Part 1 of 2
1. Gravity and mass
It is said to have been the sight of an apple falling from a tree
that, around 1665, gave Isaac Newton the idea that the force that
pulls an apple to earth is the same as that which keeps the moon in
its orbit around the earth. The reason the moon does not fall to
earth is because of the counteracting effect of its orbital motion.
If the moon were to cease its orbital motion and fall to earth, the
acceleration due to gravity that it would experience at the earth’s
surface would be 9.8 m/s² – the same as that experienced by an apple
or any other object in free fall.
Newton’s universal law of gravitation states that the
gravitational force between two bodies is proportional to the
product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of
the distance between them. To calculate the gravitational force (F),
their masses (m1 and m2) and the gravitational constant (G) are
multiplied together, and the result is divided by the square of the
distance (r) between them: F = Gm1m2/r².
According to newtonian theory, the gravitational force between
two or more bodies is therefore dependent on their masses. However,
the gravitational acceleration of an attracted body is not dependent
on its mass: if dropped simultaneously from a tower, and if air
resistance is ignored, a tennis ball and a cannonball will hit the
ground simultaneously. This is explained by means of Newton’s second
law of motion, which states that the force applied to a body equals
the mass of the body multiplied by its acceleration (F = ma); this
implies that gravity pulls harder on larger masses.
If Newton’s two force equations are combined (F = ma =
Gm1m2/r²), it can be deduced that, for the equation to balance, the
gravitational constant (G) must have the rather curious dimensions
m³/kg.s² (volume divided by mass multiplied by time squared).
Challenging Newton
In her book Gravitational Force of the Sun,1 Pari Spolter
criticizes the orthodox theory that gravity is proportional to the
quantity or density of inert mass. She goes as far as to argue that
there is no reason to include any term for mass in either of the
force equations. She points out that to deduce from the earth-moon
system that gravity obeys an inverse-square law (i.e. that its
strength diminishes by the square of the distance from the
attracting body), Newton did not need to know or estimate the masses
of the earth and moon. He needed to know only the acceleration due
to gravity at the earth’s surface, the radius of the earth, the
orbital speed of the moon, and the distance between the earth and
moon. And as already said, a body’s gravitational acceleration in
free fall is independent of its mass, something that has been
verified to a high degree of precision.2
Spolter rejects Newton’s second law (F = ma) as an arbitrary
definition or convention, and maintains that it is not force that is
equal to mass times acceleration, but weight. Her equation for
‘linear’ force is F = ad (acceleration times distance). Her equation
for ‘circular’ force (including gravity) is F = aA, where a is the
acceleration and A is the area of a circle with a radius equal to
the mean distance of the orbiting body from the central body. She
holds that the acceleration due to gravity declines by the square of
the distance, but that the gravitational force of the sun, earth,
etc. is constant for any body revolving around it. In newtonian
theory, by contrast, it varies according to both the mass of the
orbiting body and its distance from the central body.
Spolter’s theory contains several flaws. First, her attempt to
deny any link between force and mass is unconvincing. She does not
question the equation for a body’s momentum (momentum = mass times
velocity), yet momentum with a rate of repetition constitutes a
force, which therefore cannot be independent of mass. Moreover,
weight is a type of force, rather than a completely separate
phenomenon. Second, Spolter would have us believe that there are two
types of force and energy – one linear and one circular – with
different dimensions: she gives ‘linear’ force the dimensions metres
squared per second squared, while ‘circular’ force is given the
dimensions metres cubed per second squared. But there is no
justification for inventing two forms of force and energy and for
abandoning uniform dimensions in this way.
Third, defining ‘circular’ force in such a way that the
gravitational force of a star or planet remains exactly the same no
matter how far away from it we happen to be, is counterintuitive if
not absurd. Furthermore, it is disingenuous of Spolter to say that
her equation implies that acceleration is inversely proportional to
the square of the distance. If it were true that a = F/A, with force
(F) proportional to r3 (see below) and area (A = πr2) proportional
to r2, acceleration would in fact be directly proportional to r3/r2
= r!
Spolter believes that her gravity equation solves the mystery of
Kepler’s third law of planetary motion: this law states that the
ratio of the cube of the mean distance (r) of each planet from the
sun to the square of its period of revolution (T) is always the same
number (r³/T² = constant). Her gravity equation can be rewritten: F
= 22π3r3/T2. As explained elsewhere, the factor 22π3 is entirely
arbitrary, and Spolter has merely obscured the real significance of
Kepler’s constant.3
Gravity does not involve some (mean) area being accelerated
around the sun, as Spolter’s equation implies. Rather, it involves a
coupling of the mass-energy of the sun and planets, along with their
associated massfree gravitational energy. And it acts not through
empty space but through an energetic ether – something that is as
much missing from Spolter’s physics as from orthodox physics (see
section 3). As shown in subsequent sections, the net gravitational
force need not be directly proportional to inert mass, as
characteristics such as spin and charge can modify a body’s
gravitational properties.
Spolter proposes that it is the rotation of a star, planet, etc.
that somehow generates the gravitational force and causes other
bodies to revolve around it – an idea advanced by the 17th
century
astronomer Johannes Kepler.4 But she does not suggest a mechanism to
explain how this might work, or what causes a celestial body to
rotate in the first place. She shows that the mean distance of
successive planetary orbits from the centre of the sun, or of
successive lunar orbits from the centre of a planet, is not random
but follows an exponential law, indicating that gravity is quantized
on a macro scale, just as electron orbits in an atom are quantized
on a micro scale. There is no generally accepted theory to explain
this key fact either.
The Devil’s Dictionary defines gravitation as:
‘The tendency of all bodies to
approach one another with a strength proportioned to the
quantity of matter they contain – the quantity of matter they
contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to
approach one another’.5
Such is the seemingly circular logic
underlying standard gravity theory. The figures given for the masses
and densities of all planets, stars, etc. are purely theoretical;
nobody has ever placed one on a balance and weighed it! It should be
borne in mind, however, that weight is always a relative measure,
since one mass can only be weighed in relation to some other mass.
The fact that observed artificial satellite speeds match predictions
is usually taken as evidence that the fundamentals of newtonian
theory must be correct.
The masses of celestial bodies can be calculated from what is
known as Newton’s form of Kepler’s third law, which assumes that
Kepler’s constant ratio of r³/T² is equal to the inert mass of the
body multiplied by the gravitational constant divided by 4π² (GM =
4π²r³/T² = v²r [if we substitute 2πr/v for T]). Using this method,
the earth’s mean density turns out to be 5.5 g/cm³. Since the mean
density of the earth’s outer crust is 2.75 g/cm³, scientists have
concluded that the density of the earth’s inner layers must increase
substantially with depth. However, there are good reasons for
questioning the standard earth model.6
Gravity anomalies
CODATA’s official (1998) value for the gravitational constant
(G) is 6.673 +/- 0.010 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.
While the values of many ‘fundamental constants’ are known to eight
decimal places, experimental values for G often disagree after only
three, and sometimes they even disagree about the first; this is
regarded as an embarrassment in an age of precision.1
Assuming the correctness of Newton’s gravitational equation, G
can be determined in Cavendish-type experiments, by measuring the
very small angle of deflection of a torsion balance from which large
and small metallic spheres are suspended, or the very small change
in its period of oscillation. Such experiments are extremely
sensitive and difficult to perform. For instance, electrostatic
attraction between the metallic spheres can affect the results: in
one experiment in which the small mass of platinum was coated with a
thin layer of lacquer, consistently lower values of G were obtained.2
Note that variations in the experimental values of G do not
necessarily mean that G itself varies; they probably mean that the
local manifestation of G, or the earth’s surface gravity (g), varies
according to ambient conditions. Scientists have occasionally
speculated on whether G is truly constant over very long periods of
time, but no conclusive evidence of a gradual increase or decrease
has been found.3
In 1981 a paper was published showing that measurements of G in
deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher
than that currently accepted.4 Furthermore, the deeper the
experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much
notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his
colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by
Eötvös in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that
gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition
of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a
consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as
random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the
observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence
of a short-range, composition-dependent ‘fifth force’. Their paper
caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of
experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world.5
The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a
composition-dependent force; one or two did, but this is generally
attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters have
detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the
results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush
performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high
atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than
elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same
mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or
quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by
changing its physical condition.66 His work was not taken seriously
by the scientific community, and the very precise spark photography
technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used
by other investigators. Experiments by Victor Crémieu showed that
gravitation measured in water at the earth’s surface appears to be
one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory.7
Unexpected anomalies continue to turn up. Mikhail Gersteyn has
shown that ‘G’ varies by at least 0.054% depending on orientation of
the two test masses relative to the fixed stars.8 Gary Vezzoli has
found that the strength of gravitational interactions varies by 0.04
to 0.05% as a function of an object’s temperature, shape, and
phase.9 Donald Kelly has demonstrated that if the absorption
capacity of a body is reduced by magnetizing or electrically
energizing it, it is attracted to the earth at a rate less than g.10
Physicists normally measure g in a controlled manner which includes
not altering the absorption capacity of bodies from their usual
state. A team of Japanese scientists has found that a right-spinning
gyroscope falls slightly faster than when it is not spinning.11
Bruce DePalma discovered that rotating objects falling in a
magnetic field accelerate faster than g.12
As mentioned above, measurements of gravity below the earth’s
surface are consistently higher than predicted on the basis of
Newton’s theory.13 Sceptics simply assume that hidden rocks of
unusually high density must be present. However, measurements in
mines where densities are very well known have given the same
anomalous results, as have measurements to a depth of 1673 metres in
a homogenous ice sheet in Greenland, well above the underlying rock.
