I don't have any trouble believing this, but I'd appreciate elaboration.

This is a tough one to get started on. Just looking at the science is probably enough for now, but if you want more specific information just ask.

Not sure why you'd think that. There are FTL theories, but they all require magical negative energy density.

Not necessarily. That is only according to GR, which is a theory based on certain axioms that are not necessarily true. We don't even have any idea of what gravity is. We say its "the deformation of spacetime due to the energy contained within the volume", but that's an axiom. What if it's really a manifestation of EM? Why not? Everything else is.

You can say, "well people have been working on it for a hundred years and that line of reasoning has borne no fruit," but once you realize that all of research has been controlled by the same entities; a single source of all scientific funding for over a century (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford Foundations et al (which are all the same entity)), everything we think we know becomes suspect. Scientific research is a controlled entity, just like everything else.

Take a look at cold fusion research, like, really look at it. The evidence for cold fusion (now rebranded as LENR) is overwhelming. There have been experiments going on since F&P first presented their research and the results, even the devices that exist are nothing short of miraculous. Starting with Dr. Peter Hagelstein from MIT is a good entry into that rabbit hole, but I warn you, it goes deep and goes through decades of research once you begin. The tech was purposefully suppressed; of that I have no doubt. And why wouldn't it be? How can you control the world if people no longer have any need for the energy you're selling?

In addition to the problems with GR, there is the fact that QM works perfectly well as a non-local theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If both GR and QM work perfectly fine as non-local theories, why do we insist on only funding research for things that adhere to the "local" dogma?

There's also the recent videos of "UAP"s (UFOs) from the Navy. I don't know if those are real or hoax, but if real, that is obviously an ability to manipulate gravity (inertia). You can't get that type of movement from reactive propulsion.

Anybody else I might accept that criticism, but the guy actively developing colonization rockets? Nah.

When we get there, be fruitful and multiply. We are not there yet. This is nothing but an appeal to authority, not an argument.

And that's ignoring any and every form of FTL breaking causality in half.

Warp drive doesn’t break causality. The causality problems come from solutions to metrics that also require “negative energy”; like wormholes through time. As long as we adhere to closed time-like loops than that problem is a non-issue, but even that is based on our current, very limited understanding of what space and time are.

Since we really don’t have any idea what those words even mean, its difficult to come up with physics that describes them. The Truth is though, the universe is limited only by itself. It is not limited by our mathematical models of it. Those models are not reality, they are models. People so often forget that the universe doesn’t give a crap about our models. It is what it is, not what we think it is. To suggest that we have any idea of what IT is, when our models completely fail on so many levels (QM/GR incompatiblities, the de novo creation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill in the gaps of GR e.g.) is the ultimate hubris and trust in falsities.

I don't have any trouble believing this, but I'd appreciate elaboration.

This is a tough one to get started on. Just looking at the science is probably enough for now, but if you want more specific information just ask.

Not sure why you'd think that. There are FTL theories, but they all require magical negative energy density.

Not necessarily. That is only according to GR, which is a theory based on certain axioms that are not necessarily true. We don't even have any idea of what gravity is. We say its "the deformation of spacetime due to the energy contained within the volume", but that's an axiom. What if it's really a manifestation of EM? Why not? Everything else is.

You can say, "well people have been working on it for a hundred years and that line of reasoning has borne no fruit," but once you realize that all of research has been controlled by the same entities; a single source of all scientific funding for over a century (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford Foundations et al (which are all the same entity)), everything we think we know becomes suspect. Scientific research is a controlled entity, just like everything else.

Take a look at cold fusion research, like, really look at it. The evidence for cold fusion (now rebranded as LENR) is overwhelming. There have been experiments going on since F&P first presented their research and the results, even the devices that exist are nothing short of miraculous. Starting with Dr. Peter Hagelstein from MIT is a good entry into that rabbit hole, but I warn you, it goes deep and goes through decades of research once you begin. The tech was purposefully suppressed; of that I have no doubt. And why wouldn't it be? How can you control the world if people no longer have any need for the energy you're selling?

