Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 42

Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction

© All Rights Reserved

- Kinetic Energy
- Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa- Introduction to Experimental Aetherometry - Volume IIB: New Energy Physics and the Discovery of Ambipolar Energy
- Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa- Experimental Aetherometry Volume IIA Introduction
- Harold Aspden- Power from Space: The Correa Invention
- Newtons Laws of Motion
- Teacher Guide Activity 4 Action-Reaction
- Einstein GTR
- newtons laws worksheet
- Gravitation - P2, week 1
- Uji Kompetensi Kbi Force February 2012
- Sheet 1
- PhysQB3_T2
- xard
- 23642647-N-Tesla-HOW-COSMIC-FORCES-SHAPE-OUR-DESTINIES.pdf
- mousetrap car
- Chapter 1.pdf
- ch4
- Chapter 6 Gravitation
- 2018-06-05 (4)
- Session 2: Dynamics&Forces Questions

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Introduction

by David Pratt

April 2005

This article presents a brief outline of the aetherometric theory of gravity and

antigravity, based on Volume 1 and Volume 2A of Experimental

Aetherometry, the first six monographs of The Gravitational Aether, and

additional 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

Physicists commonly regard the

electroscope as a simple, wellunderstood instrument. But as Paulo and

Alexandra Correa demonstrate in the first

monograph of Experimental

Aetherometry, the device is 'one of the

most provocative and poorly understood

instruments available to us in basic

natural research'. Once the electroscope

is charged, the gold leaf lifts away from

the stem as a result of electrostatic

repulsion. The length of time the leaf

remains deflected is usually said to

depend on ambient conditions, such as temperature, pressure, and humidity, and in

particular the presence of ions and/or ionizing electromagnetic radiation, which cause

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 deflected

indefinitely! This irrational belief in a stationary force that performs no work, not even

against gravity, highlights what the Correas see as the need to go back to the bench, to

very basic science, and correct fundamental misconceptions.

Everyone agrees that when the gold leaf is initially repelled by the stem it has to do

work against gravity. Thereafter, because the leaf seems to be essentially stationary at

the macroscopic level, orthodox physics maintains that it does not have to perform any

further 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 remain

deflected for as long as the kinetic energy it expends in doing work against gravity can

be replenished in some way.

They point out that simple observation or sense perception validates this reasoning: a

rigid statue with an arm held out horizontally, parallel to the Earth's surface, will

eventually develop cracks, most likely at the joint of the arm with the body. They advise

mechanistically minded scientists to try the experiment themselves and to hold out their

arms horizontally for as long as they can, so that they get a sense of what it means to

expend energy to resist the force of gravity.

On the basis of their experimental results with electroscopes and the theory of gravity

they have developed by building on Wilhelm Reich's work with the gravitational

pendulum (see below), the Correas show that, depending on ambient factors, the total

kinetic energy expended by the trapped charges in opposing gravity can be hundreds of

times greater than the input electric energy employed to charge the electroscope. They

conclude that 'electrostatic' repulsion is actually an electrodynamic phenomenon in

which the kinetic energy which repelling charge lattices spend in doing antigravitational

work has to be regenerated by some form of radiant energy contributed by the local

environment. 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 of

Experimental Aetherometry. As Eugene Mallove once said, 'the monographs unfold like

a detective story'. Anomalies that conventional physics is totally unable to explain

include the following:

if the Sun were predominantly a source of ionizing radiation, the rate of leakage in

an electroscope placed outdoors should be very slow in the early morning, speed

up at noon or thereafter as the Sun reaches zenith, and slow down towards

nightfall instead one observes the exact opposite;

blackbody electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength greater than 300

nanometres arrests or slows down the discharge rate of an electroscope, instead

of accelerating it, as conventional physics predicts (no one seems to have even

noticed this extraordinary fact before the Correas!);

there is a constant positive temperature difference between the space at the top of

the inner metallic layer of an orgone accumulator (ORAC) and the surrounding

atmosphere (an ORAC is essentially a metal cage surrounded by alternating

both negatively and positively charged electroscopes discharge more slowly inside

an 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 also

developed several patented technologies that tap aether energy. The aether component

whose action they have identified as being chiefly responsible for what they call the

electroscopic 'gravito-kinetoregenerative phenomenon' is a nonelectric form of massfree

energy with antigravitic properties; it is associated with the molecules of matter and their

phase states, and is loosely known to chemists and meteorologists as 'latent heat'.

The other major aether component (whose spectrum the Correas have identified) is

massfree electric energy consisting of longitudinal wave radiation that carries ambipolar

rather than monopolar charges, for, in contrast to massbound charges (such as

electrons and protons), massfree charges are neutral rather than either positive or

negative. As for electromagnetic radiation, photons are considered to be transient,

vortex-like standing waves in the aether, which are generated locally when particles of

matter decelerate and shed the kinetic energy gained from interaction with massfree

electric radiation. The aether is therefore not to be confused with the electromagnetic

'zero-point field'.

