Geodesics inside a spinning ball of the gravitational field matter

[Zhang Xu]

The linear velocity of rotation of a spinning ball of the gravitational field matter (gfm) is faster at its edge than in its central part. According to Einstein's theory of the spinning disk, the spacetime curvature at the edge of the gfm ball is larger than that in the central part; and geodesics inside the gfm ball curve towards the centre. Hence in the outer part of the gfm ball, there exists an acceleration directing towards the centre; there exists the asymptotic freedom in the central part of the gfm ball; and in the outer part of the gfm ball, time dilates and mass increases.

For more information, please see Chapter 6 of the Antigravitation Engine Site (http://xczhx.nease.net/indexEnglish.htm ).

 

[ranyart]

Originally posted by Zhang Xu
The linear velocity of rotation of a spinning ball of the gravitational field matter (gfm) is faster at its edge than in its central part. According to Einstein's theory of the spinning disk, the spacetime curvature at the edge of the gfm ball is larger than that in the central part; and geodesics inside the gfm ball curve towards the centre. Hence in the outer part of the gfm ball, there exists an acceleration directing towards the centre; there exists the asymptotic freedom in the central part of the gfm ball; and in the outer part of the gfm ball, time dilates and mass increases.

For more information, please see Chapter 6 of the Antigravitation Engine Site (http://xczhx.nease.net/indexEnglish.htm ).

Could you maybe elaborate on the 'FOGGOID STATE' it appears to be a bit murky?

 

[pallidin]

I have read the theory, and must admit that I am not at all convinced of it's ability to perform as described with respect to gravity, as many "tricks" can be done with motion if there is a surface contact(device-to-water).

So, I offer a challenge:
Construct the device, but instead of using water, why not simply suspend it in air from a string like a pendulum(surely that scenario has LESS resistance than water). Then, if the device when activated goes to and maintains a position off-center, you have something. If not, you don't, and the theory is false.
Surely this SIMPLE experiment is a worthy proof-of-concept, MUCH MORE SO than with a water-based experiment.
Challenge accepted?