Posting these videos of remote viewing and alien conspiracy junk are simply ad hominem attacks directed to discredit these individuals. The fact is, these men, were (and still are) key players in the advanced propulsion research community and worked in the industry. They contributed to the original original Nasa Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. Their side projects or beliefs in other esoteric phenomena has no bearing on this subject. If they choose to stare at goats, fine, whatever. If they choose to come up with ideas based on eyewitness reports of strange craft doing strange things(Eric Davis video 37:20), so be it. Those little green men have to obey the same laws of physics we do (tongue in cheek). So it is probably a good idea to throw a critical eye at those reports, and think about the physics that could be behind it. Just in case. The underlying science is there to support it. Yes I find it curious that, if you follow these gentlemen's stories down the rabbit hole, they are all in one way or another, connected to some really strange stuff.
As an aside but on THIS subject we need to recall that in the 1950s it was generally assumed that we were going to find out how to control gravity and other "super-science" stuff "any-day-now". . .
And FYI, nearly everyone in the intelligence community that has anything whatsoever to do with energy and propulsion physics, believes just as Eric Davis believes--that we really did recover something amazing at Roswell. And these guys don't believe this stuff because they're quixotic, or delusional or having hallucinations. They believe it based on fact. So be careful what you say about them. Painting them as whackos is really just a USG propaganda thing. I was not myself a believer in any sense, until Kit, who is a senior officer at CIA who manned the desk for ten years looking into this stuff; challenged me to use my critical thinking skills as a philosopher and look carefully at the evidence. I did that, and became a "believer" in UFO's too. I doubt anyone can look at the evidence objectively, and not come to the conviction that UFO's are indeed visiting spacecraft. And despite the official policy of the US armed forces, EVERYONE involved believes in UFO's. Everyone. Half the guys involved claim to have seen the craft, including Hal Puthoff. According to Kit though, no one really understands how they work, and that's because they're trying to apply ZPF theory to them when they ought to be applying M-E theory to them. They're AC propulsion systems, so it ought to be obvious this is M-E, not ZPF.
you guys are confusing me.
Quoteyou guys are confusing me.and Mulletron somehow validates this.....
Just in case any folks still aren't convinced, here's old news of actual experimental observations of repulsive forces and dynamical Casimir effects. You can follow the trail right to the papers.[...]The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above. Utilizing the properties of the QV for propulsion is no longer a theoretical problem. It is an engineering problem.
The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/05/2014 02:50 amJust in case any folks still aren't convinced, here's old news of actual experimental observations of repulsive forces and dynamical Casimir effects. You can follow the trail right to the papers.[...]The existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above. Utilizing the properties of the QV for propulsion is no longer a theoretical problem. It is an engineering problem.The existence of the quantum vacuum is not in doubt; nor the casimir force; not the dynamical Casimir effect.None of these things enable the use of the quantum vacuum for propulsion, without an extension to quantum field theory as it is currently understood. So yes, it very much is still a theoretical problem.
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/05/2014 02:50 amThe existence of the QV and its effects is experimentally verified. Starting with attraction between plates (old news), repulsive forces and dynamical effects linked to above.I'm sorry but this is just not true. As explained in detail in Woodward's book, QV is not the only explanation for the Casimir Effect. ZPF and QVF adherents often misrepresent this issue, by claiming the observed data on Casimir Effect is proof that QV exists, but real physicists know this is not true. The classical explanation for Casimir does not require QVF. That is merely ONE interpretation. It is ONE explanation and it is not the one most physicists hold.You have been scammed."Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies. They are relativistic, quantum forces between charges and currents. The Casimir force (per unit area) between parallel plates vanishes as alpha, the fine structure constant, goes to zero, and the standard result, which appears to be independent of alpha, corresponds to the alpha → infinity limit," and that "The Casimir force is simply the (relativistic, retarded) van der Waals force between the metal plates."[17]"
Quote from: SpoCk0nd0pe on 12/04/2014 03:22 pmThe hateful reaction (of theoretical physicists) is really counter productive. The problem is that, to paraphrase Nima Arkani-Hamed, it's really hard to come up with something that's not obviously wrong. Regardless of whether it works or not, many of the explanations* that have been put forward, like Shawyer's original EM Drive paper, are just nonsense. And I'm not talking about whether they disagree with known physics, people are pretty relaxed about that, rather the authors don't even understand the physical theories that they're employing to base their claims on. That's what gets peoples' backs up.* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.QuoteOften in modern science people try to defend the big, long, ongoing projects because their jobs depend on it. Not to say those projects do not create results but they often drain the funding for alternative approaches that may be much cheaper to look at while some times creating no results themselves. really? funding conspiracy? that's where you're going with this?Yes like spending billions and building careers searching out dark matter/dark energy/string theory, instead of checking their predispositions and math. The easy road. QuoteBesides, theoretical physicists have their own skeletons in their closets, e.g. with all the popular black hole talk they hide that there can practically be no event horizon because it would take forever to form (infinite gravitational time dilatation) from our observation standpoint.that's.. not how it works.I mean; there are plenty of brickbats you could throw at theoretical physics with great justification (the unfalsifiability of string theory, for example), but you've picked a really bad one here.Well Hawking has changed his mind on black holes so many times it has become clear that this is a work in progress. You function as if we have them figured out.http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html
The hateful reaction (of theoretical physicists) is really counter productive.
Often in modern science people try to defend the big, long, ongoing projects because their jobs depend on it. Not to say those projects do not create results but they often drain the funding for alternative approaches that may be much cheaper to look at while some times creating no results themselves.
Besides, theoretical physicists have their own skeletons in their closets, e.g. with all the popular black hole talk they hide that there can practically be no event horizon because it would take forever to form (infinite gravitational time dilatation) from our observation standpoint.
It all boils down to what exactly is a better Casimir cavity.Sheets of copper don't qualify. But is a start. We need a single sheet graphene cavity to understand whats going on.I say this because bulk copper (or any bulk conductor) is a mess. Surface effects et al are eliminated.