|
"Everything
in the material Universe is some form or manifestation of energy."
William J. Hooper
Latest update: Thursday, September 3, 2009.
Thanks for entering our website! If you are curious about advanced flight physics, alternative power sources, and the exciting new science of electrogravitics, then read on . . . the future awaits!
Solar Skiff went online just before Christmas 2004, hosted by the Wyoming company LaramieTrader.com. The navigation buttons at left and company header above remain in place at all times. If you don't see them, please click here for the complete window.
You may also use the following "Site Map" to browse Solar Skiff:
"All this, and Heaven too!"
Matthew Henry (Life of Philip Henry)
"Earth is the cradle of mankind, but one cannot live in
the cradle forever."
Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovskiy
|
Solar Skiff is an uncommon company with a fresh concept for space exploration. Its novelty lies in the idea of exploring the Universe electrogravitically rather than using any form of rocket or propellant technology. Solar Skiff will help make this happen by building simple, versatile "space skiffs," which may strongly resemble flying saucers. The long-term goal is to develop advanced spaceships for routine spaceflight throughout the Solar System and nearby interstellar space. You can take part in this adventure, starting right here. This website is our conduit to you, a continually evolving work in progress, the site where we begin our exploration of the Universe.
Solar Skiff started out as a concept to build fully reusable spaceplanes, rather than much more advanced electromagnetic spacecraft. The idea was to use Solar energy to convert space ice into liquid rocket propellants — hydrogen and oxygen, thereby fueling a sustainable space infrastructure. It soon became apparent that electromagnetic spacecraft would have no need for huge tanks, would not be endangered by explosive propellants, and would be far more reliable and much more versatile than spaceplanes. We are now fully committed to researching and producing electromagnetic and electrogravitic spacecraft, in addition to various spinoff technologies that should improve life for everyone on Earth.
Solar Skiff is more than simply another start-up space company. It is a web-based concept to explore the fantastic world of unconventional space technology, and share it with all interested inhabitants of planet Earth. We will touch on many aspects of astronautics, while initially focusing on the challenge of designing and building small skiffs. We're not the only ones interested in building advanced electric spacecraft. This website, for example, offers an encyclopedic set of "tech manuals" divulging patents filed here on Earth over the past 100 years addressing this very subject.
The potential of the space skiff in terms of economy, safety, reliability, and practicality far exceeds other concepts, which today rely on explosive propellants, teetering rockets, and modular spacecraft. This is because our skiffs will not be rocket powered at all, but will be built to take advantage of the electromagnetic basis of gravity. In this website we explore the theory of electrogravitics, which could well provide the key to swift and efficient spaceflight, including interstellar travel. We will attempt to explain its many intriguing possibilites in the pages that follow.
|
All conventional spacecraft require some form of rocket engine, fed by some combination of liquid or solid propellants. Solid rockets originated with the Chinese a millenium ago, while liquid rockets can trace their lineage back to Professor Goddard's device and the German V-2, both pictured on this page. The men who built and flew these early rockets were true pioneers, and we owe them much. Yet all rockets are inherently limited by the physics of the rocket equation, which makes spaceflight today a very complex, expensive, and dangerous proposition. Fortunately, there may be a better way.
Spacecraft powered and propelled by the principles of electrogravitics will have no need for bulky propellants or balky rocket engines. They will instead utilize free and abundant resources and energy in space to sail the cosmic sea. The source of energy will be the same wellspring that already powers all electromagnetic phenomena everywhere. We know the Universe is permeated by magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields, criss-crossed by charged particles and electromagnetic oscillations, and underlain by zero-point quantum fluctuations. Space is truly a realm of unlimited energy, an "electric ocean" just waiting to be tapped. We will attempt to explain some of these strange ideas within this website. Herein are contained marvels directed at those who would dare to dream of a fantastically energy-rich future now coming into focus at the frontiers of physics, the kind of future predicted by Nikola Tesla as far back as 1891:
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by power obtainable at any point in the Universe. . . . it is a mere question of time when man will succeed in attaching his machinery to the very Wheel-Work of Nature. [1]
In order to fully grasp the fascinating field of electrogravitics, we will need to ask some very basic questions, and make an honest attempt to find rational answers. These questions get right down to the basics of how the Universe works, at scales ranging from the subatomic to the intergalactic. Here are a few of these questions.
Our answers to these questions and others may challenge your view of reality.
Good ideas are some of the most powerful things in the Universe. Our goal is to develop good ideas and turn them into tangible realities. Our task is to build great spaceships — electrogravitic space skiffs for the 21st century and beyond.
"He who has vision but no task is a dreamer.
He who has a task but no vision is a drudge.
He who has both is a hero."
Anonymous
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
Chief
/ Team
/ Skiff News
"We know what we are, but know not what we may be."
Shakespeare Hamlet, IV, v, 43
Based in Wyoming, U.S.A., Solar Skiff is a new company dedicated to the design, engineering, and fabrication of electrogravitic spaceships. It intends to bootstrap its way into space using principles of the free market, free gravity, and free energy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we don't believe it should cost billions of dollars to build spaceships. Free enterprise, bold thinking, and common sense are the keys to success, rather than credit-based business models, debilitating debt, and complexified scientific theories.
To ensure that revenue is not wasted, Solar Skiff has a policy of operating strictly on a pay-as-you-go basis. We don't borrow money, and we don't buy on credit. Adhering only to the highest standards of business integrity, we have never — and will never — incur even one penny of debt. Due to this policy, it is impossible for the company to fail for financial reasons. The time-honored values of thrift, fiscal responsibility, and wealth creation will ensure the healthy growth and development of Solar Skiff.
A small product line will be announced in the coming months of 2009, in order to establish a modest cash flow for the company. The newly manufactured products will constitute real new wealth, which is basic to any healthy economy. There may also be a number of free items available as part of our marketing strategy.
The initial manufacturing facility will be a combination greenhouse and Solar powered electrogravitics workshop, with construction to start in the Spring of 2009. Photos of this "Skiff Shop" will be posted here as soon as construction begins. Eventually, a larger facility will be built at another location as the company continues to grow.
Happy
landing after test flight of
stick-and-rudder
Glastar
Chief and founder of Solar Skiff, and author of this website, is polyglot pilot and self-taught electrograviticist Matthew A. Bentley. Born on a dairy farm within months of the first manned spaceflights in 1961, he is the fifth of six children, and springs from early American, British, Dutch, and Swedish roots. Since his New England childhood he has held an unwavering passion for space exploration and technology. It was during the Apollo 14 Moon mission in 1971 that he "discovered" this passion, living just 20 miles from where Robert Hutchings Goddard flew the first liquid fueled rocket 45 years earlier. At age 12, living on a Vermont dairy farm, he wrote a short essay about working in a future factory producing “giant spaceships.” He has been a private pilot since 1984, spent four years in the U.S. Navy as an Electrician's Mate, and has a degree in Russian language from the University of Wyoming. Throughout his life he has been a farmboy, busboy, boxboy, grill cook, sailor, cashier, airport shuttle driver, copy clerk, mixer truck driver, electrician, wind turbine technician, amateur astronomer, pilot, author, inventor, and life-long student. He has helped his physicist-father build several experimental airplanes including the one pictured. He is an avid self-taught student of aerospace engineering and astronomy, and continues to learn as much as possible in his spare time. His first book, Spaceplanes: From Airport to Spaceport, was published in January 2009. He enjoys problem solving, science fiction, foreign languages, history, politics, whistling, and frisbee. The Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution are, in his view, two of the most important documents ever written. He speaks Swedish and German in addition to Russian, as well as a smattering of Icelandic. Mr. Bentley is married to his southern sweetheart. Together, they have three spunky sons and three darling daughters.
Besides the Solar Skiff chief, the team currently includes Kumaran Sanmugathasan, from the tropical island nation of Sri Lanka. Kumaran has contributed voluntary internet research to Solar Skiff and is interested in piloting a space skiff in the future. He has suggested the Pleiades and Sirius as destinations, after early flights to the Moon and Mars. Solar Skiff is grateful for Kumaran's help and welcomes our newest team member aboard.
We are always looking for new team members to volunteer their services or expertise. Once a cash flow is established, volunteers will be first in line for possible employment. The prime qualifications are curiosity and imagination. If you are interested, please email us or write us at the address in the header above.
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
"It is fun to be in the same decade with you."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
December 2004:
Solar Skiff website launches, initally focusing on single-stage-to-orbit
spaceplanes.
April 2006:
Solar Skiff switches from rocket-powered spaceplanes to electromagnetic
spacecraft.
September 2006:
Solar Skiff begins research on wireless permanent-magnet motors.
December 2006:
Website is updated with clearer explanations of gravitational and inertial fields.
February 2007:
Solar Skiff posts future passenger list.
April 2008:
Author Francesco Calvo (The
Therion Chronicles) makes the first donation to Solar Skiff.
January 2009:
Solar Skiff chief has first book published, entitled Spaceplanes:
From Airport to Spaceport.
The electrogravitic
constant qe
is determined. See Numerical Electrogravitics
section below.
March 2009:
Magnetic
electron model and the origin of the Oersted's looping
flux is worked out.
Kumaran Sanmugathasan joins Solar Skiff as a volunteer.
July 2009:
Work begins on practical
magnetic thruster for space vehicle power and propulsion.
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes
it."
Robert Hutchings Goddard
"Stand by to reverse polarity . . . artificial gravity off . . . half flux . . . cut main coils."
This is the pre-landing checklist — called out by Skipper J. J. Adams (Leslie Nielsen) of United Planets Cruiser C-57D — in the 1956 science fiction movie Forbidden Planet. Commander Adams' spaceship is a classic flying saucer apparently powered by some form of electromagnetism. As the saucer gently sets down on Altair IV, a curtain of ionized blue air beneath the craft gradually changes shape from a diverging to a converging cone pointed at the ground. The electromagnetic terminology, combined with the ionized landing cone and obvious control of gravity, all suggest electrogravitic propulsion.
The opening sequence of Forbidden Planet presents a clear vision of our possible future, which we will examine in this section. We will try to answer questions like how space skiffs will operate, what it will feel like to ride in one, how they will accelerate without "g forces," what their operational capabilities will be, and more. This part of the website will read like science fiction, but if history is any guide, science fiction has always heralded new discoveries, new science, and new technology.
Space skiffs may employ more than one technology to achieve interplanetary or interstellar flight. Blimps, balloons, airplanes, helicopters, and rockets use various techniques and depend on different laws of physics for their operation. So too for the space skiff. The first generation skiffs may use magnetic thrust, in which angular momentum is converted into linear momentum by electric and magnetic means. This would provide a conventional inertial thrust, but do away with propellants. Second generation skiffs may use the more advanced techniques of electrogravitics, which allow the onboard production of non-inertial gravitic fields.
Advanced space skiffs will look very much like, fly very much like, and have the capabilities of classic flying saucers. This shape allows the artificial production of electrogravity. Magnetic fields are generated and rotated so that magnetic flux lines sweep through the craft at right angles to the instantaneous magnetic field vectors themselves. In this way, a gravity field is generated in the atoms of the skiff, vectored at right angles to both the magnetic field vectors and the directions of their own rotations. For example, an inwardly directed magnetic field would be rotated clockwise to produce an upwardly acting electrogravitic field vector. More on this later.
Because of the force-free nature of gravitational accelerations, electrogravitic skiffs will operate free of inertial effects. When a skiff pilot adds power or maneuvers his craft, crew and passengers will feel no g-forces whatsoever. Space skiffs will thus be able to accelerate very quickly without being encumbered by inertial constraints. The Moon and planets of the Solar System will be minutes or hours away. Interstellar travel will be as commonplace as jet travel is today. This may sound like science fiction, yet these principles are based on solid physics.
All conventional vehicles — land, sea, air, and space — reach their operating speeds by using contact forces to accelerate. The contact forces imposed in one direction result in oppositely directed inertial forces. These are the "g-forces" experienced by astronauts and jet pilots, and the "pressed back in the seat" feeling when you step on the gas. These g-forces are always directed along the same line of action as the imposed force. For example, an inward pointing "centripetal" force results in an outward pointing "centrifugal" force felt by the occupants of a vehicle moving in a curved path.
Unlike contact forces, force fields cause no inertial effects whatsoever. The most apparent example of a force field is gravity, which forces objects toward the center of the field. This force accelerates objects without inertial effects. Dropped objects feel nothing until they encounter some surface. Astronauts in orbital free-fall enjoy the absence of inertial effects as well, despite being under continuous centripetal acceleration from gravity fields.
Space skiffs will use force fields rather than contact forces to achieve acceleration in any direction. This is how high performance flight can be achieved without the limitations imposed by inertia.
When the skiff pilot powers up the vehicle, strong rotating magnetic fields appear in the vicinity of the craft, which sweep the immediate area. These fields induce motional electric fields in the atoms of the skiff and its occupants. If the sweeping magnetic fields are of sufficient intensity and are rotating in the proper direction, the induced electric fields will reduce the charge separations within the atoms of ship and crew caused by the planet's natural gravity field. Gradually, craft and crew become weightless and begin to float under the influence of the artifically generated field.
By further increasing the strength or speed of the sweeping magnetic fields, the pilot can induce a charge separation of opposite polarity to that caused by gravity. As far as the structure of the craft and its occupants are concerned, "down" is now in the "up" direction, and the skiff falls away from the Earth, accelerating into space.
Experiencing flight in a space skiff promises to be unlike that of any other flying craft, because of the unconventional methods employed. Inertial effects will be absent, and an external atmosphere will not be required for lift, combustion, or propulsion. In spite of phenomenal performance, skiff passengers and crew will experience no g-forces whatsoever.
All conventional flying vehicles, from simple balloons to advanced rockets, experience inertial forces during operation. These forces may be generated by the craft itself, or they may come from external sources such as winds, updrafts, downdrafts, etc. It is in this area, inertia, that electrogravitic craft differ most markedly from other technologies. The principles of electrogravity ensure that self-generated inertial effects do not occur.
An electrogravitic spacecraft can therefore depart Earth under extreme acceleration while passengers and crew remain immune to the deleterious effects of inertia.
Space skiffs will greatly exceed the performance of conventional air- and spacecraft. Like a helicopter, they will launch and land vertically, or hover in place as necessary. Yet they will also sport supersonic speeds in any atmosphere. Since lift is generated by electrogravitic rather than aerodynamic means, their operations will not be limited to the atmosphere. Skiffs will therefore have no service ceiling, nor will they have a set maximum speed by reference to clocked velocity. Although observed velocities will never exceed the speed of light, clocked speeds will routinely do so.
As soon as the technology is perfected, we will build a small fleet of two-seat skiffs in order to train future skiff pilots. Only the most highly motivated, intelligent, and cautious candidates will be chosen. Personal finances will play no role in who is selected for this exclusive program.
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
This section serves to acquaint the Curious Reader with some basic physical concepts required to properly understand this website. It is divided into the following sections:
The structure of our Universe is quintessentially electromagnetic. There is something electric about the Universe, because electric fields are "permitted" to propagate through it. There is also something magnetic about the Universe, because magnetism "permeates" all space. These facts are illustrated by two of Nature's most basic constants, the electrical permittivity e0 and the magnetic permeability m0 of the vacuum. These attributes of the "spacetime continuum" allow the propagation of electromagnetic radiation, including light, throughout the Universe. Einstein's famous formula equating mass with energy
E = mc2
can actually be written in terms of these electromagnetic constants in this manner,
E = m / e0 m0
because of the astounding fact that the speed of light in vacuum is intimately related to them by this relation:
c2 = 1 / e0 m0
Since m0 = 4p x 10-7 henries/meter (equal to webers or volt-seconds/amp-meter) and e0 = 8.854 1878 1761 x 10-12 farads/meter (equal to coulombs/volt-meter), and with amps equal to coulombs per second, c is computed to be
c = 2.9979 2458 x 108 m/sec
which is the exact, defined value for the speed of light in vacuum. It comes as no surprise that the "structure" of light is electromagnetic. It consists of two orthogonal components, one electric and one magnetic, that oscillate together and propagate through space at speed c.
The significance of a Universe that is electromagnetic in its structure, whether we are talking about charged particles, electromagnetic radiation, or the quintessence of the vacuum, is that electromagnetic vehicles should be ideally suited to operate within it.
To understand the electron is to understand gravity, because atomic electrons generate gravity fields, as we will see. With this in mind, what is the structure of the electron? What could account for its negative charge, its spin, and its magnetic moment? How big is it, and what is it really made of?
Let's assume that every electron is a tiny entity composed entirely of magnetic flux. It would then have north and south poles as any solid magnet, with the flux "flowing" out of the north pole, curving around and "entering" the south pole, somewhat like lines of longitude on a globe, except that its flux would "exit" and "enter" a single geometrical point. Now let's set our tiny magnetic electron spinning clockwise as viewed from above the north pole. What happens?
Moving magnetic flux induces electric fields, which are actually mathematical descriptions of electric phenomena. It turns out in this case that the spinning magnetic field of the electron induces a negative charge, which is actually a spherical, radially symmetric, electric field pointed at the electron. (This is actually a "motional" B x V field, discussed below.) Positively charged particles are attracted to negatively charged particles, because they move in the direction of the magnetically induced electric field vectors.
If a particle were spinning counter-clockwise from above its north pole, then it would generate an electric field pointing radially outward instead of inward, and it would "carry" a positive charge. It would be a positron or a proton. We now see that electrostatic attraction and repulsion are actually magnetic effects.
The model successfully explains the origin of charge, but it goes much further. It also reveals that charged particles have no boundaries, because they are magnetic in character. This means that every particle in the Universe fills the entire Universe with its magnetic structure. Electric charge is a case of rotating magnetism, and electric fields are due to relatively moving magnetism.
What phenomena can be explained in terms of the model electron outlined above? Several electromagnetic effects spring to mind, including electrostatic charge, induced emf's, and the forces causing electric motors to turn. In the next section we'll take a look at Oersted's looping magnetic flux around current carrying conductors and the forces between parallel wires carrying steady currents.
By using the right-hand rule and the vector equation E = B x V, it is easy to see that every magnetic electron induces an electric field pointed radially inward toward its center. Every proton induces an electric field pointed radially outward. Electric fields are always at right angles to magnetic fields. Why is this always the case? Let's get right to the crux of the matter.
Electrostatic Effects. Consider a magnetic electron and a magnetic proton near each other, spinning in space. Standing them both "upright" with north at the top and south at the bottom, the electron will spin clockwise and the proton will spin counter-clockwise as viewed from above their north poles. Both sets of magnetic flux will "align," pointing south in the vicinity of their "equators," and the two spinning particles will "mesh" like gears since they are rotating in opposite directions. With the electron on the left and the proton on the right, the interacting flux fields from each particle move out of the page together. This geometry creates a "flux vacuum" between the two particles. Since Nature abhors a vacuum, they naturally move toward each other. Hence the electrostatic field is actually a magnetic effect. And the charge on each particle, negative for the electron and positive for the proton, is actually due to magnetic spin.
Aligned meshing fluxes attract due to reduced space density in the region.
What happens when one of the particles is turned upside down? Two things happen at once. The formerly aligned fluxes now "oppose," since they point in opposite directions. And instead of meshing, they now "clash" as flux lines rapidly pass one another. Yet they still attract because the "alignment" and the "gearing" have both been reversed. The electrostatic field causing mutual attraction is, in reality, a magnetic effect.
Opposed clashing fluxes also attract as flux density cancels between fields.
Now let's take two electrons and analyze their mutual electrostatic repulsion. With both electrons upright, north is at top and both sets of magnetic flux lines point downward in their equatorial regions, toward their south poles. The right side of the electron on the left will move out of the page while the left side of the electron on the right will move into the page. Aligned flux lines will therefore "clash," passing each other with twice the relative velocity of either field by itself. This increases the flux density between the electrons, causing mutual repulsion. Mutual electrostatic repulsion is thereby explained as a magnetic effect.
Turning one of the electrons upside down, the two flux fields now oppose one another, but mesh like gears due to their counter-rotations. The meshing flux lines now point in opposite directions, increasing the flux density in that region. Again, electrostatic repulsion of two electrons is revealed as a purely magnetic effect.
Except when they mesh, aligned fluxes repel and opposed fluxes attract.
This third rule is the only one you really need to remember, and it applies to any magnet, which typically do not have meshing fluxes due to the large number of magnetic electrons within.
