One of the claims I hear quite frequently from readers is the claim that empirical science has reverse engineered the "Propulsion" drives of the UFOs that fill our airspace, and the space around the planet in general. Col. Philip J. Corso, in his extremely detailed book, The Day After Roswell, about reverse engineering technology recovered from crashed or otherwise downed alien craft, outlines how the transistor, the laser, fiber optics and even the processing chip at the heart of the computer revolution were reversed engineered from debris of the Roswell crash. However, when it comes to "propulsion" drives, he admits that the method alien craft use to move freely remains a mystery.
I have long known that a UFO could land on the White House lawn, its occupants emerge, hand over the keys to the assembling security forces, and then board a second UFO and depart. The occupants could leave the original operating manual written in pictograms explaining the nature of the craft's operating system and our empirical nitwits would still end up scratching their heads, and other relevant parts of their bodies, looking for the key to the craft's ability to move.
Why do I know this?
Because empirical science has enshrined motion into laws that are as basic as its sterile conceptions of gravity, and as a result, it cannot see past its own assumptions to the reality of what makes the UFOs operate. And as soon as I say, "Laws of Motion" without genuflecting to the great Lord Newton, minds snap shut and reality dissolves into the empirical nonsense that the world uses as its bedrock of reality.
The particular law of motion that we are dealing with when it comes to the operation of UFOs is the law that dictates that objects at rest or in motion will stay at rest or in motion until a force acts to change the object's position. The first part of the law is ingrained in our very being from the time we attempt to take our first steps. We are motionless on the floor, and we have to get up on our feet to get from one place to another. Doing so requires a whole lot of energy, force, even when we master our balance. Once we get moving, and want to pick up what was there where we wanted to get, we find that it takes more force to pick the object up. Our entire early experience involves working against the force that causes objects to come to rest on the surface of the Earth.
To carry the first part of the law even further, when Newton codified what was already generally known at the time into law, he was doing so at the dawn of the industrial age. The industrial age employed machines to produce its fruits. It needed machines to transport the raw materials of production and it needed machines to transport the finished products of production. Thus, the entire industrial age rested mathematically on the first part of Newton's law, that everything is going to stay at rest until some force is used to overcome that rest. Energy, whether it came in the form of steam, or coal, or oil, or atomic, was the source of the force that was needed to overcome the objects at rest, and the energy was defined in terms of the work it could do, in its ability to overcome what was defined as the inertia of objects at rest on the surface of the Earth.
The second part of Newton's law was not generally known, but was the real reason that he collected and codified the other laws of motion. In order to prove his unprovable notion that gravity was proportional to mass, he needed some way to measure gravity's effect on the motion of the moon. He began by erroneously assuming that the moon and the Earth were both uniformly made up of the same particle which was uniformly distributed throughout both bodies. This would allow him to substitute volume for matter and therefore compute the amount of gravity the Earth and the moon produced, something that is otherwise impossible to do. (When the empirical elite realized this, they reversed Newton, taking what he sought to prove, the proportionality of gravity to matter, as fact, and then using orbits to compute the amount of matter in the planet, which ended us up with planets, like Jupiter, that are supposedly made out of gas.)
Once Newton fooled himself into believing that he could compute the amount of gravity in the Earth and the moon, he still needed some way to show how that gravity was affecting the orbit of the moon, which was just up there, a reflection of the moon circling around the Earth. The only way he could come up with a mathematical computation of the effect of the force is assume that the moon wouldn't be traveling around the Earth but for gravity. How would the moon be traveling but for gravity? Why, in a straight line, of course. The only way he could have a baseline from which to compute was to assume the course of the moon without gravity, and then compute the effect of gravity on that course.
Thus, he concluded that the moon would be traveling in a straight line but for the fact that gravity was causing it to travel in a circular orbit. But he had no basis for saying that the moon would travel in a straight line. When empirical science has no basis for its statements, it simply codifies them into law. Because an object would continue in motion unless a force acted on it to change that motion, the moon had to be traveling in a straight line but for the force of gravity because the force of gravity was acting to divert that straight line motion. Newton tacked this little piece of sophistry onto the objects at rest remain at rest portion of the law because that was so self-evident to everyone that it was simply unquestionable. The opposite, that an object in motion stays in motion, also appears obvious.
So long, that is, that no one bothers to ask the basic question, Why is the object in motion in the first place?
