here for aliens to bother visiting, I’d point out that people go to distant places to study penguins and polar bears, and also that people climb mountains and visit the poles and other far-flung places, just because they are there. We might figure aliens as being curious about other civilisations. If travelling between stars remains limited to light-speed, then the time, energy, and expense needed would be very large, but if it’s reasonably cheap and pretty quick (the odd week or two in transit, or even a few years) then we’d do it and so probably aliens would as well. For bird-watching (and hunting…) people use hides of some sort rather than going up to the animals and saying “take me to your leader!”. Thus not seeing aliens that often may not be a good argument for why they don’t exist. I’ll still wait to see actual evidence, though.

    It’s maybe worth noting that the relatively-large Moon we have seems to be be unusual relative to other relatively Earth-like planets we’ve found so far, and that the tides that the Moon produced may have had a large effect on the probability of us producing sentient life. I think it’s pretty likely that some sort of life will evolve where it is possible, given that certain mixes of organic chemicals spontaneously form tubes, skins, and other structures. There are tendencies to order (the fields we know about) that we use but don’t otherwise consider as counter to the tendencies to disorder. Things self-organise at various scales and temperatures and I think there’s a tendency for complexity such that life (but maybe not as we know it, Jim) will emerge where it’s possible. However, SETI hasn’t found radio evidence of it elsewhere. What’s odder – that we’re the only sentient life in the universe, or that it’s rare and mostly blossoms and then destroys itself when they find out about nuclear fission, or that it’s ubiquitous and using some communication method we don’t know about?

    The net and the news in general have a lot of lies, so the tic-tac may be a hoax. I don’t know anyone who was actually involved in that and could attest to the truth of it. However, I’m certain my friend told me the truth and I’ve had enough emails with Richard Banduric to know his reactionless drive works as claimed. See https://electricspacecraft.org/index.html for that. Fred Alzofon may however have had misinterpreted his experiment because he believed that momentum is always conserved, thus saw a force he didn’t expect and interpreted it as a change in gravity. With the first nuclear pile producing milliwatts of heat, and now getting GW of heat, it’s a fair bet that the rather-small thrusts we can produce now (100mN or so) will be improved such that we can levitate a spacecraft in future. Research however only happens when people realise it can actually work, so there’s a bit of disbelief hump to get over. Also maybe working out why it works (that is, a better explanation of how the universe works) would help.

  23. philjourdan says:

    @CompuGator – I seriously doubt they have exhausted all “physical & cultural anthropology topics on their home world”. When we have conquered space travel, we will still be unearthing things about our anthropology that are revolutionary. The problem is, when a civilization gets interested in those things, is when they have started documenting those things. Which means they have to do the Sherlock Holmes deal to figure out what went before. So I see it as 2 different drives. One striving to understand the past, and the “Daniel Boones” striving to see what is on the other side of the hill.

  24. philjourdan says:

    @EMS – Re: “Just figure that traveling light-years is hard and expensive”

    I believe once accomplished it will not be hard or expensive. Some bright kid will one day think outside the box and then the stars will be ours. But we are currently thinking in linear terms when it comes to space travel, so we are not there.

    Have we been visited? I do not deny the possibility. But as the number of planets far exceed the resources of any civilization to visit all of them, and given that we are in a remote part of the Galaxy (think podunk), I am still skeptical.

    But I am not a prognosticator as my prognostications have mostly been wrong.

  25. E.M.Smith says:

    Close to the galactic center, radiation levels go high as do nova events (due to very high density of stars and black holes…) so it may be that the only places where life can survive to 4 Billion Years and evolve into something interesting is out in “Podunk”…

    Just looked that up to see the origin, it too is interesting:

    From the wiki:

    The word podunk is of Algonquian origin. It denoted both the Podunk people and marshy locations, particularly the people’s winter village site on the border of present-day East Hartford and South Windsor, Connecticut. Podunk was first defined in an American national dictionary in 1934, as an imaginary small town considered typical of placid dullness and lack of contact with the progress of the world.

    The earliest citation in the Dictionary of American Regional English is from Samuel Griswold Goodrich’s 1840 book The Politician of Podunk:

    Solomon Waxtend was a shoemaker of Podunk, a small village of New York some forty years ago.

    The book portrays Waxtend as being drawn by his interest in public affairs into becoming a representative in the General Assembly, finding himself unsuited to the role, and returning to his trade. It is unclear whether the author intended to evoke more than the place near Ulysses, New York by the name “Podunk”. Possibly the term was meant to exemplify “plain, honest people”, as opposed to more sophisticated people with questionable values. An 1875 description said:

    Sometimes the newest State, or the youngest county or town of a State is nicknamed “Old Podunk,” or whatever it may be, by its affectionate inhabitants, as though their home was an ancient figure in national history.

    In American discourse, the term podunk came into general colloquial use through the wide national readership of the “Letters from Podunk” of 1846, in the Daily National Pilot of Buffalo, New York. These represented “Podunk” as a real place but one insignificant and out of the way.The term gained currency as standing for a fictional place. For instance, in 1869, Mark Twain wrote the article “Mr. Beecher and the Clergy,” defending his friend Thomas K. Beecher, whose preaching had come under criticism. In it, he said:

    They even know it in Podunk, wherever that may be. It excited a two-line paragraph there.

    At the time he was living in Buffalo, moving to Hartford, Connecticut in 1871, in a home within 4 miles (6.4 km) of the Podunk River. Elmira, where Twain had lived earlier, is within 30 miles (48 km) of Podunk, New York, so it is not clear to which village Twain was referring.

    Interesting, that…

    So it may well be that as stars age and spiral in toward the center of the galaxy, civilizations develop the means to avoid going into the high radiation and black hole dense area and instead move outward. We might find that there’s a regular migration toward the rim and passing through Podunk along the way is nice entertainment…

  26. Kneel says:

    “However, SETI hasn’t found radio evidence of it elsewhere.”

    Would we notice?
    Spread spectrum comms looks like “noise” unless you know exactly what you are looking for a priori. You can get reliable 4G comms with -110dBm rx power, and satellite comms with as low as -140dBm. Both require knowledge of what modulation scheme is being used etc – without that, you’d never be able to “see” it. Think about that – >12 orders of magnitude down on a milliwatt and 20dB down (2 orders of magnitude!) on raw “noise”. Yes, pulling a signal out of a negative signal-to-noise ratio actually happens every day in millions of places!

    So even assuming no additional “unknown” science/tech, they could be “hiding in plain sight”.

  27. glenndc says:

    Kneel, which just goes to show that you should never trust academic scientists, or any kind of academic, which all SETIzens are. Find a good engineer and ask.

  28. jim2 says:

    Personally; I can’t determine if I think linearly, exponentially, chaotically, randomly, or something else altogether.

  29. E.M.Smith says:

    Also there’s the inverse square problem. IMHO to reduce that causing your comms to not go very far, folks in space will use lasers aligned on the place they wish to talk with. Minimal spread for lower total power needed. Plus most of the signal likely to be absorbed in the target.

    So we look at radio instead of light. Go figure…

    We run all sorts of stuff over light cable now, not electricity in wires. Then in space light doesn’t need a cable…

    So between spread spectrum for everything EM and tight lasers for high bandwidth, exactly what are we going to detect here after 200 light years of inverse square dilution?

  30. E.M.Smith says:

    An example:

    Say you were communicating with another space ship and it was 15 light minutes away. You send your signal with just the right power to be cleanly read at that distance. Now double that to 30 light minutes and you have 1/4 the power needed to read it. At 60 light minutes (one light hour) you have 1/16 the power. 2 light hours, 1/4 of that or 1/64. Now think about a light year. 365 x 24 = 8760 hours. 2^13 is 8192. So about 1/(2^26) of the one light hour strength if I’ve done that right.

    That’s for one light year. Now make it a few dozen…

    I’m pretty sure that puts a very hard limit on our ability to detect far away things much darker than a star itself. Then realize we started with a tight beam that could be detected at 15 light minutes… think you will pick up a cell phone that far away?

    IMHO unless a civilization is running a GIANT power sucking BEACON deliberately to be seen many light years away, we will never detect a thing. We might be able to detect something like 50 MW clear channel radio from a few light years away if we used a really big dish…

    The one thing I’ve never seen from SETI and similar folks is a math analysis of just how powerful a signal would need to be at various distances for us to detect it with the equipment in use. (They may have done it, but I’ve never seen it…). They ought to know that number…

    This had left me speculating that maybe all those computes are really being used for something else… How would you know?

  31. E.M.Smith says:

    Ah, found an interesting semi-answer:


    China’s 500 meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) lists detecting interstellar communication signals as part of its science mission. It is funded by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and managed by the National Astronomical observatories (NAOC) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). FAST is the first radio observatory built with SETI as a core scientific goal.[55] FAST consists of a fixed 500 m (1,600 ft) diameter spherical dish constructed in a natural depression sinkhole caused by karst processes in the region. It is the world’s largest filled-aperture radio telescope.[56] According to its website, FAST could search out to 28 light-years, and would be able to reach 1400 stars. If the transmitter’s radiated power is increased to 1000,000 MW, FAST would be able to reach one million stars. This is compared to the Arecibo 305 meter telescope detection distance of 18 light-years.

    So the biggest thing we had limited at 18 light years with a very strong transmitter at the other end. The thing the Chinese hope to make work might make it to 28 light years and all of 1400 stars. Or the Aliens could be pumping out 1 Terrawatt of power and then maybe we would find them further away…

    Somehow I don’t think that’s a lot of stars we’re going to be able to “read” at anything under giant power transmissions…

  32. Simon Derricutt says:

    NASA’s ideas on quantum-based drives at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350219004_Quantum_Gravity_as_a_Quantum_Warp_Field_Toward_Engineering_a_Realistic_Quantum_Warp_Drive
    I haven’t read through the whole thing yet, but it does show that these ideas are being taken seriously. It’s not just a few crackpots trying things that won’t work. Mike McCulloch even got a DARPA grant of $1.3M about a year ago to progress his theory and run experiments.

    The most surprising thing I’ve seen is in http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2021/02/horizon-engineers.html where the Rindler horizon location has been measured. If we can produce such a near Rindler horizon all around a point then that volume becomes effectively another universe, and can move around in this universe without interacting with it – no gravity and no inertia between what’s inside the boundary and what is outside, thus able to travel FTL in this universe. There may be some alterations in some physical constants inside that little “universe”, though, and such conditions might not be good for life as we know it. I doubt if we’ll really know how safe it is until we’ve actually made such a system.

    Part of the problem of thinking about these things is that we need to change some ideas from being “always true” to “mostly true unless you do this”. Have we made the right guesses about what happens when we do certain things? There are speculations about Alcubierre warp drives that need absolutely massive amounts of energy to make them work, and I’m not sure that those speculations are viable even if we had that sort of energy available. I don’t trust computer simulations that much. However, with the physical measurement of a Rindler horizon, produced with basically a few mW of power, I think things could be on a sounder footing. Of course, that implies that the underlying structure of our universe is a lot different than we thought it was (so maybe the simulations of the Alcubierre drive are really not valid) and what’s possible to do is different than was thought, too.

    There’s a technique called “scissoring gyroscopes”. It’s been proposed as a reactionless drive, and in tests it will move itself. Boeing use it to reposition satellites, but it isn’t actually a reactionless drive and doesn’t violate CoM. It just changes the position of the centre of gravity (CoG) of the satellite, so is used for station-keeping. It doesn’t produce acceleration. However, I learned that whatever you do inside a closed box won’t change the CoG of an object, so it does violate that. Initially I thought it was differential friction acting on the bench or supports, but that isn’t actually the explanation. It’s more like having a momentum-exchange equal in either direction with a longer time-delay in one direction than the other, thus moving the CoG but with no net force produced over the cycle. However, the underlying process has been tried in various ways by people trying to produce a reactionless force, and thinking they’ve succeeded when the thing moves. Still, as an example of something that was considered impossible until it was done, and is now a standard bit of engineering when you need that function, it’s not a bad thing to consider.

  33. jim2 says:

    A tight beam makes for better distance, but coverage is severely limited. It would have to be pointed pretty much right at us or we don’t “see” it.

  34. E.M.Smith says:


    Yup. Whole lot of communications could be going on and just not pointed our way so we see nothing at all.

    I did see where there’s an “Optical SETI” so at least they are (finally?) looking for light signals too.


    I was reading about Rindler Horizons… Interesting stuff. BUT it all talked about a ship with the whole body of it moving at speed and such. I wondered “What if you had a ship and around it was a thin SKIN that oscillated or rotated at speed?”… And “Does that skin have to be matter of electrons and protons and neutrons, or would a skin of just electrons do? How about a skin of EM Waves?”

    So is there some high enough frequency where electrons surging outward then inward, or perhaps along the ship axis and back, producing a coating of EM Waves, look to the universe outside like an OBJECT moving at that speed, thus it gets a Rindler Horizon for that period of time? IF done fast enough do you get a quantum of time effect so it acts as though it is a constant Rindler Horizon? (Or would it even matter if it pulsed into and out of existence, or front to back, at 5 GHz (5 BILLION times a second…))

    At high frequencies, electric currents flow on the SKIN of a conductor, not in the volume. EM Waves propagate in the space just outside the conductor. Is there some GHz where with enough electrons (mW?) you get a SKIN of electrons and EM waves moving at the speed of light, and thus creating a Rindler Horizon for the craft inside that skin? Eh?

    Unfortunately, I don’t know how to test such an idea. I can envisage making a layered skin with microwave coupling into the outer skin making it a giant antenna, but I’m not so able to see a way to make the electrons circle the craft in a skin or be non-radiative while flowing back and forth. ( I’m well trained in thinking about making things an antenna, and that tends to proximity capture ideas about current flow in a surface… Folks with phonon background would do better as they are used to visioning vibrating skins and all…)

    OTOH, perhaps antennas radiate EM transverse to the body of it due to the electrons accelerating back and forth at near the speed of light in that media and that’s an artifact of a tiny Rindler Horizon effect? (One article was talking about how particles transitioning in media like nuclear reactor water emit light as they hit speed of light in that media, Cherenkov radiation, so do electrons in copper hitting air at the end experience something like that? Or perhaps at the air / copper interface along the skin of the wire for the EM wave? Might it be as simple as making the skin of the craft a poor antenna at gHz frequencies?)

    I don’t know. I’m in the “let go your prior bonds of limited thought” stage and not yet to “here’s the new rules…”

    But the intuition is saying whatever it is circles around Cherenkov and antenna radiation and electrons vs photons of EM and their Speed Of Light vs ours. That the transition from electrons moving at or near SOL to emitting photons matters to the mechanism of what’s going on. Just that last bit is confounded. Making a pulsed skin of near SOL Electrons and EM waves WITHOUT them spitting out photons of EM waves…


    Electromagnetic waves
    Main article: Wave propagation speed
    The speed at which energy or signals travel down a cable is actually the speed of the electromagnetic wave traveling along (guided by) the cable. i.e. a cable is a form of a waveguide. The propagation of the wave is affected by the interaction with the material(s) in and surrounding the cable, caused by the presence of electric charge carriers (interacting with the electric field component) and magnetic dipoles (interacting with the magnetic field component). These interactions are typically described using mean field theory by the permeability and the permittivity of the materials involved. The energy/signal usually flows overwhelmingly outside the electric conductor of a cable; the purpose of the conductor is thus not to conduct energy, but to guide the energy-carrying wave.

    In which case the dielectric material bounding the conductor also matters, so maybe a teflon coated copper craft can get SOL wave propagation around it while plain paint or oxide coated doesn’t and that makes the difference…

    I just get the feeling that this is a BOUNDARY problem and a SOL Speed Of Light in different media problem… Perhaps just having a better dielectric than air lets your SOL in the skin for wave propagation exceed that in the free air and you get a disconnect effect…

    I donno… lots of odd ideas floating, not much touching ground…

  35. John Robertson says:

    Don’t know.
    There is much we cannot as yet measure,or even suspect the existence of and gravity mocks our physics,highlighting an obvious area of ignorance.
    Electricity is still magic on some levels.
    What was that famous Shakespeare line?
    :”There are more things in heaven and earth..”
    As for alien intelligence and technology,given the current state of politics and news media,if aliens landed with great ceremony and massive news coverage?
    I would still doubt the people presenting them a real.
    Trust is earned and so easily lost.

  36. philjourdan says:

    @EMS – ROFL! I used Podunk in the generally accepted way, and you produce a history on it! Thank you for the etymology.

    But between the urban core (the center of the Galaxy) and the “Podunk” rural areas (where we are) are the suburbs. And I suspect that given they are older and have more “magic mixture”, that life has been thriving there billions of years before ours arrived. So they are busy running between suburban shopping malls and “Towne Centers”, while we were still swinging from vines.

    But just MHO. I have no evidence and no science to back it up. And until I see either, that will remain my hypothesis. I am open to others, but pursuing this one at this time.

  37. E.M.Smith says:

    There’s also a minor problem of star types…

    Bigger stars blow up a lot faster. We’re talking millions instead of billions of years. Complex life only showed up here recently after a few billion of being nothing much but bacterial soup.

    Most stars about the size of ours make a lot more radiation and bursts of crap, making it harder for life to survive. It is unclear why ours is quieter and more stable.

    The longer lived stars are the Red Dwarfs where you get more Billions of years than even we have had, but they are often much messier in terms of mass ejections and radiation bursts, so may also be hostile to life…

    So in the core area, you are just in a massive chaotic sea of radiation, nova, and other stuff. A huge number of stars all very close together, but because of that HIGHLY disrupted (star collisions, black holes feeding and ejecting massive radiation beans, supernova events cooking everything…). But out nearer to us, you have very few stars like ours.

    Essentially you have to be Just Right in between the Red Dwarfs spitting and snapping for 40 Billion years and the Giants that nova (or supernova) in a few hundred million. AND then get a star that isn’t as messy as others of our star class, but sedate like ours, and then get life cooked up in a few Billion years before it all blows up… Oh, and get off the planet and out of the solar system before it blows up too….

    Seems that the universe is VERY fond of massive radiation, exploding stars, and things going POOOF!! into black holes, and that isn’t conducive to the creation of intelligent life….

    But I still thin we are not alone. Just it will be a modestly long distance between life creating events, and further between places where it can develop space travel, and even further between places where it can travel fast enough to leave it’s star… if that is even possible at all in any practical sense.

    Notice that we’ve had effective space travel for about 1/2 a century now and we still have zero folks living off planet. (Orbiting 100 miles up is still THIS planet…)

    But hopefully it happens often enough and near enough we can meet some other sentient life in the Galaxy. I just hope they don’t find us tasty or too obnoxious a pestilence…

  38. A C Osborn says:

    Simon Derricutt says: 28 March 2021 at 2:15 pm
    “There’s a technique called “scissoring gyroscopes””

    I seem to remember seeing experiments with gyroscopes that appeared to change or negate gravity, they do seem to have wierd properties.

  39. Russ Wood says:

    Wayyy back, John Campbell, editor of ‘Analog’ SF magazine, got very excited about the ‘reactionless’ “Dean Drive”. It took another Analog author, G Harry Stine, to come up with an explanation of much of the effect. His paper “Detesters, Phasers and Dean Drives” can be read at http://www.rexresearch.com/dean/stine.htm
    Stine was also the originator of a quote I use a lot. When acting as a consultant for a tech company, the Board was asked “Do we need a PhD for this position, or could we just make do with an MSc?” Stine reported that his answer was “How about someone who can DO the job?”.

  40. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – I did mention I needed to learn a lot more about RF? Some weird things happen that imply that it’s not quite as we think, and if you’ve looked at microwave circuits it takes a while to work out what each section does. For antenna lengths, for example 1/4 wave, the length is calculated on the basis of the signal passing along it at around 95% of the speed of light (slower if it’s thicker). There’s thus going to be a mismatch between the signal speed in the antenna and the speed of the emitted radiation. There’s also some oddness in the near-field versus far-field, and a suspicion that in near-field the velocity may be more than c and that the wave launches as longitudinal and changes to transverse over the next 10 wavelengths or so. It is also possible to transmit data along a coax at greater than c (up to 8c measured) if you don’t terminate the coax and the coax length is less than 1/4 wave at c and the frequency used. Basically, you can send data using the phase velocity in near-field. It’s been a while since I referenced that paper so it’s on the old machine here, but if needed I’ll find that link. However, also consider the Bazooka balun (a balun converts a balanced transmission line to unbalanced, and needed pretty well any where you pass a signal into an amplifier or an antenna). To make it, add an extra tube outside a coax that’s 1/4 wave long at the frequency you’re using and given the permittivity of the insulation used, and short it to the coax outer conductor 1/4 wave from the end of the coax outer. Over that 1/4 wave distance, that short is converted to look like an open at the point the coax ends, so the signal doesn’t pass down the outside of the coax and get lost but instead all goes out of the core of the coax into the amp or antenna. The point here is that, in order for that actual shorted extra length of coax to be seen at an open 1/4 wave away, the signal needs to be able to “see” that extra length of coax, and presumably travels down it in order to find that short. In practice, however, since the impedance at the real end is (theoretically) infinite, the signal doesn’t go down that path and so can’t see the short as an open. You also don’t get a delay of 1/2 wave (how long it would take for the signal to travel, see the end, and come back) before the balun starts operating. I see the explanation as being that the information about the cable impedance must be instantaneously available to the signal, so that it doesn’t travel down the path that is blocked.

    Basically, hidden in normal RF practice is the principle that information passes instantaneously, and it is studiously ignored because it goes against the theory. Maxwell’s equations also don’t cover near-field effects, and only predict transverse waves. It’s somewhat difficult to measure the speed of transmission of the near-field wave, too. However, with couplers of various types the calculations take no account of the distance between the lines and assume that the wave and the induced wave happen at the same time – there’s no actual phase-lag in the coupling, though the wave direction in reversed across the coupler. This enables us to see what direction a wave is travelling and select the one travelling in the direction we want.

    Rindler horizons: electrons (and presumably any other particles) can have their own Rindler horizons. It’s why the “tunnelling capacitor” experiment works. What’s important here is the acceleration of the particles, which is why electrons are useful (the same field will accelerate them a few thousand times more than even the lightest ions). When we accelerate a particle, the Rindler horizon behind it will get closer than the Hubble limit. I haven’t yet made sense of precisely what is happening when there is matter between the particle and the Rindler horizon – Mike McCulloch says that there’s some shielding in that situation, and in practice this is measured in that capacitor experiment. It seems to me that there may be some sort of Unruh wave (OK, matter-wave) resonances set up, such that nodes must exist at the accelerating particle and the “shielding” particle. When you consider that if that is true, then the same sort of quantisation of Unruh or matter-waves must exist between our particle and every other particle in the universe (nearer than Hubble limit, anyway). Gets mind-blowing.

    Anyway, any accelerated particle gets its own Rindler horizon that is nearer than the Hubble limit. With a sinusoidal shaking, that horizon will be one side and then the other. I figure that any anomalous forces that produces would self-cancel.

    However, the other point about a Rindler horizon is that all the Unruh waves have a node there, and it’s this fact that leads to quantisation of inertia. Only certain wavelengths will fit in the distance between the particle and its horizon. Alzofon’s idea was that, if we take all the available energy out of some bit of space by continually ordering it and letting the available energy disorder it again in a cycle, then that makes a barrier. He figured it as inertia and gravity being mediated by the QM virtual particle storm (so still that storm and you block the transfer of those effects), but I’m seeing it more like the matter-waves needing some sort of medium to wave in in order to exist, and that by removing the disorder at the quantum level we’re taking away the energy that the matter-waves wave in. Rather like putting your thumb over one end of an air-pipe and thus getting a sound-wave node where you’ve got your thumb, we’re forcing all matter-waves to have a node where we’ve taken all the energy from the virtual particle storm (that normally causes all things to randomise and thus gives us uncertainty). If all matter-waves have a node there, that looks very much like a Rindler horizon to me. Maybe it also acts like one, and thus we may be able to use it to get thrust.

    Thus I’m thinking that Mike McCulloch may be a little wrong in using Unruh waves as the explanation, even though experiments do show that data transmission using EM waves at FTL is possible. Maybe, instead, they are actually matter-waves we’re manipulating here. Alzofon may have been a bit wrong thinking that stilling the virtual particle storm made a shield – in a way, maybe it does, but not actually a shield but an absence of the stuff needed to support a wave so we get nodes in those matter-waves and thus Rindler horizons that act as a shield against information passing through. This quantisation of Unruh (or matter) waves could be the underlying reason why information theory actually works, too. Instead of being a continuum of wavelengths, the matter-waves are forced to only have a specific set of wavelengths and this means you can actually count them and count what differences are made when something happens.

    One problem with treating matter as being made of waves is that waves travel through each other without changing (though you do get mixing and sum/difference in a non-linear medium). Particles instead collide and bounce off each other. However, waves do bend in a time-gradient. Thus if we posit that time slows the nearer you get to a particle, and that the denser the matter-wave the slower time goes, and that those matter-waves quite happily interpenetrate and co-exist as other waves do, then we can also see that two such wave passing each other will refract each other and change each other’s direction. Looks somewhat like a collision…. The closer they get to each other’s centre-point, the sharper the bend of the direction of travel. Thus if we suggest that the rate of time is dependent on the density of the matter-wave, we not only “explain” gravity but also why particles collide and don’t just pass through each other without change even though their waves do indeed pass happily through each other.

    “I don’t know. I’m in the “let go your prior bonds of limited thought” stage and not yet to “here’s the new rules…””
    Maybe I’m a little bit further, but not much. Still trying to see beyond what I was taught and finding the bits that can’t be actually true. Signals are not actually limited to the speed of light, and of course this is utilised in quantum computing and is hidden in the equations used in calculating microwave couplers and devices. The actual speed of light may vary across the universe, too, but since we effectively use the speed of light as being constant in our definitions of distance and time, we couldn’t measure it as being different.

    For stars, seems like ours is a Goldilocks situation. Also our location in the Galaxy, and the Earth’s position relative to our star, and the size of our Moon which actually orbits mainly around the Sun (the arc of its orbit is never concave to the Sun) so we’re a two-planet binary. To get something like the life we know, the odds of getting each Goldilocks get multiplied together so the overall chances are pretty slim based of what we’ve currently counted as “Earth-like” planets. However, there really are an awful lot of stars around, and we’ve only really been looking for less than a century. Maybe there was something visible a million years ago, or will be visible in future. Most of the parameters fed into Drake’s Equation are really just guesses and we don’t know.

  41. E.M.Smith says:


    I remember looking at the Bazooka Balun and thinking “Wait a moment… that can’t work”… yet it does. As you get to GHz and higher frequencies, all those odd bits start to show up and you need to start thinking of wires and traces as coax with a signal floating along just outside of it…

    Essentially, IMHO, it starts to be more a QM like problem and less a static analysis problem. And we already know that QM is just bizarre and is happy to break the non-QM “laws of physics”. So once you accept that there universe is really a QM Machine and that we don’t really understand all the fiddly bits of QM, the possibles get very large.

    I’ve occasionally wondered if “matter” is just “waves” (really fields…) that have slowed time so much they seem to be static from our time line. I’ve been poking at this one for a while… and not made much progress.

    We know that if you poke “matter” enough it starts breaking up into bits of EM waves. Photons of various kinds up into hard gammas. What if you started gluing light together into ever more dense bits. Slowing time with each addition. Eventually you reach a point (kind of like a minuscule black hole) where more photons arriving ‘get stuck’ and it looks like a solid with gravity and all. They would also attract each other, yet with ‘time stopped’ at their horizon could never merge. Just get close enough to be attracted, then effectively repelled (rather like what we see in the nucleus of atoms as the protons & neutrons are attracted then stop – so do we call it strong force and weak force when it is really only one thing?)

    Mostly I’ve tried to fit this to the notion of a “linear travel photon” with linear momentum turning into a “spinning photon” with angular MO. The idea being that the photons in “stuff” just don’t move away in a line but spin and get stuck in the aether vortex of each other. (Yeah, very classical and not QM at all… I have trouble thinking in QM…) But I’m thinking a QM explanation would likely be better. But think about it. IF a photon were to travel infinitely close to a neutron, would not time slow on one side more than the other? Would it not curve in flight? Ought that not to reach a point where the curve is so much the photon is spinning instead of traveling in a line away? At what size of particle and energy of photon do they merge (and change the nature of the particle)? We’ve got equations that say “Add gamma particle changes to foo”…

    Basically how can we split particles and emit a gamma and get different particles if the gamma is not a fundamental constituent of the original particle? At what point in the repeated splitting and changing do you have to say “Maybe even the quarks themselves are just bundles of photons stuck tightly”? Then if that is true, how can that be? What is the mechanism?

    I’d imagined it as just a classical swap from linear to angular momentum, but maybe it is more of a QM Time Vortex of some sort. Slow time on one edge of a photon enough and it will pivot on that point… and if the quantum of time is bigger than the photon, it will seem to simply halt. What is a halted photon? Maybe a bit of matter? By this reasoning photons of all sorts are just bits far enough away from other bits to not be trapped into their time dilation. Macro Time just being an artifact of what time leaks out of masses of particles and macro gravity being a similar artifact of time leakage. “Photons all the way down”… but with a time gradient as they get closer to each other.

    Then there’s the odd tautology: Velocity is distance / time. Make time infinite velocity is zero. Make time very small, velocity is huge. Maybe the only thing changing is how fast time runs. Matter is where the time runs nearly zero. Photons is where it runs nearly infinite. Time changing as they get very very close to each other, but that then changes their apparent nature from waves to particles, from photons to matter. Maybe it is all “just a matter of time”, so to speak…

    Well, that’s my babbling for the moment anyway.

    So back at space drives:

    The supposition I’d have is that one must wiggle the photons of the EM wave component of the skin of the craft such that they shield it from the time influence of the rest of the ‘stuff’ outside of the skin. Sort of make it a giant Bazooka Balun where the EM Wave on the skin is busy seeing itself all over the place and not looking outward at the rest of the Universe… but also blocking the flow of time information inside too. That ought to give you zero external gravity and zero external time… So you could do that movements that seem to be ‘nearly instant’. You let just a little gravity / time show up from one direction and ZAP you just moved a mile in what seems a second on exterior time, but was leisurely on your time line.

    The question just being exactly how to wiggle those EM waves…

    FWIW, my guess would be that you inject them into the waveguide of the nested skins at one point, and extract them at an opposite point. Your patent would only need mention “antennas” and folks would assume all transmitting / injecting. That chaos of interference likely not giving a skin of EM isolation IMHO. BUT, inject a lot at one end, extract it at the other, the exterior of the craft ought to have an EM envelope flowing outside of it. (is that what they called a ‘polarized vacuum’?) We know the information flows in a space just outside the wave guide conductor and at SOL or greater even as the electrons are slower inside the conductor. Just make that huge and ask ‘what happens inside the wave guide’? Or perhaps “inside something wrapped in a wave guide”…

  42. David A says:

    If the Absolute plays dice, they appear to be very loaded…
    Fine tunning…

    Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34
    Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37
    Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120
    Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59
    Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55
    Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^ (10^123)

    So in the above example we have 6 dice to roll. The number of faces on each dice correspond to the calculated one in x odds. In order for the cosmos to evolve life, then all six of those dice rolls, rolled as one action in the BB, must hit their precise number, greatly compounding the total odds.

  43. DonM says:

    wrt a Galactic Coalition, would they (or would they not):

    * create rules that control member contact with non-members.
    * create bylaws that control who can be a member.
    * create guidelines for member committees to investigate potential new members.
    * create penalties for members that violate rules, laws, & guidelines.
    * create guidelines as how to deal with Non-Coalition Entities (NCE’s) that interact with potential new members and other non-members.

    * be in a potential competitive state with Non-Coalition Entities (NCE’s)
    * be allowed to officially contact a non-representative official on a non-member world.
    (* discount a world, where the leading culture has an elected leader that, due to mental deficiency, can’t even tie his own shoes.)

    Would the answers to the above lead some folks to press forward with policies that would, in turn, move the earth toward a one world government?

  44. jim2 says:

    The CIO Denizens are much more likely to sleep with hot alien women (or men as the case may be) than the Dimowits keep the Filibuster intact.

  45. H.R. says:

    @DonM – All the individual GEBs at the top intend for it to be them that is in charge of the One World Government.

    Just like their useful idiot minions who are on board with the program to reduce the population, meaning all the Other People, not them.

    And just like everything will be free… using Other People’s Money, not their money..

    You asked some excellent questions that would lead a logical person to put the brakes on the GEB’s One World Government agenda.

    There are going to be a lot of very surprised people when they find out that they are in fact the Other People.

    It always end in tears. Always.

  46. Kneel says:

    EMS: ” Then if that is true, how can that be? What is the mechanism?”

    Outside the box speculation.
    Matter and energy are different aspects of the same thing.
    Energy (EM waves at least) are “ripples” in the field(s).
    Is matter a “tear” in the field (too fast a change “breaks” the field)?
    That would cover high energy photon “decaying” to electron/positron pairs – the “tear” forces the two half-cycles apart.
    Also, if space-time can only repair the tears at SoL, it also explains relativistic mass gain (“trails” of damage as ST repair tries to “catch up” with damage).
    May also explain “dark matter” – neutrino is the energy (“ripple”), dark matter is the “matter” (“tear”).

    Would be interesting to couple this with the “matter is frozen in time energy” thing too.

    So much speculation, so little evidence…

  47. p.g.sharrow says:

    GOD did not create the Universe out of complex universals.. Creation began with Charge in chaos. Charge as in electronic pressure of what we call Negative,
    Positive is the Lack of charge, not to be confused with Neutral which Negative and Positive -/+ are in balance.

    This is where I started to build a Universe that reflected reality as I see it. We know that charge in motion creates EMFields and it is said that every Electron in the Universe can feel the motions of ever other Electron because of the force/pressure exerted by their charge against each other as well as the Charge pressure of “Something” that is not there but must be there, Aether.

    There must be “Something” there because we can see it’s effect under the influence of Gravity and and EMF.
    The Mindless Complexities that we are required to deal with are the creations of PHDs looking for notoriety and grant money, Maybe even a Nobel !

    Why have Strong force, Weak force. Electro-Motive force and Gravity when they are all the result of charge in motion over distance as well as time.

    Once I filled my Universe with Charge in Chaos and organize charge in Mater even Gravity works like any other “Field” because of acceleration caused by the charge field gradient between Mater over massive amounts and distance. Thus organization of charge that was in Chaos to be come condensed into Mater creating a fairly stable Singularity, a Proton ! that exhibits a lack of charge ( positive) body that still pushes against the universe with an Electron charge shell that might be any size or charge depending on It’s energy levels.

    Mass/Inertia can be explained as an external field in Aether caused by Charge fields in Mater, Charge fields in motion couples to charge fields in chaos causes conservation in motion because charge fields in motion creating a counter EMF that preserves the energy and motion…pg

  48. p.g.sharrow says:

    Once Mass/Inertia can be described as the result of the organized effects on the Chaos of space, Aether, then EMF confusing that mass/inertia connection should yield propulsion through the Aether with Mazer/Lazer jets. Actually the Tic-Tacs are bare minimum devices where ever part in them is a necessary part of the device. No onboard facilities for extended flight…pg

  49. p.g.sharrow says:

    Guess I should add, It appears to me that Simon , EM and others ” see much the same universe that I see. Just a bit difference in semantics and POV. My electrical/electronics training is mainly big stuff, Smiths in small stuff while Simon’s is in molecular size. I am sure it can be done. From what I’ve read in the Navy patents it is nearly all baffel-gab. A patent is supposed to describe the means where someone versed in the art can use the patent description to duplicate the device………..I am and I can’t. 8-(…pg

  50. E.M.Smith says:


    Yeah, you say “charge” and I say “electron or maybe photon”. Same general notion just different words (charge vs electron) or scale (is it the electron or is the electron made of photons… and then I go down the rabbit hole of small stuff and maybe it does the same thing you describe…)

    Oh, and I flounder a bit more about scale and names ;-)

    Yeah, the Navy patents sure look to me like they are designed to hide what’s really going on and what really might work, while meeting the legal requirement to have filed to make it “prior art”.

    So later they can come back and say “Well, ‘antenna’ can be broadcasting or receiving energy, and vacuum foam (or whatever they named it…) can be matter or energy or just EM Waves without either of those two and… ” So they get to say “We put it all in there, just your fault you didn’t understand the new words needed to cover this exotic tech…”

    So I do think they have something, but the patent only hints at it, doesn’t give a recipe…

    FWIW, I’m still enamored of the idea of a nested skin wave guide where the inner surface acts to keep the EM waves from leaking into the inside while the outer skin is where the EM waves flow in the space just above them. The “antennas” in the cavity really being both injection and removal ports for the flow of GHz EM / electrons so as to establish a more or less uniform blanket of them in the space (and uniform EM layer on the outside of the ‘conductor’ / surface) that then insulates the interior of the craft from the rest of the world around it…

    Ought to be testable with a tic-tac shaped dual shell and a few well placed wave guides plus microwave oven inside ;-) (I’d likely start with one at each corner injecting and one center top and center bottom removing… but that’s just me…). Hang the whole thing by a big nylon rope from a scale and turn it on.

    Worst case you have made a giant popcorn popper ;-) “On a rope!’…

  51. E.M.Smith says:

    I’d likely start with antenna like these in the corners (might need more than one per corner… top shell and bottom shell) as it looks like they would give a decent 90 angle spreading of the energy into the shell gap. Ground the wave guide exterior to the inner shell of the body and then the outer shell is free to be the radiator in what is effectively a 1/2 coax …

    A spherical slotted antenna. Looks like a golf ball with slots cut in it on the end of a waveguide…


  52. E.M.Smith says:

    Golly… Thinking about the fact that you need a very good dielectric to get near SOL propagation, I ran into the fact that folks make Teflon Microwave Lenses (!):

    Material: Polytetrafluoroethylene (Virgin White PTFE)
    Ideal for Use in the Terahertz (THz) Band
    Available Sizes: Ø50 mm, Ø2″, Ø3″, and Ø4″
    Focal Lengths Available from 75 to 500 mm

    We provide plastic plano-convex lenses made with Polytetrafluoroethylene (Virgin White PTFE), which has a low dielectric constant of approximately 1.96 at 520 GHz and an index of refraction of approximately 1.4. The f/#, inversely proportionate to the NA, is held relatively constant across the selection of lenses on the page. PTFE has a low dielectric constant, which ensures that the insertion loss is reasonably low. The typical operating range of PTFE is up to ~2 THz.

    The Terahertz (THz) range can be expressed as the frequency range of 300 GHz to 10 THz or the wavelength range of 30 μm to 1 mm. Until recently, the THz range was a relatively unused part of the electromagnetic spectrum; however, in recent years the THz band has been gaining popularity in applications such as spectroscopy, astronomy, remote sensing, and in security (THz imaging). The THz band is situated between microwaves and optics on the electromagnetic spectrum. This location influences the mixture of microwave and optical technologies used in the THz band.

    Thinking about it, yeah, it makes sense. Differential propagation speed in air vs Teflon means you can make a lens…

    If needed, one might put a layer of Teflon on the craft surfaces or even ‘Teflon lenses” inside the shell space to more evenly distribute the microwaves “as needed”…

  53. David A says:

    PG days, ”Mindless Complexities that we are required to deal with are the creations of PHDs looking for…”

    When physicists say the…. force, or the …strong force, or the …weak force, they are not, in my view, being mindlessly complex. They are bring humbly vague about an observed force. Yes, there is a clear duality or polarity to electrons, proteins, atoms planets and suns etc… Because they can describe countless observations about these forces, is not a claim that they understand them, and the fine tunning is quite necessary for a billions of years of building and evolving polarized energy wave like particle like something to evolve and become self aware and capable of questioning the ultimate verities.

  54. A C Osborn says:

    p.g.sharrow says: 30 March 2021 at 3:38 am
    “Actually the Tic-Tacs are bare minimum devices where ever part in them is a necessary part of the device. No onboard facilities for extended flight…pg”

    You are assuming that the “crew” are not a few microns tall and live on microwaves.
    I distinctly remember one of the Twilight Zone or other such series had an episode where a tiny Spaceship harasses a human women in her bedroom until she stomps it and the camera pans to this tiny battered ship and it has USA or something similar written on the side.

  55. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – one of the problems is that we think in terms of either wave or particle, and both are approximations. It may be a good-enough approximation to calculate with and get the right answer, but I think they are always both at the same time.

    A bit of a clue is that a positron and electron annihilate each other (as particles) and you get two 511keV gammas heading off in different directions. That can AFAIK happen in the opposite direction, too, with two gammas merging to create a positron and electron, but this is more normally done by using a 1022kev gamma passing close by another particle. I was figuring on two waves curling in opposite directions so tightly that they were in resonance with each other, so if you are representing the straight wave as a sine wave on a string then the electron (or positron) would look like an oval whose long axis is first horizontal and then vertical, with two waves running in opposite directions. When the electron and positron mutually annihilate the two clockwise waves combine to cause one gamma and the anti-clockwise waves produce the other gamma.

    If the density of the energy gets high enough at a point then time slows to almost-zero and the time-gradient provides the bending of the waves around that point.

    So this provides a picture of how a wave becomes a particle and vice-versa. It doesn’t really explain charge, though, or fields, or indeed why the density of the matter-wave (an EM wave) slows time. When I was a student I thought I understood fields, particles, energy, and waves, but now I don’t know what they actually are even though we can describe what they do and can recognise them by their effects. Once we have a particle, and if we propose that there’s a time-gradient around it, then that time-gradient will deflect other waves/particles, and such particles will be able to collide rather than just pass through each other without a change in direction as the other waves we know do. Momentum will be conserved in such collisions, so from a distance it will look almost like billiard balls hitting each other. From close up, though, the deflection will be different because the deflection is in the opposite direction. We don’t have the resolution to be able to see that, though, and at the resolution we can achieve it would look exactly the same.

    With the time-gradient extending to the extent of the matter-wave (and that extent spreading out at the speed of light at the edge), the bending of the path of a particle looks very much like gravity, and since in the overlap of the two matter-waves the time will be slower there is also less potential energy the closer those particles get to each other, thus producing what looks like an attractive force – I think the tendency to move to a lower potential energy and thus higher kinetic energy still applies.

    The question now is why only certain masses of particles exist. I’d suggest that if the particles consist of two waves counter-rotating, there’s only going to be certain wavelengths that fit in the circle. A non-resonant wave can’t exist for very long. That also may explain why some particles have short lifetimes. You can also see similar things happening with the electron orbitals in an atom. each orbital can hold two electrons that have spin in opposite directions, and where the waves are in resonance. Thus the available orbitals are where the waves “join up” neatly, and no-one knows what actually happens when there’s an energy jump from one orbital to another. We do know that putting the right quantum of photon in will cause that jump, and that we get that same quantum of energy out again when the electron drops back to the lower-energy orbital again.

    I’ve been thinking about how a field works, but can’t come up with a good model. Thus exactly why we see opposite charges attract and the same charges repel, and the structure of space that allows that to happen, remains open. Hotson’s idea of positron/electron pairs and their separation doesn’t hack it (and still leaves the question of what charge is unanswered anyway). If you have equal numbers of +ve and -ve charges in a volume, and move the array of -ve charges over a bit relative to the +ve charges, you get a zero field in the middle and a thin field just at the edges. If you have free-moving charges, they will move such the field is zeroed out.

