AETHER SCIENCE PAPERS: NO. 13
THE THEORY OF ANTIGRAVITY
Copyright © Harold Aspden, 1991
ABSTRACT
This paper extends the principles of earlier gravitational theory by which the Constant of Gravitation G has been deduced in terms
of an electrodynamically based graviton theory. Demonstrable
anomalous gravitational effects reproducible in the laboratory,
which reveal the prospect of anti-gravitational action, are
discussed. It is shown that the theory does include features
which can explain observed anti-gravitational effects. The
action points to vacuum energy fluctuations arising from graviton
decay and regeneration. Recently reported weight loss
accompanying gyroscopic spin in a non-precessing mode is also
explained.
INTRODUCTION
The recent media interest in anti-gravity devices and their
public demonstration has presented a technological problem, which
is complicated by the lack of interest by the theoretical
physicist. Theory has not yet given us an accepted comprehensive
understanding of the true nature of gravitational forces and
particularly the field unification with electromagnetism. It is,
therefore, rather bewildering to be confronted with the
suggestion that there are any laboratory-verifiable anomalies
of an anti-gravitational nature. This is even more disconcerting
when we consider that our hopes for resolving the unification
problem have come to rely on our imaginary probes into the events
when the universe was first created.
The immediate concern, however, is that posed by the weight loss
of a flywheel spinning in vacuum about a vertical axis [1]. This
was reported in Physical Review Letters and claims the
extraordinary observation that the flywheel lost weight in a
measure directly proportional to speed of rotation but only for
rotation in one direction, clockwise as seen from above in a
laboratory test performed in the northern hemisphere.
The fact that this experiment was performed in a university
laboratory in Japan reveals the concern on the broader issue of
anti-gravitational effects of gyroscopes, but hitherto the claims
of anti-gravitational effects have related essentially to
gyroscopes which are force-precessed. By this is meant the
action of causing a gyroscope to precess faster than arises from
normal gravitational action on the flywheel.
It is the object of this paper to discuss, in physical terms, why
anti-gravitational effects can occur and then point to the
experimental evidence in support. Claims that experiments can
breach accepted principles of gravity or basic Newtonian
mechanics tend to be discounted in the absence of theoretical
support. Equally, theories of anti-gravity can justifiably be
seen as wild speculation in the absence of experimental support.
Apart from the latest Japanese data [1], the author is relying
for such support on a report by a laboratory which has performed
a test as part of a commercial investigation plus what he has
seen demonstrated by those in possession of anti-gravitational
gyroscopic devices.
Whatever the viewpoint or bias of the reader who is well versed
in gravitational theory, there is a need to come to terms with
the phenomena which are now in evidence.
THE HAYASAKA-TAKEUCHI EXPERIMENT
It is assumed that the reader will not be disposed to accept
anti-gravitational phenomena readily. Therefore, the claim that
this experiment [1] reveals a speed-dependent weight reduction
by a flywheel in spin must be examined with other force-producing
agencies in mind.
One which has apparently occurred to the authors of the
experiment is that magnetic levitation effects, perhaps involving
the geomagnetic field, are involved. They discount such action
on the strength of having performed diagnostic tests involving
inverting the flywheel and screening the geomagnetic field.
Others have already expressed the opinion that experts on General
Relativity will soon find a way of explaining the antigravity
anomaly. That should, however, not deter us from considering an
interpretation based on the more likely outcome, which is that
the Theory of Relativity itself has been overtaken by physical
realities which cannot be tamed by the abstract techniques of
that theory.
The Japanese paper seems to be a very authoritative account and
so, subject to comments presented in the Appendix commentary, it
must be presumed that the lift force which they measure as:
is genuine. Here M is the mass of the flywheel and r the mean
radius of its mass elements. ω is the angular spin velocity of
the flywheel in radians per second.
We should take special note that the experiment was performed in
a vacuum to eliminate aerodynamic lift action and it gave the
most remarkable result that levitation force effects occurred
only for clockwise flywheel rotation.
The fact that the lift force depends upon direction of spin is
a clear indicator of an asymmetry arising from charge
displacement. The author’s theory of the vacuum field in terms
of synchronous lattice electrodynamics [2] specifies that there
is a preferred spin direction in the vacuum. An action conducive
to vacuum spin will displace electric charge radially outwards
or inwards according to the orientation of the spin axis relative
to the preferred direction. However, such displacement must be
balanced by charge displacement in matter and electrons can flow
outwards in a conductive flywheel to sit just outside the vacuum
region in spin, but positive ions cannot be so displaced.
