Theory of the Aether and Gravity

Purpose:  This document was prepared to make Dr. Harold Aspen's Aether theory accessible to electrical engineers, researchers and others who are interested in the fledgling field of vacuum engineering and gravity control and require a theoretical and practical framework superior to that offered by both unproved conjectural alternative theories as well as the orthodox relativistic and quantum paradigm.

System of Units:  The material presented herein is exclusively in terms of the meter-kilogram-second (MKS) system, the system more familiar to electrical engineers and some physicists.  The original theory  presented by Aspden was in terms of the centimeter-gram-second (CGS) system.  Those who are more at home with the CGS system are advised to refer to the original papers to avoid confusion.

Background:  It is well known that the concept of the aether (or ether) was discarded after both the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment conducted in 1888, which failed to detect any relative motion of the Earth and the presumed stationary ether fluid which was thought to permeate the universe and serve as a conductor for electromagnetic radiation.  Building on extant ideas put forth by Lorentz, Fitzgerald and others, Einstein in 1905 offered special relativity (SR) and recommended that the ether concept be dropped altogether because it did not contribute useful explanations for observations such as that obtained from the Michelson-Morley experiment.  Later Einstein boldly presented his novel theory of general relativity (GR) in 1916 which undertook to explain gravitation and inertia using a curved spacetime geometric framework and borrowing heavily from the mathematics developed by Riemann and Minowsky in the previous century.  Because of the difficulty of these advanced mathematical concepts and also of the apparent success that Einstein had in presenting successful theories, the mystique of oracular certitude of Einstein's ideas permeated the developing field of quantum theory and cosmology which continues to this day.  It was said and popularly believed that the
concepts were so advanced that only a half dozen theorists existed who had fully mastered the theory.  In fact, no one really understood the concept of  imagining a 4-dimensional sphere as envisioned by Einstein.  Seeing the irrationality of these concepts, practical physicists did not get involved and went about their daily business.  They took it on faith that somewhere intellectual justification existed that the concepts were proven and sound and it was not theirs to question.  Relativity passed tests that Einstein himself suggested and the experimenters were able to devise; it offered an explanation for the anomalous perihelion advance for the planet Mercury, and star images taken during the eclipse of the Sun in 1919 were said to exhibit the shifts predicted by GR as a result of bending of light by the Sun's gravitational field.  These were deemed to be important confirmations of the theory and its place as part of the accepted paradigm was secure.  Meanwhile impressive progress was made in understanding atomic physics, with the development of  the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom and later quantum electrodynamics (QED) presented in 1928 by Dirac.  Although Einstein had contributed to quantum theory by his famous energy-matter equivalence formula and the photoelectric effect, he was never quite at home with quantum theory and even argued, albeit unsuccessfully, against what he considered to be metaphysical concepts.  Nevertheless QED proved to be quite successful although to make it work, theorists perform a "renormalization", which amounts to subtracting out infinities or singularities to obtain the desired results.  This trick is intellectually unsatisfactory and dishonest, but it produces the useful results.  Despite the success of QED and its permeation with relativist ideas, the theories of relativity and quantum are quite separate and have never really been unified.  It seems that the world on a quantum and cosmic level are completely different.  Modern superstring theory is an attempt to unify the two disparate concepts, but the theory remains an elegant mathematical construction which has produced no useful results or insights to date.  Superstring theory stands thus far as a modern extension of relativistic thinking and a sterile academic exercise having no relevance to the practical experimenter or engineer.  Some critics are alarmed by the absence of  practical testable predictions and consider it to be a dangerous trend off into the realms of metaphysics where results no longer matter.  However, the field has attracted the finest mathematical minds and a breakthrough may yet be forthcoming.

Relativity has languished since the introduction of GR in 1916.  Einstein, having made a name for himself, and his place in academia secure, allowed himself the luxury of searching for his Unified Field Theory (UFT) for the next forty years, which after a couple of false starts he never really found, at least to his own satisfaction.   In 1925 he published a version of his theory but hastily withdrew it the following year.  Einstein deprecatingly described himself as a fellow who changed his mind every year.  He never achieved his hoped for breakthrough in unifying electromagnetism with gravitation.  However, some other concepts bear his name at least as a coauthor, such as the Einstein-Bose condesate and Einstein-Rosen bridges.  Younger but comparatively unknown physicists with novel ideas realize the importance of attaching a prominent name to win acceptance.  Lacking such a prestigious endorsement, the ideas might remain in obscurity or even go into oblivion, notwithstanding their merit.  Relativity, per se, did not advance appreciably since its original inception and was not considered to be a promising field in which young physicist might choose as a rewarding specialty.

