Author: ME Williamson

Blog Category: Physics

Posted: 31 July 2022

See my research on gravity control at the following url:

http://hyperdrive.works

*Flow Formula of Gravitation (F = \Gamma - (\frac{\omega\rho}{\zeta})\frac{m1m2}{r^2})*

If gravity may now be controlled and harnessed, then the 21st Century shall perhaps be remembered for answering the greatest question in atomic physics:

**Question:** What is the relationship between m1 and m2 in Newton’s iconic equation, the law of universal gravitation?

*F = G{m1m2} over {r^2}*

Or, simply stated, what is the source of gravity?

**Short Answer (from Flow Theory):** Matter is developed as the product of a Meta Realm consisting of one central, primary realm, and several sub realms. The central, primary realm is called the physical realm and its contributing sub or ancillary realms are named as follows: Gravity, Electricity and Time. Together, these ancillary realms may be grouped under the title of time-energy, or te. The time-energy realms are coupled with the physical realm which builds gravity and other effects. The source of gravity is developed through field interactions sourced from the gravity realm which is unseen and not directly detectable from the physical realm. We exist only in the physical realm and are therefore only able to access these three sub realms indirectly. The gravity realm consists of an independent, 3-dimensional space consisting of a singular additional source, building a 4th dimensional aspect. These four dimensional aspects develop as a sub-straight design that binds and exerts force upon the physical realm. All physical bodies are surrounded by a body in time-energy called the crown of conduction which is invisible in the physical realm. This crown develops pull towards other such similar bodies in time-energy. This interaction sets up a field of attraction in time-energy which pulls on the connected matter in the physical realm which we occupy. This attracting force draws things of similar or like potentials towards one another in the physical realm.

*Physical bodies experiencing pull towards one another through the interaction in the crown of conduction – depicted in orange.*

Early testing has lead to validation of this new theory. The predicted outcomes of the experiments were generally accurate, where gravity appears to be malleable and has been indirectly manipulated. The tool being used for these experiments is called the HyperDrive which is a propulsion system being designed primarily for spacecraft in conjunction with an artificial gravity generation device.

**Deep Dive into Flow Gravity**

Gravity is a force that develops within a secondary realm. This force is then experienced in the physical realm, where we as humans have full bearing and presence. The physical is our experienced realm. However, the secondary realms of time-energy develop great influence over our physical realm as demonstrated in the following intrinsic properties of nature: time, gravity and electricity.

Gravity may be explained using an analogy of being like a syrup that surrounds all physical bodies and objects. This syrup exists in another, unseen realm. The larger the physical body the greater the density and magnitude of this syrup that surrounds it. This is due to the displacement of the syrup by the physical body forming a crown of higher density around it (the crown of conduction). Think of a piece of popcorn floating in syrup. As an example, the sun could be the popcorn, and is made to spin in the syrup as a result of a spin parity developed from other objects, also rotating. This is due to galaxy rotation and the parity of spin that develops for all stars within our galaxy.

In the analogy, as the sun spins, the gravimetric field surrounding the sun, like syrup, develops into a swirl due to friction. Picture popcorn being made to spin in syrup and the effects this would have upon the syrup. The other planets in our solar system also have a gravimetric presence in the realm of time energy. Their fields then interact with the field surrounding the sun. They are also spinning in the syrup, but the smaller size of the planets has them have less density and magnitude of effect upon the syrup. The syrup is special, however, as it develops a pull upon things towards one another. This creates a pull upon the planets towards the sun, but also creates a spin of the planets to synchronize into a parity of spin just as the sun has developed into a parity of spin in the Milky Way galaxy. This is a basic analogy of how gravity works, and the concept of rotation parity which is critical to understanding celestial mechanics as well as the test instruments being employed to explore gravity.

For a more complete explanation of this theoretical model, please read the introduction to__Flow Theory.__

Some may doubt this answer and flat out be in disbelief that gravity could be explained using this Meta Realm paradigm of understanding, that time-energy and the physical are different realms, covariant in nature and yet connected. Granted, this theoretical model is a radical departure from other accepted, conventional models. Yet, this new model explains a great many things that previously could not be reasoned and this theory has lead to the building of the HyperDrive which manipulates gravity to both create propulsive forces and to cause a gravity increase upon a target, called a collector.

If the age old question as to the source of gravity has now been answered, then this time in history shall be marked as a defining moment in physics.

However, this may greatly change the landscape of our physical sciences and reverses many existing and accepted theories, some older than 100 years. If this is the case, than what shall the legacy of the 20th century hold for theoretical physics?

In fact, over the last 100 years humans have witnessed extraordinary advances in many technological areas. Computer science, mathematics, engineering, electronics, manufacturing and communications have all made gargantuan leaps forward. One crucial area, however, seems to have fallen behind its brethren and, despite appearances to the contrary, left us without a clear understanding of basic concepts necessary for space travel or how the physical universe is constructed. This area is theoretical physics, specifically in the areas of the source of gravity and atomic construction.

Despite proclamations to the contrary, theoretical physics has fallen asunder in these critical areas. Perhaps one of the greatest misguiding errors of physicists in the 20th century has been in trusting that good mathematics could somehow save poorly developed theories. Bad theoretics, no matter how well mathematized, yield little or no advancement and many such theories have become a drain not only on the sciences in general but the agencies that fund their research projects.

**Proof is in the pudding**

Despite experts stating that gravity is well understood and its theoretical development has been brought up to a dazzling level, yet, under the prevailing models no one has gained direct control over gravity. The gravimetric constant is rated by many as being the most poorly understood of all the constants. Gravity researchers have been driven into outerspace, just to glimpse a space free of the ever present 1 earth gravity.

