Aetherometry and Gravity: AnIntroduction

by David Pratt

April 2005

This article presents a brief outline of the aetherometric theory of gravity andantigravity, based on Volume 1 and Volume 2A of ExperimentalAetherometry, the first six monographs of The Gravitational Aether, andadditional discussion in the Aetherometry Study Group.

Contents

1. Electroscopes and antigravity 2. Mass-to-length transformation 3. Gravitational pendulums 4. Cycloids and gravity 5. Mass-energy and gravitons 6. Aether flux and celestial motions 7. Inertia and Newton's first law 8. Centrifugal force and Newton's third law 9. Gravity and antigravity 10. Correas vs. Spolter 11. Closing thoughts

1. Electroscopes and antigravity

Physicists commonly regard theelectroscope as a simple, well-understood instrument. But as Paulo andAlexandra Correa demonstrate in the firstmonograph of ExperimentalAetherometry, the device is 'one of themost provocative and poorly understoodinstruments available to us in basicnatural research'. Once the electroscopeis charged, the gold leaf lifts away fromthe stem as a result of electrostaticrepulsion. The length of time the leafremains deflected is usually said todepend on ambient conditions, such as temperature, pressure, and humidity, and inparticular the presence of ions and/or ionizing electromagnetic radiation, which cause

the charge in the stem and leaf to leak away.

The conventional view is that if the electroscope were placed in a perfect vacuum –even in the presence of a gravitational field – the leaf would remain deflectedindefinitely! This irrational belief in a stationary force that performs no work, not evenagainst gravity, highlights what the Correas see as the need to go back to the bench, tovery basic science, and correct fundamental misconceptions.

Everyone agrees that when the gold leaf is initially repelled by the stem it has to dowork against gravity. Thereafter, because the leaf seems to be essentially stationary atthe macroscopic level, orthodox physics maintains that it does not have to perform anyfurther antigravitational work, no matter how long it stays deflected. Rejecting this'implicit and underhanded recourse to perpetual motion' by classical electrostatic theory,the Correas argue that, in the presence of a gravitational field, the leaf can only remaindeflected for as long as the kinetic energy it expends in doing work against gravity canbe replenished in some way.

They point out that simple observation or sense perception validates this reasoning: arigid statue with an arm held out horizontally, parallel to the Earth's surface, willeventually develop cracks, most likely at the joint of the arm with the body. They advisemechanistically minded scientists to try the experiment themselves and to hold out theirarms horizontally for as long as they can, so that they get a sense of what it means toexpend energy to resist the force of gravity.

On the basis of their experimental results with electroscopes and the theory of gravitythey have developed by building on Wilhelm Reich's work with the gravitationalpendulum (see below), the Correas show that, depending on ambient factors, the totalkinetic energy expended by the trapped charges in opposing gravity can be hundreds oftimes greater than the input electric energy employed to charge the electroscope. Theyconclude that 'electrostatic' repulsion is actually an electrodynamic phenomenon inwhich the kinetic energy which repelling charge lattices spend in doing antigravitationalwork has to be regenerated by some form of radiant energy contributed by the localenvironment. Realistically, no forces can be sustained without energy expenditure,energy flow or energy transfer. A force without energy flow is a blank abstraction.

Further electroscopic anomalies are explored in depth in subsequent monographs ofExperimental Aetherometry. As Eugene Mallove once said, 'the monographs unfold likea detective story'. Anomalies that conventional physics is totally unable to explaininclude the following:

if the Sun were predominantly a source of ionizing radiation, the rate of leakage inan electroscope placed outdoors should be very slow in the early morning, speedup at noon or thereafter as the Sun reaches zenith, and slow down towardsnightfall – instead one observes the exact opposite;blackbody electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength greater than 300nanometres arrests or slows down the discharge rate of an electroscope, insteadof accelerating it, as conventional physics predicts (no one seems to have evennoticed this extraordinary fact before the Correas!);there is a constant positive temperature difference between the space at the top ofthe inner metallic layer of an orgone accumulator (ORAC) and the surroundingatmosphere (an ORAC is essentially a metal cage surrounded by alternating

layers of conductors and insulators);both negatively and positively charged electroscopes discharge more slowly insidean ORAC than outside one.

Through meticulous and methodical experimentation with electroscopes, ORACs,and Tesla coils, the Correas have succeeded in identifying different types of massfree(or aetheric) energy and in explaining all the above anomalies. They have alsodeveloped several patented technologies that tap aether energy. The aether componentwhose action they have identified as being chiefly responsible for what they call theelectroscopic 'gravito-kinetoregenerative phenomenon' is a nonelectric form of massfreeenergy with antigravitic properties; it is associated with the molecules of matter and theirphase states, and is loosely known to chemists and meteorologists as 'latent heat'.

The other major aether component (whose spectrum the Correas have identified) ismassfree electric energy consisting of longitudinal wave radiation that carries ambipolarrather than monopolar charges, for, in contrast to massbound charges (such aselectrons and protons), massfree charges are neutral rather than either positive ornegative. As for electromagnetic radiation, photons are considered to be transient,vortex-like standing waves in the aether, which are generated locally when particles ofmatter decelerate and shed the kinetic energy gained from interaction with massfreeelectric radiation. The aether is therefore not to be confused with the electromagnetic'zero-point field'.

Aetherometry proposes that when units of nonelectric aether superimpose andcondense to form matter particles (mass-energy), each massbound particle isaccompanied by a quantum of massfree gravitational energy (i.e. a graviton). For thecharged leaf of an electroscope to remain deflected, the constant microscopic workperformed by gravitons in pushing the atoms of the leaf down has to be counteracted bythe work of the massbound charges trapped in the leaves; this work, in turn, can only besustained if the trapped charges draw in environmental latent heat to produce a flux ofantigravitons sufficient to balance the constantly downward-pressing gravitational flux.