Aetherometry proposes that when units of nonelectric aether superimpose and

condense to form matter particles (mass-energy), each massbound particle is

accompanied by a quantum of massfree gravitational energy (i.e. a graviton). For the

charged leaf of an electroscope to remain deflected, the constant microscopic work

performed by gravitons in pushing the atoms of the leaf down has to be counteracted by

the work of the massbound charges trapped in the leaves; this work, in turn, can only be

sustained if the trapped charges draw in environmental latent heat to produce a flux of

antigravitons 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 that

atomic weights, specifically those of hydrogen, helium, and oxygen, can be functionally

replaced by pendulum lengths. The Correas write: 'He never formally divulged the

functional equivalence between mass and length. However, from careful analysis of the

results of his pendulum experiments, one can enunciate the earth-shattering discovery

of the equivalence between molecular mass and wavelength ...' The equation is: massequivalent 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 (or

gravitational) wavelength of 5.4858 x 10-6 m. If this wavelength has a physical meaning

and is not merely an arbitrary number churned out by an arbitrary equation, it must be

related 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, are

described as infinitesimal points, i.e. pure abstractions. String theory is claimed to

advance 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 postulates

that 'spacetime' is 10-dimensional, that the six additional spatial dimensions have

conveniently undergone 'spontaneous compactification' and become unobservable, and

that the fundamental constituents of matter are one-dimensional bits of wriggling and

vibrating string, 10-33 cm long but with no width or thickness.

The latest fad is brane theory or M-theory, which postulates an 11-dimensional

spacetime, inhabited not only by one-dimensional strings but also by two-dimensional

membranes, three-dimensional 'blobs' (three-branes), up to and including ninedimensional entities, not forgetting anti-branes and zero-branes. This is the sort of

brainless claptrap that is nowadays passed off as 'science'!

Another example is the conventional interpretation of quantum physics, which claims

that, when we are not trying to measure it, an electron, for example, is present in

different places at the same time. It supposedly dissolves into 'probability waves', which

magically '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 a

subatomic particle is a real physical particle guided by a pilot wave a theory further

developed by David Bohm, Jean-Pierre Vigier, and others. The Correas have developed

de Broglie's theory of matter waves in a different direction, linking it to specific

wavefunctions 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 involve

a primary superimposition between two wavefunctions, one internal and the other

external to the associated linear momentum that defines the type of particle involved. If

the energy manifestation is electric (e.g. electrokinetic energy or ambipolar energy), this

primary superimposition couples an internal magnetic field wave with an external

electric field wave (corresponding to the conventional function of electric potential).

When generating massbound particles (through the process of secondary

superimposition), aether wave energy is reconfigured into a circularized, looped flux.

This has led the Correas to develop a detailed toroidal model of the electron, which

makes sense of various universally accepted, experimentally determined values. For

instance, the looped flux forming the electron mass-energy is composed of a magnetic

wave pursuing a circularized motion around the larger radius of the torus, and an

electric wave pursuing a continuous helical motion around the smaller radius of the

electron torus and wound around and transversely to the magnetic wave. The total flux

path can be divided into 19,206 rings, a number equal to the reciprocal of the finestructure constant squared (-2). The circumference of each of these rings is equal to

the Duane-Hunt wavelength (which the Correas extract from the Duane-Hunt law), and

the total wavelength coiled around the torus therefore equals the mass-equivalent

electron wavelength. The average of the two electron-torus radii is equal to the Bohr

radius (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 length

multiplied 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 double

swings, or a number four times higher, KkrSS = 409,600, for single swings. These

numbers are obtained by counting the number of swings per 64 seconds, which Reich

called 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 atomic

weights of hydrogen, helium, oxygen, and zinc respectively. Note also that 102,400

equals 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 25

cm and 100 cm yield the same values of K. But for all other pendulum lengths, the

product of length and frequency squared varies between 96,000 and 100,860. Reich

therefore proposed that there are two classes of oscillatory pendulums and two classes

of atomic elements: those with lengths or masses that belong to the krx number series

and those that do not.

The 100 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each swing (180 pendular motion), while

the 25 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each double swing (360 pendular oscillation).

In other words, decreasing the pendulum length fourfold halves the oscillation

frequency. For pendulums, the standard formula for gravitational acceleration is: g =

42l/T2. If the mean value of the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is taken

to be g = 9.81 m/s2, the accepted classical pendulum that strikes seconds with each

swing needs to be 99.4 cm long. But Reich found that the pendulum which strikes

seconds is 100 cm or 1 metre long, thus putting the general value of g at the Earth's

surface at g = 2 = 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 () equals 2/T (where T is the period of

oscillation and is the frequency of oscillation in radians/sec), and since pendulum

length (l) functions as a radius, we can also write: g = r2. Thus, with the single and

double swing constants now expressed in seconds:

gkrx = 2 m/s2 = 1002 cm/s2 = 42l/T2 = r2 = 42KkrDS = 2KkrSS

This novel treatment opens the way to understanding g as a circular function, or more

specifically, as a function of cycloidal energy swings (see below); gkrx results from the

synchronous action of 2 or about 10 single energy swings or wave impulses at the

Earth's surface. How this can be reconciled with the fact that objects in free fall seem to

fall vertically will be considered later. There is, of course, one clear similarity between

pendulums and objects in free fall: just as gravitational pendulums depend for their beat

solely on length and not on the suspended mass, so the time taken by an object in free

fall to travel a certain distance is independent of its mass (d = gt2).

