"Electrogravitics Is a Pseudoscience"

reply to post by Mary Rose


If your Dr LaViolette thinks that cover is appropriate for a supposedly scientific publication, I have more to teach him than he has to teach me.

UFOs don't use antigravity, by the way. Their propulsion consists of teams of midget sumo wrestlers fed on beans.

Mary Rose
LaViolette's theory of subquantum kinetics is alternative physics which could provide a theoretical foundation for how UFOs work: Subquantum Kinetics.

More from LaViolette's website:

Electrogravitics and Field Propulsion

. . . Dr. LaViolette has shown how the subquantum kinetics field potential concept is able to explain why an assymetrical capacitor will develop a propulsive force towards its larger electrode when energized with a high voltage potential. Standard field theory acknowledges that the electric forces on such a capacitor will be unbalanced, but leads to the belief that these will merely produce stress within the capacitor without any propulsive force. In subquantum kinetics, these field potentials are anchored in the space surrounding the capacitor (in the surrounding ether) and as a result the capacitor is free to move in response to the resulting imbalance of forces. This explains the thrust seen in Brown’s assymetrical capacitors tested by Townsend Brown as well as those tested by Jean-Claude Lafforgue. Tests of the Lafforgue asymmetrical capacitor have been carried out by Jean-Luc Naudin; see his website. These technologies routinely violate Newton’s third law. . . .

starburstfound.org...

starburstfound.org...

LaViolette has embedded this video on his site:

stormbringer1701
the latest one i saw seems to imply that the strong force and gravity may be related mathematically in n=8 supergravity. but before that there was gravity probe b, lisa, ligo and other data and the ESA thing and before that podkletnov. though i doubt skeptics credit podkletnov as a credentialed mainstream scientist even though he is.

Mary Rose
LaViolette's theory of subquantum kinetics is alternative physics which could provide a theoretical foundation for how UFOs work: Subquantum Kinetics.

Apparently Podkletnov reviewed LaViolette's book Subquantum Kinetics in Infinite Energy Magazine Issue 54 (2004), p. 42:

. . . As all modern electronic science is based on quantum mechanics and as nuclear energy is based on Einstein's formulas, both of these approaches were considered flawless and attempts to explain the mechanism of physical phenomena in terms that have used new approaches, have been punished severely.

Nevertheless, a large volume articles in serious magazines in the USA, in Europe, and in Russia have concluded that the question of understanding the physical vacuum is the greatest problem of modern physics and deserves careful consideration. Besides, practically all of the physicists of the 19th and 20th centuries, including Einstein, accepted the existence of an ether.

The investigation of the physical vacuum is important for several reasons: it allows us to eliminate the various contradictions of modern physics because it describes the interaction of elementary particles, formulates the main concepts and the laws of the world of sub-atomic particles, describes the processes of energy exchange, explains the mechanism of generation and propagation of electromagnetic, nuclear and gravity fields, and the initial creation of matter. Therefore it introduces the possibility of using the energy of the vacuum for the elaboration of new, unique technologies in physics and chemistry and allows us to operate directly with the structure of a solid body and, based on entirely new principles, to extract energy with an efficiency several orders of magnitude higher than that achieved at present.

. . . The book on subquantum kinetics by Paul LaViolette is one of the first profound works in this field. Usually the analysis of the corresponding material requires complex mathematical equations, and many articles typically contain an abundance of integrals, which doesn't always help to reveal the essence of the physical phenomena. A great merit of Paul LaViolette is his ability to discuss the main features of the subatomic world without using complex mathematics and while preserving a rigorous logic in his arguments and conclusions. That doesn't mean that the book is primitive. On the contrary, in order to understand the full scope of the discussed phenomena, it is helpful to have a profound knowledge of solid state physics, electricity, optics, chemistry, and elementary particle physics. . . .

starburstfound.org...

stormbringer1701
www.esa.int...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.

so the critics can line up to plant a big wet smootchie on my left buttock cheek.

it occurs to me that russian scientist claimed a reduction in gravity over a spinning superconductiong disc...i think his name was Podlentkov ...do you think is this very closely related to that...?

Subquantum kinetics? GMAFB.

Wake me up when it can quantitatively predict, for instance just the primary energy levels in a hydrogen atom. Then, the Stark and Zeeman effects. (Note, there is hbar in there). Quantum mechanics does.

And all the quantum mechanical observational strangeness which is validated by ever more unusual experiments.

