The ARV story is chaff; misdirection to fill the void with something
semi-plausible, at least to some degree of consistency, yet whilst only
providing bumsteer.  The UFO equivalent of red mercury.  Visitors' craft
are obviously surrounded by some kind of glowing orb phenomenon, commonly
assumed to be plasma; superficially, consistent with application of a high
electric field density, sufficient to exceed the breakdown density of the
surrounding air molecules.  Thus, so the logic goes, generating warp fields
must have something to do with powerful electric fields.

Of course we're being asked to walk the plank there however - so far as the
standard field equations are concerned, the electric field density required
to cause such significant yet highly-localised spacetime deformations as
we're seeing could only be contained by a miniature black hole; it's
circular logic.

But even the plasma ball hypothesis doesn't hold up to basic logic - we
predominantly see orange / white hues - the former might imply helium, but
that's only a trace element in air, and besides, we'd then need to invoke a
conserved supply of different gases to ionise for every other colour of the
spectrum these things can rapidly cycle through.  Air's 70% nitrogen, which
fluoresces violet from the combined preponderance of red and
blue-wavelength electron shell transitions - the familiar colour or
electrical arcing.

Even worse for the plasma theory are the results of diffraction
spectroscopy, revealing a continuous spectrum consistent with sun or
starlight, or the CMBR, as opposed to the discrete line spectra of specific
fluorescing elements.   See the Hessdalen example for instance.

Then of course there's the fact that these orbs persist underwater, or out
in space.  So for starters, UAP glow is not ionised gases!  Some ionisation
is occurring, but as an effect of the light, rather than its cause; this is
due to the +UV components of these broad-spectrum emissions, forming
ionising radiation that for instance breaks up O2 which then preferentially
de-excites by forming O3 rather than by releasing a photon, and thus
responsible for the 'pungent' or 'chlorine' odour of ozone often reported
in the vicinity of sightings.  This likewise accounts for the many
instances of skin, eye and hair damage, shorting of exposed electrical
equipments, plant and soil damage (O3 blocking leaf stromata, inhibiting
respiration and in turn causing lasting carbon-depletion of the underlying
soil microbiome).

The most consistent explanation for this light production that can be
formulated from what is currently known is that it is Casimir radiation
from the interface of curved and flat spacetimes - akin to Unruh radiation,
but in this case the thermal bath effect is produced by relative
compression of the Planck length, blue-shifting of the enclosed volume of
virtual photonsphere along with shrinking of its coordinate space, as
opposed to observer acceleration.   In essence it's the familiar heat-pump
principle, wherein the 'heat' is the EM four-potential and the 'gas',
spacetime.  Squeezing spacetime makes it glow, like.  It adds relativistic
momentum and energy to virtual photons, causing the vacuum to begin
expressing real photons of all wavelengths, per Casimir.

This is why UAP glow is continuous-spectrum, and persists in space and
underwater:  it is stimulated emission of radiation from vacuum caused by
the second law of thermodynamics trying to equilibrate between the enclosed
value of raised false-vacuum, and ambient;  the two disparate values of
vacuum potential in close proximity immediately around the craft.  It is
thus environmental energy flowing almost incidentally around the craft like
a kind of vacuum-wake, rather than energy being dissipated by or lost to
the craft themselves (which for their part likely operate at or above the
Carnot efficiency limit, as long implicated by Mr Robert Lazar esq).  It is
biased towards the longer-wavelength, redder end of the spectrum (thus
warm-white) by the conservation of energy, bluer photons requiring more
energy so being less common.  AKA a Planck distribution.  This is why UAP
can be captured using cheap IR monoculars from Amazon, since even when not
emitting at visible wavelengths, they're almost-inevitably still producing
an IR signature (i've filmed dozens myself this last year).

