Electrogravitics – A Simplified Description

[Amaterasu Solar]

This is just laughable. Please visit the following two wiki pages -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Gravitational_mass

In the electron information box (down the right hand side on the first Wiki page) notice how the electron has mass. On the second wiki page notice how mass causes gravity. Electrons have a gravity field of their own as they have mass. Do you understand that? Gravity does not have poles because it is nothing like magnestism.

Do you think you weigh less when the moon is over your head?

Do you think if you charge your tin foil hat up with electrons and stand on scales you'll weight less?

Charge it up high enough and you'll have electric wind too if you aint careful.

[giggle] Over at Alpha Tango Spooks, Wikipedia is NEVER a viable source - ESPECIALLY in matters on which there seems to be a concerted effort to do gatekeeping. And in case You missed it, I DIDN'T say the electron had no mass. I said it wasn't ABOUT the electron's mass, it was about the POSITIVE gravity of positive particles and the NEGATIVE gravity of negative particles.

And in fact, it IS intimately related to magnetism - but One has to pull One's head out of the rump of Einsteinian physics to see this. In EINSTEINIAN physics, gravity does not have poles, and They cannot integrate it with EM, but know it SHOULD somehow integrate. Einstein Himself scratched His head on THAT one right up to His death.

But Wikipedia is sure to speak Einsteinian physics as if they are fact and not one of many theories. Wouldn't want to integrate gravity with EM, lest We discover overunity...

As for Your snide comments there at the end... Heh. Yup. You're right.

[sepulchrave]

Also... While We're at it, I REALLY dislike statements like "they are, at best, ignorant ramblings of people not versed in physics" with no specifics. HOW are These You mention ignorant? Your statement, to be honest, is an appeal to emotion. And whether intentional or not, is rather shillish in its approach. Or it may be YOU who are ignorant and not versed in physics...seeing something You don't grasp and merely making claims to cover Your own shortcomings.

Fair enough.

Electrogravitics, if there is such a thing, will never produce levitation. For the following I will assume that gravity is a consequence of mass and electric charge.

Proof:

• Axiom 1: Electrostatic fields are produced solely by electric charge, a property of matter.
  
• Axiom 2: Gravitational fields are be produced only by rest mass and electric charge, both properties of matter.
  
• Axiom 3: Electrostatic and gravitational fields are vector fields, that is at every point they have a direction in addition to a magnitude.
  
• Consequence 1: By the divergence theorem, in a closed volume of space the flow of either field across the boundary of this space is proportional to the total quantity of charge or mass inside the volume, as appropriate.
  
• Consequence 2: By the previous consequence, the average of the gravitational field at the boundary of a region of space containing a total charge of 0 is due only to the mass within that space.
  
• Consequence 3: By consequence 1, the gravitational field in regions devoid of matter are gradients of scalar fields (the gravitational potential).
  
• Consequence 4: By consequences 1 and 3, the gravitational field in regions devoid of matter is conservative.
  
• Consequence 5: By consequence 4, the path integral of the gravitational field between points A and B is independent of the path chosen.
  
• Consequence 6: By consequences 2 and 5, the net force exerted at point B by a gravitational field generated at point A is dependent on only the straight-line distance between points A and B, and the total magnitude of mass and unbalanced charge at point A.
  
• Consequence 7: By consequence 6, an external gravitational force generated due to electric charge requires a quantity of unbalanced charge.
  
• Experimental Result 1: Gravity has a lensing effect on photons, while electrostatics does not. Therefore the two fields are not the same thing.
  
• Experimental Result 2: The electrostatic force is much stronger than the gravitational force generated by charged elementary particles.
  
• Consequence 8: By the previous experimental results, any unbalanced electrical charge large enough to generate a significant gravitational field would generate a much large electrostatic field.
  
• Experimental Result 3: The local Universe is charged balanced, or extremely close to being charged balanced.
  
• Consequence 9: By consequence 8 and the previous experimental result, any balanced electric charge is unstable and tends to neutralize itself by attracting opposite charge, the larger this unbalanced charge is the quicker it self-neutralizes.
  

Therefore electrogravitics can not counter gravity, even if electric fields do affect gravity.

Notice how I did not reference any theories of physics, only abstract mathematics and well-verified experimental observations.

------

Edited to add: I mean in atmosphere. I suppose you could preserve unbalanced charge in space.

Edited March 21, 2012 by sepulchrave

[badeskov]

Fair enough.

Electrogravitics, if there is such a thing, will never produce levitation. For the following I will assume that gravity is a consequence of mass and electric charge.

