Indeed, exactly as observed in our skies the UFO will appear to
teleport disappearing here reappearing there after a time corresponding
to a faster-than-light speed as it enters and leaves weightless warp
drive befuddling the AFO Victorian Station Master.
On Jul 1, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> Hawking and Ellis discuss this nicely in "The Large Scale Structure of
> Einstein's 1916 GR always conserves the stress-energy local current
> densities but not the global spacelike integrals. The only exception
> is when the geometrodynamic field has very unlikely on small scale
> special isometries called "Killing vector fields."
>... mistake is simply to use the rules of global 1905
> SR beyond its domain of validity. It's as if they made a Taylor
> series expansion of a complex function w(z) of a single complex
> variable z beyond its radius of convergence whose boundary is
> determined by a singularity (R. Penrose "The Road to Reality" - for a
> The warp bubble no matter how small is a singularity relative to the
> rules of 1905 SR, which it violates.
> The Minkowski AFO looking through the paradigm of 1905 SR will say
> that there is some mysterious force field accelerating the COM of the
> UFO off the Minkowski geodesic. The AFO will not believe there is no
> g-force and no time dilation on the UFO. Indeed the AFO will see the
> UFO vanish outside his past light cone. That is, the AFO sees a
> complete breakdown of 1905 global SR physics when the UFO goes into
> warp drive. Einstein-Cartan theory with both curvature and torsion
> must be used. Indeed, the COM of the UFO behaves like a quantum
> particle in the path integral paradigm able to take any path not
> limited to the interior of its local light cone. The mysterious field
> is somewhat like Bohm's quantum potential on a vast scale.
On Jul 1, 2007, at 3:20 PM, COLIN BENNET wrote:
"You're a clever man, and this is all very interesting, but just a little theoretical to my mind."
Ufology stands and falls by one thing alone, that is the vast number of sightings all over the world by every single culture in the world. There are two types of Ufologist. There are those who have had a full UFO experience and those who have not. None of the leading Ufological researchers (Friedman, Macabbee, Linda Moulton Howe, et al) have had such an experience, although Macabbee says he has seen manoeuvring lights, which is at least something. These people are therefore at a terrible disadvantage when they speak confidently about UFOs. The Zeitgeist of the day? I saw something of the Zeitgeist of the past! I saw a Lancaster bomber of World War 2 suspended quite still in the evening sky above a park in front of my house. There was then a peculiar light display
This profound UFO experience was many years ago. It was not exactly unpleasant, but I do not want another experience of this kind, which involved a loss of time and many other things, including the appearance of a Man in Black. My girlfriend of the time (a physicist - not my present wife) was a witness and was so disturbed by the event she ended the relationship as if it were all something to do with me! For the record I did not see any beings in the sense usually understood by that. Given this, I have no need to play the evidence game. I am a believer. I am convinced that this experience, quite vivid and objective, was not generated by human culture.
"Look for a moment at the history of UFOlogy: in the 50's & 60's, at the height of cold-war paranoia, UFO's were externalized representations of the communist threat: in Hollywood, it was a quite literal interpretation. People who viewed them as benign visitors had always been around, but they were ignored so long as our culture was poised on the brink of nuclear holocaust."
Yes, we are controlled by such powerful images and "fact" as a concept trails far behind. Just look at the vocabulary you have just used: cold war, paranoia, communist, Hollywood, holocaust, nuclear. This shows that mind, thought, and frameworks of perception are a perfect anarchic mess. Equations were, I suppose, designed originally to try and sort out this mess and organise it into sets of clear rules. But science is not very good at raw experience. Paris Hilton and the Image will defeat it all the way. A busload of fighting drunks is reduced to a point mass rolling down an incline plane. You lose out on a lot of fun that way.
In this respect, oncerning mythology, every single monad of perception is a mythological generator. These generators contain myriad sub-texts which contain nothing but images. Oar and horse, sails and rigging, steam and iron - we relate to these image-strands every time we visualise any one of these things into glorious prime time. In performing, they throw all kinds of seeding time-pods at one another which fertilise in turn, growing other nets beyond other nets. Thinking is that complicated. The merest fraction of a second contains an infinity of associations. Only the powerful image and not intellect can grasp and control this stream of consciousness. This is the reason why Paris Hilton has far greater power than science, may God help us all.
"It wasn't until the 70's that the mythology of benign encounters became popular,..."
