Article : What is antigravity? Anti-gravity Machine and Anti-gravity Machine concept.?
What is antigravity? Anti-gravity Machine and Anti-gravity Machine concept.?
From the hoverboards of "Back to the Future" to the gravity guns of
"Half-Life 2," science fiction is peppered with antigravity technology.
In the real world of peer-reviewed studies, corporate-funded labs and
general relativity, however, "antigravity" is a dirty word.
Gravity,
you undoubtedly remember, is the attractive force between objects. It
holds you to the planet and keeps the planet orbiting around the sun. As you might imagine, the idea of reducing, canceling or protecting against this effect of gravity is highly appealing.
Did Evgeny Podkletnov manage to shield an object from
the effects of gravity with this 1992 design? Two decades have passed
and, so far, only Podkletnov himself has reported success. (Scientists
have, however, enjoyed success with superconductors though.)
Antigravity
technology would revolutionize space exploration and energy production.
It would slash the energy demands of travel and transportation. First,
however, we'd just have to drastically alter our understanding of
physics and figure out how to counter this powerful force.
As
such, antigravity technology remains both the Holy Grail and a red flag.
There's been no shortage of hoaxes, conspiracy theories and
credibility-straining reports regarding its research.
For example,
in 1992, Russian physicist Evgeny Podkletnov claimed to have
successfully tested a device that shields an object from gravity. The
experiment involved levitating a superconducting disc above a magnet. No one -- including NASA
researchers -- has been able to replicate this experiment in the nearly
two decades since that time. In 2002, noted aviation journalist Nick
Cook's research into supposed Nazi antigravity research failed to win
over critics.
You might be starting to see why "antigravity" is a
taboo subject. Or why NASA has chosen previously to research antigravity
through projects with names like Breakthrough Propulsion Physics
Project (1996-2002). NASA even published a booklet titled "Responding to
Mechanical Antigravity" to help amateur and professional researchers,
most of whom submitted ideas (as many as 100 per year) involving
machines that falsely appeared to create an antigravity effect.
And
just in case you're wondering, NASA's zero-gravity flights aboard
modified C-9 aircraft are not examples of antigravity. Neither is the
levitation effect achieved in 2007 by countering Casimir force, a
quantum force that essentially causes objects to stick to one another --
a type of nanofriction
Antigravity, on the other hand, involves lessening the effects of
gravitational pull on an object, and the science just isn't there yet.
Many
scientists strongly believe that antigravity isn't possible, given what
we know about the universe and the laws that govern it. So for now, all
those amazing antigravity gizmos are going to have to remain within the
realm of science fiction.
Anti-gravity Machine concept
This is a concept I came up with for an idea of an anti-gravity
machine. Let me just state for the record... I do not think this
will actually work. However, while I am quite certain this idea
should not work... based upon my limited knowledge of science... it
would seem like it could work. Unfortunately I know I am never going
to spend the thousands if not millions of dollars to build this
concept to find out.
The basic premise of the idea is the use
of angular momentum to overcome the force of gravity. Imagine if you
will, a gyroscope spinning at such a high velocity that its outward
force overcomes the downward force of gravity. Naturally, one of the
big obstacles is generating the speeds necessary to create the
velocity such that angular momentum is greater than downward force.
What I essentially propose is a spinning ring that is propelled in
the same way as a maglev train. Using Electromagnetic propulsion or
EMP to accelerate a ring in a vacuum by the utilization of a flowing
electrical current and magnetic fields may in theory generate the
speeds necessary for the force to overcome gravity. Unfortunately,
the power to run such a vehicle and the weight to power ratio are
significant obstacles.
Two of these rings above one another I
theorize can create tremendous propulsion if the angles of the rings
were changed. Using hydrolics to change the angle of alignment of
these two rings may create incredible forward momentum. Once more,
such a vehicle would not be limited to operation within Earth's
atmosphere unlike jet or other propulsion mechanisms. In fact, it
should operate at peak efficiency in a zero gravitational environment.
This is all theory... and I'd love to know if it is indeed as crazy as it sounds.
Antigravity and conventional physics
In both
Newton's law of gravitation and the
general theory of relativity (Einstein's
theory of gravitation), a requirement for antigravity to be possible is
the existence of
negative mass.
