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

Discussion in 'Alien Hub' started by Dejan Corovic, Mar 11, 2020.

  1. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Noble

    Messages:
    882
    For very long time there was a debate in alternative physics community about weather high voltage can cause so called electro-gravitic effect. It is usually known as BiefeldBrown effect and mainstream science attributes it to ionic wind produced by high voltage (HV) on a wire. But alt-sci community claims that electro-gravitic effect is that when voltages are really high and asymmetric one gets space-time curvature. One spinoff of that idea is that B1 stealth bomber is using electrogravitics to fly silently.

    David Waite's YT channel WaiteDavidMSPhysics and associated site ModernRelativitySite are completely devoted to teaching general relativity (GR) in an accessible, easy to understand way (assuming you are genius yourself). David Waite, originally from Arizona, took to himself to work out a general relativity solution for a very thin wire at few million volts. It turns out that such a wire can produce 1g of acceleration with relatively ordinary means, within reach of regular DIY hobbyist's workshop/mancave. In other words, David proves that High Voltage Lifters that are circulating on internet, are propelled by real relativistic trust, not just by a draft of ions.



    @Thomas R. Morrison .... comments please
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2020
    • Awesome Awesome x 2
  2. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,120
    Nope. Lifters don't work in a vacuum. NASA ran experiments of that type iirc.

    I'll check out his video to see if I can find the error in his calculations, but since this claim has been experimentally refuted, it's a moot point.
     
  3. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Noble

    Messages:
    882
    David is real expert on GR. He has a whole site devoted just to GR ... site ModernRelativitySite You can find all his calculations on the site, it might be easier to follow than in the video.

    It's quite possible that NASA didn't tell us the whole story.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,120
    Does he have any papers that passed through the peer-review process for publication in a reputable academic journal? I found a citation for a paper called “On Gravitational Self Propulsion” by a "D. Waite" that might be him, but I can't find that paper online and the publisher, Journal of Advanced Theoretical Propulsion Methods, appears to be out of business.

    When people find new exact solutions to GR, as he claims in his video, academic journals usually snatch those up in a heartbeat, unless they're incorrect. So it's troubling that his derivation in this area is unpublished, especially since a finding of the type he's claiming here would be of such great interest to the physics community.

    I suppose it's possible that NASA and others could suppress scientific findings, but to do so in this case would be hard to accept - if they discovered a simple and easily attainable form of gravitational field propulsion like he suggests here, it would throw open the door to billions of dollars in funding and aerospace development. Burying a finding of such importance would directly oppose their own best interests - in fact they've spent a lot of time and energy trying to find any type of idea like this. That's why I've never bought Richard Hoagland's conspiracy theories about NASA.

    Here's one comprehensive study funded by NASA (conducted by independent contractors) that concluded that atmospheric effects explain all of their data and all of the data from other previously published experiments in this area:

    "Asymmetrical Capacitors for Propulsion," Francis X. Canning, Cory Melcher, and Edwin Winet, Institute for Scientific Research, Inc., 2004
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040171929.pdf

    And one of our favorite researchers, Dr. Martin Tajmar, ran experiments on this subject and wrote this paper about his results:

    "The Biefeld-Brown Effect: Misinterpretation of Corona Wind Phenomena," M. Tajmar, AIAA journal, 2004
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3e90/e60510fc0ef77f9f7396b34c903974bb9446.pdf
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  5. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Noble

    Messages:
    882
    David Waite later came to find out that the static electric field solution for mass with extreme charge was already done by Majumdar and Papapetrau back in 1947-8. That's why he didn't bother publishing, since his solution was the same. As well that means that there are no errors in his solution.

    Papapetrou, A. (1948): "A static solution of the equations of the gravitational field for an arbitrary charge distribution", Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. A 51 191.

    Majumdar, S D (1947). "A Class of Exact Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations". Physical Review. 72 (5): 390–398.

    upload_2020-3-13_0-27-23.png

    Here is the part of a solution, from his video, that puts electric field strength to 114 GV/m. Now, that seems a lot, but it is possibly achievable for a very thin and very strong wire, like steel wire, because such wire would have really high curvature, which in turn would locally increase strength of the E-field.