Clearly, Reich's value for g is slightly higher than the accepted value for gravitational

acceleration at the Earth's surface. This is because his value corresponds to the

gravitational field intensity E, and not to the net resultant acceleration, which varies with

latitude:

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

where G is the gravitational constant, ME is the Earth's mass, RE is the Earth's mean

radius, h is the altitude above the Earth's surface, Ro is the combined radius RE + h, and

is another angular velocity function that couples to Ro and is a constituent of the

gravitational field intensity. Traditionally, this field intensity is considered to be

counteracted by the centrifugal force created by the Earth's rotation; the centrifugal

acceleration is zero at the poles and reaches a maximum of 0.03392 m/s2 at the

equator. One of the problems in the current understanding of gravity is that the

difference between the gravitational acceleration at the poles and at the equator is

greater than any centrifugal reaction can account for. This discrepancy is conventionally

explained by the Earth being not a perfect sphere but an oblate spheroid, or rather a

triaxial spheroid.

Assuming that g = 2 m/s2, and taking account of the centrifugal reaction, the value of

g 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? Their

answer, 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 g

at the poles and the equator, along with better determinations of the polar and

equatorial radii. This makes it possible to accurately determine the angular velocity

function () that is a constituent of the gravitational field intensity. They point out that if

we employ the values for net g at the poles (where no centrifugal reaction exists) along

with the polar radii to determine the value of , and then use this value together with the

known equatorial radius to determine the gravitational field intensity at the equator, this

will be found to be exactly 2 m/s2, to the fourth digit! This rules out geometric

explanations for the actual value of net g at the equator, as the differences in terrestrial

geometry are already taken into account. So something besides the centrifugal force or

geometry must account for the counteraction of gravity at the equator by = (2 0.03392) - 9.780524 = 0.05516 m/s2. They contend that this antigravity effect is not due

to geometry or uneven distributions of mass inside the Earth, but to a massfree energy

effect 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 harmonic

oscillation 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, = (k/m).

The period of simple harmonic motion, T = 2/.

Hence:

T = 2(m/k) = 2[(m/(mg/l)] = 2(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. The

Correas also draw our attention to the fact that if we apply the mass-to-length

transformation to k = mg/l, Hooke's constant (k) becomes functionally equivalent to the

local gravitational acceleration constant (g).

In 1696 mathematician Jean Bernoulli offered a reward for the solution of the

following problem: What shape is the curve on which a body subjected only to the force

of gravity will slide (without friction) between two points in the least possible time? He

and his brother Jacques, along with Leibniz, Newton, Huygens, and others, found the

curve of fastest descent (or brachistochrone) to be part of an inverted cycloid, i.e. a

curve generated by a point on the circumference of a circle that rolls along a straight

line.

passes through the centre of a rolling circle. For a cycloid (diagram A), this point (P) is

located on the rim of the circle. The purple and red curves in diagram B are prolate and

curtate cycloids respectively, the distance A-P1 being greater than the radius of the

rolling 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 when

approaching 90 from the vertical, the chains visibly slacken. This is undoubtedly due in

part to their weight, but it may also point to the cycloidal nature of the gravitational wave

or 'massfree energy swing' that acts on the swinger or on pendulums. This is implied by

the fact that, as Huygens demonstrated, in a gravitational field only the cycloidal curve

is isochronous: the time taken by a particle to slide to the lowest point of an inverted

cycloid 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 is

released at an angle no greater than 57.5 from the vertical.

A rolling circle performs one revolution per cycloidal arch, or one cycloidal cycle. The

linear length of the cycloid (LL) is equal to the circle's circumference (2r), and the

curved length (LC) or the aetherometric wavelength of the cycloid equals 4/ LL or

1.273 LL. The Correas contend that if it can be demonstrated that pendular length (l) for

single swings directly converts into the wavelength of cycloidal motion, and still

functions as the length equivalent of the inert mass of an element (i.e. m = lSS = LC), one

should be able to crack the gravitational wavelength of elementary gravitons.

They argue that if a pendulum is released from 90 to the vertical, and the

isochronous requirement is still to hold, the pendular swing will have to take the form of

a 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 arc

is generated by four synchronized rolling circles. The pendulum length is equal to the

curvilinear length of the red cycloid and to four times its amplitude. Given that at 90 to

the vertical the pendulum length wraps itself around the cycloidal wave exactly, this

wave becomes equivalent to the free massfree waveform of the pendulum length; every

gravitational pendulum therefore has a specific wavefunction intrinsic to its swing.

including gravitational swings, consist of a primary superimposition of waves that is

functionally 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 the

massfree 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 is

analogous to de Broglie's phase wave.

In the case of gravitational energy, a single energy swing constitutes a full-cycle

gravitational wave, and consists of an association of wave motion with the impulse or

momentum connected with its forward linear motion. To put it another way, the massfree

swing is composed of a particle (the aetherometric graviton) and its associated, extrinsic

cycloidal wave. Since aetherometry claims that neutrons are decay particles, and that

atoms are composed solely of two types of massbound particles electrons/positrons

and protons/antiprotons (or their families, which the Correas have identified in

unpublished material) there are only two fundamental kinds of gravitons: the electrongraviton class and the proton-graviton class. The gravitons of all known elements are

composites of these two classes, and can be arranged in a Periodic Table of gravitons

that parallels the Periodic Table of elements.

