I am happy to engage in a critical debate about theoretical physics with knowledgeable, spirited individuals. I take issue with those who maintain a superior position in regard to Einstein's relativity theoretics. Often times, I feel, that such individuals have won physics debates using mathematical superiority rather than upon the virtues of their preferred theoretical physics framework. Perhaps one might even believe that they are smarter than myself and others who do not agree with them, simply based upon their mathematical aquum. What such an individual may not realize about myself is that I do understand relativity. I do appreciate relativity for what it is, and I do appreciate its mathematical complexity. However, in relativity the Riemannian metric used to build a simplified description in the fusion between ‘spacetime’ and the universe expressed as a pseudo-Riemann manifold in four dimensions obviates the intrinsic geometries of the gravimetric four-dimensional realm coupled with the three-dimensional physical realm in our meta realm universe.
I reference my paper on ResearchGate and other places, Flow Theory: the Meta-Realm Axiom. I have presented a new theory called Flow Theory which matches with or counters the major predictions of Newtonian laws of gravity, general relativity and matches with our observations in nature. Flow then goes well beyond either by explaining these greater mysteries, such as: the double slit experiment, what induces magnetism, and, finally, the big question, how we may now control gravity. What I do not appreciate about relativity is that it has been applied in a sloppy manner in observational proofs, gives almost no benefit to the practicing scientist, the unnatural geometry used does not represent anything real in our known universe, and what I most do not appreciate is that relativity, both general and special, as conceived of by Albert Einstein one century ago, is nothing more than an useless pseudo-science and a waste of time. After one full century with Einstein's theories we have gotten nowhere with gravity. After less than one year I was able to develop a more substantial and representational theory, essentially solving gravity, and then build a machine that uses gravimetric energy to build a propulsive force in a vacuum and to induce an unnatural gravimetric field around a collector object. Please see this article where I deconstruct and expose the Einstein Field Equation, Flow Theory: Going Beyond Modern Approximations of Gravity so we may begin the long walk back to reality and real science.
Soon after my first successful test of the HyperDrive motor prototype I made my several patent filing and then could hardly wait to share this result with the rest of the world. I made a new website in June of the following year to share about this invention with the science paper that started it all, Introduction to Flow Theory. I posted to the Quora website with a link to the HyperDrive website. I wanted very much to make this contribution to science and to share the great news. I expected people to be enthusiastic and receptive, or at least open to hearing a new theory about gravity.
What I encountered however, was a world filed with disdain, resentment and righteousness. Apparently, the most vocal members of the scientific community of our world are quite content with their understanding of the physical body, or perhaps just the control that they enjoy over the less sophisticated and learned when it comes to quoting their great wizard of the modern era. If someone wants to develop a theory about gravity, they first must embrace the incorrect theories of Albert Einstein. If they do not, they will be insulted, assassinate and banned.
At first the posting seemed to be going somewhat well. A few people downloaded and read parts of Flow Theory and were engaging in a healthy debate. A few people even suggested methods to improve my testing system. Then I made the fatal mistake. I started to denigrate the great one. The physics icon who knows everything, is wrong? Things then deteriorated rapidly for me. Soon I became the village idiot and everyone's punching bag.
Then, after a two-week, mostly smarmy, debate with several know-it-all scientists, one day, I logged into my Quora account to find the following popup:
Quora Popup
Apparently Quora moderation had noted the allegedly leading scientific views from some posted comments and determined that my theory was too deviant to rate my posting as having any scientific value. If I am not a scientist then I must be a spammer. The entire exchange had been completely deleted. None of the debate, things that I had said and none of the questions that had been asked were preserved. The upstart inquiry into gravity had been wiped clean. Removed, cleansed from view. My feeble little one man rebellion had been crushed.
I have since learned that Quora has no screening process for their contributors and that its membership of regular users is comprised mostly of unqualified people posing as experts, unlike Stack Exchange which requires people to prove themselves a bit more before allowing them to post their answers.
I had done a copy and paste into a text editor a few days before being deleted and was able to preserve most of the words. I have posted these words below. Given the backlash against anyone wishing to contribute to the gravity debate who does not subscribe to the Einstein axioms, I can see why gravity has remained a mystery for so long and why we are so ignorant about this fundamental property of matter.
