gravity and antigravity (1)

8/18/2019 Gravity and Antigravity (1)

1/29

Gravity and Antigravity

David Pratt

Feb 2001, last revised Mar 2016

Part 1 of 2

Contents

Part 1 1. Gravity and mass

2. Shielding, electrogravity, antigravity 3. Explaining gravity 4. Gravitational waves

Part 2 5. Levitation and technology 6. Human levitation 7. Theosophical writings

1. Gravity and mass

It is said to have been the sight of an apple falling from a tree that, around 1665, gave Isaac Newtothe idea that the force that pulls an apple to earth is the same as that which keeps the moon in itsorbit around the earth. The reason the moon does not fall to earth is because of the counteractingeffect of its orbital motion. If the moon were to cease its orbital motion and fall to earth, theacceleration due to gravity that it would experience at the earth’s surface would be 9.8 m/s! – thesame 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 isproportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distancebetween them. To calculate the gravitational force (F), their masses (m1 and m2) and thegravitational constant (G) are multiplied together, and the result is divided by the square of thedistance (r) between them: F = Gm1m2/r !.

According to newtonian theory, the gravitational force between two or more bodies is thereforedependent 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, atennis 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 thbody multiplied by its acceleration (F = ma); this implies that gravity pulls harder on larger masses.

http://davidpratt.info/gravity2.htm#g3http://davidpratt.info/gravity2.htm#g2http://davidpratt.info/gravity.htm#g2http://davidpratt.info/gravity2.htm#g3http://davidpratt.info/gravity2.htm#g2http://davidpratt.info/gravity2.htm#g1http://davidpratt.info/gravity.htm#g4http://davidpratt.info/gravity.htm#g3http://davidpratt.info/gravity.htm#g2http://davidpratt.info/gravity.htm#g1


2/29

If Newton’s two force equations are combined (F = ma = Gm1m2/r !), it can be deduced that, for theequation to balance, the gravitational constant (G) must have the rather curious dimensions m"/kg.s(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 isproportional to the quantity or density of inert mass. She argues that there is no reason to includeany 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 thesquare of the distance from the attracting body), Newton did not need to know or estimate themasses of the earth and moon. He needed to know only the acceleration due to gravity at the earthsurface, the radius of the earth, the orbital speed of the moon, and the distance between the earthand moon. And as already said, a body’s gravitational acceleration in free fall is independent of itsmass, 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 maintainthat it is not force that is equal to mass times acceleration, but weight . Her equation for ‘linear’ forceis 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 bythe square of the distance, but that the gravitational force of the sun, earth, etc. is constant for anybody revolving around it. In newtonian theory, by contrast, gravity varies according to both the masof 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 massis unconvincing. She does not question the equation for a body’s momentum (momentum = masstimes velocity), yet momentum with a rate of repetition constitutes a force, which therefore cannot bindependent of mass. Moreover, weight is a type of force, rather than a completely separatephenomenon. 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 dimensionsmetres squared per second squared, while ‘circular’ force is given the dimensions metres cubed pesecond squared. But there is no justification for inventing two forms of force and energy andabandoning uniform dimensions.

Third, defining ‘circular’ force in such a way that the gravitational force of a star or planet remainsexactly 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 isinversely proportional to the square of the distance. If it were true that a = F/A, with force (F)proportional to r " (see below) and area (A = #r !) proportional to r !, acceleration would in fact bedirectly proportional to r "/r ! = 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 suto the square of its period of revolution (T) is always the same number (r "/T! = constant). Her gravitequation can be rewritten: F = 2!#"r "/T!. As explained elsewhere, the factor 2!#" is entirely arbitraryand 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 equatioimplies. Rather, it involves a coupling of the mass-energy of the sun and planets, along with their associated gravitational energy. And it acts not through empty space but through an energetic ethe

– something that is as much missing from Spolter’s physics as from orthodox physics (see section3). As shown in subsequent sections, the net gravitational force need not be directly proportional toinert 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 gravitation


3/29

force and causes other bodies to revolve around it – an idea advanced by the 17th-centuryastronomer Johannes Kepler.4 But she does not suggest a mechanism to explain how this mightwork, or what causes a celestial body to rotate in the first place. She shows that the mean distanceof successive planetary orbits from the centre of the sun, or of successive lunar orbits from thecentre of a planet, is not random but follows an exponential law, indicating that gravity is quantizedon a macro scale, just as electron orbits in an atom are quantized on a micro scale. There is nogenerally 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 theycontain 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 anddensities of all planets, stars, etc. are purely theoretical; nobody has ever placed one on a balanceand weighed it. It should be borne in mind, however, that weight is always a relative measure, sinceone mass can only be weighed in relation to some other mass. The fact that observed artificialsatellite speeds match predictions is usually taken as evidence that the fundamentals of newtoniantheory must be correct.

The masses of celestial bodies can be calculated from what is known as Newton’s form of Kepler’sthird law, which assumes that Kepler’s constant ratio of r "/T! is equal to the inert mass of the bodymultiplied by the gravitational constant divided by 4#! (GM = 4#!r "/T! = v!r [if we substitute 2#r/v foT]). Using this method, the earth’s mean density turns out to be 5.5 g/cm". Since the mean density

the earth’s outer crust is 2.75 g/cm", scientists have concluded that the density of the earth’s inner layers must increase substantially with depth. However, there are good reasons for questioning thestandard earth model.6

Gravitational anomalies

CODATA’s official (2014) value for the gravitational constant (G) is 6.67408 ± 0.00031 x 10-11 m3 kgs-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 aboutthe 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 whichlarge and small metallic spheres are suspended, or the very small change in its period of oscillationSuch experiments are extremely sensitive and difficult to perform. For instance, electrostaticattraction between the metallic spheres can affect the results: in one experiment in which the smallmass of platinum was coated with a thin layer of lacquer, consistently lower values of G wereobtained.2 Note that variations in the experimental values of G do not necessarily mean that G itselfvaries; they could mean that the local manifestation of G, or the earth’s surface gravity (g), variesaccording to ambient conditions. Scientists have occasionally speculated on whether G is trulyconstant 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 andunder the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted.4 Furthermore, the deeperthe experiment, the greater the discrepancy. However, no one took much notice of these results unt1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments byEötvös in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration isindependent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there wasa 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 foundevidence 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


4/29

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force; one otwo did , but this is generally attributed to experimental error. Several earlier experimenters havedetected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since beenforgotten. 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 atomicweight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that aconstant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing itsphysical condition.6 His work was not taken seriously by the scientific community, and the veryprecise spark photography technique he used in his free-fall experiments has never been used byother investigators. Experiments by Victor Crémieu showed that gravitation measured in water at thearth’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 least0.054% depending on orientation of the two test masses relative to the fixed stars.8 Gary Vezzoli hafound that the strength of gravitational interactions varies by 0.04 to 0.05% as a function of anobject’s temperature, shape and phase.9 Donald Kelly has demonstrated that if the absorptioncapacity of a body is reduced by magnetizing or electrically energizing it, it is attracted to the earth a rate less than g.10 Physicists normally measure g in a controlled manner which includes notaltering the absorption capacity of bodies from their usual state. A team of Japanese scientists hasfound that a right-spinning gyroscope falls slightly faster than when it is not spinning.11 BruceDePalma 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 verwell known have given the same anomalous results, as have measurements to a depth of 1673metres in a homogenous ice sheet in Greenland, well above the underlying rock. Harold Aspdenpoints out that in some of these experiments Faraday cage-type enclosures are placed around thetwo metal spheres for electrical screening purposes. He argues that this could result in electriccharge being induced and held on the spheres, which in turn could induce ‘vacuum’ (or rather ethespin, producing an influx of ether energy that is shed as excess heat, resulting in errors of 1 or 2% measurements of G.14

