Physics of UAP/UFO, Alcubierre Warp Drives, & Spacetime Metric Engineering with Dr. Matthew Szydagis

Transcript

hi there my name is kent bai and i usually do a vr podcast but today i'm going to be getting into the physics of uap and i'm here with matthew matthew maybe just could quickly introduce yourself sure i'm an associate professor of physics at the university at albany part of the suny system state university of new york okay great well i just wanted to set a little bit of context because you know this is a bit of a new topic for me to be covering since i'm usually covering emerging technologies but i'm just going to quickly share my screen here so i've always really been interested in the ufo topic in fact i watched tom delong's to the stars academy press conference in october and i saw a youtube video and and then i saw uh grant cameron's sort of follow-on video saying hey tom belongs the real deal and then the new york times article came out and all the stuff that i've been looking at for years and years and years in this sort of uh esoteric ufo community was kind of crossing the chasm into the mainstream uh and i thought this was a fascinating story and i've been tracking it pretty closely for last 41 months on my twitter stream as the news has been coming out and more and more journalists have been doing different levels of verification and um yeah i guess there's a parts of the story that i've been tracking personally uh part of it for me that's interesting is the philosophical implications like is this real what are the new paradigms that we get from this uh and there what are the scientific implications because i think there's actually quite a lot of you know science of how put off was actually uh shown at the very beginning um at the at the very start of this so howe was actually introduced at the to the stars academy uh introduction uh that happened back in like i think october 17th of uh 2017 uh tom de long actually showed like some physics equations uh in this press conference with the albuquerque warp drive uh and then he sort of does a it's sort of a mashup of all these different equations uh and then i went through and found that this was a paper from how put off and that's since been cited a number of different times uh and then you know the abba curie's uh warp drive faster than um you know the hyper fast speed so relativistically you can see if something is like going faster this being light but it's actually not it's just sort of like a perceptual illusion we can get into the sort of warping of space time but anyway i wanted to have matthew on because we were just at this conference called the scientific coalition for uap studies uh it's a bunch of different scientists uh who are looking at this issue of ufos and uop and they had a whole conference called the virtual seo anonymous aerospace phenomena conference aapc that happened from june 5th to 6th and so i've been interested in this i attended it and matthew you had a really amazing presentation that you had there but maybe i'll sort of hand it over to you now in terms of how did you end up at this conference and how did you get into this whole field well it's really due to my good friend kevin kevin knuth who was also there he has one of the panels um he's what really he's one of my colleagues he's a fellow professor at the university of albany and um his passion and interest in this area is what really originally drew me in okay and so um there's whenever i look so hal put off as i said that there was this like sort of physics equations and math that he was proposing that um the albuquerque warp drive is like if you have exotic matter or negative energy density you could actually have this sort of faster than light travel or at least be able to travel great distances whenever i hear a lot of like the mainstream scientists and astrophysicists they're kind of like well it would violate the laws of physics it would take too much time for things to actually travel here and i feel like there's actually some advanced theoretical physics out there that says it's actually possible and so uh from a physics perspective i'm curious how you sort of got into this this question because what i hear from a lot of the mainstream physicist is like oh it's impossible that they could ever get here and that seems to be like a pretty big thing stopping a lot of scientists from even looking at this is an issue i i consider that complete rubbish and i'll explain why it's two-fold actually and and half of the answer is ftl but half of the answer requires no new physics at all and so that's why so i think it's complete i disagree with many of my colleagues i think it's complete nonsense to claim ah it's too far away interstellar travels too hard so let i want to attack it first from the conventional physics perspective so let's set aside ftl because it is more speculative so one thing that my friend kevin who i just mentioned always points out you don't need ftl to explore the universe because time dilation works in your favor you don't need any new physics so i always give this as a homework problem to my students for example we we like to think oh andromeda galaxy two million light years away that would take two million years wrong if you travel just 0.1 meters per second slower than the speed of light and get there in 50 years sure 2 million years will have elapsed on earth but not for you and so time dilation works in your favor so relativistic time dilation means you can explore the universe as long as you don't care about going back home like your relatives descendants are long dead but you can explore the universe without any need for speculative faster than like this that and i just don't understand how many physicists forget that and say oh they'll never get here it's too far it takes too much time it does not take too much time because you can cross the entire milky way galaxy in months or weeks or years not thousands of years now the counter argument to that is always about oh what about shielding radiation and all the ill effects of relativistic space travel but i like to point out point people then to this critics who once said air travel would never be possible very learning physicist mathematician said air travel was a joke it would never be possible many people said space travel there was an astronomer two weeks before the launch of sputnik who said space travel that's never happening and so like if you look at the history of science all these things that were claimed to be impossible were impossible not because they break the laws of physics but because we didn't have the imagination yet as engineers to find engineering workarounds within the laws of physics and so that's the first half of my answer is you don't know the ftl so it's complete nonsense in my opinion in my scientific opinion so it's not just an uninformed opinion in my scientific opinion it's utter nonsense to claim that oh it would take too long you don't even need ftl so i want to dig into this whole phrase of the laws of physics because my understanding the philosophy of private the philosophy of science is that you know we have certain paradigms and then you have uh that you can never really prove something to be absolutely true it's only like it's true until it gets falsified or proven wrong and but there's certain things about physics that that seem to be pretty solid but yet i i sort of reject or i resist hearing about the laws of physics because like well it's a model and the model could be wrong but i'd say the other thing that i i when looking at this very specific issue of uap it seems like something like the abba curie warp drive it takes an assumption of either exotic mass or negative energy density in order to like you know get some of this stuff to actually work so either you know the laws or we can sort of say that they're laws and they actually stand or there's certain things about the laws that we misunderstand and it's sort of we have a new paradigm that we have to sort of shift with this anomalous information that's coming in kuhn talked about the structure of scientific revolutions that was all about having models and then you have anomalous information and usually you reject the anomalous information if you don't if you don't have enough of it you just sort of discount it but once it reaches a critical mass of anomalous information then that anonymous information has to show that you need there's a model drift that happens you have to have new models and then you have new paradigms that come in once you're able to have new models that actually are able to accommodate the previous information but also the new information so i see this kind of like a paradigm evolution of science in itself and just an unfolding process so at some level i'm resistant to this kind of you know uh what alfred north whitehead would would say is like this uh uh sort of misplaced concreteness putting the the abstractions of the of the math as above and beyond what the observed evidence might be uh when when in reality you have to sort of it's a give and take between those but i'm curious to hear your thoughts on that in terms of both the laws of physics but also kind of like some of the assumptions or new ideas that are coming up based upon some of the evidence that you're at least you're seeing yeah well like i said i had two halves of my answer second half is really that yeah you don't even need to change things that much for something like a warp drive to be possible it's been many years since miguel could gree's original paper it's not just hal and eric davis one of his collaborators many others have been working on this and chipping away and showing oh that impossible thing is not impossible within the known workings without having to do any paradigm shift yet have been able to chip away in many of the aspects so so don't get me wrong i'm very excited about the possibility of faster than light travel that requires none of the time dilation i was just saying i was just giving you the first half of my answers like the conservative answer in the sense that you don't even need a paradigm shift to explain at least some fraction of the phenomenon or of interstellar travel extraterrestrial civilizations you don't even require a paradigm shift in some ways but absolutely i think i've been i have been increasingly convinced it's not my work directly but i've been increasingly convinced that we're going to chip away at what seemed like the impossibilities for faster than light and i'm getting increasingly convinced that that is a a separate and a second viable option um in contrast to what i just said earlier now in terms of laws of physics and paradigm shifts there's something i always teach my students um i think this might be i have sort of my own sort of personal philosophy on this and i don't think it fully agrees with whitehead's view of things but i think that paradigm shifts are changing in nature and that's because centuries ago we didn't have microscopes telescopes blah blah it was much easier to be wrong we just you know shooting from the hip the way i look at things now and you're right you're while you're technically right that we can never prove something only disprove but they're like you said their things are pretty solid i mentioned this in the conference we're not going to wake up tomorrow and find out einstein is wrong or gr is wrong