For my explanation as to why people agree so fervently with Albert Einstein and his physics despite numerous attempts by real scientists to abolish this unproven science, I think that complex, incomplete mathematical equations have become a substitute for a comprehensive and encompassing theory of universal construction. Mainly the scientists who subscribe to and actually promote relativity theory are mathematicians. The rest are glory seeking followers who learned physics in the movies. None are practicing physicists. Occasionally, we may find theoretical physicists who perpetuate the relativity scam, however, they are not real laboratory researchers. THEY ARE MATHEMATICIANS, NOT PHYSICISTS. Rather than working in a real lab, they sit at their desk and crank out useless papers and other highly technical writings that lead to zero real advancement in science. Their funding comes mainly through academia or huge projects that waste enormous amounts of money that produce zero usable technologies.
Quora Posting, June 2020
QUESTION: Why do people think that gravity is something we cannot control, when it controls us? I developed a new theory to explain gravity called Flow Theory. Right now I am testing a gravity motor and posting the results on my website.
EDIT: Perhaps this question was a bit leading and not a real question. Atomic physics is broken, and maybe I just wanted to stir the pot a bit. I guess I knew someone would soon try and wrap me over the head with Einstein. Let's see where this leads...
11 Answers
Guido Van den Heuvel, MSc Astronomy, Leiden University (1999)
Answered Sat
I’ve scanned through the paper you’ve linked on your website. It hardly contains any equations, which I find worrying.
As you no doubt know physics is a quantitative science. The way it is supposed to work is that a new theory predicts quantitative values for things that you can measure in the lab and then compare with the predicted values to see if the theory is correct. But I don’t see how you can predict quantitative values if you don’t have a quantitative theory to begin with.
NOTE: I made something heavier using my invention, ergo: MADE GRAVITY and I generated thrust, of an unaccountable by current scientific quantizations method. Flow "quantitates" the design of physical matter into a multi realm understanding. It had only been a few months since the first successful gravitation experiments with the HyperDrive, and I was being asked to provide various quantization methods.
And if I understand you correctly, you postulate some kind of link between electromagnetism and gravity. Such links have been explored before, see, e.g., Kaluza-Klein theory. However, unless you assume some ad-hoc and very non-physical constraints, KK theory predicts that the strength of the electromagnetic field influences the strength of gravity and vice versa. But we know from experiments that that is not the case. Which means that KK theory cannot be a correct description of Nature.
NOTE: There is no causal link between electromagnetism and gravity. Flow Theory states nowhere therein that these two physical body characteristics are directly linked. The only similar (causal?) characteristics is that of like attraction. Read this paper: MAGNETISM: ELECTRICITY INTERPLAY BETWEEN BODIES IN TWO REALMS. Field strength between magnetism and gravity is absolutely unrelated as these two characteristics flow from DIFFERENT REALMS.
By extension, if your theory also predicts that the strength of gravity depends on the strength of the EM field, your theory is also falsified.
NOTE: G=EM. THIS IS NEVER STATED ANYWHERE IN FLOW THEORY. Sounds like you skimmed the first few pages looking to disprove my theory rather conducting a full analysis. That is fine, but don't go waving flags around about it. You could have asked me, is there a link between the gravimetric and electromagnetic fields in any physical body according to your new, fangled theory? I would have said no.
Formulating a new theory of physics is rather easy. Formulating one that is consistent with every experiment done so far, on the other hand, is very, very hard.
NOTE: It does. Flow Theory predicts consistently except the time dilation experiments conducted recently at CERN: WHICH I DEEPLY QUESTION!
201 viewsView Upvoters
13
0
3
EDIT: "...HARDLY CONTAINS ANY EQUATIONS" Bwahahahahah!
Add Comment
Mark Williamson
Sat
Thank you for reading parts of my paper. Flow Theory states that magnetism and gravity are similar but not connected. They are both based on the attraction between bodies in the twin realms paradigm, which I gather you already read. The difference between gravity and magnetism is that gravity is an … (more)
Reply
Guido Van den Heuvel
Original Author · Sat · 2 upvotes
You keep saying that “protonic matter” is the source of gravity. Does this mean that electrons, in your theory, do not generate gravity?
Reply
Upvote
·
2
Mark Williamson
Mon
Excellent question. Thank you so much for asking me for my opinion. I do mean that humbly. Electrons are electrical energy that has moved into the physical ream, and therefore possess traits like protonic matter. At the moment of movement and transformation into the physical realm from time-energy realm electrons gain the property of gravity and may be attracted to other such electrons as well as pronic matter. At that moment they become particulate in nature. Prior to that, when electricity exists only as wave form energy, it has no gravity. It can, however, have magnetism. Electrical energy is therefore subject state changes as it moves between realms.
