Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
by David Pratt
April 2005
This article presents a brief outline of the aetherometric theory of gravity and
antigravity, based on Volume 1 and Volume 2A of Experimental
Aetherometry, the first six monographs of The Gravitational Aether, and
additional discussion in the Aetherometry Study Group.
Contents
1. Electroscopes and antigravity
2. Mass-to-length transformation
3. Gravitational pendulums
4. Cycloids and gravity
5. Mass-energy and gravitons
6. Aether flux and celestial motions
7. Inertia and Newton's first law
8. Centrifugal force and Newton's third law
9. Gravity and antigravity
10. Correas vs. Spolter
11. Closing thoughts
2. Mass-to-length transformation
Wilhelm Reich's experiments with the gravitational pendulum led him to postulate that
atomic weights, specifically those of hydrogen, helium, and oxygen, can be functionally
replaced by pendulum lengths. The Correas write: 'He never formally divulged the
functional equivalence between mass and length. However, from careful analysis of the
results of his pendulum experiments, one can enunciate the earth-shattering discovery
of the equivalence between molecular mass and wavelength ...' The equation is: massequivalent wavelength (in metres) = mass (in grams) x Avogadro's number x 10-2.
The accepted mass of the electron is 9.1094 x 10-28 g, giving a mass-equivalent (or
gravitational) wavelength of 5.4858 x 10-6 m. If this wavelength has a physical meaning
and is not merely an arbitrary number churned out by an arbitrary equation, it must be
related in some way to both the structure of gravitons and the structure of the electron.
But who has managed to crack the structure of the electron?
Orthodox physics has nothing meaningful to say on the subject as it does not offer a
realistic physical theory of the subatomic world. In the standard model, 'fundamental'
matter and force particles such as electrons, and hypothetical quarks and gravitons, are
described as infinitesimal points, i.e. pure abstractions. String theory is claimed to
advance our understanding of the quantum world, and even to be a giant step towards a
'theory of everything'. In reality, it dishes up further mathematical fantasies: it postulates
that 'spacetime' is 10-dimensional, that the six additional spatial dimensions have
conveniently undergone 'spontaneous compactification' and become unobservable, and
that the fundamental constituents of matter are one-dimensional bits of wriggling and
vibrating string, 10-33 cm long but with no width or thickness.
The latest fad is brane theory or M-theory, which postulates an 11-dimensional
spacetime, inhabited not only by one-dimensional strings but also by two-dimensional
membranes, three-dimensional 'blobs' (three-branes), up to and including ninedimensional entities, not forgetting anti-branes and zero-branes. This is the sort of
brainless claptrap that is nowadays passed off as 'science'!
Another example is the conventional interpretation of quantum physics, which claims
that, when we are not trying to measure it, an electron, for example, is present in
different places at the same time. It supposedly dissolves into 'probability waves', which
magically 'collapse' into a localized particle again the next time a measurement is made.
Louis de Broglie initiated an alternative interpretation, based on the notion that a
subatomic particle is a real physical particle guided by a pilot wave a theory further
developed by David Bohm, Jean-Pierre Vigier, and others. The Correas have developed
de Broglie's theory of matter waves in a different direction, linking it to specific
wavefunctions and the notion of a dynamic, energetic, massfree aether.
Aetherometry proposes that all energy manifestations (mass-energy, kinetic energy,
and the massfree energy of gravitons, latent heat or ambipolar radiation) always involve
a primary superimposition between two wavefunctions, one internal and the other
external to the associated linear momentum that defines the type of particle involved. If
the energy manifestation is electric (e.g. electrokinetic energy or ambipolar energy), this
primary superimposition couples an internal magnetic field wave with an external
electric field wave (corresponding to the conventional function of electric potential).
When generating massbound particles (through the process of secondary
superimposition), aether wave energy is reconfigured into a circularized, looped flux.
