Antigravity Research

Thanks for the interesting information, John (cosmicsurfer).

The above Dallas newspaper account indicated by choice of words, that the "wheel" was not a wheel in the usual sense. Also the account contained some seemingly mythical and paradoxical material, maybe disinformation.

The figure 10.4 km/s, obtained by assuming that the "wheel" was indeed 10.0 ft diameter at exactly 65,000 rpm, is within about 1%, of the cosmic ether drift magnitude that would have been calculated, from the likeliest analyses available in 1897, of the solar apex motion and of the Michelson-Morley ("M-M") experiment (Michelson & Morley, Am. J. Science, vol. 34, 1887; same article in Philosophical Magazine, London, 1887). Dayton Miller (Reviews of Modern Physics, 1933) gives 8.8 and 8.0 km/s for M-M's noon and 6PM drift speeds, resp. (projected on the horizontal plane). These speeds are somewhat different from those implied by the Fourier amplitudes I computed from M-M's averages of data, as they appear, detrended, in Miller's notebook (archived at Case Western Reserve) or in Hicks (Philosophical Magazine, London, 1902, p. 37). Therefore I surmise that 8.8 and 8.0 are the earliest estimates, possibly due to Michelson or Morley, and based on approximations rather than exact Fourier analysis.

My partial check of Hicks' detrending, shows no inconsistencies with M-M's published data, except for rounding. Miller's later work showed very few, and never large, arithmetic errors. However, Miller's detrended M-M data differ significantly and often, from M-M's published data, suggesting some unstated alternative treatment of the data; yet the implied cosmic drift vector from Miller was not much different than that implied from Hicks.

Miller states in the notebook that the original data (not the 6-turn averages published by M-M) had been lost. In Miller's graph of the second harmonics (the shorter graphs, Miller, 1933, Fig. 3, p. 206), the middle ordinate of the short "NOON" graph should be positive and about 1.5x larger, if it is a graph of Miller's detrended M-M data.

Using the drift speeds and azimuths which I computed exactly from Miller's detrended M-M data (Cleveland, latitude +41.5) (including a small correction for noise) gave likeliest values (with large errorbars) RA 245.5, Decl +80.8, magnitude 12.8 km/s. The same treatment of Hicks' detrended M-M data gave RA 234.7, Decl +75.7, magnitude 12.5 km/s. My interpolation (for season) of Miller's 1933 analysis of his major (1925-1926, Mt. Wilson, latitude +34.2) ether drift determination, gave RA 235, Decl +66, magnitude 11.0 km/s. My treatment also implies a constant unexplained azimuth term of 55E (Miller detrending) or 20E (Hicks detrending), for M-M's (July 8-12) experiment. On Sept. 15, 1925 at Mt. Wilson, the unexplained azimuth term was 55E; on Aug. 1, 1925, 10E; and by linear interpolation to July 10, 1925, 15E. So, the best possible analysis of Michelson-Morley's extant data, is in good, though imprecise, agreement with Miller's Mt. Wilson ether drift findings, for at least three of the four numbers.

The most recent and authoritative value for the solar apex motion would have been RA = 297 (S. Newcomb, Astronomical Journal, vol. 17, Dec. 10, 1896, p. 44). Newcomb's RA value is based on proper motion in declination only. He gave no value for the declination or magnitude of solar apex motion. Solving for declination and magnitude gives Decl +81, magnitude 10.4 km/s, to account for the Michelson-Morley drift speeds, 8.8 & 8.0, as given by Miller. Thus the analysis most up-to-date in 1897 would have been in perfect agreement with the reported drive "wheel" diameter and rpm of a mystery airship.

Presumably only electric current rotated in the "wheels", so centrifugal force would have been moderate. Countercurrent pairs of wheels could have canceled the magnetic field. The recent European Space Agency experiment showed that the force could be 10^20 times greater than expected, in accord with Weyl's unified theory.

Rotating "wheels" or cylinders of current, like the spinning tennis balls of the Bernoulli effect, would interact with the ether optimally when the rim speed equalled the ether speed. A cylinder (or pair of cylinders) in each axis perpendicular to the ether drift, would give thrust in any direction except parallel to the drift.

