Harvard Prof Claims UFOs May Travel to Earth Via Extra Dimensions CERN is Trying to Unlock Them

This Harvard Prof doesn't give any evidence for his theory that UFOs travel to Earth using extra dimensions and that CERN is trying to unlock those dimensions. He pretty much says it's common sense that aliens in UFOs would be further along technologically and that they'd use dimensional travel. He mentions them traveling by using 'curled dimensions'. I had to look that up .... a 'curled dimension' is a dimension that is perpendicular to all space dimensions and time, but can be described mathematically by a Pythagorean equation with more than four variables. My major was psychology and not math or physics so I admit that I have no idea what that means and how a curled dimension is different from other dimensions. But others here might follow that.


Harvard Prof Claims UFOs May Travel to Earth Via Extra Dimensions CERN is Trying to Unlock Them

Avi Loeb, known for his efforts to prove we are not alone, has claimed that extraterrestrial visitors are travelling through hidden dimensions created by researchers at the CERN particle accelerator are seeking.

The physicist also noted that extraterrestrials are using theoretical quantum gravity engineering to travel through 'curled' dimensions that humans can only detect in particle accelerators such as CERN.

Loeb said that travelling through extra-spatial dimensions would mean the chance of collisions would be 'much smaller.' Scientists at CERN have attempted to detect six 'extra spatial' dimensions, and look for particular particles as evidence that such dimensions exist.

'Particularly with the advances happening at CERN in regards to proving the existence of other dimensions then it makes logical sense for a far more sophisticated civilization to have developed the technology to utilise these.'

a reply to: FlyersFan

I had to look that up .... a 'curled dimension' is a dimension that is perpendicular to all space dimensions and time, but can be described mathematically by a Pythagorean equation with more than four variables.

Sounds like the notion of "The Warp"" from the likes of "Warhammer 40,000".

My major was psychology and not math or physics so I admit that I have no idea what that means and how a curled dimension is different from other dimensions.

I think it means the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily a straight line in normal space-time, or something similar.

a reply to: andy06shake

The same as 'folding' space through the use of wormholes, I think.

originally posted by: andy06shake
I think it means the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily a straight line in normal space-time, or something similar.

Ahhh. Okay. That makes sense. I've heard that before.

they found out this is all possible when CERN opened up the portal to Clown World.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Perhaps this is a simplistic example of a curled dimension….




Btw………

Shiva’s Statue at CERN

Shiva holds one of the most prominent roles in Hinduism as the god of destruction. He is one of the three most important gods, alongside Brahma (the creator) and Vishnu (the preserver). The sect of Shaivism holds that Shiva is the Supreme Being which all other gods are aspects of.

Is Shiva, above, depicted within a hypothetical surrounding dimensional ……porthole, gateway, Stargate, wormhole….below?



Food for thought…..in plain sight

👽☕️🍩

If "empty" space is composed of all these extra "dimensions", then if you are folding space to instantly travel from one point to another, you are folding all these dimensions at the same time. Dimensions are only coordinates in a measurement system, the first three depend on your vantage point. The first three measurements are width, length, and depth, but those change with point-of-view. Then you have the 4th dimension known as duration, or how long the measured object exists in space.

Gravity is the only force I can believe warps space/time, and if they think that the Large Hadron Collider can be used to travel through space/time, that would be one huge starship or stargate to build to be able to travel with and don't even mention the amount of energy needed. I think that the idea is a pipe dream that theoretical physicists have, impossible to achieve the way they are trying to do it. They already know that time (motion through space) is tied to gravity. They don't think about kinetic energy as a force like the main four composed of gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force.

I wonder if 'surfing' space is a possibility.

If the universe exists in wave form from the BB...instead of using wormholes, perhaps, through the use of ship-generated, anti-gravity fields, a ship might be able to jump from crest to crest...overcoming incredible distances instantly, by surfing over the troughs of space.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Like that guy from the 1974 John Carpenter film "Dark Star"?

Image Link

yep... those Dimension Portals are too small and too scarce.... why not 'open borders' via a 'curved dimension' non barrier ?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Harvard…the CNN of academia. I wish their opinion meant something. Wait until the National Enquirer confirms it at least.

a reply to: CarlLaFong


I've repeatedly tried to school people about a very simple, self-evident fact. Virtually any UFO sighting gives evidence that those craft nullify mass. If relatively small UFOs can have that feature, so will the larger star ships.

