Coming from someone who would love this article to be real, it sounds like a real wack job. "100% certainty aliens are among us" because 12 politicians have signed a document asking for info on UFOs? That is such an insane leap...
None of Salvatore Pais' claims or patents have ever been replicated or passed any kind of peer review, and scientists read him as a crackpot[0]. That the military is entertaining patents for his crackpottery doesn't make him a credible source. You might as well cite Bob Lazar and Lue Elizondo while you're at it.
> Military science is always far ahead of mainstream science.
I don't know about this. I think it's more of a romanticized view than anything else. I don't doubt they have some of the top aerospace engineers but scientists? I can't imagine they're years ahead of top professors in academia - the chair of quantum physics at Hamilton College described Salvatore Pais' patents as "bearing no more resemblance to quantum physics as I understand it than does ‘The Force’ from Star Wars" [0]
Either leading academics in quantum physics are so far behind they can't even understand military academics or these patents are sci-fi gobbledygook. For example the energy required for his room-temperature semiconductor is greater than that of a magnetar (according to some physicists whose summaries I read) - that's 1.4* more than the sun.
What if it's alien technology. Then obviously it far ahead from what earth science knows, to the point that it's seen as scifi or magic. Ridiculous energy needs might somehow be solved by their tech as well.
This all sounds way too far out there to most people. I'm also highly sceptical and need proof, but don't mind entertaining the idea.
In Examiner's Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief, dated July 1, 2018, Examiner "held" that after considering the Sheehy declaration filed with Second Amendment "the claims are still not enabled." Examiner, however, agrees that high frequencies of vibration on the order of 10 Gigahertz are possible, by stating *obtaining high frequencies are possible."
Hefurther asks that the Applicant demonstrate these high vibrational frequencies to create a local polarized vacuum. This directly contradicts the Federal Circuit's dicta that stated "al patent does not need to guarantee that the invention works for a claim to be enabled" (Alcon, 745 F.3d at 1189) and that it is improper for the Patent Office to suggest that an inventor had to offer proof for a claimed result (In Re Cartwright, 165 F.3d 1353 at 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Moreover, in Applicant's peer reviewed paper *AlAA 2017-5343, it is shown that by vibrating electrically charged matter in an acceleration mode, *it is possible to generate the high energy E-fields and B- fields that can polarize the vacuum. Thus, proving enablement of the invention.
Additionally, enablement is also shown in an IEEE paper (K.J. Coakley et al, "Estimation of Q-Factors and Resonant Frequencies" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, Vol. 51, No. 3, March 2003), that Applicant described and entered into the record in his January 23, 2018 response to Examiner's Office Action of November 28, 2017.
The Examiner never addressed this reference or Applicant's arguments related to this reference, in any of his responses, that this paper shows enablement. The paper describes the fact that high Q-factors and vibrational frequencies in excess of 10 Gigahertz can be enabled readily. In particular, Table I on page 866 ofthis paper shows that by emitting microwaves within a copper resonant cavity it is possible to experimentally obtain vibrational frequencies in excess of
10 Gigahertz, thus enabling electromagnetic (EM) flux values of 10^33 Watts/ m?,
according to Equation in the inventor's AIAA paper (AIAA 2017-5343). This EM flux value is equivalent to the generation of E-fields on the order 10°18 V/m and B-fields on the order of 10°9 Tesla. Thus, the fields required for the invention are both feasible and enabled
When you wrote "Which parts of the patent were not valid?" I assumed you meant something like "could work as described."
As you've highlighted, you actually meant that the claims were enabled under US patent law, which does not generally require the patented idea to actually work.
I noticed your quoted text uses "it is possible to experimentally obtain". That's an odd way of saying "it is theoretically possible to obtain".
Clearly if the theory is wrong then it can make wrong predictions about feasibility. The patent office isn't tasked to determine if such theories are wrong.
For example, no one has demonstrated that "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state" (see https://patents.google.com/patent/US6960975B1/en ) actually works. Very few expect that idea to work, and I expect that most who do are ill-informed of the science.
The same applies here.
