On October 25, 2017, the FAA picked up an unidentified target moving rapidly across radar from northern California toward Portland, Ore. Several commercial pilots were able to visually confirm the object from their aircraft, stating they could not make out any identifying markings, but that the craft appeared to be entirely white and moving at high speed.

Continue reading

A List of DIA Secret UFO Study Projects has been Revealed

The US Office of Information Services has released a Defense Intelligence Agency report addressed to the Senate Committee on Armed Services that lists the titles of more than three dozen research papers funded by the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), the secret UFO program run by the Pentagon between 2007 and 2012.

Continue reading

Ufo's Are Here – 1977 – Stan Deyo (Full Length)

Watch this document till the end. Stan Deyo appears around 59 min. What he says about anti-gravity is still to this day amazing.

Featuring: Steven Spielberg, Stan Deyo, Jacques Vallee, Prof. Allen Hynek, Stanton Friedman, Margaret Mead, Ken Arnold, Betty Hill, Rev. William Gill, Klaus Nobel, RAAF Sqdn Ldr White, Ray Palmer and Colin Cameron. This amazing UFO documentary film was produced in 1977. It was way ahead of its time. Sadly, the master copies of this film and the two which followed it have been lost to the ravages of time. Only one VHS copy of it survived. This film inspired Stan Deyo to write “The Cosmic Conspiracy” book which is the sequel to the shows. The man-made, flying saucer programs are exposed in the book and the film.

David Adair at Area 51 – Advanced Symbiotic Technology UFOTVstudios

Space technology transfer consultant and former rocket whiz kid David Adair speaks out for the first time on camera in this interview about his remarkable encounters with an alien engine, DOD agents, and Air Force General Curtis Lemay in 1971 at Groom Lake, Nevada (Area-51). Hear first hand testimony about advanced alien technology and our military’s most closely guarded secrets surrounding the UFO phenomena.

Adair explains how at age 17 he built an electro-magnetic containment plasma fusion rocket engine and was invited by Air Force bigwigs to launch it at White Sands Missal Range. That led to his being taken to Area 51 where he saw an engine that was light years beyond anything on Earth – so sophisticated it responded to the thoughts and emotions of it’s pilots.

Now, comfortable with the way UFO information is starting to be accepted by the American public, Adair has decided to reveal the amazing truth which he held to himself for over 25 years.

Also revealed are his meetings with renowned physicist Stephan Hawkings.

Engineer Behind Iranian Saucer Technology Comes Forward

Nuclear Engineer, Mehran Tavakoli Keshe, has came forward as being the developer of the technology being used in Iran’s new “flying saucer.” His technology is claimed to harness magnetism and gravity to allow travel throughout the solar system and beyond.

On March 16th, 2011, the hard-line Iranian news agency Fars issued a press release stating Iran had developed a flying saucer. The unmanned saucer named “Zohal” is stated to be equipped with an auto-pilot system, GPS, and an imaging system. It is claimed the craft can fly indoors and outside. Initially, the press release included a stock photo of a flying saucer that was obviously from an old SCIFI movie. This image was later replaced with a picture of what looks like an ordinary quadrocopter. Such an image would tend to indicate there is nothing exotic about the craft.

Now, nuclear Engineer, Mehran Tavakoli Keshe, who we have interviewed and covered here in our news for a couple of years, has came forward and claimed to be the developer of the gravity manipulating technology being used in the Iranian flying saucer – something he divulged to us in the past, prior to the official Iranian announcement.

Mehran Keshe is the director of the Keshe Foundation. He claims to have developed a special plasma reactor that allows for the manipulation of gravitational and magnetic fields to produce motion. Multiple patent applications have been filed for this reactor, and details of it are explained on his foundation’s many websites. Importantly, in a recent interview with William Alec of Vortex Network News, Keshe specifically states his technology is incorporated in Iran’s new saucer. He also claims to have given the technology to the Iranian government years ago and is actively working with them. This contradicts the idea that the saucer is a kind of multi-turbine helicopter.

