"3.1 Example Cases from the NIDS Database UFO witness descriptions are the database presently available for examining the wormhole hypothesis along with the meager physical data acquired by surveillance equipment (see for example, references 36-39). And we recognize that witness reports are not rigorous from the standpoint of collecting physics data. Of the more than 650 cases investigated by NIDS, several dozen clearly portend wormhole manifestations. Particular examples include field research NIDS conducted in northeastern Utah whereby the following example data was acquired: Ø intensely bright, colored balls of light under intelligent control; either monochromatic or changing color; possessing either smooth or variable liquid turbulence-like surface/internal texture; maneuvering/hovering near people and around property; brightening or fading and blue/red Doppler shifting when appearing or disappearing Ø very large, very bright orange-colored opening in the daytime sky; a completely different or foreign looking sky was seen through the opening; an object was seen (through rifle spotting scope) moving through the opening at rapid speed Ø faint light appears in the air a few feet above a dirt road; light grows in intensity becoming very bright; bright light then becomes a hole that opens up (growing from 1 to 3 feet diameter) and from within which another light is emanating; a large, black creature (~ 400 lbs., 8 to 9 feet tall) is seen crawling out of the hole (as seen through 3rd generation military night vision, hole appeared 3-dimensional with tunnel-like interior), it stood up and ran away into the surrounding dark of night; the brightly lit hole closed and faded away"
Eric Davis wrote:
> Jack: > > You are wrong with your claim (see Hal's repost of it below). My MUFON > Symposium paper referenced both Yilmaz and Puthoff as two separate > independent alternative GR theories, which yielded the same end-result > for calculations they made to predict strong-field gravity physics.
Jack:
1. That's a delicate distinction. It it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck .....
2. Hal's use of "strong field" looks like "weak field" to me. Both of youse guys with Yilmaz seem to have been out so long it looks like in to you.
What do you make of the fact that as implicit in Ibison's nice little PV formula
r_c = r_ie^GM/c^2r_i
that for a given r_c, there are an infinity of r_i.
Furthermore, that infinite set of r_i are complex numbers in the limit r_c -> 0, which is the TRUE "strong field" IMO. Your claim that r_i -> 0, all infinity of them, are strong field is bogus IMO. Indeed, since r_i -> 0 imply r_c -> infinity this is weak field obviously -- in PV terms.
> I never addressed the validity of Hal's theory in terms of Yilmaz's > theory. The validity of Hal's theory is not in terms of anything > Yilmaz did. The validity of Hal's model is based on its ability to > make predictions that keenly match observed phenomena. And THAT is the > crucial scientific method of validation.
Jack: I agree 100%. So where is the beef.
Show us all right now how Hal using PV has the "ability to make predictions that keenly match observed phenomena". I note your use of the word "keenly" and I call your bluff. Since we are talking about the alleged phenomena in your MUFON 2001 paper simply show us. You have a nice little list there of UFO phenomena. Go down the list and check off how Hal's PV "keenly" mind you "match observed phenomena". Since you said you once saw Hal do this at NIDS what's the problem? I am reminded of H... K... at ISSO who kept boasting he had the solution to vacuum propulsion and release of vacuum energy, but never allowed any one who could check his claims to see what he really had in terms of mathematical theory. Do you also claim that The Men In Black Ops will kill us all if you reveal this information? ;-)
So simply put up or shut up. If you can show by correct examples that Hal's PV has the "ability to make predictions that keenly match observed phenomena" then you will win the debate quite obviously. Extraordinary claims such as yours and Hal's require extraordinary proof. So far no proof at all has been forth coming. Simply astound us all! Well? ;-)
> > > Attached is my MUFON paper for all to read, again if necessary. You're > stretching WAY beyond the facts here regarding what it is Hal and I > have done and what it is I wrote.
Jack: I think not since this is what you did write on this:
"There is agreement between Puthoff s PV model and Yilmaz s approach in theoretical and experimental predictions for cases of interest in GTR and propulsion"
"The interesting feature of both the PV model and Yilmaz s approach is they both predict that the endpoint of (large-mass) stellar collapse is not a black hole, but is instead a gray hole possessing neither an event horizon nor a singularity."
"We are also exploring the application of the PV model to the Alcubierre warp metric, and expect K < 1 in this case since it is physically similar to traversable wormhole physics. However, we cannot predict at this time what potential alteration to wormhole and/or warp drive physics either the Yilmaz approach or the PV model will require.
Finally, Puthoff s PV model is the only alternative theory of gravity that has been successfully applied to explain the physical, anti-physical and physiological characteristics and performances of UFOs as described in section 3.2 (48). Puthoff showed that when the data from section 3.2 and reference 26 are taken together, these characteristics and performances can be reproduced by craft exploiting a technology that modifies the local spacetime metric by varying K (K < 1 or K ³ 1) as needed to generate the desired (propulsion and dynamic maneuvers and related) effects. It is possible that the PV model can provide either or both traversable wormhole and warp drive like manifestations within the context of UFO phenomenon."
