Perpetual Motion = Unlimited Power….Sort of…

6 March 2009 by admin.

The serious pursuit of perpetual motion has always intrigued me. Of course I know the basic science of conservation of energy and the complexities of friction, resistance, drag and less than 100% mechanical advantage that dooms any pursuit of perpetual motion to failure…but still, I am fascinated at how close some attempts have come. One college professor built a four foot tall Ferris wheel and enclosed its drive mechanism in a box around the hub. He said it was not perpetual motion but that it had no inputs from any external energy source. It did, however, make a slight sound out of that box. The students were to try to figure out how the wheel was turning without any apparent outside power source. It turned without stop for more than two years and none of his students could figure out how. At the end of his third year, he introduced his mechanism. He was using a rolling marble design that was common for perpetual motion machines but that also had been proven to not work. What he added was a tiny IC powered microcircuit feeding a motor that came out of a watch. A Watch! The entire 4 foot high Ferris wheel needed only the additional torque of a watch motor to keep it running for nearly 4 years!

This got me to thinking that if I could find a way to make up that tiny little additional energy input, I could indeed make perpetual motion. Unlike most of my other ideas, this was not something that could easily be simulated in a computer model first. Most of what does not work in perpetual motion is totally unknown until you build it. I also knew that the exchange of energy to and from mechanical motion was too inefficient to ever work so I concentrated on other forms of energy exchange. Then I realized I had already solved this – back in 1963!

Back in 1963, I was a senior in high school. Since 1958, I had been active in science fairs and wanted my last one to be the best. To make a long story short, I won the national science fair that year – sponsored by Bell Telephone. My project was “How far will sound travel” and my project showed that the accepted theory that sound diminishes by one over the square of the distance (the inverse square law) is, in fact, wrong. Although that may occur in an absolutely perfect environment of a point source of emission in a perfectly spherical and perfectly homogeneous atmosphere, it never ever occurs in the real world.

I used a binary counting flashing light circuit to time sound travel and a “shotgun” microphone with a VOX to trigger a measure of speed and power of the sound under hundreds of conditions. This gave me the ability to measure to 1/1000^th of a second and down to levels that were able to distinguish between the compressions and rarefaction’s of individual sound waves. Bell was impressed and I got a free trip to the World’s Fair in 1964 and to Bell Labs in Murry Hill NJ.

As a side project of my experiments, I attempted to design a sound laser - a narrow beam of sound that would travel great distances. I did. It was a closed ten-foot long Teflon-lined tube that contained a compressed gas – I used Freon. A transducer (a flat speaker) at one end would inject a single wavelength of a high frequency sound into the tube. It would travel to the other end and back. At exactly 0.017621145 seconds, it would pulse one more cycle at exactly the same time that the first pulse reflected and returned to the transducer. This was timed to exactly coincide with the first pulse so that it was additive, making the first pulse nearly double in amplitude. Since the inside of the tube as smooth and kept at a constant temperature, the losses in one pass through the tube were almost zero. In less than 5 minutes, these reinforcing waves would build the moving pulse to the point of containing nearly all of the gas in the tube into the single wave front of one pulse. This creates all kinds of problems so I estimated that it would only be about 75% efficient but that was still a lot.

Using a specially shaped and designed series of chambers at the end opposite the transducer, I could rapidly open that end and emit the pulse in one powerful burst that would be so strong that the wave front of the sound pulse would be visible and it would remain cohesive for hundreds of feet. It was dense enough that I computed it would have just over 5 million Pascal’s (Pa) of force or about 750 PSI. The beam would widen to a square foot at about 97 meters from the tube. This is a force sufficient to knock down a brick wall.

One way to make the kind of transducer that I needed for this sound laser was to use a carefully cut crystal or ceramic disc. Using the property of reverse piezoelectric effect, the disc will uniformly expand when an electric field is applied. A lead zirconate titanate crystal would give me the right expansion while also being able to respond to the high frequency. The exit chambers were modeled after some parabolic chambers that were used in specially made microphones used for catching bird sounds. The whole thing was perfectly logical and I modeled it in a number of math equations that I worked out on my “slip stick” (slide rule).

When I got to Bell Labs, I was able to get one scientist to look at my design and he was very intrigued with it. He said he had not seen anything like it but found no reason it would not work. I was asked back the next day to see two other guys that wanted to hear more about it. It was sort of fun and a huge ego boost for me to be talking to these guys about my ideas. In the end, they encouraged me to continue thinking and that they would welcome me to work there when I was old enough.

I did keep thinking about it and eventually figured out that if I can improve the speed of response of the sensors and transducer, I could shorten the tube to inches. I also wanted more power out of it so I researched what was the gas with the greatest density. Even this was not enough power or speed, so I imagined using a liquid – water – but it turns out that water molecules are like foam rubber and after a certain point, they absorb the pulses and energy too much. The next logical phase of matter was a solid but that meant that there was nothing that could be emitted. I was stumped…for awhile.

In the late 1970’s I figured, what if I extended the piezoelectric transducer crystal to the entire length of the tube – no air – just crystal. Then place a second transducer at one end to pulse the crystal tube with a sound wave. As the wave travels the length of the crystal tube, the compression and rarefaction’s of the sound wave pulse create stress or strain on the piezoelectric crystal, making it give off electricity by the direct piezoelectric effect.   this is how a phonograph needle works as it bounces on the grooves of the record. 

Since the sound pulse will reflect off the end of the tube and bounce back, it will create this direct piezoelectric effect hundreds of times – perhaps thousands of times – before it is reduced by the transfer into heat. As with my sound laser, I designed it to pulse every single bounce to magnify the amplitude of the initial wave front but now the speed was above 15,000 feet per second so the pulses had to come every 0.0001333 seconds. That is fast and I did not know if current technology was up to the task. I also did not know what it would do to the crystal. I was involved in other work and mostly forgot about it for a long time.

In the late 1980’s, I now was working for DARPA and had access to some great lab equipment and computers. I dug out my old notes and began working on it again. This time I had the chance to actually model and create experiments in the lab. My first surprise was that these direct piezoelectric effects created voltages in the hundreds or even thousands of volts. I was able to get more than 10,000 volts from a relatively small crystal (8 inches long and 2 inches in diameter) using a hammer tap. I never thought it would create this much of a charge. If you doubt this, just take a look at the Mechanism paragraph in Wikipedia for Piezoelectricity.

When I created a simple prototype version of my sound laser using a tube of direct piezoelectric crystal, I could draw off a rapid series of pulses of more than 900 volts using a 1/16^th watt amplifier feeding the transducer. Using rectifiers and large capacitors, I was able to save this energy and charge some ni-cads, power a small transmitter and even light a bulb.

This was of great interest to my bosses and they immediately wanted to apply it to war fighting. A friend of mine and I cooked up the idea of putting these crystals into the heels of army boots so that the pressures of walking created electricity to power some low power devices on the soldier. This worked great but the wires, converter boxes, batteries, etc.,  ended up being too much to carry for the amount of power gained so it was dropped. I got into other projects and I dropped it also.

Now flash forward to about 18 months ago and my renewed interest in perpetual motion. I dug out my old notes, computer models and prototype from my DARPA days. I updated the circuitry with some newer faster IC circuits and improved the sensor and power take-off tabs. When I turned it on, I got sparks immediately. I then rebuilt the power control circuit and lowered the amplitude of the input sound into the transducer. I was now down to using only a 9-volt battery and about 30 ma’s of current drain to feed the amplifier.   I estimate it is about a 1/40th watt amplifier.  The recovered power was used to charge a NIMH battery of 45 penlights of 1.2 volts each.

Then came my epiphany – why not feed the amplifier with the charging battery! DUH!

I did and it worked. I then boosted the amplifier’s amplitude, redesigned the power take-off circuit and fed it into a battery that was banked to give me a higher power density. It worked great. I then fed the battery back into an inverter to give me AC. The whole thing is about the size of a large briefcase and weighs about 30 pounds – mostly from the batteries and transformers. I am getting about 75 watts out of the system now but I’m using a relatively small crystal. I don’t have the milling tools to make a larger properly cut crystal but my modeling says that I can get about 500 watts out of a crystal of about 3 inches in diameter by about 12 inches long.

I call my device “rock power” and when I am not using it for power in my shop or on camping trips, I leave it hooked up to a 60 watt bulb. That bulb has been burning now for almost 7 months with no signs of it diminishing. It works! Try it!!!

Posted in Science...."Fiction?", Maybe True, This IS True ! | 2 Comments »

The Down Side to Lucid Dreams

6 March 2009 by admin.

Some of you may have read my other stories about my experiences with Lucid Dreaming. See LUCID DREAMS and THE POWER OF THE MIND. Now I am going to tell you there is a down side to doing that.