Heisenberg & Bohr appear to get it right the first time.

I'm not bamboozled by a reaction-diffusion equation.

mbkennel
GMAFB.

Ridicule much?

A fallacy of reason.

Mary Rose

mbkennel
GMAFB.

Ridicule much?

A fallacy of reason.

How is that ridicule?

beckybecky

stormbringer1701
www.esa.int...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.

so the critics can line up to plant a big wet smootchie on my left buttock cheek.

it occurs to me that russian scientist claimed a reduction in gravity over a spinning superconductiong disc...i think his name was Podlentkov ...do you think is this very closely related to that...?

yes. essentially there is a locus of similarity between the majority of serious claims of gravity modification, antigravity or gravity control. all but a few seem to involve spinning non superconductor masses or superconductors. podkletnov's is similar to Martin Tajmar's in the a regard. It does not matter whether the experimenter is credentialed or on the fringe. most of them involve the above factors. there are rare exceptions such as hutchinson but by and large that seems to be a rule or something.

stormbringer1701
though i doubt skeptics credit podkletnov as a credentialed mainstream scientist even though he is.

I see Podkletnov’s name mentioned today in an article, "Boeing: Anti-gravity propulsion comes 'out of the closet'":

March 3, 2014 - Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.

As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing’s Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices in Russia and Finland. The approach, however, has been thwarted by Russian officialdom.

The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: ‘GRASP’ — Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion. . . .

www.disclose.tv...

I see in the article a term for anti-gravity: "propellentless propulsion."

well bear in mind that article is quite old. boeing since started backing off of anything related to podkletnov at least publicly . podkletnov went back to russia where he is still working on his antigravity and other stuff. but most mainstream organizations in the west kind of count him a fringe science person and he has kind of had the cold fusion science establishment back reaction treatment. It's unfortunate. i think he is on to something real. most serious science investigation of synthetic gravity and the like use his general set up. for example Martin Tajmar in ESA experiments.

reply to post by stormbringer1701


The article is dated March 3, 2014 but there is a link at the bottom to another website.

stormbringer1701

beckybecky

stormbringer1701
www.esa.int...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.

so the critics can line up to plant a big wet smootchie on my left buttock cheek.

it occurs to me that russian scientist claimed a reduction in gravity over a spinning superconductiong disc...i think his name was Podlentkov ...do you think is this very closely related to that...?

yes. essentially there is a locus of similarity between the majority of serious claims of gravity modification, antigravity or gravity control. all but a few seem to involve spinning non superconductor masses or superconductors. podkletnov's is similar to Martin Tajmar's in the a regard. It does not matter whether the experimenter is credentialed or on the fringe. most of them involve the above factors. there are rare exceptions such as hutchinson but by and large that seems to be a rule or something.

\

I strongly favor experimental gravitation research. The interaction between superconductivity (a macroscopic quantum mechanical Bose-Einstein state) and gravity is very intriguing because that's where effects from quantum gravity (presumably different from classical) may show up.

Subquantum kinetics is so far irrelevant baloney.

mbkennel

stormbringer1701

beckybecky

stormbringer1701
www.esa.int...

www.sciencedaily.com...

Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.

so the critics can line up to plant a big wet smootchie on my left buttock cheek.

it occurs to me that russian scientist claimed a reduction in gravity over a spinning superconductiong disc...i think his name was Podlentkov ...do you think is this very closely related to that...?

yes. essentially there is a locus of similarity between the majority of serious claims of gravity modification, antigravity or gravity control. all but a few seem to involve spinning non superconductor masses or superconductors. podkletnov's is similar to Martin Tajmar's in the a regard. It does not matter whether the experimenter is credentialed or on the fringe. most of them involve the above factors. there are rare exceptions such as hutchinson but by and large that seems to be a rule or something.

\

I strongly favor experimental gravitation research. The interaction between superconductivity (a macroscopic quantum mechanical Bose-Einstein state) and gravity is very intriguing because that's where effects from quantum gravity (presumably different from classical) may show up.

Subquantum kinetics is so far irrelevant baloney.

Im not so sure. there is something about rotation that switches systems from falling under the rules of relativity to not falling under the rules for relativity. rotation is a absolute reference frame rather than a relativistic one. I think i read that somewhere and it could account for the reason Dr Tajmar's detected effect was billions of times what was predicted by relativity. but bear in mind relativity does predict a magnetic to gravity coupling; too. it just predicts a really tiny one.