Jack: I see no evidence at all that K < 1 helps in anyway.
> > > Eric > > Note # 1 Eric Davis's List of UFO Phenomena
3.0 UFO Phenomenology Paul Hill has already delineated and characterized UFO performances and dynamics in his excellent book (26). From a rigorous aeronautical and physics analysis of many cases (the unexplainable, non-prosaic ones), Hill concluded that UFOs are craft that would have to utilize an engineered acceleration-field technology in order to manifest their various performance characteristics. Acceleration-field is the old fashioned term for spacetime metric. Wormhole-stargates and the Alcubierre warp drive metric (27) are examples of modern spacetime metric engineering concepts, both of which require engineering of the vacuum to mine the negative energies needed to generate such metric modifications. Jacques Vallee has also analyzed UFO cases over four decades and summarized his findings in several excellent, groundbreaking books and articles (28,29,30,31 - the key references). Vallee concluded that UFO phenomenon is consistent with a technology centered on a craft using a very revolutionary propulsion system, which possesses an anti-physical dimension in addition to others. The phenomenon is the product of a technology in the sense that it is a real, physical, material object. The physical characteristics of UFOs is as follows (adapted from 28,29,32 and the NIDS database): Ø witnesses describe an object that occupies a position in space* Ø moves as time passes* Ø interacts with the environment through thermal effects as well as light absorption and emission* Ø produces turbulence* Ø when landed, leaves indentations and burns from which approximate mass/energy figures can be derived* Ø gives rise to photographic images* Ø gives rise to electric, magnetic and gravitational disturbances* But UFOs also manifest anti-physical effects by using advanced physical principles. These anti-physical effects are as follows (adapted from 28,29 and the NIDS database): Ø sinking into the ground* Ø shrink in size, grow larger, or change shape* Ø becoming fuzzy and transparent on the spot* Ø divide into two or more craft, several of them merge into one object at slow speed* Ø disappearing at one point and appearing elsewhere instantaneously* Ø remaining observable visually while not detected by radar* Ø missing time/time dilation* Ø topological inversion/space dilation (UFO was estimated to be of small exterior size/volume, but witness(s) saw a huge interior many times the exterior size)* Ø balls of colored, intensely bright light under intelligent control* Ø Doppler blueshifting and redshifting effects of moving and motionless UFOs* The physiological reactions caused by UFOs are (adapted from 28,29,32 and the NIDS database): Ø burns** Ø sounds (beeping, buzzing, humming, sharp/piercing whistling, swooshing/air rushing, loud/deafening roaring, sound of a storm, etc.)** Ø vibrations* Ø partial paralysis** Ø extreme heat or cold sensation* Ø odors (powerful, sweet or strange fragrance, rotten eggs, sulphurous, pungent, stinking, musky-like, etc.)** Ø metallic taste** Ø pricklings** Ø temporary blindness when exposed to the objects light* Ø nausea** Ø bloody nose and/or ears; severe headache** Ø difficulty in breathing** Ø loss of volition** Ø drowsiness in the days following a close encounter** There are psychic effects triggered by UFOs either purposely or as a side effect of the presence of the UFO. These are (adapted from 28,29 and the NIDS database): Ø impressions of communication w/o direct sensory channel Ø levitation of the witness or of objects and animals in the vicinity* Ø poltergeist phenomena: motions and sounds w/o a specific cause, outside of the observed presence of a UFO Ø maneuvers of a UFO appearing to anticipate the witness thoughts Ø premonitory dreams or visions Ø personality changes promoting unusual abilities in the witness Ø healing
3.1 Example Cases from the NIDS Database UFO witness descriptions are the database presently available for examining the wormhole hypothesis along with the meager physical data acquired by surveillance equipment (see for example, references 36-39). And we recognize that witness reports are not rigorous from the standpoint of collecting physics data. Of the more than 650 cases investigated by NIDS, several dozen clearly portend wormhole manifestations. Particular examples include field research NIDS conducted in northeastern Utah whereby the following example data was acquired: Ø intensely bright, colored balls of light under intelligent control; either monochromatic or changing color; possessing either smooth or variable liquid turbulence-like surface/internal texture; maneuvering/hovering near people and around property; brightening or fading and blue/red Doppler shifting when appearing or disappearing Ø very large, very bright orange-colored opening in the daytime sky; a completely different or foreign looking sky was seen through the opening; an object was seen (through rifle spotting scope) moving through the opening at rapid speed Ø faint light appears in the air a few feet above a dirt road; light grows in intensity becoming very bright; bright light then becomes a hole that opens up (growing from 1 to 3 feet diameter) and from within which another light is emanating; a large, black creature (~ 400 lbs., 8 to 9 feet tall) is seen crawling out of the hole (as seen through 3rd generation military night vision, hole appeared 3-dimensional with tunnel-like interior), it stood up and ran away into the surrounding dark of night; the brightly lit hole closed and faded away