Accordingly, the coextensive rotation of the vacuum medium within
a flywheel can only occur readily for one direction of spin, that
which corresponds to the rotation of the sun and all the planets.
Now, to make sense of this, it has to be understood the the
vacuum is really a structured medium somewhat like a fluid
crystal. Depending upon field energy criteria it develops
structure centred on individual atomic nuclei and this structure
can extend to interface boundaries located in the proximity of
the outer electrons of the atom. At these boundaries whatever
constitutes the structure can dissolve as part of a heavy lepton
field and it is this heavy lepton form which can migrate so as
to conserve momentum and thereby make the coupling between matter
and the vacuum rather tenuous. It would seem that flywheel
rotation one way can rapidly establish a spin motion of the
vacuum structure which avoids the countermotion of the heavy
leptons, whereas rotation in the opposite sense means that the
heavy leptons are moving through the structure as part of a
countermotion state. In the latter case they constitute pockets
of space in which the vacuum structure has dissolved and this
means that there is no gravity action associated with the portion
of the flywheel occupying those pockets of space.
To bring this seemingly speculative proposal to a conclusion, it
seems best to derive the weight loss formula to show how it
agrees with equation (1), the result obtained by Hayasaka and
Takeuchi [1].
The vacuum structure comprises virtual lattice particles of mass
mo which does not increase relativistically because the particles
are constrained in a synchronous harmonic system which assures
energy exchange keeping the mass constant. The motion is a
jitter motion which is dynamically balanced by gravitons relative
to which the lattice moves at speed c. This results in the
particles each motion relative to the inertial frame at speed c/2
and so have a kinetic energy mo(c/2)2/2.
Equipartition of energy by interaction of the lepton states means
that this jitter energy becomes the kinetic energy of the free
heavy lepton nucleated from such a lattice particle. Therefore,
τ being the mass of this heavy lepton, this energy is τs2/2, where s is the speed of the heavy lepton. We can therefore deduce that:
If ωr is the speed of the spin motion in the flywheel at radius
r and this is shared by vacuum structure in which the main mass
of the flywheel is seated, the pockets of heavy leptons in this
structure, assuming a uniform virtual mass density, must take up
ωr/(ωr+s) of the space involved. In other words, this is the
fractional loss of weight which we can expect. Assuming that
fraction is small, it can be approximated as ωr/s and so we can
write the weight loss as Mgωr/s, where M is the mass of the
flywheel and g is the acceleration of gravity. From (2) we know
s, so that the weight loss is:
Reference [3] shows how the following formula for the fine
structure constant is deduced in terms of mo:
where mo is here in units of electron mass. With this value for
the reciprocal of the fine structure constant as 137.036 we see
that mo is 1/24.52. The mass of the heavy tau lepton in similar
units is 3485 (corresponding to 1.781 GeV). Therefore, if the
heavy leptons are exclusively of tau form, expression (3) has a
coefficient found to be 1.92 x 10-5 in the units used in (1). This is in good accord with the measured value.
We see from this that there is a case for arguing that weight
involves something intermediating with a vacuum structure and
that there can be weight loss if that structure is somehow
dissolved or decoupled from the mass of the matter present. If
the countermotion of heavy leptons can be avoided, as by
developing the full vacuum spin condition for the opposite sense
of flywheel motion, then there is no weight loss. However, even
then there is an antigravitational phenomenon confronting us if
the flywheel is forcibly caused to precess. Then that weight
loss can be very substantial.
The above-mentioned Japanese experiment was reported after this
paper was first submitted. It is of such importance that
extensive reference to it has been incorporated at the outset so
that the reader can take, as a starting point, the test data
showing that a flywheel loses weight and that this occurs without
forced vibration effects. Apart from a special Appendix
commentary dealing with reviewer criticism, the remainder of this
paper assumes no knowledge of the Japanese flywheel experiment,
as it was written prior to that disclosure.
THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
At the very outset of this discussion it is necessary to
distinguish between two schools of thought as to the action
involved in anti-gravity. Most of those researching this field
believe that mass retains its full and normal gravitational
property, but that the anomalous levitation or propulsion effect
comes from an out-of-balance force which somehow is developed by
exploiting the absence of centrifugal effects when a spinning
flywheel, offset from a separate axis of rotation, is caused to
precess. Others, including this author, subscribe to the view
that there is a loss of weight by the force-precessed mass in
the flywheel and that the underlying energy action in the vacuum
field plays a role in this enigmatic behaviour. The distinction
is most important, because in the first case the action is a
dynamic action akin to the effect of an electric or magnetic
field that can act across empty space to produce forcedeveloping thrust. It should operate to produce horizontally
directed thrusts or could act vertically to balance the downward
force of gravity. In the second case there is something far more
fundamental involved where levitation effects are in issue,
because the suggestion is that the mass property and the weight
property can become separated to cause mass to lose weight.