What if one electron is "upright" and one is "sideways" with, say, its south magnetic pole pointed at the "equator" of the first? Will they still repel? In this case, with the upright electron on the left and the sideways electron on the right, approaching downward equatorial flux from the upright electron will interact both with receding downward flux from the "upper" side of the sideways electron, and with approaching upward flux from the "lower" side. These two flux sets occur as magnetic flux bends around to enter the south pole of the sideways electron. In the case of the upper flux interaction, the two fluxes align but clash, causing mutual repulsion in this area. The lower flux interaction involves opposing fluxes that nevertheless mesh, again causing repulsion. The magnetic effect of electrostatic repulsion between the two electrons is further verified, regardless of relative orientation.
Generator Action. Magnetic fields passing at right angles through electrically conductive wires induce electromotive forces, or emf's, in the wires. These forces are the voltages or "electrical pressures" that allow currents to flow through circuits. Emf's are always induced at right angles to the directions of the magnetic field and relative field motion. Why is this always the case?
Consider a horizontal wire containing stationary but moveable electrons, an external magnetic field pointing down toward the bottom of the page, and movement of the magnetic field into the page. As the magnetic flux lines from the external field cut across the conductor, they interact with the magnetic spinning electrons. An upright electron will have its left side moving into the page, meshing with the plunging flux, and its right side will be rising out of the page, clashing with that flux. The electron's own field lines will align those of the external field, giving rise to a relatively "rarified" region on the left and "densified" region on the right, and causing the electron to move to the left. This common-sense explanation is consistent with the rule that aligned fluxes repel and opposed fluxes attract, except when they mesh. In this case the aligned fluxes that mesh attract and the ones that clash repel.
In the case of an upside down electron, its magnetic flux lines will point upward, opposite to the external plunging field. In this case, the electron's left side will be moving out of the page, clashing with the plunging external field, and the right side will be moving into the page, meshing with that field. By the rule above, this results in the electron once again moving to the left as its opposing flux is repelled by the meshing interaction on the right and attracted by the clashing interaction on the left. Electromotive forces in current carrying conductors are thus seen to be due entirely to magnetic effects, which are normally described as induced electric fields.
Electric Motor Action. When an electric current is passed through the windings of an electric motor in the presence of a stationary magnetic field, the windings experience a force at right angles to both the electron current and the magnetic field direction. This causes the motor, with its energized windings, to rotate. That's how it works. But why does it work like that?
Say we have a stationary magnetic field pointing into the page, so that all we see is its "tail feathers" represented as a field of x's. In this magnetic field there is a horizontal wire containing an electron current moving from right to left. Looking at the wire we notice a rapidly spinning electron with its north pole pointed toward us, so that its spin is clockwise and its flux lines point away from us into the page, toward its south magnetic pole. Because the electron is moving to the left, the flux lines "underneath" the electron are moving faster than the flux lines "above" the electron. How does the stationary field, which is also pointing into the page, come into play? Because the aligned stationary field "sees" a slower flux above the electron and a faster flux below the electron, the interacting flux densities are rarified above and densified below. The electron therefore experiences an upward force toward the top of the page, at right angles to both its own motion and the direction of the stationary field. Like the various phenomena already considered, no electric field is required to explain this magnetic effect.
If the electron is oriented with its south pole facing us, it will spin counter-clockwise, its flux lines will point toward us, and they will oppose the direction of the stationary magnetic field. As the electron moves toward the left, the flux above the electron is now moving faster than the flux below, relative to the stationary field. This causes it to more-or-less "clash" above and "mesh" below. Since opposing flux attracts, especially when it clashes but except when it meshes, the electron is pulled upward from above and pushed upward from below, as before. When the forces on all the flowing electrons in the wire are added together, the entire conductor moves as a unit. Electric motors work on the sole basis of magnetic effects. This applies both to the rotation of the windings and to the electromotive forces causing electrons to flow from the power station, into the motor, and finally through the windings.
What does any of this have to do with advanced electrogravitic spacecraft? In order to successfully engineer such a craft, a thorough understanding of gravity is required, and gravity turns out to be a magnetic effect originating in atomic electrons. These electrons both rotate and revolve (spin and orbit), so a sound understanding of the electron as a magnetic entity is important.
In 1820 Hans Christian Oersted discovered magnetic fields surrounding current carrying conductors. This salient discovery immediately unified the formerly separate sciences of electricity and magnetism. Experiments revealed that if the electron current was to the right, then the magnetic field lines — christened the Oersted flux — would loop around the conductor in the clockwise direction as viewed from the right. The left-hand rule, whereby the left thumb points in the direction of electron flow while the fingers of the left hand encircle the conductor with the flux, shows the orientation of the magnetic field. For conventional current flow, the right hand is used instead of the left. These fields have centers but no boundaries, fading in intensity with increasing distance from the conductor itself.
This Hyperphysics Window shows an illustration of Oersted's magnetic flux surrounding conventional currents, which flow in the opposite direction of electron currents. Mysteriously, these magnetic fields seem to have no north or south poles. They simply consist of concentric loops. Fortunately, this can be explained in terms of the electron's structure.
The model electron introduced earlier can explain the origin of the Oersted flux. Since electrons are modeled as spinning magnetic dipoles, a curious thing happens when they are set in motion, as in an electric current. Picture a wire in cross-section and an "upright" electron inside, moving with the current toward you, as you look along the wire. With its north pole at the top, its equatorial magnetic flux is pointed down toward its south pole and spinning such that the flux lines on your right are approaching and the flux lines on your left are receding. Recall that the electron spins clockwise from above the north pole. Since the electron is also moving toward you, the south-pointing flux lines on your right will appear to be approaching faster than the south-pointing flux lines on your left are receding, because the electron's linear velocity is added to the spinning flux on the right and subtracted from the spinning flux on the left. The electron has no "edge," so this geometry produces a region of relatively strong magnetic flux density on the right side of the wire, pointed down. Now "tip" the electron to the right, and repeat the experiment, with the north pole at the right, the south pole at the left, and the flux lines pointed to the left. With the electron continuing to spin clockwise, the flux lines "under" the electron will be moving fastest and those "above" the electron will be moving slowest. This results in a strengthened magnetic field below the wire, pointed left. Tipping the electron another ninety degrees so that its north pole is down, its south pole is up, and its equaltorial magnetic flux points up, the strongest region of magnetic flux is now found to be on the left side of the wire, pointed up. Finally, tipping the electron one last time so that the north pole is on the left, south pole is on the right, and flux lines point right, the approaching spinning electron produces enhanced magnetic flux above the wire and pointed to the right. This shows how a stream of moving electrons in all attitudes manifests as concentric lines of magnetic flux around the conductor. Magnetic fields are thus revealed by electric currents, not induced by them. This explanation not only supports the electron model in the last section, but also solves the mystery of the looping Oersted flux.
When two parallel conductors carry steady currents in the same direction, they experience a force of attraction. Opposite currents cause a repulsive force. These forces appear because of the looping Oersted fluxes surrounding all current carrying conductors. The direction of each magnetic field where it intersects the other conductor, the relative motion of these fields, and the resulting forces of attraction or repulsion are all at right angles to one another.
This Hyperphysics Window shows an illustration of the forces between parallel current carrying conductors, about to be explained in terms of induced electric fields below.
Understanding Oersted's flux and the forces between parallel current carrying conductors is crucial in understanding electromagnetic gravity.
Consider two parallel wires seen in cross section, carrying electron flows in the same direction, say approaching you perpendicular to the page. By the left-hand rule, the clockwise Oersted flux from the wire on the left will pass through the wire on the right with a downward pointing magnetic field vector B. At the same time, the clockwise Oersted flux from the wire on the right will pass through the wire on the left with an upward pointing magnetic field vector B. Since both electron currents are approaching you with velocity V, so are their associated magnetic fields. Oersted fluxes always move in lock-step with electron flow, in a direction perpendicular to their own flux lines.
By the right-hand rule and the vector cross product
E = B x V
it is found that the wire on the left will experience a motional electric field E pointing toward the right, which has been induced in it by the approaching magnetic flux originating in and centered on the right wire. At the same time, the right wire will experience a motional electric field E pointing toward the left, which has been induced in it by the approaching magnetic flux originating in and centered on the left wire. The E field vector defines the direction a positive charge will move, but only if there is relative motion between the charged particle and the inducing magnetic field.
In this case, because the two approaching electron currents are parallel and in the same direction, there is no relative motion at all between the approaching Oersted flux of either conductor and the negatively charged electron flow in the other. There is, however, relative motion between the Oersted fluxes and the positively charged protons in the opposite wire, which are stationary. Because the two motional E field vectors are pointing directly at each other, the two wires experience a net force of mutual attraction, due solely to the relative motion between moving magnetic fields and stationary protons. The actual situation is slightly more complex, since not all electrons are part of the current. But the argument is still valid, since equal numbers of stationary electrons and protons will cancel out their oppositely directed forces, leaving the remaining moving electrons and an equal number of stationary protons to create the net attraction.
Now consider what happens when the current in one of the wires is reversed. Let us switch the electron flow in the left-hand wire so that it is now moving away from you. By the left-hand rule, the counter-clockwise Oersted flux from the left wire that passes through the right wire is now pointing upward and receding. Since both magnetic field vector B and velocity vector V have reversed directions, the resulting E field is unchanged, as verified by the right-hand rule. Therefore, we again have two motional E field vectors pointing directly inward, the same as before.
However, in contrast to the first case, the Oersted fluxes are now moving in one direction while the electrons in the other wire are moving in the opposite direction. This results in twice the relative motion between Oersted fluxes and electron currents compared to that between Oersted fluxes and stationary protons. The stationary protons will still feel the same inward forces directed along the E field vectors, but the flowing electrons will now feel outward forces of exactly twice the magnitude. Therefore, the forces of repulsion due to the electrons overcome the forces of attraction due to the protons, and the two wires experience a mutual net force of repulsion.
Mass,
Inertia, and Acceleration
Mass. The mass of an object is simply a tally of the number of subatomic particles it contains. It is a quantity intimately tied to inertia, accelerations, and forces through Newton's Laws of Motion. The mass of any object is constant throughout the known Universe, and it determines the weight of a body in a gravity field.
Mass is measured in either kilograms or "slugs." One slug weighs just over 32 pounds at Earth's surface, but only some 5.4 pounds on the Moon. A kilogram mass weighs 2.2 pounds on Earth and less than 6 ounces on the Moon. All masses seem to lose their weight in free-fall conditions, whether it is dropped, in orbit, or between celestial bodies in space.
Mass can be determined in one of two ways: gravitationally or inertially. Gravitational mass is found by dividing the weight of an object by the local acceleration of gravity. Inertial mass is determined by dividing the force applied to an object by its resulting acceleration in the direction of that force. Experiments show that gravitational and inertial masses are equivalent, to extremely high precision.
Conventional physics teaches that mass is a scalar quantity, imparted to particles of matter by a hypothetical Higgs field and mediated by a hypothetical Higgs boson, yet to be discovered.
Solar Skiff, inspired by the writings of Steven J. Smith, submits that mass is a vector quantity, given the mere illusion of scalar mass by a charged particle's dynamic character. The model proposes that particles may be magnetic entities that spin, precess, and pulsate. Spin and scalar pulsation would give rise to the magnetic and electrical properties of electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons. At the same time, variations in these frequencies would give rise to the discrete masses of particles and to distinct electromagnetic wavelengths. The freqency-dependent vector equation for electromagnetic mass is
m = (E x H) / f 3
where vectors for mass, electric field, and magnetic field are bold faced. If mass has an electromagnetic basis, this would explain how gravity acts electromagnetically on all matter.
The formula just presented shows that all mass is made of electromagnetic energy. This conforms perfectly to Einstein's equation, where energy is shown to be equivalent to mass:
E = mc2 = m / e0m0
Inertia. All objects with mass also have the property of inertia, which is a body's resistance to acceleration. The greater the mass, the greater the force required to accelerate that object. The smaller the mass, the less the force that is required for the same acceleration. The mass of an object determines how much inertia it has.
Inertial effects occur whenever a body is accelerated or decelerated against a barrier. Familiar examples include an astronaut in an accelerating spacecraft, a jet pilot executing a high-g turn, and an automobile screeching to a stop.
Inertia and gravity each involve forces impressed on masses under some acceleration, in accordance with Newton's 2nd Law:
F = ma
This mathematical statement just says that a mass m under acceleration a experiences a force F, or that an applied force F causes a mass m to experience an acceleration a.
In a gravitational field, this formula is usually written in terms of weight W and gravitational acceleration g:
W = mg
An inertial effect is a localized electrostatic force generated as the reaction to a contact force. When you step on the gas, you are pushed back into your seat. When you negotiate a tight curve, the inwardly directed centripetal force taking you around the curve results in an outward reaction commonly called "centrifugal" force. And when a rocket accelerates into space, the astronauts "pull g's." In every case, the inertial force is directed opposite to the contact force.
A sound understanding of electrogravitics requires a proper understanding of both inertial effects and gravity fields, because they are similar in some respects but different in others. For example, a rocket ship floating in space can generate onboard gravity simply by firing its engine. In this case, the resulting inertial effect mimics a gravity field.
If gravity fields involve charge separations in atoms, is it possible that inertial effects do as well? Consider the aforementioned example of a rocket firing its engines in space. The exhaust gases within the thrust chamber develop extreme pressures, and provide the "upward" thrust as the reaction to their expansion and acceleration through the rocket nozzle. It is actually the electrons in the outer orbitals of the exhaust gases electrostatically repelling the electrons in the outer orbitals of the solid thrust structure, that accounts for the thrust being transferred to the vehicle. Rather than involving motional electric fields, inertial effects are entirely electrostatic in Nature.
The negatively charged orbital electrons in the thrust structure will be pushed slightly "upward" by the exhaust gas orbital electrons in the thrust chamber. At the same time, the positively charged protons in the thrust structure will tend to move "downward" in response to the attractive force from those very same exhaust gas electrons, because opposite electrical charges attract one another. The first "layer" of atoms in the solid structure of the vehicle will therefore experience a polarization of charge the same as in the electrogravitic fields we will discuss shortly. The next "tier" of atoms will undergo an identical charge separation, because the polarized atoms in the first layer — each with its own distended electron cloud — repel the electrons and attract the protons of the second tier. This process is quickly repeated until the atomic structure of the entire ship is similarly polarized.
Recognizing the volume-wise distribution of electrons and protons inside atoms, the positively charged protons take up very little space and reside at the centers of atoms. Negatively charged electrons, on the other hand, zip around in a huge "cloud" surrounding the nucleus. If the nucleus were the size of a baseball, the electron cloud would easily fill an auditorium. This being the case, it is obviously the electrons that transmit forces to the extremities of other atoms.
Because it is electrons — not protons — that undoubtedly transfer inertial forces from atom to atom in the solid structure of the accelerating rocket, every atom responds to a short-range electrostatic force-field from "below." Each horizontal row or tier of atoms responds to the atoms just "below" and serves as short-range field generator for the atoms just "above." All electrons shift "upward" while all protons shift "downward," ever so slightly. Since the protons in any atom are now in a stronger part of the adjacent electron field than its own electrons are, they are attracted "downward" with a force slightly greater than the electrons are repelled "upward," because it is the adjacent electron field that attracts an atom's protons and repels its electrons. Therefore, the net inertial force on every atom is in the "downward" direction as the ship accelerates "upward."
Both inertial and gravitational fields involve small charge separations inside atoms of affected matter, with protons attracted more strongly than electrons are repelled, and with similar results. In the Numerical Electrogravitics section, we will electrostatically model the actual value of the charge separation due to gravity at Earth's surface.
Acceleration. Accelerations involve a change in velocity with time. Any change in speed, direction, or both amounts to an acceleration. Forces cause accelerations, which may be inertial, centripetal, or gravitational.
Accelerations are analogous to electric fields. Both inertial effects and gravitational fields are transmitted by electrons in atomic orbitals. Here are a few examples:.
In an inertial "field," a mass (m) is accelerated (a) by a contact force (F). The accelerated mass always experiences inertial effects, commonly called "g" forces. The equation for an inertial acceleration is just Newton's second law of motion, F = ma, algebraically rearranged:
a = F/m
In a gravity field, a mass (m) is accelerated (g) by a gravitational force (F). The small letter g is termed the acceleration of gravity:
g = F/m
Objects in free-fall experience accelerations, but no inertial effects whatsoever.
This is the fundamental difference between inertial and gravitational accelerations. The free-fall force becomes a weight W whenever the mass is either suspended in a gravity field or rests on a planetary surface:
W = mg
In an electric field, a charge (q) is accelerated (E) by an electric force (F). Notice that mass does not appear at all, and is in fact replaced by electric charge. Acceleration is replaced by an electric field mathematically described by the vector E:
E = F/q
In all three cases, the forces and accelerations are vectors acting along the same line of action. In the case of electric fields, the accelerations can take place in either of two opposite directions, depending on the polarity of the affected charge.
Force,
Work, Energy, and Power
Force. Applying a gravitational or inertial acceleration to a mass, or an electric field to a charge, amounts to a force.
In the case of a gravity field g, the force vector is simply the downward weight W of a mass m:
W = mg
If the object is in free-fall, then the weight seems to vanish, but the vectored force of gravity remains, explaining the non-inertial acceleration g of the object. Objects in free-fall experience no g-forces as they accelerate.
In the inertial case, the force F may be either a push or a pull acting on a mass m, creating an acceleration a and an inertial effect called a g-force acting in the opposite direction.
F = ma
Or it may be a centripetal (inward) force F acting on a mass m moving at velocity v around a curve of radius r. The inertial effect is this case shows up as a centrifugal (outward) force.
F = mv2/r
Under these conditions, the imposed forces cause inertial effects in the accelerated masses, unlike the non-inertial accelerations experienced during gravitational free-fall.
In electric fields, the force is termed an electric repulsion or attraction on a charged particle:
F = qE
All forces, whether they are gravitational, inertial, or electromagnetic, are actually transmitted electromagnetically. And, as we have already seen, all matter has an electromagnetic basis.
As an example, consider the case of a 150 pound human standing on solid ground. The gravitational force acting downward on the human is his weight. This force, as we will see in the next sections, is caused by an electrodynamic or "motional electric" field induced in the atoms of the human by countless numbers of sweeping magnetic fields from the orbital electrons of the planet under foot. Opposing this electrodynamic gravity field is an electrostatic force, also equaling 150 pounds, directed upward from the ground to the feet of the standing human. The electrons orbiting the atoms in the ground and the electrons orbiting the atoms of the human's feet, or shoes, electrostatically repel each other, giving the human the illlusion that both the ground he is standing on and the soles of his feet are solid. Electrons and other tiny "particles" are in fact not solid at all, but simply rapidly spinning spirals of electromagnetic energy, the exact details of which no one knows. Only electrodynamic gravity keeps the human from floating into space, and only the electrostatic force of repulsion keeps him from sinking to the center of the planet.
Work, Energy, and Power. Work and energy each involve forces. Work is a force applied over a distance, and energy is the capacity to do work. Both work and energy are expressed in foot-pounds or newton-meters (joules). Therefore there is a certain amount of work required to lift an object a certain distance, equal to the object's weight (mg) times the distance h it is lifted. If that object falls back to the ground, the energy of that fall is the same as the work done to lift it. This energy can be either potential or kinetic:
P.E. = mgh
While potential energy P.E. depends on an object's position or condition, kinetic energy K.E. depends on an object's velocity:
K.E. = ½mv2
Power is the rate at which work is done or energy is released. It is commonly expressed in watts, which are joules per second. It can also be expressed in horsepower, each of which is equal to 550 foot-pounds per second, or 745.7 watts.
If two people climb the same set of stairs, the work done by each is equal. But if one climbs the stairs more quickly than the other, then the power expended by the quicker climber is greater. For the same reason, a powerful aerospace vehicle can climb more rapidly than a less powerful one.
Return to Site Map outline at top of website.
"Nature is pleased
with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes."
Sir Isaac Newton
The purpose of this section is to compare and contrast several theories of gravity. The Discerning Reader may then be prepared to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of each:
Newton's theory posited that gravity was a "pull" acting instantaneously between any two material objects. Einstein's view, known as the general theory of relativity, holds that matter warps the spacetime continuum, which then "pushes" on matter. The theory of electrogravity explains gravity as an imbalanced "push" and "pull" resulting in a very weak force in one direction. Quantum gravity is deleriously infatuated with multiple dimensions, multiple universes, and zero-size singularities such as black holes. Subquantum kinetics uses complex models to teach a strong coupling between electromagnetism and gravity.
