SERIOUS Antigravity research, page 1

wow...nice project.
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

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The mass error
It is said to have been the sight of an apple falling from a tree that, around 1665, gave Isaac Newton the idea that the force that pulls an apple to earth is the same as that which keeps the moon in its orbit around the earth. The reason the moon does not fall to earth is because of the counteracting effect of its orbital motion. If the moon were to cease its orbital motion and fall to earth, the acceleration due to gravity that it would experience at the earth's surface would be 9.8 m/s� -- the same as that experienced by an apple or any other object in free fall.

Newton's universal law of gravitation states that the gravitational force between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. To calculate the gravitational force (F), their masses (m1 and m2) and the gravitational constant (G) are multiplied together, and the result is divided by the square of the distance (r) between them: F = Gm1m2/r�. The newtonian theory is accepted by most scientists today without question.

However, it involves a contradiction. On the one hand it states that the gravitational force between two or more bodies is dependent on their masses, and on the other it admits that the gravitational acceleration of an attracted body is not dependent on its mass: if dropped simultaneously from a tower, and if air resistance is ignored, a tennis ball and a cannonball will hit the ground simultaneously. Furthermore, although gravitational force and gravitational acceleration are the same phenomenon, and force is proportional to acceleration, no symbol for the earth's surface gravity (g) or a term for acceleration appears in the gravitational equation.

In the conventional approach, the above contradiction is overcome by invoking Newton's second law of motion, which states that the force applied to a body equals the mass of the body multiplied by its acceleration (F = ma); this implies that gravity pulls harder on larger masses. However, as several physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers have pointed out, this law is not based on experiment; it is an arbitrary definition -- a convention. Experiments cited in its support involve the identification of weight and force; they prove only that the weight of a body is equal to its mass times the acceleration (W = ma), and do not measure or define force per se [1].

Newton himself certainly believed that the gravitational force was due to and proportional to the quantity or density of matter. But it is a historical fact that to deduce from the earth-moon system that gravity obeys an inverse-square law (i.e. that its strength diminishes by the square of the distance from the attracting body), he did not need, nor did he estimate, the masses of the earth and moon. He needed to know only the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface, the radius of the earth, the orbital speed of the moon, and the distance between earth and moon. As Pari Spolter points out, 'there is no basis for inclusion of the term "product of the two masses (m1m2)", or for that matter, for inclusion of any term for mass in the equation of the gravitational force' [2].

Combining Newton's two equations for force, i.e. the equation for gravitational force and the second law of motion, gives: F = ma = Gm1m2/r�. It can then be deduced that, for the equation to balance, the gravitational constant (G) must have the dimensions m�/kg.s� (volume divided by mass multiplied by time squared). Clearly G is a rather weird constant!

The value of the gravitational constant was first measured directly by the Cavendish torsion balance experiment in 1798. However, a Cavendish-type experiment is not a proof of Newton's equation: on the contrary, such experiments assume that the equation is correct. In Spolter's view, it has not yet been ruled out that the very small angle of deflection of the torsion balance used in these experiments (or the very small change in its period of oscillation) is due to electrostatic attraction of the metallic spheres used; in one experiment in which the small mass of platinum was coated with a thin layer of lacquer, consistently lower values of G were obtained [3]. Spolter has written to several mainstream journals proposing further experiments to test this possibility, but her letters have been rejected.

On the assumption that gravity is proportional to mass, the value of G can be used to estimate the earth's mass, and also its mean density, which turns out to be 5.5 g/cm�. This value is of course purely theoretical. All we know from actual measurements is that the mean density of the earth's outer crust is 2.75 g/cm�. Scientists have concluded that to obtain an overall figure of 5.5 g/cm� the density of the inner layers of the earth must increase substantially with depth. Spolter points out that the currently accepted earth model is inconsistent with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for several billion years, and if it was originally molten and rotated faster than today, the highest-density matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Also, heavy elements are rare in the universe, so it is hard to see how such large quantities of them could have become concentrated in the earth's interior.

The 17th-century astronomer Johannes Kepler discovered the remarkable fact that the ratio of the cube of the mean distance (r) of each planet from the sun to the square of its period of revolution (t) is always the same number (r�/t� = constant). This relationship is known as Kepler's third law of planetary motion. Pari Spolter has made the major discovery that Kepler's third law can be derived from a new, simple equation for gravitational force: F = a.A , where a is the acceleration and A is the area of a circle with a radius (r) equal to the semimajor axis of revolution of the planet, moon, etc. in question (i.e. its average distance from the body it orbits).* Since A = (pi)r�, this equation naturally implies that the acceleration due to gravity declines by the square of the distance. And since it includes no term for mass, it implies that neither gravitational force nor gravitational acceleration depends on the mass of the bodies concerned, thereby eliminating the contradiction at the heart of the newtonian theory of gravity.