The "problem" need not resort to high-minded math that few really understand nor directly relate to space travel. Gravity, inertia, etc. are outside of the problem of deep space travel, or to use an Einsteinian term,relatively unimportant.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
This Harvard Prof doesn't give any evidence for his theory that UFOs travel to Earth using extra dimensions and that CERN is trying to unlock those dimensions. He pretty much says it's common sense that aliens in UFOs would be further along technologically and that they'd use dimensional travel. He mentions them traveling by using 'curled dimensions'. I had to look that up .... a 'curled dimension' is a dimension that is perpendicular to all space dimensions and time, but can be described mathematically by a Pythagorean equation with more than four variables. My major was psychology and not math or physics so I admit that I have no idea what that means and how a curled dimension is different from other dimensions. But others here might follow that.

Harvard Prof Claims UFOs May Travel to Earth Via Extra Dimensions CERN is Trying to Unlock Them

"Avi Loeb, known for his efforts to prove we are not alone, has claimed that extraterrestrial visitors are travelling through hidden dimensions created by researchers at the CERN particle accelerator are seeking."

The 6 extra curled dimensions CERN is searching for are tiny, so small we can't see them, according to CERN. So they might be a way of traveling from one side of a proton to the other side of a proton, except we might see them if they were that big, and we don't see them, so if they exist, they are probably even smaller than that. So I'm not really following how these extra dimensions so small we can't see them could be conduits for interstellar travel, and it's not because of my lack of science knowledge. This CERN article talks about the 6 extra curled dimensions being so small we can't even see them:

public-archive.web.cern.ch...

Underlying string theory is the radical idea that fundamental particles are not really like points or dots, but rather small loops of vibrating strings. All the different particles and forces are just different oscillation modes of a unique type of string. Bizarrely, the theory also implies that besides the familiar three–dimensional world and the fourth dimension of time, there are six additional spatial dimensions! These extra dimensions are apparently 'curled up' so small that we do not see them.

So does it make any sense to talk about these 6 extra dimensions being so tiny we can't even see them being used for interstellar travel? I don't see how. So why is a Harvard Professor raising this question?

Here's another question. Can a Harvard Professor be a crackpot? The answer is yes. Is this particular Harvard professor, Avi Loeb, a crackpot? He definitely checks some of the crackpot boxes, as discussed in this video by a physicist. This is one of the best videos I've ever seen discussing a "crackpot scale" and how good scientists, like Luis Alvarez, can buck mainstream science, without being a crackpot. The video concludes that while Avi Loeb checks some of the crackpot boxes, the jury is still out as to whether or not he's really a full-fledged crackpot. But it also points out that Loeb takes credit for inventing fields of science that have been around for decades, so some of his claims are obviously preposterous for that reason:

Harvard & aliens & crackpots: a disambiguation of Avi Loeb

Crackpots 2: Aliens, harvard, harvard aliens? 'Oumuamua? Planet 9? Dinosaurs?

Can physicists be physics crackpots? Of course. Is Avi Loeb a crackpot? Maybe.

The Avi Loeb criticism starts around 24:00.

It's 66 minutes long so I don't expect many people to watch all that, but I would suggest watching Jill Tartar complaining to Avi Loeb about scientists not taking aliens seriously when she's dedicated her life to searching for alien signals for decades as the director of the SETI institute (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence). That interaction lasts for a few minutes beginning at 31:18:

Jill Tartar: "So Avi, I get a little bit pissed off when you throw the entire scientific culture under the bus, because some of us have been thinking about and building instruments to find anomalies for a very long time, and I think that when we say, if we are ever going to announce such a detection, that we require extraordinary evidence.

We're doing that as a way of differentiating ourselves from the pseudoscience that is so much a part of popular culture."

Then Avi has an emotional and not entirely rational response that still doesn't seem to acknowledge that other scientists do believe aliens exist, they just don't think he's provided proof for some of this alien claims like the interstellar object Oumuamua was probably a piece of alien technology, when the rest of the scientific community says something like maybe, but probably not, and there's just not enough evidence to support such a claim.

