Don’t go to too much effort, my memory is shot. Short, simple or not worth it.
And thanks for what you already did.
I just searched some things about this interesting theory, and found a book called “Secrets of Antigravity propulsion” by Paul LaViolette. I’m not a physicist, so it’s really hard to say if his work and theories are relevant. He postulated that we’d already be able to use antigravity (ok said like that, he could seem less credible), and this theory seems to be based on the “etheron model”… am I wrong ? What do you think about this ?
I didn’t read the book, but if it were easy we’d have it already. There are plenty of examples through history where two independent researches came up with the same theory/ideas around the same time. Newton/lebowitz, darwin and the other guy he rushed to beat(can’t remember his name), and plenty more.
If “antigravity” were so simple that 1 man could discover it, there would be more than 1 person claiming that it exists and actually building the drives. I can say the book is probably less than credible using that logic alone. As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The best evidence is a working drive. That would make everyone shut up.
It’s very similar to what’s happening with the EM drive right now. Known science(Conservation of momentum) disagrees with its mechanism, yet we detect something. That something may not be(and probably is) some unaccounted form of error. Until it’s proved to produce thrust with all forms of possible error ruled out many will remain skeptical. At least the EM drive has anomalous thrust. I haven’t heard anything about an antigravity drive prototype.
@kamui Yes, the same Dr LaViolette, and an excellent book. He traces back through the history on this well-documented phenomenon (although with more of a focus on the science and engineering aspects. For a more historical/political take on the subject, Nick Cook’s “The Hunt for Zero Point” is one of the best), and makes frequent reference to SQK.
While we’re on that subject, SQK describes how gravity originates very specifically (remember, its actual cause is still unknown according to the standard model), and presents a clear linkage between high-gradient electrical potentials and a gravitational effect (termed the ‘electrogravitic effect’).
If you’re going to take this approach, then I encourage you to read the book by Nick Cook I mentioned in my last post, or even summaries of it. One person did in fact discover eletrogravitics, back in the early 1900s - his name was Thomas Townsend Brown, and he discovered that a highly-charged capacitor was anomalously impelled towards its positive pole. This is oft and erroneously attributed to an ionic wind effect… even though the effect still occurs in a deep vacuum, and the acceleration actually increases with the mass of the capacitor instead of decreases as a traditional force would demand. Many many people have refined and engineered the concept since then.He details these people and their findings quite well.
Disparities in the abundance and ratio of primordial H and He are a direct result of SQK. SQK posits the continuous creation of matter, as opposed to the “it was all squished into a tiny point and then poofed outwards from it” theory of the big-bang. Accordingly, regions of high concentrations of G-etheron (‘supercritical’ regions) spontaneously create more stabilized structures as follows directly from the equations. (That much isn’t up to debate - look at the field of non-linear reaction diffusion equations. Whether or not it is a good model for the universe is obviously up for debate).
Type Ia nova luminosities at Large Z also follows from this. Standard astrophysics assume stars at the top-left of the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram are the youngest, which burn out quickly and go nova. This is in accordance with the accretion model of stellar growth. SQK describes the mechanism for continuous matter creation, which occurs at an exponentially faster rate deeper inside a gravity well. Thus according to SQK, stars are massive matter generators, and evolve from the young red dwarf stage towards highly luminous blue supergiants. The interpretation of large Z being close to the beginning of the universe is non-sequitor in this theory, however, because that implies a big-bang. On top of that, the assumption that the CMB was caused by the big-bang is an ad-hoc assumption of that theory. There is substantial evidence which disproves this assumption: see Sawangwit, U. et al. “Cross-correlating WMAP5 with 1.5
million LRGs: a new test for the ISW effect.” According to SQK, the CMB is likely caused by matter autogenesis occuring isotropically throughout the universe…
Various treatments of the CMBE data have depicted clear ring-like patterns in the backgorund. This is still up for debate, but if scientists come to agree that it’s not an artifact of the data treatment, then it could lend further creedance to the model:
EDIT: added references for the CMB rings:
This one’s cool… so SQK posits that a gravity well can exist outside of matter. Actually, it’s where matter first forms: in a region of high-G etheron concentration, the SQK reaction diffusion equations (posted below… realized I hadn’t yet depicted these) go ‘supercritical’ thus leading to the self-stabilized oscillations depicted in the earlier video (though these are a rough approximation to how SQK depicts matter creation… here’s a better one http://starburstfound.org/wp-content/uploads/video-gallery/Subquantum/particle_formation_3d.mov).