*Spolter argues that force is always independent of mass [4]. It is not force that is equal to mass times acceleration, but weight. Her equation for linear force is F = a.d (acceleration times distance). Her equation for circular force is the one given above: F = a.A.
Using this equation, the gravitational force of the sun is found to be 4.16 x 1020 ms-2m2. This quantity is constant for all the planets, asteroids, and artificial satellites orbiting the sun, and is independent of the mass of the attracted body. The gravitational force of the sun calculated from Newton's second law of motion, on the other hand, is not constant, and ranges from 4.16 x 10�� newtons for Jupiter to only 0.31 newton for the satellite Pioneer 5. If we accept Newton's equation, we have to assume that the sun somehow recognizes each body orbiting it and doles out a specific amount of its attractive force for each one.

Using Spolter's equation, the gravitational force of the earth is also constant (1.25 x 1015ms-2m2) -- for objects in free fall, for artificial satellites orbiting the earth, and for the moon. Using Newton's equation, however, the gravitational force ranges from 0.2 newton for the satellite ERS 12 to 1.98 x 1020 newtons for the moon. Similar results are obtained for all the planets in our solar system [5].

Newton's theory of gravity (and Einstein's too) ignores the rotation of the central body and the torque generated by the rotation. Spolter suggests that it is the rotation of a star, planet, etc. that generates the gravitational force and causes other bodies to revolve around it. This idea was also advanced by Johannes Kepler, and is supported by a number of other researchers [6]. Spolter shows that the mean distances of each successive planet from the centre of the sun are not random but follow an exponential law, which indicates that gravity is quantized, just as electron orbits in an atom are quantized. For planets orbited by several moons, she shows that here too gravity is quantized.

The figures given for the masses and densities of all planets, stars, etc. are purely theoretical; nobody has ever placed one on a balance and weighed it! The masses of celestial bodies are calculated from what is known as Newton's form of Kepler's third law, which arbitrarily assumes that Kepler's constant ratio of r�/t� is equal to the inert mass of the body multiplied by the gravitational constant. However, this equation is dimensionally inconsistent: it implies that mass is equal to volume divided by time squared! The equation can be made to balance if G is assigned the weird dimensions mentioned above: volume divided by mass multiplied by time squared. But a constant such as G is only a proportionality number, and cannot be used to introduce the missing dimensions into an equation.

The circular reasoning on which the newtonian theory of gravity is based is nicely summed up in The Devil's Dictionary, which defines gravitation as follows: 'The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportioned to the quantity of matter they contain -- the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another' [7].

Electrogravity
Both gravity and electromagnetism obey the inverse-square law, i.e. their strength declines by the square of the distance. In other respects, however, gravity and electromagnetism seem to be very different. Electric and magnetic forces are bipolar, i.e. they attract and repel, whereas gravity is commonly believed to have only one polarity -- attraction. The presence of matter can modify or shield electric and magnetic forces and electromagnetic radiation, whereas no weakening of gravity has allegedly been measured by placing matter between two bodies, and it is assumed that this is true whatever the thickness of the matter in question.

However, some experiments have found evidence of gravitational shielding. In the course of a series of very sensitive experiments over a period of 10 years, Q. Majorana found that placing mercury or lead beneath a suspended lead sphere acts as a screen and slightly decreases the earth's gravitational pull; other experimenters have found similar evidence of gravity absorption [1]. Erwin Saxl and Mildred Allen measured significant variations in the period of a torsion pendulum during a solar eclipse in 1970, implying that solar gravity was being shielded by the moon. Saxl also detected unexpected daily and seasonal variations [2]. Attempts to explain away these results in terms of poor experimental design are unconvincing [3].