Yet, with so many eye catching and captivating discoveries being brought forth through enormous atomic colliders, gravity wave catchers, a plethora of highly regarded research papers, and a myriad of huge economic investment, one would think they should be living in a world blessed by much great technological advancement having sprung forth from these amazing new discoveries. However, this does not appear to be the case. As far as social contribution from theoretical physics, things pretty much stopped about 100 years ago and have left many asking, “Where’s the beef?”

It was at about this time that Albert Einstein was busy formulating General and Special Relativity.

Despite it’s amazing potentials and brilliant insights, not one tool, invention or machine has yet been built to prove his theories. The only benefit appears to be in providing answers to vexing theoretical questions which may now be answered using alternative explanations. Many answers developed through relativity rely heavily upon mathematics which have been wrongly applied to incomplete theories.

Those working at the forefront of theoretical research in Quantum Mechanics seem to universally agree that the description of gravity offered in General Relativity (GR) is not very useful. Currently, intense efforts are under way in Quantum Mechanics (QM) research to develop a new theory of gravity based on locating a particle being termed the graviton to update or replace Einstein’s theories of gravity.

This incredibly small graviton particle, it is hoped, once found shall answer the most important questions, not only about gravity, but shall round out the standard model of physics, the star flagship of QM. This new emerging model seems to not mesh well with the curved spacetime ideas of Einstein, leaving this older model without much support. Perhaps the understanding of gravity offered by Mr. Einstein was lacking in theoretical correctness? Furthermore, what if this graviton particle does not exist? What if there is no such thing as a graviton? All this has left gravity as the misunderstood step child of physics.

Therefore, in the mean time, the only formula with common scientific agreement is Einstein’s field equation, which is supposed to describe gravity in an useful way to allow scientists and researchers to advance our understanding of gravity and the atomic universe while carrying out experiments on the very large or small scale. Yet, it has been 100 years now, Mr. Einstein, and your theory appears to have gotten us no where closer to understanding time or gravity in any useful or practical manner.

The context of Einstein’s relativity places objects upon a canvas that curves around them and causes them to “fall downhill” towards one another. This context is incorrect and has limited our true understanding of how gravity works and prevented the development of devices such as the HyperDrive or other forms of gravity control. Gravity arises out of interactions between a field of enclosure that surrounds all physical matter. This field of enclosure is compressible and features torsion. By stating that spacetime curvature, as presented in relativity, is a rigid construct of the universe, scientists and researchers have been hamstrung in their understanding of this essential part of all atomic construction. This context has set up limits to our understanding of gravity.

Let us now precede to highlight the great failings of the Einstein Field Equation, the unsupportable theories behind it and also reexamine the base concepts that have guided the area of science called theoretical physics. Let us then see what may be done to change our lot and understanding of the physical universe.

**Einstein Field Equation (EFE)**

It has been said that the left side of this equation represents the curvature of spacetime and the expression on the right represents the matter energy content of spacetime.

That sounds familiar. Isaac Newton gave us this very simple and useful equation to describe the force of gravity:

F = {G} \frac{m1m2}{r^2}

In Newton’s law of gravitation the left side of the equation represents Force. The right side of this equation represents mass. In equivalences, the left side of Einstein’s equation has transmuted Force into curvature. As the theory goes, this curvature forms around physical bodies which causes other bodies to “fall downhill” around them. This was meant to replace Force in Newton’s equation. In Einstein parlance, a construct of the universe, downhill-making-curvature, causes the force of gravity. Let us then begin here with our deconstruction of the Einstein Field Equation, or EFE.

EFE states that the force of gravity is replaced with “falling downhill”.

Downhill?

Downhill is an Earthly concept generally related to undulations in the topography of the land and a pull towards our planet. Downhill in the context of the EFE then acts as a substitution for any deeper understanding of the concept of gravity and a requisite, but missing, compelling force. Yet, in the universe, there is no such thing as downhill. As astronauts who have been into outerspace will attest, downhill does not exist. When one is floating in space, away from the planet, things no longer fall to the floor. Therefore, downhill exists as a construct of language by primitives with little or no control over the pull that exists between two physical bodies and who wished to survive in their sometimes harsh environment. When I hear this theory I picture a buggy ride down a hill behind a horse, which was quite common 100 years ago, and long before humans began to visit outer space.

As there is no downhill outside of the context of being close to a large celestial body and our habituated experience of living upon one, and, therefore, including this concept in such a formula lacks scientific rigor, then downhill should be thrown out as an accepted precept. If there is no downhill, then what pulls the buggy and the horse downhill? No further conceptual idea as to the force of gravity is presented in the EFE. Accelerated potentials of things about to fall down a hill does not describe what may be causing the potential for acceleration in any particular direction. As curvature resulting in a downhill slide is the basis for the left side of the equation, and it has been demonstrated that there exists no such thing, then the equation no longer has a left. In order for an equation to be useful it must contain both a left and a right side.

Moving on, the tensors mu and nu are used throughout the EFE. This makes the equation extremely large and cumbersome. Why do we need so many tensors? This is because, according to Mr. Einstein, time is not a constant and is relative to the observer. Therefore, there is no universal time except for a time relative to the speed that you, and you alone are traveling, and mu/nu are necessary to make a time that all observers may agree upon. Furthermore, it was proposed within GR that one can time travel in a significant way simply by moving at a high velocity (time dilation). Actually, according to GR and the EFE, one’s time would travel much more slowly relative to those not moving so fast, especially as one approached the speed of light. This is based on logical leapfrogging using light travel and observers. To date, no simplified system has been offered to allow anyone to prove this theory, only inaccessible, complex and expensive systems. This has only been "proven" quite recently in studies that were conducted in very expensive colliders probably by those wishing to recuperate the enormous credibility spent upon their construction. Conveniently, relativity survives by proofs reproducible only by those of tremendous means. Perhaps reproducibility should be more transparent and accessible, and we were acting a bit prematurely in accepting this wild and fanciful thought experiment, called relativity, with little or no proof?