So matter forms in a region of high-G, and further G is created later as the result of stabilized particles. But light will interact with a G concentration in accordance with standard lensing equations (although the mechanism is much closer to Snell’s law according to SQK). So lensing situations where light is clearly being affected by gravity, yet no visible matter exists, is easily accomodated by SQK, where it baffles standard astrophysics. Picture below depicts one such case (region 3 is the source of high gravitational lensing but no matter is observed there)
SQK fundamental equations:
Sorry for the very rushed posts. I haven’t had a ton of time lately and am on the go at the moment. I’d be happy to step through these things a bit more but I feel like I’m jumping to some of the more speculative “results” of the theory, as opposed to discussing its central principles, which are the most fascinating and powerful aspect. This is a true unifying theory, founded in 5 equations. It’s pretty amazing the deeper into it you get.
Gotta run!
Argh. I’ve been putting off building my own lifter for some time now. I have all the necessary materials except time. I distinctly remember reading a paper(when I first became interested in lifters) that directly related reduced thrust with an increasing vacuum.
I’m curious if lifters are the same sort of charged capacitors that produce the anomalous forces that you describe?
Maybe over winter break(or soon) I’ll build one and see what experiments I can do. I wanted to use schlieren photography to see the airflow over the device which would be pretty cool. I’ll have to designing a HV power supply then.
I can’t comment on the details in the theory as I haven’t read a thing and I’m on mobile currently. I’ll try to get to it soon but college has me too busy -.-
I found this quite interesting. We’ve discovered a LOT about planets in the last few years.
1 Like
@Skyentist Lifters are really cool, but they’re operating under a different principle entirely. The high electric field gradient caused by the “sharpness” of the aluminum-foil electrode causes a relatively small input voltage to ionize the air near the (positive) electrode (there is a very high electric field gradient in the space around this electrode, particularly because the negative pole is more rounded, thus producing a gentler gradient). This ionized air (i.e. positive nucleus and negative electron shell temporarily separate) is then accelerated by the electric field: the electrons rush ‘towards’ the electrode, and the positively-charged nucleus rushes away (is repelled) from the electrode, which is downward. Since this mass of the nucleus is thousands of times more than the electrode, a net upward thrust is created, as a reaction to the positively ionized air being thrust downward. This is called the “ion wind” effect.
Since it’s 100% dependent upon the presence of ionizable air, however, this won’t work in a vacuum. The thrust produced is also generally quite small, requiring a very very light ‘lifter’. Electrogravitics is an altogether different effect, although a few principles of operation are similar. By creating large enough electric gradient, the rate of g-etheron production (according to SQK) is increased dramatically along the leading edge of this gradient. This causes a gravity ‘hill’ or repulsive effect. But a steady-state gradient is hard to maintain, as nearby air will ionize thus causing ‘leakage current’ and reducing the overall gradient. If that doesn’t happen (vacuum), your electrode will melt due to the massive voltages involved. Instead, a series of electric pulses are created, each with a very steep onset (leading edge), and smooth fall-off (trailing edge). These create a net repulsive effect as the rate of g-etheron production is non-linear with respect ot electric field gradient (in other words, much more g-etherons are created on the leading edges than are consumed on the trailing edges, thus a net positive g-etheron flux outward from the waves, repelling other matter). In essence, the craft is creating a ‘negative mass’ directly in front of it. The same can be done with an attractive “virtual mass” using the opposite electrical polarity, but experimentally there have been many more complications with this approach which are a bit too subtle to get into here. Read Hunt for Zero Point by Nick Cook, or Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion by Paul LaViolette for more details if you’re interested in this stuff!
I know the principles by which lifters work. I must have misunderstood what you meant by:
I thought you were saying that this electrogravitic effect was one and the same as the ionic wind due to the ion wind being a side effect of electrogravitic principles.
The force it sounds like you are describing is similar to the casimir effect, where you have 2 uncharged plates played close together(much like a capacitor) in a vacuum and a force is observed “pulling” the plates together.
I still haven’t read through the math or the principles so unfortunately I can’t claim to understand the nature of any of the particles you describe(or what consequences their existence may produce). All my free time is going classes and homework unfortunately. I am currently taking classical so I look forward to reading up on the theory at the end of the semester and contrasting the two.
The train that powers it’s station. http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20151002-the-train-that-powers-its-station
2 Likes
Very smart idea. It’s a crapload of kinetic energy moving 24/7.
Some picts by date. NASA: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/new
Attack of the bad memory: The ship that took the pict of Enceladus seems to be at it’s end of run. It’s going to be sent into Saturn. 
(the nouns may be wrong.
2 Likes
Surprise discovery suggests ‘gentle’ start for Solar System
1 Like
Ya there was the Kickstarter, I let lots of things slide.
Scientists think they may have found alien ‘megastructures’ in space
http://www.thejournal.ie/alien-megastructures-2389745-Oct2015/?utm_source=email
Or not: That ‘alien megastructure’ orbiting a distant star is probably just a bunch of comets
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/11/25/that-alien-megastructure-orbiting-a-distant-star-is-probably-just-a-bunch-of-comets/
Unfortunately this isn’t a science publication ether.
1 Like
‘Li-fi 100 times faster than wi-fi’
1 Like