It started when I noticed that I was constantly playing music in my head. Everybody does that but this was different. It was like the background music in a movie. I could “think” this music in my head even while I was actively thinking and even talking about something totally unrelated to the music. Like the music in the movies, I was not always aware that this background music was there but if I had a lull in other thoughts, I would immediately become aware of it.

It was my subconscious mind playing this music and my conscious mind was hearing it while my conscious mind was busy with other thoughts. What was worse, is that I cannot stop it easily. I think to myself – NO MORE MUSIC – over and over again and after several minutes, it stops…only to start again in 10, 20, 60 minutes later.

This sounds silly but my conscious mind seems to have a mind of its own. Yeah, I know that is crazy but why else would I not be able to control it? In my lucid dreams, I have complete control and even instruct my subconscious mind to not do that any more but it doesn’t help much. But outside of those moments when I am expressly trying to control my subconscious mind, it seems to be thinking almost independently of my conscious mind. I say, “almost” because it has begun a new “background activity”.

I am very well aware of both the jokes and the reality of hearing “voices in your head”. These are just a few I found on a bumper sticker site. “You’re just jealous because the voices are talking to me” “The voices in my head are stealing my sanity” “I can’t go to work today – the voices in my head said stay home and clean the guns”. This is no joke. I really do have voices in my head that I don’t seem to have full control over.

In my story THE POWER OF THE MIND, I described over a decade of work with my lucid dreaming and my interactions with my subconscious mind. I have been able to take that to some very remarkable levels to include being able to invade other people’s thoughts and dreams and to extend my remote viewing to some amazing levels. Well now it seems I have a back seat driver to these events. My subconscious mind seems to be working at trying to make these contacts and invasions even during the day when I am otherwise engaged in other activities. It is really annoying.

The other day, I visited a friend; I’ll call her Jane. She had company and I was introduced to “Terry”. As I was introduced, I heard this weak voice in my mind saying she was a smoker and a bad driver and she drinks too much. I was shocked by these comments and could not imagine where they came from since she looked and talked perfectly normal, well dressed and certainly appeared sober. There was nothing to indicate these awful things about this woman that I had just met for the first time.

In my mind, I was literally having an argument in my head between my subconscious mind telling me awful things about Terry while my conscious mind was shouting that all that was nonsense. Meanwhile, I am also having a conversation with Jane and Terry and sitting down for some coffee.

I can’t tell you how distracting these mind games were while I am trying to smile and act cordial. I had to work at not saying some of my responses to my subconscious mind out loud. Just the fact that this was happening at all was annoying and very disconcerting but it was also re-framing the entire visit from a pleasant exchange with a friend to a mental brawl and mental shouting match. Jane had to ask me a several questions twice before I responded because I was so distracted.

I finally had to excuse myself but as I did, so did Terry. As Terry stood up, Jane rushed to help her. I thought she might be disabled or be injured the way that Terry was trying to hold her up but she was in her mid-50’s and seemed quite capable. While Terry was looking for her purse, I wrinkled my brow and shrugged my shoulders to Jane as if to say, what is going on? Without Terry seeing her, Jane curved her hand as if holding a glass and raised it to her face while rolling her head back. The obvious sign that Terry had been drinking. It was only then that I noticed that there was a large empty wineglass next to where Terry had been siting.

Jane and I helped Terry out to her car and she was definitely not able to drive safely. Jane repeatedly said she would drive Terry home – it was just a few blocks. After some effort, we got Terry to agree and I followed them to Terry’s house and then picked up Jane and drove her back home. Just as I was backing out of Terry’s driveway, I noticed deep tire marks on the lawn going right up to the front steps. The first few steps were broken or missing. I made the comment to Jane that somebody missed the driveway. Jane said that happened when Terry was driving home drunk one night and dropped a cigarette into her lap.

I am still annoyed by this running commentary of my conscious world and by the continuous background music but I am learning to live with it. It has not really told be to go home and clean the guns and I am not hearing messages from God. What I am hearing is sort of a news flash or intelligence report from my subconscious mind of matters that I am not immediately aware of and that have, so far. All proved to be correct. I can live with that.

Posted in Did I Dream This?, Maybe True | 1 Comment »

Plato – An Automated Research Tool

22 July 2008 by admin.

Plato – The Birth of an Automated Research Tool

In the early 80’s, I was in Mensa and was trying to find some stimulating discussions of the outer limits of science. I was an R&D manager for the Navy and was working for NRL in some very interesting but highly classified research. I was careful to avoid any talk about my work but I really wanted to explore areas that I could talk about. This was one of several attempts to do that. I sent the message below to a young professor at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, who was running a Mensa discussion forum on ARPANET, in the hopes of getting something started. He was working with artificial intelligence in math and robotic systems at the time.  Remember, this was written in 1984. The original Apple Mac was one year old. TCP/IP has just been introduced on ARPANET. Windows 1.0 was introduced in 1984 but I did not begin using it until version 3.1 came out. The fastest processor was an Intel 286 – a big boost in power over the 8088 and 8086.  I remember upgrading from 8K to 16K of RAM and getting my first hard drive- called the BRICK.  Most all software ran in DOS. This message was originally sent via UUCP but I saved it as ascii text onto tapes and then later translated it to disks with the idea of someday writing a book, but I never did. Enjoy…..Dennis,

This is my first contact with one of the Mensa discussion forums. I found a few guys that were willing to talk to me but it seems I ticked off a lot of others by my lack of due respect for the busywork puzzles and my references to the “wing nuts and space cadets” that inhabit and comment on most of the Mensa forums. I eventually formed my own forum, web site and discussion groups and a bunch of us proceeded to talk our way into a lot of business together. =============================================================

September 9, 1984
Hi. I’m new to this board but I have an interest in the subjects you discuss. I’d like to open a dialog with some of you about your ideas and what you are interested in and have analyzed or studied that may be interesting. I’m no Mensa guru but I do like a mental challenge and the application of science but more importantly, I think there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. I seek the latter.

Who am I:

I guess what I need to do first is try to tell you who I am and perhaps try to establish a little credibility so that you won’t think I’m really am a National Enquirer writer or some wing nut with wild ideas. Then I’ll present some simple but somewhat radical ideas to start with and see how it goes. If there is any interest in going further, I’d love to get into some really heavy stuff about life, existence and the future. I am particularly interested in discussing cosmology and the human animal, but that is for later.I’ve been developing a methodology for predicting events and narrowly defined aspects of certain subjects based on social and technical inputs from a vast information correlation program I use……But that should wait until I find out if anyone is even interested in this stuff.

I have been working near the Washington DC area for a number of years. I am a researcher that deals in analysis and logic. I enjoy a mental challenge similar to what I perceive that many Mensa types like but I don’t enjoy the meaningless math puzzles or secret decoder ring stuff. I prefer to ask or pursue the real mysteries of life and nature.I have a few technical degrees and have traveled and been schooled all over the world. That was mostly a product of my parents being in the military and my early jobs. I became interested in computers as soon as they came out. I helped build an ALTAIR at the University of New Mexico’s engineering fair in 1971-2. That was where the first “microcomputer” was created. The Altair came a few months later. It introduced me to computers but I immediately switched over to the software aspects of computers rather than become a hardware hacker. I got an EE degree first, so I understand the hardware, I just think its secondary to getting the job done. Then I got a CS degree and began to see the possibilities. I did 40 credit hours of studies in computer simulations and loved it. I was using math so much in my CS degree that I discovered that for one more semester, I could also get an BS in Applied Math – which I did. Then I discovered that with just one more semester, I could get a degree in Physics so I did that too. By then my parents were out of money and I had to get a job. Ever since then I have been messing with computers.

I was particularly fascinated by the speed of computers. I won an award one time for being the only student that solved a particular math problem using an algorithm that would fit into 2K of RAM. I did it simply by adding one to a variable and checking to see if that solved the equation ‑ if it didn’t I added one more. It worked. While working on one of the first OCR studies, I was captivated by the fact that the computer could find any text, no matter how much it had to search, in seconds that might take a person years to find. That has been a driving force every since.

What is my Resource Tool? I liked software but I wanted to get to the things that I could see that a computer could do ‑ not spend my time writing code. I became good at modifying and interfacing existing software to do what I wanted. I found that this was much easier than writing my own code. I got the original WordStar to talk to Visicalc and dBASE on an old CP/M Kaypro so that I could get automatic documents that self‑updated themselves. That was fun but I wanted to apply the efforts more to real world applications.The programming was slow because I tend to think in pictures and I wanted the programming to think in pictures also. I found a program that would reverse engineer a source code listing into a flow chart of the program. It was crude but it worked.I figured it would be even better if you could go the other way ‑ input a flowchart and get a compiler to write the code. I bought a flow chart program and a Fortran compiler and made them talk to each other so that I could use the graphics of the flow chart program to create a chart of my program flow and then feed it into the compiler to get object code.