All freely falling bodies – individual atoms as well as macroscopic objects – experience agravitational acceleration (g) of about 9.8 m/s! near the earth’s surface. The value of g varies slightall over the earth owing to its departure from a perfect sphere (i.e. the equatorial bulge and localtopography) and – in the conventional theory – to local variations in the density of the crust andupper 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 consider 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 largemountains 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 thatlow-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rockexists 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 deficiencyabove the continents. The theory of isostasy provided only a pseudoexplanation of this.’15

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonicactivity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostaticequilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usuallyinterpreted 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 o


5/29

rings and ringlets separated by just as many gaps in which matter is either less dense or essentiallyabsent. The complex, dynamic nature of the rings seems beyond the power of newtonian mechanicto explain. The gaps in the asteroid belt present a similar puzzle.

References

Challenging Newton

1. Pari Spolter, Gravitational Force of the Sun, Granada Hills, CA: Orb Publishing, 1993.

2. Ibid., pp. 39-40, 141-7; ‘Equivalence principle passes atomic test’, physicsworld.com.3. Aetherometry and gravity: an introduction, section 10, davidpratt.info.4. Johannes Kepler, Epitome of Copernican Astronomy (1618-21), in Great Books of the Wester

World , Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1952, v. 16, pp. 895-905.5. Quoted in Meta Research Bulletin, 5:3, 1996, p. 41.6. See Mysteries of the inner earth, davidpratt.info.

Gravitational anomalies

1. 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.

2. Spolter, Gravitational Force of the Sun, p. 117; Pari Spolter, ‘Problems with the gravitational

constant’, Infinite Energy , 10:59, 2005, p. 39.3. Rupert Sheldrake, Seven Experiments that Could Change the World , London: Fourth Estate,

1994, pp. 176-8.4. F.D. Stacey and G.J. Tuck, ‘Geophysical evidence for non-newtonian gravity’, Nature, v. 292,

1981, pp. 230-2.5. Seven Experiments that Could Change the World , pp. 174-6; Gravitational Force of the Sun,

pp. 146-7.6. Charles F. Brush, ‘Some new experiments in gravitation’, Proceedings of the American

Philosophy Society , v. 63, 1924, pp. 57-61.7. Victor Crémieu, ‘Recherches sur la gravitation’, Comptes Rendus de l’académie des Science

Dec 1906, pp. 887-9; Victor Crémieu, ‘Le problème de la gravitation’, Rev. Gen. Sc. Pur. et

Appl., v. 18, 1907, pp. 7-13.8. Mikhail L. Gershteyn, Lev I. Gershteyn, Arkady Gershteyn and Oleg V. Karagioz, ‘Experiment

evidence that the gravitational constant varies with orientation’, Infinite Energy , 10:55, 2004,pp. 26-8.

9. G.C. Vezzoli, ‘Materials properties of water related to electrical and gravitational interactions’,Infinite Energy , 8:44, 2002, pp. 58-63.

10. Stephen Mooney, ‘From the cause of gravity to the revolution of science’, Apeiron, 6:1-2, 1999pp. 138-41; Josef Hasslberger, ‘Comments on gravity drop tests performed by Donald A.Kelly’, Nexus, Dec 1994-Jan 1995, pp. 48-9.

11. H. Hayasaka et al., ‘Possibility for the existence of anti-gravity: evidence from a free-fallexperiment using a spinning gyro’, Speculations in Science and Technology , v. 20, 1997, pp.

173-81; keelynet.com/gravity/gyroag.htm.12. The Home of Primordial Energy (Bruce DePalma), depalma.pair.com; Jeane Manning, TheComing Energy Revolution: The search for free energy , NY: Avery, 1996, pp. 82-6.

13. S.C. Holding and G.J. Tuck, ‘A new mine determination of the newtonian gravitationalconstant’, Nature, v. 307, 1984, pp. 714-16; Mark A. Zumberge et al., ‘Results from the 1987Greenland G experiment’, Eos, v. 69, 1988, p. 1046; R. Poole, ‘ “Fifth force” update: more tesneeded’, Science, v. 242, 1988, p. 1499; Ian Anderson, ‘Icy tests provide firmer evidence for afifth force’, New Scientist , 11 Aug 1988, p. 29.

14. Harold Aspden, ‘Gravity and its thermal anomaly’, Infinite Energy , 7:41, 2002, pp. 61-5.15. M.F.C. Allais, ‘Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?’, part 2, Aero/Space

Engineering , v. 18, Oct 1959, p. 52.

16. W.R. Corliss (comp.), The Moon and the Planets, Glen Arm, MD: Sourcebook Project, 1985,

http://www.depalma.pair.com/http://keelynet.com/gravity/gyroag.htmhttp://davidpratt.info/inner1.htmhttp://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htmhttp://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2004/nov/16/equivalence-principle-passes-atomic-test


6/29

pp. 282-4.

2. Shielding, electrogravity, antigravity

Both gravity and electromagnetism obey the inverse-square law, i.e. their strength declines by thesquare of the distance between interacting systems. In other respects, however, they seem to bevery 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 completelyoverwhelm 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 andmagnetic forces are clearly bipolar, gravity is generally assumed to be always attractive so that noanalogous cancellations occur.

Another difference is that the presence of matter can modify or shield electric and magnetic forcesand electromagnetic radiation, whereas no weakening of gravity has allegedly been measured byplacing matter between two bodies, and it is assumed that this is true whatever the thickness of thematter in question. However, some experiments have found evidence that can be interpreted interms 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 foundthat placing mercury or lead beneath a suspended lead sphere acted as a screen and slightlydecreased the earth’s gravitational pull. No attempts have been made to reproduce his results usinthe 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 thanMajorana’s experiments suggest.1 Tom Van Flandern argued that anomalies in the motions of certaartificial earth satellites during eclipse seasons may be caused by shielding of the sun’s gravity.2

Several investigators have detected gravitational anomalies incompatible with both newtonian andeinsteinian models of gravity during solar eclipses, while others have detected no such anomalies.3

However, the experimental setup and/or eclipse conditions are different in each case. During solar eclipses in 1954 and 1959, physicist Maurice Allais (1911-2010), who won the Nobel Prize inEconomics in 1988, detected disturbances in the plane of oscillation (swing direction) of aparaconical pendulum (i.e. one suspended on a ball) – this was named the Allais effect.4 During thesolar eclipse on 15 February 1961, Gheorghe Jeverdan, Gheorghe Rusu and Virgil Antonescudiscovered that the period of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum changed, a phenomenon nowknown as the Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effect.5 Erwin Saxl and Mildred Allen measured significantvariations in the period of a torsion pendulum during a solar eclipse in 1970. They also detected

unexpected daily and seasonal pendulum variations.6

A similar anomaly was measured using a two-pendulum system during the line-up (syzygy) of EarthSun-Jupiter-Saturn in May 2001.7 During the total solar eclipse in 1997, a Chinese team performedmeasurements with a high-precision gravimeter. However, in contrast to Allais, they detected adecrease in the earth’s gravity. Moreover, the effect occurred immediately before and after theeclipse but not at its height.8 In the course of observations conducted since 1987, Shu-wen Zhouand his collaborators have confirmed the occurrence of an anomalous force of horizontal oscillationwhen the sun, moon and earth are aligned, and have shown that it affects the pattern of grainsequence in crystals, the spectral wavelengths of atoms and molecules, and the rate of atomicclocks.9