1,
2 Most scientists regard negative mass as a purely hypothetical concept
with no basis in reality. However, there is nothing in physics to say that
it is actually impossible. A related idea that has been discussed by theoretical
physicists involves gravitational shielding.
Majorana
shielding
The notion of gravitational shielding was investigated in the 1920s by the
Italian physicist Quirino Majorana. So-called Majorana shielding is hypothetical
effect by which large masses (such as the moon) can partially block the
gravitational force from more distant objects (such as the sun). This might
explain the unusual and highly controversial efforts observed by some researchers
in the behavior of pendulums during solar eclipses.
The origins of the idea of gravitational shielding go back to Nicolas Fatio
de Duillier, a Swiss mathematician and one-time close friend of Isaac Newton.
When Newton admitted he didn't know how gravity really worked, de Duillier
suggested, in 1690, that it arose as a shadowing effect associated with
the absorption by material bodies of minute particles. This "push" theory
of gravity was then developed further, in the 18th century, by another Swiss
mathematician, George-Louis LeSage, also remembered for building and patenting
the first electric telegraph. LeSage believed there was some kind of pressure
in space. Masses, he thought, shielded one another from this space pressure
and are thus pushed together by the unshielded pressure on their opposite
sides. Although LeSage's theory never won much support in the wider scientific
community, it did strongly influence John Herapath, an English amateur scientist,
in developing an early version of the kinetic theory of gases. It also came
back into play when attempts were made to explain some anomalies in the
motion of the moon that had been detected in the first decade of the 20th
century by Simon Newcomb.
In 1912 the German astronomer Kurt Bottlinger calculated the effects that
would occur if the gravitational force between the sun and the moon decreased
during lunar eclipses. What he found was a fluctuation in the moon's longitude
that agreed with Newcomb's observations. Subsequently, Bottlinger's results
were criticized by the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter, and Einstein tried
to supply an alternative explanation in terms of changes of the Earth's
rotation due to tidal effects. However, Einstein's analysis was soon proved
to be wrong, and for many years the moon's anomalous movements went unexplained.
In the 1930s the mystery disappeared from view when astronomers began to
use so-called ephemeris time, which was defined in a way that assumed the
motion of the moon to be regular. Even before this, the widespread acceptance
of general relativity undermined belief that an effect involving gravitational
absorption could exist, pulling the rug from any further experimental and
astronomical studies of this hypothesis. But it didn't stop Majorona. In
the 1920s, the decade in which general relativity came of age, he did a
series of lab experiments, involving lead and mercury shields, in which
he reported a small gravitational absorption effect. There is a need for
Majorona's research to be repeated to check if the shielding he found is
real.
Podkletnov phenomenon
In the 1992, the Russian emigré scientist Yevgeny Podkletnov reported
an antigravity or gravitational shielding effect involving a spinning superconductor.
3 Podkletnov claimed he saw tobacco smoke rise over the spinning superconductor,
so he measured the gravitational acceleration above the device and made
the discovery. Podkletnov now claims to have created a force beam that is
200 times stronger than his first experiments.
In the wake of Podkletnov's announcement, Boeing, BAE Systems, and NASA
all funded research to try to replicate the Podkletnov effect but with no
reported success. An American scientist, Ning Li, independently predicted
a gravity shielding effect with superconductors. In 1999,
Popular Mechanics reported that Li and her team had built a working prototype to generate
what Li described as AC Gravity. However, there has been no subsequent verification
of the work.
Antigravity in science fiction
The theme of antigravity appeared early in science fiction, a typical 19th
century example being "
apergy" – an antigravity
principle used to propel a spacecraft from Earth to
Mars in Percy
Greg's
Across the Zodiac (1880)
and borrowed for the same purpose by John Jacob Astor in
A Journey in
Other Worlds (1894). More famously, in
The
First Men in the Moon (1901), H. G. Wells used moveable shutters
made of "Cavorite," a metal that shields against gravity, to navigate a
spacecraft to the Moon.