Note # 2; More complete PV theory remarks
"Puthoff s approach, known as the polarizable-vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity, treats the vacuum as a polarizable medium (42). The PV approach treats spacetime metric changes in terms of equivalent changes in the permittivity and permeability constants of the vacuum, eo and mo, essentially along the lines of the THem methodology used in comparative studies of gravitational theories (see references cited in 42). Such an approach, relying as it does on parameters familiar to engineers, can be considered a metric engineering approach. Maxwell's equations in curved space are treated in the isomorphism of a polarizable medium of variable refractive index in flat space (see references cited in 42); the bending of a light ray near a massive body is modeled as due to an induced spatial variation in the refractive index of the vacuum near the body; the reduction in the velocity of light in a gravitational potential is represented by an effective increase in the refractive index of the vacuum, and so forth. As elaborated in reference 42 and the references therein, PV modeling can be carried out in a self-consistent way so as to reproduce to appropriate order both the equations of GTR, and the match to the classical experimental (PPN parameters and other) tests of those equations. There is agreement between Puthoff s PV model and Yilmaz s approach in theoretical and experimental predictions for cases of interest in GTR and propulsion. Specifically, the PV approach treats such measures as the speed of light, the length of rulers (atomic bond lengths), the frequency of clocks, particle masses, and so forth, in terms of a variable vacuum dielectric constant K in which vacuum permittivity eo transforms to eo ® Keo, vacuum permeability to mo ® Kmo. In a planetary or solar gravitational potential K > 1 while K = 1 in empty remote space. In the former case, the speed of light is reduced, light emitted from an atom is redshifted as compared with a remote static atom (K = 1), clocks run slower, objects/rulers shrink, etc. The interesting feature of both the PV model and Yilmaz s approach is they both predict that the endpoint of (large-mass) stellar collapse is not a black hole, but is instead a gray hole possessing neither an event horizon nor a singularity. Such a body would simply be an extremely collapsed state of matter. Recent astronomical observations have reported that neutron stars more massive than the lower limit collapse mass for black holes have been discovered, which severely contradicts the strict mass constraints placed on neutron star formation by Einstein s GTR (46). And it still has not been experimentally possible to positively confirm black hole candidates on the basis of predicted strong gravitational field effects occurring outside their alleged event horizons. No astronomy experiment has positively observed and measured a black hole s event horizon. And it is impossible to experimentally confirm the existence of black hole singularities given the inaccessibility of the black hole s interior to observation and measurement as predicted by Einstein s GTR. Einstein s GTR is not a flat-out failure, it is just in need of some repair. Under certain conditions the spacetime metric can in principle be modified to reduce the value of K to below unity thus allowing for faster-than-light (FTL) motion to be physically realized. In this case, the local speed of light (as measured by remote static observers) is increased, light emitted from an atom is blueshifted as compared with a remote static atom, objects/rulers expand, clocks run faster, etc. In fact, Puthoff has analyzed certain special black hole metrics and found K < 1 from his model. We are both examining whether the traversable wormhole metric will also lead to K < 1 within the PV model (46). In fact, we have reason to believe that there will be such a solution on the basis that traversable wormhole metrics are an exact metric solution to Einstein s GTR such that they do not possess physically/mathematically pathological features such as an event horizon or singularity. This has been supported by exact high-order nonlinear quantum electrodynamic analysis of the vacuum cavity within a Casimir-effect capacitor experiment showing that the speed of light will in fact increase, as the Casimir-effect energy grows more negative within the cavity (47). This is what we would expect when a traversable wormhole effect manifests itself within a region of squeezed vacuum (recall section 2.6). We are also exploring the application of the PV model to the Alcubierre warp metric, and expect K < 1 in this case since it is physically similar to traversable wormhole physics. However, we cannot predict at this time what potential alteration to wormhole and/or warp drive physics either the Yilmaz approach or the PV model will require. Finally, Puthoff s PV model is the only alternative theory of gravity that has been successfully applied to explain the physical, anti-physical and physiological characteristics and performances of UFOs as described in section 3.2 (48). Puthoff showed that when the data from section 3.2 and reference 26 are taken together, these characteristics and performances can be reproduced by craft exploiting a technology that modifies the local spacetime metric by varying K (K < 1 or K ³ 1) as needed to generate the desired (propulsion and dynamic maneuvers and related) effects. It is possible that the PV model can provide either or both traversable wormhole and warp drive like manifestations within the context of UFO phenomenon."