This has led the Correas to develop a detailed toroidal model of the electron, which
makes sense of various universally accepted, experimentally determined values. For
instance, the looped flux forming the electron mass-energy is composed of a magnetic
wave pursuing a circularized motion around the larger radius of the torus, and an
electric wave pursuing a continuous helical motion around the smaller radius of the
electron torus and wound around and transversely to the magnetic wave. The total flux
path can be divided into 19,206 rings, a number equal to the reciprocal of the finestructure constant squared (-2). The circumference of each of these rings is equal to
the Duane-Hunt wavelength (which the Correas extract from the Duane-Hunt law), and
the total wavelength coiled around the torus therefore equals the mass-equivalent
electron wavelength. The average of the two electron-torus radii is equal to the Bohr
radius (the radius of the lowest-energy orbit in the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom).
3. Gravitational pendulums
In his pendulum experiments, Reich determined the value of pendulum length
multiplied by the square of the frequency. He found that for pendulums with lengths of 1,
4, 16 and 64 cm, this number was an integer constant: KkrDS = 102,400 for double
swings, or a number four times higher, KkrSS = 409,600, for single swings. These
numbers are obtained by counting the number of swings per 64 seconds, which Reich
called the 'org-minute'. Note that these four pendulum lengths are all powers of 4 (40, 41,
42, 43), and correspond numerically, by the mass-to-length transformation, to the atomic
weights of hydrogen, helium, oxygen, and zinc respectively. Note also that 102,400
equals 45 x 102.
All these numbers belong to what Reich called the krx number series, where kr = 4.
He considered this number system to be inscribed in nature. Pendulum lengths of 25
cm and 100 cm yield the same values of K. But for all other pendulum lengths, the
product of length and frequency squared varies between 96,000 and 100,860. Reich
therefore proposed that there are two classes of oscillatory pendulums and two classes
of atomic elements: those with lengths or masses that belong to the krx number series
and those that do not.
The 100 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each swing (180 pendular motion), while
the 25 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each double swing (360 pendular oscillation).
In other words, decreasing the pendulum length fourfold halves the oscillation
frequency. For pendulums, the standard formula for gravitational acceleration is: g =
42l/T2. If the mean value of the gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface is taken
to be g = 9.81 m/s2, the accepted classical pendulum that strikes seconds with each
swing needs to be 99.4 cm long. But Reich found that the pendulum which strikes
seconds is 100 cm or 1 metre long, thus putting the general value of g at the Earth's
surface at g = 2 = 9.8696 m/s2 (he called this pendulum the 'org-seconds' pendulum,
since it yields the K constant when measurements are made using the org-minute).
Since angular frequency or velocity () equals 2/T (where T is the period of
oscillation and is the frequency of oscillation in radians/sec), and since pendulum
length (l) functions as a radius, we can also write: g = r2. Thus, with the single and
double swing constants now expressed in seconds:
gkrx = 2 m/s2 = 1002 cm/s2 = 42l/T2 = r2 = 42KkrDS = 2KkrSS
This novel treatment opens the way to understanding g as a circular function, or more
specifically, as a function of cycloidal energy swings (see below); gkrx results from the
synchronous action of 2 or about 10 single energy swings or wave impulses at the
Earth's surface. How this can be reconciled with the fact that objects in free fall seem to
fall vertically will be considered later. There is, of course, one clear similarity between
pendulums and objects in free fall: just as gravitational pendulums depend for their beat
solely on length and not on the suspended mass, so the time taken by an object in free
fall to travel a certain distance is independent of its mass (d = gt2).