The author believes that there could be a case for both of these
anomalous effects to be present together. It is the possibility
of this dual circumstance that compounds the mystery and has made
it very difficult for scientists listening to the evidence to
believe any of it on hearsay. Indeed, only those few scientists
who have seen the demonstrations are inclined to believe that the
phenomenon is real and even then some look for conventional
answers they have yet to find. Certainly they are not prepared
to listen to the somewhat naive theories being advanced by those
whose primary claim is that they can demonstrate the
pecularities of these machines.
One clear way of distinguishing between the two effects is for
those who assert that the observed levitation action is a
controlled dynamic effect, not connected with weight loss, to
demonstrate that they can produce an equal downward thrust merely
by reversing the controlling force. The search for an
anti-gravity machine able to levitate by some mysterious force
field captures the imagination, whereas there is little interest
in the equally revolutionary scientific accomplishment of causing
a downward thrust which enhances the normal gravitational action.
To proceed we explore first the dynamic case and then later the
theoretical basis of the anti-gravity phenomenon on the
assumption that an actual loss of weight is involved.
THE ENIGMA OF ZERO CENTRIFUGAL FORCE
We begin by considering a spinning top in precession on a smooth
surface.
An experiment demonstrated to the author by Professor Eric
Laithwaite at the Imperial College of Science and Technology in
London reveals that a flywheel spun on a shaft having a pointed
end supported on a very smooth, frictionless surface can precess
around the point of support without there being any lateral slip.
It purports to show that somehow there is no centrifugal action
attributable to the precessional motion communicated through to
the point of support.
The problem here is that the precessional velocity is normally
quite small and so the centrifugal effects could only be of the
order of 1% of the weight of the flywheel. Therefore this is not
a convincing interpretation. More convincing is the showing by
Professor Laithwaite that if, for example, a pencil is held
upright and inserted in the path of the shaft of the precessing
flywheel the arrest of the flywheel’s precessional motion imparts
no force on the pencil. Here is the primary clue to the
phenomenon by which a precessing gyroscope can be used to produce
a propulsive force which appears to defy Newtonian law.
The author offers the following argument to suggest how a
propulsive device wholly contained in a closed compartment can
develop a force without apparent reaction on structure outside
the compartment.
Suppose the mass of a flywheel describes a circle at a steady
speed in a horizontal plane subject to a momentary state of rest
after completing each half orbit. If it precesses under gravity
over the first half of an orbit this motion arises from a
reorientation of the conserved spin angular momentum of the
flywheel. The gravitational drop in potential supplies the
orbital kinetic energy and there is no impulsive reaction in the
horizontal plane apart from the centrifugal force. Having
completed half an orbit, suppose we then lift the flywheel very
slightly into a non-precessing support position. This involves
negligible effort because it is aided by the arrest of the
orbital motion as the kinetic energy is returned to gravitational
potential and angular momentum is conserved about the vertical
axis as the flywheel spin is reorientated. Then for the next
half orbit, with the flywheel fully supported, we drive it from
rest and force it around the orbit at a steady speed until it is
arrested after completing that half orbit. This latter phase
involves a net balance of impulse forces and centrifugal forces.
We are left with a forward propulsion of the vehicle attributable
to the centrifugal action during the precessing phase and powered
by sustaining the flywheel spin and the restoration of
gravitational potential.
In effect, therefore, whilst adhering to the principles governing
inertia as expressed in Newton’s first and second laws, the
principle that action balances reaction as required by the third
law is challenged by this argument. In confronting and accepting
or disposing of this proposition it seems best to appeal to the
experiments which have raised the question. However, what we
find here is that those who do the experiments, even in
university laboratories, and find anomalies are ridiculed by
those who rely on their theoretical training and decline to
perform such experiments themselves.
Although many of those experimenting in this field believe that
a cyclic dynamic action such as that just discussed is the way
forward in the effort to drive or levitate a vehicle by breaching
Newtonian principles, there is the other possibility that weight
can in fact be reduced with the right technique. This will now
be considered. It is relevant because the author has witnessed
a demonstration by Professor Laithwaite of the Imperial College
of Science and Tchnology in London, which involved effortless
lifting of a heavy flywheel in precession. There was no way in
which this could have been possible unless the weight of the
flywheel was virtually zero, because the supporting shaft itself
was quite heavy.