quantum mechanics that's impossible because our phone wouldn't work the computers were using wouldn't work this is not possible anymore so the way that shifts work now actually more recently is we're we're finding deeper levels of approximations of reality but you don't throw away the earlier ones a good example of this is people like why do we teach newton einstein showed newtonian mechanics is wrong that's the wrong way of thinking about it it's not like there was a paradigm shift and newton was wrong i i disagree with that philosophical approach to history of science because newtonian mechanics is good enough to get you to the moon you don't need general relativity okay you need general relativity for a tiny correction for example to mercury's orbit so the way that paradigm shifts that work more recently are different than they were centuries ago like you know heliocentrism didn't improve geocentrism it chucked it it was wrong but more recently as our technology has improved the way i like to think about it and i know it's a very controversial statement easy to disagree with it's getting harder to be wrong as our technology improves that doesn't mean there's not going to be another paradigm shift don't get me wrong we have to be humble and i'm not saying there won't be another paradigm shift but there's no way there'll be a paradigm shift that shows general relativity is wrong because then your gps wouldn't work but it does and so technology means there are certain theories that that doesn't prove they're right i'm not disagreeing with you all this means is general relativity quantum mechanics it means that instead of being wrong like ancient theories geocentrism it means they're incomplete and i said this during the conference there's a big difference between wrong and incomplete yeah i guess where i'm coming from that is when i hear scientists in the mainstream say because of our laws of physics and that this violates our understanding of those laws of physics this can't be true and it seems to be like that's a bad argument because the laws you know there may be information that is like you said this and complete aspects of it given like assumptions like negative energy densities or exotic masses that are shifting our our direct experience of what we can experience with those our empirical way of being able to test that and i think this gets into an issue that i've seen again and again and again with this issue in terms of the scientific perspective which is that there's a lack of data and most of the data that are available are is classified with highly you know like the radars and all the different sources of methods that come from us military there's apparently lots of information and data that i would love for the scientists to have access to but yet it's so highly classified and there's so many national security things about and taboos and stigma there's a whole other thing but those things to combine is created a situation where it's really difficult for the scientific community to be engaged into this topic because there's a poverty of data there's there's no evidence to be able to say here's the provenance for this data here's the multiple sensors that we have all this we're going to put it out into the academic community and we're going to let people take a look at it and make the most sense of it that stuff has been happening within our intelligence community within special access programs and non-acknowledged special access programs and waived uh special access programs uh top secret uh special compartmentalized information type of data and it's like that's that's what they're alleging but i'm just curious to hear from your perspective as an outside scientist this dynamic of the data and the lack of data and how that impacts the less the rest of the scientific community yeah part of it is a tautology so part of it is circular there is the issue of classified data but there's another problem which is that scientific community has decided it's nonsense why is it nonsense because there's no data why is there no data because it's nonsense and you're not allowed to collect the data and no one sees the problem with this neil degrasse tyson and everybody no one sees the problem with the circularity here is and and so that's what convinced me finally you know joining with kevin it's time to break the circle the circle of ignorance part of that is classification like you said at high levels of government um if that's true of course um but even without separate from the issue of government and classified data is the fact that you're not allowed to study it because it's crap why is it crap because you're not allowed to collect the data and round and round the circle of nonsense goes and scientists are not allowed to do their job and as a result there's all the metaphysical and mythological layers that get added to the phenomenon and then that creates a vicious negative cycle that turns scientists off because then the ufos get buried with all the woo woo and the mystical stuff and then any real data gets buried on on all those levels yeah well i know we had a chance to to have uh some networking sessions and talk briefly about the uh the i guess the stigma and the taboo around this and i'd love to hear your perspective on you know you're you're someone who's a mainstream academic at the university of albany teaching physics and doing research into dark matter dark energy we can get into that in some of the stuff that you're presenting but you know you're somebody who's got an academic career but yet this could be seen as something that could be damaging to your professional career to be involved with something like ufos or the un uh unidentified area phenomena but yet there's something about the scientific curiosity or something that you're willing to be able to kind of step in past that stigma and through the taboos to be able to get and more directly involved and so i'm just curious to hear about your own journey and experience through the the stigma of this topic as well as some of those taboos well i think my first answer will make your listeners laugh uh it's one word it's called tenure i can't get fired so i don't really don't care about the well it me if it damages my career maybe i won't make it the full professor but you know what i don't care because the way i look at it and is that if there is some truth to claims of whatever it is you know unknown new phenomenon is it extraterrestrial something they this could potentially be the greatest discovery in human history why isn't it isn't that worth some risk of pushing back against a silly taboo when this could be the most important discovery ever period that like you said could cause paradigm shifts in our understanding of physics chemistry biology everything isn't that worth the risk and and also the other way i look at is i'm not dropping everything i've still got my main focus on dark matter is going to take up most of my time and so i'm not dropping everything and devoting the rest of my life my life including my academic life to it either because what if it is all wrong i don't think that's the case but what if it is all whatever you know optical illusions whatever i don't buy that but i i'm not i'm also i'm not you know putting all my eggs in one basket and selling the farm you know and the proverbial and all those ever so so i think that's my multifaceted answer but the most important thing is really there's a lot of arguments about this in in you know on the internet about the benefits of our academic system and seriously tenure is one of the foundations of being able to take risky ventures there's another aspect to it which is the government has funding for it you know money is green right you know the university's not going to care this is you know money makes the world go around so if we can find we can get funding to do ufo research you think the university is going to care all universities in the country are experiencing budget crises due to covert 19 in the pandemic no one's going to care where the money comes from if the university's getting money so i know that's kind of a cynical answer but i'm giving you the honest answer my honest answer so i'd love to hear about your own personal journey into this as a topic because you know in december of 2017 is when i think it it definitely shifted from something that was in the realm of conspiracy theory and unverified stuff into being verified by the new york times and that article that came out on december 16th and the on the online digital edition and then december 17th on on the uh print edition and then also uh politico and brian bender also did a piece so it sort of had this shift and there's since been a lot more reporting with former ci directors and former director of national intelligences coming out and president obama i mean it's sort of like it's it's gone from being totally de-legitimized into something that it's like almost totally mainstream but where did you enter into this at the last number of years or when did you enter into this story of the uap yes so that yeah that that it all begins with um so i knew from a very young age that first i wanted to be an astronomer that got modified over time an astrophysicist physicist um but i would watch um i watched star trek sergeant next generation as i mentioned you know in my talking during the conference and even though that's fiction that did help it sort of like acculturated me to the idea that oh yeah aliens are real we just haven't found them yet so so you know that's fictional that kind of though plants that that seed there are also books i read because i read books by the big you know particle physicists like leon letterman and and and books by michio kaku and people like that kip thorne but i also um i loved reading books about the um the ufo uh phenomenon i can't pinpoint because i was literally you know i can't pinpoint an exact experience and tell you the story of the day that i just realized that this was interesting i i can't unfortunately pinpoint an exact moment like that but it was more of a slow process where it didn't seem initially to me at least when i was younger some aspects of it at least did not really seem um very pseudo-scientific or wrong at all but rather it did seem perhaps unfairly stigmatized because even when i was a a kid we still had i actually don't remember if he was still alive or i was just reading his books there was jay allen heineck who was a real scientist things like that so there were real scientists slowly you know trying to look into things even when the taboo was uh was still strong and i don't just read science i read of history of science and i couldn't help but look at some parallels so let's say that it turns out this is an interesting new phenomenon interstellar spacecraft or something and it is really important new i couldn't help but realize that one time you know we laughed at germs you know germs little tiny things what what complete nonsense or atoms we used to laugh oh atoms there's no such thing as atoms or it's a mathematical tool they don't really exist and i feel like through the history of science there are these ideas that initially like oh what a crazy idea and the vast majority of the scientific community thinks it's nonsense but here's the thing nature doesn't care about our consensus nature doesn't care if majority of scientific human