Category Archives: Uncategorized

Part III of Gravity Beyond Einstein accepted for publication

I am pleased to announce that Part III of the paper by Hauser and Dröscher has been accepted for publication by the Max-Planck Journal Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A (ZNA).  The title is “GRAVITY BEYOND EINSTEIN? PART II: FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES, NUMBER SYSTEMS, NOVEL GROUPS, DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER, MOND”. A quick overview of the scope of the article may be found here:

I’ve been privileged to edit all three parts of the series for readability and consistency since 2017 and several other articles by the authors over the past decade.  Here is a synopsis of the article, which took the authors 30 months to develop:

As a series, the articles attempt to unravel the contradictory results of experiments to determine the neutron lifetime, the contradiction between the predictions of particle physics and experiments concerning the nature and properties of  dark matter and dark energy particles. 

The novel concepts of both negative and hypercomplex matter (giving rise to the concept of matter flavor) are introduced, replacing the field of real numbers by hypercomplex numbers, which replaces the concept of extra spatial dimensions and which questions the concept of supersymmetry.  Hypercomplex matter has a most dramatic consequence because it requires the existence of a second type of gravity, mediated by spin-1 bosons in accordance with the three other fundamental forces. 

The authors suggest a dual spacetime, denoted by DdS1,3, in which the dark matter particles that are supposed to be of negative mass reside and therefore are undetectable in our spacetime. 

The conversion of electromagnetic into gravity-like fields (as surmised by Faraday and Einstein) should be possible, but not in cosmological gravity, and thus these conversion fields are outside general relativity. In addition, the concept of hypercomplex mass in conjunction with magnetic monopoles emerging from spin ice materials is discussed that may provide the enabling technology for long-sought propellantless space propulsion. The resultant three different gravitational coupling constants predicted would also make possible higher admissible speeds of light at 10^5C and 10^10C.

Here are the section headings:

1. Introduction

2. From Ordinal Numbers to Coupling Constants

3. Hypercomplex Matter from Hypercomplex Numbers

4. Contradictory Physical Experiments

5. MOND Hypothesis Revisited

6. Cosmological Riddles Revisited

7. Space Propulsion by Gravity-Like Fields

8. Conclusions and Technology Outlook for Gravity-Like Fields


The arguments put forth in this article keep in line with Parts I and II, emphasizing the presentation of physical concepts and experimental data.  The authors insist on consistency with General Relativity as a model of the universe.  Decades after the LHC, concepts of superstrings and higher real spatial dimensions have been starkly questioned by numerous independent experiments.  No sign of the predicted Lightest Supersymmetric Particle nor top squark has been detected as of yet and the unfulfilled search for supersymmetric particles to explain the existence of dark matter suggests the lack of validity for these ideas.  No evidence of new physics has been found despite novel, sophisticated analysis strategies by CERN’s Atlas collaboration. 

If a theory contradicts experiments or cannot be tested, it s not a theory and no mathematical elegance is a replacement for measurable physical reality.  Up to now, there does not exist a single experiment that has been able to show the tiniest deviation from Einstein’s predictions. On the contrary, there are several recent experiments that are clearly at odds with both the concept of supersymmetry and superstrings.  The long sought unified field theory is as absent as it was at the time of Einstein, a century ago. It appears that string theory and supersymmetry were both false starts, never supported by any experimental evidence. 

After the introduction, Section 2 presents an attempt to calculate some of the coupling constants from a set of ordinal numbers employing a numerical calculation scheme, possibly demonstrating a close connection between numbers and physics.  The authors claim that the gravitational coupling constants for Newtonian theory GN and Einstein’s theory GE are very slightly different, because in Einstein’s theory spacetime is a dynamic field and any particle moving through the spacetime lattice causes a tiny gravitational interaction with the spacetime grid, that is, GE > GN

Section 3 discusses the immediate consequences of hypercomplex numbers to physics and shows how this idea leads to so-called hypercomplex matter that substantially extends the current concept of matter and naturally leads to additional particles.  Hypercomplex matter requires the existence of a second type of gravity, mediated by spin-1 bosons and is instrumental in the generation of strong gravity-like fields that are outside of (yet not inconsistent with) GR.  The theory comprising hypercompex matter is termed Extended Heim Theory (EHT) as a nod to Burkhard Heim who posited the idea of internal gauge space in the 1950s in order to construct a polymetric tensor. However, EHT relies on none of the mathematics of Heim Theory.

Section 4 introduces the concept of “matter flavor” (analogous to quark flavor) and gravity-like fields outside of GR.  As shown by E. G. Harris, any claims for production of gravity-like fields through rotating superconductors must be outside GR.  The evaluation of experiments reporting conflicting results on the neutron lifetime are considered, with a resolution including the possibility that neutrons first decay into hypercomplex matter, then into a proton, electron and electron antineutrino and which may account for the discrepancies between methods to establish the neutron lifetime.

Section 5 reviews the MOND hypothesis, but despite numerical predictions of MOND being correct the observed acceleration can be described by the existence of two dark energy particles (attractive and repulsive) predicted by hypercomplex matter.  The negative particles are attracted by normal matter and are concentrated in the galaxy’s halo, less so in the galaxy. The repulsive particles are repelled by the presence of the galactic matter, resulting in a polarization effect due to dark energy, while dark matter is not present inside galaxies.

Section 6 discusses GR and its difference from the other three forces in that it is mediated by spin-2 bosons that, according to theory, should be comprised of two gluons.  

Section 7 discusses W. von Braun’s quest for space propulsion without fuel.  B. Heim greatly influenced von Braun’s interest in propellentless propulsion and Heim was prominently mentioned in articles of the day. An outlook of the repercussions of the novel physical concepts on particle physics, cosmology, and technology is discussed.

Part II of Gravity Beyond Einstein accepted for publication

UPDATE Apr 11, 2019: The published article is now available for viewing or download from this page:

UPDATE Feb 11, 2019: A preprint of the publication is now available from this page:

I am pleased to announce that Part II of the paper by Hauser and Dröscherhas been accepted for publication by Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A (ZNA).  The title is “GRAVITY BEYOND EINSTEIN? PART II: FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES, NUMBER SYSTEMS, NOVEL GROUPS, DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER, MOND”

Without stealing their thunder, here are some of the more interesting aspects of the paper.  I should note that EHT (Extended Heim Theory) is a nod to the original HT theory of Burkhard Heim, but is not dependent upon his math (which has been known for some time to include errors). It is a framework which still includes several speculative assumptions. Until EHT is further developed (a Part III is planned) I look forward to the responses to this innovative framework that goes against the grain of a predominant school of physics beyond the standard model.

One of the major tenets of the framework is the idea that an extra number system can successfully substitute for the idea of extra dimensions posed by string theory, superstring theory and the more general M-theory, which has dominated physics for decades.  String theory is thought to predict the grand unification of gravity with particle forces, but EHT predicts that supersymmetric partners do not exist and gravity can not successfully be described in a theory of quantum gravity at the Planck scale (see Principle of duality).  

Part II posits certain fundamental principles that help guide our thinking about the cosmos.

