The 1/r³ antigravity of a simple charge

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
specifically in my referenced to the shock Travis Walton got that they apparently felt the responsibility to revive him from.

I ignored Travis Walton case because it is statistically insignificant. Just in combined databases of all UFO research groups, like MUFON, NICAP, NUFORC etc. there is about 150,000 cases. I extensively collected physical effects and that is the only case I know off that had something looking like electrical discharge. Travis did jump out of the truck and made unexpected move closer to UFO hovering at a treetop level. In most cases people run away from UFOs.

UFO at a treetop level can obviously afford at least one order of magnitude higher voltage than UFO hovering 3 ft above ground. Treetop level is approximately same as power-lines sagging on hot summer day, so at least same voltage as power-lines or 500 kV. So, as a ball park figure, we can say that UFO's pointed ledge is at about 500 kV. What fraction of g would that produce according to David's differential equation?

There was another case where UFO surprised a farmer working outside after dark. Again UFO was hovering at a treetop level and farmer made few strides towards the UFO. But than UFO pulled back to keep the same distance. Farmer did it once more and UFO pulled back once more. That case could easily be described with UFO being on high voltage.

As I explained above, based on omnipresence of pointed ledge on at least 90% of UFO descriptions, your GR solution is very important contributor to that technology.

As a matter of fact, if one was to analyze large number of UFO witness testimonials, he would find extremely frequent description of one particular UFO movement. Sometimes ufos hover just few feet above ground or even land on some kind of legs. But after that, they almost always rise very slowly to 7m 21ft. Description of that maneuver repeats from one case to another so many times. Once at that height, they just hover there shortly, not longer than a minute, and than they bolt of at very high speed. I am sure I can dig up 100 cases with that exact description. That maneuver is so well correlated with a high voltage around the sharp ledge most of them have.

I am digressing a bit, but another typical movement of UFOs is that, in at least 50% of cases, they depart at an angle of approximately 45 deg. That as well is a sign of some underlying physical limitations, but I don't know what that would be.

As for other technology, than that would mean other GR solutions are possible?

I think that AAVs represent an engineering application of GR that, as far as I know, is far beyond human capabilities (but if David's right then I may have to reconsider that last point).

I agree with David, and that's what I was saying all the time. You are reasoning like a quasi educated journalist with degree in humanities. UFOs can fool non-technical folks, but for scientist/engineer there are tons of practical and very exciting clues, that shouldn't be there in a first place. It's just a question of putting it all together and having a good scientificly based explanation, like with Waite-Papapetrou,-Majumdar's GR solution.

If I just knew how to calculate those differential equations we'll have much better idea.
 
Last edited:
As for other technology, than that would mean other GR solutions are possible?
Yes. We know of at least three completely different academic theoretical proposals for producing gravitational field propulsion. And since none of those appear to be practicable (each for different reasons), then I think it's very likely that we humans haven't yet discovered the technologically viable approaches to spacetime propulsion that so many of our interstellar neighbors seem to be employing routinely in order to rapidly span interstellar distances.

David's solution is fascinating, but like you said there appear to be substantial hurdles to implementing that concept technologically; I'm not ruling it out, but until I see an argument that makes that concept technologically viable sometime in the foreseeable future, it strikes me more as a theoretical model rather than a technologically realizable one. I do wonder though if a cyclic approach to his concept might make his approach more practical - extremely high static charges do pose serious grounding problems in close proximity to the ground (or even trees etc), but a rapidly oscillating field might solve that problem while retaining the acceleration effect that he's described.

You are reasoning like a quasi educated journalist with degree in humanities. UFOs can fool non-technical folks, but for scientist/engineer there are tons of practical and very exciting clues, that shouldn't be there in a first place. It's just a question of putting it all together and having a good scientificly based explanation, like with Waite-Papapetrou,-Majumdar's GR solution.
Don't insult me - you have an even more specious grasp on physics and scientific reasoning than I do, and compared to David I have the scientific sophistication of a newborn infant - so that puts you somewhere between a blastocyst and an embryo. The logic of my argument is perfectly sound: if these kinds of clues to the operation of AAVs were so useful, as you insist, then the problem of AAV propulsion would've been solved decades ago by some brilliant scientist or engineer (a great many of whom privately take a strong interest in the subject of AAVs, btw). But that hasn't happened, so the value of this kind of intelligence has been proven to be worthless, or at least very nearly so. It's like trying to figure out how a microwave oven works by listening to the sound it makes: it's a fool's errand.