Proof:

• Axiom 1: Electrostatic fields are produced solely by electric charge, a property of matter.
• Axiom 2: Gravitational fields are be produced only by rest mass and electric charge, both properties of matter.
• Axiom 3: Electrostatic and gravitational fields are vector fields, that is at every point they have a direction in addition to a magnitude.
• Consequence 1: By the divergence theorem, in a closed volume of space the flow of either field across the boundary of this space is proportional to the total quantity of charge or mass inside the volume, as appropriate.
• Consequence 2: By the previous consequence, the average of the gravitational field at the boundary of a region of space containing a total charge of 0 is due only to the mass within that space.
• Consequence 3: By consequence 1, the gravitational field in regions devoid of matter are gradients of scalar fields (the gravitational potential).
• Consequence 4: By consequences 1 and 3, the gravitational field in regions devoid of matter is conservative.
• Consequence 5: By consequence 4, the path integral of the gravitational field between points A and B is independent of the path chosen.
• Consequence 6: By consequences 2 and 5, the net force exerted at point B by a gravitational field generated at point A is dependent on only the straight-line distance between points A and B, and the total magnitude of mass and unbalanced charge at point A.
• Consequence 7: By consequence 6, an external gravitational force generated due to electric charge requires a quantity of unbalanced charge.
• Experimental Result 1: Gravity has a lensing effect on photons, while electrostatics does not. Therefore the two fields are not the same thing.
• Experimental Result 2: The electrostatic force is much stronger than the gravitational force generated by charged elementary particles.
• Consequence 8: By the previous experimental results, any unbalanced electrical charge large enough to generate a significant gravitational field would generate a much large electrostatic field.
• Experimental Result 3: The local Universe is charged balanced, or extremely close to being charged balanced.
• Consequence 9: By consequence 8 and the previous experimental result, any balanced electric charge is unstable and tends to neutralize itself by attracting opposite charge, the larger this unbalanced charge is the quicker it self-neutralizes.

Therefore electrogravitics can not counter gravity, even if electric fields do affect gravity.

Notice how I did not reference any theories of physics, only abstract mathematics and well-verified experimental observations.

------

Edited to add: I mean in atmosphere. I suppose you could preserve unbalanced charge in space.

Excellent deduction, sepulchrave .

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited March 21, 2012 by badeskov

[Amaterasu Solar]

Fair enough.

Electrogravitics, if there is such a thing, will never produce levitation. For the following I will assume that gravity is a consequence of mass and electric charge.

Proof:

• Axiom 1: Electrostatic fields are produced solely by electric charge, a property of matter.
  
• Axiom 2: Gravitational fields are be produced only by rest mass and electric charge, both properties of matter.
  
• Axiom 3: Electrostatic and gravitational fields are vector fields, that is at every point they have a direction in addition to a magnitude.
  
• Consequence 1: By the divergence theorem, in a closed volume of space the flow of either field across the boundary of this space is proportional to the total quantity of charge or mass inside the volume, as appropriate.
  
• Consequence 2: By the previous consequence, the average of the gravitational field at the boundary of a region of space containing a total charge of 0 is due only to the mass within that space.
  
• Consequence 3: By consequence 1, the gravitational field in regions devoid of matter are gradients of scalar fields (the gravitational potential).
  
• Consequence 4: By consequences 1 and 3, the gravitational field in regions devoid of matter is conservative.
  
• Consequence 5: By consequence 4, the path integral of the gravitational field between points A and B is independent of the path chosen.
  
• Consequence 6: By consequences 2 and 5, the net force exerted at point B by a gravitational field generated at point A is dependent on only the straight-line distance between points A and B, and the total magnitude of mass and unbalanced charge at point A.
  
• Consequence 7: By consequence 6, an external gravitational force generated due to electric charge requires a quantity of unbalanced charge.
  
• Experimental Result 1: Gravity has a lensing effect on photons, while electrostatics does not. Therefore the two fields are not the same thing.
  
• Experimental Result 2: The electrostatic force is much stronger than the gravitational force generated by charged elementary particles.
  
• Consequence 8: By the previous experimental results, any unbalanced electrical charge large enough to generate a significant gravitational field would generate a much large electrostatic field.
  
• Experimental Result 3: The local Universe is charged balanced, or extremely close to being charged balanced.
  
• Consequence 9: By consequence 8 and the previous experimental result, any balanced electric charge is unstable and tends to neutralize itself by attracting opposite charge, the larger this unbalanced charge is the quicker it self-neutralizes.
  

Therefore electrogravitics can not counter gravity, even if electric fields do affect gravity.

Notice how I did not reference any theories of physics, only abstract mathematics and well-verified experimental observations.

------

Edited to add: I mean in atmosphere. I suppose you could preserve unbalanced charge in space.

Show Me a closed system.

[sepulchrave]

Show Me a closed system.