1. Principle of duality.  This includes that geometry and energy are interdependent entities. They exist as two sides of the same coin.  This requires that the spacetime lattice and dark energy to be generated simultaneously and independently.  The energy of information and organization (part of the spacetime lattice) are separate but related to the energy of mass (mass being derived from dark energy). 

2. Principle of extra systems of numbers.  The rationale for the extra higher space dimensions of superstring theory and its superset M-Theory can be satisfied by extra number systems, such as the hypercomplex quaternion and octonion numbers.  Mathematician Cohl Furey has shown that quaternions can represent the charge of quarks and leptons in the standard model. See: EHT predicts additional particles not currently part of the standard model.

3. Principle of optimization.  Meaning that Nature is perfectly optimized. This leads to the assumption that the total energy of the Universe was, is and will be zero and leads to the evolution of the cosmos with dark energy and the spacetime lattice generated simultaneously and in balance.

4. Principle of quantization.  There are no continuous physical quantities, only discrete quantities.  Therefore no infinities or singularities.  For example, no worm holes.

5. Principle of dual energies.  Information possesses energy and the energy to create a single bit is the same to destroy that bit.  

Other principles are included for quantum fluctuations, finite existence time, causality, energy conservation, dual Universe, self-interaction and organization.  In addition, a series of “No-Go Theorems” are formulated that describe constraints on the limits of the physical features of the Universe.  For example, no Big Bang, no Open Universe, etc. 

The principle of extra systems of numbers means that without the need for extra dimensions there is no basis to speculate on multiple universes (aka the multiverse) and no allowing for the infinities found in “worm holes”.  Extra spatial dimensions were devised, in part, to resolve the “hierarchy problem”, which has also been interpreted as a basis for the “holographic effect” (see work by Erik Verlinde).  

String theory predicts supersymmetric particles, which has been much of the focus of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.  However, recent experiments to measure deviations from the perfectly spherical orbit of the electron have further reduced the possibility of supersymmetric particles (see:  If string theory is replaced with hypercomplex numbers, then supersymmetric particles are not required to complete the standard model of physics and new tools such as the next generation collider (Future Circular Collider) is therefore unnecessary.  (See

EHT resolves some mysteries as well.  Under EHT dark matter exists as two particles at -80.77 GeV/c2  and a neutrino (“dark neutrino”) at −3.23 eV  in a dual deSitter spacetime (in contrast to the anti de Sitter spacetime predicted by advanced string theory).  Both particles exist in a fourth family of leptons possessing negative mass.  Since negative mass can not be observed in our spacetime dark matter is thus not observable, though its gravitational effects are felt and the its decay products might be detectable in our spacetime.  See  Notions of negative mass are not unique to EHT and have been proposed recently in theories of a dark fluid to explain dark energy and dark matter.  See Farnes:

EHT predicts hypercomplex-gravity fields (extreme gravitomagnetic fields), making possible the generation of gravity-like fields independent of the gravitation of cosmology.  The complex number system employed gives rise to additional gravitational particles, gravitomagnetic (attractive and repulsive forces) and quintessence (repulsive force).  The extreme gravitomagnetic fields, group SU(2), are mediated by three gravity bosons that are like other mediator bosons from particle physics, and thus are completely different from the Einstein cosmological gravity fields. Each particle is millions of times weaker than normal gravity, but because of an interaction with electromagnetic force, it may result in the generation of gravity-like fields orders of magnitude greater than Newtonian gravity.  This would allow for a type of controlled gravitational propulsion and design of gravitational products.  

The paper also discusses the balance between two types of dark energy, one attractive to matter and repulsive for spacetime, and the other repulsive to matter and attractive to spacetime.   Inside galaxies there is a  “gravitational polarization” due to the presence of matter and these cancel out, but not in intergalactic space.  Their interaction also gives rise to the magnitude of the MOND acceleration but without the explanation given by the originators of MOND.  Each type of dark energy has their own corresponding cosmological constant and in a universe without matter the combined constant should be zero.  In our era the value is positive, leading to expansion, but in a future era it should lead to contraction of the universe.   

The speed of light, c, and time, t, requires an extension of Einstein’s spacetime when descriptive maths go from real to complex number systems.  Each of these new gravitational particles is associated with its own unique speed of light.  This was established in their seminal 2004 paper which forecast the possibility of traveling in a dual spacetime at many multiples of the speed of light.   

The concept of the Big Bang is also replaced by the Quantized Bang through a process more closely resembling a “fizz” rather than a “bang”.  Not specifically mentioned in the paper, but still a part of EHT is that dark energy must increase over time.  See Risaliti and Lusso for a similar view of dark energy increasing over time.  The expansion of the Universe requires the generation of additional atoms of space, and since the potential energy of the spacetime lattice transforms into dark energy, and dark energy is a precursor of matter, it must also increase.  As it does, the potential energy of the spacetime grid decreases.

Significance of the Detection of Gravitational Waves published by the LIGO Team in February 2016

It is with great pleasure that I post this article by Dr. rer. nat. Jochem Hauser, Scientific Director of HPCC-Space GmbH on the significance of the recent discovery of gravitational waves.  Dr. Hauser is the co-originator of Extended Heim Theory along with Dr. Walter Dröscher.

Image: ©2015  S. Ossokine , A. Buonanno (MPI for Gravitational Physics)/W. Benger (Airborne Hydro Mapping GmbH)

On 11 February 2016 the LIGO and VIRGO Collaboration groups reported on the detection of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein’s GR in 1916. The signals were actually measured in September 2015, but the teams took time to verify their results, most likely to avoid the embarrassment of the BICEP2 experiment.

However, the gravitational wave detection was hailed by numerous journals and newspapers as a revolution in physics, providing much incorrect information, not to say hype. For instance, read the partly unscientific language used in Scientific American about this effect.

It should be noted that there was already a Nobel prize for the indirect detection of gravity waves in 1993 (Hulse & Taylor) based on the orbital period of a binary star system. Hence, their direct measurement is not a surprise at all. The energy radiated (narrowing the joint orbit) from the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 has been calculated from linear theory and exactly matches the observations.

In the first edition of this book it was already stated that Einstein’s GR is the only answer to gravitational fields in the cosmological realm and all competing theories are more or less ruled out. But this does not mean that extensions to GR are impossible or unnecessary.

According to EHT any gravitational theory predicting gravity must be fully compatible with Einstein’s GR, except for predictions of physical processes that take place inside a black hole. Even for very small accelerations it seems unlikely that GR will fail. It should be noted, however, that according to the late German physicist B. Heim, gravitational attraction disappears (is zero) at distances comparable to the Schwarzschild radius rS. Is this were the case, there would be no gravitation inside a black hole, and matter within the black hole would enjoy some kind of asymptotic freedom, similar to quarks in a proton or neutron.

It is important to note that gravitational plane waves (reducing the degrees of freedom in the metric tensor) are predicted by the linearized Einstein equations that are similar to the Maxwell equations. However, GR is a nonlinear theory. In order to confirm Einstein’s non-approximated GR, one must first ascertain that the nonlinear field equations of Einstein allow for waves also. They do. This is not trivial as there is, in principle, graviton-graviton interaction. The graviton particle as the mediator boson for gravity follows from the duality between the metric field hμν and the particle picture, that is, this concept of quantum mechanics is introduced into GR. Because photons do not carry electric charge themselves they are not subject to this kind of nonlinear interaction. The metric field is a second rank tensor and it can be shown that gravitons must have spin 2. The proof is difficult because this must hold in the relativistic case, too, see E. Wigner 1939, while the photon has spin 1.

