|
<— Previous section
The work on gravity, antigravity and inertia that is currently [2005] being published for ISFA members [in 2025, it is no longer thusly restricted] is, in many ways, work that we did not anticipate publishing at all. Yet, in 2000, we decided to show some of the experimental basis for it to Gene. In his first letter of appreciation, dated June 21, 2001, Gene wrote: "On August 27, 2000 at your laboratory, we completed lengthy discussions and activities which included: an overview tour of your most impressive labs, a review of significant introductory aetherometric papers for your then forthcoming web publications, exercising of the PAGD apparatus, demonstration of various heuristic electronic experiments connected with externally powered electromagnetic coils, and demonstration of an apparently clear, significant (70% reduction level) anti- gravity effect on an approximately 45 milligram piece of gold foil."This was the first time that Gene observed how ambipolar radiation tuned for absorption by a target and conversion into latent heat could be employed to neutralize weight. Gene's letter has been posted on the Akronos website since July 2001, but the novelty went by unnoticed - even though, shortly thereafter, NASA obtained a patent for electrostatic capacitative motors, and Tim Ventura, amongst a crowd of other candidates, was selected by Naudin to serve as spearhead for a planned renaissance of T. T. Brown's work, helped along by the Loder paper commissioned by SEAS and promoted by Valone. Though we had been interested in T.T. Brown, two decades back, the weight loss demonstrated to Gene had nothing to do with electrostatic, capacitative or electroscopic interactions. Instead, it involved ambipolar resonance and the aetherometric theory of the graviton. Some readers were able to understand that the very first monograph of Experimental Aetherometry introduced an analytical model which permitted a critical new explanation for the observed and unexplained variations in the rate of the spontaneous electroscopic discharge. This analytical model was based upon a novel energy structure we proposed for gravitons. The experimental basis for this model, however, had to be introduced separately, as is being done with the ongoing publication of the Second Volume of the Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity. To one interested reader, Gene responded:
Subject: oblique shot Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 07:21:49 -0400 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Dear Paulo and Alex, My posting to Vortex in response to a query. A took an oblique shot at Hawkins [Kirk] for the benefit of Carrell and Kooistra. Best, Gene
>(...) I downloaded the first paper
You are, indeed. That is why with special E-M tuning they are able to 70% cancel the gravitational
force on a 43 mg piece of gold foil in the experiment I observed. They have gone much higher than that
in weight cancelation. All on this forum are urged to study the physics of the Correas posted at
www.aetherometry.com
The measurement methodology was similar to what I observed in John Schnurer's failed attempt some
years ago to convince me that he had replicated the Podkletnov effect witha static piece of HTSC.
Present at that latter meeting some years ago was a "black ops"-related man who later claimed he knew
lots about gravity and could do all sorts of magic things. It turns out he knew from nothing. The Correas
have apparently cracked the problem.
Gene Mallove
Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Editor-in-Chief
When interest in the 'lifter phenomenon' took off, Gene, bored to death with the
parochial vision and understanding of his ICCF-9 colleagues, turned his attention to the
T.T. Brown fad, in the hope he could channel some of that interest towards the
aetherometric gravitational research.
By the end of 2001, Gene had observed the operation of our weight-neutralization devices
4 times. So when Naudin launched his 'lifter campaign', he was naturally interested:
Subject: Re: Feedback on Funding Letter Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:35:54 -0800 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Paulo and Alexandra Correa
Dear Alex and Paulo,
We therefore gave Gene the green light - and he, in turn, focused his attention on Wired
magazine, which, though not interested in Aetherometry, was nevertheless bent on cashing in on
the lifter-craze:
Subject: Re: Interview request from Wired magazine Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 19:55:08 -0700 From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Clive Thompson Dear Clive, Thank you for your query. At the moment I am in Beijing, China attending the 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion (5/19-5/24), but I will be back in New Hampshire late Saturday evening, 5/25. (...) I'll give you a few comments right now, in case that helps.(By the way, Wired did an excellent piece on cold fusion in its November 1998 issue -- written by Charles Platt. Perhaps you would consider doing an update?) [Gene's plan was to secure coverage for Aetherometry through the old Trojan horse of cold fusion.]