Powerful and Affordable Propulsion

This technology sounds too good to be true. It is claimed to allow for both a gravitational and magnetic field to be produced around a craft. The gravitational and magnetic fields are used for propulsion. They work for or against the fields of other bodies in space such as planets, stars, or even galaxies. A device that weighs seven to ten kilograms is claimed to produce many tons of lift. The lifting force is created without the need for any conventional fuels. These devices are very cheap to build. A small reactor costs around one thousand dollars in components.

The benefits of this astounding technology are many fold and address many of the challenges found in space travel. To be blunt, it seems to combine all the best technologies of the fictional Starship Enterprise. For example, the magnetic field produced by the craft protects the occupants from cosmic radiation. Apparently, this field is so intense that small dust particles that would normally destroy a space craft, are simply disassociated on the atomic level. Due to the fact the craft produces its own gravitational field, occupants can walk about normally and will experience the same level of gravity they do on Earth. This would prevent the muscle and bone degradation found when exposed to long periods of zero gravity. Also, the occupants should not feel the inertial effects of sudden acceleration.

If verified this technology could suddenly leap mankind forward to an age of space exploration beyond that of Star Trek. This technology is claimed to offer not only faster than light travel, but almost instant space travel. Theoretically, a craft could travel to the nearest star system (4.2 light years away) in seconds! Of course this technology offers benefits inside of a planetary atmosphere. A craft utilizing this technology would not come into physical contact with air due to the powerful magnetic field around the craft. This would eliminate drag and prevent sonic booms. It is also claimed that the craft would be able to travel underwater without any drag!

Potentially Game Changing Theory of Gravity

The theory behind the reactor and how it produces such forces is potentially revolutionary. Keshe claims that all matter (including protons and electrons) are composed of anti-matter, dark-matter, and normal matter. Gravity is produced by the magnetic fields of these various types of matter interacting with each other. By turning matter into a plasma these different components can be disentangled from each other. Doing so can allow for powerful magnetic and gravitational fields to be created. Also, the same process can be used to produce an unlimited supply of energy. This can be done by simply adding special coils near the spinning plasma.

It would be easy to dismiss this technology as being fantasy, except for the fact that many specific claims have been made. Apparently, work on the propulsion aspect of the technology is complete. They have small units (less than ten kilograms) that can produce tons of lifting force. The first prototype produced so much lift that he had to jump on top of it to stop it from flying too far upwards! This technology has been shared with various nations including the USA, Iran, and Russia. NASA and other space agencies have been given all the information about the technology. It is claimed the technology is now being scaled up, but Keshe states he cannot talk about the details.

The goal of the Keshe Foundation is to open up a university in which students from around the world would spend six years learning about the technology, building systems, and going back to their home country to teach others. This would make sure all nations have access to the technology. By 2015 the foundation also plans to have a full scale craft that would allow tourists to visit the moon.

There are only three options here. Keshe has produced a breakthrough technolology that holds the potential to change our world, he is an absolute liar, or he is delusional. There is nothing in between these possibilities. Either his claims are true or they are not. Tons of lift from a ten kilogram device cannot be a measurement error.

Beyond the Tech of Star Trek

Please let me be clear about my position on the reality of this technology. I very sincerely hope he is telling the truth. In addition, I have no reason to believe he is lying. But the simple extent of this potential breakthrough is almost unfathomable. This technology would overcome every single obstacle to interstellar space travel plus provide an unlimited source of energy. If he is telling the truth, our civilization could soon advance beyond the 24th century…..

There is practically nothing in the world of Star Trek this technology does not also offer.

FTL Warp Drive? CHECK!
Warp Core? CHECK!
Shields? CHECK!
Artificial Gravity? CHECK!!
Inertial Dampers? CHECK!
Deflector Array? CHECK!

Iranian Saucer Connection

The critical issue I see is to get verification that his technology is being used in the Iranian flying saucer. We need some sort of official reference, statement, or document directly linking his technology to the craft. I have emailed Keshe a list of questions about his connection to the saucer. The questions I asked are as follows, along with the answers he provided (in red) on April 07, 2011 12:46 AM Mountain time:

1) I believe I heard you say in a recent interview there is a video of your reactor producing lift, but it has not been made public. When do you think it might be made public? This is the decision of the Iranian government.

