Category Archives: History

Energy, History, Sailing, Security

Tic Tac Tech: Why Some Drone Paths Are More Likely Than Gravitic Propulsion

3 Comments

There seems to be endless debate about exotic propulsion in the Livelsberger case, but let’s not lose focus on what’s most probable: the 2004 Tic Tac incidents exposed advanced electromagnetic and plasma technology rather than gravity manipulation.

Consider that Orde Wingate didn’t break the laws of warfare when his men mysteriously appeared suddenly deep in enemy territory, but he certainly leveraged disinformation and propaganda to throw off observers. He was always challenging what was actually possible, as well as what people perceived.

Wingate’s fleet of Waco “Hadrian” Gliders in 1944 were deployed to do the “impossible” in Operation Thursday.

We’re now talking modern astrophysics here instead of early “long lines” flight tech of WWII, but operators always look at technology the same – an interesting puzzle that can be solved in novel ways.

To start, timing can be a telling thread to pull. The 2004 observations of unidentified flying craft were quickly followed by Fontana’s 2005 paper discussing both gravitational and electromagnetic approaches. That seems notable, yet rarely noted. In fact, electromagnetic technology showed consistent progression in the decades since, while gravitic proposalsn remained purely theoretical. Then came clear advancement in plasma physics, electromagnetic field generation, and materials science, while again gravitational manipulation showed no similar development chain.

Following that thread there were three capabilities in reports that stood out as possible breakthroughs: instant acceleration, silent supersonic travel, and seamless air-to-water transition. The crucial question now should be which technical approaches require the least impossible leap from existing engineering. Not theoretical; actual engineering.

Let’s look at instant acceleration without visible exhaust, not unlike the noise from Tesla about a car that would go 0-60 in one second. A gravitic drive would require energy densities comparable to astronomical objects, without incremental steps or partial success possible. Plasma field technology however offers a visible development path: from basic electromagnetic experiments to increasingly sophisticated field manipulation. Anyone who’s done smooth and fast night maritime operations knows how energy moves through water. The plasma field manipulation follows similar principles of working with the medium, not trying to defy it.

Even more clear in this direction is an absence of sonic booms. Gravitational manipulation would require warping space-time itself, as an all-or-nothing proposition requiring physics we have no known skill with. Electromagnetic shockwave control, however? We trace the rising development from theoretical papers through wind tunnel tests to programs like the very real X-59. Each step clearly built on proven technology, like how SDV operations evolved from basic underwater movements to sophisticated multi-domain capability.

The air-to-water transition might be the most revealing of all, which I have to say as “flyingpenguin”. A gravitic drive would need to manipulate fundamental forces. The required energy and infrastructure would be impossible to hide. But advanced materials and electromagnetic field manipulation? That’s like the difference between trying to eliminate waterline to minimize friction versus learning to work with it the way special operations have refined sea-land-air insertion techniques over decades.

The real distinction thus isn’t found yet in any single surprise technology breaking out. Rather we have a wide range of observable complementary engineering and development paths:

  • Incremental advances in plasma physics
  • Growing electromagnetic field control capabilities
  • Progressive materials science breakthroughs
  • Evolving power storage and management systems
  • Step-by-step sensor and control improvements

This list of improbable gains by 2004 had established clear development trajectories. Each advance built on previous work, used existing infrastructure, and required expertise we could actually develop. Like going back to Wingate’s brilliant innovations, they pushed the boundaries of what was possible without requiring impossible leaps.

The infrastructure needed for electromagnetic/plasma technology already exists and has been expanding with known specialized manufacturing, high-energy physics labs, and materials science facilities. We can trace the growth through public research, corporate investment, and observable testing programs.

In contrast, there are no meaningful gravity manipulation facilities, even though we expect them to be impossible to hide because of energy concentrations visible from space. Electromagnetic field manipulation works at scales we can actually achieve. Current research pushes these boundaries incrementally, like how modern maritime operations are developing sophisticated trans-medium capabilities. But gravity manipulation? The energy required literally would be astronomical.

This is why focusing on electromagnetic and plasma technology is plausible versus gravitational speculation. Not because of being impressive, given controlling gravity would certainly be revolutionary. But because we trace evolution and incremental skill mastery as reliable rather than expect operators to make revolutionary leaps only to witness disaster.