To the next point, the right side of the EFE contains k. K is meant to represent the “Einstein Gravitational Constant” which may be written as follows:

k = \frac{8G\pi}{c^4}

The speed of light, as represented by c, is then brought into the very large and tedious EFE equation on the right side. If you will recall the right side represents the matter energy content of spacetime according to Albert Einstein and basically mass according to Newton’s aforementioned equation.

As Einstein wished to represent mass as energy, the speed of light is introduced as a component piece of the mass of all physical bodies, as formulated c^4. True, the speed of light is a property of the component parts of physical matter, as matter is constituted with a moving mass in the electricity realm which surrounds the atomic core/nucleus. However, electricity and hence the speed of light, does not constitute or develop significant mass. Mass standard is a function of volume and 1 home planet gravity normalized at the human habitation point, "the surface". Attracting forces between objects are not calculated using c. They are currently calculated as mass times the acceleration induced at the surface of the third planet in our solar system of small objects next to one big object, regardless of the mass of the small object. This rough standard appears sufficient by today\'s standards, but in the case of the EFE, there appears to be no practical rationale for the inclusion of c in any type of gravity equation, especially considering the lack of proof that acceleration induces such a dilation as described in GR.

Customarily mathematical equations derive meaning through a relationship of two various constituents on either side of the equal symbol. As the EFE includes c on both sides of the equation, the development of diverse relational meaning should cancel c from both sides first, should it not? Therefore, the base context of mass in the Einstein universe being a potential derived at its core from a speed c, and speed c being irrelevant on any side of such an equation, the right side of the EFE now collapses under its own weight. Perhaps now the right side and the left side do in fact balance and contain equal amounts of something, nothing.

Finally, lambda, the "cosmological constant" simply does not belong in a common gravitational field equation. The expansion of the universe is not something that most scientists would worry about while conducting experiments. Einstein, himself, abandoned Λ remarking to George Gamow, "that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life". Perhaps on a large cosmic scale this could be incorporated, however, maybe best to only include such a variable in the very specialized circumstances where this might be applicable.

Gravity is a force and should be dealt with as such. Chronically substituting the word force with the word acceleration because unaccelerated potentials must account for the many effects of gravity leads to incorrect and confusing semantics. Despite acceleration being immensely similar to the force of gravity, gravity is not acceleration, and it has now been proven that there are differences. Acceleration arises through body collisions and is defined as a property of motion. The misuse of the term acceleration to describe a property of a thing leads to confusion. This confusion has further limited scientists wishing to explore and better understand the force of gravity. It is a force of nature which compels an attraction between physical bodies. Therefore, gravity may now be reasoned with, in a practical and sensible manner, simply by using the word force which scales up and down towards and away from center. I propose that we update the singular dimension thinking of "gravimetric acceleration" with a more elaborate force calculation system that scales from mass center. Accurate gravity calcultions must be made inclusive of 3 + 4, a total of 7 dimensions comprising two realms. Let us now more precisely discuss and calculate this force as perhaps the equivalence principle confuses people and is based upon inaccessible and unproven theories.

As the EFE has been, up until now, the only existing way to comprehensively calculate gravimetric forces and effects using one theory of quantitative development inclusive of an otherwise inexplicable aspect of potentials of an infinite magnitude, this over simplification has survived in spite of its limited practical use and apparent excessive and erroneous complexity, all the while basing itself on theories yet to be demonstrated in more accessible experiments. The seemingly revolutionary and “mind blowing” aspects of relativity have made it seem fitting to abolish the greatest of scientific mysteries. Yet the answers that it has given us seem to bring us right back to the place where we started.

Let us then now attempt to go beyond the buggy age, and move to examine a new theory of gravity offered in Flow Science. As gravity has recently been proven in the laboratory of SolarSnap while developing the HyperDrive, to be malleable, compressible, it is further proved that gravity is not a static constructor providing the mythical downhill slide of gravimetric acceleration. These experiments were made as a theoretical exploration of the new ideas proposed in Flow Theory.

Perhaps the smallish four dimensional manifold of "Minkowski space" is a science fail and perhaps atomic construction, when defining gravity, best boiled down to a simplified seven dimensional, more realistic approach. To simplify things, bifurcate matter into multiple dimensions. Call dimension A, the physical realm and dimension B the gravity realm. In dimension A we have the atom core, the nucleus. The nucleus is comprised only of protons. Neutrons are protons that have dipped into realm B and changed form slightly, losing their electric charge after crossing this inter-realm boundary. These then serve as anchor points in the atom core, connecting the atom to the gravity realm. Dimension B, the gravity realm, consists of four dimensions. The dimensions are as follows, a familiar 3D space with a fourth, "substraight", gravity feed source.

**Flow Formula of Gravitation**

*Flow Formula of Gravitation - FFG (F = \Gamma - (\frac{\omega\rho}{\zeta})\frac{m1m2}{r^2})*

**Terms of FFG:**

F = force

ζ = gravimetric friction constant

Ω = angular momentum

Γ = adjusted gravimetric constant

m1, m2 = respective masses

r = distance between centers of mass

ρ = rotation parity

**Warning:** This formula is under development and just beginning initial tests in the laboratory. Much rigorous and easily reproducible experimentation is yet required to refine and develop this pilot formula.

