General Relativity Proves HV Lifters' Create Significant Space-Time Curvature

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
I don't know where the strange ideas, like the field changing the mass are coming from, so hopefully this will clear some things up. First of all, look at my avatar. It defines mass in such a way that it is an invariant. (That doesn't mean that you can't make something like sci fi inertial dampeners) Second of all, The solution implications discussed are not an anti gravity effect even if one can levitate something by the effect alone. Its not about changing the gravitational mass, nor about pushing against gravitational sources which are what anti gravity refers to. The solution indicates that the electric field's own stress energy tensor yields a solution to Einstein's field equations that has gravitational field lines, in the over simplified Newtonian sense as best I can explain it, following along them. As such, the electric field itself can be used to produce a gravitational field which the matter of such a thing as a lifter will tend to follow. The electric field between the wire and the plate of a lifter is on average between them near the electrical breakdown of air about 3 million V/m. However, electric fields near charged conductors such as the wire and the plate tends to be insanely high near tight curves and sharp edges or points like the edge of the foil or near the wire making the electric field near these many orders of magnitude higher than the 3 million V/m average between them. As such the electric field itself can produce significant gravitational effects in the immediate vicinity of the wire and plate edges.
That being said, as was mentioned in the video, if the lifter has a biased gravitational effect, it is still NOT an anti gravity effect, as the bias in the direction of the gravitational field about the lifter would exist even in the depths of space remote from any other gravitational sources.
ANYWAY, since I mentioned inertial dampening just consider for example a matter shell outside of which the metric you write down in Rindler coordinates, but inside you write down as inertial frame coordinates for flat spacetime. You then write down for the metric in the matter transition a metric which reduces to each in its values and first derivatives at both the inner and outer boundaries. You then take that metric and calculate from it the Einstein tensor and from that determine what stress energy tensor corresponds to the matter shell to produce that entire spacetime. What you find ultimately is that you need a pressure dipole which physically can be done because negative pressure states do turn out to exist in nature. For examples, dark energy, Casimir energy, even the pressure component of a simple electric field along its direction.

I only ask, does the fact that Antimatter exists really need illustrating? Negatively charged matter does occur naturally,

I also believe Antigravity is a pipedream that simply does not occur in nature and therefore can not occur technologically. We can defy gravity in many ways, But we can not simply achieve Antigravity. It's not possible in the sense people wish for it to be and it defies GR completely. If antigravity were possible, Nature would illustrate this in the form of white holes.

Under the laws of physics that we currently understand, quantities like anti-mass or anti-energy don't exist.
 
Last edited:

waitedavid137

Honorable
I only ask, does the fact that Antimatter exists really need illustrating? Negatively charged matter does occur naturally,

I also believe Antigravity is a pipedream that simply does not occur in nature and therefore can not occur technologically. We can defy gravity in many ways, But we can not simply achieve Antigravity. It's not possible in the sense people wish for it to be and it defies GR completely. If antigravity were possible, Nature would illustrate this in the form of white holes.

Under the laws of physics that we currently understand, quantities like anti-mass or anti-energy don't exist.
First of all why do you spam " anti gravity..." one post after I explicitly explained that it is NOT anti gravity. Second of all, Anti gravity does not defy GR, but is implied by it. For examples, dark energy's universe acceleration expansion effect, Charge 1/r³ and spin 1/r⁴ repulsive effect from the sources. Third of all, white holes act gravitationally, ATTRACTIVE, believe it or not. If a black/white hole is not changing noticeably in size, you can't distinguish the difference.
 
Last edited:
I only ask, does the fact that Antimatter exists really need illustrating? Negatively charged matter does occur naturally,
He didn't mention antimatter so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

I also believe Antigravity is a pipedream that simply does not occur in nature and therefore can not occur technologically. We can defy gravity in many ways, But we can not simply achieve Antigravity. It's not possible in the sense people wish for it to be and it defies GR completely. If antigravity were possible, Nature would illustrate this in the form of white holes.
Ok first, he's explicitly saying that the effect he's describing isn't an antigravity effect.

And second, the dark energy energy effect is a negative gravitational field effect, or antigravity if you prefer. And yes this is and always has been as feature of GR - not only in the cosmological constant term itself, but within the tensor field equations themselves, such as in the negative pressure terms that he mentioned in that post. In recent years Manu Paranjape and his grad students have published a couple of papers that explored this idea and they found that a bubble of perfectly fluid matter could produce an antigravitational effect by employing the negative pressure terms in Einstein's equation. And in 1963 Robert L. Forward demonstrated in his "Guidelines to Antigravity" paper that a gravitoelectric dipole generator could produce an antigravitational field on one side of the apparatus...without invoking any exotic energy states.