I have improved on it for the last several years so that I can input natural language variables and verbs and it interprets for me. If it doesn’t understand some variable relationship and can’t figure it out by seeing it in context, it stops and asks me. I now can spend most of my time Using a program instead of writing it.

CLICK! Necessity if the Mother of Innovation

The first real application of this program was when I became a player in the stock market and discovered it was easy to improve my investment decisions if I could get my hands on the right information. The information was available, there was just no way to find it, link it and give it structure and purpose using the speed of the computer. That was the start of my effort to create a better information search and retrieval system.

The Hardware + Software

In short, I created some special searching software that helps me find anything about anything and then it automatically identifies links, relationships and implications for me. I know that sounds like a bunch of pie in the sky but it really isn’t all that hard to do. There are, in fact several programs on the market now that do the same thing, only I did it first on a Radio Shack TRS‑80 in 1979. Then again on an Apple II+ in 1983 and again in 1987 on a Mac and most recently on an MS‑DOS machine (from PC to XT to 286 and now a 386).

My method has evolved over the years and now uses some fuzzy logic and thesaurus lookup techniques along with a smart indexing and interfacing to my CD‑ROM and hard disk databases. I built it over several years in modular form as I added new hardware or new processing capabilities. The flowchart compiler helped me move the code from one machine to another since the source code (the flow chart itself) remained essentially the same, only the compiler code changed.

I now have a mini‑LAN of four computers and it will pass tasks to other computers, in the form of macros, so I can get parallel searches going on several different information resources at the same time. That also lets me proceed with the analysis while some slow peripheral, like the tape deck, is searching.

De Facto Credibility

This search software will also interface into script files for on‑line searches like IQUEST, DIALOG and about 270 others including several military and government databases and gateways (NTIS, DTIC, FEDLINK, etc. ) that I have access to as a function of my job. For the CompuServe Information System (CIS), the command structure that programs like TAPCIS uses makes it easy to initiate an on‑line search. The slowest part of it is waiting for the on‑line responses from the dial‑up service that I am using but at work I can use some really fast lines on ARPANET.

I also have access to a few foreign databases that are the equivalent of our UPI, AP and CIS’s IQUEST. The European (based in Germany) databases have lots of technical data and the Japanese databases have collated worldwide news reports from about 30 nations. I use some lines from Cable & Wireless that I am able to bill to my job. The translation services allow me to issue a search in English and read the response in English but the data searched is in one of several languages.

I can get into a lot of this stuff for free but there is also a lot that costs money. That’s one of the reasons I got permission and started using all these resources at work.

Plato is Born

Still, the on‑line search costs are why I tried to build up my own research capabilities. I use a page‑feeder scanner and OCR software to read in books and other texts to add to the info databases that I can search. There is a used bookstore near me that sells books dirt-cheap or will take trades for other stuff (non‑books). This makes it possible for me to buy a book, rip it apart and feed it into the page‑feed scanner. Then I can throw the book away. Since I never, ever let anyone else use the database and never quote directly out of the texts, its not a copyright violation.

400 CD‑ROMs, 90 (14 inch) laser disks, 250 or so tapes and perhaps 5000 disks of compressed (zipped) text files gives me immediate access to my own database of about 500 gigabytes of text or about 500 million pages. Some of this has line pictures but most of it is just pure text because the OCR software does not translate the images – just the text. That is a loss but if I think the image is important, I scan it and save it on a disk. Add to this on‑line access to about 3500 databases, including some I can get to at work, containing perhaps 50,000 times as much as I have, and you get some idea of how powerful my search capability can be. I call my search program, “Plato”.

Concept Searches:

With Plato, I am able to input a search “concept” instead of a search “syntax”. It will automatically cross‑reference and expand the search into related subjects based on parameters I set. It took a long time to learn hour to phrase my search syntax but I usually get back just the data I want. Plato saves the search paths, resources and references in a bibliography format if I need to refer to the source.

When you think about it, it is all pretty simple and commonly used techniques used in lots of commercially available software. The search of compressed (zipped) text data is done real well by Lotus Magellan. Lots of search software is available but I found a mix of GOPHER and FOLIO VIEWS with some added fuzzy logic and thesaurus lookup techniques that I enhanced after seeing some spell checkers that looked up words phonetically and with missing letters. The interfacing was simply a matter of finding hooks in other programs or putting front‑ends on them to get them to talk to each other. If all else fails, I just use a script file and/or keyboard macro in a BAT or BIN file to simulate the manual typing in and reading out of text. That always works.

Linking Information Resources:

There are lots of programs that can search one database or a selected set of data sources. All I did was add a few extra features (script and macro files) to make it move from one reference to another, to quantify the validity of the data and added some interfacing software that I wrote to make other programs, that already do parts of this, work together.

Using some of the research techniques and capabilities that Plato allows, I have been able to identify some very interesting linkages and cross‑references to concepts that may be of interest to people in this forum. I have also been able to fairly easily dismiss some of the quackery and screwballs that sometimes frequent these idea exchanges.

And Then What?

I am a serious and scientific researcher and I am not interested in some of the nuts and liars that grab scientific or technical words at random and make up their own versions of reality. On the other hand, I consider the majority of science to be somewhat boring. I may not KNOW everything but I don’t need to if I can find out what I need to know in only a few minutes on the computer. Besides, even if the answer to any question is right there on the screen, I still have to read it and after awhile, that mounts up to a lot of reading.It’s like having a dictionary. Anytime you wanted to know what a word means you’d look it up, but most people wouldn’t sit around all day looking up words just for fun. Now imagine the same thing with a very good set of encyclopedias. There would be a lot more information but after awhile, just knowing that you can find it would be enough. Now imagine a set of encyclopedias that contains 87 billion, 500 million pages of text! That’s how big my dictionary is. Ok so its not really that big but we are talking about the size of hundreds of libraries.The one advantage that I think I have over many people is that I believe that the answer to most of our questions are out there somewhere. Many people don’t even think to ask if they really believe that the answer is not available. Let me give you an example. I worked as a part-time consultant to government contractors for a while and I often dealt with clients that were preparing a proposal for a contract. When I tell them that I can get detailed information about what their other competitors are doing, most think I can’t or it would be done by illegal means. I can and it’s legal. I can, in many cases get not only what the competitors are going to bid but their cost structures and their past performance. I can even get the salaries of the people doing the bidding. After awhile, my clients start asking me to get information that it would never occur to them to ask for before I came on the scene.Monotony:Getting back to that incredible large dictionary, it might be fun to look up stuff for a while but pretty soon you would stop looking up random subjects and try to find some real challenges. I got to that point about 4 years ago, shortly after I finished the prototype for my first PC based search software. I have expanded its capabilities as new databases became available. The addition of the scanner to read in hardcopy text was a big improvement. I was able to select books in topic areas I wanted or to fill in gaps in coverage. The scanner(s) has been going, on average, at about 2‑4 hours a day for the last several years.The Hawking IncidentAs I added new data, it was fun for a few days to search for some incredibly minuscule detail. Or to try out a fuzzy search and chase down some concept. I particularly liked writing to Steven Hawking and telling him I thought I had determined the size of the universe. He was very polite when he said, “I know!”.That incident was one of many where I began following a trail of information that made me believe I had “uncovered” some new idea or concept that “I” had not heard before only to find out that upon deeper research, it has already been discovered. With all this information, it is a very humbling thought to realize that someone out there knows at least some part of all of it.I guess there is something to be said for being able to consolidate and cross‑reference all of this information and focus it down for a single person. It has the net effect of allowing me to ask questions that lead me into areas that I would never have known to follow into.It is very useful to integrate across scientific study areas. For instance, medical people seem to know very little about electronics or physics and vise versa. The result is that scientists in each field limit their view of the world by only seeing it from their own field of study. Only in the last few years has there begun to be a cross mixing. Things like a tiny pill made of SMD (surface‑mount devices) that a patient swallows. The pill has a sensor array and a transmitter that sends data to a receiver outside the body. The term non‑invasive gets redefined.It seemed like ages before they began to introduce virtual reality to medical systems and robotics and yet it seemed to me to be a perfectly natural mix. I felt that as soon as a movie like TRON was made, that it would be only a matter of time before robotics, animation and computer graphics would be combined into a 3‑D viewer but it seems that it is just now catching on. But What Has this all got to do with you?Now it is at this point that I must chose a topic to discuss with people of this forum. I enjoy almost any intellectual discussion from religion to cosmology to the human potential but I prefer a topic that is perhaps a little further out than most of these and that mixes a lot of hard-core science and math with some logic and speculation.I am very curious about the fringes of science. The areas where conventional science is afraid or unwilling to conduct real research but that has an unusual following of “believers”. _____________________________________________________________So, Dennis, what do you think?___________________________________________________

2007 Update:In the late 1990’s, I updated Plato with a modern windows GUI interface and OOPs OCX files and modules. I expanded into a Dbase DBMS engine and SQL interfaces. I was able to multiplex multiple modems using some ISP software so I could use multiple lines of input. Later, I extended this to multiple computers on a TCP/IP network using broadband. It still relied on macros and keyboard simulators to interface with other commercial and proprietary software but its parallel operations equated to a lot of procession power. Of course, the multiple terabytes of networked storage that I have gathered and stored over the years also help but all this also slows down processing of a complex request.I have continued to make use of a lot of web sites and online services that I can access as a result of my government work and that gives me a huge increase over simple web searches. I also have improved the bi-directional translation capability so I can tap into databases created in other countries. My main problem with all these other databases is that I have to keep updating the macros and keyboard simulators to match up with changes that have been made on these sites.I have also since expanded its ability to search for themes, concepts and related ideas while improving its ability to quantify the relevance of those findings. It still takes hours to resolve most of my searches but I let it work overnight and sometimes over the weekend to find and resolve a complex concept when it is extended with related and thesaurus lookups and Monte Carlo relevance measures..The end result is a very useful tool that I find helpful but, as noted above, it is not perfect and still falls far short of the human mind.  

