Can UFOs Advance Science?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

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

This is a question raised on Quora. There are two ways to approach this. You can either look at this in terms of a practical here-and-now approach based on known present-day technologies as one NASA engineer has responded (see below), or we can take on a more broader view.

The Traditional View

Here is the response from Robert Frost of NASA:

NASA's Traditional View
The NASA approach

The Broader 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. And this fuel has to be carried with the object and burned in a combustion chamber to escape at the back end in order to benefit from a 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. we will discover in the laws of electromagnetism a way to avoid carrying all the energy we need with us, 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. All we need to do is concentrate this energy (mainly through acceleration of a mass, charged or otherwise), extract some of this concentrated energy of the moving charge or mass (using, say, a metal antenna cutting through this energy), store some of the energy (any battery will do, but for high amounts of electrical energy to be kept and made available to do work, a large superconducting ring is ideal), and use some of the energy to achieve propulsion. In addition, the energy in space can be bent by a strong enough gravitational field to permit "recycling of energy". Just accelerate the mass or the charge to a high enough speed in order to concentrate this energy and bring it in to help push against and bend any electromagnetic energy that gets emitted. A concept that originates from Einstein's Unified Field Theory using what he called a gravitational field in the radiation — his final scientific legacy to humankind. Combine this with a voltage multiplier device and we can utilise the energy to generate an oscillating voltage/charge for emitting radiation (i.e., the fuel/energy source and by-product) as a means of recoiling an object and so make it accelerate. But why radiation? It is because the acceleration performed by this radiation on charged matter is said to be so much more dramatic according to the mathematics known as the Abraham-Lorentz formula.

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

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. 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, 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 uncharged case. Sure, the solid mass has some charges. But what scientists are not yet certain about is whether the radiation is moving these charges, or just the mass of those charges? The assumption 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.

But what if we told you this is wrong? What if the radiation is moving only the charges and nothing else? How would this fair in the case of extra charges being applied to the surface of a solid mass, say a metal, and finding out what happens when the radiation interacts with the charges? Would the force to recoil the object be greater with this extra charge than in the so-called "uncharged" case?

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. 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 real issue here, and the kind of broader thinking that is required by scientists and engineers 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 finally been done. 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.

And the book, Can UFOs Advance Science?, will be able to prove the worth of 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.

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. Well, anything artificial that looks different is likely to lie in the realms of a new man-made experimental aircraft, if only we knew who was responsible for making it. This is perfectly fine if it fits the observations and there is clear evidence of military involvement. In terms of who is most likely to be involved in such an experiment, it would have to be the USAF. 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). An interesting UFO case in which a military test of a UFO-like flying object 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. This 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 for humanity.

Let's put it this way: no one else has come forth to show the military experiment to account for the UFO observations. If no one wants to claim responsible, 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. 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? 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 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 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. In fact, the energy is reduced to 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, it is the radiation that must reduce to zero. In this perfect vacuum region, theoretically you can 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. In fact, light and all solid matter can be accelerated to infinite speeds. 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. Anything can be accelerated to infinite speeds. And there is no inertial forces to worry about. In fact, a wormhole is a region devoid of any radiation. A perfect vacuum you might say. 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 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 an infinite 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 law of the Universe that tells us it is impossible to create a perfect vacuum in reality. 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 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 which has been displaced from another region of space further ahead as if gravitationally attracted to the moving object. It is this energy of space that helps to increase the apparent mass of the moving object as observed by someone sitting on the Earth's surface. Furthermore, the displacement in energy leading to a difference in energy density in space means the Universe counteracts this by pushing the moving object from behind to fill the lower energy density region causing the spacecraft to speed up and travel faster than the speed of light. 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 as such. It is 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. It is in fact the speed of the spacecraft that has increased 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.

But to actually realise the potential and expected reality of this new technology, we have to change our view on how radiation moves solid matter.

