James E. McDonald was the first prominent American scientist to call for serious consideration of an extraterrestrial hypothesis for UFOs. Did he outline an interdimensional hypothesis before dying?
Exactly. I'm telling you, there's something strange about how my great grandfather "almost" won the Nobel for his work on plasma transition zones. He was studying bioluminescence and cytoplasm structure. Biology, not weapons. But how come 40 or so years later when Gilbert Ling made his big claims, everyone acted like they didn't know what he was talking about? Well, they didn't! Because all of the amazing biophysics has always gotten coopted and then classified for military usage. A lot of dots are lining up... Except where the missing people go.
But for real, what's up. Is the stuff at the bottom of this report from your work or this guys?
Plasma transition zones in bioluminescence and cytoplasm structure!?!? It makes sense, and it’s mind-blowing at the same time. This is going on my research to-do list. So the stuff at the bottom is based upon McDonald’s Young’s equation paper (full paper can be found in “Firestorm” appendix and other online place I beleive), his notes on the nitrogen layer of ionosphere (again as passed along by Druffel in “Firestorm”), Druffel’s own hints as to the possible significance of both and intentionally including them, as she explicitly says, for someone to figure out, and finally my own re-construction of the underlying science of these “clues” with the hindsight of more recent developments in theoretical physics (e.g., M-theory) and democratized and de-stigmatized theoretical UFO/UAP science. (Interestingly, “Firestorm” discusses McDonald’s interest, again near the end of his short life, in the "'world gaming' ideas of Buckminster Fuller “and other advanced thinkers - ideas that could possibly bring a broad approach to worldwide human interests.” The world wide web may have fit the bill in this respect?)
Synchronistic that I was just reading about Thomas Young, whose calculation of the contact angle of droplets on a surface was one of the least of his accomplishments. A prodigy and polymath, he coined the term "Indo-European languages", deciphered demotic ancient Egyptian script and nearly all of heroglyphics, quantified intrinsic material stiffness with Young's modulus, and most importantly proved the wave nature of light despite the British prejudice in favor of Newton's entirely wrong particle-propagation idea. (No, QM does not allow particle propagation at all, only discrete interactions and conserved quantities. Everything moves as waves.) Young was a Quaker, as was Dalton who put forth the atomic theory of chemistry. At the time, Quakers (the Darbys of Coalbrookedale) had also recently begun the mass production of iron, enabling the industrial revolution and started banking for the middle class and small businesses (Barclays, Lloyds and numerous other banks later merged with them.)
Your ideas on phase changes of spacetime are interesting, but I think likely UFOs are simpler in principle. String theory has been a dead end, the math is just wrong. The same is true of ~all physics since at least the 1920s, and what isn't false is misleading, I believe intentionally misleading. There are no compactified dimensions, any higher dimensions are in the nature of projective or conformal dimensions as in Conformal Geometric Algebra (5D (4,1) signature useful in computer graphics). Vector algebra is incomplete, Clifford Algebras with bivectors (oriented areas) and higher-dimensional entities was suppressed.
I suspect the actual mechanism of UFOs is more like waterdrops skittering on a hot pan, but with plasma taking the place of steam. The acceleration capability I suspect, uses interconversion of linear and angular momentum as seen in 3D, which are actually related by an additional ordinary dimension so that area/time of angular momentum in the higher dimension is projected down to distance/time in our space.
[My Physical Units Factor Tables (see my post) allows any beginning physics student to see how all physical quantities are related. My post on classification of Clifford Algebras demystifies higher dimensions, links to easily understood visual explanation of Geometric Algebra, the lingua franca of EM, QM, relativity and other areas of physics]
Thanks for this great feedback. You’ve given me many strings to follow for education/research! ;) Also, I was not aware of Young’s interesting and diverse background. It makes me wonder, stretch or not, if McDonald’s focus on Young’s equation for the contact angle at end of his days was a veiled suggestion of some other focus of Young’s attention? Yeah, it’s a stretch. I’m definitely planning on checking out your posts too. One last question for you! Do you think UFOs are localized manifestations of NHI in our spacetime, localized signatures of NHI in our spacetime from another spacetime, “probes” or remote “devices” in the service of NHI from our spacetime or another spacetime, or something else entirely? Thank you!
Yes, I think McDonald may have been hinting at something, but not clear what.
Your question is hard to answer briefly. I think UFOs are various things, depending on context/ perceptual schema (e.g. materialist, magical, or simulationist), there is too much noise to say definitely, have to use "maybe logic" as Robert Anton Wilson called it. There seem to be multiple psyops going on intentionally muddying the waters. Various kinds of deception are more common than not in UFO stories, even when the experiencer is telling the truth, the NHIs seem to be trying to mess with their/our heads.