Harold Aspden points out that in some of these experiments Faraday
cage-type enclosures are placed around the two metal spheres for
electrical screening purposes. He argues that this could result in
electric charge being induced and held on the spheres, which in turn
could induce ‘vacuum’ (or rather ether) spin, producing an influx of
ether energy that is shed as excess heat, resulting in errors of 1
or 2% in measurements of G.14
All freely falling bodies – individual atoms as well as
macroscopic objects – experience a gravitational acceleration (g) of
about 9.8 m/s² near the earth’s surface. The value of g varies
slightly all over the earth owing to its departure from a perfect
sphere (i.e. the equatorial bulge and local topography) and – in the
conventional theory – to local variations in the density of the
crust and upper mantle. These ‘gravity anomalies’ are believed to be
fully explicable in the context of newtonian theory. However, the
net gravitational force is not necessarily proportional to inert
mass. Section 2 will present evidence for gravity shielding, gravity
cancellation, and antigravity.
On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that
gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains,
would be higher than over oceans. In reality, the gravity on top of
large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible
mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain
this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that
low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys
them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean
bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist
Maurice Allais commented: ‘There is an excess of gravity over the
ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis
provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’15
The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by
the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements
often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore
isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a
positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is
overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than
subsiding.
Newtonian gravity theory is challenged by various aspects of
planetary behaviour in our solar system. The rings of Saturn, for
example, present a major problem.16 There are tens of thousands of
rings and ringlets separated by just as many gaps in which matter is
either less dense or essentially absent. The complex, dynamic nature
of the rings seems beyond the power of newtonian mechanics to
explain. The gaps in the asteroid belt present a similar puzzle.
Another anomaly concerns the deviations in the orbits of the
outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). A ‘Planet X’
beyond Pluto has been hypothesized; it would need to be two to five
times more massive than the earth, and 50 to 100 times further from
the sun than the earth is (Pluto is currently about 30 times further
from the sun than the earth is).17 The largest object beyond
Pluto
so far discovered (July 2005) – known as Xena – is about 30% larger
than Pluto (which is only two-thirds the size of the moon). It has a
highly elongated orbit, and is currently over three times further
from the sun than Pluto. Two other minor planets, about 70% the size
of Pluto, have been sighted at about the same distance as Xena.18
Whether there is enough mass beyond Pluto to explain all orbital
deviations remains to be seen.
References
Challenging Newton
-
Pari Spolter, Gravitational
Force of the Sun, Granada Hills, CA: Orb Publishing, 1993.
-
Ibid., pp. 39-40, 141-147;
‘Equivalence principle passes atomic test’,
physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/8/1.
-
‘Aetherometry and gravity: an
introduction’, section 10, davidpratt.info.
-
Johannes Kepler, Epitome of
Copernican Astronomy (1618-21), in Great Books of the
Western World, Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.,
1952, v. 16, pp. 895-905.
-
Quoted in Meta Research
Bulletin, 5:3, 1996, p. 41.
-
See ‘Mysteries of the inner
earth’,
davidpratt.info.
Gravity anomalies
-
D. Kestenbaum, ‘The legend of
G’, New Scientist, 17 Jan 1998, pp. 39-42; Vincent Kiernan,
‘Gravitational constant is up in the air’, New Scientist, 26
Apr 1995, p. 18.
-
Spolter, Gravitational Force of
the Sun, p. 117; Pari Spolter, ‘Problems with the
gravitational constant’, Infinite Energy, 10:59, 2005, p.
39.
-
Rupert Sheldrake, Seven
Experiments that Could Change the World, London: Fourth
Estate, 1994, pp. 176-178.
-
F.D. Stacey and G.J. Tuck,
‘Geophysical evidence for non-newtonian gravity’, Nature, v.
292, 1981, pp. 230-232.
-
Seven Experiments that Could
Change the World, pp. 174-176; Gravitational Force of the
Sun, pp. 146-147.
-
Charles F. Brush, ‘Some new
experiments in gravitation’, Proceedings of the American
Philosophy Society, v. 63, 1924, pp. 57-61.
-
Victor Crémieu, ‘Recherches sur
la gravitation’, Comptes Rendus de l’académie des Sciences,
Dec 1906, pp. 887-889; Victor Crémieu, ‘Le problème de la
gravitation’, Rev. Gen. Sc. Pur. et Appl., v. 18, 1907, pp.
7-13.
-
Mikhail L. Gershteyn, Lev I.
Gershteyn, Arkady Gershteyn, and Oleg V. Karagioz,
‘Experimental evidence that the gravitational constant
varies with orientation’, Infinite Energy, 10:55, 2004, pp.
26-28.
-
G.C. Vezzoli, ‘Materials
properties of water related to electrical and gravitational
interactions’, Infinite Energy, 8:44, 2002, pp. 58-63.
-
Stephen Mooney, ‘From the cause
of gravity to the revolution of science’, Apeiron, 6:1-2,
1999, pp. 138-141; Josef Hasslberger, ‘Comments on gravity
drop tests performed by Donald A. Kelly’, Nexus, Dec
1994-Jan 1995, pp. 48-49.
-
H. Hayasaka et al., ‘Possibility
for the existence of anti-gravity: evidence from a free-fall
experiment using a spinning gyro’, Speculations in Science
and Technology, v. 20, 1997, pp. 173-181; keelynet.com/gravity/gyroag.htm.
-
The Home of Primordial Energy
(Bruce DePalma),
www.depalma.pair.com; Jeane Manning, The
Coming Energy Revolution: The search for free energy, NY:
Avery, 1996, pp. 82-86.
-
S.C. Holding and G.J. Tuck, ‘A
new mine determination of the newtonian gravitational
constant’, Nature, v. 307, 1984, pp. 714-716; Mark A.
Zumberge et al., ‘Results from the 1987 Greenland G
experiment’, Eos, v. 69, 1988, p. 1046; R. Poole, ‘ “Fifth
force” update: more tests needed’, Science, v. 242, 1988, p.
1499; Ian Anderson, ‘Icy tests provide firmer evidence for a
fifth force’, New Scientist, 11 Aug 1988, p. 29.
-
Harold Aspden, ‘Gravity and its
thermal anomaly’, Infinite Energy, 7:41, 2002, pp. 61-65.
-
M.F.C. Allais, ‘Should the laws
of gravitation be reconsidered?’, part 2, Aero/Space
Engineering, v. 18, Oct 1959, p. 52.
-
W.R. Corliss (comp.), The Moon
and the Planets, Glen Arm, MD: Sourcebook Project, 1985, pp.
282-284.
-
Tom Van Flandern, Dark Matter,
Missing Planets & New Comets, Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic
Books, 1993, pp. 315-325.
-
Jeff Hecht, ‘Our solar system
just got bigger’, New Scientist, 6 Aug 2005, pp. 10-11; ‘The
tenth planet’, New Scientist, 4 Feb 2006, p. 20.
Back to Contents
2.
Shielding, electrogravity, antigravity
Both gravity and electromagnetism obey the inverse-square law, i.e.
their strength declines by the square of the distance between
interacting systems. In other respects, however, they seem to be
very different. For instance, the gravitational force between two
electrons is 42 orders of magnitude (1042) weaker than their
electrical repulsion. The reason electromagnetic forces do not
completely overwhelm gravity in the world around us is that most
things are composed of an equal amount of positive and negative
electric charges whose forces cancel each other out. Whereas
electric and magnetic forces are clearly bipolar, gravity is
generally assumed to be always attractive so that no analogous
cancellations occur.