If you are referring to Consequence 1, by a "closed volume" I simply mean an arbitrary but finite space with a continuous smooth boundary. In the context of electrogravitics, presumably the system is a finite amount of mass and charge that is functionally separate from the rest of the environment.

[Amaterasu Solar]

If you are referring to Consequence 1, by a "closed volume" I simply mean an arbitrary but finite space with a continuous smooth boundary. In the context of electrogravitics, presumably the system is a finite amount of mass and charge that is functionally separate from the rest of the environment.

Let Us first look at the definition of "axiom:"

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom?s=t

ax·i·om [ak-see-uhm]

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

3. Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

We will take the third definition, as You are using these axioms in a mathematical study here.

Now... IF any or all of Your axioms - which have no proof but are being used to build a hypothetical case - are incorrect...then anything concluded beyond that point is highly suspect.

You offer Axiom 2: Gravitational fields are be produced only by rest mass and electric charge, both properties of matter. If gravitation is NOT a function of mass and electric charge, but arises as an integral part of charge, with (as the other forces have) both a negative and a positive attribute, positive gravity potential with positive charge, negative gravity potential with negative charge, and, for any pair of positive-negative particles averages out slightly positive... Then it would shift the conclusion away from the statement that electrogravitics cannot "counter" gravity, because charge separation will (and does) create an independent gravity field.

As for the lensing of light, with SQK, which has the axiom as described above, and gives gravity its function through particles adjusting position to balance (or attempt to) the surrounding etheron density of given etherons, as light passes by a mass it is affecting the etheron density giving rise to gravitational effects and also therefor affecting the path of light particles. So with a different axiom at the beginning, that can still be explained, just differently.

All the rest of Your observations can be explained by SQK too.

So... You tell Me. Why is Your (Einsteinian-based) explanation better than Dr. LaViolette's (SQK) explanation? And since the Biefeld-Brown Effect is a proven fact, and predicted in SQK but not relativity... I'd say Your model is lacking.

[badeskov]

I will guess You skimmed and did not read - since Dr. LaViolette goes into enough detail for such a layperson like Me to grasp the function of subquantum kinetics. And, yeah, it might not seem to flow when skimmed. It does describe the etheron set, the interaction thereof, and how forces arise... I would recommend reading the book, Subquantum Kinetics, by Dr. LaViolette, for a technical, mathemetical breakdown, but can find no links to that as pdf. I did find a non-technical piece here: http://www.etheric.c...ooks/ether.html

A list of predictions and experiments: http://etheric.com/L...e/Predict2.html

More links:

http://home.earthlin...ads/nucleon.pdf

http://www.tandfonli...8934918#preview

http://d1002391.mydo...s/6-1/Cosmo.pdf

http://openseti.org/Physics.html

http://blog.hasslber...n_of_pione.html

http://www.bibliotec...a_gravity01.htm

http://members.fortu...tml/lifters.htm

http://www.commonsen...tum_physics.pdf

http://144.206.159.1...852/1087096.pdf

OK, so where is the math describing said physics with peer reviewed physics with the associated experimental results, peer reviewed? I mean, I need with the same depth as Einstein's theories.

...if new physics arrive..." Um... That's what SQK is.

Show me then. Where is the physics? Where are the formulas? Where are the equations that it is as described by the SQK?

And frankly, just because a majority of scientists do not believe something does not mean it is not true. Seems to Me that at one time, most scientists thought the earth was the center of the everything, and the sun, moon and stars revolved around it. They were 33 1/3% right on that score.

If there is one thing scientist thrive on it is being wrong. That is how they move forward and progress. But when something is way out there and directly contradicts the laws of physics, then why should they look at it?

Also... While We're at it, I REALLY dislike statements like "they are, at best, ignorant ramblings of people not versed in physics" with no specifics. HOW are These You mention ignorant?

That was maybe a harsh statement, but nonetheless rather fitting given what they are promoting. They are promoting imaginative tales based on made up evidence.

Your statement, to be honest, is an appeal to emotion.

No, it was an accurate assessment. Please do show me how said persons are correct (when they directly contradict know physics without any evidence to back them up).

And whether intentional or not, is rather shillish in its approach.

No, see above.

Or it may be YOU who are ignorant and not versed in physics...seeing something You don't grasp and merely making claims to cover Your own shortcomings.

I have my shortcoming and I have no problem with those, however, this field is not one of them. I recognize hot air when I see it.

I have been looking for the quote I saw a while back and am not finding it...but one of the People involved in the naming of dark energy admitted it was, but that They did not use ZPE because They wanted it to sound "mysterious." Seems to be unsearchable, or scrubbed, and I'm pretty sure the One who reported it was not motivated to scrub it Himself. But Let's drop the argument. Whether they are or are not the same, electrogravitics shows overunity, extracting the "extra" energy from either ZPE or DE or ZPE/DE.