7/29

Dimitrie Olenici and his coworkers have detected various anomalies during solar and lunar eclipsesand conjunctions, oppositions and transits of planets – i.e. during various types of syzygies.10 On 26January 2009, two torsinds (ultralight disc torsion balances) in Kiev, Ukraine, and a paraconicalpendulum in Suceava, Romania, showed correlated disturbances during a solar eclipse, eventhough it was not visible at those locations but only in the Indian Ocean.11 A Foucault pendulum anda torsion balance installed in a disused salt mine in Cacica, Romania, where they were subject tominimal interference, displayed a clear response to the solar eclipse on 6 January 2011. Again, theeclipse was not visible at that geographical location.12 During the solar eclipses on 13 November 2012 and 10 May 2013 the disc of a torsind was observed to rotate, and deviations occurred in theplane and period of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum.13

Various conventional explanations have been put forward to account for gravity anomalies duringeclipses, 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 aneclipse is visible, and tilting of the ground due to cooling. Physicist Chris Duif argues that none of them are convincing. Another interpretation is that anomalies during solar eclipses are due to thesun’s gravity being shielded by the moon, resulting in a slight increase in terrestrial gravity. Duif believes that gravitational shielding, too, cannot explain the observations, as it would be far too wea(if it exists at all).14

Dimitrie Olenici and his associates argue that gravity cannot explain pendulum anomalies becausethe gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly in the days before an eclipse and then decline

smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations. Moreover, torsinds are not sensitive to changesin gravitational potential. The fact that anomalies have also been measured deep in a Romanianmine indicates that electromagnetic radiation is not involved either; the sun appears to radiate anunknown type of vortex-like energy.15

Miles Mathis proposes that the ‘gravitational’ field defined by Newton’s equation is actually acompound field, comprising both an attractive gravity field and a repulsive ‘foundationalelectromagnetic field’ (caused by the motion of photons emanating from the earth). He argues thatduring solar eclipses the partial or complete blocking of the solar wind leads to an increase in theelectromagnetic field and therefore an apparent decrease in ‘gravity’, thereby explaining manyanomalous observations.16

Possible evidence of gravity shielding is provided by experiments reported by Evgeny Podkletnovand his coworkers in the 1990s. When a ceramic superconductor was magnetically levitated androtated at high speed in the presence of an external magnetic field, objects placed above therotating disc changed weight.* Weight reductions of 0.3 to 0.5% were obtained, and when therotation speed was slowly reduced from 5000 revolutions per minute to 3500, a maximum weightloss of about 2% was achieved for about 30 seconds.17 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 inkilograms, with the gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s! 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 bynongravitational forces that either oppose or reinforce the action of the local gravitational field; for instance, anelectrodynamic force can be used to cancel gravity.

Other investigators have found the Podkletnov experiment extremely difficult to duplicate in itsentirety (Podkletnov has not revealed the exact recipe for making his superconductors), but strippedown versions have produced small effects (on the order of one part in 104).18 From 1995 to 2002NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center attempted a full experimental replication of the Podkletnovconfiguration, but ran out of resources. A privately funded replication was completed in 2003, butfound no evidence of a gravity-like force. NASA has concluded that this approach is not a viablecandidate for breakthrough propulsion.19 In Mathis’ theory, a superconductor cools a small portion o

the atmosphere to near zero, allowing the electromagnetic field being emitted outwards by the earth


8/29

to move more quickly through the atmosphere or some object, so that smoke rises, objects appear to lose weight, etc.20

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 toswing through its arc than when it was negatively charged. Maurice Allais conducted experiments in1953 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 andgravity.1 Bruce DePalma conducted numerous experiments showing that rotation and rotatingmagnetic fields can have anomalous gravitational and inertial effects.2 Podkletnov’s experimentsseem to confirm this.

A controversial electrogravitics researcher is John Searl, an English electronics technician.3 In 1949he 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 thcentre.

In 1952 he constructed a generator, some three feet in diameter, based on this principle. Whentested 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 starteengine. It briefly hovered at this height, still speeding up. A pink halo appeared around it, indicatingionization of the surrounding atmosphere. It also caused local radio receivers to go on of their ownaccord. Finally, it reached another critical rotational velocity, rapidly gained altitude and disappearefrom 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 theauthorities, resulting in wrongful imprisonment and the destruction of most of his work, so that hehad to start all over again. His claim that in the early 1970s one of his craft flew round the worldseveral 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’

involves a genuine anomaly. Two Russian scientists, V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin, carried out an


9/29

experiment with a Searl-type generator that they called the magnetic energy converter. Theyobserved a 35% weight reduction, luminescence, a smell of ozone, anomalous magnetic-fieldeffects, and a fall in temperature. They concluded that orthodox, etherless physics cannot explainthese results.4 Aerospace engineer Paul Murad and his team have developed the ‘Morningstar Energy Box’, a modified version of Searl’s and Godin and Roshchin’s devices. They have verifiedseveral of the Russians’ findings and measured transient weight losses of over 35%.5 It should benoted that separating genuine gravity anomalies from electrodyamic artifacts in such experiments isno easy task.

In the 1980s electrical engineer Floyd Sweet developed a device consisting of a set of speciallyconditioned 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 tooin, by capturing energy from the ‘vacuum’ (i.e. ether energy). In one experiment it lost 90% of itsoriginal weight before the experiment was stopped for safety reasons. Sweet later succeeded inmaking the VTA hover and accelerate upward, with the unit on a tether. He became very paranoidafter an alleged assassination attempt, and died without revealing the full secrets of his invention.6

The ‘Hutchison effect’ refers to a collection of phenomena discovered accidentally by inventor JohnHutchison in 1979. Electromagnetic influences developed by a combination of electric power equipment, including Tesla coils, have produced levitation of heavy objects (including a 60-poundcanon ball), fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood, anomalous heating of metalswithout 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 andvideotape, and witnessed many times by credentialed scientists and engineers, but are difficult toreproduce consistently.7

A Pentagon team spent several months investigating the Hutchison effect in 1983. Four of theinvestigators came away convinced it was real, while the fifth simply dismissed whatever happenedas ‘smoke and mirrors’. Many phenomena were witnessed: a super-strong molybdenum rod wasbent into an S-shape as if it were soft metal; a length of high-carbon steel shredded at one end andtransmuted into lead at the other; a piece of PVC plastic disappeared into thin air; bits of woodbecame embedded in the middle of pieces of aluminium; and all sorts of objects levitated. Twoaerospace companies (Boeing and McDonnell Douglas) have also investigated the Hutchison effec

The problem is its randomness and unpredictability. Indeed, some researchers think that it is at leaspartly attributable to Hutchison’s own unconscious psychokinetic powers.8

The 2% weight loss Podkletnov says he has achieved with his superconductor apparatus is about 1billion times greater than allowed for in general relativity theory. Off the record, Podkletnov hasclaimed that if the superconductors are rotated 5 to 10 times faster than the usual speed of about5000 rpm, the disc experiences so much weight loss that it takes off.9 Joe Parr and Dan Davidsonsay they have measured weight losses of up to 50% in a ‘gravity wheel’ – a small wheel with coppetriangles around the circumference, which is spun on a shaft by a high-speed motor, betweenpermanent magnets mounted on either side.10