Reply
James Martin
Answered Sat · Upvoted by Jesse Raffield, Master's degree in physics
You should be aware that folks have known for at least 50 years that a spring scale will behave asymmetrically in the presence of vibration.
The test you NEED to perform is very simple.
Rotate a motor/impeller assembly until it is horizontal. Suspend it from a string.
Any net thrust will cause the motor to swing in one direction AND STAY THERE.
If you have a 48 kg motor producing 6 kg of thrust (by which I assume you mean about 60 newtons), then simple geometry shows that the final angle of the suspending string will be about 7 degrees off vertical.
It’s a very simple test, and until you do it you’re just blowing smoke.
Statements like, “The functions of the HyperDrive cannot be explained using existing, conventional science.” are a clear red flag to anybody who actually understands something about science.
Oh yes, and until you can run a motor without breaking it (twice) it’s very hard to believe that you have created such a world-shaking theory as you claim. You have to walk before you run.
211 viewsView Upvoters
13
0
5
Add Comment
Mark Williamson
Sat
I agree with you the scale is not the best choice, nor is it a very precise method. As I explain on the website, I had intended to use the CnC rail system. I was excited to share my results. I am working on a better testing apparatus that is a seesaw design that will be much more precise and will al … (more)
Reply
James Martin
Original Author · Sat · 2 upvotes
Stop thinking about scales, or seesaws, or any other sort of weight-reduction measurement. Do the pendulum test. It’s quick, easy to set up, and will give quite definite results.
Reply
Upvote
·
2
Mark Williamson
Sat
Yes, in an ordinary circumstance that would be a perfectly logical and appropriate thing to do. I thought about that, and I know they are using pendulum tests with ion propulsion systems. The problem is that I cannot turn this motor onto the horizontal. It will not work, and it will break. The first … (more)
Reply
James Martin
Original Author · Sat · 3 upvotes
So you can’t get a motor which will operate horizontally, but you expect us to accept that you have developed a completely revolutionary gravity drive? I’m sorry, but your lack of competence does not require that I match it. Why is your motor breaking? And none of this “gravimetric torsion” garbage, … (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
3
Mark Williamson
Mon
I am very sorry. I cannot yet publicly disclose the interior workings of the HyperDrive, yet. SOON. I am working with my attorney and will post interior design photos just as soon as possible. We are doing additional USPTO filing work this week. Thank you for your patience.
Reply
Mark Williamson
Mon
The USPTO will release the drawings and text of the patent publicly, I think, in about 18 months. However, I plan on sharing this information much sooner
Reply
Volker Hetzer
Sun
The way this thing sounds and vibrates, a stick on a bearing (cardanic if necessary) might be a safer choice…
Reply
Upvote
Mark Williamson
Mon
I am adding another bearing and a shield system. I added a new video here: HyperDrive Motors - Welcome I think the video will show the types of bearings that may be required for this system
Reply
Franklin Veaux, part-time mad scientist
Answered Sat · Upvoted by Jerzy Michał Pawlak, PhD in High Energy Physics (experimental) and Nikolas Scholz, M.S. Physics & Computational Science and Scientific Computing, Goethe University Frankfurt (2017)
You don’t have a theory.
You don’t even have a hypothesis.
You have a vague idea stated in mushy, imprecise language without any definitions.
Here’s a tip: If you think you have a new “theory” about gravity, the very first thing you need to do is use your theory to calculate all the motions of the planets and other bodies in the solar system, then compare what your theory says to reality.
If your theory cannot be used to calculate the motions of the planets, it isn’t a theory.
8K viewsView UpvotersView Sharers
627
4
29
Your feedback is private
Was this a useful answer to your question?
Yes
No
Add Comment
Mark Williamson
Sat
With GR you are stuck with time and mass dilation near C. I think this is a dividing point in science for many because it is simply not a very likely outcome. By applying the twin realms principle as I have preferred in Flow, you quickly place “atomic orbital electrical energy” in a different realm … (more)
Reply
Franklin Veaux
Original Author · Sat · 32 upvotes
You have made the classic mistake of the crank: You think that “intuitive” is better than “tested.”
The universe doesn’t give a fig about your intuition.