    For space drives, I’m not seeing that the microwave skin would provide that boundary (Rindler horizon) that would isolate a mini-universe inside the skin and allow shielding against inertia and gravity. I think maybe Fred Alzofon’s idea of removing energy from the quantum field (stopping the virtual particle storm) might provide such a barrier. It really depends on what the matter-wave is actually waving, and whether by producing extreme order in a spot does produce nodes in the matter-waves and thus an artificial Rindler horizon.

    Another model of a particle is of a wave bouncing between two mirrors, and the mirrors would need to be Rindler horizons, with those horizons lasting just a bit longer after they’ve been created by acceleration of the wave. If you specify that the reflection surfaces are there, it looks like the model works, but making those reflective surfaces isn’t making sense at the moment. The time-gradient (and particle-sized Black Holes) just seems more satisfying.

    Still, one of the things we need to do is to stop thinking of time as being the same as other dimensions. It’s OK in the maths to do that, and in Relativity time and space get mixed, but that’s because we are using the speed of light as our yardstick and how we see and measure things. We measure time by the number of ticks of some oscillation that we think is regular, and that’s a bit of a circular argument since if it wasn’t regular we couldn’t tell. Galileo figured that the pendulum time was constant after timing it using his heartbeat; these days we’d use the pendulum to measure the heartbeat. Still, if we consider things like the oscillation of Caesium atoms of transitions between orbitals as being as good measure of the rate of time, the actual rate at which those thing happen is going to be different depending on the local matter-density. This isn’t yet a clear description, and I’m working on it…. Still, a bit like having a variable refractive index in optical materials, a change in the rate of time will change the direction of waves. We can even see that happening with Einstein lensing. For Black Holes, we also figure that all the mass exists at the surface and there’s actually nothing inside them, and instead all the EM waves are travelling around the surface at zero speed. A bit like the Bazooka balun, though, while light travels at zero speed there is still instantaneous transmission of information along that light-wave. This may be the bit we haven’t recognised – time can be stopped in one way whilst still running at infinite speed in another way. That could be the hump we need to get over in understanding what’s really happening. That instantaneous passing of some data from one end of an EM wave to the other (quantum weirdness or spooky action at a distance) still operates when we measure time as being slowed or stopped.

    Russ Wood’s link to the Dean Drive (thanks for that, btw) might point to there being some delay in the application of a force and the momentum change that produces, and that it might take some time for the information to get to the Rindler horizon and back again. Maybe one Planck delay for each wavelength? However, that would seem to predict that where there are high accelerations at a high rate (such as collisions of gas molecules with on average a rate of around 7GHz) then momentum wouldn’t be conserved, and yet it appears to be. It’s thus possibly a misinterpretation of what was happening, and the description of the device moving doesn’t imply a continuous acceleration. Like the scissoring gyroscopes, it could maybe move the CoG of the device but not accelerate it, so didn’t (probably) violate CoM. Gyroscopes do some strange things, and seem to violate Newton’s laws, but it seems that acceleration is not producible that way. Theoretically, there’s a reduction of inertia in other objects along the axis of rotation, but measuring that is difficult. Eugene Podkletnov got a larger effect using a spinning superconductor, and Boeing tried to develop that but seem to have failed to get a worthwhile effect (a few percent). Not enough to fly something, anyway.

    pg – yep, the Navy patents seem mainly to be bafflegab and trying to scatter-gun the field so that when someone solves it they can claim priority on at least some of it. NASA did the same with their LENR patents, where nothing they proposed actually worked reliably and you couldn’t build anything that worked from the patent, but some of the methods have a chance of working. What it basically means is that they think there’s a good chance of someone coming up with a workable method.

    Each proposed reactionless drive seems to have a different theory of why it works. Richard Banduric found an ignored term in Faraday’s equations, Roger Shawyer had some complex quantum theory, Jim Woodward used the idea of moving a mass of electrons in and out of a capacitor and accelerating one way when charged +ve (fewer electrons) and the other way when charged -ve (but didn’t notice that when one plate has more electrons, the other has fewer) but it did seem to work, and Mike McCulloch explained most such things using horizon mechanics (or QI – it’s changed names a bit). Alzofon thought that the virtual particle storm diffused through space slow enough that it could be be zeroed out by stilling the storm on the surface of a metal plate. The Dean Drive was explained by non-zero momentum effects by higher rate of change of acceleration (d²v/dt² and higher differentials) (lost the cubed sign on this computer).

    A big problem is that we can’t actually see a lot of this stuff. Propose something that might work, build it, and test it. It either does what you think it will or it won’t, and even if it works it may not be for the reason we think.

    A table does no work in holding up that cup of coffee. Similarly, holding something hovering above the ground should need no work to do, but helicopters use a lot of power getting the thrust to do that.

  56. H.R. says:

    Just a note on microwaves from w-a-a-a-y upthread;

    Isn’t the shielding such that, given a large enough microwave oven, if the World went wacky and and was bombarded with microwaves, couldn’t you just get inside your microwave oven (unplug it!) and be protected?

    I’m not aware of a one-way microwave shield that only keeps microwaves in while allowing any passing microwaves to enter.

    So if your tic-tac ship requires microwaves, I’d think an occupant could be shielded from them.
    @A C Osborn – Thanks for reminding me of that space ship episode. That’s how I remember it, too.

  57. jim2 says:

    E=mc^2 shows that energy and mass are interchangeable and aspects of the same thing. This equation told scientists the atom bomb was possible. And the matter-anitmatter example above proves it.

  58. jim2 says:

    Oxford English professors suggest scrapping English, saying it’s complicit in ‘white supremacy.’ From this day on, they will converse in Pig Latin.

  59. jim2 says:

    (Sorry, that last was on the wrong thread.)

  60. p.g.sharrow says:

    I’ve got the disk created FRP-copper foil segments-FRP-aluminum foil shingles- FRP surface now need the electronics.

  61. H.R. says:

    @P.G. – I see that your test pilot wanted a photo taken alongside the spacecraft.

  62. p.g.sharrow says:

    Supposed skin from UFO was examined and found to be 21 layers of Bismuth and Magnesium. The skin was claimed to be the key to it’s operation. Bismuth is Diamagnetic, that is it repels magnetic fields…pg

  63. Simon Derricutt says:

    pg – Alzofon specified either Aluminium or Magnesium as materials that maintained nuclear orientation for a significant time (6ms for Aluminium), and thus to be used in the “cooling” of the virtual particle storm. Needed another metal (such as Iron, Chromium) to accept the orientation from the rotating field and pass that orientation on. I don’t know if or why Bismuth would help. I treat any information about “crashed UFOs” as suspect, since it’s more likely to be disinformation intended to direct people down the wrong path than to be valid and correct. There’s also the point that the crashed ones could well be failed tests (by humans) and thus even if true may not be the optimum approach.

    In fact, the various stories about UFOs put me off even considering that the technology might indeed work. I’ve seen plans to build a UFO based on spinning Mercury vapour, where if that worked it wouldn’t take long to prove it by experiment. Most UFO stories have holes you can drive a truck through, too. However, the personal account from my engineer friend about the demo from someone he’d known for decades did convince me that there is a real technology available. That led me to consider why momentum is normally conserved, and thus the situations in which it isn’t (that is, where the force is transferred via a changing field, since at that time I hadn’t come across Mike McCulloch or Alzofon). The quantum-based ideas look more powerful, too.

    It’s useful to have more people considering the evidence and theories. Modern physics uses wave theory to describe matter, but avoids talking about the point that waves pass through each other without changing each other – they don’t collide and bounce off each other. There’s also the point that, in order to support a wave, you need to have a medium that has analogues of inertia (or inductance) and springiness (or capacitance). There’s a possibility that in free space, the ratio of inductance and capacitance remains constant (so the speed of light remains constant) but that they can each vary depending upon the density of the matter-field (normally measured by the gravitational field, though not at Lagrange points or near them). Measuring the inductance of a simple loop coil on various satellites and space-craft might be useful to check this – I doubt if that is done. Most radio stuff will use cores for the coils and dielectrics for the capacitors to ensure small size and weight as well as stability rather than air (or vacuum) cores and dielectrics. Who would think of measuring something that few people consider might be a variable?

    The work to make a real reactionless drive looks like a science of little benefit to people on Earth. Might be a bit cheaper to get into orbit, but most people don’t go into orbit anyway. However, if we do get a good-enough reactionless drive, that also means we can make energy rather than need to burn something to get energy (or collect it using solar power or wind turbines, etc.). Break CoM, and you can also break CoE. Almost certainly that energy would be cheaper than any other way of getting it, and would require fewer resources to build the devices to do it. It’s actually a pretty huge benefit on Earth, if we can make it work well-enough. The EMDrive shows us that it is not impossible in principle, and we also have other proofs of possibility. Figuring out the theory side properly could give us better ways of doing it. The big question there is “what gives rise to inertia?”, which was a major problem with the Standard Model itself (there was no way to produce inertia in the model) before Higgs invented the Higgs field which, like Aether, permeates all space to infinity. That “to infinity and beyond” part of that is itself a problem, in that in an infinite space there’s no good reason to have things that are quantised, and you only get quantisation (resonances) in enclosed spaces. The edge of space and some sort of barrier (even if what’s behind that barrier is the same stuff) is critical to disallowing wavelengths that don’t fit in a whole number.

    Of course, this assumes waves to be a basis for everything, but I’m not seeing an alternative model. Waves seem to work pretty well at explaining quantum mechanics, too. Just that problem of exactly what is waving. That Aether problem is studiously ignored by mainstream physics, since wave mechanics works and the properties of the Aether that would need are somewhat paradoxical, given that no-one has yet been able to detect it or our velocity in relation to it. I’ve seen some good explanations in Aether theory that use the equations of fluid dynamics and lots of little vortices, and thus explain electromagnetic effects and the basis for the permittivity and permeability of space, but they haven’t noticed (and still don’t see though I’ve pointed it out) that the equations of fluid dynamics require a medium that has inertia and springiness, and that thus they are explaining the inertia and springiness of the space we see using the inertia and springiness of an Aether we can’t see. It’s recursive model, in other words, and doesn’t explain things but just pushes it up a level as being “that’s the way it is”. The only possible benefit here is that there might be predictions of useful things that we hadn’t noticed until we specifically looked.

    In the traditions of Feynman, we thus make a guess at to what the actual structure of the universe is, and make predictions based on that theory, and see if they work. I figure Mike McCulloch is pretty close, and that the current size of the universe to the Rindler horizon affects a lot of things. It could also be the reason why information theory works (you can count wavelengths). The variable rate of time could simply be a change of the ratio of permittivity of space to the permeability of space – things oscillate slower as the permeability (inductance) increases or the permittivity (capacitance) decreases, and *whatever is oscillating* is the tick by which we measure the passing of time. I tend to think that real infinities or zeroes don’t actually exist, so the permeability never reaches infinity and the permittivity never reaches zero, so time never actually stops but just gets extremely slow. This isn’t quite the same as the arrow and the tortoise…. Still, the rate of time is a local thing, and depends on local conditions, and there’s also the distortion of relative velocity when it comes to measuring that.

    When we accelerate something, the energy we put in gets converted to mass. This is evidenced by the longer lifetimes of particles like Muons accelerated to near light-speed. We’re not just seeing time being dilated because of the relative speed of those Muons in the lab frame, but they travel much further than would be expected for their lifetime when stopped. I’d thus suggest that it’s the density of energy that is the “inertia analogue” in the rate of oscillation. Higher density of energy, permeability higher, slower time ticks and the same number of vibrations takes longer. Possibly permittivity also changes. Might take a while to figure out a schema for this that complies with experimental evidence. Still, that sort-of explains why time ticks slower and, together with the “fuzzy” view of a particle we get from QM that stretches to infinity (replaced with Hubble limit in the better model since I don’t like infinities), and overlaps all other particles in the universe too, also implies that time runs slower the denser the matter-wave actually is, and thus gives rise to gravity. The picture is starting to hang together reasonably.

    If the waves are vibrating the energy (the amount of energy is identified as the permeability or inertia), then that suggests that Alzofon’s idea of removing the energy at a location should also produce a node in the wave. Such a surface or volume with no energy in it will also quantise the wavelengths of any particle whose waves hit it (that is, everything in our universe up to the Hubble limit) with greatest effect on things close to it, which would accelerate towards (or at least experience a force towards) that artificial horizon (pushed by the waves the other side, where there are many more of them because there is more distance). This should be a pretty good reactionless drive – just fix a lump of matter a set distance from our artificial horizon.

    There’s a speculation here as to what energy actually is, and not just what it does. May be useful if it turns out to be near to the truth. Could also be that Unruh waves (matter waves?) have a peak intensity at a specific wavelength depending upon energy-density, rather like the black-body spectrum (and avoiding the ultraviolet catastrophe), and that like light-waves or microwaves in a resonant cavity will only have a specific set of wavelengths that fit in the cavity rather than a continuous spectrum. Feed in white noise, and you get a set of frequencies out rather than all frequencies. We know that energy-levels fluctuate randomly anyway (Heisenberg) and so there is a source of the equivalent of white noise to get the resonances in the matter/energy medium in a resonant cavity. Add in extra energy from one side of a particle (forces have direction) and maybe this changes the envelope of frequencies (equivalent of temperature of the Unruh wave source, so peak wavelengths rise?) put out from one side of the particle until it has gained enough velocity for the waves each side to be equal and the particle then moves at a constant velocity once the force is removed?

    Of course, this is all explained as analogues to things we can see and have worked with, but there are no words to describe things we haven’t had experience of.

  64. E.M.Smith says:

    An odd thought occurred to me reading that “to infinity”…

    What if the particle wave does NOT extend to infinity? How would we know? Could it be that the distance it extends is a variable dependent on some thing else, like as a hypothetical example, the energy put in creating velocity?

    IF you had an expanding horizon for that matter wave with energy, then more space is occupied by it. Might that be the source of increased inertia, a wider coupling to all of that space?

    I’m not advocating for this as The One True POV, but rather asking the question “How do we know” it extends to infinity? Or is that just Yet Another Assumption?

    As another off the wall POV: Might not the Aether be just the sum off all the other waves of all the other particles seen by a given matter wave? (Or perhaps both matter and energy waves…) Then if the wave horizon changes with energy level, particles would “see” different Aether depending on how fast they were going. Greater or lesser coupling to ever more other particles showing up as ever more inertia with velocity. The ability to “push against” all those other wave fronts a variable. In that case, the “trick” is to find a way to make that coupling have polarity or direction… Perhaps via some EM wave ability to screen the matter wavefront… or that zero point barrier from a “polarized vacuum”…

    Or maybe I’m just needing to finish my morning coffee to get the brain to stop sputtering…

    Sidebar On Polarized Vacuum:

    Until just a few days ago I thought that was one of those Crazy Terms made up by folks with addled understanding as hand waving bafflegab. Imagine my surprise when I found out it’s a real term of art in the realm of physics.

    Vacuum Polarization

    Vacuum polarization is an important effect in effectively reducing the charge on a particle. The reduction is dependent on distance and hence on the energy scale.

    The term Vacuum Polarization is descriptive of the effect. A charged particle will polarize the vacuum in a way analogous to the way a dielectric is polarized. A virtual electron positron pair in the vacuum will be affected by the charge. If the original charged source is a nucleus for example, the virtual electron will be attracted and the virtual positron repelled, causing a net polarization of the vacuum which screens the nuclear charge. At very short distances from the nucleus, the bare charge is seen, while at long distances the screening is important. This causes the basic coupling \bgroup\color{black}$\alpha$\egroup to vary a bit with distance and therefore with energy. This polarization of the vacuum is similar to the polarization of a dielectric material. In this case, what is being polarized are the virtual electrons and positrons in the vacuum. Of course other particles than the electron can be polarized in the vacuum so the energy variation of the coupling “constant” is an interesting subject for research.

    Note that this is from U.C.S.D. and edu site.

    So that whole ‘baffle-gab’ of “vacuum polarization’ is actually what the guys in white coats are thinking (not the guys being netted by guys in white coats ;-)


    So that implies all you need is a whole lot of “charged particles” to create some degree of “polarized vacuum”… That just has me wondering:

    How many electrons can you stuff into how many layers of conductor to create how great a screening to create how strong a Vacuum Polarization?

    Maybe it isn’t the microwaves so much as the electron density in the antenna body and the layers of it… Microwaves just being there as the method of stuffing the charge carriers… At a wavelength of, oh, 1 cm, your electrons in the antenna are not moving very far before they have to turn around and go the other way. So think of the two shells as a capacitor. Inner vs outer. Stuff a LOT of electrons into layers in the outer shell, accumulate “holes” in the inner shell, fill the void between them with microwaves so the energy field is (waves hands…) helping keep them in place. You get ever increasing “vacuum polarization” as that charge level builds.

    I think maybe I need that 2nd cup of coffee to get myself out of this rabbit hole ;-)

  65. cdquarles says:

    You’ve gotten me to thinking “metaphysics” here. Mutable things can but not necessarily must, mutate; that is, change. The concept of time flows from that. Much, if not all, of the universe we can sense is mutable one way or another. This includes position as well as any other state change.

    We are within the physical universe system (how can any thing that is mutable bring itself into existence, or from a potential to an actual? There are two ways I can see: 1. It can’t and 2. A being gave it the power to do so by following blueprint it made; which is in effect saying it can’t, it seems to me.). We can’t sense any thing outside of it. The physical part of the universe definitely looks bounded. That does not mean that there isn’t a non-physical part that isn’t bounded. It also seems to me that discrete and finite (and thus quanta) follow from that within said bounds.

  66. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – I figure the particle’s matter/energy wave doesn’t reach to infinity. However, QM makes that assumption for the probability wave. Instead, I figure that the “stuff” that the particle consists of is energy (or matter, same thing) and that the density decreases from the centre to the cutoff point, which for our universe is a radius of around 13.8 billion light-years and is also expanding at the speed of light. QM makes the proposal that if you affect anywhere on the probability-wave you affect the whole thing instantaneously, and I’d propose that that seems to really happen and that if we change that probability wave definition over to it actually being the density of the energy/matter and with a limit at the Hubble radius, then that’s closer to reality. The limits we’re putting on it change the continuous frequency spectrum that QM allows to being a limited set of frequencies where there must be nodes at the Hubble radius. Not sure if the centre of the particle needs to be nodes or antinodes – I think nodes, so the absolute centre of the particle would be zero energy.

    Note that as we go back in time then the universe must have been smaller, or to be more precise the Hubble radius was smaller and so the longest wavelength possible would have been shorter too, which means that the minimum acceleration quantum would have been larger too. Mike McCulloch has looked at some deep red-shifted galaxies to check on the minimum acceleration (from gravity on the outlying stars in those galaxies) and found that the minimum acceleration does indeed rise as we look further back in time, and (within error-bars) that agrees with the theory.

    I’m figuring on the outside boundary of the particle not being affected by velocity, though during accelerations it will change (that’s why inertia happens, after all).

    Yep, I think what we are calling the Aether is the sum of all the matter-waves that we (or the particle being affected by it) can see. With those waves overlapping and passing through each other without drag, gravity is produced by a gradient in that matter-density, and the sum of the Aether momentum (from the rest of the universe) at any point would be almost the same as the nearest large gravitational body. Thus the problem of why the Aether seems to be dragged with us (and Michelson-Morley produced a null result) is solved. The clock-rates of the GPS satellites, and the timings of when the signal is received, only matches reality if you choose the Sun-Earth frame as your reference frame – Aether theory is used for GPS and not Relativity. See Ron Hatch for this, who holds a lot of the patents for GPS.

    I’d thus predict that at a Lagrange point (say the Earth-Moon L1, see https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/754/what-is-a-lagrange-point/ ) then since the matter-density is higher at that point then the time will run slower, whereas Einstein predicts that, with zero gravitational field, time will run at maximum rate. This is thus a testable prediction. Bit expensive to send a GPS satellite through that point, though. Use L1 for this because if Einstein was right then you’ll see a periodic speed-up of its clock at it passes through L1, which you can’t really do so easily with the other points.

    When we accelerate a particle, forward of the acceleration the particle will “see” more universe, and behind the acceleration it will see less. Presumably, if there was a giant Black Hole at around the Hubble limit when you apply a force to a particle in that direction, you’d see a slight change in inertia in that direction. Presumably there will be stuff beyond the Hubble radius, that we can only sense once the Hubble radius has expanded enough for it to affect the matter we are made of.

    The speed of light is thus really important, but information about whatever is within our Hubble radius reaches us immediately (though may be delays of the order of Planck times?). I think it was Dirac who said “yes, quantum mechanics is mad, but is it mad enough?”. This picture of what’s really happening does seem somewhat mad….

    Polarisation of the vacuum is invoked to explain the fast drop-off of the nuclear force with distance, yet if it applies there then it should also do the same to the field from an electron, and yet we see an inverse-square law for electric charge. There may of course be some differences at huge distances that we haven’t yet been able to (or even tried) to measure. After all, the deviations from Newton’s inverse-square law for gravity only show up at galactic distances. The idea of vacuum polarisation is that, since particles and antiparticles are being continuously created and destroyed according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, for the short time they exist the virtual electron and positron will be a bit more separated by the field and will thus tend to reduce the measurable field. Heavier particles, such as proton and antiproton, will also be constantly produced and destroyed and will also add to the polarisability of the vacuum, but since they are about 1800 times as much mass they will exist for a far shorter time and since they have the same charge as an electron, the effect will be reduced by around 1800 times.

    Though logically this ought to work, the experimental evidence is that in electrostatics we see an inverse-square law for the forces. I don’t see a good reason why it should only apply to nuclear forces and not other electric fields.

    One of the things about virtual particles, though, is that they have just been created. That means that they start with zero inertia, with the inertia increasing as they age and the extent of their matter-wave reaches far enough to respond to other matter within that boundary (which expands at the speed of light). I need to look up that (average) time to see just what the maximum extent would be. However, that does look like a reasonable reason for the permittivity of free space, and maybe the permeability too. It also suggests that those may not be constants, and vary according to matter-density. However, it may not be possible to measure those changes, since of course the rate of time also varies with the density of the matter-wave. Seems to make sense that the first-order differences will cancel out, though there may be second or third-order deviations that might be measurable.

    An interesting little paradox… when you push on an object, and accelerate it, the force you apply and the force back on your hand are exactly the same. Sum those forces and you get zero. To see this, put a spring between your hand and the object, since a spring when compressed exerts the same force at each end. Work done, and energy input, is force times distance, and if you only look at the force from your hand then everything works out OK as regards energy, work, velocity achieved, and so on. It seems that that reverse force is from the extension of the boundary (horizon) of that object in the forward direction (thus more Unruh/matter/energy waves possible in front) combined with a reduction of the horizon behind meaning fewer wavelengths possible, and the force is the difference of the wave-pressure from the now-unequal wave density in the forward and reverse directions. Stop applying the force, and the horizons equalise, and the forces from the waves balance again, and the acceleration stops. The question is whether it’s the application of the force that changes the horizons, or whether it’s the acceleration that moves them. Here I’m trying to understand how a force works, and what is really happening. The force is obviously putting energy into the system, and that might be what moves the horizons. Moving the horizons accelerates the object? Asking for a friend….

    Still, it does seem that if we change those horizons by some other way, then we do get an acceleration or the same effect as a force.

    At the moment, though, I’m not seeing your 30GHz microwaves as producing vacuum polarisation or changing horizons. I do expect that if we can arrange magnetic loops 1/4 wave distance from each other, and driving them with phases 1/4 wave different,will produce a one-way force, though. The main problem with doing that is that you really need a lot of resonance (Q) in order to get the field-strengths high-enough to get a decent thrust without wasting too much energy. The circumference of the loop antennae used needs to be less than 1/4 wavelength, too. I’ve tried a few things to see if I can measure anything as a reactionless force doing this, with a specially-shaped antenna in a circular waveguide intended to stimulate one of the higher modes where the electric field is longitudinal and the magnetic field twists back and forth (rotating around central axis), but so far no joy. The resonance of the antenna and the cavity are interdependent, though, which makes it hard to tune, especially since I haven’t yet got a vector network analyser that runs at the required frequency.

    The particle accelerations required to reduce the distance to the horizon to the cm range is around 1e+19m/s², which is a pretty high acceleration. There’s still some hope that Alzofon’s method will allow an artificial horizon to be made, thus producing a force on anything close to it.

    With forces and accelerations, we’re really looking for a symmetry to break since in normal situations the symmetries are preserved and so that produces conservation laws.

    Eyewitness evidence from my friend says it’s possible to lift a 100lb or so machine using a few watts, though the evidence also implies that that method is not healthy and makes people paranoid (and maybe dead). Figuring out how the inventor did that, and what would actually be happening, and thus how to make it safe to use, seems to be worthwhile. Knowing what the inventor used to do for a living (military phased-array radar) might be a clue. Also, of course, Alzofon used around 9.8GHz and magnetic fields to use Electron Spin Resonance to align the Aluminium nuclei, and I think that the effect might cause visual effects (the Aluminium would maybe become very reflective) and that could also be what was noticed (along with an unexpected force) in the course of developing radar systems.

  67. David A says:

    CD says;
    “…are within the physical universe system (how can any thing that is mutable bring itself into existence, or from a potential to an actual? There are two ways I can see: 1. It can’t and 2. A being gave it the power to do so by following blueprint it made; which is in effect saying it can’t, it seems to me.

    CD, my perspective is that this is the essence of the cosmological argument. As a child at about 7 years old, us children slept on the deck of our parents mountain cabin. I woke up at night, and saw, with startling clarity, the milky way. In my own child like way I understood the cosmological argument, essentially everything had to come from something, and could not always have been.

    I like how you state it, as from my perspective science, rooted in cause and affect, is not fit to answer the eternal verities.

    Science has, by its very nature, limits.
    It can never see the entire picture, just portions of it. It works with numbers. The human mind cannot see infinity, not can it imagine an end to infinite space.

    The cosmological argument demands a first cause, above the laws of cause and affect. It is not logical to assert that “everything” came from “nothing”, which is the essence of what multi verse proponents are saying, and just adding more everything’s, does not strgenthen that argument. Not is it logical to say everything always was.

    “The ancient Vedic scriptures declare that the physical world operates under one fundamental law of maya, the principle of relativity and duality. God, the Sole Life, is an Absolute Unity; He cannot appear as the separate and diverse manifestations of a creation except under a false or unreal veil. That cosmic illusion is maya. Every great scientific discovery of modern times has served as a confirmation of this simple pronouncement of the rishis.”

    “Newton’s Law of Motion is a law of maya: “To every action there is always an equal and contrary reaction; the mutual actions of any two bodies are always equal and oppositely directed.” Action and reaction are thus exactly equal. “To have a single force is impossible. There must be, and always is, a pair of forces equal and opposite.”

    “Fundamental natural activities all betray their mayic origin. Electricity, for example, is a phenomenon of repulsion and attraction; its electrons and protons are electrical opposites. Another example: the atom or final particle of matter is, like the earth itself, a magnet with positive and negative poles. The entire phenomenal world is under the inexorable sway of polarity; no law of physics, chemistry, or any other science is ever found free from inherent opposite or contrasted principles.”

    “Physical science, then, cannot formulate laws outside of maya, the very texture and structure of creation. Nature herself is maya; natural science must perforce deal with her ineluctable quiddity. In her own domain, she is eternal and inexhaustible; future scientists can do no more than probe one aspect after another of her varied infinitude. Science thus remains in a perpetual flux, unable to reach finality; fit indeed to formulate the laws of an already existing and functioning cosmos, but powerless to detect the Law Framer and Sole Operator.”

    Science, limited to observations and disparate measuring tools, cannot say from whence one or multiple universes came, and limited to the arrow of time and the principle of cause and effect, it cannot logically assert that it just is. Stating that everything came from nothing, is not science, and stating that everything always was, is not science.

    However, science can look at the manifest creation, and within it, search for evidentiary indications of the aspects or qualities necessary to create a universes, or multiverses.

    Within the one observable universe we have, the fine tunning represents well over a 1 to the 10 to the 500th power random chance. All that science can say is that the mathematics point to an information rich source that foms all the laws of physics, and, as time is regressed to the theoretical BB, infinite energy, where all those laws are broken down prior to or just at the manifestation of the cosmos. So science perhaps indicates an information rich infinite energy source.

    Multi universes simply beg the question of, Is a first cause, beyond the law of cause and affect, required?

    If there is an epistemological way of knowing the answer, via a trancendent intuitive experience, is for the individual to choose to pursue, or not. As a child, in one instance, gazing at the cosmos, I understood the question, and received an intuitive answer as well.

  68. Simon Derricutt says:

    CDQ – I’m trying to get to the physics of what actually is happening, rather than the metaphysics. It might however look pretty crazy, but some of this stuff has experimental evidence that it might be true. The cosmological anomalies such as stars in the outskirts of galaxies having too high a gravitational acceleration can’t be explained by Dark Matter producing that extra gravity without a paradox – you can’t define a distribution of Dark Matter that simultaneously explains the anomalies with wide binary stars, for example. Put the DM in the right place for one pair, and it will be in the wrong place for another pair.

    Still, the bounds will produce quantisation, and it does seem that most things are actually quantised. To get quantisation, you also need waves and resonances, and again it does seem that particles also act as if they were waves. We also need two propagation speeds, one limited and one not limited, so that some information travels slowly and other information is instantaneously available, in order to explain the quantum weirdness, though there may be another way of explaining that that we haven’t thought of yet. Since we don’t have words for things that haven’t been thought of before, it’s pretty hard for anyone to think those thoughts. That’s where it gets into the metaphysics range, I think.

    Given how many ideas have changed in my lifetime, with new theories being better at predicting than previous ones, I’m not really after a final answer here. Just getting close enough to the truth to make useful things. Space drives, FTL travel, and free energy look like being a pretty good result from this bit of speculation.

  69. Simon Derricutt says:

    David A – “Newton’s Law of Motion is a law of maya: “To every action there is always an equal and contrary reaction; the mutual actions of any two bodies are always equal and oppositely directed.” Action and reaction are thus exactly equal. “To have a single force is impossible. There must be, and always is, a pair of forces equal and opposite.”

    That is why I went back to Newton’s derivation, and I found that the reason that action and reaction are equal is because the fields transferring the forces are constant. If instead you use a varying field, the direction and magnitude of the force received will not be that which is being sent out now, but is instead what was emitted a light-speed delay beforehand. Thus the action and reaction become different when we use a varying field such as a wave, and in that case momentum is not conserved.

    The reactionless space-drives I’ve been talking about also produce a single (and unbalanced) force. Currently the magnitude of those unbalanced forces isn’t large – it’s still possible that they are experimental error of some sort. However, if you accept that momentum is not necessarily conserved, rather than insist on that being true as an article of faith, it’s easier to see that those experimental results are likely real and will be improved upon once we find better ways to do it.

  70. E.M.Smith says:

    @David A:

    Interesting POV.

    Attempting to harvest one nit…

    “The entire phenomenal world is under the inexorable sway of polarity; no law of physics, chemistry, or any other science is ever found free from inherent opposite or contrasted principles.”

    Um, near as I can tell, Gravity always sucks, it never pushes away…

    One of the things about it that fascinates me. There is only attraction. In the limit case it crushes atoms themselves into a Black Hole with a point singularity of just gravity suckage… It seems to eventually overcome all else.

    Popping the nit:

    I’m going to remind folks again of my theory of the Great Circle Of Time And Space – the “Steady State Big Bang”:

    In the beginning there was the Big Bang (“white hole”). Space and Time were zero and all was “spoken into being” in one big flood of primordial energy out of that singularity.

    In the end, the universe will die a slow empty cold death as all matter and energy has fallen into Black Holes leaving a universe empty of matter and energy. But Black Holes also consume time and space. As “stuff” falls into the black hole, time stops and space is crushed out of existence (why you can have a singularity…)

    So the question becomes what happens between these two states when Time and Space cease to exist?

    I assert they are connected. All that “stuff” falling into Black Holes “everywhere” and “over all time” ends up in No Time and No Space – but with the inertia of their entry intact. Yet they leave behind their Gravity. The Black Hole continues to suck…

    It ends up in the singularity of no-time in no-space. As time is extinguished, all that stuff ends up at zero time together.

    I assert this “stuff” comes flying out of the White Hole as it starts up time and space again. Gradually the energy transitions to matter, and the velocity of the exit turns into gravity as time and space unfold.

    At the end of time, gravity but no velocity, at the start of time, velocity but no gravity.

    All the cosmological constants that are so perfectly aligned for our present universe state and creation of life are that way because this is the point in the time line from White Hole to extinction in Black Holes where those things align. The answer to “Why me?” is usually because you were at the right point at the right time. We exist NOW because NOW is when we can exist…

    So perhaps the Dual or Opposite of gravity sucking is white hole energy blowing the universe into existence…

    Sidebar on accelerating universe:

    IS the Universe really accelerating? Or is the fabric of space being sucked into a universe of black holes stretching the space between the objects embedded in what is left? Paint a ruler on a rubber sheet. Place blobs on it. Now start pulling the edges into a knot. Things have gotten further apart it seems, but the overall reality is not expanding. Just removing some of the “space” of the rubber sheet. I move closer to my nearest Black Hole and you move closer to yours, and the space between us stretches…

    Is the apparent expansion (and acceleration) of the Visible Universe really just an indication of Black Holes sucking in and extinguishing space-time? Showing our velocity toward The End Of Days…


    I think that cosmology POV answers a lot of unanswerables. I’m also of the opinion it ought to be useful in talking about matter waves, and other stuff discussed above. I just don’t have the ponder time to figure out how it might influence the hypotheticals above as, frankly, I barely understand most of them. QM and stuff like polarized vacuum are a bit steep ;-)

    But my intuition (right brain subconscious integration) says there’s a there there…

  71. jim2 says:

    I believe the strong force only attracts. The attraction increases with greater distance, like a rubber band.

  72. p.g.sharrow says:

    From what I can see “Gravity” is not a force, it is a result. This is why it seems to be different then EMForces. It is linear acceleration caused by the influence of the overall charge difference between Mater and Aether. the same thing that causes the effects of Mass/Inertia. Once the influence of other Mass warps the Dielectric of Mater, that mater attempts to recenter it’s self which causes acceleration or at least the attempt to accelerate….pg

  73. p.g.sharrow says:

    see this;

    gravity is a myth

    for description and visual representation.
    We have used many different physical and electrical charge manipulations over the years to cause accelerations that mimic the effects of gravity. Mater doesn’t care how you warp the Atomic dielectric. The results are the same. An attempt to recenter the outside to the Nucleus center of mass and charge…pg

  74. Jim Masterson says:

    This is waaaay up thread.
    This equation told scientists the atom bomb was possible.

    To quote Dr. Lawrence Weinstein in "Nuclear Physics Explained" and in the chapter: "Nuclear Weapons Were Never 'Atomic' Bombs:"

    "The term 'atomic bomb' was first used by H. G. Wells in his 1914 book, 'The World Set Free.' This launched an idea that is, of course, wildly inaccurate. Conventional explosives use chemical reactions and should be called 'molecular bombs' because they rearrange molecules. 'Atomic bombs' should be called nuclear bombs because they rearrange nuclei, but the Manhattan Project scientists called their weapons 'the gadget' or 'atomic bombs'–layers of misdirection to conceal what they were doing."

    I just thought I'd insert some nuclear physics nonsense. :-)


  75. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson – Duly noted on the misdirection. And I fully understand how malapropisms are created.

    Since then, nuclear has become the favored term. But nice to know the etymology.

  76. Jim Masterson says:

    I noticed some mention of black holes in this thread. ( I hope my latex works.)

    Newton’s gravity force law is:

    \displaystyle F={m}'\cdot a=-G\cdot \frac{m\cdot {m}'}{{{r}^{2}}}

    Getting rid of the primed mass we have:

    \displaystyle a=-G\cdot \frac{m}{{{r}^{2}}}

    This equation can be integrated from the surface to infinity to get the escape velocity:

    \displaystyle {{v}_{escape}}=\sqrt{\frac{2\cdot G\cdot m}{{{r}_{surface}}}}

    We also have the expression for centripetal acceleration of a circular orbit:

    \displaystyle {{a}_{c}}=-\frac{{{v}_{orbit}}^{2}}{r}

    By the way, this is the expression that indicated classical physics didn’t have a clue as to how an electron ‘orbits’ the nucleus. If the electron did ‘orbit’, then it has to accelerate. An accelerating electron radiates. The radiating electron would crash into the nucleus in a tiny fraction of a second. Therefore, electrons do not ‘orbit’ the nucleus.

    If we combine expressions then we get:

    \displaystyle {{v}_{escape}}=\sqrt{2}\cdot {{v}_{orbit}}

    That is, escape velocity is the square root of 2 times the circular orbit velocity.

    Finally, if we set escape velocity to the speed-of-light and solve for r, we get:

    \displaystyle r=\frac{2\cdot G\cdot m}{{{c}^{2}}}

    If you look it up, this is the Schwarzschild radius of a non-rotating black hole, and I didn’t even crack my General Relativity textbook. This is all classical, Newtonian physics. People who dislike the physics of General Relativity apparently don’t know that Newtonian physics also predicts black holes–you just have to know where to look.


  77. jim2 says:

    JM – yes, I know the difference. But it’s conventional usage and people know what it means.

  78. jim2 says:

    JM – interesting derivation. Too long ago I found a physics article. I think it was about classical physics, but it’s been too long. As an aside, it showed some derivations from classical physics that suggested some quantum mechanical concepts. Unfortunately, I don’t remember which concepts. I’ve searched my heart out (not literally JM) for the article but can’t find it.

  79. David A says:

    Regarding E.M says…
    “…gravity always sucks…”
    Yes, yet not free from contrasting principles…
    Certainly, as you note, potentially contrasted in your white hole thoughts. Yet please understand, all is connected in Newton’s laws of motion… The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. As we lay in our bed, we are resisting gravity with an equal force.

    The centripidal force is off set by the centrifugal force. All the forces are not infinite, and all are subject to duality, or relativity. “The entire phenomenal world is under the inexonerable sway of polarity; no law of physics, chemistry, or any other science is ever found free from inherent opposite or contrasted principles.”

    As the microcosm, so the macrocosm. Despite gravity we have an expanding force. Current thought is that the expanding force is accelerating the expansion. (.Yet this depends on how it is measured, with conflicting results)
    In truth, what gravity is, what dark energy is, what dark matter is, is debated, and poorly understood.

    The stong nuclear force is billions of billions times stronger then gravity. Three fundamental forces that we know of work together to keep atoms, electrons, protons, etc… together, yet not squished to nothing; the electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. The electromagnetic force keeps the electrons attached to the atom. The strong nuclear force keeps the protons and neutrons together, but NOT touching in the nucleus. They do orbit each other, and the nucleus has a spin.

    It is curious that as entropy increases, the cosmos manifests intelligent self aware life that contemplates the meaning of it all. Look at how our understanding has grown in 100 years.

    Yet in all that we do, create, build, paint, manufacture, and study, every bit of it is born as an idea, created first in thought, then almost invariably as a blueprint, then built. And intelligence is apparent behind it all. The computer has a programmer, the painting a painter, the building an engineer and archetech, etc…

    There is no reason for anything unintelligent and random to align, to have perfect balance to evolve, if it is simple random and undirected it won’t overcome the odds.

    The Rembrandt exists, because of the mastery of knowledge and skill of Rembrandt. The building had an architect and intelligent principles of a structural engineer behind it. That it later falls is simply part of the duality of this creation where the forces of creation, preservation, and destruction, all play their role.

    The fine-tuning of the forces manifesting out of the big bang, the incredibly complex information rich program within DNA and dozens of other improbables, our own self councious intelligence, all indicate ID.
    The more we learn, the more improbable random undirected energy manifesting intelligent life becomes. Take a simple functioning cell…
    Take molecular machines.

    Oh, I am not certain that the video updates to current, but this particular molecular machine also has a clutch, allowing it to engage or disengage without reversing or slowing up the rapid rotation.
    ( I have read some criticisms, and read the proponents of ID responses. Like with CAGW, I found that the critics of ID often mischarterize the ID arguments.)

    Even with the black hole white hole version of a “,steady state” universe, one is begging the question of the cosmological argument, and in affect saying everything within the cause and affect universe, always was and had no cause.

    I have made the logical proposition that the finalitues are beyond the scope of science. ” The inability of science to solve life’s mystery is absolute” (Marconi)

    Yet is there a higher function of intuition where the dualities can be transended, where the ID is not observed just as an affect? Is there an epistemological source of knowing that is beyond the reach of time and science. One who claims this experience wrote about it in this manner…

    Vanished the veils of light and shade,
    Lifted every vapor of sorrow,
    Sailed away all dawns of fleeting joy,
    Gone the dim sensory mirage.
    Love, hate, health, disease, life, death:
    Perished these false shadows on the screen of duality.
    The storm of maya stilled
    By magic wand of intuition deep.
    But ever-present, all-flowing I, I, everywhere.
    Planets, stars, stardust, earth,
    Volcanic bursts of doomsday cataclysms,
    Creation’s molding furnace,
    Glaciers of silent X-rays, burning electron floods,
    Thoughts of all men, past, present, to come,
    Every blade of grass, myself, mankind,
    Each particle of universal dust,
    Anger, greed, good, bad, salvation, lust,
    I swallowed, transmuted all
    Into a vast ocean of blood of my own one Being.
    Smoldering joy, oft-puffed by meditation
    Blinding my tearful eyes,
    Burst into immortal flames of bliss,
    Consumed my tears, my frame, my all.
    Thou art I, I am Thou,
    Knowing, Knower, Known, as One!
    Tranquilled, unbroken thrill, eternally living, ever-new peace.
    Enjoyable beyond imagination of expectancy, samadhi bliss!
    Not an unconscious state
    Or mental chloroform without willful return,
    Samadhi but extends my conscious realm
    Beyond the limits of the mortal frame
    To farthest boundary of eternity
    Where I, the Cosmic Sea,
    Watch the little ego floating in Me.
    Mobile murmurs of atoms are heard,
    The dark earth, mountains, vales, lo! molten liquid!
    Flowing seas change into vapors of nebulae!
    Aum blows upon vapors, opening wondrously their veils,
    Oceans stand revealed, shining electrons,
    Till, at the last sound of the cosmic drum,
    Vanish the grosser lights into eternal rays
    Of all-pervading bliss.
    From joy I came, for joy I live, in sacred joy I melt.
    Ocean of mind, I drink all creation’s waves.
    Four veils of solid, liquid, vapor, light,
    Lift aright.
    I, in everything, enters the Great Myself.
    Gone forever: fitful, flickering shadows of mortal memory;
    Spotless is my mental sky, below, ahead, and high above;
    Eternity and I, one united ray.
    A tiny bubble of laughter, I
    Am become the Sea of Mirth Itself.

    Paramahansa Yogananda.

  80. Simon Derricutt says:

    pg – your underlying structure proposes only negative and neutral charges, with positive charge being an absence of the negative charge. If we look at an electron and positron combining (mutually annihilating) to produce a couple of uncharged gammas, one thing that is plain is that the mass/energy of the electron and positron are exactly equal. The “charge” aspect seems to be massless, or at least it is the same mass whether it is positive or negative. Another point is that the neutron has a bit more mass than a proton, and when in free space decays into a proton and electron. It thus seems maybe a bit closer to reality to speculate that there are only negative and positive charges if you want to keep things as simple as possible, with neutral particles having equal quantities of negative and positive charge. However, I suspect that some particles are indeed neutral and don’t carry charge at all (those gammas, for example) which implies that charge is some sort of distortion of the particle which, when produced, is produced with its mirror-image in the other particle that is produced at the same time in the same process. You can look on this as being only a negative charge and a lack of negative charge, but I prefer to look at it as being negative and positive (I think it’s a bit neater). In either case, though, we need to remember that those distortions are equal and opposite when produced. Since I can’t say what actually happens to produce charge, or indeed what it is, and can only say that the force produced drops off in inverse-square relationship whether it’s -ve or +ve charge, we’ll have to wait until a better idea turns up.

