Can UFOs Advance Science?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Why is Voyager 1 travelling at 17 km/s?

This was a question raised on Quora in 2021. There are a couple of ways you can answer this question. You can either look at this in terms of a practical here-and-now approach based on known present-day technologies and concepts and in incredible detail as one NASA engineer has responded (see below), or we can take on a more broader view and further insights into physics and what can be done in the near future.

The Traditional Scientific View

Here is the response from Robert Frost of NASA:

NASA's Traditional View
The NASA approach

The Broader Scientific View

Actually if one thinks about this question further, it is asking us why are we limited to 17km/s? In other words, why can't we travel faster?

Well, one of the things that some scientists and the USAF don't tell you is that there are alternatives ways of accelerating an object of mass to a much higher speed. Even fewer of them will admit that there is a way to allow people to participate in the flight and reach the stars right now if we choose.

The biggest stumbling block in making interstellar travel a reality is the fuel. In particular, our choice of a fuel to burn and extract energy needed to propel an object. Basically scientists feel restricted to those fuels that have mass, such as hydrogen and oxygen. There is also this seemingly unbreakable assumption that this fuel has to be carried with the object and burned in a combustion chamber to escape at the back end in order to provide the necessary and constant supply of energy for pushing (i.e., recoiling) the object. Furthermore, there is only so much fuel one can carry on the journey. Too much fuel, and the mass increases to the point where it requires too much energy to move the payload, the spacecraft, and the fuel itself. And that means a lot of fuel has to be spent. So, just to leave the Earth against the force of gravity, a huge amount of fuel has to be expended just to get into space. Once you are there, it gets a lot easier (which would explain the reason why NASA is looking at plans to establish a settlement on the Moon and build rockets there so the journey to Mars can be quicker and/or require a lot less fuel).

However, there is a way to solve all these problems. If we broaden our thinking and consider new ideas in physics, we will discover within the laws of electromagnetism a way to avoid carrying all this energy, and for that energy not to be in the form of solid mass.

Fuel is, technically speaking, already available in space. Scientists call this electromagnetic energy. Furthermore, we can temporarily store a small amount of this energy in space inside a material for use in a propulsion system and have it topped up as a spacecraft is accelerating.

We should remember that space is not a true vacuum. It contains energy. Much of it is electromagnetic by way of radiation.

The first step to utilising this free-energy of space is to concentrate the energy. You can do this by accelerating a mass, charged or otherwise, which would explain why it gets harder for a moving solid object to go beyond the speed of light. It is simply the fact that the energy in space is bunched up and surrounds the moving object and so increases its mass. It is like a plough pushing against snow. You build up enough snow in front of the plough until it gets too hard and requires too much energy to push against it. Well, the same principle applies to electromagnetic energy in space as the speed of a moving object approaches the speed of light.

However, accelerating mass is not the only way to concentrate energy.

The other way is simply to accelerate and decelerate charged particles called electrons on the surface of a metal object. Electrons have mass, so the movement will naturally concentrate some energy. However, few scientists realise that charge itself also contributes to this ability to concentrate electromagnetic energy from space. Accelerate the charge, and the energy is concentrated even more. Concentrate this energy enough, and you can technically bend the light emitted by the moving object. Basically we explain this as due to the gravitational field of the energy getting so strong that it can bend the light back on itself. Now here is an interesting idea: light can be recycled. Try doing that with solid fuel? Yep, you would have no hope of recycling solid fuel. It is always lost into space forever. But with electromagnetic energy, there is a way in physics to recycle the energy.

Remember, the concept of light bending in a gravitational field is not new. It has been known since the days of Sir Isaac Newton and made more prominent in the physicists' minds thanks to Einstein's work on his General Theory of Relativity. However, to accept that electromagnetic energy is the thing that causes light to bend requires physicists to accept Einstein's Unified Field Theory which states that the gravitational field must exist in the radiation. Of course, this brings up all manner of ideas such as what is the gravitational field, and whether we truly have a gravitational field in the universe and instead we should consider an electromagnetic universe controlled by radiation — Einstein's final scientific legacy to humankind. Whatever the long-term consequences of accepting this gravitational field in radiation, at least we can appreciate the possibility that light is mass and can have a gravitational field of its own in order to explain how light concentrates around a moving object.