Reply
Upvote
·
32
Mark Williamson
Sat
Well, HyperDrive is making a force and generating thrust. Is this not testing? I thought that I had done that, and with repeatability. I am inviting scientists to bring their own scales to my laboratory and demonstrate a live test. Testing with repeatability.
Reply
David Schwartz
Sat · 6 upvotes including Franklin Veaux
Well, predict the motions of the planets in our solar system with it and see how your predictions do compared actual readings resulting from established and verified science.
Reply
Upvote
·
6
Valdis Klētnieks
Sat · 6 upvotes including Franklin Veaux
So… how did you identify the thrust as gravitational rather than something else?
Reply
Upvote
·
6
Scott Berry
Sat · 26 upvotes including Franklin Veaux
What I heard is:
You don’t like what happens with GR near C. Check.
You came up with something fanciful which makes you happier.
You completely ignored Franklin telling you to use your theory to test against known reality because you don’t like it.
Reply
Upvote
·
26
Mark Williamson
Sat · 1 upvote
I am not ignoring what he said. He is absolutely right. I will apply this theoretical model against real world physical problems. I only just wrote Flow theory last summer, developed the motor that, I think, proves some of my theories especially the origin of the development of the force of gravity. … (more)
Reply
Scott Berry
Sat · 4 upvotes
Good. You should realize that there are a lot of crackpot theorists in this area, and most people (including me, I’m afraid) are going to peg you as one of them until you can demonstrate what you have to say. So instead of offering us a sneak preview, go out and get evidence that you’re right first.
Reply
Upvote
·
4
Mark Williamson
Mon
Ok. I am working on it. Based on feedback from Quora community this weekend, I added a page that addresses the test accuracy issue and the “spring scale”. This is a work in progress but is being upgraded soon. HyperDrive Motors - Welcome
Reply
V Krumins
Sat · 2 upvotes
This looks like disconnected thoughts of someone off their meds for a serious illness. Bipolar mania comes to mind. Just guessing.
NOTE: Not sure how this is appropriate. It would appear that discourse is being very actively discouraged in regard to this area of science.
Reply
Upvote
·
2
Gianni Degli Esposti
Sat · 1 upvote
Time dilation is tested literally every day. Satellites work thanks to (gravitational) time dilation, and concerning time dilation close to c, it has been tested as well on planes in several occasions (just as example).
So, time dilation is real, no questions about it. How does your theory explain it … (more)
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Ron Spencer
Sun · 1 upvote from Gianni Degli Esposti
Well, to be somewhat fair, it isn’t that satellites work due to time dilation. Rather, their time dilation must be accounted for in order for GPS to work based on their clocks.
In any case, since there is literally nothing we have ever measured that doesn’t fit GR perfectly, the best that an alternate theory can do is be as good as GR, and that’s an exceedingly high bar. The idea that it can make possible something that GR can’t is pretty laughable.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
EDIT: The variability in time velocity in a gravitational field is well explained in great detail in Flow Theory under the section titled, "Time and Light Distortion Around Physical Bodies". No math is required to understand what causes this phenomenon. However, there are simple equations given to predict time veritably in Flow. In summary: "Time is a constant in the Universe. It does not change, nor can it be traveled. However, it may be bent or distorted within the distorted time-energy crown that surrounds all objects which effects the constancy of time passage within the physical realm.". By the same token this time variance proves Flow Theory also.
Gianni Degli Esposti
Sun
That is true, I phrased in an ambiguous way????
NOTE: You said, "time dilation is real" because of an observable time variance that exists between clocks on earth and clocks in satellites. Flow has a equally compelling explanation compared to relativity. Theoretical proofs are inherently exclusionary and therefore should only be accepted with great caution. I do not think that sufficient caution has been given in regard to accepting relativity.
Reply
Upvote
Giovanni Theodoli
Sat · 32 upvotes including Franklin Veaux
You can’t understand it unless you wear the accompanying tinfoil hat!
NOTE: This is a personal attack.
Reply
Upvote
·
32
Gary Rocco
Sat · 27 upvotes including Franklin Veaux
I lost an argument with gravity in 2015, and i will never be the same.
Reply
Upvote
·
27
Peter Ho
Sat · 17 upvotes including Franklin Veaux
Physics requires math!? What!
Reply
Upvote
·
17
Christopher Storm
Sat · 35 upvotes
Heh. That site looks like a version of the Nigerian Prince scheme for sci-fi fans.
Reply
Upvote
·
35
Rares Mircea
Sun
Here’s a tip: If you think you have a new “theory” about gravity, the very first thing you need to do is see what the word “theory” means exactly and then see if you still think you have one.