Maybe ether engines lacking superconductor technology were so feeble, that when secret 1897 dirigible trials ended, the design was forgotten. Maybe ether engines have been kept secret. Yet another school of thought, touched upon by the late Harvard psychiatrist John Mack and others, is that "ETs" say implausible things, to facilitate our psychological defense mechanism (of "denial"), but mix these with "memes" they wish to seed (i.e., how to build an ether engine); the Dallas newspaper report and the 1897 airship mystery generally, contain "high strangeness" elements typical of more recent UFO lore. Finally, the number 10.4 might be mere coincidence and the report entirely fictitious.

Hey John,

The Aether Physics Model, a Unified Force Theory btw, has been accepted for yet another science magazine publication (third one so far). To find out which one this time, log onto the AAAS site Eureka Alert tomorrow. [url] www.eurekalert.org [/url]

I know about this newest acceptance of the APM because I’ve bragged about the model often enough in public that the authors consider me a kind of sponsor (when really I’m just very passionate about the implications and conclusions of the model), so they keep me in the loop.

I am fully persuaded that Dave Thomson and his partner Jim Bourassa have found the Holy Grail of physics. Simple too (which figures). I bought the book, “Secrets of the Aether” over a year ago. Simple math, straight forward logic, fully grounded in known physics. I do believe that the names Thomson and Bourassa will be household names in 20 years time, don’t you?

Everyone trying to conduct free energy research needs a copy of this model to work from. Keep chatting it up until they do. This site doesn’t have the option for attachments, so for the official white paper "A New Foundation of Physics go here [url] www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics...ation%20of%20physics '[/url] Drat! The link won't post whole, you'll have to cut and paste it into address field to bring it up and save it to your desk top. Any time you encounter a chap or lass on the right trial, send them a copy of the white paper to help expedite their work.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Cole</i>
<br />To find out which one this time, log onto the AAAS site Eureka Alert tomorrow.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Our Message Board is for discussions of issues in astronomy in general and Meta Science in particular. We do not allow advertising, and we heavily discourage its cousin, plugging other web sites.

If an issue is worth discussing, you need to make your message complete enough that no one needs to click on a link to become familiar with the issue. Links should be strictly for supplemental matters such as a particular table or graphic, or as a bibliographical reference.

Ideally, you would introduce a subject by comparing the Meta Science approach with some alternative approach, listing pros and cons of both. Then the topic will be of interest to those who hang out in these parts. Simply cheerleading for others creates a very negative reaction around here.

Consider these examples:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am fully persuaded that Dave Thomson and his partner Jim Bourassa have found the Holy Grail of physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You didn't say what persuaded you, or how their approach is any improvement (if it is at all) over the "pushing gravity" approach to aether (now called "elysium") that Meta Science has led us to. And no one is going to spend time on "aether theory number 937" without a specific reason to do so. "Specific" means something more concrete than the common claim that "it's the greatest thinng since sliced bread".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Simple math, straight forward logic, fully grounded in known physics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, compared to what? The standard of comparison on this site is Meta Science and its companion, deep reality physics. To get any attention here, you need to say what their approach does better, if anything.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do believe that the names Thomson and Bourassa will be household names in 20 years time, don’t you?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Most of us have never heard of them. But we do know of thousands of individuals with unique ideas that they have become very attached to. After one has read a few hundred of these, one develops the scientific attitude of trying to find fault in the best ideas one has heard, rather than putting any of them on a pedestal. Certainly, that must be done before any new idea can hope to compete with a mainstream paradigm because the idea's opponents will definitely be doing that. -|Tom|-

Sorry Tom, I should have sent John a private message to share my support for his posts.

It would please me to see the APM explored from your perspective, but given that you've seen many flavors of the same thing, I can appreciate your position of asking those of us who find it compelling to show cause for why anyone else should think it so.

I was simply gratified to see the APM mentioned here. I just assumed it agreed with the Meta Science position (since it was mentioned without protest by cosmicsurfer). I apologize and will do my homework so that I can specifically relate or contrast the two treatments of the topic.