2. Mass-to-length transformation

Wilhelm Reich's experiments with the gravitational pendulum led him to postulate thatatomic weights, specifically those of hydrogen, helium, and oxygen, can be functionallyreplaced by pendulum lengths. The Correas write: 'He never formally divulged thefunctional equivalence between mass and length. However, from careful analysis of theresults of his pendulum experiments, one can enunciate the earth-shattering discoveryof the equivalence between molecular mass and wavelength ...' The equation is: mass-equivalent wavelength (in metres) = mass (in grams) x Avogadro's number x 10-2.

The accepted mass of the electron is 9.1094 x 10-28 g, giving a mass-equivalent (orgravitational) wavelength of 5.4858 x 10-6 m. If this wavelength has a physical meaningand is not merely an arbitrary number churned out by an arbitrary equation, it must berelated in some way to both the structure of gravitons and the structure of the electron.But who has managed to crack the structure of the electron?

Orthodox physics has nothing meaningful to say on the subject as it does not offer a

realistic physical theory of the subatomic world. In the standard model, 'fundamental'matter and force particles such as electrons, and hypothetical quarks and gravitons, aredescribed as infinitesimal points, i.e. pure abstractions. String theory is claimed toadvance our understanding of the quantum world, and even to be a giant step towards a'theory of everything'. In reality, it dishes up further mathematical fantasies: it postulatesthat 'spacetime' is 10-dimensional, that the six additional spatial dimensions haveconveniently undergone 'spontaneous compactification' and become unobservable, andthat the fundamental constituents of matter are one-dimensional bits of wriggling andvibrating string, 10-33 cm long but with no width or thickness.

The latest fad is brane theory or M-theory, which postulates an 11-dimensionalspacetime, inhabited not only by one-dimensional strings but also by two-dimensionalmembranes, three-dimensional 'blobs' (three-branes), up to and including nine-dimensional entities, not forgetting anti-branes and zero-branes. This is the sort ofbrainless claptrap that is nowadays passed off as 'science'!

Another example is the conventional interpretation of quantum physics, which claimsthat, when we are not trying to measure it, an electron, for example, is present indifferent places at the same time. It supposedly dissolves into 'probability waves', whichmagically 'collapse' into a localized particle again the next time a measurement is made.Louis de Broglie initiated an alternative interpretation, based on the notion that asubatomic particle is a real physical particle guided by a pilot wave – a theory furtherdeveloped by David Bohm, Jean-Pierre Vigier, and others. The Correas have developedde Broglie's theory of matter waves in a different direction, linking it to specificwavefunctions and the notion of a dynamic, energetic, massfree aether.

Aetherometry proposes that all energy manifestations (mass-energy, kinetic energy,and the massfree energy of gravitons, latent heat or ambipolar radiation) always involvea primary superimposition between two wavefunctions, one internal and the otherexternal to the associated linear momentum that defines the type of particle involved. Ifthe energy manifestation is electric (e.g. electrokinetic energy or ambipolar energy), thisprimary superimposition couples an internal magnetic field wave with an externalelectric field wave (corresponding to the conventional function of electric potential).When generating massbound particles (through the process of secondarysuperimposition), aether wave energy is reconfigured into a circularized, looped flux.

This has led the Correas to develop a detailed toroidal model of the electron, whichmakes sense of various universally accepted, experimentally determined values. Forinstance, the looped flux forming the electron mass-energy is composed of a magneticwave pursuing a circularized motion around the larger radius of the torus, and anelectric wave pursuing a continuous helical motion around the smaller radius of theelectron torus and wound around and transversely to the magnetic wave. The total fluxpath can be divided into 19,206 rings, a number equal to the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant squared (α-2). The circumference of each of these rings is equal tothe Duane-Hunt wavelength (which the Correas extract from the Duane-Hunt law), andthe total wavelength coiled around the torus therefore equals the mass-equivalentelectron wavelength. The average of the two electron-torus radii is equal to the Bohrradius (the radius of the lowest-energy orbit in the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom).

3. Gravitational pendulums

In his pendulum experiments, Reich determined the value of pendulum lengthmultiplied by the square of the frequency. He found that for pendulums with lengths of 1,4, 16 and 64 cm, this number was an integer constant: KkrDS = 102,400 for doubleswings, or a number four times higher, KkrSS = 409,600, for single swings. Thesenumbers are obtained by counting the number of swings per 64 seconds, which Reichcalled the 'org-minute'. Note that these four pendulum lengths are all powers of 4 (40, 41,42, 43), and correspond numerically, by the mass-to-length transformation, to the atomicweights of hydrogen, helium, oxygen, and zinc respectively. Note also that 102,400equals 45 x 102.

All these numbers belong to what Reich called the krx number series, where kr = 4.He considered this number system to be inscribed in nature. Pendulum lengths of 25cm and 100 cm yield the same values of K. But for all other pendulum lengths, theproduct of length and frequency squared varies between 96,000 and 100,860. Reichtherefore proposed that there are two classes of oscillatory pendulums and two classesof atomic elements: those with lengths or masses that belong to the krx number seriesand those that do not.

The 100 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each swing (180° pendular motion), whilethe 25 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each double swing (360° pendular oscillation).In other words, decreasing the pendulum length fourfold halves the oscillationfrequency. For pendulums, the standard formula for gravitational acceleration is: g =4π2l/T2. If the mean value of the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is takento be g = 9.81 m/s2, the accepted classical pendulum that strikes seconds with eachswing needs to be 99.4 cm long. But Reich found that the pendulum which strikesseconds is 100 cm or 1 metre long, thus putting the general value of g at the Earth'ssurface at g = π2 = 9.8696 m/s2 (he called this pendulum the 'org-seconds' pendulum,since it yields the K constant when measurements are made using the org-minute).