Some views I entertain: Cassiopeian / Law of One "densities" (I think channeled stuff is mostly disinfo from actual non-physical entities, like Tim Leary's telepathic communications with aliens in prison; STS/STO is psyop BS), time-travellers (nearly all aliens are humanoid, time-travel would give a reason), cryptoterrestrials (very likely for bases to be on Earth), physical craft (lots of evidence), projections (maybe like us teasing cats with lasers, or maybe a la Project Blue-Beam), "demons" (or something like), advanced-technology physical craft (evidence pretty much rules out them being based on purely materialist physics), and "entertainment" or stimulation by our zookeepers.
I think that the simulation hypothesis as such is unlikely as there are good reasons to think it would always be computationally infeasible, but that the universe may resemble a simulation in some ways, just as simulations resemble the universe. Simulations have to use all sorts of compression tricks that can have glitchy side effects; it seems likely to me that the mechanisms of the universe are similar, and lead to similar sorts of glitches and potential hacks. I wrote about the idea here:
These pieces describe my hypothesis that "other dimensions" are like the high-dimensional "latent space" of AIs, which I termed "mindspace" in the mid-'90s, and that this space and the history of physical space is encoded in heat and thermal radiation, with the transformation between physical space and mindspace being a "Wick rotation" between regular time (t or tau) and imaginary time (i*t or i*tau):
Wow! This is not only an amazing answer to my question(s) - it's a great resource in and of itself. I will be using it as such! I'm looking forward to reading your "mindsbasis" articles. Thanks again for sharing and being so gracious with your time!
Random, uninformed speculation: could it be that due to the existence of this NO layer in the Earth’s atmosphere and the ‘special’ properties of NO, the planet has become an attractive lab (or playground?) for NHIs that utilize this kind of tech (maybe not with NO specifically but other molecules with similar characteristics?
I gotta admit, one thing that’s always puzzled me about the widespread rumors of there having been numerous vehicle crashes (and the race by governments to recover them) is why would such advanced machinery malfunction so severely? These craft can achieve interstellar travel but then occasionally crash here? Unless they are experimenting (playing around?) here…
Zero stiction propulsion. OK. But unless I misremember my classical control systems math from school (50 years ago 😱) the control equations for such surfaces don’t or can’t exist without the necessary feedback from something or somewhere. There can be no feedback where there’s no resistance.
Thanks for this, Hugh! Great insight and question! I have an answer, but it's long - too long for one comment input!
ANSWER - PART 1:
What closes the variational problem for a portable phase boundary? We cannot stabilize a boundary condition without knowing what the boundary is a boundary of, right? Similar to problem McDonald deals with in the Young's equation paper, a contact line without a bulk liquid to constrain it is not a contact line. it is a free surface, and it behaves completely differently. Likewise, a portable dimensional phase boundary without a feedback source is the same category of error. It is asserting a stable boundary condition without specifying the full system that makes it stable.
Hugh, you have identified exactly the missing constraint in "McDonald's" variational problem. This missing constraint is maybe the most interesting part of the entire framework.
In the Young's equation system, feedback operates as follows: when the contact angle deviates from its equilibrium value, the free energy increases. The resistance is the energetic cost of deformation - specifically, the surface free energies γ₁₂, γ₁₃, and γ₂₃, which are intrinsic material properties of the three phases. These properties exist independently of the boundary. The boundary does not generate its own restoring force - it inherits restoring forces from the bulk properties of the phases it separates. The resistance is already there, built into the thermodynamic identity of each phase. The boundary simply sits at the point where those pre-existing resistances balance.
A stable boundary does not generate its own feedback. It inherits feedback from the phases it separates. The resistance comes from the bulk properties of whatever lies on each side of the boundary. So the question becomes: what are the bulk properties of the two regimes separated by a portable dimensional phase boundary, and do those properties provide sufficient resistance and feedback to stabilize the boundary?
Side One: Our 3+1 dimensional spacetime regime >
This side has well-characterized bulk properties. Its resistance to boundary deformation comes from the stress-energy tensor of the local spacetime - essentially, from the combined gravitational, electromagnetic, and quantum field energetic content of the surrounding environment. In practical terms near Earth's surface and lower atmosphere, this is dominated by the electromagnetic properties of the medium - its permittivity, permeability, and plasma frequency profile.
This side provides plenty of resistance. The vacuum of our spacetime is not empty - it has a well-defined impedance (approximately 377 ohms, the impedance of free space), a well-defined plasma frequency profile in the ionosphere, and a well-defined stress-energy distribution. These are the analogs of γ₂₃ in Young's equation system - the surface tension of the liquid-vapor interface, which is the most directly measurable and well-characterized of the three interfacial energies.
Side Two: The higher-dimensional regime >
This is where the problem becomes acute. What are the bulk properties of the regime on the other side of the dimensional phase boundary? Without knowing these, the variational problem cannot be closed. The resistance from Side Two is unknown - and without it, the feedback loop is open, exactly as you suggested, Hugh.