It has been redily demonstrated in the__HyperDrive laboratory__ that gravity is compressible and therefore exhibits the property of torsion. Torsion is important for propulsion, and also, as it turns out, to artificially generate gravity.

It is proposed in Flow Theory that time is a constant value of the universe, and, yet it flexes somewhat around atomic matter. The greater the contiguous matter/mass, the greater the time distortion. Therefore, time is a base constant throughout the universe, yet is elastic in the crown of conduction surrounding all physical bodies. Time flexes around our planet. This matches with observational evidence as GPS satellites must compensate for different time experienced by satellites versus clocks on the ground. See Flow Theory for more information and an explanation of the issues of satellite programming which may now be accurately calculated using a new theoretical understanding.

*Flow Atomic Model*

For simplicity sake the aspect of time distortions are omitted from the Flow gravity equation. There are other suitable equations which may be used to more accurately calculate differences in time velocity available in Flow Theory. Therefore, as there is only one time continuum under consideration the complex and elaborate EFE mu/nu elements, numerous vectors and their dot products may also be omitted while making calculations of gravity forces and effects.

There are, however, new universal design aspects that have been discovered and are necessary to make accurate predictions about gravimetric forces and their complex effects. Most notably the variable Γ (Gamma) is introduced to represent the new gravimetric constant. This variable replaces the G variable in Newton\'s law of gravitation. The new, preliminary value denoted by Γ, incorporates an additional 10% of force over G. This additional 10% was added as a starting point to compensate for the second notable element of this formula, that is gravimetric friction, which is denoted by ζ (zeta). Gravimetric friction is extremely important for accurately calculating effects in devices being built to generate propulsive forces as well as celestial mechanics.

For example, the highly publicized and mysterious anomaly in the perihelion in the orbit of Mercury may now be accurately calculated under a simple, intuitive model. Gravimetric friction develops between two or more physical bodies. As Mercury swings close by in its orbit around the sun its orbit is changed due to the effects of the sun’s massive crown of conduction field, which develops friction upon a similar field surrounding the planet Mercury. This gives Mercury an extra push in the direction of the sun’s rotation as it travels around the sun. As all planets orbit the sun, their orbits are changed by this friction. The closer a planet is to the sun, the greater the friction-inducing force and the greater this change.

**Logical Leapfrogs Land in Hot Water**

Two physics professors working in the UK at the University of Nottingham, think that they may have stumbled upon a remarkable proof, suggestive of the hidden, yet elusive secrets of nature:

*Epsion 1→ infinity = -1/12*

According to these two professors, this formulaic conjecture proves that the sum of all natural integers, up to infinity, equals -1/12. Further, they go on to state that this result is used in many areas of physics including string theory.

The complete video is available on Youtube here:

The logical jumps go as follows:

Let s equal the unknown value of the infinite series:

s = 1+2+3+4+5+…

Next, two infinite series’ are brought out to preform a comparison as is often done with an infinite series to prove, disprove or total a given series against:

s1 = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 +...

s2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 +...

The sum of the infinite series s1 they then claim is ½, which is the average of the partial sums of 0 and 1 (adding and subtracting 1 to infinity).

The sum of the infinite series s2 is then calculated to be ¼ which is the half summation of the infinite series doubled and added to itself after shifting the second sum to the right.

This leaves the following infinite series’ and the just calculated sums of s1 and s2.

s = 1+2+3+4+5+...

s1 = ½

s2 = ¼

They then subtract the infinite series s2 from s which leaves:

s - s2 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +...

- [1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 + ...]

s - s2 = 4[1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +…]

s - s2 = 4s

Now, solving for s:

s – ¼ = 4s

s – 4s = ¼

-3s = ¼

s = -1/12

However, these three infinite series identities are false:

s1 = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + … = ½

s2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + … = ¼

s = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … = -1/12

Rigorous mathematics requires adherence to the rules. Mathematicians have developed rules to govern the use of the abstraction called an infinite series. The simple answer as to why the net result of these infinite series calculations is incorrect is that, for an infinite series to be given a sum, it must be convergent. S, the original infinite series, goes to infinity and is therefore divergent (meaning without sum). S1 and s2 do not converge either, and are, therefore, divergent and undefined.

These are the correct answers:

s1 = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + … = No Sum (divergent)

s2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + … = No Sum (divergent)

s = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … = infinity (divergent)

As it turns out the professors had inserted invalid, divergent, identities into their proofs, meaning the results are meaningless. The epiphany quickly fades to fallacy and a valueless inquiry amounting to mathematical sorcery.

As of the date of this writing this video has received 8 million views with 95 thousand likes. The dislikes were roughly 17% of the likes which is slightly higher than the average dislikes to likes for all Youtube videos. One must conclude then that this knowledge does not appear to be a joke and must be taken seriously by many.

Numbers and mathematics are abstract concepts meant to enlighten, bridge gaps, quantify, assess and generally strengthen our understanding of all things. Any identity, such as the one proposed above (in this case a series of identities) must not violated mathematical rules. More importantly, any equation used as proof should first be tested with a basic common sense analysis. If it does not pass this test, then one should go back and check their work until the error is located or proved in the real world. 1 apple + 2 apples + 3 apples + ... = -1/12 apples? This makes no sense. Things should not be built upon such uncertainty by continuing to construct more things upon them.

This is a good example of how a simple wrong turn can be made in math that may end up leading to a false highway to nowhere and a big waste of time. The roadway of physics over the last 100 years seems to be littered with such errors, with GR being the wrong turn that became the basis for so much wasted research and sits at the top of the list for all time biggest foundational errors. In order to build a tall tower, one must begin with a secure and well constructed foundation. A tower built on sand will fall over and give little satisfaction to those wishing to later contribute to such efforts.