In addition to his ongoing work with rotating superconductors, Podkletnov has also conductedexperiments with stationary high-temperature superconductors: he reports that discharges from asuperconducting ceramic electrode are accompanied by the emission of a force beam that passesthrough different materials without noticeable attenuation and exerts a repulsive force that can knocover objects in the lab and even punch holes in solid materials. It resembles a gravitational impulsesince it is proportional to the mass of the objects and independent of their composition. Experimentindicate that the impulse travels at about 64 times the speed of light. Podkletnov says he has alsoused rotating magnetic fields to generate an antigravity effect without any superconductors.11

Ether scientists Paulo and Alexandra Correa have demonstrated that gravity can be controlled byelectric means. In one experiment, a 43-milligram piece of gold leaf, suspended from the arm of awooden 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


10/29

the gold antigraviton (as it is called in the Correas’ aetherometry model). This technique is able toproduce 100% weight reduction in objects of known composition in the 100-milligram range.12

There are an estimated 2000 to 3000 experimenters worldwide conducting unorthodox research inttechnologies beyond the currently accepted scientific paradigms, including gravity control and ‘freeenergy’ devices.13 The Correas stand out for their rigorous experimental approach. They say thatthey have observed weight losses with their PAGD (Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge) reactors, buthe fact that the observations were difficult to reproduce led them to believe that they had notproperly protected the experiments from electrodynamic artifacts seated in the input wires or in thearrangement of liquid conductors. Not all alternative researchers are as cautious and self-critical asthis, and the standard of research is uneven.

Biefeld-Brown effect

The field of electrogravitics is often said to have been pioneered by physicist and inventor ThomasTownsend Brown (1905-1985). The traditional ‘Biefeld-Brown effect’ refers to his discovery that if anelectrical capacitor* using a heavy, high charge-accumulating dielectric material between its plates charged with tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of volts, it moves in the direction of itspositive pole. He found that the greater the voltage and the greater the mass of the dielectricmaterial, the greater the effect. He initially attributed this force to an electrostatically-induced artifici

gravity field acting between the capacitor’s plates.

1

*Capacitors are devices that store electric charge in the space between two separated, oppositely chargedelectrodes. Their capacity to store electric energy can be greatly increased by inserting a solid dielectricmaterial into the space separating the electrodes. Dielectrics are materials that are poor conductors of electricity (e.g. ceramics).

In 1952 an Air Force major general witnessed a demonstration in which Brown flew a pair of 18-incdisc airfoils suspended from opposite ends of a rotatable arm (fig. 2.2). When electrified with 50,000volts, they circuited at a speed of 12 miles per hour. Later that year, however, an investigator fromthe Office of Naval Research wrote a report which concluded that the discs were propelled by thepressure of negative ions striking the positive electrode (ion wind), rather than by modifying gravity

Around 1953 or 1954, Brown staged a demonstration at Pearl Harbor for a number of admirals,using 3-foot-diameter discs. Paul LaViolette writes:

Powered by a potential of 150 kilovolts, the discs flew around a 50-foot-diameter courseat such an impressive speed that the subject became highly classified. The speed mayhave been in excess of 100 miles per hour, because the May 1956 issue of the Swissaeronautics magazine Interavia stated that the discs were capable of attaining speeds of several hundred miles per hour when charged with several hundred kilovolts.2

There is no hard evidence that Brown’s work became ‘highly classified’ or that any demonstrationsachieved speeds of 100 mph or more. Moreover, such speeds are minuscule given that by 1956 ionengines capable of effective exhaust velocities of 11,250 mph had been attained. Brown thought th

his discs might be capable of speeds of over 1200 mph,3 but a 1956 intelligence report entitledElectrogravitics Systems stated that a saucer-shaped interceptor capable of around 2000 mph(Mach 3), as proposed by Brown, would require ‘ten or more years of intensive development’.4


11/29

Fig. 2.2 Brown’s electrokinetic flying disc setup.Patent no. 2,949,550, 16 August 1960.

In 1955-56 Brown carried out vacuum chamber tests which in his opinion showed that his devices

continued to experience a thrust even in the absence of ionic wind. But as the Correas explain, andas Brown himself admitted, ‘One cannot ignore ion thrust in vacuum devices’.5 By 1958 Brown haddeveloped a 15-inch-diameter dome-shaped saucer model which, when energized with 50 to 250thousand volts, lifted itself up and hovered in mid-air, while supporting an additional mass equal to10% of its weight. There is no convincing evidence, however, that Brown’s later work had anything do with antigravity. The Correas argue that what he was working on was ‘in essence an ion-enginehaving arcjet characteristics and thus belonging to the electrodynamic class’.6

LaViolette, on the other hand, believes that Brown’s work supports his own theory that negativecharges 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. Asthe 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’sresearch indicated that, like the charged plates of his capacitors, these ion cloudsinduced a gravitational force directed in the minus to plus direction. As the disc movedforward in response to its self-generated gravity field, it would carry with it its positive andnegative ion clouds with their associated electrogravity gradient. Consequently, the discswould ride their advancing gravity wave much like surfers ride an ocean wave.7

In his experiments with electrokinetic saucers where the positive and negative electrodes are of different sizes, Brown found that the apparatus always produced a thrust toward its larger electroderegardless of polarity, though the thrust was greater when the larger electrode was positive.


12/29

LaViolette interprets this to mean that ‘the electrogravitic force is being overpowered by theunbalanced electrostatic thrust that depends on field geometry rather than plate polarity’.8

In the mid-1950s, over 10 major aircraft companies were actively involved in electrograviticsresearch. Since then no publicity has been given to whatever work in electro-antigravity the USmilitary has conducted. It is quite possible that attempts to achieve antigravity ended in total failure.LaViolette, however, speculates that secretly developed electrogravitic technology has been put touse in the B-2 Stealth Bomber to provide an auxiliary mode of propulsion. His view is based on thedisclosure that the B-2 electrostatically charges both the leading edge of its wing-like body and its jeexhaust stream to a high voltage.

Positive ions emitted from its wing leading edge would produce a positively chargedparabolic ion sheath ahead of the craft while negative ions injected into its exhauststream would set up a trailing negative space charge with a potential difference in excessof 15 million volts. ... [This] would set up an artificial gravity field that would induce areactionless force on the aircraft in the direction of the positive pole. An electrograviticdrive of this sort could allow the B-2 to function with over-unity propulsion efficiency whencruising at supersonic velocities.9

Fig. 2.3 The B-2 Stealth Bomber.Each plane costs over two billion dollars.

B-2 pilots and engineers have openly ridiculed LaViolette’s speculations. The official explanation isthat enveloping the B-2 in a shield of static electricity is designed to reduce its radar and thermalsignature 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


13/29

electrogravitically.10

LaViolette believes that the US military have various other types of craft powered partly byelectrogravitics. One type is said to fly by directing an intense microwave beam at the ground, atechnology he thinks has been developed in secret since the early 1950s. Like many other researchers, he believes that secret military craft account for some UFO sightings.11

The nature of the Biefeld-Brown (B-B) effect continues to generate controversy. According to theclassical B-B effect, the largest force on an asymmetric capacitor (i.e. one where the two electrodesare 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 theform of a ‘lifter’), the capacitor experiences a net force toward the smaller electrode, but they foundthat 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 toexplain the entire effect, and say that more experimental and theoretical work is needed to find anexplanation. They do not believe that the B-B effect has anything to do with antigravity or that itdemonstrates an interaction between gravity and electromagnetism.12 Bahder suspects that theasymmetric electric fields created by an asymmetric capacitor lead to a charge flow of ions aroundthe capacitor, and the back-reaction force ‘propels’ it forward.