Einstein applied his concepts to cosmology and made the surprising discovery that the universe was apparently expanding.  Instead of boldly proclaiming this prediction and challenging the experimental physicists to confirm or refute his finding, he introduced a "cosmological constant" to bring his model into line with a universe that apparently was static in accordance with prevailing assumption.  However, Hubble subsequently experimentally discovered the famous red shift, the appearance that the galaxies are receding, and their spectra accordingly shifted via the Doppler effect.  Upon receiving this news, Einstein labeled his insertion of the cosmological constant in his equations to have been the "biggest blunder of his life" and therewith recommended that it be dropped.  Unlike his modern counterparts, Einstein ruthlessly threw out theories, especially his own, which did not accord with experimental observation.  In regard to the cosmological constant, he may have been too hasty in assuming, as did everybody, that the redshift was due to the Doppler effect and that gravity operated over intergalactic distances in accordance with Newton's law.  As we shall see, we have grounds for doubting the warrant for both of these assumptions.  

Thus the new science of cosmology was born.  Einstein was assumed to be basically correct that the universe was relativistic, ie. that mass density was such that relativistic effects were significant, and that the red shift was due to physical recession of the galaxies which thus displayed a Doppler effect.  The task fell to astronomers to calibrate the measurement procedure using "standard candles" such as cepheid variable stars and supernovae to determine the magnitudes involved including the value for the Hubble constant. This work has proceeded for several decades with modern instruments such as laser corrected telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) providing data for modern estimates of the Hubble constant, the accepted value of which is still a matter of heated controversy.  Einstein's near success in predicting the expanding universe was further validation of GR and cosmologists undertook the task of  producing theories culminating in several modern Big Bang (BB) theories including consideration of the exotic conditions that prevailed very shortly after the moment of the BB itself.  All BB theories posit that the universe is relativistic and originated from a submicroscopic particle.  At the same time, experimental evidence accumulated that pulsars, thought to be neutron stars, and black holes exist which were explained using GR.  The relativistic theories required that the universe have a certain required density to "close", else it would expand forever.  When experimental confirmation of the requisite density was not forthcoming, the missing matter was hypothesized to reside in the form of missing "cold dark matter" (CDM).  Cosmic strings, black holes, and other theoretical constucts were posited as possible sources of CDM.  The task only remained for the experimental physicists to devise ways of detecting and thus confirming the existences of one or more of these sources.  Meanwhile the discovery of  the cosmic background radiation (CBR) was hailed as yet another success for the BB theory as being a remnant of the primordial cataclysmic explosion itself, albeit red shifted into the microwave region.

The casual observer might be led to believe that the validity of the BB theory is assured with data coming in daily to support its smallest details.  Indeed the popular press encourages that perception with its trumpeting of the latest findings or theoretical breakthroughs in formulating a bewildering array of esoteric guage theories, comprehensive "theories of everything" (TOE), grand unified theories (GUT) which address the exotic conditions during the moments following the BB itself.  The validity of esoteric concepts such as black holes and neutron stars is also assumed to be assured.  But is all of this confidence justified?

It turns out--the answer is no.  Relativistic cosmological theories are completely unfounded and unwarranted and evidence mounts daily that they are wholly invalid.  The whole affair has been a perverse journey on the relativistic bandwagon to nowhere.  The point is made here not because we have something against Einstein or the cosmologists in general, but because it is a gross example of how establishment thinking has been lured into arid fields.  The lesson here is not to be seduced by relativist ideas unless they have been placed on a firm theoretical basis and not to be taken in by group thinking regardless of  how pervasive it is.  We should not assume that because of their wide acceptance that these ideas are justified.  As for the BB theory itself, we can dispose of it with a few clean blows.  A detailed treatment is found in Eric Lerner's book, "The Big Bang Never Happened".  We will here only summarize some of the experimental evidence that does not support the BB hypothesis or any version of it.  