That is complete nonsense. Not only could said people not tie dark energy to ZPE, because that definite connection does not exist yet, but why would they? The connection is neither scrubbed nor hidden - it is just plain non-existent as we know it so far.

Doesn't matter. Point is We can achieve overunity with the tech and have been able to for over 50 years.

No. Bu if you feel otherwise, please do show evidence of such.

If We take self-consistency, logicalness, and the ability to test predictions as the definition of "real" physics, SQK qualifies. I can see the implications of Your comment (quite in shillish form) using "idealistic new-age dreaming" as descriptors. I don't care if the "elf" theory (elves make everything go) turns out to be the right theory. Electrogravitics offers gravity control and overunity. I am not "relying" on any "scriptures."

You are certainly not relying on facts either. And the facts squarely contradict you!

Continued....

[badeskov]

Continued from last post...

And, in fact, I also disapprove of comments like "without even understanding what they are saying" without examples. Do please SHOW where I evidence a lack of understanding. You seem to be very adept at oblique ad hominum. Again, shillish or You have no clue Yourself.

Good grief, the research of the people you are referring to have been discredited on numerous occasions. If you want I would be more than happy to supply you examples.

Ok. Sure. Whatever. Electrogravitics allows gravity control and overunity.

Please do provide evidence of such, especially given sepulchrave's excellent post.

[shrug] Wasn't Me who said that; it was a lady who was involved with naming it. Ridiculous as You care to say it is. (And... it was not "physicists" - in fact the information came from a physicist who was asking why, if ZPE and dark energy are the same, was it not just named as ZPE - but a media toady scientist who said They wanted a term that sounded mysterious...)

So?

Or that You either are a shill, or have no clue about scientists being in political pockets who are willing to make things as obscure as possible when anything approaches free energy...

The bolded part tells me you have no idea about how science works and the egos and professional pride of scientists. Any scientist worth his/her salt would publish something like that immediately - the amounts of funds it would bring in and the fame would be amazing.

Actually, I don't want to convince You.

Why not? You could with real science and real data.

Your oblique ad homs, Your claims with no support, and dismissals leave Me with some serious reserves about You. On top of that, "peer review" is hardly a benchmark in a system designed to disallow anything that challenges the Einsteinian views which keep gravity disintegrated from EM in any testable form. And as I said, whether or not the two are the same is irrelevant to electrogravitics showing gravity control and overunity. Which it does.

I do not excel in ad homs. I excel in science and the derived evidence. I do not excel in wildly imaginative tales, which you seem to promote. Show me the math and subsequent experimental data I will be happy to discuss this with you, but until then, all you have is a nothing.

I roll My eyes. Yeah. You're right.

Roll your eyes all you want. You are just plain out wrong.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[sepulchrave]

You offer Axiom 2: Gravitational fields are be produced only by rest mass and electric charge, both properties of matter. If gravitation is NOT a function of mass and electric charge, but arises as an integral part of charge, with (as the other forces have) both a negative and a positive attribute, positive gravity potential with positive charge, negative gravity potential with negative charge, and, for any pair of positive-negative particles averages out slightly positive... Then it would shift the conclusion away from the statement that electrogravitics cannot "counter" gravity, because charge separation will (and does) create an independent gravity field.

What? My axiom is pretty uncontroversial: fields are generated by ``things'', if there is no ``thing'' then the field must be conservative.

You are claiming that positive and negative charge, which in every experiment seem to behave the same save with a different sign, have different coupling constants to gravity? That is a bit... odd.

Anyway, if an equal amount of positive and negative charge has a slightly positive net gravity, that is even worse for your case. You need negative gravity to hover, as you have repeatedly pointed out.

So... You tell Me. Why is Your (Einsteinian-based) explanation better than Dr. LaViolette's (SQK) explanation? And since the Biefeld-Brown Effect is a proven fact, and predicted in SQK but not relativity... I'd say Your model is lacking.

Why do you insist on calling this an ``Einsteinian-based'' explanation? It has nothing to do with General Relativity, Special Relativity, or anything else that Einstein worked on. It does have to do with some much more fundamental abstract mathematical theories that were known long before Einstein came around.

In fact, I wasn't even supposing that SQK was wrong, I was only showing that regardless of your model for gravity (Newtonian, Relativity, SQK, whatever) as long as it is based on a scalar potential that is formed by some property of matter, you can't levitate if it is based on charge and mass alone.

Example: You can't levitate with magnets, either, unless they are both constrained. You can levitate with electric charge but only if the charged object doesn't come in contact with anything else.