Reply
Upvote
John Crooks
Sat · 22 upvotes
According to your website you have invented a device which produces thrust with no energy source. Your device can do work for nothing. It is a perpetual motion machine which violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Wow! A Nobel prize beckons. i will keep looking out for that
Most of the remaining debate devolved into more personal insults and attacks upon myself (I have included this below if you are interested.)
It would appear that a jungle mentality safeguards the old guard of physics and where the legitimately curious are blocked from hearing anything that dares challenge the Einstein way. Those who hope to expand the boundaries of physical science beyond those defined by Einstein are attacked and silenced with insults and accusations of intellectual inferiority. The status quo is further maintained through anachronistic educational systems and math wizards who consult on Hollywood movie sets to weave tales of time travel using relative velocity that are simply not based in reality.
Further, I think this exchange demonstrates how those in the scientific community, particularly in atomic physics, have lost their "learner mind". Their hunger for new ideas and fresh concepts has been extinguished, replaced by entrenched, expired theories that are held "beyond reproach". Entrenchment has replaced innovation and physics has become frozen, locked in a perpetual state of math magic. Mathematical equations, no matter how ridiculous and useless, have become more important than the base theories that they model. Apparently, this opinion is not some isolated, lone idea.
In her book, "Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray", Sabine Hassenfelder, argues that her field's modern obsession with beauty has given us good math which elaborately, perhaps, models bad science. She interviews scientists in an attempt to investigate her thesis which is that the mathematical equations have become more important than the underlying science, and where she questions the connection to these theories versus what is actually real in our physical universe. She goes on to accuse her own community of misusing the scientific method by carelessly developing new theories atop unproven and unprovable conjecture.
In his book, on almost entirely the same topic, Mitch Stokes asserts that scientists are not really trying to find truth. Instead, they predominate their activities trying to find what works within their existing theoretical constraints. He asserts that we are over-trusting the claims made by our leading and most vocal scientists. Both authors seem to emphasize an underlying contempt for current practices
and a lack of substantial progress in the atomic sciences. Based upon a superficial survey of reviewer opinions, no one strongly disagrees with Sabine or Mitch, and in fact universally seem to echo a deep resignation over, and a yearning for, a missing and real theory that accurately describes the mysterious atomic world.
Decades ago Nicola Tesla warned us that Einstein's theories were incorrect and the people who followed him were behaving foolishly. Rather than heed this warning we rushed headlong into the Einstein universe where forces are not forces they are accelerations and other such language games and mathematical smoke screens. This direction choice has dead-ended physics. The legacy of Einstein is a scientific community tainted with useless mathematical models based on poor science. People now graduate from universities with skewed understandings and, due to a lack of functional knowledge, are forced to work to develop more useless math to go on top of it, or more evolved versions of wrong. We are training our scientists incorrectly and hobbling them from doing more meaningful scientific research.
Flow Theory offers an alternative and emerging viewpoint that will perhaps be useful to those genuinely interested in physical science and understanding our universe.
Back to Blog Index
EXTRA READING
Continuation of Quora debate:
NOTE: NOWHERE IS PERPETUAL MOTION MENTIONED! Why does gravity manipulation equal perpetual motion? It is powered by an electric motor, , again!
Reply
Upvote
·
22
Mark Williamson
Sat
No, it is not like that at all. Another person misunderstood this. Please allow me to explain. There is an electric motor that is part of the HyperDrive. This electrical motor is spinning an internal part that is leading to the production of propulsive forces. I am not proposing to change the law of conservation. The propulsive force costs about 500 watts. Again, these are early tests! I do not yet know what the efficiency is going to be, and what the cost of propulsive force will be per watt of energy. These are preliminary findings only. This is not a perpetual motion machine, sorry if the name was a little confusing to you as it was to some others. This is a gravimetric propulsion device that is driven by an electric motor. The motor uses A/C power and consumes approximately 500 watts. Hope that clarifies the matter of apparent conservation of energy violation.
Reply
Jesse Raffield
Sat · 4 upvotes
Any chance you'll explain the violation of conservation of momentum?
NOTE: Yet another assumption without proper examination
Reply
Upvote
·
4
David Critchley
Sat · 19 upvotes
He's just after hits on his website.