To begin with the orthodox cosmologists assume that gravity is the only force of consequence on a cosmic scale.  The mysterious jets and energy output from quasars are attributed to black holes at the centers of these objects.  In fact, the existence of  black holes is at best dubious, as we shall see.  No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the gravitational theorists as to why the observed jets should exist.  Moreover, stars in the process of formation have been observed by the HST to exhibit jets.  The short answer to why these phenomena exist is because of electromagnetic effects, a possibility discounted by the orthodox relativists but offered by the community of plasma cosmologists, such as Nobel prize winning Hannes Alven, as at least as important as those due to gravitation.  These electromagnetic effects also explain the anomaly of galactic rotation without recourse to CDM.  A few microgauss on a galactic level can be quite significant, so theorists should take care before dismissing it as inconsequential especially in view that the gravitational force itself is a weak force (not to be confused with the so-called weak force associated with radioactive decay).  As we shall see, it is not assured that gravity operates at all over immense distances, gravity involving a particle exchange process on the aether level and therefore subject to possible quantum threshold effects.  The orthodox cosmologists might have it backwards.  Einstein's original cosmological constant implicitly "turned off" the gravitational force at galactic distances to keep his static model of the cosmos from collapsing.

A relativistic universe requires a certain density.  Contemporary measurements have shown without doubt that the present universe is only a few percent of this requisite density and therefore that relativistic considerations are virtually absent.  Moreover the hypothesized CDM has been shown not to exist.  These simple facts require that all notions of a relativistic universe be abandoned.

We are left at this point with remnants of a BB theory which might have produced the open universe we observe today, forever expanding.  Alas for the cosmologists, the BB can be disposed of as easily as the relativistic universe.  The BB is an artifice which undertakes to explain the existence of primordial matter, hydrogen, deuterium and lithium, the CBR and the apparent expansion.  It is supposed that elements heavier than those just mentioned must be produced by nucleosynthesis in stars, or in the case of very heavy elements in supernovae.  However, no single version of the BB is consistent with the proportions of the three primordial elements which are observed.  As to the CBR, the original prediction was 30º K.  The observed value was found to be 2.7º K.  The theorists made ad hoc adjustments, but were able to finagle their theory to 10º K, still in poor agreement indeed with measurement.  Observations of supergalactic structures have revealed that they must be at least hundreds of billions of years old, far older than the meager few billion years allowed by the BB
theory.  To account for the structures and to save their theory, the cosmologists had proposed that some unknown mechanism must have started and stopped the formation of the structures and that evidence of this process should be observable in distortion of the CBR spectrum, which should then depart from that of the standard black body radiation curve.  Precise measurements have revealed however that this departure does not exist; the curve follows perfectly that of the black body.  It therefore seems inescapable that the universe is indeed very old, far older than the only 8 billion years allowed by modern estimates of  the Hubble constant.  Add to that vexing problem, known for several decades, that the oldest star clusters appear to be at least 20 billion years old.  Theorists have striven mightily to finagle that figure down to fit within the timeframe allowed by the BB, but as usual are only partially successful in getting it down to 15 billion years, still in poor agreement with the BB.  Another niggling problem has been that of the absence of  "first generation" stars.  If the universe is only 8 billion years old, then there ought to be stars made of pristine primordial matter, uncontaminated by heavy elements produced by supernovae.  In fact, no such stars have been observed.  It seems that all stars contain remnants of material from earlier stars.  However in this regard, theorists might be quick to explain that the early universe was full of supergiants and hypergiants whose lives are reckoned in the mere millions of years before ending in cataclysmic supernovae which might spray heavy elements all over the place.

As if another shortcoming was needed, there is the problem of the stability of the proton.  All BB theories depend on one or another of the GUTs to deal with the conditions during the first few moments after the BB.  All GUTs however predict that the proton is slightly unstable with a half life of some 10E30 years.  This is quite a long time and the measurement is difficult; yet experimentalists have miraculously been able conduct this intricate operation.  Their result--the proton is stable at least to their observational limit, some 10E33 years.  Predictably the theorists have finagled their concepts to allow for an unstable proton, but beyond the measurement window of the experimentalists.

The foregoing criticisms have been covered exhaustively in Lerner's book.  There exists another observation so devastating that it calls into question the whole concept of the expanding universe.  That observation was performed in 1978 by Tifft.  He discovered that redshifts from distant galaxies were quantized in multiples of approximately 18.1 km/sec.; furthermore adjacent galaxies appeared to have no gravitational effect on each other.  Since it is unlikely that the galaxies are physically receding at quantized velocities, some other mechanism must be responsible for the observed red shifts.  Moreover the assumption that gravity precisely in accordance with Newton's law, that every material object in the universe attracted every other material object to at least some degree, however remote, was seriously in doubt.  As we shall see, Dr. Aspden is not at a loss to account for these quantized redshifts although his theory is so startling to the mainstream that he had difficulty in getting his paper on the subject published at all in a respectable journal.  This has been Dr. Aspden's experience during his professional career, when sometimes he has become "blacklisted" or unable to get his papers published in prestigious journals because his ideas conflicted so conspicuously with establishment views.