2) Is there any reference you can provide that would directly link your technology to the technology used in Iran’s flying saucer?

We have been Publishing this for two years and I have just returned from Iran in January for 7 day visit, which has been documented on my forum. and we said Iran will show space technology on their own time, ask the Canadian government officials who took all my documents in Toronto from me in the air hijacking, they tell you who and where I was developing In Iran.

3) Have you personally seen Iran’s flying saucer? If so, where and in what circumstance? I built the initial system for lift and tested for them 2.5 years ago in Iran. Iran up to then was producing rockets and never even talked about spaceship program.

4) Did you supervise the design, construction, and testing of the saucer? If not, who did and how can we get into contact with them?

5) Can you describe the physical and performance characteristics of Iran’s saucer? For example…

– What element does it use to produce plasma? basic elements
– How large is it?
– How much lifting force does it produce? This is not relevant in Magravs positioning systems
– What is it’s range? to any destination, these systems do not have a rang as propulsion system.
– How fast can it fly? speed thousands of times speed of sound in space condition
– Is it easily scalable to a larger size? Your scale is field strength dependent
– Can it travel to Earth orbit or beyond? Plan is for Mars http://www.keshefoundation.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=270
– What does it look like? A disk

6) Do you have any photos of the saucer? Would you be willing to share such an image to be featured on PESN?

7) Is there any additional information about Iran’s saucer you can provide? Watch the Iranian space release. I recon the first landing on Earth display will be in Jerusalem as I have explained before and if you understand the political language of Middel East.

Source: http://pesn.com/2011/04/06/9501804_Engineer_Behind_Iranian_Saucer_Technology_Comes_Forward/#Powerful_and_Affordable_Propulsion

Is gravity not actually a force? Forcing theory to meet experiments

By Matt Ford | Last updated a day ago

How are controversial ideas handled by modern science? A common charge leveled against science (generally by those who are unhappy with its conclusions) is that the only way to get funding or continue your research is by going along with the current theories and not rocking the boat. For those who spend their careers in science, this is laughable—it is those who successfully rock the boat who are the most successful. In this article, we are going to look at a manuscript that purports to overturn hundreds of years of accepted ideas about gravity, and use it as an illustration of how controversial ideas are dealt with in modern physics.

It was Isaac Newton who first proposed a universal law of gravitation, where every massive body in the universe was attracted to every other one. This simple law proved extremely powerful, able to explain the orbits of planets and the reason the apocryphal apple fell on his head. However, Newton was never able to explain why gravity worked or what exactly it was. Two hundred plus years later, Albert Einstein was able to offer a more complete description of gravity—one where Newton’s laws are a limited case. According to Einstein, gravity was due to the warpage of spacetime by mass and energy; all objects followed straight paths, just on curved spaces.

With the advent of quantum theory over the past 100 years, scientists have been able to develop an elegant mathematical framework capable of uniting three of the four fundamental forces that are thought to exist in the universe. The fourth, gravity, still remains the fly in the ointment, and has resisted unification to this point. Early last year, Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde published a manuscript to the arXiv that purports to explain why science cannot reconcile all four fundamental forces. According to him, it is simple: “gravity doesn’t exist.”

Some background reading

Before we dive into this seemingly unphysical statement, we need to take a detour to discuss some of the ideas from modern physics that form the basis of Dr. Verlinde’s argument: black hole thermodynamics and the holographic principle. Black hole thermodynamics was worked on extensively in the 1970s. It’s needed in order to reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the idea of a black hole event horizon. To do this, one has to admit that a black hole must have finite, non-zero entropy. If a black hole has zero entropy, then throwing mass into a black hole would violate the second law of thermodynamics, as the sum total entropy of the universe would decrease by the amount of entropy contained within the mass.

This also demands that, oddly, black holes cannot be purely black. If something has a non-zero entropy, then it must also have a non-zero temperature. This temperature is the temperature of the Hawking radiation that is given off due to the quantum nature of the black hole itself. A simple way to imagine Hawking radiation involves considering the particle-antiparticle pairs that spontaneously form the vacuum fluctuations. If one forms near the event horizon, it can fall in, never to be seen again, while its mate flies off into the Universe. To a faraway observer, the black hole just emitted a particle (even trippier is the fact that the particle that fell in must have had negative energy, and decreased the total energy of the black hole—something that could cause the black hole to evaporate over time).