In 1996 a research group at the Honda R&D Institute in Japan conducted experiments on the B-Beffect. 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 thgeneration of a new gravitational field inside the atom by a high-potential electric field, due to aninteraction between electricity and gravitation whose mechanism is not yet understood.13

The B-B effect is said to be demonstrated by cheap, lightweight devices known as ‘lifters’, made of aluminium foil, balsa wood and thin wire, and powered by a ground-based high-voltage power supply.14 Hundreds of independent researchers around the world have experimented with thesedevices. The lower and larger electrode is a strip of aluminium foil stretched between balsa woodstruts. The smaller electrode is a thin strip of wire mounted about one inch above the aluminium foi

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 theeffect 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 largeif a positive voltage is applied.


14/29

Fig. 2.4

NASA claims that the motion of ionized air molecules from one electrode to another explains the 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 appearsto know nothing about it. It did, however, take out a patent on a tubular version of Brown’sasymmetrical capacitor thruster in 2002 – though without bothering to mention Brown’s name. Suchdevices certainly create an ion wind, for the breeze can be felt. More stringent tests are required todetermine to what extent the effect persists in a vacuum, as experiments to date have not beenconclusive. A lifter experiment performed at Purdue University inside a vacuum enclosure gavepositive results, but tests by other investigators have yielded negative results.15 A key considerationis the strength of the vacuum. In short, it has not yet been proven that the ‘lifter’ phenomenon

involves anything more than electrostatic and electrodynamic effects.

In their own analysis of the B-B effect,16 Paulo and Alexandra Correa begin by highlighting thecontradictory results that have been reported. In the case of an asymmetric capacitor with thecanopy oriented upward, Brown found that the capacitor lifts whether the canopy is positively or negatively charged (but more so if positively charged), whereas Bahnson (his coworker) found thatthe capacitor lifts only if the canopy is positively charged, and falls if it is negatively charged. Brownalso found that the capacitor falls if the capacitor is turned upside down and the canopy is negativecharged, whereas Bahder & Fazi reported that a downward-oriented canopy lifts whether negativelyor positively charged. The Correas argue that since the force on the capacitor is independent of itsorientation with respect to the earth’s surface, it has nothing to do with the earth’s gravitational field

or with the electric potential of the earth’s atmosphere; the B-B effect is therefore not an antigravityeffect and does not demonstrate an interaction between gravity and electromagnetism. Based on


15/29

their own systematic experiments, they conclude that the original B-B effect has been confused witanomalous phenomena associated with electron emission and cathode reaction forces. But whiledenying that charges trapped in conventional capacitors produce an antigravity effect, anddismissing LaViolette’s speculations, they argue that the B-B effect masks a genuine antigravityphenomenon 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 spinninabout a vertical axis in a vacuum experienced a small weight loss directly proportional to the rotatiospeed. The effect was observed only for rotation clockwise (as viewed from above in their northernhemisphere laboratory). The anomaly was buried in an avalanche of rushed criticism and flawedefforts to replicate the experiment.1 In 1997 Hayasaka’s team reported an experiment that confirmetheir 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 beproduced. 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 flywheelon a 2.7-kg support shaft, which he could barely lift off the ground with his right arm. After theflywheel was forced to precess, he was able to lift it effortlessly on his little finger, by applying a forcof less than 1 kg. In another experiment, a young boy was tied to a pole on a turntable and handed1-metre shaft at the end of which was 20.4-kg spinning gyroscope. When the turntable wasaccelerated, the gyro soared into the air as easily as if the boy was opening an umbrella, and whenit was decelerated, the gyro dipped towards the ground. In whichever direction the gyro moved, theboy could easily support it. Another remarkable effect is that if an upright pencil is placed in the patof the shaft of a precessing flywheel, it can arrest the flywheel’s precessional motion without anylateral 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 endbearing the rotating flywheel traces a circle, so that the shaft sweeps out a cone.

Fig. 2.5 One of Eric Laithwaite’s gyroscope demonstrations. The top is spinning at 2000


16/29


17/29

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 gravitationalshielding parameter’, Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 282, 2002, pp. 245-53,eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper02.pdf .

9. Shu-wen Zhou, ‘Abnormal physical phenomena observed when the sun, moon, and earth arealigned’, 21st Century Science and Technology , fall 1999, pp. 55-61.

10. D. Olenici and S. Olenici-Craciunescu, ‘Short history of our research into Allais’s andJeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu’s effects’, in Múnera, Should the Laws of Gravitation BeReconsidered?, pp. 207-22.

11. A.F. Pugach and D. Olenici, ‘Observations of correlated behavior of two light torsion balancesand a paraconical pendulum in separate locations during the solar eclipse of January 26th,

2009’, Advances in Astronomy , v. 2012, 263818, 2012, hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/26381812. D. Olenici and A. Pugach, ‘Precise underground observations of the partial solar eclipse of 1

June 2011 using a Foucault pendulum and a very light torsion balance’, International Journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 2, no. 4, 2012, pp. 204-9, file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm.

13. D. Olenici, A.F. Pugach, I. Cosovanu, C. Lesanu, J.-B. Deloly, D. Vorobyov, A. Delets and S.-BOlenici-Craciunescu, ‘Syzygy effects studies performed simultaneously with Foucaultpendulums and torsinds during the solar eclipses of 13 November 2012 and 10 May 2013’,International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, v. 4, no. 1, 2014, pp. 39-53,file.scirp.org/Html/6-4500258_43416.htm.

14. Chris P. Duif , ‘A review of conventional explanations of anomalous observations during solar

eclipses’, 2004, arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf ; Chris P. Duif, ‘Conventionalexplanations of anomalous observations during solar eclipses’, in Múnera, Should the Laws oGravitation Be Reconsidered?, pp. 265-82; Govert Schilling, ‘Shadow over gravity’, New Scientist , 27 Nov 2004, pp. 28-31.

15. Pugach and Olenici, ‘Observations of correlated behavior of two light torsion balances and aparaconical pendulum in separate locations during the solar eclipse of January 26th, 2009’; DOlenici et al., ‘Syzygy effects studies performed simultaneously with Foucault pendulums andtorsinds during the solar eclipses of 13 November 2012 and 10 May 2013’.

16. Miles Mathis, ‘The Allais effect and Majorana’, milesmathis.com/allais.html.17. E.E. Podkletnov, ‘Weak gravitation shielding properties of composite bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x

superconductor below 70 K under e.m. field’, 1997, arxiv.org.

18. Edwards, Pushing Gravity , p. 315.19. Marc G. Millis, ‘Prospects for breakthrough propulsion from physics’, 2004,

lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-2004-213082.htm.20. Mathis, ‘The Allais effect and Majorana’.

Gravity and electromagnetism

1. E.J. Saxl, ‘An electrically charged torque pendulum’, Nature, v. 203, 1964, pp. 136-8; Maurice Allais, ‘The action of a magnetic field on the motion of a pendulum’, 21st Century Science andTechnology , summer 2002, pp. 34-40.