Before examining each of these gravity models, it may behoove the Smart Reader to take a look at two models of the Solar System. They both "work," they both explain actual observations from our planet Earth, but only one (the simple one) is correct. Furthermore, both geometrical models can be expressed mathematically, but the deferent/epicycle model is mathematically complex, while the heliocentric model is mathematically simple. Please keep in mind Newton's quote above, as you read about each of the gravity models below.
Sir Isaac Newton, father of physics, is credited with developing the first working theory of gravity, his Law of Universal Gravitation. It was published in 1686, ninety-nine years before Coulomb published his electrostatic law. Because the basic electrical nature of matter hadn't yet been discovered, Newton's theory makes no reference to electric charge. It simply states that two masses, M and m, will exert a mutual force of attraction on one another, depending on the distance between them, r. Take as an example the Earth and an apple hanging from a tree somewhere on its surface. As these two masses come together, the lighter apple will appear to fall onto the surface of the much heavier Earth (possibly bouncing off the forehead of a napping Newton). The law can be stated in mathematical terms thus:
W = G Mm/r2
In this case, W is the apple's weight, G is Newton's gravitational constant, M and m are the masses of Earth and apple, and r is the radial distance between their centers. By taking Sir Isaac's second law of motion F = ma and applying it to gravity, the acceleration of gravity g on the surface of any celestial body of mass M and radius r can quickly be determined:
W = mg = GMm/r2
g = GM/r2
In addition, a gravity field g is defined as a point in space where a test mass m experiences a force W equal to mg.
g = W/m
Equating the right sides of the last two equations gives us back Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
Even Sir Isaac himself recognized some problems with his theory, though. For example, in order for his law to work, gravitational forces had to instantly cross the empty gulf between celestial objects. The Earth and Moon were obviously gravitationally bound, but Newton could never explain how those forces were transmitted. Newton knew that his force acted instantaneously, but he couldn't imagine how.
Also, the Law doesn't work properly in high gravity fields, nor does it predict the bending of electromagnetic rays near gravitating objects. Neither can it predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. Moreover, his Law cannot explain why gravity always attracts, never repels, and why it is so weak compared to the electromagnetic force. Newton could never have imagined an electromagnetic basis for gravity, because his theory predates Coulomb's by nearly a century.
Despite these drawbacks, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is simple and robust enough for all of Earth's space programs. All orbital, lunar, and interplanetary spacecraft have relied exclusively on Newton's Law since the Space Age began in 1957.
Why, then, does Newton's Law work at all? Because although it is essentially correct, it is not complete.
The scientific establishment today accepts Albert Einstein's 1916 theory of general relativity as virtual dogma, just as it formerly accepted Newton's theory, which is still called a "law" of gravity. Unlike Newton's Law, the general theory of relativity models gravity as an attribute of spacetime, which automatically warps in the presence of gravitating bodies. This theory, in fact, forms the rationale for the warp drive used by the USS Enterprise in the Star Trek television series. Gravity, according to Einstein, isn't a force at all, but a curvature of a 4-dimensional spacetime. Therefore the Moon doesn't require an invisible force keeping it in orbit around the Earth, but simply follows the curved geodesics of space, which have been warped by Earth's mass. Light, also, follows the shape of the spacetime continuum, appearing to change course as it grazes stars and other gravitating bodies. You are stuck to Earth not because the planet pulls you, but because Earth has warped spacetime, which presses you onto the planet.
General relativity is based on the equivalence principle, which states that an inertial acceleration is equivalent to a gravitational field. In other words, a rocket-powered ship in deep space, accelerating at one g, will experience Earth normal gravity inside. Furthermore, the crew of that ship can perform all manner of gravity experiments and get the same results as they would on Earth. The significance of the equivalence principle is the implication that gravitational and inertial masses are equivalent, even though the theory cannot explain how. Also, objects in space can accelerate without inertial effects, because they follow the geodesic grid of a curved continuum. But again, the theory cannot explain the apparent equivalence between surface gravity and inertial effects.
General relativity successfully explains the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, predicts the bending of starlight near gravitating bodies, and accounts for a gravitational redshift, or stretching of wavelength in the light coming from dense white dwarf stars. Despite these successes, it cannot explain how mass warps the very fabric of space, why gravity always attracts and never repels, and why the gravitational force is far weaker than the electromagnetic force. Significantly, a unified theory linking general relativity with electromagnetism, which Einstein spent the last years of his life working to achieve, remains elusive.
These are not the only problems with general relativity. One of its main tenets is that nothing, including gravity, can travel faster than light. Yet both Newton's Law and the laws of celestial mechanics work only when gravitational effects are assumed to travel instantaneously. In fact, binary pulsars receive information about one another's gravity fields faster than the light-travel time between them. And light cannot escape from black holes, but gravity evidently does. Wait, there's more.
Geometry shows that a finite speed of gravity destroys planetary orbits. Since gravity works in both directions, the force of the Sun on the Earth, for example, must be equal to and in the opposite direction as the force of the Earth on the Sun. Yet, if gravity, like light, takes eight minutes and 20 seconds to bridge the gap, then the force of the Sun on the Earth would not be along the same line of action as the force of the Earth on the Sun. This is because both Sun and Earth will have moved during that eight minutes, in different directions. Therefore, the misaligned forces would create a couple, altering the angular momentum of all planetary orbits, and creating serious orbital instabilities. This idea was first explained by Sir Arthur Eddington as early as 1920.
In addition to these concerns, there is no aberration of gravity as there is with light, due to Earth's motion about the Sun. That is to say, there is no vector component of gravity due to Earth's orbital speed of 18 miles per second, if gravity really "streams out" from the Sun at the speed of light. An aberration of light is well-documented, with verifiable results causing dust grains to spiral into the Sun, but no analogous aberration of gravity has ever been detected.
Finally, the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics do not agree. At least one of these must be in error, because both cannot simultaneously describe the true Nature of our Universe.
Hooper's Hypothesis — Electrogravity Unveiled
"Ye shall know the
truth, and the truth will make you free."
Jesus Christ
During the late 1960's physicist William Hooper performed research on electric fields, eventually concluding there were three distinct varieties. He focused on the motional electric field, which is responsible for the electromagnetic force between parallel current carrying conductors, the induced electromotive force in a generator, and the force of rotation in an electric motor. Because the motional field was immune to shielding, he proposed that gravity itself may actually be an electric field of this type.
This Window takes you directly to Dr. Hooper's published research.
In an electric generator, a mechanical force turns conductive windings through permanent magnetic fields, or turns a magnetic field (powered by either permanent or electromagnets) past stationary conductive windings. This induces an electromotive force, or voltage, in the windings. The magnetic field direction, relative motion between the field and windings, and induced electron flow within the windings are all at right angles to one another.
This Hyperphysics Window shows how electric generators work.
In an electric motor, an electron flow through conductive windings in the presence of permanent magnetic fields induces a rotation of the windings. The direction of the permanent magnetic fields, electron flow within the conductors, and induced rotation of the windings are, again, all at right angles.
This Hyperphysics Window shows how electric motors work.
Generators and motors each involve magnetic fluxes described by the vector B, some velocity described by the vector V, and motional electric fields described by the vector E. The relevant vector equation is
E = V x B
The vector B symbolizes the density and direction of magnetic fields, which in this case point from the north pole to the south pole of permanent magnets. It appears in second place here because the magnetic fields are stationary.
In a generator, the velocity vector V represents the rotational motion of the windings imposed by some mechanical agency, relative to the stationary magnetic field B. The motional electric field vector E represents the electromotive force causing electrons to flow within the conductive windings themselves.
In an electric motor, the vector V signifies the electron flow in the windings due to an applied voltage, relative to the stationary magnetic field B. The motional electric field vector E appears as the rotation of the windings themselves. This is just the opposite of the situation in an electric generator.
Hooper's field can generate gravity, using the very same ingredients required for the operation of electric motors and generators, and inherent in parallel conductors with steady currents. The magnetic fields required for gravity come from the Oersted fluxes originating in the individual electron orbitals of all the atoms in a gravitating mass. Because electrons are in continuous rapid orbital motion about atomic nuclei, they constitute miniature electric currents, and therefore generate Oersted fluxes. The velocity vector arises from the motion of the electrons themselves, which results in sweeping magnetic fields. The relevant vector equation is
E = B x V
which is reversed from that describing electric motors and generators. This is because in atoms — just as in current carrying conductors — the Oersted fluxes themselves are moving, while in the motors and generators just described, the windings are moving and the magnetic fields are stationary.
For objects on the surface of Earth or any planet, the Oersted flux vector fields from atoms underfoot will always point along the surface in all directions and be precisely perpendicular to their velocity vectors. This is due to the toroidal or "doughnut-shaped" magnetic fluxes surrounding every electron orbit. A north-pointing Oersted flux will always have an eastward velocity. An east-pointing flux will always have a southward velocity, and so on. The resultant motional electric field vector from a planet's Oersted fluxes will, therefore, always point downward in accordance with E = B x V.
As the combined Oersted fluxes from all the electrons in a gravitating body sweep through a material object, an orthogonal motional electric field vector pulls on all the protons and pushes on all the electrons, causing a slight radial separation or polarization of charge within the atoms of the affected object. This automatically places the protons a little closer and the electrons a little farther from the field source. Therefore, the pull on all the protons in a body will slightly exceed the repulsion on all the electrons, resulting in a weakly attractive force commonly called a gravitational field.
Because Dr. Hooper began with magnetic and electric fields to explain gravity, the theory is naturally unifying. Since the model shows that electrons and protons in matter are pulled in opposite directions with unbalanced forces inside atoms, it explains why gravity always attracts, and why it is the weakest force of Nature. It can also explain the equivalence principle, inertial effects, and the gyroscopic effect.
In the sections to follow, we will further explore and explain the details of Hooper's field, including how it can be transmitted instantaneously across the Universe.
"By
his willingness to change his model or his concepts, the scientist is admitting
that he makes no claim to possessing ultimate truth."
Wernher von Braun
Introduction to Electrogravitics
Electrogravitics in a Nutshell
The principles summarized above are rooted in electromagnetism, most likely the sole force of Nature in the Universe. Many of these ideas appear in the writings of William J. Hooper, Steven J. Smith, and Nils Rognerud.
There are two unrelated methods of generating lift using the surrounding atmosphere — aerostatically (lighter-than-air) and aerodynamically (heavier-than-air). Similarly, there may be two independent ways of achieving flight in space — rocket propulsion and field propulsion. Rocket propulsion simply uses brute force, trading the backward momentum of propellants for the forward momentum of a spaceship.
Field propulsion, on the other hand, provides a potentially superior method of attaining spaceflight. It sweeps away the brute concepts of force and mass, replacing them with the more elegant ideas of field and charge. According to this theory, a gravity field is simply a non-uniform "motional electric field." Every atom in the Universe is both a transmitter and a receiver of magnetic fields which induce these kinds of electric fields, because all matter everywhere consists of charged particles. In other words, gravity may be nothing more than an aspect of electromagnetism. If gravity does have an electromagnetic basis, then future spacefarers will generate their own gravitational fields and swiftly sail the cosmic ocean without the limitations imposed by inertia, propellants, or the rocket equation.
Consider the Bohr model of the atom — a single positively charged proton orbited by a single negatively charged electron. The opposite charges on these subatomic particles exactly cancel each other out, accounting for the neutral state of bulk matter in the Universe.
Associated with an orbiting electron is a magnetic field, which accompanies the electron as it orbits the nucleus very rapidly. The electron orbit amounts to a tiny electric circuit. As with any current carrying conductor, the left-hand rule defines the magnetic field: the thumb points in the direction of electron flow, and the fingers of the left hand wrap around the conductor to show the orientation of the magnetic field. In the case of an orbital electron, the magnetic field curls around the electron orbit in a doughnut-like shell or torus, appears at all distances from the atom, and sweeps through all space.
As the electron orbits the nucleus, it carries this magnetic field with it. Note that if electrons are themselves magnetic entities, this would explain the ubiquitous presence of magnetic fields with electric currents. In the case of individual orbiting electrons, the magnetic field is discontinuous, presenting a sort of wave-front and fading out behind as the electron orbits the nucleus quadrillions of times per second. Also note that the magnetic energy must sweep the entire Universe, if electrons are magnetic entities with no physical boundaries. The magnetic flux does not expand into space, but is already in place as the magnetic "structure" of the electron itself.
Because the magnetic field always maintains the same orientation with respect to the electron orbit in accordance with the left-hand rule, it will seem, from our vantage point outside the atom, to periodically reverse polarity as the electron orbits the nucleus. These very fast polarity reversals seem to cancel out the magnetic fields, leaving only a magnetically induced motional electric field in its wake. More on motional fields in a moment.
An electric field is a region where charged particles — electrons and protons — feel a strong force in one direction or another. A gravity field is a region where mass particles feel a very weak force in one direction only. Yet all masses are composed of charged particles. The key difference between electric and gravitational fields, then, is that electric fields attract or repel strongly, whereas gravity fields always attract weakly. Before electromagnetically explaining these attributes of gravity, let's take a closer look at electric fields.
There are three kinds of electric field, according to Dr. William J. Hooper, late professor emeritus of physics, Principia College. These are the static field, the transformer field, and the motional field. Each of these has its counterpart magnetic field. Furthermore, there are over a dozen parameters describing these fields, including field dependence, spatial nature, and shieldability.
The electrostatic field is a primary field which can exist independently, is continuous in its spatial distribution, and can easily be shielded. It is caused by the presence of one or more charged particles.
The transformer electric field is also continuous and can be shielded, but depends on "flux linking" and an accelerating or oscillating magnetic field for its existence.
The motional electric field is discontinuous, appearing only where moving charges exist in the presence of a stationary magnetic field, or where a moving magnetic field sweeps past stationary charged particles. It cannot be measured with a voltmeter, but penetrates all matter. The motional electric field cannot be shielded, a key attribute it shares with gravity.
All electric fields are actually mathematical, vectorial representations of magnetic effects.
In the presence of stationary charged particles, a motional electric field E is created by a magnetic field B moving with velocity V, as described by the following vector product:
E = B x V
By the right-hand rule, the fingers of the right hand point in the direction of the magnetic field vector B then "curl" in the direction of its velocity. The extended thumb now points in the direction of the motional electric field vector E. If the magnetic field is stationary and charged particles move through it, as in some electric motors, the vector product is reversed.
The B field vector typically points from the north pole to the south pole of a magnet. In the case of electron orbitals, however, the magnetic field vector curls completely around the electron path as defined by the left-hand rule. This is the Oersted flux accompanying every electron orbit.
Keeping this doughnut-shaped region of magnetic flux surrounding the electron orbit in mind, let us view the atom from different angles some arbitrary distance away. First we'll look at the atom "edge-on" so that the electron appears to oscillate back and forth on a horizontal line centered on the proton. Some 10 quadrillion times each second, the electron will come between us and the proton, and 10 quadrillion times per second it will go behind the proton. The magnetic flux from the torus will pass our location in space each time this happens. At other times, it will sweep someone else's location in space. Because the magnetic field curls around the electron orbit by the left-hand rule, the magnetic field direction we see will always be pointed straight up whenever the electron passes to the right between us and the proton, and will always be pointed down whenever the electron passes to the left behind the proton. The ring of magnetic flux pointing in all other directions, as it speeds around the orbital path, sweeps through other points in space, missing us completely. We therefore see only that magnetic flux sweeping our location in space from the "outside" of the torus on the near side of the orbit and from the "inside" of the torus on the far side of the orbit.
Now that we know that the magnetic field vector is pointing up when the electron is moving horizontally to the right between us and the proton, and that it is pointing down when the electron is moving horizontally to the left behind the proton, we can apply the vector field equation above, and find out the direction of the motional electric field at these times. Pointing the fingers of the right hand in the direction of B, then curling them in the direction of V, the right thumb points in the direction of E. When we do this we find that the motional electric field vector always points toward the atom from our location in space, regardless of where we are, where the electron is in its orbit, which way it orbits, or which direction the magnetic field vector points.
To verify this finding, let us now move to a location "above" the atom such that it appears that the electron is orbiting counter-clockwise around the proton. Applying the left-hand rule to the electron orbit, we now see that the magnetic flux sweeping past our new location above the torus is always pointed inward, toward the orbital axis. Picking any point on the path of the electron, we can once again apply the right-hand rule. Pointing the fingers of the right hand from the electron orbital toward the axis (the direction B points at our location above the atom), then curling them in the direction of motion of the electron and its magnetic field, the right thumb will always point directly at the atom.
Moving "below" the atom, the electron now moves in clockwise fashion, and the structure of its magnetic torus means that the flux we encounter points outward, away from the orbital axis. Applying B x V and the right-hand rule once again shows that E points toward the atom.
We have now established that all atoms generate motional electric, or electrogravitic, vector fields pointing inward from all directions in space, converging on individual atoms. But what does this mean?
The significance of convergent, or inward-pointing, electrogravitic vector fields surrounding all atoms is crucial in understanding how electrogravity works. For, if individual atoms generate such fields, then bulk matter must generate such fields as well. This applies to apples, as well as to moons, planets, stars, and galaxies. How do such fields actually work?
A charged particle moving through a magnetic field experiences a force at right angles to both its own velocity and the magnetic field direction. The force F depends on the particle's positive or negative charge q, its velocity V (speed and direction), and the magnetic field vector B (magnitude and direction).
F = q (V x B)
Vectors, indicated by underlining, specify information about both magnitude and direction. Therefore the expression above tells us the angle between the charged particle's motion and the magnetic field lines. This vector equation again employs the right-hand rule. If the angle q from the particle's velocity vector to the magnetic field vector is measured counter-clockwise in a horizontal plane, the force points vertically upward for a positive charge and vertically downward for a negative charge, as illustrated here. The magnitude of the force is given by
F = qVB sin q
A charged particle moving in one direction relative to a stationary magnetic field is equivalent to a magnetic field moving in the opposite direction relative to a stationary charged particle. Therefore, reversing the order of the cross product will yield the same answer, provided the velocity is now understood to be that of the magnetic field itself.
F = q (B x V)
The right-hand rule and magnitude formula above still apply, but the angle q is now measured from the magnetic field vector to its own velocity vector.
For example, if the original angle between a particle's velocity and the magnetic field vector is 30 degrees, the new angle between the magnetic field and its own motion in the opposite direction will be 150 degrees. The sine of both these angles is ½, so the result is the same.
To simplify the expressions above, we utilize the definition of electric field intensity E as the force F felt by a charge q :
E = F / q
E = q (B x V) / q
This immediately yields the vector product
E = B x V
which gives the motional electric field E due to a magnetic field B moving at velocity V. This vector tells us the direction, as before, that a positive charge will feel a force. Negative charges will feel a force in the opposite direction.
As an example, let's look at the Bohr atom again — a single proton orbited by a single electron. Now we'll consider how it acts as a receiver of electrogravity, rather than as an emitter. Remember that an electrogravitic field and a motional electric field are equivalent.
Imagine the Bohr atom to be near the source of a local electrogravitic (B x V) field, such as a moon or a planet. The proton and electron will feel forces in precisely opposite directions, as already explained. Within the atom, the average positions of the proton and electron will therefore be affected by this single electrogravitic field. The proton will be forced toward the field source while the electron is forced away. Such an atom is therefore said to be slightly polarized.
The induced charge polarization in the atom amounts to a tiny game of tug-of-war. But something interesting happens at this point. Since the proton has moved slightly closer to the center of electrogravitic convergence (where the field is stronger), and the electron has moved slightly farther away (where the field is weaker), the attraction on the proton very slightly exceeds the repulsion on the electron. The proton therefore wins the game, pulling the entire atom, including the electron, toward the center of the field. The atom as a whole will feel a very weak force in the downward direction. This model, originally worked out by William J. Hooper, thus explains both why the gravitational force always attracts and why it is so weak compared to the electromagnetic force itself.
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
"Knowledge [is] the wing wherewith we fly to Heaven."
Shakespeare
All matter is composed of charged particles.