    The difference between a charged and uncharged particle (apart from the field, of course), is that when you accelerate a charged particle it radiates an EM wave. The wavelength of that radiation can be a lot larger than the particle. In fact, the wavelengths produced are a pretty big puzzle overall, for example the 21cm Hydrogen line in the radio spectrum. There’s a factor of around 1e+9 between the atomic diameter and the wavelength. AFAIK currently unsolved as to how that can happen, but it indubitably does. However, is it the acceleration that produces the radiation, or the application of a force (directed energy)? May be a clue as to what a force actually does.

    The picture we all got taught to start with of electrons in orbit around the nucleus would thus imply that the energy in the orbit would be radiated away very quickly. The QM viewpoint instead speculates that the electron becomes an oscillation in space, and isn’t actually moving or in an orbit, but instead spread out over a volume. Like most things QM, there isn’t actually any hard limit to the distribution, either, and we get a probability function for where the matter is. If we put an edge to this by saying we’ll ignore what’s below 1%, or 0.001% etc., then we get the orbital shapes of spherical, ring, or multi-lobed. Maybe easier to consider this picture as close to reality once we’ve accepted that matter consists of waves of energy in *something* that for convenience we call the Aether.

    There can be several (or many) ways to get a model that works for what we know so far. Jim Masterson’s derivation of the Schwarzschild method shows that. As such, maybe better to look for the situations where the model predicts things that we can experimentally test, and are wrong. Those anomalies are useful. According to current models, things like the EMDrive can’t work, but in practice it seems to, with Mike McCulloch’s experiments producing even larger thrust per watt. As it happens, Tajmar is trying hard to debunk these ideas, but didn’t get his EMDrive replication into resonance (the Q here is critical to producing a force), and had an insulation failure on his test of the capacitor-generated thrust.

    David A here says that things come in pairs, thus Newton’s Laws apply with action being equal and opposite to reaction. This comes down to exactly what is happening during a collision between two objects. The force between two objects is put into the field, and the field transfers the force, and then the force has its effect on the other object. Since a field cannot change instantaneously, but instead the change propagates at the speed of light, then the distance over which the field reaches before it transfers the energy it has acquired is important, as is the rate of change of the field strength. The net result of my analysis of Newton’s derivation was that the object is acted upon by the field, and not the other object. If you have the field that produces a force on an object, you don’t need another object to react against. I went into this at great length in my essay on momentum, so I’ll not repeat that here. The main result, though, is that momentum itself is not a conserved quantity although in practice it mostly is conserved since mostly we use almost-constant fields (relative to the distance involved) to transfer momentum. Once you know that, then it’s possible to engineer other ways of violating CoM. What appeared to be a natural symmetry (equal and opposite forces for the same time transfers momentum without loss from one object to another) is not actually a symmetry, because the force is first translated into a stress in the field, is carried through the field, and only then exerts the force on the other object.

    Things do what they do whether or not we believe or disbelieve that they happen. Some things seem to need very precise conditions to produce a result that is against current mainstream theory. LENR is of course one of those. Reactionless drives are another, though getting the conditions right is a lot easier and can be measured to be right. There are small-scale violations of 2LoT that can be easily made and tested, though the minute power produced isn’t worth the cost of making them. There’s of course no guarantee that the alternative viewpoints of reality that inventors of successful devices hold to will be actually correct – may be closer in one way and further away in another. Example here, is Dr. Randell Mills and BrLP, where his theory is totally classical-based but some at least of the predictions are likely correct. Some of his stuff worked, and it’s possible that he’ll produce something that practically works, even though maybe not for the reason he states.

    Still, the anomalies, where something happens that we think can’t happen, are interesting things. May lead to something practically useful, too. I’m pretty sure that no-one expected to find amplification produced when instead of using one Tungsten whisker on a Galena crystal they used two close together. Against the theory at the time. Still, once people knew that it did actually work then they produced theory that allowed it to theoretically work, too.

    A problem from assigning creation to some higher spirit or consciousness that designed things to be that way is that the obvious question is “OK, what created that deity?”. Turtles all the way down…. In fact, any thinking that tries to get hold of infinite distances and timescales is pretty doomed anyway, and even when we have limits then there’s the question of what’s on the other side of that fence, which again leads to infinities. Even the multi-dimensional model that says if you look far enough you can see the back of your head leaves the question open of what is outside the bubble. These sorts of questions cannot be answered, at least with any semblance of unassailable truth. There’s not really a lot of point in arguing about what created our universe, or how it came to be, with or without such a deity. Not enough solid data to go on, and we literally can’t comprehend infinity anyway. A problem with assigning creation to a deity is the assumption that it was perfect and logical (to our current level of logic) whereas (as we’ve seen with QM) we may need to adjust the logic we use in order to explain what actually happens.

  81. Jim Masterson says:

    I’ve searched my heart out (not literally JM) for the article but can’t find it.

    I understand your pain. I've been looking for an article, but I can't find it either. About one or two decades ago, I subscribed to both Science and Nature. I don't anymore because as a lifetime member of UWAA I have free access to journals via EBSCO. So I think the article is in one of those journals.

    The article was about modeling the Solar System from first principles. They wanted to see what the long term result was–over billions of years (computer modeling time, not real time). They were unable to run the model for more than a million years or so, because the planetary orbits were so unstable. Either the planets would spiral into the Sun or spiral outward until they escaped completely. Their solution was to add a damping factor.

    First, it seems that planetary orbits are chaotic and have horizon of predictability of around 1 to 5 million years. Second, where in Newton's or Einstein's equations is there a damping factor? Still, I would like to find that article.


  82. cdquarles says:

    No creation needed for He That Is. Creation is needed for any and every thing else, since they are contingent where He That Is, by definition, isn’t contingent. That is where the chain began and where it ends. Deduction has to start somewhere. Induction provides that in abstract, and sensation provides that in particular, where particular includes necessary and sufficient conditions or constraints. You can’t get around faith, which is certain knowledge that humans can’t get any other way. (And angels, too, I think.) It is up to each person to accept it or reject it (free will); then live with the consequences.

  83. Jim Masterson says:

    In reference to ID, I made this comment on the SUYTS website: https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/id-logical-fallacies-divisiveness-and-poetic-license/#comment-11518.

    I repeat it here:
    I know., according to the evolutionists…everything just randomly happened simultaneously. Rods, cones, iris’, pupils ……. but, again, it all leads to a very circular discussion, which I deem fruitless.

    Someone along this line of thinking said, “What good are eyes without lenses?” The answer is the Nautilus. They have pin-hole eyes–no lenses. Since they’re relic species, they’ve been that way for a long time–about 500 million years. Obviously, pin-hole eyes work fine for Nautiluses.

    I like comparing our eye “design” with the eye “design” of cephalopods. (This time we’re leaving the Nautiluses out. We’re only talking about octopuses, cuttlefish and squids.)

    In the cephalopod eye, the blood vessels and nerves are routed outside and behind the eye. They plunge through at various points to feed and connect to the retina. The gives them three advantages over “our” eye design: 1) no blind spot and no need for additional brain circuitry to hide it; 2) the connections firmly attach the retina to back of the eye–cephalopods don’t suffer from detached retinas; and 3) they use faster opaque nerves instead of the slower translucent nerves needed in “our” eye design. Cephalopod light cells point towards the pupil and the light source. In “our” eye design, they point towards the back of the eye. (The eye designer was really asleep with that one.) Finally, the cephalopod lens is rigid and moves in and out to focus like in a real camera. In “our” eye design, the lens is adjusted by little muscles to change lens thickness. This works for young eyes, but as the lenses age–they become stiffer and harder to focus.

    I guess the eye designer liked cephalopods better.


    I should have also mentioned that "our" eye design is the typical vertebrate eye design. All vertebrates have basically the same type design, although birds have an extra cone to see in the ultraviolet. It appears that both birds and insects can see in the ultraviolet. Ultraviolet vision apparently affords a flying animal an advantage.


  84. E.M.Smith says:

    @David A:

    I don’t dispute that most stuff arrives via a designer, but I do take a bit of issue with the absolute nature of your claims (bold mine):

    There is no reason for anything unintelligent and random to align, to have perfect balance to evolve, if it is simple random and undirected it won’t overcome the odds.

    There’s a huge history of inventions that arrived entirely by an accident and the person looking at the result realizing it had value…

    Was it Nylon that was one of those? IIRC my high school chem teacher said that they left two liquids sitting and went home for the weekend. On returning found a stiff “goo” had formed. Realized it was something new and set about figuring how to make it deliberately.

    Teflon was:

    And a whole lot more.

    So I think there must be room in a tidy world view for the effect of Random Chance on things, as it has been demonstrated to be important many times…

  85. p.g.sharrow says:

    It appears to me that GOD did not DO creation, GOD IS creation, Applied science not mathematical laws. Things are the way they are because is the only way that works. You don’t need Intelligent Design, you only need success. Out of millions of tries just one success is necessary to create the needed “Blue Print”.
    Remember the book of Genesis says; the Word of Creation was GOD. It did not say that GOD existed before Creation..pg .

  86. E.M.Smith says:


    The one I love most is the P orbital. It is ZERO in a plane through the center of the nucleus. So the electron can exist anywhere on either side of the zero plane, but never IN that plane. Nice trick, eh? Don’t really know how that circle is squared. Do the two sides connect at infinity? Does a QM effect let the electron “tunnel through” the zero barrier without ever being there? Also a nice trick.

  87. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jim Masterson:

    Before I’d worry about orbits being unstable I’d worry about their programmers not properly dealing with machine epsilon…

    It is ESSENTIAL and CRITICAL that ANY computer model that iterates test for epsilon violations. Very few models written by “scientists” seem to do this.

    @P.G. & Jim:

    One of the big Oh Dear!s of evolution is just how fast some steps ran.

    At the start of the earth, the more we look in fossils, the more we find “primitive life” started at a very very early point. Damn near as soon as the place was able to condense (scalding hot…) water. My guess is that the first bacteria lived rather like those around Hot Smokers at volcanic vents.

    Then there’s a very long time of not much happening. You get variations on a bacteria theme (with viruses infecting them suspected as viruses might be the first step of no-quite-live-life) and more types of bacteria but that’s about it for a few BILLION Years…

    Then, all of a sudden, the “complex life” based on groups of cells shows up on the scene and another explosion of types happens.

    Basically, life like ours with eyes and spines and trees with leaves do not have Billions Of Years to evolve. Only one.


    1000 Ma The first non-marine eukaryotes move onto land. They were photosynthetic and multicellular, indicating that plants evolved much earlier than originally thought.
    750 Ma First protozoa (ex: Melanocyrillium); beginning of animal evolution

    So until 1 Billion years ago, the world was bacteria and some fungi. A few fungi moving onto land as multicellular (but mostly just threads…). At 3/4 Billion years back, we get protozoa

    Late Precambrian (ca. 850-m.y.-old) microfossils of uncertain biological affinity, here described as the new genus Melanocyrillium, are well-preserved and abundant in shales of the Walcott Member, Kwagunt Formation, Chuar Group, Grand Canyon Supergroup, Arizona. These non-colonial vesicle-shaped microfossils are organic-walled, opaque, unilocular and exhibit a distinct aperture at one end. They range in shape from bulbous to lachrymiform and range in length from 32 μm to 170 μm, having length-to-width ratios that range from 1.0:1 to 2.7:1 (N = 569). They are bilaterally symmetrical about their longitudinal axis. The vesicle wall is 5-7 μm thick and apparently unilayered, with a psilate to faintly microgranular texture; surficial processes, furrows and basal scars are lacking. Three species of Melanocyrillium are described, differentiated on the basis of oral ornamentation.

    Basically a sort of microscopic mouth and stomach.

    Back at the timeline:

    600 Ma The accumulation of atmospheric oxygen allows the formation of an ozone layer. Prior to this, land-based life would probably have required other chemicals to attenuate ultraviolet radiation enough to permit colonisation of the land.

    580–542 Ma The Ediacara biota represent the first large, complex aquatic multicellular organisms — although their affinities remain a subject of debate.

    580–500 Ma Most modern phyla of animals begin to appear in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion.

    Essentially, at the 1/2 Billion years ago point, most life is frond like stuff living on ocean bottoms.

    These were composed of enigmatic tubular and frond-shaped, mostly sessile, organisms. Trace fossils of these organisms have been found worldwide, and represent the earliest known complex multicellular organisms.

    Still mostly mouths with a stomach, though bigger and tougher.

    Then “something happened”:

    Most of the currently existing body plans of animals first appeared in the fossil record of the Cambrian rather than the Ediacaran. For macroorganisms, the Cambrian biota appears to have completely replaced the organisms that dominated the Ediacaran fossil record, although relationships are still a matter of debate.

    The organisms of the Ediacaran Period first appeared around 600 million years ago and flourished until the cusp of the Cambrian 542 million years ago, when the characteristic communities of fossils vanished.

    What I think happened is that some predatory version of the “mouth with a stomach” got started and then an arms race between predatory and prey lead to all the rest. Essentially the onset of sexual recombination of genes with predatory competition caused a dramatic speed up in how fast things changed and in what direction.


    The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period when practically all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record. It lasted for about 13[ – 25 million years and resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla. The event was accompanied by major diversifications in other groups of organisms as well.

    So, IMHO, the flagellum argument fails to convince as it DID have billions of years to evolve. Yet the problem of the Cambrian Explosion suddenly and in incredibly short millions of years creating just about everything we know now persists as a problem… as does the onset of bacteria nearly as soon as the Earth stopped being a dry volcanic oven.

  88. Jim Masterson says:

    Yet the problem of the Cambrian Explosion suddenly and in incredibly short millions of years creating just about everything we know now persists as a problem…

    Maybe. Realize that the Cambrian Explosion involved Eukaryotes to the exclusion of Prokaryotes (bacteria primarily). And it took a couple of billion years to develop a Eukaryote cell that could form large associations and various arrangements. And there were a lots of soft bodied organisms around before the Cambrian Explosion. Being soft bodied, they didn't leave body part fossils, but did leave trails, tunnels, imprints and such to indicate they existed.


  89. Jim Masterson says:

    machine epsilon

    Great! I now have a term for one of my big beefs about models using floating point arithmetic.



  90. E.M.Smith says:


    You are most welcome!

    There are unlimited precision math libraries available, but they are horribly inefficient so rarely used in models. (As models are already too slow to be useful for much…)

    Per Evolution:

    First off, I do NOT see any conflict between God and Evolution. Were I God and thinking about creating life, I’d not spend all my time designing every detail of every critter. I’d design an algorithm (method) that allowed it to unfold all on its own. I.e. I’d create the conditions for evolution and plant the seed…

    Per eyes:

    Note that planaria have an “eye spot”

    Some planarian species have two eye-spots (also known as ocelli) that can detect the intensity of light, while others have several eye-spots. The eye-spots act as photoreceptors and are used to move away from light sources.

    It can be useful just to know where it is bright and you are likely to be dried out (or eaten) vs where it is dark and so moist and hidden. Lenses and corneas and color vision and rods and cones and all that can then start evolving over time as enhancements. A vision arms race. So the argument about eyes and lenses is also moot.

    Per Eukaryotes:

    It is something of a Great Leap forward. Both the isolated nucleus and the (originally parasitic?) organelles that look to be captured bacteria, like mitochondria. I don’t know if anyone has worked out which came first. Perhaps one carnivorous big bacteria trying to eat some smaller ones and failing, then the nucleus machinery developing over time to keep up the game, or perhaps the first one to develop an isolated nucleus was able to thrive despite the “parasites” better and eventually turning into a commensal cell. Couple that “multi-species” cell with sexual remixing and things go all sorts of recombinant ways…

    In any case, the evolution of life looks far more like “punctuated equilibrium” than it does like “gradualism” and most of the changes did NOT have Billions of Years to evolve. So some chunk is missing from the evolutionary description.

  91. philjourdan says:

    @Simon Derricutt – Re: Turtles all the way down – Yes, but the problem is, God is Omnipotent and OmniScient. So how do we “Grok” the mind of “God”. Physics can explain things all the way back to the “Big Bang”, but they cannot explain the “Big Bang”! Perhaps one day they can. For now, both science and faith have a leap of faith.

    IN time that may change. But it is interesting to consider the possibilities.

  92. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson – I really wish Suyts would post more. But understand changing priorities.

  93. philjourdan says:


    So until 1 Billion years ago, the world was bacteria and some fungi. A few fungi moving onto land as multicellular (but mostly just threads…). At 3/4 Billion years back, we get protozoa

    Which when washed onto shore due to the Moon’s tidal gravitation, became plants. I am beginning to think that life requires such a specific chain of events that, yes, 1 in 1b is the norm. Perhaps not, We have only one model to chose from currently. So our knowledge is restricted.

  94. E.M.Smith says:


    That’s a great link!

    FWIW, I lived all of it after about the 1973 date given in the dates section. (but did back-fill the Ken Thompson et.al. Unix lore…)

    First machine made and programmed? An Altair Mits 8800
    when they were a very new thing… they say Jan 1975 but I thought it was more of 1974… Perhaps that was when the pre-order went in. Whatever…

    We assembled it in the lounge of the dorms at UCD. Programmed via toggle switches on the front panel in assembly. First program I wrote? A program to start at low mem, copy itself repeatedly into higher mem, until out of memory, then halt.

    IIRC I’d already had FORTRAN and ALGOL by then and was deeply appreciative of the 56 bit Boroughs B6700. http://www.retrocomputingtasmania.com/home/projects/burroughs-b6700-mainframe

    Strange thing, reading “ancient history” and thinking “Wait a moment, I lived that!”…

    Maybe I ought to write a book…. “Computer history, from one who lived it as it happened” ;-)

    From before the time that word length was standardized on multiples of 8 and when the “Cambrian Explosion” of computing types was ongoing…

  95. E.M.Smith says:


    Oscillatory processes seem important to early evolution. From PCR like cycling of RNA / DNA in the early primordial mud (perhaps near volcanic vents) making the first cells, to lunar tidal drying cycles speeding the adaptation to dry land it does seem to matter. Even now predator / prey oscillations happen.

    Steady state leads to steady product. Oscillations provide the challenge…

  96. jim2 says:

    EMS – I knew a guy who built an Altair and he brought it to work. I was playing with logic gates at the time and just didn’t have the means to buy one. My first computer was an Apple IIe, but I had learned to program and had a couple of language courses under my belt by then, including Fortran with punch cards.

    Another thing I read about, was Corewars. Are you familiar with that one?

  97. Jim Masterson says:


    Wow! Corewars. That brings back memories. What was that one entity? Imp?


  98. E.M.Smith says:


    OMG! no. How could I have never heard of this before:

    That sounds like so much fun…

    FWIW, I have a “New in box” Apple IIe in the garage ;-)

    As an Apple Employee we had a discount of large size each year on a computer. As you might guess, buying a computer every year,eventually one doesn’t get unboxed before the newer one arrives ;-)

  99. E.M.Smith says:

    Or were you talking about this:

    Corewars is a game of warrior vs warrior, programmed by two opponents, and placed into a virtual ‘ring’ to fight to the death. KOTH.org provides the arena, so everyone in the world will know just whose warrior is King Of The Hill!

    If you’re new to the game, download the software to play then browse the many info guides to Corewar to learn the ropes.

  100. jim2 says:

    EM – I think those are both Corewars. Yes. I do recall something about an Imp and a Stomper.

  101. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – as regards the p-orbital, there’s a technique of putting dust on a drum or flat resonant wood and then feeding it a range of frequencies. The dust settles at the nodes of the 2D waves (vibrating in the 3rd dimension). Can be fun to see how a guitar-top resonates, and to find what frequencies it doesn’t work for. I can’t use it on mine, since I add a curve to the struts so it isn’t flat. It has a special name, too, but I can’t remember it…. If you regard the vertical displacement as the matter-density oscillations, you can just about trade this up to a 3-dimensional system vibrating in a 4th dimension. Thus the p-orbital electron density (with no probability at the nodes) gets a bit easier to understand or visualise. The 4th dimension here does not have to be a physical 4th dimension, since charge and a few other things act mathematically as another dimension. It’s for this reason, I think, that 11-dimensional maths works to describe things – the maths doesn’t imply extra physical dimensions, just various properties that act in the equations as if they were almost actual dimensions.

    CDQ – my point really is that such infinities can’t be processed by our brains. As regards faith and belief, that can’t be commanded (though people try), and I’ve found it useful to question what parts of what I think I know that are based on beliefs rather than evidence. I’ve also needed to re-evaluate my engineering experience – we know what works in practice, but there’s a temptation to assume that Black Swans don’t exist because we’ve never seen one. Other things may be possible if we do something different than we have done before. I’ve needed to dump my belief than momentum is a conserved quantity, for example, since I went back to Newton’s derivation and found that he missed something important (not surprisingly, since at that time no-one knew the speed of light and it was assumed to be of infinite speed anyway). If there are special situations in which momentum is not conserved, then energy is also not a conserved quantity, though it is conserved in most situations. Incidentally, that does also allow a First Cause to have produced all the energy in the universe from *nothing*, but I have no way of proving or disproving that, so it’s outside science. Humans are very good at seeing a pattern in random data, and faces in random pictures (there’s even such a face or 3 in the photo of lightning EM put at the top of this page).

    Would we even understand the viewpoint of some alien being? If something self-replicating was designed, then we’d design it to self-replicate perfectly. We wouldn’t set up something that would allow manufacture of things that weren’t to specification, since that is wasteful and takes extra effort to recycle the bad units. However, with DNA the living unit that is “built” will sometimes be different because the copying failed. With sexual reproduction, every such unit produced will be subtly different. There will be a lot of failures. Such failures don’t often survive, and are indeed recycled. Occasionally a mutation is advantageous, and occasionally it’s not actually relevant to the organism. Thus IIRC there’s a water-filled cave somewhere in Africa where the fish have lost their eyes (no longer useful, so losing them has no effect on survival) and have become a new species over around 70 years that people have been watching them. We can see evolution in action, based on imperfect copying and a ruthless cull of the organisms that don’t match their niche well enough. The thing to consider here is the absolutely enormous number of replications, thus allowing even a minute chance of a success to lead to a success over enough years.

    Phil Jourdan – I suspect that the current Big Bang story is wrong, and that the space (and universe) existed before that. What happened was maybe more like the knowledge of what was there spread out from a point. However, at the moment there’s really no way to be at all certain about any of this. I figure we’ll improve our theory side, but we can never be certain that the explanation is actually true. Despite that, it’s a fair bet that people will defend (to the death, at times) their version of what the truth is. The only reason I’m talking about the Big Bang is that by looking back in time we can figure out (maybe) useful things we can do today, such as get cheap star travel and energy.

    We run models of the world in our heads (or on computers), and in order to be able to model at all we simplify reality. Models that predict what we see tend to be accepted as being the truth, even though they might miss out a fair amount of what’s really happening. We often use averages as being valid numbers to use, even when the reality of the range of each property limits the conclusions we draw – temperature is one of those averages that is often mis-used. It will tell you the total (scalar) kinetic energy in a volume, but won’t tell you the total energy which depends on the number of thermodynamic degrees of freedom of the constituent particles. It also ignores that the scalar kinetic energy can’t exist unless it is carried by a particle that also has momentum. By ignoring some more-complex bits in the model, the model tells us that some things are impossible to do, that are actually possible if we make the model closer to reality.

    Similar with our model of particles as being billiard balls (or collections of billiard balls bound together), rather than the really-odd and hard to think about model of a collection of somewhat spherical waves in at least 3 mathematical dimensions where the amount of energy (whatever that actually is) is oscillating in another mathematical dimension and where the density of that energy determines how fast it oscillates and thus how fast (measured) time runs. Add to that the wave-front of what that particle can (instantly) respond to moving outwards all the time at the speed of light, and we’re starting to get closer to what could well be reality based on observed anomalies. This model allows us to create momentum and energy from *nothing*, too, and by manipulating the location of Rindler horizons (or the locations of the nodes of the waves, which has the same effect) we can travel FTL and accelerate a craft at very high rates without people inside it getting squashed or even noticing the acceleration.

    The tic-tac report we started with implies that some people have this sort of technology. Could be humans, or could be alien, but I’d think more likely human (at least most of the reports). I’d suspect that there would be some effects on the human body (and brain) from being too close to such a horizon, which is maybe why such work remains secret in general. If the effect on the brain is to get paranoid about secrets, which seems to happen with high EMP at least, then successful people would tend to hide away. This could thus be a bit similar to wondering what Cyanide tastes like – it’s a self-limiting experiment you succeed with once. Still, maybe the new model of reality is good enough (close enough to reality) to enable us to avoid those problems.

    I’ve taken some liberties with theory here, by tentatively identifying Unruh waves with the waves that the particles is made from, so they are in fact matter-waves. There’s a bit of justification here, in that Unruh waves are supposed to only be seen by the particle that generates them, and not by other particles. As such, it seems reasonable to say that they are the particle itself. That also means that Rindler horizons are also specific to the accelerated particles that see them, and have no effect on other particles. Alzofon’s method of taking out the energy of the virtual particle storm using what is effectively a refrigeration cycle might instead produce a node in all matter waves, in the same way that having a layer of vacuum stops sound waves and produces a node in all sound waves impinging on it. I’ve also suggested that the matter-waves are continually spreading at the speed of light, and that applying a force to a particle changes the extent of the forwards and behind wave-front, and that the number of wavelengths before and behind thus changes when a force is applied and that this difference in Unruh/matter waves provides the reaction force against the force we are applying. It also seems that matter itself shields matter-waves from other particles to some extent, and that this could also work as an explanation of gravity (lower amplitude of waves in the direction of another mass, and the damping proportional to the mass), but this needs more thinking about. If this is true, then gravity would be a pushing force from the unbalanced Unruh/matter waves either side of the particle. This would imply a hard limit to the gravitational force (or acceleration) when all Unruh/matter waves are damped to zero in one direction.

    So far, looks like the experiments I know about are consistent with this model. That doesn’t mean that it’s right, but maybe means that it’s a better model than we’ve been using.

  102. E.M.Smith says:

    “This would imply a hard limit to the gravitational force (or acceleration) when all Unruh/matter waves are damped to zero in one direction.”

    Hmmm…. And might help explain why galaxies seem to rotate more as a block and not so much as though inverse square gravity was at work. Push from outside the galaxy rather than pull from all the mass in the center…

    Oh, and I thought I was the only one who saw the faces in the volcano cloud picture ;-) One, looking sideways, is more of a Mad Monkey. Another a bit Koala like…

  103. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – it’s a work in progress. The idea of gravity being a push also implies that the wave-function of a photon also reaches out to the Hubble limit too, and that conversion between matter and photons would not change the extent. Thus we can’t check for reduced inertia when a new particle emerges from a reaction, since the conversion wouldn’t have new energy.

    Gravity does not follow the inverse-square law at large distances (parsecs), which is why Dark Matter was proposed. You can’t see it, it doesn’t interact with photons or normal matter, but does produce gravitational attraction. Basically, unicorn farts to make Newton’s gravity law work correctly. The rotation of galaxies is explained by back-calculating the amount and distribution of extra mass required, and assigning that to Dark Matter, and then the gravity laws of Newton and Einstein work again.

    Still, the Unruh/matter wave idea is still hard to swallow. Each fundamental particle has waves that reach to 13.8 billion light-years, and what happens at that huge distance affects what the particle does here and now. QM has waves that reach to infinity, though, and also must overlap with the waves from all other particles and also states that some effects happen simultaneously at a distance with no speed-of-light delay. QI (horizon mechanics) thus really is taking out the infinity and giving a reason for quantisation (there are boundaries). It might even be true….

    I’m pretty sure most people will see the faces. We’re programmed to recognise them. Recognising the face of a predator quickly is likely to have survival value. Better to recognise it and be mistaken than to not recognise it.

  104. jim2 says:

    My understanding is the wave function isn’t a physical entity, such as the electric field of an electron. When squared, it tells us the probability of finding the something like an electron or photon at a given point in space at a given time.

    It’s analogous to calculating the path of a cannon ball. Classical physics can tell us where the cannon ball of a given mass should be found when fired at a certain force, angle, etc. But the equation isn’t a physical manifestation of the cannon ball. You can’t examine the cannonball by some special means and find the equation.

  105. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim2 – yep, I started off with that idea, too. However, if instead of being a probability of finding the whole particle there, we instead look at it as the density of the stuff (call it energy, or mass, but it’s both at the same time) that actually makes up the particle, then it’s not really that big a change. The maths will mostly still apply. One thing that is different is that the spooky action at a distance happens because the particles are overlapping. You dont need a way of getting information from one to the other.

    There is no requirement to believe this model. The question is whether the answers it gives actually work. We’ve been looking for Dark Matter for decades, like trying to find a black cat in a coal cellar when there’s no certainty the cat is there.

    Quantum stuff is weird anyway, but does tell us what actually happens. This is not much weirder…. So far, QI provides a mathematical description of several anomalies. The experiments based on it also match predictions pretty well. I’m suggesting extensions here that seem to fit, but you shouldn’t think those are endorsed by others – they are just my thoughts. Could be useful, but might also be wrong.

  106. philjourdan says:

    @EMS – Primordial ooze – that is the model we know about. But do other models work? That is the $64 question. I do not know. I know one that works. But not if others work (faster or slower or not at all?)

  107. philjourdan says:

    @EMS – Re:

    Phil Jourdan – I suspect that the current Big Bang story is wrong, and that the space (and universe) existed before that.

    I do as well. The BBT is a holding point for the unknown. I have read and am inclined to go with the Brane theory of where the BBT came from. In other words, it is the interaction of universes that create new ones,.

    But my Physics is very outdated, so I am easily influenced.

  108. Simon Derricutt says:

    In physics, some of the techniques of Doublethink are needed, except that it’s pretty important to not actually believe that the theories are the truth. Instead, it’s more like a conditional acceptance that they provide predictions of what will happen when you do something, and they have a range of validity that has been tested by experiment, and that once you get out of that tested range the predictions may be wrong. For some things, several incompatible models give the same answers to as close as we can measure – for example if I’m dealing with heat engines the model of Caloric as a perfect (non-corpuscular) fluid gives the right answers in practice for the designs we are used to. However, in exploring the limits of thermodynamics, if instead we use Kinetic theory and that each particle that carries the heat must have a specific momentum and that that momentum can be directed by an imposed field, things that appeared impossible with the Caloric model are seen to be possible.

    Much the same applies with alternative models of how the universe works. Classical physics disallows transistors working, and thus the computer I’m using wouldn’t function if classical physics was the reality. Einstein’s Nobel prize was for explaining the photoelectric effect as light consisting of a sequence of photons with a definite quantum of energy in each one, and not e=mc².

    Like Kipling’s Just So stories, though, there’s no explanation why things are quantised, it is just so. It is more satisfying to find a reason why things happen the way they do, and the QI model starts to give us some of the reasons, because there’s a boundary and because only a resonant wave will exist long enough to actually see. Virtual particles aren’t such a resonance, and thus don’t exist long enough to actually measure them, though the separation of the underlying “stuff” (identified tentatively as energy/matter) into particles and antiparticles for a short time has an effect that can be measured as polarisation of the vacuum. Might also be the reason for the permittivity and permeability of free space, too, and why an EM wave can travel at all.

    The reason for inertia itself was a difficult one to answer. Higgs got his Nobel for explaining it. AFAIK that model doesn’t allow us to do anything that wasn’t allowed by Newton, though, and momentum was still scrupulously conserved. CoM is an underlying axiom that isn’t questioned. However, looking at the transfer of momentum between two colliding objects, those objects cannot actually touch each other, and the force is actually transferred by the field between them. That field is not zero length, and the propagation-speed of the force is limited to the speed of light. That speed-of-light delay is critical here, since if the field changes between the force being put into the field by one object and the force coming out of the field on the other object, then the action and reaction are no longer equal and momentum is thus not conserved. It would only be fully conserved if the force was transmitted at infinite velocity.

    Thus it seems logical that the momentum received by an object is determined by the force exerted by the field at the time and place that force is experienced, not the force that is currently being put into the field by the other object at that time some distance away. The acceleration of that object is determined only by the field it experiences here and now, and not by what generated that field.

    I maybe don’t have to stress just how big a change this would make to textbooks, given that CoM is a very basic axiom and is used a lot in both classical and quantum physics.

    However, this viewpoint also allows devices that mess around with high-frequency field changes to violate CoM and to generate reactionless thrust, and there are various experimental verifications that this can be done. You don’t actually need QI to explain them, either – instead of pushing on another particle to get a force, we can only push on the fields themselves. In normal situations, it’s going to be a particle or object that’s producing that field and (since the electric field from a particle doesn’t change) momentum will in practice be conserved in those situations.

    Thus the drive for the tic-tacs could be done simply using high-frequency RF at high intensity (use resonance in a high-Q cavity) and getting the phases right, and you wouldn’t need QI to explain it (all you need is a limited velocity for the speed of light, and otherwise classical physics and not even QM). It could also be produced by manipulating horizons for the internal particles in the spacecraft, which would need QI to explain it and a different model of the universe. It could also be using Alzofon’s model, which involves making a horizon for every particle in the universe at a location we choose, and could involve separating off a mini-universe inside the shell of the craft.

    Using the first (and simplest) model of creating fields to push against, to get the high Q we need there it helps to use superconductors. Interesting point here is that a vacuum acts much the same as a superconductor, once you can get the electrons flying in it. In some ways, so does an insulator when electrons tunnel across it (no electrical resistance, but a probability of getting across the barrier anyway). No new or weird theory required here (except to recognise that momentum is not a conserved quantity), just some engineering to get the phases right and the losses to a minimum. Such a drive does not give us FTL travel, but would make interplanetary travel very much faster, with days or weeks across the whole solar system up to Pluto. Since by setting up such a drive on an axle you can produce energy from *nothing* then driving such a spacecraft also becomes easy and cheap.

    Still, that’s maybe why this research is so important. It’s more the cheap (and non-polluting) energy source than the interplanetary travel. It’s also obviously allowed by current classical theory, without needing QI or quantum theory to explain it. Though I suspect that QI is pretty close to truth, since the predictions are borne out without needing adjustable parameters (fudge factors), and that there’s a good chance that experimenters guided by it will develop a device to produce a large-enough reactionless force to lift something off the ground within a few years, new theory is not in fact needed to get something that works (just may get something that works better more quickly if the theory proves true enough).

    Maybe the thing about alternative views of reality is that some allow more things to be possible in theory. Of course, such predictions may prove to be wrong or unattainable, in which case that theory is seen as less likely to have enough truth. It may however still contain some truth that isn’t in other theory sets, so may have some usefulness. Maybe this attitude of maintaining multiple incompatible theories as having degrees of truth won’t be acceptable to a lot of people who want one truth and where everything else is wrong. Still, I see is as a good way to keep the necessary level of being alert to anomalies that point the way to finding new ways of doing stuff that we currently think impossible.

    There’s still the possibility that the actual tic-tac video was some sort of hoax, or equipment being fooled, or a joke by the technicians involved that got out of hand. Lots of such stuff seems likely to have been lies of one sort or another. However, there also seems to be a possibility of actually doing it.

  109. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Simon; Most of your description seems to be spot on to me. But I think that the Hull is mainly to protect the inhabitant rather then produce the effect.
    Form follows function in my view. The various forms of Tic-Tac that have been reported over hundreds of years, far longer then humans have had the ability to create, indicate some similarities. As I am more of an engineer then a scientist I look more to reverse engineer then all out creation/invention.
    You point to the best conductor of the EMF as being the skin effect and the near Aether, I agree. The transmitter and field are outside of the Hull, not inside. Experimentation over the last 100 years shows that you really DON’T want to be in the needed high energy field.

    Tesla points to high voltage and high frequency. An aside; everything that Tesla did from his time in High school/trade school was aimed towards creating a Electrical Drive. Every device he created had their origin in his finding solutions to encountered problems in that pursuit. We must remember he began his work before most of the tools we use were even created. He had to even create the needed test equipment and find the money to do his work as he gave away most of his inventions or had them stolen from him.
    Einstein was also looking for such a solution and his examinations of light and energy were a part of that, but, he got lost in QM and as well as the discrediting of Aether a problem that was the accepted standard of 20th Century Science. A victim of of his earlier success. He actually believed in the existence of Aether and that QM was a dead end, he just couldn’t find a better solution. He had no ability to do science experiments, as he was a theorist/mathematician. All experimental science of his later years was based on proving QM was real. So we have this pantheon of imagined particles instead of a real understanding of the prime, THING, Quanta, unit of Aether. A researcher in the late 1970s examined about 10,000 “Track” records and posited that all Quanta were the same thing with different detector signals based on their 3 dimensional EMF signal, Consider a charged rifle bullet that travels, spins and tumbles past a detector. Each kind of electro-magnetic signal received depending on the angular momentum of the “particle” as it transits the detector. A bullet is a bullet moving or not. but it must be in motion to be detected. An Electron, photon, Meson, and “on” and on are all the same Quanta with different spin, wobble and travel signals. A Quanta of Aether! In this case even different Mass, EV and Frequency based on 3 dimensions of EMF signals….pg

  110. E.M.Smith says:


    I like it. “Simon’s Quantum Truth Theory” ;-)

    Every theory may have some degree of truth in it, and that truth arrives in small quanta. Some theories have zero, but others can have a unit of truth. Other theories, with much more quanta of truth become the Accepted Truth, but that can not erase the one small quanta in the other theory…


    Form follows function but the most elegant designs combine many functions.

    I’d expect the shell to be both protective of the occupants AND a functional part of the EM Drive.

    Inner shell mostly protective, outer shell mostly propulsive. EM applied either in the gap, on the outer surface, or both. Outer shell a composite of materials for best EM performance (be that the bismuth layers or something else) and inner shell more EM blocking / isolating (that the patent called “insulated”…)

  111. Simon Derricutt says:

    pg – I’d agree with EM that the shell of the spacecraft would more likely be functional in producing the effect and maybe the forces too. Something basically circular would be better as regards transmission times being balanced whether the effect is transmitted to the surface (as with Alzofon) or whether it’s produced in a gap within the shell layers (EM’s microwaves resonator/radiator). David Alzofon explains the shape as being two parabolic reflectors bolted together, thus full of microwaves inside, and the “silver suit” needed to shield the occupants, but I’d figure that as not a safe solution, and people in those silver suits inside the resonator will affect the Q when they move and so it’s not really an engineering solution either.

    Of course, I was taught that “there is no Aether” as a student. Instead, there’s wave mechanics which avoids mentioning the problem that for a wave to exist there has to be an analogue of springiness and inertia to support that wave. Einstein’s spacetime was Aether under another name, as is the Higgs field. basically, you can’t get away from there being something waving if you can measure a wave. The problem with Aether was that the properties it needed (to produce the experimental results that were measured) were paradoxical, and no-one could think of any sort of material stuff that could do that. It was an embarrassment to try to square that circle, so instead people said it didn’t exist and swept the problem under the carpet. It took me a long time to see that bit of hand-waving as hand-waving and not real physics.

    The thing is to get an Aether that QM can work in, and Mike’s QI theory (with additions from Alzofon) seems to do that. Basically, too much of QM seems to be what actually happens for there to be a major fault in the reasoning. Maybe the thing that is hardest to sort out is that there are two sorts of time. There’s the local rate at which things happen because of the local balance of springiness and inertia, which appears to be related to the local matter-wave density and affects all wave motions. Thus a gradient in that local rate of time bends an EM wave, and on the “slower” side of that gradient radioactive decay happens slower, electronic transitions in orbitals have a lower frequency, and all the things we measure time with happen more slowly. That also implies a lower level of kinetic energy, since time is slower.

    The other time is what I’d call the universal tick. We can take any reference time-rate here, but it’s the same time all across the universe. I’d use the tick from some oscillation (such as Caesium electronic transitions as used in atomic clocks) placed somewhere as far from other matter as possible, so the fastest it will be, and where all other local clocks run slower than that (or maybe at the same rate). Since all the particles in our universe overlap, they have a clock in common even if their local rate is slower, and that common clock is what I’d term the universal clock. That’s the reason why quantum stuff can happen instantaneously over large distances. Such things do not violate causality, though when viewed from different frames they might appear to, but we always need to consider how long it takes for a signal we can measure to arrive from some distant point.

    Can we send signals instantaneously? That doesn’t seem to be impossible. Maybe we’ll figure out how to do it. If we send streams of entangled particle or photons in opposite directions to distant receivers, and impose a spin-direction or polarisation at one receiving end, then measuring that property at the other end seem to enable instantaneous transmission of data over any distance. Note that there doesn’t seem to be a way of this working without the universal tick and where all particles overlap.

    Your example of a bullet producing 3 different measurements (odd that you chose a bullet…) is much the same as I was pointing out of using extra dimensions in the maths to represent some properties that aren’t actual dimensions but can interchange in the maths as if they were. I think that the size of the quantum of energy is in fact different in the cases you chose, but that the properties such as charge or spin are things we haven’t yet really understood as to exactly what they are. When we talk about quantised spin (can be 0, 1/2, 1, 1.5, 2, etc) it really isn’t the same as say a spinning gyroscope. It’s something else that is somewhat analogous to the spin we can see. It isn’t actually an analogue, so we’ve shoehorned it into something fairly close that we can see in daily life at human scale. Other quantum properties (e.g. charm, strangeness) don’t have such near-analogues. There’s thus no easy way to describe how they work. It’s just a name, and asking exactly how it works gets no answer. We can describe what the effects are, but not how it works. Rather similar to something like charge, in that way – we can describe the effects but not the mechanics of how it happens.

    EM – I like the Quantum Truth Theory. It’s something I’ve come to over time, but haven’t expressed that neatly. There are just a few Free Energy claims where there is a core of truth. Papp’s engine is one, and there Bob Rohner is a friend and I reckon he wasn’t fooled or lying. With Papp’s patents you find the important stuff by looking for the holes that are avoided and the things that can’t be true. It was triggered fusion of fissile material well below critical mass that provided the power, and maybe sometime we’ll figure out all the lies and omissions and find the truth. Floyd Sweet’s VTA also worked, but at a much lower power level than claimed. Lovell’s Monotherm actually worked as claimed, but cost too much and no-one believed it was real. Eugene Podkletnov reported what he measured, but may have misinterpreted a loss of inertia as being a reduction of gravity. The concept of antigravity is popular, but being able to change inertia isn’t. If you hear galloping, you think “horses” and not “zebras” (unless you’re in Africa). With the anomalies, of course there are some errors, but if they are real then we need to interpret them correctly. Finding out how much truth there is is pretty important.

  112. cdquarles says:

    Catch with entangled pairs, in our physical and mutable system is that determining a state at one here-and-now determines it at another. That does not mean instantaneous *transmission* of anything. It means state determination and that only. Knowledge versus our how we know said knowledge. in my opinion. Can we generalize from that with certainty? Well, I’d say not for the very small or very fast or both; particularly where the act of instrumenting a system to make measurements greatly affects said system.

  113. Jim Masterson says:

    If we send streams of entangled particle or photons in opposite directions to distant receivers, and impose a spin-direction or polarisation at one receiving end, then measuring that property at the other end seem to enable instantaneous transmission of data over any distance.