Another difference is that the presence of matter can modify or
shield electric and magnetic forces and electromagnetic radiation,
whereas no weakening of gravity has allegedly been measured by
placing matter between two bodies, and it is assumed that this is
true whatever the thickness of the matter in question. However, some
experiments have found evidence that can be interpreted in terms of
either gravitational shielding or of deviations from the
inverse-square law.
Gravity shielding
In the course of a long series of very sensitive experiments in
the 1920s, Quirino Majorana found that placing mercury or lead
beneath a suspended lead sphere acted as a screen and slightly
decreased the earth’s gravitational pull. No attempts have been made
to reproduce his results using the same experimental techniques.
Other researchers have concluded from other data that if
gravitational absorption does exist it must be at least five orders
of magnitude smaller than Majorana’s experiments suggest.1
Tom Van Flandern has argued that anomalies in the motions of
certain artificial earth satellites during eclipse seasons may be
caused by shielding of the sun’s gravity.2
Several investigators have detected gravity anomalies
incompatible with both newtonian and einsteinian models of gravity
during solar eclipses, but others have detected no such anomalies.
During solar eclipses in 1954 and 1959, physicist Maurice Allais
(who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1988) detected disturbances
in the swing direction of a paraconical pendulum (i.e. one suspended
on a ball).3 Erwin Saxl and
Mildred Allen confirmed the ‘Allais
effect’ when they measured significant variations in the period of a
torsion pendulum during a solar eclipse in 1970. One interpretation
is that such anomalies are due to the sun’s gravity being shielded
by the moon, resulting in a slight increase in terrestrial gravity. Allais and Saxl also detected unexpected daily and seasonal pendulum
variations.4
A similar gravity anomaly was measured using a two-pendula
system during the line-up of Earth-Sun-Jupiter-Saturn in May 2001.5
During the total solar eclipse in 1997, a Chinese team performed
measurements with a high-precision gravimeter. However, in contrast
to the Allais effect, they detected a decrease in the earth’s
gravity. Moreover, the effect occurred immediately before and after
the eclipse but not at its height.6 In the course of observations
conducted since 1987, Shu-wen Zhou and his collaborators have
confirmed the occurrence of an anomalous force of horizontal
oscillation when the sun, moon, and earth are aligned, and have
shown that it affects the pattern of grain sequence in crystals, the
spectral wavelengths of atoms and molecules, and the rate of atomic
clocks.7
Various conventional explanations have been put forward to
explain gravity anomalies during eclipses, such as instrument
errors, gravity effects of denser air due to cooling of the upper
atmosphere, seismic disturbances caused by sightseers moving into
and out of a place where an eclipse is visible, and tilting of the
ground due to cooling. In a recent review (2004), physicist Chris Duif has argued that none of them are convincing. He believes that
gravitational shielding, too, cannot explain the results, as it
would be far too weak (if it exists at all). Independent researcher
Thomas Goodey is planning a series of rigorous eclipse experiments
over the next few years in the hope of shedding more light on the
matter.8
Possible evidence of gravity shielding is provided by
experiments reported by Evgeny Podkletnov and his coworkers in 1992
and 1995. When a ceramic superconductor was magnetically levitated
and rotated at high speed in the presence of an external magnetic
field, objects placed above the rotating disc changed weight.*
Weight reductions of 0.3 to 0.5% were obtained, and when the
rotation speed was slowly reduced from 5000 revolutions per minute
to 3500, a maximum weight loss of about 2% was achieved for about 30
seconds.9 5% weight reductions have been recorded, though not with
the same repeatability.
*The weight of a body is equal to its mass multiplied by
gravitational acceleration (W = mg). Strictly speaking, an object
with a mass of 1 kg weighs 9.8 newtons on earth. However, weights
are commonly given in kilograms, with the gravitational acceleration
of 9.8 m/s² at the earth’s surface being taken for granted. If the
force of gravity acting on a body is reduced, its weight is likewise
reduced, while its mass (in the sense of ‘quantity of matter’)
remains the same. Note that a body’s apparent weight will change if
it is accelerated by nongravitational forces that either oppose or
reinforce the action of the local gravitational field; for instance,
an electrodynamic force can be used to cancel gravity.
Other investigators have found the Podkletnov experiment
extremely difficult to duplicate in its entirety (Podkletnov has not
revealed the exact recipe for making his superconductors), but
stripped-down versions have produced small effects (on the order of
one part in 104).10 From 1995 to 2002 NASA Marshall Space Flight
Center attempted a full experimental replication of the Podkletnov
configuration, but ran out of resources. A privately funded
replication was completed in 2003, but found no evidence of a
gravity-like force. NASA has concluded that this approach is not a
viable candidate for breakthrough propulsion.11
Gravity and electromagnetism
Various experimental results seem to point to a link between
electromagnetism and gravity. For instance, Erwin Saxl found that
when a torsion pendulum was positively charged, it took longer to
swing through its arc than when it was negatively charged. Maurice Allais conducted experiments in 1953 to investigate the action of a
magnetic field on the motion of a glass pendulum oscillating inside
a solenoid, and concluded that there was a connection between
electromagnetism and gravity.1
Bruce DePalma conducted numerous experiments showing that
rotation and rotating magnetic fields can have anomalous
gravitational and inertial effects.2 Podkletnov’s
experiments seem to confirm this.
A controversial electrogravitics researcher is
John Searl, an
English electronics technician.2 In 1949 he discovered that a small
voltage (or electromotive force) was induced in spinning metal
objects. The negative charge was on the outside and the positive
charge was around the centre of rotation. He reasoned that free
electrons were thrown out by centrifugal force, leaving a positive
charge in the centre.
In 1952 he constructed a generator, some three feet in diameter,
based on this principle. When tested outdoors, it reportedly
produced a powerful electrostatic effect on nearby objects,
accompanied by crackling sounds and the smell of ozone. The
generator then lifted off the ground, while still accelerating, and
rose to a height of about 50 feet, breaking the connection with the
engine. It briefly hovered at this height, still speeding up. A pink
halo appeared around it, indicating ionization of the surrounding
atmosphere. It also caused local radio receivers to go on of their
own accord. Finally, it reached another critical rotational
velocity, rapidly gained altitude, and disappeared from sight.
Fig. 2.1 A Searl
disc.
Searl has said that he and his
colleagues subsequently built over 50 versions of his ‘levity disc’,
of various sizes, and learned how to control them. He claims to have
been persecuted by the authorities, resulting in wrongful
imprisonment and the destruction of most of his work, so that he has
had to start all over again. His claim that in the early 1970s one
of his craft flew round the world several times without being
detected does nothing to enhance his credibility.
Although Searl has been dismissed as a
con man, there are
indications that the ‘Searl effect’ may involve a genuine anomaly.
Two Russian scientists, V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin, carried out an
experiment with a Searl-type generator, and observed a 35% weight
reduction, luminescence, a smell of ozone, anomalous magnetic-field
effects, and a fall in temperature. They concluded that orthodox,
etherless physics cannot explain these results.4 However, separating
genuine gravity anomalies from electrodyamic artifacts in such
experiments is no easy task.
In the 1980s electrical engineer Floyd Sweet developed a device
consisting of a set of specially conditioned magnets, wound with
wires, known as the vacuum triode amplifier (VTA), which is designed
to induce oscillation in magnetic fields. It was able to put out
much more power than it took in, by capturing energy from the
‘vacuum’ (i.e. ether energy). In one experiment it lost 90% of its
original weight before the experiment was stopped for safety
reasons. Sweet later succeeded in making the VTA hover and
accelerate upward, with the unit on a tether. He became very
paranoid after an alleged assassination attempt, and died without
revealing the full secrets of his invention.5
The ‘Hutchison effect’ refers to a collection of phenomena
discovered accidentally by inventor John Hutchison in 1979.
Electromagnetic influences developed by a combination of electric
power equipment, including Tesla coils, have produced levitation of
heavy objects (including a 60-pound canon ball), fusion of
dissimilar materials such as metal and wood, anomalous heating of
metals without burning adjacent material, spontaneous fracturing of
metals, and changes in the crystalline structure and physical
properties of metals. The effects have been well documented on film
and videotape, and witnessed many times by credentialed scientists
and engineers, but are difficult to reproduce consistently.6
A Pentagon team spent several months investigating the Hutchison
effect in 1983. Four of the investigators came away convinced it was
real, while the fifth simply dismissed whatever happened as ‘smoke
and mirrors’. Many phenomena were witnessed: a super-strong
molybdenum rod was bent into an S-shape as if it were soft metal; a
length of high-carbon steel shredded at one end and transmuted into
lead the other; a piece of PVC plastic disappeared into thin air;
bits of wood became embedded in the middle of pieces of aluminium;
and all sorts of objects levitated. Two aerospace companies (Boeing
and McDonnell Douglas) have also investigated the Hutchison effect.