Currently physicists think that radiation is too weak to move a solid object of any reasonable size to carry people and instruments. The argument being that radiation is using its mass-like property (or gravitational field according to Einstein's Unified Field Theory) to move only the mass (or interact with the gravitational field) of an object. By mass, we mean that separate component from the electric charge that scientists consider is "uncharged" and feels "solid" in the hand. If we were to accept this view as promulgated by Sir Isaac Newton many centuries ago, then the only way to get radiation to move an object of reasonable size is to accelerate it first to a phenomenal level. Acceleration can involve rotations, as well as linear acceleration approaching relativistic speeds. Then as the mass increases for the object, radiation can have more to "grip onto" and push the object away. But first you must accelerate the object. And the more massive the object is, the harder it becomes to accelerate it.

Clearly we have to make the object as lightweight as possible.

But do you need to accelerate the mass for radiation to have the sufficient force to move it (and potentially show this "exponential" acceleration)?

Not according to Einstein's Unified Field Theory. A careful look at this theory has revealed a new picture not considered before by the scientific community until now. Specifically, it is possible the gravitational field may not actually exist. And the concept of mass being "uncharged" may be incorrect. The new scientific view being brought forth for the 21st century is that all matter is constantly "charged". And the thing that helps us to move solid matter is the electromagnetic field acting on the charges. There are no other forces of nature to consider. And no uncharged mass or gravitational fields to worry about. When we look closely at the properties of the oscillating electromagnetic field, or radiation, it behaves in every way like it is ordinary matter (or a gravitational field). It has an inherent mass-like property that allows radiation to move solid matter. The question is how does it move solid matter? For the traditional 20th century physicist, it was simply to maintain Sir Isaac Newton's concept of a gravitational field or mass and somehow include this into the radiation through the famous Einstein equation linking energy and mass and assume the radiation is only moving the uncharged component called mass. In the 21st century, this view will change. By pushing the concept in the Unified Field Theory to its logical conclusion, we can now consider the possibility that there is no gravitational field, or even mass. It never existed. It is only the radiation that is moving the charges making up solid matter. And it does so not through the mass of the object, but only the charge. It is charge that controls the strength of the radiation force on solid matter. And that means, you can amplify the force by raising the charge of solid matter and the frequency of the radiation (which has the effect of grabbing more of the charges and moving it more effectively).

Raising the charge simply means adding more electrons to the solid matter.

There is no such thing as a truly "uncharged" object. Not even the neutron is uncharged (which is another of the implications of Einstein's Unified Field Theory). Sure, the neutron has been experimentally measured to have no charge. But how do you know for sure there is no change at every instant in time? A neutron just so happens to be composed of an electron and a proton when it is broken apart inside a particle accelerator. How convenient. But what evidence is there to suggest that the electron and proton have merged together inside a neutron to create a unique particle? The answer is none. There is every possibility that a neutron still has the electron and proton lurking inside and doing something else, which according to the Unified Field Theory may be merely spinning around each other. And if this is the case, it can fool physicists into thinking it is uncharged at all times, and the neutron is a unique particle. So while we know a neutron is composed of these two fundamental charged particles of an electron and proton, we have to consider the possibility that the neutron itself is constantly charged and reversing its polarity very quickly as the electron and proton move around each other at such phenomenal speeds.

So what does all this mean for UFO technology? It simply means that there is a way to amplify the radiation force on solid matter. You first increase the amount of charge on the surface of a metal. Then you accelerate the charge moving on and off the external metal surface, which is controlled by frequency. The higher the frequency, the higher the acceleration. There is no initial acceleration of solid matter through its mass in order for the radiation to have a greater impact in moving the solid mass. Everything is done with the charge, and in accelerating the charge. Then, as the charge oscillates, the energy density of the radiation emitted by the charge can exert its reaction force on solid matter as soon as the radiation emerges from the charged surface. Just accelerate the charges (through frequency), and the radiation has more to "grip" onto by way of charges in the solid matter and use them to cause the object to recoil in the opposite direction more effectively. That is all you are doing.

It is a combination of charge and frequency of the oscillating charge (and, thus the frequency of the radiation that also increases its recoiling force because it raises the energy density and so can affect more charges during its recoiling effect) that will give you a full understanding of how UFOs work.

And that is why 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 has no (or very little) contribution, and this is what is holding them back from seeing what is possible and achievable in the real world from a technological point-of-view.