Harrison’s Theorem of Anti-gravity
What are presented here are novel ideas on gravity that you are unlikely to find elsewhere. Since Galileo (1564-1642), who is credited for developing the modern scientific method, science has failed to offer an explanation of gravity.
Sir Isacc Newton said in the final paragraph of the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica “But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses…”
Einstein wasn’t so modest with his “Postulates”. To those who have the patience to understand it, his theory of gravity as a pure geometric effect of curved ‘Space-Time‘ only manages to accurately describe how gravity behaves. Unfortunately Einstein’s two-dimensional rubber-sheet model of a ‘rigid gravity well’, used to explain his concept of the gravitational field surrounding a body in space, relies on gravity as its own explanation. Einstein also postulated that nothing can travel faster than light yet we know that gravity must act seemingly instantaneously to hold our solar system together. Einstein’s esoteric theory of curved space-time has added little to our understanding of gravity in the last 100 years.
Tesla never directly referred to “space-time“, referring instead to the concept of the “primary substance” (ether). He also never used this relativistic “twin” term. He considered time as a mere man-made “measure” of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the “curving” of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the “equal and opposite” reaction of space on the body would “straighten space back out“.
I have a theory of how to create anti-gravity which stems from how we misinterpret our universe. It’s not complex but requires us to take a step back and look at our universe and electricity differently.
A common misconception is that in space all things float about weightless. The definition of weightlessness is difficult, in space even tiny objects may contain enough momentum (mass and velocity) to penetrate steel. The impression of weightlessness is only an illusion where an objects relative motion is the same as that of another to which it is being referenced.
The following is deliberate simplification and in many areas may not be technically correct. There are many precise terms used to describe motion such as velocity, acceleration, inertia, momentum, pressure, force and energy to which I mean no disrespect. My ideas stem from the idea that everything in the universe is derived from ‘movement > pressure > density’ and that no object is ever at rest. In time, and possibly with help, I will refine these ideas further so as not to offend current scientific concensus.
‘Weight’ is a measure of an object’s mass (inertia) and gravitational acceleration, W = mg. Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest. In other words, an object wants to keep doing whatever it’s doing. When we pick up a rock the weight we are feeling is its inertia. The concept of the rock being at rest in our hand is an illusion. The rock only has the appearance of being stationary or at rest. If you let it go, it cannot be aware of a change in its environment, it simply continues what it is doing. So we experience weight itself as a force, as force is F=ma.
A feather will fall at the same speed as a 10kg weight in a vacuum so we therefore know that gravity itself has nothing to do with ‘weight’ and is simply the measurement of movement or acceleration towards a given mass, in this case the earth. Gravity is an integral part of energy density or ‘mass’, but mass without momentum does not determine weight.
Separating the concept of mass, weight and gravity we can now say that gravity=acceleration though we experience gravity as weight (mass + momentum). This is why our explanations and concepts of gravity often appear confused.
So understanding that Gravity is simply acceleration or movement towards a mass doesn’t help us understand it. Why? What is the object’s impetus? The answer may be staring us in the face. We know in the Bernoulli Principal that as an object accelerates there is a simultaneous decrease in pressure. When we look to nature to see where this is occurring you can see there is exactly this pressure gradient in the electrical field of the earth. Tesla’s ether was “rigidified” by rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and was thereby involved in gravitational effects, inertia, and momentum, especially in the space near earth, since, as explained by Tesla, the earth is “…like a charged metal ball moving through space”, which creates the enormous, rapidly varying electrostatic forces which diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from earth, just like gravity. Since the direction of propagation radiates from the earth, the so-called force of gravity is toward earth.
The closer you are to the earth the lower the atmospheric voltage (another name for electrical pressure). The electrical pressure of our solar system accelerating towards the earth may explain the “weak force” of gravity. Gravity only appears to be a strong force because our only experience of it is through momentum. In other words, by the time this force reaches the earth everything is moving so fast and is so pressurised that our only perception of movement are the different densities of matter by their weight (mass + momentum). Not unlike a centrifuge where all matter self-organises into it’s natural order of density with each level of density squeezing out or displacing lighter mass.