The problem is its randomness and unpredictability. Indeed, some
researchers think that it is at least partly attributable to
Hutchison’s own unconscious psychokinetic powers.7
The 2% weight loss Podkletnov says he has achieved with his
superconductor apparatus is about 10 billion times greater than
allowed for in general relativity theory. Off the record, Podkletnov
has claimed that if the superconductors are rotated 5 to 10 times
faster than the usual speed of about 5000 rpm, the disc experiences
so much weight loss that it takes off.8
Joe Parr and Dan Davidson say they have measured
weight losses of up to 50% in a ‘gravity wheel’ – a small wheel with
copper triangles around the circumference, which is spun on a shaft
by a high-speed motor, between permanent magnets mounted on either
side.9
Ether scientists Paulo and Alexandra Correa have also
demonstrated that gravity can be controlled by electromagnetic
means. In one experiment, a 43-milligram piece of gold leaf,
suspended from the arm of a wooden beam connected to a sensitive
electronic balance (far off to the side), was quickly reduced in
weight by 70%. This was achieved by imposing an electrical frequency
adjusted to match that of the gold antigraviton (as it is called in
the Correas’ aetherometry model). This technique is able to produce
100% weight reduction in objects of known composition in the
100-milligram range.10
There are an estimated 2000 to 3000 experimenters worldwide
conducting unorthodox research into technologies beyond the
currently accepted scientific paradigms, including gravity control
and ‘free energy’ devices.11 The Correas stand out for their
rigorous experimental approach. They say that they have observed
weight losses with their PAGD (Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge)
reactors, but the fact that the observations were difficult to
reproduce led them to believe that they had not properly protected
the experiments from electrodynamic artifacts seated in the input
wires or in the arrangement of liquid conductors. Not all
alternative researchers are as cautious and self-critical as this,
and the standard of research is uneven.
Biefeld-Brown effect
The field of electrogravitics was pioneered by physicist and
inventor Thomas Townsend Brown (1905-1985), beginning in the
mid-1920s. He discovered that if an electrical capacitor* using a
heavy, high charge-accumulating dielectric material between its
plates was charged with 75,000 to 300,000 volts, it would move in
the direction of its positive pole – this later became known as the
Biefeld-Brown effect. He found that the thrust rose exponentially
with increasing voltage, and that the greater the mass of the
dielectric material between the plates, the greater the effect. He
attributed this force to an electrostatically-induced artificial
gravity field acting between the capacitor’s plates. He obtained
several patents for his devices, and some of his findings have been
reproduced by other researchers.1
*Capacitors are devices that store electric charge in the space
between two separated, oppositely charged electrodes. Their capacity
to store electric energy can be greatly increased by inserting a
solid dielectric material into the space separating the electrodes.
Dielectrics are materials that are poor conductors of electricity
(e.g. ceramics).
Brown’s work aroused the interest of the US military. In 1952 an
Air Force major general witnessed a demonstration in which Brown
flew a pair of 18-inch disc airfoils suspended from opposite ends of
a rotatable arm. When electrified with 50,000 volts, they circuited
at a speed of 12 miles per hour. Later that year, however, an
investigator from the Office of Naval Research wrote a report which
concluded that the discs were propelled by the pressure of negative
ions striking the positive electrode (ion wind), rather than by
modifying gravity.
Fig. 2.1 Brown’s
electrokinetic flying disc setup.
Patent no. 2,949,550, 16 August 1960.
Paul LaViolette believes that
Brown’s discovery supports his theory that negative charges such as
electrons generate an antigravity field (see section 3). He writes:
Brown’s discs were charged with a high positive voltage on a wire
running along their leading edge and a high negative voltage on a
wire running along their trailing edge. As the wires ionized the air
around them, a dense cloud of positive ions would form ahead of the
craft and a corresponding cloud of negative ions would form behind
the craft.
Brown’s research indicated that, like the charged plates
of his capacitors, these ion clouds induced a gravitational force
directed in the minus to plus direction. As the disc moved forward
in response to its self-generated gravity field, it would carry with
it its positive and negative ion clouds with their associated electrogravity gradient. Consequently, the discs would ride their
advancing gravity wave much like surfers ride an ocean wave.2
Fig. 2.2 A side view
of one of Brown’s circular flying discs showing the location of its
ion charges and induced gravity field – according to LaViolette.
In late 1954 Brown flew a set of
3-foot-diameter saucers for military officials and representatives
from a number of major aircraft companies. When energized with
150,000 volts, the discs sped around the 50 foot diameter course so
fast that the subject was immediately classified. Interavia magazine
later reported that the discs attained speeds of several hundred
miles per hour when charged with several hundred thousand volts.
A declassified aviation industry intelligence report indicates
that by September 1954 the Pentagon had launched a secret government
programme to develop a manned antigravity craft of the type Brown
had proposed two years earlier.3 Brown, however, was not officially
involved in this project. In 1955 and later years he carried out
vacuum chamber tests which proved that his devices continued to
experience a thrust even in the absence of ionic wind. By 1958 he
had succeeded in developing a 15-inch-diameter dome-shaped saucer
model which, when energized with 50 to 250 thousand volts, lifted
itself up and hovered in mid-air, while supporting an additional
mass equal to 10% of its weight.
Fig. 2.3 Brown’s
setup for testing a device capable of sustained levitation.
In the mid-1950s, over ten major
aircraft companies were actively involved in electrogravitics
research. Since then no publicity has been given to whatever work in
electro-antigravity the US military has conducted. LaViolette
speculates that secretly developed electrogravitic technology has
been put to use in the B-2 Stealth Bomber to provide an auxiliary
mode of propulsion. His view is based on the disclosure that the B-2 electrostatically charges both the leading edge of its wing-like
body and its jet exhaust stream to a high voltage.
Positive ions emitted from its wing leading edge would produce a
positively charged parabolic ion sheath ahead of the craft while
negative ions injected into its exhaust stream would set up a
trailing negative space charge with a potential difference in excess
of 15 million volts. . . . [This] would set up an artificial gravity
field that would induce a reactionless force on the aircraft in the
direction of the positive pole. An electrogravitic drive of this
sort could allow the B-2 to function with over-unity propulsion
efficiency when cruising at supersonic velocities.4
Fig. 2.4 The B-2
Stealth Bomber.
Each plane costs over two billion dollars.
Fig. 2.5 A side view of the B-2 showing the shape of its
electrically charged Mach 2 supersonic shock wave and trailing
exhaust stream. Solid arrows show the direction of ion flow; dashed
arrows show the direction of the gravity gradient induced around the
craft – according to LaViolette.
B-2 pilots and engineers have openly
ridiculed LaViolette’s speculations. The official explanation
is that enveloping the B-2 in a shield of static electricity is
designed to reduce its radar and thermal signature and make it
ultra-stealthy. Some writers have argued that it also reduces the
craft’s air resistance and thereby improves its lift – but this is
achieved aerodynamically rather than electrogravitically.5
The nature of the Biefeld-Brown (B-B)
effect continues to
generate controversy. According to the classical B-B effect, the
largest force on an asymmetric capacitor (i.e. one where the two
electrodes are of different sizes) is in a direction from the
negative (larger) electrode toward the positive (smaller) electrode.
Thomas Bahder and Chris Fazi, at the US Army Research Laboratory,
have verified that when a high voltage of about 30,000 volts is
applied to an asymmetric capacitor (in the form of a ‘lifter’), the
capacitor experiences a net force toward the smaller electrode, but
they found that the force is independent of the polarity of the
applied voltage.
They calculate that the ion wind contribution is at least three
orders of magnitude too small to explain the entire effect, and say
that more experimental and theoretical work is needed to find an
explanation. They do not believe that the B-B effect has anything to
do with antigravity or that it demonstrates an interaction between
gravity and electromagnetism.6 Bahder suspects that the asymmetric
electric fields created by an asymmetric capacitor lead to a charge
flow of ions around the capacitor, and the back-reaction force
‘propels’ it forward.