Energy has the conventional dimensions: m l2 t-2 (mass times length squared divided

by 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 of

fine structure, this corresponds to the product (superimposition) of a wavelength and

two wavespeeds ( 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 than

the 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 forms

fluid lattices composed not of a rigid, static grid of cells, but of energy events or fluxes

which can interpenetrate and superimpose. When the fusion, or secondary

superimposition, 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 unit

squared (En2) = mass-energy (En) x graviton energy (EGn). A slightly more complex

(cubic) superimposition of three aether energy units is shown to generate not only

mass-energy and graviton energy, but also ambipolar radiation, which in turn produces

the cosmic microwave background radiation (mCBR). So the mCBR is not the afterglow

of 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 of

the 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 matter

in accordance with the varying strength of local gravitational fields, for gravitons and

antigravitons can also be created by the local aether lattice without the simultaneous

creation of physical matter. A mass's weight is a gravitic force dependent on the

average number of gravitational waves and associated momenta acting on it at any

instant. In the case of the Earth, an object in free fall is subject to the repeating or

pulsed action of almost 10 (2) 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 torus

structure was considered in section 2. Aetherometry proposes that the same

wavelength functions as the wavelength of all the massfree energy swings (gravitons)

which are constantly acting on the toroidal energy flux that constitutes the electron's

inertial mass.

A body's gravitational 'mass' is therefore neither mass nor, strictly speaking, a

property of that body per se, but rather the mass-equivalent wavelength of the

graviton(s) anchored to and synchronized with the body's inert mass in any given local

gravitational field. There is therefore no physical or energetic identity between inert

mass and 'gravitational mass', as orthodox physics claims, but there is a functional and

algebraic equivalence between the gravitational wavelength of a graviton and the inert

mass it acts upon.

Every gravitational wavelength is a single-swing cycloidal wavelength. We saw above

that a 100 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each swing, yielding a unit acceleration,

KkrSS, equal to 100f1002 or 1 m/s2. Aetherometry proposes that all gravitons share this

acceleration constant, i.e. that the mass-equivalent wavelength (n) of any particular

grain of matter multiplied by its graviton frequency squared equals KkrSS. This means

that graviton frequency is equal to the reciprocal of n, and its wavespeed is

numerically equal to n. The gravitational waves accompanying an electron, for

example, 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 space

independently as such. They are anchored to massbound particles or to lattices of

massfree and massbound charges, and move with them. Gravitons anchored to

material particles are formed locally from the nonelectric aether, and last for the lifespan

of the mass-energy or aether lattice to which they are attached, but during this time they

are constantly being shed and regenerated, in the form of impulses from the local

aether 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 aether

lattices, carrying a certain number of 'free' gravitons (or antigravitons) anchored to them,

and permitting the apparent propagation of gravity and gravitational disturbances

through them. The apparent speed of propagation of gravity and gravitational

disturbances through the aether is given by vG = c/WGe metre/sec = 1.2799 x 1011 m/s, or

426.95 times the speed of light.

stars and galaxies are the result of spinning (vortical) motions of massfree energy on

multiple scales. Aether waves (associated with the influx of aether lattices) impart

impulses to the Earth as they curve in towards the planet along cycloidal paths. This

aether 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 its

subvortices) that generates gravitational 'attraction' within the solar system can be

pictured as a discoidal extension of the Sun.

Aether motion around the Earth can be deduced from satellite motion, since it is the

motion of cycloidal massfree waves around a planet that sustains orbital motion. The

translatory speed of a satellite is about 3 km/s 35,860 km above the Earth, increases

steadily to 7.8 km/s at about 100 km, but decelerates abruptly at lower altitudes as a

result of atmospheric and terrestrial absorption of the aether impulses, so that at

tropospheric altitudes it would be no faster than the jet stream (0.01 to 0.1 km/s, relative

to the Earth's equatorial spin velocity of 0.46 km/s).

The slightly faster west-to-east rotation of the aetherosphere compared with body

Earth accounts for the results of Sagnac-type experiments conducted at the Earth's

surface, which have shown that the speed of light is slightly faster around the Earth from

east to west than from west to east. The almost vertical descent of most of the graviton

flux at very low altitudes explains the apparent vertical motion of free fall. In reality, free

fall is not vertical. First, an object in free fall partakes of the Earth's motions, including

the local rotation velocity the Earth's rotation being something that conventional

physics is at a loss to explain. Second, the path of free fall is not even vertical or straight

with respect to the rotating Earth, since the gravitational intensity varies locally on and

above the surface of the Earth. An object in free fall actually travels through some

segment of a cycloidal path, and is subject to the constant momentum imparted by

locally formed gravitons released from the inflowing aether lattice, in a series of

microscopic cycloidal swings or impulses, given that a semi-cycloid is the shortestduration, frictionless (i.e. effectively massfree) slide path between two points.

