here's some info i got on this matter.
brown's work, the B2's concept...it'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 . 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 ! 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 .
In theory, all freely falling bodies -- individual atoms as well as macroscopic objects -- should experience a gravitational acceleration (g) of 9.8
m/s² 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' . 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
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 . 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 . 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 Eötvös 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 .
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 . Experiments by Victor Crémieu
showed that gravitation measured in water at the earth's surface appears to be one tenth greater than that computed by newtonian theory . 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 . 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 .
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) . 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 . 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 . 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)
. 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.
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
[Edited on 22-11-2003 by Cyrus]