Einstein’s Unified Field Theory was directly cited by Carlos Allende in William Moore’s book, “The Philadelphia Experiment”, and John Dering offers speculative insights into the non-linear, scale-dependent nature of Unified Field Theory effects that may offer credibility to Allende’s story. He additionally describes the application of similar non-linear electromagnetic effects in the Nazi Bell project and the lesser-known Rhine Valley experiments of World War II, which he indicates were documented by the Allies as an “electronic warfare” system that caused interference with Allied Aircraft.

Dering also describes experiments conducted in the Rhine Valley which may have been related to the Nazi Bell project as described by Igor Witkowski in “Truth about the Wunderwaffe” or could have been a completely separate thread of research. According to Dering, a Nazi facility in the Rhine Valley that was a source of electromagnetic interference with Allied aircraft was discovered during a mission to gather intelligence on the German atomic bomb program. The device used a rotating electromagnetic wave interacting with stationary mercury and produced strong electronic warfare effects in terms of knocking out ignition systems and along with a collection of other anomalous effects in the vicinity of the device. He likens this to the Philadelphia Experment in it also demonstrated a threshold behavior that strongly indicates scale plays a role in these effects.

“The goal of the Philadelphia Experiment seems to have been to develop a type of stealth or cloaking technology to change the radar reflectivity of the hull of the ship by imposing a magnetic field. The field likely would have been generated by the ship’s degaussing coils, but they would have been placed around the ship in a more complicated pattern than normally used for degaussing the hull. Destroyer Escorts like the Eldridge were electric-drive ships and were one of the few types of vessels with large enough generators to power the coils. You’re talking about fields that would have been on the order of 10 to 100 times larger than would have been used for degaussing, and there could have been pulsing or resonant field techniques that could have been applied to make the field even several times larger than that.

This was a wartime situation and people were interested in trying to protect ships, not science-fiction. However, what appears to have happened is that the fields were powerful enough that the ship probably may have crossed a non-linear threshold above which Unified Field Theory Effects would have become prevalent. In terms of scale, you must have a certain minimum amount of power and a certain minimum size to the system before these effects shows up, but in the case of the Philadelphia Experiment they may have accidentally designed an experiment that crossed over that threshold.” – John Dering

Podkletnov first published on the topic of gravity shielding effects in superconductors back in 1992, and achieved notoriety in the media when he submitted an article on the effect to the “Journal of Physics D”. The story was leaked to the press and initially published in the British “Sunday Telegraph” newspaper, and was subsequently was picked up by other publications around the world. Podkletnov has indicated that despite the publicity this provided for his research, it also led to negative feedback from peers in the scientific community, and ultimately pushed him towards private financing for his research.

Podkletnov described the discovery of this gravity shielding effect as a smoke from a colleague’s pipe rose in a column above the rotating superconducting disk, which prompted him to perform measurements that eventually led to him believe that a gravity shielding effect was occurring. Seeking to demonstrate a more pronounced gravity shielding effect, over time he constructed larger superconducting disks, and has additionally proposed stacking arrays of rotating disks as a means for multiplying the gravity shielding effect based on existing experimental designs.

Over the last few years, Podkletnov has continued his research, and published a joint paper with Dr. Giovanni Modanese describing a “Gravity Impulse Generator” capable of producing a non-diverging beam of what appeared to be gravitational force emanating from a superconductor. The impulse generator departed from Podkletnov’s earlier experiments in that it used a mounted, stationary superconducting emitter bombarded by a high-voltage discharge in a high-intensity magnetic field, rather than simply rotating a superconducting disk as in his previous gravity shielding experiments.

Podkletnov’s research has been closely followed by NASA, and a replication of the initial superconductive gravity shielding test was attempted in 2001 by NASA’s Ron Koczor and Tony Robertson of NASA Glenn research center, who performed tests on a superconductive disk designed by Podkletnov and built by SCI Engineered Materials. However, the replication achieved only 200 rpm of the required 5,000 rpm and failed achieve a measurable result.

Bussard was best known as the namesake for the legendary “Bussard Ramjet”. He conceptualized the device in 1960 during his tenure in the Nuclear Propulsion Division of Los Alamos National Labs, where he designed the Nerva motor – a nuclear powered rocket proposed for heavy-lift orbital applications. He later rose to the position of Assistant Director of the Atomic Energy Commission under Robert Hirsch in the early 1970′s, where they founded the fusion power research program for the United States.