So
we've had neutrinos that traveled faster than light  or at least, that
result hasn't been invalidated yet. But how soon can we get spaceships
that can travel to other star systems without traveling at
faster-than-light velocities? The answer might lie in a relatively
little-known theory.
Heim Theory
holds the possibility for all kinds of seemingly science fictional
things, from special engines that can work using gravity to space craft
that move faster than light to many different quantized dimensions. How
could these scientific miracles be possible? Find out below.
Top image: concept art by James Gammell for FTL game universe.
The Basics of Heim Theory
Heim Theory
was originated by Burkhard Heim, a German physicist, in the
mid-twentieth century. It was attempted as a way to reconcile the two
pillars of physics, quantum theory and general relativity. It takes
what's currently the only way out, between the two theories - extra
dimensions. Heim added two extra dimensions, in addition to the
currently accepted four (three dimensions in space, and one in time)
that we move through every day. Later versions of the theory have eight
or twelve dimensions. Supplementing our continuous spacetime, are little
quantized bits of two-dimensional spacetime called 'metrons.'
Einstein
used four dimensions to equate matter with energy, laying the groundwork
for a new way to produce energy in nuclear reactors, which convert
solid matter to energy. Heim's goal was to find ways to convert between
all kinds of energy, and in adding two dimensions to his calculations he
was able to equate, at least in theory, gravitational energy and
electromagnetism. This could give rise to a new kind of starship engine,
which uses electromagnetic fields to slip free of gravity.
A New Kind of Engine
The
coupling of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces could mean that
one would have an effect on the other. All earthlings live under a
relatively strong gravitational force all the time; one which is
difficult to manipulate. This gravitational force has hindered our
efforts to get to space. Meanwhile, we've become very handy with
electromagnetism. Heim thought that enough of a magnetic field could
loosen gravity's grip on us and we could blast off without the massive
amounts of fuel we currently use.
This idea
was taken up by Jochem Hauser and Walter Droscher, who used this aspect
of Heim theory to create a theoretical hyperdrive that might power the
spaceships of the future. Put a big rotating ring above a
superconducting coil, run current through the coil and rotate the ring,
and the magnetic field generated might wipe out the gravitational force
on the ring and allow it to fly free. Unfortunately, the engine requires
the kind of current density that modern materials are incapable of
creating, and so it, and Heim theory, remain untestable. For now.
Going Faster Than Light
Going
farther into the realms of the theoretical, away from the possible and
into the deeply unlikely, Heim theory has been used to justify the idea
of faster-than-light travel. This is getting into Wrinkle in Time
territory. Enough of a magnetic field will not just pop a spaceship out
of a gravitational pull, but out of regular, three-dimensional space
itself. By going into higher dimensional space, a ship or person might
hop from one place to another, traveling, to ordinary four-dimensional
eyes, faster than light.
As much as
Heim theory promises a new age of space travel, but it comes with
considerable practical problems, as the expanding need for dimensions
demonstrates. Although Burkhard Heim was able to show that the theory
predicts the several masses and properties of particles, it does not
show how particles interact with each other. Its applications are
currently impossible to demonstrate. It winds in and out of popularity.
Famously, physicist John Reed noted in 2006 that some parts of the
theory don't yield the exact quantities that Heim claimed they did, only
to reverse his opinion the next year and publicly say he believed that
Heim was onto something. Until we find some metamaterial that can check
some of the claims of the theory, though, we'll just have to wonder.
Theorem of Anti-gravity
What are presented here are novel ideas on gravity that you are unlikely to find elsewhere. Since Galileo (1564-1642), who is credited for developing the modern scientific method, science has failed to offer an explanation of gravity.
Sir Isacc Newton said in the final paragraph of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses…â€Â
Einstein wasn’t so modest with his “Postulatesâ€Â. To those who have the patience to understand it, his theory of gravity as a pure geometric effect of curved ‘Space-Time‘ only manages to accurately describe how gravity behaves. Unfortunately Einstein’s two-dimensional rubber-sheet model of a ‘rigid gravity well’, used to explain his concept of the gravitational field surrounding a body in space, relies on gravity as its own explanation. Einstein also postulated that nothing can travel faster than light yet we know that gravity must act seemingly instantaneously to hold our solar system together. Einstein’s esoteric theory of curved space-time has added little to our understanding of gravity in the last 100 years.
