It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


conclusion after 7 years of rechearch zeropoint and antigrav possible

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 13 2003 @ 04:08 PM
Aerospace Defense Research, Antigravity, Free Energy Possible
A 7 year research study by a senior staff aerospace defense engineer, George J. Bugh, concludes some "free energy" devices work and some have antigravity effects. See

A 7 year study of "free energy" devices, sometimes called "over unity" devices, was done to determine if any of these devices generated energy from unknown sources and if so to determine where the energy was coming from. Included in the study is research of related devices with claimed antigravity effects. The study attempted to determine validity of claims, commonalities of device characteristics and to determine how these devices could work. The results conclude that some devices can generate economically free energy. This study also concludes there is a possible link between gravity and electromagnetism that can be exploited to generate antigravity or electrogravity effects.

The majority of the study was to come up with a theory to explain how the devices could work. In his research, Mr. Bugh used mostly classical electrodynamics rather than quantum electrodynamics. In Quantum theory, the wave like characteristics of matter are described using abstract probability waves. However, Bugh proposes that the wave characteristics of matter may also be described as coming from a very real sea of unseen electromagnetic standing waves among all matter.

According to classical electrodynamics, all electrically charged particles, like quarks of protons and neutrons as well as orbital electrons for example, should radiate away energy from precessional and precessional plus orbital motion. If in fact this really happens then all electrically charged particles can be radiating away energy all the time. However, all particles can also absorb just as much energy from all other radiating particles. The absorbed energy applies electromagnetic forces that naturally move all similar type particles into harmonious precessional motions with all other particles. This results in a vast sea of electromagnetic standing waves among all matter. Even free particles would move into precessional motions that are in sync with the established sea of standing waves

There can be a hidden yet strong tendency towards harmony among all matter in the universe due to these unseen standing waves and spin interactions among all matter. This tendency can overcome to a great extent the tendency towards chaos and heat death of the universe.

This is an interaction among all matter that Ernst Mach alluded to as necessary to cause matter's characteristic of inertia. Einstein later called this Mach's Principle. Einstein studied Mach's ideas while developing his theory of General Relativity.

Bugh describes inertial resistance to acceleration as caused by electromagnetic forces. Changes in position of a mass will cause phase differences to develop between the precessional motions of the particles of that mass relative to the sea of standing waves. This in turn causes electromagnetic force that resists a mass from changing its position.

More information is available about the research results at the website:

[Edited on 14-11-2003 by MarkLuitzen]

posted on Nov, 13 2003 @ 04:28 PM
Bollocks. They say that particles have orbital energy. But particles don't have orbits. The model with particles having orbits has been disproofed years ago.

posted on Nov, 13 2003 @ 05:44 PM
Dude, orbitals and orbits are not the same thing...

posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 10:15 AM
I copied the text after reading it. so it is not my fault that there are mistakes in it thebandit795

posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 10:43 AM
And I was stil thinking that Electrons still have orbits... give me a link where it is proven they don't have...

As far as I am concerned they still don't know the exact place of those particles in time... so where is proven that they don't have orbits?

Give me the proof of that investigation of years ago which says that they don't have orbits..

posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
I copied the text after reading it. so it is not my fault that there are mistakes in it thebandit795

I was talking to Master P there...

It's very interesting what you posted there Mark.

posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 03:33 PM
It's pretty complicated, at least to me, about how the electrons work now. As far as I can understand, electrons don't have perfect orbits anymore, but instead are more like bees buzzing around a hive. They are attracted to the proton/neutron center still but actually move in energy levels. When energy is added they change energy levels. This gives off the electromagnetic radiation sometimes in the form of visible light. My chemistry teacher taught me that last year. I'm a senior in High School. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 04:25 PM
here's a link that provides a pretty basic explanation

posted on Nov, 14 2003 @ 05:06 PM
I get the idea that there is some clever, and possibly incorrect interweaving of Classical Electrodynamics and Quantum electrodynamics. Describing the behaviour of quarks using classical notions raises a red flag for me.