The second step is, not surprisingly, to extract some of the concentrated energy. You can do this by using a metal antenna sticking out of the moving object and letting it cut through this electromagnetic energy. The result from this remarkably simple action, and as the laws of electromagnetism already predicts and proven by experiments time-and-time again, is a separation of charge at opposite ends of the antenna that will permit a user to tap onto this electricity and use it to store energy internally.

So far, everything is perfectly fine and well within the laws of physics to achieve.

Now, in terms of storing the energy, any battery will do. However, to keep things lightweight and able to hold large amounts of energy, consider using a large superconducting ring cooled by the temperature of space and let the energy flow without electrical resistance within the ring until such time as the user is ready to tap onto this energy storage.

With coils to wrap around the superconducting ring to help inject and extract electrical energy, the extraction phase will naturally be used to propel the object. But how is this propulsion achieved? What you want is to oscillate the electrical energy and get the electrons to come on and off the surface of an external metal plate, which could be the hull of a spacecraft, if designed in a smooth and symmetrical way. As the electrons move on and off the plate, radiation is emitted. And since radiation is a form of mass and has a gravitational field, it causes the metal plate to recoil in the opposite direction to the radiation going off into space (and possibly could be recycled if the energy surrounding the spacecraft is concentrated sufficiently).

But why use radiation for propulsion? It is because the acceleration performed by this radiation on a charged object is said to be so much more dramatic according to the mathematics known as the Abraham-Lorentz formula. So dramatic that we are effectively talking about an exponential acceleration. Not the piddling acceleration we see in the Voyager I and II spacecrafts. You can forget about that kind of piss-weak acceleration. Exponential acceleration is a totally different kettle of fish in the world of physics.

Actually, scientists already know radiation moves solid matter. The question is, can we use radiation to accelerate faster than our beloved Voyager spacecraft? And can the acceleration be exponential?

We already know that Cosmos 1 with its solar sails can reach the nearest star after our Sun in roughly 200 years thanks to its continuous acceleration from the solar wind until it eventually dies down beyond our solar system. If we had not lost its signal on commencement of its maiden voyage to Alpha Centauri, its low mass to speed ratio would have allowed it to travel much faster than 17km/s and reach its destination in a fraction of the time it would take for Voyager to cover the same distance (1). Remember, this is done and achievable entirely with sunlight. No nuclear energy or hydrogen fuel. Not even gravitational slinging around a large planet like Jupiter can generate this kind of speed. Just pure sunlight energy.

More interestingly, it is low-cost to build a solar-sailing spacecraft. At US$4 million for Cosmos 1, this is chicken feed for NASA. Indeed, most of the costs were related to getting the thing into space. Compare this to building the Space Shuttle or rocket to carry passengers into space.

However, if you generate the radiation yourself and emit it, then apart from the fact that you are not tethered to the Sun to supply the energy (and the energy is already surrounding you in space), the object can recoil in the opposite direction just like the exhaust by-products emitted at the back end of a rocket.

But here is the catch: scientists believe the force from radiation is too weak to move anything of substance and size, such as a person, to any reasonable speed.

A quick review of electromagnetic propulsion from the traditional university physics textbook may suggest this electromagnetic force is weak. But this is for the so-called "uncharged case". In reality, we all know anything that is uncharged always carries charge. There is no such thing as a truly uncharged object that exists for any time frame you give it. The charges are bubbling away on the surface and still emitting radiation, which is how we observe so-called uncharged matter. Electrons are constantly moving, and the protons help to further contribute to the charge of the object in any instant in time. According to the Unified Field Theory, there is absolutely no such thing as a truly uncharged object. Everything is constantly charged. Not even the neutron is a genuinely uncharged object. It must contain charges that are moving about in a manner that confuses the physicists into thinking it is uncharged through their imperfect instruments. And indeed this is the case. As particle physicists have discovered, a neutron always breakdown into an electron, a proton and a little but of remaining energy that eventually dissipates and becomes radiation. So, we can imagine the neutron is effectively playing its intricate and quiet electromagnetic dance by its hidden electron and proton, spinning around and pretending to be a single particle and all the while is fooling physicists into thinking it is uncharged. Therefore, when we hear physicists talk about uncharged matter, we must realise that all solid mass must contain charges. What the problem we have here in the world of physics is whether the radiation is moving these charges, or just the mass of those charges? If you believed in uncharged matter, you will have to assume radiation is moving the mass, right? But that may not be true according to the Unified Field Theory. And what complicates the picture for the physicists is how you can never separate charge from mass. Wherever you find mass, there must be charge associated with it. Likewise, find a charge, and you can be sure of finding mass. So what we have here is a kind of "chicken-and-the-egg" situation. The question we need to ask is, Which is the thing that is being moved by radiation? Is it the charge or the mass? Now that is the fundamental question for the physicist. At the moment, physicists have accepted that it is the mass that is being moved by radiation. But what if we told you this is wrong? What if radiation is actually moving the charges? Would this change our perception of how we accelerate objects, and potentially help us to reach for the stars?