Bussard describes his disenchantment with big-science Tokamak research that led him to return to the roots of fusion power with the “Polywell” project that he initiated in 1986. Funded for over 20 years by the Department of the Navy, Bussard’s EMC2 corporation was tasked with solving 19 fundamental challenges that stood in the way of designing commercially viable Farnsworth fusors.

The Polywell design is a modified Farnsworth-Hirsch style fusor which traps electrons in a magnetic confinement inside its hollow center. The negatively charged electrons then accelerate positively charged ions for the purpose of achieving inertial electrostatic confinement fusion. Bussard theorized that by utilizing magnetic fields he could avoid losses from electrons striking the grid, and he reported achieving fusion rate of 10^9 fusion reactions per second as a result of the magnetic shielding, which is about 100,000 times greater fusion power than Farnsworth achieved.

Polywell was designed for high-efficiency fusion power and also for portability, which was required to satisfy the Navy’s needs for ocean vessels and submarines. These characteristics also make it suitable for high-output fusion power for space applications. While Bussard’s first intended application was an 8-foot diameter naval reactor capable of generating 100-megawatts of output energy, the ultimate goal for Polywell was to facilitate the development of a high-velocity transorbital spacecraft capable of reaching the moon in less than 8 hours time.

Van Flandern begins by questioning the speed of gravity, which is assumed to propogate at the same rate as light. However, he points out that the calculations used to predict planetary orbits assume an infinite speed of gravity, and indicates that gravity must propogate faster than light or else planetary orbits would become unstable spirals.

Drawing from personal experience, Van Flandern describes the pre-launch recalibration of precision clocks used by the Global Positioning System satellites to account for relativistic changes in orbital speed and gravitational field-strength, and indicates that Einstein’s theory of relativity should render both frames of reference identical, and thus disallow clocks in one relativistic frame to be recalibrated to match the slower clocks in another.

Van Flandern also describes his support for the “exploded planet hypothesis” in cosmopology as an explanation for the origin of asteroids, comets, and meteorites. He claims that the evidence is unambiguous these objects originated from a planetary explosion in the early solar system, and indicates that the orbital “explosion signatures” in space junk are also found in comet and asteroid orbits. As further evidence, he cites the black coating on one face of slow-rotating bodies in the solar system (such as Saturn’s moon Iapetus) as originating from a passing debris cloud generated during the planetary explosion.

Finally, Van Flandern discusses the cosmology of Mars, and proposes that Mars was not originally a planet of itself but actually a moon of another planet. He also talks about the Cydonia region of Mars, as discusses past predictions for secondary facial features that he claims were later validated by higher resolution photography. Van Flandern offers these discussions as a part of what he calls a crisis in cosmology, where scientific fads dominate cosmology instead of geniune scientific observation.

Dr. James Corum, a colleague of Dering’s, is a PhD Electrical Engineer with experience translating German physics texts into English, and supports Dering’s belief in the viability of time-space manifold engineering based on Einstein’s Unified Field Theory. Corum also claims that past translations of the Einstein’s Unified Field Theory contains subtle mistranslations from the theory’s original german-language publication that have made it more difficult for English speaking scientists to correctly interpret it, and that when interpretered correctly the usability of Einstein’s theory becomes readily apparent.

To provide historical support for the engineerability of Einstein’s Unified Field Theory, John Dering claims that it has been already used in this capacity by General Electric engineer Gabriel Kron, who is widely regarded as the father of modern distributed electrical systems. Kron is reported to have directly identified Einstein’s Unified Field Theory in reference to eliminating inefficiencies in electrical generation equipment involving the use of rotating magnetic fields.

Dering speculates that issues like “phase creep” in electrical generation equipment are actually relativistic effects that were largely engineered out of electrical equipment back in the 1930′s by Kron, which explains why effects predicted by the Unified Field Theory are not easily identified or widely reported. Dering has further speculated that since Unified Field Theory effects are more likely to manifest in large, high-energy systems with greater inefficiencies that modern technology is less likely to display Unified Field Theory effects than early to mid 20th century equipment was, and hence reports of anomalous physics effects have declined as a result of lower overall power thresholds and more precise equipment design.

Greer has been at the helm of The Disclosure Project for nearly two decades now, and done Congressional presentations, briefings for CIA directors, and had private discussions with powerful figures throughout our government. In a sense, he’s a one-man political action committee for government openness about UFOs, and the Disclosure Project has become a political force though his leadership. It wasn’t always that way, however, and Greer talks about the early days of The Disclosure Project, and discusses the efforts that went into putting together a panel of experts to discuss the subject of UFOs.