So no - everything you said about antigravity is demonstrably wrong, and it's impossible to explain the cosmological acceleration of the universe (the dark energy effect) without it.

There are some things that I'd like to talk about further on this topic, but I need to look at the source material and think this over some more, now that a number of misconceptions about his work that have been offered in this thread have been corrected.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
He didn't mention antimatter so I don't know why you're bringing it up.


Ok first, he's explicitly saying that the effect he's describing isn't an antigravity effect.

And second, the dark energy energy effect is a negative gravitational field effect, or antigravity if you prefer. And yes this is a and always has been as feature of GR - not only in the cosmological constant term itself, but within the tensor field equations themselves, such as in the negative pressure terms that he mentioned in that post. In recent years Manu Paranjape and his grad students have published a couple of papers that explored this idea and they found that a bubble of perfectly fluid matter could produce an antigravitational effect by employing the negative pressure terms in Einstein's equation. And in 1963 Robert L. Forward demonstrated in his "Guidelines to Antigravity" paper that a gravitoelectric dipole generator could produce an antigravitational field on one side of the apparatus...without invoking any exotic energy states.

So no - everything you said about antigravity is demonstrably wrong, and it's impossible to explain the cosmological acceleration of the universe (the dark energy effect) without it.

There are some things that I'd like to talk about further on this topic, but I need to look at the source material and think this over some more, now that a number of misconceptions about his work that have been offered in this thread have been corrected.



In the 20th century, Newton's model was replaced by general relativity where gravity is not a force but the result of the geometry of spacetime. Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible except under contrived circumstances.
Anti-gravity - Wikipedia Unless you Leave General relativity completely antigravity isn't possible.

I thought we were having an empirical discussion here? You don't let me get away with hypothetical bullshit...
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
First of all why do you spam " anti gravity..." one post after I explicitly explained that it is NOT anti gravity. Second of all, Anti gravity does not defy GR, but is implied by it. For examples, dark energy's universe acceleration expansion effect, Charge 1/r³ and spin 1/r⁴ repulsive effect from the sources. Third of all, white holes act gravitationally, ATTRACTIVE, believe it or not. If a black/white hole is not changing noticeably in size, you can't distinguish the difference.
And I explicitly agreed with you that it's not antigravity, I believe you took my post wrong, I'm sorry, Am I too Black to talk science with you or something? I don't get why you're so pissy?

You in fact mentioned antigravity, And I agreed that it's not. I don't get the miscommunication here, I do know that it's getting so bad here, a person cant really speak about science without being corrected, Get's old. Gets really old.
 
Last edited:
In the 20th century, Newton's model was replaced by general relativity where gravity is not a force but the result of the geometry of spacetime.
Everyone here knows that so why are you bringing it up?

Under general relativity, anti-gravity is impossible except under contrived circumstances.
No - antigravity is an intrinsic feature of Einstein's field equations. I've already cited Forward's paper, which proves you wrong. And like he said, the dark energy effect is also an antigravitational effect.

So both theoretically and observationally you're completely wrong on this subject Shadowprophet. You should never rely on Wikipedia btw; those anonymous editors are often very biased if not outright wrong.
 

waitedavid137

Honorable
Shadowprophet, Did you seriously just play the race card in the forum where no one has any idea what race you are? Look, anti gravity has nothing to do with the gravitational effect being discussed. Anti gravity effects are implied by general relativity, not forbidden by it.
Also, consider the Vaidya solution,
ds² = dct²-dr²-r²dΩ²-(R/r)(dr±dct)²
where R is a function of r±ct,
The + choice corresponds to a black hole. The - choice corresponds to a white hole.
As long as R is constant, either of these is a mere time coordinate transformation from the Schwarzschild solution. As such both act gravitationally attractive to the point that you can't tell the difference when R is not significantly changing.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Shadowprophet, Did you seriously just play the race card in the forum where no one has any idea what race you are? Look, anti gravity has nothing to do with the gravitational effect being discussed. Anti gravity effects are implied by general relativity, not forbidden by it.
Also, consider the Vaidya solution,
ds² = dct²-dr²-r²dΩ²-(R/r)(dr±dct)²
where R is a function of r±ct,
The + choice corresponds to a black hole. The - choice corresponds to a white hole.
As long as R is constant, either of these is a mere time coordinate transformation from the Schwarzschild solution. As such both act gravitationally attractive to the point that you can't tell the difference when R is not significantly changing.
Yes, I did, It was a joke, however, people won't see any humor in it. Look, People who know me know this, I love Science, I love speaking about the subject, Studying the subject. But I don't argue, It's a misfortune that you don't know my personality, But Thomas Does, He's really shown his ass here in an uncalled-for way, It's very unfortunate that we never got to know one another.