Okay, so what happens when we multiply the number of charges on a metal surface? How would the radiation interact with these charges? The assumption from 20th century-thinking physicists has been that the gravitational component of radiation, or the mass component of radiation in a classical Newtonian sense, is the part that is moving other mass and this is considered too weak to move an object of reasonable mass, especially one that carries people and instruments inside. Not so. According to the Unified Field Theory and another obscure law of electromagnetism, the universe may well be purely electromagnetic. In which case, the radiation is not moving the mass. Rather, it is moving the charges.

But we can hear you say, "Yeah but wouldn't adding more charges increase the mass? Surely it won't make a difference."

Yes, it will increase mass, but not as much as you think. If you are using electrons as the charge carrier, the mass of an electron is at least 1,836 times less than a proton. And since you are also not adding the mass of a neutron, which is slightly more than a proton and electron combined together, adding extra electrons is not going to radically increase mass. Furthermore, a spacecraft does not require a thick external hull. A newspaper-thin metal skin that can withstand high temperatures as the electrons more quickly on and off its surface is sufficient. There is a way to dramatically reduce mass and increase charge.

With the ratio of charge to mass being pushed more in favour of a higher charge, what happens to the radiation when it interacts with the charge? How much more of a recoiling force can be achieved through radiation emissions from an oscillating charged surface? And how much easier would it be to physically move the object when it is lightweight and carrying this charge on its surface? Now that is the all-important question real physicists should be talking about, including NASA.

Remember, according to the Abraham-Lorentz formula, charge is important in determining how much of a recoiling force is applied to the charge by the emitting radiation. While mass might determine how quickly or sluggishly the moving object can be accelerated, the Abraham-Lorentz formula is not interested in the mass. It is only interested in the charge, and this is the thing that radiation interacts with. Add to this the fact that as the charge is accelerating, it naturally concentrates the energy in space around it. For a large object, it does not require physically moving the object itself. Just oscillate the charge on a metal surface (i.e. electrons). The concentrated energy can be tapped as a source of energy, as well as increase the energy density of the emitted radiation for a greater recoiling force. And if the energy is sufficiently concentrated, recycling of the energy is technically possible (all from a rest position) thanks to Einstein's Unified Field Theory (i.e., the gravitational field in the radiation concept).

That is the kind of original thinking and broader discussion we need to be having in physics to be truly certain we have not overlooked something new and important.

2. Do UFOs exist?

Scientifically speaking, yes they do. It would be unwise, and certainly unscientific, to claim no UFOs exist. There have to be flying objects in the sky that are not immediately and readily identifiable as natural or man-made objects. Of course, this does not mean that every UFO people find in the sky represents an alien spacecraft. What it does mean is that a small percentage of the UFOs has the potential to represent something new to science. And if that is the case, it is in the interest of the scientific community to find out what it is.

Fortunately that work has been done. It has been a long time coming, but finally we are here. According to witnesses of genuine UFO cases, research has identified a new electromagnetic technology based on the Abraham-Lorentz formula of classical electromagnetism. It means we can now explain those interesting electromagnetic side-effects associated with a number of these flying objects. This is particularly true for those cases where a distinctive symmetrical shape for the flying object together with interesting and unmistakable "artificial" features, such as doors, portholes, fuselages, antennas and so on, have been observed.

There are UFOs worthy of scientific investigation and research.