Modern cosmological theories posit that the universe is considered to be running down and if it doesn't collapse in a "big crunch" then it will continue to expand but eventually die as the primordial fuel gets used up, the matter gets collected into black holes until all of the stars wink out.  This is perfectly in line with closed thermodynamic systems which run down as entrophy increases.  A few decades ago, Hoyle had proposed a "steady state" alternative to the BB, wherein the universe is timeless and constantly rejuvenating as matter is produced which replaces the fuel that is being used up on a continuous basis.  However this theory did not stand the test of time, as observations of distant objects suggested that the universe was indeed evolving and looked considerably different several billion years ago.  Any "free matter" or free energy scheme was discarded along with the SS universe as being a violation to conservation laws as the BB itself was deemed to have produced the matter and energy extant today.  Yet some version of the continuous creation concept may yet win the day.  Aspden holds that the aether is a repository for energy and under certain conditions it sheds this energy in the form of new protons.  If in the beginning there was aether, but no matter, protons would be created which would coalese in time into stars, galaxies, and superclusters of galaxies.  Under such a scenario, the universe could be evolving first from clouds of gas, then to a universe resembling something like we see today.  A BB would not have been required except perhaps to create the aether.  Scientists need not consider that rather metaphysical question and could address their efforts to observation and verification that matter is indeed being created in an exchange process with the aether and gain a theoretical understanding of that process. They might consider the question of whether the universe will evolve to such an extent that it fills up with matter and perhaps collapses eventually in a "big crunch" in line with current closed cosmological theories.  Such lofty questions are probably of little or no interest to the practical researcher or engineer who only wants to be provided with the tools to understand and exploit the aether.  Since the orthodox theorists only tell him that the aether is a void and not a practical energy source and that gravity is a mysterious and inexplicable force similarly not subject to control, he has little basis on which to proceed.

The relativist and aetherless paradigm has become so entrenched that little or no challenge to it is brooked.  This is perhaps in consequence to vested interests, not the least of which are grandiose government schemes that promise generous funding if not tangible results.  The SuperConducting Super Collider (SCSC) was supposed to recreate the conditions in the probably nonexistent BB before it was mercifully shut down after spending a few paltry billion dollars.  A satellite to test relativity will be launched at a cost of around a billion dollars.  Supercomputers are said to be required to perform the immense calculations required using QCD.  Decades of hot fusion research has failed to bear fruit.  Even if hot fusion is obtained in the laboratory, the task of employing hot fusion for practical electrical generation seems impossible, as the radiation environment would quickly destroy any containment structure.  Yet government sponsored hot fusion research grinds on, albeit at a reduced funding level.  One can search the DOE database for items on cold fusion and come up with absolutely nothing.  Cold fusion is completely off their radar screen as even a possibility.

Einstein did not start out intending to become an establishment icon nor to foist dead end theories on academia.  During his lifetime there were no successful challenges to relativity, and the remarkable successes of the atomic bomb served to cement the reputation of the man who first perceived E=Mc2 , or at least is credited with that discovery, although in his later years he did not produce much else that was notable.  Theories have their time and place in history.  Scientific method demands that theories be discarded if they cannot be modified to be brought into line with known facts.  Nevertheless, there is evidence that this renewal is systematically not being accomplished.  Anomalies suggesting variations in the velocity of light for example are covered up and are not grounds for questioning the validity of GR.  Any such challenge would be prima facie evidence of crackpottery and irrationalism, and few academics are so secure that they could afford to have their reputations thus sullied.  Einstein would have never stood for such dishonesty.  He himself stated that if anything was found to be wrong with his GR theory, it had to be thrown out; it could not be saved.  In a letter to a friend in 1949, he glumly doubted that any of his theories would stand the test of time or even that he had been on the right track.  It is evident that he did not share the enthusiasm of his followers for his own ideas.  His failure to unify gravitation and electromagnetism must have been a grave disappointment. 

In one respect, government research into particle research has borne fruit, though not in a way that is formally recognized.  Officially, particle research has produced a bewildering "particle zoo" but little in the way of fundamental understanding of the nature of matter.  On the surface, it appears to have been only another example of a series of boondoggles.  However, the research has produced precise quantitative data on sizes and lifetimes of particles used by Dr. Aspden to refine and validate his theories.  The data has permitted insights into the mechanism by which virtual particles such as the taon and the dimuon mediate the gravitational force.  The subject will be addressed in these pages.

