Text Size


Tag » UFO


John Cramer's paper in Jim Woodward's Starship book
Like ·  · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Cramer continues: “The propulsion effects observed so far are quite small, but not so small as to be useless … because of the G-in-denominator and their strong frequency dependence, the inertial transients can in principle produce very large propulsion forces. … Personal flying cars and reactionless heavy-lift Earth-to-orbit space vehicles cannot be ruled out …” That is precisely, what the good flying saucer evidence suggests. “ … the most interesting inertial transient … is the ‘second term,’ which is always negative and can in principle drive the inertial mass to zero or negative values … needed to stabilize wormholes and produce superluminal warp drives.” OK, here is the crux of Woodward’s conjectures that are beyond the fringe of mainstream physics today. For a long time I have wrestled with this. It seems obviously crackpot, so how can John Cramer take it seriously. Also Woodward is not a crackpot. So what was I missing? As Richard Feynman told me in his Cal Tech office in the late 1960’s. “What you cannot calculate yourself, you do not understand.” I saw a lot of nonsense about the reduction of inertial mass from the material binding energy, but of course, that really is nonsense, since it would destroy the material. Then it struck me. Analogous to Lenny Susskind’s “horizon complementarity” in his world hologram model, it all depends on who is looking. For example in the Alcubierre toy model for warp drive, Alice inside the warp bubble is not moving at all. More precisely, Alice is on a local timelike weightless zero g-force geodesic in her local tensor curvature field. In contrast, Bob outside the warp bubble of the starship “sees” superluminal speed of the starship. Similarly, in horizon complementarity, Bob far away from the black hole’s surface horizon never sees weightless Alice freely fall into the black hole on her radially inward timelike geodesic. Indeed, Alice’s image will appear to Bob to spread out all over the surface of the black hole. There is also the issue of a redshift.[i] Alice, however, will not feel anything unusual at the horizon if the classical equivalence principle[ii] is correct. – unless there is a firewall. Therefore, the apparent change in the inertia of the starship should only be seen by the external observer outside the warp bubble. Everything should appear quite normal inside the warp bubble. More precisely it is the nonlocal Mach screening factor C that changes not the intrinsic local inertia from the Higgs-Goldstone coherent vacuum superconductor field plus the confined real quarks in the virtual gluon/quark-antiquark plasma of SU3 quantum chromodynamics.[iii]

    [i] The gravity redshift only should apply for static LNIF emitters, for example, excited atoms of essentially fixed position (static equilibrium) in the Sun or emitters fixed in the Harvard tower etc.. Therefore, photons emitted by LIF electrons falling through the black hole surface horizon should not redshift if the equivalence principle is correct. A locally coincident static LNIF in the gravity curvature field outside the horizon will redshift.

    [ii] Special relativity works in a LIF.

    [iii] P = CmV = 4-momentum of center of mass of starship seen by external observer

    F = DP/ds = CDP/ds + PdC/ds Newton’s 2nd law of motion

    D/ds is the covariant derivative relative to the starships invariant proper time along its local worldline

    F = external real 4-force on starship’s center of mass

    The Woodward propellantless propulsion term is PdC/ds as far as I can make sense of his proposal. Propellantless propulsion corresponds to F = 0. 

    In contrast, the observer inside the warp bubble sees C = 1 and dC/dt = 0.


My review of Jim Woodward's Making Starships book - V1 under construction
  • Jack Sarfatti Sarfatti’s Commentaries on James F. Woodward’s book 
    Making Starships and Star Gates 
    The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes

    The book has many good insights except for some ambiguous statements regarding:

