Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion (44 page)

10.7 • EXPLAINING THE WEIGHT-LOSS EFFECT

The MEC’s weight-loss effect is not easily explained in terms of standard physical theory, but it is understandable within the framework of subquantum kinetics.
^18,
 
19
The MEC would develop a negative electric potential at the periphery of its roller ring and positive potential near its central axis.
The resonant oscillations would cause this field to fluctuate in magnitude at its negatively biased periphery.
From an electrodynamic standpoint, the Searl disc’s oscillating field is analogous to the nonreversing AC field that Brown was exciting across the dielectric of his AC electrokinetic apparatus.
Hence, the analysis illustrated in figure 4.5 for Brown’s apparatus should apply equally well to the Searl disc.
That analysis assumed that gravitational thrust was being produced as a result of the creation of a virtual-charge gradient across the capacitor dielectric.
Furthermore, on the basis of the electrogravitic coupling prediction (equation 7 from chapter 4), we would expect that this virtual-charge gradient would induce a corresponding gravity potential field.
As figure 4.5c shows, the resulting oscillating gravity field gradient would induce a gravitational thrust in the negative-to-positive electric pole direction.
A similar thrust would be predicted for the MEC, directed from the MEC’s periphery toward its center.

In the subquantum kinetics ether concept, this radial gravity potential gradient is envisioned as a G-on concentration gradient that angles downward toward the MEC’s center and whose slope varies cyclically with time.
This concentration gradient would induce G-ons to diffuse radially inward at a rate that just compensates the rate at which G-ons are being added to the MEC’s periphery as a result of the electrons and negative virtual-charge densities that are being pumped there and that act as G-on sources.
Thus the revolving ring of roller magnets would act as an ether pump, pumping G-on sources (electrons and negative virtual-charge densities) toward the MEC’s periphery, thereby lowering the G-on concentration at the MEC’s center.
^*32
This outward G-on flux would likely have a rotary component aligned in the clockwise direction of magnetic ring rotation, in which case a clockwise ether vortex would be produced.

The above analysis suggests that while in operation, the MEC or Searl disc would generate a gravity field in its generator’s interior where
up
would be oriented toward the generator’s periphery and
down
would be oriented toward its center.
Thus, the induced internal gravity gradient would act as a centripetal force that would counteract the centrifugal force of rotation.
This disagrees with Barrett’s inference that the gravity field in the Searl generator would be oriented with the center being up and the rim being down.
²⁰
In the same paragraph, Barrett commented that “side effect electromagnetic forces help to keep the Searl generator together,” that is, counteracting the centrifugal force of rotation.
Here he is partially correct; the Searl generator induces a “side-effect” force that helps to keep it from flying apart, but this force is electrogravitic, not electromagnetic as Barrett infers.
On the other hand, if the Searl generator was spinning counterclockwise, the gravity and electric field gradients would be just the reverse, and in that case the gravitational field would act to pull outward in the same direction as the mechanical centrifugal force.

Let us consider what effect this radial G-on flux would have on the Earth’s gravitational field in the vicinity of the MEC.
According to sub-quantum kinetics, the Earth is a net consumer of G-ons.
Hence, it forms a radial concentration gradient in the G ether that extends out into space, with G-on concentration progressively rising with increasing distance from the surface of Earth.
More specifically, this ether gradient, which corresponds to Earth’s gravity potential gradient, diminishes according to the inverse of increasing radial distance, with the G-on concentration gradient progressively decreasing with increasing distance.
This gradient induces G-ons in space to continually diffuse downward into Earth, where they are reactively consumed at a higher rate.
This downward flux is illustrated by the large gray arrows in figure 10.15.
This environmental gravity gradient extends vertically through the MEC and tends to exert a downward force on it; see my book
Subquantum Kinetics
for an explanation of how etheron gradients induce movement.

Figure 10.15, which displays a side view of the MEC stator and roller ring, also shows the directions in which the MEC induces G-on movement.
Thus, when the MEC is operating, G-ons that normally would diffuse downward toward Earth, forming Earth’s gravity field gradient, would instead be induced to move in a perpendicular direction, parallel to the MEC’s rotational plane.
G-ons would be drawn from above the MEC as well as from below, so G-ons residing below the MEC that normally would flow away from the MEC downward toward Earth now would diffuse upward toward the MEC’s center, which establishes a low G-on concentration, or G well, when the MEC is operating.
Note that the ether flux pattern mapped out here is similar to that mapped by Barrett (see figure 10.4), which was inferred from experiments with the Searl disc.