In 1996 a research group at the Honda R&D Institute in Japan
conducted experiments that verified the B-B effect. Here, too, an
upward thrust was created (so that the capacitor appeared to lose
weight) regardless of the polarity of the voltage applied. Takaaki
Musha holds that the effect may involve the generation of a new
gravitational field inside the atom by a high-potential electric
field, due to an interaction between electricity and gravitation
whose mechanism is not yet understood.7
The B-B effect is said to be demonstrated by cheap, lightweight
devices known as ‘lifters’, made of aluminum foil, balsa wood, and
thin wire, and powered by a ground-based high-voltage power supply.8
Hundreds of independent researchers around the world are
experimenting with these devices. The lower and larger electrode is
a strip of aluminium foil stretched between balsa wood struts.
The
smaller electrode is a thin strip of wire mounted about one inch
above the aluminium foil. When a 30,000 volt charge is applied, a
hissing noise is heard and the lifter rises into the air as far as
its tether will reach. A thrust also occurs when the lifter is
oriented horizontally, showing that the effect does not involve
gravity shielding. The lifter works regardless of whether the
positive or negative terminal is connected to the wire (the leading
electrode), though the thrust is slightly larger if a positive
voltage is applied.
Fig. 2.6
NASA claims that the motion of
ionized air molecules from one electrode to another explains the B-B
effect, and has excluded it from its search for exotic new
propulsion technologies. So if an electro-antigravity technology
based on the B-B effect has really been put to use in the B-2, NASA
appears to know nothing about it! It did, however, take out a patent
on a tubular version of Brown’s asymmetrical capacitor thruster in
2002 – though without bothering to mention Brown’s name. Such
devices certainly create an ion wind, for the breeze can be felt.
More stringent tests are required to determine to what extent the
effect persists in a vacuum, as experiments to date have not been
conclusive. A lifter experiment performed at Purdue University
inside a vacuum enclosure gave positive results, but tests by other
investigators have yielded negative results.9 It has not yet been
proven that the ‘lifter’ phenomenon involves anything more than
electrostatic and electrodynamic effects.
Paulo and Alexandra Correa (see above and section 3), whose
experimental and observational skills are clearly demonstrated by
the various ether-energy technologies they have developed, are
planning to publish their own findings on the B-B effect in the near
future. They have already made their position clear: the
experimental work of T.T. Brown and his followers is highly
deficient, as the original B-B effect has been confused with
anomalous phenomena associated with electron emission and cathode
reaction forces; LaViolette’s speculations are wide of the mark;
charges trapped in conventional capacitors do not produce an
antigravity effect, but the B-B effect masks a genuine antigravity
phenomenon connected with repulsion between like charges.
Gyroscopes: Newton in a spin
Spinning flywheels or gyroscopes can apparently produce
‘antigravity’ effects. In 1989 Japanese scientists H. Hayasaka and
S. Tackeuchi reported in a mainstream journal that a gyroscope
spinning about a vertical axis in a vacuum experienced a small
weight loss directly proportional to the rotation speed. The effect
was observed only for rotation clockwise (as viewed from above in
their northern hemisphere laboratory). The anomaly was buried in an
avalanche of rushed criticism and flawed efforts to replicate the
experiment.1 In 1997 Hayasaka’s team reported an experiment that
confirmed their earlier findings: when a gyroscope was dropped 63
inches in a vacuum, between two laser beams, it took 1/25,000 second
longer to fall this distance when spinning at 18,000 rpm clockwise
(viewed from above), corresponding to a weight reduction of 1 part
in 7000.2
If a flywheel or gyroscope is forcibly made to precess,* very
substantial weight losses can be produced. Professor of electrical
engineering Eric Laithwaite (who died in 1997) once gave a
demonstration at London’s Imperial College of Science and Technology
involving an 8-kg flywheel on a 2.7-kg support shaft, which he could
barely lift off the ground with his right arm. After the flywheel
was forced to precess, he was able to lift it effortlessly on his
little finger, by applying a force of less than 1 kg. In another
experiment, a young boy was tied to a pole on a turntable and handed
a 1-metre shaft at the end of which was 20.4-kg spinning gyroscope.
When the turntable was accelerated, the gyro soared into the air as
easily as if the boy was opening an umbrella, and when it was
decelerated, the gyro dipped towards the ground. In whichever
direction the gyro moved, the boy could easily support it. Another
remarkable effect is that if an upright pencil is placed in the path
of the shaft of a precessing flywheel, it can arrest the flywheel’s
precessional motion without any lateral force arising on the pencil;
in other words, the flywheel produces little or no centrifugal
force.
*‘Force-precessed’ means that the gyroscope is made to precess
faster than arises from normal gravitational action. ‘Precession’
means, for example, that while one end of a shaft is held steady by
the hand, the end bearing the rotating flywheel traces a circle, so
that the shaft sweeps out a cone.
Fig. 2.7 One of Eric
Laithwaite’s gyroscope demonstrations. The top is spinning at 2000
revolutions per minute and is rising quite rapidly up a helical
path.3
Since there is no accepted theory to
explain this phenomenon, most scientists have tended to either
ignore it or to try and discredit it. Laithwaite was ostracized by
the scientific establishment, especially after he used a lecture
before the Royal Institution in 1974 to demonstrate that a force-precessed
gyroscope becomes lighter and produces a lifting force without any
counterbalancing reaction force – in defiance of Newton’s third law
of motion. The Royal Institution was not amused: for the first time
in 200 years, the guest lecture was not published, and Laithwaite
was denied fellowship of the Royal Society. He continued to
experiment with a variety of complex gyroscopic rigs, and believed
he had discovered a brand-new thrustless propulsion system, known as
‘mass transfer’, for which two patents were granted.
Several other inventors, such as Sandy Kidd and Scott Strachan, have
built gyroscopic propulsion devices which develop a reactionless
thrust. Kidd received financial backing for a time from an
Australian company (until it went bust) and British Aerospace, and
his prototypes displayed a small anomalous force under rigorous
independent testing. He is still developing his devices and says
they can now produce 7 kilos of thrust.4
Harold Aspden argues that an out-of-balance linear force is produced
by drawing on the gyroscope’s spin energy, so that energy
conservation still holds. He explains the phenomenon in terms of his
ether-physics model: ether spin decouples the flywheel from the flux
of etheric particles that normally give it weight.5 His theory can
also account for the amount of lift measured in the Japanese
gyroscope experiments. If the theory is correct, it would be more
accurate to say that gyroscopes can produce degravitation, or weight
neutralization, rather than antigravitation in the strict sense of
the word.
References
Gravity shielding
-
Q. Majorana, ‘On gravitation.
Theoretical and experimental researches’, Phil. Mag., v. 39,
1920, pp. 488-504; Q. Majorana, ‘Sur l’absorption de la
gravitation’, Comptes Rendus de l’académie des Sciences, v.
173, 1921, pp. 478-479; Q. Majorana, ‘Quelques recherches
sur l’absorption de la gravitation par la matière’, Journal
de Physique et le Radium, I, 1930, pp. 314-324; Matthew R.
Edwards (ed.), Pushing Gravity: New perspectives on Le
Sage’s theory of gravitation, Montreal, Quebec: Apeiron,
2002, pp. 219-238, 259-266.
-
Tom Van Flandern, ‘Possible new
properties of gravity’, Astrophysics and Space Science, v.
244, 1996, pp. 249-261.
-
M.F.C. Allais, ‘Should the laws
of gravitation be reconsidered?’, parts 1 and 2, Aero/Space
Engineering, v. 18, Sep 1959, pp. 46-52, and v. 18, Oct
1959, pp. 51-55,
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-1.htm;
http://www.allais.info/allaisdox.htm.
-
E.J. Saxl, ‘An electrically
charged torque pendulum’, Nature, v. 203, 1964, pp. 136-138;
E.J. Saxl and M. Allen, ‘1970 solar eclipse as “seen” by a
torsion pendulum’, Physical Review D, v. 3, 1971, pp.
823-825; Journal of Scientific Exploration (www.scientificexploration.org),
10:2, pp. 269-279, and 10:3, pp. 413-416, 1996.
-
Gary C. Vezzoli, ‘Gravitational
data during the syzygy of May 18, 2001 and related studies’,
Infinite Energy (www.infinite-energy.com), 9:53, 2004, pp.
18-27.
-
Qian-shen Wang et al., ‘Precise
measurement of gravity variations during a total solar
eclipse’, Physical Review D, v. 62, 2000, 041101,
http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/wang/wangetal.pdf;
Xin-She Yang and Qian-Shen Wang, ‘Gravity anomaly during the
Mohe total solar eclipse and new constraint on gravitational
shielding parameter’, Astrophysics and Space Science, v.