This is not merely a practical problem. It is a fundamental one. In the Young's equation case, all three interfacial energies were measurable in principle, even if sometimes difficult to measure in practice. They were properties of physically accessible materials. The bulk properties of a higher-dimensional regime are, by definition, not directly accessible to measurement from within our 3+1 dimensional subspace. We cannot go there to measure them. Hmmm? This is tricky indeed.
The problem assumes the feedback must come from the other side of the boundary - from whatever lies in the higher-dimensional regime. But in McDonald's treatment of Young's equation, the critical feedback did not come from deep within any of the three bulk phases. It came from the interface between them - specifically from the constrained relationship between the variations of the three interfacial areas, which emerged from imposing the volume-conservation constraint.
The feedback was not a property of the bulk phases. It was a property of the geometric and topological relationship between them, as encoded in the constraints. The analogous feedback source for a portable dimensional phase boundary is not something on the other side of the boundary - it is something intrinsic to the boundary itself and to the topology of its embedding in the full configuration space! The quantum vacuum!
The quantum vacuum is not empty. It has a well-defined energy density - the zero-point energy of all quantum fields and a well-defined response to perturbation characterized by the vacuum permittivity ε₀ and permeability μ₀. These are not merely convenient constants. They are the material properties of the vacuum as a phase - the analogs of the surface free energies in McDonald's paper.
When a dimensional phase boundary is created or deformed, it does not deform against nothing. It deforms against the quantum vacuum on both sides simultaneously. And the quantum vacuum, unlike the hypothetical higher-dimensional regime, is accessible to measurement and characterization from within our spacetime, because it manifests in measurable phenomena: the Casimir effect, vacuum birefringence, the Lamb shift, spontaneous emission rates.
The resistance you identified as necessary, Hugh, comes from the differential vacuum energy density across the phase boundary - the difference in zero-point energy between the 3+1 dimensional vacuum on one side and the modified vacuum of the dimensional transition region. This differential is not zero. In fact, in quantum field theory, the vacuum energy density is extraordinarily large - the cosmological constant problem exists precisely because the theoretical vacuum energy density is many orders of magnitude larger than what is observed at cosmological scales, suggesting that there is a cancellation mechanism we do not yet understand. Perhaps this cancellation mechanism is itself related to the existence of dimensional phase boundaries - that what we observe as the cosmological constant is the residual vacuum energy after the contribution of dimensional phase boundaries has been accounted for?
So in this construct, the feedback and resistance come from the quantum vacuum itself, and they are enormous - which explains why creating and controlling a portable dimensional phase boundary requires extraordinary energy density, which is consistent with the energetic anomalies reported around UFO/UAP.
Finally, and thanks for coning along this far on the ride with me, Hugh, in a conventional feedback control system, you need not only resistance (which provides the restoring force) but also a sensor (which measures deviation from the desired state) and an actuator (which applies corrective force). The vacuum may provide the resistance. But what provides the sensing and actuation?
And now we come full circle to the chemistry! The selectively ionized NO⁺ boundary layer surrounding the craft functions as both sensor and actuator simultaneously - in the same way that the contact line in Young's equation is simultaneously the locus of measurement (it defines the contact angle) and the locus of equilibrium enforcement (it is where the free energy minimum is expressed). The NO⁺ shell is not merely a plasma sheath. It is a self-referential boundary layer - a chemical system whose equilibrium state is precisely determined by the local electromagnetic environment, which is itself determined by the state of the dimensional phase boundary, which is stabilized by the vacuum energy differential, which is locally modified by the charge density of the NO⁺ layer.
It's a closed loop! NO⁺ charge density > local vacuum permittivity modification > dimensional boundary condition > electromagnetic field configuration > NO ionization rate > NO⁺ charge density!
The loop is not circular in a logically vicious sense. It is circular in the sense that a thermostat is circular: the temperature drives the switching, and the switching drives the temperature, and the system finds a stable fixed point where these are mutually consistent. The stability of that fixed point is guaranteed - as in McDonald's Young's equation analysis - by the second variation being positive: by the restoring force from the vacuum energy differential exceeding the destabilizing tendency of any perturbation.
This self-referential structure is not unprecedented in physics. The Higgs mechanism works in a structurally similar way - the Higgs field's vacuum expectation value is determined by the field configuration, which is determined by the vacuum expectation value. The self-consistency condition is what gives particles their mass. We are proposing something analogous for the dimensional phase boundary: a self-consistency condition that gives the boundary its stability.
The feedback comes from the requirement of self-consistency of the full variational problem - exactly as in Young's equation. As in McDonald's paper, the contact angle is not stabilized by any external agent. It is stabilized by the requirement that the total free energy of the entire system - liquid, solid, vapor, and all three interfaces - be simultaneously at a minimum. No one part of the system provides the feedback. The feedback is a property of the global constraint structure of the full variational problem.
