US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator(patents.google.com)
patents.google.com
US Navy – Tic Tac UFO – High frequency gravitational wave generator
https://patents.google.com/patent/US10322827B2/en?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
96 comments
The patent is really only half of the story here.
The bigger question is why does the US Navy own this patents? And, how does this relate to the pill shaped UFO that navy pilots verified having seen over the last decade performing antigravity maneuvers?
On December 30th 2020 the United States Senate had requested for the Pentagon for an explanation of this UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). The Senate said the Pentagon had 180 days (about half a year) to give an explanation. This explanation would be out around June/July of 2021. [1]
The patent for the "High frequency gravitational wave generator" is essentially a pill shape design, exactly like the Navy Pilots describe.
The other patent "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" appears to be the kind of tech you would need to avoid getting squished like a grape in hyper-G accelerations.
The big questions here are
1) Why does the Navy own these patents
2) Do they have anything to do with the pill shaped UFOs the navy has reported seeing
3) Are they even real science?
[1] https://www.wilx.com/2020/12/30/the-pentagon-has-180-days-to...
The bigger question is why does the US Navy own this patents? And, how does this relate to the pill shaped UFO that navy pilots verified having seen over the last decade performing antigravity maneuvers?
On December 30th 2020 the United States Senate had requested for the Pentagon for an explanation of this UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon). The Senate said the Pentagon had 180 days (about half a year) to give an explanation. This explanation would be out around June/July of 2021. [1]
The patent for the "High frequency gravitational wave generator" is essentially a pill shape design, exactly like the Navy Pilots describe.
The other patent "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device" appears to be the kind of tech you would need to avoid getting squished like a grape in hyper-G accelerations.
The big questions here are
1) Why does the Navy own these patents
2) Do they have anything to do with the pill shaped UFOs the navy has reported seeing
3) Are they even real science?
[1] https://www.wilx.com/2020/12/30/the-pentagon-has-180-days-to...
Publishing nonsense is a good way to spread disinformation to your adversaries and waste their resources, likewise to “explain” things you want to keep secret which have vaguely similar properties.
But also in a large organization there will be pockets of incompetence which are more expensive to eradicate than they cost to leave be. If you’re making sure to do zero nonsense, you’re probably also preventing some unexpected quality progress.
But also in a large organization there will be pockets of incompetence which are more expensive to eradicate than they cost to leave be. If you’re making sure to do zero nonsense, you’re probably also preventing some unexpected quality progress.
Really it's only public because they want it to be seen. Secret research doesn't just end up in a patent database. I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar.
> I have a feeling you 100% nailed that it's just more of a distraction which makes it even more peculiar.
My thoughts as well and the only reason I see for doing that is if they actually have something similar and send out this to pretend they are trying to distract everyone(, or are trying to fool everyone ;-)
(The above was meant to be confusing in a recursive way.)
My thoughts as well and the only reason I see for doing that is if they actually have something similar and send out this to pretend they are trying to distract everyone(, or are trying to fool everyone ;-)
(The above was meant to be confusing in a recursive way.)
Academics can't really research this subject if they want to remain employed, but that doesn't mean the patent lies.
Pretty much. It isn't worth continuing studies into a particular future-tech if it isn't patented, as someone who happens to hear about it through whatever means can steal it from under them, making all initial investments useless to everyone except the copycat.
I thought that the 'inertial mass reduction' was required to provide the 10 ^33 w/m^2 required to rev the engine. That might be enough to ignite empty space.
> It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any of it will turn out to be correct. It just means if it does find proof, he could get rich.
It would just make him yet another patent troll. The US patent system is beyond absurd.
Unless he can physically demonstrate a fully working 'gravitational wave generator', the patent shouldn't be granted.
It would just make him yet another patent troll. The US patent system is beyond absurd.
Unless he can physically demonstrate a fully working 'gravitational wave generator', the patent shouldn't be granted.
There are a lot of patents for things that are not yet known to work, but are plausible. Things that are in study stage often get patents if they are novel enough, to avoid someone else coming in and getting rich off your research before you've even had a chance to pay back your investors (let alone yourself).
It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there is no reason to begrudge them the initial benefits.
Yes there are patent trolls. But they are usually identified by their habit of buying other people's patents and then following up with legal threats on anything that appears to infringe. This isn't such a case, as far as I can tell.