Pendulum anomalies incompatible with newtonian gravity have also been detected by other investigators. During solar eclipses in 1954 and 1959, Maurice Allais (who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1988) detected anomalous disturbances in the azimuth of a paraconical pendulum (i.e. one suspended on a ball) [4]. In the course of observations conducted since 1987, Shu-wen Zhou and his collaborators have confirmed the occurrence of an anomalous force of horizontal oscillation when the sun, moon, and earth are aligned, and have shown that it affects the pattern of grain sequence in crystals, the spectral wavelengths of atoms and molecules, and the speed rate of atomic clocks [5]. During the total solar eclipse in 1997, a group of scientists detected gravity variations with a high-precision gravimeter [6]. Tom Van Flandern has suggested that anomalies in the motions of certain artificial earth satellites during eclipse seasons may also be caused by shielding of the sun's gravity [7].

The existence of gravity shielding was given further support by experiments conducted by E. Podkletnov and his coworkers at Finland's Tampere University of Technology in 1992. When a disk of superconducting material was magnetically levitated and rotated at high speed, up to several thousand revolutions per minute, in the presence of an external magnetic field, it was found that objects placed above the rotating disk showed a variable but measurable weight loss* of up to 2% [8]. Related research is being funded as part of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program. The effect discovered by Podkletnov is about 10 billion times greater than allowed for in general relativity theory! Nevertheless, it is tiny compared with the gravitational shielding/antigravity effects apparently achieved by some alternative researchers in the fields of free energy and electrogravitics; weight losses of up to 100% have been reported, often involving spinning objects [9].

*The weight of a body is equal to its mass multiplied by acceleration. Strictly speaking, an object with a mass of 1 kg weighs 9.8 newtons on earth. However, weights are commonly given in kilograms, with the gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s� at the earth's surface being taken for granted. If the force of gravity acting on a body is reduced, its weight and inertia are likewise reduced, while its mass (in the sense of 'quantity of matter') remains the same.

The gravitational force between two electrons is 42 orders of magnitude (1042) weaker than their electrical repulsion. The reason the electromagnetic force does not completely overwhelm gravity in the world around us is that most things are composed of an equal amount of positive and negative electric charges whose forces cancel each other out. On the other hand, it is believed that gravity is always attractive and that consequently there are no analogous cancellations. However, although it is usually assumed that electrons are attracted by gravity, this has not been verified experimentally due to the difficulty of the measurement. As we shall see, there is evidence that such an assumption is wrong.

As long ago as 1830, O.F. Mossotti hypothesized that gravitational attraction resulted from the very slight excess of the force of attraction between unlike electrical particles over the force of repulsion between like electrical particles [10]. In the 20th century, physicist Max Born stated that once we had a more complete knowledge of the interaction of the forces in the atomic nucleus we might find that gravitation was the result of 'something left over, a sort of incomplete compensation' [11]. And nuclear physicist Lucien Gerardin suggested that gravitational attraction may be due to 'kinetic electromagnetic phenomena within the atomic nuclei', 'a very small residue of interaction between electricized particles' [12]. Mainstream science has not pursued such ideas, and is as far away as ever from understanding gravity.

Various experimental results point to a link between electromagnetism and gravity. For instance, Erwin Saxl showed that gravity and electricity interact under dynamic conditions. He found that when a torsion pendulum was positively charged, it took longer to swing through its arc than when it was negatively charged [13]. Bruce DePalma conducted numerous experiments showing that rotation and rotating magnetic fields can have anomalous gravitational and inertial effects [14]. Podkletnov's experiments seem to confirm this.

One of the most important early figures in electrogravitics research was physicist and inventor T. Townsend Brown [15]. Beginning in the mid-1920s, he discovered that it is possible to create an artificial gravity field by charging an electrical capacitor to a high voltage. He built a capacitor which utilized a heavy, high charge-accumulating dielectric material between its plates and found that when charged with between 75,000 and 300,000 volts it would move in the direction of its positive pole (this is known as the Biefeld-Brown effect). When oriented with its positive side up, it would lose about 1% of its weight. He attributed this motion to an electrostatically-induced gravity field acting between the capacitor's oppositely charged plates. By 1958, he had succeeded in developing a 15-inch-diameter model saucer that could lift over 110% of its weight. He obtained many patents for his devices.