scientific community thinks something is right or wrong truth is not by consensus truth is not a democracy truth is not by majority so to me i looked at all these instances the history of science where einstein is another good example relativity was initially considered nonsense it was almost there was you know a um racist element in germany um einstein's work was considered jewish physics and in the uk it was considered ah german physics because it's after you know world war one germans weren't exactly very um you know best friends in the united kingdom so so that it i see these examples where things go from sometimes even in one generation from come from treated as nonsense to like oh yeah that's physics einstein is right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong and it's just a flip sometimes even within the same generation yeah and so uh for me i i i what gets me excited about this topic is that it's going to have a new like it like totally on on board in terms of if this is true this is like the biggest story of the history of humanity so like it seems like potentially high risk but a high payoff type of thing to dive into and i think as we move forward we need more data we need more of the scientific process because i'm there's a quote from agnes callard who she talks about like the dialectical process of truth where there's those who believe and those who um you can either preference believing something or avoiding falsehoods and so you put forth hypotheses uh and you gather some data but then the scientific peer review process is the one that maybe is preferencing avoiding falsehoods and they try to critically analyze it through the peer review process but it's sort of a dialectical process between those who believe and those who uh are you know uh more skeptical and trying to avoid the falsehoods and that science is actually dialectical collaboration between those both of those sides having the will to believe but also having the you know the skepticism to be able to actually you know put it through its basis and that's how knowledge progresses but when one side or the other gets too much power and if something it's like we're not going to consider this because we don't have any will to believe then i think it can stag it can prevent progress from happening i think that to some extent is what's happening but at the same time there hasn't been uh verifiable data that has been able to it's like been more phenomenological experiences or these little encounters but not not like there's been a repository of data that's been open data that people have been able to have access to so that's sort of where i see this as a the larger context of the scientific community where um it is very exciting but it's also i think they're we're at the stage where um this is where i'd love to hear a little bit more context as you've entered into this phase you kind of go through and you're trying to like navigate what is a giant rabbit hole of all these potential like i i know there's like researchers like richard dolan who said that there's like 16 levels of disclosure you know in terms of how far the rabbit hole goes in terms of how far of the conspiracy goes into you know so many different levels and i think we're still at the very early phases of just like saying okay this seems to be a legitimate phenomena and what is it but you know as you've been uh digging into it and trying to look at you know this whole layer of published literature but also there's the classified literature and people who have had uh ways to kind of go in between those people like hal they uh hal put off and eric davis who have been involved in both the you know science aspects of publishing papers and theoretical aspects of it but also um getting access to a lot of privileged information that they're not at liberty to be able to talk about i'm curious how you've been able to start to interface with this uh this nuance of based upon what your own interests are research interest and uh trying to get at least some maybe insider information or having some of these discussions and dialogues from a scientific perspective in terms of what may be helping push your own research forward so i've always tried to be kind of um i would say a centrist so i really like this this dialectical collaboration that you're mentioning i think it's extremely important to balance skepticism and open-mindedness and i think that most scientists think science is only about skepticism if that was true then again germs atoms are are absurd ideas on on their face right you know these tiny things we can't see that make us sick or things that make up everything these are in their time they were absurd ideas on their face so i think it's important to always balance skepticism with open-mindedness and both extremes are dangerous open mind is for like everything is true you believe every eyewitness testimony of every like alien abduction and this that you can't do that but you also can't go become a debunker because then you might miss the greatest discoveries of the century or human history because you're like oh it's nonsense so i won't even bother looking at the data so when you're on that end of the spectrum you end up even as a scientist being almost um religiously passionate and you become almost no better i know both avi loeb and kevin knuth have said this you become no better than the cardinals and bishops who refused to look through galileo's telescope some of the debunkers like navy tic tac video remind me of of the bishops and cardinals who said oh jupiter's moons those are just optical artifacts in your telescope that's not real and and so i can't help but draw parallels between um those in the scientific community who've taken the extreme of skepticism um but i don't think i fully answered your question oh uh well there's yeah that's a good start i think the the thing i was sort of wondering is that as you've you know from your your perspective you're starting to interface with some of these i mean you're trying to get the lay of the land of this and look at some of the different theoretical work but also perhaps you know engage in some conversations with people that have looked at this and so um as you uh are kind of getting ramped up i think the in in your talk at the anomalous aerospace phenomena conference you you were sharing very specific things around your specific research around uh dark matter and there was something that hal put off was talking about like these meta materials that are more speculative we don't know uh what their purpose is but there are some aspects of some of the potential uh ways in which that these were manufactured that was at a certain wavelength frequency that was resonating with your own research and so you start to kind of reach out and have these dialogues and connecting these dots between something that is very exotic in terms of meta materials and uip but you you yourself are trying to find something that no one has evidence for so you're in a a a state of being open-minded at this inquiry of trying to connect some of these dots yeah so one of the things i i was thinking about i mentioned you know how dark matter doesn't leave a trace and and passes through material that but there's so it's so plentiful that it made sense to me that an interstellar civilization would use it as a fuel so that's the connection yeah so they that's the first connection i made in my mind with my own research but there's another one that may interest you especially with your your your interest and passion about the you know scientific method and philosophy of science is that um i was disturbed to learn only a couple years ago that in some fields of science my field is considered the crazy crackpot one when you know it's so funny because i thought oh that was part of the the dogma you know of like there's dark matter and i was shocked to learn that in many other fields like the other physicists and also another scientist are like oh dark matter whatever we just don't understand gravity and god that's one of my pet peeves we just don't understand gravity there are lots of things we don't understand we still understand what time is that doesn't stop us from building clocks and watches or understanding time dilation so just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean we don't understand it well and so but but what i discovered is there was even internally unbeknownst to me for years of working in the field is that in other fields it was already because dark matter was considered crazy idea with no evidence and i thought well you know what if i'm going to be in trouble for working on something with no evidence might as well actually make it work even more worthwhile by doing uaps where legitimately that legitimately is very hard and on the still in the fringes of science at least there uh the criticism might be warranted versus dark matter shouldn't be criticism because that is to be well but much better uh much better established so that's part of my personal journey now in your example with the with the meta materials so that's actually dark energy but i like to think about everything i like to try to broaden myself not just focus on my research and dark energy is kind of a different kettle of fish despite sharing the name dark but there is a theory where dark energy is more like dark matter is particle-like and i was looking at some of these claims online by people who wouldn't know this and really wouldn't know i think these obscure details of this obscure hypothesis on what dark energy is this communal hypothesis and then i was looking at these claims of having physical material that have been alleged from crash uaps and things like that there were alleged features of these materials that seemed too much of a coincidence to me that they did seem to bear some relation to what could potentially be real physics yeah i'm gonna share this slide that uh was from your talk uh about that about the um so some of these things that one of the slides that you showed in terms of um the different uh and so just a little bit of the context of meta materials so apparently there's uh we may or may not have crashed uaps and from that there's a lot of materials that may or may not be exotic at this point there hasn't been any peer-reviewed evidence that for sure shows that there's any exotic material that was definitely not made here on earth now i know that jacques villa and gary nolan have been in the process of taking some of these materials and going through the peer review process and seeing if there's either one of two things like a a balance of isotopes that are exotic so there's isotopes that you know are in the metals and everything and if it has a certain ratio that you expect that all metals do otherwise you have sort of potential either ways of engineering those isotopes or those isotopes coming from somewhere other than the earth the other thing is that the way that it's manufactured so having such a small layer of you know layers of things kind of engineered at a nano scale that is i guess beyond any technical capabilities that we have currently known right so there's a couple of things there that i know that hal put off was given a talk a couple of years ago where he was saying well maybe these are wave guides where they're they're they're taking energy and they're able to sort of focus it in a very specific