> Hello Mr. [sic] Mallove -- Good! This is a timely matter, since the "hobby" indeed seems to be spreading. Infinite Energy magazine intends to cover the subject extensively in its issue (#45), which will be out in the early fall.
> I'm interested in getting the opinions of various well-regarded third Fair enough. I do not know for sure what makes it work, but there is no doubt at all, of course, that the devices DO produce some form of thrust -- whether that be of the conventional variety --the movement of ions and air away from the device, or of unconventional variety, such as an anti-gravitational effect. My understanding of the history of the device is that adequate testing (in vacuum chambers and the like) and calculation (the Purdue Univ. report) have shown that the thrusting is most certainly NOT dominantly entrainment of air and ions as in a conventional thrust device (a jet or rocket). Another point: It is most surprising that NASA has now taken out a patent on a device that makes use of a principle that appears to trace back to the T.Townsend Brown asymmetrical capacitor work earlier in the 20th century, for which patents were obtained! My expectation is that this 'lifter' device will indeed be found to manifest highly anomalous physics, but let us see how the studies go. (...) Infinite Energy has recently given considerable coverage to DEFINITELY anomalous findings in absolutely fundamental physics, which shows that there is indeed an energetic, dynamic aether pervading our universe -- in fact, it constitutes the very fabric of the universe. This work has been pursued in quite dramatic form by the excellent scientists, Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, of Toronto, Canada. You should examine some of their web site at www.aetherometry.com, in which seminal energy and antigravitational experiments and new physics are reported and developed. In particular, do read the several Letters of Support listed there, two of which are from me, which outline what experimental observations they have made and what anti-gravitational and energy-producing devices they have created in their monumental self-funded work. Given that the work of the Correas, Dr. Harold Aspden, and others shows that the current foundations of physics are significantly wrong, it would not surprise me in the least to find that the lifter technology partakes of new physics principles. I shall be consulting my esteemed colleagues for their opinions on this matter.
As an astronautical engineer with training from MIT, and author of The Starflight Handbook: A
Pioneer's Guide to Interstellar travel (John Wiley and Sons, 1989), I am delighted that a new form of
space propulsion, of which I was not adequately aware, appears now to be emerging! Let us hope so... > Thanks for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you! I do hope to hear from you in the coming days. Sincerely, Dr. Eugene F. Mallove
From: Tim Ventura To: Akronos Publishing Subject: Antigravity Question Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:01:56 -0700 Dear Correa & Correa: Gene Mallove from Infinite Energy Magazine recommended your site as an excellent scientific reference that he felt might have some bearing on Antigravity research. I built and maintain the American Antigravity website, and our goal is to approach the challenge of controlling gravity from as many angles as possible. We started to get real popularity last year through the Lifter experiments that captivated the interest of people on the net, and since then I have tried to expose the public to as many ideas relating to these concepts as possible. I was wondering if you might have any thoughts on how gravity works, and how to potentially influence it. I'm well versed in many of the conventional approaches, but obviously these either fail or have a negligably small effect. I've attached a photo for you of the Lifter in operation, as well as a little clip that you might appreciate. Thanks; Tim Ventura
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa To: Tim Ventura Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 4:32 PM Subject: Re: Antigravity Question Dear Tim Ventura - Thank you for your letter. We're well aware of your efforts, papers, Lifters and organization. It is no surprise to us that, after the flurry of activity, the effects are negligibly small. Little progress has been made on the technological control of gravity because the established (GR & UFT, quantum-mechanical theories of gravitons and other gravitational particles) and alternative (eg ZPE theories of gravity, magnetic theories, etc) approaches have failed as scientific explanations capable of successfully going beyond the descriptive value of Newtonian theory. More than ten years ago we cracked the structure and distribution of gravitons and the relation between G and C fields. This became the subject of the second volume of the Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity, presently under electronic publication at - http://www.aetherometry.com/cat-AS3.html (Chapters 1 and 2 were published as monograph AS3-II.1; chapter 3 will probably be available by month's end, as monograph AS3-II.2). In this volume we explain, for the first time in the history of science, the contribution made by W. Reich to the understanding of gravitational dynamics and the functions of the