The structure of aether lattices can be extracted from the fine or hidden structure of

the universal constant G (see below). These lattices consist of nonelectric massfree

energy in differential states of superimposition that generate cosmological leptons (their

mass-energy), the lepton-gravitons that sustain these leptons, the massfree ambipolar

radiation that electrically accelerates them and which they shed in the form of mCBR

photons, and the lattice-seated 'travelling' gravitons (or antigravitons) that may also be

shed. Aether lattices therefore contain interacting massbound and massfree charges,

and comprise fluxes of gravitons and antigravitons. Gravitons impel a particle or body

towards regions of greater mass density, and antigravitons impel it in the opposite

direction, but the same massfree particle can function as either according to the net

polarity of the underlying electrodynamic interaction between lattice charges. The

planets are pushed both towards and away from the Sun through their dynamic

gravitational/antigravitational interactions, resulting in a near steady state. The inflowing

aether lattice streams responsible for terrestrial gravity have a dual origin, solar and

galactic, and coincide with the fluxes of solar and galactic ambipolar radiation.

The aetherometric theory of gravity and the graviton differs in important respects from

the conventional Le Sage impact theory of gravity. According to the latter, very tiny

particles ('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 to

their shading one another from some graviton impacts. Aetherometry retains the gravityas-push idea, but thinks in terms of massfree wave impulses acting on the elements of

matter rather than solid particle collisions, and also introduces the idea of ordered

lattice-seated graviton fluxes that account for celestial motions. Unlike most variants of

Le Sage gravity, it also recognizes the existence of antigravity and the electrodynamic

nature of gravitational forces.

Newton's first law of motion states that a body continues to move with a constant

velocity or to remain at rest unless acted on by an external force. This law is

fundamentally flawed: it assumes that for an object to preserve a state of motion (or

rest) no work is required, no energy has to flow, and no force has to be deployed once a

body has been set in motion. By contrast, aetherometry posits that no motion can be

sustained without a flux of energy to replace the energy expended. Motion is always a

function of energy, and even a state of relative rest is actually a state of circular energy

flux. In other words, all is flux, motion, energy.

As we have seen, in the parallel field of electrostatics the Correas demonstrate that

for an electroscope leaf to remain deflected, in a state of relative rest, an

antigravitational force is required that permits conservation of a state of electric

repulsion and of the electrokinetic energy of the massbound charges trapped in the

stem and leaf. Linear motion at uniform velocity, too, requires energy transfer and

energy expenditure. This is the fundamental omission in Newton's first law. The total

power required to move a body at uniform velocity must increase with distance, and this

requires 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 the

electroscopic leaf system).

In his commentary on the first law, Newton admitted that linear translatory motion will

slow down even in a vacuum; in other words, conservation of inertia is imperfect and

energy of motion will gradually be exhausted. He used the motion of the planets as an

example of the conservation of uniform rectilinear translation, but this illustration is illchosen. For although the planets orbit the Sun with a constant mean velocity, planetary

motion is curvilinear or angular, and therefore accelerated, given the continuous change

in direction of the velocity vector, and is subject to constant fluctuations.

The Correas argue that there are no inertial, rectilinear motions; all motion is

curvilinear and accelerated, and a constant mean velocity actually involves periodic

accelerations and decelerations. All inertial systems are already accelerated ones.

Uniform motion continues only for as long as the regular series of impulses sustaining it

persists, and conservation of energy holds only for the system formed by the moving

body and its environment, including the local massfree aether.

In newtonian physics, motion appears to occur in defiance of the law of conservation

of energy, and is labelled 'inertial' to signify that it 'continues on its own'. Inertia is

assumed 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 a

function of the characteristic wavelength of a quantity of massfree energy circularized

into a torus as mass-energy. In line with an idea first put forward by Harold Aspden, they

say that it is the tendency of massbound particles to try and conserve this energy (and

thus their volume and internal structure) when accelerated that produces the property of

inertia. In other words, inertia is a resistance by a quantity of mass-energy (and

associated graviton energy) when it is accelerated by an externally imposed massfree

field.

Newton's first law deals with the inertia of a body moving at constant speed in a

straight line. His third law requires an action to be balanced by an equal and opposite

reaction, implying that the centripetal force of gravity should be balanced by a

centrifugal force (an inertial force that obeys the second law, where force equals mass

times 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 the

many instances in the real world when the third law fails. Free fall is counteracted only

partially, and insufficiently in fact, by the centrifugal force developed by the Earth's

rotation, whose magnitude depends on latitude. Centrifugal force is usually presented

as a property of rotation, but its true source remains mysterious. The neo-Machian view

is that centrifugal forces are inertial forces that ultimately arise from the gravitational

attraction 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 a

stable satellite orbit. Aetherometry suggests that a stable satellite does not in fact

experience a centrifugal force equal and opposite in sign to the centripetal force of its

weight. Instead, the orbital motion of satellites is sustained by the spinning aether flux

enveloping the Earth. At lower altitudes the flux increasingly bends down towards the

surface of the Earth, and loses transverse longitudinal velocity to gain near-vertical

longitudinal velocity; gravitational acceleration (g) increases from 9.5 m/s2 at an altitude

of about 100 km to about 9.8 m/s2 at the Earth's surface. But whereas the aether flux

around the Earth results in satellites having a constant transverse speed, the velocity of

a body in free fall steadily increases, because the body absorbs (and stores) more field

energy from the local aether lattice than it expends through its free fall relative to the

surface of the rotating Earth.