The crucial point therefore is: can the gravitational signals detected be interpreted with Einstein’s linearized equations or are the full nonlinear equations needed? It seems, from the black hole masses involved (about 29 and 36 solar masses), that the linear theory may not match the measured data (this needs still to be confirmed). Relativistic (nonlinear) effects become spectacular, when GM/rc2 ≈ 1. The merger of these two black holes is assumed to have taken place at half the speed of light with a final orbital period of about 250 Hz. The two black holes are then supposed to have coalesced into a single black hole with the equivalent of about 62 solar masses. This scenario is the accepted physical interpretation for the time being – provided of course that no other, more plausible, alternatives can be found. If, however, these two black holes, supposed to have generated the gravitational waves, possess an extension similar to the diameter of the Sun, the magnitude of the relativistic gravitational effects becomes about 6 − 8 × 10−5 on the surface of the black hole, and the linear theory should be correct. On the other hand, astronomers have, for the first time, measured the radius of a black hole in September 2012 and are claiming that it is about 5.5 ×rS , where ris the Schwarzschild radius (light cannot escape from the black hole if it is closer than rS). For the Sun r≈ 2.95 km. In general, it is believed that black holes have a Schwarzschild radius rabout 100,000 times smaller than the Sun. If this were the case, then the gravitational waves detected would be a confirmation of the validity of the nonlinear field equations, provided of course, that the underlying assumption of two merging black holes as the source for gravitational waves is correct.

If the effect can be explained by the linearized field equations, then any gravitational theory that gives the same linearized equations as Einstein’s theory would have passed the test, too.

There is, however, another principle to detect gravitational waves of low frequency – which cannot be measured by LIGO – based on the usage of compact gravity pulsars that are also emitting radio waves. The goal is to measure the changes in the distances between the Earth and the pulsars caused by the spacetime distortion created by the emitted gravitational waves, when they are passing over the Earth. This change in distance is causing a delay or advance in the radio pulse arrival time. Because this effect is extremely small, M. Kramer et al. at MPI Bonn, Germany are searching for the most rotationally stable pulsars, known as millisecond pulsars.

In conclusion, the experiments seem to have found gravitational waves, but this effect might be explained by a linearized gravitational theory. Moreover, if Einstein’s nonlinear equations turn out to be necessary to explain these results (more likely), we are talking about the science of November 1915.

The much more important question remains unanswered, as pursued by Einstein from 1915 till the end of his research activity: is there an interaction between gravity and electromagnetism? This means are there gravitational fields that are not cosmological fields, that is, whose source are not static or moving large masses? Hints for the existence of these gravitational fields may be found in the recent experiments by Tajmar, Graham and Gravity Probe B experiment as discussed in detail in Sec. 8 of “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields.”

Theory, in the form of EHT, is predicting such a conversion from electromagnetism to gravitation, induced by the phenomenon of symmetry breaking (not known at Einstein’s time), and GR consequently needs to be supplemented by these so called conversion fields, i.e., those gravitational fields resulting from electromagnetic fields. This means that three additional gravitational particles (bosons) are proposed, allowing the generation of gravity-like fields similar to the generation of magnetic fields.

From an experimental point of view, however, the LIGO measurements are extremely sophisticated. The teams claim to be able to see distance changes in the range of 10−19 m that is much less than the radius of a proton!

A polarized gravitational wave traveling in one direction acting on a circle of particles is leading to an oscillatory motion, compressing and elongating the diameter of the circle, forming an elliptic shape, but also does rotate the axis of the ellipse. Hence, a signal in both arms of the laser interferometer should be detected.

As a next step, the space antenna LISA Pathfinder from ESA will begin operating in March 2016. We may expect to see a confirmation of gravitational waves by the full scale experiment eLISA, planned for 2028.

Jochem Hauser, 18 February 2016

edited 29 Feb 2016 – GD

Extreme fields, dark energy and MOND

In the recent book by Dröscher and Hauser, mention is made of upcoming experiments by Martin Tajmar to test the Heim experiment. Tajmar is the Professor and Chair, Institute of Aerospace Engineering Technische Universitåt Dresden where he has published on a wide range of propulsion-related topics. As such it may be useful to review recent revisions to EHT including the dropping of the gravitophoton, vgp  (composed of positive and negative components) as the cause of an attractive and repulsive gravitational effect. Instead, another composite particle is suggested as the source.

In EHT there are three carrier particles for gravitation: the graviton, the gravitophoton and the quintessence particle. Collectively they are known as “gravions.” The graviton for Newtonian gravity is represented in the listing of ordinary matter (OM) as vGN in row H0, and is the boson mediating forces between gravitational fields in the cosmos, “GN” being the indicator of Newtonian gravitation. Its analog in  non-ordinary matter (NOM) is the strong graviton, represented in row H1 as ṽG. The tilda (~) above the v denotes an extreme gravitomagnetic or gravity-like field. The bosons with the tilda above (ṽ) are the “cold” or “conversion” particles ṽG, ṽgp, and ṽq which are not generated by mass but by delayed symmetry breaking, similar to the cryogenic symmetry breaking that leads to superconductivity.

The second cosmological gravitational particle is the gravitophoton, designated as vgp. The cosmological version of this gravitational boson mediates the gravitomagnetic field BGN as predicted by general relativity. The cold version of this boson is generated during delayed symmetry breaking when a photon “γ” representing the electromagnetic force becomes an imaginary photon “γI” of imaginary mass but real charge, and converts to the cold gravitophoton ṽgp which decays to produce extreme gravity-like fields.

The decay paths for the vgp cosmological gravitophoton and the ṽgp cold gravitophoton are indicated in the H9 hermetry form. The cosmological gravitophoton decays to a very weak gravitational field via vGN and an extremely small expansion of spacetime denoted by the quintessence particle ṽq, which is shown in hermetry form H10. In short vgp → vGN + vq. The cold gravitophoton decay path ṽgp → ṽG + ṽq does so with gravity-like fields with much greater magnitude due to predicted changes in the gravitational coupling constant.

The third cosmological gravitational boson is termed “quintessence” vq and is responsible for the interaction of dark energy and spacetime. How do the quintessence particles vq and ṽq interact with spacetime? EHT proposes that they are responsible for the interaction between the dark energy field vde and the spacetime lattice, neither of which have hermetry forms but which indirectly causes spacetime to expand.

The cold gravitophoton decay path ṽgp → ṽG + ṽq is the first stage of the decomposition of the cold quintessence particle. It also undergoes a decay to constituent particles ṽq → ṽ+q + ṽq.  The quintessence particle is thought to be a composite particle make of attractive and repulsive components. The vq boson mediates the repulsive interaction between the spacetime field and dark energy, vde. EHT theorizes that vde is also a composite particle composed of two dark energy component particles (v+de + vde), one attractive and one repulsive. Each of the components (ṽ+q and ṽq), in turn, influences its corresponding dark energy component (v+de and vde), and this interaction mediates the spacetime lattice producing either an expansion or contraction. As we will see later, this is a likely mechanism for the “parity violation” results observed by Tajmar. See the table below.