-------

I do have a general question about electrogravitics: If 10 kV (or so) has a ~3% effect on the weight of an object, why doesn't something like a lightning strike, which can be on the order of GV have a measurable affect? Lightning strikes buildings like the Empire State Building quite frequently, but I've never heard of any damage caused by objects on the top floor suddenly losing/gaining 50% of their weight.

[Amaterasu Solar]

Continued from last post...

Good grief, the research of the people you are referring to have been discredited on numerous occasions. If you want I would be more than happy to supply you examples.

Please do provide evidence of such, especially given sepulchrave's excellent post.

So?

The bolded part tells me you have no idea about how science works and the egos and professional pride of scientists. Any scientist worth his/her salt would publish something like that immediately - the amounts of funds it would bring in and the fame would be amazing.

Why not? You could with real science and real data.

I do not excel in ad homs. I excel in science and the derived evidence. I do not excel in wildly imaginative tales, which you seem to promote. Show me the math and subsequent experimental data I will be happy to discuss this with you, but until then, all you have is a nothing.

Roll your eyes all you want. You are just plain out wrong.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Meh. I have lost patience with You. You may crow and claim "victory" now. You have earned a Bonchization: You're right.

[badeskov]

Meh. I have lost patience with You. You may crow and claim "victory" now. You have earned a Bonchization: You're right.

That is all you have to say?! No specifics whatsoever? I have no joy in "claiming victory", I prefer learning new aspects of science and the objective parts of the world that we live in, but make no mistake, I have no inclination the be deceived in that respect either, thus my pointed questions.

However, your retreat from this thread tells me that you had nothing to offer and were merely preaching based on a belief (religious, that is even) that these things were true even when it was quite obvious that some of said claims were rather ridiculous.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Abramelin]

Thank You for the vid link! I am quite well aware of Searl and His work. And I do believe He created what is claimed.

We are in a time of great change and the more We push for this tech, the closer We are to freedom. I mention again that I started a petition for the release of electrogravitic technology and suggest a visit to My blog, linked in My sig. I also suggest spreading the link to others.

But I hope you will also read this:

John Searl and his flying disks. A personal commentary by Anders Heerfordt

http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/KEELYNET/GRAVITY/searle1.asc

http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/KEELYNET/GRAVITY/searle2.asc

[Amaterasu Solar]

That is all you have to say?! No specifics whatsoever? I have no joy in "claiming victory", I prefer learning new aspects of science and the objective parts of the world that we live in, but make no mistake, I have no inclination the be deceived in that respect either, thus my pointed questions.

However, your retreat from this thread tells me that you had nothing to offer and were merely preaching based on a belief (religious, that is even) that these things were true even when it was quite obvious that some of said claims were rather ridiculous.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Yes. that's pretty much all I had to say. I tried and in great detail to offer an alternative to Einsteinian physics, showing that other models ARE better, not only making predictions that the Einsteinian view predicts, but also a number of anomalous observations that the Einsteinian view cannot account for. No "religion there; just an awareness that if something better comes along - something that accounts for more of the universe than the original theory - then the better theory is likely closer to the truth of the matter.

What I receive from You and others is personal attacks (i.e., "you had nothing to offer and were merely preaching based on a belief (religious, that is even)"), persistent demands for things I offer (i.e., "OK, so where is the math describing said physics with peer reviewed physics with the associated experimental results" - I said it is not MY theory, and to consult Subquantum Kinetics by Dr. LaViolette, who has the math), persistence in propounding the view that all scientists are noble and incorruptible and/or eagerly change Their pet views with new data (i.e., "If there is one thing scientist thrive on it is being wrong"), a steadfast insistence that I am wrong despite admitting You have not looked into My information (i.e., asking for the math and not seeking it where I pointed) - just dismissed it out of hand.

So just why would I be motivated to continue with You? If You TRULY enjoyed learning, You would read Subquantum Kinetics.

[Amaterasu Solar]

What? My axiom is pretty uncontroversial: fields are generated by ``things'', if there is no ``thing'' then the field must be conservative.

You are claiming that positive and negative charge, which in every experiment seem to behave the same save with a different sign, have different coupling constants to gravity? That is a bit... odd.

Anyway, if an equal amount of positive and negative charge has a slightly positive net gravity, that is even worse for your case. You need negative gravity to hover, as you have repeatedly pointed out.

Why do you insist on calling this an ``Einsteinian-based'' explanation? It has nothing to do with General Relativity, Special Relativity, or anything else that Einstein worked on. It does have to do with some much more fundamental abstract mathematical theories that were known long before Einstein came around.

In fact, I wasn't even supposing that SQK was wrong, I was only showing that regardless of your model for gravity (Newtonian, Relativity, SQK, whatever) as long as it is based on a scalar potential that is formed by some property of matter, you can't levitate if it is based on charge and mass alone.

