P H

Hi Ashton — short version: every claim you list is either (a) already tested and falsified, or (b) requires stress-energy that violates known energy conditions. As for your claims about WP Yu's Uon Theory, read on... “They” (USG) & secrecy. Nuclear secrets are “Restricted Data” under the Atomic Energy Act; that scope is weapons design/production, not gravity or propulsion. There is no category hiding “gravity manipulation.” DOE/DoD classification guides and the born secret doctrine spell this out.– DOE RD: energy.gov/ehss/office-cl…– Born secret: sgp.fas.org/library/nuclea…– 10 CFR Part 1045: ecfr.gov/current/title-… Also, you simultaneously claim scientists like me are kept in the dark, only allowed to publish theories but not build antigravity craft. This is completely false. For one thing, who are these people with theories and also the capability, access and funding to build actual craft? Wei Ping Yu? See below for my takedown of his ridiculous Uon theory. NASA UAP panel (Spergel; with SETI scientists not just government sources). They reviewed classified and unclassified holdings and found no exotic tech evidence; the problem is poor data, not a cover-up.– NASA UAP report: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Unid… “BPP proves gravity propulsion isn’t quack.” NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (1996–2002; Marc Millis) explicitly did not validate antigravity or propellantless drives; it cataloged open questions and dead ends.– NASA BPP overview:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthro… Millis (2004) Aharonov–Bohm, Casimir, Lamb are not “aether.”– The aether was debunked 120 years ago at my alma matter, Case Western. There's zero evidence for it and in fact no modern accelerators like CERN could function if there were. You do not understand Aharonov–Bohm -- it shows gauge-potential holonomy in QED, not a mechanical medium. QM phase accumulates in regions with no timelike component of the 4-potentiaul A_mu. journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10… Casimir and Lamb shifts are QED boundary and radiative effects, measured to 13 decimal places... not free energy, nor usable for propulsion nor capable of manipulating gravity -- the subject of my post: arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/050… Entanglement ≠ medium. Loophole-free Bell tests rule out local hidden-variable “ether” models and preserve no-signaling.– Hensen et al. (2015): nature.com/articles/natur… “G-forces don’t matter if you manipulate the medium.” Again, there's no medium -- known this for 120 years. Proper acceleration (the g you feel) is invariant in GR. Only geodesic free-fall eliminates it; no engineering trick cancels it.– Proper acceleration: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_ac… EM Drive. Precision thrust-balance tests (Dresden group, others) find thermal/systematic artifacts; net thrust is consistent with zero.– Tajmar null results. Warp metrics. Alcubierre’s warp drive demands sustained massive negative energy densities violating known energy conditions, bounded by Ford–Roman inequalities.– Alcubierre (1994): arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009…– Ford & Roman: journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/1… Wormholes. Traversable wormholes require exotic matter (ANEC violations) and face topological censorship; AdS/CFT “traversable” models are theoretical constructs, not engineering blueprints.– Morris & Thorne (1988): journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1…– Friedman et al. “Topological Censorship”: journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1…– Gao, Jafferis & Wall (2017): arxiv.org/abs/1608.05687 Einstein & gravitational waves. Einstein predicted them (1916/1918). Again you prove my point that there's no aether: LIGO detections are spacetime perturbations propagating at c, consistent with concomitant light bursts, – Einstein (1918 quadrupole): einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/232– LIGO detection (GW150914): journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/1… and see GW 2017 08 for multi messenger constraints arxiv.org/abs/1710.05938 proving both GW and light travel at c: this is impossible in a medium. “Space is AdS/‘aether.’” Observations fit ΛCDM with a positive cosmological constant (de Sitter–like). Anti-de Sitter is a useful toy model, not our universe.– Planck 2018 results show sub percent constraints in some cases: arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209 IEC fusion → plasmoids → FRC → drones. IEC (Farnsworth–Hirsch) and FRCs are open plasma physics topics. Thousands of students build table-top fusors. None imply hidden “gravity manipulation.”– IEC fusion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor– PFRC/Direct Fusion Drive. And the fact that so much of these are available on line disproves your claim of censorship of hardware by "THEM" Eric Davis/AFRL papers. DIA/AFRL “warp” papers were speculative surveys of hypothetical metrics, not classified hardware demonstrations.– DIA report (FOIA) Bottom line: None of the cited phenomena authorize momentum-nonconserving “inertia control”, aether, warp drives, Casimir drives, ZPE extraction or anything of the sort. Lastly, for your “Uon” claims, see my post on Dr. Wei-Ping Yu’s failed PBD appearance against Terrence Howard and why his arguments collapse under basic electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. He's peddling debunked 'electric universe' theories of Thornill and other myth makers. See my reactions here: x.com/DrBrianKeating… and here: youtu.be/Za2I9_Wcq_o that you claim his theory is the best you've seen does not speak well for the other theories that are out there! —BK