It could be said that dark energy is a direct consequence of spacetime. In EHT the formation of the spacetime lattice (negative energy density, possessing information and structure) is invariably accompanied by the formation of the dark energy field (positive energy field, negative pressure) in order to satisfy energy conservation.

Might the interaction between the spacetime field and dark energy which is mediated by the quintessence particle play a role in the distribution of dark matter inside and outside of a galaxy?

According to EHT particles are not observable in de Sitter space (our spacetime) when they possess a negative resting mass.  Particles of dark matter are suggested to possess negative resting mass, therefore they must exist in a dual spacetime — a “dual” de Sitter spacetime designated DdS3,1.  Those particles of dark matter vdm and vdm are not directly observable by us, but their gravitational interactions with ordinary matter are felt in our spacetime.

The de Sitter spacetime of general relativity (GR) is not replaced, but is extended by the concept of dual spacetime.  De Sitter dual spacetime is required to account for the different types of matter that might exist outside GR.  The two spaces, de Sitter space and dual de Sitter space, are entangled and share the same spatial coordinates, but are separated by their time coordinates.  Dual spacetime also differs from our de Sitter spacetime by employing an imaginary speed of light “i c” as well as an imaginary time coordinate “– i t”.  Those imaginary attributes of dual spacetime open avenues to attaining speeds greater than the speed of light (c).  This is the “parallel space” referred to in the original award-winning paper by Dröscher and Hauser.

As Dröscher and Hauser suggest in their book, “… dark matter is assumed to be of negative mass existing in the form of a heavy particle with mass mdm approximately -80.77 GeV, and a dark matter neutrino  with a negative mass mvdm approximately -3.2 eV.”   They continue, “…because of the negative mass of the dark matter particles, they should neither be present in the reactions of the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] experiments, nor be found in any dark matter experiment… since dark matter particles are supposed to carry negative energy and cannot be generated in an accelerator…”  EHT forecasts that direct detection of dark matter particles by the LHC and other groups, is impossible.

We know that dark matter appears only in the halo surrounding galaxies, so EHT would have to account for not only dark matter’s presence in galactic halos, but also its lack of detection within a galaxy. However, the attractive nature of dark matter alone would not appear to be sufficient to account for its distribution outside of galaxies. That leaves only attractive ordinary matter and repulsive dark energy to explain the observations about dark matter’s distribution. MOND theory seeks to explain why spinning galaxies do not fly apart. Its proponents posit that Newton’s law is modified for accelerations below 10-10 m/s2. MOND gives the correct value required for this low acceleration value. Can EHT also give an equally correct solution in solving for dark matter? Dark matter appears only in the halo surrounding galaxies, so EHT would have to speculate on not only the degree of gravitational attraction in the halo, but also why it does not occur within a galaxy.


One possibility is that the predicted dual nature of dark energy (attractive and repulsive) may influence the distribution. If dark energy, which causes the accelerating expansion of the universe, is a composite of two particles then how it interacts with normal matter might explain dark matter’s distribution. Assume that dark energy is composed of a repulsive vde particle causing spacetime expansion and a second dark energy particle v+de causing spacetime contraction. Observed dark energy would be the sum of the two different types of dark energy. How would visible matter within a galaxy interact with the components (v+de + vde) of dark energy?

It is proposed that Einsteins cosmological constant “⋀” (often considered equivalent to dark energy) is the summation of components ⋀ + ⋀+ where ⋀, associated with dark energy particle vde , causes spacetime to expand (positive energy density) and ⋀+, associated with dark energy particle v+de , causes spacetime to contract (negative energy density). Each component may have a large value, but because they are nearly equal (there being a slight expansion of the universe) the difference between the two can be quite small. If the cosmological constant represents the current balance between ⋀  and ⋀+ , then in the present era where spacetime is expanding, the cosmological constant is balanced at ⋀ >0, which means that ⋀+ <0.

It is already known that the acceleration within a galaxy points toward its center, and that it is the same acceleration that exists for all galaxies. One difference within galaxies, as contrasted with intergalactic space, is the density of visible matter. The density of matter (but not dark matter) inside of a galaxy increases by a factor of ten million. The authors postulate that a surplus of vde particles associated with a slight excess of ⋀  is collected in the halo and, to a lesser extent, inside the galaxy. However, the ⋀+ is neutralized inside a galaxy due to the fact that a galaxy contains a large amount of ordinary matter. Overall this increases the acceleration toward the center of the galaxy may be the basis for the MOND acceleration, one alternative theory to explain gravitational effects around cluster galaxies.

Gravity Pollution – an Exploration of Terms and Roles

If the generation of gravity-like fields can be accomplished, should we consider its unencumbered usage as a potential source of pollution?

What is pollution?  A human-centric description of pollution would be the “introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that causes adverse changes to our lifestyle making the environment unsafe or unsuitable”. Polluting elements can be either natural or foreign.  Oil is naturally occurring, but when accidentally released into the open sea it is considered a pollutant.  The same can be said of waste from mining operations.  When in their natural state, asbestos, coal, chromium and other heavy metals are deposits.  When released into the environment either in massive amounts or small amounts close to populated areas, they qualify as pollutants.

In addition to chemicals and minerals, pollutants may also be energy such as noise, light, heat, etc. but usually not of a natural origin. Noise pollution is an excess of sound that impinges upon the activities of others and is undesirable, destructive or dangerous. It is primarily man-made.  In contrast, thunder is noisy and disturbing but it is natural and not considered pollution.  Astronomers and amateur star gazers disdain urban light pollution at night.  The rising sun also obscures the stars, but it is not considered pollution because it is natural.  Light pollution may be excessive or intrusive, but is always artificial.

These examples suggest that though naturally occurring gravity is not considered as pollution, man-made gravity-like fields may be considered so if they alter or interfere with the lifestyle or present a danger.  One more point to make is that when contained at a point source, materials and energies that lead have a limited extent, making them easier to control or contain.  So arsenic in the environment is a pollutant – and when found leaking from a metal drum the point source may be abated.  Noise, when attenuated or enclosed at the source also reduces its impact as a pollutant.  Therefore if a gravity-like field can be effectively nullified or attenuated, it becomes a potentially manageable environmental pollutant.

Another point to explore is how we measure the strength or concentration of a pollutant.  Noise can be measured in decibels.  Light can be measured in lumens.  Radioactivity can be measured in rads or curies.  How would we best measure gravity-like fields, particularly when the fields might be either attractive or repulsive?  An attractive field might be measured in comparison to the known (and natural) gravitational constant “g” where a fraction of g is known as “microgravity” and a strength greater than g is known as “hypergravity”.  Would the same apply to repulsive gravity-like fields?  Would a simple change of sign (-) be sufficient or useful to describe repulsive microgravity or repulsive hypergravity?