pendulum. Thereafter, we present our own contribution - Gravitational Aetherometry - which identifies the fine structure of gravitons, their wave and momentum properties, the aetherometric theory of the secondary superimposition of G and C fields and the creation of Matter, the mysteries of inertia as they relate to Newton's Laws of Motion and the problem of rotation, a completely new theory of the constant G that directly relates it to the cosmic microwave radiation without need to take recourse to any ZPE theory, etc, a new determination of the apparent speed of propagation of gravitational disturbances, the role of cosmological leptons and hadrons in the creation of the cosmological continuum, and more. Some of this material is available to the larger public, but some of it will be restricted to ISFA members who have become familiar with the two plus volumes of Experimental Aetherometry already published by Akronos Publishing. This breakthrough permitted us, one year after cracking the nature of the graviton, to crack, in turn, the nature of the electrostatic interactions - specifically, as studied with electroscopes - and the latent or hidden role played by the gravitational field in modulating those interactions. Back in 1983 or so, we had reproduced most of the TTB experiments with new controls. The breakthrough in the electroscopic experiments now permitted us to begin understanding the role played by latent heat in developing antigravitational effects in electrostatic interactions. This is the focus of monographs AS2-01, AS2-03, AS2-06 and AS2-07 in the first volume of Experimental Aetherometry ( http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v1.html), and AS2-11 (http://www.aetherometry.com/abs- AS2v2A.html) and AS2-17C (http://www.aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html) in the second volume. The whole subject is taken up again in our monograph AS2-27 (http://www.aetherometry.com/abs- AS2v4.html) and the recently published exchange with Ed Storms (freely available at the Akronos website at - http://www.aetherometry.com/storms_correspondence.html). Based upon these unprecedented discoveries, we have also been seeking sponsorship for our Aurora Biophysics Research Institute, including for the development of an anti-gravity generator that we invented and have demonstrated to a few friends, among them Gene. Weight cancellation on the order of 70 to 100% has been achieved. Gene described these experiments briefly in his Appreciation. We are obviously quite tight-lipped about saying much more than this, especially because we have also been approached by various seedy characters - from speculators to ufological fools. The emotional structure of human beings does not permit them, at present, to seriously consider the necessity of studying nature unimpeded by accepted scientific dogmas - relativity, mechanicism, probabilism, etc. Most who get frustrated by this situation lapse into outright mysticism and idiocy. Still others, more pragamatic, are bent only on finding an inventor who they can steal from and profit by (in as short a time as possible). It is a sad picture. We would like to encourage you to get acquainted with this material and its methodology. We have prepared a series of three articles on gravity, anti-gravity and ufology. We'll let you know when they will come on stream for publication. We are, at present, very much focused on the upcoming publication of our first hardbound book on biology. Best regards,
P. Correa, MSc, PhD
From: Tim Ventura To: Correa & Correa Subject: Publishing Question Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:20:01 -0700 Dear Correa's: I forgot to mention in the email that I would be interested in publishing layman-level information if you have any on AG or gravitationally related forces. I believed that your email infers that you can (to some degree) convert latent heat (Brownian motion?) into a force to cancel gravitation. I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but it is reminiscent of De Aquino's idea that concerns shielding incoming gravitons -- perhaps by manipulating atomic & molecular level heat you're able to change the manner in which gravitons are absorbed by atoms? Would doing this result in a net drop in temperature along with a net drop in weight? This would be a side-effect reported from AG experimenters in magnetic systems (unrelated to boundary-layer reduction based wind-chill). Also, Gene had mentioned that you were working with gold-leaf, but I was wondering what kinds of weight you believe that this might be able to manipulate with a larger-scale system. Thanks; Tim Ventura
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:05:39 -0400 To: Tim Ventura Subject: Re: Publishing Question Dear Tim- We have no layman-level information to pass to you, at present. What we referred you to, in our previous email, related the recognized function of latent heat in meteorology to the "anti-gravitic kinetoregenerative" phenomenon we identified in the functioning of electroscopes (AS2-01, etc). The popular idea that one can shield inert mass from the striking gravitons (from the effects of gravitational mass) is shown to be demonstrably erroneous by our aetherometric science. One can only counteract the action of gravitons, not shield against it. De Aquino was barking up the wrong forest.