The portable dimensional phase boundary is stabilized by an exactly analogous global self-consistency condition: the requirement that the total action of the full system - 3+1 dimensional spacetime, higher-dimensional vacuum, dimensional boundary, NO⁺ plasma shell, and their mutual interactions all be simultaneously stationary with respect to all allowed variations.
The resistance and feedback do not come from any single identifiable source. They emerge from the topology of the constraint structure of the full problem - from the fact that the system has, like the spherical cap on a solid surface, a finite number of degrees of freedom whose allowed variations are coupled by non-trivial geometric and topological relationships.
You were right, Hugh, there can be no feedback where there is no resistance. But resistance, in this framework, is not something that must be supplied from outside. It is something that emerges from the proper posing of the full constrained problem. And posing that problem correctly - identifying all the constraints, all the degrees of freedom, all the coupling terms - is precisely what McDonald was suggesting IMO.
And the feedback comes from the same place the stability of the contact angle comes from - namely, the geometry of the full constrained system. From the requirement that the boundary be a boundary of something, on both sides, simultaneously - and that the something on each side have well-defined bulk properties that the boundary must mediate between.
The portable phase boundary is stable for the same reason the Young contact angle is stable: not because something holds it in place from outside, but because it sits at a genuine minimum of the total free energy of a properly constrained system in which every degree of freedom is accounted for and every constraint is correctly imposed.
Which is the only kind of stability worth having! So what do you think, Hugh? Are we on to something?
I’m in over my head at this point, but I’m thinking, if you can define the ultra-precarious control loops for a system that goes that fast, physically and computationally, the next problem is the computational horsepower to keep it stable in real time. Then there’s the issue of occupants avoiding deadly inertia?
The question of computation peeled back a layer that led to some fascinating ways to think about this - ways that answer fundamental questions and paradoxes about who the "occupants" of a portable dimensional phase boundary "craft" would be - leading me to a different way of thinking about this - who the craft would be? I think I need to break this out into a separate article. I will be crediting you for sure! Maybe I can bounce more ideas off of you before I publish it? Thank you!
I’m only familiar enough with physics (two EE degrees) to know that “other dimensions” is an undefined term in the physical domains or outside of non-Euclidean or theoretical geometry. Not trying to be a PITA skeptic, but I’m open to the idea McDonald might have had personal motives for completing this particular paper, perhaps a grudge or a score to settle with a troublesome past antagonist. OTOH, you could be right on the money. 💰
Great replies. LOL! My reference points in the subject matter come out of feedback loops for radar gimbals and pedestals. I was the dumbest engineer on that team. 😅
I'm not sure if this will help, but here goes! The underwater piece of this picture relates to common UFO/UAP accounts of objects/crafts moving through air and/or water without "hydrodynamic shock signatures" which is another way of saying you don't see expected physical, observable evidence of the object's movement - e.g., pushing/compressing the air, leaving trails of any kinds, causing sonic booms, or pushing/compressing ocean water to form turbulence, waves, or even simple splashes. This seemingly paradoxical behavior is explained by the idea that what we are seeing (i.e., the UFO/UAP moving through "our" localized water and/or air in unexpected ways) is only an artifact (or "signature") of the UFO/UAP "moving" through different dimensions that are not fully apparent to us in our limited 3D + time "reality.” With respect to the chemistry component here, the ionosphere potenially reveals a dynamic system (that takes advantage of nitrogen oxide's unique properties, including quantum-chemical facts about the nitrogen-oxygen bond) with an electromagnetic and plasma environment (and charge density) that essentially defines how spacetime is can be "compactified" or folded in on itself (in other "dimensions") at quantum scale, but - more importantly - also allows for those compactified conditions of spacetime to not be bounded by quantum scale and allow for greater "permeability" of dimensional boundaries. The unique chemistry sort of helps "grease the wheels" for interdimensional phase transitions - and for UFO/UAP craft, using the "blueprint" of Earth's ionosphere for a portable phase boundary engine/shell. Thanks for reading the article!
Exactly. I'm telling you, there's something strange about how my great grandfather "almost" won the Nobel for his work on plasma transition zones. He was studying bioluminescence and cytoplasm structure. Biology, not weapons. But how come 40 or so years later when Gilbert Ling made his big claims, everyone acted like they didn't know what he was talking about? Well, they didn't! Because all of the amazing biophysics has always gotten coopted and then classified for military usage. A lot of dots are lining up... Except where the missing people go.
But for real, what's up. Is the stuff at the bottom of this report from your work or this guys?