    That's a neat idea until you get to the statement: "impose a spin-direction or polarization." Like everything else in QM, you don't get to "impose" anything where individual particle choices are involved. The spin-direction that a particle chooses is completely random. Yes, the collapsing wave equation implies instant communication (ala EPR), but unless you can get a random signal to transmit information, then the method is useless for communications.


  114. jim2 says:

    Questions for Jim Masterson

    1. Copenhagen interpretation incorporates and observer. I understand from a physicists perspective, one must measure outcomes. But the universe has evolved for some time with no obvious conscious observer. So when two particles interact, does that “collapse” their wave functions? Or does the wave function incorporate both particles and just continues to evolve?

    2. The Schrodinger equation is deterministic. But since it represents a probability distribution, it does not predict where the particle might interact with something else. So even though the S.E. is deterministic, that doesn’t make particle interactions deterministic, does it? Not that this would by itself “rescue” free will.

  115. Jim Masterson says:


    You obviously have me confused with someone who still remembers his QM physics. Is the SE deterministic? I knew it was linear and probabilistic. I also remember studying chaos theory, They discussed quantum chaos–which is technically an oxymoron. It’s an oxymoron for two reasons: 1) chaotic systems are non-linear whereas SE is a linear differential equation; and 2) chaotic systems are deterministic whereas quantum systems are probabilistic. Still there is such a thing as quantum chaos–believe it or not.

    Your 1: no observer, then no collapse. However, there may be situations where particles had to make a choice. But if there’s no observer . . . .

    Your 2: I don’t think deterministic is correct for the SE. If you remember, Einstein’s big bugaboo about QM was it wasn’t deterministic. He thought there should be hidden variables that would make it deterministic. I think efforts to find those hidden variables has ruled them out.


  116. jim2 says:

    Soon we’ll have the Webb telescope up in orbit and we’ll have thousands of planets to look at, and that’s why I think the chances are quite high that we may make contact with an alien civilisation. There are some colleagues of mine that believe we should reach out to them. I think that’s a terrible idea. We all know what happened to Montezuma when he met Cortés in Mexico so many hundreds of years ago. Now, personally, I think that aliens out there would be friendly but we can’t gamble on it. So I think we will make contact but we should do it very carefully.


  117. Jim Masterson says:

    I finally watched most of EM’s tic-tac video. I think the guy knew just enough terms to be dangerous. And I’m surprised that he didn’t have to sign non-disclosure agreements like the rest of us–assuming he was privy to super top secret stuff.


  118. Jim Masterson says:

    This is a stock image (I’m not in it) of four T-28B’s in a right echelon formation:

    Just as an aside, the engines on T-28’s are R-1820’s. The ‘R’ stands for radial, and the 1820 is the size of the engine in cubic inches. It’s the same basic engine type used in B-17s. So you’re looking at a B-17–engine-wise.

    I included the picture, because I remember an airline sighting of a formation of four UFO’s in reverse echelon formation. Reverse echelon is where the leader is low and the wingmen (if you can call them that) are staggered upward instead of downward.

    The statements of the pilots were interesting too. They said that the leader slowed up as if he was startled to see their plane. The rest of the formation bunched up slightly and then backed into formation. It was as if they were under intelligent control, and the airliner caught them off-guard.


  119. jim2 says:

    What with Biden’s border policy, we should see some Space Aliens cross the Mexican border real soon now.

  120. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim Masterson – recently I saw a report that people had made a device that produced pairs of entangled photons reliably. I’ll try to find the report and add it when I do – I think it was in relation to quantum computing (I didn’t save the link at the time).

    If you can do that, then the polarisations of those photons (going in opposite directions) will be entangled. Pass one set through a variable polariser, and you should get a signal on the other set at the same time, no matter how far apart those two stations are. With current technology, I’m not sure that all the photons in each stream will in fact be entangled, but there should be a good-enough signal to noise ratio to extract the signal. AFAIK comms technology can extract a signal from noise at a ratio of -20dB or less.

    We can flip the spin of an electron. This was in fact the argument (or discussion) between Dirac and Einstein, where Dirac said that with entangled electrons if you flip one then the other should simultaneously flip no matter how far distant.

    I don’t know the mechanism by which entanglement works. I’m also pretty certain no-one else does, since I’ve never found an explanation. That however doesn’t stop us from engineering something that uses it. The existence of entanglement as an experimental reality does however suggest that the “stuff” that makes up a particle or photon does spread over a huge volume relative to the size of the thing we measure.

    A few years ago I came across the Bohm/De Broglie interpretation, as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ for a pretty good set of experiments that use oil-drops bouncing on a bath of oil with the droplet used as the “particle property” and the surface wave used as the “guiding wave” in Bohm’s interpretation (though 2D rather than 3D). This simulates pretty well for the two-slit experiment, tunnelling, and confinement, and seems to produce something that looks very much like the Shrödinger wave-function when you look at the droplet location over time. For Bohm, the wave-function does not need to be collapsed by an observer, and the falling tree in a forest still makes a sound even though no-one is there to hear it. (And a man is still wrong even when there’s no woman to tell him he’s wrong….)

    Though Bohm implied an absolute determinism, but that we don’t have enough information about the starting position to predict the progress and thus things look randomised, I think there may still be a degree of randomness in the system. On the other hand, that visible randomness could be a result of disturbances in the underlying “stuff” (call it Aether for now) from all the other parts of the universe. It’s not so much that those variables are hidden, but that there are so many of them (basically, as many as the number of fundamental particles and photons in the known universe up to the Hubble horizon) that we can’t hope to take account of all of them. We can even see that in the ocean on the Earth – talk of “giant waves coming from nowhere” used to be dismissed as “sailor’s tales” until they were recorded scientifically. If you look at the probability of having a certain range of kinetic energy in a gas at any temperature, the probability curve never reaches zero until the KE reaches infinity (and infinities and zeroes, IMHO, probably aren’t physical realities). Make a wave-system big enough, and you’ll get things happening from congruences of reflections from the edges, or obstructions, that appear to be random.

    One thing I keep coming across when considering these wave-based interpretations is that though I can easily speculate about the analogue of springiness in the medium, getting the analogue of inertia is more difficult. To support a wave, you need both. Sure, you can get a model of inertia by bouncing a wave between mirrors a resonant distance apart (and Quantised Inertia does that), but then you need to explain why the wave can exist in the first place (which needs inertia). Explaining inertia thus ends up recursive using current theory, and even when you go to string theory (which I only have a superficial understanding of), those primordial strings also need to have springiness and inertia in order to oscillate, and so that just pushes the explanation of inertia a further stage away into something that is hand-waved away as “basic properties of the universe”. Most of us aren’t aware of the way our noses block our vision, until it’s pointed out, and the problem of how inertia happens is a bit like that. When it comes down to it, the Higgs field supports waves and thus relies upon inertia (or an analogue of inertia), and thus cannot explain it either.

    As far as I can tell, the standard response that sending a signal FTL is impossible because nothing can go faster than light is based on Einstein’s theory alone, but various interpretations of QM require some data to travel instantaneously. If we can control those quantum properties that are transmitted instantaneously, then it seems we can send digital data instantaneously, too (and in fact this is the basis of quantum computing).

    However, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335677198_Electronic_data_transmission_at_three_times_the_speed_of_light_and_data_rates_of_2000_bits_per_second_over_long_distances_in_buffer_amplifier_chains
    for experimental measurement of sending data FTL. This can easily be replicated. There isn’t actually a light-speed limit for data, even using some electronics and a coax, provided you work in the near-field range rather than the far-field range. The slower the change, the longer distance you can consider it near-field, and it’s maybe possible that at zero frequency you’d have infinite speed (OK, zeroes and infinities again, but we can approximate). By inference, the slower the rate of change of electric/magnetic field of some object, the further away that change will be felt by the objects around it. As you raise the rate of change, the signal slows down to the speed of light. This tends to go counter to intuition, where we think that using higher frequencies and sharper edges will have some alternate effect, but instead it becomes limited tot he speed of light nearer to the emitter. Of course, you can send a lot more data that way, but it only travels at light-speed in that medium.

    Experimentally, therefore, it seems the speed of light is not in fact a limiting velocity in near-field, and standard theory is shown to be wrong experimentally. It’s not even a difficult experiment, either.

    That’s likely why my attempt to get thrust using two loops 1/4 wave apart and with 1/4 wave phase difference (at 5.8GHz or so) didn’t show any measurable thrust, though I only expected around 10-100nN or so which is very hard to measure anyway. 1/4 wave is definitely near-field. It’s also why I expect it’s better to use a resonant cavity with high Q (that certainly gets into far-field) and to get the phasing right. Note that this is a “classical” method of violating CoM rather than the quantum or QI-based ones.

  121. Jim Masterson says:

    Pass one set through a variable polariser, and you should get a signal on the other set at the same time, no matter how far apart those two stations are.
    Experimentally, therefore, it seems the speed of light is not in fact a limiting velocity in near-field, and standard theory is shown to be wrong experimentally. It’s not even a difficult experiment, either.

    They keep trying to measure the speed of neutrinos and keep coming up with the speed-of-light as the answer. (Although in one case they came up with a speed greater than the speed-of-light, but that result was eventually found to be in error.) That shouldn't be correct if neutrinos have mass. The neutrinos detected from SN1987A remained ahead of the light front for all 160,000 light-years or so. That placed the upper limit on neutrino mass at about 20 electron volts. By comparison, the rest mass of an electron is about 0.511 million electron volts (MEV). I think the latest mass estimates of the three neutrino flavors is between 0.5 and 2.0 electron volts. Still, there are so many neutrinos in the Universe, that their combined masses are estimated to equal the mass of all the stars. Measuring neutrino mass and speed can't be done directly, so that really makes it hard. And there are theoretic entities called "sterile neutrinos." Those may be the main component of dark matter–if it exists.

    Then there's this stuff about group velocity vs. phase velocity. Apparently group velocity can travel faster than the speed-of-light through some mediums, but the actual information transfer is still limited to the speed-of-light.


  122. Jim Masterson says:

    Phooey, I lost a whole section that I wrote. Oh, well.


  123. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim M – on the desktop box I write into a local editor, then copy/paste. WordPress sometimes does lose stuff. Using angled brackets is possiby the reason here, though, since it tries to interpret it as HTML, and fails.

    Maybe a decade ago a university was sending data ftl under the Danube, using quantum tricks. However, Steffen’s experiment does that using coax and line drivers. I was told about this by Arend Lammertinck, who has also experimented using single wire transmission, and I can’t see where he’s made an error. For the suggested method using entanglement, it does not break causality and the research on quantum computing means that it can be experimentally tested. Not something I could do (or afford), but worth testing.

    Over the last few years I’ve had to reconsider theory because of experimental evidence. I’ve also had to move little green men from the tinfoil hat section to the “could be true” section, though I still prefer the explanation of military tests or some mad lone inventor (mad because the field causes madness/paranoia?). The question then is if governments have this technology, why is it not being used in space, and why is it not being used to make energy? There’s a fortune to be made. So maybe it could be alien….

    Still, it does seem that a few things we thought were impossible are merely difficult, and that experimental evidence is accumulating that they may become normal. Remember the Dick Tracy watch? It used to be sci-fi, but now in the shops.

  124. jim2 says:

    Here’s something you guys might enjoy …

  125. Jim Masterson says:


    Yes, the angle brackets got me. I started that habit back when COMPUSERVE was a thing. Their system was far better IMO than the current crop of blogs. However, I get lazy–I could use the proper HTML codes. I could also pre-write my responses in another editor, but I’m lazy there too.

    The lost section was a perfect take down of your entangled FTL comments. I don’t think I can reproduce it well enough to equal the original quality.

    I also have some comments to make about the ether (or is it aether?) and inertia. But those are think pieces, and I’m not motivated to get them written yet.


  126. Jim Masterson says:


    Hands-on quantum physics? I’m more into theory than doing. But I like reading about various experiments concerning QM. Unfortunately, the popular press tends to not understand what is actually is going on. Two experiments come to mind at the moment: the muon test of special relativity time dilation; and the two-slit experiment with electrons. The popular press usually gets the details wrong.


  127. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim M – strange how when you lose a wodge of text from computer cock-up it’s hard to re-create it. I figure it’s a function of being in the right state. Bit like programmer’s fugue but not so intense.

    If you can find the time to re-create that perfect take-down, I would be pleased. At the moment I can’t see a reason why it shouldn’t work in reality, providing of course I understand what entanglement is.

    Of course, I needed to accept the instantaneous transmission of quantum information a long time ago (over 4 decades), but it’s only recently that I’ve come to accept that an EM wave can carry data FTL. Since the experiment I pointed at looks to me well-done, and the errors look a lot smaller than the measured time, there’s something happening in near-field that is odd. That this happens with coax, and not just free space (where rf engineers have known about oddities in near-field for a very long time), is interesting.

    Thus I can accept the concept of instantaneous transfer of data (or at least FTL) by an EM wave as being maybe possible. Given that matter itself seems to be an EM wave, maybe that is used to transfer the quantum information, too.

    The tic-tac video , if real, implies that standard theory is not complete. After all, in standard theory that tic-tac is impossible.

  128. philjourdan says:

    @Simon Derricutt:

    I figure it’s a function of being in the right state. Bit like programmer’s fugue but not so intense.

    Yep. Or writers inspiration that vanishes with the muse.

  129. Simon Derricutt says:

    Part of the technology of the tic-tac drive, and of course any other “reactionless” drive we try to make, is that we must have a violation of Conservation of Momentum (CoM). If you need to eject mass to get your thrust, you simply can’t carry enough of it on a spacecraft to travel between stars in any reasonable time. Then again, we use CoM as a basic axiom in a lot of other physics. In the course of discussions here, I realised that there’s a provable violation of Conservation of Momentum (CoM), and it was predicted by Einstein.

    Imagine a photon passing by a massy body. According to Einstein (and experiment) it gets bent twice as much as its gravitational attraction should produce. Assuming that the effective mass of a photon also produces a gravitational force, then the force times time this exerts on the mass is half the momentum change of the photon, and so momentum is not conserved in gravitational bending of the path of a photon.

    If we assume instead that the photon’s effective mass has no gravitational effect (some people assert that), the violation of CoM is twice as much, since the momentum of the photon is changed without affecting the momentum of the matter creating the gravitational field.

    Thus a photon in a gravitational field violates CoM.
    If CoM can be violated, then CoE (conservation of energy) must also have loopholes where it doesn’t apply.

    Another thing I realised as a result of this discussion is that the model of virtual particles to carry forces between particles (that is, a field is composed of virtual particles moving between the emitter and the receiving particle) only works non-relativistically, and would fall apart as we increase the relative velocity of the frame we’re looking at it from. Apart from the problem of the effective direction and magnitude of the force changing with relative velocity because of the light-speed delay, there’s also the slight problem that the force (and thus momentum-transfer) can only be considered to act when the emitted virtual particle meets the destination one – all the ones that miss cannot be considered to be carrying momentum. I remember this problem of “the ones that miss” being hand-waved away when I was a student, but it never got explained properly because, I think, it can’t be. Still, I haven’t been able to produce a model of how a field does actually work.

    I’m pretty certain I’ve linked to this before, but https://revolution-green.com/conservation-of-momentum/ was where I first worked out (about 3 years ago) the logic of why momentum is normally conserved, and thus the situations in which it isn’t. Like Jim M’s derivation of the Schwartzschild limit, this is classically-based, rather than the QI-based generation of forces that Mike McCulloch uses (though strangely, having shown that momentum is not a fundamental conserved quantity, Mike then uses CoM in derivations). Maybe the observation about photons in a gravitational field violating CoM could make the arguments in that article easier to accept – after all, it happens and is experimental fact even if you consider the EMDrive experiments (and others) to be in error. Still, I’d be interested if anyone can find any logic errors in the CoM violation mechanism I put forward.

    As far as I can tell, the Navy patents haven’t been built and so whether they work or not is not known. If they had been built and tested, and worked, then I think we’d see evidence of it in the Mars mission, and also in the methods used to generate power (that is, no fuel needed since you only need a battery to start the thing running, then recharge the battery and run the load from it). Instead, the Mars mission relies on solar power, and thus has a very limited power budget. Though I suspect there are military secrets of generating lift that have been tried, I’d also suspect that they use a massive amount of power to achieve that. I suspect they wouldn’t be economically viable for civilian use. If they were, it’s a fair bet that the secret of their existence would leak out and that the military would be building a lot of them, given that setting up fuel dumps to power planes and tanks in some foreign theatre of war is both expensive and is at risk of being destroyed. A machine that needed very little fuel and could reach anywhere on the world from one base (and quickly) would be such a major advantage that they’d be making a lot of them. Though the precise details of how they work could be kept secret (I think), the pilots would need training and they’d need mass-manufacture to get enough of them to be useful. I think such things would get noticed.

    See http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2020/06/pushing-off-vacuum.html for an interesting idea that might actually work. Basically, it requires some engineering at the nanometre scale, but once manufactured it should just generate a force without needing any power. Not yet tried, AFAIK. Still, looks like it could be manufactured using current technology.

  130. E.M.Smith says:


    The military is known to sit on technologies for decades, and succeed at keeping them a secret, despite any economic benefit they might have at large. Generally, they then only start to publicly admit the tech exists when their potential opponents in the world are starting to get clue about it.

    One example I know personally. Stealth. I have a VERY clear memory of a Pop. Science article from about the mid ’60s describing a “plastic airplane” using materials and methods invented by a Dentist. It promised to revolutionize personal aviation… BUT had one small problem. As only the engine was metal, it did not show up well on radar.

    Then the whole topic went silent.

    Decades later, reading a book on the development of Stealth Fighters, it referenced key inventions made by a Dentist… and taken over by the military… who took it dark. It eventually was put into service in 1983 in the F117.

    The key point seems to be that any superior tech that could be used against us, too, and for which we have no defense yet, goes dark.

    Only once we have some clue how to defeat it, and it is being developed by adversaries, then they unveil it. We see that happening now with Laser Weapons and Hypersonic Missiles. I saw a hypersonic jet engine design proposed in an engineering text in the UC Engineering Library in about 1975. We had a hypersonic air frame in the X-15 in 1959. Then a superior design in the space shuttle. Yet only now we are getting hypersonics in production? NO fundamental advancement for 1/2 Century? Really?

    There is a huge disinformation campaign to make certain tech look incredibly hard and expensive all the while hiding what we’ve actually done with it. To send opponents down wrong paths.

  131. The True Nolan says:

    While military power is a HUGE factor in American politics, I would say that it is maybe number two in importance, but NOT number one. Number one? That would be the dollar — which is to say, “the petro-dollar”. For the last 50 years, the American Empire has been based on the fact that other nations around the world had to buy their petroleum with US dollars. Without the petro-dollar, Pentagon funding would dry up and we would be unable to maintain our military advantages. Any technology which might enable the switch to to non-petroleum sources destroys the current world economic system which allows the US to be THE world superpower.

  132. E.M.Smith says:

    Oh, and on the virtual particles to carry forces: I think that is “exactly wrong”. I believe we will find that all that exists are fields of forces; it is particles that are an illusion. When the properties of the field density and the forces it produces are high enough, we call it a particle or a solid thing. It isn’t.

    That’s my working theory anyway… given that matter and energy are equivalent and inter-convertible, then only one of them is ‘real’… You can have energy with no mass, but can’t have mass devoid of energy, which causes me to think it is energy that is the real one, the particle just an observational artifact…

    I believe that the most useful understanding will come from ‘letting go’ of the whole particle view of reality and just looking at as a mass of fields and forces. Some at higher density. Some with higher motions. All of it bouncing around in space and time.

  133. E.M.Smith says:


    I’ve heard that before. There’s some foundation to the notion that it creates a demand for $US that is fictional. But… It ignores the “Euro-Dollars” process.

    See, it isn’t just the USA that can create a $US. I’ve not got numbers from any time recently, but at one point $Billions were in European banks that were not created by the USA. Wiki has it at $Trillions (noted below).

    How does this work? Basic fractional reserve banking.

    As a bank, I can hold deposits denominated in any currency. Deposit € 100 and I can lend out € 80 (at a 20% fractional reserve rate). But I can also instead lend those out as $US denominated. At the end of the day just the quantity of reserves matters, not the precise form. Further, some countries have at times had very low reserve ratios. At 5% reserves, the quantity of money “created out of nothing” by repeated re-lending of the non-reserve portion can become quite large. Eventually I might have to convert some of those nominal $US into some other currency or cover with real from the USA $US, but that’s fairly rare in practice. Only a very small net-net of it all goes to final settlement. Lots of it is just rolled from swaps to futures and back…

    So the USA prints and uses $Billion to buy oil from Saudi. They deposit this in the Bank Of England as $US, now if there’s a 20% reserve requirement, that gets multiplied by M=1/ReserveReq.
    100% / 20%=5 so it becomes $5 Billion, with $4 Billion of it created outside the USA. Now if that were only a 5% reserve requirement 100% / 5%=20 it would be $20 Billion…

    BUT, central banks have even moved away from a strict reserve ratio:

    Rather than holding the quantity of base money fixed, central banks have recently pursued an interest rate target to control bank issuance of credit indirectly so the ceiling implied by the money multiplier does not impose a limit on money creation in practice.


    Eurodollars are time deposits denominated in U.S. dollars at banks outside the United States, and thus are not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve. Consequently, such deposits are subject to much less regulation than similar deposits within the U.S. The term was originally coined for U.S. dollars in European banks, but it expanded over the years to its present definition. A U.S. dollar-denominated deposit in Tokyo or Beijing would be likewise deemed a Eurodollar deposit (sometimes an Asiadollar). There is no connection with the euro currency or the eurozone. The offshore locations of Eurodollar make it exposed to potential country risk and economic risk.[1]

    More generally, the euro- prefix can be used to indicate any currency held in a country where it is not the official currency: for example, Euroyen or even Euroeuro.
    In the mid-1950s, Eurodollar trading and its development into a dominant world currency began when the Soviet Union wanted better interest rates on their Eurodollars and convinced an Italian banking cartel to give them more interest than could have been earned if the dollars were deposited in the U.S. The Italian bankers then had to find customers ready to borrow the Soviet dollars and pay above the U.S. legal interest-rate caps for their use, and were able to do so; thus, Eurodollars began to be used increasingly in global finance.

    Eurodollars can have a higher interest rate attached to them because of the fact that they are out of reach from the Federal Reserve. U.S. banks hold an account at the Fed and can, in theory, receive unlimited liquidity from the Fed if necessary. These required reserves and Fed backing make U.S. dollar deposits in U.S. banks inherently less risky, and Eurodollar deposits slightly more risky, which requires a slightly higher interest rate.

    By the end of 1970, 385 billion eurodollars were booked offshore. These deposits were lent on as U.S. dollar loans to businesses in other countries where interest rates on loans were perhaps much higher in the local currency, and where the businesses were exporting to the US and being paid in dollars, thereby avoiding foreign exchange risk on their loans.

    Several factors led eurodollars to overtake certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by U.S. banks as the primary private short-term money market instruments by the 1980s, including:

    And the thing is, nobody knows how big that money supply is in fact.

    Market size
    Since the Eurodollar market is not run by any government agency its growth is hard to estimate. However, the Eurodollar market is by a wide margin the largest source of global finance. In 1997, nearly 90% of all international loans were made this way.

    In December 1985 the Eurodollar market was estimated by J.P. Morgan Guaranty bank to have a net size of 1.668 trillion. In 2016, the Eurodollar market size was estimated at around 13.833 trillion.

    So yeah, you need $US to trade oil, but they can be $US created in an offshore bank via low reserves and high multiplier… USA need not be involved or even know about it.

    I’m not certain there is no benefit to the USA, but I do believe than since the 1980s or so the benefit has been steadily decreasing… and now ought to be low. Maybe….

  134. E.M.Smith says:

    Well… not unexpected. Looks like TorBrowser-launcher expects x86 / AMD64 and not ‘arm’ of any sort. Here I tried doing a build from source repository:

    ems@XU4uDevuan3:/test/TOR/torbrowser-launcher-0.3.3$ sudo debuild -b -uc -us
     dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc -ui -b
    dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package torbrowser-launcher
    dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 0.3.3-3~bpo10+1
    dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution buster-backports
    dpkg-buildpackage: info: source changed by Roger Shimizu 
     dpkg-source --before-build .
    dpkg-buildpackage: info: host architecture armhf
     debian/rules clean
    dh clean --with python3 --buildsystem=pybuild
    dh: No packages to build. Architecture mismatch: armhf, want: i386 amd64
     debian/rules binary
    dh binary --with python3 --buildsystem=pybuild
    dh: No packages to build. Architecture mismatch: armhf, want: i386 amd64

    Note that I just threw this bag-o-bits at debuild with zero prep or analysis. There may well be a way around this. I’m not sure I care enough to press it at this moment…

  135. E.M.Smith says:

    Looks like someone has experimental armhf and aarch64 builds here:

    (Hit the ‘show more’ button to see more language choices including en-US)

  136. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – “There is a huge disinformation campaign to make certain tech look incredibly hard and expensive all the while hiding what we’ve actually done with it. To send opponents down wrong paths.”
    Yep, and I think the Païs patents are part of that disinformation effort. However, I think that the benefits of a good reactionless drive (and the ability to generate energy without needing fuel) would seem so massive that even the military would not manage to keep it secret. With such a drive, the USA military would not need aircraft-carriers to project power anywhere in the world, and there would also be no need to spend all that effort and money producing the hypersonic engines, planes, and missiles. Thus the money that is being put in to such projects implies to me that they haven’t got any secret stuff that works better. If they had that reactionless drive, I might expect to see no obvious advances in conventional aircraft and engines to push them faster. Also, of course, you’d need to train the pilots to fly them, and so we might also expect some regular sightings of training flights. With self-driving cars and thus a lot of LIDAR devices around, aircraft with a small radar reflection would probably still show up on LIDAR and to visual instruments.

    The Païs patents however do tell us that the military suspect that such things might be possible, even though current mainstream theory says they aren’t. Much the same as the Alcubièrre space-warp, which requires so much energy as to be practically impossible as designed. I’m actually optimistic because NASA do this sort of thinking outside the box, though I heard (from someone I know in NASA) that they are getting push-back from upper brass who regard such ideas as impossible and that they shouldn’t spend any time or money on them.

    My guess is thus that reactionless drives with enough lift to drive saucers or other shapes don’t yet exist in the military archives or in NASA. Various people have got methods that produce some reactionless thrust, though, and the paranoid guy who’s (or maybe was) a friend of a friend does seem to have gone quite a bit better.

    Though a new (and very cheap) source of energy would be disruptive, changing over all the things that use energy can’t happen that quickly. I’d reckon on around a couple of decades. Most people in cities would probably not want to have their own generator in the house, and would instead prefer to carry on buying electricity from the grid. After all, few people collect water from their roof to supply the house, even though that’s free, too, once you’ve bought the tanks, filters, and pumps. Energy companies would still be selling energy, just not need to dig so many holes in the ground to get it. Cheap energy would make industry more competitive, too. It seems to me that such a technology wouldn’t be repressed in order to try to save the oil companies or oil income, since with cheaper energy people can make a lot more profit. I also think that oil companies would likely be in the forefront of developments here, since when Cold Fusion was announced back in ’79, Amoco tried to replicate the experiment and succeeded. The reason they didn’t go further was that they thought it would be too expensive in practice and thus not competitive. I’d expect today’s oil companies to be similarly proactive in looking for alternative technologies and business models. They don’t really care about whether it’s oil, provided they can profit by selling it….

    “Oh, and on the virtual particles to carry forces: I think that is “exactly wrong”. I believe we will find that all that exists are fields of forces; it is particles that are an illusion. When the properties of the field density and the forces it produces are high enough, we call it a particle or a solid thing. It isn’t.”

    Yep, this is also where I’m tending, too. The problem was that waves pass through each other without change, whereas particles collide. However, if we propose that the density of the energy affects the rate of time, so time runs slower the denser the matter-field, then the time-gradient close to a “particle centre” will refract the waves of the other particle. From a distance, this looks just like a collision of the wave centres, though from close-up it looks more like they sling-shot each other. We currently haven’t the resolution available in time or space to be able to actually see precisely what happens when fundamental particles collide (or let’s say interact spatially). Basically, I’m figuring on the equivalent of gravitational lensing causing the deflections, except that I figure that it’s the time-gradient that’s causing the effect of gravity rather than gravity causing the time-gradient.

    As regards charges, forces, and fields, we can describe what they do but not what they are. In the same way, we can describe what energy does but not what it is. Any use of waves in our descriptions implies that there’s *something* that is waving, and this applies right down to String Theory, though that is generally hand-waved over since the maths works. It may take quite a while before we get a good picture of what these things actually are, and what they consist of. Another thing that’s hard to explain is why only particular masses of fundamental particles can exist, and not a range of masses. Though I can see a possible link with the universe having a boundary and thus only certain wavelengths fitting in to that boundary, the difference of scale between, say, an electron and the Hubble horizon does seem somewhat huge and so would allow far more choices, so it seems there’s also some other limit that defines the mass or quantity of energy that can exist as particles. Life, the Universe, and everything…. Might need a brain the size of a planet.

  137. H.R. says:

    [idle speculation]

    Consider the possibility that the U.S. military might have a reactionless drive, but haven’t found a way to make piloting one a survivable experience. Pilots are just too darn expensive for one-and-done.

    [/idle speculation]

  138. Simon Derricutt says:

    H.R. – yep, quite possibly. It might be perfectly survivable, in fact, but have some other effects (the paranoia I referred to earlier) and thus reducing the usefulness of the test-pilots. Maybe the maintenance engineers, too. If you don’t know what you’re trying to shield against, it’s difficult to develop a shield.

  139. p.g.sharrow says:

    The USNavy research lab has been working with High Energy fields since WWII but always the same problem, protecting the researchers from the effects of the fields. Analysis of scraps of alledged UFO skin, shows 21 layers of Bismuth and Magnesium, Magnesium is diamagnetic and Bismuth is very diamagnetic, that is they reject magnetic fields. The active elements of the craft seem to be outside the shell. So the craft seems to be a Faraday shell…pg

  140. Jim Masterson says:

    Many years ago I was reading a science article about the upcoming Voyager missions (yes, that long ago). I don’t need to go into the specifics about the missions (I’m sure everyone here is familiar with them), but the article mentioned one thing that stuck with me. During the gravity assist, the spacecraft will experience G forces in the hundred plus range.

    Now, G forces in the 100+ range are quite excessive. Anything above 15 G’s would put a human occupant at risk. However, the crafts won’t “feel” the G forces, because they are in free-fall the entire time. That’s how a force, like gravity works.

    Gravity accelerates these crafts evenly. In a typical fighter, the engines’ forces are transferred to the engine mounts. The mounts transfer the force to the aircraft structure. Eventually the force is transferred to the pilot’s seat and then to the pilot. The force is then transferred through the pilot’s body. The acceleration is not even.

    Out fighter aircraft can now out-fly their pilots. I’ve heard of several reports where fighters are trying to turn inside a UFO’s turn, and the G forces are too high–the pilots can’t take them. The usual comment is that these UFOs can’t be real because they “violate” physics (right-angle turns and reversal of direction at high speed). Yeah, they don’t if they accelerate their vehicles with a force applied evenly throughout like gravity.

    One UFO book described common motions to UFOs. When they hover, they rotate like a spinning top. When they move horizontally, they oscillate up and down–like a sine wave. If they lose altitude quickly, they drop like a rock. When they lose altitude slowly, they drift down in a falling-leaf pattern–back and forth. When they climb at high speed, they spiral upward vertically.

    I have an idea of what would require these standard motions. I wanted to write a SciFi novel that explained this idea. I have written a few chapters and submitted one to a writing forum on COMPUSERVE. Their reviews were less than encouraging. The most favorable ones were pretty bad. I decided not to quit my day job.


  141. E.M.Smith says:

    Sounds to me like unbalanced aerodynamic forces and a feedback control loop that’s a bit slow. (Or they don’t care enough to take some other problem from fast control).

    So apply a little “gravity” in a direction and you move there, but don’t bother building in aerodynamic stabilizing structures for the minor movements as it would be a PITA to the craft shell?

  142. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson – How about submitting it here? You will get honest feed back, but no snark.

    Besides, the best I ever did was short stories. Got a few published. I never had the patience to write a novel.

  143. Jim Masterson says:


    Yeah, it’s a thought. But I think the story is crap, and I wouldn’t like to expose the people here with my trash.


  144. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Jim Masterson; you would be surprised how bored we can get. I’ve been known to read the ingredients list on a box of cookies 3 times just for something to do !. pg

  145. E.M.Smith says:


    Read ingredients? Hell, I can top that! I’ve been known to watch music videos on EewTube!

    One time, while employed writing a Medical Cost Accounting package in HP Business BASIC I was bored enough to make a simple word translation program to transpose key-words into an, ahem, “archaic” form…

    10 Demand A=B+C
    20 Ought A exceeding naught getthee 90
    30 Naythen shat B to yonvessle
    40 Overloard-Praythe(database call)
    90 NoToBe

    I’d write code in that, pass it through my keyword translator to:

    10 let A=B+C
    20 If A > 0 goto 90
    30 else print B (on printer foo)
    40 system(database call)
    90 exit

    Simple to do and made writing BASIC tolerable… though occasionally hard to explain when someone looked over my shoulder while I was busy writing code…

    Lately I’ve taken to building operating systems from scratch… Just sayin’…

  146. cdquarles says:

    Something to consider, Simon, and that is that we use analogies to familiar situations or things when describing something new to us. Like maps being abstractions of territories, analogies are abstractions that don’t have to, by logical necessity, conform with reality.

  147. Simon Derricutt says:

    CDQ – yep, unless there’s an analogue we can compare to we don’t have the words or concepts to even be able to think of something, let alone describe it to someone else. Thus the wave-description I’m using for particles is based on a wave I can see on the ocean or a guitar string, but instead in 3 dimensions such that a wavefront is spherical and the resonant wave (where two equal waves are going in opposite directions, in this case outwards from the centre and inwards to the centre), with the “string” reaching from the centre (or maybe very close to that, at the Schwartzschild radius) to the Hubble limit that is expanding at the speed of light. Thus taking the analogy and stretching it somewhat to something that can still be seen as analogous. What we see as a particle is a resonant wave, but “virtual particles” are of the wrong wavelength to resonate in the “cavity” and thus die away quickly.

    These sorts of waves need a medium that has analogues of both inertia and springiness, in order to support the wave motion. This leads to a recursive problem if we try to use this model to explain inertia. I’m tentatively assigning this medium as being energy itself.

    I don’t know whether this analogy is anywhere close to reality, but the predictions do seem to match what actually happens. However, so far it gives no reason for the limited range of available particle masses (or quantities of energy that can manifest as a particle), so there’s something rather large missing from it. Virtual particles also seem to have specific masses, even though non-resonant. Photons can after all be (as far as we know) any quantity of energy, though there may be quantisation so fine we can’t measure it. It might make sense that a whole number of wavelengths fits into the current universe.

    So far, I haven’t got an analogue for charge. I can’t get a model that will work. Much the same for fields. What I think I can say is that a field is some sort of distortion of the underlying energy that the charge produces. Gravity however only appears to be a field, and seems instead to be a result of the changing time-rate caused by variations in the energy-density, so we only need to explain the EM field and the nuclear forces.

    We have a few bits of the jigsaw puzzle (yet another analogy) and maybe if enough people chuck in their bits too we’ll see a bit more of the picture. Though the current explanation of How Things Work is complex, I figure that when we get close to the real answer it will become simpler. Like Go or the computer simulation called Life, there’s probably a simple set of rules where the emergent properties are a result of a lot of simple operations repeated a very large number of times. Some operations can only happen sequentially, but others appear to be instantaneous (but like other infinities, I’m a bit wary of infinite speed, too).

    I think a lot of things we used to think were impossible will turn out to be possible if we get a better picture of how things actually work. I think we’ll find ways to make energy, to travel and send information FTL, and that we’ll gain some pretty amazing capabilities. Maybe too much power since we still have wars….

  148. jim2 says:

    Speaking of languages, I’m having to deal with JavaScript again. Originally, it was designed for small segments of browser code to do things in web pages. The poor design of the language reflects that low role.

    However, in the years since its creation, it is used extensively both for client and server code. It is a hot mess. There are almost 1.5 million “libraries” which the maintainers admit, a good number of them are trash. This is because anyone can add anything to the collection! Talk about your “One Minute Manager!”


    At one point, the language wasn’t even maintained, but now there are yearly releases. It is so quirky! The keyword “this” cannot be counted on to reference the object wherein it’s used and scope is a slippery concept.

  149. E.M.Smith says:


    I thought there was a big push to “turn off Javascript” in browsers due to security issues. Are folks still writing stuff in it? Golly…

  150. Jim Masterson says:


    I haven’t heard anything about Javascript. There was/is a push to get rid of Java applets. That kinda cramped my style, because I have a couple of applets that no longer work on browsers.


  151. jim2 says:

    Yes, I believe that was java in web apps. Javascript is heavily used nowadaze.

  152. Jim Masterson says:

    Okay, you asked for it. Here’s my chapter one:

    Working Title: The Binary Planets of Alpha Six
    (or Incident at Rack One-Eight-Two or Jim Hurley and the Binary Planets)
    Chapter -1–The Observatory

    “It’s too dangerous to try it now,” John Hurley said. He tightened his foul-weather jacket against the cold, penetrating wind.
    “I’ve made the trip dozens of times, Dad. You shouldn’t worry.” Checking the tread of the utility tractor, Jim Hurley trudged through the boot-deep snow. He paused to verify a fitting of the front right tread assembly. The beam from his flashlight pierced the darkness.
    “But this is the first time you’re making the trip at night.”
    “I have to leave now. I won’t make it to Pinedale in time to catch my train if I wait for daybreak.” Besides, I have Jasper to help me through the difficult spots.” Satisfied with his makeshift repair, he shouted over the engine noise, “Try it now, Jasp.”
    The utility tractor moved forward about ten feet then came to a stop. John could see Jasper nodding in agreement. The grin on Jim’s face confirmed the fix. “I’ll call you in a couple of weeks, Dad.” He waved then jumped into the passenger seat next to Jasper. The flimsy door closed, shaking the fine dusting of snow off its side. The tractor started moving immediately and continued towards the break in the rocky outcroppings. John watched as the tractor disappeared behind the rocks. He waited in the cold wind until the distant sputtering of the diesel engine faded.
    Standing forward of the open garage door, John scanned the rocky ledge to his right. The ledge disappeared into the drifting snow. Further to his right, the silent white dome enclosing the telescope stood as a sentry guarding the observatory grounds. The bright, gibbous moon illuminated the observatory grounds and buildings with a still, pale glow. The dome glistened in the cool light.
    To the left of the break in the rocks was a dip. It exposed the distant winding road. Jasper usually checked in at that point because walkie-talkies could make contact again. That check-in was at least twenty minutes away. Further to the left was the breathtaking view of vast (Sublette county) Teton valley and the shimmering lights of Pinedale. On his far left, to the north, lay the bulk of the Grand Tetons–shadowy specters in the night.
    It was then that he noticed the light. At first it appeared to be a bright planet, but none of the planets fit. Then it twinkled, and John ran through the obvious bright stars, until it flickered from white to red to blue. It was a speed change. He estimated a speed somewhere above mach ten–maybe as high as twenty. He had seconds before it arrived.
    He pulled out the radio from his pocket and pressed the PTT button. “Jasper! Jim! Come in!” He released the button and the speaker hissed for a moment until the squelch cut it off. He waited, while watching the flickering light. He adjusted the squelch to make the hiss continuous. Pushing the PTT button the hiss stopped. “Jim! Jim! I love you Jim!” Releasing the button the hiss returned. He threw the radio into the snow; the hiss continued.
    John glanced at the security camera at the rear of the garage. The small green light under the lens remained steady. He thought about launching the ship on automatic, but decided it would be an easy target. Time to batten down the hatches. “Set full protection protocols,” he said, watching the green light. It changed to red, flickered twice, then returned to green. Satisfied that his ship was safe, he leaped to the concrete wall on the right side of the open door. His wedding ring was the key. Pressing on it with his left thumb, it held the far end away from his finger[1]. It allowed him to drag the ring along the rough concrete surface without contacting his skin. When he reached the hidden locker, the door popped open. Inside the small dark enclosure lay a fuser rifle. John grabbed the weapon. He hurried to the garage entrance and braced the rifle against the vertical opening. A glance at the charge gauge indicated twenty percent. It was not enough, but it would have to do. The approaching light flickered from blue to green. It was slowing–probably less than mach ten. He might yet get a shot off. Should he try for two or one? He decided against two. The force would be too weak. If he missed, he wouldn’t have time for the second shot. He turned the knurled power control to maximum and aimed at the approaching light. The light’s twinkling continued.
    The hiss of the radio stopped abruptly, and the building lights winked out. The disk-shaped craft was close now. He watched from his dark corner as the craft approached. It whooshed to a silent hover thirty feet from John’s location. Like a spinning top, it oscillated in a slow, circular motion–its brilliant blue glow reflecting off the shimmering snow directly under the craft.
    John placed the weapon’s crosshairs on the power plant first as it rolled into view. Tucked under the skirt, its shielding would be too great for the rifle blast to penetrate. He moved the sights up to the cabin, then down past the apron, and rested the crosshairs on the forward skirt. A gust of wind blew particles of snow into his face and distracted his aim for a moment. He squinted to protect his eyes. The tiny frozen grains stung as they contacted his bare skin.
    He squeezed the trigger. A brilliant shaft of light appeared about two feet beyond the muzzle of the rife and connected with the hovering craft. A loud crack accompanied the fading beam. The craft shuddered from the impact, paused in its gyrations, then resumed its former motion. He could tell that the beam had found its mark and reached something vital. But like an ant biting an elephant, it was not vital enough. The radio in the snow squealed. John dropped the spent rifle and crouched behind the concrete pillar. A brilliant beam entered the garage. Its blinding light pierced his tightly closed eyes. A choking blast of heat accompanied the light, then the pressure wave slammed John into oblivion.

    * * *

    The tractor had jammed against a boulder. Jim Hurley swallowed an expletive.
    Jasper chuckled. “I thought you fixed that tread,” he said.
    “Well, at least we didn’t go over the side.” Jim waited for a nod from Jasper, then threw open his door. The cold wind bit to the bone. Shivering, Jim pulled himself out of his comfortable perch and dropped to the snow-packed ground.
    A bright, orange glow lit the western sky. Both Jim and Jasper stood in shocked silence as a sharp rumble disturbed the whispering quite.
    “The observatory!” Jim said breaking the silence. “It’s Dad. No! Not Dad!” Jim stumbled through the tractor tracks back the way they had come.
    “Wait!” Jasper shouted.
    Jim ignored Jasper and kept running through the snow. He ran and he ran and he ran. The thin, icy air burned his lungs. His legs began to grow heavy. He plowed on. He could see flickering red light reflecting of the rocky ridge to his left. “No, Dad,” he panted. By this time he was crawling on all fours. The snow stung his face and where it had invaded his clothing–his wrists, his waist, and his ankles. Finally he reached the knoll and could make out the dome. It reflected a flickering red glow. He dragged himself to his feet and continued for another fifty feet and fell face first into the snow. He propped himself up and tried to catch his breath. Between gasps he forced himself to look at the garage where his Dad had stood watching them leave. It was a fiery crater with only twisted fingers of rebar to mark the former concrete structure.
    Then a movement caught his eye. It was a lens shaped object hovering near the flames. The object glistened in a silvery, blue glow. It seemed to spin like a top, with a slow, deliberate wobble.
    Soon it dawned on Jim that this was the cause of the destruction. It appeared to laugh, saying: “I did it, and you can’t catch me.” It then spiraled into the black sky taking with it everything but Jim Hurley’s hate.