The Correas point out that just as classical and Lorentzian-relativistic

electrodynamics ignore longitudinal electrical forces deployed along the direction of

charge motion, so relativists ignore the longitudinal nature of the gravitational forces or

swings responsible for both orbital motion and free fall. They further suggest that

centrifugal forces are produced by rotating bodies because they arise as a function of

weight transfer to the local aether lattice, i.e. as part of a primary gravitational

interaction between a rotating body and the spinning local aether lattice.

Since force is traditionally defined as mass times acceleration, the conventional

dimensions of force are m l t-2, i.e. mass multiplied by length divided by time squared (1

newton = 1 kg m s-2). Applying the mass-to-length transformation yields the

aetherometric 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 cosmic

acceleration produced by the synchronous, ceaseless motion of massfree energy; in a

very real sense, it is independent of matter and even of mass. A gravitational field is

present everywhere in space, simply by virtue of the fact that space is produced by the

activity of aether lattices. G is ultimately a function of the relation between electric and

nonelectric massfree energy. This is underlined by one of the most basic exact functions

for G discovered by Correas, where only the third term contains a massfree interaction,

and the second includes the mass-energy (Ee = mec2) of a cosmological electron and

its associated graviton (EGe):

G = (h/2mec2)2 vG ( m/s2)2 = (h2/42 EeEGe) (vG-1 m/s) ( m/s2)2 = (h2/42

Ee2) (vG-1 m/s) ( m/s2)2 = 1.10575 x 10-35 m2/s2

(Note that with CODATA's official values for fundamental units of measurement, the

aetherometric determination gives 1.108 x 10-35 m2/s2.)

Another function for G expresses the intra-lattice interaction(s) as electrodynamic and

involving both superimposition and differential relations between massfree and

massbound charges; and still another expression accounts for the formation of latticeseated gravitons, and involves quadratic superimposition of aether energy units (Ee4).

The Correas stress that these and other exact algebraic expressions for G always

involve the coupling of established, fundamental physical values and functions with at

least one genuine aetherometric quantity or function. They show that although the

equation for G put forward by Sakharov (who regarded gravity as a zero-pointfluctuation force) yields the correct numerical value of G, it includes arbitrary and

nonfunctional terms.

Primary gravity refers to a material body's gravitational interaction with the local

aether lattice. The fundamental energy quantum of primary gravity is simply the product

mG. So-called inertial forces such as the centrifugal forces that arise from a body's

rotation transfer weight to a local lattice and take advantage of this primary

gravitational interaction while appearing to be an antigravity effect.

Secondary (newtonian) gravity is a result of the forces that two or more bodies exert

on 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 superimposition

of the separate energy quantities of primary gravity, Gm1 x Gm2, such that each body of

a pair experiences an acceleration proportional to the distance between their centres of

mass (gm2 = Gm1/r2 and gm1 = Gm2/r2), to yield a single force F = Gm1m2/r2. Hence, in

contrast to the primary gravitational energy of a body or massbound particle, the energy

In the final analysis, gravitational forces are essentially electrodynamic. Simplifying a

bit, aetherometry contends that gravity ultimately results from an electrodynamic

attraction that occurs when matter, which is mostly neutral or salt-like (with balanced

charges of both polarities), interacts with aether lattices formed by in-phase ambipolar

charges, whereas antigravity ultimately results from an electrodynamic repulsion that

occurs when matter has net charge and interacts with the same in-phase ambipolar

charge lattices. The Correas stress that genuine antigravity should be distinguished

from 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-precessed

flywheels or gyroscopes, which appear to lose weight and generate little or no

centrifugal force. The Correas agree with Harold Aspden that precession induces aether

spin (or a local electric and vortical spin of the aether lattice), which decouples the inert

mass 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 in

the process of developing two devices that cannot possibly exist according to accepted

physics: 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 object

of known chemical composition. First-generation devices have a power consumption of

a few watts, and can induce up to 100% weight loss in objects in the 100 mg range, by

converting an ambipolar energy beam into antigraviton energy. Dr. Eugene Mallove

witnessed demonstrations in which a piece of gold leaf was rapidly reduced in weight by

70% and 95% by imposing an ambipolar field with an electrical frequency adjusted to

match that of the gold antigraviton.

The anti-gravitator develops the electroscopic kinetoregenerative phenomenon

beyond weight neutralization to produce genuine negative gravity. According to a private

communication from the Correas, this electrodynamic effect appears to be strictly

monopolar, independent of ionization or ion-wind generation, independent of electrode

geometry, and seated in the gravito-electrodynamic repulsion described above as

promoted by the interaction of monopolar lattices of massbound charges (responsible

for the net charge of a body of matter) with in-phase ambipolar lattice charges. The

Correas are highly critical of much of the experimental work that has been conducted on

the 'Biefeld-Brown effect' a force directed towards the smaller electrode of an

asymmetric capacitor under a very high potential. Such experiments are often riddled

with uncontrolled artefacts, have produced contradictory results, and confuse anomalies

associated with electron emission and cathode reaction forces with antigravity. They

argue that there is really no BB effect but that it is possible to generate a genuine

electro-antigravitic force, or monopolar lift effect.