As a result, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation looks just like Coulomb's
Law. Compare these pairs of equations:
F = ma
An acceleration
relates a force to a mass.
F
= qE
An electric field relates a force to a charge.
F
= G Mm / r2
Two
masses exert mutual gravitational forces on each other.
F
= k Qq / r2
Two charges exert mutual
electrical forces on each other.
Notice the equivalence of these equations. Newton's masses correspond to Coulomb's
charges, and acceleration corresponds to electric field intensity. All four
equations describe real forces.
Comparing Newton's Law of Gravitation with Coulomb's Law of Electromagnetism, the forces involved are both directly proportional to the product of two masses — or charges — and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
To show the actual equivalence of these equations, we will now use the Coulomb Law to model gravity.
F = k Qq / r2
The force, F, is simply a push or a pull set up between two like or unlike charges Q and q. As in a magnet, like charges always repel, and unlike charges always attract. Forces are given in Newtons (N) and charge is measured in Coulombs (C).
The Coulomb Constant k is equal to
k = 8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2 = 1/4pe0
where e0 is the electrical permittivity of free space or electric constant. The last variable, r, in the equation above represents the radial distance in meters between the centers of the two charges, Q and q.
The next step is to determine the effective electrostatic charge — in the model — on each of two massive objects, such as the Earth and a one-kilogram mass of any substance on its surface: hydrogen, milk, gold, anything. The actual charges on these objects are zero, of course, because they contain equal numbers of positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons. In the electrostatic model, however, we can assign each mass an effective charge representing a gravitational field.
The ratio of the large effective charge Qe to the small, opposite effective charge qe should equal the ratio of their actual masses, since in both cases a force of attraction results. Using the mass of the Earth as our starting point, we have
Qe/qe = M/m = 5.9763 x 1024 kg / 1 kg = 5.9763 x 1024
Qe = (5.9763 x 1024) qe
By a series of algebraic steps, we will now obtain numerical values for both Qe and qe making use also of the weight of 1 kilogram on Earth (9.8066 452 N) and Earth's mean radius (6.37681 x 106 m).
(Note: Bold-faced numerals represent significant figures, with non-bold numerals left in place to increase the accuracy of our computations.)
F = k Qeqe / r2
F = k (5.9763 x 1024) qe2 / r2
qe = [ Fr2 / k (5.9763 x 1024) ] 1/2
qe = [ (9.8066 452 N) (6.37681 x 106 m)2 / (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2) (5.9763 x 1024) ] 1/2
qe = 8.6164 189 x 10-11 C (for 1 kilogram)
Qe = (5.9763 x 1024) qe = 5.1494 3044 x 1014 C (for the Earth)
The effective electrostatic charge per kilogram, qe, turns up again and again and plays a central role in the science of electrogravitics.
As we have already seen, electrogravitics explains gravity as the difference between the forces of attraction on the protons and repulsion on the electrons within individual atoms. This concept can be written as an equation based on Coulomb's law:
F = kQe(+q) /r12 + kQe(-q) /r22
The factors +q and -q stand for the charges on the protons and electrons, respectively. When we factor q out of the equation, its numerical value will signify the total electron or proton charge magnitude, but q will still apply to all electrons and all protons in the sample under scrutiny. Radial distances r1 and r2 stand for the very close but slightly different average distances from the Earth's center to those protons and electrons. The difference between r1 and r2 is therefore extremely small, since we expect it to be an effect that occurs inside atoms. The average distance to the electrons (r2) should be slightly greater than the average distance to the protons (r1). Because of this very tiny difference, (r2 – r1), adding r1 to r2 results in just twice the radius of the planet (to one part in a trillion), whereas taking their difference results in a tiny but non-zero number, smaller than an atom. A little more algebra yields an expression for this small value.
F = kQeq (1/r12 – 1/r22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factor out kQeq.
F = kQeq (r22 / r12r22 – r12 / r12r22) . . . . . . .Multiply 1st term by (r2/r2 )2, 2nd term by (r1/r1)2.
F = kQeq (r22 – r12) / r12r22 . . . . . . . . . . . . Simplify with common denominator.
F = kQeq [ (r2 – r1) (r2 + r1) / (r2)2 ] . . . . . . .Let r1r2 = r2 because r1 virtually equals r2.
F = kQeq [ (r2 – r1) (2r) / r4 ] . . . . . . . . . . . .Let (r1 + r2) = 2r for the same reason.
F = 2kQeq [ (r2 – r1) / r3 ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bring 2 to front; simplify r/r4 to 1/r3.
(r2 – r1) = Fr3 / 2kQeq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solve for (r2 – r1).
To numerically compute (r2 – r1), the tiny radial distance between the charges inside the atoms, we will need a numerical value for q, the total electron or proton charge magnitude, as explained above. The effective electrostatic charge qe calculated previously is not used here, because this value already assumes a difference between total charge attractions and repulsions in the object under scrutiny. We are now calculating that very difference, in terms of the subatomic charge separation, (r2 – r1) using all the protons and electrons in the object and assuming the Earth carries an effective electrostatic charge Qe. For the mathematically inclined, here is the algebraic relationship between qe and q which we will numerically verify a little later:
F = k Qeqe / r2 = kQe(+q) /r12 + kQe(-q) /r22
qe = 2q (r2 – r1) / r
At this point, let us verify the electrostatic model by calculating the weight of a one kilogram mass on Earth using both Newton's law and Coulomb's law. It should equal about 9.8066 452 N (Newtons), in both models.
In Newton's law, the weight is the force of attraction (F) between two masses, the Earth (M) and the kilogram (m):
F = G Mm / r2
F = (6.672599 x 10-11 N m2/kg2) x (5.9763 x 1024 kg) x (1 kg) / (6.37681 x 106 m)2
F = 9.8066 452 N
This computation is the original source of the value 9.8066 452 N that we previously used, so it's no surprise that the number comes out perfectly.
In Coulomb's law, the weight is the force of attraction (F) between two effective electrostatic charges, the Earth (Qe) and the kilogram (qe):
F = k Qeqe / r2
F = (8.987552 x 109 N m2/C2) x (5.1494 3044 x 1014 C) x (8.6164 189 x 10-11 C) / (6.37681 x 106 m)2
F = 9.8066 452 N
The results are in precise agreement, verifying that our numbers are correct. Using a mean radius for the Earth, rather than an equatorial or polar radius, is important because the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid with a bulging equator and flattened poles. The force of gravity depends on the distance from the center of the planet, whichever model is used.
Getting back to the problem at hand, we already have values for the force or weight F of the kilogram at Earth's surface, the mean Earth radius r, Coulomb's constant k, and the effective electrostatic Earth charge Qe. We'll need a few more constants before we can calculate q, the charge magnitude per kilogram.
proton mass = 1.6726231 x 10-27 kg
electron mass = 9.1093897 x 10-31 kg
neutron mass = 1.6749286 x 10-27
kg
electron or proton charge = 1.60217733 x 10-19 C
The absolute value of the electron and proton charge is always equal. The actual negative charge on the electron is covered by the minus sign between the two terms in the algebraic derivation above.
Starting with the simplest element, hydrogen, we have at the atomic scale a single proton orbited by a single electron. To calculate the total electron or proton charge magnitude per kilogram, we can use this simple formula:
q = Charge per kg =
(total electron or proton charge) / (sum of subatomic masses in kg)
= (absolute value of electron charge) / (1 proton mass + 1 electron mass)
= (1.60217733 x 10-19 C) / (1.6726231 x 10-27 kg + 9.1093897 x 10-31 kg)
q = 9.5736166 x 107 C / kg
Now we are ready to calculate (r2 – r1), the average radial separation between all the electrons and protons in a body at Earth's surface. In this formula, we will use the effective electrostatic charge on Earth, Qe, and the total electron or proton charge on the kilogram, q, that we just calculated. Keep in mind that every electron and every proton in the kilogram will be responding to the electrogravitic field of Earth, which we are modeling here as an effective electrostatic charge, Qe.
(r2 – r1) = Fr3 / 2kQeq
(r2 – r1) = (9.8066 452 N) (6.37681 x 106 m)3 /
[ 2 (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2) (5.1494 3044 x 1014 C) (9.5736166 x 107 C ) ]
(r2 – r1) = 2.8696 191 x 10-12 m
This result indicates that electrons and protons in objects at the surface of Earth are radially separated, on average, by about 2.87 trillionths of a meter, or less than 3 billionths of a millimeter. The electrons are being pushed upward, and the protons are being pulled downward, all inside the individual atoms, so that they are radially deflected by this average amount. This places the protons in a stronger part of the modeled electrostatic field — or the induced motional electric field, as explained in the last section — than the electrons, and the entire atom is tugged toward the Earth. The effect is very slight for any one atom, but multiplied by all the atoms in a given mass, the end result would be equivalent to gravity. The tiny result accounts for the weak nature of the gravitational force compared to the overall electromagnetic force, as well as explaining the fact that gravity always attracts and never repels.
Well, it seemed to work for hydrogen. Will it work for uranium as well? Uranium-238, atomic number 92, contains many more particles per atom than hydrogen, with 92 protons, 92 electrons, and 146 neutrons.
Charge per kg =
(no. of charges x electron charge) / (sum of subatomic masses in kg)
= (238 x electron charge) / (92 protons + 92 electrons + 146 neutrons)
= (238 x 1.60217733 x 10-19 C) /
[ 92 (1.6726231 x 10-27) + 92 (9.1093897 x 10-31) + 146 (1.6749286 x 10-27) ]
q = 9.5687252 x 107 C / kg
which is just a little smaller than the value of 9.5736166 x 107 C that we obtained with hydrogen. Continuing our computations,
(r2 – r1) = Fr3 / 2kQeq
(r2 – r1) = (9.8066 452 N) (6.37681 x 106 m)3 /
[ 2 (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2) (5.1494 3044 x 1014 C) (9.5687252 x 107 C) ]
(r2 – r1) = 2.8710 860 x 10-12 m
which is just a little bigger than the value of 2.8696 191 x 10-12 m that we obtained with hydrogen. The fact that these two results are in such close agreement for elements at opposite ends of the natural periodic spectrum is surely a good sign.
The reason for the slight discrepancy is evidently tied to the neutron count. The Alert Reader will have recognized that we've treated these neutral particles as composite positive and negative charges, which explains why we assigned uranium a total of 238 charges: 92 regular proton-electron pairs plus 146 more as "neutronic" pairs. In fact, failing to do so grossly skews the results of the computations, and the theory falls apart.
Every neutron has a slightly larger mass, however, than the exact sum of a proton and an electron, a phenomenon we will attempt to explain later. In any event, whenever the charge per kilogram goes down, the radial separation goes up, which immediately raises the question of whether the product of these two numbers is a constant.
Is q (r2 – r1) a constant? Let's find out. For hydrogen,
(9.5736166 x 107 C / kg) x (2.8696 191 x 10-12 m) = 2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg
And for uranium,
(9.5687252 x 107 C / kg) x (2.8710 860 x 10-12 m) = 2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg
Yes, this number is constant, for the planet Earth. Now we can simplify our electrogravitic Coulomb equation even further by defining a new parameter, which we might call our Earth radial subatomic charge separation. We will denote it by the Greek letter sigma (s).
Earth Radial Subatomic Charge Separation Parameter
s = q (r2 – r1) = 2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg
so that our Coulomb-law derived Electrogravitic Force equation
F = 2kQe [ q (r2 – r1) / r3 ]
is further simplified:
F = 2ks [ Qem / r3 ]
Placing sigma (s) in the equation creates the convenience of using masses in kilograms instead of having to calculate the number of atomic charges every time. But will it work anywhere in the Universe? Let's find out. As I type these words, I'm just as curious about it as anyone.
Before proceeding, let's do another check of our math. Earlier, the relationship of qe to q was given as
qe = 2q (r2 – r1) / r
which is equivalent to
qe = 2s / r
Plugging in numbers to verify the correctness of this equation:
qe = 2 x (2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg) / (6.37681 x 106 m)
qe = 8.6164 189 x 10-11 C / kg
This exactly agrees with the value of qe that we derived earlier, using the weight of a kilogram mass on Earth, the mean radius and mass of the Earth, and Coulomb's constant k. The model, therefore, is further verified.
Rejoining the previous discussion, we know that the planet Mercury has 0.05527 times the mass of Earth, which means that its effective charge will be 0.05527 times the effective charge of Earth. We can also look up the fact that its surface gravity is 0.376 that of Earth. This means that a 100 kg mass, which weighs 980.665 N on Earth, will weigh about 369 N on Mercury. We also need the radius of Mercury, which is 0.3825 that of Earth, or 2.4397 x 106 m. In order for the equation to work anywhere, we must scale both the radial charge separation parameter s and the effective charge of the gravitating body Qe to reflect the planet under scrutiny. The radial charge separation parameter is directly related to the relative size of the planet, and the effective charge, of course, will depend on the ratio of the planet's mass to Earth's mass. The following examples, which compute the weight of a 100 kg mass on various planets, illustrate these principles.
"Force of Electrogravity on a 100 kg Mass on Various Planets"
F = 2ks [ Qem / r3 ]
Mercury: 369 N predicted by Newton
F = 2 (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2)0.3825(2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg) x
[0.05527(5.1494 3044 x 1014 C)(100 kg) / (2.4397 x 106 m)3]
F = 370.2 N calculated by Electrogravity
Venus: 888 N predicted by Newton
F = 2 (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2)0.9487(2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg) x
[0.81499(5.1494 3044 x 1014 C)(100 kg) / (6.051 x 106 m)3]
F = 887.4 N calculated by Electrogravity
Earth: 980.66 452 N predicted by Newton
F = 2 (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2) (2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg) x
[(5.1494 3044 x 1014 C)(100 kg) / (6.37681 x 106 m)3]
F = 980.66 451 N calculated by Electrogravity
Mars: 371 N predicted by Newton
F = 2 (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2)0.5326(2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg) x
[0.10745(5.1494 3044 x 1014 C)(100 kg) / (3.397 x 106 m)3]
F = 371.2 N calculated by Electrogravity
Is there a way to remove
mass from the calculation completely? Yes! If we divide both sides of the equation
by mass, we now have the following, where we get a little help from Newton's
2nd law:
F = 2ks [ Qem / r3 ] = ma
a = 2ksQe / r3
which immediately yields the acceleration of gravity anywhere in the Universe. We must only remember to multiply this expression by the ratios of planet diameter to Earth diameter and planet mass to Earth mass. Let's try it on Earth's Moon, to see if it still works.
Given the Moon's radius = 0.2725 Earth's radius = 1738.0 km, and Moon's mass = 1 / 81.300587 of Earth's mass, we have everything we need. We should get an answer of about 1.62 meters per second squared, or about 1/6 Earth gravity.
a = 2ksQe / r3
a = 2 (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2) (0.2725 / 81.300587) (2.7472 633 x 10-4 C m / kg) x
(5.1494 3044 x 1014 C) / (1.7380 x 106 m)3
a = 1.623 m/sec2
We now have five examples, spanning the inner Solar System, where electrogravity is proven to work at least as well as conventional gravitational equations. So what is really going on here?
Let's analyze the equation element by element, to gain some physical insight into its inner workings.
a = 2ksQe / r3
The equation, here presented in its most simplified form yet, promises to give us a precise and accurate acceleration of gravity anywhere in the known Universe.
The first element is the numeral 2, which comes from the two Earth radii leading to an electron and a proton inside a single atom somewhere on the surface. If you look back at the equations, you will see that we replaced (r2 + r1) with (2r). Since the two radial lines led to the same atom, adding them together would result in twice the radius of the Earth. So r1 and r2 are essentially the same number, r, unless one is subtracted from the other. The 2r term in the numerator cancelled with the r 4 term in the denominator, leaving us with 2 / r 3. This explains the first and last elements of the formula.
The second element is the Coulomb constant, k, which we inherited directly from Coulomb's law, completely intact. This number is the inverse of the product of 4p and the electrical permittivity of free space, meaning that this element concerns itself only with the electromagnetic Nature of the Universe.
The third element, s (sigma), is the Earth Radial Subatomic Charge Separation Parameter, which is the product of the electron or proton charge, q, in one kilogram of any substance and the average radial distance (r2 – r1) between two unlike charges inside a typical atom located at Earth's surface. This second number tells us precisely how much farther an average electron is from the center of the Earth than an average proton is, in an electrogravitic field. As we discovered above, the product of the two numbers is always a constant in any gravity field. The two numbers themselves vary slightly, but inversely, with each other because of the differing proportions of neutrons in different elements. This is why we multiplied them together and gave them their own Greek letter. The number we derived above for s works only at the surface of planet Earth, because it includes the radial subatomic charge separation for the electrogravitic field at Earth's surface. Other gravity fields result in different values for (r2 – r1), scaling linearly with a planet's radius or diameter. The larger the planet, the larger the charge separation. The smaller the planet (or moon), the smaller the charge separation. In the case of Earth, this tiny distance amounts to about a tenth of a billionth of an inch, or 0.029 Angstroms. Compared to the size of an atom, it is about one percent of an atomic diameter, but still about a thousand times larger than the nucleus.
We finally come to Qe, the effective electrostatic charge on Earth, which every proton and every electron in the Universe "sees" on Earth. When used to calculate accelerations or forces of gravity on other bodies, Qe must also be multiplied by a scale factor, just like sigma. In this case, since the total effective charge on a body is directly proportional to its mass, we multiply Qe by the ratio of the gravitating body's mass to Earth's mass.
Each of these elements has a quintessentially electromagnetic basis. From the 2 radii leading to opposite atomic charges and Coulomb's constant k, to s with its product of charge q and radial difference r2 – r1, and finally to Qe, the effective charge on the gravitating body, every element is entirely electromagnetic, conspicuously non-gravitational, and completely independent of conventional mass.
Digressing once more, we should say a few words here about neutrons. These peculiar particles have slightly more mass than the sum of an electron and a proton, yet they are electrically neutral. The slight decrease in q, the total charge per unit mass, in neutron-rich elements, combined with the slight increase in subatomic charge separation, (r2 – r1), in those very same elements, helps us understand what's going on inside the atom and the neutron. These inversely related trends precisely cancel each other out in the form of the constant s. The charge reduction per unit mass is easy to understand. As the mass goes up, the charge per unit mass goes down, because the total charge in the weight-gaining neutrons remains constant. The simultaneous subatomic radial charge-separation gain is verified by the physical fact that all masses accelerate equally in a gravitational field. If masses are actually charges (which they are), then the reduced charge per unit mass seen in neutron-rich elements must be compensated for by an increased average radial charge separation, in order to maintain an equal gravitational acceleration between neutron-poor and neutron-rich elements. But this doesn't really explain why the charges increase their separations. It just confirms what Galileo discovered centuries ago: all massive objects accelerate equally in a gravity field. This was even demonstrated on the Moon in 1971 by Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott with his famous "hammer and feather" experiment. What is really going on in the atom?
Consider the possibility that neutrons are actually composite particles consisting of protons and electrons. Here is one model that could explain the increased charge polarization (radial separation) in neutron-rich elements. Neutrons would simply be nucleus-abiding protons surrounded by a compact electron cloud residing well inside the main electron cloud. Under the influence of an electrogravitic field, all protons and both electron clouds will undergo radial polarization, with the protons moving closer to the gravitational field source and the electron clouds moving farther away. However, because the two electron clouds are now generally on the same side of the atom, they will tend to repel one another. This leads to an interesting interplay between these subatomic charges.
Here is how it works. The electrostatic repulsion between the inner and outer electron clouds has two effects. It moves the outer electron cloud farther from its parent protons while moving the inner electron cloud back toward the nucleus to some degree. Even if the inner or "neutronic" electron cloud experiences little or no net shift in position, it still tends to increase the overall charge polarization electrostatically, because of the increased repulsion on the outer cloud. The end result is an increased separation of charge due to the presence of neutrons, exactly as deduced in the calculations above.
This analysis also shows that neutrons must be composed of protons and electrons, if the theory is valid, because it is this factor which skews the overall charge separation.
This brings us to the question of why a neutron is heavier than the sum of its parts. The model outlined above, in which neutrons are simply protons attended by electrons in tight orbits, may provide the answer. Electrons bound to neutrons in tight, fast orbits would impart greater angular momentum to the entire neutron. In addition, the higher orbital energies of neutronic electrons would amount to an increase in electromagnetic mass, due entirely to the state of motion of those electrons.