Everyone “knew” you couldn’t sustain operations deep behind enemy lines in impenetrable jungle. The physics of supply chains, the mechanics of force projection, the realities of hostile terrain all made it “impossible.” And Wingate didn’t break these rules to succeed. He mastered knowledge of them so completely he turned the Japanese own supply infrastructure into his support network, operating where they thought no force could survive.

The same principle applies for investigators of unbelievable craft. The path forward doesn’t have evidence of some gravitic shortcut around physics, some unlocked open backdoor to rescue the hostages we can credit to alien help. It’s in the routines that develop deep mastery of electromagnetic and plasma dynamics that we can turn fundamental forces to our advantage in ways others (who debate when a goose will lay the golden egg) consider impossible. The developmental path is not just more likely; it’s more interesting, because it shows us what’s really possible when we stop looking for silver bullet magic and keep pushing the boundaries of what we actually understand.

History, Security

From Oct 7 Massacre to Social Media Manhunt: Iran’s New Digital Terror Front

Leave a comment

A recent incident involving an IDF soldier in Brazil highlights how modern warfare’s greatest threats often come not from weapons, but from smartphones. A October 7 terror survivor became a target not on the battlefield, but through social media posts. He was forced to flee Brazil after Hezbollah operatives triggered a war crimes investigation against him.

The unnamed soldier was a survivor of the Hamas attack on the Nova festival in 2023, part of the terror organization’s massive onslaught on the south in which terrorists killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 hostages, starting the ongoing war in Gaza.

More than 360 of the victims were murdered at the music festival.

The soldier survived the attack by running for many kilometers until he reached safety, narrowly dodging Hamas gunfire multiple times on the way.

He is now being investigated in Brazil under suspicion that he was involved “in the destruction of a residential building in the Gaza Strip while using explosives outside of combat” in November, the Brazilian Metrópoles news outlet reported.

Where’s Golda Meir when you need her? In 1972, she understood that military discipline meant total discipline – not just in combat, but in every aspect of operations. Today, that principle faces its greatest test in an arena she never had to consider: social media.

On the flip side consider also the modern history of investigations, those who hunted for social presence in order to bring justice. The Wiesenthal Center’s methodology represented truth: meticulously documenting specific war crimes, gathering concrete evidence of atrocities, and pursuing the actual perpetrators who ordered mass murder. They worked to hold accountable those who had turned peaceful villages into killing fields, while their neighbors pretended not to notice and in many cases this detailed work is far from over.

Just ask how so many Austrian towns to this day have hidden mass graves right nearby the nicest homes.

Today’s social media surveillance keyboard warriors are perverting that hard-fought noble mission into hasty and sloppy political warfare with dubious ethical foundations.

The Belgium-based Hind Rajab Foundation, formed in September 2023, is a perfect example. Led by Dyab Abou Jahjah, he openly boasts of his Hezbollah training and has celebrated the October 7 slaughter of civilians as “resistance.” A Hezbollah-trained operative leading a “human rights” organization? That tells you everything about their mission. Also their secretary, Kareim Hassoun, praised the mass murder of festival-goers as how Palestinians should define “returning home.” This genocidal mentality is clearly no Wiesenthal Center pursuing real justice – it’s allegedly a political front operation for extemists linked to terror groups who are weaponizing international legal systems against soldiers.

What then? In professional military forces there’s typically zero tolerance for social media use during deployment: No smartphones, no sensor sharing, no posts, no digital footprint. This isn’t arbitrary – it’s a critical security measure that protects both operational security and personnel safety.

A 1981 battle in the Seychelles offers an ironic historical lesson about erasing military traces. After their failed coup, white nationalist mercenaries backed by South Africa and tacitly supported by Reagan’s administration were officially “sentenced to death.” In reality, this theatrical sentencing was just leverage – millions in US taxpayer funds were then used to make the whole incident disappear. The mercenaries ended up lounging poolside, their operation’s failures buried under money and political dealmaking.

Mercenaries hired for Ronald Reagan to overthrow an Indian Ocean island government were quickly captured and officially sentenced to death, which in reality meant lounging on a tropical beach thanks to U.S. taxpayers. Source: 17316220 Shutterstock

The parallel to today’s social media reality is stark. In 1981, Ronald Reagan could spend millions to make some of his embarrassing military incidents vanish. Today, no amount of money probably can erase a soldier’s digital footprint once it’s been captured by groups like the Hind Rajab Foundation. Their sprawling surveillance operation doesn’t need complex international backing – they just need to look at social media posts that never get truly deleted.