way and that maybe this is a part of how they're able to do what we kind of perceive as anti-gravity but i think there's a there's a number of questions of of these uaps which is like if they are if they do exist then what is the energy how do they move how do they do what they do and so there's uh i think hal's approach may be taking stuff like the cashmere effect or zero point energy maybe there's a way to scale that up um maybe there's exotic mass that these things have that they're able to kind of bend space time in a very specific way but your i guess what you're presenting at the conference was well maybe it is these chameleon particles or dark energy that these craft have figured out how to harness them uh and and sort of tap into the the this theoret we don't have any evidence of dark energy so maybe this is some evidence of if entities are doing this but you were saying well maybe this is an overlap between dark energy and how these craft are able to actually fuel themselves yeah so i was trying to take things a step further thinking outside the box in terms of meta because meta materials that we're just throwing a lot around a lot but it's off but the the real life materials that we have as humans therefore focusing photons in particular particles of light and i took hal's waveguide suggestion and thought what if it's a waveguide for something other than photons something more interesting more exotic like dark matter or in this case dark energy because i thought to myself as i mentioned you know my talk if i were an advanced civilization why wouldn't i find a way to tap in to 95 percent of the universe dark energy and dark matter collectively make up we think 95 the mass energy density universe to me that sounds like hey that's free fuel for something right for you for which is sitting around the entire universe and so this so i i did a very simple calculation which i have to stress you know it could be a coincidence because we have more evidence that dark energy is actually what is called zero point energy there's a lot more evidence that that's the explanation but if we say that dark energy is instead this alternative hypothesis is called the chameleon particle i i did a very simplistic calculation where you can take an energy and it's on the slide here you can use planck's constant h speed of light c and the the characteristic energy capital greek letter lambda here and come up with a characteristic length scale and when you compare this length scale to the alleged properties of these alleged materials that we may or may not have right that hal put off may or may not have in a safe somewhere that it seemed to it seemed to match to me and it seemed to corroborate hal's hypothesis of of a waveguide and obviously that there's a lot of unknowns and a lot of intellectual leaps there but i i wanted to start thinking outside the box of that these that if these are actually interstellar craft at least some fraction that they don't use they use something completely beyond what we currently use for propulsion power things like that okay yeah thanks thanks for sharing that so i heard about houzz how did it talk a number of different years ago where he kind of elaborated that and then i know stephen bassett did a transcript of that talk and put it out um how did you come across the house theory of the wave guides it's all thanks to this this uh scientific coalition for um uap studies scu that that was founded by rich hoffman it it enabled people like me and kevin to make connections with people like hal put off and eric davis who are really ostracized by the scientific community and if you read the internet you'll think oh rightly so they're crackpots and the more i interacted with hal at like conferences like this and also one of his close collaborates eric davis the more convinced i am they're not crackpots and they've got really good ideas um on on on potentially new breakthrough technologies i don't think they're they're crazy and i think they have some sound principles but they they don't have they do have peer review publications not that many i think part of it is because classical classification by the government right they work for the government but the second aspect is the stigma this goes back to your thing about the materials we have jacques vallee says others say they have pieces that's physical evidence do you know how hard that is to get through let's say you had a paper you trying to get through peer review it would be tossed out by almost every journal in the world because they wouldn't bother again it's like galileo in the telescope they wouldn't even bother looking at the evidence oh you've proved you have crashed alien spacecraft parts yeah right and they wouldn't even bother looking at the plots and the data and the tables they would dismiss it out of hand and i don't want to dismiss it if we actually have physical evidence that's better for me than video and camera and flea and eyewitness testimony god if we actually have physical evidence we should be putting that through the ringer and but getting into getting them to peer review papers and like i said two-fold problem highly classified and stigma so that even if it's not classified you'll never get it through a pin into a journal hopefully that's changing now because the culture is changing it seems slowly but um that's my concern is you could have a great discovery and every journal would just go la la la la la i'm not listening because if it's too crazy they won't give you the time of day yeah i that's i'm so glad that i went to the scu because there there have been papers that have been published but it's in like the journal of british interplanetary society i have no idea you know some of these you know how that journal what is that journal and how is that relative to the rest of the journals that are out there because i have trouble sometimes when things get peer reviewed as to whether or not it's you know because there's peer-reviewed journals about parapsychology and other psychic phenomena so just because it's peer review doesn't mean it's you know seen in the same scale as some of these other journals so what is the jbis so yeah i i did i did look it up after learning of eric's work it does not have a very high impact factor so some would say that means is not held in very high esteem but again part of the problem is the stigma if i'm hal or eric and here's my you know warp drive idea and then the peer the editor of the journal or the reviewers editor finds google's eric and helen finds out you know hal also worked on remote viewing telepathy they'll just go uh they'll just gag and not even give them the time of day so i'm not i don't want to jump to the conclusion that just because it's not a top-notch journal doesn't mean it's wrong because i've actually become personally disillusioned with the peer review process in recent years and i can speak about this openly now because like i said i've got 10 years so i can go neanderthal like i can speak to you openly that the peer review process isn't perfect and part of it is is the stigma of your institution university of albany i'm very proud of and i'm very proud of here so but it's not harvard or mit and so someone comes they see if someone's going to see my paper this has personally hurt me i've spent the last three and a half years trying to publish with my colleague professor cecilia levy a discovery that no one believes despite massive results simple discovery nothing not that earth shattering we just demonstrated that radiation can freeze water sometimes interesting to me very interesting could be used as a dark matter detector oh journal after journal's like oh it's crap it doesn't smell right and it's like we've got plots proving the result like what the hell is your problem and so what i've learned is the peer review process is highly biased if you don't have comma harvard or comma mit after your name or comma yale after your name goodbye and so i've suffered with this with my colleagues to see it because we're university of albany which i said up and coming university and i'm proud to be here i'm proud of my colleagues in my department but we are mistreated and and another aspect is i fortunately i don't have to deal with this but my colleagues do i'm a white male so i don't have this racism sexism you see female name as the first author oh crap paper must be crap because woman physicist and this happens and no one will admit it and sometimes it's subconscious right we've been learning in psychology is a real thing right and so this is this has really changed my mind in the peer review process we need a peer review system don't get me wrong but it's very broken because if you know someone who knows someone or you're at the right university and you're famous you could come up with your bs theory of everything and it'll get published instantly if you're famous but if you're not famous you could have a hundred pages of evidence your ideas right and all the big journals would be like nope garbage science nature they'll toss it out and so i've been disabused of the notion through the hard knocks of life the last few years i've been disappeared of the notion that the peer review system is perfect i've discovered it is broken you don't get me wrong you can't remove it because then you've got every which you know every crackpot publishing their einstein is wrong theory and nonsense so don't get me wrong we have to have peer review in science it is an important staple of science and i don't know how to fix the system i'm just stating that there are problems there are some solutions such as double blind reviews there are some solutions but i'm telling you that i've been increasingly impressed by eric's work and housework despite everyone else writing them off as crackpots and despite their work being published in not the best journals because i think that's not always their fault yeah and i think this is where i go back to thomas kuhn in his book the structure of scientific revolutions where he really maps out the sociological dimension of all the scientific process where there are these mainstream paradigms that come in in terms of like the consensus and that there's things that are on the front the fringe or the frontier or the anomalous data that are coming in and maybe um you know people that are seeing that there's needs to have a model you know alternative paradigms or alternative models that go against the mainstream paradigm and that you know there's a sort of rhetoric of the difference between everything that's in the mainstream is science and everything that's outside is the pseudoscience but i i don't like that as a framing because i think it's more of an evolutionary process of frontier science or you know the on the on the edge of like you know it's it's it is on the fringes but it doesn't mean it's less there's more uh possibility for it to be not end up to be correct but there are some times that things have to start on the frontier before they get accepted by the mainstream and so you have to kind of go through that momentum building process and so what i see here is that there's this process by which that the us government is actually standing up and saying actually you know we have we have data like this has not been something that even though has been delegitimized this uap and ufo phenomena for over 70 years uh that there's