    Comment [1]: . . . somewhere behind the concrete surfaced wall was a camouflaged armored safe which hadn’t been used in years. He ran his ring along the surface—trying not to scrape his knuckles. When the ring crossed the hidden joint the safe would pop open. His ring would open the safe—if he could find its (the safe’s) location.

    Was that too much?


  153. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson – no, not enough. But a good start.


    Build the characters first. Background, and who they are. That will give the reader more buy in to what occurs.

    Backstory the technology, My biggest question is why is this guy firing on a UFO in the first place? Are they normal in this era? Or …..

    You have the plot line down for the first couple of chapters. Flesh it out. Give it more details (how they got there and why) and more bio background (who are these people).

    You can do it! Isaac Asimov did! Just do some REM sleep and think of people instead of Hexadecimal! :-)

  154. H.R. says:

    @Jim M – The story opener is close to grabbing you.

    I say close, because I don’t have a clear mental picture of the setting; location (burbs? isolated farmhouse, city housing? Earth? Mars? Jim’s current home?), layout (attached garage? Detached garage? at the back of the lot? off to the side?)

    I also didn’t feel like I got an adequate set-up for the ‘flying saucer’. Were they normal? First sighting ever (aliens! oh my!) Some sort of war of the worlds going on?

    I just didn’t feel like I was there.

    That’s it from this armchair critic.
    Now, the story line is fine for the opening. Aliens get shot at with pea shooter. The why would be in the set-up for the ‘flying saucer’.

    Aliens retaliate with doomsday weapon. Don’t need a why for that. They’re aliens 😜

    Jim was supposed to leave, but will he get sucked in and stay? Can Jasper handle it? Is dad OK or a molten puddle?

    So, no problems at all with the start of storyline. Take us where you want to go next.

  155. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson

    What we are saying is you have a great start! I hope you take our criticism in context

  156. Jim Masterson says:

    Guys, I appreciate your comments, and I agree with them. I haven’t really worked on this story for almost fifteen years. This isn’t the chapter I submitted to the reviewers. That story takes place on the Grays’ planet several years hence. Two of the reviewers were published authors. I won’t mention their names, but their initials are Roger MacBride Allen and Sasha Miller.

    Allen’s review was such that it made the other bad reviews look good by comparison. Miller’s review was a little more helpful. First off, she said I was too “In Medias Res,” that is too far into the story. Then she said my naming the capitol city “Kessel” infringed on Star Wars–don’t do that. I had completely forgotten about Kessel being used in Star Wars when I wrote that chapter–my subconscious did me in. I’ve hated trying to find a new name, but I’ve been thinking about “Kettle.” Miller also disliked Hurley’s confusion about telling the Gray’s apart by sex–I didn’t really see why that annoyed her–sexist? There were a few more negative comments that escape me at the moment.

    I wrote this chapter in response to Miller saying I was too far into the story. I really don’t care about this early part–I wanted to get into the main story-line. Oh, well, I’m not really interested into becoming a world-famous author anymore either.


  157. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Jim Masterson, not bad for an opening chapter. Hooked me into continuing to want more. Lots of time to develop story line, back stories, I think HR needs to reread and pay better attention as I learned several of the details he is asking for. 8-) ….. Just as writers have different styles, so do readers. I would say you painted a good word picture of the afternoon’s weather/climate conditions as well as the mental state of two of the characters. there is only so much you can do right out of the box. I suppose you could waste the reader’s time with better scene development. As I have lived those conditions I need little reminder of how austere they can be. Carry on Lad…pg

  158. Jim Masterson says:

    I checked. COMPUSERVE dumped their forums in 2017. I was thinking that you could access my submission, but that’s not possible now. However, if you want to see the chapter that ended my writing career, I can post it. You’ll have to provide your own clothes pins to endure the smell. :-)


  159. A C Osborn says:

    Jim Masterson says: 14 April 2021 at 8:20 pm
    Jim, it was good enough to hold my attention and want to know more.
    I am an avid Sci Fi reader.

  160. H.R. says:

    @p.g – You’re right. I rushed right by some of the things I thought weren’t there. I totally missed the ‘fuser’ in fuser rifle and the setting is the Earth, Grand Tetons.

    Now I’m getting worried about my reading retention. 😮 That was short and only about half of it stuck.

    @Jim Masterson – Never mind. It seems that I didn’t feel I was there because I “wasn’t all there” if you know what I mean.

  161. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim M – it’s not necessary to explain everything before you use it in the plot. The big names in sci-fi often have situations in the first chapter that only become clear by the time you’re some way into the book and have gained some context of the way things are in that storyline. Thus though there’s going to be a reason that John decides that shooting the UFO is his best option, and he’s obviously encountered them before and knows they’re going to be dangerous, which is why he set up the safe with the gun in it at some previous time (enough years for the gun’s charge to decay somewhat), those reasons and history can wait for later. All I can say for your story is that it’s a good start, and sets up enough interest.

    David Alzofon also put forward reasons for the flight patterns of UFOs, based on his dad’s (Fred Alzofon) Unified Field Theory. In fact, David wrote a book about it, and had a series of videos on Youtube that explained them (now disappeared, otherwise I’d have linked them). Though a search on his name in Youtube brings up some discussions he had, they’re all somewhat long and I wouldn’t recommend them unless you’ve got a lot of spare time. Low information-density. Maybe also a bit too much reliance on UFO reports being truthful, too, whereas I’m pretty certain that the truth in them has been embroidered somewhat and that a large number of them are just made-up. Disinformation to push people into lines of research that will not be fruitful, with some just being people wanting to get their 15 minutes of fame or maybe having had vivid dreams. Underlying that mess is something real that I can’t be certain whether it’s alien or human technology, but does actually work. As such, discussions of the details of various UFO designs is premature, given that if the designs worked they could be actually tested and the parameters measured for not a lot of effort or money. You don’t after all need to start off with a full-scale build. As things stand, though, UFO enthusiasts seem to take it on faith that their chosen method works, and build designs and speculations on top of it without actually proving it works. Still, as I said, I know that *someone* does have a working drive (even if he has gone AWOL), which drove me to question CoM and figure out the reason momentum is normally conserved and the situations in which it isn’t. Yep, this is somewhat heretical, but follows on logically from the limited speed of light and that forces are transferred through fields since particles do not actually touch each other when they collide. If we use a wave to transmit a force, then the direction and magnitude of that force depends on the phase at the time it is received, and will be different to the current phase being transmitted. The force received is localised in space and time – right here, right now, and does not depend on anything else. Thus a “reactionless” drive is indeed possible, without going into quantum theory or how the universe actually works – this is simple classical physics based solely on the speed of light. Using QI or Alzofon’s ideas may give us a way to get a better thrust to power ratio, but we don’t need to go that far to prove the possibility of such a drive. This “classical” drive will however provide thrust in the same way a rocket does, at one location, so what’s in the craft will experience acceleration (and thus the 100g changes would probably kill the occupants). Note that that AWOL engineer’s drive seemed to be of this type. Drives based on QI or Alzofon would however accelerate the contents of the craft at the same rate as the shell, and thus the passengers would not feel any acceleration. It’s thus a reasonable bet that the tic-tac we started with (and maybe other UFOs) use new physics and not classical physics to get their drive working, though the classical physics type drive would be totally fine for a lot of uses and could also be used to generate energy.

  162. Jim Masterson says:

    Now I see my main problem with this chapter. I know exactly who these characters are, but I didn’t let the reader know. John Hurley is the secret ambassador/protector of Earth and was set up by an alien organization known as Klasons. The reader isn’t supposed to know this and neither does Jim Hurley who will eventually take his dad’s place. However, John Hurley was warned about a possible assassination attempt and was expecting that a bad guy would show up. By helping his son to leave for flight training, John was caught with his pants down–so to speak. The craft is an unmarked Klason style which tells John it’s the bad guys. The reader should know those last two facts. Jasper is John’s helper–like Batman’s Alfred. The time period is around 1960-1980. The Observatory is located in the southern part of the Grand Tetons. The observatory is the Granite Peak Observatory (I thought renaming Gannett Peak Granite Peak would create a nonexistent location–however, every mountain range seems to have a Granite Peak) and is fully automated–like most observatories–so no staff except for John and Jasper.


  163. H.R. says:

    @Jim Masterson – Having never written fiction (not counting the absence excuses supposedly written by ‘Mom’), I wasn’t aware of the issues and problems anonymizing places and people and the fair use of actual people and places.

    Many a time I’ve read the disclaimer that “the characters (and town, sometimes) are fictional and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental”. Ummm… OK. I’ve never put a moment’s thought into why that’s in so many fiction books.

    I’ve never run across someone discussing dealing with the problem until just now in a couple of your comments. It seems it’s just something to mess you up all the while you’re just trying to write a story.
    So you can use an actual place for a setting, say NYC, and everyone can quickly form an image of place, but I suppose you’d have to fictionalize a business if your character goes in and interacts. If it’s a real business, there’s a chance that something you write could have a possibly negative connotation, and you’d get the pants sued off of you.

    It seems a writer has to be careful when using real places and people and fictional ones, and especially when mixing the two.

    Huh… the things I learn here…

  164. Jim Masterson says:

    About five minutes into a QM class, every student learns about two groups of particles. One group obeys the Fermi-Dirac statistics, and they are called fermions. The other group obeys the Bose-Einstein statistics, and they are called bosons. Bosons have integer spins, and fermions do not. Fermions also obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle while bosons do not. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is why all the electrons in an atom (electrons are fermions) don’t collapse to the lowest energy state. Bosons can all have the same energy, and that explains lasers and why all photons (photons are bosons) can have the same energy, phase, frequency, etc.

    In conductors, the valence electrons are free to move about. This sea of electrons is described by the “free electron model.” The resistance of conductors is often related to temperature. The lower the temperature is, the lower the resistance. In some conductors, the resistance curve appears to reach zero at absolute zero. Meaning, if you could reach absolute zero, then these conductors would have no resistance–they would become superconductors. Unfortunately, the Third Law of Thermodynamics prohibits reaching absolute zero by a finite number of steps.

    Yet, amazingly enough, some conductors magically lose all resistance prior to reaching absolute zero. This phenomenon is apparently due to the fact that at extremely low temperatures, electrons will pair off, called Cooper pairs, and these Cooper pairs act like bosons–they all can have the same low energy state and zero resistance.

    A similar thing seems to happen with helium-3. Helium-4 atoms are essentially bosons, so they form a super fluid at a higher temperature than helium-3. At a lower temperature then, helium-3 atoms apparently pair off and act as bosons becoming super fluids.

    They still aren’t sure how high-temperature superconductors work, that is, the Cooper pair model doesn’t work for those superconductors.

    That’s basically what I know about superconductors. The expert in the tic-tac video, Mike Turber, didn’t seem to know about superconductivity. And he doesn’t seem to know much about sonobouys or MAD either.

    As far as entangled particles are concerned, Bell’s theorem dealt with fermions like electrons, and most of the experiments have been done with photons which are bosons. Still the communications between entangled particles seems to be instantaneous–infinite communication.


    Okay, I can’t reproduce my original comment, but here’s an approximate version (and I’m using quotes instead of angle brackets).

    “We can flip the spin of an electron.”

    There’s a little problem here. You can force an electron to make a choice, but I don’t think you can force an electron to specifically choose a state. If there’s a superposition of two or more states, then the best you can do is make the electron (and not the observer) choose one of those states, and it does so randomly.

    “Pass one set through a variable polariser . . . .”

    Yes, but are you forcing photons to choose a specific polarization, or are you removing those that don’t match that specific polarization? Isn’t that how polarized lenses work–removing the wrong polarized photons? And they aren’t 100% perfect–there’s some slop in the polarized photons they do pass. How do you measure the correct photons? Which photons are the signal and which photons are noise? You’re assuming one photon at a time (I guess, correct me if I’m wrong). These tests deal with large numbers of photons and are dealing with probabilities and correlations. I don’t see how you’re going to extract a signal from such an onslaught.

    You also need to “look” to determine the effect. Which polarizer is the sender and which is the receiver? And if you specifically make one leg shorter, how does the timing work in that case?


  165. Jim Masterson says:

    And thanks everyone for your kind comments about my story. I might finish it–in another life, of course. :-)


  166. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson – I understand. I never had the patience for more than short stories. You have to have the desire to write the novel and no amount of outside pressure can replace that.

    But it still was a good start.

  167. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson

    And after reading all the comments, I agree with Simon. Some writers start out with a BOOM, and then bring in the back story. Your chapter was good enough that I did want the next one (the back story).

    And I have to turn in my Star Wars credentials as I did not know that was the Ruling planets name. But then I am more Star Trek than Star Wars.

  168. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim M – thanks for re-creating the logic.

    As regards setting the orientation of an electron, I can orient a nucleus pretty easily (NMR) by applying a bias magnetic field to make it precess, and then applying either a rotating field orthogonal to the bias field or simply an EM wave at the Larmor frequency, thus flipping the nucleus to orient with the bias field. I can do the same with electron orbitals. I figure that it should be possible to also do that with free electrons, given that they will also precess in a magnetic field. I haven’t looked for details of this being done (haven’t needed to know how to do it yet), but I have been building stuff to flip electron orbitals (electron paramagnetic resonance or EPR) as part of the inertia and gravity modifications.

    I’m thus not absolutely certain I can set electron spin to the direction I want it to be, but pretty confident it’s possible and that people have kit that will do that. I’d also expect to be able to get kit that would tell me the orientation of electrons, or at least divert one spin-orientation in one direction and the other in another, so they can be separately detected.

    The photons are a bit harder to design for. I’m not certain what happens to one of a pair of entangled photons when you extinguish the other one. I can however select for specific polarisations using a reflection at the Brewster angle. The availability of kit now that can produce a stream of entangled photons means that I could have one of those beams of photons passing through a couple of sections (mutually at right-angles) of glass plates at the Brewster angle with a photon detector to measure the intensity of the beam. Let’s say that 10% of the photons emitted are entangled pairs (that is, the generation of entangled pairs isn’t that good). I figure that there would be a correlation between the noise on the two detectors one end using one of the entangled streams and the two detectors at the other end working on the other stream. I’m not assuming one photon at a time here, but a rather large stream of photons where I can’t count the individual ones. The photon generator produces two photon streams, with one stream going to the “send” side and the other going to the “receive” side.

    Of course, I need to try to ensure that the time-of-flight of the photons is the same in each leg, but it’s not critical since standard comms times from the reception of a start bit, so I don’t need an external clock. If the legs aren’t the same length, then there’s a time difference between the send and the receive sides. It might look as if this time difference could be negative (that is, you could receive the signal before you sent it) but if you tried that you’d just get noise – the selection of polarisation hasn’t happened yet so is random. The receive path thus needs to be very slightly longer than the send path (that is time-of-flight from the photon generator section).

    I’d think that we’d need to select one polarisation at the send side, and then put that through a switchable polarisation rotator (liquid crystal display technology). At the receive end we’d thus see variations between the intensities of the polarisations (maybe only a 10% variation in intensity if 10% of photons are entangled) and could decode the encoded data. Manchester encoding doesn’t depend on the polarity of the signal, just when it changes polarity, so would be ideal in this situation.

    I’m thus pretty certain we could build something to test this for electrons, though getting the distance great enough to be certain that the communication was instantaneous would take some long vacuum tubes and cost quite a bit to do. For the photons, I think we’ve got a design that would do the job by selecting one polarisation and selectively changing that, thus the receiving section just needs to look at one of the polarised streams and measure the intensity relative to the polarisation at right-angles to that. This ought to pass down optical fibre without messing up the polarisation, too, which makes it cheaper to get a long path,(and you can coil it and thus have the generator, send, and receive sections on the same bench, making timing easier).

    I hadn’t really thought through the design of the kit needed to do this before now. If the polarisations of entangled pairs of photons are mutually-dependent, then we have a way to use that to send data at the rate that they exchange data (that is, theoretically instantaneously). By non-destructively selecting one polarisation of one stream, and then selectively altering that polarisation, we should be able to see a change in the intensities of each polarisation direction in the other beam even if the quality of entanglement isn’t that high.

    For the story, a number of writers seem to have a group of people they bounce ideas off and maybe pick up some new ideas from as well. A try-out and cheering section, in effect. Might help keep the ideas coming and the enthusiasm stoked, since I’d expect that writing stuff without any feedback until it’s all finished is pretty hard to maintain.

  169. Jim Masterson says:


    I guess I’m going to have to disagree with your premise about forcing electrons and photons to choose a specific state. I’ve heard of tests of collapsing wave equations and entangled particles, and the speeds were reported to be many times c. Maybe there could be some test of information transmission piggy-backed on those experiments, but I’m not the one to design such a test. Actually, I would be ecstatic if instant communication were possible. I’m not sure how that would deal with the grandfather paradox or other causality stuff like light cones that much of relativity is built on.


  170. E.M.Smith says:


    I suspect that the Star Wars / Star Trek confusion can be ended now.

    See, it’s like this: Disney has slaughtered the Star Wars franchise lately. Before that, CBS / Viacom / Paramount / Whatever it is… has slaughtered the Star Trek franchise with STD (really, they didn’t notice the acronym for Star Trek Discovery / disappointment / disaster … was STD?) and Picard.

    So I propose, going forward, a new name that just encompasses it all and avoids the confusion. One Name to rule them all:

    Star Wrek

    Badump Bump!

  171. philjourdan says:

    @EMS – Touché!

  172. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim M – no problems with disagreement, since it’s a normal situation when I’m exploring just what is actually possible as opposed to what is impossible. Earlier on I referred to an experiment sending data down a coax FTL (up to around 8c) that I had previously thought was impossible to do. To start with, I also thought that momentum was absolutely conserved and thus that things like the EMDrive couldn’t work.

    Instantaneous communication doesn’t break causality, so there’s no grandfather paradox involved anyway. Even using light we can establish a common time reference, by bouncing light from the remote location and taking half that time as the offset to add on to what we read the clock as being there to see what the clock would read right now. I figure that causality is one of those things that really can’t be broken. I know people invoke causality as a reason for not being able to go FTL, but I don’t get the logic they’re using. Sure, you’ll be able to see a cause happening after the event it caused, but that’s only because you’d be nearer the effect than the cause. Once you take the time of flight of the light into account, there is no violation of causality itself.

    At the moment I’ve needed to dump quite a few of the “inviolable” physical laws I grew up with, based on experimental evidence that they aren’t actually inviolable after all. Some of them are actually pretty easy to break by a small amount, others need a lot more effort. Symmetry leads to conservation laws becoming valid, and where we can break a symmetry we can then violate that conservation law. With so many types of wave around, we can break symmetry by using the right kind of diode.

    I’m no longer that worried at being labelled a crackpot, or people thinking I’m wrong. If no-one can find a fault in the logic, but instead can only point to “the laws of physics” as being the reason it won’t work, maybe it is actually possible and there’s something to be found if we actually look and figure out a way to make it happen. We should question the axioms, and not fall into the Black Swan fallacy. For CoM, I found a thing that Newton missed, in that forces are transmitted at the speed of light through a field. At the time, he didn’t know about and could not measure the speed of light. Still, since then no-one questioned the derivation of his Third Law of Motion. For 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) the thing that was missed is that the (scalar) kinetic energy can only be carried by a particle, and that particle has momentum, and thus that kinetic energy has a vector attached to it that we can change using a momentum exchange alone, and thus change random-direction kinetic energy (heat) to a single-direction energy we can do work with.

    Few people will spend a lot of effort on trying to do something they think is impossible. I’ve tried a few experiments I expected to not work, just to be absolutely certain, but didn’t invest a lot of money or time into those. For “reactionless” drives, though, such as UFOs would need to use, there appears to be at least two ways of doing that. One is to use correctly-phased EM waves and coils/antennae to produce such a force that pushes on the field itself (old physics), the other is based on horizon mechanics (QI) and requires new physics. The transmission of data faster than c in near-field (less than 1/4 wave) seems to be a very real thing and can be done pretty easily.

    With the various problems around the world, and people trying to install wind and solar power to “save the world”, it might seem a little odd to spend time on trying to figure out a reactionless space drive. Still, if we get one of those, then we can also make energy, which ought to be a lot cheaper than bird-mincers. It also looks like the QI experiments are showing successes, so with a bit of luck we’ll have something good in a few years. It will probably annoy the Greens, who really want us to stop using energy and go back to being peasants, but I think the rest of us will be a lot happier and point to the non-emission of CO2 as being a good-enough justification (plus being a lot cheaper, of course, since that always helps).

    So really the tic-tac drive, however we end up with something that does that, could solve quite a few problems. Worth discussing, since someone may point out something that everyone else missed.

  173. Jim Masterson says:

    There’s a rule in fiction that I agree with–if you make a big deal about the gun hanging over the fireplace in the first act, then you better use it by the third act. I notice a lot of TV/movie fiction makes a big deal about something (obviously to distract the audience) then nothing more becomes of it.

    One example (there were many) was in the show “Shogun.” (Read the book, the TV show was complete crap.) While visiting his former shipmates, Anjin-san is infected with their fleas and throws his coat in a ditch. The camera pauses for an extended time on the coat in the ditch. Were they going to frame Anjin-san with that coat in the near future or something similar? Nope! It was a total nothing-burger–along with the rest of the show.


  174. E.M.Smith says:


    It might be worth a re-visit of some of Tesla’s high frequency work. He asserted (and I’m a bit fuzzy on details here…) that there was some “other kind” of electric effect that traveled down the outside of conductors if the frequency was high enough.

    At the time I read about it, I thought it silly as electricity flowed IN metal (high school age thinking…) but now I know it flows ON and NEAR metal too. (Skin effect at high frequencies). I think it was related to his standing wave theories:


    Standing (Stationary) Waves

    One of the most brilliant lecture demonstrations illustrating standing waves was performed in Tesla’s lectures of 1893. The apparatus is shown in T. C. Martin’s book.21 (See Fig. 8.) It consists of large copper rods configured like a giant hairpin with 50 and 100 volt bulbs connected across the copper arms at various places. The actual size of the apparatus is not described in the accompanying text, but judging from a photograph, they stand about three feet high.
    These apparatus demonstrate what today we call a transmission line, shorted at the termination.

    In particular his “scalar waves”. Unfortunately, my solid grounding in traditional electricity theory and my innate scepticism has me reacting with “that sounds like BS to me…” when reading things like:


    Over a hundred years ago Nikola Tesla called the powerful non-Hertzian energy (without frequencies) Scalar. A new era in Science was born. In the 1920’s Einstein referenced to these scalar energies and yet nearly a hundred years later their application is still undervalued and underused.

    So what are Scalar Waves?
    Scalar waves also referred to as Tesla Waves or Longitudinal Waves are capable of penetrating any solid object including Faraday Cages. A transmitter can be placed in a box of thick metal and a receiver outside of the box will still receive the scalar wave. Scalar waves are capable of passing through the earth from one side to another with no loss of field strength as Tesla showed in one of his experiments.

    Traveling faster than the speed of light (superluminal), Scalar Waves are not electromagnetic but composed of pure zero point energy. They also have the potential to be used as a power source.

    So Scalar Waves can be used for communication, energy, and other applications. Scalar Waves (longitudinal waves) do what Transverse waves cannot. They are fast, penetrating, connected, and can broadcast magnified power. Their potential is almost limitless. It is even said that it is the technology that Extra Terrestrials use!

    Konstantin Meyl compares superluminal scalar waves to the neutrino, which it is also thought travels faster than light. Neutrinos bombard the Earth in all directions, but the majority of them arrive from the central star of our solar system. Because almost half of the neutrinos are absorbed as they pass through the Earth, it is thought they may interact with the core and inner layers of our planet.

    Some researchers believe that solar phenomenon can produce variations in neutron emissions which may trigger earth changes on our planet, causing crust disruptions from the mantle heat-up of increased solar activity. Research and study of scalar waves will possibly increase our chance of survival during chaotic periods in the future. By understanding them we could learn how to constructively utilize them to stabilize our planet during periods of solar fluctuations, sun spots, flares, etc.

    In any case, much of the assertions that Tesla was nutty circle around his more extreme claims of things that also sound remarkably like current “new physics” observations…

  175. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson – the difference between a good movie and a bad movie is on the emphasized items. Bad ones emphasize irrelevant items. Good ones emphasize relevant ones. Same way with authors. Tom Clancy wove many threads to get to his climax. But each one was critical to that climax and its conclusion.

    Never saw Shogun and based upon your review, never will. Now Centennial is another matter!

  176. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – For a long time I’ve ignored a lot of the claims of the Tesla enthusiasts. Mostly this has been because I figure that, if the claims had been true, proving them would be dead easy, and yet it hasn’t happened. However, some bits may be true, to some extent anyway, but maybe misinterpreted as to the reasons.

    As far as I can tell, a moving charge will always produce a magnetic field. Thus a longitudinal wave can exist but will have a circular magnetic field with the axis of rotation along the electrical direction. Much the same as the agnetic field around a wire carrying current, but oscillating. If you figure out sending such a wave in free space, all the magnetic fields of individual “rays” will cancel, so you end up with a zero magnetic field except at the edge of the beam, and of course the transmissions were omnidirectional and so there would be no measurable magnetic field. Without the magnetic field to oscillate against (since a normal EM wave bounces energy between the magnetic and electric field stresses, and the electrical stress acts as the springiness and the magnetic field as the inertia) the oscillation can’t continue, thus (I think) excites a transverse wave instead where the electrical and magnetic fields can exchange energy between them. I think this is thus the near-field and far-field oddity – near-field (especially the first 1/4 or 1/2 wave) is longitudinal to a greater or less extent depending on the antenna, and over the next 10 wavelengths or so the longitudinal component fades away to be replaced by the normal transverse waves we know.

    There are some things that don’t make sense. How does a Hydrogen atom produce the 21cm wave that dominates radio telescopy? Using antenna theory, such a small antenna couldn’t radiate such a wave. Might make a bit more sense if the initial (longitudinal) wave is a lot faster than the resulting transverse wave we actually measure.

    Again, the bazooka balun, and a lot of the standard RF stuff, implies that some component of the wave can see what the circuit layout is before the wave could possibly reach it at the speed of light, and can thus “see” at least 1/4 wave into the future. What happens to a sharp edge (sudden change of voltage) where the frequency isn’t defined and instead we state it as a rate of change of voltage? A Fourier decoposition of that edge will have a large range of frequencies from very low to very high, so part of that change will have a very long distance for 1/4 wave and can (maybe) have an instantaneous (or at least a lot faster than light) effect some distance away. The experiment sending data FTL down an unterminated coax shows that this actually happens. Note that sending a wave down a coax is indeed a longitudinal wave.

    Dealing with high frequencies (as Tesla did) would thus come up against those RF oddities and impedance changes, with the wave being able to react now to impedance changes in its future (at least if you think the wave travels at light speed or less).

    Some people insist that longitudinal waves should travel at 1.732 times c (root 3). Thus they design a spherical antenna that ought to resonate at that wavelength for the frequency they’re using. Somewhat easy to get the measurements wrong and infer that you are sending data FTL by measuring the phases, and even to measure the wave being produced at the 1/4 wave point and going backwards in time between that point and the transmitting antenna. At the moment I suspect that the initial wavefront is much faster than c and may actually generating the transverse wave at the 1/4 wave point, but that’s just a working hypothesis for the moment.

    Arend Lammertinck has a project called “Moon-bounce” where he wants to send a longitudinal wave to the Moon and to measure the time it takes to come back. I figure such a wave (at the odd GHz or so) won’t stay longitudinal, but it might be possible using a much longer wavelength. Problem is getting the antenna to send and the antenna to receive such a wave. I can figure out how to produce a high-frequency longitudinal wave (use a coax resonator with one open end) but again there’s that near-field problem and that it will change to a transverse wave in far-field. It may thus be possible to demonstrate FTL transmission using an EM wave in free space, but only over a few wavelengths of the frequency used.

    If we could figure out a way to send a narrow beam of longitudinal radiation, though, the conversion to transverse wave might not actually happen as quickly. That might be the function of the “pancake” coils. The stange thing about pancake coils is that they are effectively would non-inductively, since there’s as much current going one direction around them as the other way – they actually shouldn’t radiate a magnetic field at all, since the vector sum of all the magnetic fields produced by all the loops should be (almost) zero. That is indeed the reason why I’ve always discounted them as being valid physics. Even now I’m not seeing how a pefectly-wound one would do anything strange, though maybe the inaccuracies of the real ones would result in a small remanent inductance and thus some very high-frequency oscillations possible.

    It’s thus possible that if we understand better what actually happened with Tesla’s stuff we could replicate the results with a different design. Quite likely Tesla’s designs were very dependent on small deviations from what he intended to make, so they took a lot of tweaking and tuning to function. That could also be a good reason why replications don’t perform as expected – the reason they originally worked might have been misinterpreted. If the drawn wire had a section a bit narrower, that’s an impedance change and will cause reflections of the wave, and if you try the same thing with modern almost-perfect wire it won’t do the same thing.

    Of course, one of the buzz-words used is zero-point energy (ZPE). My view on ZPE is that it’s something that works for the maths but isn’t actually physically there. The reason we think it’s there is that we can’t measure a particle to stay at the same place, and it seems to jump around all the time. If it isn’t a particle at all, but instead a wave, then the precise time our measurement happens (that is, bouncing something off that particle-like wave) will determine where we think that wave is. A wave cannot of course be a point, but must be spread over some volume, so its energy (and time-gradients) will always be changing. Thus a succession of other particle-like objects bouncing off it will have different results for the subsequent paths. Thus ZPE is itself just a misinterpretation of the effects we see, that are really because everything is made of waves in fields. It’s of course just my idea that energy-density produces time-gradients and thus the particle-properties of these EM waves, but it does seem to fit pretty well.

    AFAIK the Earth doesn’t absorb much of the neutrino flux from the Sun. Those deep-mine neutrino detectors would see a large daily change if it did, and I don’t recall them seeing a lot of difference between day and night. I haven’t however done a search for the data on that.

    There’s maybe some of Tesla’s work that could do with further consideration, but it’s somewhat difficult to find out what claims are really true and which were either lies or partially true or misinterpretations. Much the same as the UFO stuff we’ve been talking about.

  177. Simon Derricutt says:

    I was putting a comment onto an article on metalenses, and came up with an interesting thought. Parking it here for maybe discussion of a possibility I hadn’t realised before.

    The propagation of a light-wave is a succession of points where the energy is transferred between a magnetic field and an electric field, and where each point on the wavefront can be considered as a new wave-source that emits in all directions. The backwards-propagating waves all cancel out, mutually interfering with each other to sum to zero, and with the forwards-propagating wavelength (and thus phase relative to the rest of the wave) depending on the refractive index of the material at that point. A real consequence of this is that there is a wave, though of zero effective amplitude, everywhere in the volume, and not just where you can detect the wave. This is a little weird, since in practice we see a nice laser beam confined to a sharp line, but where it’s partially obstructed by an edge we do see diffraction around that edge and light reaching places it shouldn’t do if it was only travelling in straight lines. In short, we normally use a simplification of reality to do the calculations, and they are almost-right (close enough for government work) but there are some minor effects (because it’s actually a wave) that might possibly become important in some situations.

    An interesting point about the wave existing everywhere when it exists somewhere is that, if we could devise a material where the refractive index (or phase-change) is different between one direction and the opposite one, then we could detect that light-wave anywhere we chose. That symmetry (refractive index equal with both forwards and reverse waves) may be difficult to break, but may not be impossible to break. That could lead to some really weird stuff. As such, playing around with metalenses and metamaterials in general could have some pretty large consequences in future.

    If you could get the forward and reverse refractive index different (and there exist birefringent materials that have a different index for different polarisations), then it would generate a beam of light (of all frequencies) unless it was shut into a dark and fully-enclosed box, and even then I wouldn’t be that sure it could not generate light since obviously being unable to measure light being there doesn’t mean that there are not simply waves that cancel each other out. Yep, that would violate CoE very strongly, but I’ve already shown that that can be violated by any reactionless space drive, and that we’ve thus already got proof it is violable.

    So how do we make such a material??

  178. E.M.Smith says:


    I find the notion of Zero Point Energy a bit hard to swallow as particles. But as I, too, think there are no real particle, just effects / densities of waves that present the appearance of a particle, then it has some (weak) foundation.

    BTW, I wasn’t suggesting the Tesla Enthusiasts had the right idea; just that Tesla may have accidentally run into an “edge effect” at high frequencies that he called his scalar waves and that effect (and perhaps how he created it / ran into it) might give clue as to what area to whack on to get more clue. I wish I had a better handle on it, but I don’t. I also wish I had the time and interest enough to do the whacking upon, but I don’t. I, too, grew weary of the Tesla Enthusiasts great claims and lack of simple work to prove out. OTOH, Tesla clearly did some stuff no body else came close to doing.

    Particularly those pictures of him in a giant room filled with discharges yet not at risk. That’s not your regular lightning bolt so something is going on. Is it just high frequency skin effect so no charge goes through the body? Creative lack of grounding? Extraordinary low current? Unfortunately, hard to say from one old B&W photo that may be touched up in the printing.

    Per bifilar coils:

    I thought the Tesla coil was wound with both wires running the same way. The purpose to provide an inductor with low voltage between the wires at any one point? Or maybe I’m just not remembering it right…


    Tesla bifilar coil can be modeled as concentric closed circles.
    In this formulation, the problem can be solved as a plane axisymmetric 2D problem of the magnetic field of alternating currents.

    The magnetic field energy of the coil is associated with coil inductance by the formula:
    W = (L*I²)/2

    From this formula it follows that the inductance is directly proportional to the stored energy of the magnetic field.

    Magnetic field energy for the case of current flowing in:
    Parallel direction: W = 10.7 uJ.

    Reverse direction Wreverse = 0.23 uJ.
    In the case of reverse connection the coil features low energy (and inductance), which is only 2% of the inductance value in case of parallel current direction.

    OTOH, the Wiki image for a “Tesla bifilar coil” is different in that the wire winds in, then jumps back to the edge and winds in again, making a kind of ‘center tap’ at the edge… though without the rest of the connections it’s hard to say if that’s a “center tap” or the primary connection…

    So now I’m not sure what coil Tesla was using…

    OTO-OH, there’s this:


    Double pancake superconducting coil design for maximum magnetic energy storage in small scale SMES systems

    Electrical power quality and stability is an important issue nowadays and technology of Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage systems, SMES, has brought real power storage capability to power systems. Therefore, optimum SMES design to achieve maximum energy with the least length of tape has been quite a matter of concern. This paper provides an approach to design optimization of solenoid and toroid types of SMES, ensuring maximum possible energy storage. The optimization process, based on Genetic Algorithm, calculates the operating current of superconducting tapes through intersection of a load line with the surface indicating the critical current variation versus the parallel and perpendicular components of magnetic flux density. FLUX3D simulations of SMES have been utilized for energy calculations. Through numerical analysis of obtained data, formulations have been obtained for the optimum dimensions of superconductor coil and maximum stored energy for a given length and cross sectional area of superconductor tape.

    I saw a video of one of these being constructed. Seems you can make thin layer tapes that are superconducting fairly easily. Then wound in a stack (flat coil) you can store a lot of energy in them.

    So I’m wondering now if Tesla just used the flat coil as a short term energy storage device. Stuff magnetism into it, and when it collapses you get a big pulse…

    Maybe after morning coffee I’ll not be so puzzled ;-)

  179. E.M.Smith says:

    Maybe by arranging molecules such that they have asymmetric orientation you could get differential index of refraction? Something like having a pyramidal shape with the points all pointing one way and the bases the other? Hard to crystallize that… might need a non-refractive ‘buffer’ component to fill the gaps between the points. Interesting problem though ;-)

    Per Tesla Coils:

    It’s starting to return to my brain as the coffee quotient rises ;-)

    Part of the purpose WAS to put capacitance between the wires as an energy storage system. IIRC the way it is wound has nearly constant voltage between the wires so constant capacitance…


    This is about a different coil / winding, but I think it was part of the bifilar coil usage too:

    The specialized transformer used in the Tesla coil circuit, called a resonant transformer, oscillation transformer or radio-frequency (RF) transformer, functions differently from an ordinary transformer used in AC power circuits. While an ordinary transformer is designed to transfer energy efficiently from primary to secondary winding, the resonant transformer is also designed to temporarily store electrical energy. Each winding has a capacitance across it and functions as an LC circuit (resonant circuit, tuned circuit), storing oscillating electrical energy, analogously to the way a tuning fork stores vibrational mechanical energy.

    I think that was one of the key ways Tesla looked at the coils. As both an inductor and as a capacitance source, then wound to deal with the voltage involved. (I.e. wires of high volts kept apart in distance rather than using exotic insulation that likely didn’t exist then).

  180. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – I think that if we knew exactly what Tesla did, we might be able to explain a lot of it now. However, seems that the majority of his experimental examples disappeared, so mostly we’re left with what people thought he did and what he wrote about it, which may have been embellished a bit to attract investors.

    The giant arcs he didn’t worry about were very high frequency, well up into the MHz range with square-waves giving effectively up to the GHz range, so skin effect would stop a large current flowing in him. It may however have had an effect on the brain equivalent to EMP damage or strong RF.

    Looking at that Wiki picture, I realised that the current runs the same way in both wires. Having seen some instructions for winding a bifilar cylindrical coil on a coil-former, where the two wires were joined at one end and you put current in and out using the other ends, thus current running in opposite directions and a non-inductive configuration, and it was supposed to do some weird stuff I can’t remember now, I’d thought that the pancake coil was the same layout. Maybe shows how much I was concentrating on it. I had thought it was as described in the Quickfield drawing. There, I don’t see why the inductance isn’t near-as-dammit zero. The remanent inductance there seems simply to be the result of the different outer diameters of the red and blue coils, with everything inside that cancelling out. So yep, I’m also not sure which one Tesla actually used.

    For the superconducting pancake coils, I figure you get better fill-factor with a tape winding by just having a simple spiral, since using a longer former means you need to bend the tape at the end to start each new layer. Thus better to use spiral (pancake) coils in the right directions and connect them at the centre point. Tape is easier to bend, and with most high-temperature superconductors being somewhat brittle, you can avoid breaking it more easily by using thin tape.

    The type of pancake coil shown in the Wiki would have lower interwinding capacitance (since the distance between adjacent loops of the same wire is double what a simple coil would be) thus higher operational frequency (self-resonance higher frequency), while the Quickfield type would have lower inductance (and a lot of that wire doing almost-nothing). Seems a lot of the techniques Tesla used were aiming for higher frequencies. Thus the spark-gaps he used were faster than the simple ones everyone else was using at that point. With higher frequencies, the odd things that RF does become more important.

    At the edge-rates (thus effectively very high frequencies) Tesla used, the capacitance between wires of a coil could look like a lower impedance than going through the wires.

    While I’ve been answering that bit, looks like you’ve gone searching for more. That is, the capacitance and inductance provided a bit of energy-storage in their resonance. Possibly, but the Q for a self-resonance is normally pretty lousy, and you get a better Q by using the best inductors and capacitors you can. Also means trying to get a specific frequency of oscillation becomes pretty hard, given that you can’t really say where a coil loop starts and ends, or where its capacitance starts and ends.

    Maybe that way of winding gives a narrower spread in self-oscillation frequency between the various loops of the coil? Thus a sharper peak in the self-oscillation frequency and higher Q?

    Recently there have been announcements of special coil designs for charging things like cars, where the efficiency of transfer of energy from one coil to the other is up in the 95% range. Rather important if you’re trying to charge at 100kW or more. IIRC they were using something pretty similar to Tesla, with a flat coil.

    Overall, though, I haven’t put a lot of time into trying to understand Tesla stories. I’m not convinced the stories are true, and I figure that the methods used (or said to be used) are probably pretty unhealthy if used long-term. Then again, the giant sparks people produce as Tesla enthusiasts are pretty impressive as theatre, but I can’t see any real use for them except for making people go “Ooooh”. Possibly pg’s disk can be made to fly using them, though, so there is that.

    Yep, the differential refractive index is an interesting problem. At the moment, I can only see an exact symmetry being possible, but maybe finding out more about birefringent material structures could provide a clue. The thing to find out is what actually determines the refractive index – obviously not just the types of atoms, given birefringence. More coffee needed….

  181. E.M.Smith says:

    In the Wiki Coil (as coffee enhancement sets in ;-) you connect the top outer wire to ground and the right most wire to Positive. Now you get 1/2 V at the “center tap” point. So the V+ wire starts at V and drops to 1/2 V, then cycles around next to the V wire as it drops down to Zero.

    At all points in the coil, you have 1/2 V between the two wires. A nice constant voltage, linear capacitance with current flowing in the same direction, therefor with inductance.

    So you end up with an inherent LC Circuit. All just from wound wire.

    At least, that’s what my now (almost) adequately caffeine infused brain is remembering ;-)

  182. jim2 says:

    This is similar to nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

    ESR spectroscopy is based on the absorption of electromagnetic radiation, which occurs in a magnetic field due to magnetic resonance of unpaired electrons, such as those of spin-labeled radicals. As a spectroscopic technique, ESR is closely related to NMR. However, the intensity of the electron magnetic resonance absorption is substantially higher than the absorption in NMR. Moreover, the ESR spectra are usually shown as the first derivative of the absorption.


  183. Jim Masterson says:


    Never saw Shogun and based upon your review, never will.

    I don't want to discourage you from the enjoyment of booing, hissing, throwing spit wads, and blowing raspberries at your TV set. Besides you may like the show or join one of those cults that enjoy watching really stupid, bad movies/shows–"Plan 9 from Outer Space" or "Carnival of Souls" spring to mind. Some people just can't keep themselves from watching train wrecks–over and over. (I know. I watched "Carnival of Souls" twice–just to be sure. I couldn't believe it was that bad the first time.) :-)


  184. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jim Masterson:

    Plan 9 From Outer Space isn’t that bad. I kinda liked it….

    after a bottle or 2 of wine or in a cloud of a certain hazy smoke…

    And are you talking about Shogun the TV Movie or Shogun the TV Series after the pilot / movie?


    Shogun (1980)
    2h 5min | Adventure, Drama, History | TV Movie 15 September 1980

    An English navigator becomes both pawn and player in the deadly political games in feudal Japan.

    Director: Jerry London
    Writers: James Clavell (novel), Eric Bercovici
    Stars: Richard Chamberlain, Toshirô Mifune, Yôko Shimada


    9h 7min | Adventure, Drama, History | TV Mini-Series (1980)
    Episode Guide
    5 episodes

    An English navigator becomes both a player and pawn in the complex political games in feudal Japan.

    Stars: Richard Chamberlain, Toshirô Mifune, Yôko Shimada

    Or is it all just more of the same?…

    I think I vaguely remember the movie as being kind of OK but lacking a conclusion… that makes sense if you paid enough attention to know it was a sales job for a series… Then the series (what I saw of it) was a tedious soap opera also not leading anywhere.

    Lots of emotional angst and “tension”, lots of posturing and posing. Not much else.

    At least, that’s what I remember of it before my brain checked out and told me to go do something more interesting, like wash the dishes or contemplate the reason fleas exist on dogs…

  185. jim2 says:

    The movie District Nine was pretty good.

  186. Jim Masterson says:


    “Plan 9 From Outer Space isn’t that bad.”

    There isn’t enough alcoholic beverage in my liquor cabinet to get me through one viewing of that show.