In addition to the Disclosure Project, Greer is also the founder of The Orion Project, an organization dedicating to developing long-term energy alternatives to fossil fuels. While others in that sector pursue incremental solutions to the problem, Greer pointed Orion towards the Zero Point Energy as the optimal long-term solution for energy independence. For Greer, establishing new technological paradigms is a key part of changing the social paradigm to help mankind evolve towards being the kind of species that ET would feel comfortable openly meeting. He discusses popular media’s portrayal of ET as being hostile, and indicates that the problem isn’t ET’s hostile nature, but in fact our own.

According to Greer, open contact has been forestalled by the hostile nature of the human species, making us socially undeveloped in the eyes of any species advanced enough to visit us. He suggests that our technology has outstripped our social development, and that until humanity is able to act more mature we’re not likely to be welcome in space. He claims that extraterrestrial visitors are concerned about our hostility, which is exemplified by UFO signtings over nuclear missile silos and atomic test sites since the 1940′s.

Greer also discusses the role of big media in stigmatizing UFOs with a “giggle factor”, and suggests that our media establishment has been just as damaging to the truth about UFOs as the government has. He asserts that only thing more corrupt than big corporations is big media, and notes that the media has a tendency to only report on stories that support their own corporate agenda, and have no qualms about slanting and stigmatizing views that don’t fit that agenda. I echo Greer’s distrust of mainstream media, and the explosion of independent blog-journalism and decline of big media indicates that Greer’s view is quietly shared by many Americans.

For me, Steven Greer’s achievements can be summarized in a single word: courage. Before Steven Greer and The Disclosure Project, UFOs were a taboo subject. It took tremendous courage for him to step forward, face the stigma head-on, and say, “I believe”. Over time, that courage has inspired others to find their own voice, and gradually more people are stepping forward to join him in saying: “I believe”.

Searl had a marketing machine in place for the Searl Effect before most of us were even born. Back in the early 1960′s, he was producing photos, models, books, and later videotaped lectures that Searl Effect enthusiasts have been purchasing ever since. Those materials, which Searl sold to raise funds for the development of his technology, left an indelible mark on the imagination of thousands of enthusiasts around the world, and the vision that he shared helped to shape our own perceptions of what Antigravity should be.

It was John Searl who established the common belief that free energy and antigravity are related effects, and he’s also responsible for introducing the notion of antigravity arising from rotating magnetic fields. Over time, these beliefs have leaked out of fringe culture and influenced even mainstream media’s portrayal of antigravity. Before John Searl, the idea of antigravity was portrayed through TT Brown’s high-voltage electrical equipment: after John Searl, we have UFO-shaped devices filled with rotating magnets that skyrocket up off the workbench – and take the workbench with them on their way up to space.

It might be too much to say that Searl singlehandedly defined our expectations for advanced propulsion systems, as most enthusiasts will rightfully point out that Viktor Schauberger and many others were proposing similar archetypes long before John Searl. However, what I credit Searl for is popularizing those ideas and driving them home as the means worth pursuing for creating free energy and antigravity. While claims of overunity devices like magnet motors also predate Searl, I can’t help but wonder how much of that research is a direct result of his vision.

John Searl deserves respect for perserverence and tenancity, as well: close to 50 years after introducing the Searl Effect Generator and IGV in Great Britain, Searl continues to work to promote his technological vision and remains involved in the production of media to support it. Even Searl’s media has crossed major technological hurdles: what once was distributed in print evolved into VHS conference lectures, and nowdays it’s distributed instanteously via YouTube to anyone who cares to learn about it.

I didn’t interview John Searl to promote his research: there’s enough coverage of the Searl Effect out there already. What I wanted to capture was the personality and character of a man who’s spent his entire adult lifetime in pursuit of a singular vision. He’s overcome poverty and debt, legal actions and failed business partnerships, and yet he remains just as true to that vision today as when he first started. While critics have pointed to his tribulations as evidence that his personality more suited to developing a vision than executing it, the fact still remains that he has perservered and overcome those challenges, and offers advice to others on how to do the same. To me, that’s what makes John Searl truly remarkable.

At Chelomei, Khrushchev competed against Sergei Korolev’s design bureau, led by the famous designer of the Russian ICBM and the head of the Soviet Space Program. Korolev curried political favor for his role in designing the Soviet ICBM, but according to Khrushchev he lacked the design resources required to win the space race – resources that Chelomei had already invested in the development of the Proton rocket. Chelomei’s team was making headway on the project when Korolev had their contract cancelled in 1965, a late reversal for the Soviet Union that cost them valuable time in the Space Race.