The Hind Rajab Foundation’s surveillance methodology is straightforward: As a branch of the March 30 Movement that campaigns for “genocide recognition” (while their leadership celebrates actual mass murder of civilians) they systematically monitor social media to capture content posted by IDF personnel inside and out of operations.

In November 2024 alone, they demanded the International Criminal Court issue arrest warrants for 1,000 IDF soldiers based on 8,000 pieces of “evidence” – mostly social media posts harvested from soldiers they scraped online. They’ve targeted IDF personnel on vacation in Brazil, the Netherlands, and the UAE, transforming any and all social presence of any soldier anywhere doing anything into expensive legal jeopardy.

The IDF’s response to the Brazil incident is hard to believe, and perhaps an indicator of more unaccebtable Netanyahu hubris about soldiers’ lives. Warning about social media posts after the fact, while necessary, is reactive not preventive. What’s needed is a fundamental shift in training and culture to prevent unnecessary harm.

Every post, every photo, every location check-in becomes a potential liability to Iranian networks of terror groups. It’s not just about operational security anymore – it’s about ensuring soldiers can safely travel during and after active duty without complex legal entanglements related to their service.

And everyone in the world should be watching. This isn’t just an Israeli issue, it’s a lesson for all modern armed forces facing extremist keyboards. In an age where digital footprints can be weaponized, operational security must evolve beyond traditional physical and communications security to encompass comprehensive digital hygiene. Can every soldier take their weapon completely apart with zero visibility and reassemble it ready to use safely… if it’s a smartphone?

The Israeli Foreign Ministry’s statement about “anti-Israeli elements” exploiting social media posts, while accurate, misses the larger point. The solution isn’t just to warn soldiers about potential enemy exploitation of any online presence and posts. It’s to establish and enforce a zero-tolerance policy for social media use during any active operations.

An organization led by someone who celebrated the October 7 terror attacks as his view of “resistance” can now successfully trigger international investigations using soldiers’ own posts. So one of the best defenses is hopefully more obvious now, leaving minimal digital trail to exploit.

The security imperative is clear: soldiers need better operations discipline not to hide crimes, but to protect themselves from coordinated political warfare and terror campaigns masquerading as justice.

The line between Wiesenthal’s relentless pursuit of documented mass murderers and today’s shameless weaponization of social media against any random soldiers couldn’t be clearer. And even more fundamentally, soldiers need to be professional to help establish their case for honest professionalism. Military discipline is needed in any battlefield.

History, Sailing, Security

Microsoft’s Exploitation Gambit: An AI-Historical Warning

1 Comment

Executive summary: Corporate rhetoric about innovation and leadership often masks the unpalatable reality of exploitation and extraction. Microsoft’s new AI manifesto, with its careful political positioning and woefully selective historical narrative, exemplifies this troubling pattern – trading safety for market advantage that has historical precedents with catastrophic outcomes.

A U.S. Navy Blimp crashed in Daly City 1944 with nobody on board. Speculation abounds to this day about the two men who disappeared from it.

When the Hindenburg burst into flames in 1937, it marked another era built on hubris – a belief that technological advancement could outrun safety concerns. Microsoft’s recent manifesto on AI leadership eerily echoes this same dangerous confidence, presenting a sanitized version of both American technological history and their own corporate record.

Brad Smith’s Failure at History

The company’s vision statement posted under Brad Smith’s name reads like a saccharin a-historical fiction, painting a rosy picture of American technological development that far too conveniently forgets death and destruction of weakly regulated barons. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire’s 146 victims, the horrific conditions exposed in “The Jungle,” and the long struggle for basic worker protections weren’t exceptions. And selective amnesia by those who profit from ignoring the past isn’t accidental – it’s a strategic attempt to hide the human costs of rapid technological deployment that lacked the most basic safeguards.

Just as the disastrously mis-managed private American railroads of the 19th century built empires on fraud (government handouts while preaching free-market rhetoric) that left taxpayers holding the fallout with no trains in sight, Microsoft now positions itself as a champion of private sector innovation while seeking public funding and protection. Their carefully crafted narrative about “American AI leadership” deliberately obscures how the technology sector actually achieved its “success” – through massive public investment, particularly in military applications for “intelligence” like the billion-dollar-per-year IGLOO WHITE program during the Vietnam War.