    1) The equivalence principle that is the foundation of Einstein’s theory of the gravitational field. This seems to be due to the author’s not clearly distinguishing between local frame invariant proper acceleration and frame dependent coordinate acceleration. Thus, the author says that Newton’s gravity force is eliminated in an “accelerating frame.” In fact, it is eliminated in a Local Inertial Frame (LIF) that has zero proper acceleration, though it has coordinate acceleration relative to the surface of Earth for example. All points of the rigid spherical surface of Earth have non-zero proper accelerations pointing radially outward. This violates common sense and confuses even some physicists as well as engineers not to mention laymen. It is a fact of the Alice in Wonderland topsy-turvy surreal world of the post-modern physics of Einstein’s relativity especially when combined with the faster-than-light and back from the future entanglement of particles and fields in quantum theory and beyond. 
    2) I find the author’s discussion of fictitious inertial pseudo forces puzzling. I include the centripetal force as a fictitious force in the limit of Newton’s particle mechanics sans Einstein’s local inertial frame dragging from rotating sources. That is, every local frame artifact that is inside the Levi-Civita connection is a fictitious inertial pseudo force. This includes, Coriolis, centrifugal, Euler, and most importantly Newton’s gravity force that is not a real force. The terms inside the Levi-Civita connection are not felt by the test particle under observation. Instead, they describe real forces acting on the observer’s local rest frame. A real force acts locally on a test particle’s accelerometer. It causes an accelerometer’s pointer to move showing a g-force. In contrast, Baron Munchausen sitting on a cannonball in free fall is weightless. This was essentially Einstein’s “happiest thought” leading him to the equivalence principle the cornerstone of his 1916 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field. 
    3) A really serious flaw in the book is the author’s dependence on Dennis Sciama’s electromagnetic equations for gravity. In fact, these equations only apply approximately in the weak field limit of Einstein’s field equations in the background-dependent case using the absolute non-dynamical globally-flat Minkowski space-time with gravity as a tiny perturbation. The author uses these equations way out of their limited domain of validity. In particular, the Sciama equations cannot describe the two cosmological horizons past and future of our dark energy accelerating expanding observable universe. What we can see with our telescopes is only a small patch (aka “causal diamond”) of a much larger “inflation bubble” corresponding to Max Tegmark’s “Level 1” in his four level classification of the use of “multiverse” and “parallel universes.” Our two cosmological horizons, past and future, that are thin spherical shells of light with us inside them at their exact centers may in fact be hologram computer screens projecting us as 3D images in a virtual reality quantum computer simulation. This is really a crazy idea emerging from Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Seth Lloyd and others. Is it crazy enough to be true? 
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) John Cramer’s Foreword: I agree with Cramer that it’s too risky in the long run for us to be confined to the Earth and even to this solar system. British Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees in his book “Our Final Hour” gives detailed reasons. Of course if a vacuum strangelet develops like Kurt Vonnegut’s “Ice-9”, then our entire observable universe can be wiped out, our causal diamond and beyond shattered, and there is no hope. That is essentially the apocalyptic worst-case scenario of the Bible’s “Revelations” and we will not dwell on it any further. Let’s hope it’s not a precognitive remote viewing like what the CIA observed in the Stanford Research Institute studies in the 1970’s.  Cramer cites the NASA-DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project that I was involved with in the first two meetings. Cramer’s text is in quotes and italics. There is “little hope of reaching the nearby stars in a human lifetime using any conventional propulsion techniques … the universe is simply too big, and the stars are too far away. … What is needed is either trans-spatial shortcuts such as wormholes to avoid the need to traverse the enormous distances or a propulsion technique that somehow circumvents Newton’s third law and does not require the storage, transport and expulsion of large volumes of reaction mass.”
    Yes, indeed. I conjecture as a working hypothesis based on the UFO evidence that traversable wormhole stargate time travel machines are the only way to go with warp drive used only as a secondary mechanism at low speeds mainly for silent hovering near the surfaces of planets and for dogfights with conventional aerospace craft. The stargates do not have the blue shift problem that the Alcubierre warp drive has although the Natario warp drive does not have the blue shift problem (high-energy collisions with particles and radiation in the path of the starship). Newton’s third law that every force acting on a material object has an equal and opposite inertial reaction force on the source of that force is a conservation law that follows from symmetry Lie groups of transformations in parameters of the dynamical action of the entire closed system of source and material object. This is a very general organizing principle of theoretical physics known as Noether’s theorem for global symmetries in which the transformations are the same everywhere for all times in the universe. For example:
    Space Translation Symmetry Linear Momentum Conservation
    Time Translation Symmetry Energy Conservation
    Space-Space Rotation Symmetry Angular Momentum Conservation
    Space-Time Rotation Symmetry
    Internal U1 EM Force Symmetry Conserve 1 Electric Charge
    Internal SU2 Weak Force Symmetry Conserve 3 Weak Flavor Charges
    Internal SU3 Strong Force Symmetry Conserve 8 Strong Color Charges
  • Jack Sarfatti In a propellantless propulsion system without the rocket ejection of real particles and/or radiation one must include the gravity curvature field (dynamical space-time itself) as a source and sink of linear momentum. Furthermore, if we include quantum corrections to the classical fields there is the remote possibility of using virtual particle zero point fluctuations inside the vacuum as a source and sink of linear momentum. However, the conventional wisdom is that this kind of controllable small-scale metastable vacuum phase transition is impossible in principle and to do so would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (extracting work from an absolute zero temperature heat reservoir). Even if we could do the seemingly impossible, propellantless propulsion while necessary is not sufficient for a true warp drive. A true warp drive must be weightless (zero g-force) timelike geodesic and without time dilation for the crew relative to the external observer outside the warp bubble that they were initially clock synchronized with. Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory. For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike separated events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement. Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. Finally, we have the P.W. Anderson’s anti-reductionist “More is different” emergence of complex systems of real particles in their quantum ground states with quasi-particles and collective mode excitations in soft condensed matter in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This corresponds to spontaneous symmetry breaking of the quantum vacuum’s virtual particles, in its high energy standard model analog, to the Higgs-Goldstone “God Particle” now found at ~ 125 Gev in CERN’s LHC that gives rest masses to leptons and quarks as well as to the three weak radioactivity force spin 1 gauge W-bosons though not to the single spin 1 photon gauge boson and the eight spin strong force gluon gauge bosons. In this quantum field theory picture, the near field non-radiating interactions among the leptons and quarks are caused by the exchange of virtual spacelike (tachyonic faster-than-light off-mass-shell) gauge bosons continuously randomly emitted and absorbed by the leptons and quarks. To make matters more complicated unlike the single rest massless U1 photon, the three weak rest massive SU2 W bosons and the eight strong rest massless SU3 gluons carry their respective Lie algebra charges, therefore, they self-interact. A single virtual gluon can split into two gluons for example. The SU3 quark-quark-gluon interaction gets stronger at low energy longer separations. This is called quantum chromodynamic confinement and it explains why we do not see free quarks in the present epoch of our causal diamond observable universe patch of the multiverse. Free quarks were there in a different quantum vacuum thermodynamic phase shortly after the Alpha Point chaotic inflation creation of our observable universe that we see with telescopes etc. Indeed, most of the rest mass of protons and neutrons comes from the confined Heisenberg uncertainty principle kinetic energy of the three real confined up and down quarks and their plasma cloud of virtual zero point gluons and virtual quark-antiquark pairs. The Higgs Yukawa interaction rest masses of three bound real quarks is about 1/20 or less than the total hadronic rest masses.