Clearly, Reich's value for g is slightly higher than the accepted value for gravitational
acceleration at the Earth's surface. This is because his value corresponds to the
gravitational field intensity E, and not to the net resultant acceleration, which varies with
latitude:
E = GME / (RE + h)2 = GME / Ro2 = Ro2
where G is the gravitational constant, ME is the Earth's mass, RE is the Earth's mean
radius, h is the altitude above the Earth's surface, Ro is the combined radius RE + h, and
is another angular velocity function that couples to Ro and is a constituent of the
gravitational field intensity. Traditionally, this field intensity is considered to be
counteracted by the centrifugal force created by the Earth's rotation; the centrifugal
acceleration is zero at the poles and reaches a maximum of 0.03392 m/s2 at the
equator. One of the problems in the current understanding of gravity is that the
difference between the gravitational acceleration at the poles and at the equator is
greater than any centrifugal reaction can account for. This discrepancy is conventionally
explained by the Earth being not a perfect sphere but an oblate spheroid, or rather a
triaxial spheroid.
Assuming that g = 2 m/s2, and taking account of the centrifugal reaction, the value of
g at the equator should be 9.83568 m/s2, whereas the measured value is far lower:
9.780524 m/s2. How do the Correas explain the difference between these values? Their
answer, which they intend to expand upon in future publications, is briefly as follows.
Modern technology permits more exact determinations of the measured values of net g
at the poles and the equator, along with better determinations of the polar and
equatorial radii. This makes it possible to accurately determine the angular velocity
function () that is a constituent of the gravitational field intensity. They point out that if
we employ the values for net g at the poles (where no centrifugal reaction exists) along
with the polar radii to determine the value of , and then use this value together with the
known equatorial radius to determine the gravitational field intensity at the equator, this
will be found to be exactly 2 m/s2, to the fourth digit! This rules out geometric
explanations for the actual value of net g at the equator, as the differences in terrestrial
geometry are already taken into account. So something besides the centrifugal force or
geometry must account for the counteraction of gravity at the equator by = (2 0.03392) - 9.780524 = 0.05516 m/s2. They contend that this antigravity effect is not due
to geometry or uneven distributions of mass inside the Earth, but to a massfree energy
effect whose nature they have not yet disclosed.
The classical foundation for the functional transformation of mass (m) into length (l)
for the simple harmonic motion (SHM) of a pendulum is as follows:
According to Hooke's law, the force exerted upon a point undergoing harmonic
oscillation is: F = -kx, where k is a constant, and x is the displacement distance.
Classical theory holds that if the displacement from the vertical is small, k = mg/l,
where l is pendulum length.
Angular frequency, = (k/m).
The period of simple harmonic motion, T = 2/.
Hence:
T = 2(m/k) = 2[(m/(mg/l)] = 2(l/g)
We move on the left side of the expression from a mechanical relation that depends on
inert mass, to a massfree relation where mass is replaced by pendulum length. The
Correas also draw our attention to the fact that if we apply the mass-to-length
transformation to k = mg/l, Hooke's constant (k) becomes functionally equivalent to the
local gravitational acceleration constant (g).
A swinging pendulum does not trace a perfectly circular arc but rather a cycloidal arc.
The same applies to a park swing. Anyone who has played on one knows that when
approaching 90 from the vertical, the chains visibly slacken. This is undoubtedly due in
part to their weight, but it may also point to the cycloidal nature of the gravitational wave
or 'massfree energy swing' that acts on the swinger or on pendulums. This is implied by
the fact that, as Huygens demonstrated, in a gravitational field only the cycloidal curve
is isochronous: the time taken by a particle to slide to the lowest point of an inverted
cycloid is the same, no matter where on the cycloid the particle begins its descent.
However, for a swinging pendulum, times of fall are only isochronous if the pendulum is
released at an angle no greater than 57.5 from the vertical.
A rolling circle performs one revolution per cycloidal arch, or one cycloidal cycle. The
linear length of the cycloid (LL) is equal to the circle's circumference (2r), and the
curved length (LC) or the aetherometric wavelength of the cycloid equals 4/ LL or
1.273 LL. The Correas contend that if it can be demonstrated that pendular length (l) for
single swings directly converts into the wavelength of cycloidal motion, and still
functions as the length equivalent of the inert mass of an element (i.e. m = lSS = LC), one
should be able to crack the gravitational wavelength of elementary gravitons.