Real History, Real Microsoft Patterns

The corporate-driven PR of historical revisionism becomes even more troubling when we examine Microsoft’s awful and immoral business track record. The company that now promises to be a responsible steward of AI technology has consistently prioritized corporate profits over human welfare. Bill Gates’ lack of any concern at all for “virus” risks in his takeover of the personal computer world, delivering billions of disasters and causing world-wide outages, is somehow supposed to be forgotten because he took the money and announced he cares about malaria now? While ignoring basic consumer safety, Microsoft also pioneered a “permatemp” system in the 1990s for a two-tier workforce where thousands of “temporary” workers had to do the work of full-time employees yet without benefits or job security. Even after paying a piddling $97 million to settle lawsuits, they arrogantly shifted to more sophisticated forms of worker exploitation through contracting firms.

As technology evolved, so did Microsoft’s methods of avoiding responsibility. Content moderators exposed to traumatic material, game testers working in precarious conditions, and data center workers denied basic benefits – all while the company’s profits soared unethically. Now, in the AI era, they’ve taken an even more ominous turn by literally dismantling ethical AI oversight teams (because they raised objections) precisely when such oversight is most crucial.

New Avenues for Exploitation

The parallels to past technological disasters are stark. Just as the Grover Shoe Factory’s boiler explosion revealed the costs of prioritizing production over safety, Microsoft’s aggressive push into AI while eliminating ethical oversight should raise alarming questions. This is like removing the brakes on a car when you install a far more powerful engine. Their new AI manifesto, filled with flattery for coming White House occupants using veiled requests for deregulation, reads less like a vision for responsible innovation and more like a corporate attempt to avoid accountability… for when they inevitably burn up their balloon.

Consider the track record:

  • Pioneered abusive labor practices in tech
  • Consistently fought against worker organizing efforts
  • Used contractor firms to obscure poor working conditions
  • Fired ethical AI researchers as they accelerate AI

Smith’s manifesto, with carefully crafted appeals to American technological leadership and warnings about Chinese competition, follows this as a familiar pattern. It’s the same strategy railroad companies used to secure land grants, that oil companies used to bypass laws, that steel companies used to avoid safety regulations, and that modern tech giants use to maintain their monopolies.

Tea Pot Dome May Come Again

For anyone considering entrusting their future to Microsoft’s AI vision, the message from history is clear: this is a company that has repeatedly chosen corporate convenience over human welfare. Their elimination of ethical oversight while rapidly deploying AI technology isn’t just a little concerning – it’s intentionally dangerous. Like boarding a hydrogen-filled zeppelin, the risks aren’t immediately visible but are nonetheless catastrophic.

The manifesto’s emphasis on “private sector leadership” and deregulation, combined with their historic exploitative practice of using contractor firms to avoid responsibility, suggests their AI future will repeat the worst patterns of industrial history. Their calls for “pragmatic” export controls and warnings about Chinese competition are less about national security and more about seeking unjust tariffs (e.g. Facebook’s campaign to ban competitor TikTok) and securing corporate benefits while avoiding oversight.

Americans never seem to talk about Tea Pot Dome when calling Big Data new “oil”. In fact data is nothing like oil, and yet Big Tech antics are just like Tea Pot Dome: private exploitation of public resources, use of national security as justification, and corruption of oversight processes.

As we stand at the threshold of the AI era, Microsoft’s manifesto should be read not as a vision statement but as them cooking and eating the AI canary in broad daylight. Their selective reading of history, combined with their own troubling track record, suggests we’re witnessing the trumpeted call for a new chapter in corporate exploitation – one where AI technology serves as both the vehicle and the excuse for avoiding responsibility.

Microsoft is sacrificing something (ethical oversight, worker protections) for perceived strategic advantage, just as historical robber barons sacrificed safety and worker welfare for profit.

The question isn’t whether Microsoft can lead in AI development by pouring billions into their race to monopolize it and spit out even their own workers as a lesser caste – it’s whether we can afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing companies to prioritize speed and profit over human welfare and safety. History’s judgment of such choices has always been harsh, and in the AI era, the stakes are even higher.

