Are UFOs based on an EM technology?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

For the first time in half a century a subcommittee of the House of Representatives has held the first open hearing of the United States Congress on UFOs in June 2022. Of the 101 cases they have looked at, the subcommittee can only justify one as worthy of further study. Do you think it is important to study UFOs just on this one case alone?

Response

It is not entirely clear which case the subcommittee deems as "important" from their perspective, but the biggest problem we see in the choice of UFO reports to present to the hearing is how many of the objects are just dark grey blobs in an otherwise mostly empty sky. There is very little information for a scientist to gather and use to analyse and compile the most common UFO observations. Apart from symmetry as relatively important in a number of UFOs, and the likelihood of having a metal outer surface and at other times glowing over large areas as seen at night, you need close up details to help better understand the true nature of these mysterious denizens of the sky.

For example, in one UFO report from a couple of U.S. military pilots, they were able to approach very close to one of the UFOs flying in the air. It was alleged that the pilots saw a semi-transparent outer metallic surface and an inner symmetrical opaque metal cube. To most people, this observation is hard to understand and hence difficult to assess how "important" this UFO observation is. However, from an electromagnetic scientist's perspective looking at this observation and after learning of the solution of the Abraham-Lorentz formula (which will explain so many common UFO observations already compiled by one ANU researcher), this observation shows the importance of building two symmetrical boxes. The outer "flexible" shell (deformed slightly to accelerate and allowed to return to its original symmetrical shape to stop the acceleration) is likely to hold the oscillating charge as needed to emit radiation for propulsion, whereas the inner shell (i.e., the cube) has to be perfectly symmetrical so as to help reduce the EM fields entering the box where the occupants and instruments are located. To some scientists who have studied UFOs properly and without bias or preconceived ideas, especially those of greater details mentioned by the witnesses and where the cases remain unexplained to this day, what the U.S. pilots allegedly observed is actually very useful engineering information about how the UFO is constructed, and can also give further support for the EM concept being employed.

What the U.S. Congress needs is a scientist who has properly studied the UFO observations and can give a visual presentation with plenty of UFO examples (and properly sourced for reference) on:

  1. What are the most common UFO observations as mentioned in those most detailed and unexplained UFO cases?
  2. Acknowledge the reality that those observations are clearly revealing some kind of a new electromagnetic technology, whatever it might be. It is clearly not based on fossil fuel or nuclear technology.
  3. Explain the importance of the large glowing areas found on the external hull of a number of UFOs and start from the basis that these regions are highly reminiscent of the way an incandescent light bulb emits light.
  4. Now work from this position, using the light bulb as the starting point, and ask why the glowing region needs to emit light and over such a large area? What kind of energy is being emitted? Is this glowing region somehow critical to the general operation or movement of the object?
  5. Once a scientist focuses on radiation emissions from the glowing region, he will discover an obscure and controversial area of electromagnetism described mathematically by the Abraham-Lorentz formula in which radiation emitted from a "charged surface" in one direction. is said to cause the object to accelerate exponentially. The key word here is "exponential". This is very dramatic acceleration when given enough time. Something truly amazing exists in the laws of electromagnetism, and would help to explain a lot about how witnesses could observe UFO occupants. Well, we see that some scientists have published the "disturbing" implications of the formula after revealing the solution. The solution clearly reveals the exponential term. There is no escaping this fact. Yet there has been considerable controversy for more than a century since it was published back in 1905 among those physicists who have studied the problem. Does it occur in reality? Well, yes if you are referring to a particle accelerator. But can an object on its own and with the right charge/voltage and frequency of radiation emission be made to accelerate from a rest position to help reveal this exponential trend? Scientists are not quite sure. Generally the view is, "No, it is not possible." The problem seems to be our scientific understanding of how radiation moves ordinary matter. When we think an object is uncharged, there is acceleration when radiation is emitted predominantly in one direction from it, but the force of the recoiling radiation is considered weak (we only have to see this from the way our standard university physics textbooks reveal the answer, but not for the advanced "charged" case which you can only find in a few obscure textbooks in advanced electromagnetism). To increase the force on an uncharged object, you need a large area and a very thin metal skin on the hull to reduce the mass in order to allow enough energy in, say, sunlight, to make it accelerate, but not exponentially. However, something unusual happens when we charge the object and let it emit radiation of its own. The force appears to be amplified as if the radiation is able to grab hold of more charges and push against them and with it the crystalline structure of the metal hull. In other words, there is a suggestion that the recoiling force is more effective in the "charged" case than in the so-called "uncharged" case. Furthermore, at high enough energy density of the radiation being emitted, Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory claims the gravitational field generated by the radiation can be strong enough to bend the radiation back on itself. If this is true, then this bending back of the energy is what is revealed in the mathematical solution of the Abraham-Lorentz formula.
  6. Now, when you bend radiation back on itself, radiation that is coming from the background environment behind the object can be made to bend around the object. It means the object can be rendered invisible. Okay. So if one does the work to study all UFOs from reputable and highly detailed UFO reports from genuine witnesses properly, you will notice how many of these objects can render themselves between visibility and invisibility in a periodic manner. Indeed, you will find cases in which some UFOs appear to want to demonstrate this observation to us at close range as if they are keen to give us a clue on how the objects work.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Want more?

Well, we could mention the fact that an American physicist has already invented what an ANU researcher believes is a small-scale version of a typical glowing UFO emitting radiation for propulsion. He has patented the invention, but he has never been able to explain why it moves so significantly compared to the "uncharged" case. He also claimed to have observed a form of non-linear acceleration of his invention at a critical voltage/charge and frequency. He had to reduce the voltage to prevent his invention from flying away from a prescribed circuit he set for it.

There is considerable confidence that what this inventor saw is based on the solution of the Abraham-Lorentz formula. There is something interesting happening when you use charge at a critical density and complemented with a sufficient frequency of the oscillating charge for the radiation to make use of the extra charge over a given area of a metal surface that we need to look at and conduct proper testing.

We have to be prepared for the unexpected in this testing scenario.

This is the sort of thing the U.S. Congress needs to be hearing. Not a bunch of reports of distant blobs of grey or points-of-light (unless they can reveal in a video camera the rate of acceleration to help scientists calculate whether they are moving “exponentially”, or at the very least reveal things like a sinusoidal flight path as if the objects are again demonstrating some aspect of how the objects work i.e., the mathematical description of radiation emissions, which seems to be a universally accepted pattern and one that all scientists and mathematicians know about).

If we are going to solve the UFO mystery properly and determine if there is anything to advance our scientific knowledge and with it potentially a new EM technology, you need an electromagnetic scientist who has studied UFO reports to give his/her assessment on the importance of certain UFO reports. He/she will give plenty of examples in history where the reports are "important". Once you understand the EM concept, it becomes much easier to sift out the reports that are "important" from the "less important" ones, and even determine which are more "genuine" compared to those that are clearly "not genuine".

Of course, to reach this level of understanding and insight into UFOs, someone has to do the work to find out. Otherwise, the hearing will just end up being another talkfest and nothing will progress from it. And other people will just continue to ridicule those genuine UFO witnesses when it is clear to an electromagnetic scientist how genuine the observations are.