The problem has to be solved from the theoretical level on up, as David has been doing, not from the phenomenological level on down, as you're trying to do. Once we have a theoretical model and a viable path to producing those effects technologically, then we can look at these kinds of signatures to see if they conform to the anticipated technological signatures of the model - they can perhaps offer some confirmation that the approach is valid. But at that moment it'll be a moot point, because we'll have already solved the two major hurdles to building our own terrestrial AAVs.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
OK, I didn't want to insult you. I expressed myself badly.

But so many scientific discovers were made by accident, so phenomenological approach should be fine, although only if it is supported with strong theoretical work like David's. His GR solution fits almost as perfect match into 99% of UFO cases that show some EM phenomena.

There are lots of other questions for sure.

And as well, there is thrill of treasure hunt as long as one avoids idle speculation that is neither supported by physics nor by data.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
My people, Let us not Quip and Discord on anything here. Is this not a room Of higher intellect?
Let us all act as if that is so. None of us are perfect, But, When it comes to matters of physical. We are what shines here at AE. This is an advanced physics thread. There is no shame in someone not knowing something in a room where people come to learn. So there is no shame, There should also be no pride.

I don't know everything Nor do any of us.
 
I have a bunch of questions for @waitedavid137 . I've been buried under a work deadline for the last ten days so these had to wait til now:

1.) Does the sign of the charge in this equation change the sign of the acceleration, or does only the absolute magnitude of the charge matter? Since the charge term is squared I assume the sign of the charge doesn't matter:

gif.latex


That's an elegant equation btw. I don't think I've ever seen it before; at least not in this form.

2.) How do you envision an AAV application? I saw some discussion about the ionized "lifters" regarding the fineness of the wire in relation to the electric field gradient, but obviously you're not proposing a similar arrangement for an AAV - are you thinking in terms of very fine conductive filaments or layers (perhaps only single atoms thick embedded in an otherwise dielectric material that comprises the hull of the craft? And could something like that be a way to steepen the electrical field gradient within a material so you could produce the effect at lower voltages?

3.) Would an extremely thin conductive plating on the outside of the hull mimic the dynamics of using a finer conductive wire, or is the thickness irrelevant since free electrons only gather on the outer surface anyway?

4.) How exactly does the propulsion effect of the electric field work? I gathered that you're talking about a vector field but I'm unclear about the relationship between the orientation of the electric field and the acceleration of a craft in a given direction.

5.) All of the experts in GR seem to agree that a body which begins as a positive mass can't be reduced to zero or negative mass, so it will always fall "down" in an ordinary gravitational field like the Earth's. Do you agree with that, or can that charge-related term in your equation above have a higher magnitude than the rest mass term?

6.) Are you John Titor? Because he said that his time travel machine used charged singularities and he also referenced Penrose diagrams. He even posted photos of his time machine and its user manual, elevating the story to possibly the coolest hoax of all time.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
The problem has to be solved from the theoretical level on up, as David has been doing, not from the phenomenological level on down, as you're trying to do.

I am not afraid of being wrong, but I am scared of not making progress. So my approach is different.

Phenomenological approach is what inspired both yourself and David to study a very difficult subject, that physics is. Another thing is that my approach is from both ends, scientific and phenomenological. We can use science to filter out UFO hoaxes and use phenomenological trace evidence to filter out crank theories. So it does work both ways. Maybe it can even help us decipher politics behind all of this.

That's why it would be interesting to bring more scientists and engineers to AE forum.

On a purely human level one needs to vindicate all these UFO witnesses who came forward, in spite of real threat of ridicule and rebuttal. There were many cases where UFO witnesses lost their jobs and even cases where children of locals where they lived threw rotten vegetables at them, called them cranks and nutcases etc. In a wider context all this was happening during the Cold War and many of them did it from a sense of civic duty and patriotism, trying to help their government to catch potential enemy's spy craft.

6.) Are you John Titor? Because he said that his time travel machine used charged singularities and he also referenced Penrose diagrams. He even posted photos of his time machine and its user manual, elevating the story to possibly the coolest hoax of all time.

There was a mild mannered member of both this and TheParacast forum, possibly @CasualBystander, who had sound knowledge of physics and string theory. I only remember his avatar but forgot his name. He had a similar theory where he was talking about clouds of microscopic black holes around ufos. I think he even wrote a book about it. I guess he would be interested in John Titor's machine.

David's solution is fascinating, but like you said there appear to be substantial hurdles to implementing that concept technologically; I'm not ruling it out, but until I see an argument that makes that concept technologically viable sometime in the foreseeable future, it strikes me more as a theoretical model rather than a technologically realizable one.

