Dear John, thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response.
1) I did not call your referenced article “rubbish.” I’m surprised that you had that impression. That would be so unlike me. I read the article and summarized its main finding that FTL travel was not possible due to immense amounts of mass that “negative energy” requires for faster than light speeds. The article you’ve sent was actually a highly learned counterargument to FTL. Since I assume that you believe FTL is probable, I’m not sure why you referred me to that article. Perhaps I’ve misread the article.
2) The NASA article you’ve referred me to is about traveling in the solar system through shorter distances by making use of Lagrange points. It has nothing to do with FTL travel or any “corridors in the fabric of space/time.” But perhaps I’ve again misread the article.
3) We will always not know what we do not know. That goes without saying. But it’s not fair to counter anyone by declaring “Wait! There are always things that we do not know…” when the other person makes a logical argument based on current evidence. On the other hand, the other person should also be ready to change his position if the other party forwards a better argument based on better evidence. That’s the minimum goodwill required for any civilized discussion. If that kind of “goodwill to accept the better argument and evidence” is not there, there is no point in discussing anything since it’d be a waste of time from the very start.
4) Thanks for your “38 Reasons” article. I can appreciate the research and effort that went into it. I read it with great interest.
a. The first “reason” mentions the possibility of invisibility on the basis of Hollywood movies and asks the question whether it could be possible. I did not find anything there that could be accepted as a “reason.” It’s speculation.
b. Your second reason again refers to NASA’s “Lagrange point” article which has nothing to do with “portals to other worlds.” My understanding is, the article talks about exquisite timing to catch the planetary line-up to yield minimum travel distances in space. I don’t believe it has anything to do with changes in “the fabric of space/time.” The phrase “fabric of space/time” brings to mind Einstein’s theory of General Relativity. I don’t believe the article has anything to do with general relativity.
c. Third topic — “antigravity”? I have no idea what that is. Today the physicists are not even sure what “gravity” is all about, let alone “antigravity.” No, it’s not taboo to talk about it but I have no idea what “antigravity” is. So that’s why I don’t feel personally qualified to talk about it.
d. “Warp drive”… again the only reference is to Hollywood products. Whatever I say on this topic would be a movie review and not a scientific discussion, and I say this as a Star Trek fan.
e. I do believe in some forms of ESP and “distant reading” plus “lucid dreaming.” I’ve met yogis with such powers and I personally had a few such experiences myself. But I cannot see what such uniquely personal psychic phenomena have to do with UFOs, aliens, or extraterrestrial events.
f. As to the U.S. government’s role in all this, I share your ambivalence. But I’m not surprised by their involvement. Imagine you developing some really super-secret far-out-tech stuff. Wouldn’t you like to take the lead in controlling the narrative/story about its development and results? Wouldn’t you like to create the impression that there “might be” some “extraterrestrial involvement” in it since that would be tantamount to saying to your competitors: “don’t worry about replicating the results since you can’t, due to the unworldly nature of this gadget”? Wouldn’t that be a perfect cover story to cloak the totally explainable worldly origins of UFOs? Just saying…
Have a great day in good health and happiness.