Since angular frequency or velocity (ω) equals 2π/T (where T is the period ofoscillation and ω is the frequency of oscillation in radians/sec), and since pendulumlength (l) functions as a radius, we can also write: g = rω2. Thus, with the single anddouble swing constants now expressed in seconds:

gkrx = π2 m/s2 = 100π2 cm/s2 = 4π2l/T2 = rω2 = 4π2KkrDS = π2KkrSS

This novel treatment opens the way to understanding g as a circular function, or morespecifically, as a function of cycloidal energy swings (see below); gkrx results from thesynchronous action of π2 or about 10 single energy swings or wave impulses at theEarth's surface. How this can be reconciled with the fact that objects in free fall seem tofall vertically will be considered later. There is, of course, one clear similarity betweenpendulums and objects in free fall: just as gravitational pendulums depend for their beatsolely on length and not on the suspended mass, so the time taken by an object in freefall to travel a certain distance is independent of its mass (d = ½gt2).

Clearly, Reich's value for g is slightly higher than the accepted value for gravitationalacceleration at the Earth's surface. This is because his value corresponds to thegravitational field intensity E, and not to the net resultant acceleration, which varies with

latitude:

E = GME / (RE + h)2 = GME / Ro2 = RoΩ2

where G is the gravitational constant, ME is the Earth's mass, RE is the Earth's meanradius, h is the altitude above the Earth's surface, Ro is the combined radius RE + h, andΩ is another angular velocity function that couples to Ro and is a constituent of thegravitational field intensity. Traditionally, this field intensity is considered to becounteracted by the centrifugal force created by the Earth's rotation; the centrifugalacceleration is zero at the poles and reaches a maximum of 0.03392 m/s2 at theequator. One of the problems in the current understanding of gravity is that thedifference between the gravitational acceleration at the poles and at the equator isgreater than any centrifugal reaction can account for. This discrepancy is conventionallyexplained by the Earth being not a perfect sphere but an oblate spheroid, or rather atriaxial spheroid.

Assuming that g = π2 m/s2, and taking account of the centrifugal reaction, the value ofg at the equator should be 9.83568 m/s2, whereas the measured value is far lower:9.780524 m/s2. How do the Correas explain the difference between these values? Theiranswer, which they intend to expand upon in future publications, is briefly as follows.Modern technology permits more exact determinations of the measured values of net gat the poles and the equator, along with better determinations of the polar andequatorial radii. This makes it possible to accurately determine the angular velocityfunction (Ω) that is a constituent of the gravitational field intensity. They point out that ifwe employ the values for net g at the poles (where no centrifugal reaction exists) alongwith the polar radii to determine the value of Ω, and then use this value together with theknown equatorial radius to determine the gravitational field intensity at the equator, thiswill be found to be exactly π2 m/s2, to the fourth digit! This rules out geometricexplanations for the actual value of net g at the equator, as the differences in terrestrialgeometry are already taken into account. So something besides the centrifugal force orgeometry must account for the counteraction of gravity at the equator by Δ = (π2 -0.03392) - 9.780524 = 0.05516 m/s2. They contend that this antigravity effect is not dueto geometry or uneven distributions of mass inside the Earth, but to a massfree energyeffect whose nature they have not yet disclosed.

The classical foundation for the functional transformation of mass (m) into length (l)for the simple harmonic motion (SHM) of a pendulum is as follows:

According to Hooke's law, the force exerted upon a point undergoing harmonicoscillation is: F = -kx, where k is a constant, and x is the displacement distance.Classical theory holds that if the displacement from the vertical is small, k = mg/l,where l is pendulum length.Angular frequency, ω = √(k/m).The period of simple harmonic motion, T = 2π/ω.

Hence:

T = 2π√(m/k) = 2π√[(m/(mg/l)] = 2π√(l/g)

We move on the left side of the expression from a mechanical relation that depends on

inert mass, to a massfree relation where mass is replaced by pendulum length. TheCorreas also draw our attention to the fact that if we apply the mass-to-lengthtransformation to k = mg/l, Hooke's constant (k) becomes functionally equivalent to thelocal gravitational acceleration constant (g).

4. Cycloids and gravity

In 1696 mathematician Jean Bernoulli offered a reward for the solution of thefollowing problem: What shape is the curve on which a body subjected only to the forceof gravity will slide (without friction) between two points in the least possible time? Heand his brother Jacques, along with Leibniz, Newton, Huygens, and others, found thecurve of fastest descent (or brachistochrone) to be part of an inverted cycloid, i.e. acurve generated by a point on the circumference of a circle that rolls along a straightline.

A trochoidal curve is one generated by a point anywhere on a straight line thatpasses through the centre of a rolling circle. For a cycloid (diagram A), this point (P) islocated on the rim of the circle. The purple and red curves in diagram B are prolate andcurtate cycloids respectively, the distance A-P1 being greater than the radius of therolling circle, and A-P being shorter.

A swinging pendulum does not trace a perfectly circular arc but rather a cycloidal arc.

The same applies to a park swing. Anyone who has played on one knows that whenapproaching 90° from the vertical, the chains visibly slacken. This is undoubtedly due inpart to their weight, but it may also point to the cycloidal nature of the gravitational waveor 'massfree energy swing' that acts on the swinger or on pendulums. This is implied bythe fact that, as Huygens demonstrated, in a gravitational field only the cycloidal curveis isochronous: the time taken by a particle to slide to the lowest point of an invertedcycloid is the same, no matter where on the cycloid the particle begins its descent.However, for a swinging pendulum, times of fall are only isochronous if the pendulum isreleased at an angle no greater than 57.5° from the vertical.