But just as electric field density alone cannot explain such extreme
spacetime manipulations - it's all very well attributing spontaneous EM
radiation to them, if we still can't explain how they're produced - more to
the point, we cannot explain UAP warpfields within the confines of the
standard field equations and mass-energy density alone.  We need some kind
of conceptual leap or bridgehead that can be reconciled with much stronger
spacetime deformations at much shorter ranges, and at much more modest (and
practical!) mass-energy densities..

This too has been provided by Lazar:  the strong nuclear force reduces to
an effective curvature of spacetime, only much stronger and much
shorter-ranged, a la 'gravity A' as compared to our more-familiar and
weaker gravity B (apparently MJ12's working terms not Lazar's own
neologism).  Of course we currently formulate the nuclear binding force in
terms of virtual charged pion exchanges, as a tertiary effect of the
more-fundamental quark-gluon interaction holding nucleons themselves
together.  You'd think, since we can design working fusion bombs and
fission reactors, that this model would be pretty close to reality by now,
yet Sonia Bacca's recent work on energising helium nuclei - the simplest
example of nuclear binding - showed that the current standard model was
unable to predict the maximum stable radius with greater-than-chance
accuracy!   We're evidently in a stop-gap solution, then..  epicycles and
phlogiston.  Led astray by the particle zoo.  If there is merit to particle
formulations of the strong nuclear binding force, our guests are
demonstrating greater merit in a more classical resolution along the lines
of Hestenes et al derivation of electron mass, evidently having resolved
what we regard in terms of second-order QCD effects with SR and GR..  They
don't have a 'quantum theory of gravity', so much as a relativistic theory
of quanta..!

The proposition is thus, that under certain circumstances the field we
regard as the strong nuclear binding force can be extruded out via
amplifying waveguides to enshroud a craft in a conformal bubble of much
denser spacetime (not quark-gluon plasma!).  Words may struggle to convey
just how much stronger a curvature of spacetime we're talking about here -
you'll see plenty examples of gravitational lensing and of course that
ubiquitous warm-white glow, but to really get a sense of what's at the
heart of it, consider the following capture: - note the red and blue
wavelength-shifting either side of the event horizon there, consistent with
spin-Doppler or frame-dragging about a vertical axis..  forget about your
ropey M-81 pics; here's the real deal, in 1080p at point-blank range and
hovering over a suburban street.  Why isn't it sucking in all around it,
like a violent puncture in the atmosphere? Because the strong nuclear force
only has a range of some 2.5 femtometers - about twice the proton width -
hence the surrounding air molecules are effectively neatly brushed up
against an ordinary solid, and in no more danger of falling into their own
atomic nuclei;  this gravity well steep enough to trap light, cordoned off
from the rest of the world by ordinary electrostatic repulsion, Pauli
exclusion and degeneracy pressure.  This black hole might as well be on the
other side of the universe, but for its brilliant aura of Casimir radiation
here.  One person, exclusively, predicted we might see such objects..  Bob
Lazar, and decades ago!

So even if Lazar made the whole thing up and strung together a winning
sequence of lucky guesses, he's still hit the jackpot.  No one else has
bridged that conceptual void that's left Alcubierre et al adrift.  I don't
know if element 115 is critical or might be substituted by some exotic
condensed-matter species or whatevs, only that this correlation of the
strong nuclear force with gravity is the only framework that delivers the
goods consistently, the only game in town AFAIK.  Going back to basics, all
we need is an attractive force with a scaling function greater than that of
the Coulomb repulsion (ie. cubing rather than squaring with proximity for
example);  this produces the core effect of protons / neutrons attracting
only when approaching close enough (that femtometer range).  On the balance
of knowns / unknowns, that's not a big ask, to me..  Should we then treat
his other revelations with equal merit of esteem (such as the claims of
orientation material suggesting we're basically Frankenstein's monster)?
All i know is, he's the only one expounding a warpfield theory consistent
with the abundance of available video and observational evidence.

Maybe there's more than one way to skin a cat here, but the ARV story's big
on claims while short on physics..  Lazar's physics OTOH - more recently
explicated by Riccardo Storti (check him out!) - are meat-and-potatoes

Reply via email to