One more word about neutrons. Free neutrons (those not bound to atoms) disintegrate into protons and electrons within a time span of about 15 minutes. A third particle called an anti-neutrino is said also to emanate from this reaction, according to conventional thinking. As pointed out by Steven J. Smith, however, the absorption of a neutrino would be exactly equivalent to the emission of an anti-neutrino. Have any anti-neutrinos ever actually been observed being emitted from neutrons during this decay process? And if not, who is to say that just the opposite is not occurring?
Also, why are nucleonic neutrons stable, while those that have escaped the nucleus tend to be unstable? Could it be that atomic neutrons are no more stable than their free-roaming counterparts, but that whenever one emits an electron it is immediately captured by an adjacent proton? In this case, the total number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of such an atom would remain constant, thereby preserving the elemental and isotopic identity of that atom.
Neutron stars are composed of a degenerate form of matter in which the gravity is so strong that electrons have been "pressed into" the nuclei of atoms, creating a ball of neutrons. If this is actually the case, and all indications say that it is, then the evidence clearly shows that neutrons are made of protons and electrons.
Why is electrogravity a better theory than others?
Unlike Newton's or Einstein's theories, which cannot explain why the gravitational force always attracts and why it is by far the weakest of Nature's four forces, the electromagnetic-based theory introduced here answers both questions. Gravity always weakly attracts because the electrogravitic field acting on the charges inside atoms pulls the protons into a stronger part of the field, while pushing the electrons into a weaker part of the field. This results in a net attraction significantly weakened by these virtually equal opposing forces. The forces of attraction and repulsion no longer perfectly cancel out. The electrogravitic field is actually a motional electric field, discontinuous in nature, induced in particles of matter (and only in those particles) by the continuously sweeping extended magnetic fields of all the orbital electrons in the gravitating body.
Another reason electrogravity is a superior theory is because it brings together two formerly separate forces of Nature and explains one in terms of the other. Just as electricity and magnetism were discovered by Oersted to be aspects of the same force, so gravity and electromagnetism now seem to be parts of one unified force.
How much "electrogravitic voltage," might be involved in "broadcasting" Earth's electrogravitic field into the inky depths of Outer Space?
The answer is shocking, and may take you some time to accustom yourself to the idea. At Earth's surface, the electric field of our planet — in the electrostatic model — can be derived as follows:
F = kQeqe / r2 = qeE
Electrogravitic Field = E = kQe / r2
E = (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2) (5.1494 3044 x 1014 C) / (6.37681 x 106 m)2
E = 1.1381 3468 x 1011 V/m
Let's check this another way, using the effective charge qe on our kilogram, falling 1 meter in Earth's field:
Electric Voltage = Work / Charge = (Force x Distance) / Charge
= (Weight x Distance Fallen) / Effective Charge of the Weight
= (9.8066 452 N x 1 m) / 8.6164 189 x 10-11 C
= 1.1381 3468 x 1011 volts
precisely confirming our first result.
In the model, the electrostatic potential at Earth's surface would be over 100 billion volts per meter.
How could we live in such a horrendously powerful electric field without being electrocuted?
The answer is that the model assumes an electrostatic field, whereas electrogravitics is based on the idea of motional electric fields induced by sweeping magnetic fields from all the orbital electrons in all the atoms of a gravitating body. In any case, the electrostatic model shows the effective electrical charge on a body is extremely small, balancing the huge voltages involved. This results in very small amperages, as we will see in a moment. The important point is that this model shows how gravity can be purely electromagnetic in Nature.
An effective charge of 8.6164 189 x 10-11 C per kilogram is equal to 3.9083 4297 x 10-11 C per pound on Earth. Taking the case of a 150-pound human:
Voltage = Work / Charge = Energy / Charge
Energy = Voltage x Charge
Electrogravitic Energy of 150 lbs falling 1 meter:
Eg = (1 m) (1.1381 3468 x 1011 V/m) x (150 lb) (3.9083 4297 x 10-11 C / lb)
Eg = 667.23 3101 Coulomb-volts (= J = N-m = kg-m2/sec2)
Eg = 667.23 3101 Newton-meters = 150 lb-meters
Power = Rate of Doing Work = Energy / Time
Electrogravitic Power = (Weight x Distance Fallen) / Time of Fall:
Pg = 667.23 3101 N-m / 0.45160 0866 sec
Pg = 1477.4 8410 Watts (= Joules / sec)
= (1477.4 8410 W) / (745.6998 W / hp)
= 1.9813 390 horsepower
Current = Power / Voltage
Ig = 1477.4 8410 W / 1.1381 3468 x 1011 V
Ig = 1.2981 6279 x 10-8 A = 12.981 6279 nano-amps
In the electrostatic model, current is measured in mere billionths of an Ampere.
We can also equate the electrogravitic energy Eg of a 150-pound person falling 1 meter in a potential field of 113.81 billion volts per meter, to the kinetic energy Ek of that person. This should then give us an electromagnetically induced final velocity:
Ek = ½mv2 = Eg
v = (2Eg / m )1/2
v = [ 2 x (667.23 3101 kg m2/sec2) x (2.204622 lb/kg) / 150 lb ]1/2
v = 4.4286 8946 m/sec
yielding an electrogravitic acceleration of:
g = v2/2h = (4.4286 8946 m/sec)2 / (2 x 1 m) = 9.8066 452 m/sec2
The velocity of 4.4286 8946 m/sec is indeed the speed at which an object dropped from 1 meter hits the ground, and the acceleration of 9.8066 452 m/sec2 is indeed the gravitational acceleration at the surface of planet Earth.
To verify this result, let's do a second example, this time with a mass of 10 metric tons dropped from a height of 2 meters.
Electrogravitic Energy of 10,000 kg falling 2 meters:
Energy = Voltage x Charge
Eg = (2 m) (1.1381 3468 x 1011 V/m) x (10,000 kg) (8.6164 189 x 10-11 C / kg)
Eg = 196,13 2.903 Coulomb-volts (= J = N-m = kg m2/sec2)
Eg = 196,13 2.903 Newton-meters = 20 tonne-meters
Ek = ½
mv2 = Eg
v = (2Eg / m )1/2
v = [ 2 x (196,13 2.903 kg m2/sec2) / 10,000 kg ]1/2
v = 6.2631 127 m/sec
yielding an electrogravitic acceleration of:
g = v2/2h = (6.2631 127 m/sec)2 / (2 x 2 m) = 9.8066 452 m/sec2
Both the velocity of impact from a fall of 2 meters and the acceleration of gravity are again correct, once more confirming the theory of electromagnetic gravity.
One final example, to clinch the veracity of electromagnetic gravity fields. Let's drop a 12-pound cannonball off of a 200-foot wind turbine. As in the previous examples, we will ignore air resistance, start with an initial velocity of zero, and assume the gravitational field is constant throughout the fall. First, let's calculate the time of fall and final velocity using classical physics formulas:
Height of Fall = One-half Acceleration of Gravity x Time of Fall Squared
h = ½ gt2
t = [ 2h / g ]1/2
t = [ 2 (200 ft) (12 in/ft) (.0254 m/in) / 9.8066 452 m/sec2 ]1/2
t
= 3.5259 58898
sec
Final Velocity = Acceleration of Gravity x Time of Fall
v = gt = (9.8066 452 m/sec2) (3.5259 58898 sec)
v = 34.577 8279 m/sec = 113.44 4317 ft/sec
An easier way to calculate the same result is to use the following one-step
formula:
v = [2gh]1/2
v = [ 2 (9.8066 452 m/sec2) (200 ft) (0.3048 m/ft) ]1/2
v = 34.577 8279 m/sec
Dividing this
result by the exact conversion factor 0.3048 m/ft
gives the answer in feet per second. Now let's do the problem again, this time
electrogravitically, pretending we don't know the acceleration of gravity, but
we do know the electrogravitic voltage, the effective charge per unit mass,
the height of the wind turbine, and the mass of the cannonball:
Electrogravitic Voltage E = 1.1381 3468 x 1011 V/m
Effective Charge per Unit Mass qe = 8.6164 189 x 10-11 C / kg
Height of Wind Turbine h = (200 ft) (0.3048 m/ft) = 60.96 m (exact)
Mass of Cannonball m = (12 lb) / (2.204622 lb/kg) = 5.443110 kg
Energy = Voltage x Charge
Electrogravitic Energy of 12 lbs falling 200 feet:
Eg = (1.1381 3468 x 1011 V/m) (60.96 m) x (8.6164 189 x 10-11 C / kg) (5.443110 kg)
Eg
= 3253.9 6241
Coulomb-Volts (= kg m2/sec2)
Now we will bring kinetic energy (½mv2) into our computations, because this involves the velocity of the cannonball upon impact with the ground. The kinetic energy at impact should equal the electrogravitic energy imparted to the cannonball during its electromagnetically induced fall:
Ek = ½ mv2 = Eg
v = (2Eg / m )1/2
v = [ 2 x (3253.9 6241 kg m2/sec2) / 5.443110 kg ]1/2
v = 34.577 8279 m/sec
yielding an electrogravitic acceleration of:
g = v2/2h = (34.577 8279 m/sec)2 / (2 x 60.96 m) = 9.8066 452 m/sec2
It works! The numbers speak for themselves, and they are exact. But what's going on here? Is this some sort of mathematical trick? I don't think so, because I'm not that smart, or that devious. I am just very, very curious, I admit. Classical physics requires only the acceleration of gravity and the height of the fall to calculate the final velocity. Electrogravitics, on the other hand, requires the total voltage and the total effective charge to calculate the electrogravitic energy of the fall. The total voltage is found by multiplying the voltage per meter by the height of the fall in meters. And the total effective charge is found by multiplying the effective charge per kilogram by the mass of the dropped object in kilograms. To find the final velocity, mass is divided back out of the electrogravitic energy. And to find the acceleration of gravity, the height of the fall is divided back out of the final velocity squared.
When the equations above are analyzed, it is found that the electrogravitic energy of a fall depends on both height and mass of the dropped object. Final velocity depends on electrogravitic energy, but the mass has to be divided back out. This automatically ensures that all objects hit the ground at the same speed, because a greater mass would have a larger energy, and would also have a larger mass divided back out to yield the same final velocity. Acceleration depends on the final velocity component of electrogravitic energy, with the height of the fall divided back out. Therefore a fall from a greater height would involve more energy, but when that greater height is divided back out, the acceleration of gravity is found to be constant in a given gravity field.
Continuing our fun with numbers, we can also equate the electrogravitic energy Eg with the potential energy mgh of the object at the drop height, to find the acceleration of gravity directly:
Eg = mgh
g = Eg / mh
g = (3253.9 6241 kg m2/sec2) / (5.443110 kg x 60.96 m)
g = 9.8066 452 m/sec2
Or we can multiply the electrogravitic field E (not to be confused with the electrogravitic energy Eg) by the effective charge per unit mass, qe, to get the same result:
g = Eqe
g = (1.1381 3468 x 1011 V/m) (8.6164 189 x 10-11 C/kg)
g = 9.8066 452 m/sec2
Note
that V/m = N/C, which when multiplied by C/kg yields N/kg.
This reduces to m/sec2,
since 1 N = 1 kg m/sec2.
The formula g = Eqe describes the electric nature of gravity fields. Gravitational acceleration g is found to be the simple product of the local electrogravitic field E and the effective charge per kilogram, the constant qe.
But does qe actually apply to celestial bodies besides Earth? Is it really a Universal constant? After all, you will recall that we originally calculated this number based on the mass and radius of our own planet. Let's use the same method to calculate this value for the Moon, which has just under 1/81st the mass of Earth and a much smaller radius as well. As before, we begin by equating the ratios of effective Moon and kilogram charges to those of Moon and kilogram masses.
Qm/qe = Mm/m = (5.9763 x 1024 kg / 81.300587) / 1 kg = 7.3508 694 x 1022
Qm = (7.3508 694 x 1022) qe
We can now obtain numerical values for both Qm and qe making use, as before, of the weight of 1 kilogram on the Moon (1.624 367 N) and the Moon's mean radius (1.737 680 x 106 m).
F = k Qmqe / r2
F = k (7.3508 694 x 1022) qe2 / r2
qe = [ Fr2 / k (7.3508 694 x 1022) ] 1/2
qe = [ (1.624 367 N) (1.737 680 x 106 m)2 / (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2) (7.3508 694 x 1022) ] 1/2
qe = 8.616 320 x 10-11 C (for 1 kilogram)
Qm = (7.3508 694 x 1022) qe = 6.333 744 x 1012 C (for the Moon)
The value of qe
found here agrees with what we found earlier, within the limits of the calculation,
indicating that qe
is indeed a universal "electrogravitic constant" of Nature:
Electrogravitic Constant
qe = 8.6164 189 x 10-11 C/kg
To apply this practically, let's first find the electrogravitic field, Em, at the Lunar surface:
F = qeEm = k Qmqe / rm2
Em = k Qm / rm2
Em = (8.987552 x 109 Nm2/C2) (6.333 744 x 1012 C) / (1.737 680 x 106 m)2
Em = 1.885 221 x 1010 N/C
Then, to calculate the acceleration of gravity gm on the Moon, we multiply the local electrogravitic field Em by the electrogravitic constant qe:
gm = Emqe
gm = (1.885 221 x 1010 N/C) (8.6164 189 x 10-11 C/kg)
gm = 1.624 386 m/sec2
which is the correct answer.
How do we know for certain that the electrogravitic constant derived above is either real or constant throughout the known Universe? Simply carry out the following exercise, for any planet, moon, or star in the heavens.
First, look up the mass M and radius r of the chosen object (or make the numbers up for an imaginary celestial object), then calculate its surface gravity, using
g = GM / r2
Using Newton's gravitational constant G = 6.672599 x 10-11 N m2/kg2, you can quickly find the surface gravity g in m/sec2.
Next, realizing that 1 kilogram will weigh g Newtons on the surface of that body, apply the same formula that we used earlier to calculate qe for 1 kilogram:
qe = [ Fr2 / kM ] 1/2
where F is the weight of the kilogram in Newtons, and M is the ratio of the large object mass to the kilogram mass, a dimensionless quantity numerically equal to the mass of the planet, moon, or star under scrutiny. Coulomb's constant k = 8.987552 x 109 N m2/C2, and r is still the radius of the object.
The result you will get, every time, is 8.6164189 x 10-11 C, which is the effective charge on one kilogram, the electrogravitic constant computed above. Following this procedure amounts to dividing Newton's gravitational constant by Coulomb's electromagnetic constant, and then taking the square root:
qe = (G/k)1/2
qe = [ 6.672599 x 10-11 N m2/kg2 / 8.987552 x 109 N m2/C2 ] 1/2
qe = 8.6164189 x 10-11 C / kg
The electrogravitic constant qe is found to be fundamentally related to these two other fundamental constants, tying together forever gravity and electromagnetism.
That's the arithmetic. What about the physics? In other words, what physical facts can we deduce from any of this? Well, the first thing to note are these two electrogravitic formulas:
g = Eqe
G = kqe2
the second of which is derived directly from the ratio above. Each of these equations expresses gravity in terms of electric fields and electric constants. This is new physics – electrogravitational physics – containing both electrical and gravitational terms.
The electrogravitic constant qe is the bridge between mass and charge, the link between electromagnetism and gravity. Appropriately, it is expressed in Coulombs per kilogram. It allows us to understand how all matter can be affected by electrical fields and can generate such fields as well, since all masses have a specific effective charge equal to qe.
A local gravity field g is seen to have its true basis in an electrogravitic field E generated by a gravitating body. Its unfamiliar description as a high-voltage electric field expressed in volts per meter or Newtons per Coulomb is translated to a familiar gravity field g by the electrogravitic constant qe.
The gravitational constant G, discovered by Sir Isaac Newton centuries ago, is now seen to have an electrical origin as well, since it turns out to be the simple product of the Coulomb constant k and the square of the electrogravitic constant qe. Once again, this new constant bridges the gap between the formerly separate fields of gravity and electromagnetism.
Remembering that the electrogravitic constant qe is actually an effective charge per kilogram, might prod the Probing Reader to ask: Does all matter in the Universe really carry an actual specific charge? The answer is no, because gravity does not work electrostatically. It works electrodynamically. Sweeping magnetic fields, pointing and moving in all directions (but always perpendicular to their flux directions due to the toroidal nature of Oersted fluxes), induce motional electric fields in masses within gravitational fields. The electrodynamic forces thus induced pull bulk matter toward the sources of those sweeping magnetic fields, which are the electron orbitals of the atoms in the gravitating body, and in accordance with our familiar electromagnetic velocity equation:
E = B x V
Consider as an example the case of a double planet. The countless moving magnetic fields from the electron orbitals in one planet, sweeping through the other planet, will cause an E field directed at the first planet within the mass of the second. Meanwhile, the moving magnetic fields from the electron orbitals in the second planet, sweeping through the matter of the first planet, will cause an E field directed at the second planet within the mass of the first. This causes slight charge polarizations in the atoms of each planet, with all protons moving in the direction of the other planet and all electrons moving away. With all protons in a slightly stronger part of the other planet's sweeping magnetic flux, and all electrons in a slightly weaker part of that flux, each planet will feel a force toward the other. This is the electrodynamic basis of gravity, which is not electrostatic at all.
Even so, the electrogravitic constant derived in the electrostatic gravity model above can be of great utility in calculating the electrogravitic fields of all massive celestial bodies. It is very useful, also, in understanding the electromagnetic nature of gravitational fields in general and Newton's gravitational constant in particular.
Condensing some of what we have done into a few short algebraic steps serves to confirm what we have already deduced numerically. Letting m equal unity (1 kg), and realizing that the ratio of two unequal masses should equal the ratio of their effective charges, we have
M / m = Qe / qe
Qe = Mqe
Now setting the force between Newton's masses equal to the force between Coulomb's
effective charges:
GMm / r2 = kQeqe / r2
GM / r2 = kMqe2 / r2
G = kqe2
qe = (G/k)1/2
where qe is expressed in Coulombs per kilogram.
Also, the force of gravity is given by
F = mg = GMm / r2
g = GM / r2 = kMqe2 / r2
g = kQeqe / r2 = Eqe
g = Eqe
where qe is again given in Coulombs per kilogram, and E is expressed in Newtons per Coulomb. The acceleration of gravity g then appears as meters per second squared.
We derive the exact same answers algebraically as we did using numerical methods. These few equations, then, form the basis of electrogravitics.
All of these revelations are solidly and solely based on the ubiquitous and proven principles of electromagnetism.
Return to Main
Outline at top of website.
"There is no royal
road to learning; no short cut to the acquirement of any valuable art."
Anthony Trollope
In August 1929, an article written by American physicist Thomas Townsend Brown, entitled "How I Control Gravitation," appeared in the magazine Science and Invention. Revealing an apparently electrostatic phenomenon, he describes how two oppositely charged electrodes, connected together as a unit, would experience a force in one direction when energized to a very high relative voltage. The direction of this force was usually (though not always) toward the positvely charged electrode. This has become known as the Biefeld-Brown effect, after Professor Paul Biefeld who was instrumental in much of Brown's early work. The original apparatus consisted of two 44-lb lead balls suspended by thin wires and separated by a glass rod called a "dielectric." The apparatus would therefore swing in pendulum fashion when subjected to any horizontal force. Brown called his devices "gravitators" because the generated forces were directly proportional to the masses of the two bodies, similar to Newton's gravitational formula. When he immersed his more advanced "cellular gravitators" in a copper tank full of oil (in order to eliminate atmospheric effects), and grounded the tank to either the positive or negative line, the gravitator would always swing in a direction opposing the electrostatic forces between the electrodes and tank wall. This showed that the forces were definitely not electrostatic in nature, although electrostatic charges of 120 to 200 kV were used to obtain the effect.
What could account for the Biefeld-Brown effect?
The answer is that a dielectric material, in the presence of a non-linear (i.e. non-uniform) electric field, will polarize and attempt to move in the direction of stronger field and away from the direction of weaker field, regardless of field polarity. In Brown's electro-gravitic pendulum experiments, the end of the cellular gravitator charged with the same polarity as the enclosing copper tank always moved toward the nearest tank wall, defying the rules of electrostatics. The opposite end of the cellular gravitator, which was charged oppositely to the tank, always moved away from its nearest tank wall, again defying common electrostatic sense. Since Brown's gravitators contained dielectric insulators, the phenomenon can now be explained. If the copper tank and one end of the gravitator were positively charged, then the pendulum would swing toward the positive, because the most intense electric field would exist where the most positive charges were present. Conversely, if the copper tank was negatively charged, then the electro-gravitic pendulum would swing toward its negative pole, because that is where the most negative charge was clustered and where the electric field strength was greatest. A dielectric particle is always pulled in opposite directions by an electric field, but in a non-linear field one pull is stronger than the other, so the entire particle is forced in that direction.