Still. The environment is getting really negative and argumentive. It's just not my thing. Peace.
 

waitedavid137

Honorable
Race card playing motivated by your anti straight white male racism and excuses for your
having that racism motivating playing that card aside, lets stick to the subject. The M-P solution I independently worked out for myself without first knowing it, yields interesting correspondence between electric fields and gravitational fields and though gravitational propulsion effects may be produced from the solution discussed, it is not an anti gravity effect. There do exist anti gravity effects in the scope of general relativity at least one of which, the cosmological constant aka dark energy, has been observed in nature.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Race card playing motivated by your anti straight white male racism and excuses for your
having that racism motivating playing that card aside, lets stick to the subject. The M-P solution I independently worked out for myself without first knowing it, yields interesting correspondence between electric fields and gravitational fields and though gravitational propulsion effects may be produced from the solution discussed, it is not an anti gravity effect. There do exist anti gravity effects in the scope of general relativity at least one of which, the cosmological constant aka dark energy, has been observed in nature.
TO my knowledge, Dark energy and Dark matter are heavily dependant upon ideology and are not empirically proven concepts. Sure, Behead me for being empirical. I was not informed This could go into hypotheticals. Yes, you guys have ideas and Peer-reviewed papers that highly suggest Dark energy and Dark matter exist. However. They are not empirical.

I'm just speaking the truth here. You guys are working on theoretical Models And getting upset at me because I'm not quoting the same model, That doesn't make my model moot or ignorant or uninformed.

Empirically one can only strive for what's proven fact. Dark Energy, It must exist because General relativity would break without it? We haven't observed Dark energy, That is a fact. We have observed what we Lable Dark Energy. There are other theories than Dark energy. But Picked a bad time to discuss these things I guess.
 
Last edited:
This is the part that I have a problem with:
That being said, as was mentioned in the video, if the lifter has a biased gravitational effect, it is still NOT an anti gravity effect, as the bias in the direction of the gravitational field about the lifter would exist even in the depths of space remote from any other gravitational sources.

What do you mean by "gravitational bias?" The Alcubierre metric produces a linear acceleration because of the interaction of the opposite positive and negative gravitational poles. And the negative pole in that model consists of a dense region of net negative mass-energy.

It's my understanding that a net negative region of mass-energy cannot be produced by any body made of positive matter; the positive rest mass of the matter of the system will always be greater than any negative contributions to the stress-energy tensor produced by negative pressure or electrical charge or anything else. For example the negative energy between a pair of Casimir plates can never be greater than the rest mass of the plates. So no physical configuration can yield the net negative mass-energy state required to produce a linear acceleration via the Alcubierre metric.

And if that's true then the gravitational field is positive at every point, so no acceleration is possible; the center of gravity of the system could be moved around depending on distribution of stress, energy, momentum, pressure, etc., but the system as a whole would have no net linear acceleration.

I don't understand how you get around that, and I've never seen a paper which even suggests that such a thing is possible.
 

Tate

Honorable
Ok, I thought the cosmological constant was not used anymore... Lets talk logistics of these theories of ionized propulsion... What and how would it be used in a practical manor? Transportation? from where to where?

Also, the Schwarzschild Metric states - "A Schwarzschild black hole or static black hole is a black hole that has neither electric charge nor angular momentum."

would not these Singularity's break your form of propulsion if you were to use it to travel in space.

Why even try to use ionization as a propulsion when it most likely will not work in outer space and if it did work then it could be broken randomly by a unseen black hole?
 

waitedavid137

Honorable
TO my knowledge, Dark energy and Dark matter are heavily dependant upon ideology and are not empirically proven concepts.....
So your ideology is wrong. What was first predicted and second observed in its predicted effects is not to any rational mind empirically unproven.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
So your ideology is wrong. What was first predicted and second observed in its predicted effects is not to any rational mind empirically unproven.