In addition to the problems with GR, there is the fact that QM works perfectly well as a non-local theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If both GR and QM work perfectly fine as non-local theories, why do we insist on only funding research for things that adhere to the "local" dogma?

There's also the recent videos of "UAP"s (UFOs) from the Navy. I don't know if those are real or hoax, but if real, that is obviously an ability to manipulate gravity (inertia). You can't get that type of movement from reactive propulsion.

Anybody else I might accept that criticism, but the guy actively developing colonization rockets? Nah.

When we get there, be fruitful and multiply. We are not there yet. This is nothing but an appeal to authority, not an argument.

And that's ignoring any and every form of FTL breaking causality in half.

Warp drive doesn’t break causality. The causality problems come from solutions to metrics that also require “negative energy”; like wormholes through time. As long as we adhere to closed time-like loops than that problem is a non-issue, but even that is based on our current, very limited understanding of what space and time are.

Since we really don’t have any idea what those words even mean, its difficult to come up with physics that describes them. The Truth is though, the universe is limited only by itself. It is not limited by our mathematical models of it. Those models are not reality, they are models. People so often forget that the universe doesn’t give a crap about our models. It is what it is, not what we think it is. To suggest that we have any idea of what IT is, when our models completely fail on so many levels (QM/GR incompatiblities, the de novo creation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill in the gaps of GR e.g.) is the ultimate hubris and trust in falsities.

I don't have any trouble believing this, but I'd appreciate elaboration.

This is a tough one to get started on. Just looking at the science is probably enough for now.

Not sure why you'd think that. There are FTL theories, but they all require magical negative energy density.

Not necessarily. That is only according to GR, which is a theory based on certain axioms that are not necessarily true. We don't even have any idea of what gravity is. We say its "the deformation of spacetime due to the energy contained within the volume", but that's an axiom. What if it's really a manifestation of EM? Why not? Everything else is.

You can say, "well people have been working on it for a hundred years and that line of reasoning has borne no fruit," but once you realize that all of research has been controlled by the same entities; a single source of all scientific funding for over a century (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford Foundations et al (which are all the same entity)), everything we think we know becomes suspect. Scientific research is a controlled entity, just like everything else.

Take a look at cold fusion research, like, really look at it. The evidence for cold fusion (now rebranded as LENR) is overwhelming. There have been experiments going on since F&P first presented their research and the results, even the devices that exist are nothing short of miraculous. Starting with Dr. Peter Hagelstein from MIT is a good entry into that rabbit hole, but I warn you, it goes deep and goes through decades of research once you begin. The tech was purposefully suppressed; of that I have no doubt. And why wouldn't it be? How can you control the world if people no longer have any need for the energy you're selling?

In addition to the problems with GR, there is the fact that QM works perfectly well as a non-local theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If both GR and QM work perfectly fine as non-local theories, why do we insist on only funding research for things that adhere to the "local" dogma?

There's also the recent videos of "UAP"s (UFOs) from the Navy. I don't know if those are real or hoax, but if real, that is obviously an ability to manipulate gravity (inertia). You can't get that type of movement from reactive propulsion.

Anybody else I might accept that criticism, but the guy actively developing colonization rockets? Nah.

When we get there, be fruitful and multiply. We are not there yet. This is nothing but an appeal to authority, not an argument.

And that's ignoring any and every form of FTL breaking causality in half.

Warp drive doesn’t break causality. The causality problems come from solutions to metrics that also require “negative energy”; like wormholes through time. As long as we adhere to closed time-like loops than that problem is a non-issue, but even that is based on our current, very limited understanding of what space and time are.

Since we really don’t have any idea what those words even mean, its difficult to come up with physics that describes them. The Truth is though, the universe is limited only by itself. It is not limited by our mathematical models of it. Those models are not reality, they are models. People so often forget that the universe doesn’t give a crap about our models. It is what it is, not what we think it is. To suggest that we have any idea of what IT is, when our models completely fail on so many levels (QM/GR incompatiblities, the de novo creation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill in the gaps of GR e.g.) is the ultimate hubris and trust in falsities.

I don't have any trouble believing this, but I'd appreciate elaboration.