They argue that if a pendulum is released from 90 to the vertical, and the
isochronous requirement is still to hold, the pendular swing will have to take the form of
a gothic arch. The amplitude (i.e. the pendulum length) of the gothic arch (A''-C-A''')
shown in the diagram below is 100 cm, the length of the org-seconds pendulum; the arc
is generated by four synchronized rolling circles. The pendulum length is equal to the
curvilinear length of the red cycloid and to four times its amplitude. Given that at 90 to
the vertical the pendulum length wraps itself around the cycloidal wave exactly, this
wave becomes equivalent to the free massfree waveform of the pendulum length; every
gravitational pendulum therefore has a specific wavefunction intrinsic to its swing.
gravitational energy quantum, there may be other gravitons attached to a grain of matter
in accordance with the varying strength of local gravitational fields, for gravitons and
antigravitons can also be created by the local aether lattice without the simultaneous
creation of physical matter. A mass's weight is a gravitic force dependent on the
average number of gravitational waves and associated momenta acting on it at any
instant. In the case of the Earth, an object in free fall is subject to the repeating or
pulsed action of almost 10 (2) synchronous cycloidal waves or swings per second,
which sequentially impart linear momentum and therefore kinetic energy to it.
The relation of an electron's mass-equivalent (or gravitational) wavelength to its torus
structure was considered in section 2. Aetherometry proposes that the same
wavelength functions as the wavelength of all the massfree energy swings (gravitons)
which are constantly acting on the toroidal energy flux that constitutes the electron's
inertial mass.
A body's gravitational 'mass' is therefore neither mass nor, strictly speaking, a
property of that body per se, but rather the mass-equivalent wavelength of the
graviton(s) anchored to and synchronized with the body's inert mass in any given local
gravitational field. There is therefore no physical or energetic identity between inert
mass and 'gravitational mass', as orthodox physics claims, but there is a functional and
algebraic equivalence between the gravitational wavelength of a graviton and the inert
mass it acts upon.
Every gravitational wavelength is a single-swing cycloidal wavelength. We saw above
that a 100 cm pendulum strikes seconds with each swing, yielding a unit acceleration,
KkrSS, equal to 100f1002 or 1 m/s2. Aetherometry proposes that all gravitons share this
acceleration constant, i.e. that the mass-equivalent wavelength (n) of any particular
grain of matter multiplied by its graviton frequency squared equals KkrSS. This means
that graviton frequency is equal to the reciprocal of n, and its wavespeed is
numerically equal to n. The gravitational waves accompanying an electron, for
example, therefore travel very slowly through it: WGe = 2.342 x 10-3 m/s.
In the aetherometric model, gravitons and antigravitons do not move through space
independently as such. They are anchored to massbound particles or to lattices of
massfree and massbound charges, and move with them. Gravitons anchored to
material particles are formed locally from the nonelectric aether, and last for the lifespan
of the mass-energy or aether lattice to which they are attached, but during this time they
are constantly being shed and regenerated, in the form of impulses from the local
aether lattice that act upon the inertial mass of the associated massbound particle.
What moves through space and is responsible for 'action at a distance' are aether
lattices, carrying a certain number of 'free' gravitons (or antigravitons) anchored to them,
and permitting the apparent propagation of gravity and gravitational disturbances
through them. The apparent speed of propagation of gravity and gravitational
disturbances through the aether is given by vG = c/WGe metre/sec = 1.2799 x 1011 m/s, or
426.95 times the speed of light.
billion times the speed of light, and the apparent 'attraction' between bodies is due to
their shading one another from some graviton impacts. Aetherometry retains the gravityas-push idea, but thinks in terms of massfree wave impulses acting on the elements of
matter rather than solid particle collisions, and also introduces the idea of ordered
lattice-seated graviton fluxes that account for celestial motions. Unlike most variants of
Le Sage gravity, it also recognizes the existence of antigravity and the electrodynamic
nature of gravitational forces.
of subatomic structures. The Correas argue that the inert mass of a grain of matter is a
function of the characteristic wavelength of a quantity of massfree energy circularized
into a torus as mass-energy. In line with an idea first put forward by Harold Aspden, they
say that it is the tendency of massbound particles to try and conserve this energy (and
thus their volume and internal structure) when accelerated that produces the property of
inertia. In other words, inertia is a resistance by a quantity of mass-energy (and
associated graviton energy) when it is accelerated by an externally imposed massfree
field.