    “And are you talking about Shogun the TV Movie or Shogun the TV Series after the pilot / movie?”

    Yes? I’m talking about the TV mini-series. The first time through they didn’t have English subtitles for the Japanese dialogue. That meant for much of the audience who didn’t understand Japanese fluently, more than 50% of the show was unintelligible. The producers thought it would be a good idea to make the audience feel as lost as the protagonist. My friends, family, neighbors, and colleagues didn’t think so. I heard that those viewers who could understand Japanese weren’t impressed with the dialogue.

    They repeated the showing and did add subtitles with more English dialogue. Apparently the producers’ original idea went over like a lead balloon.

    I checked the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb and I’m shocked–shocked I say! They were for the most part excellent with a 75% rating from Rotten T. I guess I was watching a different show. And I don’t think it did James Clavell’s novel the justice everyone claims. Oh, well . . . .


  187. philjourdan says:

    @Jim Masterson – I will still pass on Shogun, but I actually do like to watch Plan 9 From Outer Space (ok, not often). I know enough about the movie and the issues as I like to watch for them.

    SO I have seen it 3 times now (folks are NOT going to run it – but Svengoolie does).

    As for Japanese movies, I will stick with Seven Samurai. I am not into Godzilla either.

  188. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jim Masterson:

    OK, so I tried some more subtle humor without the ;-) and thought the . . . down the page would give it away… Maybe I needed to say “AND” instead of “or” smoke… ;-)

    The first time I saw it, it was just bad. But later I learned to laugh AT it instead of be with it ;-)

    I think you just straightened out some memory confusion for me… I had this odd feeling like maybe I was mis-remembering and confounding two things. One was “it was confusing” and the other was “it was boring and had no conclusion”… I now realize that was from watching one or at most two episodes of the “no English translation” and then one or maybe two of the “with” (and finding neither compelling…)

    For Rotten Tomatoes there are 2 ratings. Audience and Critics. The Critics rating is a negative indicator from what I’ve seen. Things with audience 8% and Critics 80% are usually woke trash or artsy no interest really stuff… IMBD generally only attracts ratings on old stuff from folks who looked it up because they are fans / fanatics about it…

  189. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim2 – see http://physics.unm.edu/Courses/Becerra/Phys307LSp15/LabGuides/Electron%20Spin%20Resonance.pdf (only 10 pages) for an explanation of exactly how you perform ESR. You can also find an electronic copy of C.D.Jeffries’ book on using this to perform nuclear alignment at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015003427351&view=1up&seq=11 . I managed to find a paper copy of the book (printed in 1963), but they are pretty rare. If you really want to know about NMR itself, there’s a useful set of course papers at https://organicchemistrydata.org/hansreich/resources/nmr/?page=nmr-content%2F . Like a lot of the specialist subjects in physics, there’s more to know than you can shake a stick at, so the trick is to find out just enough to be able to use it for what you want to do, and to know why things happen the way they do rather than get bogged down in the details of what precisely happens except in the particular range you need to have that detail.

    From Jeffries’ book you find out how to use ESR to align nuclei. Normally, they don’t remain aligned for that long, so experiments tend to be done at low temperatures. Aluminium however holds on to nuclear alignment for around 6ms at room temperature, and Magnesium is almost the same. I don’t yet know why they hold on longer than most…. By using specks of Iron in Aluminium, Alzofon got ESR and nuclear alignment running at room temperature, which at the time was the first time it had been done at room temperature rather than cooled.

    The spin-alignment of nuclei using ESR depends on the magnetic field and the Larmor frequency of the precession of the orbital at that magnetic field, so if you’re wanting to use it to explore energy levels of the system then you want a very even magnetic field over the whole sample so you get a sharp transition where you know the microwave frequency and the magnetic field and can thus be able to back-calculate the g of the orbitals. If however you just want the alignment to happen, you only need to be able to hit the right combination of microwave frequency and local magnetic field to perform the alignment frequently enough that it doesn’t all decay away (so every 6ms for Aluminium). The absorption of the microwave energy at the point where the frequency and magnetic field are mutually correct will drop the quality of resonance of the cavity (Q-factor) which is easier to measure anyway. The Q will be higher when the magnetic field isn’t correct, so you simply need to vary the magnetic field by enough to compensate for the unevenness of the field you’re actually using, so the measured (resonant) microwave power reaches a peak at both lower field and higher field, and dips in the middle applied field.

    Some of Alzofon’s speculations:
    1: The reason that the nuclear alignment decays is that the virtual particle storm disorders them. This disordering process takes energy out of the virtual particle storm, so if you keep running a cycle of aligning the nuclei using ESR and letting them become disordered again, you “cool” the virtual particle storm in something akin to a refrigeration cycle. Some of the disordering is due to temperature (vibration of the atoms), and some is due to the random fluctuations in the underlying quantum energy field that we call virtual particles, and atoms such as Aluminium and Magnesium are not so much affected by temperature.
    2: The nuclear orientation spreads through the material in much the same way as heat does, so you can conduct nuclear orientation through an Aluminium wire.
    3: If you have a volume, or at least a surface, where the nuclear orientation is all aligned for long enough to have removed the local virtual particle storm (effectively like cooling the quantum field to zero “temperature”), then this acts as a barrier to transmission of information that causes inertia and gravity. Thus with an enclosed surface made of aligned nuclei that have cooled the quantum field, what’s inside that surface will not experience inertia or gravity from the universe outside that surface.
    4: The diffusion rate of the virtual particle storm is limited, so that you only need to “refrigerate” at a few watts to cool the virtual particle storm over several cc.

    Looking at this from the point of view of particles being waves in the quantum field (or Aether, if you prefer that name), and that such waves are densest at the centre but spread out to the Hubble limit, and that the local density of that energy is what determines local time-rate, and that what Mike McCulloch terms Unruh waves are actually these energy waves of the particle and normally have nodes at the Hubble limit, then “cooling the quantum field” looks likely to create a node in the wave at that location. Bit like stopping an organ-pipe, since there’s nothing to support the wave there. The energy we need to take out will depend on the local matter-wave density, and thus will depend on the local gravitational force experienced, or we could also calculate it from the local rate of time – the slower time is running, the more energy we will need to extract. I haven’t yet done all the sums on this. Still getting the RF parts sorted out.

    If we place a lump of matter next to such a material that generates nodes in the matter-wave (Unruh wave?), then the lump will experience a force (as we measure it, at least) towards that artificial horizon. The closer we move it to the horizon, the greater the force. Pretty easy to make a reactionless space-drive in that case. Still, if the speculations are actually near-enough right, then it should be fairly easy to both generate the effect and to be able to prove that it works. Maybe the part I have least confidence in is that the nuclear alignment can be passed from one atom to the next along a wire. I’m not seeing why that should happen. Still, even a small area of directly-generated nuclear alignment should produce the anomalous force, and thus give a space-drive, even if the lack of getting an enclosed volume means we can’t send that something inside that volume FTL.

    Interesting point is what happens inside that horizon-producing shell (if we can actually make one). If Mike McCulloch is right about horizons, then inside that shell will be effectively a very small separate universe, and the minimum acceleration (and the quanta of acceleration you can add to that) will be a lot higher than it will be outside the shell. This might be dangerous to life, especially if the spacecraft shell was pretty small. Might also modify what electronics does. Still, that might determine a minimum practical size for an interstellar spacecraft, and might also be a reason for a generally-spherical shape so that there’s not too much anisotropy in the internal space.

  190. jim2 says:

    HI Simon. I’ve actually used an NMR for chemical analysis.

  191. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim2 – I hope you gained something from seeing that it’s possible to build the kit pretty cheaply, anyway. NMR normally works at much lower frequencies than ESR, so in fact quite a bit easier to mess around with.

    What I’ve been trying to explain is why I see a possibility that this might actually work. Maybe someone here will have seen something I missed, too, and say something that ends up being important in understanding the next steps (or maybe provides a compelling reason it is totally wrong). Starting off with the anomaly in galactic rotation speeds, that made mainstream physics go hunting for Dark Matter rather than thinking that gravity might not follow Newton’s law precisely at large distances, the anomaly in the Pioneer flyby that could maybe be explained by light-pressure but can also be explained by Mike McCulloch’s theory, the EMDrive thrust that could be purely experimental error but where the claimed thrust over around 10 different experiments matches Mike’s predictions pretty closely, and a few other anomalies that could also be hand-waved away. It’s also noticeable that when I’m writing this stuff out it sometimes gives me an extra insight since I’m needing to re-examine stuff to check the logic. Again, someone might pull me up on some of that, and point out an error I’d missed.

    As regards Aether, maybe worth checking Matt Strassler’s posts on quantum fields. See https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ for his explanation of virtual particles under current theory (this is much better than the explanation I was given as a student, and you may find you’ll go read his other posts, too). Maybe also try replacing “quantum field” by “Aether”, since a wave really can’t exist without something that supports that wave. The meaning doesn’t change, but whether you call it “free space”, “quantum field”, or “Aether” it still needs that property of supporting waves. The various types of quantum fields Matt Strassler explains can also interchange energy between them. Thus Alzofon’s idea of removing that energy isn’t too far-fetched. Those disturbances in the fields, not long-lived enough to merit the name of actual particles, are still energy and thus if we can absorb that energy they can’t exist.

    I’m trying to pull a self-consistent explanation of all this out of the various anomalies known. What bits of current physics and quantum mechanics are still good, and which bits need a bit of tweaking or a new viewpoint. Discussions are thus somewhat useful.

  192. E.M.Smith says:


    It was the galactic rotation that got me thinking “B.S.” at where Physics was going. It just looked to me like “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” were B.S. fudge factors pulled out of someones backside to try and rescue a wrong but cherished belief.

    IF we got the gravity equation wrong we got it wrong. Go back and get it right.

    I’ve got no problem with the idea that it is one way at distances of a light year, and different at 100,000 light years. So now go test that. Find the formula. OBSERVE and evaluate the DATA. Don’t just make up Magic Unobservable Black Faerie Dust to explain it away.

    We already know that both Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics are mutually exclusive so one or both are wrong to some degree. Start from there and figure out what IS right. If CM is known wrong, why work so hard to preserve a CM gravity solution that is also wrong per observation?

    Anyway, that was the point where I stopped following physics “advances” as IMHO it was more Mind Pollution than anything else.

    Personally, I’d be more inclined to accept an Electric Universe solution where it wasn’t gravity holding things in place and making the rotation uniform but an EM field. We know it is stronger anyway, so why not just postulate an EM field solution to why things look more ‘stuck together’ instead of dreaming up Un-Observables like Dark Matter and Dark Energy? Just looks a lot like a combo of “NIH” with “No grant money in old ideas” with “Look, Squirrel!” at the shiny thing…

  193. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Simon; I am following your arguments as best as I can. Something akin to following EMs postings on things computer. I know enough to somewhat follow the thread but not enough to respond to the details.
    I think that the key of the physics is to fit the Anomalies into our understanding of the physics rather then ignore them as was the case when we were schooled. IIRC, Moorely (Michelson&Moorely) ., said that the speed of light in space indicated that the Aether was “Packed” as if it was an atmosphere at 10,000psi ! That is quite an energy density that to us is “0” from our point of view. We are in effect, fish under 2 miles of ocean trying to explain vacuum.
    The concept that Mater is organized “Energy”…”Aether”.. seems to be the only one that fits in this argument and that our concept of solidness is the surface created by a resonance force-field created by the vibrations inherent in the “Energy” organization.
    In my point of view the unit of Aether must be what we call a Photon when it’s EMF signature tells us, photon just went by. or free electron, or neutrino or many other subatomic “particle”, just different EMF signals in our detectors. We know that a field in motion creates external fields that we can measure. Stop all motion and the “particle” disappears. Motion can be in 3 dimensions which would result in mass, frequency,and energy levels in our detectors/over time.
    If Aether “Quanta” were packed to “10,000psi” energy density, an energy signal could travel through them like an executive desk toy of suspended steel balls. the actual balls only transfer the energy rather then carry it. Conservation of energy that travels rather then a particle that travels. A signal that spans 13billion light years of distance/time undiminished….pg

  194. jim2 says:

    For a sharp NMR signal, you have to have a very uniform magnetic field, in time and space, through the sample. Otherwise, it doesn’t work very well.

  195. p.g.sharrow says:

    @EM; when we shift our POV to an Electrical Universe we can get rid of Gravity as a cause and view it as a result. At that point the effect “gravity” follows the laws and direction of force that all other electrical effects follow.. It also follows that mass/inertia are electrical effects in the Aether rather then internal to Mater. …pg

  196. Jim Masterson says:


    “IF we got the gravity equation wrong we got it wrong. Go back and get it right.”

    It seems from what I can discover is that these supercomputer simulations of galaxy rotation are based on Newton’s infinite speed model and not on Einstein’s fixed speed GRT model. If true, then I wonder what those simulations would be if gravity had a fixed speed of c? Would the rotation anomalies disappear, that is, no need for dark matter?


  197. Jim Masterson says:


    “OK, so I tried some more subtle humor . . . .”

    I got your subtle humor. I didn’t think I needed to explicitly mention it. However, misunderstandings seem to be common with my comments. I must need remedial comment training. ;-)


  198. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jim Masterson:

    Or you got my subtle but I didn’t get yours…. 2… tango… all that…

  199. philjourdan says:


    :It just looked to me like “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” were B.S. fudge factors pulled out of someones backside to try and rescue a wrong but cherished belief.

    Bingo! But then the honest physicist say the same thing! “Dark’ is not a real thing, It is their unknown. But when translating to the {brain dead} media, they have to give it a name. Forget the science (for public consumption) publications! They are all into the new religion. So the real scientists have no outlet to the general public. So they lie.

  200. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim2 – “For a sharp NMR signal, you have to have a very uniform magnetic field, in time and space, through the sample. Otherwise, it doesn’t work very well.”
    The NMR itself happens (locally) when the frequency and magnetic field are mutually correct. If the magnetic field is too non-uniform then you don’t see a good signal from it. Same with ESR, where getting the magnetic field uniform means that all the dips in the sample happen at the same time as you vary the magnetic field, so again you get a good signal for the absorption of your microwaves. If you’re using ESR to flip and align the nuclei, though, you only need to ensure that you vary the magnetic field enough that all locations in the sample pass through the correct magnetic field for the frequency used to flip the nuclei. It may be a bit harder to find the centre point and to ensure that it is happening if the magnetic field isn’t uniform enough, but ESR will still happen whenever the magnetic field is the right strength to produce the same Larmor frequency as the microwaves you’re using. Thus for aligning the nuclear spins, the conditions for the magnetic field uniformity can be relaxed which makes it a lot easier to build.

    EM – Mostly I start off by assuming that the mainstream physics is close to being true. For Dark Matter, though, it is specified to only have a gravitational effect, and otherwise has so little interaction with normal matter that you can’t easily detect it. Huge experiments have been run to try to detect it, though, and they’ve failed, or at least it’s moved the goalposts of detectability to a really small level. The acceleration due to gravity doesn’t drop off at 1/r² at very large distances, but instead seems to get asymptotic to around 1.4e-10 m/s². The MoND theory curve-fits this attraction and ends up being almost the same form as Mike McCulloch’s formula, except that in MoND the parameters are adjustable. Mike’s formula works from measured constants and has no adjustable fudge-factors, so despite the problem of needing an EM wave to transmit information at almost-infinite speeds (that is, from the Hubble limit to here/now with a delay too small to currently measure) I figure that there’s a lot of truth in it. The experimental measurement of an EM wave transmitting information at a measured 8c or so implies that EM waves are different than we thought, too, so maybe my objection (to FTL transmission using an EM wave) isn’t valid. Still, suggesting that it isn’t an EM wave but instead the matter-wave does allow the weirdness of entanglement to be brought in instead, and might fit better.

    Insisting that the old rules pertain worked for neutrinos, which were proposed to be taking away energy and momentum in nuclear reactions. Again, they were proposed to be hard to detect, and so people worked on getting a big-enough detector to actually be able to see and count them. In that case, they were successful, and so doing the same sort of thing on Dark Matter probably seemed a good idea.

    Newton’s gravity law and Einstein’s GRT both predict exactly the same relationship (1/r²) for a single frame of reference. IIRC it took Einstein around 14 years to work out the maths to deliver that result using gravitons limited to the speed of light, where the measurements imply that gravity travels at many times the speed of light (from memory, the minimum velocity is around 30,000c). Einstein was stuck on c being a limit for everything, which is why he didn’t like the appearance of things that happened instantaneously. I can see his point, but it certainly looks like instantaneous things do happen in reality, so maybe we should see what happens if we accept that.

    I maybe need to go study the Electric Universe ideas. If they insist on c being the limit for EM waves, though, there is experimental evidence that that’s not true, so maybe they’re also missing something by setting their axioms too solidly.

    Where I’m coming to is a picture where the matter/energy is actually the Aether, and that a particle is actually a wave in that energy where the energy density determines the local rate of time. That time-gradient is what allows particles to interact and change each others’ direction (that is, they can collide, which doesn’t happen with a wave). Instead of each particle being infinite in extent (which QM tells us is what happens) it instead has a limit at the Hubble radius, which thus limits the maximum wavelength of the waves that make up a particle. This picture removes the problem of Zero-point energy, since the location of a wave cannot be a point. Thus Feynman’s explanation that an empty tea-cup contains enough Zero-point energy to boil the ocean no longer applies. This identification of a particle of actually being a wave in truth would also give a basis for Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. In order to find out where a particle is, you have to hit it with another particle, and of course two waves refracting each other due to their time-gradients interacting will not act like points or billiard balls, since the point of the wave with maximum energy density will always be changing. At the scale we can measure, we see an average energy, but it is changing very quickly around that average.

    It seems possible that a force would work by changing the gradient of time, thus shifting the effective centre of the waves that make up a particle. If the total wavefunction is decomposed into its Fourier components, the Hubble limit means that there is no longer an infinite number of wavelengths possible (which is what QM posits) but instead a finite number. Given the size of the Hubble limit, though, it’s going to look very much like an infinite series except when we get out to very large distances, where we’re left with only a few possible wavelengths. Thus we’ll get anomalies when the distance we’re dealing with becomes more comparable to the distance to the horizon (either Hubble limit or a Rindler horizon (produced by acceleration) or some manufactured horizon such as a removal of local quantum energy as Alzofon proposed). We see what looks like a force when the distance to the horizon becomes unequal in different directions, because the number of waves that fit in to that distance becomes unequal. Thus accelerating an object means that the Rindler horizon becomes nearer behind the object, giving a force that resists acceleration that is equal to the force being applied. This is the reason for inertia. It’s simply the pressure of there being more waves able to fit in to the space ahead of the object than will fit behind it. Seems that gravity will also be a result of the change of wavelength of the matter-waves as they pass through different rates of time, but at the moment it looks like the slowing of time by increased density of matter-waves would shorten the wavelength and thus allow more waves in the direction of a mass, thus we’d get a push instead of a pull. Obviously this isn’t yet fully thought-out…. Some bits seem to fit, others don’t.

    One bit that needs solving is how energy supports a wave, since again we’ve got that recursion problem of being able to explain inertia by describing everything as waves, with an increased density of energy making those waves slower which to us looks like time itself runs slower because we use that underlying rate to measure time, but where we aren’t explaining how that energy has analogues of springiness and inertia in order to be able to support those waves.

    pg – may be useful to read Matt Strassler. It is a really good set of articles, and explains standard QM in a way that is understandable. Again, the basis is a field (or to be precise, a set of fields) that will support waves, and there’s no explanation of how those waves are supported, but then that seems to be a difficult thing to solve satisfactorily. Rather than hand-wave it away, I’d rather leave that as an unsolved problem. It’s also a problem with any of the Aether theories I’ve looked at, but the proponents of those theories seem to ignore it even when it’s pointed out. Still, Matt Strassler has the best explanation of what “virtual particles” are that I’ve seen.

    For Aether being packed as if if was 100,000 psi, that would need also a specific density of particles with a specific inertia – in other words it’s pretty meaningless without there being *something* with inertia that is somehow generated. If you specify a very small inertia of those particles, then you don’t need that pressure to get the frequency.

    It remains that inertia has no explanation in truth, given that explanations of it involve some analogue of inertia in whatever you choose to generate the inertia we can measure. Thus any sort of picture we produce to explain things has something unexplainable at its base, and while it may be a good-enough model for practical work it can’t be actually true or complete.

    We see momentum as being conserved in all situations we’ve observed so far, except for some specific circumstances (EMDrive etc.), where a small unbalanced force is seen (and a lot of people regard that as experimental error). So far, we’ve also seen energy always conserved, except in theory at the Big Bang where it was all created. Both conservation laws obviously have limits, and are not always applicable. However, the EMDrive will manufacture energy from nothing if allowed to accelerate, which is another reason it is thought to be impossible, since CoE is regarded as inviolable.

    I figure Mike McCulloch’s model is probably good-enough to produce a workable space-drive, which would also give us the capability to manufacture energy. Of course, I also know an eye-witness who has seen a device that works a lot better than the published experiments, so I’m pretty certain there’s a possibility of massively violating CoM and CoE if we do the right things. Bit of a shame that that one isn’t documented, but it does seem likely that that method is personally dangerous to people close to it. It’s however not the only possibility for violating CoM, and there are several working methods currently known, just not yet able to produce a high thrust.

    The reason for people wanting to retain the 1/r² gravitational law was that if you have gravitons being emitted, and they need to be real particles so they don’t evaporate before they reach the furthest distances, then there’s really no alternative. The geometry will give you the 1/r² with real particles, and if they are virtual then the attraction will fall off faster than 1/r² and the galactic rotation problem would become even worse. Thus to explain the obvious galactic rotation problem, you need to have something that provides that extra gravitational force but has no other effects. Thus Dark Matter. Slight problem in that you’d also get gravitational lensing from it, and that isn’t evident. You do however get gravitational lensing from Black Holes. One of the problems of gravitons is that they must be constantly emitted, and that they must have some energy, so the mass of the particles emitting gravitons ought to be constantly reducing, and we don’t see that either. Thus gravitons are really much the same as Dark Matter – they don’t stand up to logic. Might make it somewhat harder to explain the results of the LIGO experiments without gravity waves, though.

    Oh well, it took around 3 years for the popular press to stop calling the Wright Brothers out as frauds for claiming to have powered flight. It can take a while for people to realise that what they thought was impossible is actually possible after all. It’s the Black Swan problem. I’d figure that within the decade we’ll likely have space-craft with reactionless drives, since there are enough people realising it’s actually possible and trying different ways to do it. That also solves the energy problem.

  201. E.M.Smith says:


    The bit about the Electric Universe folks ideas that I like, is just the notion that there’s a whole lot of electric charge flowing around, it is a stronger force than gravity, and it has known modes of action that would explain some of the odd bits.

    One example is the “everything spins” aspect. Just why does everything spin? Saying the spin happened as the gasses condensed into bodies and centralized that momentum into a spinning ball just moves the question out to “Why was the gas spinning?” in the first place. But take a homopolar motor point of view and plant a Birkeland Current on the planetary poles and you got yourself a motor…

    Now all those planets spinning makes more sense, and it can help explain why the rate of rotation seems to change with changes of solar output… Not just inertia keeping the spin up, but also the current flowing…

    Similarly, you have these giant swaths of stars in a galaxy, and galaxies in the universe, that often seem to be laid out on webs of connections. Looks a lot like charge flowing. Now figure that the electric force is already known to be a lot stronger than the gravitational force: Might not the various stars in a galaxy be electrically attracted to each other and the medium (thin though it is) between them all?

    Electric attraction has been used to “solve” the question of the initial condensation of the universe. On a space shuttle mission, a plastic bag with some dusty bits of “something” in it was shaken by one of the astronauts. The dust picked up charge, and started clumping… Another astronaut looked over and said something like “Hey, you just may have solved one of the big questions of cosmology!”… I just ask: IF in fact electric charge explains the initial attraction and condensation, why isn’t it still around explaining things that need further attraction?

    The rest of the Electric Universe theories are not something I’ve dug into in any depth. Surface read at best. It is more the notion of “Pay attention to electric charge too” that I thought had merit.

    We KNOW there’s a massive amount of charged particles flowing out of the sun (and presumably other stars too). Seems silly to ignore that.

  202. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – I’ll probably need to at least look at the Electric Universe idea too. As regards everything spinning, the gravitational attractions mean that things will either be caught in an orbit or they’ll have travelled a long distance away and we won’t be seeing them very often.

    There is a bit of a problem with “gravitational capture”, in that CoM implies that in order for one object to be caught in an orbit around another (actually a mutual orbit around the mutual centre of mass), there needs to be a third body to take away the excess momentum and energy, and that third body will be sent out on a hyperbolic path that will never return. Otherwise, with just two bodies they cannot get into an orbit and will each follow hyperbolic paths around their mutual centre of mass. It’s thus maybe odd that we see things in orbits as often as we do. One other possibility to lose that extra energy would be something that damps motions.

    As far as the Hubble telescope can see, there are galaxies that presumably are rotating, given that the only way we know that can balance the attraction of gravity is for things to mutually orbit. There should be a load of stuff following hyperbolic orbits, and there isn’t. Some of that stuff should be stars, too, so we could see them.

    Could the electrical connections be the thing that damps the movements and results in nearly-circular orbits? It’s quite amazing just how nearly-circular most orbits actually are, after all.

    The problem I see with electric charge providing the binding force across galaxies is that if there’s some reason that stars become charged, then presumably they’d all get charged to the same polarity as each other, and thus would repel each other. In fact it seems that over time the charge will average to zero (see https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/phenomena/solar-wind ) and at the Earth’s orbit we see a polarity change around every 3 months.

    From a basic mechanics viewpoint, therefore, we can’t really explain those galaxies using just gravitation. What we should be seeing is things following complex paths (actually geodesics in the gravitational 3D matrix). To get orbits, we need to have something that absorbs excess energy when needed, and then stops absorbing energy once a near-circular orbit is achieved.

    There will be some slight energy-absorption from the tidal effects of a gradient in gravity, which thus distorts the bodies involved and dissipates energy. This is what we know causes tidal locking, and why the Moon shows us only one face. Given long enough, the Earth’s rotation would slow such that the Earth would also show the Moon only one face, and someone standing on one spot on Earth would see the Moon at the same angle all the time. That effect is however not powerful enough to have settled the Earth into an almost-circular orbit around the Sun early on in its history, or indeed all the other planets either (except Pluto, which is quite a bit off circular).

    As I see it, there’s quite a bit we can’t explain about why we see so many near-circular orbits. Though I see it as possible that electrical connections could provide the damping needed to circularise orbits, I’m not seeing the mechanism it would operate by.

    Conservation of angular momentum is a consequence of CoM and the geometry (and the fields would be constant and thus momentum would be fully conserved). Two moving objects will have a mutual angular momentum unless they’re moving on parallel paths at the same speed, and then they’d have gravitational attraction bending those paths and thus they’d collide over time. Any difference in initial velocities would however result in some angular momentum being there and they’d mutually orbit instead. Chances of velocities being absolutely the same is around zero. Such orbits would initially not be circular or even close to circular, and yet most of the orbits we see are pretty circular. Though it’s pretty easy to explain why we see things in mutual orbits, going onwards from there to circular orbits doesn’t yet have an explanation (and AFAICT few people even notice that).

    For the space-drive and tic-tac problem, I’ve given you a dump of the last 3 years of thinking on the problem, so it’s been a lot of words. In the course of that, things I used to take as axiomatic have been analysed, and thus I worked out why momentum is conserved which thus tells us the situations in which it isn’t conserved. Maybe we’ve also got an explanation of inertia, based on the wave nature of matter. There’s still quite a bit of oddness though, and stuff where more thought is needed.

    The homopolar motor is one of those oddities. Though the magnet is rotating, the field it produces isn’t. One thing that tells us is that we can push on the fields. As far as I can tell, it also produces angular momentum from nothing. However, you can’t produce linear momentum from nothing in an analogous way (at least not using a permanent magnet). Linear momentum is conserved with a constant field. One thing I tried was to put effectively two homopolar motors back-to-back, where the sense of rotation of both was the same for the direction of current passed, but the input and output were at the same radius. It didn’t rotate, and maybe it’s something I need to go back to and explore further.

  203. A C Osborn says:

    E.M.Smith says: 20 April 2021 at 4:07 pm
    Re the electric universe can I remind you of the Safire Project Video here
    The presentation “the big picture” has a section on the electric universe.
    With fluxes, filaments and star positions etc.

  204. H.R. says:

    Simon D.:

    There is a bit of a problem with “gravitational capture”, in that CoM implies that in order for one object to be caught in an orbit around another (actually a mutual orbit around the mutual centre of mass), there needs to be a third body to take away the excess momentum and energy, and that third body will be sent out on a hyperbolic path that will never return. Otherwise, with just two bodies they cannot get into an orbit and will each follow hyperbolic paths around their mutual centre of mass. It’s thus maybe odd that we see things in orbits as often as we do. One other possibility to lose that extra energy would be something that damps motions.

    I’ve known about binary stars since the topic of our solar system was introduced in school. I can’t remember what grade, but kids get taught the names of the planets and schools usually have one of those hand-cranked models of our system where kids can see the planets (on wires) and their orbits relative to the Sun and each other.

    As I recall, there were a lot of binary stars and I don’t recall if they had planetary systems or not. But it would seem that the paired stars are doing what you described in that paragraph. That’s the limit of my knowledge of binary stars.
    (I never had much interest in celestial mechanics. I learned to calculate orbits in some previous life. But I was mostly interested in the constellations and named stars and how they were used for navigation and keeping track of long cycles that the ancients tracked.)

  205. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Simon; you need to consider spin as well in your orbital calculations. Your near bodies will modify each other’s spin, each other’s internal energy levels, every bit of mater, every Atom orbits their mutual center of gravitational Mass.

  206. Jim Masterson says:


    “I never had much interest in celestial mechanics.”

    I believe the accepted term now is “orbital mechanics” as “celestial mechanics” was too all encompassing.

    “I learned to calculate orbits in some previous life.”

    I learned to calculate orbits in this life. It’s interesting that it’s not possible to solve the general two-body problem–there aren’t enough integrals. For each body you need three integrals for position (x, y, z) and three integrals for velocity (vx, vy, vz). For every body, there are 6 unknowns that need to be solved or 6*n in general, that is, for two bodies there are 6*2 = 12 unknowns. Unfortunately, there are only 10 integrals available. But the two-body has been solved! Well, not exactly. We treat one body (say the Sun) as stationary, and that reduces the problem by 3 unknowns.

    It’s amazing how Newton was able to solve the two body problem without our modern vector analysis. Genius is genius. In obtaining the closed-form solution which is a conic section, we lose time-position. The solution for time-position requires solving Kepler’s equation. Kepler’s equation is a transcendental equation, and there’s no closed-form solution. It can only be solved by iterative methods (and Newton developed such a method that is still used–called Newton’s method).

    “As I recall, there were a lot of binary stars and I don’t recall if they had planetary systems or not.”

    I believe that about 75% of all stars are in multiple star systems. (Polaris is a three-star system, for example). The first exoplanet discovered was in a double pulsar (neutron stars) system.


  207. E.M.Smith says:

    Per Binary Stars and even higher order…

    Jupiter is just a little too small to light up, but getting close. So you could envision a solar system where there was a small star at the Jupiter position. Then you can easily see how a binary star system can work.

    The other version is the Planet X version. “Somewhere” out there, far far away, is a large Planet X that orbits our Sun (and maybe causes precession…). AFAWK, it’s dark. BUT, nothing prevents it from being a star. So you can also have binary systems that are very distant from each other and with each star having a close circle of planets.

    There are also some other really odd possibles, including planets in exotic orbits that swap between stars…

  208. E.M.Smith says:

    Our Sun swaps polarity ever few years. IF Other Stars do the same, and at different rated, I’d expect there to be a random pattern of N “up” (relative to galactic center) and N “down”.

    Ought not that cause mutual attraction?

  209. Jim Masterson says:

    The thing that bother’s me about claiming gravity is an electrical force, is that there are electrical charges where likes repel and opposites attract, while with gravity there’s only attraction. Plus, you can pile lots of matter into one spot, but not the same with like electrical charges.


  210. Simon Derricutt says:

    Just noticed this: https://nypost.com/2021/04/12/us-navy-ships-capture-video-of-pyramid-shaped-ufos-overhead/ with new Navy UFO sightings. The video isn’t particularly convincing, but the story that goes with it seems to officially verify it as being real.

    Then again, the one I saw flying over here around 3 years ago wouldn’t have been convincing either, if I’d taken some video of it. A few seconds (5?) of a blue-green oval light heading quietly almost due West with an apparent size around 1/3 of the Moon, and pictures I’ve taken of a full Moon with a normal digital camera (because it was pretty to see) never looked good on screen afterwards – just a tiny white blob on the picture. Not enough time to go get a camera anyway, or even to call my friend as an extra witness. Would the auto-white balance have changed the colour to white on the screen, too?

    Still, seems like evidence is accumulating that the things are real. No idea as to whether they are alien or not, though. We do however know that they aren’t technically impossible using human technology.

  211. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – “Our Sun swaps polarity ever few years. IF Other Stars do the same, and at different rated, I’d expect there to be a random pattern of N “up” (relative to galactic center) and N “down”.”

    I didn’t put in my 2 cents on this one. Yep, there will be attraction/repulsion from that once the change in polarity has travelled between the stars, so somewhat of a delay before a polarity-flip gets noticed. Still, on average you’ll end up with zero attraction/repulsion, since it’s unlikely that they’ll all change with the same period or at the same times. Thus sometimes a slight attraction, sometimes a slight repulsion, but given the distances between them and thus the very small acceleration, the displacements and velocity changes would be difficult if not impossible to measure. As far as I can tell, the gravitational attraction close to the Sun exceeds the magnetic attractions for things like solar flares, since they normally go out and drop back again. Though the magnetic force is way more powerful as such than gravity (see fridge magnets), seems that the Sun’s magnetic field isn’t really that huge. I’ve done a desultory look for numbers on that (net magnetic field from a distance), but nothing jumped out as being really useful. The Sun in any case has many magnetic poles, so from a distance it ought to look pretty pole-less. See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/understanding-the-magnetic-sun for some pretty pictures and plots.

  212. Jim Masterson says:


    “Still, on average you’ll end up with zero attraction/repulsion, since it’s unlikely that they’ll all change with the same period or at the same times.”

    And the rotation axes of stars are not aligned either–they are oriented in random directions. One of the problems with searching for exoplanets is the orientation of the plane of a star’s planetary system. If you can guarantee that it is flat (zero tilt) from our viewpoint, then the Doppler shift detected in the spectrum leads to an orbit size/mass. It turns out that only about 10% of observed stars are aligned in this manner. In that case, the estimated mass is the minimum value. You can tell if a planet’s orbit has zero tilt if the planet eclipses its star–there will be a slight dimming. If the dimming occurs at the expected rate for the planet’s calculated orbit, then it’s confirmation. Obviously smaller planets and/or planets with long orbital periods can’t be easily detected in this way. Another advantage of an eclipse is you can tell the obliquity of the star, and it’s possible to separate the spectrum of the planet from its star.


  213. philjourdan says:

    @Simon – Re: UFOs.

    I am reminded of when my grandmother saw her first E-2D (Navy version of AWACS). SHe was terrified that a flying saucer was spiriting one of our planes off!

    So the Pyramid thing? Just more misdirection. They got a super secret thing going on, and how better to explain the sightings than UFOs?

    I am not buying it.

  214. E.M.Smith says:


    I suspect it is some Secret Toy of our clandestine folks too. Testing it against our present Navy Abilities. The fact that it seems to only show up in “practice” areas where nobody is running weapons hot is a bit of clue, IMHO.

    It looks more like a tetrahedron to me, than a pyramid. But a lot of folks don’t make that distinction. (4 triangular sides vs a square bottom and 4 triangular sides…)

    One of the Euclidean Solids. My guess is that whatever fields / forces they are using, it works best (or the math is easier…) in a regular solid. So spheres and tetrahedrons. Then the triangular flat things might have been an earlier easier design but doesn’t work quite as well. The Tic-Tacs are sort of a squashed ellipse with a rectangular outline from above / below.

    Perhaps playing with radar signature vs air flow vs fields regularity… exploring edge cases. I did notice that the tetrahedron gave a bright green flash (radar return?) when a flat side was pointed at whatever sensor was in use. Millimetre wavelength radar? Kind of fuzzy in other orientations.

    I suspect that we’ve cracked some QM “feature” and have not been willing to let others know it works so they don’t go looking there… (Maintain our advantage as long as possible). Seems to be a standard action on the part of our Defense Dept. BUT: They do tend to ‘spill the beans’ and let some tech be known once: A) An opponent is doing it too, or about to. B) They want to go operational in a bigger way. (A few operational can be secret. A few wings of special craft not so much…)

    If that’s the case, we’ll likely be told about it in about 4 more years… (Look at the timeline between B2 first commissioning and first public display, or the F117 stealth fighter/bomber. I’m especially fond of that one as it was named F for Fighter but it is really a small bomber…)


    The F-117 was based on the Have Blue technology demonstrator. The Nighthawk’s maiden flight took place in 1981 at Groom Lake, Nevada, and the aircraft achieved initial operating capability status in 1983. The aircraft was shrouded in secrecy until it was revealed to the public in 1988.


    First flight 1 December 1977

    So from ’77 to ’88 or a full decade from first technical demonstrator to public admission.

    My “guess” is whatever this is likely took a lot longer to move through technical demonstrator, and is now looking at a 5 to 10 year secret but operational envelope. Starting about a year ago when sightings were admitted.

  215. philjourdan says:

    @EMS – you do not have to tell me what Tetrahedron is. I got a 780 on the math SAT, The only thing i did not know was what a Tetrahedron was! I will not forget that one!

  216. E.M.Smith says:


    A response to you is not 100% directed AT you. It also has stuff in it for the “broader audience”.

  217. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – “I suspect that we’ve cracked some QM “feature” and have not been willing to let others know it works so they don’t go looking there… (Maintain our advantage as long as possible).”

    That could also be the reason for those Pais patents from the Navy, telling people how to make these things work. In fact, I think they are intended to direct people down the wrong path, as well as to cover the problem that other countries may have realised that such craft exist and work, since too much evidence is turning up. Thus admitting that designs exist, and putting enough in the patent to sound like it might possibly be workable while telling people of the designs that didn’t work, looks like a good strategy. I thus think it’s likely that the Navy (or military at least) have tried to build along the lines of those patents, but they didn’t work. Still might contain enough truth to be worth patenting though and get some prior arts in, even if the whole set of ideas together doesn’t work. NASA did much the same with LENR, and patented a whole raft of stuff even though they hadn’t got anything really working at the time and still haven’t got anything reliable AFAIK.

    I hadn’t picked up on the appearance of these things during practice sessions where weapons aren’t hot. Find out how radar works on them, and how easy they are to see, without the risk of being shot at. Also seems to be good strategy.

    I’ll suggest that since it’s possible to produce a reactionless thrust using old textbook classical physics, and you simply need some pretty strong RF fields and the right distances (since light has a limited speed) then it’s possible that they are using that at the moment, and that doesn’t require quantum physics. Seems it should be possible with a powerful phased-array radar and a resonant cavity of the right design, so may have been found accidentally when designing other stuff. If the high-power RF is external, then you’d also get ionisation of the air (and possibly that blue-green light I saw, in the same way as the Aurora Borealis).

    Of course, they may not have realised that breaking CoM implies you can also break CoE, so haven’t worked out that they can produce energy too. It’s a pretty large step to accept that CoM can be violated, and a lot bigger to consider making energy. So much so that most people won’t even believe it if they see it….

  218. AC Osborn says:

    This one is for you Simon, something that may interest you from Mike McCulloch’s twitter.

    Rindler wave inertia.

  219. Simon Derricutt says:

    ACO – thanks for that. I don’t do Twitter so would have missed it. I suspect that for most people this would seem totally crazy. As mentioned earlier, though, I’m considering how a wave acts like a particle (so there is no longer wave/particle duality, just waves), and walking roughshod over the things I was taught were sacrosanct. The discussions get a bit outrageous. The tricky bit is that particles can exist in nothing, yet waves need some sort of medium (which could be even-more fundamental particles in nothing, but seems not to be). Aether theories boil down to particles as a sort of gas made from really small particles, but don’t match reality so need modifying.

    Nice thing is that we can probably engineer drives and energy production without knowing all the details. Just needs to be near-enough right.

  220. The True Nolan says:

    A flying tetrahedron makes a certain amount of sense. Suppose you have a device which can only exert a straight line push (or only a straight line pull, but not a push AND a pull). It would be easy to build a cube with two X axis devices (one a positive push, the other a negative push), and then do the same with Y axis and Z axis. Voila! Six devices, gives you full travel in any direction. On the other hand, a tetrahedron only needs four devices (not six) to give full travel in any direction.

  221. Simon Derricutt says:

    A possible reason for the tetrahedral shape would be that it’s a good shape to make a resonator. The bottom triangle would be equilateral, with the top 3 triangles right-angled Isosceles triangles. Those three top triangles make a reflector that with a plane wave in gives a plane wave out in the same direction as it entered, so you need to get the height of the tetrahedron internally to a whole number of half-wavelengths (and preferably plate it internally with either Silver or preferably a superconductor), and feed the resonator with a strong-enough microwave source that stays in resonance as the dimensions change a bit through thermal changes.

    Referring to Mike McCulloch’s list of experiments, one was the “Bart” resonator, so-named because the top looks like Bart Simpson’s head, and showed a reasonable thrust level. The tetrahedral resonator would probably work a bit better, and have a higher Q, even though the resonance frequency depends mostly on volume of the resonator. This aspect of resonating cavities can be checked using a beer-bottle and blowing across the top as you gradually reduce the level in the bottle. You do however get a better resonance (higher Q) using a Pan-pipe that is more regular internally. The tetrahedral resonator should produce a much larger thrust than the conic frustrum used by Shawyer for the EMDrive. Fairly obviously will need a pretty high power level in order to get it off the ground (in the MW range?) if you use Silver plating, but using superconductors could reduce this down to the 10-100kW level because the Q is much higher. The actual thrust will depend on the internal field strength, so in effect is PxQ (power times quality-factor).

    I’d already suggested that Mike’s experimenters could try the tetrahedral shape for this reason. It’s also somewhat easier to build accurately than the frustrum, and of course the more-accurate you can build it the higher the Q should be. There is a bit of a problem in feeding the RF in, because the antenna or loop you use to drive it is bi-directional and also receives a proportion of the signal-strength inside the resonator, and that loop or antenna will be seeing very high voltage (and magnetic) fields, so getting the design wrong here will blow the **** out of your drivers, letting the magic smoke out. You need a pretty small coupling-factor for the feed, around the inverse of the Q of the cavity itself. The “natural” standing-wave ratio will after all be the Q of the resonator, so needs someone who really knows RF well to do the design. I’d suggest we’d maybe use an array of antennae on the base so we start off with as close to a plane wave as possible, with each element within 1/4 wave of the next. The compromise here is that the necessary insulation around the antennae feed-throughs will reduce the Q a bit. I think that it might be possible to make those antennae also resonant and where each antenna is fed at a point close to a node in the resonant wave, thus solving the over-voltage problem for the driver. A while back I figured out this sort of antenna to produce only the E-field with no magnetic component, though I didn’t build and test one since it was intended for Arend’s longitudinal-wave experiments. The antenna itself should have a high Q, and the effective Q of the system should be the product of the antenna Q and cavity Q, which should thus be pretty high in the 10k range.