>Dear Correa's: Brownian motion is random motion of molecules due to thermal fluctuations. Latent heat is nonthermal energy associated with phase states of molecules or with their noncovalent bonds.
>I may be interpreting this incorrectly, but it is reminiscent of De Aquino's De Aquino's idea is fictional. Gravitons are not simply absorbed by atoms. They are also emitted by them. You should get acquainted with our work on gravitational physics that we directed you to. >Would doing this result in a net drop in temperature along with a net drop in weight? If your question relates to De Aquino's notion of shielding against gravity, we haven't the slightest idea. In our studies of work performed against gravity there is always involvement of a conversion of kinetic energy into electromagnetic energy, and thus production of sensible heat. Not the other way around.
>This would be a side-effect reported from AG experimenters in magnetic systems We have only too many doubts about the validity of these observations.
>Also, Gene had mentioned that you were working with gold-leaf, but I was We make no grandiose claims that cannot be substantiated like those of De Aquino. If one understands the microphysics, one can produce weight cancellation with small targets - from gold leafs to gold sheets, etc. To understand the physics means one understands what it would take to produce weight cancellation of complex and large-mass bodies. It is a major R&D effort, and it will not be the likes of people like Searl that will bring it about. Moreover, even though we agree with you regarding the nature and limitations of the TTB technology, the reason why these limits exist is still germane to the whole matter of gravity. We hope this might be of some help to you, Best regards,
Paulo Correa
From: Tim Ventura Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:10:12 -0700 To: Correa & Correa Subject: Re: Antigravity Question Dear P & A Correa: I should apologize for not having your first names -- Gene simply referred to you as "The Correa's", and has referred me to your website usually about 5 times during each of the conversations that I've had with him. I don't wish to sound thick, but in reality I've had difficulty digesting some of the material on your site, which is why I feel unable to ask intelligent questions about it. If you ever have time for a phone conversation, I would definitely be interested in conversing with you. Quite frankly I see myself working more with the public in an educational capacity more than anything else....helping to demonstrate to the world that people like yourself are out there making a difference. My wife is working on her PhD in psychology, which gives me a bit of a different perspective on conventional science than many people (Psych isn't an "exact science" :o) In reality, I'm not sure exactly what I do. It just sort of happens, and up until now "going with the flow" seems to have been the best way to get results. I invent, theorize, and do (some) math for my work, but I also do work in business, management, marketing, and artistic production for all of the stuff on the website. I've done a lot more writing that the stuff that I've published, but a lot of it is unrelated to the general public's interest areas. I've attached one that might apply well to your work, regarding Local Versus Global Optimization in the Physical Sciences. I've been doing a lot of reading lately on the concept of "Rotating Magnetic Fields" with relation to potential gravitational control. Of particular interest has been the Godin & Roschin experiment, which claimed to support the Searl Effect and demonstrated most of the particularly interesting effects that have been reported with regard to RMF based designs. I have been hearing vague rumors about a REAL Lifter breakthrough at a gov't lab -- I will let you know if anything comes from that. However, as of today, my take on the phenomenon is that the Biefeld- Brown effect is a modification of ion-wind and ONLY works when ion-wind is present. Thanks; Tim Ventura We responded:
From: Paulo and Alexandra Correa Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:03:30 -0400 To: Tim Ventura Subject: Re: Antigravity Question Dear Tim - We think that the difference we seek is to educate the educators, people like you, so that they have the tools to digest, as you put it, material such as ours, ask intelligent questions of it and learn something new from it. All disciplines of human activity have their own language, an open language in constant flux. For as long as one is patient and wants to learn, one learns any language - as you very well know, we're sure. For us, therefore, it matters far less that you demonstrate to the world the importance of work like ours, than it matters that you learn just exactly what is the importance of our work. For example, in the article you attached, you state that "Relativity allowed us to predict nuclear