Example: You can't levitate with magnets, either, unless they are both constrained. You can levitate with electric charge but only if the charged object doesn't come in contact with anything else.

-------

I do have a general question about electrogravitics: If 10 kV (or so) has a ~3% effect on the weight of an object, why doesn't something like a lightning strike, which can be on the order of GV have a measurable affect? Lightning strikes buildings like the Empire State Building quite frequently, but I've never heard of any damage caused by objects on the top floor suddenly losing/gaining 50% of their weight.

I will agree with You that "you can't levitate if it is based on charge and mass alone." In electrogravitics, it is not charge, but the separation of the charge/gravity potential that sets up a separate gravity field, which can (and does) move independently of the earth's gravity field. If this were not true, there would be no Biefeld-Brown Effect. And that has many times over been demonstrated to exist. As to Your final question... I am not an electrical engineer. I am one who sees the experiments and grasps their implications. I don't have an answer, personally, but if You choose to read Subquantum Kinetics, You might have answers there.

[sepulchrave]

I will agree with You that "you can't levitate if it is based on charge and mass alone." In electrogravitics, it is not charge, but the separation of the charge/gravity potential that sets up a separate gravity field, which can (and does) move independently of the earth's gravity field.

It doesn't matter where the field comes from. You can't levitate using a dipole field (or higher order, for that matter) without physical constraints. Fields generated by the separation of positive and negative ``essences'' (i.e. charge, mass, whatever) are, at least, dipole fields (could be quadrupole, hexapole, etc. depending on the configuration).

If this were not true, there would be no Biefeld-Brown Effect. And that has many times over been demonstrated to exist.

I have yet to see credible evidence that the Biefeld-Brown Effect exists in a vacuum, or that it has any effect on gravity.

Most studies seem to indicate that any reasonable amount of thrust is due to ionizing the atmosphere near the device (see here and here). A contemporary study shows BBE extorting a force with a wax dielectric, but that the force disappears once the capacitor is placed inside a Faraday Cage (see here). To me (as well as the authors) this rules out any electrogravitic effect. The authors conclude that they cannot explain the effect based on ``current electromagnetic theory'', but since their analysis on this issue was simply an application of Coulomb's law (and not, for example, a finite-element analysis of electromagnetism across the physical shape of the capacitor interacting with the Earth's electromagnetic field), I don't think their conclusion on this issue is fair. A newer study analyzes the irregularities in BBE in relation to the Earth's electromagnetic field, thunderstorm proximity, etc. and also concludes that the effect is electrodynamic.

Finally, building BBE devices or electrohydrodynamic thrusters is within the range of home inventors (or the Mythbusters, for that matter), so it is difficult to see how there is a coverup suppressing knowledge of practical uses for these devices.

Why don't you buy one of these and build your own levitating capacitors to prove me wrong?

[Amaterasu Solar]

It doesn't matter where the field comes from. You can't levitate using a dipole field (or higher order, for that matter) without physical constraints. Fields generated by the separation of positive and negative ``essences'' (i.e. charge, mass, whatever) are, at least, dipole fields (could be quadrupole, hexapole, etc. depending on the configuration).

I have yet to see credible evidence that the Biefeld-Brown Effect exists in a vacuum, or that it has any effect on gravity.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

http://www.instructables.com/id/Asymmetrical-Capacitor-Thrusters-the-Biefeld-Brow/

http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect

http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/Loder.PDF

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0810.pdf

And... A Wikipedia page, which seems to have some decent data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_gravity_control_propulsion_initiative

From that page:

According to G. Harry Stine and Intel, research on Brown's gravitators became classified immediately after demonstrations of 30% weight reductions.

Though the page is written to dismiss the idea of electrogravitics, truths are there.

Why don't you buy one of these and build your own levitating capacitors to prove me wrong?

Would love to but this economic hell We're in (and which I aim to solve by getting awareness of the solution to the tipping point - see http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=224039 and http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=224040 to see the solution) has left Me jobless, virtually homeless and literally penniless. Any help You could provide in terms of purchasing, tools and space to do the constructing would be appreciated but fully not expected.

[Teslasparkgap]

There is a propulsion method based on electrostatics as discussed in Tesla's time

resulting from coil oscillations Tesla used to physically move matter around in

bulbs for illumination. There is also a metal bulb that was one terminal of an X-Ray

bulb that Tesla used for radiographs. Tesla tried the two terminal X-Ray version but

needed just one terminal for powerful electrostatic pressures.

I do not know all the techniques involved but Tesla said the common radio engineers

worked things differently than he did of which he said was an art. As it is the coil

must operate to form a brush as typical of the Aurora. Oscillations in resonance

with the fine matter forms a force when the inertia of the matter becomes stationary

to the impressed electrical pressure. This Tesla gave with difficult phraseology that

people must jump to an enlightened conclusion.