    The author, James F. Woodward (JFW), introduces Mach’s Principle though in an ambiguous way to my mind. He says that the computation of the rest mass from local quantum field theory as has been in fact accomplished for hadrons by MIT Nobel Laureate, Frank Wilczek et-al using supercomputers is not sufficient to explain the inertia of Newton’s Second Law of Particle Mechanics. This does sound like Occult Astrology at first glance, but we do have the 1940 Wheeler-Feynman classical electrodynamics in which radiation reaction is explained as a back-from-the-future retro causal advanced influence from the future absorber on the past emitter in a globally self-consistent loop in time. Indeed, Feynman’s path integral quantum theory grew out of this attempt. Hoyle and Narlikar, and John Cramer have extended the original classical Wheeler-Feynman theory to quantum theory. Indeed, the zero point virtual photons causing spontaneous emission decay of excited atomic electron states can be interpreted as a back from the future effect. The electromagnetic field in the classical Wheeler-Feynman model did not have independent dynamical degrees of freedom, but in the Feynman diagram quantum theory they do. However, the retro causal feature survives. Therefore the only way I can make sense of JFWs fringe physics proposal is to make the following conjecture. Let m0 be the renormalized rest mass of a real particle computed in the standard model of local quantum field theory. Then, the observed rest mass m0’ equals a dimensionless nonlocal coefficient C multiplied by the local m0 renormalized rest mass. Mach’s Principle is then C = 0 in an empty universe of only real test particles without any sources causing spacetime to bend. Furthermore, C splits into past history retarded and future destiny advanced pieces. Now is there any Popper falsifiable test of this excess baggage?
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Springer-Praxis Books in Space Exploration (2013)
    2) Einstein in Zurich over one hundred years ago read of a house painter falling off his ladder saying he felt weightless.
    3) I have since disassociated myself from that project, as have other hard
    ...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) Roughly speaking, for particle mechanics, the dynamical action is the time integral of the kinetic energy minus the potential energy. The classical physics action principle is that the actual path is an extremum in the sense of the calculus of variations relative to all nearby possible paths with the same initial and final conditions. Richard P. Feynman generalized this classical idea to quantum theory where the actual extremum path corresponds to constructive interference of complex number classical action phases one for each possible path. There are more complications for velocity-dependent non-central forces and there is also the issue of initial and final conditions. The action is generalized to classical fields where one must use local kinetic and potential analog densities and integrate the field Lagrangian density over the 4D spacetime region bounded by initial history and final teleological destiny 3D hypersurfaces boundary constraints. Indeed, Yakir Aharonov has generalized this to quantum theory in which there are back-from-the-future retro causal influences on present weak quantum measurements made between the past initial and future final boundary constraints. Indeed, in our observable expanding accelerating universe causal diamond, these boundary constraints, I conjecture, are our past cosmological particle horizon from the moment of chaotic inflation leading to the hot Big Bang, together with our future dark energy de Sitter event horizon. Both of them are BIT pixelated 2D hologram computer screens with us as IT voxelated “weak measurement” 3D hologram images projected from them. The horizon pixel BIT quanta of area are of magnitude (~10^-33 cm or 10^19 Gev)^2. The interior bulk voxel IT quanta of volume are of magnitude (~10^-13 cm or 1 Gev)^3. This ensures that the number N of BIT horizon pixels equals the number of IT interior voxels in a one-to-one correspondence. The actually measured dark energy density is proportional to the inverse fourth power of the geometric mean of the smallest quantum gravity Planck length with the largest Hubble-sized scale of our future de Sitter causal diamond ~ 10^28 cm. This, when combined with the Unruh effect, corresponds to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of black body radiation that started quantum physics back in 1900. However, this redshifted Hawking horizon blackbody radiation must be coming back from our future de Sitter cosmological horizon not from our past particle horizon.
  • Jack Sarfatti 5) Localizing the four space and time translations corresponds to Einstein’s general coordinate transformations that are now gauge transformations defining an equivalence class of physically identical representations of the same curvature tensor field. However, the compensating gauge connection there corresponds to torsion fields not curvature fields. The curvature field corresponds to localizing the three space-space rotations and the three space-time Lorentz boost rotations together. Einstein’s General Relativity in final form (1916) has zero torsion with non-zero curvature. However, T.W.B. Kibble from Imperial College, London in 1961 showed how to get the Einstein-Cartan torsion + curvature extension of Einstein’s 1916 curvature-only model by localizing the full 10-parameter Poincare symmetry Lie group of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. The natural geometric objects to use are the four Cartan tetrads that correspond to Local Inertial Frame (LIF) detector/observers that are not rotating about their Centers of Mass (COM) that are on weightless zero g-force timelike geodesics. Zero torsion is then imposed as an ad-hoc constraint to regain Einstein’s 1916 model as a limiting case. The ten parameter Poincare Lie group is subgroup of the fifteen parameter conformal group that adds four constant proper acceleration hyperbolic Wolfgang Rindler horizon boosts and one dilation scale transformation that corresponds to Herman Weyl’s original failed attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism. The spinor Dirac square roots of the conformal group correspond to Roger Penrose’s “twistors.”