Maybe I can infer from quantum theory that I can make my car disappear at times. I could probabally write some pretty convincing prose for a website, but I doubt that I could make my car disappear for even a small instant.

posted on Nov, 22 2003 @ 05:36 AM
wow...nice project.
here's some info i got on this matter.

brown's work, the B2's's whole flying procedure.
a good long read

Paul LaViolette has developed a theory known as 'subquantum kinetics', which replaces the 19th-century concept of a mechanical, inert ether with that of a continuously transmuting ether [13]. Physical subatomic particles and energy quanta are regarded as wavelike concentration patterns in the ether. A particle's gravitational and electromagnetic fields are said to result from the fluxes of different kinds of etheric particles, or etherons, across their boundaries, and the resulting etheron concentration gradients. Positively charged particles such as protons generate matter-attracting gravity wells whereas, contrary to conventional theory, negatively charged particles such as electrons generate matter-repelling gravity hills; this would explain the Biefeld-Brown effect. Electrically neutral matter remains gravitationally attractive because the proton's gravity well marginally dominates the electron's gravity hill.

In Joseph Cater's model of 'soft particle physics', ether particles combine to form light-photons of different frequencies, which in turn combine to form denser particles. Physical matter particles ('hard' particles) are said to be composed of gamma-ray photons, whereas lower-frequency photons form subtler ('softer') particles. Gravity effects are said to be produced by highly penetrating electromagnetic radiation located between the lower portion of the infrared and the radar band [14]. The energies emitted by the sun are transformed into ever lower frequencies as they penetrate the earth, and a small amount is transformed into gravity-inducing radiations, which hold the earth in its orbit. The earth's own gravity is said to arise mainly from the thermal agitation of atoms and molecules, as the resulting radiation is most readily transformed into gravity-inducing radiations. Cater argues that what are usually regarded as electrically neutral atoms and molecules actually have a small positive charge (as does the earth as a whole). Positively charged matter is attracted by gravity, whereas negative charges are repelled by gravity, so that if matter is impregnated with sufficient quantities of negative charges (especially soft electrons) it will lose weight and even levitate.

It is sometimes theorized that gravity is caused by the bombardment of physical matter by gravity particles. Tom Van Flandern, for example, argues that the universe is full of tiny particles ('classical gravitons') moving at extremely high speed in all directions, and that the collisions of these particles cause bodies to be 'attracted' (i.e. pushed) towards one another, since bodies screen one another from a certain proportion of counteracting collisions [15]. While it is logical to suppose that all attractive forces ultimately arise from pushes at some level,* the impact theory of gravity is too simplistic to account for all the relevant facts.

*If we reason by analogy (as above, so below), the microscopic world is a vastly scaled-down and speeded-up version of the macroscopic world (see The infinite divisibility of matter). At the macroscopic level, it is impossible to find an attractive or pulling force that is not really a push. For instance, a person who is 'sucked' out of a pressurized cabin if the door opens while the aircraft is in flight is really pushed out by the greater number of molecular bombardments 'behind' them. If an object immersed in an elastic fluid emits waves of condensation and rarefaction, other bodies will be attracted or repelled depending on whether the wavelength is very large or very small compared with their dimensions (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., 1898, p. 64). This case therefore involves both attractive and repulsive forces, and both are ultimately reducible to pushes, but the situation is far more complex than in the aircraft example.
The impact theory cannot explain why all the planets orbit the sun in planes which form only small angles to the sun's equatorial plane, or why all the planets circle the sun in the same direction as the sun's sense of rotation. It also ignores the evidence that gravitation is bipolar and is linked with electromagnetism. Another problem is that gravity-particle impacts would heat all material bodies to an enormous temperature. Defenders of the theory reply simply that this heat must be re-radiated isotropically into space. However, there is no clear evidence to support this in the case of the earth. Further evidence against the theory was discovered by Q. Majorana, who found that placing a lead mass between a lead sphere and the earth reduced the earth's gravitational pull on the sphere very slightly, whereas placing the lead mass above the sphere did not [16]. He concluded that this contradicted Le Sage's theory; it is also inconsistent with newtonian theory, which does not allow gravitational shielding.