Korolev’s meddling may have cost them the Space Race, but it didn’t stop work on the Proton: the project continued under Korolev’s team and was first launched in 1965. Chelomei envisioned the Proton winning the Space Race and as a platform for military “Zvezda” space station, but in real life it’s seen use in deploying civilian satellites and modules for the International Space Station.

Khrushchev went on to work at the Computer Control Institute in Moscow until 1991, when he immigrated to the United States. He is now a Senior Fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. He’s written several books on his father’s achievements, including “Khrushchev on Khrushchev”, “Nikita Khrushchev and the Creation of a Superpower”, and “Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Reformer, 1945-1964″. His tenure with Vladimir Chelomei’s team isn’t the only accomplishment that he’s had:

I was honored to interview Khruschev, not only because of prestige and stature of both he and his family’s accomplishments, but also because his work has stood the test of time: the Proton Rocket was his project – a design that’s outlasted the entire shuttle program. The Soviet Union may not have put a man on the moon, but it’s the rocket they designed to win the Space Race that’s being used by the competition 45 years later. When you look at it from that perspective, maybe they won the Space Race after all.

Interviewing Randall was a dream come true in terms of timing. About a month before our interview, two of the first applied physics papers on M-theory were published: the first one was a proof of the Alcubierre Warp Drive and the second proposed a way to utilize neutrinos to communicate backwards in time. I interviewed the authors of both those papers, and wanted to follow up by speaking to an authority on the subject who might offer some perspective. For me, seeing applied physics papers on M-theory meant that this theoretical model was starting to come of age, which recast it for me as something worth being seriously discussed.

I would have loved to do the same for String theory, but then again so would everybody else. For decades, proponents of String theory (the precursor to M-theory) spent considerable time promoting their theoretical model, and yet never offered any practical, real-world predictions based on it. M-theory arrived later, based closely on String theory, and for a while it appeared that it wouldn’t offer predictions either. However, in 2006 we finally saw M-theory start to stretch its legs, and those first two papers were aimed directly at disruptive technologies, which seems like a great place to for M-theory to start.

Don’t get me wrong: there’s no better place for a theoretical model to start than by supporting the predictions of earlier theories. However, if the primary value of M-theory was to tell us what we already know then it wouldn’t be very useful. The place to start is with predictions that conventional models just can’t address, and that’s what M-theory is producing.

It is worth noting that M-theory is still very young, and still hasn’t been fleshed out enough to answer a lot of the questions that I asked Randall. As a mathematically-derived theory, in a sense M-theory is a bunch of relationships searching for definitions to anchor them in reality. However, what I feel it truly offers is a new sense of hope for mainstream physics, as the conventional theories just don’t seem able to keep pace with the human imagination. M-theory most certainly does.

These days you’ll find Dames playing the role of expert witness for a host of Discovery and Science-channel shows, but before that he spent decades on Coast to Coast AM as a regular guest, and sometimes discussed remote viewing predictions by his civilian students. Those predictions came true more often than the skeptics would like to admit, and over time Ed’s efforts to portray remote viewing as a valid field of scientific inquiry have made remote viewing a respectable topic.

There are other remote viewing experts out there, but none of them have Dames no-nonsense style, and few of them are as upfront it their failures as Ed Dames typically is. It’s not a perfect science, and according to many remote viewing still isn’t a science at all, but it’s being used more frequently for the types of work that police used to hire the local psychic for. The Steve Fossett plane crash is one example where traditional investigation didn’t return results, and remote viewing was used when everything else failed.

Remote viewing has other applications, and as a technology buff one of the most intriguing of them was the notion of clairvoyantly seeing other times as well as locations. Just like pretty much everybody else, I’ve had detailed, accurate dreams that later “came true”, and I wondered if this random occurrence might not be something that remote viewing could harness to solve scientific and technological mysteries.

What I mean is this: you ever get that Deja Vu feeling that you’ve been someplace before? Maybe it’s doesn’t mean anything, but maybe it’s a tinge of your ESP at work. Now what if you could put that Deja Vu feeling to work in figuring out how to solve a complex technical challenge? According to remote viewing advocates, it’s possible, but it’s not as easy as picking up next year’s textbook before it’s printed. Still, with remote viewing it may be possible, and Ed Dames provides some perspective on how remote viewing might do it.

If it is possible, then remote viewing future technologies leads to a lot of ethical issues. If remote viewing helps to reverse engineer a future technology, then who is the real inventor? Would it be the person in the future, or does that entire chain of events somehow get erased? The obvious issue of corporate espionage and remote viewing was broached long ago, but on a deeper level there’s also the question of whether changing the timeline of events based on future knowledge violates causality.