actually enough evidence to to warrant some potential paradigm shifts uh and given that then we're going to start to um you know have the scientific community be more engaged in something that you know has up to this point been maybe a closed mind of saying this is impossible so we're not going to uh entertain anything that sort of violates or goes against what these existing mainstream paradigms of our understanding uh which are again these models that are uh in flux and there may be assumptions that are changed with different things that come up um so i see it as part of the natural scientific process so that that couldn't start to map out with the structure of scientific revolutions i think i may have read bros many years ago so i don't know if this will jive with his with his thinking in his work but the way i like to think about it is is that yeah there is a fringe like you said and you got pseudoscience and science on one side but i feel like when evident when more data and evidence is gathered things migrate one way or the other either it's proven and moves into science or disproven moves into pseudoscience here's a great example of that um i made a lot of students angry in astronomy class this last semester i'm like astrology it's bunk and here's why and i show all the studies where horoscopes are complete nonsense you know give the give the horoscope of a serial killer ah the students get so angry because of you know attacking their belief system sometimes and the thing is is so some things you take data oh look it's wrong moves into pseudoscience but some things you take data moves into science because it's right i gave examples earlier germs atoms theory of relativity there are things that start on the fringe but migrate the other way because the data gets collected and like you were saying earlier how can you collect the data if it's stigma stigmatized or classified or both and so the uap why is it still on the fringe and hasn't fully like you know we haven't figured out fully well i know skeptics will say oh yeah it's definitely a pseudosciences wikipedia says right but basically i think umps are in the in the gray or yellow zone be because we're not getting the data we need to push it in fully into pseudoscience and write it off forever or or bring it into science and finally get the hard data so it's kind of wiggling around there in the fridge and and and the problem is yeah the data has to come down to help push it one way or the other that's how i think about kind of like a venn diagram where there's this tiny overlap region of fringe and things keep moving either they get cast off or they get captured into science yeah yeah well i wanted to uh dive into a little bit of uh some of the the physics stuff that that hal is showing and just get your take on it and because like you said some of the stuff that has been published in the journal of british and interplanetary society it's sort of like uh is this is this plausible is this you know because there's a certain level of theoretical physics and maybe you can start uh i'll ask you this because it sounds like you're an experimental physicist rather than a theoretical things i build maybe you can sort of explain the difference between you know these two different communities because they are quite different yes thank you for asking that question because when most people learn i'm a physicist they go oh so you're a theoretical physicist and i go no and then look of confusion falls on the face like a party yeah so this so a a theoretical physicist versus experimental physicist every lots of different fields of physics have this dichotomy not all but many have a have this dichotomy not all because you're not going to find you know an experimental string theorist there's no such thing but but many fields of physics do have this dichotomy which i think has advantages and disadvantages but for whatever is know through the history of the 20th century because the economy has cropped up and so an experimental physicist is more like an engineer and a theoretical physicist is more like a mathematician and that's very crude and i know i'll get a lot of criticism for saying this but that's just my very crude way of explaining it in a simple way it's a spectrum of course but there is definitely a pretty hard dichotomy and it doesn't mean i don't look at any theory and i don't know any math of course not because i have to use uh computers and equations to analyze my data to write simulations of my data so i don't just build things with wrenches and screwdrivers most of my work is also computational and is in that sense sort of theoretical but the way a theoretical physicist approaches things is they look at the foundations of physics and try to look at the big picture questions so in my field for example someone who does dark matter theoretically will try to figure out what is dark matter is it super symmetry kaluza klein is it an axion is it a wimp that is beyond my purview i can dabble in it a little bit and i could understand and read a paper might get lost in the math sometimes though but as experimentalists to first order i don't care what dark matter is i just want to find it i just want to find something that doesn't match the standard model and then the way i look at it's like okay then i'll make the discovery and the theorists can worry about figuring it out there's also a gray area it's my field of people called phenomenologists who immensely you know respect who are theorists but try to get closer to the experiment like a phenomenologist isn't going to go you know turn a screwdriver but they will try to get closer to the experiments be less you know uh you know pie in the sky and get closer to to the ground so i hope that ends answer your questions all right about that yeah yeah i know you mentioned in your experimental physicist and some of the stuff that like cal i'd say is probably more of a theoretical physicist because and and probably dr uh eric davis although they may actually be they probably do both actually because hal's been inventing uh different stuff and engineering stuff and you know his whole theory is on space-time and metric engineering so taking an engineering approach my personal background's in electrical engineering um i have electrical engineering degree from rose hulman um and so i understand the the kind of dialect between the theory of what the math says versus from an engineering perspective you have to make all these different trade-offs between what you can and cannot do and what you can and cannot measure and how to you know stress tests because the they're still uh trying to match up the different aspects of the the large and the small in physics in terms of how does the quantum realm match with the general relativistic realm and with your work it sounds like you're dealing more with the general relativistic scale but also maybe some of the quantum scales so i don't know if you if your work you're kind of are you doing both of both the quantum realm but also the the sort of general relativistic realm yeah that's a great question no my realm is mostly the world of the small even though everything's interconnected and that that's because if we're in the search for dark matter we think it's probably you know a particle and so then we're talking more of the quantum world that being said i'm not completely disconnected from the the gr realm because it's thanks to gr that we think dark matter exists in the first place because it's our our observations in astronomy from outer space from astronomy and surface cosmology are incompatible with um seem to be incompatible with gr unless you throw in this extra mass and so gr is there is a tenuous connection so even though i'm not a theoretical physicist i am well versed in the evidence of dark matter and that's all connected to gravity so even though i'm not a theoretical physicist the i still have enough familiarity with with you know generativity gravity because it motivates the quantum aspects in the atomic molecular like small scale stuff of looking for dark matter as a particle hitting atoms so i like to think of it is there's a deep connection i think of myself as an astroparticle physicist as interdisciplinary that's what my field is called astroparticle physics and search for dark matter falls in that umbrella and and it cuts a connection of the world of the very big with the world of the very small you really can't divorce them because they are they are interconnected i am more on the particle side but i don't neglect reading up and understanding my colleagues work on the astronomy side okay yeah well i think the interesting thing about the uap the physics of that is that it actually does kind of also just like the work that you're doing and dark matter and uh potentially dark energy uh that it is kind of uh going from the quantum scale with the casimir effect and zero point energy all the way up to uh stuff that's uh you know the apple cure warp drives and general relativity and space-time metric engineering but uh le i want to dive into just some some slides uh and get your comments on some of this because i know that hal has been talking about some of this stuff and actually if you go back to the very first to the stars academy uh press conference you'll see some of the equations that end up uh this very same paper that hal this weekend was talking about uh at the um at this conference the scu uh which is funny because it's sort of like the that's my frustration i've seen i've seen these like equations in math and it's like here's like people hearing scientists say oh it's impossible i'm like what about these equations and so i kind of wanted to get like a physicist's take on some of these different things so i'm going to like just uh go back into uh share some of these different things so again um oops uh so how put off this is you know he's introduced uh and then tom delong is basically you know showing this as a slide which is from one of house paper this is the abba cura drive sort of warping space-time metric that i'll ask you about here in a second but um so these are the the close-up of some of these equations and whatnot which is different ways of kind of looking at the general relativity uh this is the the details so this is from hal's paper that was published in the journal british interplanetary society uh in 2010 which um apparently when you listen to how this is a part of the uh bass working with both uh asap and atip to be able to do these 38 durds these defense intelligence research uh papers uh and that this was a part of that and then they were afforded to be able to actually publish some of these things in open literature and so how was going out he was gathering all these different scientists to do these different research projects i'm not sure if they didn't always know what the the real reason is that they were studying ufos it said but um you know this happened to be the one that he uh did i think that may have been connected to that uh and included in there so he's coming with all this but it's sort of referencing this earlier paper from 1994 albuquerque the warp drive hyper fast problem what's that i think that's the seminal one that's the original that's the original miguel cubieri the famous original paper yeah so this is the original paper the warp drive hyper fast travel within general relativity from 1994 and then you