282, 2002, pp. 245-253,
www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper02.pdf.
-
Shu-wen Zhou, ‘Abnormal physical
phenomena observed when the sun, moon, and earth are
aligned’, 21st Century Science and Technology, fall 1999,
pp. 55-61.
-
Chris P. Duif, ‘A review of
conventional explanations of anomalous observations during
solar eclipses’,
www.space-time.info/duifhome/duifhome.html;
Govert Schilling, ‘Shadow over gravity’, New Scientist, 27
Nov 2004, pp. 28-31;
www.allais.info.
-
E.E. Podkletnov, ‘Weak
gravitation shielding properties of composite bulk
YBa2Cu3O7-x superconductor below 70 K under e.m. field’,
1995,
www.gravity-society.org/msu.htm ; American Antigravity,
americanantigravity.com/podkletnov.html.
-
Edwards, Pushing Gravity, p.
315.
-
Marc G. Millis, ‘Prospects for
breakthrough propulsion from physics’, 2004,
www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-2004-213082.htm.
Gravity and electromagnetism
-
E.J. Saxl, ‘An electrically
charged torque pendulum’, Nature, v. 203, 1964, pp. 136-138;
Maurice Allais, ‘The action of a magnetic field on the
motion of a pendulum’, 21st Century Science and Technology,
summer 2002, pp. 34-40.
The Home of Primordial Energy (Bruce DePalma),
www.depalma.pair.com; Jeane Manning, The Coming Energy
Revolution: The search for free energy, NY: Avery, 1996, pp.
82-86.
-
Rho Sigma (Rolf Schaffranke),
Ether-Technology: A rational approach to gravity control,
Lakemont, GA: CSA Printing & Bindery, 1977, pp. 73-82,
87-88, 108; John Davidson, The Secret of the Creative
Vacuum, Saffron Walden, Essex: Daniel Company, 1989, pp.
200-216; The Searl Effect,
www.searleffect.com.
-
V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin,
‘Experimental research of the magnetic-gravity effects’,
www.rexresearch.com/roschin/roschin.htm.
-
The Coming Energy Revolution,
pp. 74-76; Thomas E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum, Santa
Barbara, CA: Cheniere Press, 2002, pp. 305-321, 436-468,
455, 459-464, 502-503.
-
Mark A. Solis, ‘The Hutchison
effect – an explanation’,
www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/HEffect1.html.
-
Nick Cook, The Hunt for Zero
Point, London: Arrow, 2002, pp. 377-387.
-
Ibid., p. 342.
-
Dan A. Davidson, ‘Free energy,
gravity and the aether’, 1997,
www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm;
Dan A.
-
Davidson, Shape Power, Sierra
Vista, AR: RIVAS, 1997, pp. 98-104.
-
Eugene F. Mallove, ‘A matter of
gravity’, Infinite Energy, 8:45, 2002, pp. 6-8,
aetherometry.com/mallove_letter2.html; Massfree Energy
Technologies,
www.massfree.com (Technologies).
-
Dan A. Davidson, ‘Free energy,
gravity and the aether’, 1997,
www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm.
Biefeld-Brown effect
-
Paul LaViolette, Subquantum
Kinetics: A systems approach to physics and cosmology,
Alexandria, VA: Starlane Publications, 2nd ed., 2003, pp.
243-259 (www.etheric.com); Paul LaViolette, ‘The U.S.
antigravity squadron’, in Thomas Valone (ed.),
Electrogravitic Systems: Reports on a new propulsion
methodology, Washington, DC: Integrity Research Institute,
1999, pp. 82-101; Thomas Townsend Brown Website,
www.soteria.com/brown; Rho-Sigma, Ether-Technology, pp.
25-49.
-
‘The U.S. antigravity squadron’,
p. 85.
-
Electrogravitic Systems, pp.
8-44.
-
‘The U.S. antigravity squadron’,
p. 82.
-
Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point,
pp. 194-200.
-
Thomas B. Bahder and Chris Fazi,
‘Force on an asymmetric capacitor’, Infinite Energy, 9:50,
2003, pp. 34-44,
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/arl_fac/index.html.
-
Takaaki Musha, ‘The possibility
of strong coupling between electricity and gravitation’,
Infinite Energy, 9:53, 2004, pp. 61-64.
-
Infinite Energy, 8:45, 2002, pp.
6-8, 13-31,
www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue45/thelifterphen.html;
Jean-Louis Naudin, http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm;
American Antigravity,
http://tventura.hypermart.net.
-
Gravitec Inc,
foldedspace.com/corporate.html;
Blaze Labs Research,
www.blazelabs.com/l-vacuum.asp ; Tim
Ventura, ‘Inertial nullification in lifters’,
americanantigravity.com.
Gyroscopes: Newton in a spin
-
H. Hayasaka and S. Tackeuchi,
‘Anomalous weight reduction on a gyroscope’s right rotations
around the vertical axis on the earth’, Physical Review
Letters, 63:25, 1989, pp. 2701-2704; Vezzoli, ‘Gravitational
data during the syzygy of May 18, 2001 and related studies’,
p. 18.
-
H. Hayasaka et al., ‘Possibility
for the existence of anti-gravity: evidence from a free-fall
experiment using a spinning gyro’, Speculations in Science
and Technology, v. 20, 1997, pp. 173-181;
keelynet.com/gravity/gyroag.htm.
-
Alex Jones, Electronics &
Wireless World, 93, 1987, p. 64.
-
Davidson, The Secret of the
Creative Vacuum, pp. 258-274;
www.gyroscopes.org/propulsion.asp;
Sandy Kidd, Beyond 2001: The laws of physics revolutionised,
London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1990.
-
H. Aspden, ‘The theory of
antigravity’, Physics Essays, 4:1, 1991, pp. 13-19, in:
Harold Aspden, Aether Science Papers, Southampton: Sabberton
Publications, 1996, pt. 2., p. 69, paper 13; H. Aspden,
‘Anti-gravity electronics’, Electronics & Wireless World,
Jan 1989, pp. 29-31.
Back to Contents
3. Explaining gravity
Empty space, curved space, and the
ether
Newtonian gravity theory assumes that gravity propagates
instantaneously across empty space, i.e. it is believed to be a form
of action at a distance. However, in a private letter Newton himself
dismissed this idea:
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so
that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their
action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so
great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical
matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.1
Newton periodically toyed with the idea of an all-pervading ether
filling his ‘absolute space’, and thought that the cause of gravity
must be a spiritual agency, which he understood to mean ‘God’.
The need to postulate an ether is underlined by
G. de Purucker:
We either have to admit the existence of [the] ether or ethers,
i.e., of this extremely tenuous and ethereal substance which fills
all space, whether interstellar or interplanetary or inter-atomic
and intra-atomic, or accept actio in distans – action at a distance,
without intervening intermediary or medium of transmission; and such
actio in distans is obviously by all known scientific standards an
impossibility. Reason, common sense, logic . . . demand the
existence of such universally pervading medium, by whatever name we
may choose to call it . . .2
Logically, every type of force must ultimately be produced by the
activity of material – though not necessarily physical – agents of
some kind, moving at finite, though possibly superluminal, speeds.
In 1905 Albert Einstein rejected the ether as ‘superfluous’.
However, he recognized that gravitational fields were present in all
regions of space, and for a time he spoke of a ‘gravitational
ether’, but he reduced it to an empty abstraction by denying it any
energetic properties. The fact that space has more than 10 different
characteristics – dielectric constant, modulus of elasticity,
magnetic permeability, magnetic susceptibility, modulus of
conductance, electromagnetic wave impedance, etc. – is a clear sign
that it is far from empty. But it makes more sense to regard space
as being composed of energy-substance, rather than simply ‘filled’
with it.
In 1915 Einstein published his general theory of relativity,
which is essentially a theory of gravity. He did not challenge the newtonian notion that inert mass was the cause of the gravitational
force. But whereas Newton attributed gravitational attraction to the
density of matter, Einstein assumed that the same quantity of matter
(‘gravitational mass’) somehow warped the hypothetical
four-dimensional ‘spacetime continuum’ and that this deformity made
the planets orbit the sun. In other words, gravity is not regarded
as a force that propagates but supposedly results from masses
distorting the ‘fabric of spacetime’ in their vicinity in some
miraculous way. Thus, rather than being attracted by the sun, the
earth supposedly follows the nearest equivalent of a straight line
available to it through the curved spacetime around the sun.
