A quick look show UAPs is one of their focus, but they also claim to be science based and rigorous. Their homepage features multiples articles on UAP. Their mission statement include a section about "Mysteries in the Skies".
It's not clear if this is just speculation and coverage of random UAP claims, or if there's actually something there. The former is more likely.
I was wondering the same thing. What has me intrigued is that a few congressmen tweeted about this source being “credible”. And the fact that this whistleblower apparently testified for over 11 hours in a closed-door congressional hearing has me wondering if this is actually something.
You've already given them more credit than I would, but I've always been very skeptical of this sort of thing. I'm not sure if I would call this news, its more like speculation.
Right, the author quotes various people speculating recovered materials have non-human origin, and technically isn't speculating himself.
It wouldn't be the first time people cry wolf aliens and claim there is proof, then fall short when times come to make the data public.
It's an extraordinary claim, with lots of talk, but little evidence shown. I assume claims and evidence (or lack thereof) will be investigated since there's a whistleblower complain. But I'm not holding my breath.
a NASA veteran claims their Propellantless Propulsion Drive, that physics says shouldn’t work, just produced enough thrust to overcome Earth’s gravity
What’s that? No replication? Not even peer reviewed? Fuck are we reporting on it for, then? It’s giving “alien spheroids from deep space” that will later turn out to match terran iron to a 99.9999% level of accuracy energy; and that’s not a good look
Dr. Charles Buhler, a NASA engineer and the co-founder of Exodus Propulsion Technologies
That smells even worse. Company’s a year old and all I can reliably find on it is a company profile on “Corporation Wiki”; no website, no real information on them, but this company just apparently cracked physics. Lmao okay. This is a grift for a coming IPO, I’d bet my left leg on it.
IF anyone else can replicate these findings, he might be onto something-- but with how many outright scams PhD’s have tried pushing in the last four years regarding exotic sciences, I don’t… Believe shit out of this sector without the actual rigors of the Method being applied to what people are flapping their jaws about.
Steve from Accounting is a prick who thinks it’s okay to microwave his fish in the break room come lunchtime, I’d need a double-check and a second opinion if Steve from Accounting told me the sky was blue.
The hilarious irony about this is that I actually made a theoretical framework for how such a drive could be possible and then was shocked as shit when I found out their solution was magical time travelling particles. Like even they knew it was complete and utter bullshit.
It should be punishable by fine for science journalists to write about a science paper without citing the paper — I couldn’t find it linked anywhere in the article but do have some content blockers so perhaps it was just hidden by those. At any rate, interesting findings.
If we've learned anything lately, it's that plenty of U.S. officials are corrupt or idiots or both.
Shenanigans and/or misapprehensions VASTLY more likely than alien visitors, in this scenario as in all others.
I believe aliens are very likely existant, maybe even common, given the huge numbers of potentially habitable exoplanets that have been identified. But who knows how often intelligent life, and with also the needed access to the necessary tools and resources for spaceflight, arises. And the distances involved are huge.
So. Super advanced aliens develope space flight tech, send a ship or unmanned probe on a really really really unfathomably long journey, only for it to crash in a conveniently mostly unnoticed and unobserved fashion on a teeny tiny little planet full of cell phone cameras and radio receivers and surrounded by a cloud of satellites (none of which it hit)? Which would mean either it was aimed at us, and hit the target despite how exceedingly difficult it is to aim even across 'short' space distances like from the Earth to the moon, but something else went wrong at the end of that unfathomably huge and expensive engineering feat, or it hit us by coincidence, which given the sheer size of outer space vs Earth is again ludicrous. All without generating radio or other signals we can detect?
And now the astounding new evidence presented so far is... hearsay, once again (but official hearsay! Pfft).
I don't buy it.
If ever I am proven wrong, and the astoundingly unlikely turns out to be true, I will be beyond delighted and will gladly eat my hat.