In her book Gravitational Force of the Sun (Orb Publishing, 1993), Pari Spolter
strongly criticizes the orthodox theory that gravity is proportional to the quantity or
density of inert mass. It is well known that the gravitational acceleration of objects in
free fall is independent of their mass. But Spolter goes as far as to argue that there is no
reason to include any term for mass in either of the standard force equations (F = ma,
and F = Gm1m2/r2). She rejects Newton's second law as an arbitrary definition or
convention, and maintains that it is not force that is equal to mass times acceleration,
but weight.
Her equation for 'linear force' is F = ad (acceleration times distance). Her equation for
'circular force' (including gravity) is F = aA, where a is acceleration and A is the area of a
circle with a radius equal to the mean distance of the orbiting body from the central
body. This equation implies that the acceleration due to gravity declines by the square
of the distance, but that the gravitational force of the Sun, Earth, etc. is constant for any
body revolving around it. In newtonian theory, by contrast, it varies according to both the
mass of the orbiting body and its distance from the central body.
The Correas identify various flaws in Spolter's theory. Spolter does not question the
equation for a body's momentum (momentum = mass times velocity), yet momentum
with a rate of repetition constitutes a force, which therefore cannot be independent of
mass. Moreover, weight is a type of force, rather than a distinct physical function.
According to Spolter's newfangled definition of 'circular force', the gravitational force of a
star or planet remains exactly the same no matter how far away from it we happen to be
such a conception of force seems counterintuitive if not absurd, and is unlikely to
attract much of a following.
In Spolter's approach, 'linear' (one-dimensional) force and 'circular' (two-dimensional)
force have different dimensions: m2s-2 for linear force, and m3s-2 for circular force.
Similarly, 'linear' and 'circular' energy also have different dimensions, as they are
calculated by multiplying linear or circular force by a body's 'critical mass'. The Correas
argue that there is no justification for abandoning consistent definitions in this way: there
are not two forms of energy, one linear and the other angular, one flat and the other
volumetric. Specifically, they charge that Spolter confuses her 'circular force' with
massfree energy. And if the mass-to-length transformation is applied to Spolter's
equations, linear energy would have exactly the same dimensions as circular force (m3s2
)!
Using Spolter's equation, the gravitational force of the Sun would be 4.16 x 1020 m3s2
, a value that is constant for all planets, asteroids and artificial satellites orbiting it no
matter how far away they may be! The Correas point out that this value can also be
arrived at by multiplying the length-equivalent mass of the Sun by the accepted value of
G times . But this value has the aetherometric dimensions of energy not force.
Moreover, this value does not describe the gravitational force of the Sun, nor a force
acting at a distance upon any other body near to or far from the Sun; rather, after the
value is dropped, it comes close to describing the primary gravitational energy of the
Sun.
Physically, gravity does not involve some (mean) area being accelerated around the
Sun, as Spolter's equation implies. Rather, it involves a coupling of the mass-energy of
the Sun and planets, along with their associated massfree gravitational energy. And
gravitational forces act not through empty space but through the energetic aether
something that is as much missing from Spolter's physics as from orthodox physics.
Spolter claims that her gravitational equation solves the mystery of Kepler's third law
of planetary motion. This law states that the ratio of the square of a planet's period of
revolution (T) to the cube of its mean distance (r) from the Sun is always the same
number (T2/r3 = constant). (Strictly speaking, Spolter's argument concerns the reciprocal
of Kepler's constant [K-1 = r3/T2]). According to her equation, F = aA = (v2/r)(r2).