A rolling circle performs one revolution per cycloidal arch, or one cycloidal cycle. Thelinear length of the cycloid (LL) is equal to the circle's circumference (2πr), and thecurved length (LC) – or the aetherometric wavelength of the cycloid – equals 4/π LL or1.273 LL. The Correas contend that if it can be demonstrated that pendular length (l) forsingle swings directly converts into the wavelength of cycloidal motion, and stillfunctions as the length equivalent of the inert mass of an element (i.e. m = lSS = LC), oneshould be able to crack the gravitational wavelength of elementary gravitons.

They argue that if a pendulum is released from 90° to the vertical, and theisochronous requirement is still to hold, the pendular swing will have to take the form ofa gothic arch. The amplitude (i.e. the pendulum length) of the gothic arch (A''-C-A''')shown in the diagram below is 100 cm, the length of the org-seconds pendulum; the arcis generated by four synchronized rolling circles. The pendulum length is equal to thecurvilinear length of the red cycloid and to four times its amplitude. Given that at 90° tothe vertical the pendulum length wraps itself around the cycloidal wave exactly, thiswave becomes equivalent to the free massfree waveform of the pendulum length; everygravitational pendulum therefore has a specific wavefunction intrinsic to its swing.

As already mentioned, aetherometry proposes that all massfree energy units,including gravitational swings, consist of a primary superimposition of waves that isfunctionally equivalent to the superimposition of a particle or momentum with a wave.The wave (W1) intrinsic to the particle (or to the linear momentum carried by themassfree particle) is analogous in some respects to de Broglie's pilot or group wave,whereas the wave (W2) associated with the particle or extrinsic to momentum isanalogous to de Broglie's phase wave.

In the case of gravitational energy, a single energy swing constitutes a full-cyclegravitational wave, and consists of an association of wave motion with the impulse ormomentum connected with its forward linear motion. To put it another way, the massfreeswing is composed of a particle (the aetherometric graviton) and its associated, extrinsiccycloidal wave. Since aetherometry claims that neutrons are decay particles, and thatatoms are composed solely of two types of massbound particles – electrons/positronsand protons/antiprotons (or their families, which the Correas have identified inunpublished material) – there are only two fundamental kinds of gravitons: the electron-graviton class and the proton-graviton class. The gravitons of all known elements arecomposites of these two classes, and can be arranged in a Periodic Table of gravitonsthat parallels the Periodic Table of elements.

5. Mass-energy and gravitons

Energy has the conventional dimensions: m l2 t-2 (mass times length squared dividedby time squared). By applying the mass-to-length transformation, this becomes: l3 t-2,denoting a volume of space synchronized with two resonant frequencies. In terms offine structure, this corresponds to the product (superimposition) of a wavelength andtwo wavespeeds (λ W2), or to the product of a momentum and a wavespeed (p W),since momentum (= mass x velocity) has the aetherometric dimensions l-2 t-1 rather thanthe conventional dimensions m l t-1.

Aetherometry proposes that space is generated by, and in fact synonymous with,energy, rather than an empty nothingness that 'contains' energy. Massfree energy formsfluid lattices – composed not of a rigid, static grid of cells, but of energy events or fluxeswhich can interpenetrate and superimpose. When the fusion, or secondarysuperimposition, of two nonelectric aether energy units generates a massbound particle,an accompanying graviton is always formed as well. The massbound particle's'gravitational mass' is equivalent to the wavelength of that quantum of graviton energy.

The master equation for the simplest matter-creation process is: aether energy unitsquared (Eαn

2) = mass-energy (Eδn) x graviton energy (EGn). A slightly more complex(cubic) superimposition of three aether energy units is shown to generate not onlymass-energy and graviton energy, but also ambipolar radiation, which in turn producesthe cosmic microwave background radiation (mCBR). So the mCBR is not the afterglowof some mythical 'big bang', in which all matter and energy, and even space and time,were created out of nothing, but the signature of the ongoing generation of matter out ofthe aether.

Each type of matter particle has its corresponding graviton unit. In addition to this

gravitational energy quantum, there may be other gravitons attached to a grain of matterin accordance with the varying strength of local gravitational fields, for gravitons andantigravitons can also be created by the local aether lattice without the simultaneouscreation of physical matter. A mass's weight is a gravitic force dependent on theaverage number of gravitational waves and associated momenta acting on it at anyinstant. In the case of the Earth, an object in free fall is subject to the repeating orpulsed action of almost 10 (π2) synchronous cycloidal waves or swings per second,which sequentially impart linear momentum and therefore kinetic energy to it.

The relation of an electron's mass-equivalent (or gravitational) wavelength to its torusstructure was considered in section 2. Aetherometry proposes that the samewavelength functions as the wavelength of all the massfree energy swings (gravitons)which are constantly acting on the toroidal energy flux that constitutes the electron'sinertial mass.

A body's gravitational 'mass' is therefore neither mass nor, strictly speaking, aproperty of that body per se, but rather the mass-equivalent wavelength of thegraviton(s) anchored to and synchronized with the body's inert mass in any given localgravitational field. There is therefore no physical or energetic identity between inertmass and 'gravitational mass', as orthodox physics claims, but there is a functional andalgebraic equivalence between the gravitational wavelength of a graviton and the inertmass it acts upon.

Every gravitational wavelength is a single-swing cycloidal wavelength. We saw abovethat a 100 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each swing, yielding a unit acceleration,KkrSS, equal to λ100f100

2 or 1 m/s2. Aetherometry proposes that all gravitons share thisacceleration constant, i.e. that the mass-equivalent wavelength (λn) of any particulargrain of matter multiplied by its graviton frequency squared equals KkrSS. This meansthat graviton frequency is equal to the reciprocal of √λn, and its wavespeed isnumerically equal to √λn. The gravitational waves accompanying an electron, forexample, therefore travel very slowly through it: WGe = 2.342 x 10-3 m/s.

