Zero Point Energy and Antigravity(aka Electrogravitic research

  • Thread starter Zantra
  • Start date
  • #71
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I would like to hear more about this just out of interest.

Ditto on that for me. So far what you're saying is making sense to me.
  • #72
I will try to put it into a nutshell (I could also offer you texts of publications, but you can decide on that from what I am saying now). My point is that these days practically all approaches in philosophy and science operate in setting out from a primal assumption (axiom, basic measurement, basic postulate, belief, hope, presupposition, etc.). Whether assumptions are conscious or not makes no difference as to their effect. The only difference is that conscious assumptions allow the erection of rational systems. But logical coherence does as such not yet warrant completeness of grasp. The reason for this is that operating on the basis of assumptions -- never mind how stringently and coherently -- always is a way of 'talking' into the undivided totality of content that would need to be considered, before having given it a chance to reveal all of its interconnections. Hence in the end complete reality always produces some 'surprise'.

Nowadays philosophers and scientists are obessed by the idea of predicating, i.e. saying something about something. Moreover the vast majority (especially the analytical branch of philosophy) adopted a pet belief whereby something can be real only if it is material (confusing existential manipulability with intelligibility). This way of proceeding would like to be bold, but is merely rash. In the face of complete reality, in the end eg. QT is compelled to state some strange interconnection in all of matter (and dresses it up in ideas of 'entanglement'), or philosophy is compelled to state some strange interconnection in all of intersubjectivity (and dresses it up in ideas of 'language'). Etcetera.

All such systems are self-limited by dint of the primal assumptions. Unthinkingly they chose a path on which one can only get lost in the myriad of 'elements' that seem to open up, but which are only the result of having to shift the original problem (eg. understanding agency, or being, or change, or whatever) into ever new dimensions (atomism is an example, with no end in sight concerning the minimal 'piece': it is only a question of how much energy you pump into the breakup process).

There is a blind spot in any possible logic of operating in a Cartesian split (distinguishing, observing, describing, measuring, etc.), and this blind spot can only be shifted around. Translations into Boolean systems does not solve the problem, because the respective distinction does not cover the principle of distinguishing as such. Do you know eg. George Spencer-Brown, Heinz von Foerster, Rudolf Kaehr, or so? They have proved all this logically. Their proposal for a way out is an arbitrary move -- i.e. some newly 'plausible', supposedly final assumption. Gotthard Guenther has presented the most advanced attempt to overcome the blind spot, by adopting the formal aspect of Hegel's dialectics. By this trick, the blind spot is shifted into unawareness in linguistic terms -- which does of course not mean that it is eliminated in an absolute sense (I guess Hegel would not be very happy with it).

In the approach that I propose there is a way out that has absolutely no blind spot. Instead it sets out on the law of nature that governs all mental processes -- and which remained in penumbra, in spite of usual reference points such as Frege, Russell, etc. This law can be formulated eg. in the following way: any fundamental query, after having been led to ist ultimate end, yields an intrinsically polar structure in the ensuing concepts. The content of the query, when pursued to its own fulfilment, opens up a strictly polar conceptual space. This is the the other side of the coin of strict completeness in a grasp, as in 'A plus non-A': Any conceptual aspect A can be thought only on the 'background' of non-A. This fact gave rise to many streams of thought under the banner of dialectics, since knowing A makes us aware of its intrinsic dependency on non-A, so becoming aware of non-A can make us realize also what A is all about. This stems from the interesting fact that A plus non-A together cover completely the universe, under one aspect: the queried one (here A). There is completeness and perspectivity, simultaneously.

My approach is to apply the principle of complete self-referentiality to the polar concepts resulting from a query -- by the same mental process that yielded that conceptual polarity itself. The result is a set of four categories that is strictly universally applicable. No basic assumption whatsoever enters the system. The law of conceptual polarization is a law of nature and can be understood as such, in looking at its manifestations. For example the (originally Aristotelian) query 'what is change?' (process) leads to the four categories of 'law' (intrinsic way of being), 'force' (agency), 'disequilibriability' (of the respective force structure), and 'foundational equilibrium' (of what constitutes the respective force structure). Such a set of categories is not observable, it is not ontic, it has a heuristic value: telling what to look out for in (eg. phenomenological) observation. There is no problem of inifinitesimals.

