Military physics and Paul Czysz
Czysz knows his stuff; he was clearly at the cutting edge of U.S. military high-speed aircraft design. He also comes across (I think) as very calm, very open, warm-hearted and keen to talk candidly about very important developments in flight and spaceflight. During the interview, he candidly admits to directly experiencing a huge wealth of eye-witness accounts of craft operating in ways that, in his words, 'defied conventional physics'. Although such a fact is fascinating in itself, I want to talk in this article about his views on physics and how he thought the fundamental levels of reality actually operate. I've transcribed two key passages from the interview. The first one occurs at [6:30] in the interview, after Czysz points out the practical impossibility of travelling to other stars using chemical rockets:
"Quantum physics where things can be, in a way, in two places at once or can appear and disappear like positrons and electrons in the high-energy colliders. (7:12) [With regard to possible UFO craft and how they might work] It’s probably not anything pushing it through the air. It’s a coupling of the device with the energy that permeates space. Probably Tesla was as close to it when he said; ‘that given the right energy system, I can power a human base on Mars from Earth without any loss of energy’. In quantum physics and zero-point energy, that’s possible. But Sakharov and a number of people that were working on that subject have very convincing arguments that the fabric of space is like an energy ocean in which solid energy is floating on it and solid energy is mass. And if that’s true then gravity waves exist and everything goes back to ‘heavy-sides’ (my note: or possibly ‘Heaviside’ as in Oliver Heaviside - I don't know which it is) equations and it’s waves, not particles and the quantum is not mass, but time. And if that’s true then you look at the universe in a different light. And a lot of things become possible that we think are impossible within our current view of what time and space and thrust is."
Recently, I wrote an anomaly article suggesting that there are no 'particles' in reality at all. Instead, reality is a pattern of electromagnetic radiation, a.k.a. a pattern of light. If this is correct, then what physicists refer to as 'fundamental particles' are in fact vertices or nodes in this pattern, rather than physical things. During the late twentieth century, physicists, empowered with the latest tools, went hunting for fundamental particles. Many of them assumed that they would find a single, fundamental particle or at least just a handful. Instead, they were shocked when they quickly found a whole 'zoo' of particles. Oppenheimer was so frustrated by this particle zoo that he was quoted as saying; 'you could give a Nobel Prize to the physicist that did not discover a particle that year!' In a way, I think, this may have been a big warning sign to them that there was something very wrong with their assumptions and expectations.
This perceptive mis-match could be a good example of what one might call 'viewpoint inertia'. In other words, that a group of people have one view of how a subject works (in this case, physicists' view of the fundamental nature of reality) but the new evidence they're assembling indicates that their existing view is fundamentally wrong. What do they do? Ideally, they would hold their hands up and say 'wait a second, people, it's becoming clear our view is wrong, we must openly accept this and develop a new view that is in line with the new evidence', but as is often the case, they don't. Instead, they keep massaging the new evidence to fit their existing viewpoint, even though their whole field of study is making less and less sense as a result. Eventually, their field becomes an almighty theoretical mess that bogs them down and paralyses their progress. Not only does this mean that the this group practically going around in circles, but that their next generation of bright young theoreticians are being trained to think about reality in the wrong way, thereby crippling their ability to make major steps forward in our understanding of that field. D'oh! If reality is an energy pattern and there are no fundamental 'particles', then this problem will never end; particle physicists will keep discovering new 'particles' forever, seeing new ones every time they increase the power of their particle accelerators.
How would mainstream physics progress if they took on board Czsyz's above comments? I don't know, but it would be exciting to see. At around the ten minute mark in the interview, Czsyz states: "[The physicists at Cern…] When they see mass they really see energy frozen in a time quantum. What they’re really seeing is a frozen bundle of energy." What a great idea! Einstein's famous insight that mass and energy are interchangeable would therefore hide a more profound fact; that there is no 'mass' in reality at all. Instead, what we call 'mass' is simply a part of 'the energy pattern of reality' caught in a quantum 'hold'.
I wrote a blog post a while back, putting forward the idea that it's often the military, rather than the scholars, who are the driving force behind a fundamental improvement in our scientific understanding of the universe. The example I used in that article was Galileo and the new invention of the telescope. Although the Catholic Church was implacable in its geocentric view at that time, and had stifled Copernicus's theories, they couldn't stop the military adoption of the telescope because of its extensive practical benefits. That widespread adoption of the telescope in the next century then forced the change in viewpoint from geocentrism to heliocentrism. In other words, it wasn't a theory but a practical application that changed the dominant scholarly viewpoint. I think a similar process has been going on in the last fifty years in the secret military world vs mainstream science, only in this case it's a shift amongst the military researcher-engineers from materialism to, for want of a better phrase, 'energism'. Unfortunately this change is not being disseminated to the general public, or mainstream science itself, and Paul Czsyz was brave to even discuss the subject. For that, I think, he deserves great praise.
Thank you, Paul Czsyz. R.I.P.