Plasma transition zones in bioluminescence and cytoplasm structure!?!? It makes sense, and it’s mind-blowing at the same time. This is going on my research to-do list. So the stuff at the bottom is based upon McDonald’s Young’s equation paper (full paper can be found in “Firestorm” appendix and other online place I beleive), his notes on the nitrogen layer of ionosphere (again as passed along by Druffel in “Firestorm”), Druffel’s own hints as to the possible significance of both and intentionally including them, as she explicitly says, for someone to figure out, and finally my own re-construction of the underlying science of these “clues” with the hindsight of more recent developments in theoretical physics (e.g., M-theory) and democratized and de-stigmatized theoretical UFO/UAP science. (Interestingly, “Firestorm” discusses McDonald’s interest, again near the end of his short life, in the "'world gaming' ideas of Buckminster Fuller “and other advanced thinkers - ideas that could possibly bring a broad approach to worldwide human interests.” The world wide web may have fit the bill in this respect?)
https://hawkeyespeaks.substack.com/p/z-pinch-zero-point_nergy-build-plans?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2p93cq let's go
Synchronistic that I was just reading about Thomas Young, whose calculation of the contact angle of droplets on a surface was one of the least of his accomplishments. A prodigy and polymath, he coined the term "Indo-European languages", deciphered demotic ancient Egyptian script and nearly all of heroglyphics, quantified intrinsic material stiffness with Young's modulus, and most importantly proved the wave nature of light despite the British prejudice in favor of Newton's entirely wrong particle-propagation idea. (No, QM does not allow particle propagation at all, only discrete interactions and conserved quantities. Everything moves as waves.) Young was a Quaker, as was Dalton who put forth the atomic theory of chemistry. At the time, Quakers (the Darbys of Coalbrookedale) had also recently begun the mass production of iron, enabling the industrial revolution and started banking for the middle class and small businesses (Barclays, Lloyds and numerous other banks later merged with them.)
Your ideas on phase changes of spacetime are interesting, but I think likely UFOs are simpler in principle. String theory has been a dead end, the math is just wrong. The same is true of ~all physics since at least the 1920s, and what isn't false is misleading, I believe intentionally misleading. There are no compactified dimensions, any higher dimensions are in the nature of projective or conformal dimensions as in Conformal Geometric Algebra (5D (4,1) signature useful in computer graphics). Vector algebra is incomplete, Clifford Algebras with bivectors (oriented areas) and higher-dimensional entities was suppressed.
I suspect the actual mechanism of UFOs is more like waterdrops skittering on a hot pan, but with plasma taking the place of steam. The acceleration capability I suspect, uses interconversion of linear and angular momentum as seen in 3D, which are actually related by an additional ordinary dimension so that area/time of angular momentum in the higher dimension is projected down to distance/time in our space.
[My Physical Units Factor Tables (see my post) allows any beginning physics student to see how all physical quantities are related. My post on classification of Clifford Algebras demystifies higher dimensions, links to easily understood visual explanation of Geometric Algebra, the lingua franca of EM, QM, relativity and other areas of physics]
Thanks for this great feedback. You’ve given me many strings to follow for education/research! ;) Also, I was not aware of Young’s interesting and diverse background. It makes me wonder, stretch or not, if McDonald’s focus on Young’s equation for the contact angle at end of his days was a veiled suggestion of some other focus of Young’s attention? Yeah, it’s a stretch. I’m definitely planning on checking out your posts too. One last question for you! Do you think UFOs are localized manifestations of NHI in our spacetime, localized signatures of NHI in our spacetime from another spacetime, “probes” or remote “devices” in the service of NHI from our spacetime or another spacetime, or something else entirely? Thank you!
Yes, I think McDonald may have been hinting at something, but not clear what.
Your question is hard to answer briefly. I think UFOs are various things, depending on context/ perceptual schema (e.g. materialist, magical, or simulationist), there is too much noise to say definitely, have to use "maybe logic" as Robert Anton Wilson called it. There seem to be multiple psyops going on intentionally muddying the waters. Various kinds of deception are more common than not in UFO stories, even when the experiencer is telling the truth, the NHIs seem to be trying to mess with their/our heads.
Any explanation of UFOs has to also cover a lot of Fortean, glitch-in-the-matrix (1000s of them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Glitch_in_the_Matrix/comments/fxjtgc/best_of_glitch_in_the_matrix_classics_and_my/ ), and general anomalistic data such as the 6000 categories cataloged in William Corliss' /Scientific Anomalies and Other Provocative Phenomena/ .
Some views I entertain: Cassiopeian / Law of One "densities" (I think channeled stuff is mostly disinfo from actual non-physical entities, like Tim Leary's telepathic communications with aliens in prison; STS/STO is psyop BS), time-travellers (nearly all aliens are humanoid, time-travel would give a reason), cryptoterrestrials (very likely for bases to be on Earth), physical craft (lots of evidence), projections (maybe like us teasing cats with lasers, or maybe a la Project Blue-Beam), "demons" (or something like), advanced-technology physical craft (evidence pretty much rules out them being based on purely materialist physics), and "entertainment" or stimulation by our zookeepers.