In this way, no aspect of today's science gets lost, but all of its aspects can be brought together in an understanding that does not have the drawbacks (blind spot) of proposals like of the Vienna Circle. For example the processes in all sciences, from physics and chemistry through biology and the humanities to theology, could be approached in one conceptual continuum. It's a really transdisciplinary approach.
  • #73
Concerning ZPE, I felt I should add a few things: parts of an article, published last year ("Conceptual Conditions for Conceiving Life — a Solution for Grasping its Principle, not Mere Appearances", in G. Palyi, C. Zucchi, L. Caglioti, eds.: Fundamentals of Life; Paris: Elsevier, 589-624. It develops the query of processuality, and contains a reference to (Schaerer [2001]): "Why Matter Matters Massively"; in Frontier Perspectives 10(2), 52-59. My completely processual approach makes mass more universally understandable.

5.1. Understanding the principle of material matter
What appears as 'material matter' can be understood at its origin as the law of being at disposal, manifest in a concrete way. This can only be a force and its exact counter-force, i.e. a complex of two forces in equilibrium, counterbalancing each other dynamically. As such this can't be observable, because observation implies a third instance, an influencing force. In quantum theory this is known and said to "perturb" the configuration; the process is called "decoherence" and makes decidable in the macroscopic realm (through implied interactions) whether "SchrÚdinger's cat" is alive or dead, which is undecidable on the non-disturbed quantum level.
By not being freely roaming forces, but impeded by mutual opposition, the two primal forces acquire an additional vectorial quality, a concrete one that they can't have when no otherness is implied. Once forces are bound in a new equilibrium, their hindrance vector makes them into an energy structure (ZPE) and accounts for the arising aspect of 'resistance' that we can't avoid associating with material matter, since it is the palpable characteristic that it shows us even when we do not think in the least. The reason for the seeming massiveness of matter to senses is that the laws of the bodies, also of organisms ('desires'), are an 'otherness' for whatever force structure comes along. Transcending otherness is possible through overcoming consciously the difference, i.e. in a mental act of full identification.
All material reactions imply and cause some other ones. This closedness of causalities in the realm of inert matter — 'actio = reactio', and any cause has another one — means that the inert domain as a whole constitutes one 'organism' ('interacting parts'). In our approach this specific organicity is rooted in the coherence of 'materia prima' as the 'substance' that entails the many-facetted energy flux of weaving and unweaving matter.
Two forces can be united in mutual opposition in other ways than under the idea (law) of something at disposal: two forces can be combined eg. under the idea of annihilation, i.e. pure nothingness. The first offers existentiality to structures of othernesses, while the latter does not. This explains why a universe based on anti-matter can exist for a while, but can't subsist: matter, the structure of 'something-at-disposal', engenders continuity in the interactive process of othernesses, while anti-matter alone, offering no existentiality, can't avoid producing discontinuity. Structures that agglutinate under the law of discontinuity can't last, they are self-annihilating. Today's physics has no criterion for this difference.
Viewed only instrumentally (not in its own quality), matter looks like a 'something', a 'thing'. We have it already in the "energy quanta" which Max Planck discovered in black body radiation, and those of light that Einstein postulated for the "photoelectric effect": where an 'otherness' is implied, the primal continuity is necessarily broken and must give rise to discontinuous 'entitites'. This is correct within the language of separability, and will be confirmed again in every situation or experiment that is interpreted in that language. Nevertheless it is not absolutely true, but only relative to this language. Through our categories one can see that in its core, i.e. its intrinsic nature, material matter is not a cause, but an effect — of forces. This view explains as much the energy density of the 'vacuum', which baffles cosmologists because their concepts can't reach there, as it clarifies the phenomena of coherence arising in the double-slit experiment and those demonstrated in Alain Aspect's experiments. On the level of biological theory, it clarifies the belief that material matter can be the ultimate cause of life: it is not, it is only a necessary condition for existing. No doubt life forms can be manipulated by manipulating their necessary condition, for instance on the genetic level. But nothing is gained by believing that this knowledge of manipulability is already all the knowledge of what life is all about.
In the complexifications beyond "materia prima", with every additional 'otherness' introduced, with every new force interfering, matter becomes more complex. At every threshold a new disequilibrium is introduced (by an additional force), leading to a new equilibrium and its respective disequilibriability. These processes induce the set of variations that lead in nucleosynthesis to the types of equilibria, called 'particles' and 'atoms', that are known in the Mendelejew table, their isotopes, etc. By their dis- and re-equilibriability patterns these force structures entail the factual transmutational processuality that we know in chemistry. Material matter can be synthesized only in a short-lived mimickry as long as the creation process does not arise out of its basic law: absolute equilibrium of two mutually counterbalancing forces.
The essence of material matter is thus a basic equilibrium of forces that allows all structurations by additional forces. The actualization of a higher-level equilibrium makes a structure of fluxes perceivable as a singled-out entity. In inert matter, all equilibria are a result of external influences — eg. objects follow gravity; iron near oxygen will oxydate; etc. Alive structures incorporate an overall coordination that allows specific reactions to their environment (e.g. chemotaxis). To the degree that the coordinating instance of such an entity becomes really equilibrated in its own condition, i.e. 'forcelessly united' with its context (in human words: relaxed), the flux through it becomes unimpeded. This opens the door to actualized unification with the environment and thereby to new structurations. Thus the most interesting energetic interactions arise in points where an equilibrium is actualized, freeing a path for a shared flux. This is the point of innovation out of which new 'particles' arise in physics, and in biology eg. the symbioses (Margulis). The idea of units in competition is conceptually too narrow to grasp the crucial point.