Tesla never directly referred to “space-time“, referring instead to the concept of the “primary substance†(ether). He also never used this relativistic “twin†term. He considered time as a mere man-made “measure†of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the “curving†of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the “equal and opposite†reaction of space on the body would “straighten space back out“.
I have a theory of how to create anti-gravity which stems from how we misinterpret our universe. It’s not complex but requires us to take a step back and look at our universe and electricity differently.
A common misconception is that in space all things float about weightless. The definition of weightlessness is difficult, in space even tiny objects may contain enough momentum (mass and velocity) to penetrate steel. The impression of weightlessness is only an illusion where an objects relative motion is the same as that of another to which it is being referenced.
The following is deliberate simplification and in many areas may not be technically correct. There are many precise terms used to describe motion such as velocity, acceleration, inertia, momentum, pressure, force and energy to which I mean no disrespect. My ideas stem from the idea that everything in the universe is derived from ‘movement > pressure > density’ and that no object is ever at rest. In time, and possibly with help, I will refine these ideas further so as not to offend current scientific concensus.
Weight ‘Weight’ is a measure of an object’s mass (inertia) and gravitational acceleration, W = mg. Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest. In other words, an object wants to keep doing whatever it’s doing. When we pick up a rock the weight we are feeling is its inertia. The concept of the rock being at rest in our hand is an illusion. The rock only has the appearance of being stationary or at rest. If you let it go, it cannot be aware of a change in its environment, it simply continues what it is doing. So we experience weight itself as a force, as force is F=ma.
GravityA feather will fall at the same speed as a 10kg weight in a vacuum so we therefore know that gravity itself has nothing to do with ‘weight’ and is simply the measurement of movement or acceleration towards a given mass, in this case the earth. Gravity is an integral part of energy density or ‘mass’, but mass without momentum does not determine weight.
Separating the concept of mass, weight and gravity we can now say that gravity=acceleration though we experience gravity as weight (mass + momentum). This is why our explanations and concepts of gravity often appear confused.
So understanding that Gravity is simply acceleration or movement towards a mass doesn’t help us understand it. Why? What is the object’s impetus? The answer may be staring us in the face. We know in the Bernoulli Principal that as an object accelerates there is a simultaneous decrease in pressure. When we look to nature to see where this is occurring you can see there is exactly this pressure gradient in the electrical field of the earth. Tesla’s ether was “rigidified†by rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and was thereby involved in gravitational effects, inertia, and momentum, especially in the space near earth, since, as explained by Tesla, the earth is “…like a charged metal ball moving through spaceâ€Â, which creates the enormous, rapidly varying electrostatic forces which diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from earth, just like gravity. Since the direction of propagation radiates from the earth, the so-called force of gravity is toward earth.
The closer you are to the earth the lower the atmospheric voltage (another name for electrical pressure). The electrical pressure of our solar system accelerating towards the earth may explain the “weak force†of gravity. Gravity only appears to be a strong force because our only experience of it is through momentum. In other words, by the time this force reaches the earth everything is moving so fast and is so pressurised that our only perception of movement are the different densities of matter by their weight (mass + momentum). Not unlike a centrifuge where all matter self-organises into it’s natural order of density with each level of density squeezing out or displacing lighter mass.
This indicates what we often call radiation of various kinds is actually electrical energy accelerating towards the earth. There is a concept in this that will completely turn our understanding of the universe on its head. Instead of a mass generating gravity, the above would mean that the electrical pressure gradient would create mass. Our universe is not full of countless lumps of independent mass (ie: stars and planets) but is an electrical storm where the mass is the tiniest by-product. This more integrated or less independent view of gravity better explains how gravity acts at a distance. Without what we call ‘gravity’ (acceleration) everything in the universe would eventually disintegrate into an amorphous mass.
Understanding that gravity is acceleration, creating anti-gravity becomes as difficult as countering centrifugal force. With everything moving in unison we do not feel the motion but it is there. It can only be cancelled by creating an equal and opposite force. This is why science have failed to discover antigravity. We confuse the weak force of gravity with the subtle effects of electricity hoping that we will discover miraculous vibrating beam that will cancel gravity. But with air pressure equalling 1kg per square centimetre at sea level it may be possible to use gravity itself to create antigravity.