The force of naturally occurring gravity between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of their distance.  Calculating the gravitational effects on bodies a known distance from an asteroid or moon is know by calculating the mass of each celestial body.  Until a gravity-like force can be generated it remains unknown if its force is inversely proportional to the distance, or to the square of the distance, or some other mathematical relationship.  In addition, it is unknown whether the strength of the field (which is independent of mass) increases solely by the rotational velocity of the materials generating the field or if it is also influenced by other variables such as the power applied to (in the case of the EHT bench test designs) the solenoidal coils, the number of turns of the coils, the presence of nearby masses above the axially produced field, etc.

Experiments performed by Martin Tajmar and published in 2006 measured strong gravity-like fields in close proximity to spinning superconductors.  In fact, the force measured for one published paper was equivalent to a similarly dense material on the surface of a white dwarf star.  Despite Tajmar’s subsequent revisions to his apparatus resulting in negligible results, it is possible that with even relatively small samples of matter the gravity-like force generated could be quite high, though possibly very local.

Extended Heim Theory (EHT) posits that gravity-like fields might be generated and sustained by the spinning of superconducting materials at a constant rotational velocity.  It proposed the generation of fields rather than the shielding of naturally occurring gravity.  Other than opposing one repulsive gravity-like field with another repulsive field, the theory does not give a prediction of strength over distance.  This will have to be determined by experiment.  Even if fields can be opposed, or shaped by the presence of other nearby fields, can they be confined?  Is there a way to “cap” them, much as a magnetic field can be confined by “capping” the magnetic poles with a ferrous material.  With magnetic fields, the lines of forces can be constrained within a thin shell of steel that surrounds it.  Could there be an analogy for similarly constraining gravity-like fields?

Once we have a positive result in the generation of gravity-like fields, next will be the terminology we employ to describe and measure them, and the methods used to constrain and control these effects.  That will likely be a role shared by the first gravity engineers and the gravity designers.

A third possible contender in new physics for energy generation

A hypothesis is just a hypothesis until it has some observational or experimental confirmation.  So it is with great interest that I recently read that Prof. Martin Tajmar, known for his testing of the EmDrive, has set his laboratory upon the task of performing experiments featuring a different potential energy generation technology that like Steorn and LENR also is an outlier in the realm of “new physics”.

You may recall that Tajmar is the Professor and Chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology’s Institute of Aerospace Engineering who confirmed some of the initial positive results of the EmDrive device for propellantless propulsion, as described in the International Business Times.  Dr. Tajmar has also published other studies this year attempting to replicate previous research involving propellantless propulsion including experiments by E. Podkletnov and G. Modanese and Henry Wallace in the 1970s.  However, in one replication he found only an anomaly ascribed to vibrational artifacts, and in the other found inconclusive results due to mechanical vibration, acoustic effects and unexpected destruction of the apparatus support structure.

So what does this have to do with energy generation?  Tajmar himself published several articles beginning more than a decade ago that reported generation of a gravitational anomaly (see the listing at the conclusion of this article).  These studies led to Tajmar filing a patent on a gravity generator, which if it ever worked might have been used to generate electricity:  (WO/2007/082324) METHOD FOR GENERATING A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AND GRAVITATIONAL FIELD GENERATOR.

One notable aspect of any gravity field generator employing rotational components and producing an axial gravity-like force would be a second force component in an azimuthal direction (tangential in the plane of rotation) producing torque on the rotor.  In such a configuration energy need not to be supplied to keep the angular velocity constant. In other words, it becomes a generator suitable for electrical power production.  Unfortunately, in his original experiments Tajmar’s configuration was designed to produce a field acting in the circumferential direction of the rotating ring, opposing its origin, not an axial field.  However, there is an axial design soon to be tested by Tajmar that could be a candidate for a power generator.

Enter the work of Jochem Hauser and Walter Droescher’s models expanding general relativity to include two additional gravity-like forces that interact with electromagnetism to  produce gravity-like fields.  Jochem Hauser is a computer simulation consultant to ESA and professor emeritus in Germany.  He and Martin Tajmar, who have been in communication with each other since about 2005, have agreed to collaborate on a “bench test” of Hauser’s designs involving the rotation of selected materials to produce an axial gravity-like field.  A grad student has been assigned to it and will be performing tests in the next few months.

Just weeks ago a new book by Hauser and his collaborator Walter Droescher entitled, “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields,” became available and in it those upcoming tests are mentioned.  Their book is the most complete presentation of their work to date.  If Hauser is correct, one outcome of generating an axial gravity-like field would be a tangential force on the rotating components that could generate a self-sustaining rotation.  This secondary force would be the gravitational analog of a homopolar electric motor by translating axial and radial flows of current into an azimuthal rotation of a magnetic rotor. The force in the case of a homopolar motor is called the Lorentz force. In the case of this bench test it has been termed the Heim-Lorentz force, a nod to Burkhard Heim on whose foundation (but not the mathematics) the work of Hauser and Droescher are based.

As Hauser admits, he could be wrong and none of this might work (though I hope that is not the case after having written a book about him and his efforts).  He has proposed two versions of the experiment for producing axial fields.  The first is the older approach described in his and Droescher’s early papers.  That version comprises a superconducting Pb coil with a rotating Nb disk operating at the temperature of liquid He (4-6º K).  The second is a much simpler experimental configuration consisting of an external ring, comprising a mixture of two elements, and an embedded disk of special nonmetallic material.  The rotating ring-disk assembly should have the advantage of working at the temperature of liquid N (75º K).

If positive results are obtained this spring, then both the E-Cat (with results due out early in 2016) and Steorn (independent confirmations also expected in early 2016) may have some competition.

Publications on gravity field generation by Tajmar.  Although his earliest studies indicated significant anomalous results, later studies show lesser effects.

  • M. Tajmar and C. J. de Matos. Gravitomagnetic field of a rotating super- conductor and of a rotating superfluid. Physica C, 385:551–554, 2003.
  • C. J. de Matos and M. Tajmar. Gravitomagnetic London moment and the graviton mass inside a superconductor. Physica C, 432:167–172, 2005. Doi: 10.1016/j.physc.2005.08.004
  • M. Tajmar and C. J. de Matos. Extended analysis of gravitomagnetic fields in rotating superconductors and superfluids. Physica C, 420:56–60, 2005. Doi: 10.1016/j.physc.2005.01.008.
  • M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu and K. Marhold. Measurement of gravitomagnetic and acceleration fields around rotating superconductors. AIP Conf. Proc. 880, p. 1071-1082 (2007).

Review of Physics Astrophysics and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields

Here, with minor changes, is the review of Introduction to Physics and Astrophysics and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields that I wrote for the upcoming edition of the Journal of Space Exploration.  The book is being offered for sale on today, 25 November, 2015, the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein’s presentation of his General Theory of Relativity to the members of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science in Berlin.

Featured image: The mandala of the physical forces shows six fundamental interactions. Three of them are assumed to be of gravitational nature (upper half).