In the aetherometric model, gravitons and antigravitons do not move through spaceindependently as such. They are anchored to massbound particles or to lattices ofmassfree and massbound charges, and move with them. Gravitons anchored tomaterial particles are formed locally from the nonelectric aether, and last for the lifespanof the mass-energy or aether lattice to which they are attached, but during this time theyare constantly being shed and regenerated, in the form of impulses from the localaether lattice that act upon the inertial mass of the associated massbound particle.What moves through space and is responsible for 'action at a distance' are aetherlattices, carrying a certain number of 'free' gravitons (or antigravitons) anchored to them,and permitting the apparent propagation of gravity and gravitational disturbancesthrough them. The apparent speed of propagation of gravity and gravitationaldisturbances through the aether is given by vG = c/WGe metre/sec = 1.2799 x 1011 m/s, or426.95 times the speed of light.

6. Aether flux and celestial motions

Aetherometry proposes that the rotational and translatory movements of planets,stars and galaxies are the result of spinning (vortical) motions of massfree energy onmultiple scales. Aether waves (associated with the influx of aether lattices) impartimpulses to the Earth as they curve in towards the planet along cycloidal paths. Thisaether influx not only propels the Earth but also produces its gravitational field by'pressing down' towards the planet's surface or centre. The aether vortex (with all itssubvortices) that generates gravitational 'attraction' within the solar system can bepictured as a discoidal extension of the Sun.

Aether motion around the Earth can be deduced from satellite motion, since it is themotion of cycloidal massfree waves around a planet that sustains orbital motion. Thetranslatory speed of a satellite is about 3 km/s 35,860 km above the Earth, increasessteadily to 7.8 km/s at about 100 km, but decelerates abruptly at lower altitudes as aresult of atmospheric and terrestrial absorption of the aether impulses, so that attropospheric altitudes it would be no faster than the jet stream (0.01 to 0.1 km/s, relativeto the Earth's equatorial spin velocity of 0.46 km/s).

The slightly faster west-to-east rotation of the aetherosphere compared with bodyEarth accounts for the results of Sagnac-type experiments conducted at the Earth'ssurface, which have shown that the speed of light is slightly faster around the Earth fromeast to west than from west to east. The almost vertical descent of most of the gravitonflux at very low altitudes explains the apparent vertical motion of free fall. In reality, freefall is not vertical. First, an object in free fall partakes of the Earth's motions, includingthe local rotation velocity – the Earth's rotation being something that conventionalphysics is at a loss to explain. Second, the path of free fall is not even vertical or straightwith respect to the rotating Earth, since the gravitational intensity varies locally on andabove the surface of the Earth. An object in free fall actually travels through somesegment of a cycloidal path, and is subject to the constant momentum imparted bylocally formed gravitons released from the inflowing aether lattice, in a series ofmicroscopic cycloidal swings or impulses, given that a semi-cycloid is the shortest-duration, frictionless (i.e. effectively massfree) slide path between two points.

The structure of aether lattices can be extracted from the fine or hidden structure ofthe universal constant G (see below). These lattices consist of nonelectric massfreeenergy in differential states of superimposition that generate cosmological leptons (theirmass-energy), the lepton-gravitons that sustain these leptons, the massfree ambipolarradiation that electrically accelerates them and which they shed in the form of mCBRphotons, and the lattice-seated 'travelling' gravitons (or antigravitons) that may also beshed. Aether lattices therefore contain interacting massbound and massfree charges,and comprise fluxes of gravitons and antigravitons. Gravitons impel a particle or bodytowards regions of greater mass density, and antigravitons impel it in the oppositedirection, but the same massfree particle can function as either according to the netpolarity of the underlying electrodynamic interaction between lattice charges. Theplanets are pushed both towards and away from the Sun through their dynamicgravitational/antigravitational interactions, resulting in a near steady state. The inflowingaether lattice streams responsible for terrestrial gravity have a dual origin, solar andgalactic, and coincide with the fluxes of solar and galactic ambipolar radiation.

The aetherometric theory of gravity and the graviton differs in important respects fromthe conventional Le Sage impact theory of gravity. According to the latter, very tinyparticles ('gravitons') are whizzing randomly through space in all directions, at some 20

billion times the speed of light, and the apparent 'attraction' between bodies is due totheir shading one another from some graviton impacts. Aetherometry retains the gravity-as-push idea, but thinks in terms of massfree wave impulses acting on the elements ofmatter rather than solid particle collisions, and also introduces the idea of orderedlattice-seated graviton fluxes that account for celestial motions. Unlike most variants ofLe Sage gravity, it also recognizes the existence of antigravity and the electrodynamicnature of gravitational forces.

7. Inertia and Newton's first law

Newton's first law of motion states that a body continues to move with a constantvelocity or to remain at rest unless acted on by an external force. This law isfundamentally flawed: it assumes that for an object to preserve a state of motion (orrest) no work is required, no energy has to flow, and no force has to be deployed once abody has been set in motion. By contrast, aetherometry posits that no motion can besustained without a flux of energy to replace the energy expended. Motion is always afunction of energy, and even a state of relative rest is actually a state of circular energyflux. In other words, all is flux, motion, energy.

As we have seen, in the parallel field of electrostatics the Correas demonstrate thatfor an electroscope leaf to remain deflected, in a state of relative rest, anantigravitational force is required that permits conservation of a state of electricrepulsion and of the electrokinetic energy of the massbound charges trapped in thestem and leaf. Linear motion at uniform velocity, too, requires energy transfer andenergy expenditure. This is the fundamental omission in Newton's first law. The totalpower required to move a body at uniform velocity must increase with distance, and thisrequires a persistent external supply of energy even if there is looping of internal energy(as happens in the electrodynamic interaction of the charges trapped in theelectroscopic leaf system).