How some of this works might be shown in one wire demos from the two air core inductors

used by Tesla in 1891. The final step was showing in Colorado Springs that high pressure

was kept at the top of a coil. Thus a constant force against gravity was assured and any

force from the 1/2 sphere would send his ship forward.

[Mr Right Wing]

[giggle] Over at Alpha Tango Spooks, Wikipedia is NEVER a viable source - ESPECIALLY in matters on which there seems to be a concerted effort to do gatekeeping. And in case You missed it, I DIDN'T say the electron had no mass. I said it wasn't ABOUT the electron's mass, it was about the POSITIVE gravity of positive particles and the NEGATIVE gravity of negative particles.

And in fact, it IS intimately related to magnetism - but One has to pull One's head out of the rump of Einsteinian physics to see this. In EINSTEINIAN physics, gravity does not have poles, and They cannot integrate it with EM, but know it SHOULD somehow integrate. Einstein Himself scratched His head on THAT one right up to His death.

But Wikipedia is sure to speak Einsteinian physics as if they are fact and not one of many theories. Wouldn't want to integrate gravity with EM, lest We discover overunity...

As for Your snide comments there at the end... Heh. Yup. You're right.

Mass causes gravity

[Amaterasu Solar]

There is a propulsion method based on electrostatics as discussed in Tesla's time

resulting from coil oscillations Tesla used to physically move matter around in

bulbs for illumination. There is also a metal bulb that was one terminal of an X-Ray

bulb that Tesla used for radiographs. Tesla tried the two terminal X-Ray version but

needed just one terminal for powerful electrostatic pressures.

I do not know all the techniques involved but Tesla said the common radio engineers

worked things differently than he did of which he said was an art. As it is the coil

must operate to form a brush as typical of the Aurora. Oscillations in resonance

with the fine matter forms a force when the inertia of the matter becomes stationary

to the impressed electrical pressure. This Tesla gave with difficult phraseology that

people must jump to an enlightened conclusion.

How some of this works might be shown in one wire demos from the two air core inductors

used by Tesla in 1891. The final step was showing in Colorado Springs that high pressure

was kept at the top of a coil. Thus a constant force against gravity was assured and any

force from the 1/2 sphere would send his ship forward.

Thank You for Your contribution. Tesla was indeed a genius and saw things beyond the surety Others had in how things worked. Visionary and radical, He grasped better that the staid views held as "truth" were founded on error. Today, empowered by an elite who know full well that free energy spells the end to Their control, these errors are propagated, and anything outside the errors is called "ignorant," "pseudoscience," "preaching based on belief," "discredited" (though any discredit comes from faulty science and/or assumptions), and so on.

The media, now better controlled, assists in ensuring the prevailing views adhere to the error activated paradigm.

The schools censure teachers if something outside the error paradigm is taught.

The "peer review" system refuses documents that do not also adhere - unless the papers' implications do not threaten to crack open access to the abundant energy We swim in. No matter how sound the research, math and consideration, if it implies "free energy," it will be rejected.

And so it is up to Us to open the universe to better models - and better models imply ways to extract from the sea energy We can use to eliminate the need for money - which is 100% of the cost of everything, Human or external.

[Amaterasu Solar]

Mass causes gravity

According to whom? And How?

[sepulchrave]

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf

A paper concluding that discusses BBE, but only in the context of ion transport. How does this support your case? I agree that later experiments show that ion transport is unlikely to be the sole cause of BBE, but no data in the paper support your idea of electrogravitics or SQK.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/musha/Musha.pdf

The sole experimental data in this paper consists of BBE demonstrated for a capacitor in oil. This is in agreement with the links I posted, and does not rule out a purely electrodynamic explanation.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Asymmetrical-Capacitor-Thrusters-the-Biefeld-Brow/

A ``how-to'' guide where the author explicitly states their belief that no electrogravitic effect occurs, and offers an explanation in terms of ion transport (again, I stress that I do not believe ion transport to be the sole cause of BBE, but in a material where the capacitor is near the breakdown voltage it is certainly a factor).

http://www.ovaltech.ca/pdfss/Theoretical_Explanation_of_the_Biefield-Brown_Effect.pdf

Some decent data, but no attempt to rule out external electrodynamic influences (they did not use a Faraday cage, unlike the reports I submitted). The theory doesn't work: the author speculates that an electric field has a complementary gravitational component, which is fine, but won't cause levitation - as I showed before.

The main flaw is that the author allows an electric field to generate a complementary gravitational field, but then allows this gravitational field to penetrate outside the range of the electric field.