Relativists attribute the bending of starlight passing near the
sun mainly to space curvature. At Jupiter’s distance the bending
would be just 0.00078 arc-seconds – and we’re supposed to believe
that this minuscule deformity of ‘spacetime’ can cause a planet the
size of Jupiter to orbit the sun! Moreover, ‘curved spacetime’ is
simply a geometrical abstraction – or rather a mathematical
monstrosity – and can in no way be regarded as an explanation of
gravity. Although it is commonly claimed that relativity theory has
been confirmed by observational evidence, there are alternative –
and far more sensible – explanations for all the experiments cited
in its support.3
General relativity theory claims that matter, regardless of its
electrical charge, produces only an attractive gravitational force,
and allows for only very tiny gravitational shielding or antigravity
effects. Furthermore, it does not predict any coupling between
electrostatic and gravitational fields. In fact, Townsend Brown’s
pioneering 1929 paper that reported the possible discovery of
electrogravity was turned down by Physical Review because it
conflicted with general relativity.
Fields, strings, branes
According to quantum field theory, the four recognized forces –
gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces –
arise from matter particles constantly emitting and absorbing
different types of force-carrying ‘virtual’ particles (known as
bosons), which are constantly flickering into and out of existence.
The gravitational force is supposedly mediated by gravitons –
hypothetical massless, uncharged, infinitesimal particles travelling
at the speed of light. Since gravitons would apparently be identical
to their antiparticles, this theory, too, appears to rule out
antigravity, and it also fails to explain electrogravity.
Experimental support for these particle-exchange theories is
lacking, and it is not clear how they can account for attractive as
well as repulsive forces. Bosons are sometimes said to carry a
‘message’ telling matter particles whether to move closer or move
apart – but this explains nothing at all. Moreover, in the standard
model, force-carrying particles, like fundamental matter particles,
are regarded as infinitely small, zero-dimensional point-particles –
which is clearly absurd. As a result of these idealized notions,
quantum calculations tend to be plagued with infinities, which have
to be done away with by a trick known as ‘renormalization’.
Einstein spent the last 40 years of his life attempting to
extend the geometrical notions of general relativity to include
electromagnetic interactions, and to unite the laws of gravitation
and the laws of electromagnetism in a unified field theory. Many
other mathematicians also worked on this subject, and some of these
theories introduced a fourth, curled-up dimension. None of these
attempts was successful, and the search for a unified theory
continues.
Some scientists believe that string (or superstring) theory,
which first emerged in the 1970s, is a major step towards a ‘theory
of everything’. String theory postulates that all matter and force
particles, and even space (and time!) as well, arise from vibrating
one-dimensional strings, about a billion-trillion-trillionth of a
centimetre (10-33 cm) long but with zero thickness, inhabiting a
ten-dimensional universe in which the six extra spatial dimensions
are curled up so small that they are undetectable! This theory has
no experimental support; indeed, to detect individual strings would
require a particle accelerator at least as big as our galaxy.
Moreover, the mathematics of string theory is so complex that no one
knows the exact equations, and even the approximate equations are so
complicated that so far they have only been partially solved.1
Some scientists believe that beyond string theory lies M-theory,
which postulates a universe of 11 dimensions, inhabited not only by
one-dimensional strings but also by two-dimensional membranes,
three-dimensional blobs (three-branes), and also higher-dimensional
entities, up to and including nine dimensions (nine-branes). It is
even speculated that the fundamental components of the universe may
be zero-branes.2 Such crazy ideas do nothing to advance our
understanding of the real world and merely show how surreal pure
mathematical speculation can become.
Zero-point field
According to quantum theory, electromagnetic fields (and other
force fields) are subject to constant, utterly random* fluctuations
even at a theoretical temperature of absolute zero (-273°C), when
all thermal agitation would cease. As a result, ‘empty space’ is
believed to be teeming with zero-temperature energy in the form of
fluctuating electromagnetic radiation fields (the zero-point field)
and short-lived virtual particles (the ‘Dirac sea’).1 Formally,
every point of space should contain an infinite amount of zero-point
energy. By assuming a minimum wavelength of electromagnetic
vibrations, the energy density of the ‘quantum vacuum’ has been
reduced to the still astronomical figure of 10108 joules per cubic centimetre!
*H.P. Blavatsky writes: ‘It is impossible to conceive anything
without a cause; the attempt to do so makes the mind a blank.’
2 This
implies that there must be a great many scientists walking around
with blank minds!
The reason we do not normally notice this energy is said to be
because of its uniform density, and most scientists are happy to
ignore it altogether. However, many experiments have been carried
out whose results are widely regarded as consistent with the
existence of zero-point energy. The presence of surfaces changes the
density of vacuum energy and can result in vacuum forces, an example
being the Casimir effect – an attractive force between two
parallel conducting plates. However, far more experimental work is
needed to test the theory and alternative explanations. NASA’s
Marshall Space Flight Center is studying the possibility of
harnessing zero-point energy for spacecraft propulsion as part of
its Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Programme.3
Whereas conventional quantum electrodynamics derives the
zero-point field (ZPF) – sometimes called the ‘quantum ether’ – from
quantum theory and assumes that it is generated by physical
matter-energy, there is a competing approach (stochastic
electrodynamics) which regards the ZPF as a very real, intrinsic
substratum of the universe.
Some scientists have theorized that mass, inertia, and gravity
are all connected with the fluctuating electromagnetic energy of the
ZPF.4 Inertia (a body’s resistance to a change in its state of
motion) is said to be an acceleration-dependent, electromagnetic
drag force stemming from interactions between a charged particle and
the ZPF. The fluctuations of the ZPF are also said to cause charged
particles to emit secondary electromagnetic fields, which give rise
to a residual attractive force – gravity. In this theory, then,
gravity is seen as a manifestation of electromagnetism. It is
thought that by reconfiguring the ZPF surrounding a body, it may be
possible to modify its inertia, or ‘inertial mass’, and to control
gravity.
Some ZPF researchers suggest that there is no such thing as mass
– only charges, which interact with the all-pervasive
electromagnetic field to create the illusion of matter.5 However,
since they do not go on to present a concrete picture of what they
understand by ‘charge’ or ‘charged particle’, this theory does not
get us very far. In the standard model of particle physics,
‘fundamental’ charged particles such as electrons and quarks are modelled as infinitely small particles with no internal structure –
which is clearly a physical impossibility.
Pushing gravity
According to the impact theory of gravity, which originated
primarily with the 18th century scientist Georges-Louis Le Sage,
gravity is caused by physical matter being continuously bombarded by
extremely tiny, unobservable particles (‘gravitons’ – a word
denoting different things in different theories), which travel
through space in all directions far faster than the speed of light.
The particles would have to be so small that they only occasionally
strike material constituents within the bodies they pass through, so
that each constituent has an equal chance of being hit.
Any two
bodies in space will shadow one another from some graviton impacts,
resulting in them being ‘attracted’ (i.e. pushed) towards one
another with a force that obeys the inverse-square law. Several
competing versions of Le Sage’s theory are currently on offer. They
fall into two main groups: those that pursue the particle (or
corpuscular) approach, and those that replace the graviton sea by
very high or low frequency electromagnetic radiation that fills all
of space.1
Graviton collisions with matter would have to be inelastic,
since gravitons would otherwise bounce back and forth between two
bodies, thereby cancelling the shielding effect. A common objection
is that inelastic graviton impacts would quickly heat all material
bodies to an enormous temperature. The theory’s proponents simply
assert that bodies must somehow radiate as much heat back into space
as they absorb. However, there is no clear evidence to support this
in the case of the earth.
In newtonian theory, gravity supposedly acts instantaneously,
while in relativity theory it propagates at the speed of light. It
is sometimes argued that if the sun’s force propagated at the speed
of light, it would accelerate the earth’s orbital speed by a
noticeable amount – something which is not observed. Tom Van Flandern calculates from binary-pulsar data that gravitons must
propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light!2 How these
gravitons originate and manage to get accelerated to such incredible
velocities is not explained. Dismissing the impact theory as
speculative and untenable, Pari Spolter argues that since the sun’s
gravitational force is constantly spread in all directions, and
since the angular velocities of the sun and planets remain constant
for long periods of time, it is immaterial what the speed of gravity
is. The lag period would be important only at the beginning and end
of a planet’s evolution.3
While it is logical to suppose that all attractive forces
ultimately arise from pushes at some level,* the impact theory of
gravity is too simplistic to account for all the relevant facts.