He has a novel theory. He's designed a theoretical device that is based on that theory. It might feel to people "not in the biz" to be on the crazy side, but absolutely everything about quantum computing was considered fringy only a couple years ago. The relevant patents in that area are now being put to use, and the holders are definitely not trolls for doing it.
It's not a patent troll thing. It's protecting your investment. A lot of money goes into research, and there is no reason to begrudge them the initial benefits.
Yes there are patent trolls. But they are usually identified by their habit of buying other people's patents and then following up with legal threats on anything that appears to infringe. This isn't such a case, as far as I can tell.
He has a novel theory. He's designed a theoretical device that is based on that theory. It might feel to people "not in the biz" to be on the crazy side, but absolutely everything about quantum computing was considered fringy only a couple years ago. The relevant patents in that area are now being put to use, and the holders are definitely not trolls for doing it.
If an invention cannot be "reduced to practice", it is not patentable. My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor, or that it is fully disclosed in a patent application such that a reasonably skilled person could construct the invention.
If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the patent.
If an invention hinges on some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people, it would be reasonable to question the validity of the patent.
> "reduced to practice"
That is de facto no longer a consideration by the USPTO. Congress could force the PTO to require evidence of production. That would be neat.
That is de facto no longer a consideration by the USPTO. Congress could force the PTO to require evidence of production. That would be neat.
> ... some entirely theoretical concept that can not be demonstrated by even the most highly skilled people...
In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.
In that type of case, I would expect the patent to fail the utility requirement (§101). But attacking it on written description or enablement (§112(a)) might work as well.
What are these referencing? Ah...
§101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html
§112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html
§101: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2104.html
§112(a): https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2161.html
Proper citations would be prefixed with “35 USC”, for Title 35 of the United States Code. Title 35 contains most of the law regarding patents. Sections 101, 102, 103, and 112 are the most important ones concerning eligibility and validity.
> My understanding is that reduction to practice means the invention has been actually built by the inventor
This is not the case at all.
This is not the case at all.
Care to elaborate?
Not much to add. This simply isn't the case. You usually get the patent so that you can build it without wasting your time. Alternatively, you get the patent to stop a competitor.
If it can’t be built, how does the patent harm anyone except the one who wasted their money to get the patent? There will never be a licensee or infringement to sue over.
It only wastes various people's time to patent something that can't be built. (The authors, regulators, and on-lookers.) However to speculatively patent something that later turns out to be viable could mean that some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right? It hurts the incentive to really innovate when the patent system is clogged with speculative junk, nevermind the obvious patents. Speculating by itself isn't innovating and shouldn't be rewarded as such.
> ... some other party may have been prevented from taking the idea beyond speculation, since they can't capitalize on it, right?
That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of the profits.
That's not really true. Suppose my invention requires A, B, and C, but C doesn't exist yet. Now suppose another inventor invents C and patents it. If I can't make my invention without C (i.e., there is no substitute), then they can charge whatever they want for it. They will take all of the profits.
This is pretty much it. Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason.
A lot of patents have long lists of other patents they rely on. Sometimes the only reason something hasn't become a real thing is because of unresolved patent claims. And in any case, the patent is still useful because they can work on ways to get around the need for using the unresolved patent requirement.
Ie: If my new-widget A relies on patents B and C, but C won't license it to me, it doesn't mean my patent is invalid. It only means I either have to eventually find a way to resolve that licensing issue with the C people, or find a way to replace C with something that doesn't infringe on their patent.
Until then, my new-widget A is protected from a competitor (or even C themselves) selling it before I can find a way to deal with C licensing.
A lot of patents have long lists of other patents they rely on. Sometimes the only reason something hasn't become a real thing is because of unresolved patent claims. And in any case, the patent is still useful because they can work on ways to get around the need for using the unresolved patent requirement.
Ie: If my new-widget A relies on patents B and C, but C won't license it to me, it doesn't mean my patent is invalid. It only means I either have to eventually find a way to resolve that licensing issue with the C people, or find a way to replace C with something that doesn't infringe on their patent.
Until then, my new-widget A is protected from a competitor (or even C themselves) selling it before I can find a way to deal with C licensing.
> Every patent that relies on another patent lists what those are. For this very reason.