The Universe is not a Computer
Ken Wharton
Department of Physics and Astronomy, San Jos´e State University, San Jos´e, CA 95192-0106

When we want to predict the future, we compute it from what we know about the present.
Specifically, we take a mathematical representation of observed reality, plug it into some dynamical
equations, and then map the time-evolved result back to real-world predictions. But while this
computational process can tell us what we want to know, we have taken this procedure too literally,
implicitly assuming that the universe must compute itself in the same manner. Physical theories
that do not follow this computational framework are deemed illogical, right from the start. But this
anthropocentric assumption has steered our physical models into an impossible corner, primarily
because of quantum phenomena. Meanwhile, we have not been exploring other models in which the
universe is not so limited. In fact, some of these alternate models already have a well-established
importance, but are thought to be mathematical tricks without physical significance. This essay
argues that only by dropping our assumption that the universe is a computer can we fully develop
such models, explain quantum phenomena, and understand the workings of our universe.

Compare to:

Incommensurability, Orthodoxy
and the Physics of High Strangeness:
A 6-layer Model for Anomalous Phenomena
Jacques F. Vallee and Eric W. Davis (*)
The main argument presented in this paper is that the continuing study of unidentified
aerial phenomena (“UAP”) may offer an existence theorem for new models of physical
reality. The current SETI paradigm and its “assumption of mediocrity” place restrictions
on forms of non-human intelligence that may be researched. A similar bias exists in the
ufologists’ often-stated hypothesis that UAP, if real, must represent space visitors.
Observing that both models are biased by anthropomorphism, the authors attempt to
clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by distinguishing six layers
of information that can be derived from UAP events, namely (1) physical manifestations,
(2) anti-physical effects, (3) psychological factors, (4) physiological factors, (5) psychic
effects and (6) cultural effects. In a further step they propose a framework for scientific
analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena that takes into account the incommensurability

Jacques Vallée has a Ph.D. in computer science; Eric Davis holds a Ph.D. in physics. Both are
consulting members of the National Institute for Discovery Science, Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Challenge of High Strangeness
The rational study of reported cases of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena (UAP) is currently at
an impasse. This situation has as much to do with the incomplete state of our models of physical
reality as it does with the complexity of the data. A primary objection to the reality of UAP
events among scientists is that witnesses consistently report objects whose seemingly absurd
behavior “cannot possibly” be related to actual phenomena, even under extreme conditions.
Skeptics insist that intelligent extraterrestrial (ETI) visitors simply would not perpetrate such
antics as are reported in the literature. This argument can be criticized as an anthropocentric,
self-selected observation resulting from our own limited viewpoint as 21st century Homo
Sapiens trying to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Nonetheless, the high
strangeness of many reports must be acknowledged. ...