In his commentary on the first law, Newton admitted that linear translatory motion willslow down even in a vacuum; in other words, conservation of inertia is imperfect andenergy of motion will gradually be exhausted. He used the motion of the planets as anexample of the conservation of uniform rectilinear translation, but this illustration is ill-chosen. For although the planets orbit the Sun with a constant mean velocity, planetarymotion is curvilinear or angular, and therefore accelerated, given the continuous changein direction of the velocity vector, and is subject to constant fluctuations.

The Correas argue that there are no inertial, rectilinear motions; all motion iscurvilinear and accelerated, and a constant mean velocity actually involves periodicaccelerations and decelerations. All inertial systems are already accelerated ones.Uniform motion continues only for as long as the regular series of impulses sustaining itpersists, and conservation of energy holds only for the system formed by the movingbody and its environment, including the local massfree aether.

In newtonian physics, motion appears to occur in defiance of the law of conservationof energy, and is labelled 'inertial' to signify that it 'continues on its own'. Inertia isassumed to be a natural property of mass-energy and no further explanation is offered;indeed, no further explanation is possible, since orthodox physics has no realistic model

of subatomic structures. The Correas argue that the inert mass of a grain of matter is afunction of the characteristic wavelength of a quantity of massfree energy circularizedinto a torus as mass-energy. In line with an idea first put forward by Harold Aspden, theysay that it is the tendency of massbound particles to try and conserve this energy (andthus their volume and internal structure) when accelerated that produces the property ofinertia. In other words, inertia is a resistance by a quantity of mass-energy (andassociated graviton energy) when it is accelerated by an externally imposed massfreefield.

8. Centrifugal force and Newton's third law

Newton's first law deals with the inertia of a body moving at constant speed in astraight line. His third law requires an action to be balanced by an equal and oppositereaction, implying that the centripetal force of gravity should be balanced by acentrifugal force (an inertial force that obeys the second law, where force equals masstimes acceleration), as is supposedly the case when describing stable satellite orbitals.

Free fall is clearly not counteracted by an equal centrifugal force, and it is one of themany instances in the real world when the third law fails. Free fall is counteracted onlypartially, and insufficiently in fact, by the centrifugal force developed by the Earth'srotation, whose magnitude depends on latitude. Centrifugal force is usually presentedas a property of rotation, but its true source remains mysterious. The neo-Machian viewis that centrifugal forces are inertial forces that ultimately arise from the gravitationalattraction between the mass of a body and the rest of the mass in the universe.

The question arises as to why the third law is not broken at the critical height for astable satellite orbit. Aetherometry suggests that a stable satellite does not in factexperience a centrifugal force equal and opposite in sign to the centripetal force of itsweight. Instead, the orbital motion of satellites is sustained by the spinning aether fluxenveloping the Earth. At lower altitudes the flux increasingly bends down towards thesurface of the Earth, and loses transverse longitudinal velocity to gain near-verticallongitudinal velocity; gravitational acceleration (g) increases from 9.5 m/s2 at an altitudeof about 100 km to about 9.8 m/s2 at the Earth's surface. But whereas the aether fluxaround the Earth results in satellites having a constant transverse speed, the velocity ofa body in free fall steadily increases, because the body absorbs (and stores) more fieldenergy from the local aether lattice than it expends through its free fall relative to thesurface of the rotating Earth.

The Correas point out that just as classical and Lorentzian-relativisticelectrodynamics ignore longitudinal electrical forces deployed along the direction ofcharge motion, so relativists ignore the longitudinal nature of the gravitational forces orswings responsible for both orbital motion and free fall. They further suggest thatcentrifugal forces are produced by rotating bodies because they arise as a function ofweight transfer to the local aether lattice, i.e. as part of a primary gravitationalinteraction between a rotating body and the spinning local aether lattice.

9. Gravity and antigravity

Since force is traditionally defined as mass times acceleration, the conventionaldimensions of force are m l t-2, i.e. mass multiplied by length divided by time squared (1newton = 1 kg m s-2). Applying the mass-to-length transformation yields theaetherometric dimensions of force: l2 t-2. The gravitational force equation, F = Gm1m2/r2,implies that the gravitational constant (G) has the conventional dimensions l3 m-1 t-2.Aetherometrically, this becomes l2 t-2, i.e. the dimensions of force.

Aetherometry regards G as a universal force constant that results from a cosmicacceleration produced by the synchronous, ceaseless motion of massfree energy; in avery real sense, it is independent of matter and even of mass. A gravitational field ispresent everywhere in space, simply by virtue of the fact that space is produced by theactivity of aether lattices. G is ultimately a function of the relation between electric andnonelectric massfree energy. This is underlined by one of the most basic exact functionsfor G discovered by Correas, where only the third term contains a massfree interaction,and the second includes the mass-energy (Eδe = mec2) of a cosmological electron andits associated graviton (EGe):

G = (h/2πmec2)2 vG (α m/s2)2 = (h2/4π2 EδeEGe) (vG-1 m/s) (α m/s2)2 = (h2/4π2

Eαe2) (vG

-1 m/s) (α m/s2)2 = 1.10575 x 10-35 m2/s2

(Note that with CODATA's official values for fundamental units of measurement, theaetherometric determination gives 1.108 x 10-35 m2/s2.)