That’s not the reason for the list of references in a patent. The reason for the list is to identify relevant prior inventions that may be useful to understanding the invention as well as references that the examiner considered during prosecution. The references don’t mean that the patent would infringe those prior inventions.
That’s not the reason for the list of references in a patent. The reason for the list is to identify relevant prior inventions that may be useful to understanding the invention as well as references that the examiner considered during prosecution. The references don’t mean that the patent would infringe those prior inventions.
Later, someone invents the stuff to make a related idea work.
The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice.
Patents are presumed valid.
So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.
The patent holder here sues. His patent is technically invalid, because it couldn't be reduced to practice.
Patents are presumed valid.
So the burden of disproving it rests on the real inventor. They'll be advised to accept a settlement with the troll.
If you can't build it today, but someone can build it in five or ten years, the patent lets you hold them hostage because you guessed right (even though you didn't do any of the work).
That is not morally right. It also isn't the intent of patents, because it does absolutely nothing to further the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
That is not morally right. It also isn't the intent of patents, because it does absolutely nothing to further the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
If my research suggests it can happen in 5 or 10 years, it is not immoral for me to have a patent on it that can be licensed to a party that can add the special sauce that makes it work.
Why would my research suddenly become public domain just because I had the idea but technology hadn't caught up yet, even though my research suggested that it would catch up?
Why would my research suddenly become public domain just because I had the idea but technology hadn't caught up yet, even though my research suggested that it would catch up?
If you're complaining that patent laws aren't morally right or they don't reflect their original intent, boy do I have some news for you about other laws...
Is it a “guess” though? I think that’s a stretch to call it such. That’s not really what’s going on.
This is exactly why I applied for patents on my novel fusion reactor design. I think it will work, I hope it will work, but it's still untested.
If you can describe your reactor design and the specific parts that are novel in detail, you can get a patent on these specific details, and pull together 50k for a robust patent application and review, you should get it.
My patents have already been approved. More info at http://www.DDproFusion.com
If you don't have a working implementation that is available for sale you're a patent troll.
Creating the infrastructure and business to manufacture the thing to sell takes time. If you created a proof of concept but it wasn't ready for sale you should still patent it so someone doesn't swoop in. Waiting for it to be on sale before patenting it is for the birds.
If you build and sell something publicly before you start on your patent your patent will be denied.
So instead of only getting the patent when you yourself have a working implementation, you sit back and wait for someone else to solve your problems for you so you can jump on them and call it infringement?
And these aresupposed to encourage invention?
Yeah..... No.
And these aresupposed to encourage invention?
Yeah..... No.
Interesting way of wording this, but if I paid for research and the patent process, and someone beats me to production and I have the patent protecting my investment into the idea they are now making money on, then yes, they'd owe me for my research, which I may or may not license to them.
If you think you've invented something, then you need to do your own research to see if what you invented hasn't already been invented. Otherwise your blinders cause you to waste your own time. That's never been new. It's the same with product names, and just about everything else (trademarks, copyrights, etc). There's even a saying for it: Why reinvent the wheel? Otherwise, absolutely everybody could claim they just didn't know it was patented, and steal anybody else's work as they wished, because "Sure I invented it after you did, but I also have a faster production line than you."
You can't claim you invented Widget-A if I already did, and can prove it. Which I would through my patent of Widget-A. If you want to invent a competing Widget-B, then invent it, and don't use Widget-A without a license with me. You didn't invent it if I already did and have a patent as proof.
That's what a patent is and what it does. It doesn't stop invention. It protects inventions from outright theft (or even accidental theft). Go ahead and invent, but if you weren't first, you aren't the inventor.
If you think you've invented something, then you need to do your own research to see if what you invented hasn't already been invented. Otherwise your blinders cause you to waste your own time. That's never been new. It's the same with product names, and just about everything else (trademarks, copyrights, etc). There's even a saying for it: Why reinvent the wheel? Otherwise, absolutely everybody could claim they just didn't know it was patented, and steal anybody else's work as they wished, because "Sure I invented it after you did, but I also have a faster production line than you."
You can't claim you invented Widget-A if I already did, and can prove it. Which I would through my patent of Widget-A. If you want to invent a competing Widget-B, then invent it, and don't use Widget-A without a license with me. You didn't invent it if I already did and have a patent as proof.