In the view of the authors, current hypotheses are not strange enough to explain the facts of the
phenomenon, and the debate suffers from a lack of scientific information. Indeed, from the
viewpoint of modern physics, our Cosmic Neighborhood could encompass other (parallel)
universes, extra spatial dimensions and other time-like dimensions beyond the common 4-
dimensional spacetime we recognize, and such aspects could lead to rational explanations for
apparently “incomprehensible” behaviors on the part of visitors to our perceived continuum. As
it attempts to reconcile theory with observed properties of elementary particles and with
discoveries at the frontiers of cosmology, modern physics suggests that mankind has not yet
discovered all of the universe’s facets, and we must propose new theories and experiments in
order to explore these undiscovered facets. This is why continuing study of reported UAP
events is important: It may provide us with an existence theorem for new models of physical

Much of the recent progress in cosmological concepts is directly applicable to the UAP
problem: Traversable wormholes (3-dimensional hypersurface tunnels) have now been derived
from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (Morris and Thorne, 1988; Visser, 1995). In
particular, it has been shown that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity does not in any way
constrain spacetime topology, which allows for wormholes to provide traversable connections
between regions within two separate universes or between remote regions and/or times within
the same universe. Mathematically it can also be shown that higher-dimensional wormholes can
provide hypersurface connections between multidimensional spaces (Rucker, 1984; Kaku, 1995).
Recent quantum gravity programs have explored this property in superstring theory, along with
proposals to theoretically and experimentally examine macroscopic-scale extra-dimensional
spaces (Schwarzschild, 2000). Thus it is now widely acknowledged that the nature of our
universe is far more complex than observations based on anthropocentric self-selection portend.
In this respect, ufologists and SETI researchers appear to be fighting a rear-guard battle. Both
suffer from identical limitations in the worldview they bring to their own domains, and to their
antagonism. ...

No experiment can distinguish between phenomena manifested
by visiting interstellar (arbitrarily advanced) ETI and intelligent entities that may exist near
Earth within a parallel universe or in different dimensions, or who are (terrestrial) time
Each of these interesting possibilities can be manifested via the application of the physical
principle of traversable wormholes since they theoretically connect between two different
universes, two remote space locations, different times and dimensions (Davis, 2001).
Traversable wormholes are but one example of new physical tools that are available or on the
horizon for consideration of interuniversal, interstellar, interdimensional or chronological travel. ...

The framework we present here is based on such an apparent contradiction, because we will
argue that UAP can be thought of both as physical and as “psychic”. We hope that it will prove
stimulating as a unified approach to a puzzling phenomenon that presents both undeniable
physical effects suggesting a technological device or craft and psychic effects reminiscent of the
literature on poltergeists and psychokinetic phenomena. ...

Layer II

Ø sinking into the ground
Ø shrinking in size, growing larger, or changing shape on the spot
Ø becoming fuzzy and transparent on the spot
Ø dividing into two or more craft, several of them merging into one object at slow speed
Ø disappearing at one point and appearing elsewhere instantaneously
Ø remaining observable visually while not detected by radar
Ø producing missing time or time dilatation
Ø producing topological inversion or space dilatation (object was estimated to be of small
exterior size/volume, but witness(s) saw a huge interior many times the exterior size)
Ø appearing as balls of colored, intensely bright light under intelligent control  ...

Layer V
Ø impressions of communication without a direct sensory channel
Ø poltergeist phenomena: motions and sounds without a specific cause, outside the
observed presence of a UAP
Ø levitation of the witness or of objects and animals in the vicinity
Ø maneuvers of a UAP appearing to anticipate the witness’ thoughts
Ø premonitory dreams or visions
Ø personality changes promoting unusual abilities in the witness
Ø healing ...

The view that ETs and humans may have such divergent ways of conceptualizing the world
that there can be no mutual understanding is referred to as the “Incommensurability Problem” in
the SETI literature ...

At the core of the Incommensurability Problem is the view that no intelligent species can
understand reality without making certain methodological choices, and that these choices may
vary from civilization to civilization ...

We can see and gain knowledge by sight, but ET/UAP signals
potentially bombarding the Earth could be misunderstood, unrecognized or undetected because
we are not employing paradigms involving our other modalities, such as psychic functioning.

[Comment I coined the term "electromagnetic chauvinism" in 1976 or so making this same point about SETI's limits. Robert Anton Wilson and I think Martin Gardner cited me on it as I recall.]

On Dec 7, 2012, at 9:03 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

On Dec 7, 2012, at 8:19 PM, Gary S Bekkum <garysbekkum@gmail.com> wrote:

So you are now entertaining the possibility this really happened and there is a cover-up?