One deep problem with the entire idea of extracting usable energy from the vacuum energy state is highlighted in this letter to a curious 19 year old, at https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/1277 :
> The point, however, is that this is not the calculation of some energy that’s sitting around waiting to be used. It’s just the calculation of a natural unit in which to measure energy. If it has a physical significance, it may represent the amount of energy that has to be concentrated in a small scale (the Planck distance, about 10^-32 cm) in order to make weird quantum gravitational things happen.
> To get usable energy out of some process, there must be some way for things to fall to a lower energy state than they are now in. That’s possible for many nuclei- hence we can get nuclear power- but such nuclear reactions are known and have little to do with the Planck scale.
> The Planck distance-time scale is the scale on which our current theory of space and time is likely to break down. If there really is some process on that scale that could settle into a lower energy state, that would mean that the current vacuum is unstable. It could somehow start to collapse to the more stable state, which would destroy any sort of physical structure in the current universe. Something like that probably happened at least once in the early universe, ending the strongly inflationary period of the Big Bang.
> These are not processes which I would attempt to ’use’.
The materials you've pointed to assume the vacuum energy state is "energy that’s sitting around waiting to be used", without demonstrating that it's true.
Further, they make no mention of how that energy is transferred to a lower energy state than vacuum. We know of no such thing.
As an analogy, a bird sitting on an high power line - which isn't even insulated - is touching a huge amount of energy. It's not affected because there's no lower energy place for that energy to go. At best it could get power from AC power lines due to the fluctuating fields, but that's far less than the power going through the lines.
Can you share a link? I'm trying to hold my skepticism here because it's not an area I'm very knowledgable of, I just don't see how we have that level of energy available in an aircraft.
Well a scientist that can present material proof on the spot can say that.
Someone that says that without then immediately presenting proof just disqualified themselves.
Recently grift and fraud have been uncovered between DoD and UAP community. Basically DoD leaks bs unfalsifiable info and private citizens profit by marketing using the excitement generated by the involvement of government agencies.
We are starting to look spectacularly goofy and corrupt.
> Dr Nolan, a Professor of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine who has published more than 300 research articles and holds 40 US patents
Maybe yes, maybe no? I mean, presuming the limitation that you can't travel faster than light and you have beings with highly advanced technology somewhere "near" as in < 100 light years away, it would be possible they decided to send an expedition our way sometime ago and they're hanging around somewhere in the solar system.
They could have tech that makes this less of a inconvenience than it would be for us. If for example if they had some way of hibernating the interstellar travel time, but any sort of help from the home planet would still be decades away, staying put, observing and limited contact would be a possible kind of behavior one might choose.
They would be technologically advanced, but still lack the numbers for any kind of "safe" interaction with us from their point of view.
If UFOs are real then that necessarily implies the existence of some new physics beyond general relativity. We thought that Newtonian mechanics could explain everything about motion until we learned that it is only an approximation of relativity. Is it possible that relativity is only an approximation of some more comprehensive theory?
Perhaps not, and I am highly skeptical of the whole concept of UFOs in general, but I can't prove a negative.
There are a decent number of ways that interstellar travel could be accomplished without violating Relativity or requiring super-scifi tech.
Generational ships, species that require fewer resources to thrive or that have manipulable hibernation abilities (for instance, if they have antifreeze blood like some jellyfish do, then they could theoretically be kept in suspended animation for a long time without aging or risk of boredom), or if they are incredibly long lived compared to humans for one reason or another.
Our best telescopes today can see oxygen in the atmosphere of planets that no living human could ever possibly set foot on regardless of what we did. It's possible that another different civilization could have noticed our planet and sent out a scout vessel 200 years ago just to see if it was a viable alternative planet for them to colonize.
But aside from the fun talk of scifi space travel possibilities, I am also very skeptical of UFOs and alien life forms being close enough to meet us during my lifetime. I would need to see them in person to believe that it wasn't yet another hoax.
If they were using generation ships, we would definitely see them because there is no stealth in space and they would have to have a visible heat signature, and they wouldn't be hovering and zipping around the way UFOs are reported to.