As far as the level of the technological challenge is concerned David's GR solution is at least 10 orders of magnitude more feasible of all GR solutions mentioned so far. Forward's solution required toroid with neutronium spinning around toroidal minor axis. Alcubiere's warp drive requires negative mass. 40 GV is for 1 g of acceleration, but for 0.001g one would need 40 MV which is probably achievable for a large corporation, say Lockheed Martin.

These images might help understand Kerr's rotating black holes and Penrose diagrams:
Kerr_black_hole.gif

Now, David talks about rotating and electrically charged black holes, which have total of 4 event horizons. So ordinary non-rotating black holes 1 horizon, Kerr's rotating black holes 2 event horizons and rotating charged black holes 4 event horizons.
Penrose_diagram_Kerr_black_hole.gif


So, as shown above, when one falls into rotating black hole, he's thrown out into another universe. David is not very good at bringing down relativistic physics to pop-sci level. But here is this article John Titor & The Invention Of Time Travel, on the same site that @Thomas R. Morrison pointed, that explains in a very understandable way how electrically charged and rotating black holes can jettison a person into a parallel universe without necessarily crushing him.

Basically, normal black holes have point singularity, while rotating black holes have doughnut shaped singularity. Now, with point like singularity you'll get crushed if you come in from any angle. But, again my guess is, with doughnut singularity if you are falling along North-South axis that is square to the doughnut's plane ( called major axis ), gravity is zero along whole length of that axis and you wont get crushed but will effectively change world-line you are on and jettison yourself into a parallel universe and different time.

So, rotating charged black holes are more likely to meet health and safety requirements :). Now, it's anybody's guess how you'll jump on exactly the right worldline that will take you back home to tell the tale to all your eagerly awaiting mates.

As always, please correct me if I am talking malarkey.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Okay In today's Study, I've been looking into Alexander Friedmann, Friedmann Has two prominent antigravity equations
The first Equation is all about the Rate of expansion of the universe, The second is actually a little simpler, It's about the acceleration or deceleration of the expansion, It describers the forces pushing or pulling on that expansion,

This is Friedmann's Second Equation

4me91h.png


Here is to my understanding how this Equation hashes out, A is the Scale factor, Pretty much the Size of the universe

4me91h.png
Is the Acceleration rate of the Scale factor, The rate as which the expansion is changing. It depends on the density P or Rho, The more matter and energy in the universe, The harder gravity pulls inwards trying to stop the expansion or speed up the collapse Hence the Negative sign in the Equation. Positive acceleration outward, Negative inwards. In some regards, Friedmann's Equations here are just Newton's laws of Gravitation, For the entire universe. Okay, So if Rho is density, Then The 3p? What's this for? This is the pressure, Due to fast-moving particles, So, in relativity, Energy/ mass and pressure all curve spacetime,

Think about a Tank filled with pressurized gas, As fast-moving particles collide with the walls of the tank it causes an outward pushing pressure.

Now, I know you guys have your own idea, This is just where I'm at right now with Dark energy. I feel Friedman's explanation, Weather correct or incorrect, was a fun study, I learned a lot here. Plus, There was no Cheating on this entire post, This is not copied from somewhere, That Equation was painstakingly dissected from study material and pecked out in Latex, Which was also enlightening.

Damn, I love This Topic. I honestly did learn quite a bit here.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Yeah, For some reason, The Friedmann Equation was there, It was fine then somehow it got replacedby a /ddot {a}
Anyway, Here is the Second Friedmann Equation, The above post is referring too.

6uyyc9.png


So sorry about that, I've worked at forums for years. I've never seen an instance where a pic disappeared and then another pic took its place, I suppose it can happen.
 
Last edited:

waitedavid137

Honorable
1.) Does the sign of the charge in this equation change the sign of the acceleration, or does only the absolute magnitude of the charge matter? Since the charge term is squared I assume the sign of the charge doesn't matter:

gif.latex


That's an elegant equation btw. I don't think I've ever seen it before; at least not in this form.
There was a typo that copy and pasted down a few lines as I too quickly ran through typing it up as I was running through them directly on the screen. It should be
gif.latex