5.2. The relevance for practical physics that encompasses life
Living beings need material matter for constituting their bodies, as a necessary but not sufficient condition for enabling life's processes. The sufficient condition is given only when the organized and organizing agency, the respective law-&-force aspect, is included too. No change is possible without a force; but subsistence is possible for any pure orderliness as such, in a Platonic sense. A mind can reach there when willing to 'listen'.
The utility of our new categoreality is seen in considering a chart of the nuclides. The horizontal lines show the isotopes, i.e. atoms where the number of electrons depart from the number of the stable state. The further away this number is from the number warranting stability, the shorter the half-life period is of that atom (isotope), i.e. its 'life cycle'. This shows that already on the level of material matter there is indeed a force aspect that re-equilibrates disequilibrations. Where certain isotopes display a longer half-life period than their off-center position would allow, a relative sub-equilibrium arises by the implied forces, analog to the less relative equilibrium of forces found in a more stable chemical element.
Our categories can open interesting doors also to understanding phenomena that are named 'mass' and 'energy' — whose conceptualizations remain unclear in physics to this day. In the light of our categories, 'materia prima', the primal symmetry of forces, has no mass in the sense of 'inertia'; it is the constance of balanced force opposition at the very foundation of all secondary material structures. The intervention of 'third party forces' makes 'energy' arise, spatio-temporally organized force, as the compensatory flux that must permeate the rest of the universe. Such "decoherences" cause, in new equilibria, the structures that store energy and thus have 'mass'. Our categories allow a detailed analysis of these, and allow thus a clarification of otherwise still controversial concepts around 'mass' and 'energy'. For details, see Schaerer [2001].
The approach proposed here shows also that for instance the phenomena of electromagnetism and radioactivity show nature's way of reacting to disequilibration. Not only in natura naturans (cosmos as causative principle, pure law & force), but also in natura naturata (cosmos as concretely manifested principle, law & force & matter) all types of radioactivity are gradually absorbed and tend towards zero, inoffensive to all forms of life. In the same way, the equilibrium of electricity is adjusted (electron-proton-balance) to a degree that looks incredibly exact when setting out from the 'modern' supposition that some parts must dominate the whole. The sheer facts show that the overall law of necessary equilibration of arising disequilibria, the central concept of the matter aspect as proposed in this essay, is indeed fundamental. It explains also why nature has no need to provide for a sensory system that is sensitive to electromagnetic or radioactive events. If human beings disrupt those equilibria, measuring what they do is of their responsibility.
  • #74
Hi, I'm new to this group so I hope I'm not committing any faux pas