That's what a patent is and what it does. It doesn't stop invention. It protects inventions from outright theft (or even accidental theft). Go ahead and invent, but if you weren't first, you aren't the inventor.
Ypu're missing the point. There is no way anyone can implement or disprove the merits of this patent. No one now has an incentive to even try, because it's already owned. Therefore, innovation not encouraged.
When the legal construct becomes a method of financial speculation, I object to the assertion it does anything other than what it seems to do on the tin, which is provide a framework to front run people doing actual work.
I don't buy it.
When the legal construct becomes a method of financial speculation, I object to the assertion it does anything other than what it seems to do on the tin, which is provide a framework to front run people doing actual work.
I don't buy it.
Maybe, but the patent is also owned by the US Navy.
Why?
And what does this have to do - if anything - with the same shape UFO reported by the US Navy in 2004?
Why?
And what does this have to do - if anything - with the same shape UFO reported by the US Navy in 2004?
It's owned by the Navy because the inventor is an employee of the Navy who wrote the patent on DOD time and used DOD resources. They almost have certainly have a policy requiring that under those circumstances the patent must be assigned to the Navy
If we posit that the graviton does exist and suspend all disbelief, is the rest of the patent logically sound? If the theoretical basis of this device is correct, would it actually do what it claims to?
It's a pitched idea they are researching. If it is even close to what ends up being provable, and subsequently doable, then they also have some patented ideas of how to use what they've been researching. Even if they are a ways off the mark, they can prove prior art with the patent. And of course with each new discovery, they'll file a new patent until they have something that works.
So, yes. The patent protects their research, as is the purpose of obtaining a patent.
So, yes. The patent protects their research, as is the purpose of obtaining a patent.
Gravity is the result of the bending of spacetime, but what about the monopole[1]?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3xH97Su-KY
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3xH97Su-KY
This is where "begs the question" comes into play. You have to prove gravity is the result of bending space time - something that does not yet have proof, and has a few counter theories to compete with - in order to bother thinking about monopoles in this context.
It's worth keeping in mind that magnetism != gravitation as well.
It's worth keeping in mind that magnetism != gravitation as well.
Tangentially related, but when I was an undergrad at Caltech there was a device in a nook of the astrophysics building labeled "Gravitational wave generator" that had the appropriate two-decades-outdated look of equipment you'd find in a random physics lab.
It was two little weights in the shape of a dumbbell attached to a motor. There was a knob that allowed you to specify the frequency of the gravitational waves you wanted to generate, and when you flipped it on, the weights would start spinning, thereby generating gravitational waves at your specified frequency.
I always found it amusing that someone went to the trouble to make that.
It was two little weights in the shape of a dumbbell attached to a motor. There was a knob that allowed you to specify the frequency of the gravitational waves you wanted to generate, and when you flipped it on, the weights would start spinning, thereby generating gravitational waves at your specified frequency.
I always found it amusing that someone went to the trouble to make that.
Curious as to what others here think about the idea that the Tic Tac UFO could be some sort of high energy particle beam being controlled from the ground?
My mom unfortunately passed from cancer, but she was able to get proton beam therapy for a tumor that would have been inaccessible with traditional radiation. This, as I understand it, is because a proton beam sheds the majority of it's energy at the very end of it's flight, allowing internal tissues to be targeted more directly.
I wonder - what would it look like if you made a proton beam and pointed it to the sky? Could you create a glowing area, much like the Tic Tac, that could be used to throw off enemy radar? I am legitimately curious, as my physics background is so so at best.
My mom unfortunately passed from cancer, but she was able to get proton beam therapy for a tumor that would have been inaccessible with traditional radiation. This, as I understand it, is because a proton beam sheds the majority of it's energy at the very end of it's flight, allowing internal tissues to be targeted more directly.
I wonder - what would it look like if you made a proton beam and pointed it to the sky? Could you create a glowing area, much like the Tic Tac, that could be used to throw off enemy radar? I am legitimately curious, as my physics background is so so at best.
Those 'things' fly at hologram speeds, turn hologram corners. Given a relatively stable atmosphere (on some days), could the 'Bragg Peak' be controlled enough? Radar signature? Interesting hypothesis.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_peak]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg_peak]
Yep. I had this thought from the very beginning. It checks all the boxes for me because I had a personal experience with the exact same thing as what's being popularly described, a white glowing bouncing ping pong ball object moving very very erratically in the night sky. Iv'e commented a few times about it but I found this interesting, Advances in Radar Techniques. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advances_in_Radar_Techn...) which says that one of the most recent advances is the ability to detect holograms. It's a bit curious considering everything.