Title of the book:
Introduction to Physics Astrophysics and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields

Walter Dröscher
Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft Innsbruck, Austria

Jochem Hauser
Institute for High Performance Computing and Communication in Space, Hamburg and Campus Suderburg, Ostfalia Univ. of Applied Sciences Hamburg, Germany

Price for Hardcover:

Publishers, Location, Published year:
HPCC-Space GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
November 2015

Reviewers name:
Gregory Daigle (fmr. Associate Professor)
Book Review

The standard model (SM) of particle physics has served science well for over 40 years, but scientific findings of recent decades have found it lacking in several respects. Its inability to explain gravity and spacetime require that it be extended with other ideas such as string theory, supersymmetry or quantum gravity to fit both theory and evidence. However, recently conducted experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the ACME collaboration have called into question those additional extensions in their current form. Where does physics go from here?

The book “Introduction to Physics Astrophysics and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields” provides an alternative mechanism to explain the phenomena of dark matter and dark energy. Based upon Extended Heim Theory (EHT), the mechanism proposed introduces novel fundamental particles that explain anomalous experimental results while eschewing the aforementioned extensions to SM. By doing so it also provides a challenge to current orthodoxy that there are four (and only four) fundamental forces in Nature.

The authors, Walter Dröscher, who collaborated with Burkard Heim, and Jochem Hauser, Professor Emeritus with extensive experience on propulsion and aerodynamic analysis for ESA, describe the existence of two previously unrecognized fundamental gravitational forces in Nature. Experiments cited throughout suggest that gravity-like fields of significant magnitude and predictability may be capable of being generated. The control of such fields may lead to gravitational engineering and a novel era of spaceflight.

As the authors admit, this is a highly speculative topic and eventually may turn out to be wrong. What they endeavor to achieve in this primer is to bring into one publication all of the theory and supporting evidence to describe this extension of general relativity. EHT is a novel departure from the standard model — one that predicts the existence of additional gravity-like fields derived from the conversion of electromagnetic fields into gravitational fields through symmetry breaking at cryogenic temperatures.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and extraordinary ideas such as those presented in this book are backed by a wealth of evidence from eleven recent experiments. Dröscher and Hauser offer results gathered in laboratory experiments, field experiments and observations that point our understanding the universe in a new direction. The results of experiments performed separately by M. Tajmar and R. Graham are examples of one branch of evidence. Another is the unexpected results given by Gravity Probe B. Yet another is represented by studies of the movement of satellite galaxies by advocates of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). If correct, EHT forecasts previously undiscovered capabilities in Nature as well as limits to popular yet fanciful notions of how humankind might travel to other regions of the Cosmos through wormholes.

This primer is accessible to non-physicists who are open to learning new concepts and are willing to undergo the challenge to grasp new materials, even if they may not fully comprehend the higher mathematics involved. Several sections of the book are rigorous in describing the mathematics of an eight-dimensional internal space, but readers do not need a complete understanding to appreciate the of scope of this comprehensive introduction to a new model of physics and its potential outcomes that may not be fully exploited for generations.

EHT predicts the existence of six gravitational bosons and reframes gravitation as the sum of Newtonian gravitation plus two additional gravitational forces. Current physics has no explanation for the existence of exactly four fundamental forces. As the authors ask, “…the question therefore arises, are there any additional fundamental physical interactions? Perhaps it is classical physics and not quantum mechanics, that is incomplete and that there might exist additional long range interactions,” and they cite the addition of two extremely weak gravitational forces.

The gravitational bosons are suggested to result from the conversion of electromagnetic fields into extreme gravitomagnetic or gravity-like (acceleration) fields. This conversion is triggered by a phase transition at cryogenic temperatures and caused by gravitational symmetry breaking in a process analogous to superconductivity. This connections between gravity and superconductivity is also outlined in the upcoming e-book, Gravity and Superconductors, which presents theoretical and experimental research for novel gravity-like fields. However, as the authors point out, there is as yet no firm experimental basis for these ideas, which therefore needs to be classified as highly speculative. Even if they do not present the full picture, they might shed new light on the nature of gravity as well as the number and type of fundamental forces that exist in Nature.

Extended Heim Theory was so named to acknowledge physicist Burkhard Heim as the first to present a novel physical idea for the construction of a poly-metric tensor encompassing all physical interactions, but the comparison ends there. Despite its name, EHT is not a mere extension of Heim’s initial six-dimensional approach developed in the 1970s. EHT derives the mathematics anew and adds an information subspace not included by Heim. Though the primary author, Dröscher, cooperated with Heim for many years and co-authored Vol. III of Heim’s work, EHT gives a more consistent classification scheme for all physical interactions and particles (fields).

Throughout the book the authors employ a novel technique of color coding key passages based upon whether their contents describe physics that are incomplete, physics requiring novel theory, or physics consistent with accepted theory. Other categories are given as well and help inform the reader of which aspects of the theory are novel departures from currently accepted physics and therefore require rigorous proof.

The book begins with an introduction to the emerging physics for gravity-like fields and is followed by a chapter on recent experiments challenging current physics. The authors delve into the consequences for string theory, supersymmetry, wormholes, and hidden dark matter in light of experimental results found at the LHC. The LHC has so far not found particles predicted by supersymmetry, thus challenging current theory required to extend the standard model of physics.

Hauser has been a member of the Technical Committee of Future Flight at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and so it is not unexpected that chapter 3 explores a Short History of Space Propulsion, which outlines the need for advanced space propulsion, the current status of propulsion and how new opportunities would be opened with the advent of propellantless propulsion. It is notable that M. Tajmar (previously mentioned and Professor and Chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology’s Institute of Aerospace Engineering) recently published positive test results for the EmDrive, another proposed propellantless propulsion device.

In the chapter Physical Concepts for Novel Interactions, the authors state that in order to achieve the geometrization of physics (explored by Einstein, Schrödinger and Wheeler) a poly-metric tensor must be constructed to account for all physical interactions. Unsuccessful attempts were made by Einstein to extend his mono-metric to a poly-metric tensor. However, in order to accomplish this task, the belief in the existence of four fundamental forces is not sufficient. Instead, a classification scheme of all possible physical interactions and their associated particles of both ordinary and non-ordinary matter is needed. Without a poly-metric tensor even sophisticated mathematics are insufficient to explain dark matter and dark energy.

It is notable that in previous publications the authors had not expanded so completey on the concepts behind EHT. They explore the core ideas behind the Weltbild (world view) that is the foundation of EHT. This includes an in-depth discussion of the Principle of duality (formation/annihilation) governing all physical events in the Cosmos, and the joint and simultaneous generation of spacetime and dark energy. Other founding principles for consideration included in the discussion are the Principle of finite existence of time, the Principle of perfect organization and optimization, and the Principle of correspondence between number system and matter.

These founding principles also act to exclude certain physical phenomena, ruling out both singularities and infinities in physics. Everything in the Universe is in motion. Nothing is static. EHT excludes multiverses, singularities in the form of wormholes and the possibility of traversing singularities between points in space. These tenets also exclude superstring theory as currently proposed and thus no supersymmetry. This leaves the standard model severely lacking.

Lack of superpartners means that dark matter cannot be made of neutralino particles or WIMPS, though other types of matter beyond the standard model might exist. Finally, spacetime is considered discrete at the Planck level and built from quantized elemental surface elements termed “metrons” by Burkhard Heim.

