System and Method for Laser-Induced Plasma for Infrared Homing Missile Countermeasure

a reply to: mbkennel

Heh....QFT = "quoted for truth".
Salvatore Pais and Puthoff are more "that" QFT.

Dunno if you saw it but the US army are currently investigating a metamaterial (as determined by Puthoff) which exhibits inertial mass reduction properties without requiring matter quantity reduction..
documents2.theblackvault.com...

a reply to: mbkennel

there is some form of exotic beam weapon in use seeing as it was pictured in use and effects were seen in north Korea at one of there centrifuge plants, it just blew up and ironically we were sniffing the air looking for nuclear fission products under the guise of the attack being a nuclear accident or detonation

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: mbkennel

there is some form of exotic beam weapon in use seeing as it was pictured in use and effects were seen in north Korea at one of there centrifuge plants, it just blew up and ironically we were sniffing the air looking for nuclear fission products under the guise of the attack being a nuclear accident or detonation

That would be the plasma weapons satellite most likely.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: mbkennel

Heh....QFT = "quoted for truth".
Salvatore Pais and Puthoff are more "that" QFT.

I wouldn't bet against Dirac (& hundreds of others) any more than I would bet against Einstein.

QFT is almost certainly right (predicting Higgs boson in a complex calculation in 1964), but calculations of effects can be extremely difficult in many cases and so human predictions thereof always have approximations and calculational techniques which might not always be the right regime....

Dunno if you saw it but the US army are currently investigating a metamaterial (as determined by Puthoff) which exhibits inertial mass reduction properties without requiring matter quantity reduction..
documents2.theblackvault.com...

OK, where's the data? where's the physics? It looks like the US Gov is putting up exactly $0 USD. Not a sign of high confidence.

a reply to: mbkennel

Dont ask me -no one can say where the CRADA worthy materials even came from.
The Army has the prerequisite skills and resources to identify bogus claims so why even entertain such an idea?

All we know is an alleged none terrestrially manufactured metamaterial was provided.
Sarfatti hypothesised why a metamaterial might facilitate the apparent "inertial mass reduction" in an AMA and I saved it in notepad.... so with this disclaimer:

THESE ARE JACK SARFATTI's words ...I do not understand them- never mind endorse them.

Quotes from Jack Sarfatti which I saved but now cant find a link:

"Reduce speed of light in metamaterial - reduce effective stiffness of space"

"The key idea is G/c^4 is the strength of the coupling of the mass energy-stress density tensor Tuv to the
gravitational field Guv in Einstein's field equation of 1915. G is Newton's gravity constant. c is the actual
speed of light at the field point where Einstein's local partial differential tensor equations apply.

The speed of light is determined by the electrical and magnetic properties of the medium as shown by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860s around the time of the American Civil War. The square of the speed of light is inversely proportional to the product of the electrical response of the material to incident electromagnetic fields "permittivity" with the
corresponding magnetic response "permeability".
In the case of quantum vacuum this response is primarily from virtual electron-positron pairs inside the vacuum according to Feynman-Schwinger '"Quantum Electro-Dynamics".

In materials real electric charges in motion contribute as well, but usually their corrections are small.
Their corrections are embodied in the "index of refraction" which is normally still not very different from
1. However, when we pump properly designed artificial layered (lattices within lattices) meta-materials with
special frequencies and wavelengths of both non-radiating "Tesla" near EM fields (including "scalar" polarization)
as well as radiating EM "far fields" of only two transverse polarizations, I predict that we will get
enormous "Frohlich coherent" resonances pushing the effective speed of light down close to zero
where light stands still in the meta-material. This makes the space-time in the material
very soft easy to mould like soft clay with tiny amounts of electromagnetic energy - that can be negative making "antigravity"."

Im just wondering if all those Crop Circles that came out in the 90,s came about by something being tested on a satellite.

a reply to: Jukiodone


"The key idea is G/c^4 is the strength of the coupling of the mass energy-stress density tensor Tuv to the
gravitational field Guv in Einstein's field equation of 1915. G is Newton's gravity constant. c is the actual
speed of light at the field point where Einstein's local partial differential tensor equations apply."

The first part is true. The second part "c is the actual speed of light at the field point where Einstein's local partial differential tensor equations apply" is a whole GIANT heap of physical assumption and suspect to me.

In regular physics that we know and love, or more often, just know, the 'c' is a fundamental constant of Nature which is all over the Standard Model physics, the set of physical fields and interactions in this Universe which appear to be universally true. (SM is ugly, there is not a nice clean principle behind it).

It happens that the EM field is one part of the Standard Model, and when you solve for the propagation of electromagnetic waves (or photons in QM) then yes they go at 'c'. When you solve for equations of motion for lower frequency waves in interaction witih physical media with charges, e.g. atoms with charged electrons, then you can get a lower speed of propagation of light, sure. Does that necessarily have something to do with gravitation? That's the physical hypothesis being asserted there and is HUGE and ought to be discussed as something heterodox.