weapons", when this is an example of a popularization , or a shortcut which is wrong. Not just inacurate, but wrong. It was the serendipity of analytical chemists coupled to the Jeans-Einstein equation (which has nothing to do with Relativity), the scientific and political determination of Leo Szilard, the rise of fascism and the military nature of the interest at stake that brought about nuclear weapons. Once you become an aetherometrist you will learn how to avoid such unscientific and unhistorical short-cuts. :) In the same paper, all the recommendations you make are dead-ends. Heaviside's work, despite the enormous efforts of Bearden, just like string theory, or the old vortex theory, can neither account for the structure of Matter, nor for that of energy - including Matter in motion. We would not hold our breath waiting for an antigravity breakthrough in a gov. lab. We are rather convinced all stories of crashes of ET craft are bogus. And existing physics, even at the fringes, is, unfortunately, mostly bogus. Please take these remarks in good Spirit, Alexandra & Paulo Correa PS - We're not sure what you want to accomplish with a phone call. If it is nothing terribly important, maybe it can wait a while.
Patient study, careful learning, sober realization, all that is not for image-makers,
popularizers or those seeking a sound-bite sensation.
To the end, Gene searched for a fertile soil where the seeds of learning might best be
placed. He knew the resistances that Aetherometry was faced with - the resistances to
learning, to understanding, to thought:
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:53:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [ASG] Message to All From: Eugene F. Mallove To: Aetherometry Study Group Dear All,
(...) Struggling as I do here at New Energy Foundation, to stay viable, attempting to raise research funding as well as funds to sustain the magazine, I can't help thinking back wistfully on the past decade or so of my involvement in publishing about new energy and frontier science in general. I wasted too much time -- and money! -- with "cold fusion," which now seems to me to be a mere subset of problems in basic understanding in conventional physical theory -- not to forget major problems in [understanding] life processes as well! I wish, for example, that all the resources that had been put into attempting replications of various marginal "cold fusion" cells had instead been put into attempting to perform, as an example, an independent replication of the PAGD -- or for that matter, some of the work of the Graneaus. Well, had it not been for "cold fusion," I probably would not have met the acquaintance of Paulo (and thereby later Alexandra), which happened in 1996 in Denver at a new energy meeting. I am quite sure now that Aetherometry holds the key to understanding the LENR-type anomalies. It will be most exciting to see how this goes. (...) I'll do my best to contribute more in the near term to this forum. But now, back to those hefty bound volumes of monographs... Best wishes, Gene
On the ASG we answered his poignant message:
"Your comment is rather apt. We have shrunk from laying out the full breadth of the relevance of the aetherometric understanding of the geometry and topology of energy units, fluxes and structures that derive from a physics of first principles, largely because it is all in the AtoS volumes and requires the merger of different functional approaches to separate energy manifestations (gravitational, photonic, mass-energetic, but also massfree in its antigravitational/latent heat and ambipolar forms, to condense the whole) that must be seized, one by one, before the geometric and topological implications of the proposed analysis come through. Yet, any careful reader would have noticed the point Gene raises - that the 'fine-structural' implications of Aetherometry affect the physical description and understanding of such 'well-understood' interactions as electrostatic repulsion (or attraction), buoyancy phenomena, free fall, translatory motion (including that promoted by electric fields), and so-called rotary and vibratory motions of molecules. The mass-energy of a massbound particle - such as the conventional electron - has a definite physical structure which gives physical reason to the recent rise of the probabilistic description of the electron as a cloud of possible point-mass locations that has an uncertain localization and is thus aptly thought of as a probability wave. For the known elements of the covalent electron of the hydrogen atom already specify a geometric structure to the actual flux which, in the photoinertial field, constitutes the mass-energy of the electron as distributed throughout a general zone of coexisting locations that are defined by the torus geometry of that flux. This geometry is extracted directly from the known classical values of the Bohr atom - but articulates differently their