All those strange lights in the desert around that Area 51 place ...https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/area-51-and-other-strang...
The viking man has a good run down on all this tech: https://rumble.com/vbodst-u.s.-space-force-technologies-and-...
aka the "QAnon Shaman" from the Capitol Hill riots.
Check out these patents currently assigned to US Secretary of Navy and invented by "Salvatore Cezar Pais"
https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Then think about the tic tac ufo UFO reports from US Navy fighter pilots [1]
What's going on here? Disinformation campaign from US Navy? Actual patents? Maybe the downloadbal PDFs are malware vectors for espionage?
Seems highly unlikely that this tech actually exists AND is publicly available information, right?
[1] https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ
https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Salvatore+Cezar+Pais
Then think about the tic tac ufo UFO reports from US Navy fighter pilots [1]
What's going on here? Disinformation campaign from US Navy? Actual patents? Maybe the downloadbal PDFs are malware vectors for espionage?
Seems highly unlikely that this tech actually exists AND is publicly available information, right?
[1] https://youtu.be/Eco2s3-0zsQ
With such a wide diversity in radical patents, Occam’s Razor should be applied. He is either a magnitude more brilliant than Einstein or he’s a crackpot.
“There is no relationship whatsoever between my assigned duties and the invention. The invention was made independently of any job performance or assigned tasks by the Branch or Section.”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37134/emails-show-navy...
“There is no relationship whatsoever between my assigned duties and the invention. The invention was made independently of any job performance or assigned tasks by the Branch or Section.”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37134/emails-show-navy...
That's fair, but then how do you explain the Tic Tac UFO reports from US Navy pilots? [1]
[1] https://youtu.be/PkPn-YMp9vI
[1] https://youtu.be/PkPn-YMp9vI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard
Worlds most advanced Navy systems and crews and all I get are fuzzy pics and descriptions.
Worlds most advanced Navy systems and crews and all I get are fuzzy pics and descriptions.
Might be worth something to watch part of the Lex Fridman interview with one of the pilots, David Fravor. The entire podcast is four hours long and goes over his career and experiences, I'd argue establishes him as a competent naval officer and pilot. The timecode is when he describes the actual event- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=4264s
In the interview he also describes the record keeping process and basically some of the head scratchers you're bringing about.
One other thing the pilot confirms in that interview is the validity (authenticity) of the leaked "Executive Summary" report, which, was leaked to media and (as far as I know) not really pursued for authenticity verification by others (PDF):
https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document...
In the interview he also describes the record keeping process and basically some of the head scratchers you're bringing about.
One other thing the pilot confirms in that interview is the validity (authenticity) of the leaked "Executive Summary" report, which, was leaked to media and (as far as I know) not really pursued for authenticity verification by others (PDF):
https://media.lasvegasnow.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document...
I think it was Richard Feynman who said the easiest person in the world to fool is yourself. I have no doubt this pilot is a good officer and pilot, but that doesn't mean he saw what he thinks he saw.
He is not the only highly qualified navy pilot who saw these crafts. [1]
And the 2004 event is not the only time the US Navy has seen these crafts. There was another event in 2014. [2]
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-...
[2} https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings...
And the 2004 event is not the only time the US Navy has seen these crafts. There was another event in 2014. [2]
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/tic-tac-ufo-video-q-...
[2} https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings...
Oh, no, sorry - I deliberately didn't interpret the validity of the claim or try to address it. I don't live in the dream land, and I try to double check reality best I can.
To this day all I have from all this is head scratching and we have no proof of anything aside from that the Pentagon -for whatever reason- has confirmed that the cockpit videos were genuinely released by them. You can request them yourself from the Pentagon, directly.
I am convinced that the man is a good officer and a competent pilot. That is all. Occam's razor: things outlined in that report are true -or - the man is a true patriot, participating in a disinformation campaign design to bankrupt the Chinese or Russians in attempting to recreate some of the very expensive things outlined in the larger picture described here.
But I keep peeled to anything related to this story because the implication behind the claims are potentially world-changing.