Fortunately, the book, Can UFOs Advance Science?, will be able to prove the worth of those genuine and detailed UFO reports to science when advancing scientific knowledge and presenting the new technology.

In other words, we are now able to explain a lot more UFO reports than ever before. So much so that now it is scientifically feasible to test the idea and begin the journey to the stars through this simple, yet powerful electromagnetic technology.

Based on your research, can you safely say that we are being visited by aliens?

After carrying out this research, the prospects of finding alien life are now extremely good. If we were to give a number between 0 (impossible) to 100 (certainty), we are about 95 per cent certain we are dealing with an alien presence in the UFOs mainly because we have identified the electromagnetic concept and technology and know how it is possible for UFO occupants to reach our planet. Of course, to give absolute certainty in this matter, it is always best to be conservative and say that once we build the electromagnetic flying object lying at the heart of genuine UFO reports, we will know the answer beyond a shadow of a doubt.

3. Could UFOs be a secret military experiment?

This has to be a personal favourite for the skeptics when explaining UFOs. Indeed, the CIA has taken a strong liking to this explanation in a recent effort by the organisation to convince people that this must be true and the only answer to this controversial subject. There are good reasons why the CIA must take on this view as a close look at history will reveal. But for general skeptics in the community who are not sure what to make of those unusual symmetrical flying UFOs with strange looking occupants, it is natural for them to deny the slightest possibility of something alien, as well as choose to see anything artificial that looks different as likely to be in the realms of a new man-made experimental aircraft, if only we knew who was responsible for making it. Taking on this man-made view through a secret military experiment is perfectly fine if it fits the observations and there is clear evidence of military involvement. But can we use the military as an excuse for all UFOs reported by genuine witnesses?

In terms of which organisation on earth could be involved in such an experiment, it would have to be the USAF. No one else would come close. From history we see the USAF has been interested in the radiation reaction force between 1959 and 1960, is aware of the electromagnetic effects of UFOs since 1947, and has built and tested an electromagnetic vehicle with all the characteristics of a typical glowing UFO in a symmetrical design in Texas in late December 1980 (see the Cash-Landrum UFO case). A particularly interesting UFO case in which a military test of a UFO-like flying object (with one type of unmarked group of black double-rotor helicopters identified as coming from the US military) in the state of Texas took place leaving behind important radiation effects on three witnesses. Following this important case, a NASA engineer concluded that UFOs had to be some form of a solid and real flying object for the radiation to have been received in the quantities revealed by the witnesses. Anything more could not be deduced with the present evidence mainly because the USAF is carefully to cover its "ass" by claiming it is not responsible for building or following the object, and hence it was not testing it. Well, that view will be tested very soon. At any rate, what we have is the best evidence yet for a real and solid flying object supporting the UFO observations. Clearly something flew in the presence of the witnesses even if the USAF will deny any involvement in the testing.

How strange? A new flying object in American airspace should be in the jurisdiction of the USAF. But if the USAF wants to deny any involvement, then this has to be a clear admission that the USAF is not responsible for all symmetrical flying objects with electromagnetic side-effects as seen by the witnesses. It means we have found something significant for scientists to study. And now we have enough evidence to raise the prospect for the existence of extraterrestrial life visiting our planet to a new level. One that could be sufficient to give an official confirmation that ETs do exist and are already here, watching us and possibly preparing us for the next chapter in our history.

Let's put it this way: no one else has come forth to show the military experiment is the answer and would account for the UFO observations throughout history. If no one wants to claim responsibility, then it doesn't leave much options of what we are dealing with here. It surely cannot be a military experiment.

If, on the other hand, the USAF suddenly wants to claim responsibility and assume all electromagnetic and symmetrical UFOs are man-made, it will not work either. The appearance of symmetrical flying objects have been observed well before this testing and even prior to the USAF coming into existence. As further support for this view, we see that the USAF pilots do not appear as unusual-looking thin and mostly short individuals with large heads and eyes. A rather common observation at close range to a number of UFOs that have landed on the ground and revealed one or more of their occupants. Unless, of course, some people are wearing motorcycle helmets and a fancy-looking alien custom to fool practically everyone. And odd decision, and something we have continually been fooled for so long. And for what purpose? A practical joke? It is a long-running practical joke that the USAF hasn't been able to get over it. And if the USAF are working on such a technology and wants to keep it secret, it consistently fails to keep it to itself with each important and genuine UFO case that gets reported. You would think by now that the USAF would have conceded and decided to be honest with the public and just say this is the new technology it has been working on for some time, and start displaying it openly as with any other formerly secret aircraft ever made by this military organisation. The fact that the military does not want to do this means we are dealing with another entity. It cannot be military. Someone else is responsible for the UFOs. It is time humanity prepares itself for this revelation.