Another function for G expresses the intra-lattice interaction(s) as electrodynamic andinvolving both superimposition and differential relations between massfree andmassbound charges; and still another expression accounts for the formation of lattice-seated gravitons, and involves quadratic superimposition of aether energy units (Eαe

4).The Correas stress that these and other exact algebraic expressions for G alwaysinvolve the coupling of established, fundamental physical values and functions with atleast one genuine aetherometric quantity or function. They show that although theequation for G put forward by Sakharov (who regarded gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force) yields the correct numerical value of G, it includes arbitrary andnonfunctional terms.

Primary gravity refers to a material body's gravitational interaction with the localaether lattice. The fundamental energy quantum of primary gravity is simply the productmG. So-called inertial forces – such as the centrifugal forces that arise from a body'srotation – transfer weight to a local lattice and take advantage of this primarygravitational interaction while appearing to be an antigravity effect.

Secondary (newtonian) gravity is a result of the forces that two or more bodies exerton one another through the aether, i.e. across lattices that connect them at a distance.The energy available to secondary gravity is the result of another phase superimpositionof the separate energy quantities of primary gravity, Gm1 x Gm2, such that each body ofa pair experiences an acceleration proportional to the distance between their centres ofmass (gm2 = Gm1/r2 and gm1 = Gm2/r2), to yield a single force F = Gm1m2/r2. Hence, incontrast to the primary gravitational energy of a body or massbound particle, the energy

of secondary gravity is given by Gm1m2/r.

In the final analysis, gravitational forces are essentially electrodynamic. Simplifying abit, aetherometry contends that gravity ultimately results from an electrodynamicattraction that occurs when matter, which is mostly neutral or salt-like (with balancedcharges of both polarities), interacts with aether lattices formed by in-phase ambipolarcharges, whereas antigravity ultimately results from an electrodynamic repulsion thatoccurs when matter has net charge and interacts with the same in-phase ambipolarcharge lattices. The Correas stress that genuine antigravity should be distinguishedfrom weight cancellation or degravitation, from rotary transfer of weight to local lattices,and from levitational effects produced by electrostatic, electrodynamic, magnetostatic,and aerodynamic forces.

Eric Laithwaite demonstrated that Newton's third law is broken by force-precessedflywheels or gyroscopes, which appear to lose weight and generate little or nocentrifugal force. The Correas agree with Harold Aspden that precession induces aetherspin (or a local electric and vortical spin of the aether lattice), which decouples the inertmass of a flywheel from the flux of gravitons that normally give it weight. Furthermore,energy for translatory motion can be drawn from the rotary motion of interacting bodies,thereby producing out-of-balance linear forces that violate the third law.

As a result of their experimental and theoretical gravitational work, the Correas are inthe process of developing two devices that cannot possibly exist according to acceptedphysics: a weight-neutralizer and an anti-gravitator. The weight-neutralizer is a tunable,target-directed device that can be used for short-range weight-cancellation of an objectof known chemical composition. First-generation devices have a power consumption ofa few watts, and can induce up to 100% weight loss in objects in the 100 mg range, byconverting an ambipolar energy beam into antigraviton energy. Dr. Eugene Mallovewitnessed demonstrations in which a piece of gold leaf was rapidly reduced in weight by70% and 95% by imposing an ambipolar field with an electrical frequency adjusted tomatch that of the gold antigraviton.

The anti-gravitator develops the electroscopic kinetoregenerative phenomenonbeyond weight neutralization to produce genuine negative gravity. According to a privatecommunication from the Correas, this electrodynamic effect appears to be strictlymonopolar, independent of ionization or ion-wind generation, independent of electrodegeometry, and seated in the gravito-electrodynamic repulsion described above – aspromoted by the interaction of monopolar lattices of massbound charges (responsiblefor the net charge of a body of matter) with in-phase ambipolar lattice charges. TheCorreas are highly critical of much of the experimental work that has been conducted onthe 'Biefeld-Brown effect' – a force directed towards the smaller electrode of anasymmetric capacitor under a very high potential. Such experiments are often riddledwith uncontrolled artefacts, have produced contradictory results, and confuse anomaliesassociated with electron emission and cathode reaction forces with antigravity. Theyargue that there is really no BB effect but that it is possible to generate a genuineelectro-antigravitic force, or monopolar lift effect.

10. Correas vs. Spolter

In her book Gravitational Force of the Sun (Orb Publishing, 1993), Pari Spolterstrongly criticizes the orthodox theory that gravity is proportional to the quantity ordensity of inert mass. It is well known that the gravitational acceleration of objects infree fall is independent of their mass. But Spolter goes as far as to argue that there is noreason to include any term for mass in either of the standard force equations (F = ma,and F = Gm1m2/r2). She rejects Newton's second law as an arbitrary definition orconvention, and maintains that it is not force that is equal to mass times acceleration,but weight.

Her equation for 'linear force' is F = ad (acceleration times distance). Her equation for'circular force' (including gravity) is F = aA, where a is acceleration and A is the area of acircle with a radius equal to the mean distance of the orbiting body from the centralbody. This equation implies that the acceleration due to gravity declines by the squareof the distance, but that the gravitational force of the Sun, Earth, etc. is constant for anybody revolving around it. In newtonian theory, by contrast, it varies according to both themass of the orbiting body and its distance from the central body.

The Correas identify various flaws in Spolter's theory. Spolter does not question theequation for a body's momentum (momentum = mass times velocity), yet momentumwith a rate of repetition constitutes a force, which therefore cannot be independent ofmass. Moreover, weight is a type of force, rather than a distinct physical function.According to Spolter's newfangled definition of 'circular force', the gravitational force of astar or planet remains exactly the same no matter how far away from it we happen to be– such a conception of force seems counterintuitive if not absurd, and is unlikely toattract much of a following.