To this day all I have from all this is head scratching and we have no proof of anything aside from that the Pentagon -for whatever reason- has confirmed that the cockpit videos were genuinely released by them. You can request them yourself from the Pentagon, directly.
I am convinced that the man is a good officer and a competent pilot. That is all. Occam's razor: things outlined in that report are true -or - the man is a true patriot, participating in a disinformation campaign design to bankrupt the Chinese or Russians in attempting to recreate some of the very expensive things outlined in the larger picture described here.
But I keep peeled to anything related to this story because the implication behind the claims are potentially world-changing.
[deleted]
All three of these videos have perfectly reasonable explanations. See [1] [2] [3]
[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs
[2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=3viYcYPRdu4
[3] https://youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA
[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=mfhAC2YiYHs
[2] https://youtube.com/watch?v=3viYcYPRdu4
[3] https://youtube.com/watch?v=jWWGmiZs4JA
Or maybe he's another Edison. I mean, he's likely the nominal inventor: other people do the research, but only his name appears on papers.
Any of 5 or so of those patents would win a Nobel Prize if real. And any PhD working with/for him would have strangled him already if he left contributors off.
Nobel prize is a measly sum of money split among all contributors, plus some fame.
Regardless of whether or not gravitons actually exist, it is feasible that the US government will want to signal to adversaries that they do have this technology. After all, a deterrent is useless if your adversary doesn't know it exists. You can't be deterred by something you don't know about.
It's crackpots the whole way down. The whole Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (which is responsible for the release of the Navy UFO videos) was spearheaded by Robert Bigelow, who bought "Skinwalker Ranch" because he believed there were inter-dimensional portals and aliens were mutilating cows.
It turns out crackpots can get government funding, too.
It turns out crackpots can get government funding, too.
I don't see any reason for a public patent besides disinformation. I don't think any foreign gov would fall for this, so my guess is a disinformation campaign against average people...to make them think this is the current state of flight technology. (I think it's significantly greater. The underlying mechanisms here have been known for a very long time. Just look into the details and date ranges of: the piesel electric effect, work of Harold Aspden, Planck's equation, Maxwell's equation, Robert Adam's motor, Dewey Larson physics)
Can you elaborate on what you think the current state is?
It’s rubbish, whatever propulsion method you have you still need to push the air out of the way to move the thing forwards which takes the same energy using imaginary gravitational waves or a jet engine. No magic is going to make the air get out of the way any faster
We're well within the realm of sci-fi speculation here, but if you have a gravity generation device that can be directed you could augment traditional aircraft to safely allow for high G maneuvers or sustained accelerations that would otherwise be harmful to the pilot or the airframe. That would have some tactical advantages even if it doesn't mean it helps us go faster.
The appeal of gravitational propulsion is in replacing xyz propulsion fuel with electricity regardless of medium(vacuum or not).
it's intended for use in space, phil.
The main idea is to make a ray of gravitons (or whatever equivalent in other possible extensions of general relativity). For theoretical reasons, the ratio of momentum to energy is fixed at 1/c, which is 3.3E-6 N/kW, that is very low compared to ion thrusters or chemical rockets.
Moreover it's the same value that you get with a photon rocket, i.e a laser or a flashlight in the back of your rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket
So even in space, it is not very useful and you can replace it with a more simple and more efficient device.
Moreover it's the same value that you get with a photon rocket, i.e a laser or a flashlight in the back of your rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket
So even in space, it is not very useful and you can replace it with a more simple and more efficient device.
This whole thing has a very boring, very likely answer described in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le7Fqbsrrm8&t=1300s
Essentially, there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots.
Essentially, there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots.
> there are a few different perspective/camera quirks coming together in these videos which can (apparently) trick even well trained pilots.
How does that explain the radar readings?
"The tic tac – so-called because of its rounded shape and white colour – was caught on video as the US Navy attempted to identify a series of objects spotted on radar flying off America’s west coast in November 2004. ... The sighting came during a fortnight in which the USS Princeton had noted unknown aircraft intermittently passing across its radar systems off the US west coast. The contact was considered so inexplicable that the system was shut down and restarted to check for bugs — but operators continued to track the mysterious object afterwards."[1]
"Witnesses included highly trained military personnel—among them several deeply experienced radar operators and fighter pilots—who at the time of the sightings were at the controls of arguably the most advanced flight technology ever created. And yet none can explain what they saw."[2]
Does Mick West, a "science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer"[3], know more about the issue than "highly trained military personnel—among them several deeply experienced radar operators and fighter pilots"?
