Sometimes is it fun to reverse-engineer something based on an observation or description. This can be quite effective at times because it not only offers a degree of validation or contradiction of the observation, it also can force us to brainstorm and think outside the box.
As a reasonably intelligent person, I am well aware of the perspective of the real scientific community with regard to UFOs. I completely discount 99.95% of the wing-nuts and ring-dings that espouse the latest abduction, crop circle or cattle mutilation theories. On the other hand, I also believe Drakes formulas about life on other worlds and I can imagine that what we find impossible, unknown or un-doable may not be for a civilization that got started 2 million years before us or maybe just 2 thousand years before us. Such speculation is not the foolish babbling of a space cadet but rather the reasoned thinking outside the box keeping an open mind to all possibilities.
In that vein as well as a touch of tongue in cheek, I looked for some topic to try my theory of reverse-engineering on that would test its limits. With all the I hype about the 50th anniversary of Roswell and the whole UFO fad in the news, I decided to try this reverse-engineer approach on UFOs and the little green (gray) men that are suppose to inhabit them.
As with most of my research, I used Plato to help me out. If you dont know what Plato is, then go read my article on it, titled, Plato My Information Research Tool.
What is the source of their Spacecraft Power?
Again, with the help of Plato, I did research of witnesses from all over the world. It is important to get them from different cultures to validate the reports. When the same data comes from cross‑cultural boundaries, the confidence level goes up. Unfortunately, the number of contactees includes a lot of space cadets and dingalings that compound the validation problem. I had to run some serious research to get at a reliable database of witnesses. I found that the most consistent and reliable reports seem to increase as the size of their credit rating, home price and/or tax returns went up. When cross‑indexed with a scale of validity based on professions and activities after their reports, my regression analysis came up with a projected 93% reliability factor for a selected group of 94 witnesses.
What descriptions are common are these:
The craft makes little or no noise. It emits a light or lights that sometimes change colors. There is no large blast of air or rocket fuel ejected. Up close, witnesses have reported being burned as if sunburned. The craft is able to move very slow or very fast and can turn very fast. The craft is apparently unaffected by air or lack of it.
We can also deduce that: the craft crossed space from another solar system; they may not have come from the closest star; their craft probably is not equipped for multi‑
generational flight; there may be more than one species visiting us.
What conclusions can be draw from these observations:
If you exclude a force in nature that we have no knowledge of then the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the craft use gravity for propulsion. Feinberg, Feynmann, Heinz, Pagels, Fritzsche, Weinberg, Salam and lately Stephen Hawking have all studied, described or supported the existence of the gauge boson with a spin of two called a graviton. Even though the Standard Model, supersymmetry and other theories are arguing over issues of spin, symmetry, color and confinement, most agree that the graviton exists.
That gravity is accepted as a force made up of the exchange of fundamental particles is a matter of record. The Weinberg‑Salam theory of particle exchange at the boson level has passed every unambiguous test to which it has been submitted. In 1979, they got the Nobel Prize for physics for their model.
We know that mass and energy are really the same and that there are four fundamental interactions and that the interactions take place by particle exchange. Gravity is one of these four interactions. IF we can produce a graviton, we can control it and perhaps alter it. Altering it in the same way we can produce a POSITRON using the interaction of photons of energy greater than 1.022MeV with matter. This is antimatter similar to an electron but with a positive charge. As early as 1932, positrons were observed.
It seems logical that we can do the same with gravitons. It is, after all, gravity that is the only force that has not had an observed repulsive force and yet it doesn’t appear to be so very different than the other three fundamental interactions.
Einstein and Hawking have pointed out that gravity can have a repulsive force as well as an attractive force. In his work with black holes, Hawking showed that quantum fluctuations in an empty de Sitter space could create a virtual universe with negative gravitational energy. By means of the quantum tunnel effect, it can cross over into the real universe. Obviously, this is all math theory but parts of it are supported by observed evidence. The tunneling effect is explained by quantum mechanics and the Schrodinger wave equations and is applied in current technology related to thin layers of semiconductors. The de Sitter‑Einstein theory is the basis of the big bang theory and current views of space‑time.
The bottom line is that if we have enough energy to manipulate gravitons, it appears that we can create both attractive and repulsive gravitons. Ah, but how much power is needed?
Recipe to Make Gravity
We actually already know how to make gravitons. Several scientists have described it. It would take a particle accelerator capable of about 10 TeV (10 trillion electron volts) and an acceleration chamber about 100 Km long filled with superconducting magnets.
The best we can do now is with the CERN and the FERMI synchrotrons. In 1989 they reached 1.8 TeV at the FERMI LAB. The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) that was under construction in Ellis County, Texas would have given us 40 TeV but our wonderful “education president”, the first Mr. Bush, killed the project in August 1992. With the SSC, we could have created, manipulated and perhaps altered a graviton.
