Electrogravitics – A Simplified Description

1st May 2012

By Amaterasu Solar

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

Electrogravitics… This technology was being developed and tested in all major aerospace companies in the 1950’s. Martin, Convair, Lear, Sperry, Raytheon, and many others all were eagerly studying electrogravitics. But in 1959 or early 1960, the technology became highly classified and the path to energy abundance was stymied. Here is a basic description of electrogravitics:

First, One has to understand that the model offered by Einstein is flawed… There are other models, here is one in particular…

The model, which I say is a far better one than relativity, is subquantum kinetics (SQK). Its developer, Dr. Paul A. LaViolette (an interesting character, to say the least), started with chemical kinetics (as above, so below?) and came up with SQK, being very concerned by its gravitational predictions. He had not heard of the Biefeld-Brown Effect, nor the work of T. Townsend Brown. He struggled with these predictions until He encountered Brown’s work, discovering that SQK predicted exactly what Brown was showing experimentally.

Why is SQK better than relativity?

It takes no element on faith: Einstien’s relativity is based on the faith that matter somehow “bends” space-time. Nowhere does He explain (or even try to) HOW or WHY this might be. One just has to take it on faith.

It explains things without the need for “renormalization;” relativity ends in infinities without this mathematical fudge.

It integrates EM with gravity. Einstein Himself died still trying to do so.

And it still predicts things like the lensing of light, the apparent time dilation, and all other predictions of relativity, plus more – all of which are testable (string theory is 100% untestable).

In fact, many of the mysteries of Einsteinian mathematics are predicted in SQK.

I recommend reading a book called Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, by Dr. LaViolette, for more on the Biefeld-Brown Effect, Brown’s work, electrogravitics, SQK, and more. It can be read here:

In SQK, positively charged particles have a positive gravity potential “well.” Negatively charged particles have a negative gravity potential “hill.” The positive particle’s “well” is just the smallest fraction bigger than the negative “hill,” accounting for the apparent weakness of gravity, where essentially even amounts of positively charged and negatively charged particles make up common matter, and in quantities as big as the earth, say, offer a slight “well” overall, thus explaining why We are aware of gravity at all.

The Biefeld-Brown Effect was discovered when it was noted that a dielectric with electrodes attached at either end, would lose weight when charged if the positive pole was pointed upwards on a scale, and gain weight when reversed. Higher voltage increased this effect. Study showed that the higher the K of the dielectric, the more pronounced the weight changes became, as well. Asymmetrical electrodes contribute to the increase of the effect. Also, a non-linear dielectric produced greater changes than a linear one. With high K, non-linear dielectrics, a substantial force could be observed, even to the point of levitation and a local gravity field was induced.

If, say, four devices were placed on a cross, each oriented 90 ° to the center and pointing in the same direction relative to that center, and a shaft was set at center and into a generator, when small amounts of energy are used at high voltage on the units, the resulting rotation will induce a greater output at the generator than the input to the units. Overunity is achieved.

A petition for the release of electrogravitics from black projects has been started; please sign this petition and spread the information. If We can reach the tipping point of awareness, We can demand this technology:

http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-release-the-technology-of-electrogravitics

“If the universe is made of mostly Dark Energy…can We use it to run Our cars?”

“If You want peace, take the profit out of war.”

“Information will free Us.”

About the Author

Amaterasu Solar is a multidisciplined economist, social engineer, and layman physicist, also studying emergence, fractals, chaos, and other elements of science, who has spent the bulk of Her 50+ years on this planet seeking solutions to the problems that beset Humanity. Her father was deeply involved in the study of electrogravitics, teaching Her, describing His successful experiments in gravity control and overunity (“free energy”), and painting a picture of flying cars, floating cities, and all the energy We can use as the world She would grow up in because of His work. When the technology of electrogravitics became highly classified, Her father never mentioned His work again.

Follow Amaterasu on Twitter

 


Wake Up World's latest videos

 

Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus


 

  • thestrangequark

    There are multiple inaccuracies in this article, that cause me to be extremely skeptical of its claims. Firstly, is this supposed to be a theory or a technology? The article never specifies. Secondly, the author seems to have little understanding of physics (even for a layman, as I too am only a lamayn and I see his errors). Thirdly, the author made several false claims, two of the greatest being that the theory of relativity requires an act of faith and that string theory is untestable. Addressing the former, the explanation for how matter bends spacetime requires no more of a leap of faith than it does to accept that there exist matter and forces, and that the two interact. Special relativity shows that gravity is a force that causes matter to attract to other matter (universal gravitation). The greater the mass of an object, the greater its gravitational pull. To understand this more easily we can look at mass simply as a quality of a particle rather than its weight, then we can compare this to the other forces, specifically the strong and weak nuclear forces, which interact differently with different types of particles dependent on the qualities they possess. There are several experiments which support both general and special relativity, including the observation of light from the sun bending during a solar eclipse, and the fact that if two atomic clocks are synchronized, and one is flown in an airplane, the one in the plane will tick slightly more slowly than the one on earth. In 2006, the bending of space due to gravitational forces from a black hole was verified when scientists using an x-ray satellite observed quasi periodic oscillations in x-ray light travelling past a black hole that were consistent with the theory of general relativity. These are just three off the top of my head, I’m sure I can think of more. In summary, relativity is a strong theory with much experimental evidence to support it. The second false claim, that “String theory is %100 untestable” is laughable. What does the author think they’re doing over at the LHC or at CERN? There are experiments conducted on hypotheses of string theory all the time. If it was untestable it would, by definition, not be a scientific theory but rather a faith-based claim, and no scientist would waste her time with it.
    Another inaccuracy is the statement that “Einstein died trying to [integrate relativity with electromagnetism].”
    It sounds like the author is plying electrogravitics as a perpetual motion machine of sorts. This is a classic psuedoscientific claim, and a basic understanding of any of the working theories of physics simply finds these claims unsupported.