To understand gravity better we must first understand energy and in essence there is only one force in the universe. Energy is motion which only exists as a relative measurement. We know that the earth spins at around 1,674 km/h at the equator. The earth travels around the sun at approximately 107,300 km/h. While we rest thinking that we are aware of the earth’s movement through space, what we aren’t aware of is earth’s speed relative to other stars in our galaxy, or, our galaxy’s speed in relation to other galaxies. The point being that ALL movement is a relative measurement.
The idea of something having “potential†energy is nonsense. Something has energy or it doesn’t, either it is moving or it isn’t. To say an object has the potential to move is saying that it has a conscience and is waiting for the right moment. Like a mouse in a trap waiting patiently for the door to open. We have established that weight of an apparent stationary object = mass + momentum, so we know that all objects are moving despite the illusion of being at rest.
So gravity may be a pressure boundary phenomenon. The atmosphere to a stationary object may appear to be not moving yet it is applying enormous inward movement due to its overall density. If the air was removed from a hollow ball it would be crushed. The question is at what point is the movement occurring. As gravity gives us uniform acceleration in a vacuum then we know it has nothing to do with air pressure, but air pressure displaces electrostatic pressure. Is gravity a pressure boundary phenomenon between the earth and the electrical density of space?
Mass itself may be the result of the movement in and around our solar system. If so then gravity would be an integral part of energy density of not only the earth but of our solar system. This would explain why gravity tends to act instantaneously from our sun. It would not be that gravity has the capacity to transverse our solar system at infinite speed but simply at continuous speed. Instead of the sun and various planets being discrete particles they are all part of a single mechanism that captures energy. Gravity or the energy density of the sun and planets is a result of massive and continuous currents of electrostatic pressure from our galaxy or beyond.
If we accept that ALL movement is a relative measurement then we must also say the same of energy. Energy is a ubiquitous term that describes the force one object exerts against another. The textbook definition of Energy is an objects capacity to do work. This is incorrect. Energy is simply movement. While you can argue energy is the result of pressure of force, pressure or force is really the result of movement. Energy is the balancing, dissipating female characteristic of nature.
To correctly understand our universe we need to bring our study of it down to the simplest possible scenario. The study of objects moving in empty space. Although everything can be beautifully explained in terms of energy>pressure>density>mass I will use many more familiar terms such as energy and force to help explain my concepts.
Energy in motion can only be measured from a reference point. If we have two moving objects in otherwise empty space the movement is relative to either object whereas the energy is the same for both objects. Do you see? Even though only one object has been set in motion BOTH objects contain energy because they are moving away from each other at the same speed because there is no other reference point.
Time exists in the same way. Unless there is change relative to another point of reference time does not exist. For example imagine a ball speeding through completely empty space, it’s difficult as you have to almost imagine yourself as the ball otherwise you become a reference point. Without the ball moving away or towards anything or having no other point of reference to measure a relative change in position you may ask does or can the ball even exist. When you introduce a second moving ball, as long as it is moving towards or away from our first ball then you begin to have a relative change, but you then require a third ball to triangulate that change. The point of the exercise is to get you understanding time and energy in its essence. It is well worth spending time pondering this simple scenario to truly understand time and energy. The world is of course infinitely more complex but the same principles of movement>pressure>density>mass keep applying themselves at every level.
Staying with a ‘ball’ idea the next difficult concept in the understanding of energy is what keeps the ball moving in space. Newton’s first law of inertia states that “an object moving in a certain direction will keep moving at the same speed and in the same direction unless another force pushes or pulls on itâ€Â. Accepting that an object will keep moving unless acted upon does not answer ‘what’ keeps it moving. This is where nothing actually becomes something. It tells us that even energy can move through space uninterrupted until acted upon by another energy. In this is the entire solution to understanding time, energy, space and matter. To make this easier to understand we may think of empty space as a non-viscous ether. It is undeniable that whether you chose to believe in an ‘ether’ or not, empty space has the properties of a wave medium. Light, or an other part of the electromagnetic spectrum (energy) maintains a wave motion through space in accordance with Newton’s First Law of Motion.