Posted in Introduction, Maybe True | 1 Comment »

Clinton’s Dead Path

20 July 2008 by admin.

I did not write this nor create it but it shows how far our government has descended into the depths. 

The following is a list of dead people connected with Bill and Hillary Clinton:   James McDougal - Clinton’s convicted Whitewater partner died of an  apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witnessin Ken Starr’s investigation.  A frail, sick, old man was put into solitary lockupwithout his heart attack medicene despite having a record of several previous attacks and a perscription for the medicene from the prison doctor.    Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she wasto go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.    Vince Foster - Former white House councelor, and colleague ofHillery Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head,ruled a suicide.    Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman.Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation  reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling agunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spokepublicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.    C. Victor Raiser II - & - Montgomery raiser Major players in theClinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.    Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found  dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992. Described by Clinton asa ” Dear friend and trusted advisor”.    Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep inthe woods in Virginia of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. EdWilley died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped herin the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton  fund raising events.    Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team inLittle Rock.  Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside LittleRock.  Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly  threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files weremysteriously removed from his house.    James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that hehad a “Black Book” of people containing names of influential people who visited  prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.    James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an aparent hanging  suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.    Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson diedin May 1994 was found dead in her living roon with a gunshot to her head. It wasruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she was going  someware. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in thePaula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness forPaula Jones.    Bill Shelton - Arkansas state Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson.  Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the gravesite of his fiancee.    Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton friend Dan Lassater died byjumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was aconvicted drug distributor.    Florence Martin - Accountant sub-contractor for the CIA related tothe Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. Died of three gunshot wounds.    Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was  Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head,  ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.    Paula Grober - Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.    Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating MenaAirport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparentsuicide in the middle of his investigation.    Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airportwith Casolaro and the 1980 “October Surprise” was found deadon a toilet June 22,1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3weeks before his death.    Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution TrustCorp.   Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993 Was investigating Morgan Guarantee scandal.    Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron  Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Herbrused nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.    Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave JohnHuang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.    Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic HealthCare Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small planecrash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton’s advisory councilpersonally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.    Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, Death was no  accident.    Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Clintonin the trunk of a car left in his repair shop. Died when his car hit a utility pole.    Stanley Huggins - Suicide. Investigated Madison Guarantee. Hisreport was never released.    Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1,1994 when his plane exploded.    Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as “The boys on the track” case.Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena arkansas airport drugoperation. Controversaial case whereinitial report of death was due to falling  asleep on railroad track. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before  being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their  testimony could come before a Grand Jury.    THE FOLLOWING SIX PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES / HENRY CASE    Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of atruck July, 1988    Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988    Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.    Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trashdump in April 1989.    James Milan - Found decapitated. Coroner ruled death due to natural  causes.    Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his  pickup truck in June 1990.    Richard Winters - Was a suspect in the Ives / Henry  deaths. Waskilled in a set-up robbery July 1989    THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD.  It has to be assumed that these body guards were not all frail old men.  They most often are fit, active types in good health.    Major William S. Barkley Jr.  Captain Scott J. Reynolds  Sgt. Brian Hanley  Sgt. Tim Sabel  Major General William Robertson  Col. William Densberger  Col. Robert Kelly  Spec. Gary Rhodes  Steve Willis  Robert Williams  Conway LeBleu  Todd McKeehan If you consider the 12 guards all died of natual causes, the totals are: 

Murdered - 15Accidents - 10Suicides - 11Natual - 13 There are only 49 people here but let us assume that this is from a large list of people that Clinton’s know of or had some contact with.  In order for these numbers to be statistically average for the US, the numbers of people it would have to represent is: Murdered -  For 15 to be average, the total sample group would have to be 690,000Accidents - For 10 to be average, the total sample group would have to be 2,500,000Suicides -   For 11 to be average, the total sample group would have to be 69,179 (see below)Natual -      For 13 to be average, the total sample group would have to be 3,172 (see below) (source is from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports) 

The “Black Arts Guide” describes the three methods most often used to hide a murder as being:  1.         private airplane crashes (7 of 10 accidents listed above); 2.         single car crashes (3 of 10 accidents listed above) and 3.         gunshot suicides (7 of 11 suicides listed above). Of the 11 sucides listed, 9 were under “unusual” circumstances or had unsolved aspects.    Of the 11 listed suicides, most were in the age group of 45-54.  For this group, the National Center for Health Statistics listed a national sucide rate of 1 in 6,289.  For 11 to be average, the total sample group would have to be 69,179. Of the 13 deaths by natural causes, 7 were under 50 years old and 2 were under 40.  Overall, there is a 1 in 119 chance of death in any given year from natual causes,however, this figure changes dramatically with age and location.  An age corrected risk for these 13 would be closer to 1 in 244 or  For 13 to be average, the total sample group would have to be 3,172. If Clinton will lie and then order a missle attack, killing hundreds, to divert attention away from his personal issues,  would he let the above listed people get in his way?  Apparently not…….

Posted in Maybe True | 1 Comment »

Dark Matter’s Dark Secret

20 July 2008 by admin.

We all know how Edwin Hubble made his measures of the movement of distant objects and concluded that the universe was expanding.  This caused researchers to wonder if we would expand forever (open), re-collapse (closed) or reach some future steady state (flat).   This also implied that we must have been smaller in the past and therefore the big bang theory was supported.  What did happen and what will happen depends a lot on the average density of the universe and the exact rate of expansion. 

We are in the middle of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to quantify these values in greater detail but we now know enough now to know that the visible matter in the universe is not enough to account for what we observe.  In fact, the “missing mass problem” has been around since 1933 and follows from the application of the virial theorem to galactic movements.

 

As science and math have done many times before, we speculate on a solution and then go looking for proof that that solution exists.  So we created the “dark matter component” and its counterpart – dark energy.  Since this is entirely an imaginary creation, we have given it properties that fit current observations – which is that it is entirely invisible, even thought it makes up 96% of the universe.  It has no emissions or reflections of any electromagnetic radiation so we have no idea what it looks like.   Despite supporting this imaginary construct, cosmologists and astronomers will admit that they cannot suggest what extrapolation of any known physics could account for something that is responsible for so much mass in the universe and yet cannot be detected by any normal observation.

 

Our only inference that it is there is from observed gravitational effects on visible matter.    In other words, we have a hole in a theory that we have filled with something that cannot be seen or detected by any means.  We also have a detected gravitational anomaly in a group of formulas that predict various galactic motion.  We have neatly solved both problems by linking them to unknown and imaginary attributes of dark matter.   

Ah but math and observations, in this case, are not consistent because we do not see the same level of correlation between galactic rotation curve anomalies and the gravitational implications from galaxies that have a large visible light component.  We also do not see a uniform distribution of dark matter throughout space or even within galaxies.  The ratio of the detected gravitational anomalies attributed to dark matter does not seem to be consistent based on the quantity of stars in a galaxy.  

 

In fact, in globular clusters and galaxies such as NGC3379, there seems to be little or no dark matter at all and other galaxies have been discovered (VIRGOH121) that are almost entirely dark matter.   Another recent study showed that there are 10 to 100 times fewer small galaxies than predicted by the dark matter theory of galaxy formation.  We can’t even agree on whether there is any dark matter in our own Milky Way galaxy. 

So this imaginary solution has become a unifying concept among most astrophysicists but only if you keep allowing for a long list of inconsistencies and logical anomalies that get dismissed by saying that we don’t know what dark matter is. 