This is a tough one to get started on. Not sure where to begin, because I'm not sure where you're at. My report on The Matrix will elaborate this quite a bit, but too much exposure can cause substantial cognitive dissonance. Its best to avoid that as much as possible. Just looking at the science is probably enough for now.

Not sure why you'd think that. There are FTL theories, but they all require magical negative energy density.

Not necessarily. That is only according to GR, which is a theory based on certain axioms that are not necessarily true. We don't even have any idea of what gravity is. We say its "the deformation of spacetime due to the energy contained within the volume", but that's an axiom. What if it's really a manifestation of EM? Why not? Everything else is.

You can say, "well people have been working on it for a hundred years and that line of reasoning has borne no fruit," but once you realize that all of research has been controlled by the same entities; a single source of all scientific funding for over a century (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford Foundations et al (which are all the same entity)), everything we think we know becomes suspect. Scientific research is a controlled entity, just like everything else.

Take a look at cold fusion research, like, really look at it. The evidence for cold fusion (now rebranded as LENR) is overwhelming. There have been experiments going on since F&P first presented their research and the results, even the devices that exist are nothing short of miraculous. Starting with Dr. Peter Hagelstein from MIT is a good entry into that rabbit hole, but I warn you, it goes deep and goes through decades of research once you begin. The tech was purposefully suppressed; of that I have no doubt. And why wouldn't it be? How can you control the world if people no longer have any need for the energy you're selling?

In addition to the problems with GR, there is the fact that QM works perfectly well as a non-local theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If both GR and QM work perfectly fine as non-local theories, why do we insist on only funding research for things that adhere to the "local" dogma?

There's also the recent videos of "UAP"s (UFOs) from the Navy. I don't know if those are real or hoax, but if real, that is obviously an ability to manipulate gravity (inertia). You can't get that type of movement from reactive propulsion.

Anybody else I might accept that criticism, but the guy actively developing colonization rockets? Nah.

When we get there, be fruitful and multiply. We are not there yet. This is nothing but an appeal to authority, not an argument.

And that's ignoring any and every form of FTL breaking causality in half.

Warp drive doesn’t break causality. The causality problems come from solutions to metrics that also require “negative energy”; like wormholes through time. As long as we adhere to closed time-like loops than that problem is a non-issue, but even that is based on our current, very limited understanding of what space and time are.

Since we really don’t have any idea what those words even mean, its difficult to come up with physics that describes them. The Truth is though, the universe is limited only by itself. It is not limited by our mathematical models of it. Those models are not reality, they are models. People so often forget that the universe doesn’t give a crap about our models. It is what it is, not what we think it is. To suggest that we have any idea of what IT is, when our models completely fail on so many levels (QM/GR incompatiblities, the de novo creation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill in the gaps of GR e.g.) is the ultimate hubris and trust in falsities.

I don't have any trouble believing this, but I'd appreciate elaboration.

This is a tough one to get started on. Not sure where to begin, because I'm not sure where you're at. My report on The Matrix will elaborate this quite a bit, but too much exposure can cause substantial cognitive dissonance. Its best to avoid that as much as possible. Just looking at the science is probably enough for now.

Not sure why you'd think that. There are FTL theories, but they all require magical negative energy density.

Not necessarily. That is only according to GR, which is a theory based on certain axioms that are not necessarily true. We don't even have any idea of what gravity is. We say its "the deformation of spacetime due to the energy contained within the volume", but that's an axiom. What if it's really a manifestation of EM? Why not? Everything else is.

You can say, "well people have been working on it for a hundred years and that line of reasoning has borne no fruit," but once you realize that all of research has been controlled by the same entities; a single source of all scientific funding for over a century (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford Foundations et al (which are all the same entity)), everything we think we know becomes suspect. Scientific research is a controlled entity, just like everything else.

Take a look at cold fusion research, like, really look at it. The evidence for cold fusion (now rebranded as LENR) is overwhelming. There have been experiments going on since F&P first presented their research and the results, even the devices that exist are nothing short of miraculous. Starting with Dr. Peter Hagelstein from MIT is a good entry into that rabbit hole, but I warn you, it goes deep and goes through decades of research once you begin. The tech was purposefully suppressed; of that I have no doubt. And why wouldn't it be? How can you control the world if people no longer have any need for the energy you're selling?