Reply
Upvote
·
19
Mark Williamson
Sat
No, I actually invented this gravimetric propulsion system to prove a theory that I developed to better explain gravity. There are much better ways to get hits for websites than trying to convince the toughest scientific minds in the world. If you are interested, I have developed a theory about gravity and time, it is called Flow Theory. My essay is called “THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF THE PHYSICAL BODY SET IN TIME, A Practical Guide to the Source of Gravity and Time” You can read it here: (PDF) THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF THE PHYSICAL BODY SET IN TIME A Practical Guide to the Source of Gravity and Time I invented the HyperDrive motor to prove the theory. It has an electrically powered motor, this not a perpetual motion idea. This is a propulsion system.
Reply
...
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
Sat · 7 upvotes
Indeed: Report as spam.
Reply
Upvote
·
7
Mark Williamson
Sat
It is not spam. I have posed a theory, it is called Flow Theory. My essay is called “THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF THE PHYSICAL BODY SET IN TIME, A Practical Guide to the Source of Gravity and Time” You can read it here: (PDF) THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF THE PHYSICAL BODY SET IN TIME A Practical Guide to the So … (more)
Reply
Jesse Raffield
Sat · 1 upvote
Any particular reason why you have published your findings to be peer reviewed?
NOTE: I did. To be honest, Flow does not seem to fit within existing methods of study because it proposes radically different foundations of atom construction.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
Sat · 1 upvote
All I see is a hypothesis and no actual experiments to test it. Remember, in science the default stance to a new hypothesis is that it is wrong, and it it up to the person professing the hypothesis to prove it, not come up with vague word salads.
NOTE: I agree. You should assume Flow is wrong and then myself and perhaps others must prove it. I believe strongly in the scientific method. That is why I build a test device and shared it on my website, hyperdrive.works. More experimental proofs shall be made available as I am able to provide them. I do not see many machines that just anyone can build to prove relativity.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
View Collapsed Comments
Prashant Dobriyal, Educator of Life, Space, Science
Answered Sun
Mad scientist you are. I agree.
Scientist, are you? Certainly not.
How do you come up with a new theory on something that's ages old that nearly every student and researcher of physics has their eye on, while you are a nobody.
NOTE: So gravity control is impossible and so... what... don't try!
To challenge such a theory you first need to come up to the level the scientists were who came up with the existing, well-established theories. Just a day-dreamer is not a scientist.
NOTE: What is a scientist to you? A mathematician who neither builds nor proves anything real while wasting vast amounts of academic and public resources?
Before I even visit your website I need to know your credentials. I am very encouraging of people who think new and fresh. However, I also am very discouraging of those who think they know a lot because they know so less. You haven't shared enough about you to give me any confidence about your abilities as a physicist.
EDIT: Sometimes less is more. Don't trouble yourself.
36 viewsView Upvoters
1
0
1
Your feedback is private
Was this a useful answer to your question?
Yes
No
Add Comment
Mark Williamson
Sun
Thank you for your candor. I understand your point of view. I have been a student of science and physics for many years. My degrees are in business and computer science. I have a laboratory. I do experimental research. I helped to set up a nanolab at a local university. I studied GR. I looked at SR, admittedly I don’t know much about it. I studied a little of quantum mechanics.
EDIT: Well, actually, I have studied and tested GR, SR and QM. I was trying to be modest. Access and read this article where I discuss and challenge the flagship equation of GR, the Einstein Field Equation. Also, visit my researchgate.com page for my CV and check out the FFG, a new equation that replaces Einstein's extremely complex and controversial field equation.
I have been learning about nanotech. I wanted to work out some things that have troubled me for decades. Time and mass dilation at near c, the equivalence principle and why no one has been able to understand or harness gravity effectively. What I failed to reconcile is the following list of complaints: no comprehensive presentation of a theory about time; no *useful* definition of gravity; and an over simplification of matter at the atomic level. In my own research about gravity, and trying to think of it as something that we interact with and manipulate, I discovered that torsion is missing from GR. How can you have curvature without torsion? Now, with torsion added to my understanding of gravity ...
Reply
Chris Richardson, BSc honours Physics
Answered Sat · Upvoted by Jesse Raffield, Master's degree in physics
I took a look.
The two statements:
“The time-energy realm functions outside of our detectable presence”
and
“This thrust is generated as a result of friction in time-energy space caused by the spinning gravitron”
are mutually incompatible. Something undetectable can not have a detectable effect.
