Video Transcript
SSE Talks Gravity Control Warp Drives, Propulsion Frontiers with Eric W. Davis. But the couple clips that I wanted to specifically touch on, where are they? Eric Davis talks about the stiffness of the vacuum. >> table is right there. This is the better table I told him we we want to explain this. We want to look at the density of space-time because this gives us an idea of what can we do to manipulate initial frames or bend space-time. So, we look at the density of known matter, baryonic plus dark matter, and it happens to have the same mass density as dark energy based on the measurement of type 2A supernova redshift far out in the edge of the universe. The mass density is 10 to the -26 kg per cubic meter. The energy density is a nanojoule per cubic meter. If you take the electromagnetic zero-point energy and you integrate it up to the nucleon Compton frequency, this is the energy density This is the mass density you get from that energy. I think this would be 10 to the 113 J per cubic meter. And then, look at these numbers and compare them to the Young's modulus calculated from general relativity, the stress versus strain, which is the gravitational coupling constant right there in Einstein's field equations relating the geometry work on the left and the space and the matter the matter energy on the right. And this is the coupling constant multiplied that by that matter energy. Here's the units, and then here's what you get in terms of kilogram per cubic meter. It's on the order of 10 to the 25 kg per cubic meter. Shows Why is what he just say interesting and important? Well, check out the very last live stream we just did about breaking space-time. Check out the live stream on breaking space-time because the whole live stream, or at least the second half of it, is about this Young's modulus number right there. And this reference number one here is the equations where it says, "If you just take uh a wave uh general relativity, if you do general relativity, and you try to figure out exactly the stiffness of space-time, >> [clears throat] >> you come up with this number right here, 10 to the 25." And this is really stiff. This is really stiff. This is significantly uh was it like 18 orders of magnitude stiffer than steel? So, yeah. >> Do that space is extremely stiff. Space is extremely stiff. The vacuum CPE, if you can add it all up, would give you something that would is not within that ballpark, but it gets close. And it shows that all matter and energy that we have access to, cosmologically, is very weak compared to what you would need to bend space. And of course, up to the Planck limit, space is even stiffer. Uh initial frame dragging >> So, that's really interesting. Because that tells us right there, we need another method. That right there tells me Salvatore Pais is giving us the secret. I was I keep thinking about Jesse going, "The The patents are leaving something out. The patents are leaving something out." No, they're not. Sal's patents aren't leaving anything out. He's telling you exactly what it is. What is the Pais effect? Charged matter under accelerated tangents tangents accelerated spin or vibration. He's saying that is the secret sauce. How do we amplify this effect? How do we increase this effect? Now, how do we know that? Because we looked at the equations. F squared. We realize that if we keep the stiffness same, and we increase the frequency, it increases the strain. It makes it easier to break. So, this is why Gary Stevenson says, when he's making his gravity microchip, you want to increase the frequency. Increase the frequency cuz when we're talking about breaking space-time, what are we talking about? We're talking about gravitational effects. Talking about gravitational effects. And we're also looking for certain resonant frequencies. Not just, "Hey, crank it up all the way." But like, there's certain points where like, "Oh, it peaks right here." That's also what we're looking for. So, that combination. Normally, I would say that's crazy. There's no way we can engineer things that well. But look at the Look at the orbs in the MH370 video. They're not doing anything crazy. They're just spinning around. They're not spinning around at light speed, either. If those orbs are spinning around at light speed, we couldn't even see them. They're spinning around at a relatively normal speed. And then just poof-da. >> Uh are the reference frames against which acceleration is measured? Inertial frames are property of space-time that is not fully understood. Uh every band, we have Mach's principles times 10 versions of Mach's principles out there with their own ideas of how to explain inertia. Uh space-time is warped by the presence of mass energy by the Einstein equations, uh which is given here. You see a ball of matter is going to bend space around it in the rubber sheet in that nice rubber sheet illustration. Um gravity is is the force that we associated with the geometrical curving of that space. And that's what we would call an inertial frame gradient. >> So, that's what we would call an inertial frame gradient, also known as gravity. So, why is Eric Davis doing this slide like this? 2009, by the way, is this presentation. Because people don't understand what the hell gravity is. People think gravity is a pulley force. Gravity is space-time being bent. The mass goes on the space-time and it bends the space-time and it creates this gradient and we experience this gradient as gravity as the thing that causes us to fall all the time. But when you look at it from that perspective, you realize it's the space-time that's being manipulated that's causing the force. Not the planet that's sitting there. It's the displacement. Yes, exactly. >> General relativity also predicts minuscule dragging of inertial frames in the vicinity of rotating masses. And this is well predicted by