The media of course loves this Harvard Prof's credentials and his thrilling stories so he gets a lot of attention, but that doesn't stop scientists from refuting the tall tales playing out in the media, like this post of an article claiming scientists were debating whether Oumuamua was alien. The scientist says, no, they aren't, you chuckleheads. The video goes through many many scientists' responses like this:

originally posted by: Myhandle
a reply to: FlyersFan

Harvard…the CNN of academia. I wish their opinion meant something. Wait until the National Enquirer confirms it at least.

Harvard doesn't have a unified view of these topics like aliens, they employ various professors and researchers with various viewpoints. For example, John Mack was a Harvard professor who thought alien abductions were real, while Susan Clancy was a Harvard Researcher of alien abductions who thought people felt the experiences were real, but there was no real evidence aliens were involved. So you can't say Harvard had a particular viewpoint on that topic when two of their people have such diametrically opposed viewpoints. The big problem for Mack wasn't believeing in aliens, it was his reliance on hypnotic regressions as a tool, since it's almost universally condemned as not being a reliable scientific source, so he did get hassled about that.

a reply to: FlyersFan


I absolutely hate the whole "Common sense says aliens in UFOs are naturally more technically advanced than us" bs.

The whole thing of stupid Christians believing in God while smart scientists believe in aliens.

But yet, they are looking for a someone to save them....sounds familiar.

www.youtube.com...

Dimensionality is based on the inverse or the square root of pi. If the number of dimensions is an irrational number, there can be many and this has huge implications for manipulation of space-time.

Now here is where it also gets interesting:

Look at a periodic table and notice the element under Carbon. We all know that in this Universe , all life is Carbon based. The Carbon atom forms a holograph when it spins but loses an electron. We know it does because we can date organic matter this way. Where does that electron go? Your periodic table will give you the answer and the possibility of a Silicon-based Universe. Is a Silicon based universe conscious? I would hypothesize it is, and it is the the ultra computer of a Godverse we all search for and have the ability to access.

This might not be the nuts and bolts or engineered solution to inter-dimensional movement of ETs but it is related to how a super advanced civilization accesses and interprets information.

originally posted by: anthelion
www.youtube.com...

Dimensionality is based on the inverse or the square root of pi. If the number of dimensions is an irrational number, there can be many and this has huge implications for manipulation of space-time.

Did you make that video? Or are you trying to understand what it says? Pi is just the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter. Circular shapes are also present in other geometries like cylinders and spheres. That video appears to say if we assume the universe has a spherical geometry, Pi will come up in that geometry (or the square root or whatever). But that's not very deep, it's just a simple tautology that says if you assume the shape of the universe is a sphere, the math you apply to the spherical shape will be the math that applies to spheres. I didn't hear the video say anything about this implying additional dimensions or especially an irrational number of dimensions.

Anyway it's hard to argue with a tautology like that which is true by definition, but other parts of the video were harder to understand. The video jumps between citing equations of established science, to making claims related to the author's personal "theory", and it's not clear to me exactly what the author's personal theory predicts that would be different from mainstream science nor how we would test it.

Now here is where it also gets interesting:

Look at a periodic table and notice the element under Carbon. We all know that in this Universe , all life is Carbon based.

We've never discovered any life other than that on earth so I'm not sure we know that, but we have reasons to think it seems likely naturally occurring life is carbon based.

The Carbon atom forms a holograph when it spins but loses an electron.

Have you got a link to this use of the word holograph?

We know it does because we can date organic matter this way. Where does that electron go? Your periodic table will give you the answer and the possibility of a Silicon-based Universe.

You lost me there, are you still talking about this universe, or another universe?

Is a Silicon based universe conscious? I would hypothesize it is, and it is the the ultra computer of a Godverse we all search for and have the ability to access.

This might not be the nuts and bolts or engineered solution to inter-dimensional movement of ETs but it is related to how a super advanced civilization accesses and interprets information.

Well, I see no reason why humans can't make intelligent machines based on silicon, in this universe. But for naturally occuring life, there are reasons to think carbon is just much more likely as the basis for life than silicon, because silicon has chemical problems with forming life molecules that carbon doesn't have, as explained inthis video:

the aliens will not be silicon


For one example, on earth, we look for life wherever there is water so there seems to be a link between water and life, maybe because water is a great solvent for carbon-based life. But water doesn't work as a solvent for silicon-based life.