Recorded ideas such as science papers are starting points, but should not become building blocks despite the agreement of many until a thorough examination, from all angles using a healthy skepticism and reproducible experiments, is conducted. As many theories, experiments, projects and research papers have now been based upon GR, these efforts should be remembered as the reason why we must always require a proven laboratory or real world experiment that is reproduced by many, before accepting new foundational theories. Perhaps this will be the legacy of theoretical physics of the 20th century: overly complex mathematics coupled with too much logical leapfrogging and insufficient solid research.

**Double Slit Offers Insight**

Possibly, the quintessence of demonstrations pointing to the existence of multiple realms is presented in the double slit experiment. Nowhere, perhaps, are the realms that connect together to form our developed reality revealed more clearly and beautifully than in the double slit experiment. There it is in one show, the waves from the realm of the analog - time-energy - are produced simultaneously with the particles from the realm of the quantum - the physical realm. The interference waves in te results in a divergence of results between the two realms, almost like a message from God.

For more information about newly discovered artificial gravity and gravimetric propulsion, visit the__hyperdrive.works__ website.

http://hyperdrive.works

If gravity may now be controlled and harnessed, then the 21st Century shall perhaps be remembered for answering the greatest question in atomic physics:

Or, simply stated, what is the source of gravity?

Early testing has lead to validation of this new theory. The predicted outcomes of the experiments were generally accurate, where gravity appears to be malleable and has been indirectly manipulated. The tool being used for these experiments is called the HyperDrive which is a propulsion system being designed primarily for spacecraft in conjunction with an artificial gravity generation device.

Gravity is a force that develops within a secondary realm. This force is then experienced in the physical realm, where we as humans have full bearing and presence. The physical is our experienced realm. However, the secondary realms of time-energy develop great influence over our physical realm as demonstrated in the following intrinsic properties of nature: time, gravity and electricity.

Gravity may be explained using an analogy of being like a syrup that surrounds all physical bodies and objects. This syrup exists in another, unseen realm. The larger the physical body the greater the density and magnitude of this syrup that surrounds it. This is due to the displacement of the syrup by the physical body forming a crown of higher density around it (the crown of conduction). Think of a piece of popcorn floating in syrup. As an example, the sun could be the popcorn, and is made to spin in the syrup as a result of a spin parity developed from other objects, also rotating. This is due to galaxy rotation and the parity of spin that develops for all stars within our galaxy.

In the analogy, as the sun spins, the gravimetric field surrounding the sun, like syrup, develops into a swirl due to friction. Picture popcorn being made to spin in syrup and the effects this would have upon the syrup. The other planets in our solar system also have a gravimetric presence in the realm of time energy. Their fields then interact with the field surrounding the sun. They are also spinning in the syrup, but the smaller size of the planets has them have less density and magnitude of effect upon the syrup. The syrup is special, however, as it develops a pull upon things towards one another. This creates a pull upon the planets towards the sun, but also creates a spin of the planets to synchronize into a parity of spin just as the sun has developed into a parity of spin in the Milky Way galaxy. This is a basic analogy of how gravity works, and the concept of rotation parity which is critical to understanding celestial mechanics as well as the test instruments being employed to explore gravity.

For a more complete explanation of this theoretical model, please read the introduction to

Some may doubt this answer and flat out be in disbelief that gravity could be explained using this Meta Realm paradigm of understanding, that time-energy and the physical are different realms, covariant in nature and yet connected. Granted, this theoretical model is a radical departure from other accepted, conventional models. Yet, this new model explains a great many things that previously could not be reasoned and this theory has lead to the building of the HyperDrive which manipulates gravity to both create propulsive forces and to cause a gravity increase upon a target, called a collector.

If the age old question as to the source of gravity has now been answered, then this time in history shall be marked as a defining moment in physics.

However, this may greatly change the landscape of our physical sciences and reverses many existing and accepted theories, some older than 100 years. If this is the case, than what shall the legacy of the 20th century hold for theoretical physics?

In fact, over the last 100 years humans have witnessed extraordinary advances in many technological areas. Computer science, mathematics, engineering, electronics, manufacturing and communications have all made gargantuan leaps forward. One crucial area, however, seems to have fallen behind its brethren and, despite appearances to the contrary, left us without a clear understanding of basic concepts necessary for space travel or how the physical universe is constructed. This area is theoretical physics, specifically in the areas of the source of gravity and atomic construction.

Despite proclamations to the contrary, theoretical physics has fallen asunder in these critical areas. Perhaps one of the greatest misguiding errors of physicists in the 20th century has been in trusting that good mathematics could somehow save poorly developed theories. Bad theoretics, no matter how well mathematized, yield little or no advancement and many such theories have become a drain not only on the sciences in general but the agencies that fund their research projects.

Despite experts stating that gravity is well understood and its theoretical development has been brought up to a dazzling level, yet, under the prevailing models no one has gained direct control over gravity. The gravimetric constant is rated by many as being the most poorly understood of all the constants. Gravity researchers have been driven into outerspace, just to glimpse a space free of the ever present 1 earth gravity.

Yet, with so many eye catching and captivating discoveries being brought forth through enormous atomic colliders, gravity wave catchers, a plethora of highly regarded research papers, and a myriad of huge economic investment, one would think they should be living in a world blessed by much great technological advancement having sprung forth from these amazing new discoveries. However, this does not appear to be the case. As far as social contribution from theoretical physics, things pretty much stopped about 100 years ago and have left many asking, “Where’s the beef?”

It was at about this time that Albert Einstein was busy formulating General and Special Relativity.