Fortunately, the flip side of cosmology is quantum physics and scientists in that field of study have not been satisfied with expressions of human ignorance and have tried to seek out a plausible answer.  Unfortunately, they have not had a lot of success when solution candidates are put under intense analysis.   Direct detection experiments such as DAMA/Nai and EGRET have mostly been discounted because they cannot be replicated (shades of Cold Fusion).  The neutrino was a candidate for awhile but has mostly been discounted because it moves too fast.  In fact, most relativistic (fast moving) particles cannot be used because they do not account for the clumps of bark matter observed.   Studies and logic have ruled out baryonic particles, electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, WIMPs, and many others.

 

Up to this point, all this is historical fact and can be easily confirmed.  What we have is a typical scientific anomaly in which a lot of people really fear thinking outside the box.  The box of traditional and institutional thinking.  All of the particle solutions sought so far are simply looking at the heaviest or most massive particles known and asking if that could be dark matter. 

Despite the thinking that the dark matter itself is imaginary, why not expand the possibilities to some truly wild ideas?  What if there are black holes the size of atoms but with the gravitational pull of a pound of lead.  Would the solar wind of bright galaxies blow such small objects away from the galaxy center?  That would account for the reduced dark matter detected in high light-to-mass galaxies.  The math to show that this is possible can be applied to include or dismiss this idea very quickly and perhaps that has been done.  But there is an even better candidate.

 

Dark Matter and even Dark Energy can be account for by the presence of the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson.   This takes the dark matter search out of the realm of finding an object or particle that exhibits unseen mass and puts it into the realm of being caused by the force of gravity itself. 

 

The Higgs field is a non-zero vacuum expectation value that permeates everyplace in the universe at all times and plays the role of giving mass to every elementary particle, including the Higgs boson itself.   If the detected gravitational anomalies are caused by changes in the source of mass itself, then a number of the problems and inconsistencies of dark matter are resolved.

 

The Higgs field can impart mass to other elementary particles and thus by extension to macro-matter that eventually create the observed massive gravitational fields around certain galaxies.  The variation of the effects of dark matter might simple be the non-homogeneous distribution of the Higgs field itself or on the particles that it acts upon.

 

Some of the components of the Higgs field, specifically the Goldstone Bosons, are infraparticles which interact with soft photons which might account for the reduced dark matter detected in high light-to-mass galaxies.  I still like the idea that the high light-to-mass galaxies have a low dark matter component because of the solar wind blowing away the particles that the Higgs field acts on or in the thinning of the Higgs field itself.

 

Since we have not yet confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson and the Higgs field, it is premature to predict what kind of repulsive force it might impart but an extension of the scalar field theory for dark energy might be imply applicable consequences for electroweak symmetry breaking in the early universe or some variation of the quintessence field theory.  What we call vacuum energy, the quintessence field, dark energy and the Higgs Field might actually be all variations of the same theme.

 

The bottom line is that we have far too many reasonable and logical opportunities to explore alternative concepts to explain the gravitational anomalies of the virial theorem to galactic movements without resorting to the distraction of creating a terra incognita label for our lack of imagination and knowledge.

Posted in Science...."Fiction?", Maybe True | No Comments »

How to Travel at the Speed of Light…or Faster.

18 July 2008 by admin.

I wrote this for a dissertation for a Theoretical Physics seminar last year (Boston). It was peer reviewed but not printed or accepted for the seminar because my credentials were not sufficient to meet the standards of the seminar. I did, however, get a positive commentary from Julius Wess who was given an expanded copy of this article because of his interest in supersymmetry and his work at DESY.

Nov 16, 2004

Super String Theory Update

In articles that have appeared in various publications within the past few months (Jan to June 2004), the Super String Theory has been studied to a much greater level of detail. The Super String Theory is an extension of the Standard Model and is also known as the Supersymmetry Standard Model (SSM). The SSM which is generally accepted as the most accurate to date; however, fails to explain mass fully and it is the one possible theory that can provide the joining of both quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics for a Unified Field Theory - a single model of all matter and energy in the universe.

 

One aspect of the SSM is that it predicts that there is a pervasive cloud of particles everywhere in space. A hundred years ago, this might have been called the “ether” but we now refer to this as the Higgs Field and the particles in this field are called Higgs Bosons.

 

This cloud of very small particles (Higgs Bosons) creates a field (the Higgs Field) that interacts with matter to create mass and gravity. The existence of this field is predicted by the Lagrangian function of the Standard Model and provides a description of the Higgs field as a quantum field. The Higgs field permeates all reality and the interaction between this field and other matter (electrons, other bosons, etc.) is what creates the effect we call mass. A dense solid interacts with this field more than a less dense solid creating all of the physical characteristics we attribute to mass - weight, momentum, inertia, etc.

 

The existence of the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson was nearly proven in 2000 but the CERN synchrotron isn’t quite strong enough. Newer designs that are being built now should prove this concept within the next 3 to 5 years. To date, every physical prediction that we can achieve of the SSM and the implications of the Higgs field have been shown to be true. Let us speculate for a moment on the possibilities.

 

The Higgs field’s interaction with matter is what gives us the physical characteristics we attribute to mass - weight, momentum, inertia, etc. Imagine a jet aircraft flying in the air. As we move it faster, the air resists so that it takes a lot of energy to move a large (or heavy) object. If we go too fast, friction will heat up the surface of the wings as it does with re-entry vehicles from space. With jet aircraft, there is a sound barrier that builds up air in front of the aircraft and resists further increases in speed. The energy to move faster increases significantly as you get closer to the sound barrier and then when you exceed it, the energy to fly faster drops back down.

 

When you remove the air - such as in space - now you need very little energy from the engine to move very large objects or to go very fast. The resistance of the air and gravity is gone and the smallest push or thrust will make even a very large object move or go faster.

This is all fact. Now lets speculate for a moment….

 

What if Michelson and Morley’s 1879 experiment to find the “ether” medium that light traveled on was right but on such a different scale that they failed to detect what they were looking for. After all, we still are not certain exactly what the Higgs field is but what if that is their ether. It would certainly explain the dual personality of light – acting like both waves and particles. It might also help explain dark matter and dark energy in the universe – but I digress. Let’s speculate for a moment and imagine that the Higgs field does exist (not that big a stretch of the imagination) and that it is the media that keeps light from going any faster than….the speed of light.

 

Now suppose you didn’t have a Higgs field or could turn it off? If the Higgs field is not there at all, there is no mass, no momentum, no inertia and no weight. If an object has no mass or very little then even a small amount of thrust will push it very fast. Using an ion engine that has a low but very fast thrust, you should be able to push a massless object rapidly to the speed of light and perhaps beyond.

 

Think about it. Other than the E=MC2 formula and the math that was derived by observations in a Higgs Field universe, why is there an upper limit on speed? Why can’t we go faster than light IF the mass is low and the thrust is fast enough? Suppose like some many things in physics, the limits we have put on our thinking about possibilities is because of the limits we have put on our thinking. In other words, if relativity is flawed or misunderstood with respect to the its framing of the conditions of the math, then perhaps in a different frame of reference, the math is wrong and it does not take infinite energy to push an object to the speed of light.

 

Now back to facts. A careful read of special relativity will reveal that Einstein said, “the speed of light is constant when measured in any inertial frame”. If, as has been speculated, the Higgs field is responsible for the physical characteristics we attribute to mass - weight, momentum, inertia, etc., and it was possible to somehow remove the Higgs field, and therefore remove the inertial frame, then even the special theory of relativity says that light speed is no longer a constant.

 

Does it make any sense to even consider this perspective in light of all of the proven experiments and math that have proven General and Special relativity over and over again? The answer is yes if you consider one thing. If the Higgs field permeates all reality and the interaction between this field and other matter (electrons, other bosons, etc.) is what creates the effect we call mass, then how could we imagine that there is any other frame of reference. At the time of Einstein, the Higgs field was unknown so the absence of the Higgs filed could not even be speculated. Now it can be. Or we can imagine frames of reference that might allow objects to alter, interact with or somehow by-pass the effects of the Higgs field. For instance…..

 

We have speculated that there are particles called tachyons that have a LOWER limit of the speed of light but that are based on the assumptions that they have no mass. If a space ship could be made to have no mass, what would it’s speed limit be?

 

If the Higgs field is now acting like air and creating a barrier that appears to us to be the limiting factor in the speed of light, then perhaps faster than light travel is possible in the absence of a Higgs field.

 

How do we get the Higgs field to go away? I don’t know but in 25 or 50 or 75 years, we might know. One hint of a possibility is a startling new find called two-dimensional light. Its called plasmons and it can be triggered when light strikes a patterned metallic surface. In March 2006, the American Physical Society gave demonstrations of plasmons and plasmonic science. They demonstated, for instance, a plasmon microscope that was capable of imaging at scales lower (smaller than) the wavelength of the light they were using to view the object. This is like seeing a marble by firing beach balls at it.

