http://www.antigravity.it home page
Nuts-and-Bolts Antigravity Engine
1. Why do astro-scientists use two incompatible
theories of gravitation interchangeably,
depending on what needs to be calculated, i.e.the
newtonian formula containing the constant of
universal gravitation (6.67x10-8 dyn cm2/g2) or the
einsteinian definition of gravity as warped
spacetime.
If gravity is the result of mutual attraction
(according to Newton) between two particles then why
don't large celestial bodies collide with all due
haste, why do only small bodies strike the earth,
Jupiter, the moon, etc.? Especially since neither
theory accounts for the observed facts: that large
bodies attract smaller ones, the more strongly the
smaller they are, small bodies attract nothing,
and large bodies do not attract other large bodies of
approximately equal size, that there must be a
great size or mass differential for any "attraction"
to occur.
2. Why do scientists pretend to subscribe to the
theory of orbits, i.e.the belief that one body can
magically remain in regular motion around another if
the force between them is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance, although
this is known to be in violation of the law
stating that no body can travel in a circle around
another if the only force between them
(regardless of what it is proportional to) is acting
toward the central body, unless it is periodically
accelerated. Indeed the motion of planets "around" the
sun, for example,is primarily due to the
linear motion of the sun, augmented by a periodical
boost toward the sun when their relative
velocities in the direction of the sun's motion drops
to zero. This holds true for all bodies
considered to be in "orbit." The quotation marks
indicate that orbits are a mythical construction
based on the incorrect assumption of a stationary
primary body [sun]. In reality, if the path of the
earth or any "orbiting" body is plotted in real
spacetime it is invariably a helix.
The belief that "gravity" conforms to the inverse
square law is also unfounded. If gravity is not a
force of attraction but the result of warped spacetime
(per Einstein) then it has nothing in common
with light/electro-magnetism and need not conform to
the same laws.
3. The notion that the primordial matter created at
the "big bang" was mostly protons (and alpha
particles) when neutrons are far more numerous in
normal matter, and neutrons can (and do) easily
decay into protons (and can easily form alphas by
fusing with other neutrons and protons) but
not vice versa.
In fact, the Big Bang theory can count as its only
success the fact that it accounts for the
background omnidirectional radiation found everywhere
in space that can be monitored by
earthbound instruments, but it encounters great
difficulty in explaining the fact that matter is
concentrated in (relatively) tiny galaxies with
(relatively) gigantic gaps of empty space between
them. The expansion from the postulated Big Bang would
have to be uniform, and Newtonian
gravity is far too weak to pull the newly created
matter, now accelerated at all speeds up to the
velocity of light, into globs which could later evolve
into galaxies.
4. The notion that stars are formed by coalescing
clouds of hydrogen/protons and helium/alpha
particles.
The fact is that there is no attraction but only
repulsion between protons and nuclei in general, all
of which are "positively" charged; moreover, active
stars expel hydrogen and helium rather than
attract them. It seems strange that the initial
material for star formation is the same as the waste
product expelled by the functioning star. Even
stranger is the apparent disregard or ignorance of
the gas laws of Charles and Boyle manifested by all
astro-theoreticians. Why do they think a
cloud of gas in an infinitely large vacuum will
coalesce under its own gravity when none of the
particles in it has any gravity?
5. The accretion disk of leftover matter after a star
is formed as the origin of planets...the view that
the material gradually agglomerates into lumps called
planetesimals which eventually collide to
form planets.
Nonsense, if a star is formed by coalescing gas, then
as the nascent (spinning) star shrank the gas
that failed to coalesce (but why would it fail to
coalesce?) would dissipate or even be flung away
from the star, not remain in a nonexistent orbit
around it and accrete into planets, and the evidence
of the rings of Saturn and other gas giants, far from
confirming the planetesimal theory, totally
refutes it. The rings are not forming moons and show
no signs of accreting.
6. The Oort cloud, a purely theoretical/hypothetical
[mythical] cloud of comets circling the sun
from which comets are periodically dislodged and fall
in toward the sun thus becoming visible.
This theory was advanced many years ago to account for
the origin of comets, but it has never
been proven nor any evidence in its favor acquired,
either by telescope or space exploration. The
hypothetical location of the cloud and the assumed
small size of comets preclude any type of
orbiting motion.
The fact is that comets are debris of unknown origin
which are following the sun through space
(entrained in the sun's moving gravity well), and
occasionally one is perturbed, perhaps by one of
the outer planets, causing it to approach the sun, or
they are globs of interstellar debris which
happen by chance to cross the path of the sun. To
believe in the Oort cloud with no evidence is an
act of faith which even devout Christians may envy.
7. The notion of black holes as the end of stars above
a certain mass (smaller ones are believed to
end up as brown or white dwarfs or as neutron stars)
which is based on a theory of stellar
structure using newtonian concepts of gravity. Indeed,
the very definition of a black hole as a star
that has shrunk to the vanishing point and its
"gravity" has become so great that escape velocity
is greater than the speed of light.
In fact, there is no proof that matter (i.e. protons
and neutrons) can exist if compressed beyond a
certain point, as would happen in a black hole. A
black hole of a different type (i.e. a very large
body, not an infinitesimal point) could certainly
exist if an accumulation of mass were so great that
light could not escape, but a black hole as the result
of an implosion of a star could not. If the mass
doesn't change, the gravity doesn't either, ONLY ITS
GRADIENT, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME
THING. Moreover, the belief that gravity is maximal at
the center of a celestial body defies logic.
Physicists like to call gravity a force (lacking a
better understanding of its nature), but any force,
being a vector, must pass through zero in order to
change directions 180 degrees. Gravity at the
earth's core must be zero, and maximal at the surface.