I mean if it's correct, then a lens should weigh a bit less (or more) because the speed of light for optical frequencies is lower than free space. Does that happen? Doesn't seem like it.

It is certainly true that the origin of gravitation, i.e. how it directly arises from the elements of the Standard Model is not a fully solved problem, but that hypothesis is very suspect to me (though it would be cool). Because gravitation seems like a fundamental physical effect built into matter.

Consider this: what does the 'actual speed of light of at the field point where Einstein's local partial differential equations apply' mean? There isn't a single "speed of light" even if you consider it collectively. A lens of glass can have an index of refraction and lower speeds of light for optical frequencies (wavelengths much bigger than interatomic spacing differences so you can ride the waves of deforming electron clouds which results in the index of refraction). But if you consider very high frequencies like an x-ray or gamma-ray, what's the speed of light of that? It's about 'c', them photons go barreling straight through. And what about low frequency radio waves? Also about 'c'? And if we are dealing with static gravitational effects, won't it be the 'speed of light' as frequencies go to zero (ELF to electrostatics) that matter? And what happens with a conductor where there is no external ELF possible inside? Is that zero-gravity then? No, people don't float in a Faraday cage.

This assertion that the 'c' in the Einstein Field Equations can be simply transferred to the 'effective c' in collective motion electrodynamics of fields & materials is a huge stretch, and the consequences explained and why we don't see stuff flying around in Faraday cages or big transformers having anomalous gravitational effects, or why we don't see major astrophysical effects from this 'changed speed of light' in the complex plasmas which surround stars and galaxies.

a reply to: Jukiodone

My sister is a professor/doctor at a big Uni here in NY and they have a CRAZY optics/laser lab that via my sister friendship was able to get a very implanted tour and they were doing some pretty shocking power demos on desk top levels using fiber lasers


the beam weapon I was talking about is the one that was seen being used at dugway, oh and photo'd in use as well.

a reply to: Jukiodone
a reply to: mbkennel
No doubt Jack Sarfatti knows some legitimate physics, but at least his work on the pseudoscientific concept of Torsion fields (pseudoscience) has apparently earned him the dubious distinction of being one of the 21 pseudoscientific physicists listed in Wikipedia.

While Sarfatti is explaining the space-time gravitational-torsion field at the center of mass of the “flying saucer”, I'm still looking for evidence there is such a thing as a "flying saucer" aside from things like the Avrocar and its cousins.

Now that I've seen some examples of how badly eyewitnesses can misperceive things, it doesn't really make sense to me to try to create physics theories to explain what witnesses think they saw if they haven't documented it in some other way. I've been waiting my entire life to actually see a video showing a UFO defying the laws of physics, and when Chad Underwood said he made such a video, what did it show? Just an optical illusion, no physics defying acceleration, in fact no significant acceleration at all that I can detect.

I wish David Fravor had turned on his camera, it sounds like he saw something interesting, and I'd love to see a video of it. We might even be able to see if it does anything that two intersecting lasers might not be able to do. But his camera was a potato, and the later video by Chad Underwood of what is alleged by some to be the same object shows completely boring and non-interesting performance, in fact I don't see how a balloon can be ruled out as the UFO in Underwood's video.

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Im just wondering if all those Crop Circles that came out in the 90,s came about by something being tested on a satellite.

Did you intend to post that in a crop circle thread? I'm not following what it has to do with this thread.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's just my point as well. Navy certainly has high quality telescopes on ships, and no doubt there are cameras. It's essential for aircraft and ship identification, of course, just as it was in 1942.

But if any quality pictures were taken they weren't released. That's why I think this is a big psyop vs China re directed energy research. It's a way to signal 'we have something so think twice about invading Taiwan or Guam or Japan' without giving away any details sufficiently accurate to let them design countermeasures.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Jukiodone

the beam weapon I was talking about is the one that was seen being used at dugway, oh and photo'd in use as well.

I hear you mate.....MBK went into some detail about "it" on the previous page.
Some people take it as gospel truth.....others are a bit more sceptical.


...if you did want to project "capability beyond actual capability" to your adversaries- that is EXACTLY how to do it....a bit of scant evidence, some rumours repeated in massage parlours, maybe something they could pick up on a sensor..

Having TDL and Chris Mellon basically open the floodgates on everything from how SAP's work through to how the Navy employs "Scotty" from StarTrek - to which ex high ranking intelligentsia think its ET is..... as EVERYONE keeps pointing out....... totally unbelievable.


a reply to: mbkennel

Miss your analysis (although I completely disagree with your sentiment about this being an attempt at tricking the Chinese).
Hope you stick around

Did you intend to post that in a crop circle thread? I'm not following what it has to do with this thread.

Im just quizzing if a sat mounted beam weapon could do that to crops..Nothing WOOOOO intended.Ill leave that to the UFO crowd..

originally posted by: Blackfinger

Did you intend to post that in a crop circle thread? I'm not following what it has to do with this thread.