More material critical of the BB theory and Einstein's theories can be found in the references.  It suffices here to point out establishment doctrine has become ossified and is not receptive to new ideas that would revolutionize the paradigm.  It does not matter that in this case the person proposing new concepts has solid academic credentials and cannot be dismissed as an outsider, as is so often the case.  Part of the problem is that the ideas are neoclassicist and are extensions of 19th century ideas.  To the modern relativist they appear to be reactionary as well as heretical.  Indeed, Aspden was urged by his contemporaries to abandon his neoclassicist beliefs, get on the team and become a relativist.  To attempt to revive the discredited aether theory or any version of it was considered to be a retrogressive step.  To attack the prevailing doctrine as being establishment dogma that is misleading or incorrect is not likely to endear the revolutionary to to the establishment that he is attacking.  And to take on quantum theory in the bargain wins few friends.  To question QED and GR at this point is not welcome, and it these that Aspden attacks, particularly the Einsteinian ideas that pervade QED.  GR, of course, is Einstein's own creation.  The BB theory is slowly dying on its own, as experimental evidence mounts that either refutes it entirely or fails to support it.  Aspden has offered an explanation for the quantized redshifts in the context of his own theory, while dismissing the BB theory based as it is on relativistic ideas.  Although Aspden claims no expertise in the field of astrophysics, here too does his theory offer some startling departures from orthodoxy in the way that stars operate and how planets are formed.  One of them has profound implications for the ubiquity of life in the universe.  

The current theory of how the Earth - Moon system was formed is that the moon was formed by a chance collision and the size of the Earth and its angular momentum, its magnetic field, etc. happened only fortuitously.  It has been found that the presence of  moon is important for life on Earth; it stabilizes the rotation, helps shield the planet, etc.  It may well be that life on Earth owes its existence to this apparently chance and improbable happening.  But was it so improbable?  According to Aspden, his theory calls for just such an event to occur from aether considerations.  He has calculated that the moon should have been 1/83 the mass of the Earth, very close to the 1/81 observed.  If he is right, then the evolution of terrestrial-type biosphere planets is not all that improbable and there should be many, many Earths in the universe, replete with stabilizing moons.  The implications for life in the universe and man's place in it are obvious.  The establishment line is that an exhaustive search by SETI ostensibly turned up nothing; therefore intelligent life does not exist within reasonable distances.  Also it has been deemed that the discovery of such life or artifacts that indicate the existence of such life would be too upsetting, so any such discovery should be withheld from the public.

Discussion:  The preceding has served to give the reader an appreciation for the sad state of affairs today in mainstream physics, particularly in government research projects and academia.  While industry has had considerable success in the microchip and computer fields, these areas are only extensions to technologies developed  during WWII and the immediate postwar period.  The intellectual reservoir for today's semiconductor technology resides in Dirac's 1928 QED theory with only modest extensions including the more current QCD. Government sponsored research efforts into nuclear technology and hot fusion have been conspicuously unsuccessful in producing needed breakthroughs on the practical energy front aside from the intial successes in military arnaments and light water fission reactors with their attendant dangers in pollution and nuclear proliferation.  This failure leaves the world dangerously dependent on conventional nuclear and fossil fuel sources which not only pose serious hazards to the environment but entail serious geopolitical risks.  

The failure to produce practical breakthroughs is attended by an intellectual failure as well; the failure to 
abandon outmoded ideas and the creation of an environment unfriendly to new or novel concepts which might conflict with establishment views of reality.  These mindsets extend far beyond academia.  If the only consequences are useless mind games played by relativity or BB theorists in their cloistered ivory towers, the world could take little notice and proceed with its work perhaps getting on with the job discovering new energy sources.  It is axiomatic that important innovations which benefit people's lives are not discovered and handed down from academia, but are discovered and exploited by yeomen in the practical trades.  Yet the influence of the academics permeates to the county D.A. level.  Should an untutored tinkerer or backyard enthusiast stumble on to a free energy scheme, and try to exploit, market or promote it in any way, the apparachik swings into action bringing lawsuits and coercion to bear.   It is debatable whether such repression is a result of some conspiracy perhaps by the energy companies or the military in trying to protect sensitive military technology.  In cases where secrecy notices are served, when the hapless inventor is threatened with fines and imprisonment should he further disclose details, the only explanation can be the latter.  In the majority of cases, however, the county D.A. supposes, not unreasonably, that any important breakthroughs surely would already have been made in the laboratories of MIT or Cal Tech or by members of their august faculties.  The fact that "perpetual motion" or similar schemes have been deemed to violate scientific laws is quite enough to conclude that the inventor is only a common swindler or fast buck artist, or at most a deluded visionary whose schemes would only separate naïve investors from their money, whose cause he is chartered to champion.  In many cases, unfortunately, the economical assumption that the inventor is either a fool or a charlatan proves to be correct.