Brown succeeded in arousing the interest of the US Air Force:

As early as 1952, an Air Force major general witnessed a demonstration in which Brown flew a pair of 18 inch disc airfoils suspended from opposite ends of a rotatable arm. When electrified with 50,000 volts, they circuited at a speed of 12 miles per hour. About a year later, he flew a set of 3 foot diameter saucers for some Air Force officials and representatives from a number of major aircraft companies. When energized with 150,000 volts, the discs sped around the 50 foot diameter course so fast that the subject was immediately classified. Interavia magazine later reported that the discs would attain speeds of several hundred miles per hour when charged with several hundred thousand volts.
Brown's discs were charged with a high positive voltage on a wire running along their leading edge and a high negative voltage on a wire running along their trailing edge. As the wires ionized the air around them, a dense cloud of positive ions would form ahead of the craft and a corresponding cloud of negative ions would form behind the craft. Brown's research indicated that, like the charged plates of his capacitors, these ion clouds induced a gravitational force directed in the minus to plus direction. As the disc moved forward in response to its self-generated gravity field, it would carry with it its positive and negative ion clouds with their associated electrogravity gradient. Consequently, the discs would ride their advancing gravity wave much like surfers ride an ocean wave. [16]
Skeptics claimed that the discs were propelled by more mundane effects such as the pressure of negative ions striking the positive electrode, but Brown later carried out vacuum chamber tests which proved that a force was present even in the absence of such ion thrust. It is interesting to note that the occupants of one of Brown's saucers would feel no stresses at all, no matter how sharply it turned or how fast it accelerated, because the ship and occupants would respond equally to the distortion of the local gravitational field.

Figure. A side view of one of Brown's circular flying discs showing the location of its ion charges and induced gravity field.

Early in 1952 Brown submitted a proposal that the military develop a disc-shaped antigravity combat vehicle with Mach 3 capability. A declassified aviation industry intelligence report indicates that by September 1954 the Pentagon had launched a secret government programme to develop a manned antigravity craft of the type proposed. In the mid-1950s, over ten major aircraft companies were actively involved in electrogravitics research. Since then no publicity has been given to whatever work in electro-antigravity the US military has conducted. Paul LaViolette suggests that electrogravitic technology developed since then may have been put to use in the B-2 Stealth Bomber to provide an auxiliary mode of propulsion. He bases this inference on the disclosure that the B-2 electrostatically charges both the leading edge of its wing-like body and its jet exhaust stream to a high voltage.

Positive ions emitted from its wing leading edge would produce a positively charged parabolic ion sheath ahead of the craft while negative ions injected into its exhaust stream would set up a trailing negative space charge with a potential difference in excess of 15 million volts. . . . [This] would set up an artificial gravity field that would induce a reactionless force on the aircraft in the direction of the positive pole. An electrogravitic drive of this sort could allow the B-2 to function with over-unity propulsion efficiency when cruising at supersonic velocities. [17]
Another electrogravitics researcher is John Searl, an English electronics technician [18]. In 1949 he discovered that a small voltage (or electromotive force) was induced in spinning metal objects. The negative charge was on the outside and the positive charge was around the centre of rotation. He reasoned that free electrons were thrown out by centrifugal force, leaving a positive charge in the centre. In 1952 he constructed a generator, some three feet in diameter, based on this principle. When tested outdoors, it reportedly produced a powerful electrostatic effect on nearby objects, accompanied by crackling sounds and the smell of ozone. The generator then lifted off the ground, while still accelerating, and rose to a height of about 50 feet, breaking the connection with the engine. It briefly hovered at this height, still speeding up. A pink halo appeared around it, indicating ionization of the surrounding atmosphere. It also caused local radio receivers to go on of their own accord. Finally, it reached another critical rotational velocity, rapidly gained altitude, and disappeared from sight. Searl says that since then he and his colleagues have built over 50 versions of his 'levity disk', of various sizes, and have developed a form of control. He claims to have been persecuted by the authorities, resulting in wrongful imprisonment and the destruction of most of his work, so that he has had to start all over again.

Although he has been dismissed as a con man, there is evidence that the Searl effect is genuine. Two members of the Russian Academy of Science, V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin, carried out an experiment with a Searl-type generator, and observed a 35% weight reduction, luminescence, a smell of ozone, anomalous magnetic-field effects, and a fall in temperature. They concluded that orthodox, etherless physics cannot explain these results [19].

Empty space vs. the ether
In newtonian gravity theory, it is assumed that gravity propagates instantaneously across empty space, i.e. it is believed to be a form of action at a distance. However, in a private letter Newton himself dismissed this idea:

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. [1]
Newton periodically toyed with the idea of an all-pervading ether (filling his 'absolute space'), and thought that the cause of gravity must be a spiritual agency, by which he understood 'God'.