But yeah, no, much as I wish I could get confirmation of alien life in my lifetime, I expect the best I can hope for is microbes under the ice in Europa, or maaaaaaaybe a little fish thing there, if wildly lucky. Or maybe some microbes in the clouds of Venus. Even just someghing like that alone would mean a lot, though, honestly, because it would confirm life is likely rather than rare, and it'd be fascinating to see what did or didn't differ from Earth life.
Edit: and if there is a genuine vehicle, HOW could anyone even feasibly diagnose technology as "not of Earth/human origin"? Vs just... Another nation has secretly built a really damn cool and complicated spy plane? Unfamiliar tech never automatically means aliens.
The solution involves combining a stable matter shell with a shift vector distribution that closely matches well-known warp drive solutions such as the Alcubierre metric.
doesn’t mention How they do this, i guess this is a purely mathematic experiment?
Well…yeah. No warp drive is possible with current tech, so it’s all theoretical. We have no capabilities at all ever mentioned in these articles, but it’s still interesting.
What i meant: physics has a lot of mathematic nuts. Some take it a bit too far and think, just because you can make a formula that works out, it proves anything, instead of mathe describing the logic. As an example: some thesis at ETH Zurich “proved” the existence of god by having some set parameters and assumtions (which were a classical logical fallacy). I think this might be similiar.
For the alcubiere warp drive, the logical explanation is: it warps space before the ship and back behind it, so it basically makes the distance for the ship shorter. I expected a similiar explanation for this. But it looks more like people played mathematics here.
The physics behind the Alcubierre is all theoretical, and when you’re dealing with Theoretical Physics of any kind, there are assumptions in the mix until you have provable theories.
Think of it like a logic chain: “If Z is possible, then Y is possible, and so is X, but that’s all supposing we can make W happen first…”
So you can have different pieces of the puzzle provable by math alone, but not all the pieces will together without real world experimentation perhaps. Like how know that Fusion power is possible (we can observe it mathematically and in the Sun), but we basically have to take a bunch of blind leaps to actually make it happen.
Nobody can be excited for anything. Whether or not it’s possible in even the next century or two, I still think it’s awesome that there are dreamers out there trying to make at least a solid theoretical plan on how to accomplish stuff like this. I also think people are discounting the exponential rate of knowledge we accumulate every generation. It might be awhile, but unless society collapses, I wouldn’t be surprised if we have interstellar propulsion like this in the next couple centuries. Hell, I expect to see a thriving commercial space industry in the next 50-some-odd years within our solar system.
The fact that you can even be indignant about not having the technology to travel to another solar system developed within a single lifetime is pretty amazing considering it took us billions of years to get here.
We can’t even travel that fast to even start theorizing how that would work 🤣
From previous reading on the subject, I believe the main issue with this style of transport would be slowing down so as not to cause a massive explosion of forward moving energy at the barrier of the warp bubble which would build up during travel.
Most of space is empty, analysis of the path beforehand and a structure that can withstand the smaller objects is really all that’s necessary. But those are just as theoretical as this engine.
Problem is that asteroids are very hard to see, as they are both cold and dark, meaning they don’t stand out against space very much at all. And even a micrometeoroid poses a risk even when traveling at low velocities (e.g. someone orbiting earth, the meteoroid itself has a relatively high velocity). Getting hit by a 1cm meteoroid at warp 1 would be devastating.
Yes, as I said theoretically. If/by the time this heavily theoretical engine comes to fruition there will probably be ways to detect asteroids better than we have now. Also materials/structural design that are better than what we have now for sustaining the smaller hits. Maybe quantum prediction scanning, maybe a forcefield. Who knows by then.
Just a thought. If you just have a preliminary motion and your travel velocity is due to warping of space, wouldn’t objects caught in your warp field just move with you till they exit?
While the concepts outlined in the team’s new paper pave the way toward making travel through space nearing light speed a reality, constructing such an engine is likely something that will only be feasible far in the future, as the present state of technology would not allow for such a device.