8. The adherence to the view that there are four
fundamental forces in nature (gravity,
electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces)
instead of just one, even though theoretical
physicists believe that one day they will be unified
as one force by a Grand Unified Theory.
Why not just assume that, despite no yet existing
acceptable theoretical construct for such a
unified force, that it is unitary but manifested in
different ways. The primary obstacle to a unified
theory is the fact that electromagnetism, strong and
weak nuclear forces are "bipolar" (existing in
"positive" and "negative" forms, while gravity has no
negative counterpart. The research could
probably be advanced greatly if the concept of PLUS
and MINUS forces were abandoned and an
attempt were made to ascertain why such forces appear
to be bipolar.
9. The belief that the stubborn problem of the
ultimate nature of matter will yield to research using
ever more powerful particle accelerators.
In fact, smashing a nucleon and identifying the
resultant fragments is no more credible than
attempting to identify the particles making up a car
after it has been blown up with dynamite.
10. The absence of any theory to account for the
structure of the known universe which, without
postulating nonexistent hypothetical factors (such as
the constants K or G whose value in first
approximation is zero), makes the formation of
galaxies, stars, gas giants, and earthlike planets
inevitable rather than leaving it up to chance with
odds of a billion to 1 against.
11. The belief in the existence of neutrinos, small
particles with zero mass and zero charge, whose
existence is demanded by theory but evidence of which
is lacking despite costly efforts to detect
them. Ditto for positrons, antiprotons, quarks,
hadrons, leptons, muons and
gluons ad nauseum and antimatter in general. If they
have to be created in the laboratory/particle
accelerator and exist for only an infinitesimal
fraction of a second, can they really be said to exist?
12. The frenzied hostility manifested by the entire
astronomical establishment (e.g., Carl Sagan)
and its lackeys (e.g. Asimov, Forward) toward ideas
suggesting recent celestial catastrophism.
When Immanuel Velikovsky published "Worlds in
Collision" in 1950, he advanced several
predictions based on his theory, which subsequently
were proven true, although they were flatly
and vehemently contradicted by established
astro-theoreticians at that time (such as the high
surface temperature of Venus, astroblemes on Mars and
Mercury, the magnetic field of Jupiter). If
he had had the misfortune to live 300 years earlier
Velikovsky would doubtlessly have been burned
at the stake for heresy; the attack on him was rabid
and vicious.
13. Finally, and most infuriatingly, the fact that in
"popular" texts (i.e. written for the lay public)
about astronomy/astrophysics pronouncements are made
of fact when the scientists who
originated them advanced them as speculative
hypotheses only. These include, but are not limited
to: the Martian "life-bearing" meteorites, whose
Martian origin is purely speculation based on
assumptions based on other equally unproven
assumptions, the notion that the moon was "split
off' from the earth by a collision with another
celestial body, which is currently proclaimed as fact
on the Web and elsewhere, the belief that barycentric
parallax exists and that Newton's
elaboration of Kepler's third law can calculate the
relative masses of "orbiting" bodies (when it has
been known for the better part of a century that
orbits are fiction). This failure to label speculation
as such has resulted in what should have been
humiliating failures in the past but because of the
arrogance of the astronomical establishment these
failures are ignored and new equally
implausible pronouncements continue as before, despite
the fact that every speculation once
advanced as fact has proven false once the facts are
revealed by space exploration and improved
instruments.
I could actually go on and on about the failures and
shortcomings of the astronomical sciences,
but this should not in any way beconstrued as
criticism of the real work they have accomplished in
ascertaining the nature of the universe. The most
common flaw I have found is the speculation
advanced as fact which is religiously adhered to until
new facts are found which do not support
the speculation. For instance, once it was postulated
that the universe arose from The Big Bang,
everyone working in astronomy was compelled to
subscribe to this view, and opposition was
tantamount to heresy. Stephen Hawking even wrote a
book called "The First Three Seconds of
Time," referring to the 3 seconds immediately
following the Bang. Now astronomers are searching
for planets "around" some of the nearby and not so
nearby stars, and lo and behold, based on the
somewhat undulatory path of some stars as
registered on photographic plates exposed after long
intervals, they have 'found' several planets
with 2, 5 or even 17 times the mass of Jupiter. They
believe (without any evidence) that a planet in
"orbit" around a star can influence the path of the
star to a degree that the wobble can be detected
by earthbound or spaceborne telescopes.
I used the quotation marks in connection with any
mention of orbital motion because, as my book
proves, orbits are fictional constructs based on an
assumed stationary primary body. Of course if
you believe in 'orbits' and newtonian celestial
mechanics and newtonian gravity, then it is not
difficult to swallow the concept of 'barycentric
parallax' which implies that the sun wobbles in its
path due to the need to balance the mass of Jupiter
which causes the center of mass of the
sun/Jupiter system not to coincide with the exact
center of mass of the sun.
At any rate, the problem with astronomers today is the
fact that they have so much information
which is meaningless unless you have a hypothesis to
fit it to. Hypotheses are useful tools, but
they should not be confused with facts or advanced as
facts.
We can conclude this section by stating that no one
has yet produced an antigravity machine of
demonstrable function, despite numerous claims, which
is probably because the true nature of
gravity continues to elude our men of science (both
mainstream and fringe). However the fact of
UFOs which have been sighted for millenia and
increasingly for the past century strongly
suggests that someone somewhere has solved the
problem. If Corso, Fouche and Lazar are not
totally lying, if the crash at Roswell was indeed an
extraterrestrial spacecraft, then even if no back
engineering attempts have succeeded, we are still
confronted with proof that gravity can be
controlled. But we are in urgent need of a plausible
hypothesis of what UFOs are, who is flying
them and where they come from.
Click below to find a plausible, even credible
hypothesis