 

Using a combination of metamaterials, nano-optics, microwaves and plasmonics, David Schurig and David R. Smith at Duke University and his British colleagues (in October 2006) created something that can cause microwaves to move along and around a surface. The effect is exactly like a Klingon cloaking device from Star Trek or like Harry Potter’s Cloak of Invisibility. This is not speculation, they have done it. Similar work by the Imperial College in London and SensorMetrix of San Diego are developing metamaterials capable of rerouting visible light, acoustic waves and other electromagnetic waves.

 

This is technology today. What will we be able to do in 50 years? Might we be able to sort of pry open a hole in the Higgs field by bending or rerouting the field around an object. You might call this a warped Higgs field or simply a warp field.

 

If we can warp the Higgs field in a controlled manner, then the temporal implications are another matter but travel at or faster than the speed of light might be possible.

 

OK, so how do you warp the Higgs field?

 

(Of course, we are way out in the realm of speculation but isn’t this they way that crazy things like black holes and super novas were first imagined? If our minds can fathom the remotest possibility now, then perhaps when the containment technology and power densities (energies) above the Fermi scale catches up with our imaginations, we can see if works.)

 

One aspect of the Supersymmetry Standard Model (SSM) is that the strings all vibrate. In fact, every particle and field has a vibration frequency. It is one characteristic attributed to the ‘spin” of a particle. With sufficient energy, it may be possible to create harmonic vibrations to these particles. One aspect of the cloaking device mentioned above is that they use destructive interference to null out the electromagnetic fields of one path and replace it with emissions from another path. This allows them to hide an object while substituting other sensor data that simulates the object not being there at all. The essence is that by controlling the vibrations or frequency on the nano-meter scale, they can manipulate light. Is it possible to extend this thinking to the Higgs field? If so, we might be able to manipulate the Higgs field on, in and around a surface.

It is hard to imagine that something like Bernoulli’s Principle of fluid flow would work on the scale of the Higgs field’s interaction with a surface moving at high speed but it serves as a possible analogy of an area of exploration. Actually, this is not at all that unreasonable.

 

I have flown in some big military planes. The C-130 has an overhead escape hatch near the flight deck. When we flew in the South Pacific, on a hot day, we would open this hatch and stick our heads out. There is something called laminar air-flow around the aircraft. As the plane moves thru the air at 250 MPH, the air going past it is moving at about that speed (assuming no wind), however, in the last 6 to 8 inches as you move closer to the surface of the plane, the wind slows down (relative to the aircraft) due to friction with the surface. This speed drops rapidly in the last 3 or 4 inches so that the wind passing over the fuselage within the last 2 inches is moving relatively slowly – about 30 to 60 MPH. You can stick you head up enough to get your eyes above the edge of the hatch and it won’t even blow your sunglasses off. I’ve done it.

 

What if the Higgs field could be warped by sub-nano-level wave manipulations or react in a manner similar to the laminar air-flow around an aircraft but do it on a space ship? What if we helped it a little by moving that field out away from the ship’s surface just a little? Here’s how.

 

As with recent studies in the use of standing waves to isolate and manipulate objects, it may be possible to seek and find a harmonic frequency that will create compressions and rarefactions in these particle vibrations or fields. If the surface of a vehicle were the emitter and it was properly synchronized, the rarefaction of the standing wave of the harmonic vibrations would create a layer of empty space (rarefactions) around the vehicle totally devoid of Higgs bosons and therefore have no Higgs field, i.e. a warp field.

 

To understand the impact of reducing or eliminating the Higgs field, let’s look at an example.

 

Since light is made up of photons and photons in motion have mass (they have no known rest mass), and since photons travel at the speed of light, turning on a flashlight in the absence of a surrounding Higgs field would instantly move the flashlight to the speed of light. The reason is that the photons coming out of the light beam have mass and are moving at the speed of light. This is mass moving all in one direction. The equal and opposite reaction is for the flashlight to move in the direction opposite from the way that the light beam is pointing. Normally the very tiny mass of the photons would have very little effect on the relatively heavy flashlight but if the flashlight had no mass at all, it would be like putting a rocket engine on a feather. The photons would seem to have the effect of a powerful blasting rocket engine making the mass-less flashlight accelerate to speeds nearly equal to the photons moving in the opposite direction.

 

Since our imaginary vehicle with the vibrating surface also has no mass at all in the absence of a surrounding Higgs field, it could be any size and the same flashlight could also move it to the speed of light.

But what about the people?

 

Now you ask how could you possibly withstand the acceleration from zero to the speed of light within a second or less. That is easy if you have no mass also. Momentum, inertia and even gravity depend on an object having mass. If you have no mass, you cannot have inertia or momentum.

 

Imagine for a moment throwing a heavy ball. When you let go of the ball it continues in the direction it is thrown. Now imagine throwing a feather. Actually it is quite hard to throw a feather because the moment you let go of it, it will stop moving forward and drift slowly downward. It has so little mass that any inertia or momentum it has would be quickly overcome by air resistance – regardless of speed.

 

If you were in a giant space craft but had a device that could create the absence of a surrounding Higgs field, you would have no mass. No momentum and no inertia and no reaction to gravity. A 90 degree turn at 1,000 mph (or any speed) would not be a problem because you cannot experience the “g” forces that an object with mass would experience. Hence, it is possible to make these radical turns and fantastic accelerations without killing everyone.

 

If, as we have speculated, it is the Higgs field particles (bosons), like air particles, that are artificially creating what we see as being the barrier to going faster than the speed of light, then when we shine that flashlight and the photons come out, they will travel faster than the speed of light until they enter the Higgs field and then they will slow back down to the speed of light. Since we are using the light (photon) thrust in the absence of a surrounding Higgs field, the flashlight might also accelerate the imaginary vehicle with the vibrating surface that has no mass to speeds faster than the speed of light.

 

Alternatively, imagine a warp field creating a massless vehicle that is powered by the graviton-beam engine described earlier in this report. If you can control this warp field, you can create any degree of mass you like. So you tune it to have the mass of a feather and then tune the graviton-beam to have the attractive or repulsive force of a planet-size object or perhaps the force of a black hole. Now you have as much power as can be obtained and controlled trying to move an object at speeds greater than the speed of light.

The September 2002 Jupiter event allowed Ed Fomalont of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Charlottesville, Virginia to prove that gravity’s propagation speed is no greater than lightspeed. This is because gravity, so one theory says, interacts with the Higgs field as a direct result of the Equivalence Principle in the context of Lorentz symmetry, and so it can be said that the nature of the gravity field can be attributed to the Higgs-Goldstone field. This has been postulated from several math and experimental directions and is generally accepted as fact.

The idea is that the Higgs-Goldstone boson may account for gravity and mass is what makes the use of some kind of warp field a possible solution for faster-than-light travel. Note that this approach does not rely on the deformation of space-time, worm-holes, multi-dimensional space or even violations of the equations of general relativity. Remembering that Einstein’s math was based on an inertial frame and this proposition removes that frame of reference.

General relativity (GR) explains these features by suggesting that gravitation forces (unlike electromagnetic forces) is a geometric effect of curved space-time, in which the effects of the space-time distortion is what propagates at light speeds. Problems with the causality principle also exist for Gravitational Radiation (GR) in this connection, such as explaining how the external fields between binary black holes manage to continually update without benefit of communication with the masses hidden behind event horizons. These causality problems would be solved without any change to the mathematical formalism of GR, but only to its interpretation, if gravity is once again taken to be a propagating force of nature in flat space-time with the propagation speed indicated by observational evidence and experiments. Such a change of perspective requires no change in the assumed character of gravitational radiation or its lightspeed propagation.

Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR-at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics, the dark matter issue in cosmology, and the possible unification of forces. Recognition of a light-speed Higgs field propagation of gravity, as indicated by recent experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.

Although certainly in the realm of wild speculation, it is still not beyond imagination nor in conflict with proven science that the graviton beam engine described in another article in combination with a massless vehicle wrapped in a warpped Higgs field could achieve speeds well in excess of light.

 

As crazy as this sounds, this is completely consistent with our present knowledge of physics. No, it is not proven but it is not disproven and even in its speculative form, it can be seen as compliant with existing math and theories.

 

The missing element is a sufficient energy source to manipulate Higgs bosons and a control mechanism to create the harmonic vibrating surfaces. It is easy to imagine that in 50 or 100 years we will have the means to do this.

 

It is also easy to imagine that a civilization on a distant planet that began its life a few million years before we did, could easily have resolved these problems and created devices that can be used in interplanetary travel.

Posted in Science...."Fiction?", Maybe True | 1 Comment »

Intergalactic Space Travel

18 July 2008 by admin.

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 UFO’s.  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 Drake’s 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 50^th 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 don’t know what Plato is, then go read my article on it, titled, Plato – My Information Research Tool.

Here goes:

 

What is the source of their Spacecraft Power? 

Assumptions: 

 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.

 Repulsive Gravity:

 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.

 Silent Operation

 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:

 Ion Engine

 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.