Despite it’s amazing potentials and brilliant insights, not one tool, invention or machine has yet been built to prove his theories. The only benefit appears to be in providing answers to vexing theoretical questions which may now be answered using alternative explanations. Many answers developed through relativity rely heavily upon mathematics which have been wrongly applied to incomplete theories.

Those working at the forefront of theoretical research in Quantum Mechanics seem to universally agree that the description of gravity offered in General Relativity (GR) is not very useful. Currently, intense efforts are under way in Quantum Mechanics (QM) research to develop a new theory of gravity based on locating a particle being termed the graviton to update or replace Einstein’s theories of gravity.

This incredibly small graviton particle, it is hoped, once found shall answer the most important questions, not only about gravity, but shall round out the standard model of physics, the star flagship of QM. This new emerging model seems to not mesh well with the curved spacetime ideas of Einstein, leaving this older model without much support. Perhaps the understanding of gravity offered by Mr. Einstein was lacking in theoretical correctness? Furthermore, what if this graviton particle does not exist? What if there is no such thing as a graviton? All this has left gravity as the misunderstood step child of physics.

Therefore, in the mean time, the only formula with common scientific agreement is Einstein’s field equation, which is supposed to describe gravity in an useful way to allow scientists and researchers to advance our understanding of gravity and the atomic universe while carrying out experiments on the very large or small scale. Yet, it has been 100 years now, Mr. Einstein, and your theory appears to have gotten us no where closer to understanding time or gravity in any useful or practical manner.

The context of Einstein’s relativity places objects upon a canvas that curves around them and causes them to “fall downhill” towards one another. This context is incorrect and has limited our true understanding of how gravity works and prevented the development of devices such as the HyperDrive or other forms of gravity control. Gravity arises out of interactions between a field of enclosure that surrounds all physical matter. This field of enclosure is compressible and features torsion. By stating that spacetime curvature, as presented in relativity, is a rigid construct of the universe, scientists and researchers have been hamstrung in their understanding of this essential part of all atomic construction. This context has set up limits to our understanding of gravity.

Let us now precede to highlight the great failings of the Einstein Field Equation, the unsupportable theories behind it and also reexamine the base concepts that have guided the area of science called theoretical physics. Let us then see what may be done to change our lot and understanding of the physical universe.

It has been said that the left side of this equation represents the curvature of spacetime and the expression on the right represents the matter energy content of spacetime.

That sounds familiar. Isaac Newton gave us this very simple and useful equation to describe the force of gravity:

F = {G} \frac{m1m2}{r^2}

In Newton’s law of gravitation the left side of the equation represents Force. The right side of this equation represents mass. In equivalences, the left side of Einstein’s equation has transmuted Force into curvature. As the theory goes, this curvature forms around physical bodies which causes other bodies to “fall downhill” around them. This was meant to replace Force in Newton’s equation. In Einstein parlance, a construct of the universe, downhill-making-curvature, causes the force of gravity. Let us then begin here with our deconstruction of the Einstein Field Equation, or EFE.

EFE states that the force of gravity is replaced with “falling downhill”.

Downhill?

Downhill is an Earthly concept generally related to undulations in the topography of the land and a pull towards our planet. Downhill in the context of the EFE then acts as a substitution for any deeper understanding of the concept of gravity and a requisite, but missing, compelling force. Yet, in the universe, there is no such thing as downhill. As astronauts who have been into outerspace will attest, downhill does not exist. When one is floating in space, away from the planet, things no longer fall to the floor. Therefore, downhill exists as a construct of language by primitives with little or no control over the pull that exists between two physical bodies and who wished to survive in their sometimes harsh environment. When I hear this theory I picture a buggy ride down a hill behind a horse, which was quite common 100 years ago, and long before humans began to visit outer space.

As there is no downhill outside of the context of being close to a large celestial body and our habituated experience of living upon one, and, therefore, including this concept in such a formula lacks scientific rigor, then downhill should be thrown out as an accepted precept. If there is no downhill, then what pulls the buggy and the horse downhill? No further conceptual idea as to the force of gravity is presented in the EFE. Accelerated potentials of things about to fall down a hill does not describe what may be causing the potential for acceleration in any particular direction. As curvature resulting in a downhill slide is the basis for the left side of the equation, and it has been demonstrated that there exists no such thing, then the equation no longer has a left. In order for an equation to be useful it must contain both a left and a right side.

Moving on, the tensors mu and nu are used throughout the EFE. This makes the equation extremely large and cumbersome. Why do we need so many tensors? This is because, according to Mr. Einstein, time is not a constant and is relative to the observer. Therefore, there is no universal time except for a time relative to the speed that you, and you alone are traveling, and mu/nu are necessary to make a time that all observers may agree upon. Furthermore, it was proposed within GR that one can time travel in a significant way simply by moving at a high velocity (time dilation). Actually, according to GR and the EFE, one’s time would travel much more slowly relative to those not moving so fast, especially as one approached the speed of light. This is based on logical leapfrogging using light travel and observers. To date, no simplified system has been offered to allow anyone to prove this theory, only inaccessible, complex and expensive systems. This has only been "proven" quite recently in studies that were conducted in very expensive colliders probably by those wishing to recuperate the enormous credibility spent upon their construction. Conveniently, relativity survives by proofs reproducible only by those of tremendous means. Perhaps reproducibility should be more transparent and accessible, and we were acting a bit prematurely in accepting this wild and fanciful thought experiment, called relativity, with little or no proof?

To the next point, the right side of the EFE contains k. K is meant to represent the “Einstein Gravitational Constant” which may be written as follows:

k = \frac{8G\pi}{c^4}

The speed of light, as represented by c, is then brought into the very large and tedious EFE equation on the right side. If you will recall the right side represents the matter energy content of spacetime according to Albert Einstein and basically mass according to Newton’s aforementioned equation.