THE NATURE OF THE GRAVITY FORCE
If a particle has mass and mass is acted upon by gravity, how can
a ‘manipulated’ mass ever lose weight in a gravitational field
that acts normally, without loss of weight, on an ‘unmanipulated’
mass in the same position? The expression ‘manipulated’ applies
to whatever we do to the particle to cause it to respond in the
anomalous anti-gravitational manner.
The answer to this question has to be that we have recited an
impossibility. There is, on the evidence of observation of the
phenomenon, something wrong with the way in which we have
formulated the question. Let us therefore recite the preamble
to the question a little differently.
We now say ‘If a particle has mass and this mass affects the
local field in such a way that something in that field, normally
coupled to the mass, is acted upon by gravity….’. Clearly, we
can now develop the argument, because we are bringing in the
field and any distortion of the space-time lattice or structure
that might be said to give rise to the effects we associate with
gravitation.
We do not, however, commit ourselves to the Einstein space-time
doctrines. We go so far as to say that there is a local lattice
in vacuum space which has an affinity to form a local structural
association with the structured elementary atomic nuclei
constituting the particle.
Readers will now realize that this means that we do have an
optional situation. Regard that lattice structure as like the
crystalline form that can nucleate in a liquid crystal. The
structure can be minimal in extent, broken into local minute
crystal units each nucleated on a microscopic element of nuclear
matter or it can spread until the boundaries of these units
interface throughout the material system and so embrace also the
relatively vast regions of empty space that intervenes between
those atomic nuclei. The structure of each atom might well
extend no further than the body of the nucleus or might reach
some but not all of the satellite electrons.
We take what has just been said as our working hypothesis which
gives us a basis for distinguishing between the abnormal and the
normal and guides us concerning the nature of the gravitational
action.
We now bring the theory along a track that has already been
explored with some success in connection with the derivation of
G, the universal Constant of Gravitation, as a function of the
properties of so-called ‘gravitons’. The actors in this natural
scenario are, therefore, the mass of the particles involved, the
space lattices nucleated on those particles, the in-fill lattice
of empty space, and the transient gravitons created from the
vacuum background in the vicinity of the particles which decay
as they transfer their energy and momentum to the lattice system.
In a normal body at rest or one in a steady state of motion the
action of gravitation proceeds by the creation of gravitons of
energy Mc2 adjacent a mass M. These gravitons fall under their
mutual gravitational action but are short lived. Upon decay,
after falling a very minute distance possibly commensurate with
the Compton wavelength of the electron, that is less than the
atomic spacing in solid matter, their energy and momentum are
absorbed back into the vacuum energy system and so forces are
exerted on the space-time lattice. In the body under
consideration this lattice extends a sufficient distance from
each nucleating atom in the material of the body, really filling
all intervening space in the body, so that all the gravitational
force is absorbed by lattice physically locked on to the material
of the body. In this roundabout way we can see how the mass of
such a body ‘appears’ to be the seat of the gravitational force.
The merit of this scenario, however, is that the gravitons are
discrete quanta by which one can build a quantitative theory of
gravitation and calculate G in terms of fundamental particle
data. This has been the primary thrust of the author’s work on
gravitation over many years. (References to be listed later.)
The gravitons are created from energy borrowed from the vacuum
state, as vacuum energy fluctuations which leave a virtual muon
field in deficit. All this means is that we do not ‘see’ the
gravitons as mass and only sense them by their gravitational
action and by their indirect influence on the observed mass
spectrum of fundamental particles normally produced under high
energy conditions.
The additional merit of this same scenario is that if we can
cause the body to so move that its motion is not steady or not
that of simple linear oscillation, we see scope for the lattices
centred on each nucleus contracting to become more localized.
This means that the graviton momentum is partly absorbed by the
in-fill lattice, which might, for example, be coupled to the body
Earth. In other words, we have with this theory the quite
remarkable possibility that the weight of the body can be
partially shifted to act directly on the Earth and across the
intervening space in some unseen way. This would mean partial
loss of weight by the body in so far as it is not considered as
part of the body Earth itself. In other words the weight of the
body has transferred to become part of that of the Earth.