One theory about the Navy L-8 crash in 1944 is “new technology, being tested to detect U-boats, emitted dangerous and poorly shielded microwaves that overpowered the crew, causing them to fall out of the cabin”.
Era Historical Pattern Microsoft’s Echo Historical Consequence
Railroad Era Railroad barons securing land grants while preaching free market values Seeking public AI funding while claiming private sector leadership Taxpayers left with failed infrastructure and mounting costs
Industrial Safety Triangle Shirtwaist Factory ignoring basic safety measures Dismantling AI ethics teams during rapid AI deployment Catastrophic human cost from prioritizing speed over safety
Labor Rights Factory owners using contractor systems to avoid responsibility Permatemp system and modern contractor exploitation Workers denied benefits while doing essential work
Monopoly Power Standard Oil’s predatory practices and regulatory capture Aggressive AI market behavior and lobbying for deregulation Concentration of power through regulatory evasion
Security Theater Tea Pot Dome scandal disguised as national security Using China competition narrative to justify monopolistic practices Public interest sacrificed for private gain
Energy, History, Security

Gravitic Drones From China: Classic Counterintelligence Pattern in Livelsberger Case

25 Comments

The gravity propulsion claims in Matthew Livelsberger’s communications merit separate analysis from his testimony about civilian casualties in Afghanistan. This distinction is crucial not only for evaluating his evidence of war crimes but also for understanding current drone operations security.

Claims about gravity control propulsion systems require extraordinary scrutiny because they don’t just suggest advanced engineering – they imply a fundamental revolution in physics that lacks the observable development patterns, infrastructure requirements, and technology supply chains that accompany all major physics breakthroughs. This isn’t merely unlikely; it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific advancement works.

Our current understanding of gravity comes from Einstein’s General Relativity, one of the most thoroughly tested theories in history. Any gravity control system would require either overturning General Relativity, finding fundamental physical mechanisms that have left no trace in any experimental data or theoretical frameworks despite decades of careful measurement and testing, or developing engineering capabilities that bridge enormous theoretical gaps. The closest historical research programs, like the Air Force’s gravity research in the 1950s-70s, produced valuable theoretical work on conventional gravitational effects (like Kerr’s discoveries about rotating masses) but found no pathway to gravity control.

Modern attempts to unify gravity with quantum mechanics – arguably the largest effort in theoretical physics – still struggle with basic questions about gravity’s nature. The idea that classified military research has solved these fundamental questions while leaving no trace in material supply chains, engineering education, or infrastructure development contradicts all historical patterns of technological advancement.

Even if we entertained the possibility of a gravity control breakthrough, implementing it would require a massive scientific and engineering infrastructure, supply chains for exotic materials and components, testing facilities and programs, training programs for operators and maintenance personnel, and fundamental changes to aerospace engineering education. The scale of such an enterprise would be impossible to completely hide.

For comparison, when the Manhattan Project developed nuclear weapons, despite wartime secrecy, thousands of physicists knew the theoretical possibility, the broader scientific community understood the underlying principles, and multiple nations were pursuing similar research. No comparable foundation exists for gravity control technology.

This makes gravity propulsion claims particularly useful for very targeted counterintelligence purposes. They’re superficially plausible to non-experts yet effectively impossible to disprove (unlike claims about conventional technology). They map onto existing UFO and advanced technology beliefs, and they’re so extraordinary that they undermine the credibility of any associated claims. This pattern appears repeatedly in intelligence history. The now famous U-2 program long ago benefited from UFO speculation when stealth technology development was obscured by absurd claims. Advanced drone programs often attract similar technological mythology for similar reasons.

The U-2 case is particularly instructive because it shows how counterintelligence operations deliberately introduced fantastic elements to protect real classified technology. When civilian pilots reported strange aircraft at impossible altitudes, the Air Force would provide multiple, often contradictory explanations ranging from weather balloons to hints of more exotic possibilities. This created a ‘noise floor’ of speculation that effectively discredited legitimate observers by associating their accurate observations with increasingly outlandish claims.

This pattern of introducing fantastic elements to discredit legitimate observers has claimed numerous whistleblowers before Livelsberger. WWII British Naval Intelligence under Godfrey and Fleming used a “double cross system” – varying fake details were inserted into real documents about convoys to detect which German spies were active in specific regions, based on which version of the false information showed up in intercepted communications. In the 1990s, several Gulf War veterans who raised concerns about chemical weapons exposure found their legitimate medical complaints becoming entangled with increasingly exotic theories about secret weapons testing.

