SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the how-do-you-know-they-did-not-find-something? dept.
The Government's Secret UFO Program Funded Research on Wormholes and Extra Dimensions
The Department of Defense funded research on wormholes, invisibility cloaking, and "the manipulation of extra dimensions" under its shadowy Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, first described in 2017 by the New York Times and the Washington Post.
On Wednesday, the Defense Intelligence Agency released a list of 38 research titles pursued by the program in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.
[...] One such research topic, "Traversable Wormholes, Stargates, and Negative Energy," was led by Eric W. Davis of EarthTech International Inc, which describes itself as a facility "exploring the forefront reaches of science and engineering," with an interest in theories of spacetime, studies of the quantum vacuum, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
Another project called "Invisibility Cloaking" was helmed by German scientist Ulf Leonhardt, a professor at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Leonhardt's research pertains to theoretical quantum optics, and in 2006 his work on theoretically creating "an invisible 'hole' in space, inside which objects can be hidden" was cited by Nature.
Yet another title, "Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions," was attributed to theoretical physicist Richard Obousy, director of the nonprofit Icarus Interstellar, which claims to be "researching technologies that will enable breakthroughs in interstellar travel." Obousy was credited by Gizmodo in 2009 for creating "a scientifically accurate warpship design" that could hypothetically be propelled through space by manipulating dark energy.
Also at Teslarati.
Previously: Pentagon's UFO Investigation Program Revealed
UFO Existence 'Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Former Head Of Pentagon Program
Newly-Released Video Shows 2015 U.S. Navy Sighting of UFO
Related: Are We Alone? The Question is Worthy of Serious Scientific Study
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @02:39AM (5 children)
Physicists writing such papers is how we find out that physics doesn't permit those things.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 24 2019, @03:32AM (4 children)
I love the ludicrous speed scene from Spaceballs. "No, no, no, light speed is too slow."
I wonder if the main problem with all this dreaming of FTL travel is our terminology. If we understood the concept better, maybe we wouldn't call it "speed". Can't go slower than 0. An example of a bad term is "data compression". That name "data compression" makes it sound like more data can be squeezed into the same physical space like trash in a trash compacter. What is really going on is redundancy removal. Once all the redundancy is removed, no more "compression" is possible. Someday, maybe talk of FTL travel will sound as silly as alchemy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @03:44AM (1 child)
It's worth pointing out that we did end up achieving transmutation, though we call it fusion/fission, and it isn't economically viable to make gold with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 24 2019, @02:26PM
FTL is possible by warping space. Sure, That is extremely difficult to do and may depend on negative mass, but is not yet disproven.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday January 24 2019, @04:20AM (1 child)
"Redundancy removal" is misleading, possible incorrect - e.g. for lossless compression, one must not suppose that anything in the input signal is insignificant/useless/redundant. "Space efficient encoding" is closer to the reality.
Otherwise, yes, the image of "squeezing the crap out of things" is wrong in regards with data compression: you just translate the data in a "language" in which the same information takes less "space" but which a "decompressor" is able to understand it and translate it back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Disagree) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 24 2019, @04:27AM
Redundancy removal is entirely correct. Especially for lossless. No information is being thrown away, only redundancy is being removed. Some work will have to be done to restore the redundancy, but it can all be restored.