Saving...
Anti-gravity technology is a theme in many works of science fiction, and a hope for those who dream of radical engineering breakthroughs. It is also, I have learned, a topic of serious study in a segment of the scientific community. I recently interviewed Gregory Daigle, author of a newly released book Gravity 2.0: Design Strategies for a Gravity Modified World to learn more about the field.
Free Energy Times : Can you provide a little information about your background in terms of your education, experience, work?
Gregory Daigle: I currently am a project manager and instructional design consultant for e-learning (online learning), but my interest in physical objects began as an industrial designer and later as a professor of industrial design. I’ve collaborated on designs produced by Herman Miller Inc., and have been a design consultant for manufacturers such as 3M, Cray Research and Stratasys. After my second masters degree I went to work for Bill Stumpf, an iconic industrial designer, and served both as the firm’s Research Manager and as a Senior Designer. From there I taught at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design until several departments were eliminated, and co-founded the interactive software firm ICONOS[,] specializing in creating STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) software for kids. We were awarded dozens of national and international awards for multimedia in the early days of “new media”. Later I went into interactive advertising as a director of production and creativity for a top-100 ad agency, but broke away to get back into more substantive work in e-learning and to do part time teaching. I now teach a graduate level course on Web design and interface design for mobile devices at the University of Minnesota. It keeps me fresh.
FET: What motivated you to embark in a study of the modification of gravity, a force that most people see as being an inexorable fact that is impossible to change?
GD: It was in 2003 that I first began to engage in online discussion boards on gravity modification. In particular, the claims by an inventor named of Marcus Hollingshead piqued my curiosity. Though his claims of success in generating both attractive and repulsive gravity-like fields had no basis in physics that I was aware of, it led to further readings and to a series of articles I wrote for an online journal on the topic of gravity modification. While writing the last article in that series I came across Heim Theory, a theory of gravitation originating in the 1970s that had recently been expanded into a quantum model of gravity that could explain both attractive and repulsive gravity-like fields. Then two months after that final article, ESA (the European Space Agency) announced experiments by Drs. Martin Tajmar and Clovis de Matos that measured gravity-like fields that could not be explained by general relativity.
FET: What made you focus on the design aspect of modification of gravity?
GD: If gravity-like fields, both attractive and repulsive, can be produced along the lines proposed by Extended Heim Theory (EHT) then it would make possible not only propulsive fields but also fields that might be described as barrier fields, suppression fields, traction fields and others. As an industrial designer, such new possibilities for producing fields capable of manipulating all matter much like electromagnetic fields manipulate ferrous materials presents exciting opportunities not only in products but also experience design and in redefining demographic relationships. If you can float to work, that’s an experience. If you can float your home, then how do you describe your residency? This has the power to impact land values (why buy when you can fly?), democracy (you can’t vote if you float) and injure social structures by creating not just economic divides, but vertical ones as well.
FET: These are almost fantastical ideas — they sounds like science fiction! Do you think that these are real possibilities someday?
GD: It comes back to validating the theory with rigorous experiment. If the theory is borne out by experiment and substantial attractive and repulsive fields can be generated (Martin Tajmar’s experimental results demonstrated both of these), then yes.
Think if it … with a repulsion field you create a partial vacuum because molecules of atmosphere are being pushed away from the source. This could be used to quench fires as well as create partial vacuum bubbles for metalizing or other industrial processes. An attractive field increases atmospheric pressure, retaining all gases within a zone. It also would be useful for smothering fires or maintaining inert atmospheres for TIG welding. A repulsive field above a load of pellets being shipped would stabilize them for transport. It goes on and on. The main thing people focus upon is propulsion, yet there is so much more.
GD: For the past couple of decades general relativity has been known to not account for some findings in physics, including dark energy and dark matter. Since these make up 93% of the universe this is not a minor issue and several theories to describe the discrepancies have arisen. These include theories suggesting that gravity and inertia change over great distances. But other data, such as earth fly-by anomalies for spacecraft, suggest something over shorter distances is also at work. Theories of quantum gravity that have GR as their basis include string theory and loop quantum theory.
Extended Heim Theory (EHT), championed by Droescher and Hauser, is a similar theory of quantum gravity but relies more than the others on the geometry of space. But Heim Quantum Theory, the root of EHT, has made one set of verified predictions not matched by other models of quantum gravity — it has made the most accurate predictions of particle mass known. No other predictions in the Standard Model come as close. So is HQT becoming commonly accepted among physicists?
Let’s differentiate Heim Quantum Theory (the original theory) from its extension, EHT. EHT builds upon HQT, but offers some unique predictions of its own. In all honesty, neither theory enjoys widespread support among physicists due to conflicts with the standard model. For example, Heim Theory predicts several new particles not predicted by the standard model. But on the other hand, the standard model is also undergoing challenges.
Supersymmetry (an almost foregone extension of the standard model) has yet to be confirmed by the LHC despite an extensive search. EHT requires no supersymmetry. Another recently proposed theory, “holographic theory”, proposes that gravity is an emergent property of quantum information and its organization. This comes closer to describing the basic tenets of EHT rather than GR .
FET: Can you give some examples of experimental data that provides evidence that gravity can be modified?