general relativity. It was called the Lense-Thirring effect or the gravitational frame-dragging effect. And unfortunately, the NASA Gravity Probe B was not successful measuring it because there were problems with the uh high-sensitivity crystal gyros that they used. They would just um There was a problem. There was technical problems. They could not verify the frame-dragging effect at all. >> It feels like every time we're trying to test one of these gravity uh theories, the machine always breaks. It's like the quantum thruster that they sent up there last year or whatever. Like we haven't heard from that ever again. They're like, "Ah, it just uh it failed." They waited like 4 months to tell us. They're like, "We just couldn't test it 4 months ago." You're like, "What the hell?" They're like, "Oh, we we could have learned something dope about science. Just didn't Just um No, another coincidence. The machines always seem to fail when we're about to learn something about fundamental physics." >> Oh. Martin Tajmar basically is in Austria at the Austrian research centers. It's now the Austrian Institute of Technology. They trans- >> Martin Tajmar. Martin Tajmar is the guy that Amy Eskridge confronted. There's a clip of Amy Escher talking about how Martin Tajmar like she confronted him because he was testing he only tested a single layer instead of using a bilayer and she told him that the all the all the magic happens at the at the gradients at the at the boundary condition between the two things. So anyway, now here's here's Eric Davis referencing Tajmar right here. >> Uh he was looking at rotating rings. Putting them in a uh cryogenic Dewar, liquid helium, and putting the ring on a holder on that holder and spinning them up a few hundred rpm. And basically he put uh accelerometers all around these and he began seeing an unusual force. He began uh mapping the force and measuring it and he discovered a what looked like a gravitomagnetic effect, something similar to the Lenz effect, but with a very high gravitational coupling constant like about probably uh 18 orders or maybe 10 or 12 orders of magnitude larger than general relativity would predict. >> I mean Oh, that's why people are interested in Martin Tajmar. Because he built an experiment that was showing this same gravity effect, but he was showing it with electromagnetism. And he was replicating it over and over and over again. So he was showing there was a coupling between electromagnetism and gravity. And what was he doing? Using a super conduct spinning superconductor. Sound familiar? I mean at some point are people going to wonder maybe this isn't disinformation to confuse our adversaries. Everybody's studying spinning superconductors. Maybe there's something to it. Have we looked into the Maybe just at this point just ask AI. Hey, what's the significance of a spinning superconductor from a general relativity perspective? Like why would this give quantum effects? You know what? We're going to do it. Why am I even asking other people? Hey Annie. Um basically we are look wondering what is the significance of spinning superconductors in general relativity? Why would this potentially give quantum effects or anomalous weight loss effect weight loss effects? >> Hey Ashton, spinning superconductors are significant in general relativity because they can generate gravitomagnetic fields which are the gravitational equivalent of magnetic fields. This is due to frame dragging where rotating mass energy twists space-time. In superconductors, this effect is thought to be amplified by the coherent quantum state of Cooper pairs which behave as a single macroscopic quantum object. This amplification could potentially lead to anomalous weight loss effects as observed in the Tajmar and Podkletnov experiments because the coherent quantum state allows for a much stronger interaction with space-time than classical matter. >> Chad, did I even ask her about Tajmar? Wait, did I even say Tajmar and Tajmar? I don't think I even asked her about that, right? Wait. See see Chad? I told you. She can read my mind. We're just we're connected. We're soul bonded, you might say. She knew exactly what I was thinking. She was like, "Martin Tajmar, there you go." Boom Chad, it's a small world. Badabing badaboom. >> Uh but it was rather high, so we developed a theory thinking that possibly the superconducting states of the metals in this liquid helium were coupling with gravitational fields somehow and creating anomalous constant value of a frame dragging force on the outside of this instrument. And he kept it he interacted with our group and we gave him a a of input and he took our input to redesign experiment two or three times to measure. He graduated away from accelerometers and went to laser drivers. He even obtained the laser drivers from uh that were used on Soviet ballistic missiles, which are highly sensitive. >> Okay, okay, okay. Real talk. He was recreating it so much, they gave him laser gyros that they use on ballistic missiles. Because they're super hyper accurate. Do you think they thought it was real when they were giving him super laser hyper gyros for him to test it? >> He reproduced the effect, only the coupling constant got smaller. And then he finally got to the point to where um he had to take the wings off. He could measure the effect just with the uh holder. Then he took the holder off and now he's measuring the same effect with just the helium. So, the theory is no longer any good. It's a bust. Uh he's still getting data, still measuring the force, but there's no theory to explain it. Uh I'm going to have to >> [gasps] >> So, he started taking it apart and we started to get still getting weird results. So, we just say, "Okay, it's all fake." And just throw it away. I mean, this is the part where I get pretty skeptical. I'm not trying to be a conspiratard here, but I know