4. Have one of these electromagnetic objects visited us in Biblical times?

There are interesting stories in the Bible of a mysterious entity called God coming down from the skies, principally in a large cloud (sometimes glowing at night), to influence people on the ground. Slightly more details of the flying object get revealed in the story of Moses where a glowing cloud moving in the sky was helping Moses and his people to leave Egypt and to stop the Egyptian soldiers from intercepting the group (see Evolution of Life section under the Recent period link for more details). In other stories, certain wise old men seem to have given more details about what is hidden once the cloud disperses to reveal the flying object.

In modern UFO cases, we know some UFOs can come masquerading as a cloud and suddenly make themselves known to the witnesses (take, for instance, the famous UFO case in Finland involving two skiers near the town of Imjarvi on 7 January 1970). Together with their glowing metal surfaces looking like a giant electric light bulb, it is reasonable to imagine these objects as being able to make clouds surrounding the objects look like they are glowing. The principle of making clouds is not difficult. All it requires is the emission of energy from the surface of the object to push away the air and cause a reduction in air pressure. Add humidity to the mix and it is not magical to create clouds and make it surround the object. Well, let us put it this way: it is not an advanced alien thing to make clouds. When it comes to the electromagnetic concept behind UFOs, there is a way to make this work.

Thus, it is perfectly likely that the glowing cloud in an otherwise clear sky as observed by Moses and being able to re-trace its path and come down closer to the ground to keep the Egyptian army at bay could well be one of these electromagnetic UFOs in action.

Whilst the Moses story in the Bible and other stories are not quite detailed enough to conclude that we are definitely dealing with an electromagnetic technology, it is worth keeping a note on these sorts of observations.

5. Why haven't these symmetrical UFOs evolved since ancient times to become more advanced to the point of discovering a non-electromagnetic technology that is more powerful and could make "faster than light" journeys as we see in Star Wars?

Good question. You would think that there is a continuum of advanced alien civilisations coming up with original and different solutions that might be beyond our understanding and capabilities, not just in the design of the UFOs (although why do all the genuine UFOs have symmetrical central bodies?), but also right down to the type of propulsion system used. You might consider us at the (really) lower end of the spectrum with our preference for fossil fuel based flying technology with wings to move through the air and provide lift and rockets/jet engines to provide some speed. Then we look at the UFO reports of genuine and detailed cases of symmetrical flying objects and what we see is electromagnetic side effects and glowing regions where radiation is likely to be emitted for propulsion. Well, this must represent another higher level of understanding of how to fly. Fortunately, the concept behind this technology has been worked out. We know it is based on the Abraham-Lorentz formula and we are the slow ones not to know it for such a long time. Even though scientists have known about the concept for more than a century, we have not done the experiment to find out (Zzzz....). Until we do the experiment, our species will remain a fairly dumb one compared to other intelligent species in the Universe, even with the subtle help we are definitely getting by some UFOs trying to show us some aspects of their technology as if we should be able to work it out. Apparently not so for many scientists, least of which for those who work for NASA.

How embarrassing. It is almost as if people's scepticism has blinded them to seeing how it works. Too incredible the shapes, the speed, and the appearance of odd-looking occupants, so why not ignore the lot? Or assume they are all hoaxes or hallucinations.

Goes to show how little imagination a number of scientists have in seeing through the observations and realising what they have got.

In that case, why not the most advanced alien civilisations discovering something more exotic?