Having established these precepts, the authors go on to describe how EHT extends the physics of quantum mechanics and general relativity through two pillars: Heim space and an imaginary time coordinate leading to a dual spacetime entangled with normal spacetime.

Heim space, or internal gauge space, postulates an interaction between electromagnetism and gravitation at cryogenic temperatures with the potential to form the basis of gravitational technology. The eight forms (H8) are organized into four sets of subspaces (making eight dimensions), consisting of the height-width-depth of physical human experience (R3), the one of time (T1) which is considered imaginary), two for organizing “internal spatial” coordinates (S2) and EHT’s new addition of two time-like dimensions representing “information” coordinates (I2).

The second pillar is addition of an imaginary time coordinate that extends the concept of spacetime by adding a dual spacetime for imaginary particles. Along with internal gauge space, the dual spacetime predicts the existence of non-ordinary matter with negative mass (dark matter) and other virtual particles not subject to direct measurement. As the authors put it, “The Cosmos is governed by the principle of symmetry…“ and symmetry creates physics.

The chapter that follows presents to the reader the basic formulation of EHT as a fundamental theory of physics. The eight dimensions (H8) of internal gauge space give rise to a set of 15 hermetry forms. The word hermetry is a combination of hermeneutics (meaning interpretation) and geometry. A hermetry form stands for the physical meaning of geometry. Those 15 forms contain both ordinary matter (OM) and the already mentioned non-ordinary matter (NOM).

Ordinary matter is represented by leptons, quarks and bosons (carrying the four known fundamental forces). Non-ordinary matter is represented by stable neutral leptons and particles of imaginary mass including those particles carrying gravity-like forces, the gravitophoton (attractive and repulsive, interacting with matter) and quintessence (weakly repulsive, interacting with spacetime), carriers of the two new gravity-like fields.

Together, the value for the gravitational constant, or “big G” is no longer a constant due to a single force mediated by a single particle, the graviton. It is a composite of fields mediated by three particle types: the graviton (GN), the gravitophoton (Ggp) and, specific to EHT, the quintessence particle(Gq). Therefore G = GN + Ggp + Gq.

Subsequent chapters cover propagation speeds. The three gravitational fields produce three gravitational constants giving rise to three different propagation speeds of light in a vacuum. One is c, the currently recognized speed of light, while cgp is 1.6 X 105 c, and cq is 2.5 X 1010 c. Also covered are requirements for symmetry breaking, conversion of non-gravitational fields into gravity-like fields and an chapter dedicated to the analyses of experiments by Tajmar, Graham, GP-B.

Experiments performed independently by Tajmar and Graham that indicated generation of extreme gravitomagentic or gravity-like (acceleration) fields in the laboratory are reviewed in great detail. Though Tajmar reported diminished results with later experimental configurations, his original results and the reduced signal strength in later experimental configurations can be explained by EHT. In an analysis of the results of Gravity Probe B (GP-B), extreme gravitomagnetic fields, similar to the ones reported by Tajmar et al., might have been present in orbit and may be (at least partially) responsible for the large reported gyroscope misalignment.

Having established their proposals for theory, in the chapter Extreme Flying Machines from Gravitational Engineering the authors describe configurations and bench tests for creating devices to generate field propulsion — both at cryogenic temperatures and at room temperatures. It is easy to imagine that this might lead to a number of experimentalists taking up the challenge to attempt replications of these configurations, whether in isolated labs or as open-science efforts. Configurations may be for field propulsion or to generate self-sustaining rotation (a gravitational analog of the homopolar electric motor) to be used in power generation.

The book concludes with the chapter The Road to a Different Age, which is more of a philosophical treatise on the new mindset that will accompany our changing views about physics. Should EHT be found true, even in part, extensive changes in physics are likely to impact our long held beliefs in how the Cosmos works.

The authors suggest that a revolution both in propulsion and in energy generation should be expected, resulting in sea changes in transportation. It is time for a paradigm change.

The authors conclude with arguments for average citizens to be educated so that they can critically evaluate science. Without a rigorous effort directed at gaining an understanding of science, citizens are likely to not differentiate between well conducted scientific studies and “junk” science.

Examples are given regarding the science behind anthropogenic global warming versus that pointing to naturally occurring global warming. Though the authors cite exemplars supporting the latter (and this author the former), the point is well made that a critically thinking populace will be needed if evidence-based policy decisions are to be based upon solid scientific thinking.


The Gravityshed

More than a dozen years ago I co-founded a non-profit dedicated to place-based learning, especially within metropolitan districts.  It was a time when bandwidth for connecting to the internet was still not very high for wired services and mobile connections through cellular networks had even lower connectivity rates and were very expensive.

I was an early advocate for for wireless area networks (WANs) and city-wide WiFi networks.  In organizing the non-profit I thought about how it could help connect people and bring them together, much like early populations gathered around streams, rivers and lakes, since fresh water has always been a common connecting element for communities.

In my readings I ran across a quote by scientist and geographer John Wesley Powell, saying that a watershed is …“that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community.”  That definition seemed equally appropriate for this new inextricable link through wireless technology, so the non-profit was named “Digital Watershed”.

It has not escaped my attention that a watershed with its common water courses is completely determined by two factors:  topography and gravity.  Gravity compels the water to flow downhill and over time gullies become valleys which further accelerates the transformation of topography.  In that process rivulets and creeks graduate to streams and mighty rivers bringing with them arable soils that sustain agriculture, hydro power for industry and the establishment of communities in the form of villages, towns and cities.  A single source of gravity (the earth) thus influences where communities form.  Competing sources of gravity (the sun and moon) provide opportunities to harvest food, salt and other resources from the oceans through the rise and fall of tides.

This website explores design to guide the development of gravity-like field technology and its influence upon products, people and places.  Most of my writings have addressed terrestrial applications in contrast to applications for its use to propel us to the planets and stars.  So it seems appropriate to talk about communities that come together based upon another inextricable link – this time to gravity; not from the earth, moon or sun but from the generation of gravity-like fields.

A research park focused upon developing gravity technologies might be one reason to bring people together who have expertise in physics, engineering and advancing new technologies.  Its antecedents include Silicon Valley south of San Francisco, and Medical Alley, south of Minneapolis and St. Paul.  Such a technology zone of gravity researchers could be a draw for entrepreneurs intent on exploring the possibilities inherent in gravity technology.

Urban districts that employ gravity-tech to structurally augment architecture would be a draw to that district.  Architecture soaring with impossible cantilevers, delicate arches and spires reaching even greater heights are referred in my book as “gravitecture +”. These include fantastic architectural edifices that float in the air and integrate with new transportation networks of vehicles for mass transit, individual gravityships and gravity drones.  Such a potential could be attained through government/business partnerships modeled after the collaboration of Columbus, Indiana and the Cummins Foundation, which famously incentivized the world’s best architects to create world-class architecture in their city.