I think that the simulation hypothesis as such is unlikely as there are good reasons to think it would always be computationally infeasible, but that the universe may resemble a simulation in some ways, just as simulations resemble the universe. Simulations have to use all sorts of compression tricks that can have glitchy side effects; it seems likely to me that the mechanisms of the universe are similar, and lead to similar sorts of glitches and potential hacks. I wrote about the idea here:
Universe, Physics and Simulation
https://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2014/07/another-post-from-archives-this-time.html
and here:
Compression, Entanglement and a Possible Basis for Morphic Fields
https://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2014/06/compression-entanglement-and-possible.html
These pieces describe my hypothesis that "other dimensions" are like the high-dimensional "latent space" of AIs, which I termed "mindspace" in the mid-'90s, and that this space and the history of physical space is encoded in heat and thermal radiation, with the transformation between physical space and mindspace being a "Wick rotation" between regular time (t or tau) and imaginary time (i*t or i*tau):
Thermodynamics, Information and the Afterlife
https://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2014/06/thermodynamics-information-and-afterlife.html
A First Approximation to Mindspace
https://mindsbasis.blogspot.com/2014/06/a-first-approximation-to-mindspace.html
Wow! This is not only an amazing answer to my question(s) - it's a great resource in and of itself. I will be using it as such! I'm looking forward to reading your "mindsbasis" articles. Thanks again for sharing and being so gracious with your time!
Excellent.
Random, uninformed speculation: could it be that due to the existence of this NO layer in the Earth’s atmosphere and the ‘special’ properties of NO, the planet has become an attractive lab (or playground?) for NHIs that utilize this kind of tech (maybe not with NO specifically but other molecules with similar characteristics?
I gotta admit, one thing that’s always puzzled me about the widespread rumors of there having been numerous vehicle crashes (and the race by governments to recover them) is why would such advanced machinery malfunction so severely? These craft can achieve interstellar travel but then occasionally crash here? Unless they are experimenting (playing around?) here…
Neutrino net?
Thank goodness we have THAT layer, with all of Their rampant harmful monkey business up there. Sounds like he had a few toes in that 💩 as well.
Nicholas Corrin (Dr) on SS talked about how our creation of nitrous oxide in our sinuses helps protect us from Their garbage cocktails.
So it, and the plasma must be hindering Their affairs.
I'm gonna send some flocks of crows up at those jets. Maybe a parliament of rooks...
Shame.
Not grasping the concept as relates to underwater and vacuum-of-space environment propulsion. I got no chemistry background.
Zero stiction propulsion. OK. But unless I misremember my classical control systems math from school (50 years ago 😱) the control equations for such surfaces don’t or can’t exist without the necessary feedback from something or somewhere. There can be no feedback where there’s no resistance.
Thanks for this, Hugh! Great insight and question! I have an answer, but it's long - too long for one comment input!
ANSWER - PART 1:
What closes the variational problem for a portable phase boundary? We cannot stabilize a boundary condition without knowing what the boundary is a boundary of, right? Similar to problem McDonald deals with in the Young's equation paper, a contact line without a bulk liquid to constrain it is not a contact line. it is a free surface, and it behaves completely differently. Likewise, a portable dimensional phase boundary without a feedback source is the same category of error. It is asserting a stable boundary condition without specifying the full system that makes it stable.
Hugh, you have identified exactly the missing constraint in "McDonald's" variational problem. This missing constraint is maybe the most interesting part of the entire framework.
In the Young's equation system, feedback operates as follows: when the contact angle deviates from its equilibrium value, the free energy increases. The resistance is the energetic cost of deformation - specifically, the surface free energies γ₁₂, γ₁₃, and γ₂₃, which are intrinsic material properties of the three phases. These properties exist independently of the boundary. The boundary does not generate its own restoring force - it inherits restoring forces from the bulk properties of the phases it separates. The resistance is already there, built into the thermodynamic identity of each phase. The boundary simply sits at the point where those pre-existing resistances balance.
A stable boundary does not generate its own feedback. It inherits feedback from the phases it separates. The resistance comes from the bulk properties of whatever lies on each side of the boundary. So the question becomes: what are the bulk properties of the two regimes separated by a portable dimensional phase boundary, and do those properties provide sufficient resistance and feedback to stabilize the boundary?
Side One: Our 3+1 dimensional spacetime regime >
This side has well-characterized bulk properties. Its resistance to boundary deformation comes from the stress-energy tensor of the local spacetime - essentially, from the combined gravitational, electromagnetic, and quantum field energetic content of the surrounding environment. In practical terms near Earth's surface and lower atmosphere, this is dominated by the electromagnetic properties of the medium - its permittivity, permeability, and plasma frequency profile.