As an example, there is talk by mathematicians of the possibility of wormholes being created in space to allow an advanced alien civilisation to travel anywhere in the Universe. Remember, a worm hole is a mathematically predicted region of reduced energy density of space. So reduced is the energy that, in fact, it is zero. Zero in the sense that no quantum fluctuations might exist. This is as zero as you can ever get. But because the energy we are talking about here is predominantly electromagnetic by way of radiation according to the Unified Field Theory, it is the radiation that must reduce to zero (at the very least). Now within this perfect vacuum region you can theoretically accelerate to any speed you like. For a solitary piece of electromagnetic energy called a photon travelling through a wormhole, it will be infinite speed. And acceleration will not exert inertial forces on the body. Any reasonable, and super advanced technology can easily accelerate a body of mass of any amount, and bring the speed of anything very quickly to a level that would allow occupants to reach any part of the galaxy or entire Universe in a very short time. And that means, the shape and amount of mass are irrelevant when travelling in a wormhole.

Yet, for some reason, UFOs are symmetrical in shape (give or take some domes and protrusions added to the central body). The UFO occupants are universally thin and mostly quite short individuals. And there have been reports from crashed disc cases (e.g., Roswell) of incredibly lightweight but tough materials used in the construction of one of these UFOs. For example, newspaper-thin metallic hull seems to be the aim of the Roswell disc's makers. Doesn't make sense to be so stingy on the amount of mass, even right down to the weight of the occupants, when in a wormhole. It is unnecessary. Well, not so for the UFOs that have been reported.


The reason is because the real Universe in which we live does not allow for a perfect zero energy region to exist under any circumstances. Creating a perfect mathematical region of zero energy in the real Universe is an impossibility. It will never occur. Sure, such a region can allow anything to be accelerated to speeds exceeding the speed of light and without feeling the inertial forces. Then we would have a situation as we see in those science fiction films such as Star Wars where flying objects can reach opposite ends of a galaxy very fast and without the crushing inertial forces that would occur during acceleration and deceleration. Theoretically it should be instantaneous.

Furthermore, it won't matter what shape the spacecraft is built or the amount of mass it contains when in a wormhole. Any technology to provide tremendous acceleration would be and no one will feel the inertial forces under any circumstances in a perfect sense.

But this is not what we are seeing in the UFO reports.

Virtually all modern-day and genuine UFOs reported by witnesses are universally symmetrical in shape for at least the main central body. It means that whatever is being emitted on the outside must not penetrate the metal body in order to protect pilots and instruments. And it must reduce the inertial forces on the body as it accelerates. In a wormhole, this is not necessary. So why the need for a symmetrical spacecraft? Any spacecraft design and shape will do.

Sure, there are some superficial differences in the UFOs observed by witnesses. Some of the UFOs have come with protrusions around specific positions around the base of the circular object that are movable or fixed, and others seem more reliant on specific geometric shapes (e.g., an equilateral triangle) as well as more significant curving metal regions such as domes to provide the necessary asymmetric distribution of the oscillating charges for acceleration or distribute the charge symmetrically when hovering. Yet despite the passage of time and the potential for different groups being responsible for flying these objects to improve on the designs and find alternative new and more advanced technologies and concepts that are potentially not reliant on electromagnetism, it seems the essential concept behind the electromagnetic technology and the natural electromagnetic side-effects this technology creates, such as cloud formation and glowing effects, does not seem to change even after thousands of years. Only the outer appearance of the objects may vary (a little). But if you look more closely, there is a basic geometric and symmetrical design (for the central body) and a familiar electromagnetic concept being applied behind it (if we open our eyes to it) and ways we can apply the concept to make the radiation do our bidding if we so choose. There is something about this electromagnetic concept that is considered the absolute best there is in science and anywhere in the Universe by any civilisation for the purposes of achieving long distance travelling between the stars. It seems this electromagnetic concept has the required phenomenal acceleration needed for interstellar travel. And whoever or whatever is flying the UFOs has found a way to control the inertial forces during the acceleration to allow for occupants to participate in the flight.

Yet some scientists will argue from a mathematical perspective that worm holes could exist and be applied by an advanced alien civilisation. And hence there could be more advanced non-electromagnetic technology that we just don't know about. Is this true?