A sufficiently advanced gravity-tech might make possible floating homes, businesses and other structures.  This is not a unique idea, having found its way into political satire three centuries ago in “Gulliver’s Travels.”  In it Jonathan Swift wrote of Laputa, a floating island which Gulliver beheld as, “an island in the air, inhabited by men, who were able (as it should seem) to raise or sink, or put it into progressive motion, as they pleased.” In more modern times, the floating city has been a plot device in television and film, such as Star Trek, Star Wars, and even a Laputa-like city floated to heights (and destroyed) in the action film “Avengers: Age of Ultron”.

I suspect that such floating villages would not be single monolithic entities but more likely aggregations or swarms of structures each with its own unique identity but blended into an eclectic composition of residences, shops, and public areas – much like today’s city.

Any of these outcomes could be described as a “gravityshed”.  A watershed is a gravityshed in the natural world, where the water was pulled by gravity to follow the natural topography.  I have mentioned in previous writings the drawbacks of floating architecture (violations of right to light, view and issues of residency/taxation) as well as the benefits which include the ability to block or concentrate light where needed or to bring jobs to where the workers are located.

A gravityshed might have multiple gravitational “wells”, not the single one we experience on the earth.  If the Extended Heim Theory about gravity-like fields is correct then the wells may be either repulsive or attractive.  This would make possible a space filled with push and pull fields.  If we think of each well as a gravitational potential, either positive (attractive) or negative (repulsive), it is clear that a course steered past these points would not be a straight one.  Plotting a course through this space would be similar to plotting a course for a satellite sent to the outer planets using the slingshot effect of gravitational wells it encounters to change direction and velocity.

As residents on the surface of a globe with a firmly established sense of “down” and a horizon, we might conceive of a gravityshed of residences and buildings as merely a floating version of a village.  Such an elevated community might exist within a discrete strata or layer a set distance from the ground – similar to the classes of airspace established for aircraft by the FAA.  It would be far more challenging to consider that a gravityshed with multiple wells may possess multiple “gravitational horizons” and wells of different strengths and polarity intersecting with earth’s large well.

It brings to mind the science fiction romance “Upside Down” where two planets are locked in a gravitational stalemate and their respective inhabitants work not side-by-side but head-to-toe, each responding to their own gravity well.  The trailer for that can be found HERE and a frame from the film is the featured image for this article.

UpsideDownInsertThat film played with just the intersection of two gravitational fields (as well as how gravity works!).  Gravity-like fields generating smaller intersecting gravity wells might result in several types unique field types.  Those generated fields may be typified by their actions upon gases, atmosphere and materials in terms of traction, suppression, propulsion, etc, but it is the their lines and surfaces of intersection that could provide the most interesting applications.  A full exploration would require new tools for simulation, though it could begin by co-opting existing tools such as software for simulating physics in 3D or even simulations of bubble physics

We are still in the pre-discovery days of generating gravity-like fields let alone artificially produced gravitysheds.  However, experiments with spinning superconductors in new configurations could reproduce and amplify the small gravitational effects reported by Martin Tajmar almost a decade ago.  As the current Professor and Chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology’s Institute of Aerospace Engineering, Tajmar is a leading experimentalist in propulsionless propellents including the EM Drive.  If sustainable gravity-like fields can be experimentally proven, new methods and new tools will need to be quickly be borrowed or devised to provide support for the works of gravity designers.

Are Fullerenes the Key to Dark Matter?

In Chapter 7, “Elementary Primer of Field Propulsion Physics” of the book New Frontiers in Space Propulsion, Jochem Hauser and Walter Dröscher state that in their suggested Heim experiment for generating a gravity-like field, a reduction in the spatial dimensions of spacetime from three to two is deemed to occur (believed to be due to the material combination of Pb coil and carbon disk).  See the below image.


They offer this experiment as a means to produce an axial gravity-like (acceleration) field of sufficient magnitude to serve as the basis for a propellantless propulsion system. This configuration is believed to cause an increase in the strength of the gravitational interaction accounting for the increased gravitational coupling.

The gravitational coupling constant is the product of two factors, the second of which is termed the geometric compression factor, that is, a reduction of spacetime dimensionality from three to two dimensions, possibly attributed to the presence of anyons. The strength of the extreme gravitomagnetic field might be due to the existence of anyons, a term introduced by F. Wilczek that are supposed to be generated through symmetry breaking (triggered by cryogenic temperatures or material composition).

Anyons exist only in two dimensions in spaces of type SO(2,1). Experimentally such a space might be realizable, for instance, by setting up a crystal structure that produces an energy gap in the third direction and, as long as the energy available is smaller than the energy gap the respective field can only propagate in the two other dimensions. A disk with a thin crystalline structure of carbon is suggested.  But what form would the carbon take?

Carbon in the form of diamonds is not superconducting.  It only becomes superconducting when doped with boron,  possibly due to phonon-mediated pairing.  Undoped diamond is an insulator.  Carbon nanotubes have occasionally been reported as being superconducting, but definitive results are still pending.  Fullerenes (ie. C60 or buckyballs) have been shown to be superconducting as solids, and fullerites of C60+ doped with alkali metals have been shown to be superconductors at temperatures as high as 31ºK (

Interestingly, “buckyballs” are found not only in the laboratory.  They can be produced with simple arc welding equipment.  Recently, an article has been published describing research confirming that fullerenes C60 are responsible for the light absorption of spectra from stars in very specific bands.  It confirms that “buckyballs” are actively absorbing photons and are omnipresent in interstellar space. See

I bring this to light because I have long wondered if the mechanism of gravitational symmetry-breaking made possible by Cooper pairs in rotating superconductors in the laboratory could be occurring naturally in interstellar space?  I have presumed that in order for gravitophotons to generate gravity-like fields naturally, that it would require the existence of  superconducting materials in interstellar space.  Could the carbon disc as suggested by Hauser and Dröscher be fullerene?  And could that molecule play a role in what most scientists describe as “dark matter” by producing a strong gravity-like attractive field much higher than that capable of being produced by normal matter?

While interstellar space has a mean temperature of 5.8º K.  It might be expected that the mean temperature between galaxies is even colder.  If the gravitational phenomenon attributed to dark matter is instead the effect of gravity-like fields generated by gravitophotons, then it might be expressed more strongly just outside of galaxies where the temperatures are colder and yet the concentration of fullerenes is still relatively high.  Such a distribution might appear as a haze of gravitational force just outside of a galaxy, which is where dark matter has been detected – not inside of galaxies.  Within a galaxy temperatures may be too high to keep fullerenes from becoming superconducting, despite the concentration of fullerenes being higher.

Excerpt of “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields”

Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser have graciously provided a collection of excerpts from their 526 page upcoming book “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields”, an elementary primer describing breakthrough physics for propulsion and energy generation technologies.  I wish to thank both of the authors for this preview of sections from their book, which is to be published this coming November.

This preview begins with the title cover (a portion of which is shown above) and a short message to the reader explaining the highlights of 20th century physics that led to this point in understanding gravity.

The excerpt also includes a full executive summary, acknowledgments, prologue, a full listing of the table of contents of the book, lists of nomenclature, the first two pages of Chapers 1, 2, and 11,  glossaries, a name index and subject index.

The except reveals a very substantive and complete study of gravity-like fields and is sure to become a new cornerstone in physics once published.

Here is the link to the amended excerpt.