physical function (and not their dimensionality or value!): the Bohr radius is a composite radius of the major and minor radii of the true wave-functions that are superimposed - along a flux of length equal to the mass-equivalent wavelength of the electron - to constitute that mass-energy of the lepton in the electroinertial configuration; the Compton electron wavelength is truly a constituent of the mass-energy torus of the free electron, at the limit of acceleration, in its photoinertial configuration; the Duane-Hunt ratio is an effective wavelength of a constituent wavefunction (present in the hydrogen atom); the Compton frequency is the effective quantum frequency of that mass-energy; and so on - until one reaches those aetherometric functions that define the magnetic wave function of that mass-energy. Likewise, as ISFA members will be able to see shortly, the characteristics of the kinetic motion associated with the gravitational properties of mass-bound particles also compose specific geometries for the structure of gravitons and the motions they induce upon the massbound particles which the gravitons help create and sustain via secondary superimposition, and constantly impact with varying intensity in defined directions. Translational motion in a gravitational field cannot be separated from these characteristics - and the notion of curved Space is merely the distorted reflex of these properties of gravitational energy. Different but parallel commensurabilities between the Space and Time manifold properties of energy can be found and enunciated for electric fields or electrostatic interactions. Translational motion may be the result of acceleration by electric fields, with toroidal charge-objects being 'overtly moved in Space' (so- to-speak 'hurled') in varied stages of compression, but electric fields may also give rise to stable lattices of charge distribution where the flux of energy is 'covert': orders of freedom for such motions would necessarily include 'magnetic-like' linkages between toruses (where we are no longer considering the flux of the energy responsible for the structure of a torus with respect to any location on the torus, but considering instead any 'equatorial spin' added to the torus as a whole, to the flux as a solidary mass- energy unit), and, as well, very-short-range elastic 'collisions' or 'exchanges' that reach stable energy distributions (as happens in the classical electroscopic lattice) and 'quasi-orbital' motions (by the aetherometric model of the tumbling torus) that stabilize 'molecules' (begining with the hydrogen atom) and stand for the kinetic energy 'of orbiting electrons'. In all these manifestations, specfic geometries are acquired or made possible by the energy constraints associated with the empirical manifestations of 'this or that kind of energy'. And again, different and parallel commensurabilities of energy have been uncovered by our work for the manifestations of latent heat - whether these resolve to the electrical properties of noncovalent bonds (see the preceding paragraph) or to the energy mobilized to counteract graviton energy fluxes. And again, for the massfree structure of ambipolar electricity. The new view of geometry and topology affects everything. For example: as long as we persist in thinking that the repulsion properties of a 'static charge lattice' are merely mechanical properties of 'point charges' having only a virtual mass-energy (actualized solely by pair anihilation), we do not have to compute the electric energy of the interaction as anything that is kinetic and must be conserved, and which, if it fails to be operationally conserved, is not, somehow, spent through the interaction. Hence one is barred, ab initio, from considering the kinetic aspect of the electrostatic interaction, and how this constitutes an electric term which is distinct from the mass-energy of the interacting charges, and couples to it by functional constraints that we have identified. (...)"
"Many of the theorists, like Hal Puthoff (who is mentioned by [B. Smith]), seem to be taking quantum mechanics and General Relativity at face value. They are trying to wring from theories of "zero point energy" or distortions of space-time advanced methods of space propulsion and anti-gravity. Others speak of exotic 'torsion fields'. From my perspective, this will eventually be seen to parallel the bird- imitating mechanical wing-flapping devices of some of the failed aeronautical pioneers. The answer to anti-gravity is probably much closer to home. It may be present in relatively straightforward laboratory experiments that demonstrate the measurable properties of an energetic aether that manifests omnipresent anti-gravitational properties - even in such mundane devices as elevated gold-foil electroscope leaves. Great truths, like lost car keys, are often right under our noses. We can't find them because we are looking in all the wrong places."
|