However, nothing is ever "perfect" in the real Universe no matter how advanced our technology is. The biggest problem of all is that the Universe does not allow for a "perfect" region of zero energy to exist. No amount of energy or technology can be used to pump out this energy. Not even the most powerful super-advanced alien civilisation in the entire Universe (we are talking about everything, including the visible and invisible universes) with a technology can ever push away this energy of space for a fleeting moment. The reason why is because space itself (with its energy, composed mostly of radiation) will exert an equally strong counteracting force to push itself back in and ensure the region is filled with energy at all times. The force will be so strong that it will be infinite (remember, radiation moves at infinite speed in a perfect vacuum, so imagine the size of the force by the radiation as it comes in — we will need all the energy in the Universe to somehow counteract the radiation and push against it in order to create the perfect zero energy region. And even then, there is not enough energy to do it) and instantaneous force will be applied to a perfect vacuum if a technology could ever somehow find enough energy to make a region a perfect vacuum, thereby rendering the technology completely useless. It is just not possible.

There is a fundamental law of the Universe that tells us that you should not attempt to create a perfect vacuum in space. All your efforts to do so will fail. It is a fruitless task. The reality we face in the Universe with its ocean of radiation flowing through space does not allow for it. And it will never happen while the Universe exists. Mathematically, we can pretend it exists and enjoy the science fiction films that rely on the concept. But in the real Universe, you cannot create a perfect vacuum.

As a consequence of this reality, the only means possible to reach the stars is to travel close to the speed of light, and to use the electromagnetic concept to accelerate "exponentially" and control (i.e., reduce, but not eliminate) the inertial forces inside a metal symmetrical box. Then the application of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity comes into play in what is called length contraction along the direction of motion of a spacecraft which allegedly reduces the journey time in reaching the destination for the pilots. But what is actually happening is that there is a displacement of the energy of space resulting in a heightened amount of energy concentrating on the front end of the spacecraft and so giving the impression to an outside observer of a higher mass of the spacecraft. The extra energy is adding more mass to the moving spacecraft. But the extra energy being concentrated by the moving spacecraft must come from somewhere. It means that there has to be a region slightly further ahead where the energy density has been lowered. It is this lower energy of space and how the Universe counteracts this by pushing the moving object from behind to fill the lower energy density region that will explain how a spacecraft is able to get to its destination quicker than calculated by the outside observer. This pushing action of the radiation in space by the rest of the Universe is the thing that causes the spacecraft to travel faster than the speed of light. The person onboard the spacecraft won't know this. He is reliant on distance and this appears to be shortened to the destination. If he uses the speed of the spacecraft calculated by the outside observer, he can explain why he is getting there quicker. He will assume that the distance to the destination is shorter. Not true. In reality, the spacecraft is being accelerated by the energy of space to a higher speed, and beyond the speed of light due to the lowering of the energy density of space in one part of the universe caused by the moving object to concentrate some of this energy. It is really this extra push from the Universe through the energy of space that causes the pilots to reach the destination more quickly. It is not a length contraction. Any such idea of length contraction is more an optical illusion created by the heightened gravitational and electromagnetic lens created by the energy of space just in front of the spacecraft. It creates the illusion of objects directly in front to appear much closer than they really are. Don't trust your eyes. It is in fact the speed of the spacecraft that has increased due to a lowering of the energy density of space after it has been displaced and concentrated around the moving object and the Universe is counteracting this by pushing on the spacecraft to fill the lower energy density in order to bring back balance to the energy density even though the stationary observer on Earth continues to measure the speed of the spacecraft as travelling very close to the speed of light.

That is why only those who participate in the flight to the stars are the ones who will benefit from short journey times, not for those who stay behind on a planet.

6. What do we need to do to see this concept in reality?

The technology and concept are known. We even have a patented invention to support the concept (except the inventor has never realised it). All we need to do now is conduct a simple experiment to emit radiation from a charged object in one direction and observe the "exponential" acceleration taking place. That is where we are at.

However, for humans to actually realise the potential and expected reality of this new technology, we have to change our view on how radiation moves solid matter. To fully understand what we mean by this, see our response to the first question at the top of this page, especially in regards to our discussion on whether radiation moves the mass or the charge of solid objects. The answer may surprise you. Indeed, it will explain why so many 20th century physicists have not been able to solve the UFO mystery. They have essentially maintained an outdated scientific picture on how radiation moves solid matter thinking the electric charge plays absolutely no part (or very little), and this is what is holding them back from seeing what is actually possible and achievable in the real world from a purely technological point-of-view.