I've come to some conclusions or maybe opinions would be a better
description. I don't think the ZPF should be miligned just because there are people who want to use it for their own wacky agenda. For any advancement in physics new ideas have to be given a fair chance. Basically a useful new theory has to
include all previous experimental results and explain new results
that havn't been explained so far. Sometimes you get to that place through unusual means. So that's what I've tried to do. Since I'm not a physicist or mathematician I can't properly call my ideas theory because I'm not offering any mathematical or experimental proof. What I call them are my PHYSICS PREMISES. To me they are the most logical system of physics ideas that don't contradict the history of experimental results to date and also include explanations of results that are so far unexplained. If anyone thinks that experimental results ARE being contradicted here please let me know. This is just my best effort with no perfection implied or promised. Here they are:

1. When a charged particle (electrons, quarks) accelerates it
creates an acceleration with respect to the Zero Point Field (ZPF).
This acceleration creates a Poynting vector in the ZPF. This
Poynting vector acts as a non-random frequency or frequencies rising
above the ZPF random sea. The relative acceleration between the
charge and the radiation vector acts according to Maxwell's Laws to
create a counter emf on the accelerating particle. This counter emf
is the force we normally observe as inertial mass.

2. Gravity is a pseudo force and there is no mass of any kind as we
know it. Gravitons do not exist. What we instead observe in daily
life is the interaction of charged particles with the quantum vacuum
field or ZPF.

3. The effect we call inertial mass is the sum of the counter emf
exerted on individual charged particles in a body accelerating with
respect to the ZPF.

4. The effect we call gravitational mass is due to a distortion in
the ZPF between two massive bodies (in the classical sense) due to a
canceling of components of the ZPF spectrum between the two bodies.
The components being canceled are related inversely to the square
or the distance between the two bodies and to the cumulative total
of charges in each body. Random fluctuations at the local (quantum)
space of the ZPF act on all bodies but only when there is a
distortion of the ZPF is there a net vector. The vector is always
related by field theory to the complex distortion of the ZPF. This
distortion in the ZPF causes the appearance of curved space. (The
Casimir Force is a special case of gravitation where the mass is not
included in the formula because it exists as a force between two
plates where the thickness of the plates goes to 0. In this
particular case the force is related to the area of the plates and
inversely to r^4. On an intuitive basis I would think that as the
plates go from 2 dimensions to 3 as in the real world that r^4 would
integrate r^2.)

5. The "dark energy" that has been discovered to be a large
percentage of the total energy in the universe is this ZPF. As the
universe expands the ZPF expands with it and the boundary of the
universe as we know it is where the ZPF stops. At the point where
the ZPF stops physical laws conforming to the laws of our universe
no longer exist. Inertial and gravitational mass cannot exist
there. Another possibility is that mass entering that area will
collapse in on itself as the electrons, protons and neutrons come
together without the energy of the ZPF to support the base energy

5. Because inertial and gravitational mass is a result of counter
emf it means there is an opposing magnetic field to the Poynting
vector of the ZPF around each accelerating charged particle. This
charged particle magnetic field is the spin of each charged
particle. The quantitative sum of each charged particle in an atom
reacting with the ZPF accounts for the atomic weight for each
element. Every increase (or decrease) in spin as each charged
particle accelerates requires more energy in exact proportion
Einstein's equations for mass. In a gross way spin can be thought
of like a flywheel exhibiting rotational momentum.

6. The outer shell of an atom - the electron energy probability
space - if given sufficient rotational spin may block the
reactionary magnetic field energy from occurring in the inner
charged particles. Sufficient electron spin is most easily gained
via ELF radiation in ferromagnetic atoms per experimental results of
Professor Fran De Aquino (uncorroborated so far).