The evidence for dark energy is heavily dependent on the theory of general relativity. Therefore, it is conceivable that a modification to general relativity also eliminates the need for dark energy. ...
 
TO my knowledge, Dark energy and Dark matter are heavily dependant upon ideology and are not empirically proven concepts. Sure, Behead me for being empirical. I was not informed This could go into hypotheticals. Yes, you guys have ideas and Peer-reviewed papers that highly suggest Dark energy and Dark matter exist. However. They are not empirical.
The problem here is that you're mixing up the observed (i.e. empirical) effects with the unproven theoretical explanations.

That's why I always refer to "the dark energy effect" and "the dark matter effect," rather than just saying "dark energy" and "dark matter." The effects are proven empirical facts. The explanations are unproven hypotheses.

The dark energy effect itself is all we need to know for the purposes of this discussion: the galaxy clusters are accelerating away from one another driven by a negative gravitational field acting between them, aka an antigravitational field. This is undisputed now - the observations have been checked and rechecked and refined and expanded: there's definitely an antigravitational acceleration acting between all distant bodies in the universe. The explanation can be debated, but the observation itself is a fact: antigravity is a real physical feature of the universe. Fortunately, Einstein's theory has always permitted antigravity. This was denied for many decades by snide shitheads, but they were all wrong and now we have the irrefutable proof of it.
 

Tate

Honorable
So your ideology is wrong. What was first predicted and second observed in its predicted effects is not to any rational mind empirically unproven.


Dark Matter and Dark Energy's Role in the Universe

"Scientists have not yet observed dark matter directly. It doesn't interact with baryonic matter and it's completely invisible to light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, making dark matter impossible to detect with current instruments. But scientists are confident it exists because of the gravitational effects it appears to have on galaxies and galaxy clusters. " - National Geographic 4/6/2020
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
The problem here is that you're mixing up the observed (i.e. empirical) effects with the unproven theoretical explanations.

That's why I always refer to "the dark energy effect" and "the dark matter effect," rather than just saying "dark energy" and "dark matter." The effects are proven empirical facts. The explanations are unproven hypotheses.

The dark energy effect itself is all we need to know for the purposes of this discussion: the galaxy clusters are accelerating away from one another driven by a negative gravitational field acting between them, aka an antigravitational field. This is undisputed now - the observations have been checked and rechecked and refined and expanded: there's definitely an antigravitational acceleration acting between all distant bodies in the universe. The explanation can be debated, but the observation itself is a fact: antigravity is a real physical feature of the universe. Fortunately, Einstein's theory has always permitted antigravity. This was denied for many decades by snide shitheads, but they were all wrong and now we have the irrefutable proof of it.

Maybe, But at this same time, The unnecessary flack is a huge buzzkill. I really do know the things I speak of. Dark energy could yet be disproven Via a simple modification to Relativity.

I feel strongly that What we call dark energy could even be simple gravity from the filaments of the cosmic web.
 

Tate

Honorable
If you do have observations of Dark energy please link me articles i would love to see it.
 
Ok, I thought the cosmological constant was not used anymore... Lets talk logistics of these theories of ionized propulsion... What and how would it be used in a practical manor? Transportation? from where to where?

Also, the Schwarzschild Metric states - "A Schwarzschild black hole or static black hole is a black hole that has neither electric charge nor angular momentum."

would not these Singularity's break your form of propulsion if you were to use it to travel in space.

Why even try to use ionization as a propulsion when it most likely will not work in outer space and if it did work then it could be broken randomly by a unseen black hole?
He's not talking about any kind of ion propulsion, which is still a form of reaction propulsion - he's suggesting a new type of spacetime propulsion principle that I've never heard of before, and I'm not convinced that he's correct frankly.

But if he's right then it would throw open the door to rapid manned interstellar spaceflight.
 

waitedavid137

Honorable
This is the part that I have a problem with:


What do you mean by "gravitational bias?" The Alcubierre metric produces a linear acceleration because of the interaction of the opposite positive and negative gravitational poles. ....
It has nothing to do with the Alcubierre solution and public relations discriptions of that solution are largely wrong. By bias, I mean directional. So for simple example, consider the spacetime
ds² = dct²/(1-αz/c²)² - (1-αz/c²)²dσ²
It is an exact solution to Einstein's field equations for a uniform electric field laying along z corresponding to a gravitational acceleration field observed from the perspective of these coordinates to be in the -z direction.
As for the Alcubierre warp drive, the negative energy density is ringed around the sides of the warp, not in front, nor back of it.
 
Top