Posted in Science...."Fiction?", Future History, Maybe True | No Comments »

Alien Life Exists

18 July 2008 by admin.

October 13, 1998

I want to thank you for letting me post your article about gravity shielding that appeared in the March ‘98 WIRED magazine.  Your comments on my article about lightning sprites and the blue-green flash are also appreciated.  In light of our on-going exchange of ideas, I thought you might be interested in some articles I wrote for my WEB forum on “bleeding edge science” that I hosted awhile back.  Some of these ideas and articles date back to the mid-90’s, so some of the references are a little dated and some of the software that I use now is generally available as a major improvement over what I had then.

What I was involved with then can be characterized by the books and magazines I read, a combination of Skeptical Enquirer, Scientific American, Discovery and Nature.  I enjoyed the challenge of debunking some space cadet that had made yet another perpetual motion machine or yet another 250 mile-per-gallon carburetor - both claiming that the government or big business was trying to suppress their inventions.  Several of my articles were printed on the bulletin board that pre-dated the publication of the Skeptical Enquirer.

I particularly liked all the far-out inventions attributed to one of my heroes - Nikola Tesla.  To hear some of those fringe groups, you’d think he had to be an alien implant working on an intergalactic defense system.  I got more than one space cadet upset with me by citing real science to shoot down his gospel of zero-point energy forces and free energy.

Perhaps the most fun is taking some wing ding that has some crazy idea and bouncing that against what we know about in hard science.  Most often than not, they make use of fancy science terms and word that they do not really understand to try to add credibility to their ravings.  I have done this so often, in fact, that I thought I’d take on a challenge and try to play the other side for once.  I’ll be the wing nut and spin a yarn about some off the wall idea but I’ll do it in such a way that I’ll try to really convince you that it is true.  To that, I’m going to use every thing I know about science.  You be the judge if this sounds like a space cadet or not.

===============================

 

Are They Really There?             Life is Easy to Make: 

 Since 1953, with the Stanley Miller experiment, we have, or should have discarded the theory that we are unique in the universe.  Production of organic life and even DNA and RNA have been shown to occur in simple mixtures of hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water when exposed to an electrical discharge (lightning).  The existence of most of these components has been frequently verified by spectral analysis in distant stars but, of course, until recently, we can’t see the star’s planets.  Based on the most accepted star and planet formation theories, most star systems would have a significant number of planets with these elements and conditions.

 Quantifying the SETI

 A radio astronomer, Frank Drake developed some equations that were the first serious attempt to quantify the number of technical civilizations in our galaxy.  Unfortunately, his factors were very ambiguous and various scientists have produced numbers ranging from 1 to 10 billion technical civilizations in just our galaxy.  This condition of a formula is referred to as unstable or ill‑conditioned systems.  There are mathematical techniques to reduce the instability of such equations.  I attempted to do so to quantify the probability of the existence of intelligent life.

 I approached the process a little different.  Rather than come up with a single number for the whole galaxy, I decided to relate the probability to distance from Earth.  Later I added directionality.

 Using the basic formulas Drake used to start, I added a finite stochastic process using conditional probability. This produces a tree of event outcomes for each computed conditional probability.  (The conditions being quantified were those in his basic formula: rate of star formation; number of planets in each system with conditions favorable to life; fraction of planets with on which life develops; fraction of planets that develop intelligent life; fraction of planets that develop intelligent life that evolve technical civilizations capable of interstellar communications and the lifetime of such a civilization).

 I then layered one more parameter onto this by increasing the probability of a particular tree path inversely to the relation of one over the square of the distance.  This added a conservative estimate for the increasing probability of intelligent life as the distance from Earth increases and more stars and planets are included in the sample size.

 I Love Simulation Models

 I used standard values used by Gamow and Hawking in their computations, however, I ignored Riemannian geometry and assumed a purely Euclidean universe.  Initially, I assumed the standard cosmological principles of homogeneity and isotropic distributions.  (I changed that later) Of course this produced 1000’s of probable outcomes but by using a Monte Carlo simulation of the probability distribution and the initial computation factors of Drake’s formula (within reasonable limits), I was able to derive a graph of probability of technical civilizations as a function of distance.

 But I Knew That

 As was predictable before I started, the graph is a rising, non‑linear curve, converging on  if you go out in distance far enough 100%.  Even though the outcome was intuitive, what I gained was a range of distances with a range of corresponding probabilities of technical civilizations.  Obviously, the graph converges to 100% at infinite distances but what was really surprising is that it is above 99% before leaving the Milky Way Galaxy.  We don’t even have to go to Andromeda to have a very good chance of there being intelligent life in space.  Of course, that is not so unusual since our galaxy may have about 200 billion stars and some unknown multiple of planets.

 Then I made It Directional

 I toyed with one other computation.  The homogeneous and isotropic universe used by Einstein and Hawking is a mathematical convenience to allow them to relate the structure of the universe to their theories of space‑time. These mathematical fudge‑factors are not consistent with observation in small orders of magnitude in distance from earth ‑ out to the limits of what we can observe ‑ about 15 billion light years.  We know that there is inhomogeneous or lumps in the stellar density at these relatively close distances.  The closest lump is called the Local Group with 22 galaxies but it is on the edge of a super cluster of 2500 galaxies.  There is an even larger group called the Great Attractor that may contain tens of thousands of galaxies. 

By altering my formula,  I took into account the equatorial system direction (ascension & declination) of the inhomogeneous clustering.  Predictably, this just gave me a probability of intelligent life based on a vector rather than a scalar measure.  It did however, move the distance for any given probability much closer ‑ in the direction of clusters and super clusters.  So much so that at about 351 million light years, the probability is virtually 100%.  At only about 3 million light years, the probability is over 99%. That is well within the Local Group of galaxies.

 When you consider that there are tens of billions of stars and galaxies within detection range by Earth and some unknown quantity beyond detection - it is estimated that there are galaxies numbering as many as a 1 followed by 21 zeros - that is more than all the grains of sand in all the oceans, beaches and deserts in the entire world.  And in each of those galaxies, there are billions of stars!  Now you can begin to see that the formula to quantify the number of technical civilizations in space results in virtually 100% no matter how conservative you make the input values.  It can do no less than prove that life is out there.

Posted in Science...."Fiction?", Future History, Maybe True | No Comments »

Alien Life

18 July 2008 by admin.

I presented the following to a Mensa conference on the paranormal (at Malvern) as a sort of icebreaker, tongue-in-cheek fun discussion.  It turned into the most popular (unofficial) discussion at the conference and created more than two years of follow-on discussions.

———————————————————————————————————

January 11, 1998

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 UFO’s.  I completely discount 99.5% 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 Drake’s 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 and to test the limits of Plato.  (Plato is the name of my automated research tool)  With all the I hype about the 50^th 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. 

What I found was quite surprising.

Who are the Aliens and Where do they come from? 

 Assumptions:

1.      I began this by first verifying that the most common description of aliens (GREYS) has a high probability of being accurate.  I collected data from all over the world using key word searches of newspaper stories going back for several years and then ran some cross checks on those that did the reporting.  I discarded any eyewitnesses that had any previous recorded sightings or were connected to any organization that supported or studied UFOs.  Of the 961 left, I ran a Monte Carlo analysis on the statistical chances that they had contact with or communicated with other UFO people or with each other.  I then did a regression analysis on their descriptions and the circumstances of their sightings.  All this filtering left me with a small sample size of only 41 descriptions but I was much more confident that I had as credible a group of “witnesses” as I could find.

2.      The surprising result was a 93% correlation of data (coefficient of correlation) that what they described was the same or very similar and that they were reporting the truth, as they knew it to be.  The truth, in this case, can be compared to a baseline or reference description of the classical or typical aliens.  When I did this, I found that I had a group that was so consistent as to have a collective 91% reliability factor as compared to the baseline or reference description.  That is very high ‑ just ask any lawyer.  The assumption here, is that the reference description and the eye witnesses are telling the truth.  If we consider that these 41 descriptions came from countries all over the world and in some cases from areas that did not have mass media news services, it would be more implausible to imagine that they all had conspired or collaborated rather than told the truth.

3.      I also believe in evolution and that its basic concepts are common throughout the universe.

 

 Now back to the most common description of aliens (GREYS): whitish gray skin; large eyes; small nose, ears and mouth; small in stature (3‑4 ft), large pear‑shaped head, small, thin and fragile body and hands; bi‑pedal (two legs).  Less reliable (74%) is that they make noises that don’t sound like speech or words and sometimes don’t talk at all.

OK, this may or may not be true.  It could somehow have been a descriptions that was dreamed up years ago and has somehow become so universally known that all 41 of my witnesses have heard and repeat the exact same description.  Unlikely but possible.  But let us proceed anyway – as if this was a valid description of real aliens from reliable witnesses. 