As Einstein wished to represent mass as energy, the speed of light is introduced as a component piece of the mass of all physical bodies, as formulated c^4. True, the speed of light is a property of the component parts of physical matter, as matter is constituted with a moving mass in the electricity realm which surrounds the atomic core/nucleus. However, electricity and hence the speed of light, does not constitute or develop significant mass. Mass standard is a function of volume and 1 home planet gravity normalized at the human habitation point, "the surface". Attracting forces between objects are not calculated using c. They are currently calculated as mass times the acceleration induced at the surface of the third planet in our solar system of small objects next to one big object, regardless of the mass of the small object. This rough standard appears sufficient by today\'s standards, but in the case of the EFE, there appears to be no practical rationale for the inclusion of c in any type of gravity equation, especially considering the lack of proof that acceleration induces such a dilation as described in GR.

Customarily mathematical equations derive meaning through a relationship of two various constituents on either side of the equal symbol. As the EFE includes c on both sides of the equation, the development of diverse relational meaning should cancel c from both sides first, should it not? Therefore, the base context of mass in the Einstein universe being a potential derived at its core from a speed c, and speed c being irrelevant on any side of such an equation, the right side of the EFE now collapses under its own weight. Perhaps now the right side and the left side do in fact balance and contain equal amounts of something, nothing.

Finally, lambda, the "cosmological constant" simply does not belong in a common gravitational field equation. The expansion of the universe is not something that most scientists would worry about while conducting experiments. Einstein, himself, abandoned Λ remarking to George Gamow, "that the introduction of the cosmological term was the biggest blunder of his life". Perhaps on a large cosmic scale this could be incorporated, however, maybe best to only include such a variable in the very specialized circumstances where this might be applicable.

Gravity is a force and should be dealt with as such. Chronically substituting the word force with the word acceleration because unaccelerated potentials must account for the many effects of gravity leads to incorrect and confusing semantics. Despite acceleration being immensely similar to the force of gravity, gravity is not acceleration, and it has now been proven that there are differences. Acceleration arises through body collisions and is defined as a property of motion. The misuse of the term acceleration to describe a property of a thing leads to confusion. This confusion has further limited scientists wishing to explore and better understand the force of gravity. It is a force of nature which compels an attraction between physical bodies. Therefore, gravity may now be reasoned with, in a practical and sensible manner, simply by using the word force which scales up and down towards and away from center. I propose that we update the singular dimension thinking of "gravimetric acceleration" with a more elaborate force calculation system that scales from mass center. Accurate gravity calcultions must be made inclusive of 3 + 4, a total of 7 dimensions comprising two realms. Let us now more precisely discuss and calculate this force as perhaps the equivalence principle confuses people and is based upon inaccessible and unproven theories.

As the EFE has been, up until now, the only existing way to comprehensively calculate gravimetric forces and effects using one theory of quantitative development inclusive of an otherwise inexplicable aspect of potentials of an infinite magnitude, this over simplification has survived in spite of its limited practical use and apparent excessive and erroneous complexity, all the while basing itself on theories yet to be demonstrated in more accessible experiments. The seemingly revolutionary and “mind blowing” aspects of relativity have made it seem fitting to abolish the greatest of scientific mysteries. Yet the answers that it has given us seem to bring us right back to the place where we started.

Let us then now attempt to go beyond the buggy age, and move to examine a new theory of gravity offered in Flow Science. As gravity has recently been proven in the laboratory of SolarSnap while developing the HyperDrive, to be malleable, compressible, it is further proved that gravity is not a static constructor providing the mythical downhill slide of gravimetric acceleration. These experiments were made as a theoretical exploration of the new ideas proposed in Flow Theory.

Perhaps the smallish four dimensional manifold of "Minkowski space" is a science fail and perhaps atomic construction, when defining gravity, best boiled down to a simplified seven dimensional, more realistic approach. To simplify things, bifurcate matter into multiple dimensions. Call dimension A, the physical realm and dimension B the gravity realm. In dimension A we have the atom core, the nucleus. The nucleus is comprised only of protons. Neutrons are protons that have dipped into realm B and changed form slightly, losing their electric charge after crossing this inter-realm boundary. These then serve as anchor points in the atom core, connecting the atom to the gravity realm. Dimension B, the gravity realm, consists of four dimensions. The dimensions are as follows, a familiar 3D space with a fourth, "substraight", gravity feed source.

F = force

ζ = gravimetric friction constant

Ω = angular momentum

Γ = adjusted gravimetric constant

m1, m2 = respective masses

r = distance between centers of mass

ρ = rotation parity

It has been redily demonstrated in the

It is proposed in Flow Theory that time is a constant value of the universe, and, yet it flexes somewhat around atomic matter. The greater the contiguous matter/mass, the greater the time distortion. Therefore, time is a base constant throughout the universe, yet is elastic in the crown of conduction surrounding all physical bodies. Time flexes around our planet. This matches with observational evidence as GPS satellites must compensate for different time experienced by satellites versus clocks on the ground. See Flow Theory for more information and an explanation of the issues of satellite programming which may now be accurately calculated using a new theoretical understanding.

For simplicity sake the aspect of time distortions are omitted from the Flow gravity equation. There are other suitable equations which may be used to more accurately calculate differences in time velocity available in Flow Theory. Therefore, as there is only one time continuum under consideration the complex and elaborate EFE mu/nu elements, numerous vectors and their dot products may also be omitted while making calculations of gravity forces and effects.