Certainly. We cannot discount that as a possibility of fairly high probability (50-50) given Bigelow's statement to the New York Times.

What did you learn from Ron? Or Kit?

Nothing. Kit denied that it happened. Ron simply said he would deal with it.

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:43 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
re: <Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 12.27.55 AM.png><Screen Shot 2012-12-07 at 12.38.04 AM.png>





Indeed Eric Davis wrote: "Much of the recent progress in cosmological concepts is directly applicable to the UAP
problem: Traversable wormholes (3-dimensional hypersurface tunnels) have now been derived
from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (Morris and Thorne, 1988; Visser, 1995). In
particular, it has been shown that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity does not in any way
constrain spacetime topology, which allows for wormholes to provide traversable connections
between regions within two separate universes or between remote regions and/or times within
the same universe. Mathematically it can also be shown that higher-dimensional wormholes can
provide hypersurface connections between multidimensional spaces (Rucker, 1984; Kaku, 1995).
Recent quantum gravity programs have explored this property in superstring theory, along with
proposals to theoretically and experimentally examine macroscopic-scale extra-dimensional
spaces (Schwarzschild, 2000). Thus it is now widely acknowledged that the nature of our
universe is far more complex than observations based on anthropocentric self-selection portend.
In this respect, ufologists and SETI researchers appear to be fighting a rear-guard battle. Both
suffer from identical limitations in the worldview they bring to their own domains, and to their
antagonism. ...
The rational study of reported cases of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena (UAP) is currently at
an impasse. This situation has as much to do with the incomplete state of our models of physical
reality as it does with the complexity of the data. A primary objection to the reality of UAP
events among scientists is that witnesses consistently report objects whose seemingly absurd
behavior “cannot possibly” be related to actual phenomena, even under extreme conditions.
Skeptics insist that intelligent extraterrestrial (ETI) visitors simply would not perpetrate such
antics as are reported in the literature. This argument can be criticized as an anthropocentric,
self-selected observation resulting from our own limited viewpoint as 21st century Homo
Sapiens trying to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Nonetheless, the high
strangeness of many reports must be acknowledged."


Now this was precisely the points I tried to raise at the DARPA-NASA meeting with Eric Davis on the platform and he did not support his own previous writings.
BTW Davis was working for Bob Bigelow when he wrote the above words with Jacques Vallee.

On Dec 6, 2012, at 6:43 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

I remember now I told the Jesse Ventura people that there was no point me being in the show because what I heard in 2004 was only hearsay. I did speak briefly about it to Jacques Vallee http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf as I recall at the first DARPA-NASA Starship Meeting in Sausalito Jan 2011 and he denied the French woman's version of what allegedly happened at Bigelow's Utah Ranch - a battle with hostile aliens popping out of a floating star gate with at least two of Bigelow's private army being killed. Eric Davis http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf was one of Bigelow's employees at the time and he also leaked the story. This would explain why Eric got so uptight at the Oct 1, 2011 DARPA-NASA meeting in Orlando when I broached the UFO subject followed by Doug Trumbull http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Trumbull who backed me up the next day.

-- Gary S. Bekkum
STARstream Research
P.O. Box 1144

If you could with small power (as in my DARPA-NASA paper) and at a distance manipulate the curvature field around an enemy ship for example you could crush it.

On Sep 30, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Ron S wrote:

. . ."there is no need to imagine they come here in the machines we see."

Well except that when we see something make what appears an impossible turn in the sky generating hundreds or thousands of gees, the only way we have to explain that is that those inside and the craft itself are experiencing no acceleration, meaning they're on a time-like geodesic in a warp ship.  The only way we know of nulling these sorts of gee forces is to not generate them at all, which is what warp does.

Exactly my point.

The skies are full of evidence of warp ships.  We just need to build them for ourselves.

Yes. By Jove, I think Ron S has finally understood what I have been saying although I don't think Paul Murad and some others have gotten it yet.

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Adam C wrote:
Precisely. Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud contain a huge terrain for ETIs to use. Even if they have warp there is no need to imagine they come here in the machines we see.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

"Bushnell, DM. (LARC-A)"  wrote:

  Unless they are hiding out in this solar system somewhere they pretty much MUST have FTL capability.......Reverse Engineering anyone?

On 9/30/12 4:26 PM, "Adam  wrote:

Not yet convinced the machine Ufos have warp. Insufficient data.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
The WMD effect would be the ability to manipulate the fabric of space evolving in time with small applied power even if warp bubble is standing still above say a nuke missile site. Imagine the controlling intelligence inside the saucer decides to expand the boundary of the bubble.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Adam C wrote:

Hi Angelo
Anything moving fast enough is more powerful than nukes from kinetic energy alone. Modern warheads have energy densities equivalent to a speed of 3000 km/s - thus everything faster is more potent than nukes.