    Thus could be a real design, though there isn’t much room for a passenger here and in any case there’s no indication of how large these tetrahedra were in the video, so we don’t know whether they were big enough to carry a pilot or were radio-controlled some way. Also note that with this design you only get a single direction of thrust, though I can think of maybe some ways to tilt the structure in flight so you can direct it. Maybe also use a gyro for stabilisation of attitude.

  222. Simon Derricutt says:

    I’ve just been pointed at https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060145019A1/en which might be relevant to this. I don’t claim to understand exactly how this is supposed to work, though, and haven’t studied it for long enough either. Tensor calculus is above my pay-grade….

  223. E.M.Smith says:

    Per tetrahedra and single direction of thrust:

    I noticed in the video that the “device” tended to semi-randomly tumble. Perhaps that was to point the “thrust” in different directions?

    @Simon per Google Patent Listing:

    4. To create, by claims (2,3), an interaction of the electrostatic field (2) with the electromagnetic wave (3) such that a combined spacetime curvature pressure is generated on the hull in the upward and forward direction to produce lift and propulsion respectively.

    Really? Do EM Fields really create a “space time curvature”? I thought mass did that… (Ignoring for the moment that they might be the same thing at extremes)…

    IF you can get “space time curvature” out of EM fields, then warp drive ought to be rather easy, no?

    Applications Claiming Priority (1)
    Application Filing date Title
    US11/017,093 2004-12-20 Triangular spacecraft
    Legal Events
    Date Code Title Description
    2006-11-13 STCB Information on status: application discontinuation

    So abandoned as someone else did the same thing earlier? Hmmm….

    But clicking on the “priority” applications links gives the same patent. So either I don’t understand what that link is supposed to be, the patent is claiming itself as prior invention, or Google has blown a link…

    Something about it just looks like someone playing with the patent system. Having a bit of fun with bafflegab.

    Looking up the inventor:

    He starts off with some odd little patents (clip for transporting windows, polymer things) then suddenly is designing spacecraft? Looking at that more closely, some of the names are a different person with “St. Clair” in the name. So one for sealing cuts is listed as John St. Clair ROBERTS. OK some editing needed. I’ll leave that one in as an example, but then cut out any others with compound names, like David John St. Clair who seems to work for KRATON polymers.

    Patents by Inventor John St. Clair
    John St. Clair has filed for patents to protect the following inventions. This listing includes patent applications that are pending as well as patents that have already been granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

    Publication number: 20200345623
    Abstract: The disclosure relates to methods of treating and/or preventing scarring that would
    Type: Application
    Filed: May 2, 2020
    Publication date: November 5, 2020
    Inventors: Robert DANIELS, Damien BATES, John St. Clair ROBERTS
    Publication number: 20120056400
    Abstract: A tricycle conversion assembly for a motorcycle comprising two bilaterally symmetrical stabilizers independently mounted to and suspended from a motorcycle frame by adjustable means of attachment.
    Publication date: March 8, 2012
    Inventors: John St Clair, Stephen Hussey

    Sash window and door transportation clip
    Publication number: 20110138589
    Abstract: A clip assembly may safely secure sliding sashes of a window or door during transportation, and, in one embodiment, be comprised of a strap member and a pawl member.
    Type: Application
    Filed: January 25, 2010
    Publication date: June 16, 2011
    Inventors: Luke Liang, John St. Clair, Joseph Blackwell, David Chen

    Down to this point I think the patents are valid, and likely from some OTHER John St. Clair & Friends. Then we get a bolus in 2004 – 2005:

    Water energy generator
    Publication number: 20060180473
    Abstract: A water energy generator that generates electricity using a magnetic vortex wormhole generator and a water injector/vacuum chamber to produce low density hyperspace energy that causes the hydrogen atoms of water molecules to decay into electron pairs.
    Type: Application
    Filed: February 17, 2005
    Publication date: August 17, 2006
    Inventor: John St. Clair

    Triangular spacecraft
    Publication number: 20060145019
    Abstract: A spacecraft having a triangular hull with vertical electrostatic line charges on each corner that produce a horizontal electric field parallel to the sides of the hull. This field, interacting with a plane wave emitted by antennas on the side of the hull, generates a force per volume combining both lift and propulsion.
    Type: Application
    Filed: December 20, 2004
    Publication date: July 6, 2006
    Inventor: John St. Clair

    Photon spacecraft
    Publication number: 20060144035
    Abstract: A spacecraft propulsion system utilizing photon particles to create negative energy over the hull in order to generate a lift force on the hull.
    Type: Application
    Filed: January 3, 2005
    Publication date: July 6, 2006
    Inventor: John St. Clair

    Permanent magnet propulsion system
    Publication number: 20060112848
    Abstract: This invention is a propulsion system for a train that uses permanent magnets mounted on a rotating iron cylindrical plate carrying a radial current in order to create a spacetime curvature distortion which pulls the locomotive along the track.
    Type: Application
    Filed: December 1, 2004
    Publication date: June 1, 2006
    Inventor: John St. Clair

    Electric dipole moment propulsion system
    Publication number: 20060070371
    Abstract: A spacecraft propulsion system utilizing a rotating octagon of trapezoidal electrically charged flat panels to create an electric dipole moment that generates lift on the hull.
    Type: Application
    Filed: October 5, 2004
    Publication date: April 6, 2006
    Inventor: John St. Clair

    Remote viewing amplifier
    Publication number: 20060072226
    Abstract: An apparatus which enhances the ability of a person to perform remote viewing by connecting the human spiritual eye to the tetrahedral geometry of subspace.
    Type: Application
    Filed: October 2, 2004
    Publication date: April 6, 2006
    Inventor: John St. Clair
    Full body teleportation system
    Publication number: 20060071122
    Abstract: A pulsed gravitational wave wormhole generator system that teleports a human being through hyperspace from one location to another.
    Type: Application
    Filed: September 29, 2004
    Publication date: April 6, 2006
    Inventor: John St. Clair

    So removing all the polymer related ones by David John St. Clair and others (that look legit and like a chemist working at a polymer company) and the first one for Roberts, we are left with what looks like fancy “training wheels” for a motorcycle with another guy, just prior to that a clip for holding windows closed, then, ALL in 2004 to 2005:

    Full body Teleportation system
    Remote Viewing amplifier (a couple of DAYS later…)
    Electric Dipole moment transportation system (a couple of DAYS later…)
    Permanent magnet propulsion system (2 months later)
    Triangular spacecraft (19 days later)
    Photon spacecraft (one year later)
    Water energy generator (2 months later).

    Now my take on this is that either this guy is THE most gifted inventor ever, to create so much in so little time (then suddenly just stops), or he got tired of playing the game of shoving patent applications into the system to see what would be approved.

    particularly stimulating my “who is smoking what?” detector, are his “remote viewing amplifier”

    Abstract: An apparatus which enhances the ability of a person to perform remote viewing by connecting the human spiritual eye to the tetrahedral geometry of subspace.

    And the water generator:

    Abstract: A water energy generator that generates electricity using a magnetic vortex wormhole generator and a water injector/vacuum chamber to produce low density hyperspace energy that causes the hydrogen atoms of water molecules to decay into electron pairs.

    But some of the others are doozies too…

    I’m reminded of something I was once taught. When being told something “Consider the source”…

    It looks to me like John St. Clair is not a very good source.

  224. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – I didn’t spend the time to do that backsearch. Thanks. I’ve seen a lot of these types of claims for stuff that has never been shown to work, but maybe here the patent description and the video match pretty well.

    The curved space bit here seems an unlikely thing. Gravity curves space according to Einstein, and this can be measured. I’ll give a link to that later on if needed. Sounds impressive, but actually pretty mundane in that like drawing a triangle on a globe the interior angles add up to more (or less) than geometry says it should for flat space. For our 3d space, the distortions make the volume of a sphere no longer exactly 4/3.pi.rcubed.

    With the other stuff I’ve put up here, I think the science is real, and that the experiments are well-done. Also, the results are pretty small at the moment, which is to be expected. Takes time to explore something new. Some speculation too as regards the “box reflector” tetragonal cavity. To go in any direction it would need to be tilted, and the triangular things in the video do seem to tilt a lot.

    As far as I can tell, space isn’t actually curved but that’s a function of our method of measurements that are based on the speed of light being a constant. We could only measure it varying in speed if we had a faster signal to compare it against, and officially we haven’t got that though I know people who have measured FTL signalling and there are published experiments. Still, takes a while for such fundamental definitions to be re-defined.

  225. Jim Masterson says:


    “It looks to me like John St. Clair is not a very good source.”

    I agree. It looks like he was throwing things up against the wall to see what would stick. I guess the fees became too excessive for this little past-time.

    “Really? Do EM Fields really create a “space time curvature”? I thought mass did that… (Ignoring for the moment that they might be the same thing at extremes)…”

    In partial deference to Simon’s statement, it’s mass that curves space-time, so you are correct there. The curvature of space is what causes gravity. The equivalence of mass and energy means that energy can also curve space-time, but its effect is very tiny by comparison.


  226. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim M – yep, I should have stated it as “matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move”.

    Though this curvature of space is measurable, I’m no longer sure that it’s an actual curvature or just a consequence of how we measure things, and that our measure of space is distorted by the slowing of time associated with a gravitational field because we define the speed of light as being constant. The bending of a light ray in a gravitational field (Einstein lensing) demonstrates that the speed of light is not in fact constant. That fact also proves the Equivalence Principle false, in that an acceleration and a gravitational field can be distinguished inside a closed box by simply tracing the path of a photon and measuring the weight of a known mass. It also follows that mass/matter follows a different geodesic than that of energy/photons/light, and thus that if you use the explanation of curved space then each part of space has two separate curvatures depending on what you use to measure it. Thus the curved space explanation has a paradox built-in.

    Down in the fundamentals there are paradoxes that are generally ignored. Even Mike McCulloch uses CoM earlier on in his derivation that shows a violation of CoM. I’m trying to resolve those paradoxes, on the grounds that all observers must agree on what happened even if they disagree on the time it happened, and that there will be only one result from an interaction. Though those assumptions seem logical, they might not necessarily be true.

    Though wave equations have been excellent at explaining what happens, they avoid answering the question of what supports those waves, given that to get a wave requires analogues of inertia and springiness. Thus by using waves to explain things like fields and inertia, we’re actually putting those things in at a more-fundamental level so it would obviously be able to create those effects, and it’s just shifting that question to another less-amenable level. As such, I’m not closer to the answer, but maybe closer to asking the right questions. Instead of just accepting the axiom that momentum is conserved, I asked why it was conserved, and Newton got it right but didn’t realise that the forces were transmitted via fields that, in his case, were always constant and thus conservative. Exchange that constant field to a changing one (for example a wave), and it is no longer conservative.

    Then again, it’s easier to reject someone else’s answer than it is to generate a better one….

    Back to where we started on this, the aim is to get a more-accurate description of what actually happens. In this new description, we can do things that were impossible using the older description, in this case we can both shorten the time taken for space flight (and make it far easier in general), and also we’ll be able to make energy very cheaply. Seems worth the effort to try, even if we don’t succeed that soon or only get a partial answer. Still, the experimental results are looking hopeful.

  227. Jim Masterson says:


    “The bending of a light ray in a gravitational field (Einstein lensing) demonstrates that the speed of light is not in fact constant. That fact also proves the Equivalence Principle false, in that an acceleration and a gravitational field can be distinguished inside a closed box by simply tracing the path of a photon and measuring the weight of a known mass.”

    I’m an engineer. If it can’t be calculated, then it isn’t likely true. One of the math functions you learn is the gradient operator. It is defined for Cartesian coordinates as:

    \displaystyle \vec{\nabla }=\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\text{\hat{i}}\ \text{+}\ \frac{\partial }{\partial y}\text{\hat{j}}\ \text{+}\ \frac{\partial }{\partial z}\text{\hat{k}}

    It works on scalar functions and converts them to a vector field:

    \displaystyle \vec{\nabla }f=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\text{\hat{i}}\ \text{+}\ \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\text{\hat{j}}\ \text{+}\ \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\text{\hat{k}}

    Gravitational potential is a scalar field that is inversely proportional to distance or radius:

    \displaystyle V(r)=-\frac{G\cdot M}{r}

    There is a spherical version of the gradient operator:

    \displaystyle \vec{\nabla }=\frac{\partial }{\partial r}\hat{r}\ \text{+}\ \frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial }{\partial \theta }\hat{\theta }\ \text{+}\ \frac{1}{r\cdot \sin \theta }\frac{\partial }{\partial \phi }\hat{\phi }

    if we take the negative gradient of the potential function, you get:

    \displaystyle -\vec{\nabla }V(r)=\vec{a}(r)=-\frac{G\cdot M}{{{r}^{2}}}\vec{r}

    This is essentially Newton’s force law (if you multiply by another mass term, it is exactly his force law). A gravitational field has a gradient. It’s what causes tidal effects. Einstein’s accelerating elevator does not possess a gradient. In that way, it doesn’t exactly match a real gravity field. However, like calculus, if you take a small enough region, then the gradient doesn’t matter.

    If you shine a light beam across this elevator, then it will bend down (if we assume the direction opposite to the acceleration is “down”). What do you mean by “not constant?” In free space (vacuum), light travels at a constant speed. The “bending” of light doesn’t affect its speed (in free space). The speed of light is also defined as:

    \displaystyle c=\frac{1}{\sqrt{{{\varepsilon }_{0}}\cdot {{\mu }_{0}}}}

    that is, it’s inversely proportional to the square root of the product of the permittivity and permeability of free space. In glass or water for example, these constants change and, in turn, change the speed of light through these mediums. Snell’s law can be defined with respect to the permittivity and permeability of the materials involved (or the speed-of-light differences).

    There are other comments I’d like to make, but this is getting long (and boring). Say we drop different weights in a vacuum at the North Pole (I picked the North Pole, because of the Earth’s rotation the Coriolis force is zero there). They should drop at a constant rate (little g near the surface). So I drop smaller and smaller masses. At what point do these small masses not fall at little g? How about a massless photon? Unfortunately massless particles travel at c, so it would be hard to follow it.

    There have been measurements of the speed of neutrinos. Some were faster than light. Those measurements were found to be in error. All measurements of the speed of neutrinos have been at c. If neutrinos have mass, then their speeds shouldn’t be exactly at c.

    Most of your comments about energy and conservation are at a very tiny deviation. What’s the precision error of those experiments? Maybe the precision error exceeds the tiny deviation. It sounds like hand-waving to me.

    “Back to where we started on this, the aim is to get a more-accurate description of what actually happens.”

    Didn’t you say Tensors were above your pay grade? People who argue against GR don’t even understand the basic mathematical tools of GR.


  228. Jim Masterson says:

    So much for my formatting of expressions. The first bad expression should be:

    \displaystyle \vec{\nabla }=\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\hat{i}\ +\ \frac{\partial }{\partial y}\hat{j}\ +\ \frac{\partial }{\partial z}\hat{k}

    And the second bad expression should be:

    \displaystyle \vec{\nabla }f=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\hat{i}\ +\ \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}\hat{j}\ +\ \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\hat{k}

    I’m assuming I did it correctly this time.

    The gradient of the potential function should have a unit vector instead of a vector in the formula:

    \displaystyle -\vec{\nabla }V(r)=\vec{a}(r)=-\frac{G\cdot M}{{{r}^{2}}}\hat{r}


  229. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim M – I can see that you don’t like my suggestions that Einstein was wrong. However, those equations for the gravitational force (or the effects of curvature of space) are shown to be wrong experimentally, because if they were correct then galaxies would be flying apart. There isn’t enough visible mass in the galaxies to support the orbital velocities (and thus centripetal acceleration) that are measured from the Döppler shifts of the light emitted. Thus in order to be able to keep the gravitational law intact, Dark Matter was invented. This Dark Matter only has a gravitational effect on the matter, and does not affect photons or have any other interactions with normal matter. For decades now there have been huge and expensive experiments to try to measure the (very rare) interactions with normal matter and thus to detect this Dark Matter. No results that I know of, apart from the null result of “we still haven’t measured anything”. What’s worse is that the further back in time we look, the more Dark Matter seems to be in the galaxies, because the minimum (measured) centripetal acceleration rises. Another problem is Wide Binary stars, where again the same minimum (gravitational) acceleration exists, but if you specify where the Dark Matter is in order to “fix it” for one pair, it’s in the wrong place for another pair, and you can’t specify a distribution of Dark Matter that will simultaneously account for the anomalous acceleration for all such pairs. The obvious conclusion here is that Dark Matter can’t be the reason, and it must be *something else* that’s causing this deviation from Newton/Einstein.

    Various ways around this have been suggested, with MoND producing a pretty good fit to the experimental data and removing the need for Dark Matter by saying that the gravitational force drops off more slowly at great distances, and is asymptotic to around a minimum acceleration of the order of 1.4-2e-10m/s². No real reason for that, though, it’s just a nice fit of the experimental data. Mike McCulloch suggested an alternative reason for the gravitational force, which is derived from first principles, has no adjustable parameters to make things fit, and also accounts for the increase in the minimum (experimentally-measured) gravitational accelerations as we go back in time. To do the calculations, you only need experimentally-measured quantities. In Mike’s theory there are still some difficult concepts, in that the current location of the “horizon” (which is normally of the order of maybe billions of light-years distant) has an effect on the particle right here and right now. However, it does give answers that agree with the experimentally-measured galactic rotation speeds up to the extreme red-shifts currently observed.

    I had figured that the Rindler Horizon was largely a theoretical construct and would not be a measurable item, but the “capacitor” experiments demonstrate effects from extreme acceleration of electrons (about 1e+19m/s²) where the Rindler horizon is around 2cm distant and inserting some object into this space changes the anomalous force measured. I see this as being a major step, showing us that the universe works differently than Einstein thought. GR is shown to be wrong experimentally. As Feynman said, no matter how nice your theory is, if experiment shows it to be wrong then it is wrong. You either try to propose something to fix it, such as Dark Matter, or you try to find a better theory that accounts for the experimental data.

    My own problems with this level of mathematics seems to be that I am symbol-blind, and I also have problems with icons on the computer screen if they don’t bring up text when I hover the mouse over them. I could maybe find ways around that, but it’s also turned out to have a plus side in that I don’t get diverted by the maths but instead go down below it to the model and what’s actually happening. I have friends who can then sort out the maths side. For most of my working life I was in electronics and computers, with no need to repair my higher maths, so didn’t. Maybe a bit late now….

    Where we have a Law of Physics that says something is impossible, I expect it to be fully impossible. If we find that that impossible thing happens at a low level, then that Law mutates into a “rule of thumb”, where with some engineering we can improve the low-level violation to maybe something that is practically useful. The difficult thing here is, as you pointed out, whether the effect we’re seeing is just a systematic error or an error in measurement techniques. It helps to consider basic assumptions and hidden assumptions, and whether it’s theoretically impossible after all.

    For CoM, I looked at Newton’s derivation, but with the knowledge that matter doesn’t have sharp edges as Newton saw things but instead the forces between objects are mediated by fields, and mainly the electric field. When we use a varying electric field to transfer a force, then the propagation-speed of the electric field needs to be taken into account (something Newton didn’t know), and thus the force times time we put into that field will not be the force times time we get out of it at some distance away. We need to take into account the phase of the wave. Thus one of the foundations of physics, that momentum is conserved, is not always true. It’s only true when we use a constant field to transfer forces between objects, but of course that’s nearly always what we do in practice unless we’re actually intending to explore what a high-intensity RF can do and design the system to have the required phase-differences to produce an anomalous force. Interestingly, one of Feynman’s lectures covered a situation where momentum was not conserved in the interaction of two electrons crossing paths at right-angles. He stated that you couldn’t make this into a cyclic system to continue violating CoM, but didn’t explore it to any depth. My point here is that the violation of CoM in specific circumstances is acknowledged by one of the giants of the field. If an axiom can be shown to be wrong in any circumstance, then we can no longer treat it as an axiom and there may well be other exceptions. I’ve shown that the derivation of CoM assumes a constant field to transfer momentum, and thus when we use a field that is not constant it doesn’t apply.

    I used to discount UFO sightings and to accept the “official” explanations that they were sightings of Venus, or explained by inversion layers (basically mirages of maybe car headlights some distance away), but I know people who have seen such things in person. David Alzofon has seen one of those longer triangular craft fairly close when in company with others who also saw it. My engineer friend witnessed the invention of his old colleague, too, which for me was the start of looking at the axioms and assumptions. Something I’d considered simply impossible and against theory had indubitably been done, so the theory had to be wrong. The old theory may be logical and well-supported in general, but it doesn’t describe reality so needs changing.

  230. Jim Masterson says:


    “I can see that you don’t like my suggestions that Einstein was wrong.”

    I’m aware that physics is based on mathematical models and some models are better than others. For instance, Newton’s second law of motion isn’t F=m*a. It’s really defined as force is the rate of change of momentum with respect to time or F=dp/dt. If we define linear momentum as mass times velocity or p=m*v, then the second law becomes: F=v*dm/dt + m*dv/dt. If we take the classical view that mass is constant, then the first term is zero, and we have: F=m*dv/dt=m*a. However, if we use the Lorentz transformation for mass:

    \displaystyle m=\frac{{{m}_{0}}}{\sqrt{1-{}^{{{v}^{2}}}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{{{c}^{2}}}\;}}

    We then get:

    \displaystyle F=\frac{{{m}_{0}}\cdot a}{\sqrt{1-{}^{{{v}^{2}}}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{{{c}^{2}}}\;}}+\frac{{{m}_{0}}\cdot {{v}^{2}}\cdot a}{{{c}^{2}}\cdot {{\left( 1-{}^{{{v}^{2}}}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{{{c}^{2}}}\; \right)}^{\frac{3}{2}}}}

    Which simplifies to:

    \displaystyle F=\frac{{{m}_{0}}\cdot a}{{{\left( 1-{}^{{{v}^{2}}}\!\!\diagup\!\!{}_{{{c}^{2}}}\; \right)}^{\frac{3}{2}}}}

    Now, how many physicists use the more correct relativistic force formula instead of the simpler but less precise classical formula? I bet almost none.

    “However, those equations for the gravitational force (or the effects of curvature of space) are shown to be wrong experimentally, because if they were correct then galaxies would be flying apart.”

    Experiments? Those experiments were done with models. Which model/models was/were used to verify that galaxies would fly apart? From my investigations, the super-computer simulations used the instantaneous force law of Newton instead of the more correct field equations of Einstein with a speed-of-light restriction for the gravitational force. How would that model change the results? Would we need dark matter if a more correct model was used?

    If neutrinos have mass (and it appears that they do), then it’s been estimated that the total neutrino mass in the Universe would equal all the visible mass. What would that do to your experiment?

    “Various ways around this have been suggested, with MoND producing a pretty good fit to the experimental data and removing the need for Dark Matter . . . .”

    I like MOND. Dr. Stacy McGaugh has an interesting MOND page (http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/) which I just re-found. He also compares MOND to lambda CDM: (http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/mond/LCDMmondtesttable.html). (I’m not sure these pages will display because they aren’t secure.)

    I saw a UFO once–flying over the Space Needle during the day. It turned out to be a reflection of the Sun off of a window of an airliner. In my case, it wasn’t a UFO for long.


  231. E.M.Smith says:

    http pages show up, just some browsers scare people by calling them “NOT SECURE” when really it is just not encrypted (while https is encrypted). There’s no real need to encrypt public pages for display of information only. Encryption is very helpful for pages with input data (financial, medical, identity).

    I’ve seen people panic and dump pages just from the Not Secure nag, thinking they were being hacked…

  232. The True Nolan says:

    @ Jim M: “I saw a UFO once–flying over the Space Needle during the day.”

    I saw a UFO just after sunset, hovering motionless in the distance, plain as day, multiple witnesses, round silver shape, smaller than the Moon but still visibly a round disk.

    Got my telescope and saw a completely inflated stratospheric balloon with a now-visible small instrument package hanging from it. It was so high it was still sunlit and swollen to a full sphere.

    On a more mysterious note… My brother and I saw a UFO a few years ago, late at night, mid December, very cold, very clear, fairly dark sky. We were out watching for a meteor shower and saw what appeared to be a vee shaped object, very faint (would not have been visible if we were not dark adapted), maybe a few degrees across, no noise. Passed from roughly overhead to about 10 degrees above the horizon behind trees, in about 45 seconds, heading south east. We both agreed on the description but do not know what it was. One mundane possibility is that it was a vee of geese flying at night, but just so high and so faint that our vision blended the individual “bird pixels” into a continuous vee. Possible — but that is not what it looked like.

  233. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jim M – “Experiments? Those experiments were done with models. Which model/models was/were used to verify that galaxies would fly apart? From my investigations, the super-computer simulations used the instantaneous force law of Newton instead of the more correct field equations of Einstein with a speed-of-light restriction for the gravitational force. How would that model change the results? Would we need dark matter if a more correct model was used?”

    I’d figure that if all it would take to remove the need for Dark Matter would be to use the full GR calculations, then somebody in the last 30 years would have noticed that and would have done the calculations and made a name for themselves. The deviation from Newton/GR is not exactly small. It is however a multi-body problem, so the calculations are iterative and not exact. Better to find a two-body example, where (though there will be other stars at a greater distance, so you need to approximate that they have a minimal effect) an exact solution is possible. Thus see http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2019/02/wide-binaries-30.html for the experimental (that is, observational) data for such wide binaries, and the calculated acceleration curves versus distance.

    Where I’m talking about experimental data here, it’s not the ground-based experiments but the telescope data, which was telling people that the galaxy rotation speed was far too high when compared to theory (either GR or Newton) which led to the proposal of Dark Matter as a way of allowing the theory to give answers that agreed with the observations. Trouble is, the amount of Dark Matter in a galaxy can’t be predicted from what mass you can see in it, but instead needs fitting to the rotational speeds observed. As I said earlier, if Dark Matter had an effect on photons, you’d be able to tell by the gravitational lensing effect.

    One other thing about Dark Matter is that it also appears to be evaporating over time, so if we look way back in time (2/3 of the way to the Big Bang) there must have been a lot more of it then. See http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2017/06/evidence-from-early-galaxy.html for a discussion of that experimental (that is, observational) data. MoND needs to have its adjustable parameter adjusted in order to fit such old galaxies. For Mike’s QI theory, there are no such adjustable parameters for fitting to the data, so it either hits the mark or it doesn’t. However, it predicts numbers that agree with observations within experimental error.

    Of course, this all depends on the published data being truthful, and that care was taken with the measurements, and that there aren’t unknown systematic errors. Though I used to trust that this was generally true, the experience with climate data shakes that trust a bit. There’s also the known problem with replication of experiments, where in medical stuff at least 50% of the experiments are non-replicable and thus it’s risky betting on any paper being accurate.

    The fun bit of this is collecting anomalies – those things that according to the theory we understand shouldn’t happen but nevertheless do. From my time in Failure Analysis, I was comparing what I precisely expected to happen with what exactly did happen in order to find what fault (either design, components, layouts, component handling, build methods, etc.) was causing the deviation from what was expected or required. We then predicted what changes needed to be made in order to stop that fault from recurring. The essential bit of this is to know precisely what we expect to measure, and then to do the measurements correctly and compare. I was pretty good at it…. To a large extent, it’s finding the bits other people missed, and my somewhat Aspe nature turned out to be useful.

    We’re pretty used to the fact that at the fundamental level things tend to be quantised – there are specific values of energy or frequency that are possible, and we can’t measure things as being between those levels. Why is this? It is of course possible to simply say “that’s the way it is” and work with it, but I tend to ask why (never grew out of that…). If things are waves, then we can see that we’ll only get certain resonances in a cavity and that thus we’ll get quantisation, but then what produces that cavity? With the concept of Rindler horizons, we’re starting to see a glimmer of what could be producing the resonant cavity even though that does require information to pass large distances almost-instantaneously (but then that’s part of QM anyway, so we’ve already swallowed that one and the tricky bit is explaining how that happens). Another problem is the waves themselves that we’re using to explain everything, since in order to support a wave you need analogues of inertia and springiness (or inductance and capacitance, with a lag or a lead in a response to a force analogue) in the “stuff” that the waves move through. This problem is swept under the carpet in QM by simply specifying that the various quantum fields can support waves without specifying how they do it. The maths works, but there’s no definition of the physics underlying it.

    As far as I can tell, GR works pretty well in general but does not predict reality once you get to the parsec scale. MoND works better at this scale, but the predictions fail when you use a longer (multi-billion year) timescale, because observations of very old galaxies require a different scale-factor than more-recent ones. Mike’s theory however predicts (within experimental error) for all scales where we have observational data, and also does pretty well at predicting the anomalous forces that have been measured in the EMDrive and the more-recent experiments built specifically to test it. It may not be complete yet, but I think it’s a step closer to the truth. If it’s near-enough right, then fairly soon we should have cheap and fast space-travel as well as pretty cheap energy, which is a good-enough reason to do the experiments. Mike’s theory, like QM, also doesn’t specify what supports the waves, but that’s a problem for someone else to solve. AFAIK even string theory just specifies that the waves happen, and doesn’t define what, exactly, is vibrating apart from space itself, which of course ducks the question.

  234. Simon Derricutt says:

    TTN – “maybe a few degrees across, no noise.” Figure the full Moon as half a degree across, so a few degrees is pretty huge. The blue-green and somewhat-oval object I saw was around 10 minutes of arc, and of course since it was dark I have no idea of distance, speed, or size of it. Also quiet, and if it had been a normal aircraft I’d have heard it and it would have been more red or orange. Fighter jets and helicopters fly over here pretty often for training, since it’s out in the sticks so not that many people to complain (and they’ve got to train *somewhere* so that when they need to do it they have practised). At times I hear the double bang of someone going faster than sound.

    A friend of mine used to maintain the cell-towers out in Utah, so spent time travelling across almost-uninhabited desert, and reported seeing some pretty weird flying objects. One he mentioned appeared to be a hovering squat vertical tube with something like a propeller rotating around the mid-section at around one revolution per second (so wasn’t a propeller). I’ve no idea whether that was a hallucination or not. He later got a job in a start-up proposing a type of space-drive that I figure doesn’t/won’t work, as well as other technologies I figure aren’t real. I think their space-drive idea, from what I saw of the design, was intending to swap between angular and linear momentum so had spinning masses mounted on a spinning carrier. I’ve tested this sort of design, and though you can produce a movement of the CoG you don’t get an acceleration, so it doesn’t violate either CoM or CoE and won’t do what they expect. I think my friend left that company and has another job now, but communication is somewhat sporadic.

    Another friend of mine knows Eugene Podkletnov. Podkletnov wasn’t working in antigravity stuff, but instead was messing around with ceramic superconductors and (since this was Russian science and they had a smoker in the lab) noticed an unexpected movement of the smoke above the superconductor puck when it was spinning. AFAIK Boeing spent a while experimenting with this, but ended up with around a 2% effect so not really enough to be useful in flying aircraft or spacecraft. It seems that it’s not antigravity as such, but instead a change of the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass. The reason Podkletnov got better results was that he could make larger superconducting disks that were strong enough to not break apart under spinning. AFAIK it’s not yet fully explained as to exactly what’s happening and why. One for the “anomalies” collection.

    As far as I can tell, there are people trying out various alternative methods of propulsion. Some of them probably work (since it seems to actually be possible), and it seems likely too that the military have some working ones. Put enough power in and a brick can fly. Some of the UFO sightings are thus likely to be real, though that doesn’t necessarily mean they are from another planet, or indeed that they ever have been. Still, if it’s military, we can also expect that there will be a lot of misdirection involved to keep the technology secret. Also maybe that it’s not yet economic for civilian use, or may be dangerous.

  235. E.M.Smith says:

    I must admit a small twinge of “isn’t that just an assumption?” when the claim is made that a wave needs a medium.

    Think of the EM Wave as just a packet of energy that is oscillating between two states, magnetic and electrical, out of phase with each other and at 90 degrees. Why can’t this just be the nature of that packet of energy? As it moves, it oscillates. The only “springiness” needed is internal to the packet of energy and its nature. (WHY it wants to oscillate between Magnetic – say right to left – and Electric – say up and down – while moving is left unexplained). But it seems to me all it takes / requires is the space in which to do the oscillating and an open path in front of it to move.

    Note that I’m NOT saying this IS the way it is; I’m saying that I don’t see what forces this to not be.

  236. p.g.sharrow says:

    @EMSmith; yes, you have to look at this as a medium of energy/ charge in motion. It’s organization is what we “see” with our test equipment or devices. In my opinion “photons” are the quanta that are everywhere and are actually the Aether units that transport the energies involved. Not as particles in motion but as energy transfer. it is the energy that moves through them. Any movement of the Aether quanta would be more like the currents in the Oceans, A great mass that is invisible to the fish that swim in it. We only “see” energies in motion relative to us. We know that on the, smallest scale, the interior of atomic structures is nearly empty of anything.

  237. cdquarles says:

    Exactly, our most gracious host. I have come to think of the concern over instantaneous transmission of information as something rather trivial. An observer looking at state transformation of an entangled pair (to the extent quantum entanglement is by logical necessity fundamentally or necessarily true, rather than just taking it as a given for a specified set of conditions or contingently true) knows that once the state is known for one that same observer now knows the state of the other. No information had to be transmitted at all, no matter how far away the other is now relative to the observer. Why? The internal knowledge state of the observer was changed from unknown to known.

  238. Jim Masterson says:


    You’ve made lots of statements that I don’t agree with.

    “I’d figure that if all it would take to remove the need for Dark Matter would be to use the full GR calculations, then somebody in the last 30 years would have noticed that and would have done the calculations and made a name for themselves.”


    “The deviation from Newton/GR is not exactly small. It is however a multi-body problem, so the calculations are iterative and not exact. Better to find a two-body example, where (though there will be other stars at a greater distance, so you need to approximate that they have a minimal effect) an exact solution is possible.”

    I guess you haven’t studied orbital mechanics (or celestial mechanics). The n body problem requires the solution of 6 first order differential equations per body (or 3 second order differential equations per body–you can always convert an nth order differential equation to n first order differential equations). There are 2*6 or 12 differential equations for the two body problem, but there are only 10 integrals available. The two-body problem can’t be solved exactly. Plus, the usual solution of a two-body problem loses the position information. The position information is provided by Kepler’s Equation. Kepler’s Equation is a transcendental equation which has no exact solutions. You can only solve it by iterative methods (such as Newton’s method–it’s why he invented it). The basic two-body solutions assume one mass is large and basically non-moving compared to the other: Sun vs. planets, or Earth vs. artificial satellites. They don’t work well when both bodies have similar masses–like binary star systems.

    “. . . it’s not the ground-based experiments but the telescope data . . . .”

    I assumed that.

    “As I said earlier, if Dark Matter had an effect on photons, you’d be able to tell by the gravitational lensing effect.”

    This doesn’t make sense to me. Gravitational lensing is a hit-or-miss affair. Things have to line up perfectly for the effect to appear. But then you get strange distortions like Einstein rings.

    “Though I used to trust that this was generally true, the experience with climate data shakes that trust a bit.”


    “The maths works, but there’s no definition of the physics underlying it.”

    You mean like QED where they have to normalize (or should I say renormalization) the infinities out to make it work?


  239. Jim Masterson says:

    Oops, I meant position information with respect to time. The solution to the two-body problem is a conic section located in a plane. To figure out the position of an object at a specific time requires solving Kepler’s Equation.


  240. E.M.Smith says:

    I was under the impression the 2 body problem was solved (can be solved) entirely and that 3 body (and even a bit more) can be modeled well enough to predict planetary orbits for decades to come…


    However, the one-body approximation is usually unnecessary except as a stepping stone. For many forces, including gravitational ones, the general version of the two-body problem can be reduced to a pair of one-body problems, allowing it to be solved completely, and giving a solution simple enough to be used effectively.


    the general solution is (see also the orbit equation and two-body problem for an inverse-square force):
    {\displaystyle u(\theta )\equiv {\frac {1}{r(\theta )}}={\frac {\mu }{h^{2}}}(1+e\cos(\theta -\theta _{0}))}u(\theta )\equiv {\frac {1}{r(\theta )}}={\frac {\mu }{h^{{2}}}}(1+e\cos(\theta -\theta _{{0}}))
    for any non-negative {\displaystyle e}e, called the eccentricity; here {\displaystyle \theta }\theta is the true anomaly, which is the angle between the current position of the orbiting object and the location in the orbit at which it is closest to the central body (called the periapsis).

    Hopefully that formula displays… but it doesn’t look that complicated to me.

    UPDATE: Well the cut / paste formula didn’t work and I’m too lazy to look up all the Unicode to translate it, so just hit the link and read it there. -E.M.Smith


    In classical mechanics, the central-force problem is to determine the motion of a particle in a single central potential field. A central force is a force (possibly negative) that points from the particle directly towards a fixed point in space, the center, and whose magnitude only depends on the distance of the object to the center. In many important cases, the problem can be solved analytically, i.e., in terms of well-studied functions such as trigonometric functions.

    The solution of this problem is important to classical mechanics, since many naturally occurring forces are central. Examples include gravity and electromagnetism as described by Newton’s law of universal gravitation
    and Coulomb’s law, respectively. The problem is also important because some more complicated problems in classical physics (such as the two-body problem with forces along the line connecting the two bodies) can be reduced to a central-force problem Finally, the solution to the central-force problem often makes a good initial approximation of the true motion, as in calculating the motion of the planets in the Solar System.

    For those who can not abide Wiki, see here:


    Thus, our problem has effectively been reduced to a one-particle system – mathematically, it is no different than a single particle with position vector r and mass m∗, subject to an external force F. Therefore, conservation of momentum has dramatically simplified our system.

    Which by my reading says we can fairly easily solve a 2 body problem by assuming CoM, and then when observation diverges, argue that the CoM assumption was in error. Which, I think, was the point Simon was making.

    I’d be a little worried that our estimates for things like mass and distance would be dependent on precisely the thing(s?) we were asserting were not true, thus making them suspect…. but I’ll leave that for others to ponder…

  241. Jim Masterson says:


    I’m not sure what you’re saying or arguing about.

    This is from my “Orbital Mechanics” textbook by John E. Prussing and Bruce A. Conway (it was recommended by NASA), page 9:

    “The equations of motion of the system of n bodies, Eq. (1.4), consist of 3n second-order differential equations which are equivalent to 6n first-order differential equations (see Prob. 1.21). Thus 6n integrals are required to solve for the absolute motion of the n-body system. Since only 10 integrals of the motion exist, even the absolute motion of a system of two bodies cannot be determined in closed form.”

    This is equation 1.4:

    \displaystyle {{m}_{i}}\cdot {{\ddot{\vec{R}}}_{i}}={{\vec{F}}_{i}}=G\cdot \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}{\frac{{{m}_{i}}\cdot {{m}_{j}}}{{{r}_{ij}}^{3}}\cdot {{{\vec{r}}}_{ij}}}\quad (j\ne i)\quad (1.4)

    Problem 1.21 is just converting a second-order differential equation to two first-order differential equations.

    To solve for the motion of a body, you must know three positions WRT time, x(t), y(t), and z(t); along with the three velocities WRT time, vx(t), vy(t), and vz(t). With the Solar System, you don’t usually care how the Sun moves WRT the galaxy, and you hold it fixed. Holding one body fixed in a two-body problem is not solving the complete two-body problem.

    The 10 integrals are 6 integrals of the motion of the center of mass, 3 integrals of areas, and the energy integral.

    From page 10:

    “Effects due to other celestial bodies can then be considered to be small perturbations in our two-body model.”


  242. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jim Masterson:

    What I’m saying is pretty simple. I’m doing what you are doing, citing a “source of authority”, that says the 2 body problem is solved via reduction to 2 x 1 body problems.

    You are asserting the N-body problem is not solved (and it isn’t) and then showing an authority saying the N-Body math won’t even solve for 2 bodies.

    I don’t doubt that the N-Body Math is not solved for 2 bodies. However that does not prevent someone from finding another route where they reduce it to 2 x 1 body problems and DO solve it.

    That’s the only interpretation I can see that has both ‘sources of authority’ be valid.

    But we KNOW the 2 body is solved as it is used regularly and with great precision to send spacecraft all over the place and calculate the location of GPS satellites / gear / etc.

    I find Lots and Lots of pages by physics teachers saying it is solved:


    The Basic Approach
    Situations involving two objects are often referred to as two-body situations. When appearing as physics problems, two-body problems are characterized by a set of two unknown quantities. Most commonly (though not always the case), the two unknowns are the acceleration of the two objects and the force transmitted between the two objects. Two body-problems can typically be approached using one of two basic approaches. One approach involves a combination of a system analysis and an individual body analysis. In the system analysis, the two objects are considered to be a single object moving (or accelerating) together as a whole. The mass of the system is the sum of the mass of the two individual objects. If acceleration is involved, the acceleration of the system is the same as that of the individual objects. A system analysis is usually performed to determine the acceleration of the system. The system analysis is combined with an individual object analysis. In the individual object analysis, either one of the two objects is isolated and considered as a separate, independent object. A free-body diagram is constructed and the individual forces acting upon the object are identified and calculated. An individual object analysis is usually performed in order to determine the value of any force which acts between the two objects – for example, contact forces or tension forces.

    The dual combination of a system analysis and an individual object analysis is one of two approaches that are typically used to analyze two-body problems. A second approach involves the use of two separate individual object analyses. In such an approach, free-body diagrams are constructed independently for each object and Newton’s second law is used to relate the individual force values to the mass and acceleration. Each individual object analysis generates an equation with an unknown. The result is a system of two equations with two unknowns. The system of equations is solved in order to determine the unknown values.


    The two-body problem considers two rigid point masses in mutual orbit about each other. To determine the motion of these bodies, first find the vector equations of motion. Given two bodies with masses and , let be the vector from the center of mass to and be the vector from the center of mass to . From the definition of center of mass […]

    And proceeds to a formula that is shown as the solution of the 2 body problem.

    There’s even an assertion of a solution to the three body problem via numerical series.


    This Is the Only Way to Solve the Three-Body Problem
    What is the three body problem and how do you solve it? Really, the only way to solve this problem is with a numerical calculation.

    Two-Body Problem
    Before looking at the three-body problem, let’s start of with something simpler—the two-body problem. Suppose I have two objects (two stars would work) that are both moving and both interacting with each other.

    The goal is to find an expression for the position of both objects (that are interacting gravitationally) for all future times. I’m not going to go through a full derivation, but solving the two-body problem isn’t impossible. Here’s what you do.

    In order to keep track of both stars, you would need six coordinates. There are three coordinates for the location of each star (assuming we don’t care about their rotational orientation).
    We can make this a three-coordinate problem by considering the motion relative to the center of mass of the two-star system. This means the problem can be reduced to two problems. There is the motion of the center of mass (which isn’t too interesting) and then a reduced mass (a combination of the two stars) orbiting the center of mass.
    In the reduced mass system, there is only the gravitational force pulling towards the center of mass. There is no torque on the reduced mass. This means that the angular momentum vector is constant. So, we can pick a plane of motion to coincide with the x-y plane. This means that we only need two coordinates to describe this system (we are getting somewhere).
    When you get to the actual physics (in Lagrangian mechanics) you can create a potential due to the angular motion (we can call this the centrifugal potential). This means that you will have a gravitational plus centrifugal potential and turn it into a 1-D problem (only motion in the r direction).
    Yes, I skipped all the details—but the point is that you can actually solve this problem. Here is a plot for a planet orbiting a star showing the total effective potential in one dimension.
    Three-Body Problem
    But let me at a different three-body problem. Suppose there are two stars orbiting each other (a binary star system) and a planet. What would the motion of the planet be like? Let’s start with a diagram (not to scale).
    I didn’t show all the labels, but now each object has two forces on it. Also, if you want to keep track of all three objects, that is now* nine* coordinates. Maybe you can see that this is a tough problem. In fact, this is problem with a non-analytical solution. You can’t solve this completely like you can for the two-body problem.