The effect of simple linear oscillation has been excluded because
there is evidence to show that Maxwell’s equations involve
lattice oscillations of this kind and that the vacuum lattice
system can respond perfectly to all frequencies up to that at
which electron-positron creation occurs. It is as if the lattice
is tuned in respect of its linear motion to have, when displaced
by an electric field, a restoring force rate that adjusts in
compliance with the frequency to give perfect resonant response.
Thus the linear oscillation or vibration of a coextensive body
will not break down the lattice.
The question then arises as to which kind of motion does break
up the lattice units to cause their inward collapse to more
confined form. To approach this we now consider two ways in
which we can apply force to regulate the motion of a body. One
way is to remove its supports to let the force of gravity drive
the body. Another way is to apply mechanical force via the
structure in which the body is mounted. We ignore electrical and
magnetic forces, but assume that such forces, like mechanical
forces, do act via the structure and so act directly on the
matter constituting the body. In contrast, the gravitational
force acts via the gravitons and their coupling with the matter
constituting the body.
There are therefore two basic types of force action. The
gravitational force is a distributed force spread over the
graviton population and so the lattice system as a whole is
subjected to the driving action of this force. The lattice
system is less likely to be ruptured by a distributed force
spread throughout its structure than it is by force action
communicated via the atomic nuclei on which the lattice is
nucleated. Bear in mind that the lattice dimension of this
space-time system is commensurate with the size of an atomic
nucleus in that the nucleons tend to occupy lattice sites. Thus
this dimension between lattice sites is hundreds of times smaller
than the inter-atomic spacing of the substance. What this means
is that the applied mechanical force which causes a kind of
twisting or non-linear motion can rupture the lattice into small
units, whereas the gravitational force tends to preserve the
integrity of the larger lattice form, even though that
gravitational force is causing the non-linear motion.
As an aside it is noted that there is a mystery that cannot be
resolved by aeronautical engineering experts familiar with winged
flight. The bumble bee has long been recognized as defying what
we understand from the physics or aerodynamics of the flight
technique. Their wings do not flutter rapidly enough. This
makes one wonder whether precessing flywheels are essential and
whether that ‘twisting or nonlinear motion’ mentioned above as
rupturing the vacuum lattice can be occurring within the body of
the bumble bee as it agitates its wings.
FORCED OR NATURAL PRECESSION
Reverting to the flywheel problem, precession can be forced or
natural, depending upon whether it is caused by applied forces
or gravitation. The mechanical system in which this distinction
of applied forces is exemplified is provided by the precessing
gyroscope which is offset mounted. The toy gyroscope formed by
a spinning flywheel on a shaft precessing about a central tower
is the most familiar form of this system.
The force couple provided by gravitation via the weight of the
flywheel is the force causing the precession and this gives rise
to what we term ‘natural’ precession. If, however, we apply a
couple which tends to cause the shaft to move at a different
angular speed we have a ‘forced’ precession driven by force
applied in the direct mechanical sense. It is in this latter
case that the flywheel can tend to lift in a way which does not
transfer weight to the support. There is here the loss of weight
which we have been discussing and it is readily seen that the
hypothesis we have developed can explain this phenomenon.
Conversely, the experimental observation of the phenomenon can
be taken as support for the hypothesis and so the graviton theory
on which it is based.
A very important question we now face is that of whether such a
device can ever lift more than the weight of the flywheel. On
the argument used the answer to this would seem to be negative.
However, here the graviton theory as developed in the earlier
work of the author has something else to offer. It was part of
that theory to regard the space-time lattice as being something
truly physical rather than an embrionic geometrical notion. As
such it was seen as comprising what can be said to be
‘sub-electrons’, electric charge in its most degenerate
particulate form, set in a structured array in a uniform
background of degenerate non-particulate continuum charge of
opposite polarity. This means that the lattice itself has mass,
and could develop its own graviton population and exhibit
gravitational effects. However, such effects are not felt by
interaction with matter, because the space-time lattice is
universal and there is no way in which the repositioning of
matter in space can alter the gravitational potential available
for energy exchange with matter.
The consequence of this proposition has far reaching
implications. We assumed that the in-fill lattice in the case
of the force-precessed gyroscope would be coupled to body Earth.
Suppose, however, that this is incorrect and that the in-fill
lattice is coupled with the Sun or even is free in the sense of
being an absolute or preferred universal frame in its own right.
Then it becomes possible for some of the weight of the lattice
coextensive with the atomic nuclei to be transferred to an action
in that frame. In other words, some of the local space-time
lattice itself can lose weight in a sea of lattice which is
subject to normal weight pressures. Given that the space-time
lattice is a uniformly dense system, this can but mean that
whatever is coupled to the local lattice units must experience
a positive lift force. The flywheel of the force-precessed
offset gyroscope can then lift more than its own normal weight.