However speed is distance so the acceleration track is very long for realistic accelerations.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

Angelo wrote:
I find this point really crucial. Can a warp drive be turned into a weapon of mass destruction? If yes, how destructive can it be? More than a nuclear bomb?


   Da: Mike.L  
 Inviato: Domenica 30 Settembre 2012 19:06
 Oggetto: Re: 29 September 2012
The problem with this, from the point of view of any government, is that putting a space drive in the hands of an average person means putting WMD into the hands of the lowest common denominator. Anybody with a gripe against any government, corporation, or person will be able to turn an affordable space drive propelled object into a hypervelocity ballistic weapon to attack that which they hate/fear/despise. This is of course intolerable to any government that wishes to act in a way that will upset anybody, i.e. all of them. If someones space drive technology proves truly a breakthru and is so revolutionary that it will make space travel affordable to the average person, you can pretty much guarantee that it, and anybody that knows the details of how it works will be erased/classified/killed or discredited by the powers that be with as much energy as they can muster.

So OF COURSE a government backed 100 year starship group is going to say that "Travel to the stars will be difficult and expensive. It will take decades of time, GW of power, kg of mass-energy and trillions of dollars…interstellar travel will always be difficult and expensive, but it can no longer be considered impossible." and they will continue saying this even as the government seizes working space drives and sends out their own missions. So long as Earth is the only known habitable world, the planet will remain a pressure cooker that those in power will cling to power over. Jack Sarfatti's masters in the intelligence community, in particular (Hi guys!).

They need options to give to people. Places for disaffected humanity to go in a diaspora. When we advance our astronomical science enough to spot habitable earthlike worlds around nearby star systems, then I am convinced that, if space drives are achievable, they will only be made available to the public once there are places for the public to go to get away from earth's authoritarians without feeling the need to return to wreak relativistic vengance upon the planet that birthed them and the tyrants that sent them into exile....

Mike L


I first met Martin Rees in Cambridge in I think it was 1967. I very much respect his scientific work, but I think he has severely distorted the facts about UFOs whether by intent for national security reasons or simply lack of due diligence in what is a political not a scientific issue. Indeed, Martin Gardner in Science, Good, Bad & Bogus mentioned that physicists like myself do not make good paranormal investigators. Similarly, astronomers do not not make good UFO investigators. My contacts with the Intelligence Community & Military lead me to believe that some UFOs are real machines with advanced low-power warp-drive technology. I presented an invited paper on this to the DARPA-NASA 100 year starship meeting in Orlando Oct 1, 2011 - expenses paid by DARPA. Furthermore, in my opinion, the advanced time-traveling intelligence operating these machines have manipulated us for thousands of years. Indeed, we are genetically engineered by them. For additional background information see MIT physics professor David Kaiser's book "How the Hippies Saved Physics" and my Wikipedia page as well as Martin Gardner's book.

re: http://normanquebedeau.com/Animation_files/spectra.swf

On Jul 15, 2012, at 12:46 PM, CloudRider@aol.com wrote:

Your "magick mushroom" download, circa 1979... (actually, quite late in the psychedelic physics thing?)... is reminiscent of Dr. John Lilly's recounting of his earliest "visits" with Higher Beings in upper satori states as he did his own "traveling" in such realms, first with LSD propelling him from his  isolation-flotation tanks. He recounted in his "Center of the Cyclone" how he made seeming "contact" with these "beings," but they so much as told him he was too stoned to interact meaningfully... and suggested he come back "straight.”

JS: That’s right. Remember Lilly had Feynman come to Esalen and Feynman did experiment with psychedlics in Big Sur when he knew he was dying of what I think was radiation exposure from the Manhattan Project. Lilly and Feynman were old friends from Cal Tech.
DF: Lilly said he then went to Chile and did the meditation thing with Oscar Ichazo, eventually meeting up again with what seemed (to Lilly) to be the same "beings," and having a more memorable interaction with them.
Wonder whether you've written and/or published whether you perceive that your 1953 "phone call" from the beings you recall communicating with  you are/were involved in any of your subsequent "travels" into such realms?

JS: Remember my 1953 contact was very UN-PSYCHEDELIC. I was only about 13 years old in a blue-collar Irish-German-Italian-Jewish/Catholic neighborhood in Flatbush. The phone call(s) were very material mechanical and my mother witnessed at least one of them. This was a real incident not the imaginings of a child.
DF: Also, an associate of Dr. Ray Moody, one Robin Andrews Quayle, back in the late 1980s, early '90s, did some work with "mass UFO experiencers," then later with what are termed "ETI Prodigies," i.e., people who had a perceived interaction and/or "information download" with and from "ETs," relaying or bestowing knowledge of "innovative technologies," etc., and who frequently were unable to make real sense of same because they lacked formal education and thus, "vocabulary" and ability to "do the math," to manifest any productivity or progress as a result of the "data dump.”