With this understanding we now know that gravity (acceleration), mass (energy density) and weight (mass + momentum) are all products of energy (movement) itself.
Our universe is alive with motion. When we look at the surface of the ocean we can for a moment see energy in seemingly infinite collisions. These collisions are happening constantly in the most subtlest of gasses to the densest of matter. When ‘motion’ collides it becomes pressure, when pressure is balanced it comes density. Thus our entire universe is nothing more than movement and how we experience it. E=MC2 forever expanding outwards and forever expanding inwards for in a non-viscous ether even the concept size is meaningless unless relative. The illusion of time and matter becomes one of relativity.
You could write a book about the concept of a non-viscous ether but here I need to outline the various concepts so we can understand where some of the foundations of modern physics are incorrect and get to an explanation of how gravity works.
We must also throw out our notion of force. It is a very ‘male’ concept. “Forces†in nature do not act in isolation. Calling a “force†electromagnetic, gravity, strong interaction, weak force or x-energy are all descriptions of imbalance which result in movement. All movement in nature is the equalisation of pressure. This means that we should correctly replace the term ‘force’ with ‘pressure’.
Gravity is the result of pressure. Our current understanding is that gravity is a property of mass. If we turn this around to a more female perspective we would need to say that mass is the result of gravity. This would mean that we are looking in the wrong place for our understanding of gravity. It does match in with Einstein’s theory, completely different explanation with the same result.
If we begin to accept that our physical planet has evolved over billions of years in an evolutionary way instead of just being spat into existence then we should begin to look at the forces that shaped it.
What the hell is he talking about. Male, Female is just a way of describing the way nature works.
Male = inward force and pressure,
Female = outward dissipation of pressure and balance.
Nature in this sense is female, and to understand all so-called ‘forces’ we must look at them from a female perspective.
A simple experiment is where sand is vibrated on a plate at a certain frequencies and displays intricate patterns. The pattern we look at is the negative of the movement we are seeing. The sand moves out of the way of the movement. We must begin to see the world in a similar way. Movement and pressure create matter but the dissipation of pressure pushes it out of the way.
Imagine if we apply this concept to our solar system then you can imagine that the earth’s formation is the result of matter precipitating in an area of our solar system where there is the least pressure (E). This may explain why planets form along a plane and are not orbiting the sun in a far more random pattern.
In stating that everything is movement>pressure>density>mass I propose the following math, even though math is far from my strong point and I would appreciate some help here.
I have selected the symbols V, E, P, M which are traditionally used to express Velocity, Energy, Momentum and Mass. I believe these adequately describe the four states of matter i.e. movement = V, pressure = E, density =P, mass = M
Movement: V = MV2/2
Pressure: E = M x V2
Density: P = M x V
Mass: M = E / V2
We can also express movement as V= distance / time. Although a useful equation in our conscious world as both distance and time only exist as relative concepts, as described earlier, at this point I am not sure how V=D/T is useful in describing the above process.
The purpose of the exercise is of course is to show that instead of disparate forces, all forces begin and are related to movement, which in a ‘non viscous ether’ expands infinitely in all directions. Note that I do not say “energyâ€Â. An object moving through outer space may have infinite movement but not infinite energy. See?
Gravity is a beautiful and elegant property of mass and is no more mysterious than the forces that make a stone sink in water or a bubble rise. It is a property and function of relative destiny and mass. The key to understanding it is to realise that it is not necessarily one force so it is not so easy to define. It is the marriage of both male and female forces.
Harrison’s Theorem of Anti-gravity
For all the sceptics i ask them to keep an open mind. Despite over 400 years of the modern scientific method we have been unable to understand the nature of gravity. Our divisive approach to understanding matter will never provide an insight into the elegant workings of the universe. Smashing atoms to reveal their components is akin to smashing our earth and sun to understand how they work. Questionable at best.