Not quite true. Adamski and the rest of the 1950s contactees regarded UFOs and their occupants as benign.
... and it didn't pick up a large following until the 90's - both eras being filled with personal introspection. ET went from being a threatening unknown in a metal ship to being a very personal part of our lives - personal enough that Whitley described them visiting him in bed at night. Whitley's own encounter story built from the Walton story in introducing a first horrible encounter experience, but then softened as Whitley personalized them as friendly but misunderstood beings. Subsequent "abductees" followed his lead and characterized their own encounters in a much softer way. He'd literally made it "OK" to accept ET on a private and personal level.
"Yes, I think this is a very clear perception."
In the mid to late 90's, we began to see another trend emerge in UFOlogy - the technological UFO. Suddenly the craft was no longer magical as it had been in the 50's - it was a system based on rules, and we could use those rules against it (Independence Day). It had lost it's stature as a deity, and was now a corporeal part of our world. ET once again begins to transition in our minds - from the personal experience people felt in the early 90's back to a distant object. I believe this is intimately connected with the advent of computers and the internet - which has led us to more remote methods of interaction facilitated by machines. Machines, by the way, that we don't understand - but can be understood.
"Just like the CARET device."
Yes, as I have said above, all these changes represent big image-dramas which you describe very well. These changes are the structure of archetypal time, and have little to do with mechanistic change. As I have said, CHAD is story-technology in action, and we are going to see a lot more of this given the power of the Web.
"So obviously this brings up the major issues, because UFO's are so incredibly tied into human psychology that there's a very real possibility that they don't even exist. Eric Davis got around this with the notion that they project "psychic screens" that let us see them in whichever way we desire, but I haven't seen a lot of reported flying topless dancers, so I'm going to take a pass at explaining that theory."
Exactly. However, I do however think Davis is right in that any advanced extraterrestrial culture will have flown to pure media eventually and left mechanism behind. Jack, in rejecting fuel-using rockets is going this way. The craft in his terms travel along the differential fault-lines of space-time warps, as I see it. He is one of the very few physicists who can combine ego, performance, and startrek ideas to advanced physics. There is no other. Scientists tend to be grey-faced, nameless and faceless meritocrats, and not very good at expressing themselves. In the evolutionary game, glamour will either wipe them out or reduce science to a support system for the plumage of Paris Hilton culture. As I stated in an article in UFO magazine, already what I call Entertainment State is here, and this represents a non-cerebral culture and most commentators have not yet registered its arrival. They still think the world is a simple place with simple separations between mind and the external world.
In this respect, it may come as profound disappointment to some, but the alien may not emerge as a good bourgeois, MUFON-style with a row of pens in his pocket and long-service stripes of a Victorian Station Master. The alien we may contact might well be as daft as a brush, wilting with emotional pain and nostalgia and much else besides. In this he/she will be of much more interest than some super-flapjack who is amazingly clever.
"Alternatively, it's possible that all manner of UFO's are seen all the time, but only the stories that fit our expectations are retold. I like this theory - it makes sense. Unfortunately it completely screws any attempt at data-mining UFO-reports, because presumably most people with experiences that "don't fit" just write them off after getting laughed at by the first person they tell."
Yes, this is what I call applied "story technology" of which Chad is a part. Data-mining UFO reportage MUFON-style is completely obsolete as a method of investigation of the UFO phenomenon. Most of these people have been schooled in the old "poyltech" style workshop-universities whose intellectual milieu is mechanism of one sort of another. They might as well be standing on the decks of 19th century battleships. With the UFO we We are dealing techgnosis, but the Victorian Station Masters are not capable of seeing this. They are of the wrong generation, and will continue to pile up pan-fried case-histories beyond the sun and moon.
Finally, I believe it was Kurzweil who also suggested that "God could just be the mind looking back upon itself" - which makes more sense as infinite recursion to super-nerds than it probably does to anybody else.
The short version is that for your mind to count to infinity, it doesn't have to actually count to infinity - it just has to count to the highest possible number that it can hold, and realize that there are still leftovers. Maybe UFO's are an example of this process as well?
They could be. But even Kurzweil has not reached Entertainment State yet. His books and ideas are great, but he is humourless, and a bit of a puritan. The idea of aliens as clowns and jokers would be somewhat disappointing to him, I think.
Thank for your thoughts, Tim!
The New Fortean Times