What Newton did in proving that gravity was a property, like color, hardness and weight, effectively assuming away gravity, is to assume away the cause of motion in space. He eliminated entirely the question of the force that causes motion because the answer to that question is not a mathematical equation, but rather a mechanical explanation. Something that isn't a mathematical equation is not empirical, and thus is simply not. We can mathematically describe fuel consumption, but we have no terminology to describe the mechanical process of something that is undergoing the process of combustion. We can mathematically describe how much heat a compressor removes from a refrigerator, but we have no terminology to describe what precisely is going on in the atoms of air and compressant.
Empirical science is not about explaining anything. It is about codifying laws that limit reality so that the confined reality can be expressed in equations that will produce more laws.
So, how does this affect the motion of UFOs?
Newton's laws do not describe reality because they ignore a physical description of the force that is causing objects to remain motionless on the surface of the Earth or to move in orbits around the sun and the planets. Any law that ignores the nature of force is a mindless meme, a mental construct designed to stop thinking. We can easily revise Newton's laws so that they reflect reality simply by going into the empiricist's dream world, the billiard parlor.
Here we find balls at rest on the table. When we hit the balls, they start to move, telling us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and that it takes force to move the objects from their positions at rest on the table. The problem is, the balls are not motionless before we hit them. They are in motion in a number of directions, first at up to a thousand miles an hour with the surface of the Earth, then at over sixty thousand miles an hour with the planet as it orbits the sun, then at a little over three hundred miles an hour as the sun rotates around the center of the galaxy, and then at whatever motion the galaxy as a whole is moving in.
What we think is at rest is really in motion.
On the other hand, what we think is in motion, is actually at rest. When we look at the planets, they are all moving at different speeds, with the speeds of each diminishing with its distance from the sun. When we look at the moons orbiting the planets, they are also moving at different speeds. In addition, all the planets and the moons, and even the suns, are in motion around their axes. When we look at objects in space, we see a hodgepodge of motion, motion, motion.
But unlike the billiard balls, which we thought were motionless on the top of the billiard table, but which were actually in motion, the planets, which look like they are in motion, are actually at rest.
At rest with what?
At rest with the forces that are acting upon them. The motion that the planets and the billiard balls have in common is that they are both in motion, but they are at rest, and what they are at rest with is the forces that are acting upon them.
The universal reality of motion is that objects come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them. Our job is to discover what those forces are, describe them mechanically, then devise technology that can utilize them.
When an object is resting on the ground, it will require force to move the object, but it will require force to move the object because the force that is holding the object to the ground has to be overcome. Empirical science does not look at the force that is holding the object to the ground, it looks at the force that it takes to lift the object. Because empirical science considers the force that holds the object to the ground to be a property, like color or hardness, it defines that property as weight. It incorporates the force holding the object to the ground into the object itself, calling it the weight of the object and then defines the force required to move the object in terms of the force it takes to move that weight.
Thus, when downed UFOs were examined for their means of motion, empirical science was, and remains blind to the fact that the UFOs do not themselves have intrinsic weight, that they obtain their weight from the gravitational field of the Earth. Because all they see is the weight of the UFO, and because they know that it requires force to move weight, they look within the UFO for the force that would cause them to move their weight against the Earth's gravity.
In short, they are looking for a propulsion system, and that is why I know that anyone that talks about having reverse engineered the propulsion system of UFOs is spewing falsehoods. The need for propulsion systems is based on our faulty Newtonian belief that gravity is an immutable property, that the Earth actually has weight, that objects on the surface of the Earth have a weight independent of the Earth, and that this weight, to be moved, needs force to move it.
The reality of the situation is, Archimedes was incorporating the empirical error into his famous piece of mindless blather when he said, "Give me a place to stand and I will move the world." The reality of the situation is, remove the forces with which the world is at rest with, and I or anyone else can move it with a feather because the feather will be the only force acting upon the world.
The reality is, remove the force holding the rock to the surface of the Earth, and the rock will be weightless.
UFOs do not have propulsion drives, at least in the sense of something that produces a force that will allow them to move their "weight" through the atmosphere at measured speeds and defined courses, UFOs simply eliminate the effect of the force that causes objects to fall and in doing so, come to rest with respect to a whole new set of forces, or to no forces at all.
Under these circumstances, they take little or no force to move.
How they might accomplish this will be the subject of next week's column.
Peter Bros is the author of the 9 volume Copernican Series and is President of The Far Museum of Dallas, an actual history museum, which will house its collection of 50,000 rare Eastern Mediterranean manuscripts and artifacts together with actual history displays and tours in a full-sized replica of the Egyptian Temple at Dendera to be built in the Dallas Ft. Worth area. Email:peterbros@therealskeptic.com