I have a question Tom. Are you saying that gravity is a push force? If so, that is in agreement with the APM mentioned (which explains why cosmicsurfer felt safe mentioning the model here).

The APM holds that the Aether/Elysium is a super-fluid comprised of discrete rotating magnetic fields. For lack of better terms, dark matter/quantum foam/whatever name we wish to confer on it, an energy exists that is not detectable to us but it fills the whole of the volume of the universe not inhabited by the ordinary matter. Somehow; closely associated oppositely charged metallic plates or layers are able to pull that background energy out through the Aether/Elysium units, giving rise to the Casimir effect, new (to us anyway) matter and energy from elsewhere.

The APM would describe gravity as a push (as in pressure) like what you would imagine for water in a balloon with infinite capacity to stretch and grow. I think that is correct, I’ll refer back to the book and come back with a more elaborate answer if need be.

I'm not looking to present a competing model here. There are aspects of truth all over the place. What there is not enough of is a platform to pool all these ideas, until the Alternative Cosmology group came along that is. And I'm glad you are a participant there. I think it is just as important to show that independent researchers come up with like-minded models as it is to show where the standard model(s) breaks down, don’t you? To me, it is significant that the grass roots pressure to correct our models of science is growing and that viable alternatives do exist and deserve attention (and funding).

You asked what is unique about the APM. To my knowledge, it is the most complete Unified Force Theory to date in that it answers more questions than it rises. I am not aware of any other aether physics model that can boast that (that does not mean there aren’t others, only that I have not studied them).

As I said before, there is a good deal to be said of the simplicity of using ordinary algebra and Newtonian physics, because this demystifies physics such that a laymen such as myself (medical background, no physics classes taken) can assess it fully. This is not an advantage you require, but it does fulfill the requirement that a theory be as simple as possible without extraneousness.

There is a spiritual component to the model, which is on the unique side. Consciousness and emotions are quantified too. I know this is not totally unique (Jack Sarfatti, Fritjof Capra, etc. . .) but it’s a kind of one stop shopping, this model.

Without knowing the rest of the model this may sound disjointed to you, but on the topic of gravity, Dave Thomson wrote:

The electrostatic charge is the “carrier” of the electrostatic force and the strong charge is the “carrier” of the electromagnetic or strong force. The strong charge is also directly proportional to the mass of the onn [Dave’s term for the primary form of matter] (via its angular momentum) and provides the link between the gravitational force and strong force. In the end, all three forces are actually manifestations of the one Gforce, but seen through different “carriers.” (p. 162 Secrets of the Aether)

. . . The strong force compared to the electrostatic force between the protons is 1,581,000 times stronger. The strong force compared to gravitational force between the protons is in the order of 10 to the 42nd times greater [formula omitted]

As in the case of the electron, the ratio of strong force between protons at one quantum distance to the gravitational force between protons is equal to the ratio of mass of the proton [formula omitted]

At one quantum distance, the strong force clearly rules. From the above equations [sorry, can’t reproduce it here], it is possible to find the distances where the forces are relatively equal to each other. In the case of the proton strong force compared to the proton gravitation force, to equal the gravitational force between two protons at one quantum distance, two protons would have to be 3.391 x 10 to the 9th m apart to experience the same magnitude in the strong force. But in order for the strong force to be in effect, the two protons would also have to be magnetically aligned with each other. The south pole of one proton must face the north pole of the other proton in order to effect a complete strong force attraction.

There is a popular myth that the strong force does not reach beyond a very short distance, however this short reach is in appearance only. <b>The strong force is so strong, that after a certain distance, an onn must contend with the strong force that is carried by all other onta within force range. The effect is a type of magnetic suspension in space.</b> Gravity should have a similar problem if it were both repulsive and attractive. But, <b>since gravity is single dimensional and always attractive, it penetrates uniformly through all strong charge and electrostatic charge.</b>

However, when a group of onta has all or most of its strong charge magnetically aligned (such as in a crystal), then the strong force emerges more noticeably than the gravitational force and manifests as permanent magnetism.” (p 175 Secrets of the Aether)

This description of gravity rings true to me, how about you?