    I am poor mathematician. Is there a chance that you can do a little equation that would relate wire diameter and E-field strength on one side and wire voltage on another, so I can possibly pull of an experiment. One can relatively easily go to voltage of about 2.0 MV and possibly that would give us electric field that is a significant fraction of 114 GV/m. Than it's worth me buying a glass bell and vacuum pump to do a test.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2020
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    965
    if I remember correct, the US army ran tests and show they do work in a vacuum (looked for the document for 30 min. and can't seem to find it)

    you have to give them pulsing DC (sharp rise time works better, and slow fall time helps)
    pure DC is not going to get the intended effect. AC does not work either.
    steady state DC works only if there is leakage current through the dielectric, so I see why NASA might have got it wrong.

    edit:
    found this, not what I was looking for, but verifies what I had seen earlier.
    jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/ascvacuum/index.htm
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2020
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,120
    You're probably thinking of this 2002 paper from Badher and Fazi at the Army Research Laboratory:

    Force on an Asymmetric Capacitor
    https://arxiv.org/vc/physics/papers/0211/0211001v1.pdf

    They didn't do any vacuum tests for that paper: "The next series of experiments should determine whether the effect occurs in vacuum." As far as I know those experiments never happened.

    It's fun to believe unverified claims on the internet. And it's super easy to produce flawed experimental results with a torsion balance when you're trying to measure forces of roughly the magnitude of a grain of sand resting on your palm. Just ask Dr. Tajmar - he garnered worldwide fame back in 2007 when he thought that he had measured an anomalous gravitomagnetic acceleration produced around a spinning superconductor. But that buzz lasted for about 5 minutes; subsequent tests revealed that the "anomalous force" was just an experimental error.

    So he has dedicated the last 13 years of his career to the scientific study of any and all avenues that might produce a reactionless field propulsion effect - including a rigorous experimental analysis of the "Biefield-Brown effect" (paper linked above in my last post...not sure why I bother providing credible peer-reviewed scientific papers because nobody ever seems to read them) and he's found nothing yet. But he's debunked a lot of erroneous experimental claims along the way, so that's progress of a kind.
     
  8. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,120
    I'm not questioning the gravitational field defined by the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor - that's well-known mainstream physics. I'm questioning his claim about producing a detectable gravitational field using currently attainable electrical field gradients - somewhere along the line he must've lost at least a dozen orders of magnitude because it would cost billions of dollars to produce a gravitational field via the EM stress-energy tensor that could theoretically be detected with a sophisticated laser interferometer.

    And I see no way that a static (scalar) electrical charge distribution of any configuration could produce a linear (vector) gravitational acceleration field, i.e. gravitational field propulsion. It would take a pair of positive and negative mass-energy charges in order to do that, and electrical field energy is always positive. So again, there must be an error in his work.

    I don't have enough time to work on my own ideas (which look much more promising to me), so I never do mathematical work for other people. If you want to go through his work with a qualified theorist I suggest hiring a grad student or a PhD in relativity to sit down with you and go through it. I would only spend money on the next step - an experiment - if they can't find an error in the calculations (and they almost certainly will - this approach makes no sense to me...but I'd love to be wrong).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    965
    I read them.
    the PDF with pictures did the experiment wrong.
    the other PDF , just not sure. there is just not enough data as to how it all was verified. but it seems like they missed how the tests should be done to get the proper effect. as I said, needs to be pulsed DC for input, seems as if they noticed that this sort of happens with air present as arcs form, but they never tired driving it this way to see what it did.

    if you do this corrector, the force will extend past a thin metal film, and ion winds don't go through that.
    but they had it all set up wrong.

    just to be clear, I was not just referring to some unverified post on the web.
    I have tested this extensively on my own.
    I just found a link that showed what I was talking about.
    seems as if the debunkers have missed what is going on.
     
  10. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,120
    Two big question marks arise in my mind, reading this reply:

    1.) Why would the shape of the DC signal matter? I can see no rational theoretical basis for it. Also - the OP is all about a GR effect where the charge is constant, so you must be describing an entirely unrelated effect.

    2.) You had access to a high-vacuum chamber? Those are very hard to get access to, and even harder to build; so are you saying that you've conducted high-voltage experiments in vacuo? What lab did you use? And how did you eliminate resistive heating in the power lines, and how did you rule out induction effects?