JS: Exactly my point. BTW Hal Puthoff needs to clarify if he also had a similar contact about the same time - we are close in age. I had a private dinner with Hal about 1999 when Joe Firmage invited him out to ISSO and something Hal said to me indicated that he had - but perhaps I misunderstood him? Joe Firmage’s contact like Dan Throop Smith’s was more subjective and could be explained as a brain malfunction - a delusion unlike mine. Uri Geller also had a more mechanical contact like mind about the same time (early 1950’s) witnessed by a then young Israeli army recruit who later rose high in the ranks and outed himself on Israeli TV a few years ago. Check with Uri for details.
DF: There’s considerable Internet "conversation" about said "extraterrestrial prodigies," as a quick search shows, and most provocative (and perhaps relevant here) are accounts of "child prodigies" with decidedly "ET alien" coloration. Some of these (ETI prodigy) folks also became rather "paranoid," Robin reported, because they feared that "powers that be" would be "after them" to steal or more likely to "prevent" what they had been "given" from contributing to human progress at the expense of "status quo" dominant tech.

JS: Sure, lots of crazies are attracted to UFOs as well as to the Tea Party and to Occupy. ;-)
DF: There actually was a 1993 conference of these folks, held in the mountains of north Georgia (in the US, not the Near East ;-) to which I was invited and which I attended, while still working as Director of Project Development for the Human Potential Foundation, the nonprofit founded by Senator Pell, funded by Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein and the late Laurance S. Rockefeller, et al. We have the monograph by Ms. Quayle on the "ETI Prodigies" findings, and are continuing to "work it." So your experiences, which you've so candidly been discussing for 'lo these many years, are helpful to what is a fascinating, if not much publicly discussed, facet of the broader "exceptional information" source study. ;-)

JS: I tell it like it really happened. Obviously I would not lie about it since it gives people like Lubos Motl ammunition to attack my physics ideas as a delusional UFO nut and it also led Antony Valentini being pressured to disinvite me to the Bohm Conference I had conceived of with Michael Towler at Cambridge in the first place. See the Wikipedia page on me for details and references.
Dick Farley CloudRider@aol.com
Washington, DC USA
PS -- These are, at least to my colleagues and I, much more interesting questions about the "UFO/ET" and claimed-perceived "contacts," particularly when people who've gone on to accomplish demonstrable stuff are involved. And of course it underpinned my previous query in this thread which also criticized "UFO chaff" as being a distraction from what is potentially more relevant to our understanding of what may be going on. ;-)
In a message dated 7/13/2012 1:45:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Did u download the whole 50 pages?
There is more when I have a chance to scan it. Einhorn’s influence is seen in my discussion of Arthur Koestler’s holons. Of course I knew Koestler from the Uri Geller tests and was at his home on Montpellier Square in London and knew his wife as well - not well of course.
Remember it was written under the influence of magick mushrooms in 1979 from some woman I think she was a friend of Randy T?

On Jul 13, 2012, at 10:34 AM, CloudRider@aol.com wrote:

This is VERY interesting and, as Spock might say, "Fascinating!"
Recently was reviewing work of Stewart Edward White... author of "The Betty Book," trance channeled by his wife, Elizabeth Grant White ("Betty) and published in the late 1930s, after nearly twenty years of work by "Betty," transcribed by her husband, Stewart.
He also published (after Betty's "death," although she continued "contact" and contributions to their effort, or so Stewart believed and wrote) at least two more in the most relevant sequence, "Across the Universe" and "The Unobstructed Universe."
Similar to "The Seth Material" as channeled by Jane Roberts (and transcribed by her husband), a generation later, the Whites' material has many references to (non-physicists) attempting to convey "literarily" what she was "seeing" and what the entities they called the "Invisibles" were supposedly showing and teaching them.
If we consider that the "signal" is coming through, and the sensitivities to RECEIVING same (as opposed to being able to understand and even articulate "in the language of physics" such insights and revelations), it is akin to what has often been described by "UFO experiencers," who receive "data" and who "see things" but are unable, because of their lack of training and vocabulary, or because what they "see" is so at variance with human technology and vernacular as to be "indescribable," making the occasional "download" to the wandering physicist that much more interesting, even allowing for a translatable "breakthrough."
That's what Hynek hoped might happen, as I understood what he was saying and trying to do when he was so sadly taken "off planet."
Just saying... your stuff remains among the most interesting "Out There," and your efforts to explain the Higgs thingy have been both helpful and entertaining.
Keep it up, Jack!