Antigravity Research

<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 />Are you saying that gravity is a push force? If so, that is in agreement with the APM mentioned ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes. Pushing gravity is the subject of a 20-author book by that title published in 2002. The book is now the standard reference text on that subject. Anyone with a variant on the same basic idea will need to say why their idea works better. In the meantime, the graviton/elyson model seems to leave few open questions, and apparently none of importance. So the replacement model community has very little incentive to look at other variants because they usually open as many new questions as they answer.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The APM holds that the Aether/Elysium is a super-fluid comprised of discrete rotating magnetic fields.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But then, what causes the magnetic forces? It does no good to solve one mystery with another. Do you remember the parable of Atlas and the turtles holding up the world? Is it turtles all the way down with APM?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">"Somehow"? "Elsewhere"? Not very satisfying to a skeptic.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Uh-oh. You can't explain gravity and electromagnetism with the same medium. The propagation speeds differ by at least ten orders of magnitude.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">All authors seem to think that about their pet theories. Wait until you are more familiar with the alternatives to APM before you assess which is the simpler, more question-free explanation.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I am a strong advocate of physics explanations requiring concepts, not math. The math comes later to describe the concepts, not the other way around.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would be a turn-off for most trained in scientific thought because "spiritual" is usually used as an excuse for introducing mysticism or for allowing a miracle to slip into our physics. Around here, we advocate "deep reality physics", which has only one premise: no miracles allowed when explaining the origin and nature of things.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The strong force compared to gravitational force between the protons is in the order of 10 to the 42nd times greater<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's going to make it really tough to unify these two forces. It also leaves the reader wondering why gravity is the dominant force in the local universe. Have a look at the Meta Model explanation of these matters, perhaps starting with the Cosmology tab, Gravity sub-tab on this web site. "Possible new properties of gravity" (found at that location) might be a good place to get introduced quickly to the modern Le Sage theory of pushing gravity, which has advanced the understanding of gravity for so many of us. -|Tom}-

Ah, but the APM does unify all the forces, and that’s the point for mentioning it all (I didn’t bring it up though, cosmicsurfer did, but that matters not now).

You said: “Uh-oh. You can't explain gravity and electromagnetism with the same medium. The propagation speeds differ by at least ten orders of magnitude.”

I will not cut and paste vast portions of the APM here, but I will share a snippet from an e-mail I got from Dave on the matter of gravity recently, not because it fully clears up our exchange, but because it introduces the ignored matter of the geometry of the relationships of charge:

"Gravity is orthogonal to electromagnetic force (strong force). Gravity and the strong force are two different aspects of the same thing. Gravity is a dynamic physical attribute caused by the dynamic Gforce acting on surface per mass squared, and which occurs in the dynamic Aether.

Since mass is linear (it is represented as inertia in the APM, not energy)and strong charge is distributed, the Gforce acting on mass will only work in one direction or the other while the Gforce acting on strong charge is bidirectional. Thus matter will always gravitationally attract matter, antimatter will always gravitationally attract antimatter, and matter will always gravitationally repel antimatter."

So Tom, you and Dave agree, you just do not yet see how or why his treatment of the matter “adds” to the total picture.

BTW, Gforce is just Dave’s term for a primary energy field (dark matter) which aether units capture and spin into discrete physical matter. I picture the aether as a kind of manifold between this primary energy which the aether units can encapsulate and generate from that ordinary matter and antimatter.

I don’t know how often you get asked to evaluate new physics models, but it appears clear it has been too many times. I lament that I am incompetent to piqué your interest in examining this one. Dave should be the one explaining this model; my understanding is only cursory at best, I fear that if he were to read my posts here, he’d cringe.

I have begun reading your material and won’t comment further until I have something intelligent to add, should that happen

[Cole] "I have begun reading your material and won’t comment further until I have something intelligent to add, should that happen."

Keep in mind that understanding LeSagian pushing gravity models well enough to make meaningful comparisons with other models is not a trivial task. You may need to ask questions to be sure you actually do understand it. We can help in that department so ask when you feel the need.

Hmmm. It also sounds like you are going to have to do some serious study at the other site to be sure you understand the other theory well enough to make meaningful comparisons (and ask them questions to test your understanding of their theory).