This indicates what we often call radiation of various kinds is actually electrical energy accelerating towards the earth. There is a concept in this that will completely turn our understanding of the universe on its head. Instead of a mass generating gravity, the above would mean that the electrical pressure gradient would create mass. Our universe is not full of countless lumps of independent mass (ie: stars and planets) but is an electrical storm where the mass is the tiniest by-product. This more integrated or less independent view of gravity better explains how gravity acts at a distance. Without what we call ‘gravity’ (acceleration) everything in the universe would eventually disintegrate into an amorphous mass.
Understanding that gravity is acceleration, creating anti-gravity becomes as difficult as countering centrifugal force. With everything moving in unison we do not feel the motion but it is there. It can only be cancelled by creating an equal and opposite force. This is why science have failed to discover antigravity. We confuse the weak force of gravity with the subtle effects of electricity hoping that we will discover miraculous vibrating beam that will cancel gravity. But with air pressure equalling 1kg per square centimetre at sea level it may be possible to use gravity itself to create antigravity.
To understand gravity better we must first understand energy and in essence there is only one force in the universe. Energy is motion which only exists as a relative measurement. We know that the earth spins at around 1,674 km/h at the equator. The earth travels around the sun at approximately 107,300 km/h. While we rest thinking that we are aware of the earth’s movement through space, what we aren’t aware of is earth’s speed relative to other stars in our galaxy, or, our galaxy’s speed in relation to other galaxies. The point being that ALL movement is a relative measurement.
The idea of something having “potential” energy is nonsense. Something has energy or it doesn’t, either it is moving or it isn’t. To say an object has the potential to move is saying that it has a conscience and is waiting for the right moment. Like a mouse in a trap waiting patiently for the door to open. We have established that weight of an apparent stationary object = mass + momentum, so we know that all objects are moving despite the illusion of being at rest.
So gravity may be a pressure boundary phenomenon. The atmosphere to a stationary object may appear to be not moving yet it is applying enormous inward movement due to its overall density. If the air was removed from a hollow ball it would be crushed. The question is at what point is the movement occurring. As gravity gives us uniform acceleration in a vacuum then we know it has nothing to do with air pressure, but air pressure displaces electrostatic pressure. Is gravity a pressure boundary phenomenon between the earth and the electrical density of space?
Mass itself may be the result of the movement in and around our solar system. If so then gravity would be an integral part of energy density of not only the earth but of our solar system. This would explain why gravity tends to act instantaneously from our sun. It would not be that gravity has the capacity to transverse our solar system at infinite speed but simply at continuous speed. Instead of the sun and various planets being discrete particles they are all part of a single mechanism that captures energy. Gravity or the energy density of the sun and planets is a result of massive and continuous currents of electrostatic pressure from our galaxy or beyond.
If we accept that ALL movement is a relative measurement then we must also say the same of energy. Energy is a ubiquitous term that describes the force one object exerts against another. The textbook definition of Energy is an objects capacity to do work. This is incorrect. Energy is simply movement. While you can argue energy is the result of pressure of force, pressure or force is really the result of movement. Energy is the balancing, dissipating female characteristic of nature.
To correctly understand our universe we need to bring our study of it down to the simplest possible scenario. The study of objects moving in empty space. Although everything can be beautifully explained in terms of energy>pressure>density>mass I will use many more familiar terms such as energy and force to help explain my concepts.
Energy in motion can only be measured from a reference point. If we have two moving objects in otherwise empty space the movement is relative to either object whereas the energy is the same for both objects. Do you see? Even though only one object has been set in motion BOTH objects contain energy because they are moving away from each other at the same speed because there is no other reference point.
Time exists in the same way. Unless there is change relative to another point of reference time does not exist. For example imagine a ball speeding through completely empty space, it’s difficult as you have to almost imagine yourself as the ball otherwise you become a reference point. Without the ball moving away or towards anything or having no other point of reference to measure a relative change in position you may ask does or can the ball even exist. When you introduce a second moving ball, as long as it is moving towards or away from our first ball then you begin to have a relative change, but you then require a third ball to triangulate that change. The point of the exercise is to get you understanding time and energy in its essence. It is well worth spending time pondering this simple scenario to truly understand time and energy. The world is of course infinitely more complex but the same principles of movement>pressure>density>mass keep applying themselves at every level.