Why, then, did the original twin lead ball experiment always result in motion toward the positively charged ball, if the electric field was uniform and there was no copper tank?
In this case, one must not forget the existing electrogravitic field of Earth surrrounding the experiment. Although the resultant electrogravitic field vector is pointed directly at the center of our planet, the actual field consists of many field vectors, many of which are more-or-less horizontal. This is easy to envision if you live in a mountain valley, because the surrounding high ground will also induce electrogravitic fields. Since the twin lead ball experiment involved only horizontal forces, the vertical components of the Earth's electrogravitic field vectors didn't come into play. There was, therefore, an effective array of horizontal electrogravitic field vectors pointing radially away from the experiment in all directions, due to the horizontal components of the entire electrogravitic field. Since positive charges move in the direction of electric field orientation, and negative charges move in the opposite direction, the apparatus naturally moved toward its positive pole. Not only was the positive electrode "attracted" toward its own horizon, but the negative electrode was "repelled" by field vectors pointing toward the opposite horizon. Like electrogravity in general, the Biefeld-Brown effect is actually a push-pull phenomenon based entirely on electric forces.
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
Michael Faraday
How can we apply the theory of electrogravitics in a practical way? Let's begin by looking at some everyday phenomena in light of the electrogravitic model, beginning with the tides.
What causes the tides? Most people know that it has something to do with the Moon pulling on the oceans, creating a gravitational bulge on the side of the Earth facing the Moon. But high tides arise twice a day (actually twice every 24 hours 50 minutes). This is because tidal forces somehow result in two bulges in the world ocean, one facing the Moon and one mysteriously facing away from the Moon on the exact opposite side of the Earth. The Sun also produces tides, but they are only about 46% as strong as those produced by the Moon.
What on Earth could possibly cause such a double tidal bulge, when we have only one Moon? Here, we present three different explanations for the tidal phenomenon, including one based on electrogravity.
The first theory invokes differential tidal forces influencing separate parts of the Earth. It explains the two oceanic bulges in terms of unequal Lunar-induced gravitational forces on the near, far, and central portions of the Earth relative to the Moon. The force on the Moonward side of the Earth is of course the strongest; the force on the opposite side of Earth will be the weakest; and the force acting at the core will be mid-range. All three of these force-vectors point along the same line of action, directly at the Moon. By vectorially subtracting the mid-range force-vector from each of the other two, the result is two small equal-length vectors pointing away from the Earth, causing the two equal bulges at opposite "ends" of the Earth. This theory obtains the correct answer, but doesn't explain why we should subtract the mid-range force-vector from the other forces in the first place. This interpretation does not require one body to orbit the other, explaining that even bodies falling into black holes will be "spaghettified" by extreme tidal forces in that region.
The second theory uses the fact that all forces acting on bodies in equilibrium come in pairs. In both the case of the Moon orbiting the Earth and the case of the Earth orbiting the Sun, the two forces are the centripetal, acting toward the center of gravitation, and the centrifugal, directed away from the center of revolution. The centripetal force is the actual gravitational force keeping the minor body in its proper orbit. Since these two forces are of equal magnitude but pointing in opposite directions, two equal sized oceanic bulges at opposite ends of the Earth naturally result. The Earth and Moon actually orbit around their common barycenter, located about 1068 miles beneath the Moonward surface of the Earth. Although this theory seems to explain tidal phenomena, it requires orbital motion for it to work.
The third theory is, of course, our own "electrogravitic tide" theory. Because electrogravity is actually an electromagnetic "tug-of-war" in which electrons and protons are simultaneously forced in opposite directions, the tidal effect can be modeled as a macroscopic charge separation of the entire planet. The side of Earth facing the Moon will experience an effective surplus of protons and deficit of electrons, while the "farside" will experience just the opposite: an effective surplus of electrons and deficit of protons. The tug-of-war actually happens at the atomic level, but this model seems apt in an electrogravitic context. In the Moon's electrogravitic field, which causes this effective planetary polarization in the first place, the Earth's farside, with its effective electron surplus, will be repelled, while the nearside, with its effective proton surplus, will be attracted. Since the oceans are liquid and the solid part of the Earth is not, it is the oceans that bulge much more readily than the crust and mantle. The dual tidal bulge caused by our Moon (and to a lesser extent the Sun also) is large-scale evidence of the real push-pull nature of electrogravity. Interestingly, much like the differential tidal force theory above, the electrogravitic model does not require orbital motion for tidal effects to arise.
"Every man is the architect of his own fortune."
Appius Claudius
The final test that the theory of electrogravitics as presented in this website is valid, is the demonstration of a working device based on this knowledge. The problem, then, is to design, engineer, and build a working electrogravitic flying machine — a real space skiff.
Because the motional electric field E is the artificial gravity field that we wish to produce, we have some idea of where to begin, since E = B x V. As presented in the Introduction to Electrogravitics section above, a B x V field can be generated by a magnetic flux B and a relative velocity V between the field and particles of matter that we wish to affect. These "particles of matter" are simply the protons and electrons inside the atoms of the device itself.
There are several questions that immediately arise in connection with this type of electric spacecraft. For instance,
We at Solar Skiff are thinkers, as well as tinkerers. From unexpected spinoffs to our expanding Universe, we believe our research contains a certain "gravity" — or vital importance — for the future benefit of all mankind.
Spinoffs
/ Magnet Motors / Clean
Energy
Imagine a motor powered solely by powerful permanent magnets. Properly designed, such a motor would be capable of delivering a constant and substantial torque. Attached to a conventional generator, it could produce electricity anywhere, without fuel, oxygen, wind, or sunlight. It could also produce direct mechanical power without first going through an intermediate electrical conversion.
Wireless motors could directly power lawnmowers, hand tools, land vehicles, boats, and even aircraft. Such motors would be relatively quiet, clean, and cheap to operate. Imagine never having to buy fuel again. Permanent magnet motors may just make this possible in the near future.
Since autumn 2006, Solar Skiff has been researching wireless constant-torque permanent magnet motors. Unlike conventional electric motors, which contain many conductive windings and rely on electricity for their operation, wireless magnet motors promise to deliver rotational motion using permanent magnets alone. If the prototypes prove practical, then devices based on this technology will have the potential to revolutionize transportation, energy generation, and power distribution on planet Earth.
The theory behind wireless magnet motors is based on the concepts of force, work, and energy. In physics, energy is the capacity to do work. Both work and energy are given in units of Joules (Newton-meters) or foot-pounds. Hence, work and energy represent a force applied over a distance.
All magnets can exert forces of repulsion or attraction. But can they be made to do constant work, or provide continuous energy? By properly arranging a series of permanent magnets and controlling their mutual interactions, a continuous rotary motion may result. This rotary motion would constitute a clean and free energy motor with revolutionary implications.
No further details will be divulged here until a device is perfected, and patent applications have been filed. At present, research is very promising.
Stand by for further updates.
Imagine a world without propane, natural gas, fuel oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, centralized power plants, high-voltage power lines, or internal combustion engines. Imagine, instead, a world powered exclusively by permanent magnets. Sounds like a pipe-dream, doesn't it?
Permanent magnets are energy gates, just waiting to be tapped and utilized to their full potential. Analogous to sails or windmills, magnets allow us to capture energy from the environment. We are just now beginning to realize the possibilities.
Imagine owning a house with a small "power room," perhaps in a closet or the basement, containing a wireless magnet motor attached to a conventional generator. The main distribution panel would feed directly off this motor-generator, and supply electricity to the rest of the house normally. All free, because you own the magnets.
Parked in the garage is the family car which looks normal enough on the outside. But take a peek under the hood, and instead of an internal combustion engine reliant on liquid fuel, you see another wireless magnet motor hooked directly to the drive shaft. The magnets under the hood are always ready to give you the power you need, when you need it. All free, because those magnets are yours.
You don't think it's possible? Stand by.
Our Universe is growing. It is expanding in all directions, puffing up like some immense "space-loaf." Imagine the Universe as raisin bread in which each raisin is an immense galactic cluster. We know this model is accurate for two reasons: distant galaxies are red-shifted, and the night sky is dark. The red-shift happens because distant galaxies are moving away from us at high speed. And the night sky is dark because of the red-shift, and/or because the Universe has a certain age (see Olbers' Paradox).
What causes the expansion of the Universe? A Big Bang, or something else? If true, what caused the Big Bang? The titanic explosion which created our Universe 13.7 billion years ago, we're told, brought into being both space and time. Just "prior" to the Big Bang, time didn't exist. Yet time is required for there to be a cause (the reason for the Bang) followed by an effect (the Bang itself). This is just one problem that Thinkers have with the Big Bang (named in jest by astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who never believed in it). There are also the problems of inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. The Big Bang is still considered a good model by most cosmologists, because it predicts aspects of the Universe that are observed today.
Can there be another explanation for the Expansion besides the Bang? The answer is Yes. Let's assume (for the shear fun of it) that our Universe is infinite — infinitely old and infinitely huge. It's always been here and always will. You could travel through space forever, and never reach the end. Is the Universe really being "pushed" outward, as Bang protagonists contend, or is something pulling on the Universe, "stretching" it outward in all directions? Another question is how is all the "stuff" in the Universe created? If it's been expanding forever, how is it kept "full"? Let's tackle one question at a time.
Cause of the Expansion. If the Universe is infinite, then the known Universe, with its visible radius of 13.7 billion light-years, makes up but a tiny "speck" lost amid the endless cosmos. We will look at a slightly bigger dot, centered on Earth. This "tiny" volume of space has a diameter of 54 billion light-years, is shaped like a ball, and is expanding in all directions. We'll call it B2, becasue it's twice the size of the "Little Ball" that we do observe. The visible Universe resides inside this sphere, is exactly half the apparent size with a diameter of 27 billion light years, and naturally takes part in the larger expansion. We'll call it B1.
The formula for the volume of any sphere is (4/3) pr3. This means that if you double the diameter or the radius, the volume is multiplied by 23, which is 8. So B2 has 8 times the volume of B1. But the Big Ball includes the Little Ball, so the "outer shell" of B2 must have a volume 7 times that of the known Universe when the volume of B1 is subtracted. We will call this S2, because it makes up the outer shell (seven-eighths by volume) of B2. Therefore, the known Universe B1 must have one-seventh the space, one-seventh the galaxies, and one-seventh the gravity of S2. Expanding the view to include another shell, S3, with thickness equal to the radius of everything inside it, yields another space with seven times the volume of B2. And so on.
How do these differently sized regions gravitationally interact? Well, they attract each other, of course. Each "unit" of mass in B1 and each "unit" of mass in S2 will pull on each other with equal and opposite forces. But S2 has seven times the volume and "units" of mass as B1. This means that for every "inward" pull on a unit of mass in S2 (due to B1), there are seven "outward" pulls on a unit of mass in B1 (due to S2). Similarly, B2 (which includes B1, remember) will experience seven times the outward pull due to S3 as compared to the inward pulls on S3 due to B2. Since the "exterior" Universe always outgravitates the "interior" Universe, every part of the infinite Universe is pulled "outward" in all directions. Amazingly, the only force required for this expansion is gravity. Dark energy is not needed.
At smaller scales, where space is heterogeneous or "lumpy," gravity clumps matter together into planets, moons, stars, galaxies, and so on. Any non-smooth distribution of matter in space will tend to become even clumpier by self-gravitational forces. But when cosmological scales are considered, the "clumps" smooth out, and just the opposite happens.
Conclusion: An infinite Universe must not only expand, but also accelerate, because gravity has no limit to its range.
Matter Synthesis. If the Universe is infinite and expanding, then new matter must be created continuously to keep the Universe populated with new stars and galaxies. Where does this matter come from? Well, the first thing to recognize is that if the Universe is infinite, then there should be an infinite supply of both matter and energy. To assume the opposite would be illogical.
Could the ultimate source of all matter be light? Electromagnetic radiation comes in many wavelengths and energies, from the relatively non-energetic, low-frequency, long-wavelength radio waves at one end of the spectrum to the highly energetic, high-frequency, short-wavelength gamma rays at the other end. Visible light inhabits a narrow band between the infrared and ultraviolet. An energetic photon (for example a gamma ray) in a strong electric field will split into an electron of matter and a positron of anti-matter. While a photon is a spherical propagating wave expanding at the speed of light, a particle can be considered a standing wave, or "space resonance." This helps to explain how light might turn into matter.
The splitting of light into matter and anti-matter may be the true source of our physical Universe. Somehow, positrons are converted into protons, a process which protects them from self-annihilation with electrons and makes them the perfect nuclei for atoms. These processes would take place wherever there is light and other frequencies of EM radiation. Stars would be ideal candidates, because they produce not only light, but also strong magnetic fields, allowing light to split into matter particles. They would then eject both protons and electrons in their stellar winds. Whenever a proton captured an electron, whether it in free space or within a magnetic field, hydrogen gas would be formed by the union. Electrically neutral hydrogen would then disperse into the interstellar medium, where it could eventually condense to form new stars.
"You must be fit to give before you can be fit to receive."
James Stephens
"I am glad to learn, in order that I may teach."
Seneca
To reserve a seat on a future space skiff flight, just ask. Of course, you could also make a contribution — in any amount, whatever you can afford — to Solar Skiff, and we will place you on our passenger list. The list will be honored in chronological order of donations received. A contribution of the smallest amount of any Earth currency will place you on the list. If you can't afford a contribution, or don't want to fork over any money, just send an email telling why you want to enter space.
If Miss Money Penny donates one cent yesterday, James Bond contributes seven million pounds Sterling today, and Goldfinger delivers a bribe of one billion gold bars tomorrow, Goldfinger still has to wait in line. Solar Skiff reserves the right to deny anyone the spaceflight experience.
All contributions will be kept in strictest confidence. Solar Skiff thanks you in advance.
Letters of appreciation will be sent to all contributors, verifying receipt of donations and placement on the passenger list.
"The Soul of Man is divided into three parts, Intelligence,
Reason, and Passion."
Pythagoras
Have you got a question? Please contact us and we'll answer here!
What will your first "space skiff" look like?
Our first operational space skiff will be disk-shaped. Rotational symmetry is required to generate an electrogravitic field.
What kind of fuel will a space skiff use?
This technology requires no fuel, greatly reducing operational complexity, decreasing the danger, and increasing the payload capacity.
Without fuel, what is your source of energy?
The source of energy is entirely electromagnetic, the same energy that powers atoms, charged particles, photons, magnets, gravity, and all celestial objects.
Will space skiffs require launch pads or runways to lift off?
Neither of these is required, as skiffs will lift off vertically from any open area.
How well qualified is your team?
The team is still being assembled, and qualifications will vary from individual to individual. Old-fashioned hard work and persistence will ensure the inevitable success of Solar Skiff.
"Skill to do comes of doing."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
What is your motivation for doing this?
Space technology and spaceflight is our irrepressible passion. Space is the final frontier, and we intend to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Why build "skiffs" instead of spaceplanes or conventional rockets?
Skiff technology is less expensive, simpler, safer, and superior. There will be no propellants to store or handle, no explosive hazards, and no noise concerns. Skiffs will operate as quietly as electric motors.
What kind of engines will power the space skiff?
First generation skiffs will be powered by electric motors coupled to magnetic thrusters. Future vehicles may employ electrostatically or electrodynamically generated electric fields, which will serve as non-inertial gravitic drives.
Will skiffs be propelled by some form of anti-gravity?
No, skiffs will simply generate their own gravity fields, point them in the direction of travel, and accelerate in free-fall conditions. They will not be repelled by natural gravity fields, nor rely upon them in any way.
Are you building skiffs now?
No, but we are working on the power units, which will have applications throughout society and provide Solar Skiff with the cash flow needed to build skiffs.
Are you designing skiffs now?
Yes, we are currently designing a 12 foot diameter craft, to be followed by 15 and 25 foot vehicles.
When will you fly your first space skiff?
We will fly the first remote controlled model in 2009 or 2010 and given adequate funding, the first piloted craft by 2011.
Have you got a question? Please contact us and we'll answer here!
(This section was last updated on Sunday, April 5, 2009.)
What exactly is gravity? What is its root cause?
In electrogravitics, a gravity field is a motional electric field induced by sweeping magnetic fields. It is an electromagnetic phenomenon in which many moving magnetic fields, originating in electron orbitals, attract protons and repel electrons electrically. The root cause is atomic electrons.
How are gravitational effects propagated, and at what speed?
Gravitational fields are propagated instantaneously by sweeping magnetic fields, because the magnetic structure of the source electrons already fills the Universe. Gravitational effects, however, propagate at the speed of light.
Where do these magnetic fields come from?
The magnetic fields come from the electrons of a gravitating body. Their atomic orbital motions generate Oersted fluxes which in turn induce motional electric fields in matter, pointing toward and converging on those electron orbitals. The resultant motional field is a gravity field.
How many of these fluxes are required to generate an Earth-like gravity field?
Planet Earth contains some 3.57 x 1051 electrons, including those in neutrons, each generating a small looping and moving magnetic field due to their orbital motions. Because these fields are magnetic, they cannot be shielded; and because they have no boundaries, neither does gravity.
How did you arrive at this number of electrons in the Earth?
We start by calculating the mass fraction of electrons fe in any sample of neutral matter, using the known masses of the electron me and proton mp, and assuming equal numbers of each:
fe = me / (mp + me)
fe = 9.1093897 x 10-31 kg / (1.6733 x 10-27 + 9.1093897 x 10-31) kg
fe = 5.441 x 10-4
This means that 0.05441% of the mass of the Earth is in electrons, and the other 99.94559% is in the protons, consistent with the fact that protons are 1836 times heavier than electrons.
Multiplying the mass of the Earth M by this small fraction, and then dividing this result by the mass of one electron me gives the number of electrons Ne in our planet:
Ne = Mfe / me
= (5.9763 x 1024 kg) x (5.441 x 10-4) / (9.1093897 x 10-31 kg / electron)
Ne = 3.569 619 x 1051 electrons in Earth
Can the sweeping magnetic fields of orbiting electrons be detected?
No, because they seem to cancel out due to the toroidal geometry and random attitudes of the Oersted fluxes surrounding atoms. Yet their presence manifests, by the principle of superposition of fields, as non-shieldable motional electric fields in matter, which we perceive as gravity.
Is the magnetic field of Earth, or other gravitating bodies, involved in this theory?
The detectable magnetic fields of planets, stars, and other celestial objects play no role in the generation of gravity fields, because these fields are not motional and therefore do not generate electrodynamic fields.
What is gravitational force?
Gravitational force, or weight, is simply the difference between the pull on the protons and the push on the electrons in any body. The two forces are not quite equal, because electrons are pushed into a weaker part of the field, while protons are pulled into a stronger part of the field within individual atoms.
What is a gravitational field?
A gravitational field is a motional electric field induced in atoms of matter by sweeping magnetic fields from the electron orbitals of the gravitating body. The resultant field is uni-directional, converges toward the center of the gravitating body, and is the direction a positive charge will feel a force. Negative charges feel forces in the opposite direction. These induced fields are actually magnetic effects.
Why is gravity always an attractive force?
Because protons are pulled into a slightly stronger part of the field while electrons are pushed into a slightly weaker part of the field. Since electrogravity is the actual difference in these two opposing forces, gravity always exhibits a net attraction.
Why is gravity the weakest of the four forces?
Gravity is far weaker than the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces for the same reason that it is an attractive force. The very small difference between the attractive and repulsive forces on protons and electrons respectively, accounts for the extreme weakness of gravity.
Why is the pull on the protons greater than the push on the electrons?
Because the protons have been pulled toward the source of the sweeping magnetic fields, while the electrons have been pushed away slightly. This is true for both gravity and inertia.
What is inertia?
Inertia is simply the electrostatic reaction to an imposed contact force transmitted through adjacent atomic electron clouds. The resulting atomic charge polarizations are similar to those in a gravity field. Read more about inertial fields here.