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect

No data, no math. Just speculation.

http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/Loder.PDF

The only not-completely-spectulative-or-rumour ``evidence'' in this paper is of Townsend's tethered discs under 150 kV. Again, flying in atmosphere, this does not preclude an electrodynamic cause to BBE.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0810.pdf

A horribly written (not peer-reviewed either!) paper where the author uses Einstein's equations (I though you hated those?) and adds a gravitational coupling constant to the electromagnetic tensor. This doesn't work - regardless of the Lagrangian - as long as the field is dipolar, as I explained before.

[Teslasparkgap]

I don't know much about LaViolette but a web search got me to

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18728563/CNEIpolicyReport2009

without having to buy any material.

That report looks like standard government material.

Tesla based researcher Lyne can't say much for the opposing material.

Perhaps like someone who know people that lived during Tesla's time until 1943

know what the government suppresses Tesla's name and material since that time.

Comment at scribd:

Tesla had a method of power generation without the sun and usable in

basements that my dad showed me years ago. The 1/2 metal sphere is

mentioned in a Tesla patent.

Basically sun power that goes through the Earth.

Sun Panels and Wind power just support existing cartels.

[Teslasparkgap]

According to whom? And How?

Force is caused by the action of fine matter under electrostatic pressure.

In a more theoretical stance there is only momentum that is impressed.

Mass is the accumulation of fine matter under intense electrostatics.

Just a thought.

[Amaterasu Solar]

(evaluation of what I found on the web...)

Yes, many try to account for the BBE in Einsteinian terms - not very successfully.

In My hunting, I happened upon Alien Scientist's site ( http://www.alienscientist.com/brown.html ) and found this quote amusing, if not supportive:

The Effect was first discovered in 1928 yet there has never been any official statement made by the US Government confirming or denying it. Why not? Isn't it time we opened the doors?

Good question.

Here is the text from one report from 1952: http://www.rexresearch.com/ttbrown/ttbrown.htm

I think this was 1956... http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE24.html "ELECTROGRAVITICS SYSTEMS" The Declassified Report: Transcribed and Hereby Given to the World.

Thomas Valone: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78622281/Thomas-Valone-Progress-in-Electrogravitics-and-Electrokinetics-for-Aviation-and-Space-Travel

Some miscellaneous stuff from a student: http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/ufo/biefeld-brown Interesting read...

SQK and the First Law: http://www.starburstfound.org/downloads/physics/IECEC.pdf

Laviolette's proposal to NASA: http://www.starburstfound.org/downloads/aerospace/NASA-SEOP.pdf

NASA's Black Hole...: http://starburstfound.org/advanced-propulsion-electrogravitics/

Guess Dr. LaViolette doesn't like the idea of an expanding universe...: http://starburstfound.org/sqk-cosmology/

Origins of SQK: http://starburstfound.org/tracing-the-origins-of-subquantum-kinetics/

Non-Technical description of SQK: http://starburstfound.org/subquantum-kinetics-a-nontechnical-summary/

Anyway, it seems that to get to the math of SQK, One has to read LaViolette's book, Subquantum Kinetics. http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/Book-SQK.html

And no, I am not affiliated with Him in any way - if I could I would link a PDF (as I did for Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion), but none exists for that book.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Amaterasu Solar

[Amaterasu Solar]

I don't know much about LaViolette but a web search got me to

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18728563/CNEIpolicyReport2009

without having to buy any material.

That report looks like standard government material.

Tesla based researcher Lyne can't say much for the opposing material.

Perhaps like someone who know people that lived during Tesla's time until 1943

know what the government suppresses Tesla's name and material since that time.

Comment at scribd:

Tesla had a method of power generation without the sun and usable in

basements that my dad showed me years ago. The 1/2 metal sphere is

mentioned in a Tesla patent.

Basically sun power that goes through the Earth.

Sun Panels and Wind power just support existing cartels.

Very interesting link! I am quite familiar with Valone. But even He does not see the very intimate relationship between energy and the need for money to account for meaningful energy expended in an energy-scarce society. I had a brief back and forth with LaViolette a while back - and He was concerned about My petition (found in most articles at My blog linked in My sig) that I seemed to be more interested in some kind of agenda. What He could not grasp is that, as society fractalizes chaotically out of a seed set of parameters, a seeding of the memescape was the purpose of My discussing the basics of how We could seed a society entering terra incognita, economy-wise.

To this date, all societies We know of have been energy-scarce, requiring some kind of money - trade, barter, work exchange, cash, electronic funds... - and adding free energy places Us in a position where We have never been before. Without some predefined seed, society may seed itself poorly - ending a Road Warrior scenario or Damnation Alley. The goal I have is to set in place the seeds that will promote something more akin to Star Trek.

Anyway, I did write to Valone, but He did not write back...

If You want to learn more about LaViolette, see My immediately preceding post.