Like conventional gravity theory, it cannot explain why all the
planets orbit the sun in planes which form only small angles to the
sun’s equatorial plane, or why all the planets circle the sun in the
same direction as the sun’s sense of rotation. Although Le Sage-type
theories can explain gravitational shielding (since matter placed
between two gravitating bodies will absorb or deflect gravitons),
they cannot readily explain antigravity and levitation, and usually
ignore them. No impact theory has been devised to explain bipolar
forces such as electricity and magnetism, and adopting an impact
theory of gravitation therefore downgrades the link between gravity
and electromagnetics.
*If we reason by analogy (as above, so below), the microscopic world
is a vastly scaled-down and speeded-up version of the macroscopic
world (see ‘The infinite divisibility of matter’). At the
macroscopic level, it is impossible to find an attractive or pulling
force that is not really a push. For instance, a person who is
‘sucked’ out of a pressurized cabin if the door opens while the
aircraft is in flight is really pushed out by the greater number of
molecular bombardments ‘behind’ them.
If an object immersed in an elastic fluid emits waves of
condensation and rarefaction, other bodies will be attracted or
repelled depending on whether the wavelength is very large or very
small compared with their dimensions.4 This case therefore involves
both attractive and repulsive forces, and both are ultimately
reducible to pushes, but the underlying processes are far more
complex than in the aircraft example.
Dynamic ether
Researchers in the field of ether physics have developed a
variety of models to explain the nature of matter and force. Such
theories are already ‘unified’ in the sense that physical matter and
forces are derived from the activity of the underlying ether.
Subatomic particles are often modelled as self-sustaining vortices
in the ether, continuously radiating and absorbing flows of ether.
Inertia can be pictured as the drag force exerted by the disturbed
ether as a body accelerates through it. Electric charge can be
pictured as a difference in ether concentration, and magnetic forces
as circular flows of ether. Some researchers, such as Dan Davidson,
say that just as electric charge is a gradient in ether, the
gravitational force is a gradient of electric charge. This means
that if the etheric gradient is changed around an atom, the gravity
force will also change. This phenomenon can be amplified by
synchronizing ether flows through the nucleus of a given mass,
either by rotation or movement or by sonic stimulation, which causes
all the atoms to resonate together.1
Paul LaViolette has developed a theory known as ‘subquantum
kinetics’, which replaces the 19th century concept of a mechanical,
inert ether with that of a continuously transmuting ether.2 Physical
subatomic particles and energy quanta are regarded as wavelike
concentration patterns in the ether. A particle’s gravitational and
electromagnetic fields are said to result from the fluxes of
different kinds of etheric particles, or etherons, across their
boundaries, and the resulting etheron concentration gradients.
Positively charged particles such as protons generate
matter-attracting gravity wells whereas, contrary to conventional
theory, negatively charged particles such as electrons generate
matter-repelling gravity hills. Electrically neutral matter remains
gravitationally attractive because the proton’s gravity well
marginally dominates the electron’s gravity hill.
Most scientists assume that electrons are attracted by gravity,
but this has not been verified experimentally due to the difficulty
of the measurement. LaViolette sees confirmation of his theory that
electrons have antigravitational properties in an experiment
performed by Evgeny Podkletnov and Giovanni Modanese in 2001, which
showed that ‘an axial high-voltage electron discharge produces a
matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the
discharge exerting a longitudinal repulsive gravitational force on a
distant test mass’.3 Although the hypothesis that negative charges
produce antigravity fields would explain the classical Biefeld-Brown
effect (a thrust directed from the negative to the positive
electrode of a high-voltage capacitor), it poses the problem of
explaining why a thrust can be produced regardless of whether the
leading electrode is positive or negative.
Building on the work of pioneering scientists such as
Nikola Tesla,
Louis de Broglie,
Wilhelm Reich, and Harold Aspden,4 Canadian
scientists Paulo and Alexandra Correa have developed the most
detailed and quantitative model of a dynamic ether currently on
offer, known as aetherometry. They have also developed technological
applications, such as their pulsed-plasma (PAGD) reactors, which
produce more power than is required to run them, their
self-sustaining aether motor, and their weight-neutralizer and
anti-gravitator.5
The Correas have conducted meticulous and exhaustive experiments
with electroscopes, ‘orgone accumulators’ (specially designed metal
enclosures), and Tesla coils which point to the existence of both
electric and nonelectric forms of massfree (nonphysical),
nonelectromagnetic energy, one component of which (known to chemists
and climatologists as ‘latent heat’) has antigravitational
properties.6 By showing that the ether (or ‘aether’, as they prefer
to spell it) cannot be reduced to electromagnetic energy, they have
clearly exposed the inadequacy of zero-point-energy models. When
electrical massfree waves encounter physical matter (e.g. earth’s
atmosphere), they impart energy to charged particles such as
electrons, and when these charges decelerate they shed this energy
in the form of transient, vortex-like structures of electromagnetic
energy, i.e. photons.
Aetherometry proposes that the rotational and translatory movements
of planets, stars and galaxies are the result of spinning, vortical
motions of ether on multiple scales. Electric and nonelectric ether
waves impart impulses to the earth, for example, as they curve in
towards the planet, and this influx of energy not only propels the
earth but also produces its gravitational field. When nonelectric
ether energy interacts with physical or etheric charges it produces
either gravitons, which impel a particle or body towards regions of
greater mass density, or antigravitons, which impel them in the
opposite direction.
Gravitational forces are essentially electrodynamic forces that depend on polarity: aetherometry contends
that gravity ultimately results from an electrodynamic attraction
that occurs when matter, which is mostly neutral (with balanced
charges of both polarities), interacts with ether lattices formed by
in-phase massfree charges, whereas antigravity ultimately results
from an electrodynamic repulsion that occurs when matter has net
charge and interacts with the same in-phase ambipolar charge
lattices.7
References
Empty space, curved space, and
the ether
-
Quoted in G. de Purucker, The
Esoteric Tradition, Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University
Press (TUP), 2nd ed., 1940, pp. 443-444fn; H.P. Blavatsky,
The Secret Doctrine, TUP, 1977 (1888), 1:490-491.
-
The Esoteric Tradition,
901-902fn.
-
See ‘Space, time, and
relativity’ (Einstein’s fallacies), davidpratt.info.
Fields, strings, branes
-
Brian Greene, The Elegant
Universe: Superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for
the ultimate theory, London: Vintage, 2000, p. 19.
-
Ibid., pp. 287-288, 379.
Zero-point field
-
R. Forward, ‘Mass modification
experiment definition study’, Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 10:3, 1996, pp. 325-354.
-
H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret
Doctrine, Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, 1977
(1888), 1:44.
-
Breakthrough Propulsion Physics,
www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/summ.htm.
-
B. Haisch and A. Rueda, ‘The
zero-point field and the NASA challenge to create the space
drive’, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11:4, 1997, pp.
473-485; ‘Questions and answers about the origin of inertia
and the zero-point field’,
www.calphysics.org/questions.html.
-
B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E.
Puthoff, ‘Beyond E=mc²’, The Sciences, 34:6, 1994, pp.
26-31.
Pushing gravity
-
Matthew R. Edwards (ed.),
Pushing Gravity: New perspectives on Le Sage’s theory of
gravitation, Montreal, Quebec: Apeiron, 2002.
-
Tom Van Flandern, ‘The speed of
gravity – what the experiments say’, Meta Research Bulletin,
6:4, 1997, pp. 49-62.
-
Pari Spolter, pers. com., 8 Jan
2001.
-
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th
ed., 1898, p. 64.
Dynamic ether
-
Dan A. Davidson, Shape Power,
Sierra Vista, AR: RIVAS, 1997, pp. 1-7; Dan A. Davidson,
‘Free energy, gravity and the aether’, 1997,
www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm.
-
Paul LaViolette, Genesis of the
Cosmos: The ancient science of continuous creation,
Rochester, VE: Bear and Company, 2004; Paul LaViolette,
Subquantum Kinetics: A systems approach to physics and
cosmology, Alexandria, VA: Starlane Publications, 2nd ed.,
2003 (www.etheric.com).
-
www.etheric.com/LaViolette/Predict2.html.
-
Harold Aspden (aether physics),
www.aspden.org.
-
Massfree Energy Technologies,
www.massfree.com; Keith Tutt, The Search for Free Energy: A
scientific tale of jealousy, genius and electricity, Simon &
Schuster, 2001, pp. 218-22, 315-7.
-
Aetherometry,
www.aetherometry.com; Paulo N. Correa and Alexandra N.
Correa, Experimental Aetherometry, vols. 1 & 2A, Toronto:
AKRONOS Publishing, 2001 & 2003.
-
‘Aetherometry and gravity: an
introduction’,
davidpratt.info.
|