The need to postulate an ether is underlined by G. de Purucker:

We either have to admit the existence of [the] ether or ethers, i.e., of this extremely tenuous and ethereal substance which fills all space, whether interstellar or interplanetary or inter-atomic and intra-atomic, or accept actio in distans -- action at a distance, without intervening intermediary or medium of transmission; and such actio in distans is obviously by all known scientific standards an impossibility. Reason, common sense, logic . . . demand the existence of such universally pervading medium, by whatever name we may choose to call it . . . [2]
Logically, every type of force must ultimately be produced by the activity of material -- though not necessarily physical -- agents of some kind, moving at finite, though possibly superluminal, speeds.

In 1905 Albert Einstein rejected the ether as 'superfluous', preferring the vacuous concept of 'empty space'. In 1915 he published his general theory of relativity, which is essentially a theory of gravity. He did not challenge the newtonian notion that inert mass was the cause of the gravitational force. But whereas Newton attributed gravitational attraction to the density of matter, Einstein assumed that the same quantity of matter ('gravitational mass') somehow warped the hypothetical four-dimensional 'spacetime continuum' and that this deformity made the planets orbit the sun. In other words, gravity is not regarded as a force that propagates but is said to result from masses distorting the 'fabric of spacetime' in their vicinity in some miraculous way. Thus, rather than being attracted by the sun, the earth supposedly follows the nearest equivalent of a straight line available to it through the curved spacetime around the sun. However, 'curved spacetime' is a geometrical abstraction -- or rather a mathematical monstrosity! -- and can in no way be regarded as an explanation of gravity. Although it is commonly claimed that relativity theory has been confirmed by observational evidence, there are alternative -- and far more sensible -- explanations for all the experiments cited in its support [3].

General relativity theory claims that matter, regardless of its electrical charge, produces only an attractive gravitational force, and allows for only very tiny gravitational shielding or antigravity effects. Furthermore, it does not predict any coupling between electrostatic and gravitational fields. In fact, T.T. Brown's pioneering 1929 paper that first reported the discovery of electrogravity was turned down by Physical Review because it conflicted with general relativity.

According to quantum field theory, the four recognized forces -- gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear forces -- arise from matter particles constantly emitting and absorbing different types of force-carrying 'virtual' particles (known as bosons), which are constantly flickering into and out of existence. The gravitational force is supposedly mediated by gravitons -- hypothetical massless, uncharged, infinitesimal particles travelling at the speed of light. Since gravitons would apparently be identical to their antiparticles, this theory, too, appears to rule out antigravity, and it also fails to explain electrogravity.

Experimental support for these particle-exchange theories is completely lacking, and it is not clear how they can account for attractive as well as repulsive forces. It is sometimes said that bosons carry a 'message' telling matter particles whether to move closer or move apart -- but this explains nothing at all. Moreover, in the standard model, force-carrying particles, like fundamental matter particles, are regarded as infinitely small, zero-dimensional point-particles -- which is clearly absurd. As a result of these idealized notions, quantum calculations tend to be plagued with infinities, which have to be done away with by a trick known as 'renormalization'.

Einstein spent the last 40 years of his life attempting to extend the geometrical notions of general relativity to include electromagnetic interactions, and to unite the laws of gravitation and the laws of electromagnetism in a unified field theory. Many other mathematicians also worked on this subject, and some of these theories introduced a fourth, curled-up dimension. None of these attempts was successful, and the search for a unified theory continues. Some scientists believe that string (or superstring) theory, which first emerged in the 1970s, is a major step towards a 'theory of everything'.

String theory postulates that all matter and force particles, and even space (and time!) as well, arise from vibrating one-dimensional strings, about a billion-trillion-trillionth a centimetre (10-33 cm) long but with zero thickness, inhabiting a ten-dimensional universe in which the six extra spatial dimensions are curled up so small that they are undetectable! This theory has no experimental support; indeed, to detect individual strings would require a particle accelerator at least as big as our galaxy. Moreover, the mathematics of string theory is so complicated that no one knows the exact equations, and even the approximate equations are so complicated that so far they have only been partially solved [4].

Some scientists believe that beyond string theory lies M-theory, which postulates a universe of 11 dimensions, inhabited not only by one-dimensional strings but also by two-dimensional membranes, three-dimensional blobs (three-branes), and also higher-dimensional entities, up to and including nine dimensions (nine-branes). It is even speculated that the fundamental components of the universe may be zero-branes [5]. Such crazy ideas do nothing to advance our understanding of the real world and merely show how surreal, if not grotesque, pure mathematical speculation can become. There are, however, several more promising approaches that link gravity and electromagnetism.