Replacing v with 2r/T, gives: F = 223r3/T2; in other words, r3/T2 = constant, the
'constant' in question being equal to the 'gravitational force' of a particular star or planet
divided by 223!
Thus, the value Spolter (wrongly) calls the gravitational 'force' of the Sun (4.16 x 1020
m3s-2) is equal to 223K-1. The Correas argue that this is a meaningless expression that
obscures the real significance of Kepler's constant. They point out that Leibniz criticized
Malebranche for a very similar confusion, when the latter thought that gravitational force
was given by rv2 = 222K-1. If Spolter were right about 'circular force' and its energy-like
dimensions, then all three Kepler radii (r3) should be fully circularized, and the
expression should be 233K-1, or, alternatively, since Spolter thinks that gravity involves
the acceleration of a mean area, two of the Kepler radii should be part of an area
function (r2), with the third being circularized (2r), giving 22K-1.
Spolter's expression also differs from Newton's form of Kepler's third law, in which
two radii are circularized: GM = 222K-1. This equation assumes that K-1 is equal to the
inert mass of a celestial body multiplied by the gravitational constant divided by 42. It is
impossible to place a star or planet on a balance and weigh it, and this is one of the
methods used to determine their theoretical masses.
The Correas argue that to understand the true meaning of Kepler's constant and
Newton's form of Kepler's third law, the latter has to be seen in relation to the entire
solar system, as it is part of a function that defines the massfree energy of the primary
gravitational interaction of the system as a whole. Aetherometrically, the correct relation
is GMSS = 222K-1 (where MSS is the mass of the solar system), and the corresponding
primary gravitational energy of each member of the system is a fraction of this,
dependent on the ratio between its mass and that of the entire system. Hence, for the
Sun: GMSun = (MSun/MSS) 222K-1.
Whereas conventional physics ignores the torque generated by the Sun's rotation,
Spolter seeks to revive Kepler's theory and holds that the rotation of the primary body
somehow generates its gravitational force, causing other bodies to revolve around it.
But she does not suggest a mechanism to explain how this might work, or what causes
a celestial body to rotate in the first place. According to aetherometry, it is the ordered
inflowing aether fluxes that cause the planets and Sun to rotate, carry them forward in
their respective orbits, and generate their gravitational fields.
one joker (a leading physicist) put it. In reality, physicists are plunging ever deeper into a
morass of arbitrary and irrational mathematical fantasies. Infinitesimal particles, onedimensional strings, multi-dimensional branes, collapsing probability waves, 10- or 11dimensional spacetime, curved space, expanding space, spatialized time, dilated time,
time reversal, backward causation, ex-nihilo creation it seems that any garbage is
acceptable as long as it avoids the need for a dynamic, energetic aether.
As Bertrand Russell once observed, 'What men really want is not knowledge but
certainty.' Reigning paradigms do indeed offer scientists certainty and a sense of
security, financial as much as intellectual, and this helps them to ignore, trivialize or
suppress anomalies that expose the shortcomings of their cherished beliefs. Above all,
official science has largely lost the willingness and ability to question, and sometimes
even acknowledge, its own basic assumptions.
It is vital that alternative scientific models and viewpoints begin to receive a fairer
hearing. Multiple working hypotheses and theories should be able to compete freely for
attention and should be judged on their merits on their grounding in experimental and
observational facts, their ability to provide realistic explanations, to make accurate
predictions, to generate new insights, and to spawn innovative technologies. On all
these criteria, aetherometry scores very highly and therefore deserves careful scrutiny.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Paulo and Alexandra Correa for reviewing
this paper, and for open and frank discussion of all the questions raised.
The above article is also posted at aetherometry.com
Aetherometry mainpage
Massfree Technologies
Correas vs. Spolter: further debate
Homepage