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ufo-tic-tac-flyin...
[2] https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-enc...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West
How does that explain the radar readings?
"The tic tac – so-called because of its rounded shape and white colour – was caught on video as the US Navy attempted to identify a series of objects spotted on radar flying off America’s west coast in November 2004. ... The sighting came during a fortnight in which the USS Princeton had noted unknown aircraft intermittently passing across its radar systems off the US west coast. The contact was considered so inexplicable that the system was shut down and restarted to check for bugs — but operators continued to track the mysterious object afterwards."[1]
"Witnesses included highly trained military personnel—among them several deeply experienced radar operators and fighter pilots—who at the time of the sightings were at the controls of arguably the most advanced flight technology ever created. And yet none can explain what they saw."[2]
Does Mick West, a "science writer, skeptical investigator, and retired video game programmer"[3], know more about the issue than "highly trained military personnel—among them several deeply experienced radar operators and fighter pilots"?
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ufo-tic-tac-flyin...
[2] https://www.history.com/news/uss-nimitz-2004-tic-tac-ufo-enc...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_West
Mick Wests breakdown is sufficient to explain all of the actual footage we have, and you can verify it yourself by doing trigonometry with the data on the screen.
It's completely unnecessary to appeal to the credentials of fighter pilots, following this logic I'd have to believe in Mermaids given how many sailors have allegedly spotted one over the centuries.
It's truly astonishing that a man who provides a basic, mundane and evidence based explanation that someone can follow along at home is routinely downvoted while people upvoted UFO alien conspiracy garbage.
It's completely unnecessary to appeal to the credentials of fighter pilots, following this logic I'd have to believe in Mermaids given how many sailors have allegedly spotted one over the centuries.
It's truly astonishing that a man who provides a basic, mundane and evidence based explanation that someone can follow along at home is routinely downvoted while people upvoted UFO alien conspiracy garbage.
You are absolutely right. On the other hand, why not just add mermaids to the equation:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ufo/comments/kushry/cross_post_i_kn...
[deleted]
[deleted]
"deeply experienced radar operators": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw radar signals, like some WWII operator with an O-scope. They're looking at a computer-generated signal. And lots can go wrong between the radar signal and the computer screen.
Likewise, "the most advanced flight technology ever created" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They could have been in a hot air balloon and seen the same thing (which I suspect was an illusion).
Likewise, "the most advanced flight technology ever created" has absolutely nothing to do with it. They could have been in a hot air balloon and seen the same thing (which I suspect was an illusion).
"deeply experienced software engineers": what does that mean? They're not looking at raw binary code, like some WWII operator with a bank of lights and switches. They're looking at computer-parsed code. And lots can go wrong between the code and the bits.
I am not a deeply experienced radar operator but I suspect there is a lot more to it than just looking at blips on a screen.
I am not a deeply experienced radar operator but I suspect there is a lot more to it than just looking at blips on a screen.
Military radar systems have modes and methods for detecting or removing jamming:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception#Co...
"The most important method to counter radar jammers is operator training. Any system can be fooled with a jamming signal but a properly trained operator pays attention to the raw video signal and can detect abnormal patterns on the radar screen."
So they do have the ability to look at the raw signal, and other methods as well to try to tell if something is real or not. Also there may have been multiple types of radar systems (different aircraft, ground vs air, different software revisions, different approach angles); it would be very difficult to fool all of them at the same time. For example if there were three aircraft, each at a different approach angle, the false signal would have to adapt to that approach angle individually for each aircraft's radar (or the supposed software glitch would have produce coherent results that are adapted to each aircraft's approach vector so that they all "see" the same thing in the same place). The same is true for false signals from natural sources. Which is not very likely unless you're dealing with a sophisticated human attack on the radar. To fake signals for multiple sensors on multiple approaching aircraft at the same time would require an even more sophisticated attack. Who knows if that is possible, but it does not seem very likely, especially in a peacetime operation during which there would be little reason to reveal such a capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_jamming_and_deception#Co...
"The most important method to counter radar jammers is operator training. Any system can be fooled with a jamming signal but a properly trained operator pays attention to the raw video signal and can detect abnormal patterns on the radar screen."