2. The Home of Primordial Energy (Bruce DePalma), depalma.pair.com; Jeane Manning, The

Coming Energy Revolution: The search for free energy , NY: Avery, 1996, pp. 82-6.3. Rho Sigma (Rolf Schaffranke), Ether-Technology: A rational approach to gravity control ,Lakemont, GA: CSA Printing & Bindery, 1977, pp. 73-82, 87-8, 108; John Davidson, TheSecret of the Creative Vacuum, Saffron Walden, Essex: Daniel Company, 1989, pp. 200-16;The Searl Effect, searleffect.com.

4. V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin, ‘Experimental research of the magnetic-gravity effects’,rexresearch.com/roschin/roschin.htm.

5. P.A. Murad, M.J. Boardman, J.E. Brandenburg, J. McCabe and W. Mitzen, ‘The Morningstar Energy Box – an unusual electromagnetic device’, 2012, americanantigravity.com; ‘PaulMurad’s Searl Effect Generator’, americanantigravity.com.

6. The Coming Energy Revolution, pp. 74-6; Thomas E. Bearden, Energy from the Vacuum,Santa Barbara, CA: Cheniere Press, 2002, pp. 305-21, 436-8, 455, 459-464, 502-3.

7. Mark A. Solis, ‘The Hutchison effect – an explanation’,

http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/paul-murads-searl-effect-generator.htmlhttp://www.americanantigravity.com/files/documents/Paul-Murad-SEG-Replication.pdfhttp://www.rexresearch.com/roschin/roschin.htmhttp://www.searleffect.com/http://www.depalma.pair.com/https://web.archive.org/web/20060227021755/http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/TM-2004-213082.htmhttp://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9701074v3.pdfhttp://milesmathis.com/allais.htmlhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdfhttp://www.space-time.info/duifhome/duifhome.htmlhttp://file.scirp.org/Html/6-4500258_43416.htmhttp://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htmhttp://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818http://www.eclipse2006.boun.edu.tr/sss/paper02.pdfhttp://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/blackprior/wang/wangetal.pdf


18/29

geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/HEffect1.html; ‘The Hutchison effect’,americanantigravity.com.

8. Nick Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point , London: Arrow, 2002, pp. 377-87.9. Ibid., p. 342.

10. Dan A. Davidson, ‘Free energy, gravity and the aether’, 1997,keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm; Dan A. Davidson, Shape Power , Sierra Vista, AR: RIVAS,1997, pp. 98-104.

11. ‘Eugene Podkletnov on antigravity’ (interview), americanantigravity.com; E. Podkletnov and GModanese, ‘Impulse gravity generator based on charged YBa2Cu3O7-x superconductor withcomposite crystal structure’, 2001, arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0108005.pdf ; E. Podkletnov and G.Modanese, ‘Investigation of high voltage discharges in low pressure gases through largeceramic superconducting electrodes’, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, v. 132, no. 3, 200pp. 239-259, springer.com; E. Podkletnov and G. Modanese, ‘Study of light interaction withgravity impulses and measurements of the speed of gravity impulses’, in: Giovanni Modaneseand Glen A. Robertson, Gravity-Superconductors Interactions: Theory and experiment ,Bentham Science Publishers, 2012, pp. 169-82, eurekaselect.com; Paul A. LaViolette, Secretof Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and classified aerospace technology , Rochester, VE:Bear & Company, 2008, pp. 165-89.

12. Eugene F. Mallove, ‘A matter of gravity’, Infinite Energy , 8:45, 2002, pp. 6-8,aetherometry.com/mallove_letter2.html; Correa Technologies, aetherenergy.com/Technologie

13. Davidson, ‘Free energy, gravity and the aether’.

Biefeld-Brown effect

1. Paul A. LaViolette, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and classified aerospacetechnology , Rochester, VE: Bear & Company, 2008, ch. 1-3; Paul A. LaViolette, SubquantumKinetics: A systems approach to physics and cosmology , Alexandria, VA: StarlanePublications, 2nd ed., 2003, pp. 243-59 (etheric.com); Rho Sigma (Rolf Schaffranke), Ether-Technology: A rational approach to gravity control , Lakemont, GA: CSA Printing & Bindery,1977, pp. 25-49.

2. Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, pp. 50-1; Intel, ‘Towards flight – without stress or strain or weight’, Interavia, 23 March 1956; reprinted in Thomas Valone (ed.), Electrogravitics II ,Washington, DC: Integrity Research Institute, 2004, pp. 77-83.

3. T.T. Brown, ‘Project Winterhaven – For Joint Services R&D Contract’, written Oct 1952, reviseJan 1953, reprinted in Thomas Valone (ed.), Electrogravitics Systems: Reports on a new propulsion methodology , Washington, DC: Integrity Research Institute, 1999, pp. 102-14.

4. Gravity Research Group, Special Weapons Study Unit, ‘Electrogravitics systems: anexamination of electrostatic motion, dynamic counterbary and barycentric control’, AviationStudies (International) Ltd., Report GRG-013/56, Feb 1956; reprinted in ElectrograviticsSystems, pp. 11-44.

5. Paulo N. Correa and Alexandra N. Correa, The Gravitational Aether, Part II: Gravitational aetherometry (5), Concord: Akronos Publishing, 2005, monograph AS3-II.7, pp. 43-4(aetherometry.com).

6. Paulo N. Correa and Alexandra N. Correa, The Gravitational Aether, Part II: Gravitational

aetherometry (6), Concord: Akronos Publishing, 2006, monograph AS3-II.8, p. 43.7. Paul LaViolette, ‘The U.S. antigravity squadron’, in Electrogravitics Systems, pp. 82-101 (p.85); see Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, pp. 142-64.

8. Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, pp. 100-1.9. ‘The U.S. antigravity squadron’, p. 82.

10. Nick Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point , London: Arrow, 2002, pp. 194-200.11. Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, ch. 7-9.12. Thomas B. Bahder and Chris Fazi, ‘Force on an asymmetric capacitor’, Infinite Energy , 9:50,

2003, pp. 34-44, jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/arl_fac/index.html.13. Takaaki Musha, ‘The possibility of strong coupling between electricity and gravitation’, Infinite

Energy , 9:53, 2004, pp. 61-4.14. Infinite Energy , 8:45, 2002, pp. 6-8, 13-31, infinite-

energy.com/iemagazine/issue45/thelifterphen.html; Jean-Louis Naudin,

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue45/thelifterphen.htmlhttps://web.archive.org/web/20070222033348/http://jlnlabs.imars.com/lifters/arl_fac/index.htmlhttp://www.aetherometry.com/http://etheric.com/http://www.aetherenergy.com/Technologieshttp://www.aetherenergy.com/Letters/mallove_letter2.phphttp://www.eurekaselect.com/100222/chapter/study-of-light-interaction-with-gravity-impulses-and-measurements-of-the-speed-of-gravity-impulse#sthash.6Y2QlAza.dpufhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1024413718251http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0108005.pdfhttp://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.htmlhttp://www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htmhttp://www.americanantigravity.com/news/beyond/the-hutchison-effect-remastered-hutchison-effect-footage.htmlhttps://web.archive.org/web/20070315133628/http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/8863/HEffect1.html


19/29

jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm.15. Gravitec Inc, foldedspace.com/corporate.html; Blaze Labs Research, blazelabs.com/l-

vacuum.asp.16. The Gravitational Aether, Part II: Gravitational aetherometry (5).

