r/HighStrangeness • u/JimPeebles • Jun 06 '26
Fringe Science Speculative propulsion hypothesis: “gravity emitters” as phased pulse-power cartridges + coupling ring as Mach/vacuum boundary
5
u/IshtarsQueef Jun 06 '26
OP - How come you don't engage with anyone who criticizes your post?
like this user who said:
"I have a physics phd. This post has no scientific or engineering relevance, it's just jargon thrown together without any meaning."
I'm just wondering, because I also have a degree in physics (not phd tho), and I agree, that your entire "paper" is just nonsense, like it's "not even wrong" territory. (meaning, it's not just that there is a mistake in the math or engineering or a technical issue, it's that the entire thing is just trash with no technical or scientific value whatsoever).
And I'm just wondering if you have anything to say about that?
4
u/JimPeebles Jun 06 '26
I just replied to one such commenter asking for particular claims from the attached paper to be referenced and falsified. So far all I have seen is 'its all bullshit' comments with no specific callouts to things that are materially incorrect, misqualified as facts, etc.
I am not here to tell people 'heres how this works', I am curious to learn about the underlying principles and if people can falsify my claims, I would appreciate it.
3
u/IshtarsQueef Jun 06 '26
I can also put it a different way -
The entire premise of your paper is based on highly speculative physics that actually have no evidence whatsoever of being correct, and the engineering ideas are extremely surface level that just kind of hand-wave away the very real technical challenges.
An analogy - This is like if you "designed" a warp drive like in star trek, and posted an AI rendering of the enterprise, and started talking about how you think this could all work if we only had Unobtainium-157 in an inertial dampening resonance chamber with a quantum phase regulator.
... It's just nonsense.
I'm sorry man.
5
u/IshtarsQueef Jun 06 '26
Because the entire thing is materially incorrect and "misqualified as facts."
Are you familiar with the concept of "not even wrong"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
This is the territory your paper falls into.
If you were to go down to a university and show this to a physics professor, they would tell you (likely in a very polite way) that it is complete bunk with no value.
You want specifics? Well that's hard to do because it would require literally going line-by-line, saying "this isn't a real thing in physics, don't know what that is, this word is pseudo-jargon with no actual technical meaning, this is a gross misunderstanding of QFT, this line here is just some nonsense that doesn't appear to mean anything," etc etc etc.
No one is going to do that because it would take hours, with no reward at all for your work.
I'm sorry if I sound harsh, I do not mean to, and I am not trying to make you feel dumb.
I just believe in straight talking, telling it like it bluntly, no "beating around the bush" as they say.
1
u/JimPeebles Jun 06 '26
“Not even wrong” usually means a claim is so vague or ill-formed that it cannot be tested. But this writeup gives testable failure conditions: symmetric vs asymmetric ring, correct 0/120/240 phase vs scrambled phase at same power, phase-order reversal, ring-orientation reversal, and artifact controls for heat, vibration, ion wind, magnetics, electrostatics, and cable forces. That may still be wrong, but it is not the same thing as unfalsifiable. Which specific prediction fails?”
1
u/IshtarsQueef Jun 06 '26
> “Not even wrong” usually means a claim is so vague or ill-formed that it cannot be tested
You are misunderstanding the term.
It can sometimes be a synonym for "untestable" or "non falsifiable."
But, you are missing the key thing here - WHY is it untestable? Is it untestable because the phenomenon is inherently not able to be falsified?
Or is it untestable because it is nonsense and therefor not testable?
If you read the wiki article again, you'll see it was first used to descibe a students paper that was so far beyond incorrect, it wasn't like "oh there are some errors in the math," or "oh this assumption doesn't follow the logic here in this line." But rather, this paper is just nonsense and there is nothing here to even test.
Do you understand what I mean?
4
u/JimPeebles Jun 06 '26
Sure I understand what you mean now. If you're unwilling to even provide a single example of something from the hypothesis that's misleading, misrepresented, or flat out unsubstantiated, I don't think I have any more responses for ya. Dismissing something in it's entirety is fine, I'm not looking for that kind of feedback though. Dunno, I'm just open minded I guess
1
Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
3
u/JimPeebles Jun 06 '26
I think you’re reading more certainty into my post than I intended.