Staying with a ‘ball’ idea the next difficult concept in the understanding of energy is what keeps the ball moving in space. Newton’s first law of inertia states that “an object moving in a certain direction will keep moving at the same speed and in the same direction unless another force pushes or pulls on it”. Accepting that an object will keep moving unless acted upon does not answer ‘what’ keeps it moving. This is where nothing actually becomes something. It tells us that even energy can move through space uninterrupted until acted upon by another energy. In this is the entire solution to understanding time, energy, space and matter. To make this easier to understand we may think of empty space as a non-viscous ether. It is undeniable that whether you chose to believe in an ‘ether’ or not, empty space has the properties of a wave medium. Light, or an other part of the electromagnetic spectrum (energy) maintains a wave motion through space in accordance with Newton’s First Law of Motion.
With this understanding we now know that gravity (acceleration), mass (energy density) and weight (mass + momentum) are all products of energy (movement) itself.
Our universe is alive with motion. When we look at the surface of the ocean we can for a moment see energy in seemingly infinite collisions. These collisions are happening constantly in the most subtlest of gasses to the densest of matter. When ‘motion’ collides it becomes pressure, when pressure is balanced it comes density. Thus our entire universe is nothing more than movement and how we experience it. E=MC2 forever expanding outwards and forever expanding inwards for in a non-viscous ether even the concept size is meaningless unless relative. The illusion of time and matter becomes one of relativity.
You could write a book about the concept of a non-viscous ether but here I need to outline the various concepts so we can understand where some of the foundations of modern physics are incorrect and get to an explanation of how gravity works.
We must also throw out our notion of force. It is a very ‘male’ concept. “Forces” in nature do not act in isolation. Calling a “force” electromagnetic, gravity, strong interaction, weak force or x-energy are all descriptions of imbalance which result in movement. All movement in nature is the equalisation of pressure. This means that we should correctly replace the term ‘force’ with ‘pressure’.
Gravity is the result of pressure. Our current understanding is that gravity is a property of mass. If we turn this around to a more female perspective we would need to say that mass is the result of gravity. This would mean that we are looking in the wrong place for our understanding of gravity. It does match in with Einstein’s theory, completely different explanation with the same result.
If we begin to accept that our physical planet has evolved over billions of years in an evolutionary way instead of just being spat into existence then we should begin to look at the forces that shaped it.
What the hell is he talking about. Male, Female is just a way of describing the way nature works.
Male = inward force and pressure,
Female = outward dissipation of pressure and balance.
Nature in this sense is female, and to understand all so-called ‘forces’ we must look at them from a female perspective.
A simple experiment is where sand is vibrated on a plate at a certain frequencies and displays intricate patterns. The pattern we look at is the negative of the movement we are seeing. The sand moves out of the way of the movement. We must begin to see the world in a similar way. Movement and pressure create matter but the dissipation of pressure pushes it out of the way.
Imagine if we apply this concept to our solar system then you can imagine that the earth’s formation is the result of matter precipitating in an area of our solar system where there is the least pressure (E). This may explain why planets form along a plane and are not orbiting the sun in a far more random pattern.
In stating that everything is movement>pressure>density>mass I propose the following math, even though math is far from my strong point and I would appreciate some help here.
I have selected the symbols V, E, P, M which are traditionally used to express Velocity, Energy, Momentum and Mass. I believe these adequately describe the four states of matter i.e. movement = V, pressure = E, density =P, mass = M
Movement: V = MV2/2
Pressure: E = M x V2
Density: P = M x V
Mass: M = E / V2
We can also express movement as V= distance / time. Although a useful equation in our conscious world as both distance and time only exist as relative concepts, as described earlier, at this point I am not sure how V=D/T is useful in describing the above process.
The purpose of the exercise is of course is to show that instead of disparate forces, all forces begin and are related to movement, which in a ‘non viscous ether’ expands infinitely in all directions. Note that I do not say “energy”. An object moving through outer space may have infinite movement but not infinite energy. See?
Gravity is a beautiful and elegant property of mass and is no more mysterious than the forces that make a stone sink in water or a bubble rise. It is a property and function of relative destiny and mass. The key to understanding it is to realise that it is not necessarily one force so it is not so easy to define. It is the marriage of both male and female forces.
Harrison’s Theorem of Anti-gravity
For all the sceptics i ask them to keep an open mind. Despite over 400 years of the modern scientific method we have been unable to understand the nature of gravity. Our divisive approach to understanding matter will never provide an insight into the elegant workings of the universe. Smashing atoms to reveal their components is akin to smashing our earth and sun to understand how they work. Questionable at best.