have this little graph here which i think is interesting just in terms of um and in the paper it says that if you have exotic uh say uh yeah exotic matter would need would be needed as well as negative energy density so essentially the idea is that you have space time but then if you take certain aspects of that equation you can actually warp space time and then potentially experience some of these what he was saying um based on life travel from an observer outside of that but from their perspective they wouldn't be so it's a sort of a generalistic sort of semantic trick in some ways that you know looks like they're going faster than light but they're actually not um but they're able to warp the space time which you know if you look at these objects that look like they're floating in the air then it could be that they're actually warping space-time which i know alzondo has talked about as well as hal has been put forth this kind of theory so with that i'm curious to hear your take on the albuquerque drive and the you know the feasibility of something like this happening i have a lot of thoughts on it yeah good and bad there was a little kid i was a little kid when the original paper came out i have to say this is very exciting even though what i said originally about you don't need faster than light i do have to say that it's always captured my imagination remember i grew up watching star trek and i thought the miguel alcubierre came up with a way to do this potentially for real what we see in fiction and star trek so there are huge caveats though and but but you have to remember that was 1994. so hal eric as well as a bunch of other people many of whom are not at all stigmatized ostracized there's constantly papers about ftl so el cubieri was first but many many other physicists not just hal and nice eric have taken the ball further down the field now there's literally hundreds probably thousands of papers on this and so alcobiary was the beginning but it's only the beginning and it had a lot of issues it didn't actually work but now it's it might actually work because we've been chipping away chipping away at all of the problems like oh that equation doesn't quite work but actually if you change this term it does so we've been chipping away at it so the basic principle there is um very sound and i think star trek got it right by accident in the name i don't know the whole history why it's called warp drive because warp is a very appropriate name because the idea here is is that um space itself is not limited to the speed of light and that's a known thing from cosmology universe can expand faster than light and it blows people's minds but that's a known fact that space is not limited to traveling the speed of light space itself speed the fabric of space itself is not just some math abstract mathematical tool in general relativity space wrap more correctly space time as one entity is a is somewhat in some way has an ontological existence you can warp it right you can do things with it and so it is true that space can move faster than the speed of light no paradigm shift needed even no no um change in our thinking of physics but still someone needs to go and figure it out right so miguel cubera was the first one to to um so in general relativity in what's called the einstein equation which is more famous among physicists than equals m squared i'm not talking about equals m squared talking about the einstein equation where you have the energy mass tensor is equal to the um is space and time warping and so basically energy and mass warp space and time space and time warp energy mass so what has happened over the past few decades and and and and and and uh el cabiare miguel cabrera is part of this is the ability to go back and forth both directions so in other words we can use not just theoretical calculations and sometimes we need computers to help us we can go both directions we can ask i want this space time warp drive for example time machine for example you can ask the question i want this awesome thing then you can reverse engineer the einstein equation and say what mass and energy configuration gives that to me so here's a trivial example as you know the earth or the sun or a black hole makes a dent like would make a dent in that picture and that's true that's easy to go both ways we had the short shield solution originally and then we had more and more advanced ones for finite masses and so the idea is you can use the einstein equation to ask i want to do this what configuration of matter and energy gives me that and so that's the one catch in miguel ukuber's original work is that you look deeply at it and it looks like it needs negative mass we have and we originally at least had didn't know how to make that work there are though possible workarounds because there might be things like dark energy virtual particles zero point energy there are potentially sources of this negative mass energy density you need and but the trick is so here's why i'm still you're asking me about feasibility right here's why i'm not entirely convinced but i need to reread i need to look at these this paper by hal and also by eric because remember i'm experimental it's not theorists i also have to look and get some help from my colleagues in theory but i don't know how we're gonna how we're gonna bridge the gap of collecting enough negative energy even if it exists but i think only for fractions of a second as far as my knowledge is how we're gonna harness that so that is the hang up still is how do you harness like the amount of material you would need to warp space time in the way required yeah i know that uh just from listening to how there is different aspects of some of the other papers we're talking about the zero-point energy and the casimir effect and in your talk you mentioned a little bit about the casimir effect and there's been i think zero point energy is one of these things where uh it's again sort of in this realm that is speculative and you know in some some circles considered to be pseudoscience but what you said was that the cashmere effect is real but it just happens at very small time scales and very small you know actual physical scales to actually extend it and also uh scale it up is something that is more speculative in that you don't know of anything that's in the open literature that has done that but it could be existing in the classified literature but curious to hear a little bit more about the casimir effect well now i have to correct you actually zero point energy i mentioned talk it's not pseudoscience i don't know if anyone thinks of it that way anymore it has been established over decades it's very well established what's not established is how to turn it into anything useful practical that is where it starts to get into the fringe but i have to tell you zero point energy is 100 percent a thing we've got i mentioned in my talk the lamb shift the casimir effect the fact that you the question the casper effect you can get an attractive force you two metaplates even in a vacuum even when you account for the interatomic forces things like that and that comes from virtual particle anti-particle pairs popping in and out of existence the controversy inside and physics still is is zero point energy just a mathematical tool or is it ontological you know what i mean like is it real in some philosophical sense of word and so that's there's the crux but no one that i know of in this mainstream science community would ever call zero point energy um uh pseudoscience because it it's our it's been measured repeatedly not only lambshift kashmir effect but most people think dark energy discovered in the late 90s a nobel prize-winning discovery most people think the cosmological dark energy is identical it's the same zero-point energy that you have on your desk when you do a casimir effect in the lab at tabletop that is the prevailing hypothesis but but where things go into the fringe is okay how do i capitalize on this tiny amounts of energy tiny fractions of a second and that's my hang up where it's kind of like you know to quote fox mulder right from the x-files i want to believe i i would love it if faster than like if a warp drive was possible you know like i said i grew up watching star trek i would love nothing more for this to work i don't see how we're going to overcome the engineering challenges so we don't even need a paradigm shift of physics i don't see how in our lifetimes at least how to overcome these intense engineering challenges because you're not just going to throw a casmere plate or or something on a box and go all right warp drive go like it this is really really hard and but i've become increasingly convinced that that um hal and also his his close colleague collaborate eric davis especially do have good ideas on how to address the engineering challenges slowly and move us forward great yeah and i wanted to share a couple of slides that that hal had talked about and get your take on some of this because uh you know there was um so this this paper that you know goes back to the the paper that hal was sharing here the advanced space propulsion based on the vacuum time so space-time metric engineering so taking an engineering approach to general relativity uh so some of the the durds he mentioned and called out the space psychometric engineering was one of those that was included in that uh and he's saying and this is one of the slides from eric davis or one of the slides from hal put off's talk whereas you know talking about like just like with maxwell's equations you have electromagnetism with understanding equations you have the space-time metric and then you can engineer the space-time metric for interstellar flight that's the claim that you know it's sort of from in the realm of theoretical physics that he's trying to prove out but he has this thing here in terms of uh was very interesting where on one hand they're looking at uh sort of the the secret backstory is that some of this research and motivation could be observed effects of what they're observing from watching uip so seeing different you know uh blue shift increases and uh you know different time dilation impacts and uh you know different ways in which that there's different aspects of the the equation of general relativity and when you start to do a spacetime metric engineering of you know either some sort of exotic mass or energy density you know just something that is uh outside of what we normally can see we see these more exotic effects here in terms of this is what the equation would say and this is what you would expect and that they're trying to make a hypothesis of given that this is a theory this is what the theory would predict and this is what we're observing so be curious to hear if you have any sort of reflections on some of these different equations and some of these uh different expected effects that how put off was talking about here yeah i think like i said i think the equations are sound where i get hung up is how the heck do you actually do this because yeah what you going back to earlier discussion of dichotomy you're right that this is moving like you know things think about this from an engineering perspective right another way of looking at this is that general relativity which used to only be theoretical right talking about black holes so like that general activities moving