It follows that, if tests confirm this phenomenon, we have a way
of measuring the mass properties of space-time itself and can see
scope for the levitation of vehicles carrying a payload. Such
are the horizons now ahead of us, bearing in mind the
experimental facts discussed below.
THE EXPERIMENTAL FACTS
To the author, the most significant fact of experiment is
presented to anyone who has witnessed Professor Eric Laithwaite
lift that heavy spinning flywheel by applying a slight
manipulating force to a supporting shaft. The end of the shaft
remote from the flywheel is supported in the crook of his little
finger on an outstretched arm. The lift force needed is said to
be less than 2 lbs, whereas the wheel weighed 18 lbs and the
supporting shaft weighed 6 lbs.
Readers who have difficulty believing what has just been said
should examine the photograph of this demonstration published at
page 64 of reference [4].
In this experiment there is no vibration and the evidence points
to the wheel being able to lift more than its own weight.
This phenomenon appears to have been shrugged off by most
scientists who look to others with deeper knowledge of mechanics
to give it formal explanation. Since there is no accepted theory
for what Professor Laithwaite demonstrates, there has been a
tendency to discredit what he has claimed. Yet, how can one
discredit what is there to be seen? Those who have performed
this simple test, either by lifting Professor Laithwaite’s own
shaft and spinning flywheel or by lifting their own equivalent
device, experience this loss of weight.
Happily the pioneer spirit of Professor Laithwaite has captured
the imagination of others who have built levitating machines and,
it must be said, others have preceded Professor Laithwaite in
such work. The phenomenon is one which persists, but Professor
Laithwaite is the one who has been bold enough to minimize the
mechanical elements involved to a shaft and a wheel and become
an operating force-producing part of the machine himself. It is
his test which this author sees as so far beyond dispute that the
later machines become mere means for formal experimentation in
an effort to develop the technology commercially.
It is also this demonstration which shows that whatever energy
is needed to lift the heavy flywheel by hand through a distance
of some 1.5 metres does not come from the forces asserted
manually.
A machine test under controlled laboratory conditions with
variable flywheel speed and measurement of both speed and input
power is needed to trace what is happening in a physical sense.
The machine which has captured media attention is that of
Scotsman Sandy Kidd of Dundee, essentially because it was
developed by commercial interests and subjected to independent
precision laboratory tests to verify the positive lift force [5].
This machine in full levitation has been recorded by Australian
television interests and will be have been shown by an
internationally distributed programme before this paper appears
in print.
Other machines operative at this time are those built by another
Scotsman, Scott Strachan of Edinburgh, one of which was
demonstrated at a symposium in Canada in June l988 [6]. It
incorporated its own precision balance and operated under remote
radio control to show hands-off lift action.
Although government, academic and commercial interests as well
as the media are now all showing interest in this phenomenon it
remains to be seen how the scientific scene will develop. The
progress will be slow, because none of those in authority have
conceded acceptance of the anti-gravity phenomenon. What appears
certain, however, is that anti-gravity has now a place in physics
which extends beyond that mooted by Professor Sir Harrie Massey
FRS when he wrote [7]:
‘ANTI-GRAVITY? One curious question arises. Particles and
antiparticles are produced in pairs. How could matter and
anti-matter ever separate? One possibility that cannot be ruled
out at the present stage, is that of a repulsive force of gravity
between matter and anti-matter. We cannot yet say whether a
piece of matter exerts a gravitational attraction or repulsion
on a piece of anti-matter – we do not know whether anti-protons
tend to fall downwards or upwards! The nature of the force of
gravity is still so obscure that no reliable answer can yet be
given from theory and it will be some time before any
experimental tests will be practicable.’
One further aspect of anti-gravity phenomena is that known as the
Hutchinson Effect. This peculiar phenomenon by which
electromagnetic influences developed by a peculiar combination
of electric power equipment, including Tesla coils, can cause
blocks of wood or metal to lose weight has been captured by video
camera [8]. To witness what is shown is quite disconcerting as
it is quite incomprehensible in terms of accepted physics and yet
one cannot just write it off as an unnatural phenomenon. Perhaps
what is happening is that there are powerful low frequency
electromagnetic field oscillations that are interfering in some
way so as to set up electrical vibrations or displacements that
are not confined to one steady direction. If this were to break
up the lattice units and cause them to contract around their
nucleating atoms in the block of wood or metal, then again we see
basis for the anti-gravitational phenomenon revealing itself.