7.Finally and importantly, the reason mass hasn't been identified as
counter EMF until now is because the zero point field not only
exists at quantum energy levels but in quantum space. In other
words there are no continuous lines of flux between identical
wavelengths in spaces larger than Plancks constant. This means an
atomic inductor may have its individual particle charge spins
increased but there is no homogeneous effect larger than at its
constituent electron and quark spins. The randomness of the ZPF in
space means that no individual effect can be discerned except at the
charged particle level and those charged particle contributions
simply appear as the inertial or gravitational mass of each atom.

So there it is. I've not put in the references that have helped get
to these conclusions because this is just an informal note. They are
mostly papers posted at these locations.
Last edited:
  • #75
Free energy is con game terminology just like the slick mind game of an energy producing device that does not rely on natural resources.

You must understand that energy, theorized or not, that is resident in a vacuum is a natural resource just as much as coal and crude oil and wood is.

Various peoples past and present claim to have such devices but this is a load bull when it is not known to the public nor used by the public. For all intents and purposes, and for its current value and service to mankind, it does not exist. In other words, it's words with no substance to back it up. Words that gain them notoriety and massive profits and a comfortable living for most of their lifetime when they produce nothing except proving that they are not the masters of science but learned men of rhetoric.

I say put the product on the table or shut up. People are sick of hearing it.

Obtaining energy from a vacuum would have its destructive consequences to time and space just the same as the world suffers from slashing the Earth open to obtain electricity. On a large scale, splitting a galactic hole in the fabric of our 3d world could pose to be a problem. Good or bad, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction so until the ramifications of widespread use of a device that pulls energy out of space can be measured, it very well could destroy us.

On to other matters. There are more people than I can shake a stick at the world over who in some form or another and for some reason or another have some interest in or their fingers into devices commonly known as "zero point" or "over unity". for further info on that, just look it up on the internet since there are endless references to it, all being massive amounts of rhetoric since they have no product for the millions of dollars thrown at the issue and at least a good 50 years of the passage of time and at the same time that they have nothing feasible to show, they say that interests that consume natural resources have hidden away such perfectly good technology. If this was the case, they, zp/ou proponents also would have had it long ago and made good on their promises of benefiting mankind.

Personally, I don'y buy a word of it because if such technology as zp-uo (zero point/over unity) is so easily and conveniently squirlled away by NRI's (natural resource interests) how come the proponents of zp-uo have nothing to show for millions of dollars and 50 years?

Check this out: [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
Originally posted by jagulars
Free energy is con game terminology just like the slick mind game of an energy producing device that does not rely on natural resources.

You must understand that energy, theorized or not, that is resident in a vacuum is a natural resource just as much as coal and crude oil and wood is.
That is true, but you must understand that there are sources of energy so vast that anything we could take out of it would be a drop in the bucket (so to speak). As a result, it makes sense to consider them essentially limitless. Energy from the sun is one such source. Fusion power from seawater (if its ever made to work) would be another. And ZPE, were it not a contradiction in terms to harness it, would be another.
  • #77
We do not know the after effects of pulling energy/electrons out of space. If it was largely localized by several large machines or or every appliance that consumes electricity would have one integrated into it that could easily disrupt surrounding space, weakening it and opening up a hole.

Enstien almost blew himself up, twice, destroying the rest of the area. Many times I have thought that, "it could blow up in your face" is where that statement came from.

Removing electrons from atoms creates different atoms. Zp/ou is also easily converted/made into a weapon. Captain Proton is lurking around the corner so watch it and the new age deer hunter certainly wouldn't be caught without his neutron beam.

The device you see in the link contains no such threats (except to those who collect electricity bills) nor does the world have to suffer in wait for something so fan"trek"tastic that it may not even happen at all. They do not want to phase out natural resources gradually until this technology comes along. They want to wait till they actually have a zp/ou device and then start the phasing then with no free electricity devices in the middle to bridge the gap.

Plus, they want something that is totally independent of all other technologies and not using any part of any existing technologies because they want to globally lock it down so in effect and reality, these people are doing nothing but conspiring to become the next generation of power brokers and their talk of the good of humanity is bull. I believe that if zp/ou has and value, it should be public domain, the property of humanity for the benefit of the whole world to move into a new age of civilization, and produced at cost, if not, you will be still paying the electric bills, except to to different collectors.