    Numerical Solution for the Three-Body Problem
    Although there isn’t an analytical solution to the three-body problem, we can solve it numerically. I won’t go over all the details behind a numerical calculation (see this for a better start), but let me just cover the basics.

    In a numerical calculation, the problem is broken into small time steps. During each step, we can approximate the force as being constant (even though it isn’t). During each one of these times steps, we will do the following.

    Use the position of the objects to calculate the forces on all three objects.
    With the net forces, find the new momentum of each object at the end of the time interval.
    Using the momentum, find the new position of the object at the end of the time interval.
    Update the time and repeat the process until you are happy.
    That’s it. Of course there are some technical issues implementing this strategy for three objects. Let’s start off with just two stars (binary stars) and look at some of the details.

    Etc. etc. ad nausium.

    Now I’ve got dozens of places claiming 2 body is solved and 3 body can be iterative solved, and I’ve got folks going to the moon and back and solving their orbital mechanics, and I’ve got satellites where we can find them exactly at any time. All that says “Yeah, can solve this”.

    On the other side we have your citation that says the N-Body Math doesn’t solve even for N=2 (and I’m OK with that. One method doesn’t solve, you find another method that works.)

    But I’m not a practicing Orbital Mechanic, so I’m stuck with Appeal to Authority, and there seems to be a whole lot of authorities saying “We got this” for the 2 body problem.

    That’s what I’m saying.

    From: “ads.harvard.edu/books/1989fcm..book/Chapter6r.pdf”

    6.2 The Solution of the Classical Two Body Problem

    In principle we have assembled all the tools and concepts needed to solve some very difficult mechanics problems. To illustrate the methods needed to determine planetary motion we will consider the classical two body problem of celestial mechanics. We know immediately that we will have two second order vector differential equations to solve for the motion of both objects. Each of these equations will require six independent constants to specify the complete solution. Therefore we may expect to have to find a total of twelve constants of the motion before we can consider the problem solved.
    […many pages later…]
    Thus we have completely described the motion of an object around the sun to the point where we can locate the object in the sky. In the next chapter we shall consider the inverse problem of determining the orbital elements from observation.

    Just sayin’… there’s folks at Harvard and lot of other name places saying they can solve it.

    Just not by using the N-Body equation with N=2.

  243. Jim Masterson says:


    I know how they solved the two-body problem. I can walk you through it. Then you won’t have to take my word or the word of some Harvard “expert.”


  244. AC Osborn says:

    The True Nolan says: 4 May 2021 at 11:34 pm
    “I saw a UFO just after sunset”

    I have seen 2 UFOs, the first with my Wife, who was my girlfriend at the time about 55 years ago.
    It was a bright light that zig zagged across the sky at very high speed, impossible moves for any aircraft we had.
    The second was seen by myself, my wife, our son and his friend, my brother and his wife (after I rang them) about 40 years ago.
    It was a huge triangle with sequentually flashing lights on the corners and absolutely silent.
    When I say huge, at least 100 times the size of a Vulcan bomber, although it was difficult to estimate it’s height, so it could have been bigger.
    There were sighting of this “triangle” over many parts of the UK and Europe at this period of time and no logical explanation.

  245. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – “I must admit a small twinge of “isn’t that just an assumption?” when the claim is made that a wave needs a medium.”

    To enable a wave motion, we need an analogue of force proportional to an analogue of displacement, and we also need an equivalent of inertia to store the equivalent of energy, and so far I haven’t been able to figure out a model that will run in totally empty space. One of the difficulties may be a lack of something macroscopic that we can see and thus have a word for. One of the reasons for talking about this stuff here is that maybe someone else can provide that new insight that’s needed to go further here. Though our model of waves in a field works very well at describing what happens, it assumes that the field can support those waves without any “stuff” to limit the rate at which the energy gets transferred from one form (say electric wave) to another (say magnetic wave). The permittivity and permeability of free space are taken as being simply there, with no underlying structure to say why they are there.

    In the same way, other quantum fields also support waves, again without an explanation how they do so. If there’s *something* there, then logically it should have an effect on the perceived velocity of a wave in it, but if the wave is self-contained as you suggest with electric and magnetic stresses interchanging then there seems to be nothing limiting the rate of that interchange.

    The simplest way to avoid this problem is to simply say that the ability to support a wave is a property of fields, and to not dig any deeper. That’s OK, providing it is acknowledged that the question of what lies beneath is being ducked. However, by defining things this way we are also assigning analogues of inertia and springiness into those fields, so if we find that by using this definition we can “explain” inertia (which is actually a tricky problem that in standard physics is solved by the Higgs field), it shouldn’t be surprising because we’ve already inserted an analogue of inertia into our model ab initio.

    Arend has figured out maths to describe the underlying structure using density and viscosity, with a certain density of space, and using the equations of hydrodynamics to describe what happens. However, those equations assume inertia to exist, so a force produces a certain rate of momentum change, and we’re back to the recursion problem where, in order to describe how inertia is produced, we slide in the inertia property at a deeper level as a hidden assumption.

    Could be I’ve not explained the problem I see well-enough for others to understand why I’m obsessing about it. It could also be true that it’s insoluble anyway and we’ll have to settle for the deepest level being “fields support waves”. However, experimental evidence seems to be that some waves are limited to c and there are also some that travel very much faster, so there may well be multiple overlapping fields (each with different wave-velocities) co-existing in the same space. I’m thinking that understanding what these fields are, even if we can’t get to the underlying structure yet, may explain things like entanglement and enable us to do things that seem currently impossible.

    Jim M – “Somebody?”
    Yep, there are people who spend their time working on cosmology, and figuring out theories on how the universe is constructed. I figure that if they came up with the idea of Dark Matter then it was because they couldn’t find another way to reconcile the theory (that is, GR) with the experimental measurements. I should note here that the triumph of GR was to produce the appearance that gravitational attraction propagates at infinite velocity while using an actual propagation speed limited to light-speed. It thus predicts the same attractive force that Newton does, except that Newton assumes infinite velocity of propagation for the forces. Provided you’re not in the relativistic velocity region, they give the same answers.

    For wide binary stars, again I’d expect that the people calculating the (presumably) pure gravitational attraction between them did the calculations well. What they found was that the acceleration due to gravity is asymptotic to around 1.4 to 2e-10m/s², depending on how far back in time you’re looking. That’s a pretty odd result, and again I’d presume that, since it doesn’t fit with theory, they would have re-done the calculations a few times and checked the measurements carefully. There are a fair number of groups getting those measurements, and they get similarly-odd results. One person or group could have made a cock-up, but when many such groups agree the likelihood goes down though of course there could be a currently-unknown systematic error that everyone suffers from.

    “Gravitational lensing is a hit-or-miss affair.”
    Yep, but happens enough that it is possible to calculate the mass of the galaxy when it is seen. When the James Webb telescope goes up, that sees far enough into the IR range and is a lot larger than Hubble, we’ll be able to see further back in time and see even more galaxies, especially if something similar to the Hubble Deep Field photos are made (look at an area that seems free of galaxies on a normal exposure, and extend the exposure time to weeks to pick up more photons).

    “You mean like QED where they have to normalize (or should I say renormalization) the infinities out to make it work?”

    I figure any calculation that produces infinities is probably based on some wrong descriptions of reality. I think it’s highly unlikely that particles are actually geometric points, but it’s often used as an approximation. Then again, without approximations the computational load could be too large to practically perform. Pragmatically, when you remove the infinities (renormalise) the rest of the calculation produces an answer that matches reality, though there may be cases where this isn’t true and you get the wrong answer. However, as you may have realised, I’m not adequately proficient in that level of maths.

    I figure that a fundamental principle is that any particles, waves, or possible other entities can only respond to the conditions (such as forces or environment) that they experience here and now. Their current trajectory/condition may be a result of the previous conditions, but they will not be affected by stuff that will happen in future. There is no such thing as a tachyon that carries information from the future back to the past. I also figure that causality is an absolute rule, so an event cannot happen before its cause. Thus the path of a particle may have a complex mathematical description, but is in essence the result of (possibly a very large number of) simple operations. It appears in any case that the actual extent of a particle, rather than being a point, extends a very long distance from where we normally measure it to be, and overlaps other particles over almost-all of its extent.

    Where I started was that GR was a good description of the way the universe works, and that energy and momentum are absolutely conserved, and that thermodynamics laws are absolute. However, having come up against experimental data that goes against those laws that I was taught, there’s a choice of ignoring them as being impossible (so the experiments are bad measurements) or to look again at the underlying assumptions that gave rise to those laws. Look at the derivations and see if there’s something been missed in the logic. I looked at the derivations, and found bits that were missed, and so far no-one has shown a logic error in my derivations but have instead said that the conclusion is against theory so must be wrong.

    At this moment in time, the predictions of Mike McCulloch’s QI theory are being (gradually) experimentally tested, and early results look promising that a non-reactive force can be produced at a sufficient level to be practically useful (around 100N/kW so far). This is a pretty large violation of CoM. That’s a couple of orders of magnitude over Richard Banduric’s results that exploit a minor term in Maxwell’s equations. See https://electricspacecraft.org/index.html# if you’re interested. Still, I’m satisfied that Richard measured the forces well, though I’m not certain that the force isn’t reacting against the local environmental masses. It needs to be tested out in space to be certain. That problem also applies to the other proposed space drives (including Mike’s experiments). We can’t know for certain they’ll work in space until they’ve been tested there. It’s too easy to miss some unexpected systematic error. Still, even a non-reactive force that only works on Earth (but not in space) would also be very useful.

  246. E.M.Smith says:


    My muse was about having an oscillation between magnetic and electrical. You end up with a “wave” of each, but no longer need “springiness” or “inertia” analogs as each (E & M) is that to the other.

    Like a pendulum swinging, it does not need a medium as it IS the medium.

    @Jim Masterson:

    Perhaps you can reconcile these two for me then:


    Jim Masterson says:
    21 April 2021 at 3:51 pm (Edit)
    I learned to calculate orbits in this life. It’s interesting that it’s not possible to solve the general two-body problem–there aren’t enough integrals. For each body you need three integrals for position (x, y, z) and three integrals for velocity (vx, vy, vz). For every body, there are 6 unknowns that need to be solved or 6*n in general, that is, for two bodies there are 6*2 = 12 unknowns. Unfortunately, there are only 10 integrals available. But the two-body has been solved! Well, not exactly. We treat one body (say the Sun) as stationary, and that reduces the problem by 3 unknowns.


    I know how they solved the two-body problem. I can walk you through it.

    On the one hand you say it isn’t possible to solve it, then on the other you say it is solved (not exactly…), then on the other other you say you know it is solved.

    Either it is solved, or it is not. I took your assertion of “not solved” and “not enough integrals” at face value as your position. You used it to claim at Simon that we can’t solve two wide binary starts.

    So is that your position, “Not Solved”, or not? If in fact your position is “Solved, sure, but I don’t like the method” then please explain what about that solution doesn’t work for Simon’s 2 binary stars.

    (FWIW, I had no problem “walking through” the solutions shown by others. My point was not that I can or can’t “walk through” them, but rather that I can’t prove or disprove their superior validity to your assertion about 12 unknowns and 10 integrals. It is the PROOF that I leave as an appeal to authority.)

    Is the quibble hiding in this:

    Bold and italics by me for indication of point of interest.

    I guess you haven’t studied orbital mechanics (or celestial mechanics). The n body problem requires the solution of 6 first order differential equations per body (or 3 second order differential equations per body–you can always convert an nth order differential equation to n first order differential equations). There are 2*6 or 12 differential equations for the two body problem, but there are only 10 integrals available. The two-body problem can’t be solved exactly. Plus, the usual solution of a two-body problem loses the position information. The position information is provided by Kepler’s Equation. Kepler’s Equation is a transcendental equation which has no exact solutions. You can only solve it by iterative methods (such as Newton’s method–it’s why he invented it). The basic two-body solutions assume one mass is large and basically non-moving compared to the other: Sun vs. planets, or Earth vs. artificial satellites. They don’t work well when both bodies have similar masses–like binary star systems.

    What I saw (perhaps I misunderstood it) didn’t seem to think same sized masses was a problem or that the answer “lost position information” (given that it was used to fix position in the sky for an observer).

    Thus my pointing at the references.

    Your assertion seems to me to reduce to: “Can’t solve 2 body problem for different sized masses” while all the references I find seems to me say “We solve the 2 body problem. Period.”

    So which is it? Solved? Not Solved? Not really solved but a bunch of people who do it for a living lie about their shortcuts failing?

  247. The True Nolan says:

    @AC Osborn: “It was a huge triangle with sequentually flashing lights on the corners and absolutely silent. When I say huge, at least 100 times the size of a Vulcan bomber, although it was difficult to estimate it’s height, so it could have been bigger. There were sighting of this “triangle” over many parts of the UK and Europe at this period of time and no logical explanation.”

    Wow! Yes, the BIG triangle! Lots of reports on that, and the European reports (especially in Belgium) had literally thousands of people who witnessed it. My memory is that it passed over a major highway during heavy traffic hours. The vee shaped what-ever I saw was NOT a complete triangle but what you describe has even been (admittedly poorly) photographed several times. One theory is that what you saw is a lighter than air craft with an internal phased array radar built into the structure. That at least would be a plausible explanation for any slow moving sightings — but not so much for any fast passages. Wish I could have been there to see it! The thingum I saw may be big — or not. I could not tell how high it was, so the actual size and speed is a guess. My impression is that it was relatively low (1000 feet? 2000 feet?) but that is just a guess.

    Over the years I have met several people who reported seeing the classic silver disc shaped “flying saucer”, and who seemed to be sober, honest observers. That does not, of course, prove that they really saw what they subjectively experienced, but it does go into the file labeled “what on earth am I supposed to conclude from this information?”

  248. Jim Masterson says:


    I don’t know how to be more clear. The two-body problem requires 12 integrals. There are only 10 integrals available–period. Holding one body fixed reduces the problem to one-body. In that case you only need 6 integrals. Unfortunately, two of the vectors are always at right angles to each other–their dot product is always zero, amd you lose one integral. You also lose the timing location of the one-body–the one-body problem is not completely specified. The timing solution is provided by Kepler’s Equation. There is no closed form solution of the two-body problem.


  249. Jim Masterson says:

    The solution to the so-called two-body problem is:

    \displaystyle r=\frac{{{h}^{2}}/\mu }{1+e\cdot \cos f}

    where \displaystyle \mu =G\cdot ({{m}_{1}}+{{m}_{2}}), is the gravitational constant of the two-body system. Usually, \displaystyle {{m}_{1}}>>{{m}_{2}}, and the smaller mass is ignored. h is the specific angular momentum, and \displaystyle f is called the true anomaly. This equation defines a conic section: circle, ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola in polar coordinates

    This is the equation of an ellipse:

    \displaystyle r=\frac{a\cdot (1-{{e}^{2}})}{1+e\cdot \cos f}

    where a is the semi-major axis and e is the eccentricity. We know the “orbit” shape, but where is the body? Also notice that one body isn’t in motion–it’s fixed.


  250. E.M.Smith says:

    @Jim Masterson:

    You have re-stated ONE of your TWO positions. The “It is not solved” position. While nice, that doesn’t resolve your other position that the two body problem is solved… (With a potential quibble that you seem to toss in “closed form” when asserting not solved perhaps to allow that to be true while equally true is that it is solved by other means…)

    These folks, by my reading of it, do a fine job of solving the two body problem, including using Kepler’s Equation:

    (The link looks to have dots in it and sometimes ends up not working in wordpress)

    Click to access Chapter6r.pdf

    Unfortunately it is a 22 page pdf so hard to quote all of it… Here’s the bit around Kepler (and pasting pdf equations seems to screw them up to – it’s at page 12 physical 82 labeled:

    This expression is known as Kepler’s equation since it specifically utilizes Kepler’s second law to relate the mean anomaly to the eccentric anomaly. We may use equation (6.2.20) and the equation for an ellipse [equation (6.2.14)] to relate the eccentric anomaly to the true anomaly. By equating the value of r given by each of these equations, we get

    a(1-e )^2 / ( 1 + ecos v) = a[1 – ecos(E)]

    . (6.2.26)
    which after some trigonometry becomes:

    tan(v / 2) = ((1+e)/(1-e))^0.5 tan(E / 2)
    . (6.2.27)
    Equation (6.2.27) and Kepler’s equation [equation (6.2.25)] , therefore, relate the time since perihelion passage to the true anomaly or angular position of the real object in its elliptic orbit. The conservation of angular momentum leads to similar results for hyperbolic and parabolic orbits.

    skipping down to page 14:

    c. The Solution of Kepler’s Equation
    Equations of the form of equation (6.2.25) are known as transcendental equations and, in general do not have closed form solutions. Thus, in order to solve the problem of orbital motion, we will be forced to a numerical solution of Kepler’s equation. Much has been written on effective and general numerical procedures for such a solution and we will not go into all of those details here. Rather we shall adapt a common numerical procedure known as Newton-Raphson iteration. Assume that we have an equation of the form
    f(x) = 0 , (6.2.34)
    and we wish to find that value of x for which the equation is satisfied. A procedure for accomplishing this is to guess an initial value x(0) and use the following expression to improve it.
    One of the problems with the Newton-Raphson scheme is that it doesn’t always converge. This is the case with equations (6.2.37). There are values of the eccentricity and mean anomaly for which this iteration scheme will not yield an answer. However, this occurs only for a small range of M near perihelion and very large eccentricities (see Chapter 6 exercises). It will always work for objects in elliptical orbits in the solar system except for some long period comets and these orbits may be handled in another manner. Thus, for simplicity, we will leave the discussion of the solution of Kepler’s equation with the Newton-Raphson iteration scheme. Those who wish more details on the subject should consult Green6.

    Where they seem to be quite dismissive of the “small range of M” and great eccentricities where you can’t solve. Even saying highly eccentric orbits can be handled in another manner.

    My overall impression is that your (main?) position of “not solvable” rests on stopping at the first trouble, (or asserting “closed form” and wanting to stand in the small range where it does not converge) while there ARE solutions for most all of the problem space if pressed further (where you seem to stand when I point at your assertion of “not solved”… )

    Their next “trick” looks to be fixing a coordinate frame to remove a couple of variables. Is this what you object to about a binary star system? If so, why can’t the barycenter and their co-orbital plane be used in the same way?

    6.3 The Orientation of the Orbit and the Orbital Elements

    The solution to the two body problem consists in describing the motion of both bodies in an arbitrary coordinate frame. Since the two bodies are described by two vector differential equations of second order, there will be twelve constants required for that description. Six of those twelve are required to describe the motion of the center of mass of the system. Three more are required to locate one object in its orbit relative to the other. The remaining three are required to specify the orientation of the orbit with respect to the arbitrary coordinate frame. If we assume that the coordinate frame is a spherical coordinate frame, then we can use the Euler angles as defined in Chapter 2 to define the orbital orientation in that frame. The coordinate frame will have a fundamental plane and a direction within that plane that defines how azimuthal angles will be measured. For most astronomical coordinate systems of relevance to celestial mechanics, that direction is toward the first point of Aries (i.e. the vernal equinox) and the fundamental plane will be either the ecliptic or the equator of the earth (see Chapter 2).
    Figure 6.2 shows the orbit of an object located in the reference coordinate frame and it bears a marked similarity to the last of Figures 2.2. In Figure 2.2 φ described the distance from the preferred direction to the line of intersection of the two planes known as the line of nodes. In celestial mechanics, this is known as the longitude of the ascending node where the notion of “ascending” refers to that node where the motion of the object carries it toward positive Z. In the solar system, this means that the object would be moving from south to north in the sky. We will use Ω to denote this angle. The second of the Euler angles in Figure 2.2 is θ and measures the angle by which one plane is inclined to the other. In celestial mechanics this is known as the angle of inclination and is usually denoted by i. The last of the Euler angles in Figure 2.2 is ψ and is used to denote a particular point in the inclined plane. For orbital mechanics the most logical point in the orbit is the pericenter. Its location is then designated by the angle o called the argument of the pericenter. Thus the three defining angles of the orbit are:

    Ω ≡ The Longitude of the Ascending Node
    i The Inclination of the Orbit measured from ν = 0 -> 180
    o 0 The Argument of the Pericenter (measured from the ascending node in the direction of motion with a range 0 -> 180 )
    . (6.3.1)

    Sometimes the argument of the pericenter is replaced by the strange angular sum (o + Ω) which is called the longitude of the pericenter and is denoted by
    ϖ = Ω + o ≡ The Longitude of the Pericenter
    . (6.3.2)
    Thus we have defined the three remaining constants required by the equations of motion specifying the orientation of the orbital plane. In the solar system, the center of attraction is usually the sun and so the pericenter becomes perihelion and the fundamental plane is usually the ecliptic.
    [image omitted]
    We have repeatedly said that there are twelve constants required to uniquely specify the motion of one object about another, but that six of them are concerned with the motion of the center of mass of the pair. Since this motion is uniform, these six constants are usually ignored when discussing the orbit of the object. The remaining six constants constitute the elements of the orbit and can be broken into two sets of three. The three that define the orientation of the orbit as defined above are taken directly as orbital elements. However, the remaining three that specify the size and shape of the orbit as well as the object’s location in it at some time can be specified in various ways. We found in Chapter 4 that the angular momentum and total energy are integrals of the motion and will determine the size and shape of the orbit. However, they are not directly observable quantities so that a different set of constants more directly related to the geometry of the orbit is usually chosen to represent the orbit. These are the semi-major axis and the eccentricity. Finally to represent the position of the object within its orbit we specify the time when the object is at pericenter, or for the solar system, the time of perihelion passage T0. Now in developing the equations describing the motion of the object in its orbit, we took the time of perihelion passage to be zero. Thus (t) in equation (6.2.21) and equation (6.2.22) should be replaced by
    t = t − T0
    . (6.3.3)
    The six constants specifying the motion of the object are known as the elements of the orbit of the object and are:
    a ≡ The Semi-major axis of the orbit
    e ≡ The Orbital Eccentricity
    T0 ≡The Time of Perihelion Passage
    o ≡ The Argument of Perihelion
    Ω ≡ The Longitude of the Ascending Node
    i ≡The Inclination of the Orbit
    . (6.3.4)
    While we have now located the object in its orbit, we have yet to find it in the sky.

    So it looks to me like they are clearly saying they have located the object in time and space (the next section locates it in the sky from the POV of a ground observer).

    So on the one hand I have you saying “CAN NOT BE DONE” (except when you say it can…) and here I have a chapter / class saying “Here’s how we do it”.

    Overall, it looks to me like you just stop at the first hurdle and don’t reach the finish line.

    Yes, it is hard. Yes, there are a few conditions under which it does not solve. But there seem to be way way more than enough conditions under which you can fairly easily solve the 2 body problem, for 2 similar mass objects. Then if that is so, your objection to Simon’s claim of ~”observations of 2 wide orbit stars in a binary is a valid test” must evaporate.

    In a nutshell, that’s ALL I’m asserting. Wide Binary 2 body problem CAN be solved (see several references asserting the same, plus your “occasional” assertion it is solved and desire to instruct me in it’s solution) vs your claim that a Wide Binary CAN NOT be solved so Simon’s claim is bunk.

    I assert Simon is correct. I’m asking you to “Pick ONE” -solved (and Simon is correct) or NOT solved (and your assertion Simon is wrong would be correct).

    Or show me where is not what your quoted material means.

  251. Jim Masterson says:


    I give up. Two-bodies means two-bodies. If you hold one body fixed, you’re not solving the two-body problem. How can I be any more explicit? There is no closed form solution of the two-body problem. Take two stars with nearly equal mass. Now try to solve it. Simon was talking about closed form solutions. There is none. It’s solved iteratively. Kepler’s Equation is solved iteratively.


  252. E.M.Smith says:

    I’ve cleaned up the pdf paste artifacts a bit. Hopefully I got it all.

    @Jim Masterson:

    Ok, I think I’m seeing your position a little better. Still seems a bit “off” to me. I’ll try to paraphrase:

    1) There is not a closed form solution to the 2 body problem, so it is not solved nor solvable.
    2) There is an iterative solution to the 2 body problem, so it IS solved and solvable.
    3) Using any technique other than Closed Form (such has reducing a problem to two single body problems and solving), even though it gives the right answer, isn’t solving, just giving the answer.
    4) You don’t like iterative solutions.

    #4: FWIW, I’ve used iterative solutions in all sorts of things. Works great most of the time. To some extent, calculus is just iteration as steps approach infinity, conceptually. So I don’t see at all why you don’t like iteration. Make a LOT more sense than imaginary numbers and folks just love them in physics.

    #3: I can see as a purisim argument. Yeah, if I read the Koran in English I’m “not reading the Koran” as it is ONLY in Arabic… but I still know what it said.

    #2: See my #4.

    #1: See my #3.

    So my interpretation of that, in the context of your claiming Simon is asking for an impossible proof using wide binaries, is that if Simon instead said “Let’s solve wide binaries iteratively as 2 single body problems” then it would be fine as that “solves for 2 bodies” while not “solving the closed form 2 body problem”.

    That’s the only way I can see to reconcile your 2 statements that it is solved (and you will “walk me through it”) and that is isn’t solved (shortage of integrals).

    @Simon: You want to add anything?

  253. Simon Derricutt says:

    EM – this is observational data with fairly large error-bars. I’d expect them to be using an iterative approach up to the point where the steps are enough less than the known errors to be not worth continuing. They do not need to work out the full orbits, after all, just find what the acceleration due to gravity is at the point of observation. Maybe nice to get a full solution, but not critical.

    For a multi-body solution, I expect people use a numeric solver with small time-steps. It’s what I’d do, since at any point in time the vector sum of the gravitational force can be found, and a short straight-line will not deviate that much. I might have a “tidy up” subroutine that replaces that straight line with one of the calculated curvature, to reduce the error further. The end result should be close enough providing enough bits are used to represent the numbers.

    Such numeric solutions have errors, but in general we can bound those errors by comparing successive solutions using smaller timesteps, and once the known deviation is enough smaller than the observational errors it’s good enough.

    I don’t do these sorts of calculations by hand – I cheat and use a program. I also use spice rather than calculating circuits longhand. The device variations are normally greater than the simulation error.

    Thus we can get practical solutions for a system with 8 or 9 co-orbiting bodies, otherwise NASA would have had problems with their slingshot manoeuvres with the Voyager crafts. Not much spare fuel for course corrections if they got it wrong there.

    Generally, I expect the astronomers to do a good job and to only publish when they’ve re-checked calculations. Saves a red face. It’s also not like they are being rushed to publish, and they can mostly take as much time as they need. The sky will still be there.

  254. Jim Masterson says:


    This is the comment I was objecting to:

    “Simon Derricutt says:
    5 May 2021 at 10:21 am

    The deviation from Newton/GR is not exactly small. It is however a multi-body problem, so the calculations are iterative and not exact. Better to find a two-body example, where (though there will be other stars at a greater distance, so you need to approximate that they have a minimal effect) an exact solution is possible.”

    There is no exact solution for the two-body problem.

    “4) You don’t like iterative solutions.”

    Nonsense, but they are not exact solutions; they are not closed form solutions; etc., etc., etc.


  255. Jim Masterson says:


    “That’s the only way I can see to reconcile your 2 statements that it is solved (and you will “walk me through it”) and that is isn’t solved (shortage of integrals).”

    I can also walk you through the calculation of the 33 degree global warming used by so-called climatologists. That doesn’t mean I agree it’s something that it’s not.


  256. Jim Masterson says:


    “Make a LOT more sense than imaginary numbers and folks just love them in physics.”

    Complex numbers are used in EE all the time–AC signals contain both a real part and an imaginary part. The i, j, k unit vectors used in vector analysis throughout physics, engineering, and math come from Hamilton’s Quaternions. They are the three imaginary terms in a Quaternion.


  257. Simon Derricutt says:

    ACO – you’d think that such stuff in the mainstream news might get a bit more publicity, and more people would be talking about it. Apart from a few crackpots, basically crickets.

    Still, caused me to spend a while going back over this thread and exploring your link a bit further. See also https://21sci-tech.com/edit.html and what it says about homopolar motors and generators. There’s an interesting break of symmetry here – if you move the wire in a magnetic field, you get a current in the wire, but if you instead move the magnet (in a homopolar generator configuration) you don’t. The magnetic field produced by the magnet seems to be fixed in space, and rotating the magnet doesn’t change the magnetic field. You can’t get a non-reactive force by adding a solenoid around a magnet and applying current to the solenoid (I tried this to see if it would) because the magnet would then move in space, but you can get an angular torque from the magnetic field whether or not the magnet also rotates when the conductor does. (Why try it, if I thought it wouldn’t work? It’s an easy test and didn’t take long to set up – just wind a coil around a magnet and hang it on the wires, and see if it moved when powered. Less than an hour to test, and a large payoff if it unexpectedly produced thrust.)

    I need to play around with homopolar motors a bit more. The specific point here is that they generally run with a radial current and an axial magnetic field. It should thus be possible to put two of them back-to-back such that current flows from the centre to the outside on the first one and from the outside to the centre on the second one (get the magnetic fields correct so that we get the same direction of angular torque in each section for the opposite current direction) and eliminate the need for a brush on the periphery. We’d then have a construction where the current is fed in on the axis at one end and comes out on the axis on the other end, and the assembly rotates when current is fed through it. Yep, I tried one and it didn’t work, but I may have got the magnetic field wrong (or a short in the conductor to the frame) – I need to get back to that and test with a peripheral brush and powering each half separately to check that each half rotates in the same direction when powered with the right polarity. The interesting point about this (if it works) is that it violates conservation of angular momentum (by a bigly amount…). It shouldn’t really work at all. If it does work, though (and I think it should), then that could give us very cheap motors and generators, since we need no air-gap in the magnetic field (to allow movement of the rotor) and instead only a thin insulator such as Kapton tape clamped tight. With no leakage of a varying magnetic field (and no variation of magnetic field at all – it’s constant), efficiency is at a maximum, and we only have resistance losses, while the brushes have a low linear speed (on the axles centre) so very little frictional loss, sparking, or wear. It’s a non-reactive angular momentum generator – there’s a rotor, but no stator to react against.

    If it does in fact work that way, it’s an indication that fields are a property of space, and not of the objects that generate the fields, and are relative to space rather than those objects. That also has implications for the non-reactive drive designs, especially when we’re using microwave frequencies.

    Up until around the 1980s, ball-lightning was regarded as mythical by mainstream physics. Since then there’s been a bit more acceptance that it’s real and does some pretty strange things, and ways of producing it to order have been shown. Easiest one is a good hefty spark on some salt water. Somewhere I’ve got some links to experiments at the Max Planck Institute on that. The structure seems to be somewhat similar to a smoke-ring where the electron movements cause a magnetic field that keep the electrons confined to a spheroid, much the same as a Z-pinch but in 3 dimensions. The electrons produce their own containment. Interestingly, such balls should not only be visible in air (because of the plasma lighting up with the same colours as the Aurora) but will also produce a radar image. It’s possible that some of the spherical UFOs seen are actually natural phenomena and nothing to do with aliens or the military.

  258. E.M.Smith says:

    @A.C.Osborn & Simon:

    Ah, but that just begs the question:

    “Is saying UFOs are real but mysterious just maintaining the “cover” for a covert tech program?”

    Basically: are they lying?

    Were I an Alien Anthropologist I’d want to be doing my studies on the occupants of cities, perhaps using a static “blind” for observations. Then for military activities, I’d want to observe them in action, so would hang out near active war zones.

    But why hang out at the training area? Is there not enough active war to observe?

    Only reason I can think of is that it is safe. No live ammo. Now that could be useful to an Alien doing a study, but implies they are not as capable of avoiding munitions as they clearly are. Which leaves me thinking the most likely explanation is that it is Our Tech and the UFO affirmation is a cover story. Not proven, just more likely.

  259. The True Nolan says:

    @SD: Tesla patented a design which used two homopolar generators with the rims connected by a common rotating metal strap. Put brushes on the two shafts and no need for a collector on the rim. Patent 406,968, filed in 1889.

    Tesla also claimed to have created ball lightning in his lab at Colorado Springs, but I do not know whether his method was ever documented. On that subject, there is a naturally occurring ball lighting often seen at Brown Mountain in North Carolina. http://brownmountainlights.com/
    Researcher Joshua Warren says he has found a correlation with several factors:

    A similar ball lightning phenomena is also reported from a valley in Norway.

  260. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jason – thanks, I’ll look up that patent. Looks like I won’t be able to patent this idea – lucky since I mentioned it here before trying so it wouldn’t have been patentable anyway. Still, looks like it should actually work. Note that you can get higher voltages out (or use higher voltage in if a motor) by mounting multiple such sections on a shaft.
    It sounds like the Brown Mountain lights are similar to ball lightning, given the data at http://shadowboxent.brinkster.net/brownplasma.html . However, not the same thing as when lightning strikes salt water or wet ground, which seems to make a somewhat fizzing sound, and when they “pop” it’s with a bang.

    EM – “Basically: are they lying?”
    Yep, that looks like the most probable explanation. Could also explain why the Russians shot at theirs (though they might shoot at anything they didn’t expect to see since fast-moving lead gives a lot of things a bad day). That brings me back to the question of why, if they have a working non-reactive drive and the ability that delivers to produce free energy, we haven’t seen any other hints around that the military are no longer limited by needing fuel. Could be that they don’t realise that, of course, since that does violate some very fundamental theory, or maybe it takes too much power to run it that they haven’t reached the break-even rate. Question really is whether the physicists exploring the non-reactive drive ideas are sufficiently flexible to realise that such things blow great big holes in standard theory. In order to put the effort into building something and testing it, you first need to think it’s possible.

    I’d think those tic-tacs and “pyramids” would need a non-reactive drive, since there’s only the air to react against otherwise and the jet of air they’d otherwise need would be audible. Probably hot, too, so you’d see some flame. There’s a possibility of using fast-moving waves on the surface of the machine to produce a partial plasma in the air and then induce that to move with the surface wave movement and get reactive lift, but the machines are the wrong shape to utilise that – you’d need some vertical sections with a sharp bottom edge. For that method I’d expect a core section (power supply) mounted inside a tube (the “wings”).

  261. The True Nolan says:

    @SD: Just a small bit of homopolar speculation here.

    Some time back in the late 90s I hear a vague rumor that the US was looking for an electrical generator that would fit on a flatbed truck and produce a relatively low voltage DC (20 or 30 volts) at some MASSIVE amperage. My first thought was “sounds like a job for a homopolar generator!” (In fact an HG will put out enough amperage that a single copper pipe will have enough magnetic field to hold a wrench stuck to it.) Anyway, fast forward to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A very odd report came out of Bagdad from a man who was the Second Violinist for the Bagdad Symphony Orchestra. he claimed to have seen a US weapon which looked like an Army Tank, but wasn’t. It came down a street and while about 30 feet from an automobile, shot out a bolt of electricity and literally, over the course of maybe 30 seconds, melted the car into partial slag and carbonized the people inside.

    Here’s my speculation: Imagine a tank that carries one or more VERY powerful homopolar generators. Ground the generators through the tank treads and use either a wire, a stream of liquid, or a high intensity UV laser to establish a conductive path to your target. Dump a few hundred thousand watts of DC current into the target. Basically you have a gigantic traveling arc welder which can be aimed where desired. If you designed your HG right, you could even use a small motor to spin it up and store the energy in the inertia of the rotating components. Anyway, that is just some speculation.

    And on a larger scale, while you can’t spin the field and hold the conducting disk stationary in a HG, you CAN spin both the magnet AND the disk at the same time and get a current. Is the Earth (or Sun, or Galaxy) a homopolar generator? The Earth is a rotating conductive body in a magnetic field aligned roughly with the spin axis. Does that cause a current flow from the equator to the poles?

  262. E.M.Smith says:


    Also consider the Birkeland Currents landing on the poles. Do they make the Earth a Homopolar motor? Is that why the length of day changes with solar output level?…


    It has been used for generating very high currents at low voltages in applications such as welding, electrolysis and railgun research. In pulsed energy applications, the angular momentum of the rotor is used to accumulate energy over a long period and then release it in a short time.
    Astrophysical unipolar inductors

    Unipolar inductors occur in astrophysics where a conductor rotates through a magnetic field, for example, the movement of the highly conductive plasma in a cosmic body’s ionosphere through its magnetic field. In their book, Cosmical Electrodynamics, Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar write:

    “Since cosmical clouds of ionized gas are generally magnetized, their motion produces induced electric fields [..] For example the motion of the magnetized interplanetary plasma produces electric fields that are essential for the production of aurora and magnetic storms” [..]
    “.. the rotation of a conductor in a magnetic field produces an electric field in the system at rest. This phenomenon is well known from laboratory experiments and is usually called ‘homopolar ‘ or ‘unipolar’ induction.
    Unipolar inductors have been associated with the aurorae on Uranus, binary stars, black holes, galaxies, the Jupiter Io system, the Moon, the Solar Wind,sunspots, and in the Venusian magnetic tail.
    Homopolar generators underwent a renaissance in the 1950s as a source of pulsed power storage. These devices used heavy disks as a form of flywheel to store mechanical energy that could be quickly dumped into an experimental apparatus. An early example of this sort of device was built by Sir Mark Oliphant at the Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, Australian National University. It stored up to 500 megajoules of energy and was used as an extremely high-current source for synchrotron experimentation from 1962 until it was disassembled in 1986. Oliphant’s construction was capable of supplying currents of up to 2 megaamperes (MA).

    Sounds like an Australian ;-)

    Similar devices of even larger size are designed and built by Parker Kinetic Designs (formerly OIME Research & Development) of Austin. They have produced devices for a variety of roles, from powering railguns to linear motors (for space launches) to a variety of weapons designs. Industrial designs of 10 MJ were introduced for a variety of roles, including electrical welding.

    Of course it would be a Texan ;-)

    “I’m gonna get me a Big Ass Ol’ Gun and show y’all what a Texas Gun looks like!”…

  263. E.M.Smith says:

    Military folks love to hang onto ANY technical advantage that they are pretty sure the other side does not have. So about all that easy big energy generation for cheap:


    You are quietly building a modest fleet of such generators, and some “secret weapons” that use them. This takes a couple of years. So if you can ‘get it done’ you now have a massive advantage over your potential opponents. “You go to war with the army you have”. And yours no longer has an oil logistical tail, while theirs does. Knock out their oil, they are done.

    AFTER the tech is seen in battle, your advantage will evaporate in several years (depending on how hard, how secret, and how well you bafflegab the world.)

    How long would you, as Military Commander, want to sit on that advantage? My guess is “until the other potential opponents in the world have figured it out too.” The history of military releases of secret tech has tended to follow that arc too, as a bit of semi-confirmation… We heard of Russian Hypersonic Missiles and essentially overnight Trump was taking about OUR Hypersonic missiles…

    We didn’t invent and develop those that fast.

  264. The True Nolan says:

    @EM: ““I’m gonna get me a Big Ass Ol’ Gun and show y’all what a Texas Gun looks like!”…”

    Never forget that Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” was about a shot from the Baltimore Gun Club. You Texans might have a way to go to catch up! (by the way, want’a buy a neat book?)

    That wiki stuff on HGs is eye-opening! Not real surprised at the cosmic implications; those are just reasonable ideas — But surprised at the hardware mentioned. Two million amps?! Wow! That makes me think that IF (big IF) the military really want big amps they probably already have ten million amp machines we don’t know about.

  265. Simon Derricutt says:

    Jason – the obvious conduit they’d use for the current in that “mobile welder” would have been a UV laser, to ionise the air and where once the current was flowing it would no longer be needed. It’s not as if they’d be worried about someone on the far end getting sunburn or eye-damage from the laser. Getting a few hundred kW of power just needs a motor with a few more hundred horsepower spinning it, with maybe a bit of flywheel effect to absorb the starting transient. Still, something else that was worth knowing. For interest, my method of coupling two homopolar generators doesn’t use a conductive band around two of them on separate axles, so it might have been patentable if I hadn’t mentioned it here…. Oh well.

    I hadn’t thought of the Earth as a homopolar generator, but of course it will be and there will be a voltage difference between the poles and equator. If there’s a path that a current can flow, then it will flow, but this really means that you not only need some sort of connection at the poles but also at the equator. Might thus be some sort of circulating current “doughnuts” somewhat to the North and South, depending on how fast the ionosphere rotates and how that varies with height.

    Yep, being able to get from here to there a whole lot quicker than anyone thinks you can is a pretty big military advantage they’d want to hang on to. If it’s highly-manoeuvrable too, so that it can jink faster than any missiles sent at it, that’s another big advantage. If so, why publish any video at all? Of course, if you can blame it on the aliens, and say it’s not one of ours, that might work almost as well, especially if too many people have seen the things to credibly keep denying that they are real.

  266. H.R. says:

    Even more sinister, but I don’t think is likely, is that the GEBs and PTB have these little zippity-dee-doo-dahs, they are ours, but they are being used to give the final reason, the final push to a One World Government (OWG).

    I’d think the only way to unify the nations of the Earth is to pose an extraterrestrial threat. It’s Earth against the invaders. It’s a common theme in movies, so maybe the movies are the propaganda to prepare minds for a proposed OWG.

    Starting wars, having an enemy of the tribe or country is how the top man stays in charge by unifying the people behind him to face a threat. It’s been done since forever in the real world.

    The only thing that prevents me from totally dismissing the idea out of hand is the obvious long term planning that has brought us to this point in global politics. This Global Reset all started at the beginning of the 1900s, and it by the ’30s, it was conceivable that alien invaders might just be the ticket for something to unite the world. So….. how to create credible alien invaders? Hmmmmm….

    Which brings us to where we are today. The big reveal is about to occur and the big appeal for global unity is close at hand.

    /idle speculation

  267. E.M.Smith says:


    I doubt it is all that idle…

    They know that it is “now or a long long restart later”, and are pushing hard to close the deal.

    The big question is just how many will not buy the crap.

    We hope to be relocated in a few months to somewhere with better long term prospects… surrounded by more “like minds” than here in Progressive Silly Con Valley…

  268. H.R. says:

    The possible tell was the half-white** pResident set the story in motion. Why? Why now? That really sets my rabbit ears twitching.

    Thus, some idle speculation on why and why now.
    **How come he’s the “black” President? Yeah, I know. It goes way back to the extreme racism of the Democrats and their one drop rule. I always thought of him – the rare times I thought of him – as the first half-white pResident.

  269. The True Nolan says:

    @H.R. : “Even more sinister, but I don’t think is likely, is that the GEBs and PTB have these little zippity-dee-doo-dahs, they are ours, but they are being used to give the final reason, the final push to a One World Government (OWG).”

    I have NO idea how creditable Dr. Carol Rosin is but she has been saying for decades that Von Braun warned her about a fake alien threat which would be used to consolidate power.

    Does that mean that aliens are real but the threat is fake? Or does it mean that the aliens are fake bit the threat is real? Or does it mean that Rosin is a nutter? It is worth doing a quick search on Rosin’s name. She seems to have some real credentials. Most of the sites which feature her seem to be of the “aliens are real and are our benevolent space brothers” ilk.

Comments are closed.