Gyroscopes: Newton in a spin

1. H. Hayasaka and S. Tackeuchi, ‘Anomalous weight reduction on a gyroscope’s right rotationsaround the vertical axis on the earth’, Physical Review Letters, 63:25, 1989, pp. 2701-4; GaryC. Vezzoli, ‘Gravitational data during the syzygy of May 18, 2001 and related studies’, InfiniteEnergy (infinite-energy.com), 9:53, 2004, pp. 18-27 (p. 18).

2. H. Hayasaka et al., ‘Possibility for the existence of anti-gravity: evidence from a free-fallexperiment using a spinning gyro’, Speculations in Science and Technology , v. 20, 1997, pp.173-81; keelynet.com/gravity/gyroag.htm.

3. Alex Jones, Electronics & Wireless World , 93, 1987, p. 64.4. Davidson, The Secret of the Creative Vacuum, pp. 258-274; gyroscopes.org/propulsion.asp;

Sandy Kidd, Beyond 2001: The laws of physics revolutionised , London: Sidgwick & Jackson,1990.

5. 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. 231.

3. Explaining gravity

Empty space, curved space, and the ether

Newtonian gravity theory assumes that gravity propagates instantaneously across empty space, i.eit 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 actupon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, byand through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to meso great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters acompetent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.1

Newton periodically toyed with the idea of an all-pervading ether filling his ‘absolute space’, andthought 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 extremelytenuous and ethereal substance which fills all space, whether interstellar or interplanetary or inter-atomic and intra-atomic, or accept actio in distans – action at adistance, without intervening intermediary or medium of transmission; and such actio indistans is obviously by all known scientific standards an impossibility. Reason, commonsense, 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 notnecessarily physical – agents of some kind, moving at finite, though possibly superluminal, speeds

http://www.gyroscopes.org/propulsion.asphttp://keelynet.com/gravity/gyroag.htmhttp://www.infinite-energy.com/http://www.blazelabs.com/l-vacuum.asphttps://web.archive.org/web/20011205102443/http://foldedspace.com/corporate.htmlhttp://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm


20/29

In 1905 Albert Einstein rejected the ether as ‘superfluous’. However, he recognized that gravitationfields were present in all regions of space, and for a time he spoke of a ‘gravitational ether’, but hereduced it to an empty abstraction by denying it any energetic properties. The fact that space hasmore than 10 different characteristics – dielectric constant, modulus of elasticity, magneticpermeability, 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 beingcomposed 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. Hedid not challenge the newtonian notion that inert mass was the cause of the gravitational force. Butwhereas Newton attributed gravitational attraction to the density of matter, Einstein assumed that th

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, gravitis not regarded as a force that propagates but supposedly results from masses distorting the ‘fabricof 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 thecurved spacetime around the sun.

Relativists attribute the bending of starlight passing near the sun mainly to space curvature. AtJupiter’s distance the bending would be just 0.00078 arc-seconds – and we’re supposed to believethat 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 commonlyclaimed 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 anattractive gravitational force, and allows for only very tiny gravitational shielding or antigravity effectFurthermore, 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 waturned 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 theweak and strong nuclear forces – arise from matter particles constantly emitting and absorbingdifferent types of force-carrying ‘virtual’ particles (known as bosons), which are constantly flickeringinto and out of existence. The gravitational force is supposedly mediated by gravitons – hypotheticamassless, uncharged, infinitesimal particles travelling at the speed of light. Since gravitons wouldapparently be identical to their antiparticles, this theory, too, appears to rule out antigravity, and italso fails to explain electrogravity.

Experimental support for these particle-exchange theories is lacking, and it is not clear how particle

impacts can produce 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 all. Moreover, in the standard model, force-carrying particles, like fundamental matter particles, areregarded as infinitely small, zero-dimensional point-particles – which is clearly absurd. As a result othese idealized notions, quantum calculations tend to be plagued with infinities, which have to bedone away with by a trick known as ‘renormalization’.

Einstein spent the last 40 years of his life attempting to extend the geometrical notions of generalrelativity to include electromagnetic interactions, and to unite the laws of gravitation and the laws ofelectromagnetism 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 wassuccessful, and the search for a unified theory continues.


21/29

Some scientists believe that string theory, which first emerged in the 1970s, is a major step towardsa ‘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 acentimetre (10-33 cm) long but with zero thickness, inhabiting a ten-dimensional universe in which thsix extra spatial dimensions are curled up so small that they are undetectable. This theory has noexperimental support; indeed, to detect individual strings would require a particle accelerator at leaas big as our galaxy. Moreover, the mathematics of string theory is so complex that no one knowsthe exact equations, and even the approximate equations are so complicated that so far they haveonly 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 membranesthree-dimensional blobs (three-branes), and also higher-dimensional entities, up to and includingnine dimensions (nine-branes). It is even speculated that the fundamental components of theuniverse may be zero-branes.2 Such crazy ideas do nothing to advance our understanding of thereal 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 allthermal 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 aninfinite amount of zero-point energy. By assuming a minimum wavelength of electromagneticvibrations, the energy density of the ‘quantum vacuum’ has been reduced to the still astronomicalfigure 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 ouwhose results are widely regarded as consistent with the existence of zero-point energy. Thepresence of surfaces changes the density of vacuum energy and can result in vacuum forces, anexample 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 studied the possibility of harnessing zero-point energy for spacecraft propulsion as part of its Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Programme (1996-2002).3

Whereas conventional quantum electrodynamics derives the zero-point field (ZPF) – sometimescalled the ‘quantum ether’ – from quantum theory and assumes that it is generated by physicalmatter-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 fluctuatingelectromagnetic energy of the ZPF.4 Inertia (a body’s resistance to a change in its state of motion) isaid to be an acceleration-dependent, electromagnetic drag force stemming from interactionsbetween a charged particle and the ZPF. The fluctuations of the ZPF are also said to cause chargeparticles 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 thaby reconfiguring the ZPF surrounding a body, it may be possible to modify its inertia, or ‘inertialmass’, and to control gravity.

Some ZPF researchers suggest that there is no such thing as mass – only charges, which interactwith the all-pervasive electromagnetic field to create the illusion of matter.5 However, since they do


22/29

not go on to present a concrete picture of what they understand by ‘charge’ or ‘charged particle’, ththeory does not get us very far. In the standard model of particle physics, ‘fundamental’ chargedparticles such as electrons and quarks are modelled as infinitely small particles with no internalstructure – which is clearly a physical impossibility.

Pushing gravity

According to the impact theory of gravity, which originated primarily with the 18th-century scientistGeorges-Louis Le Sage, gravity is caused by physical matter being continuously bombarded by

extremely tiny, unobservable particles (‘gravitons’ – a word denoting different things in differenttheories), which travel through space in all directions far faster than the speed of light. The particleswould have to be so small that they only occasionally strike material constituents within the bodiesthey pass through, so that each constituent has an equal chance of being hit. Any two bodies inspace 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. There are severalcompeting versions of Le Sage’s theory. They fall into two main groups: those that pursue theparticle (or corpuscular) approach, and those that replace the graviton sea by very high or lowfrequency electromagnetic radiation that fills all of space.1

James Clerk Maxwell and Henri Poincaré argued that graviton collisions with matter would have tobe inelastic, since gravitons would otherwise bounce back and forth between two bodies, therebycancelling the shielding effect, and that inelastic graviton impacts would quickly heat all materialbodies to an enormous temperature. The theory’s proponents responded by asserting that bodiesmust somehow radiate as much heat back into space as they absorb, though there is no clear evidence to support this in the case of the earth. Héctor Múnera objects to Maxwell and Poincaré’sassumption that gravitons must be point particles that are reflected by matter in a coherent mannerhe contends that if gravitons are spatially extended particles (as they would have to be if they reallyexist), they could undergo elastic collisions without cancelling each other out, and that no heatproblem would therefore arise.2

In newtonian theory, gravity supposedly acts instantaneously, while in relativity theory it propagatesat the speed of light. It is sometimes argued that if the sun’s force propagated at the speed of light,

would accelerate the earth’s orbital speed by a noticeable amount – something which is notobserved. Tom Van Flandern calculates from binary-pulsar data that gravitons must propagate atleast 20 billion times faster than light.3 How these gravitons originate and manage to get accelerateto such incredible velocities is not explained.