Leading us further down the (black) rabbit hole are other results of Stephen Hawking’s calculations, which fixed the maximum entropy that a black hole can have. Since that’s a (quasi) measurement of how much information can be stored by an object, a black hole represents the most informationally dense object possible in the Universe. Surprisingly, the maximum entropy a black hole can obtain is exactly Planck’s constant times one quarter of its area in Planck lengths—not its volume, an important distinction. This result implies that every bit of information the black hole can contain (as an Infosphere) is described entirely by its surface, the event horizon.

An extension to this line of surface-focused thinking came in the 1990s, when Gerardus ‘t Hooft, and later Leonard Susskind, postulated that the universe is a form of a hologram, a lower dimensional object that looks like a higher dimensional one (think of the two dimensional hologram images that look three dimensional). The holographic principle says that all space and time contained within an N dimensional body is emergent and can be described by a completely separate set of physics on the N-1 dimensional surface of the body.

This is one of those mind-bending ideas that float around and form the basis of a not-insignificant portion of modern physics, so I’ll try and give a simple example. Imagine the entire Universe is a beach ball, and all physics within it—space, time, matter, energy—is described by the ideal gas law. The holographic principle then states that the entirety of the Universe (the inside of the beach ball) can also be described by a different set of equations that describe only the surface of the ball, the vinyl part itself; as an example, maybe a set of equations linking the surface tension to the area of the ball.

There’s a corollary to this (one that will be heavily relied on in a minute): all the information about the Universe (in this case the beach ball) is encoded on the two dimensional surface of the ball. Another analogy I have seen used to describe this is that of a soup can: everything you could know about what is in the can of soup is printed on its label.

Tying this back to the black holes we started with: the holographic principle suggests that everything we could want to know about the interior of a black hole is encoded in some manner on the surface of its event horizon. Since we can never recover information from beyond the veil of the event horizon, everything that can be known about a black hole, and everything that has ever fallen into it, must be represented on the event horizon itself. In fact, in some variants of string theory, this concept resolves the black hole information paradox.

This idea may sound completely abstract (and it is), but it has turned out to be remarkably useful, because it has produced what is called the AdS/CFT correspondence. This uses the holographic principle to show a direct correspondence between problems in what is known as Anti-deSitter space, where gravity is present (a cosmological way of describing the Universe) and problems in conformal field theory in a lower dimensional space where gravity does not exist (used heavily in quantum mechanics). Problems not solvable in one regime (cosmology, the AdS portion) have an equivalent problem that may be trivially solvable in the other (quantum field theory, the CFT portion).

A mind-bending proposal

Dr. Verlinde’s proposition is not entirely unique. Others have argued that gravity, instead of being a fundamental force of the Universe, is instead an emergent phenomenon.  A good deal of this thinking comes from the fact that the equations that describe gravity (in the Newtonian limit, at least) are mathematically similar to those that describe other emergent phenomena, such as fluid mechanics or thermodynamics. Where Dr. Verlinde goes the next step forward is by arguing for a definite mechanism behind gravity: differences in entropy.

In his freely available manuscript, entitled “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,”—the title seemingly paying homage to Einstein’s famous paper whereby special relativity was laid out—Verlinde sets out his case for why gravity is, as he terms it, an “entropic force.” The manuscript uses a combination of the holographic principle and black hole thermodynamics to (re)derive the basic equations of motion that Newton presented over 300 years prior.

Verlinde makes extensive use of the holographic principle in his derivations. He works with a thought experiment that assumes one has a holographic screen—one where all the information about what is contained inside of it is encoded as bits on its surface—and asks how it would interact with matter or energy that is being held just outside of it.

To show how Newton’s equations of universal gravitation are derived, Verlinde begins with the difference in entropy between a mass M and a spherical holographic screen with entropy S—the information encoded on the screen would describe the emergent space inside, which would be “viewed” as equivalent to a mass M at its center. The attractive force between the the mass and the screen—what we would commonly call gravity—becomes, as Verlinde describes it, an entropic force due to the different informational densities between the two regions.