 From only this data, I deduced that:

 Their planet is smaller than Earth, heavy atmosphere and further from their sun or circling a dimmer sun than ours. They evolved from life on a planet at least 5 million years older than ours.   And I think I know why they are here.

 

OK Sherlock, WHY?

 Eyes: The eyes are big because the light where they evolved is weak, i.e., dim or far away from their sun.  They need big eyes to see in the dim light.  That’s a normal evolutionary response.  This might also account for the pale skin color.

 Nose: The nose is small because the atmosphere is heavy.  A small intake of their air is enough to get the air they need to breath.  This also accounts for the small chest.  How big would your lungs be if we had 60% oxygen in our air instead of 21%.  This can also account for how a large brain can survive in a small body.  The head is 10% of the body weight and volume but it uses 40% of the blood oxygen.  A very small creature cannot have a very large head unless the blood carries a very high content of oxygen.

 I say oxygen is what they breath because witnesses seem to agree that they have been seen without helmets or breathing apparatus.  This would also imply that they are carbon-based creatures like us.

 Mouth: The mouth can be small for three reasons.  The body is small and they may not have to eat much.  The air is thick and they can make noises with little effort so they don’t need a big voice passage.  If they have evolved direct mental telepathy, the mouth is not needed to communicate.

 Head: The large head obviously relates to a large brain.  The large brain in that small a body equates to a long evolution.  It might take a long evolution and large brain to figure out how to travel long distances in space.  The triangle or pear‑shaped head is simply a match of large brain to a small mouth and body.

 Morals: If they have evolved to the point of a large brain and extended space travel, they probably have a very different social order than we do.  We tend to compare them to how we would act if we were them and that just doesn’t work.  They are not going to view us the way we would if we were in their place.  The stupid idea that all they want to do is conquer us and dominant the Earth is our projection of our own ideas and fears onto them.  If you had the technology to travel the universe, what possible gain would there be to dominating a primitive society?  .  Why? What for? 

Use of our planet and its resources?  Not when there are 100’s of billions of planets out there.  If you had the technology to travel the universe, wouldn’t you also have the technology to do terra-forming on any planet you found?  We already know how to do this so it is easy to imagine that  futuristic beings would know how.

Slave Labor?  Not likely.  We already have robots that can do fantastic things.  In 1000 years we will have robots to do almost anything we want.  Why use reluctant and technically inferior slaves when you can whip up a robot to do the work.

There is virtually no technical or social problem that we can imagine that a society that is 1000 or more years advanced from us could not easily resolve.

 These aliens are also very non‑aggressive.  Psychologists have long since discovered that learning plays a role in the development of aggressive behavior.   This is observed in all races of mankind as well as in lower animals.

As IQ goes up, all 13 different kinds of aggressive behavior goes down.  If they have hurt people in their explorations it is inadvertent or unintentional.  The same way we don’t set out to harm the primitive tribes that we study in social and medical experiments.

 Eating: They may have very different physical requirements also.  If our health food fad were to really take hold, we might get to a point of being able to separate the pleasure of eating from the need to.  If the pleasure of eating were satisfied in some other way, such as a pill or some sort of external stimulus, then only the nutritional need would be left as an excuse to eat.  Even today we can substitute pills and artificial supplements for real food.  It might even be possible to evolve food and people so that you take in food that entirely metabolizes and in just the right quantity that there is no waste.  The end result would be that we would eat very little and we would have no human waste product at all. The digestive system would change and the elimination parts (bladder, intestines and kidneys) would shrink.  The effect would be to reduce the size of the pelvis and lower body ‑ much as we see in the typical description of a GREY.

 Behavior: They probably also have evolved different requirements for mental existence and thought.  For instance, if you extend Maslow’s Hierarchy of Prepotency above “Self‑Actualization”, what’s next? Altruism? Spontaneous and Total Empathy? Adaptive Radiation? If you have satisfied the motives for power and security and can do anything with technology, what’s next? Perhaps it is to study another planet, the same way we are fascinated by a primitive culture in the Brazilian jungles.  Perhaps they would study us the way we study ants in a colony or bees.  We might be that relatively primitive to them.

 We have recently gained insight into how much damage we do when we inject modern society’s thinking and technology into primitive cultures.  If we evolve for another 500 years and can go explore space and come across a primitive culture that is still warlike and cannot go out into space, wouldn’t we just observe.  If we are trying to do that now, in 500 years we would not only be committed to that concept but our technology would be good enough to allow us to observe without being obtrusive.  Imagine what we would think and would be able to do in 25,000 years.

Now imagine what “they” are thinking as they visit us.

Posted in Science...."Fiction?", Maybe True | No Comments »

Trans-Dimensional Travel

18 July 2008 by admin.

These articles deal with the fringe in that I was addressing the “science” behind so called UFO’s.

I have done some analysis on life in our solar system other than Earth and the odds against it are very high.  At least, life as we know it.  Even Mars probably did not get past early life stages before the O2 was consumed.  Any biologist will tell you that in our planet evolution, there were any number of critical thresholds of presence or absence of a gas or heat or water (or magnetic field or magma flow) that, if crossed, would have returned the planet to a lifeless dust ball. 

Frank Drakes formulas are a testament to that.  The only reason that his formulas are used to “prove” life exists is because of the enormous quantities of tries that nature has to get it right in the observable universe and over so much time.

One potential perspective is that what may be visiting us, as “UFO’s” could be a race or several races of beings that are 500 to 25,000 years or more advanced than us.  Given the age of the universe and the fact that our sun is probably second or third generation, this is not difficult to understand.  Some planet somewhere was able to get life started before Earth and they are now where we will be in the far distant future.

  Stanley Miller proved that life, as we know it, could form out of organic and natural events during the normal evolution of a class M planet.  But Drake showed that the chances of that occurring twice in one solar system is very high against it.  If you work backwards from their formulas, given the event of earth as an input of some solution of the equations, you would need something like 100 million planets to get even a slight chance for another planet with high‑tech life on it.

  Taken this into consideration and then comparing it to the chances that the monuments on mars are natural formations or some other claim of extraterrestrial life within our solar system, you must conclude that there is virtually no chance for life in our solar system.  Despite this, there are many that point to “evidence” such as the appearance of a face and pyramids in Mars photographs.  It sounds a lot like an updated version of the “canals” that were first seen in the 19th century.  Now we can “measure” these observations with extreme accuracy - or so they would have you believe.

The so‑called perfect measurements and alignment that are supposedly seen on the pyramids and “faces” are very curious since even the best photos we have of these sites have a resolution that could never support such accuracy in measurements.  When you get down to “measuring” the alignment and sizes of the sides, you can pretty much lay the compass or ruler anywhere you want because of the fuzz and loss of detail caused by the relatively poor resolution.  Don’t let someone tell you that they measured down to the decimal value of degrees and to within inches when the photo has a resolution of meters per pixel!

   As for the multidimensional universe; I believe Stephen Hawkin when he said that there are more than 3 dimensions however, for some complex mathematical reasons, a fifth dimension would not necessarily have any relationship to the first four and objects that have a fifth dimension would have units of the first four (l,w,h & time) that are very small ‑ on the order of atomic units of scale.  This means that according to our present understanding of the math, the only way we could experience more than 4 dimensions is to be able to be reduced to angstrom sizes and to withstand very high excitation from an external energy source.   Lets exclude the size issue for a moment since that is an artifact of the math model that we have chosen in the theory and may not be correct.

  We generally accept that time is the 4th dimension after l, w, and h which seem to be related as being in the same units but in different directions.  If time is a vector (which we believe it is) and it is so very different than up, down, etc, then what would you imagine a 5th dimension unit to be?

  Most people think of “moving” into another dimension and it being just some variation of the first 4 but this is not the case.  The next dimension, is not capable of being understood by us because we have no frame of reference. 

Hawkin makes a much better explanation of this in one of his books but suffice it to say that we do not know how to explore this question because we cannot conceive of the context of more than 4 dimensions.  The only way we can explore it is with math ‑ we can’t even graph it because we haven’t got a 5-axis coordinate system.  I have seen a 10 dimensional formula graphed but they did only 3 dimensions at a time. 

Whatever the relationship of a unit called a “second” has with a unit called a “meter”, may or may not be the same relationship as the meter has with “???????” (Whatever the units of the 5th dimension are called).  What could it possibly be?  You describe it for me, but don’t use any reference to the first 4 dimensions.  For instance, I can describe time or length without reference to any of the other known dimensions.  The bottom line is that this is one area that even a computer cannot help because no one has been able to give a computer an imagination ……..yet.  However, it is an area that is so beyond out thinking that perhaps we should not speculate about them coming from another dimension. 

Let’s look at other possibilities.    To do that, take a look at the other article on this blog titled, “Intergalactic Space Travel”.

Posted in Science...."Fiction?", Future History, Maybe True | 1 Comment »