This side provides plenty of resistance. The vacuum of our spacetime is not empty - it has a well-defined impedance (approximately 377 ohms, the impedance of free space), a well-defined plasma frequency profile in the ionosphere, and a well-defined stress-energy distribution. These are the analogs of γ₂₃ in Young's equation system - the surface tension of the liquid-vapor interface, which is the most directly measurable and well-characterized of the three interfacial energies.
Side Two: The higher-dimensional regime >
This is where the problem becomes acute. What are the bulk properties of the regime on the other side of the dimensional phase boundary? Without knowing these, the variational problem cannot be closed. The resistance from Side Two is unknown - and without it, the feedback loop is open, exactly as you suggested, Hugh.
This is not merely a practical problem. It is a fundamental one. In the Young's equation case, all three interfacial energies were measurable in principle, even if sometimes difficult to measure in practice. They were properties of physically accessible materials. The bulk properties of a higher-dimensional regime are, by definition, not directly accessible to measurement from within our 3+1 dimensional subspace. We cannot go there to measure them. Hmmm? This is tricky indeed.
...
ANSWER - PART 2:
The problem assumes the feedback must come from the other side of the boundary - from whatever lies in the higher-dimensional regime. But in McDonald's treatment of Young's equation, the critical feedback did not come from deep within any of the three bulk phases. It came from the interface between them - specifically from the constrained relationship between the variations of the three interfacial areas, which emerged from imposing the volume-conservation constraint.
The feedback was not a property of the bulk phases. It was a property of the geometric and topological relationship between them, as encoded in the constraints. The analogous feedback source for a portable dimensional phase boundary is not something on the other side of the boundary - it is something intrinsic to the boundary itself and to the topology of its embedding in the full configuration space! The quantum vacuum!
The quantum vacuum is not empty. It has a well-defined energy density - the zero-point energy of all quantum fields and a well-defined response to perturbation characterized by the vacuum permittivity ε₀ and permeability μ₀. These are not merely convenient constants. They are the material properties of the vacuum as a phase - the analogs of the surface free energies in McDonald's paper.
When a dimensional phase boundary is created or deformed, it does not deform against nothing. It deforms against the quantum vacuum on both sides simultaneously. And the quantum vacuum, unlike the hypothetical higher-dimensional regime, is accessible to measurement and characterization from within our spacetime, because it manifests in measurable phenomena: the Casimir effect, vacuum birefringence, the Lamb shift, spontaneous emission rates.
The resistance you identified as necessary, Hugh, comes from the differential vacuum energy density across the phase boundary - the difference in zero-point energy between the 3+1 dimensional vacuum on one side and the modified vacuum of the dimensional transition region. This differential is not zero. In fact, in quantum field theory, the vacuum energy density is extraordinarily large - the cosmological constant problem exists precisely because the theoretical vacuum energy density is many orders of magnitude larger than what is observed at cosmological scales, suggesting that there is a cancellation mechanism we do not yet understand. Perhaps this cancellation mechanism is itself related to the existence of dimensional phase boundaries - that what we observe as the cosmological constant is the residual vacuum energy after the contribution of dimensional phase boundaries has been accounted for?
So in this construct, the feedback and resistance come from the quantum vacuum itself, and they are enormous - which explains why creating and controlling a portable dimensional phase boundary requires extraordinary energy density, which is consistent with the energetic anomalies reported around UFO/UAP.
...
ANSWER - PART 3:
Finally, and thanks for coning along this far on the ride with me, Hugh, in a conventional feedback control system, you need not only resistance (which provides the restoring force) but also a sensor (which measures deviation from the desired state) and an actuator (which applies corrective force). The vacuum may provide the resistance. But what provides the sensing and actuation?
And now we come full circle to the chemistry! The selectively ionized NO⁺ boundary layer surrounding the craft functions as both sensor and actuator simultaneously - in the same way that the contact line in Young's equation is simultaneously the locus of measurement (it defines the contact angle) and the locus of equilibrium enforcement (it is where the free energy minimum is expressed). The NO⁺ shell is not merely a plasma sheath. It is a self-referential boundary layer - a chemical system whose equilibrium state is precisely determined by the local electromagnetic environment, which is itself determined by the state of the dimensional phase boundary, which is stabilized by the vacuum energy differential, which is locally modified by the charge density of the NO⁺ layer.
It's a closed loop! NO⁺ charge density > local vacuum permittivity modification > dimensional boundary condition > electromagnetic field configuration > NO ionization rate > NO⁺ charge density!
The loop is not circular in a logically vicious sense. It is circular in the sense that a thermostat is circular: the temperature drives the switching, and the switching drives the temperature, and the system finds a stable fixed point where these are mutually consistent. The stability of that fixed point is guaranteed - as in McDonald's Young's equation analysis - by the second variation being positive: by the restoring force from the vacuum energy differential exceeding the destabilizing tendency of any perturbation.