The only way this can happen is if the proponents and pursuers of zp/ou are humanitarians and not investors or profiteers or patent attorneys or any such thing.

Devices as you see in the link can fill the gap between natural resources and zp/ou but they don't allow it (copy that pic while you have the chance) because it will catch on and the world will lose interest in zp/ou and then its goodbye notoriety and easy income because such a device like this can be set up in just about any house, knocking out of the picture both the NRI's and those who wish to dominate zp/ou technology.

A self supporting power supply is the only feasible answer right here and right now for free electricty, affordable by the common man, until zp/ou can be validated. So by oppressing and suppressing such free electricity devices, they are no better than the NRI's that are supposedly suppressing and oppressing any type of free electricity device or any type of zp/ou devices.

If you examine it carefully, you will see that this a political and financial and power war between the current suppliers of energy and those who are conspiring to put them out of business in the name of humanity and then lock down their own version of free electricity.

I think that the next age of civilization has no place for such types of industrial "lords" so the people and the masses of the world should ban together to find an honest and legal means to get those people out of the way or else we are only moving from one disaster to another.
Last edited:
  • #78
Originally posted by jagulars
Free energy is con game terminology just like the slick mind game of an energy producing device that does not rely on natural resources.


I think you saw my post and just saw what you wanted to see. If I'm not mistaken I never mentioned anywhere a theory for harnessing free energy from the zero point field. There is a very large split between those interested in the ZPF and those people promoting ZPE. Remember that difference: its only one letter but it means the world in terms of the emphasis and seriousness of the people interested in it.

The zero point field is a fact. Its not pseudoscience. Do you remember the first thing you thought about when you first leaned about electrons orbiting the nucleus (I grew up when they still taught the Bohr model, you may remember slightly different stuff), in the fifth grade or so. My first thought was "damn, that can't be. What keeps it moving. Why doesn't it run out of energy and fall in or just escape the nucleus." I'm sure you had similar thoughts or else you have an uninquisitive mind. Basically we were taught that that's just the way it is. Well, we now know that there is a constant interchange of energy between the electron and the ZPF that maintains a continuous balance between the push to escape and the pull inward. At zero degrees the electron doesn't fall in because the ZPF maintains a base energy level in the electron.

There are many other examples in physics that have a much better explanation when a ZPF acts as an energy intermediary. That is not to say anybody can siphon off that energy. It is too random both in time and in space for there to be any homogeneous effect that is easily used. It is much more likely in my opinion that at some time, perhaps in the far future, there will be a way to shield that energy exchange from happening. Perhaps it will be caused by a local distortion in the ZPF.

Many people believe that inertia itself is a result of a body interacting with the ZPF. That is, a body, as it accelerates must plough through the ZPF, and in so doing the ZPF imparts energy into the body. In this way it would be seen that everytime we accelerate we are using the energy of the ZPF. But it seems just too simple for most people to accept - even the free energy guys. We do work when we accelerate and that work is caused by the resistance of the ZPF. And in turn we have a higher energy level after acceleration and that energy has been taken from the ZPF. When we deaccelerate or accelerate in the other direction we then exchange energy back to the ZPF. It all balances out in the end.
  • #79
Originally posted by Zantra

the mid 1920's Townsend Brown [2] discovered that electric charge and gravitational mass are coupled. He found that when he charged a capacitor to a high voltage, it had a tendency to move toward its positive pole. This became known as the Biefeld-Brown effect.

Here is an interesting site that deals with the 'Biefeld-Brown' effect. [Broken]

Apparently for this effect to work on large objects (ie, space craft) the amount of ions in space are too small and the amount of propulsion has yet to be produced in the experiments done to date.
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80

Apparently for this effect to work on large objects (ie, space craft) the amount of ions in space are too small and the amount of propulsion has yet to be produced in the experiments done to date.

Use this in space, or your basement, anywhere. [Broken]
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
You Can Eat Lasers

check out the home page
  • #82
Inverselepton said:
check out the home page

I didn't see anything there out of the ordinary. Is there something specific there to look at? [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: Zero Point Energy and Antigravity(aka Electrogravitic research

  • Last Post
  • Last Post