Van Flandern argues that if the sun's force propagated at the speed of light, it would accelerate the earth's orbital speed by a noticeable amount; he calculates from binary-pulsar data that gravity must propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light [17]! Pari Spolter argues that since the sun's gravitational force is constantly spread in all directions, and since the angular velocities of the sun and planets remain constant for long periods of time, it is immaterial what the speed of gravity is. The lag period would be important only at the beginning and end of a planet's evolution [18].

Gravity anomalies
In theory, all freely falling bodies -- individual atoms as well as macroscopic objects -- should experience a gravitational acceleration (g) of 9.8 m/s near the earth's surface. In reality, the value of g varies all over the earth owing to its departure from a perfect sphere (i.e. the equatorial bulge and local topography) and -- in the conventional theory -- to local variations in the density of the crust and upper mantle. These 'gravity anomalies' are believed to be fully explicable in the context of newtonian theory. We have seen, however, that there is no empirical basis for the assumption that gravity is proportional to inert mass.

Rather than being a direct function of the quantity of matter, the strength of the gravitational force appears to depend on the electrical and other properties of matter. The local gravity field may vary due to the ability of negatively charged particles and ions to screen or counteract the attractive force of gravity, and to the capacity of different types of rock to emit and absorb gravity-inducing radiation under different conditions. There may also be huge caverns in the earth's outer shell. This would be impossible if the newtonian theory were correct and gravity had unlimited penetrability, since pressures would increase all the way to the earth's centre. Even a few miles beneath the earth's surface the immense pressures would cause any large cavities to collapse. But if the orthodox assumptions are wrong, many interesting possibilities open up.

On the basis of the newtonian theory of gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans. But this is not the case. In fact, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Maurice Allais commented: 'There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this' [1]. The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding.

While scientists know the value of many 'fundamental constants' to eight decimal places, they disagree on the gravitational constant (G) after only three; this is regarded as an embarrassment in an age of precision [2]. And if certain highly anomalous results are taken into account, scientists disagree even about the first decimal place. In 1981 F.D. Stacey and G.J. Tuck published a paper in which they showed that measurements of G in deep mines, boreholes, and under the sea gave values about 1% higher than that currently accepted [3]. Furthermore, the deeper the experiment, the greater the discrepancy.

However, no one took much notice of these results until 1986, when E. Fischbach and his colleagues reanalyzed the data from a series of experiments by Etvs in the 1920s, which were supposed to have shown that gravitational acceleration is independent of the mass or composition of the attracted body. Fischbach et al. found that there was a consistent anomaly hidden in the data that had been dismissed as random error. On the basis of these laboratory results and the observations from mines, they announced that they had found evidence of a short-range, composition-dependent 'fifth force'. Their paper caused a great deal of controversy and generated a flurry of experimental activity in physics laboratories around the world [4].

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force. But one or two did. Is it safe to simply dismiss these results as 'experimental error', or is there a genuine unexplained anomaly which only experimental setups of the right design and sensitivity are capable of detecting? Several earlier experimenters have detected anomalies incompatible with newtonian theory, but the results have long since been forgotten. For instance, Charles Brush performed very precise experiments showing that metals of very high atomic weight and density tend to fall very slightly faster than elements of lower atomic weight and density, even though the same mass of each metal is used. He also reported that a constant mass or quantity of certain metals may be appreciably changed in weight by changing its physical condition [5]. Experiments by Victor Crmieu showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth's surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory [6]. Donald Kelly has demonstrated that if the absorption capacity of a body is reduced by magnetizing or electrically energizing it, it is attracted to the earth at a rate less than g [7]. Physicists normally measure g in a controlled manner which includes not altering the absorption capacity of bodies from their usual state. Bruce DePalma discovered that rotating objects falling in a magnetic field accelerate faster than g [8].