GD: The studies led by Dr. Tajmar from 2003-2006 as well as his more recent studies on gravitomagnetic-like fields are the basis of much of the experimental evidence. These were performed at AIT/ARC (Austrian Institute of Technology/Austrian Research Center), Austria’s largest research institution and his prior funding by NASA’s “breakthrough” physics programs in the 1990′s gave him a head start. The experiments are performed at superconducting temperatures. Though prior condensed matter studies by Li, Torr, and Podkletnov & Neiminen have not been successfully replicated, Dr. Tajmar’s studies show strong trends. However, the question of whether the observed anomalies are based upon the actions of Cooper-pair bosons, or upon symmetry breaking, or upon other mechanisms has occupied him in recent years; and with each experiment that tries to clarify the results, the observed effect has diminished.
FET: Do you know if Dr Tajmar discouraged because of these diminished effect? Does this give rise to doubts about his theories?
GD: I can’t speak to his level of encouragement or discouragement. He has already put aside Cooper-pair coupling as a potential mechanism because his anomaly begins to occur several degrees above the temperature at which coupling occurs. Tajmar now believes that an alternative theory to EHT may present a more consistent model describing his results.
GD: Dr. Tajmar is definitely the leader in experiments employing superconducting temperatures. There is also Dr. James Woodward who advocates for modification through a Mach effect, and Dr. Benjamin Solomon who advocates a mass-independent model. M. McCulloch’s model for inertia called Modified Inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect (MiHsC) is another contender and one Tajmar believes best fits his results. Hauser and Droescher are the main proponents for EHT, and their conference papers over the past two years have been peer-reviewed by the AIP (American Institute of Physics) and AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) .
FET: From the people you mention it seem that this field is considered an acceptable field of research at least within a portion of the scientific community.
GD: As an outsider to the world of physics I would say that it has yet to reach that level. There are many alternative theories to GR. EHT is just one of many but the fact that its “parent” theory, HQT, makes accurate real-world predictions gives it particular weight.
FET: How far away do you think we are from seeing the first technologies put to practical use in the world, and what do you think the first applications will be?
GD: Hauser and Droescher’s model suggests two practical outcomes. One is an improvement on Tajmar’s experimental setup that would maximize the field effect for propulsion. Though Tajmar’s gravitomagnetic-like effect was as strong as that produced by a white dwarf star, it was still only 0.1% that of earth’s gravity. Tajmar’s configuration (known as GME1) would produce a 1g effect if it were approximately 200 meters in diameter. EHT’s improved configuration (known as GME2) would be about the size of a telephone booth. It would either employ a spinning superconductor ring operating in the range of low temperature superconductors, or high Tesla fields on the order of 25T. Those field strengths are now possible. First applications would likely be those where development funds are easier to come by. This might include zero-g growing of crystals for semiconductors or proteins. Military applications for crumpling buildings or clearing land mines is another. Using it as an attraction for gambling casinos is a third. If the projected size of the generator is correct it could be used for medical applications, sports, architecture or the often-dreamt-of flying car.
GD: If funding through NASA or ESA is secured, we could see the first experiments of GME2 producing microgravity thrusts completed by end of next year.
FET: How likely do you think federal funding in this area will be considering the current austerity climate in the federal government?
GD: Very likely. In July 2010 it was announced by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center that the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts would begin again in fiscal year 2011 as an internal NASA program under the Office of the Chief Technologist. The new NIAC is seeking concepts on several levels for innovative advanced concepts, space systems and space technology. In the fall of 2010 the final request for information (RFI) went out for the Game Changing Development Program (GCDP). This new program will develop novel aerospace capabilities that have more technical risk yet higher potential payoff than the technologies being developed in support of NASA’s mission directorates. The GCDP focuses on developing radically new approaches to NASA’s future space missions.
There have always been private sources interested in gravity research. Every major aeronautics firm in the 1950s from Glenn Martin to Sikorsky to Leer to Bell Aircraft had a program on gravity propulsion. I would not be surprised if funding were available to efforts that reach a certain level of visibility.
GD: They are excellent. Dr. Tajmar has already applied for patents on energy production and in his most recent papers Hauser has suggested using gravity to do a better job of confining plasmas for fusion reactors… just like the sun does. Hauser and Droescher note that a rotating disk producing a gravity-like field should be self-sustaining due to small tangential forces produced along with the larger axial force. That would certainly go a long way toward making energy production more efficient. Personally, I like the idea of creating gravity-produced microbursts below unstable air masses. Such downdrafts (triggered over unpopulated areas) are the same process that leads to wind shear and tornadoes. Rather than wind farms that tap horizontal winds or balloon platforms that generate wind power at high altitudes, these ground-based turbines would coax wind shears to form and capture that energy.
********************
Gregory’s book has been published solely in ebook format. For those wishing to purchase a copy, here are the details.
Gravity 2.0 : Design Strategies for a Gravity Modified Worldby Gregory DaigleISBN-10: 0-615-44765-1 ebook versionISBN-13: 978-0-615-44765-0 ebook versionThe retail price is $9.99Now available at Apple (through iTunes for the iPhone and iPad), Amazon (for the Kindle) and B&N (for the Nook):