Livelsberger’s case follows a well documented progression. His detailed, verifiable testimony about drone strikes and civilian casualties has become intermixed with gravity drive claims in a way that mirrors these historical cases. The key difference is that modern counterintelligence operations maybe have become sophisticated at exploiting integrity vulnerabilties — using combat trauma such as TBI to accelerate a process of narrative contamination. While previous cases often relied on external social pressure and deliberate contradiction to introduce doubt, Livelsberger’s communications suggest a more insidious approach that leverages mental harm and psychological suffering to blur the line between direct observation and introduced fantasy.

This vulnerability-based targeting becomes particularly concerning when we consider the timeline of Livelsberger’s service. His record suggests someone whose moral objections to civilian casualties made him a potential risk for whistleblowing. The introduction of exotic technical elements into his narrative may represent a calculated attempt to force him out of operations through an early retirement on disability status – a modern evolution of old counterintelligence tactics that exploit rather than surveil potential whistleblowers.

If this was indeed the strategy, it backfired tragically. Rather than quietly accepting a glass ceiling leading to medical discharge, Livelsberger appears to have recognized attempted interference and manipulation. His final communications suggest someone who, despite or perhaps because of his combat trauma, maintained enough clarity to provide separate claims. He gave both direct observations of war crimes, as well as exotic claims he was being fed. His choice of suicide while explicitly providing testimony about civilian casualties regardless of the gravity drives suggests a determined effort to ensure his credible core evidence wouldn’t be lost under plausibility of technological revolution.

Meanwhile, modern drone operations face genuine security challenges around detection and tracking capabilities, counter-drone technologies, command and control security, autonomous systems limitations, international airspace regulations, and civilian oversight mechanisms. These real operational concerns, and likely exploits, require serious analysis. Claims about gravity propulsion not only distract from actual drone advanced capabilities but also from legitimate questions about autonomous systems, civilian oversight, and accountability in targeted strikes.

For the national security community, separating these narratives is crucial because Livelsberger’s testimony about civilian casualties in Afghanistan aligns with UN ground investigations, Brown University casualty data, known changes in ROE and reporting requirements, and documented operational patterns. His descriptions of drone operations reflect standard military procedures, known technical capabilities, established command structures, and verifiable policy changes. The gravity propulsion claims, by contrast, show classic signs of introduced disinformation through physically impossible capabilities, absence of supporting infrastructure, and violation of known scientific principles.

Understanding how gravity propulsion claims function as interference helps clarify both the credibility of Livelsberger’s core testimony and the ongoing challenges in drone operations security. It demonstrates why extraordinary claims about breakthrough technologies should be evaluated against the required scientific infrastructure, the broader research community’s knowledge, the physical principles involved, and the historical patterns of similar claims.

When evaluating whistleblower testimony about classified programs, distinguishing between operational reality and introduced disinformation remains essential. Claims that require overturning fundamental physics deserve particular skepticism, especially when they appear alongside more credible testimony about conventional operations and policy violations. This separation allows proper attention to both the serious evidence of civilian casualties and the real technical and ethical challenges in current drone operations – without being diverted by speculation about impossible technologies.

References:

  • Experimental evidence: None exists demonstrating controlled modification of gravitational fields beyond natural mass-energy effects
  • Theoretical framework: Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity – our most thoroughly tested theory of gravity – demonstrates that gravity is not a force that can be “canceled” but rather the curvature of spacetime itself caused by mass-energy
  • Mathematical proof: Forward, R.L. (1963). “Guidelines to Antigravity,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 31, pp. 166-170. Mathematical demonstration that any practical antigravity device would violate fundamental laws of energy conservation.
  • Engineering analysis: Bertolami, O., & Pedro, F.G. (2005). “Gravity Control Propulsion: Towards a General Relativistic Approach.” Instituto Superior Técnico, Departamento de Física, Lisboa, Portugal.

    Understanding our calculation as the energy that must be spent to control a region of space-time, leads to a radically different conclusion. From this point of view, gravity manipulation is an essentially unfruitful process for propulsion purposes.

  • Engineering analysis: Dröscher & Hauser (2009). “Gravitational Field Propulsion“, cites Tajmar’s definitive conclusion:

    Even if modified gravitational laws existed, their usage for space propulsion is negligible… nothing has been uncovered to allow any action-at a-distance force field for space propulsion in interplanetary or interstellar space.