We Need A Bigger Oven
The reason we are having such a hard time doing this is that we don’t know how else to create the particle accelerators than with these big SSC kind of projects. Actually, that’s not true. What is true is that we don’t know how to create the particle accelerators except with these big SSC kind of projects, SAFELY. A nice nuclear explosion would do it easily but we might have a hard time hiring some lab technicians to observe the reaction.
What do you think we will have in 50 or 100 or 500 years. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that we will have better, cheaper, faster, more powerful and smaller ways of creating high-energy sources? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that a civilization that may be 25,000 years ahead of us has already done that. If they have, then it would be an easy task to create gravitons out of other energy or matter and concentrate, direct and control the force to move a craft.
Now let’s go back to the observations. The movement is silent. That Fits ‑ gravity is not a propulsive force based on thrust of a propellant. I imagine the gravity engine to be more like a gimbaled searchlight. The beam being the attractive or repulsive graviton beam with a shield or lens to direct it in the direction they want to move.
Sunburns from the UFOs
How about the skin burns on close witnesses ‑ as if by sunburn? OK lets assume the burn was exactly like sunburn ‑ i.e. caused by ultraviolet light (UVL). UVL is generated by transitions in atoms in which an electron in a high‑energy state returns to a less energetic state by emitting an energy burst in the form of UVL. Now we have to get technical again. We also have to step into the realm of speculation since we obviously have not made a gravity engine yet. But here are some interesting subjects that have a remarkable degree of coincidence with the need for high-energy control necessary for the particle accelerator and the observed sunburn effects.
The BCS theory (Bardeen, Cooper & Schrieffer) states that in superconductivity, the “quantum‑mechanical zero‑point motion” of the positive ions allows the electrons to lower their energy state. The release of energy is not absorbed as heat, implying it is not in the infrared range. Recently, the so‑called high temperature ceramic and organic superconducting compounds are also based on electron energy state flow. Suppose a by‑product of using the superconductors in their graviton particle accelerator is the creation of UVL?
Perhaps the gimbaled graviton beam engine is very much like a light beam. A MASER is a LASER that emits microwave energy in a coherent and single wavelength and phase. Such coherency may be necessary to direct the graviton beam much like directing the steering jets on the space shuttle for precision docking maneuvers.
A maser’s energy is made by raising electrons to a high-energy state and then letting them jump back to the ground state. Sound familiar. The amount of energy is the only difference between the microwave energy and the UVL process. In fact, microwaves are just barely above the UVL in the electromagnetic spectrum. Suppose the process is less than perfect or that it has a fringe area effect that produces UVL at the outer edges of the energy field used to create the graviton beam. Since the Grays would consider it exhaust, they would not necessarily shield it or even worry about it.
But it has got to GO FAST!
Finally, we must discuss the speed. The nearest star is Proxima Centauri at about 1.3 parsecs (about 4.3 light years). The nearest globular cluster is Omega Centauri at about 20,000 light years and the nearest galaxy is Andromeda at about 2.2 million light years. Even at the speed of light, these distances are out of reach to a commuter crowd of explorers. But just as the theory of relativity shows us that matter and energy are the same thing, it shows that space and time are one and the same. If space and time are related, so is speed. This is another area that can get real technical and the best recent reference is Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. In it he explains that it may be possible to travel from point A to point B by simply curving the space‑time continuum so that A and B are closer. In any case we must move fast to do this kind of playing with time and space and the most powerful force in the universe is Gravity. Let’s take a minor corollary:
In the mid 60’s, a new engine was invented in which an electrically charged ion stream formed the reaction mass for the thrusters. The most thrust it could produce was 1/10th HP with a projected maximum of 1 HP if they continued to work on improvements to the design. It was weak but its Isp (specific impulse ‑ a rating of efficiency) was superior. It could operate for years on a few pounds of fuel. It was speculated that if a Mars mission were to leave Earth orbit and accelerate using an ion engine for half the mission and then decelerate for half the distance to Mars, they would get there 5 months sooner than if they had not used it. The gain came from a high velocity exhaust of the ion engine giving a small but continuous gain in speed.
Suppose such a small engine had 50,000 HP and could operate indefinitely. Acceleration would be constant and rapid. It might be possible to get to .8 or .9 of C (80% or 90% of the speed of light) over time with such an engine. This is what a graviton engine could do. At these speeds, the relativistic effects would take effect. We now have all the ingredients
Super String theory and other interesting versions of the space‑time continuum and space‑time curvature are still in their infancy. We must explore them in our minds since we do not have the means to experiment in reality. We make great gains when we can have a mind like Stephen Hawking working on the ideas. We lose so much when we have politicians like Bush (Sr or Jr.) stop projects like the SSC. We can envision the concept of travel and the desire and purpose but we haven’t yet resolved the mechanism. The fact that what we observe in UFOs is at least consistent with some hard-core leading edge science is encouraging.
This is one subject that really surprises me that we haven’t begun some serious research into. A lot of theoretical work has already been done and the observed evidence confirms the math.