    • Adam

      “Addressing the former, the explanation for how matter bends spacetime requires no more of a leap of faith than it does to accept that there exist matter and forces, and that the two interact.” Well, they both require leaps of faith!

      “Special relativity shows that gravity is a force that causes matter to attract to other matter (universal gravitation). The greater the mass of an object, the greater its gravitational pull. To understand this more easily we can look at mass simply as a quality of a particle rather than its weight” Of course! They’re still manifestations of electromagnetism however.

      “if two atomic clocks are synchronized, and one is flown in an airplane, the one in the plane will tick slightly more slowly than the one on earth” This could be caused by the atoms in the atomic clock being affected by interactions with it’s surrounding electromagnetic environment (including gravity). Such an interaction being increased by moving the atomic clock at right angles to gravity, like trying to force a molecule to have an out of sync orientation with a nematic, liquid crystal; there will be resistance to being moved out of alignment, ie some drag.

      “the bending of space due to gravitational forces from a black hole was verified” perhaps it was more suggested than verified!?!

      “What does the author think they’re doing over at the LHC or at CERN?” clutching at straws perhaps!?

  • Perhaps I should clarify. Electrogravitics is a technology, and I offered SQK as a theory that explains the principles behind it. I thought that was rather self-evident…

    I think bent space takes a lot of faith – I look and see flatness. SQK makes all the predictions of bent space without bending space.

    Rather than assume that, unlike all other forces in the universe, gravity is a singular force phenomenon, it is FAR more likely that it has positive and negative elements. SQK suggests positive particles have positive gravity (in essence) and negative particles have negative gravity. The positive aspect is ever so lightly greater than the negative, and in aggregate give the observable “weak” gravitational force.

    The 2006 “bending of space due to gravitational forces from a black hole” is a PERCEIVED bending, based on the assumptions the observers started with. SQK would predict the same observation.

    And so far, Cern has NOT proven string theory – and I bet They won’t.

    I did not say “Einstein died trying to [integrate relativity with electromagnetism].” I said He died trying to integrate GRAVITY with EM.

    No such thing as a perpetual motion machine. Everything wears down. It IS however capable of overunity in the sense that more usable energy can be created than is input to obtain the output.

    It is clear that You, thestrangequark, are a typical result of the educational system kept in place to ensure that gravity is never integrated with EM, because that then would allow overunity. And overunity means free energy. And free energy means the demise of the need for money in any form (see My piece, The End of Entropy – http://wakeup-world.com/2012/04/05/the-end-of-entropy-a-look-at-our-entropic-world-and-the-evidence-supporting-how-we-could-change-this/ for more).

    Far from “psuedoscientific,” this is rather the hidden physics for which the term, “psuedoscientific” is used to throw doubt and skepticism a bone – dissuading those with a true curiosity from actually investigating.

    Is it not psuedoscientific to see an effect that the present popular physics cannot account for and claim there must be something wrong with all the many observations, rather than think that perhaps, just maybe, that religion of science One has been taught may be wrong?

  • Adam

    Gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Mass and matter are really the same thing and are manifestations of electromagnetism.

    “We must have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that the inertial and gravitational masses of an object are equivalent. When we accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated. This has been interpreted as an increase in particle mass, which is unhelpful until we understand the origin of mass. If the charged subtrons have little intrinsic mass, how do they, in combination, give the electron, proton and neutron the property of mass?

    An electric field will transversely squash the subtron orbits within an electron or proton. If you cause acceleration at one point in a circular orbit and a deceleration at the diametrically opposite point of the orbit, the result is an elliptical orbit. In the case of an accelerated particle, the orbit will tend to flatten in the direction of the applied force. It seems that as more energy is supplied to accelerate the particle, the more that energy is assimilated inelastically in further distortion rather than in acceleration. In other words, the electric force becomes less and less effective at acceleration, which Einstein would have us interpret as an increase in mass. For comparison, Weber’s classical approach to the problem has “a decrease in the electrical force and not a change in the inertial mass.”[16] This model implies that the charge centres of a proton at rest are more separated than those in an electron at rest. That allows the proton to distort more readily than an electron in the same electric field and may account for their classical differences in size and mass. “The advantage of this interpretation of the conversion of mass into energy and vice versa is that we are not forced to accept the increase of mass to infinity as a moving mass approaches the speed of light.”[17]”
    http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/?article=89xdcmfs

    Electrons, protons and neutrons have an asymmetric polarity that allign up like a cosmic, nematic liquid crystal. Or rather, a nematic gaseous, liquid, solid crystal. Just as an electric field can exert a pull on molecules in a liquid crystal (your lcd dsiplay), similarly, dipole moments create a pull that we call “gravity”!