This self-referential structure is not unprecedented in physics. The Higgs mechanism works in a structurally similar way - the Higgs field's vacuum expectation value is determined by the field configuration, which is determined by the vacuum expectation value. The self-consistency condition is what gives particles their mass. We are proposing something analogous for the dimensional phase boundary: a self-consistency condition that gives the boundary its stability.
The feedback comes from the requirement of self-consistency of the full variational problem - exactly as in Young's equation. As in McDonald's paper, the contact angle is not stabilized by any external agent. It is stabilized by the requirement that the total free energy of the entire system - liquid, solid, vapor, and all three interfaces - be simultaneously at a minimum. No one part of the system provides the feedback. The feedback is a property of the global constraint structure of the full variational problem.
The portable dimensional phase boundary is stabilized by an exactly analogous global self-consistency condition: the requirement that the total action of the full system - 3+1 dimensional spacetime, higher-dimensional vacuum, dimensional boundary, NO⁺ plasma shell, and their mutual interactions all be simultaneously stationary with respect to all allowed variations.
The resistance and feedback do not come from any single identifiable source. They emerge from the topology of the constraint structure of the full problem - from the fact that the system has, like the spherical cap on a solid surface, a finite number of degrees of freedom whose allowed variations are coupled by non-trivial geometric and topological relationships.
You were right, Hugh, there can be no feedback where there is no resistance. But resistance, in this framework, is not something that must be supplied from outside. It is something that emerges from the proper posing of the full constrained problem. And posing that problem correctly - identifying all the constraints, all the degrees of freedom, all the coupling terms - is precisely what McDonald was suggesting IMO.
And the feedback comes from the same place the stability of the contact angle comes from - namely, the geometry of the full constrained system. From the requirement that the boundary be a boundary of something, on both sides, simultaneously - and that the something on each side have well-defined bulk properties that the boundary must mediate between.
The portable phase boundary is stable for the same reason the Young contact angle is stable: not because something holds it in place from outside, but because it sits at a genuine minimum of the total free energy of a properly constrained system in which every degree of freedom is accounted for and every constraint is correctly imposed.
Which is the only kind of stability worth having! So what do you think, Hugh? Are we on to something?
I’m in over my head at this point, but I’m thinking, if you can define the ultra-precarious control loops for a system that goes that fast, physically and computationally, the next problem is the computational horsepower to keep it stable in real time. Then there’s the issue of occupants avoiding deadly inertia?
The question of computation peeled back a layer that led to some fascinating ways to think about this - ways that answer fundamental questions and paradoxes about who the "occupants" of a portable dimensional phase boundary "craft" would be - leading me to a different way of thinking about this - who the craft would be? I think I need to break this out into a separate article. I will be crediting you for sure! Maybe I can bounce more ideas off of you before I publish it? Thank you!
I’m only familiar enough with physics (two EE degrees) to know that “other dimensions” is an undefined term in the physical domains or outside of non-Euclidean or theoretical geometry. Not trying to be a PITA skeptic, but I’m open to the idea McDonald might have had personal motives for completing this particular paper, perhaps a grudge or a score to settle with a troublesome past antagonist. OTOH, you could be right on the money. 💰
Great replies. LOL! My reference points in the subject matter come out of feedback loops for radar gimbals and pedestals. I was the dumbest engineer on that team. 😅
I'm not sure if this will help, but here goes! The underwater piece of this picture relates to common UFO/UAP accounts of objects/crafts moving through air and/or water without "hydrodynamic shock signatures" which is another way of saying you don't see expected physical, observable evidence of the object's movement - e.g., pushing/compressing the air, leaving trails of any kinds, causing sonic booms, or pushing/compressing ocean water to form turbulence, waves, or even simple splashes. This seemingly paradoxical behavior is explained by the idea that what we are seeing (i.e., the UFO/UAP moving through "our" localized water and/or air in unexpected ways) is only an artifact (or "signature") of the UFO/UAP "moving" through different dimensions that are not fully apparent to us in our limited 3D + time "reality.” With respect to the chemistry component here, the ionosphere potenially reveals a dynamic system (that takes advantage of nitrogen oxide's unique properties, including quantum-chemical facts about the nitrogen-oxygen bond) with an electromagnetic and plasma environment (and charge density) that essentially defines how spacetime is can be "compactified" or folded in on itself (in other "dimensions") at quantum scale, but - more importantly - also allows for those compactified conditions of spacetime to not be bounded by quantum scale and allow for greater "permeability" of dimensional boundaries. The unique chemistry sort of helps "grease the wheels" for interdimensional phase transitions - and for UFO/UAP craft, using the "blueprint" of Earth's ionosphere for a portable phase boundary engine/shell. Thanks for reading the article!