Gravity itself cannot be cancelled as the inertia of gravity is an intricate part of the energy density of mass. But mass which is captured energy provides us a simple and elegant way to counter gravity. All mass, with the help of inherent inertial gravity, will order itself into its order of density. If it weren’t for the spinning of the earth and the thermodynamic effects of the sun our earth would have a neatly layered atmosphere with CO2 at the bottom and Hydrogen at the top. This ‘order of density’ or pressure difference allows super tanker ships weighing over 250,000GT to float on water. An unimaginable feat and pure science fiction less than a couple of hundred years ago.
Many people think that if we invented anti-gravity we would need to create a ‘field’ that would make us helplessly float about like we were in outer-space. But the concept of a ‘field’ is science fiction, objects in space do not just float about. They still have both inertia and mass. They are not WEIGHT-less. Anti-gravity on earth would be very different to common conceptions. You cannot cancel gravity unless you vaporise whatever object you want weightless. Even though Gravity itself is a very weak force, the overall energy density of most objects is considerable. Utilising energy density as we do every day in chemistry, physics and combustion provides the solution to countering gravity.
Heating air so that it is less dense that the surrounding air causes it to rise. A helium balloon will also rise due to the difference in weight to the surrounding air pressure. Yet a completely evacuated chamber with over 1kg/pscm of external atmospheric pressure at sea level doesn’t move. The accepted theory is that the chambered gas pushes back against the external gas creating the lift. A simple experiment explains this line of thought; if you gently step on a balloon, the air in the balloon resists compression and the balloon bulges out the sides. This is the air pushing back where there is the least amount of external pressure. The idea is that the same happens in a helium filled balloon. The surrounding air pressure gently squeezes the helium balloon and the balloon rises taking advantage of the surrounding air pressure gradient and moves up. But when this analogy is applied to an incompressible metal chamber filled with say, air, and floated in water the analogy makes little sense. We then say that the combined density of both the container and contents compared to the external pressure is what causes and object to float. The question then is, if the container contains negative pressure (vacuum) resulting an extremely low overall density in relation to the surrounding (EG) air pressure of 1kg/pscm, why doesn’t this extreme pressure difference cause the object to float in air? You can’t have it both ways.
It is the pressure difference, gravity and the ‘order of density’ that causes the lift! The more pressure difference the better the lift. Thinking that a vacuum is inert is nonsense. Acknowledging that a vacuum is teaming with energy (zero-point effect) and that this “effect†has no relationship to macro physics is also nonsense. Physics doesn’t create a new set of rules within a closed system. Whether you call it the ‘zero-point-effect’ or ‘electrostatic pressure’ (my term), one must acknowledge there is an electrical pressure response when one creates a vacuum. It is this ‘leaky boat’ response that prevents the expected lift from a vacuum chamber. There are many ways to argue the above phenomenon, and much argument about how this electrical pressure response inter-plays with gravity. I have come to the above theorem from many different perspectives and would welcome a detailed discussion on the subject. For the purposes of discussing a practical way to create anti-gravity I will leave it as a broad concept.
A vacuum chamber should float in our atmosphere utilising the 1kg/pscm atmospheric pressure at sea level. It doesn’t because the energy density simply permeates the vacuum (zero point effect). Herein lies my solution to gravity. Create a way of blocking the zero-point-effect and you will create a powerful anti-gravity devise powered by air pressure. To do this it would be required to create a diamagnetic chamber constructed of bismuth layers. Bismuth is a very dense metal with extraordinary diamagnetic properties and is the last stable metal on the periodic table. Each Bismuth layer would need to be carefully annealed so that the crystal structure would polarise the electrical or magnetic flow of the earth. Each layer may have to be placed on a stable conductive magnesium/zinc substrate to isolate the layers of bismuth for annealing. Each layer would be added with mathematical precision so that the electrical or magnetic flow is slowly manipulated until it is eventually stopped. From my own experiments each deflection would require each layer to be rotated approximately 12 to 15 degrees resulting in a minimum of 24-30 layers of bismuth. 15 degrees is hypothetical, though I have a simple method determining the precise rotation of each layer. It is only recently that we have the technology to accomplish this. It would be a tedious and difficult process but correctly done would have incredible benefits. Alone, creating a truly diamagnetic material would give us magnetic levitation (as opposed to gravitational levitation) that would revolutionise our world.