In addition to the problems with GR, there is the fact that QM works perfectly well as a non-local theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If both GR and QM work perfectly fine as non-local theories, why do we insist on only funding research for things that adhere to the "local" dogma?

There's also the recent videos of "UAP"s (UFOs) from the Navy. I don't know if those are real or hoax, but if real, that is obviously an ability to manipulate gravity (inertia). You can't get that type of movement from propulsion.

Anybody else I might accept that criticism, but the guy actively developing colonization rockets? Nah.

When we get there, be fruitful and multiply. We are not there yet. This is nothing but an appeal to authority, not an argument.

And that's ignoring any and every form of FTL breaking causality in half.

Warp drive doesn’t break causality. The causality problems come from solutions to metrics that also require “negative energy”; like wormholes through time. As long as we adhere to closed time-like loops than that problem is a non-issue, but even that is based on our current, very limited understanding of what space and time are.

Since we really don’t have any idea what those words even mean, its difficult to come up with physics that describes them. The Truth is though, the universe is limited only by itself. It is not limited by our mathematical models of it. Those models are not reality, they are models. People so often forget that the universe doesn’t give a crap about our models. It is what it is, not what we think it is. To suggest that we have any idea of what IT is, when our models completely fail on so many levels (QM/GR incompatiblities, the de novo creation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill in the gaps of GR e.g.) is the ultimate hubris and trust in falsities.

I don't have any trouble believing this, but I'd appreciate elaboration.

This is a tough one to get started on. Not sure where to begin, because I'm not sure where you're at. My report on The Matrix will elaborate this quite a bit, but too much exposure can cause substantial cognitive dissonance. Its best to avoid that as much as possible. Just looking at the science is probably enough for now.

Not sure why you'd think that. There are FTL theories, but they all require magical negative energy density.

Not necessarily. That is only according to GR, which is a theory based on certain axioms that are not necessarily true. We don't even have any idea of what gravity is. We say its "the deformation of spacetime due to the energy contained within the volume", but that's an axiom. What if it's really a manifestation of EM? Why not? Everything else is.

You can say, "well people have been working on it for a hundred years and that line of reasoning has borne no fruit," but once you realize that all of research has been controlled by the same entities; a single source of all scientific funding for over a century (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford Foundations et al (which are all the same entity)), everything we think we know becomes suspect. Scientific research is a controlled entity, just like everything else.

Take a look at cold fusion research, like, really look at it. The evidence for cold fusion (now rebranded as LENR) is overwhelming. There have been experiments going on since F&P first presented their research and the results, even the devices that exist are nothing short of miraculous. Starting with Dr. Peter Hagelstein from MIT is a good entry into that rabbit hole, but I warn you, it goes deep and goes through decades of research once you begin. The tech was purposefully suppressed; of that I have no doubt. And why wouldn't it be? How can you control the world if people no longer have any need for the energy you're selling?

In addition to the problems with GR, there is the fact that QM works perfectly well as a non-local theory (see Bohmian mechanics). If both GR and QM work perfectly fine as non-local theories, why do we insist on only funding research for things that adhere to the "local" dogma?

Anybody else I might accept that criticism, but the guy actively developing colonization rockets? Nah.

When we get there, be fruitful and multiply. We are not there yet. This is nothing but an appeal to authority, not an argument.

And that's ignoring any and every form of FTL breaking causality in half.

Warp drive doesn’t break causality. The causality problems come from solutions to metrics that also require “negative energy”; like wormholes through time. As long as we adhere to closed time-like loops than that problem is a non-issue, but even that is based on our current, very limited understanding of what space and time are.

Since we really don’t have any idea what those words even mean, its difficult to come up with physics that describes them. The Truth is though, the universe is limited only by itself. It is not limited by our mathematical models of it. Those models are not reality, they are models. People so often forget that the universe doesn’t give a crap about our models. It is what it is, not what we think it is. To suggest that we have any idea of what IT is, when our models completely fail on so many levels (QM/GR incompatiblities, the de novo creation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to fill in the gaps of GR e.g.) is the ultimate hubris and trust in falsities.