from just theoretical gr to experimental gr is now a thing right we've got ligo detecting gravitational waves so experimental gr is now a thing and and there's also i know if you're familiar with ron mallett who wants to build a time machine by engineering space-time metric lasers like this is a thing now experimental gr is a thing it's budding though it's a budding field i would say still um at least the tabletop version ligo is not not but it's been around for it took decades to build but um the thing is we don't really know yet the way you know maybe hal and eric do maybe it's classified i don't see myself where how we can make the leap yet to make this practical like this is going to be hard i'll tell you this this is not going to be this is going to anger i know a lot of people including people at the conference but there's you're not going to go warp space time in your garage okay that's not happening like this is going to be difficult and it's going to be it's going to require a lot of know-how like we're talking if this works like i said the theory appears sound to me because it's based on the sound foundation of miguel cubieri and people and and you know remember that paper was 1994. so how's basically this stuff on sound foundations but where i have to be skeptical not debunker just healthy skepticism is how the hell we're going to make this practical and i i i want to believe like i said because belief is not enough for me i'm a scientist i would like to be convinced by eric and and and by hal and i i really do because like i said grew up watching star trek i would love it if warp drive was the real thing aliens already have it you know when we catch up that would bring me untold joy if warp drive was real but i just don't see the missing gap here is how do we engineer how do we actually do this engineering because in order to engineer the space time metric you need to collect for all the interesting stuff positive mass isn't going to cut it you need negative mass you can't just go to the store and get some negative mass right that'll be great for losing weight but yeah negative mass anti-gravity these are all things that if they exist they do so for tiny fractions of a second and on very small scales like these dark energies zero point energy they're not pseudoscience but they just don't we don't have like a cashmere plate extractor you know i mean like we don't know how to extract a usable amount of energy so i'm not sure how to make that leap but i'm open to the possibility that there are civilizations who figured it out and i'm open to the possibility that hal has figured it out he can't tell us yet i'm open to that possibility i'm not going to dismiss it out of hand because his equations are not the equations of a crackpot here are two ways you can tell a crackpot and um my colleagues will disagree with me they'll say they're different ways or whatever i have two rules of thumb no math here's my theory of everything of the quantum consciousness blah blah blah no equations two einstein was wrong as soon as someone says einstein was wrong crackpot because remember what i said earlier here it's too late for it's time to be wrong your gps and your laptop wouldn't work so those are immediately as soon as they see but hal is starting with einstein was correct and he's starting with correct equations that doesn't prove he's right i'm just saying it diminishes the probability that it's wrong very subtle difference there yeah yeah i wanted to just share the uh the other um slide here that that house showed so we showed this slide that we showed and then there's this also where maybe you could just like describe these are basically the same here one's engineered and one i'm not quite sure of the exact differences between these two slides but there's i think some of these may be the effects but what are we seeing here in terms of um what assumptions are this in terms of what is happening into the general relativity when you sort of tweak something or another uh you're seeing these effects but what is it what is it that actually is shifting here so yeah so the most important thing to see here the most exciting thing is effective vl greater than c so the on the on the first line here is sort of the sexiest because it's saying okay you can go faster than light sort of right the trick here is is that it's the space-time fabric that's moving faster than light not your ship right it's like the classic analogy that was used to explain star trek is like whipping up the carpet right but then the catch is is that the you go to the last line here and you look at the last line which is gravity force and it says repulsive gravity force and that goes back into this negative mass energy i was telling you about and we don't know how to get enough negative mass energy to make this practical because how would you gather it and the other thing is is how would you start like this all works if let's say a warp tube existed from the beginning of time you know like how do you start this effect and how do you stop it how do you put the brakes on your spacecraft now those are the big criticisms i do know that eric has told me those are solvable criticisms um eric house collaboratory eric and and like i said i'm open i'm open to that possibility that those are solvable problems but those are like the big problems here is all these things are like effects all these equations apply to you're already moving faster than like you know what i mean but nowhere here does explain yet um how do you get up to that speed how do you start from smaller the speed of light and go past it and to my that is not yet answered to my satisfaction and to many of my colleagues and i know if eric was here you'd be like no matthew go read my paper again it's all solved but like the thing is is yeah i'm not fully convinced that we can go from less than to greater than c not with these equations alone so these equations are applicable if you're already traveling faster than the speed of light then great all these things are true how do you get there though to get there you need negative you need a sufficient negative mass energy density and how do we get that i don't know but that's a question of engineering that's why i'm not dismissing it is impossible because it doesn't really require a significant paradigm shift in physics it does just require clever engineering so hal is right about that claim engineer engineering's the key word it's we're not you know i know you hate that phrase we're not breaking any laws of physics here as we currently understand them the what what the question here is is how do we engineer this how do we actually make these equations leap off the page and make something that actually works yeah now that's that's really helpful thanks for that and again this is from the paper uh that i was representing before the advanced space propulsion based on vacuum space-time metric engineering uh which yeah i've looked at his paper and like i said i need to get a more informed opinion with some of my more theoretical colleagues because maybe i'm wrong and maybe the paper already solves all the problems i just said i i'm being humble here and honest i don't understand enough to say definitively oh yeah this this is wrong and i admitted that i said to eric who was at the conference right as an attendee eric davis who also wrote a paper in jbs and it works with hell i said look i was humble and honest that maybe i'm wrong but i'm just telling you my i'm telling you my opinion but i but i think that i don't see that final step is how do you take this and make it happen i would love if they've solved it then they deserve no nobel prizes right because then we they discover fast and light travel obviously they they need to win a note they need to win a nobel prize yeah yeah well again this is uh there's a potential part of this that has had could be figured out but is in the sort of classified realms and um but yeah i i think there's part of the spirit of why i wanted to get you together to get you take cause i'm sitting there watching al and i'm like i don't i don't have enough of the background of this this field to be able to make heads or tails and to know whether or not you know what what into the spectrum how feasible this is and whether that's all been figured out my i come back to this process of science as this dialectical deliberative process where there's those who believe different potentials and those who uh are trying to avoid the falsehoods and you need to have this dialectical collaboration between those two to be able to um in some ways have uh empirical evidence to be able to match some of this stuff because this is something that could have what how was i think he was presenting this in the context of we have observed phenomena with this uap here's the physics equations that could explain some of the phenomena step by step that they could start to go through each of these different effects that you know how was talking about you know he could probably give a whole lecture on how that's justified in terms of how that's been in this observed phenomena but with the data that is all in this classified realm so he's had privilege yeah that's the key to me is there is so obviously with we've not observed any craft traveling faster than the speed of light but but there is a pro there is a predictable effect from a craft that would be using this i think the same effect would happen even if you're not traveling faster than light you know if you just you're warping space time to go but not necessarily go faster than light but go you know a few hundred miles an hour or something there is this doppler shift effect and hal mentioned this it was in these slides and if i saw a doppler shift that was consistent with an alcaberia drive oh my god that's awesome we have to be careful though right make sure it's not consistent with anything more mundane but god that would anger me so much of that data existence classified which probably is what if there are craft out there that are using warp drives and we can prove it because they're not they're not going faster than light not in our atmosphere but but they have the right doppler shift that that is that that hal was talking about that would blow me away so that's also why i'm on you know why my s you and these things working things with kevin i want to do an end round around all the secrecy nonsense get my own data with kevin and like my people let's get our own data with with the cameras spectrometers everything you heard the talks also on sky hub ua ufo dab kevin and i are both interested in both of those technologies the speakers are great people uh who presented on sky hub ufo dev see there we go serious science right let's get the hard data i would love it it's like oh look here look at the energy spectrum it's consistent with an alcubierre drive that would blow my mind it would change my world view forever that would mean either their alien or you know i guess the russians or the chinese could have developed warp drive which is like wow i don't know if that's better news or worse news if that was the explanation but if there was someone flying around with an el caber driver we could prove it by looking at the doppler shift it's just mind-blowing because then it's no longer a question is it possible or not well you just saw it you know like yeah it's obviously we it's