Is inertia a form of gravity?
No, but the induced subatomic charge separations are similar to those caused by normal gravity fields. The difference is that while gravity stems from a long-range propagation of large numbers of sweeping magnetic fields, inertia is caused by short-range contact forces propagated from atom to atom in an accelerated body. Also, the charge separations of inertia take place only as a result of direct contact, whereas gravity induces charge separations in faraway objects.
Is there a difference in the way inertial effects and gravity fields are transmitted?
Yes. Gravity fields affect their surroundings, because they are transmitted by non-shieldable magnetic effects we call motional electric fields. By contrast, inertial effects are isolated in nature, because they depend solely on direct contact with an accelerating force. Inertial effects are therefore transmitted by electrostatic fields rather than by motional electric fields.
What are the speeds of propagation of inertial effects and gravity fields?
Neither inertial effects nor gravitational forces are propagated. They are already in place as the extended spinning magnetic structure of the electrons themselves. Inertial effects are conveyed by electrostatic forces, which are due solely to the magnetic effects of outer shell electron spins. Gravity fields are the result of all the spinning electrons in a gravitating body, orbiting in all atomic shells, each producing an asymmetrical magnetic effect called Oersted's flux.
What are electrons, protons, and neutrons?
Electrons and protons are spinning, electromagnetically oscillating, longitudinally pulsating magnetic point-flux fields with centers but no boundaries. They are not solid particles at all, but energetic magnetic dipoles filling the entire Universe. Electrons oscillate 1836 times more rapidly than protons, and are therefore that much less massive. Neutrons are proton-electron pairs, with a reduction in oscillation frequency of at least one component.
What is the origin of mass, charge, and spin?
Mass is an electromagnetic vector quantity arising from three dynamic frequencies describing all magnetic particles: spin around a magnetic axis, precession of the spin axis, and magnetic field pulsation.
Charge is a magnetically induced electrostatic field, or magnetic effect, appearing as a result of the clockwise spin of electrons and counterclockwise spin of protons as viewed from above their north magnetic poles.
Spin is rotation of a particle's magnetic point-flux field around its magnetic axis, giving the particle angular momentum. Its origin remains a mystery to science.
What is longitudinal scalar pulsation?
An instantaneously transmitted, high-frequency pulse, or magnetic space density variation, that occurs as a result of the spin of charged particles, which are magnetic point-flux fields with no boundaries.
How can longitudinal scalar pulsations propagate instantaneously, if transverse electromagnetic oscillations propagate at the speed of light?
Light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation propagate by transverse oscillations of the magnetic structure of space. This structure is the resultant magnetic field of other matter. An oscillating electron vibrates this magnetic space-field, sending waves out through it at the speed of light. But it also spins its own structure through all space instantaneously, which does not depend on the magnetic space-field of other particles.
Why are electric charges unipolar and magnets dipolar?
Electric charges are actually magnetic dipoles that spin around their magnetic axes. The lines of magnetic flux pointing from the north to the south magnetic poles generate motional electric fields converging on negative charges and diverging from positive charges. These are the electrostatic fields, which are actually magnetic effects, giving rise to the charges on electrons, positrons, and protons.
Why are electric and magnetic fields always perpendicular to each other?
This is due to the geometry of charged particles as rapidly rotating point-flux magnetic fields. When an external magnetic field moves relative to such a point-flux "particle," the magnetic effect manifests as a force at right angles to both the external field and to its motion relative to the particle. This force is interpreted as an electric field.
Are electric and magnetic fields equally real?
No. They are both models, but the spinning point-flux fields responsible for magnetism are far more "basic." Magnetic fields, interacting through their relative motions and absolute rotations produce orthogonal "electric" forces. Electric fields are simply mathematical models that allow easier visualization and understanding of the magnetic effects taking place. Solar Skiff's magnetic model electron geometrically explains the magnetic origins of electric fields.
What is the fabric of space made of? Isn't it just an empty vacuum?
The space vacuum is made of the combined magnetic fields of the Universe. These fields originate in every charged particle and not only fill all space, but constitute all space. They account for the magnetic permeability of the vacuum and allow the propagation of transverse electromagnetic oscillations at the speed of light.
Are photons particles or waves?
Photons — the so-called particles of light — are simply ripples in the magnetic structure of the vacuum, propagating at the speed of light. They sometimes appear to be particles in the same way that a sonic boom sounds like a single, sharp boom when a supersonic aircraft "breaks the sound barrier."
Clarifying by analogy: when a conical pressure wave builds up at the nose of a supersonic aircraft, it may sweep an observer's location on the ground, and the passing wave is heard as a loud boom. This sonic report is heard at different times by different observers, as the pressure wave passes the observers' different locations.
In the same way, a photon of light is "seen" by an observer whenever a wave of electromagnetic light passes the observer's location in space. A single "photon wave" expands at the speed of light in a spherical shell from the radiating source, which may be an accelerating or vibrating electron.
Is spacetime warped by gravity?
With all due respect to Albert Einstein, the answer is no. General relativity theory, which states that matter somehow curves "spacetime" both locally and universally, is electrogravitically untenable as well as unnecessary. Electrogravitics explains gravity as a combined push-pull effect in which protons (the positive charges) are electrically attracted and electrons (the negative charges) are electrically repelled. The final result is a "flat" electro-gravitating region of space.
Why don't bicycles tip over?
The inertial effects set up in the spinning wheels of a bicycle — by the constantly changing velocity vector at the spinning rims — is similar to a gravity field. The centrifugal "field vectors" are arranged around the rim of each wheel, giving rise to a radial tension which tends to keep the wheels in their planes of rotation. A bicycle in motion thereby becomes an inertial electrogravitic field generator that overcomes local gravity by means of centrifugal effects.
What is the electrogravitic explanation for g-forces?
When an object is accelerated either centripetally or linearly, light-weight electrons electrostatically transmit the forces of acceleration to neighboring atoms. Because protons are 1836 times heavier than electrons, their motions are relatively sluggish by comparison, and the atoms quickly become distended, which amounts to a polarized state. As long as the acceleration persists, the atoms of the accelerated object remain polarized, with outer shell electrons continuing to pull neighboring protons "down" while pushing neighboring electrons "up." These electrostatic effects amount to an electrogravitic field pointing in the opposite direction of the applied acceleration. Protons are pulled in the direction of the electrogravitic field vector, and electrons are pushed in the opposite direction. In the case of centripetal acceleration, the inwardly directed electrostatic forces generate an outwardly directed electrogravitic field that accounts for centrifugal force. In linear acceleration, forwardly directed electrostatic forces generate a backwardly directed electrogravitic field that accounts for linear g-forces. It is interesting to note that in both gravitational and inertial situations, the electrogravitic field exists only in the presence of charged particles.
How can a planet's magnetic field capture electrons, if they are supposed to be repelled by its electrogravitic field?
A free electron moving away from a planet by electrogravitic repulsion will generate a Lorentz force as it crosses planetary magnetic field lines:
F = q(V x B)
The electron will then spiral clockwise around these flux lines as viewed along the field from magnetic north to magnetic south. The higher the velocity and the denser the magnetic field, the greater the Lorentz force will be. Solar or extraterrestrial electrons can be captured in like manner, as they approach the magnetic field of the planet.
If gravity relies on subatomic charge polarization, how can plasmas and dissociated particles be affected by gravitational fields?
Plasmas are ionized gases, where some electrons have been separated from their parent atoms, which become positive ions. The negatively charged free electrons will be repelled by an electrogravitic field, while protons and positively charged ions will be attracted. The fact that the majority of cosmic rays are protons supports the thesis that it is gravity itself which attracts them to Earth.
If electrogravity attracts protons and repels electrons, then why does the Solar wind contain them both?
The source of the Solar wind is its highly ionized atmosphere, which is made up mainly of free electrons, protons, and helium nuclei. All of these charged particles are controlled by the Sun's complex detectable magnetic fields. This, together with the very high temperature in the Solar corona, allows these particles to escape the Sun's gravitational field as the Solar wind.
What predictions does Solar Skiff's theory of electrogravitics make?
How can both shieldable electrostatic fields and non-shieldable motional electric fields be generated by the same B x V motional magnetic effects?
Electrostatic fields are generated by the rotating magnetic effects of stationary charges, while motional electric fields appear because of rotating magnetism in linear motion.
The rapidly rotating magnetic flux of one or more stationary charged particles will induce a charge distribution of equal magnitude and opposite polarity on the inside of any electrically conductive enclosure. Outside this "Faraday cage," there will appear to be an overall neutralization of charge, creating an effective shield. This neutralization is caused by the opposite polarities of the two electrostatic fields inside the outer surface of the shield.
Rapidly rotating magnetic point-flux fields (charged particles) moving also in linear fashion create an additional magnetic effect called Oersted's flux. This magnetic flux is attached to the moving charges and appears both inside and outside the cage, thereby inducing a separate motional electric field immune to shielding. The dual electrostatic fields still exist, but cancel as before.
How does the propagation of electromagnetic radiation differ from the electromagnetic transfer of gravitational force?
Electromagnetic radiation is propagated at the speed of light by spherical waves expanding from oscillating, vibrating, or spiraling free electrons. These transverse waves depend for propagation on the extended magnetic structure of all matter, which constitutes the vacuum.
Gravitational forces and fields are transferred instantly by specific toroidal magnetic fields (Oersted fluxes) generated by the effect of rotating electrons moving in atomic orbits.
What is the difference between an oscillating electron and a pulsating electron?
An oscillating electron is one that vibrates back and forth due for example to a rapidly changing magnetic field. This rapid linear motion sends out ripples into the magnetic "structure" of space at the speed of light. These ripples are the electromagnetic radiations pervading the Universe, including light itself. Only free electrons — those not bound to atoms — can oscillate, but they can oscillate at different frequencies, accounting for the different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
A pulsating electron — and all electrons pulsate — is one whose magnetic field intensity changes at some frequency, from weak to strong and back to weak again. Since the field structure of the electron fills all space, the pulsations appear everywhere at once. All electrons pulsate at the same frequency.
Is faster-than-light travel possible?
Yes. Just as only sound cannot travel faster than itself, light can also not travel faster than itself. Neither of these speed limits applies to humans, their aircraft, or their spacecraft.
Just as a supersonic aircraft's trailing pressure wave sweeps the ground faster than the speed of sound, so the Oersted fluxes of atomic electrons sweep the Universe faster than the speed of light.
Have you got a question? Please contact us and we'll answer here!
Is this a science fiction website?
No, it is a vision of our impending future, based on solid scientific principles.
I think this website is pseudo-scientific nonsense. What do you say to that?
The ideas presented here are visionary, forward-thinking, revolutionary, and unconventional. These ideas did not spring from a vacuum, however, but were carefully researched and take into account known scientific laws.
Aren't you violating Conservation of Energy in a proposed free-energy spaceship?
Not at all, because the proposed energy source is an open system connected to the Universe. Other examples of open-ended free-energy systems are solar cells, wind turbines, hydroelectric generators, geothermal energy, and wave generators.
Your spaceship sounds like a perpetual motion machine, which is impossible.
Space skiffs will not be perpetual motion machines, which indeed are impossible as closed systems. They will be open energy systems, drawing in magnetic energy from the Universe the same way all magnets do, and analogous to the way the Earth's biosphere draws in solar energy from the Sun.
Your model of electron orbital gravity (1) violates Conservation of Energy, and (2) is not valid in any case because electrons do not radiate energy, which would cause them to quickly spiral into their parent nuclei.
All electron orbitals, in the electrogravity model, in fact do provide energy to their environment in the form of sweeping magnetic fields. These fields are undetectable because they are multi-directional and seem to cancel out. They do, however, generate uni-directional (B x V) motional electric fields in the presence of charged particles. These motional electric fields amount to gravity fields, identified by their immunity to shielding, their uni-directionality, and their discontinuous nature.
Since electrons and atoms, in this model, are always in direct magnetic contact with the rest of the Universe, they are by no means isolated but are parts of an open system. The Conservation of Energy would therefore not apply at all, for energy could well be transferred into and out of these atoms on a continuous basis.
Why haven't you bothered to create a reproducible demonstration producing even a milligram of force?
We actually have several demonstrators now under various stages of construction, using the very limited funding available to us. If these demonstrators work as intended, then we will report it in this website. We expect to measure any generated energy in amps, volts, or shaft horsepower. Milligrams are actually units of mass, not force or energy.
I still don't believe your nutty pseudo-scientific ideas.
If you don't understand the principles involved, of course you won't accept them. These ideas are not easy to comprehend and require a significant amount of study to learn. If you are close-minded to the possibility that they may contain a kernal of truth, then you will not put forth the necessary effort. It is always easier to ridicule a new idea than it is to learn about it.
Why do you denigrate Newtonian technology?
We do nothing of the sort, but we at Solar Skiff do have a sense of humor. And, by the way, we love rockets as much as unconventional spaceships, but we know rockets have severe limitations. No rocket will ever take us to the stars. Something completely revolutionary, not evolutionary, is required.
Do you think you can win a Nobel Prize with this website?
I am flattered that you would even mention this, but no, I just want to build spaceships that can go real far, real fast. The last thing I need or want is celebrity status or phones ringing off the hook.
Return to Main
Outline at top of website.
"All men by nature desire to know."
Aristotle
"Nothing astonishes men so much as common
sense and plain dealing."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Solar Skiff is a start-up electrogravitic spacecraft manufacturing company owned and operated by Matthew A. Bentley of Rock River, Wyoming. He has chosen initially to operate as a sole proprietorship because it is the simplest, least expensive type of business to form. It is anticipated that Solar Skiff will file articles of incorporation at a later date.
Start-up funding has been minimal and completely supplied by Mr. Bentley. No grants have been sought or awarded as yet, and loans are contrary to Solar Skiff business principles. Initial marketing is through the website, which launched on December 23, 2004.
Through its website, Solar Skiff seeks donations from individuals interested in advanced spacecraft design, space exploration, private space travel, and space tourism. The potential revenue from this source could be substantial, generating the capital needed to sustain Solar Skiff. It is therefore vital that Solar Skiff maintain a high quality website and gain public recognition as a serious contender in the electrogravitic spacecraft business.
We stand at the portal
of a new and wonderful Private Space Age. Once practical space vehicles are
built, there will be no vying for market share in the same way that early airplanes
had to compete with ocean liners, trains, and automobiles. In space, the only
vehicle at hand to get passengers and cargo from point to point will be the
spaceship.
Solar Skiff will eventually
manufacture as many spaceships as the market demands, in whatever size and with
whatever options the customer requests.
Currently, there is no known manufacturer of electrogravitic spaceships on Earth. The cost of transporting astronauts, cargo, and satellites into space with throwaway rockets is very high. Launch infrastructure, refurbishment of solid rocket motors, and manufacture of new rockets and tanks for every launch all raise the costs. There is a large unfilled need for advanced field-propulsion spacecraft, not only for the satellite industry, but also for future space tourism, space station shuttling, and human space exploration. Solar Skiff will satisfy these needs.
The prospect of an impending space tourism industry alone provides a definite incentive for the development of relatively comfortable spaceships, which depart the ground like conventional helicopters but exceed the performance of jets or rockets.
Spinoff technology from the incipient science of electrogravitics promises to provide our planet with limitless, clean energy, thereby significantly raising the standard of living of everyone on Earth and providing a cleaner planetary environment.
The human spirit demands that we explore our Universe. This very palpable need virtually defines us as a species, and will determine our ultimate destiny.
Until Solar Skiff begins to generate revenue or attract serious investors, all the work will be done by the owner and volunteers. Nevertheless, it behooves the company to identify the kind of help it eventually will need to be successful. With this in mind, the following kinds of trained professionals, listed in alphabetical order, would be considered assets at Solar Skiff:
Aerospace engineers, astrodynamicists, astronauts, astronomers, communications engineers, computer engineers, electrical engineers, electricians, electronics technicians, ex-astronauts, machinists, mathematicians, materials scientists, mechanical engineers, pilots, and physicists.
If you have expertise in any of these areas, or in other areas not listed, including for example business management, fundraising, or marketing, and believe you could make a contribution, please contact us today.
Benefits.
Solar Skiff has a policy of operating strictly on a cash-only basis. Nothing is purchased on credit, and loans are avoided. It is therefore impossible for the company to fail. Because of these policies, investment is encouraged.
To enable serious spaceship design, engineering, and construction, a reliable source of funding must be found. Some ideas are listed below in alphabetical order.
Advertising – Solar Skiff reaches potential customers and interested parties through this website, available to anyone with internet access.
Anonymous Philanthropy – Kind-hearted philanthropists could make a large impact on the success of Solar Skiff.
Donations – Since Solar Skiff came online in late 2004, donations have been minimal. Nevertheless, due to our policy of operating strictly "in the black," we are still here. Solar Skiff intends to give as many people as possible the spaceflight experience, beginning with anyone who donates or contributes in any way.
Sales – Sales of advanced electromagnetic machinery may provide the first substantial source of funding for Solar Skiff. These devices will not be advertised until they have been perfected and presented on this website. Eventually, sales of operational space skiffs will provide the company with a significant cash flow.
With the continual upgrading of this website, it will become the primary conduit for disseminating information about Solar Skiff to potential investors. We will receive further exposure at the X Prize Cup and Personal Spaceflight Exposition in New Mexico each October. At the 2009 event, we plan to present a scale-model mockup of an actual electrogravitic space skiff, along with further technical information.
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
"Knowledge is power."
Francis Bacon
Aberration of Gravity – the small amount by which the gravitational field vector would be angled, due to an object's orbital speed about a gravitating body, if gravitational effects were propagated at lightspeed. The absence of this effect, and its associated orbital instabilities in the Solar System, shows that gravity propagates much faster than light. See also Aberration of Starlight.
Aberration of Starlight – the small angle a by which arriving starlight – including sunlight – is deflected, due to Earth's orbital speed v about the Sun (18 miles per second), which is a significant fraction of the speed of light c (186,282 miles per second). See also Aberration of Gravity and Poynting-Robertson Effect.
a = v / c
Acceleration – a change in velocity over time, expressed in the calculus as the first derivative of velocity with respect to time, or the second derivative of position with respect to time.
a = dv / dt = d2x / dt2
Inertial accelerations are the result of contact forces, resulting in inertial effects (e.g. centrifugal and g-forces).
Field accelerations are the result of field potentials, resulting in force-free accelerations (e.g. free-fall in a vacuum). See also centrifugal and centripetal acceleration.
Acceleration of Gravity – the acceleration , non-inertial in nature, that a gravity field imparts to any dropped object, usually assigned the lower case letter g. See also weight.
Attitude – the orientation of an aircraft, space vessel, or other object relative to its surroundings. An aircraft may have a "nose-up" or "nose-down" attitude, for example, and an electron orbit may have an "edge-on" or "face-on" attitude.
Biefeld-Brown Effect – a force causing an electric dipole in a non-linear high-voltage electrostatic field to move toward the pole of greatest charge concentration.
Centrifugal Acceleration – an outward-pointing acceleration in the reference frame of a rotating or revolving system or device, the reaction to centripetal acceleration.
Centripetal Acceleration – a center-pointing acceleration due to the continuously changing velocity vector of circular motion.
Charge – basic parameter, along with spin and mass, of protons and electrons, whose charges are equal in magnitude but opposite in polarity. Like charges repel, while unlike charges attract. Read why in the magnetic effects section.
Charged Particle – also called a "charge," an electron or a proton, which are the basic building blocks of both atoms and neutrons. Electrons carry a unit negative charge, while protons carry a unit positive charge. Solar Skiff views charged particles as magnetic dipoles.
Charge Separation – a theoretical slight polarization of charged particles within an atom, resulting in uni-directional gravitational attraction in a non-uniform electrodynamic field.
Clarke's Laws – three laws of future science advancement formulated by Sir Arthur C. Clarke in the 20th century:
Conventional Current – an electrical flow in which positive charges are assumed to flow from the positive battery terminal, through the circuit, and into the negative terminal. Actual electrical currents involve flows of electrons in the opposite direction.
Coulomb's Constant – the constant k found in Coulomb's law, related to the electric constant e0 by
k = 1 / 4pe0 = 8.987 551 787 x 109 N m2/C2
Coulomb's Law – the relationship, mathematically equivalent to Newton's law of gravitation, describing the force of attraction or repulsion between two stationary charges, Q and q.