Gravity itself cannot be cancelled as the inertia of gravity is an intricate part of the energy density of mass. But mass which is captured energy provides us a simple and elegant way to counter gravity. All mass, with the help of inherent inertial gravity, will order itself into its order of density. If it weren’t for the spinning of the earth and the thermodynamic effects of the sun our earth would have a neatly layered atmosphere with CO2 at the bottom and Hydrogen at the top. This ‘order of density’ or pressure difference allows super tanker ships weighing over 250,000GT to float on water. An unimaginable feat and pure science fiction less than a couple of hundred years ago.
Many people think that if we invented anti-gravity we would need to create a ‘field’ that would make us helplessly float about like we were in outer-space. But the concept of a ‘field’ is science fiction, objects in space do not just float about. They still have both inertia and mass. They are not WEIGHT-less. Anti-gravity on earth would be very different to common conceptions. You cannot cancel gravity unless you vaporise whatever object you want weightless. Even though Gravity itself is a very weak force, the overall energy density of most objects is considerable. Utilising energy density as we do every day in chemistry, physics and combustion provides the solution to countering gravity.
Heating air so that it is less dense that the surrounding air causes it to rise. A helium balloon will also rise due to the difference in weight to the surrounding air pressure. Yet a completely evacuated chamber with over 1kg/pscm of external atmospheric pressure at sea level doesn’t move. The accepted theory is that the chambered gas pushes back against the external gas creating the lift. A simple experiment explains this line of thought; if you gently step on a balloon, the air in the balloon resists compression and the balloon bulges out the sides. This is the air pushing back where there is the least amount of external pressure. The idea is that the same happens in a helium filled balloon. The surrounding air pressure gently squeezes the helium balloon and the balloon rises taking advantage of the surrounding air pressure gradient and moves up. But when this analogy is applied to an incompressible metal chamber filled with say, air, and floated in water the analogy makes little sense. We then say that the combined density of both the container and contents compared to the external pressure is what causes and object to float. The question then is, if the container contains negative pressure (vacuum) resulting an extremely low overall density in relation to the surrounding (EG) air pressure of 1kg/pscm, why doesn’t this extreme pressure difference cause the object to float in air? You can’t have it both ways.
It is the pressure difference, gravity and the ‘order of density’ that causes the lift! The more pressure difference the better the lift. Thinking that a vacuum is inert is nonsense. Acknowledging that a vacuum is teaming with energy (zero-point effect) and that this “effect” has no relationship to macro physics is also nonsense. Physics doesn’t create a new set of rules within a closed system. Whether you call it the ‘zero-point-effect’ or ‘electrostatic pressure’ (my term), one must acknowledge there is an electrical pressure response when one creates a vacuum. It is this ‘leaky boat’ response that prevents the expected lift from a vacuum chamber. There are many ways to argue the above phenomenon, and much argument about how this electrical pressure response inter-plays with gravity. I have come to the above theorem from many different perspectives and would welcome a detailed discussion on the subject. For the purposes of discussing a practical way to create anti-gravity I will leave it as a broad concept.
A vacuum chamber should float in our atmosphere utilising the 1kg/pscm atmospheric pressure at sea level. It doesn’t because the energy density simply permeates the vacuum (zero point effect). Herein lies my solution to gravity. Create a way of blocking the zero-point-effect and you will create a powerful anti-gravity devise powered by air pressure. To do this it would be required to create a diamagnetic chamber constructed of bismuth layers. Bismuth is a very dense metal with extraordinary diamagnetic properties and is the last stable metal on the periodic table. Each Bismuth layer would need to be carefully annealed so that the crystal structure would polarise the electrical or magnetic flow of the earth. Each layer may have to be placed on a stable conductive magnesium/zinc substrate to isolate the layers of bismuth for annealing. Each layer would be added with mathematical precision so that the electrical or magnetic flow is slowly manipulated until it is eventually stopped. From my own experiments each deflection would require each layer to be rotated approximately 12 to 15 degrees resulting in a minimum of 24-30 layers of bismuth. 15 degrees is hypothetical, though I have a simple method determining the precise rotation of each layer. It is only recently that we have the technology to accomplish this. It would be a tedious and difficult process but correctly done would have incredible benefits. Alone, creating a truly diamagnetic material would give us magnetic levitation (as opposed to gravitational levitation) that would revolutionise our world.
Please feel free to comment on this article.
- Does weight vary according to the force of gravity (wiki.answers.com)