It remains to summarize the key scientific papers and other
references which the author has argued from in the above
discussion. Concerning the possible imbalance of force in the
interaction of matter, and particularly any breach of Newton’s
Third Law of Motion, the author has written numerous papers on
the electrodynamic law of interaction, see, for example,
reference [9] and, of particular relevance to this anti-gravity
topic, reference [10]. It is to be noted that the Lorentz force
breaches Newton’s Third law, as is well known by experts on
electromagnetism. Also, particle physicists well know that beta
decay breaches the laws of linear and angular momentum
conservation as well as the law of conservation of energy. This
is why the enigmatic neutrino concept was invented, a
hypothetical particle having no mass but all the necessary
qualities needed to keep the balance in accord with Newtonian
and/or Einsteinian philosophy. In this author’s opinion this was
merely a way of embracing the vacuum properties, including
aspects of vacuum energy fluctuations, into the mathematical
logic of a form of physics that seeks to avoid reference to the
aether.
Concerning the author’s theory of gravitation, based on an aether
model having the space lattice structure already mentioned, the
book references are [11, 12, 13]. For scientific papers
concerning the derivation of G and the graviton properties see
references [14, 15, 16]. It is also to be noted that the same
theory has addressed the issue of proton creation and yielded a
precise theoretical value for the proton-electron mass ratio
[17]. Concerning the tuned lattice response and conformity with
Maxwell’s equations arising from a study of a non-dispersive
vacuum property, a key reference is [18], but see also [19].
Concerning earlier gyroscope experiments revealing anomalous
propulsion results, there are many references, particularly in
the patent literature. The most informative is that of Professor
A. Di Bella of the Institute of Naval Architecture, University
of Genoa, Italy [20] (see also the U.S. Patent [21]). The latter
experiments, in common with many others, have been ignored
because the general assumption is that the vibration involved
interacts with non-linear frictional effects to produce a
propulsive effect. For this reason it is imperative either to
conduct precision integrated force measurement tests on devices
which are immune from external friction but which may vibrate (as
applies to the status of the Kidd or Strachan machines) or to
focus on experiments which have no vibration at all, such as that
of Professor Laithwaite described above. This, therefore, has
been the basis on which the argument presented in this paper is
founded.
APPENDIX: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENT
A referee report on this paper pointed out that it is ‘premised
on the belief that the Hayasaka and Takeuchi experiment is
correct’ and declared ‘In fact, all recent repetitions of the
Japanese experiment with more precise equipment have shown that
the original experiment was wrong’. The referee gave three
references [22, 23, 24] relating to the authoritative tests
performed to check the Japanese claims and observed that this
author ‘is putting forward a theory to explain an effect which
does not exist.’
Now, this author is not aware of any admission by the Japanese
rescinding what they claim, though certainly this author cannot
vouch for their findings. However, thanks to the Editor of
Physics Essays allowing response to the referee comment, it seems
appropriate to ask the reader to consider the following points.
First, when the author first took an interest in the gyroscope
weight loss anomalies it was pointed out to him by expert
aeronautical authority that flywheels spinning in air can
experience a lift force that is arerodynamic in origin. This
made the Japanese experiment all the more credible besides being
rather unique, because in doing the tests in vacuo they had made
absolutely sure that no such lift action could account for the
anomaly they found.
Second, the refuting experiments [22, 23, 24] were actually
published in February and April 1990, within weeks of the
publication of the report of the Japanese work and such urgent
evaluation is an indication of the importance attached to the
task of rejecting what had been claimed and also of the cursory
nature of the tests. It meant, presumably, that in repeating the
experiment none of the three research teams involved in
discrediting the Japanese had gone to the trouble of building a
system having essentially the same vacuum test facility.
They were all content to rely on tests in air and that then
destroys their right to challenge the Japanese findings. The
Japenese would presumably not have bothered to use vacuum if what
they were researching did in fact reveal itself in air.
Thirdly, one must take note of the case put by Faller et al [22]
in discussing why they did not use a vacuum. Their reason in
their words is:
“Since we know of no steady-state effect of internal air
currents on the weight of a sealed system, we decided a simple
O-ring seal on the cover of our gyro was sufficient.”
They prejudged the nature of the weight loss by assuming it must
relate to lift action due to air and decided that, because they
were unaware of any anomaly that could depend upon steady-state
air current effects, the presence of air was irrelevant in
judging what would happen in a vacuum.