Im just quizzing if a sat mounted beam weapon could do that to crops..Nothing WOOOOO intended.Ill leave that to the UFO crowd..

Ummm.. i highly doubt a traditional beam weapon can do crop circles without damaging the plants.

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Jukiodone

the beam weapon I was talking about is the one that was seen being used at dugway, oh and photo'd in use as well.

I hear you mate.....MBK went into some detail about "it" on the previous page.
Some people take it as gospel truth.....others are a bit more sceptical.

I think the notion of producing high positron fluxes is exotic, but physically plausible and compatible generally with capabilities in atomic physics. Whether or not it can be "industrialized" or deployable or what the huge power source necessary would be---and also what the consequences of geomagnetic fields would be on e+e- beams (bend it like Beckham) etc which could make it a difficult to use capability. It would be a radiation weapon, and not something that could immediately blow something up with clear "kinetic" effect as the euphemism goes. You might make people angry that they have a few days to live.

The Jack Sarfatti stuff is awfully woo and his blog/discussion is like an acid trip of real physics and who knows what. You need a pedagogical derivation starting from what people know for sure already, clear novel hypotheses and clarity about what new physical proposals you are making and which you are not, the calculation of consequences and skeptical self-consistency checks with known physical observations and stuff which is explained by standard physics very well.

Einstein managed to do it.

...if you did want to project "capability beyond actual capability" to your adversaries- that is EXACTLY how to do it....a bit of scant evidence, some rumours repeated in massage parlours, maybe something they could pick up on a sensor..

Exactly!! As I call it, "Cognitive Stealth".

When do you want to do this to your adversaries? When you are behind and on the losing side of standard industrial military capability. WW2 Germany did the same thing, their individual units and technology were superior to Allies, but got crushed under the totality of US and USSR production with "good enough". They showed "wonder weapons" and even fielded the V1 and especially V2 which was an entire generation ahead of any Allied technology, but it was futile.

In the early Cold War period the USSR also did the same thing, exaggerating their capabilities with propaganda and confusion, and for the same reason, they knew they were well behind the finely tuned industrial & scientific output of the USA.

China today = USA in 1947. They can do stuff and build stuff that USA can't any more. UK lost its industrial might around 1947 as well, but fortunately the USA was its ally instead of its adversary.

The US Navy is behind, or close to being behind, net Chinese capabilities now in Pacific and the gap looks likely to increase. (China can devote 100% where US has global obligations) Yes, US has more experience with submarine and aircraft carrier operations but that's starting to change, and you go to war with mostly 25 year olds who all have to be trained anew each generation.


a reply to: mbkennel

Miss your analysis (although I completely disagree with your sentiment about this being an attempt at tricking the Chinese).
Hope you stick around


I stand by my interpretation of counter-China information warfare. People need to get in the heads of the institutions involved and look at their specific incentives and bureaucratic structures. In a nutshell, everyone wants to keep their jobs, and the people at top have a major strategic problem and set the tone and incentives. Hence few will respond to a general query of "what is this weird UAP phenomenon" that comes from some other office or department or major agency, especially if that response gives away anything to adversaries or risks their clearance or risks a contract or induces some Inspector General to anally probe the program. All downside, no upside.

originally posted by: Blackfinger

Did you intend to post that in a crop circle thread? I'm not following what it has to do with this thread.

Im just quizzing if a sat mounted beam weapon could do that to crops..Nothing WOOOOO intended.Ill leave that to the UFO crowd..

It would leave dead crops in a blob, not pretty artistic pictures of nicely bent down wheat. The effect would be from high dose X-rays and these would travel some distance from the positron annihilation. You'd see nothing at first and they would die over a few days.

a reply to: mbkennel
Aaahh thank you.Just wasnt sure of the capabilities..Wasnt there rumors of a Chinese "earthquake" as well?

originally posted by: Blackfinger
a reply to: mbkennel
Aaahh thank you.Just wasnt sure of the capabilities..Wasnt there rumors of a Chinese "earthquake" as well?

I dunno. I thought it was North Korea, but in the end it didn't work since the Norks have good warheads and ICBMs now. I suspect Putin helped them.

a reply to: mbkennel

You got me thinking. If you could use a laser to ionize the air between a incoming missile and a ship. You could then create a path to discharge high voltage to fry the missile. Basically a lightning gun.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: mbkennel

You got me thinking. If you could use a laser to ionize the air between a incoming missile and a ship. You could then create a path to discharge high voltage to fry the missile. Basically a lightning gun.

Where does the other side of the discharge go? I think consistent effects of directed energy against quality weaponry (i.e. fast-moving nation-state missile designed with this in mind, not a cheap drone) is going to be difficult, except potentially microwaves vs electronics. And that effect would be uncertain until the shooting actually starts and you might find the missile is quite appropriately shielded and functioning in a hostile EMP environment.

a reply to: mbkennel

Well I'm not talking about an emp. I'm thinking something like actual lightening. The army already tested a lightning gun about 10 years ago. I'm sure that video is somewhere on this site.