In her book Gravitational Force of the Sun (Orb Publishing, 1993), Pari Spolter

strongly criticizes the orthodox theory that gravity is proportional to the quantity or

density of inert mass. It is well known that the gravitational acceleration of objects in

free fall is independent of their mass. But Spolter goes as far as to argue that there is no

reason 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 or

convention, 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 a

circle with a radius equal to the mean distance of the orbiting body from the central

body. This equation implies that the acceleration due to gravity declines by the square

of the distance, but that the gravitational force of the Sun, Earth, etc. is constant for any

body revolving around it. In newtonian theory, by contrast, it varies according to both the

mass of the orbiting body and its distance from the central body.

The Correas identify various flaws in Spolter's theory. Spolter does not question the

equation for a body's momentum (momentum = mass times velocity), yet momentum

with a rate of repetition constitutes a force, which therefore cannot be independent of

mass. 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 a

star 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 to

attract 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 are

calculated by multiplying linear or circular force by a body's 'critical mass'. The Correas

argue that there is no justification for abandoning consistent definitions in this way: there

are not two forms of energy, one linear and the other angular, one flat and the other

volumetric. Specifically, they charge that Spolter confuses her 'circular force' with

massfree energy. And if the mass-to-length transformation is applied to Spolter's

equations, linear energy would have exactly the same dimensions as circular force (m3s2

)!

Using Spolter's equation, the gravitational force of the Sun would be 4.16 x 1020 m3s2

, a value that is constant for all planets, asteroids and artificial satellites orbiting it no

matter how far away they may be! The Correas point out that this value can also be

arrived at by multiplying the length-equivalent mass of the Sun by the accepted value of

G times . 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 force

acting at a distance upon any other body near to or far from the Sun; rather, after the

value is dropped, it comes close to describing the primary gravitational energy of the

Sun.

Physically, gravity does not involve some (mean) area being accelerated around the

Sun, as Spolter's equation implies. Rather, it involves a coupling of the mass-energy of

the Sun and planets, along with their associated massfree gravitational energy. And

gravitational 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 law

of planetary motion. This law states that the ratio of the square of a planet's period of

revolution (T) to the cube of its mean distance (r) from the Sun is always the same

number (T2/r3 = constant). (Strictly speaking, Spolter's argument concerns the reciprocal

of Kepler's constant [K-1 = r3/T2]). According to her equation, F = aA = (v2/r)(r2).

Replacing v with 2r/T, gives: F = 223r3/T2; in other words, r3/T2 = constant, the

'constant' in question being equal to the 'gravitational force' of a particular star or planet

divided by 223!

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

m3s-2) is equal to 223K-1. The Correas argue that this is a meaningless expression that

obscures the real significance of Kepler's constant. They point out that Leibniz criticized

Malebranche for a very similar confusion, when the latter thought that gravitational force

was given by rv2 = 222K-1. If Spolter were right about 'circular force' and its energy-like

dimensions, then all three Kepler radii (r3) should be fully circularized, and the

expression should be 233K-1, or, alternatively, since Spolter thinks that gravity involves

the acceleration of a mean area, two of the Kepler radii should be part of an area

function (r2), with the third being circularized (2r), giving 22K-1.

Spolter's expression also differs from Newton's form of Kepler's third law, in which

two radii are circularized: GM = 222K-1. This equation assumes that K-1 is equal to the

inert mass of a celestial body multiplied by the gravitational constant divided by 42. It is

impossible to place a star or planet on a balance and weigh it, and this is one of the

methods used to determine their theoretical masses.

The Correas argue that to understand the true meaning of Kepler's constant and

Newton's form of Kepler's third law, the latter has to be seen in relation to the entire

solar system, as it is part of a function that defines the massfree energy of the primary

gravitational interaction of the system as a whole. Aetherometrically, the correct relation

is GMSS = 222K-1 (where MSS is the mass of the solar system), and the corresponding

primary 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 the

Sun: GMSun = (MSun/MSS) 222K-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 body

somehow 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 causes

a celestial body to rotate in the first place. According to aetherometry, it is the ordered

inflowing aether fluxes that cause the planets and Sun to rotate, carry them forward in

their respective orbits, and generate their gravitational fields.

Mainstream science labours under the delusion that it is steadily progressing towards

a '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 a

morass of arbitrary and irrational mathematical fantasies. Infinitesimal particles, onedimensional strings, multi-dimensional branes, collapsing probability waves, 10- or 11dimensional spacetime, curved space, expanding space, spatialized time, dilated time,

time reversal, backward causation, ex-nihilo creation it seems that any garbage is

acceptable as long as it avoids the need for a dynamic, energetic aether.

As Bertrand Russell once observed, 'What men really want is not knowledge but

certainty.' Reigning paradigms do indeed offer scientists certainty and a sense of

security, financial as much as intellectual, and this helps them to ignore, trivialize or

suppress anomalies that expose the shortcomings of their cherished beliefs. Above all,

official science has largely lost the willingness and ability to question, and sometimes

even acknowledge, its own basic assumptions.