possible to get through the engineering uh hurdles so um you know i i stress at the very beginning of our discussion i think remember that a lot of very smart individuals used to think air travel and space travel were impossible that's why i'm open to this you know i have a youtube video about time travel that i give because even though i think yeah it's probably impossible i kind of leave the door open a little bit because i think it's a little um too arrogant to claim something's impossible because we don't know everything yet obviously so i i leave the door open a crack there and similarly with this faster than light i really i think there might be something here and i would love to get hard data like this shows that there's an alien craft that uses el cabiare oh my god and again though it would be rejected by every peer-reviewed paper journal they'd be like we're not going to review this this is garbage even if it was incontrovertible they would think it's garbage but you know in the era of internet it's hard to suppress things and so we would you know slowly we can chip away like you're saying chip chip away and get a paradigm shift yeah well uh as we start to wrap up here in my normal podcast i like to ask people like the ultimate potential of you know immersive technologies but i'm curious what you think if if if it does turn out that this is a real thing what do you think the the most exalted outcome of all this could be from both a scientific perspective but also for what it means to be human for what it means to be human would be changed forever if there are non-human intelligences that's going to religion philosophy everything's going to change and not only in positive ways is gonna be a mixture if we learn anything about human nature you know we look at terrorism and racism and all these hatreds i think that that if like tomorrow there was a press conference and like biden and putin some leaders of the world are like hey guess what everybody it's aliens i think that there would be both positive and negative in my in my opinion i could be completely wrong but this is just my opinion is that there'll be negative and positive because first there'll be chaos and you'd have terrorists wanting to kill them because oh they're evil or demonic or something you know we'd have religious extremism you'd have this and that there would be utter chaos but but i still think ultimately you'll be a positive because as a scientist i think that truth is of immense importance i despise suppression of truth i despise twisting of truth and i think that for better or worse like i said even though there'll be negative side effects if we have hard data that we're dealing with some sort of non-human intelligence whether it's like i said i want to be i do want to be open-minded i don't want to pigeonhole this into always extraterrestrial or interdimensional i know they're the fancy acronyms right eth and idh hypothesis what if it's a mixture or what if it's something else what if it's something we don't have a word for right polar terrestrial is one that i hear a lot in terms of yeah if the isotope ratios of metamaterials are from earth exotically produced that could mean well what if they're here natalie yeah that's right all these possibilities any of those possibilities that i'm trying to be as generic as possible when i say non-human intelligence i'm trying to be respectful of alternative suggestions but any of them would just completely blow our minds but i think that in the long run i think it is a positive i disagree with all the scientists who say like steven the late stephen hawking who i did um you know greatly admire of course as a great scientist but he said oh we better hope that you know more advanced aliens don't find us because we'll end up like the native americans i hate this projection of anthrop you know human centrism of anthro um what's the word anthrocentrism or anthropo anthropomorphic sort of anthropomorphism yeah yeah yeah so why wouldn't a culture more advance with us necessarily be evil and crush us i'm sorry i don't subscribe to that i'm more optimistic and i think an advanced culture would not necessarily you know we're not going to end up like the aztecs with the spaniards i think that's a very pessimistic view because i'm sorry if you have enough technology to cross the stars whether it's ftl or it's a more standard relativistic travel really you're going to go all that distance to colonize or start a fight when you probably have a scarcity free society and you have these amazing resources you can do space-time metric engineering like i know that many philosophers have written moral development is not the same as technological one cannot pace the other that's true but i'm still optimistic that a society that advanced to have reached the earth from outside the solar system if that's exclusion like i said there may be others i don't think that we need we should jump to the conclusion like stephen hawking and many have that it would be a horrific disaster it would be like europeans colonizing america and our our culture will die and we'll all you know know i think there will be short-term suffering as humanity comes to terms with the non-human intelligence and because like i said there'll be there'll be people who deny even if it's you know they're the aliens landing you know on the white house lawn or the kremlin or in different cities and around the planet right we think very u.s centric but they could you know who knows where they want to say hi first so so the that that would there would be immediately people be like i don't believe it special effects you know adobe photoshop you know on tv so and then there'll be the people who really don't care like oh aliens are real oh well so then there'll be a fraction of you don't care but i think in the long run it'll be so positive for humanity that i in my opinion the positives outweigh the negatives if we prove that non-human intelligence is real hmm right is there is there anything on anything else that's left and said that you like to say to the broader scientific community well let me think i think we've covered a lot of ground uh today but yeah what i want to say is that there is something going on here there cannot be you know navy pilots you know police officers and all the stories in 60 70s regular people people historically ancient times you know all the stories of unidentified flying objects throughout human history can they really all be crazy and wrong that seems um i want to turn occam's rays around on its head to me that's that's absurd that all these people are just crazy all the people who have seen ships people who claim uh claim to have been abducted all of them are wrong they're all psychologically ill and what about people who see the same thing at the same time oh mass hysteria show me a psychology paper that proves two people can have the same hallucination at the same time that's not a thing i would love to be proven wrong i don't think that's a thing i think that's a thing people pull out of their butts to feel better about uap like oh mass hysteria blah blah blah really point me to one peer-reviewed psychology paper that proves more than one person can have an identical hallucination hallucinations are private to the human mind i'm sorry you cannot have identical associations at the same time so to me the explanations against uap have gotten dumber by the debunkers than just saying oh it's interesting again i said interesting not alien it's something interesting some non-human intelligence be it alien be it something else let's stop let's stop pretending that mass hysteria is real there's no such thing um it's a fictional phenomenon i'd love i'd love to be proven wrong if you can find me one of your listeners can send me to a paper i'll read it in a psychology journal that proves empirically that two people or more can hallucinate the identical thing at the same time i'd love to read it because i don't think it exists um so so so basically i think that there's just so much um so much has happened not just in the 20th 21st century but looking at all human history we can't just dismiss everyone who's seen something strange in the sky as a misinterpretation of bird plane etc for modern times we can't just dismiss all of it there is i think there's a tiny fraction there that truly is begging for explanation that requires some outside the box thinking beyond you know bird bat you know plane drone etc that so that's the final thought that i would end on okay yeah just just to sort of follow on that is just that as i've listened to people like have looked into blue book and other things they often hear that when they do an audit of all these different experiences that uh there are a significant majority of them that are explainable by mundane phenomena astronomical phenomena whatever like but it's like a five percent that can't be explained and it's those five percent of the 95 percent so there may be two people that witness something but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's exotic or correct you know violating some sort of you know our understanding of the laws of physics but what i would say is that what we need are the data because the data are from multiple sensors multiple perspectives and that that's the thing with eyewitness testimony with electro optical data radar data data from satellites data from stuff that is so classified we don't even know exists you know like all these things seeing the same things and and being able to verify it through those multiple perspectives of that data that to me is the thing that that um is probably the most convincing in terms of the government and would be for the larger society and for science if we had access to it so i do agree that going back to what you had mentioned earlier sky hub and uf ufo dap these are different citizen driven science uh to try to gather the data to be able to actually sort of take it out of just the control of the u.s government but um yeah i just wanted to put that out there uh as a follow-on and also just to thank you for joining me here uh on this little discussion because you know i after seeing you speak i really wanted to unpack some of these other aspects that we heard over the course of the weekend that the scientific coalition for uap studies um and you know i'm i'm excited to where this all could go and i feel like there's we're on the brink of things opening up and like like i said it sort of all comes back down to having enough data for the larger community to be able to kind of push forward this knowledge uh but i'm glad that there are people like you that are on the frontiers of willing to take uh the step out and uh think about these things and also potentially provide some ideas of uh helping to explain what we're observing so uh matthew i just want to thank you for joining me today and uh and for taking the time and for you know doing a deep dive and geeking out about this for a little bit you're welcome we're going to get that data one way or another we're going to get that data we're going to get some hard data on this and we're going to figure out i'm optimistic that within my lifetime we're gonna know what the phenomenon or uap whatever it is or they are if it's multiple things i'm confident we're gonna make some headway in my lifetime i'm optimistic awesome well thank you so much you're welcome