In Spolter's approach, 'linear' (one-dimensional) force and 'circular' (two-dimensional)force have different dimensions: m2s-2 for linear force, and m3s-2 for circular force.Similarly, 'linear' and 'circular' energy also have different dimensions, as they arecalculated by multiplying linear or circular force by a body's 'critical mass'. The Correasargue that there is no justification for abandoning consistent definitions in this way: thereare not two forms of energy, one linear and the other angular, one flat and the othervolumetric. Specifically, they charge that Spolter confuses her 'circular force' withmassfree energy. And if the mass-to-length transformation is applied to Spolter'sequations, linear energy would have exactly the same dimensions as circular force (m3s-

2)!

Using Spolter's equation, the gravitational force of the Sun would be 4.16 x 1020 m3s-

2, a value that is constant for all planets, asteroids and artificial satellites orbiting it – nomatter how far away they may be! The Correas point out that this value can also bearrived at by multiplying the length-equivalent mass of the Sun by the accepted value ofG times π. But this value has the aetherometric dimensions of energy – not force.Moreover, this value does not describe the gravitational force of the Sun, nor a forceacting at a distance upon any other body near to or far from the Sun; rather, after the πvalue is dropped, it comes close to describing the primary gravitational energy of theSun.

Physically, gravity does not involve some (mean) area being accelerated around theSun, as Spolter's equation implies. Rather, it involves a coupling of the mass-energy ofthe Sun and planets, along with their associated massfree gravitational energy. Andgravitational forces act not through empty space but through the energetic aether –

something that is as much missing from Spolter's physics as from orthodox physics.

Spolter claims that her gravitational equation solves the mystery of Kepler's third lawof planetary motion. This law states that the ratio of the square of a planet's period ofrevolution (T) to the cube of its mean distance (r) from the Sun is always the samenumber (T2/r3 = constant). (Strictly speaking, Spolter's argument concerns the reciprocalof Kepler's constant [K-1 = r3/T2]). According to her equation, F = aA = (v2/r)(πr2).Replacing v with 2πr/T, gives: F = 22π3r3/T2; in other words, r3/T2 = constant, the'constant' in question being equal to the 'gravitational force' of a particular star or planetdivided by 22π3!

Thus, the value Spolter (wrongly) calls the gravitational 'force' of the Sun (4.16 x 1020

m3s-2) is equal to 22π3K-1. The Correas argue that this is a meaningless expression thatobscures the real significance of Kepler's constant. They point out that Leibniz criticizedMalebranche for a very similar confusion, when the latter thought that gravitational forcewas given by rv2 = 22π2K-1. If Spolter were right about 'circular force' and its energy-likedimensions, then all three Kepler radii (r3) should be fully circularized, and theexpression should be 23π3K-1, or, alternatively, since Spolter thinks that gravity involvesthe acceleration of a mean area, two of the Kepler radii should be part of an areafunction (πr2), with the third being circularized (2πr), giving 2π2K-1.

Spolter's expression also differs from Newton's form of Kepler's third law, in whichtwo radii are circularized: GM = 22π2K-1. This equation assumes that K-1 is equal to theinert mass of a celestial body multiplied by the gravitational constant divided by 4π2. It isimpossible to place a star or planet on a balance and weigh it, and this is one of themethods used to determine their theoretical masses.

The Correas argue that to understand the true meaning of Kepler's constant andNewton's form of Kepler's third law, the latter has to be seen in relation to the entiresolar system, as it is part of a function that defines the massfree energy of the primarygravitational interaction of the system as a whole. Aetherometrically, the correct relationis GMSS = 22π2K-1 (where MSS is the mass of the solar system), and the correspondingprimary gravitational energy of each member of the system is a fraction of this,dependent on the ratio between its mass and that of the entire system. Hence, for theSun: GMSun = (MSun/MSS) 22π2K-1.

Whereas conventional physics ignores the torque generated by the Sun's rotation,Spolter seeks to revive Kepler's theory and holds that the rotation of the primary bodysomehow generates its gravitational force, causing other bodies to revolve around it.But she does not suggest a mechanism to explain how this might work, or what causesa celestial body to rotate in the first place. According to aetherometry, it is the orderedinflowing aether fluxes that cause the planets and Sun to rotate, carry them forward intheir respective orbits, and generate their gravitational fields.

11. Closing thoughts

Mainstream science labours under the delusion that it is steadily progressing towardsa 'theory of everything' – a master equation concise enough to 'wear on your T-shirt', as

one joker (a leading physicist) put it. In reality, physicists are plunging ever deeper into amorass of arbitrary and irrational mathematical fantasies. Infinitesimal particles, one-dimensional strings, multi-dimensional branes, collapsing probability waves, 10- or 11-dimensional spacetime, curved space, expanding space, spatialized time, dilated time,time reversal, backward causation, ex-nihilo creation – it seems that any garbage isacceptable as long as it avoids the need for a dynamic, energetic aether.

As Bertrand Russell once observed, 'What men really want is not knowledge butcertainty.' Reigning paradigms do indeed offer scientists certainty and a sense ofsecurity, financial as much as intellectual, and this helps them to ignore, trivialize orsuppress anomalies that expose the shortcomings of their cherished beliefs. Above all,official science has largely lost the willingness and ability to question, and sometimeseven acknowledge, its own basic assumptions.

It is vital that alternative scientific models and viewpoints begin to receive a fairerhearing. Multiple working hypotheses and theories should be able to compete freely forattention and should be judged on their merits – on their grounding in experimental andobservational facts, their ability to provide realistic explanations, to make accuratepredictions, to generate new insights, and to spawn innovative technologies. On allthese criteria, aetherometry scores very highly and therefore deserves careful scrutiny.

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Paulo and Alexandra Correa for reviewingthis paper, and for open and frank discussion of all the questions raised.

The above article is also posted at aetherometry.com

Aetherometry mainpage

Massfree Technologies

Correas vs. Spolter: further debate

Homepage