We look forward to your comparisons,
LB

<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 />I will share a snippet from an e-mail I got from Dave on the matter of gravity recently, not because it fully clears up our exchange, but because it introduces the ignored matter of the geometry of the relationships of charge:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have to hope this was taken out of a context that supplied more meaning than is apparent here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Dave]: "Gravity is orthogonal to electromagnetic force (strong force).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Orthogonal means perpendicular. But gravity is already omnidirectional. So the sentence makes no physical sense. Is he playing with other dimensions here? If so, they are undefined, and "other dimensions" always retain a lot of mysticism that I consider an impediment to real understanding because, to this point anyway, we seem able to fully understand the universe with five and only five dimensions (3-space plus time and scale).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Gravity and the strong force are two different aspects of the same thing. Gravity is a dynamic physical attribute caused by the dynamic Gforce acting on surface per mass squared, and which occurs in the dynamic Aether.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What does "dynamic physical attribute" mean? "dynamic Gforce"? "surface per mass suared"? "dynamic Aether"? None of these phrases are defined in my lexicon. I hope he has well-defined them elsewhere because there is way too much mysticism based on undefined or poorly defined concepts in physics already.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Since mass is linear<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I cannot even imagine what that might mean.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">(it is represented as inertia in the APM, not energy) and strong charge is distributed, the Gforce acting on mass will only work in one direction or the other while the Gforce acting on strong charge is bidirectional.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The undefined concepts have now led to a totally meanngless sentence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Thus matter will always gravitationally attract matter, antimatter will always gravitationally attract antimatter, and matter will always gravitationally repel antimatter."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is such a complete non-sequitur that I am convinced that we are missing too much context to understand what is being said.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So Tom, you and Dave agree, you just do not yet see how or why his treatment of the matter “adds” to the total picture.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's for sure.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">BTW, Gforce is just Dave’s term for a primary energy field (dark matter) which aether units capture and spin into discrete physical matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If it is a form of matter, why name it after a force? Very, very confusing. Also, I am convinced by the experimental evidence that dark matter does not exist. The pushing gravity model gives the same results where dark matter might be needed, but without needing this mystical concept.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I picture the aether as a kind of manifold between this primary energy which the aether units can encapsulate and generate from that ordinary matter and antimatter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I still have no clue how these concepts bridge the ten orders of magnitude speed difference between gravitational force propagation speed and lightspeed, which is where most theories break down.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don’t know how often you get asked to evaluate new physics models, but it appears clear it has been too many times.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Several times a week. I got tired of saying "no" and started a "Professional Manuscript Review Service". See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp
But even that service has met with more demand than there are available reviewers willing to engage in this usually unproductive and thankless activity.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Dave should be the one explaining this model; my understanding is only cursory at best,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I understand and sympathize. But there is a good reason why the entrance fee (peer-reviewed publication) is so high. Any of us could easily waste an entire career reading and evaluating the works of others, then getting cursed when we don't appreciate the genius of the authors. The only way around that is when someone like yourself recommends the work of another as especially illuminating. That rarely happens. So you have the potential to get attention for Dave's ideas that Dave himself could not get. But to realize that potential, you need to say clearly what it is about Dave's works that does a better job of explaining some aspect of reality than the standard model or leading replacement models already on the table, because no one has any incentive to make room for another theory unless it has some very special appeal.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have begun reading your material and won’t comment further until I have something intelligent to add, should that happen <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is indeed the path to be on right now. At its end, you will be the one person in the world best able to see what, if anything, Dave's ideas offer to the evolving new understandings of the nature of things. And you will be able to report that both to us and to Dave. (Good luck with this last step. [}]) -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />My guess is 25 years tops. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Larry, without knowing much about the topic at hand, I'd like to offer two instances that prove your major points here wrong. (And as a disclaimer, I'm not intending to start a discussion on either of my points.)

It's been 43 years since the Kennedy Assasination, and we still don't really know what happened. Not really, anyway. You may say this is an apples and oranges comparison, but I don't think so.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
that it could not be kept secret even by shooting people. (Unless you shot them all, I guess. And then you'd have to explain the sudden increase in the murder/accident/suicide rate among physicists and engineers and technicians working on black programs in both countries. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

All you need to do to prove that this is not really an obstacle is Google search "The Clinton Body Count".

(Disclaimer no. 2: It is not my intention to start a political discussion. Not by a long shot. So, moderators feel free to nip one in the bud, if necessary.)

rd

Hi Tom,

One of the problems with any investigative research or using the scientific method in doing a variable analysis is eliminating potential bias from the observer viewpoint in order to approximate a true picture of reality. Your definition of "universe dimensions" made me think about how our unconscious programming certainly can reflect inaccuracies in our descriptions and thinking. For instance, when I was stating "multi-dimensional universe," in my mind I was thinking "multiple scale universe", however I did not say that because of programming and "multiple scale universe" is not an acceptable or popular statement. Here is your definition of Universe Dimensions:

"we seem able to fully understand the universe with five and only five dimensions (3-space plus time and scale)."

In a multiple scale universe most certainly these higher and lower scales interact. Time and 3-space then are variable sets that have direct relationships to the hierarchical energetics of each scale which would interact for instance with our scale through elysium field atmospherics and graviton bombardment.

There are many questions that need to be answered in regards to just how scales interact. I tend to agree with "scales" as a first principle; however, I cannot see how super scales could regenerate if there was not a zero point so that with out big bang no steady state one time cascade then finished.

Singularities in Meta Model do not exist. However, I think they in fact have to exist because otherwise nothing would exist at all.

In other words, I partially agree with the Meta Model and disagree with some of the dynamics which to me point towards an entropic declining state of affairs for universe with no way to regenerate because energy would only flow in one direction. Which I think is impossible because it is the separation between a zero point that is required in order to maintain dipole relationships of two disks (generalized principle if true should be found functioning in all scales) spinning in opposite directions, wanting to come together but increasing in speed the closer they get, thus separating and creating the torque required for polarity, graviton flux, and constant support of angular momentum. With out the zero point the whole system then is only a cascade and will not flow but in one direction.

So, I embrace most of MM, including speed of CG's, multiple scales; but, I see that a dual system of forward and reverse motion is required for matter to exist. Therefore, gravitons carry a charge (because they are attracted to matter, but can be repelled by electrostatic forces), and matter creates anti-gravitons (reverse CG spin/reverse time effects) that are repulsive to matter (because they are attracted to antimatter – cold energy negative gravity effects time). I may be totally wrong, and you Tom might be 100% correct.

I know how strong you feel about time as a measurement of motion only going in one direction. No one wants to even suggest that cause and effect can be violated. The super scale dynamics of universe being mixed with a possible mirror universe going in the opposite direction certainly would spell possible complexities in regards to causality that we are not equipped to even address mentally at this juncture in time. Yet, every moment may be a combination of such large scale interactions that for instance a mega super scale time moment could be an eternity at our scale. We are mentally not able to even address such incredible speeds of communications that might instantly travel across our small scale of visible universe; much less address a possible "mirror universe" that moves in reverse motion of time and because of the flux and zero point separation instantly affects every atomic interaction at every scale in our forward time universe.

John