    Experimental physics is an extremely challenging form of science rife with all kinds of pitfalls. Look at all the labs that thought they saw an acceleration with the "EM Drive" - it wasn't until Tajmar ran the experiment himself that somebody finally realized that there is no propulsion force, only power lines interacting with the Earth's magnetic field.
     
  11. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Noble

    Messages:
    882
    @Thomas R. Morrison I am not asking you for the whole GR derivation, I just need a little equation for relationship between that is a function of applied voltage, curvature of the surface and electric field strength. I tried doing it myself but got stuck with integrals etc.
     
  12. spacecase0

    spacecase0 earth human

    Messages:
    965
    might be an unrelated effect,
    the pulsing DC was talked about quite a bit for the few months before American Antigravity renovated the website and got rid of any real research. I had played with this at about the same time.
    the researchers that had it work were using high voltage transformers with one diode (not a bridge rectifier) and a leaky capacitor, so you would get pulsing DC,
    the researchers that had failure had nice hardware, power supplies with full wave bridge rectifiers and proper filter capacitors, usually also had knobs where you could set output voltages.
    once this was figured out, it was only a few months till all that vanished from the internet...

    you want a theoretical basis for why pulsing DC works...
    I already told you, but you don't have time for dimensional theory, remember ?
    but regardless of that, it works experimentally, and even without theory of any sort, I would have continued to explore
    if you want practical examples of this effect in action, go look at "near field" radio frequency interference, the kind created by a poorly designed switching power supply. look at how it acts and how you stop this EMI. then go maximize this effect.
    it quickly becomes very clear that something is going on that standard physics has not addressed.

    I get that there are 2 sides to science,
    first is people that try things to see what is possible, they take far out ideas and see if they get anywhere.
    then there are the people that try to reproduce and verify what is going on.
    in this case, the second group of people have taken control of the narrative and are actively trying to block the first group of people.
    I only post to the web with ideas so that the experimenters don't give up entirely on an idea that does work if done correctly, and can be reproduced.

    you are sure right about experimental error, it is a total pan to get rid of.
    other than designing things with as little error as possible,
    I change one variable at a time and check what it does.
    graph it all out and find what is really causing what.
    very time consuming.

    I build my own hardware, no money to use labs that others have.

    if I am correct,
    then I will have a series experiments to show
    have decided not to even share what I think is going on anymore, after all, I could be wrong...
    if the experiments are done well enough, then they should share ideas without using words that can be flawed.
    words and ideas often need to be peer reviewed. hardware just "is"
    will take me a while longer to get it all done.
    and it is handy to know that none of it can look anything like the lifter. (but the lifter is not the best way to prove any of it anyway, you have to magnetically induce the voltage in the same format to get past physical limits anyway, that is if it is ever going to be useful)
     
  13. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,120
    The Reissner–Nordström metric yields the spacetime curvature of a charged, non-rotating, spherically symmetric body, so I assume that's what you're looking for. As you can see below, it's a simple matter to subtract out the irreducible mass from the total mass (which includes the mass contribution of the static electric field) to get the contribution from the electric field (which is very small for all charge densities available to human technology - only highly charged astronomical bodies are expected to exhibit a significant spacetime curvature attributable to the electric charge):

    ScreenHunter_1854 Mar. 14 01.17.jpg
    Reissner–Nordström metric - Wikipedia
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  14. Thomas R. Morrison

    Thomas R. Morrison Administrator

    Messages:
    1,120
    Honestly I could do without words - an equation is really what's required in order to model an effect and explain it theoretically.

    And I think you're being too hard on the experimentalists who test various original claims - they're not "controlling the narrative" - they're actually testing to see if an effect is real or if it's an experimental error. There wouldn't be any science without that kind of work. Most claims of new physics are mistakes; that's just the cold hard truth of it. Look at the LHC - we spent billions of dollars and employed hundreds of the top scientists in the world to build that thing to look for new physics. And they found none - all they've achieved so far is to verify the previously assumed existence of the Higgs boson: all that work and no new physics. That's why it seems so wildly implausible that a home garage experimentalist with a $100 in parts and a plucky attitude is going to pioneer some vast new frontier of undiscovered physics. I would love to see that happen. But I see little if any credible empirical evidence that anyone has pulled off that kind of discovery in the last 150 years - we've simply moved far beyond the easily pioneering days of Ørsted and Faraday when a guy with a Leyden jar and some copper wires could make revolutionary discoveries in fundamental physics.