So they do have the ability to look at the raw signal, and other methods as well to try to tell if something is real or not. Also there may have been multiple types of radar systems (different aircraft, ground vs air, different software revisions, different approach angles); it would be very difficult to fool all of them at the same time. For example if there were three aircraft, each at a different approach angle, the false signal would have to adapt to that approach angle individually for each aircraft's radar (or the supposed software glitch would have produce coherent results that are adapted to each aircraft's approach vector so that they all "see" the same thing in the same place). The same is true for false signals from natural sources. Which is not very likely unless you're dealing with a sophisticated human attack on the radar. To fake signals for multiple sensors on multiple approaching aircraft at the same time would require an even more sophisticated attack. Who knows if that is possible, but it does not seem very likely, especially in a peacetime operation during which there would be little reason to reveal such a capability.
>How does that explain the radar readings?
How do radar readings matter to what's in the video? The video doesn't show radar readings.
That would only be a valid criticism if the object seen in the video was directly associated with strange radar readings, but it wasn't.
How do radar readings matter to what's in the video? The video doesn't show radar readings.
That would only be a valid criticism if the object seen in the video was directly associated with strange radar readings, but it wasn't.
[deleted]
The original observer of the tic tac defeats Mick West's ideas based on his expert knowledge of the equipment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E&t=9001s
I still have no idea why Lex Fridman is an interviewer of any sort. His grasp of grammar and superb lack of vocabulary paired with a constant stoner monotone make him unwatchable for me.
How does he keep managing to snag such illustrious guests?
How does he keep managing to snag such illustrious guests?
https://youtu.be/aB8zcAttP1E?t=4439
How the fuck do you honestly utter a sentence like this and expect not to appear like a 15 year old stoner still in High School?
I don't even dislike him as a person, I'm just concerned for his mental health at this point. He seems to be really struggling to out sentences together in a coherent fashion.
How the fuck do you honestly utter a sentence like this and expect not to appear like a 15 year old stoner still in High School?
I don't even dislike him as a person, I'm just concerned for his mental health at this point. He seems to be really struggling to out sentences together in a coherent fashion.
That's harsh. English is not his first language, he's not the subject matter expert and he's having a free flowing discussion/interview that was going on for perhaps 2 hours by the time you've hand picked a random subpar sentence.
Is this the beginning of a cover story that the intelligence agencies are setting up in reaction to congress passing a provision to be briefed on UFO research within 180 days as part of the covid funding bill?
Also note that David Fravor encountered the Tic Tac UFO tech in the early 2000s about 13 years before the publishing of this paper.
Also note that David Fravor encountered the Tic Tac UFO tech in the early 2000s about 13 years before the publishing of this paper.
The Tic-Tac UFO probably use MHD propulsion to move. It allows ionized air displacement in all directions depending on electrodes on the ship. So, no air resistance, no sound barrier. It move itself silently, it can move also under water, the same way it moves in the air, by displacing the water around it. It can sustain itself and accelerate in any direction depending on which electrodes are activated and so, to which direction the air is sucked. It would require a great source of energy to surround the ship surface (for something around 20m long in size) by plasma, should require something around 80000 Gauss and 1000 Megawatts for the electrical discharge.
interesting, entertaining the stuff around USO lore though, wouldn't the energy required to navigate around the bottom of the ocean be immense though (more than whatever you calculated)?
> the acoustic energy from the at least two sound generators causing each of the electrically charged cavity surfaces to vibrate such that a second electromagnetic field is generated;
This patent claims to create electromagnetic waves from sound waves vibrating gas? Seems like an inefficient way to create an electromagnetic field (if even possible)?
This patent claims to create electromagnetic waves from sound waves vibrating gas? Seems like an inefficient way to create an electromagnetic field (if even possible)?
It doesn't help that his only source cited seems to be his own, albeit peer reviewed, paper. I hope that paper at least cites someone other than himself. So all this talk about gravitons being EM and photon carriers is a whole lot of guestimating. It doesn't seem to connect in any way with LIGO's expectations and results.
It makes sense to patent an idea based on what he's hoping will eventually become a fleshed out scientific theory with proofs and whatnot, it doesn't mean any of it will turn out to be correct. It just means if it does find proof, he could get rich.