There are, however, new universal design aspects that have been discovered and are necessary to make accurate predictions about gravimetric forces and their complex effects. Most notably the variable Γ (Gamma) is introduced to represent the new gravimetric constant. This variable replaces the G variable in Newton\'s law of gravitation. The new, preliminary value denoted by Γ, incorporates an additional 10% of force over G. This additional 10% was added as a starting point to compensate for the second notable element of this formula, that is gravimetric friction, which is denoted by ζ (zeta). Gravimetric friction is extremely important for accurately calculating effects in devices being built to generate propulsive forces as well as celestial mechanics.

For example, the highly publicized and mysterious anomaly in the perihelion in the orbit of Mercury may now be accurately calculated under a simple, intuitive model. Gravimetric friction develops between two or more physical bodies. As Mercury swings close by in its orbit around the sun its orbit is changed due to the effects of the sun’s massive crown of conduction field, which develops friction upon a similar field surrounding the planet Mercury. This gives Mercury an extra push in the direction of the sun’s rotation as it travels around the sun. As all planets orbit the sun, their orbits are changed by this friction. The closer a planet is to the sun, the greater the friction-inducing force and the greater this change.

Two physics professors working in the UK at the University of Nottingham, think that they may have stumbled upon a remarkable proof, suggestive of the hidden, yet elusive secrets of nature:

According to these two professors, this formulaic conjecture proves that the sum of all natural integers, up to infinity, equals -1/12. Further, they go on to state that this result is used in many areas of physics including string theory.

The complete video is available on Youtube here:

The logical jumps go as follows:

Let s equal the unknown value of the infinite series:

s = 1+2+3+4+5+…

Next, two infinite series’ are brought out to preform a comparison as is often done with an infinite series to prove, disprove or total a given series against:

s1 = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 +...

s2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 +...

The sum of the infinite series s1 they then claim is ½, which is the average of the partial sums of 0 and 1 (adding and subtracting 1 to infinity).

The sum of the infinite series s2 is then calculated to be ¼ which is the half summation of the infinite series doubled and added to itself after shifting the second sum to the right.

This leaves the following infinite series’ and the just calculated sums of s1 and s2.

s = 1+2+3+4+5+...

s1 = ½

s2 = ¼

They then subtract the infinite series s2 from s which leaves:

s - s2 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +...

- [1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + 5 – 6 + ...]

s - s2 = 4[1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +…]

s - s2 = 4s

Now, solving for s:

s – ¼ = 4s

s – 4s = ¼

-3s = ¼

s = -1/12

However, these three infinite series identities are false:

s1 = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + … = ½

s2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + … = ¼

s = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … = -1/12

Rigorous mathematics requires adherence to the rules. Mathematicians have developed rules to govern the use of the abstraction called an infinite series. The simple answer as to why the net result of these infinite series calculations is incorrect is that, for an infinite series to be given a sum, it must be convergent. S, the original infinite series, goes to infinity and is therefore divergent (meaning without sum). S1 and s2 do not converge either, and are, therefore, divergent and undefined.

These are the correct answers:

s1 = 1 – 1 + 1 – 1 + … = No Sum (divergent)

s2 = 1 – 2 + 3 – 4 + … = No Sum (divergent)

s = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + … = infinity (divergent)

As it turns out the professors had inserted invalid, divergent, identities into their proofs, meaning the results are meaningless. The epiphany quickly fades to fallacy and a valueless inquiry amounting to mathematical sorcery.

As of the date of this writing this video has received 8 million views with 95 thousand likes. The dislikes were roughly 17% of the likes which is slightly higher than the average dislikes to likes for all Youtube videos. One must conclude then that this knowledge does not appear to be a joke and must be taken seriously by many.

Numbers and mathematics are abstract concepts meant to enlighten, bridge gaps, quantify, assess and generally strengthen our understanding of all things. Any identity, such as the one proposed above (in this case a series of identities) must not violated mathematical rules. More importantly, any equation used as proof should first be tested with a basic common sense analysis. If it does not pass this test, then one should go back and check their work until the error is located or proved in the real world. 1 apple + 2 apples + 3 apples + ... = -1/12 apples? This makes no sense. Things should not be built upon such uncertainty by continuing to construct more things upon them.

This is a good example of how a simple wrong turn can be made in math that may end up leading to a false highway to nowhere and a big waste of time. The roadway of physics over the last 100 years seems to be littered with such errors, with GR being the wrong turn that became the basis for so much wasted research and sits at the top of the list for all time biggest foundational errors. In order to build a tall tower, one must begin with a secure and well constructed foundation. A tower built on sand will fall over and give little satisfaction to those wishing to later contribute to such efforts.

Recorded ideas such as science papers are starting points, but should not become building blocks despite the agreement of many until a thorough examination, from all angles using a healthy skepticism and reproducible experiments, is conducted. As many theories, experiments, projects and research papers have now been based upon GR, these efforts should be remembered as the reason why we must always require a proven laboratory or real world experiment that is reproduced by many, before accepting new foundational theories. Perhaps this will be the legacy of theoretical physics of the 20th century: overly complex mathematics coupled with too much logical leapfrogging and insufficient solid research.

Possibly, the quintessence of demonstrations pointing to the existence of multiple realms is presented in the double slit experiment. Nowhere, perhaps, are the realms that connect together to form our developed reality revealed more clearly and beautifully than in the double slit experiment. There it is in one show, the waves from the realm of the analog - time-energy - are produced simultaneously with the particles from the realm of the quantum - the physical realm. The interference waves in te results in a divergence of results between the two realms, almost like a message from God.

For more information about newly discovered artificial gravity and gravimetric propulsion, visit the