Not being content to leave it there, Verlinde goes further and rederives Newton’s famous second law, F=ma (fun historical note: F=ma appears exactly zero times in Newton’s famous Principia). Through that derivation, Verlinde is able to associate acceleration with an entropy gradient. According to his work, a particle at rest will stay at rest because there is no entropy gradient around it. This allows him to identify Newton’s potential—the negative of the gradient, which is the acceleration a particle feels—as a potential that “keeps track of the depletion of the entropy per bit.”

With such a description, extending the idea further becomes feasible. The entropic potential previously identified is shown to follow the common Poisson equation that describes the distribution of matter about a system. So he concludes that, if temperature and informational density on the holographic screen are chosen properly, then the laws of gravity fall out of this theory in a straightforward fashion.

Up to this point in the manuscript, everything Verlinde has derived applies to non-relativistic cases. How well does such a radical departure hold up when viewed through the lens of relativity theory? Here, Verlinde starts with the general relativistic description of Newton’s potential. He then goes on to derive the force required to hold a particle a fixed distance away from a holographic screen, and again is able to derive the commonly accepted equation with force now described by a difference in entropy between the point and the screen. Furthermore, the manuscript lays out a path—but does not explicitly follow it—for one to rederive the full set of Einstein’s field equations that form the cornerstone of general relativity using the fact that gravity, in Verlinde’s work, is an “entropic force.”

The paper is clearly unconventional, but it provides a compelling argument, and backs it up with actual work. Despite the highly controversial ideas it puts forth and the fact that it has not gone through peer review, it has caused some people in the scientific community to sit up and take notice.

Clearly, one paper making extraordinary claims will not be taken as fact until others can replicate the work, or in the case of a theoretical paper such as this, verify it with experimental evidence. A paper published in a recent edition of Physical Review D has attempted to do just that.

Not so fast

Dr. Archil Kobakhidze, a research fellow in theoretical particle physics at the University of Melbourne, points to recent results that may undermine Verlinde’s ideas. Kobakhidze acknowledges that Verlinde’s work successfully reproduces gravity on the Newtonian scale, and possibly in the more general relativistic sense, but it must also work at the quantum level as well, or it’s not going to change modern physics.

Kobakhidze attempts to apply Verlinde’s ideas to see if they are in agreement with the results from experiments on ultra-cold neutrons falling in the Earth’s gravitational field. Solving the conventional quantum mechanical equations that describe this system give results that are in good agreement with the experiment. Verlinde’s paper does not fully explain how to work with microscopic systems in his modified view of gravity, but according to Kobakhidze, enough ideas are present to work it out as homework.

Kobakhidze uses Verlinde’s approach to re-derive the wave equation that will describe the energy levels of neutrons falling in Earth’s gravitational well. What he finds is that, in contrast to the more conventional equation, there are two extra terms now present. One would appear to account for the relativistic rest energy of the neutron; the other is a form of an extreme suppression of certain parts of the neutron’s wavefunction. Both of these additions result in problems for Verlinde’s theory.

The first extra term, the relativistic rest energy, would manifest itself as a constant shift in the neutron’s energy states (height above the bottom of the well)—this is not seen at all in the experiments. According to Kobakhidze, though, it is the second extra term that really throws a wrench into entropic gravity. The second term, if correct, would significantly change the dynamics of the experiment, essentially causing neutrons to fall through the small hole in the bottom of the potential well. There’s no sign of this happening in any meaningful way in the experiment. Thus, Kobakhidze concludes, “we are driven to the conclusion that gravity is not an entropic force.”

This is how science works. Ideas are proposed, they are backed up, they are shot down. Over time, it would not surprise me to see Verlinde defend his work. Perhaps Kobakhidze’s derivation and its extension to the microscopic case is incorrect. Perhaps Verlinde will revisit his original work to revise how microscopic cases should be handled. Whatever happens, science will move on; time, further arguments, and experiments will be the ultimate arbiter of which drastically different view of reality is correct.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/is-gravity-a-result-of-thermodynamics.ars