The same impediments are self imposed by the would-be inventor.  Common sense alone tells him that a free energy project would surely be a useless and foolish enterprise.  If he is at least partially educated in physics, then he "knows" that conservation and thermodynamic laws apply and those laws preclude getting something for nothing, or turning heat into electricity above a certain coefficient of performance, which is always far below unity.  Any scheme in obvious conflict with these principles would be rejected at the outset as unworkable.  (Indeed the laws do apply, and are valid, but only to closed systems.  If interchange with the aether is part of the system, it should be considered.  As we shall see, it is possible to obtain conventionally inexplicable energy or negative entrophy effects with systems that interchange with the aether.)  Getting back to our semi-educated example, he would doubtless share the impression that if multibillion dollar government energy projects have failed to produce useful results, how could he, with such limited resources?  Indeed, the mere existence of think-big government projects, such as giant particle accelerators, imply that absolutely nothing new can be learned without huge expenditures, least of all by some lone inventor working with limited resources in his garage.  Then the untutored individualist who, either contemptuous or ignorant of accepted principles, and careless of any societal or peer group pressures, pursues some scheme which our earlier semi-educated example would have rejected as impossible or impractical because of violation of some known principles.  While most of these ideas are predictably hopeless, such as running trucks from tanks of compressed air, there remains the occasional anomaly such as Joseph Newman's machines whose performance is not wholly what is expected from orthodox theory.  Unfortunately such individuals are rarely, if ever, able to explain their devices in precise enough engineering terms or to conduct themselves credibly in professional forums to interest or impress qualified observers.  Neither of the examples we have presented are likely to make significant or lasting contributions in the furtherance of human knowledge.  

Historical examples of this resistance to genuine breakthroughs make amusing reading.  One well known example is that of the Wright brothers, two irreverent bicycle mechanics who successfully constructed and flew the first heavier than air self-propelled craft.  Only the history books usually don't add that eminent academics of the day held that such flight was patently impossible, and as late as two years later, Scientific American saw fit to run an article condemning the incident as a hoax.  The Wright brothers even tried to attract attention by subsequently operating their flying machine within sight of a public thoroughfare, but were little noticed.  The history books do report that they went to France where conditions were more receptive to their ideas.  They were perhaps fortunate at the outset that they were not required to obtain a government permit for attempted operation of a flying machine.  

The Wright brothers example is instructive in several other ways.  To begin with, they were not ignoramuses but were qualified mechanics who understood the essential principles involved.  They realized that previous flying attempts had failed because engines with the necessary power/weight ratio had been unavailable.  They also understood the principle of aerodynamic lift and knew that theirs was a sound design.  In short, they possessed the working knowledge as well as the technical skills required.  They did not seek the blessing of academia, nor did they expect useful theoretical knowledge to be handed down on the science of aerodynamics, which at that time, did not exist.

To sum up, the lesson for us is that government and academia cannot be expected to be supportive of any free energy scheme.  There is too much of a stake in the status quo.  Despite the handwringing , much of it justified, of the damage to the environment presented by traditional energy sources, and the imperative to discover alternatives, the establishment can only be expected to stifle any genuine progress in this area.  This societal bias pervades practically all levels.  Twentieth century science with its successes in nuclear physics, computer science and biotechnology has become altogether too smug in its views of what is real and unreal, what is possible and impossible.

The free energy researcher must be armed with superior technical knowledge.  It would seem that the basis for that knowledge does exist.  One individual, rejecting the mantras of his peers, has been patiently working for decades, laboring in obscurity and occasional derision, and has made some remarkable discoveries.  These insights are on a sound theoretical basis, unlike the unwarranted conjectures that often pass for knowledge in the free energy field.  The discoveries have wide ranging implications, to astrophysics, to cosmology and to man's place in the universe.  At minimum, they open the door to understanding of the gravitational force and its unity with the electromagnetic force, the holy grail that eluded Einstein.  At maximum, they offer the keys to the universe.