While it is logical to suppose that all attractive forces ultimately arise from pushes at some level,* thimpact theory of gravity is too simplistic to account for all the relevant facts. Like conventional gravitheory, it cannot explain why all the planets orbit the sun in planes which form only small angles tothe sun’s equatorial plane, or why all the planets circle the sun in the same direction as the sun’ssense 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 explainbipolar forces such as electricity and magnetism, and adopting an impact theory of gravitationtherefore 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 isimpossible 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 beattracted 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 ultimatelyreducible to pushes, but the underlying processes are far more complex than in the aircraft example.

http://davidpratt.info/infdiv.htm


23/29

Dynamic ether

Researchers in the field of ether physics have developed a variety of models to explain the nature omatter and force. Such theories are already ‘unified’ in the sense that physical matter and forces arderived 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 bepictured as the drag force exerted by the disturbed ether as a body accelerates through it. Electriccharge can be pictured as a difference in ether concentration, and magnetic forces as circular flowsof 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 changed around an atom, the gravity force will also change. This phenomenon can be amplified bysynchronizing ether flows through the nucleus of a given mass, either by rotation or movement or bsonic 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 Physicasubatomic particles and energy quanta are regarded as wavelike concentration patterns in the ethe

A particle’s gravitational and electromagnetic fields are said to result from the fluxes of different kindof etheric particles, or etherons, across their boundaries, and the resulting etheron concentrationgradients. Positively charged particles such as protons generate matter-attracting gravity wells

whereas, contrary to conventional theory, negatively charged particles such as electrons generatematter-repelling gravity hills. Electrically neutral matter remains gravitationally attractive because thproton’s gravity well marginally dominates the electron’s gravity hill.

Most scientists assume that electrons are attracted by gravity, but this has not been verifiedexperimentally due to the difficulty of the measurement. LaViolette sees confirmation of his theorythat electrons have anti gravitational properties in an experiment performed by Evgeny Podkletnovand Giovanni Modanese in 2001, which showed that ‘an axial high-voltage electron dischargeproduces a matter-repelling gravity wave that travels in the direction of the discharge exerting alongitudinal repulsive gravitational force on a distant test mass’.3 Although the hypothesis thatnegative charges produce antigravity fields would explain the classical Biefeld-Brown effect (a thrusdirected from the negative to the positive electrode of a high-voltage capacitor), it poses the problemof explaining why a thrust can be produced regardless of whether the leading electrode is positive onegative.

Building on the work of pioneering scientists such as Nicola Tesla, Louis de Broglie, Wilhelm Reichand Harold Aspden,4 Canadian scientists Paulo and Alexandra Correa have developed a detailed,quantitative model of a dynamic ether, known as aetherometry. They have also developedtechnological applications, such as their pulsed-plasma (PAGD) reactors, which produce morepower than is required to run them, their self-sustaining aether motor, and their weight-neutralizer and anti-gravitator.5

The Correas have conducted meticulous experiments with electroscopes, ‘orgone accumulators’

(specially designed metal enclosures), and Tesla coils which point to the existence of both electricand nonelectric forms of ‘massfree’ (nonphysical), nonelectromagnetic energy, one component of which (known to chemists and climatologists as ‘latent heat’) has antigravitational properties.6 Byshowing that the ether (or ‘aether’, as they prefer to spell it) cannot be reduced to electromagneticenergy, they have clearly exposed the inadequacy of zero-point-energy models. When electricalmassfree waves encounter physical matter (e.g. earth’s atmosphere), they impart energy to chargeparticles such as electrons, and when these charges decelerate they shed this energy in the form otransient, vortex-like structures of electromagnetic energy, i.e. photons.

Aetherometry proposes that the rotational and translatory movements of planets, stars and galaxiesare 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


24/29

of energy not only propels the earth but also produces its gravitational field. When nonelectric etheenergy interacts with physical or etheric charges it produces either gravitons, which impel a particleor body towards regions of greater mass density, or antigravitons, which impel them in the oppositedirection. Gravitational forces are essentially electrodynamic forces that depend on polarity:aetherometry contends that gravity ultimately results from an electrodynamic attraction that occurswhen 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 anelectrodynamic repulsion that occurs when matter has net charge and interacts with the same in-phase charge lattices.7

References

Empty space, curved space, and the ether

1. Quoted in G. de Purucker, The Esoteric Tradition, Pasadena, CA: Theosophical UniversityPress (TUP), 2nd ed., 1940, pp. 443-4fn; H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, TUP, 1977(1888), 1:490-1.

2. The Esoteric Tradition, 901-2fn.3. See Space, time, and relativity (Einstein’s fallacies), davidpratt.info.

Fields, strings, branes

1. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, hidden dimensions, and the quest for theultimate theory , London: Vintage, 2000, p. 19.

2. Ibid., pp. 287-8, 379.

Zero-point field

1. R. Forward, ‘Mass modification experiment definition study’, Journal of Scientific Exploration,10:3, 1996, pp. 325-54.

2. H.P. Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine, Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, 1977

(1888), 1:44.3. Marc G. Millis, ‘Prospects for breakthrough propulsion from physics’, 2004, nasa.gov.4. 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. 473-85; ‘Questions and answers abouthe origin of inertia and the zero-point field’, calphysics.org/questions.html.

5. B. Haisch, A. Rueda and H.E. Puthoff, ‘Beyond E=mc!’, The Sciences, 34:6, 1994, pp. 26-31.

Pushing gravity

1. Matthew R. Edwards (ed.), Pushing Gravity: New perspectives on Le Sage’s theory of gravitation, Montreal, Quebec: Apeiron, 2002.

2. Héctor A. Múnera, ‘A Le Sagian atomic-type model for propagation and generation of gravity’

in Héctor A. Múnera (ed.), Should the Laws of Gravitation Be Reconsidered? The scientific legacy of Maurice Allais, Montreal: Apeiron, 2011, pp. 385-422.

3. Tom Van Flandern, ‘The speed of gravity – what the experiments say’, Meta Research Bulletin6:4, 1997, pp. 49-62.

4. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., 1898, p. 64.

Dynamic ether

1. Dan A. Davidson, Shape Power , Sierra Vista, AR: RIVAS, 1997, pp. 1-7; Dan A. Davidson,‘Free energy, gravity and the aether’, 1997, keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm.

2. Paul A. LaViolette, Genesis of the Cosmos: The ancient science of continuous creation,

Rochester, VE: Bear and Company, 2004; Paul A. LaViolette, Subquantum Kinetics: A system

http://www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htmhttp://www.calphysics.org/questions.htmlhttp://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040070788.pdfhttp://davidpratt.info/relativ.htm


25/29

approach to physics and cosmology , Alexandria, VA: Starlane Publicat

gravity and antigravity (1)

Documents