It is vital that alternative scientific models and viewpoints begin to receive a fairer

hearing. Multiple working hypotheses and theories should be able to compete freely for

attention and should be judged on their merits on their grounding in experimental and

observational facts, their ability to provide realistic explanations, to make accurate

predictions, to generate new insights, and to spawn innovative technologies. On all

these 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 reviewing

this 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

- Kinetic EnergyЗагружено:Rahul Viswam
- Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa- Introduction to Experimental Aetherometry - Volume IIB: New Energy Physics and the Discovery of Ambipolar EnergyЗагружено:SonyRed
- Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa- Experimental Aetherometry Volume IIA IntroductionЗагружено:SonyRed
- Harold Aspden- Power from Space: The Correa InventionЗагружено:SonyRed
- Newtons Laws of MotionЗагружено:Krishna Kumar Mishra
- Teacher Guide Activity 4 Action-ReactionЗагружено:Canada Railway Times
- Einstein GTRЗагружено:Antony Philip
- newtons laws worksheetЗагружено:api-368883407
- Gravitation - P2, week 1Загружено:hooloovoo
- Uji Kompetensi Kbi Force February 2012Загружено:JoshuaUntung
- Sheet 1Загружено:Robin Red Msiska
- PhysQB3_T2Загружено:Nikola Petrovic
- xardЗагружено:Rishabh Pandey
- 23642647-N-Tesla-HOW-COSMIC-FORCES-SHAPE-OUR-DESTINIES.pdfЗагружено:kiki
- mousetrap carЗагружено:api-293189177
- Chapter 1.pdfЗагружено:Travis Shivley
- ch4Загружено:SumberScribd
- Chapter 6 GravitationЗагружено:Jonathan Teng
- 2018-06-05 (4)Загружено:Xxyyzz
- Session 2: Dynamics&Forces QuestionsЗагружено:api-3804363
- FM Study GuideЗагружено:Eric Jo
- atwood lab reportЗагружено:api-255054797
- 01 Torque and UnitЗагружено:JuanGómez
- phy-9thЗагружено:Abdulwahab Afridi
- forceandmotion 5-6 nfb - midЗагружено:api-262214499
- forceandmotion 5-6 nfb - midЗагружено:api-297727492
- Novice Week6Загружено:Derek Knotts
- Isaac Newton - DefinitionsЗагружено:dcolomes
- Physics G IIЗагружено:AbdallahSaleem
- Final 2011Загружено:Alex

- Consciousness and Modern ScienceЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Damodar: Theosophical PioneerЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- T. Subba RowЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Laura Holloway, Theosophy and the MahatmasЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Gravity and Antigravity (1)Загружено:Haris Liviu
- Geochronology: Theosophy and ScienceЗагружено:Haris Liviu
- Geochronology: Theosophy and ScienceЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- The Rhythms of LifeЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Reincarnation and Population GrowthЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- The Energy FutureЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Sex and SexualityЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Evolution and Design (3)Загружено:Haris_Isa
- Evolution in the Fourth RoundЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Life on Other WorldsЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Causal InterpretationЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Cosmology: Beyond the Big BangЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Infinite Divisibility of MatterЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Who Was the Real Jesus?Загружено:Haris_Isa
- Visitors From the Twilight ZoneЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Electromagnetism, Subtle Energies and HealthЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Goswami's Monistic Idealism: An AppraisalЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Astral BodiesЗагружено:Haris Liviu
- Inner and Outer RoundsЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Plate Tectonics: A Paradigm Under ThreatЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Tibetan Diagram of the Hollow Earth?Загружено:Haris_Isa
- Bohm & the Implicate OrderЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Exploding the Big BangЗагружено:Haris_Isa
- Black Holes and Bad ScienceЗагружено:Haris_Isa

- Guardians' defense(1).pdfЗагружено:Ankit Pandey
- Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical ContextsЗагружено:156majama
- Hollow EarthЗагружено:Susindaran Susi
- PHY11L - E201Загружено:Idate Patrick
- GravityЗагружено:Talha Naeem Rao
- Newton and GravitationЗагружено:Prasad Shah
- ExamplesЗагружено:Bradd Monacs
- 4 Laws of Black HolesЗагружено:neotonian
- Lista de DocumentalesЗагружено:Anonymous R5tpIi
- general relativityЗагружено:M J Rhoades
- Beyond Einstein From the Big Bang to Black HolesЗагружено:Bob Andrepont
- Newtonian PhysicsЗагружено:Nikunj
- Class Xi Physics Sample PaperЗагружено:dhruvarora31
- Universal Theory on Planetary MotionЗагружено:IOSRjournal
- Cinética de La PartículaЗагружено:dvalle
- Newtons Second Law of Motion1 2Загружено:Book_U
- PreparationЗагружено:Orbit MBBS Preparation
- Prediction of Gravity Anomaly From Calculated Densities of RocksЗагружено:i333
- Solar Eclipses in History and MythologyЗагружено:Constantin Roşu
- Densidad-Porosidad.pdfЗагружено:Cesar Squella Ali
- Out of the Gravity WellЗагружено:ahreanului
- Lyall Watson - Supernature (1)Загружено:Bac Cristi
- CAT Sample Paper 2Загружено:ashutoshrv
- Pinsky Problems in Physics MirЗагружено:Mukul Pant
- Test 1 Unit 1 Physics Sem 1 2017Загружено:Song
- GravitationЗагружено:abh_omega
- Dynamic FREE FALL lab report.docxЗагружено:Kevin Tan
- A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy by Oliver HeavisideЗагружено:baban1_jpg
- Pre-foundation.pdfЗагружено:Sunny Biswal
- Forces TestЗагружено:iskenderbey