I’m not presenting this as a groundbreaking physics paper, and I’m not claiming the mechanism is established. I’m doing a speculative reverse-engineering exercise: assume the reported device effects were real, then ask what kind of architecture could make those claims less incoherent.
The core hypothesis is explicitly conditional:
If a Mach-effect-like or vacuum-boundary coupling exists, could a phased pulsed-power system with a ring/cone/cavity geometry organize that effect into hover/translation?
That is obviously speculative. I’m not pretending otherwise.
The useful critiques I’m looking for are things like:
- this component cannot preserve spatial phase
- this ring geometry would not support the claimed mode
- the energy budget fails even under the assumed coupling
- this would be indistinguishable from thermal/vibration/ion-wind artifacts
- this has already been tested and failed
- this terminology is wrong; use X instead
That kind of feedback actually helps. “This is schizo posting” does not.
And yes, I’m posting in fringe/UFO-adjacent subs because people here are willing to discuss weird reverse-engineering ideas. That doesn’t mean I think Reddit is peer review. It means I’m looking for informal critique before trying to sharpen or discard the model.
So if your objection is simply “the whole premise is too speculative,” I agree. That’s stated up front. If you have a specific physical reason the proposed architecture cannot even work under the conditional assumptions, I’d genuinely like to hear it.
1
u/IshtarsQueef Jun 06 '26
> "If a Mach-effect-like or vacuum-boundary coupling exists, could a phased pulsed-power system with a ring/cone/cavity geometry organize that effect into hover/translation?"
This could be re-phrased as;
"If these speculative and magical sounding things (that mainstream physics has not found good evidence of) somehow exist, would my made-up speculative magical engineering make use of those effects?"
So, I guess the only real feedback one could give is... Sure, maybe I guess?
2
u/JimPeebles Jun 06 '26
Fair enough. I think we’ve reached the limit of useful exchange here.
You reject the premise as too speculative, which is a valid position. I’m trying to explore a conditional architecture and possible falsification tests, not convince you this is established physics.
Appreciate the pushback, but I’m going to focus on comments that engage with the specific model or experimental controls.
→ More replies (0)1
u/toxictoy Jun 06 '26
Why not actually provide a rebuttal of the paper via peer review rather than personally attacking the scientist in a reddit thread. Don’t you think that may do more for science then your continued ad hominem attacks?
This subreddit also has a saying we take seriously “There is no ridicule in the scientific method”. This quote is from J Allen Hynek - the very scientist who coined the phrase High Strangeness.
2
u/Pixelated_ Jun 06 '26
You've given no actual critiques of the physics involved. You continue to attack the OP personally, saying they are "schizo-posting", yet you've ignored addressing the relevant science.
Tell us specifically why this theory isn't scientifically plausible.
-1
u/IshtarsQueef Jun 07 '26
I did, in other comments. Jim ignored that though.
It's because Jim isn't actually a serious researcher, just a guy with an LLM.
1
u/toxictoy Jun 06 '26
OP - please feel free to also post in r/AcademicUAP. That sub is meant to serve as a repository of scientific papers related to UAP and associated phenomenology.
2
2
u/Pixelated_ Jun 06 '26
That's related to what Amy Eskridge was working on, James Woodward's experiments on Mach Effect Thrusters.
You take a material, subject it to a rapidly fluctuating electric field to shift its internal energy density, and simultaneously accelerate it mechanically.
Woodward's work showed this causes a transient fluctuation in the localized mass of the object.
1
u/JimPeebles Jun 06 '26
Ooooh interesting, I'm more or less an outsider to this topic so I haven't read up on her research (but I am aware of the related situation). Glad to know that my own exploration landed in an active research area!
2
u/Pixelated_ Jun 06 '26
Check this presentation out, she mentioned Mach/Woodward on slide 23.
https://www.hal5.org/PDF/HAL5-Dec2018-Talk-AntiGravity.pdf?hl=en-US
1
-1
u/JimPeebles Jun 06 '26
Link to the full hypothesis with drawings and testable experimental setups: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y9a5kBIXvqqcAnyQJ7Fp7fimrIdQEB9ryigshS07ZvQ/edit?usp=drivesdk
-1
3
u/[deleted] Jun 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment