I was listening to a taped lecture by Dr. Michio Kaku on the
tenth dimension (ala string theory). Kaku is famous for his
books like "Hyperspace". He explains how Einstein's equations
indicate that gravity is curvature in a higher dimension and
the concept of gravitational force is fictional.
Kaku illustrates how a flatlander on a 2-D surface that is
crumpled in 3-D space would experience a force (pseudo-force)
as he changes direction. He then explains that Einstein's
equations use time as the 4th dimension and that one has
to look at the Kaluza-Klein equations for adding a 5th
dimension to obtain Maxwell's equations for EM.
Now something breaks down in all this convuluted logic
that Kaku uses.
The analogy of a crumpled sheet of paper should carry over
into space curvature/warps/crumples so that 3-D space is
seen to bend into 4-D space, but no 4-D extended space is
indicated in string theory or GR. So the analogy breaks down.
Now when the flatlander changes direction, technically he
accelerates, but his speed will not change because of
geometry. The centripetal force -(mv2/r)ru that acts on
the earth in its orbit changes the direction of the earth
and the earth only speeds up or slows down because the
geometry of its orbit is an ellipse, but something can
maintain a change of direction without changing speed.
However, objects in a gravitational field accelerate by
changing their rate of speed. No geometry in lower, middle,
or higher dimensions can explain this as Kaku claims.
The demonstration of this using embedding diagrams that
are translated into real world models such as a bowling
ball on a rubber sheet are already conducted in a gravity
field. Imagine demonstrating the same aboard the space
station where everything is in free fall. The bowling ball
will not dimple the rubber mat because the earth's gravity
has been offset.
There are three ways that scientists know things. One is my
experience as all people do, but extended by controlled
experiments. The other is by authority. They accept the
authority of other scientists. The third way is by taking
the (theory,data,hypothesis) presented and analyzing it to
see if it agrees with logic and experience.
Others have gone back to the idea of gravity as a force
(ZPE, aetheric) and not a pseudo force which means that there
is something lacking in the Einstein pseudo-force explanation
of gravity as geometry. Even graviton theory invokes real force.
It is said with Graviton Theory, physicists can detect and measure the
long-predicted gravitons-particle strings that 'carry' gravitational force.
Forces can be opposed by other forces and yield anti-gravity.
It is not even necessary to discover an antigravitational force
to achieve antigravity. It is only necessary to reduce or
nullify gravitational force or oppose it with a greater force.
The same for inertia. Thus by re-thinking the problem, a
space propulsion system becomes possible and can be reduced
to an engineering solution.
I beleive a sufficiently high potential charge can be used to
oppose gravity and inertia and produce thrust as beginning to
be evidenced by some experiments. However, IMHO, the experiments
do not go far enough. The high potential should be produced in
a dynamic mode (vortex), the potential should continue to rise
beyond dielectric breakdown, and the potential must be polarized
so as to bring control to vectoring flight.
I have worked on the above solution years ago, but without enough
resources to achieve success so I have backed others who are
paving the way. Hopefully, I may be able to again test this
idea on a workbench. If I do not, someone will eventually and
maybe duplicate the results that the controversial Searl claims
to have achieved.
Skywatch International, Inc.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.