The charge is squared so the sign makes no difference.
2.) How do you envision an AAV application? I saw some discussion about the ionized "lifters" regarding the fineness of the wire in relation to the electric field gradient, but obviously you're not proposing a similar arrangement for an AAV - are you thinking in terms of very fine conductive filaments or layers (perhaps only single atoms thick embedded in an otherwise dielectric material that comprises the hull of the craft? And could something like that be a way to steepen the electrical field gradient within a material so you could produce the effect at lower voltages?
This doesn't directly apply to that which is why I started a new thread for this. However, it does have some relevance to gravitational propulsion in that it implies that a charge setting next to a mass of equal mass, but zero charge will gravitationally attract the neutral mass slightly less than the neutral mass will attract the charge. The system then has a small acceleration as a whole.
3.) Would an extremely thin conductive plating on the outside of the hull mimic the dynamics of using a finer conductive wire, or is the thickness irrelevant since free electrons only gather on the outer surface anyway?
Thickness only plays a role while the net charge is being changed. At constant charge, the electrons settle out to a distribution at the outer surface.
4.) How exactly does the propulsion effect of the electric field work? I gathered that you're talking about a vector field but I'm unclear about the relationship between the orientation of the electric field and the acceleration of a craft in a given direction.
Yes, this aspect is interesting. Though the solution is saying that the gravity field that arises from the charge and electromagnetic field's stress-energy tensor yields a gravitational potential proportional to the electric potential, the field equations do not tell what the overall sign of that proportionality is. This is left to be experimentally determined.
5.) All of the experts in GR seem to agree that a body which begins as a positive mass can't be reduced to zero or negative mass, so it will always fall "down" in an ordinary gravitational field like the Earth's. Do you agree with that, or can that charge-related term in your equation above have a higher magnitude than the rest mass term?
Something is said to be in a state of etreme charge when
gif.latex
and though most think that matter won't be found collapsed to singularity with
gif.latex
, there are things in nature, like an electron for example that do have that charge greater.
6.) Are you John Titor? Because he said that his time travel machine used charged singularities and he also referenced Penrose diagrams. He even posted photos of his time machine and its user manual, elevating the story to possibly the coolest hoax of all time.
Not unless sometime in my current future I for some unforeseeable reason change my name to that.
 

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Yes, I am aware Friedmans Dark energy equations don't apply to the Antigravity of a simple charge. I don't know what I was thinking when I posted them here. I was just excited about what I was studying at the time guys, Sorry to be offtopic.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Though the solution is saying that the gravity field that arises from the charge and electromagnetic field's stress-energy tensor yields a gravitational potential proportional to the electric potential, the field equations do not tell what the overall sign of that proportionality is. This is left to be experimentally determined.

These potentials, is there any way in the world, that they can be obtained from some other physics theory, like quantum mechanic, or thermodynamics, astronomy etc.? I know vector potential A can be measured with Aharonov-Bohm's effect.

And I would appreciate if somebody can explain to me in plain English common sense terms what the bloody "gauge" is, but in physics, not the dictionary version. When one is listening physicists talk it's constantly "gauge this" and "gauge that". I know it's something to do that potentials can not be measured, only gradients.
 
Last edited:

waitedavid137

Honorable
These potentials, is there any way in the world, that they can be obtained from some other physics theory, like quantum mechanic, or thermodynamics, astronomy etc.? I know vector potential A can be measured with Aharonov-Bohm's effect.

And I would appreciate if somebody can explain to me in plain English common sense terms what the bloody "gauge" is, but in physics, not the dictionary version. When one is listening physicists talk it's constantly "gauge this" and "gauge that". I know it's something to do that potentials can not be measured, only gradients.
Gauge is something you can choose differently on paper, that doesn't change the predicted physical result. The different common choices for calculation usage are referred to as different gauges. The common choices for writing a potential for electromagnetism are Coulomb gauge and Lorentz gauge, and the conditions on paper make it look like you are doing different physics, but the predicted results for physics experiment are the same, so there is an equivalence in the underlaying physics, independent of the choice of gauge with which to express it.
Quantum mechanics reduces to classical electrodynamics in high quantum number situations and as such encorporates an electromagnetic potential just fine, but utterly fails to describe gravitation.
General relativity describes gravitation and the behavior of spacetime great on large scales and even includes the electromagnetic field as we've touched on, and corresponds to what a Newtonian gravitational potential predicts in an appropriately week low speed limit, but does not predict quantum behaviors on small quantum number scales.
 

waitedavid137

Honorable
Or

7t0m3t.png


If one is picky. Latex is kinda neat actually.
and they should be.
Since the relevance is looking at the universe's flatness Vs curvature and dark energy, and since first order differential equations are easier to work with than second, probably the version you should look at is
gif.latex

where
gif.latex

and
gif.latex

for negatively curved, flat, and positive curved universes.
and the Robertson-Walker solution we are using is
gif.latex

and the scale factor,
gif.latex
, is a function of that time coordinate.
It is
gif.latex
that we would interpret as a size for the universe if it is positively closed curved, or a radius of curvature if it is negatively curved. The scale factor,
gif.latex
, tells us how distances measured change over time as the space is expanding. If the universe is either flat or negatively open curved then there are an infinite number of stars and alien civilizations in the universe and as far as we can measure, its flat.
 