Figure 10.15.
Vertical cross-section of the MEC showing how it alters the G-on flux in its vicinity when operating.
(P.
LaViolette, © 2006)

The alteration of the G-on trajectories correspondingly alters the gravity field gradient passing vertically through the MEC.
Figure 10.16 shows how Earth’s gravity potential gradient would be altered across vertical sections taken near the MEC’s peripheral roller ring (right profile) and near its center (left profile).
The dashed line indicates the gravity potential gradient that Earth normally produces.
This figure shows that gravity potential is boosted in the vicinity of the roller ring because the outward flow of electrons (negative gravity mass) increases the G-on concentration near the periphery of the MEC and decreases it near its center.
Objects approaching near this peripheral region would be gravitationally repelled.
The opposite situation would occur near the MEC’s center.
Gravity potential at the center of the MEC would be decreased relative to environmental levels.
Hence, objects approaching the MEC near its center would be drawn inward.

Along the MEC’s midplane, at both its center and its periphery, the gravity gradient would approach a zero-gradient condition, giving the MEC a condition of weightlessness at a sufficiently high rate of rotation.
Even so, the MEC would experience a net force repelling it from Earth, just like Searl’s SEGs, which would suddenly rush upward after a brief period of hovering.
The reason for this is that the MEC would surround itself with a gravity potential hill that would tend to screen the gravity potential well being generated at its hub.
This lenticular gravity potential hill would behave just like a body of negative gravitational mass polarity.
That is, under the influence of Earth’s gravity potential gradient, it would spontaneously move up this gradient from a lower toward a higher potential.
Consequently, the MEC’s gravity potential hill field would migrate away from Earth’s surface, the MEC moving along with it.
^*33
This scenario, which follows from subquantum kinetics, is consistent with Barrett’s analogy that when the SEG is in the drive condition, its surrounding field is such that “the craft is shot out of the earth’s field like a wet orange pip from between the fingers.”
²¹

Figure 10.16.
How Earth’s gravity potential field is altered when the MEC is operating.
Arrows indicate the direction of gravitational force outside the MEC.
Along the plane of the disc, where the G profile becomes vertical, there would be no gravity gradient, hence a state of weightlessness.

If the ring of roller magnets was instead made to revolve in a counterclockwise direction, G-ons (and electrons) would be propelled radially inward, toward the center of the stator.
In this case, this auxiliary vortical effect would surround itself with a gravity potential well that would tend to screen the gravity potential hill accumulated at the MEC’s core.
Thus, the MEC’s outer field pattern would behave as though it was produced by a mass of positive gravitational polarity.
Its field, then, would be attracted toward Earth and would pull the MEC downward, thereby increasing its overall weight.
This is consistent with the observations of Roshchin and Godin.

The MEC’s weight-reduction hysteresis may also have a ready explanation.
This concerns the observation that when the MEC’s rate of rotation passes a critical threshold, its weight decreasing with increasing rotor speed, if rotor speed is subsequently decreased, the MEC maintains its lowest attained weight even when rotor speed has been dramatically reduced.
This may be an indication that much of the MEC’s G-on pumping action comes from the field oscillations that produce its soliton pattern.
Even though the rotor speed drops, this pattern would still be supplying energy to these oscillating fields and would continue to pump etherons.

Another prediction that emerges from subquantum kinetics is that the inertial mass of the MEC or SEG should decrease when it is operated in the levity mode (clockwise rotation).
That is, in subquantum kinetics, an increase in G-on concentration (higher gravity potential) would affect the Model G ether reactions in such a manner as to cause a lengthening of all photon and particle wavelengths.
That is, a rise of gravity potential would increase the Compton wavelength
λ
₀
of the electric potential wave pattern that characterizes the particle’s field pattern.
²²
This wavelength is related to the particle’s inertial mass by the formula
λ
₀
=
h/m
₀
c
, in which
h
is Planck’s constant and
m
₀
is the particle’s inertial mass.
So an increase in Compton wavelength is equivalent to a decrease of inertial mass.
This supports Searl’s claim that his SEG becomes inertia-free during operation.
^23,
 
24

These interrelated effects of gravity-induced wavelength change and gravity-induced inertial mass change, which emerge as a necessary outcome of subquantum kinetics, allow subquantum kinetics to account for well-known astronomical phenomena such as the gravitational lensing of starlight by a massive body and orbital precession.
Gravitational lensing would arise from the wavelength-alteration effect, and orbital precession would arise from the inertial-mass-alteration effect.
In the past, general relativity has attempted to explain both of these as outcomes of the supposed warping of space-time by massive bodies.
In the twenty-first century, the outmoded theory of general relativity will be forced to relinquish its ownership of these astronomical phenomena as subquantum kinetics enters to fill its vacuum.