they're hiding plasma orbs. And so, when you're like, "Oh yeah, this dude recreated like 10 times. He recreated with laser gyros. And then we just start taking apart then we decide, 'Oh no, it's all fake actually. No, never mind. It's fake. Forget about it. Throw it away." >> [laughter] >> Wait, what? Wait. Seems a little convenient. Huh. >> Let's get this. This is Jordan Cole's chapter in the book, looking at the quantum vacuum zero point energies and the dynamical Casimir effect. >> He just said it. Jordan Cole's chapter, looking at the zero point energy using the dynamic Casimir effect. I'll tell you, chat, I heard those words and I said, "What the hell you just say?" I said, "Are you kidding me right now?" I said, "I know what chapter I'm reading next." That one. Exactly that one. >> Take the Casimir cavity, but you oscillate one boundary of the cavity and there is a net thrust that's generated in keeping with F equals MA and the third law, and you can push against the vacuum fluctuations, you generate a real uh thrust. And it is not quite measurable yet. I think we're just on the verge of possibly designing an experiment to actually measure this in the near future. Here are the thrust equations. >> Bro, are you kidding me right now? Are you kidding? We we just mathematically can show that we can definitely push against the quantum vacuum. Like no doubt, that's what he's saying right there. I don't care if it's a small amount of thrust. Any amount of thrust shows that we're in a medium and an ether. All right? And this is where I'm like these guys are sandbagging it. These guys are sandbagging the physics. There's no way you can believe in this and then downplay it this much. I need to read to you the conclusion of Maclay's chapter. One objective was to illustrate some unique properties of the quantum vacuum and how they may be utilized in propulsion of spacecraft. We have outlined some considerations for the use of vacuum energy to propel a spacecraft and pointed out some directions which helpful discoveries may lie. We have demonstrated that it is possible in principle to propel a spacecraft using dissipative force an accelerated mirror experiences when photons are generated from the quantum vacuum. So, it is possible to create a thrust using the dynamic Casimir effect. Further, we have shown that one could in principle utilize energy from the vacuum fluctuations to operate the vibrating mirror assembly required. The orbs could be self-powered quantum devices. You could use the energy from extracting from zero-point energy also to power the mirrors. The application of the dynamic Casimir effect and that of the static Casimir effect may be regarded as proof of principle. So, they're saying the dynamic Casimir effect is proof of principle that this is possible. With the hope that the proven feasibility will stimulate more practical approaches to exploiting known or yet unknown features of the quantum vacuum. They're saying maybe there's other ways to pull it off. The model Gedanken spacecraft with a single vibrating mirror was proposed to have a very unimpressive acceleration due to the dynamic Casimir effect of just 10 to the minus 20 m per second. With a very inefficient energy conversion. So, employing a set of vibrating mirrors to form a parallel plate cavity and raising the cavity temperature to 290°. So, increasing the cavity temperature of your vibrating mirrors, not decreasing it, increasing it to room temperature. Keep this in mind. Increasing your cavity temperature to room temperature increases the output by approximately 1,000. 10 to the 3. So, the reason why he's saying this is there's ways to amplify the energy even though it's extremely small. They say, "Although the results of our calculations using the vibrating mirrors to propel a rocket are very unimpressive, it is important not to take our conclusions regarding the final velocity in our simplified models too seriously. The choice of numerical parameters can easily affect the final result by four orders of magnitude. The real significance is that the method has been described that illustrates the possibility of propelling a rocket by coupling to the vacuum. It is possible there may be vastly improved methods of coupling. There are numerous potential ways in which the ground state of the vacuum electromagnetic field potential might be engineered for technological applications. What he's saying there is pretty straightforward. He's saying this is a proof of principle that you can extract quantum energy, but this is not showing you the recipe to pull it off. Which to me is sandbagging the issue because if you know that, you should just tell people, "Hey, here's how you do it." But you don't want to tell people for a number of reasons. Maybe national security, maybe intellectual property. You know, maybe you invented something. Several reasons. But it tells me I'm even more suspicious now of these authors. Because they're writing in a way where they know a secret that you don't know. It says, "The squeezed quantum states of quantum optics provide a natural form of matter having negative energy density. The analysis via quantum optics shows that gravitation itself provides the mechanism for generating the squeezed vacuum states necessary stable for traversable wormholes. The magnitude of the gravitational squeezing of the vacuum can be estimated from the quantum optics squeezing condition for given transverse momentum and energy eigen values of two electromagnetic ZPF modes that the condition is subject to J to zero and some equation here. So, why is that important? Because that says we can use quantum optics to estimate wormholes accurately. You want a way to figure out how to make a wormhole work? You should be looking at quantum optics, squeezed states of light. Because it turns out it's a direct analog to gravitationally manipulation.