As already mentioned, measurements of gravity below the earth's surface are consistently higher than predicted on the basis of Newton's theory (which includes a universal gravitational constant and the inverse-square law) [9]. Sceptics simply assume that hidden rocks of unusually high density must be present. However, measurements in mines where densities are very well known have given the same anomalous results, as have measurements to a depth of 1673 metres in an homogenous ice sheet in Greenland, well above the underlying rock. Instead of inventing new forces to explain such results, it would be better to reexamine the fundamental assumption that gravity is proportional to inert mass.

Like Pari Spolter, Stephen Mooney believes that the Cavendish torsion balance experiment actually measures electrostatic attraction rather than gravitational attraction [10]. He argues that the mechanism of this attraction is the same as that for the gravitational attraction between macro-scale bodies -- namely, the absorption of radiation. Repulsion, on the other hand, involves bodies pushing away from each other due to the equivalence of their radiation. He also points out that when Cavendish first conducted the torsion balance experiment, he discovered, but did not understand, that the attraction increased when he heated the larger of the two bodies. Mooney suggests that this is due to the increased exchange of radiation between the bodies. He believes that experiments to measure G actually measure the radiation density at the earth's surface, which is not absolutely constant. Similarly, he attributes the increased gravitational attraction in a deep mine shaft to the fact that the decay of the surrounding rocks increases the density of the radiation impacting on the bodies.

Newtonian gravity theory is challenged by various aspects of planetary behaviour in our solar system. The rings of Saturn, for example, present a major problem [11]. There are tens of thousands of rings and ringlets separated by just as many gaps in which matter is either less dense or essentially absent. The complex, dynamic nature of the rings seems beyond the power of newtonian mechanics to explain. The gaps in the asteroid belt present a similar puzzle. Another major anomaly concerns the deviations in the orbits of the outer planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) [12]. A 'Planet X' beyond Pluto has been hypothesized, but despite extensive searches no such planet has been found. Alternatively, the deviations may point to defects in the current theory of gravitation.


ok enough.
contributing to this project seems a good thing to do, yet evaluating/analyzing the relevant points proved tiresome, hope we get some more info. on this project


[Edited on 22-11-2003 by Cyrus]

posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 05:45 PM

this fits here but I mentioned it some where else. is about space travel and anti grav. but also something about force fields and plasma.

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by Cyrus

Find close match between George J. Bugh and Paul Laviolette.
Paul's Secrets of Antigraviy is a must read.

In Peace,

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 11:01 AM
What gravity is is top secret so they don't know what they are talking about.

The so called anti gravity of the UFO is a static electric effect derived
by Tesla and will not put a free energy generator in your basement.

A NYC building put a wind generator up and the power company
would not cooperate until the city council told the company they
had to hook up the private power.

Dr Moray is the only power device that had notoriety and is still
being produced and shipped overseas.

Latest word from the free energy truthers against the government
free energy liars.

ED: It is interesting that the gravity expert, Einstein, never devised
a formula for the G but did a great job at statistically combining
atomic emissions spectra formulas.

ED: Ether is tiny insulated charges.

[edit on 9/17/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 9/17/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:39 PM
Very interesting read. I have often pondered about these "physics" and wondered about established or accepted conclusions.

After all, we know that science is NOT exact and is constantly changing and evolving as our understanding of known physics does with increased knowledge and laboratory provable or repeatable experiments.
Hypotheses that are offered by learned physicists should never be taken as "gospel"..
Great post and thought provoking to say the least!

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:09 PM
The Church is way out of their league tuning is with government
liars or whoever is plying and crying far a monk science adviser
the likes of Big Banger Lemaitre.

Spooks have nothing to do with science and technology.

The electrical universe is the last thing the Relativists Illumianti
want any one to understand.

ED: Einstein science is still a theory, Maxwell electrical science is
a law. Einstein did take established empirical formula and presented
a atomic fundamental understanding. Gravity is still unknown and the
only 'anti gravity' is from the stolen away Tesla Cosmic Cruiser.
(the Tesla flying machine). Einstein did plot the photo electric
effect but there is a hidden UV electric effect good the free energy

ED+: Got mixed up on thread topics.. still got some science in it.

[edit on 9/17/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 9/17/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

new topics

top topics


log in