The paper is paywalled and I am too lazy to look for a free/open link, but the shown graphs indicate many squared meters of energy concentrations of 1 - 10 * 10^39 joules.
The entire energy output of the Sun, in a year, is around 10^34 joules. 6.6 * 10^39 joules is apparently the estimated total mass energy of the Moon, if you basically perfectly E = mc^2 transformed it into pure energy.
In 2010 the estimated total energy consumption of humans on Earth was 5 * 10^20 joules.
So we just need something around ten billion * ten billion more joules than that, presumably generated by something i dont know, naval frigate sized?
Their theory of atoms was also that they were indivisible, being the most basic building block of all matter. Obviously now we know that that’s not true.
They described a lot of things, and were wrong more often than not. Their biggest contribution was really just progress in the scientific method itself.
It was not really what we would know as science, as it does not revolve around strictly constructed experimentation, hypothesis, or reproduceablility or predictivity, so much as it was the concepts of logic itself, of arguing about things with rationality and rhetoric.
A whole lot of Greek philosophy uses what seem like decent arguments to lead to decent sounding explanations that do not actually work if explored further or tested, though there are genuine examples of actual experimentation that still hold up fairly well, like Eratosthenes approximating the size of the Earth based on geometry and shadows.
Theyre basically just known for formally getting the ball rolling of inquisitive discourse on the nature of the world.
Basically, Empedocles came up with the 4 ‘roots’ of air (smoke), water, earth and fire, Plato expanded on how they ‘worked’ and interacted, as well as naming them ‘elements’, and Aristotle expanded further on this and added the concept of aether, which is what stuff in the heavens must be made of.
Probably the most popularly read material on this both in ancient times and today is Aristotle and Plato. Plato also associated the first four elements with Platonic solids.
Atomic theory of today is really only named such because Atom is roughly the Greek word for ‘indivisible’. Their indivisible atoms were of the four or five elements as they had no understanding of Chemistry.
Chemistry also linguistically does come from Alchemy, which comes from Al Khemia, which roughly in context means the study of the wisdom of Egypt.
This is because basically after Rome broke apart, many of the remaining scholarly texts of all kinds of philosophers largely only remained intact in Egypt.
So you had the Greek or Coptic texts translated into Arabic, studied and preserved in Arab speaking areas, which were then reacquired by various Europeans and translated into Latin or other local language. Roughly, the texts of this period which attempted to further philosophize more detailed understanding of elements, mixed with a huge amount of religious and superstitious content, became Alchemy.
When modern science began roughly with the Renaissance, well a lot of those guys were studied in Alchemy and attempting to apply more rigorous and testable logic to it, and we end up with the word Chemistry.
Thats a really long way to say that basically Atom as a word in modern parlance basically is just Greek for something that cannot be further divided, and is named such to basically honor the tradition of it all getting kicked off by the ancient Greeks.
Actual ancient Greek Elemental theory has basically nothing in common with modern Chemistry, and of course we now know that Atoms are actually divisible into Protons Neutrons and Electrons, and Protons and Neutrons are further divisible into various Quarks.
So if we could completely annihilate a mass equivalent to the Moon with an equal mass of antimatter and capture all of the energy with no losses to heat and without ripping the device apart, that would work?
Until a working prototype is built, I will be treating the field of warp drives (even sublight warp) with a healthy dose of skepticism. Glad people are working on it though.
It’s not faster than light speed. So not so sci-fi. But yes, with the current tehnology is not possible to make. BUT the theory checks out. Maybe in 50 years.
More than that. Gravity is weak; gravity-based technologies inevitably need insane amounts of material to work. This particular metric also involves shedding mass, y’know, like a rocket would have anyway.
Wasn’t this story posted already here? I don’t want to rehash if I don’t have to.
thedebrief.org
Hot