Last edited:

Shadowprophet

Truthiness
Since the relevance is looking at the universe's flatness Vs curvature and dark energy, and since first order differential equations are easier to work with than second, probably the version you should look at is
gif.latex

where
gif.latex

and
gif.latex

for negatively curved, flat, and positive curved universes.
and the Robertson-Walker solution we are using is
gif.latex

and the scale factor,
gif.latex
, is a function of that time coordinate.
It is
gif.latex
that we would interpret as a size for the universe if it is positively closed curved, or a radius of curvature if it is negatively curved. The scale factor,
gif.latex
, tells us how distances measured change over time as the space is expanding. If the universe is either flat or negatively open curved then there are an infinite number of stars and alien civilizations in the universe and as far as we can measure, its flat.
Thank you I will be studying this for a bit bro :) I didn't mean to go off-topic in the thread. By the way, some people get upset when others go off-topic in their threads, So, I am sorry I posted Friedmann's equations in here. I was just excited at the time because the math is finally starting to make sense to me, it was an exciting revelation :) Thanks for being so cool :)
 
It surprised me to hear about this effect via an online source because I spend so much time scouring the theoretical physics literature for exactly this kind of finding, so we can share this kind of seminal insight with our Physics Frontiers listeners. And it turns out that when we did our research for a recently recorded episode about the related Reissner–Nordström metric, my co-host found this paper:

“Comments on ‘Unification of Gravity and Electromagnetism by Mohammed A. El-Lakany’ & Einstein’s Unification,” Lo, Journal of Physical Science and Application, 2017
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2530/bb8b8a98bba6feabeec908051bbb03e1d404.pdf

And although the author unfortunately cites some subsequently falsified observational claims to bolster his assertions about an alleged grand unified theory, his independent derivation of this gravitational repulsion associated with electric charge verifies David Waite's assertion about this absolutely fascinating and yet little-known feature of GR...here's the relevant quote from the paper:

ScreenHunter_2206 Jun. 07 05.19.jpg

I thought you might find it gratifying to see a recent and independent verification of this effect in the academic literature @Dejan Corovic . And I was put off my the author's failure to cite relevant observational results to support his claim about a grand unified theory, but I think it deserves a closer look because his independent discovery of the effect shared with us here by David Waite is in fact valid.

However I remain skeptical about the propulsive potential for this effect; it seems to me that it's impossible to produce a net linear acceleration via this effect because at a short range a positive gravitational mass and a very highly electrically charged mass will be repelled from the same center of interaction, whereas at a longer range both masses would accelerate toward the same point. I don't see a uniform acceleration of the system unless the highly charged part of the system would exhibit a negative inertial mass (and therefore respond perversely to the negative gravitational acceleration between the two bodies), and Mr. Waite doesn't seem to be making that claim here.

I do consider this to be a very important effect though, because like Robert L. Forward's description of a gravitoelectic dipole generator in his 1963 paper "Guidelines to Antigravity," it further demonstrates that contrary to long-standing popular academic assertions, a negative gravitational acceleration is and always has been a fundamental feature of GR (i.e. gravitation exhibits a dipolar nature just as an electromagnetic field does).
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Maybe you should arrange a podcast with @waitedavid137 invited as a guest, where all three of you can trash out the details.

As well, it would be interesting how this effect affects particularly heavy astronomical bodies like neutron stars and black holes, because they must be highly charged both because of friction of material around them and because all material they deal with is already ionized.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should arrange a podcast with David White invited as a guest, where all three of you can trash out the details.

As well, it would be interesting how this effect affects particularly heavy astronomical bodies like neutron stars and black holes, because they must be highly charged both because of friction of material around them and because all material they deal with is already ionized.
I've frequently suggested to Jim that we interview guests, so we could really get the skinny from the top experts in each field, but he's been resistant to the idea. I'll keep working on him though, because I think it would a lot of fun and very illuminating.

Neutron stars and black holes aren't expected to possess a significant electrical field, because it takes so little energy to steal charges from nearby matter (i.e., the ionization energy). So if these kind of conditions are going to be explored, they'll have to be technologically generated.
 
Top