According to quantum theory, electromagnetic fields (and other force fields) are subject to constant, utterly random* fluctuations even at a temperature of absolute zero (-273�C), when all thermal agitation should cease. As a result, 'empty space' is believed to be teeming with zero-temperature energy in the form of fluctuating electromagnetic radiation fields (the zero-point field) and short-lived virtual particles (the 'Dirac sea') [6]. Formally, every point of space should contain an infinite amount of zero-point energy. By assuming a minimum wavelength of electromagnetic vibrations, the energy density of the 'quantum vacuum' has been reduced to the still astronomical figure of 10108 joules per cubic centimetre!

The reason we do not normally notice this energy is said to be because of its uniform density, and most scientists are happy to ignore it altogether. However, many experiments have been carried out whose results are widely regarded as consistent with the existence of zero-point energy. The presence of surfaces changes the density of vacuum energy and can result in vacuum forces, an example being the Casimir effect -- an attractive force between two parallel conducting plates. However, far more experimental work is needed to test the theory and alternative explanations. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center is studying the possibility of harnessing zero-point energy for spacecraft propulsion as part of its Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program [7].

*H.P. Blavatsky writes: 'It is impossible to conceive anything without a cause; the attempt to do so makes the mind a blank' (The Secret Doctrine, 1:44). This implies that there must be a great many scientists walking round with blank minds!
Whereas the conventional theory (known as quantum electrodynamics) derives the zero-point field (ZPF) -- sometimes called the 'quantum ether' -- from quantum theory and assumes that it is generated by physical matter-energy, there is a competing approach (stochastic electrodynamics) which regards the ZPF as a very real, intrinsic substratum of the universe. Such a view is closer to the traditional concept of the ether, as held by researchers and experimenters such as Baron von Reichenbach (who called it 'odic force'), John Keely, Nikola Tesla, Wilhelm Reich (who called it 'orgone energy'), and a large number of more recent investigators in the field of ether physics. One of them, Dan Davidson, estimates that there are 2000 to 3000 experimenters worldwide conducting unorthodox research into technologies beyond the currently accepted paradigms of science, including gravity control, superluminal energy transfer, and 'free energy' devices [8].

Some scientists have argued that mass, inertia, and gravity are all connected with the fluctuating electromagnetic energy of the ZPF [9]. Inertia (a body's resistance to a change in its state of motion) is said to be an acceleration-dependent, electromagnetic drag force stemming from interactions between a charged particle and the ZPF. The fluctuations of the ZPF are also said to cause charged particles to emit secondary electromagnetic fields, which give rise to a residual attractive force -- gravity. In this theory, then, gravity is seen as a manifestation of electromagnetism. It is thought that by reconfiguring the ZPF surrounding a body, it may be possible to modify its inertia, or 'inertial mass', and to control gravity.

Some ZPF researchers suggest that there is no such thing as mass -- only charges, which interact with the all-pervasive electromagnetic field to create the illusion of matter [10]. However, since they do not go on to present a concrete picture of what they understand by 'charge', or 'charged particle', this theory does not get us very far. In the standard model of particle physics, 'fundamental' charged particles such as electrons and quarks are modelled as infinitely small particles with no internal structure -- which is clearly a physical impossibility.

Researchers in the field of ether physics have developed a variety of more concrete models to explain the structure of matter and the forces of nature [11]. Such theories are already 'unified' in the sense that physical matter and forces are all derived from the activity of the underlying ether. Subatomic particles are often modelled as self-sustaining vortices in the ether; this means that masses continuously radiate and absorb flows of ether. Inertia can be pictured as the drag force exerted by the disturbed ether as a body accelerates through it. Electric charge may represent a difference in ether concentration, while magnetic forces may involve circular flows of ether. Some researchers, such as Dan Davidson, say that just as electric charge is a gradient in ether, the gravitational force is a gradient of electric charge. This means that if the etheric gradient is changed around an atom, the gravity force will also change, as demonstrated by the Biefeld-Brown effect. The effect can be amplified by synchronizing ether flows through the nucleus of a given mass, and this can be achieved either by rotation or movement or by sonic stimulation, which causes all the atoms to resonate together [12].

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 E�tv�s 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 Cr�mieu 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 topic seems like a good thing, yet evaluating/analyzing the relevant points proved tiresome, hope we get some more info. on this

Cordially
Cyrus