    I always leave the door open a crack for some unexpected new discovery by a brilliant maverick amateur experimentalist, because there are lots of phenomena that we discover along the way which could have been produced by existing technology long before it was produced by the march of science. But can you name a single verified discovery in the last century that's happened that way? I can't.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Noble

    Messages:
    882
    Thanks for the snippet with equations. I need a solution for a cylindrical, wire like object, not a sphere. I found this paper, going through it :-(

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.09252.pdf

    Yeah :), Sabine Hossenfelder has devoted a whole YouTube channel to that topic. The maverick girl.

    Up to the point, you are right. I go through lots of alternative science claims and most of them turn to be result of ignorance. Recent one, at least for myself, was done by Joel McClain & Norman Wootan who "discovered" over-unity while using DC millimeters to analyze AC circuit. Than Dr. Hall Puthoff looked into their claim, wrote paper and resolved their claim as simple luck of engineering skill. Moral of the story was that one should not try to do RF electronics if he's power distribution electrician.



    But I still think that there is a new low energy physics to be discovered, along the lines of similarity between gravity and thermodynamics, like Pharis E. Williams and Eric Verlinde proposed. As we both observed, on highly esoteric level, crashed UFOs don't produce nuclear explosions. So physics behind UFOs is not high energy physics and for that reason GR is not relevant for solving gravitational propulsion. Gravitational propulsion needs to be solved on the quantum level, where we have abundance of neutronium on our disposal.

    And on less esoteric level, there is a whole string of alternative science experiments that always have common physics and report seemingly similar outcomes. It's always: produce high rate of spin of the test object (more often internal nuclear spin, than external mechanical one) to produce gravitational effects accompanied by thermal cooling. This pattern of gravitational effects and thermal cooling, that is now more than 100 years old, points to something important on the quantum level. If amateur scientists were reporting just gravitational effect I would dismiss them as either errors or ignorance. But the constant connection between gravitational effect and thermal cooling is interesting. Reasons for thermal cooling are very well understood and directly lead to solving gravitational puzzle. And I am talking about highly authoritative people claiming that, not just amateur scientists who undeservedly fall victims of luck of intellectual snobbism. Unfortunately, I can show no scientific papers that you set as the minimum requirement.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2020
  16. waitedavid137

    waitedavid137 Honorable

    Messages:
    101
    • Like Like x 1
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  17. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    18,096
  18. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Noble

    Messages:
    882
    OK, with my modest knowledge of math, I made an attempt to calculate the voltage in the middle of the wire L= 200 mm ( 8" ) long, just to see if that is something practically attainable. Following David's advice, I pulled electrical line charge equations from various YouTube videos. I considered two wires, the thinnest American Wire Gauge (AWG) wire AWG40 with radius of 39.95 µm and AWG30 with radius of 127.5 µm.

    In order to reach the electric field strength of 114 GV/m, set by David Waite's equations, voltage on the surface of the 20 cm long AWG40 wire would need to be 38.792 MV, and for a thicker AWG30 wire voltage would need to be 106.93 MV. As far as I remember the world record for the highest voltage ever achieved is still held by Nikola Tesla and it is around 11.0 MV. Even that is obviously too low relative to 38.8 MV required for hear-thin AWG40 wire.

    So, chances of getting 1 g acceleration with static electrostatic charged wire are practically out of a reach, for a time being.

    Here are my calcs, if you want to debunk them:

    upload_2020-3-22_7-53-24.png
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
    • Awesome Awesome x 1
  19. Shadowprophet

    Shadowprophet Truthiness

    Messages:
    3,694
    Could theoretically one not alter the magnetosphere of an entire planet and alter its spacetime? I mean the math checks out, But in its execution, I wonder because We determine the curvature of spacetime according to its gravity. But at this juncture, we are talking about manipulating existing gravity. Which I assert should be possible.

    If this is so, Then there should be planets in this universe that exist just outside of our current perception of time.
     
  20. Dejan Corovic

    Dejan Corovic Noble

    Messages:
    882
    I think you are talking about planet sized type of neutron stars, called magnetars. They have magnetosphere into millions of Teslas.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page