If we have to take UFO reports at their word, just for the sake of argument, what is described at the very least appears to have some form of non-reactive propulsion that acts like gravity control. Just them being able to move at high velocities without creating a sonic boom or any visible means of propulsion would put them in the realm of using some kind of weird new physics we don't understand.
"... being able to move at high velocities without creating a sonic boom or any visible means of propulsion"
maybe you're looking a vessel with more than 3 dimensions, and when it moves throught the next dimension/s, it allows it to do those kinds of movements. Maybe we're just seeing just an "expression" of a 4th-5th dimension vessel in 3D, but it's not really fully interacting with our three dimensions (maybe it's just leaking photons), and that is why those things can make impossible things like instant acceleration, submerging in the ocean at high velocity without making a minimal splash (maybe they could "submerge" into solid ground as well? that would explain UFOs in mountains, if you can get into a mountain to hide your presence, mountains look amazing as amazing parking lots for UFOs).
maybe if the universe actually has more dimensions than the three we can perceive.
"surpassing the speed of light" in 3D, but done in 4-5D is just a matter of traveling a lot less "space", hence you actually didn't need to surpass the speed of light, but you travelled "faster than light", by travelling across the 4th-5th dimension.
Travelling like that could be just like walking 100 yards in the 5th dimension, but in 3D you travelled 100 light years in a matter of minutes (of walking).
Even if something like an Alcubierre drive were possible, I wouldn't be surprised if there turned out to be some kind of catch that still limited you to the speed of light.
> If UFOs are real then that necessarily implies the existence of some new physics beyond general relativity.
Why?
If I lived for a million years then interstellar travel would be feasible for me with the physics we know.
We have trouble defining "life" in general terms because we only know of this planet. If intelligent life developed (some say it has developed here :-) in the universe then there is no predicting what form it would take.
I'm not an expert but from what little I know from a casual interest in these things, crossing dimensions should be even less possible than going faster than light. Like you would need to burn the energy of an entire universe to do it.
Quantum physics doesn't violate relativity any more than relativity violates Newton - this is a common myth, but really each model builds on and depends upon the validity of the others, rather than each cancelling the others out.
Things like quantum teleportation and entanglement, for instance, are still restricted by the speed of light. Even gravity is restricted by the speed of light - this has been proven experimentally. TANSTAAFL.
quantum gravity may introduce new phenomena related to the behavior of matter and energy. For example, it is hypothesized that quantum gravity effects could lead to violations of certain symmetries or the emergence of new particles or forces, or a method of propulsion.
"Quantum gravity" doesn't even exist as a coherently defined theory yet, there are numerous incomplete models full of flaws, none of which accurately model physics or make predictions well enough to be useful. It certainly isn't in the same weight class of provable science (as in we already build technology that depends on it, and wouldn't work if it wasn't valid) as quantum mechanics, despite sharing the word "quantum."
..no? The Manhattan project was only possible because the science behind nuclear physics was well established enough that its consequences became obvious. Again, as I said earlier, as a result of work that built upon and validated earlier work. You don't even get to the point of building an atomic bomb without thoroughly understanding the principles - and all of those principles were in line with physics as it was understood at the time. Building the bomb was an issue of technology and resources, not exotic, unproven science.
So I guess there was never withheld science in the Manhattan project - correct? And those spies leaking details to the soviets, why bother - it's common knowledge - right?
United States is doing the same thing with the Quantum age. Do you think the military is waiting around for mainstream science to protect its economy and military from quantum computers? No. They are pioneering it, in secret.
>So I guess there was never withheld science in the Manhattan project - correct? And those spies leaking details to the soviets, why bother - it's common knowledge - right?
Yes, the science was common knowledge. Berlin scientists first split the uranium atom four years before the Manhattan project even took place. It was common enough that science fiction writers of the time wrote stories about atomic bombs before any bombs were ever built, through extrapolation from established science alone, and Kodak was able to deduce the US was working on an atomic bomb because the radiation from testing fogged up their film stock. That's why there was a race on to be the first to a working implementation of that science, and a working implementation was what the Soviets were interested in. I can guarantee you Soviet scientists already knew what a chain reaction was.
Stop acting like you know what you're talking about, the more you comment the more obvious it is that you don't.