They also stated:
“In spite of the fact that they (Hayasaka and Takeuchi)
observed similar effects for three different gyros, it is still
very difficult to think of any fundamental reason for their
observed effects.”
Now, this author conceived this paper as a discussion of
anti-gravitational phenomena which can occur in air but only
with force-precessed gyroscopes. However, the circumstances of
the Japanese experiment were special and were satisfied by
non-precessing spin in vacuo. The author has derived a formula
which fits what Hayasaka and Takeuchi found, not by reference to
air currents, but by assuming that electric charge could be
radially displaced within the flywheel, its polarity depending
upon direction of rotation, so that electrons could escape from
the substance of the flywheel but not the heavy positive ions.
The reader must now take a position on the question of whether
all physical action in air depends upon ‘air currents’ or whether
certain electrical phenomena can occur in air, such as
Maxwell-type electric charge displacement. Unless the critics
have certain knowledge that the anti-gravitational action cannot
depend upon the microscopic electrical nature of matter as
opposed to the macroscopic mechanical properties of matter, then
the issue is open. Can, for example, the positive and negative
ions which neutralize the vacuum spin charge displacement in the
theory presented in this paper have a mobility if comprised by
air dragged around by the flywheel which they would not have if
they were part of a solid flywheel? If the latter argument
cannot be discounted, and it really cannot because air is fluid
and its heavy ions can migrate, then that presence of air in
those tests reported in references [22, 23, 24] can preclude the
anti-gravitational actions of the flywheel.
This author feels therefore that the tests discrediting the
Japanese experiment are not conclusive and hopes that someone
will go to the trouble of repeating the tests in the same vacuum
conditions as used by the Japanese. If the Japanese tests are
confirmed in the vacuum situation then it would be of interest
to check what happens if the flywheel is of insulating dielectric
material or of metal coated at its rim with such material.
This paper was received by Physics Essays on 15 May 1989.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Hayasaka and S. Tackeuchi, Physical Review Letters,
63, 2701 (1989).
[2] H. Aspden, Hadronic Journal, 10, 185 (1987).
[3] H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 40, 53 (1984).
[4] A. Jones, Electronics and Wireless World, 94, 64 (1987)
[5] R. Thompson, ‘The Kidd Machine’, Observer Magazine, U.K.,
pp. 28-31 (24 July 1988).
[6] J. S. Strachan, ‘Demonstration of the Lift Properties of
the Precessing Gyroscope’, (to be published in the
Proceedings of P.A.C.E. Symposium, Hull, Quebec, June
1988).
[7] H. Massey, ‘The New Age in Physics’, (Elek, London),
p. 150 (1966).
[8] G. Hathaway, ‘The Hutchinson Effect’, (to be published
in the Proceedings of P.A.C.E. Symposium, Hull, Quebec,
June 1988).
[9] H. Aspden, Physics Letters, 111A, 22 (1985).
[10] H. Aspden, Electronics and Wireless World, 96, 29 (1989).
[11] H. Aspden, ‘The Theory of Gravitation’, (Sabberton, P.O. Box
35, Southampton, England) 1966.
[12] H. Aspden, ‘Physics without Einstein’, (Sabberton, P.O. Box
35, Southampton, England) 1969.
[13] H. Aspden, ‘Physics Unified’, (Sabberton, P.O. Box 35,
Southampton, England) 1980.
[14] H. Aspden, Spec. Sc. Tech., 1, 59 (1978).
[15] H. Aspden, Hadronic Journal, 9, 153 (1986).
[16] H. Aspden, Physics Essays, 2, 173 (1989).
[17] H. Aspden, Physics Essays, 1, 72 (1988).
[18] H. Aspden, Electronics and Wireless World, 88, 37 (1982)
[19] H. Aspden, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 41, 252 (1984).
[20] A. Di Bella, ‘On Propulsive Effects of a Rotating Mass’,
Seventh Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics (August 25-30,
1968, Rome, Italy) DR-148 Office of Naval Research
Department of the Navy pp. 1373-1396.
[21] A. Di Bella, ‘Apparatus for Imparting Motion to a Body’,
US Patent No. 3,404,854. (1968).
[22] J. E. Faller, W. J. Hollander, P. G. Nelson and M. P.
McHugh, Physical Review Letters, 64, 825 (1990).
[23] T. J. Quinn and A. Picard, Nature, 343, 732 (1990).
[24] J. M. Nitschke and P. A. Wilmarth, Physical Review Letters,
64, 2115 (1990).