F = k Qq / r2
See also Coulomb's Constant and electrogravitic constant.
Dipole – an object or system having two oppositely charged poles, resulting in a potential for the release of energy. Examples are permanent magnets, electromagnets, batteries, and proton-electron pairs. Solar Skiff views all charged particles, also, as magnetic dipoles.
Doppler Effect – a change in frequency of a wave caused by relative motion between the wave source and an observer. The best known example of this phenomenon is a train's whistle changing from high to low pitch as it passes.
Electric Constant – the absolute electric permittivity of free space:
e0 = 8.854 1878 1761 x 10-12 farads / meter (or coulombs / volt-meter)
Electric Field – a mathematical description for a region of space in which a charged particle will experience a force due to a nearby distribution of charges, or due to a magnetic field that is changing or moving relative to the particle. According to Hooper, there are three distinct kinds of electric field: the electrostatic, the motional, and the transformer. In general, an electric field E is defined as the force F experienced by a test charge q:
E = F / q
expressed as newtons per coulomb, or volts per meter. Both electric and gravity fields are magnetic effects.
Electric Permittivity – the ratio of electric flux density D to electric field intensity E in an electric medium:
e = D / E
Compare magnetic permeability.
Electrodynamic Field – an electric field caused by relative motion between charged particles and an independent magnetic field. The same as a motional electric field.
Electrogravitic Constant – a constant of the Universe, related to Newton's gravitational constant G and Coulomb's electrostatic constant k by:
qe = (G/k) 1/2 = 8.6164 189 x 10 -11 C/kg
Electrogravitics – the science of using purely electromagnetic principles to explain gravitational phenomena.
Electromagnet – a soft ferromagnetic core looped by conductive wire. When a current is passed through the wire, the core becomes a temporary magnet.
Electromotive Force – abbreviated emf, an electrical pressure causing a current of charge flow in a conductor, due to a voltage potential or source dipole.
Electron – elemental particle of negative charge found in all atoms. Solar Skiff regards an electron as a spinning magnetic dipole with a center but no edge, sweeping the entire Universe with magnetic energy. Read more about this model of the electron.
Electron Current – the flow of electrons in a current carrying conductor, typically moving less than an inch per second, and opposite to the direction of conventional current.
Electron Orbit – the probably elliptically or ellipsoidally shaped looping path taken by an electron as it orbits around an atomic nucleus. This amounts to an electron current, thereby generating a toroidally shaped Oersted Flux.
Electrostatic Field – an independent, continuous, shieldable electric field (Es) caused by the presence of one or more stationary charged particles. Compare motional electric field.
ES = kQ / r2
If two charges, Q and q, are present, an electrostatic force arises between them:
F = qES = k qQ / r2
Equivalence Principle – the phenomenon whereby an inertial or centripetal acceleration produces effects very similar to those on a solid planetary surface, and whereby gravity field freefall is essentially equivalent to weightlessness in deep space.
Escape Velocity – the speed required to permanently escape from a gravitating body in space. It is always equal to the square root of 2 times the circular orbital velocity. In the following expression, g refers to the local acceleration of gravity and r is the radial distance between the planet's center and the spacecraft. The exponent ½ denotes the square root.
vesc = (2gr)½
Faraday's Law – also called the law of electromagnetic induction, which states that an electromotive force is induced in the presence of a changing magnetic field B.
emf = –dB / dt
Ferromagnetic Substance – in simple terms, anything a magnet will stick to. This could be another magnet, or a surface containing iron, nickel, cobalt, or alloys of these such as steel. "Soft" iron is used in electromagnets and transformer cores, because of the requirement for rapidly switchable magnetic fields. Permanent magnets are made of "hard" materials such as samarium-cobalt or neodymium-iron-boron.
Gravitational Constant – the constant G that appears in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, not to be confused with the standard acceleration of gravity ge at Earth's surface. In the electrogravitics model, G is derived from Coulomb's constant k and the electrogravitic constant qe:
G = kqe2 = 6.672 599 × 10-11 N m2 / kg2
Gravity Field – a long-range electromagnetic field in which multiple sweeping and superposing Oersted fluxes from the electron orbitals of the gravitating body induce a single convergent motional electric field within affected matter. The acceleration field g due to gravity can be defined in terms of the gravitational force F felt by a test mass m or in terms of an electric field E and the electrogravitic constant qe:
g = F / m = Eqe
See also electric field and inertial field.
Hooper, Dr. William J. ( -1971) – professor emeritus of physics, Principia College, who in the late 1960's researched the motional electric field and its relationship to gravity. His pioneering research is a key to unlocking the secrets of electrogravitics.
Inertial Field – a short-range electromagnetic field transmitted from atom to atom through electron clouds by the application of an external contact force, and affecting only the body under acceleration.
Kepler's Laws – three laws of planetary motion formulated by Johannes Kepler in the early 17th century, using detailed observations by Tycho Brahe:
Left-Hand Rule – handy method for determining the direction of the magnetic field vector around a current carrying conductor. With the left thumb pointing in the direction of electron flow (opposite to conventional current), the fingers of the left hand wrap around the conductor to define the direction of the looping magnetic flux lines. See also Oersted Flux.
Lift – the force that opposes gravity in all flying machines. Various technologies overcome gravity in different ways:
Aerostatic Lift – In lighter-than-air craft, the weight of the displaced atmosphere determines the upward force of buoyancy. Marine craft float in water by the very same principle, using the buoyant force of the displaced water.
Aerodynamic Lift – In heavier-than-air craft, unbalanced pressures above and below a fixed or rotary wing, due to relatively moving air and Bernoulli's principle, provide an upward force.
Rocket Thrust – the momentum of propellants accelerated through a nozzle creates a reaction force causing a rocket or space vehicle to accelerate in the opposite direction.Magnetic Thrust – electrically powered angular momentum can be be converted to an asymmetrical linear thrust using electromagnetic induction, requiring no fuels or propellants.
Electrodynamic Gravity Control – revolving magnetic fields induce a motional electric field in the atoms of electrogravitic craft, creating an artificial gravity field.
Electrostatic Gravity Control – Asymmetrical capacitors are used, together with special dielectric materials, to create convergent electric fields without moving parts.
Lorentz Force – a sideways force experienced by a particle of charge q moving at velocity V through a magnetic field of flux density B. Charged particles will move in circular, elliptical, or spiral paths under these conditions. The Lorentz force equation is given by
F = q(V x B)
Magnet – an object always containing two unlike poles and surrounded by a magnetic field. Looping flux lines exit the north pole and enter the south pole. Magnets are like "energy gates" analogous to sails, windmills, or solar cells in their ability to capture energy from their environment. Magnets are made by lining up a disproportionate number of electron spins.
Magnetic Constant – the magnetic permeability of free space, defined as
m0 = 4p x 10-7 henries / meter (or webers / amp-meter)
Magnetic Field – revealed by arrays of spin-aligned electrons in certain substances, a region of looping flux surrounding a magnet or a current carrying conductor, able to exert a force on other magnets, current carrying conductors, ferromagnetic substances, and relatively moving charged particles. The direction of the looping vector flux points from the north magnetic pole to the south magnetic pole, or encircles an electron flow as an Oersted flux. Magnetic field intensity is symbolized by the vector H and is expressed in Amperes per meter. Magnetic flux density is represented by the vector B, expressed in teslas, or webers per square meter. The relationship between flux density and field strength is
B = m H
where m is the magnetic permeability.
Magnetic Flux – the "flow" of magnetic flux along field lines out of the north and into the south pole of every magnet, denoted by flux density vector B. Solar Skiff regards this flux as the resultant and extended magnetic "field-structure" of an array of spin-aligned electrons in every magnet. See also the model electron section.
Magnetic Permeability – the ratio of the magnetic flux density B to the magnetic field intensity H in a magnetic medium.
m = B / H
Compare electric permittivity.
Mass – a measure of the amount of material in a body, expressed in slugs or kilograms, and directly proportional to the number of charged particles in the body. Solar Skiff explains mass as the vector product of electric E and magnetic H field intensities divided by three frequencies: scalar pulsation, vector oscillation, and spin.
m = (E x H) / f 3
Motional Electric Field – a dependent, discontinuous, non-shieldable electric field arising from the relative motions between charged particles and independent magnetic fields. Mathematically, it is the vector product of magnetic flux density and field velocity.
Em = B x V
Satisfying the description of a gravity field, motional electric fields also appear between parallel current carrying conductors, cause rotational forces in electric motors, and induce electromotive forces in generators.
Neutron – electrically neutral subatomic particle found in atomic nucei, with a mass slightly greater than the proton. Free neutrons decay into protons and electrons within about 15 minutes.
Newton's Laws of Motion – three laws formulated by Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century:
Newton's Law of Gravitation – mathematical relationship discovered by Sir Isaac Newton, stating that every mass (M) in the Universe attracts every other mass (m) with a force (F) directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between the two centers of mass. The constant of proportionality (G) is Newton's Gravitational Constant. Compare Coulomb's Law.
F = G Mm / r2
Occam's Razor – the principle in science that simple ideas are preferable to complex ones. Given two hypotheses, the simpler one is usually the correct one. The simplicity of electrogravitics is exemplified by a flat spacetime pervaded only by magnetic effects.
Oersted Flux – the magnetic field that accompanies every electric current, named after the discoverer of electromagnetism, the Danish scientist Hans Christian Oersted. This flux wraps around a current carrying conductor with the fingers of the left hand as the thumb points in the direction of electron flow. Solar Skiff regards gravity fields as originating in electron orbitals. To learn more, see the sections on magnetic effects and Oersted's flux.
Olbers' Paradox – If the Universe is infinite, the entire sky should be as bright and as hot as the surface of the Sun, both day and night. The solution to the Paradox is because (a) the Universe is not infinite, (b) the Universe is expanding, or (c) both. If the Universe was born time T ago, and given the speed of light c, no light from a distance greater than cT could have reached us, providing one solution to the Paradox. Another solution, independent of cT, explains the dark night sky as a result of increasing red-shifts with distance in the light from faraway galaxies. Neither explanation depends on the other. See Expanding Universe.
Plasma – a highly ionized gas in which the number of free electrons and positive ions is roughly equal. The Sun's ionized atmosphere is a plasma.
Polarization – a separation of charge within an object, so that opposite charges tend to pool at opposite poles.
Poynting-Robertson Effect – a retardation in orbital velocity of small particles in orbit around the Sun because of the backward vector component of radiation pressure due to the aberration of sunlight. The effect causes dust grains to spiral in toward the Sun.
Proton – positively charged particle found in the nucleus of all atoms, with spin and charge equal to the electron's, but mass 1836 times greater.
Reference Frame – a coordinate grid attached to an observer. An example would be a moving train blowing its whistle. To an observer on the train, the whistle emits a single pitch, or frequency. But to an observer on the ground as the train passes, the whistle emits first a higher frequency pitch followed by a lower frequency pitch by virtue of the Doppler effect.
Rocket – a device which accelerates by means of the conservation of momentum and Newton's Third Law. The momentum of the exhaust gases in one direction equals the momentum of the rocket in the other direction.
Rocket Equation – fundamental equation of rocket flight, relating the effective exhaust velocity (c) of the expelled gases and the mass ratio (M/m) of the rocket to the achievable velocity increment or delta-V (Dv):
DV = c ln (M / m)
In exponential form this becomes
M / m = exp (DV / c)
where exp signifies the constant e (2.7182818) is raised to the power in parentheses.
Scalar – a numerical quantity which, unlike a vector, has magnitude but no direction. Examples include price, temperature, length, duration, and speed.
Searl Effect – the production of a high-voltage emf and electrogravity by a spinning charge-separated disk. With a negative charge buildup at the rotating rim, a magnetic field appears, leading to gravitational field effects. The original device was intended as a simple generator, but it reportedly lifted off unexpectedly and accelerated into space.
Skiff – a small space vessel powered and propelled by electrogravitic technology.
Slug – a unit of mass in the U.S. Customary System of measurement, which has a weight of 32.174 pounds at the surface of Earth.
1 slug = 1 lb-sec2/foot = 14.59 kg
Spin – a measure of the intrinsic angular momentum of a particle, whose spin axis will line up with external magnetic fields. See also charge and mass.
Standard Acceleration of Gravity – the standardized average value of acceleration due to gravity at the surface of planet Earth:
ge = 9.80665 m/sec2 = 32.1740 feet/sec2
Transformer Electric Field – an electric field arising from accelerated charges, as in the alternating current in one coil of a flux-linked transformer causing electromagnetic induction in the other coil. The magnetic flux in the transformer core is always changing. Accelerated charges are also responsible for electromagnetic radiation.
Vector – a physical quantity having both a magnitude and a direction, represented mathematically as an arrow. Examples include lift L, weight W, acceleration of gravity g, velocity V, electric field E, magnetic field intensity H, and magnetic flux density B.
Vector Component – one of usually two orthogonal rays into which any vector can be resolved. An example would be a velocity of northeast, which can be split into north and east components.
Velocity – a vector quantity specifying both the speed and direction of motion. As a vector, velocity can change even when speed is constant, resulting in centripetal accelerations.
Voltage – an electrical pressure or electromotive force causing current to flow past a resistive load. It is a potential difference between two points, analogous to the height of a waterfall or the slope of a river. Voltage in volts is equal to current in amperes times resistance in ohms.
Weight – the force of gravity, or downward force against a solid surface in a gravity field. The weight W of any object with mass m is given by Newton's Second Law of Motion, where g is the local acceleration of gravity .
W = mg
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
1.
Nikola Tesla, address to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 1891.
http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/papers/monstein/7210.pdf
"Observation of scalar longitudinal electrodynamic waves"
Myrl H. Ahrendt:
– The Mathematics of Space Exploration.
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.
David L. Anderson:
– The Discovery of the Electron: The Development of the Atomic
Concept of Electricity. Van Nostrand, 1964.
Roger R. Bate, Donald D.
Mueller, and Jerry E. White:
– Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.
Dover, 1971.
Aurthur Beiser:
– Concepts of Modern Physics (5th edition).
McGraw-Hill, 1995.
Peter G. Bergmann:
– The Riddle of Gravitation. Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1968.
Benjamin P. Blasingame:
– Astronautics. McGraw-Hill,
1964.
Robert W. Buchheim:
– Space Handbook: Astronautics and its Applications.
The RAND Corporation, 1959.
Arthur C. Clarke:
– Interplanetary Flight: An Introduction to Astronautics.
Harper, 1950.
– The Exploration of Space.
Harper, 1951.
Nick Cook:
– The Hunt for Zero Point. Broadway Books, 2001.
E. G. Cullwick:
– The Fundamentals of Electro-Magnetism. Cambridge
University Press, 1949.
– Electromagnetism and Relativity. Longmans,
Green and Co., 1957.
Joseph A. Edminister:
– Theory
and Problems of Electromagnetics, Schaum's Outline (2nd edition).
McGraw-Hill, 1993.
Richard P. Feynman, Robert
B. Leighton, & Matthew Sands:
– The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Addison Wesley,
1963.
Francis W. Gibson:
– The
All-Electric Motional Field Generator & Its Potential.
Electrodynamic Gravity, Inc., 1983.
William J. Hooper:
– New
Horizons In Electric, Magnetic & Gravitational Field Theory.
Principia College Library, Elsah, Illinois, 1969.
Lee H. Johnson:
– Engineering: Principles and Problems. McGraw-Hill,
1960.
Maxwell W. Hunter, II:
– Thrust into Space.
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966.
Moray B. King:
– Quest for Zero-Point Energy. Adventures Unlimited
Press, 2001.
Paul A. LaViolette:
– Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology.
Starlane Publications, 2003.
– Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. Bear &
Company, 2008.
James D. Livingston:
– Driving Force: The Natural Magic of Magnets.
Harvard University Press, 1996.
Hans C. Ohanian:
– Gravitation and Spacetime. W.W. Norton &
Company, 1976.
Frederick I. Ordway, III,
James Patrick Gardner, and Mitchell R. Sharpe, Jr.:
– Basic Astronautics.
Prentice-Hall, 1962.
Oxford Paperback Reference:
– Oxford Dictionary of Physics (5th edition).
Oxford University Press, 2005.
Melvin Schwartz:
– Principles of Electrodynamics. Dover Publications,
1972.
Jerry Jon Sellers:
– Understanding Space: An Introduction
to Astronautics. McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Raymond A. Serway:
– Physics
for Scientists & Engineers (2nd edition). Saunders College
Publishing, 1986.
Rho Sigma:
– Ether-Technology.
Adventures Unlimited Press, 1977.
Edwin F. Taylor & John
Archibald Wheeler:
– Spacetime Physics (2nd edition). Freeman,
1992.
Jan J. Tuma:
– Handbook of Physical Calculations. McGraw-Hill,
1976.
Thomas F. Valone:
– Electrogravitics
Systems. Integrity Research Institute, Washington, 1994.
– Electrogravitics II. Integrity Research Institute,
2004.
U.S. Navy:
– Basic Electricity (2nd edition). Dover, 1970.
Michael Zeilik & Elske
v. P. Smith:
– Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics (2nd
edition). Saunders College Publishing, 1987.
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
"Marriages are made in Heaven."
Midrash
Space News & International Cooperation
Spacefleet Association - international organization of space professionals and enthusiasts for the purpose of useful collaboration, furthering mankind's thrust into Space.
X Prize Foundation - webpage gives details of various X Prizes.
X-Prize
News - provides the very latest news on the Private Space Race front, including
information on events, teams, forums, and further space links.
Educational Sites
AerospaceWeb - excellent educational website run by aerospace professionals, including sections on aviation, space technology, the atmosphere, and even an online calculator.
Basics of Space Flight - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory website provides good introduction and tutorial on the rudimentary aspects of space flight.
Encyclopedia Astronautica - the ultimate alphabetical resource for those seeking authoritative details on hundreds of topics in space technology and history.
New Horizons In Electric, Magnetic & Gravitational Field Theory - Dr. William J. Hooper's research in booklet form, detailing his quest for a theory of electrodynamic gravity.
Rocket and Space Technology - superb astronautics website, full of space vehicle information, launch records, rocket science, practice problems, links, and much more.
Scientific
Papers of Steven J. Smith
- excellent treatises on the electrodynamics of space, the unified field, electrogravitics,
magneto-thermodynamics, entropy, and more.
Unconventional Technologies
California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics - conducts research on the nature of the quantum vacuum, zero-point energy, and the origin of mass and inertia, with applications for future gravity control and space flight.
Gravity Control Technologies - the future of flight, incorporating advanced physics, zero-point field energy production, and swift interstellar transport.
Oval EcoTech - Fascinating website detailing the science of advanced interstellar propulsion, utilizing electromagnetic fields and their interaction with the spacetime structure of our Universe.
UFO How To – A literal encyclopedia of information on how to build your own unconventional flying object or flying saucer. All information comes from actual patents filed on Earth.
Unitel Aerospace – Company plans to use macroscopic quantum tunneling to achieve superluminal velocities for interstellar travel.
Return to Main Outline at top of website.
This section is for those who are curious how well they understand the principles presented in this website.
True/False:
Click here for the answers.
Multiple Choice
Click here for the answers.
Essay written at age 12, copied verbatim (including punctuation and spelling errors) from the original:
I am writing this story so that when it gets to be the year 2000, I,ll see if I came close.
This was written in January 1974
Life in the year 2000
As I wake up one fine morning in the year 2000, I see the blue sky over my futuristic bed. Suddenly I hear a low hum and a hovercraft zooms over our house which is flush with the ground. At night all I do is push a button and our house decends flush with the ground. I notice that the hovercraft is the one of my boss. I look at my own private digital clock and see that I have to be at work in five minutes which is fifty kilometers away. I say to myself "I have plenty of time." I then get out of bed and push a button. My bed starts to desend flush with the floor then a panel slides over the bed and no one would even know that there was a bed there! I then push another button and my wardrobe door slides open. I then get dressed very fast and take the escalator downstairs. I take a tablet that has all the nutrition of a bacon, egg, milk, and steak dinner. Then I push a button and the whole house assents to the surface. I then go to the garage where the hovercraft is stored. I hop into it and in less than two seconds I am working at the big machines that make spaceships for use in deep space at my work. When the day is over the plant has made over 100 giant spaceships. I then go home for a real dinner and a good night's sleep.
Matthew A. Bentley