On the Potential of Silicon as a Building Block for Life

Despite more than one hundred years of work on organosilicon chemistry, the basis for the plausibility of silicon-based life has never been systematically addressed nor objectively reviewed. We provide a comprehensive assessment of the possibility of silicon-based biochemistry, based on a review of what is known and what has been modeled, even including speculative work. We assess whether or not silicon chemistry meets the requirements for chemical diversity and reactivity as compared to carbon. To expand the possibility of plausible silicon biochemistry, we explore silicon's chemical complexity in diverse solvents found in planetary environments, including water, cryosolvents, and sulfuric acid. In no environment is a life based primarily around silicon chemistry a plausible option.

The authors review a century of research on the silicon based life topic and it doesn't appear very promising, even though it made for a cool star trek episode.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

naturally occuring life

There's no such thing without a theory of everything for all that occurs in nature, so we'd have to define terminology now. Think M-Theory for some sort of travel between said dimensions, which could also be folded into much smaller pieces we'd have yet to discover?

Forget the little green aliens! What if you could call your dead friends and family members? You think they'd have some revolutionary information on life, death and everything else to offer, in case they actually don't exist in our memories only?

a reply to: TheWoker
Did you watch the video? The arguments for carbon versus silicon-based life are compelling, even though we don't know everything, because we know a lot about the differences between carbon and silicon and the way they bond.

Regarding curled dimensions, m theory is the underlying theory for which the different string theories are aspects, and the curled up dimensions CERN has been searching for would still be tiny, so small we can't see them. How do we know they would have to be so small we can't see them? Because we don't see them. Our observations are consistent with exactly three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, so the only way we are able to theorize additional dimensions without contradicting observation is by hypothesizing that the additional dimensions are simply too small to have shown up in our observations so far.

Anyway string theory and by extension m-theory is so far a dismal failure, because none of the attempts to make predictions about the real world have been successful. As George Box once said, "all models are wrong, some are useful". General relativity and quantum mechanics may be wrong in some way we haven't yet determined (and they don't cooperate at the center of a black hole), but both are extremely useful. String theory and m-theory so far have been completely useless in making any predictions about the real world. The failure of the LHC to find any of the predictions of string theory might have been a nail in the string theory coffin for now.

So I wouldn't hold high hopes for either one, in this lifetime. Sabine Hossenfelder explains the failure of string theory so far, if you're not aware of it already. I was thinking about making a thread about this since a lot of people seem to be unaware of it, but it may be a little too esoteric for ATS, getting into technical aspects of AdS/CFT.

The String Theory Wars and What Happened Next

String theory was a beautiful idea, the best contender for a theory of everything that we have seen so far. Thousands of physicists spend decades trying to work it out. But it didn’t quite go according to plan. String theory became extremely controversial during what's been dubbed the “String Wars” about 20 years ago. Then it kind of disappeared. What happened? What were the string wars? And what are string theorists doing now? That’s what we’ll talk about today.

This is the part where she talks about the six tiny curled dimensions CERN was looking for, that have been too small to see:

5:25
Then there was the problem that string theory required a total of 10 dimensions of space to properly work. Unfortunately, it seems that the space we find ourselves in has merely 3 dimensions. String theorists explained away the extra dimensions of space by saying they are rolled up to sizes so small that we can’t see them. Again this works because measuring something small requires a lot of energy, and we might not have noticed these small dimensions because we haven’t been able to achieve particle collisions with sufficiently high energy.

Of course CERN never found those extra dimensions, nor any other predictions of string theory or m-theory, so in summary she thinks string theory is sort of dead, though a branch that spawned from string theory called AdS/CFT is still being researched, not meeting the goals of string theory, but coming up with methods that have been useful for some calculations. By the way she wrote her PhD thesis on string theory, so it's a topic she knows a lot about.

a reply to: FlyersFan

They figured out how to bend time called “gravitational redshift.”

a reply to: JJproductions

Gravitational redshift doesn't exactly bend time directly.

In physics and general relativity, gravitational redshift (known as Einstein shift in older literature) is the phenomenon that electromagnetic waves or photons traveling out of a gravitational well (seem to) lose energy.

en.wikipedia.org...#:~:text=In%20physics%20and%20general%20relativity,(seem%20to)%20lose%20energy.