It appears you have imagined your “time-energy realm” to be whatever the hell you want and for no rhyme or reason. That’s just fantasy magic but I look forward to hearing about your Nobel Prize win.
291 viewsView Upvoters
19
0
1
Your feedback is private
Was this a useful answer to your question?
Yes
No
Add Comment
Mark Williamson
Sat
Thank you so much for reading that much. Time-energy and the physical realms ARE connected. As stated on page 3 of Flow Theory (REV 10): “The spatial relationship between the time-energy realm and the physical realm has a weak coupling. Between the physical realm and time-energy is an interface, called the energy interface, for the transfer of energies. Electricity both originates and returns to the time-energy realm in the form of waves through this interface that separates the two realms.” Therefore, there does exist two separate realms, however, there is an interface that connects them together. The twin realm theory which I have proffered, answers a great many scientific mysteries. For example, I theorize that the neutron is actually a proton which has moved into the time-energy realm. This theory is actually borne out in beta decay, in existing scientific study. Discussed on page 8 of Flow. When I say “detectable presence” I am referring to the five senses, not using scientific instruments. Obviously, it is detectable. Any measurement of time, electricity or gravity is a detection of the presence of the time-energy realm (based on Flow). I was simply illustrating that it is not plainly visible. It is also perhaps a bit counter intuitive to think of matter as being comprised by the compilation of two, covariant realms that combine together to bring matter into existence. I have found, however, that this contextual view of the universe ties together a great many scientific ‘loose ends’ and lead to the building of the worlds first gravimetric propulsion system, the motor under discussion.
Reply
Jesse Raffield, Masters degree in condensed matter physics
Answered Sat
Your “theory” seems a bit hokey. Especially with the odd test videos you have on your website. Running a spinning weight on a motor that induces vibrations doesn’t somehow produce thrust.
Your videos of “tests” show an oscillating kitchen scale. Is that supposed to be convincing?
If you want real and reproducible results you really need to follow some form of guidelines and rigor. Even some crude form of documentation would be better than what you have now.
235 viewsView Upvoters
13
0
0
Your feedback is private
Was this a useful answer to your question?
Yes
No
Add Comment
View Collapsed Comments
William Kelleher, 30 years in research and development
Answered Sat
I visited your site. There are no details on your concept. My initial high level “review” is that you are probably violating the Conservation of Energy. There is no free lunch. Gravity is s conservative force and therefore Energy will be conserved. In order for your motor to do work you will be supplying energy from somewhere. Where?
292 viewsView Upvoters
9
0
7
Your feedback is private
Was this a useful answer to your question?
Yes
No
Add Comment
Mark Williamson
Sat
You are correct, conservation of energy is alive and well! No, the motor runs off of electricity. An electric motor spins the HyperDrive which then creates propulsive forces. This is the ‘motor’, like a rocket engine is sometimes called a motor. It ‘motors’ the rocket forward.
Reply
William Kelleher
Original Author · Sat · 1 upvote
Again, you are going to have to give me Engineering/Physics details to have me make an assessment. I was a consultant for VC firms for a few years. If you want VC money ( and lots of it for hardware ) you won’t get to first base without a well engineered documented fully functional demo. And without this you won’t get a patent either.
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Mark WilliamsonI applied for a patent and I expect to get it. You are correct, I cannot get a patent for HyperDrive based on GR, QM, or any other existing framework. Yet, the propulsive device I made works. As it cannot be explained using the limits of existing science, I have developed a new framework called Flow Theory. The propulsive forces being generated by this device are measurable, and I intend to bring many witnesses to my laboratory to verify this. The best details I can give you are from the paper I have written on ResearchGate called Flow Theory by ME Williamson. I have access to a laboratory at a major university here in my city where I reside with a nonotech research facility and scientists, and I will publish more results as I go along. I am developing new testing protocols for Flow. I will publish them as I am able. I am sorry that I do not have more research materials to show you at this time. Over the next year this will change. Perhaps this will lead to upgrades in our understanding of the physical universe.
Mike Thakar
Answered Sat
I am confused — inventions that control gravity are numerous and are as old as the very first machine invention — the screw. There is also the wheel and lever, the very early inventions, each designed to overcome gravity.
Nowhere on your website are there any formulae or primers of your Flow Theory.
If you have a new theory on gravity, keep in mind that it must answer all the of predictions of Newtonian laws of gravity and general relativity too. And then you show how yout Flow Theory answer predictions that neither Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity theories answer.
95 viewsView Upvoters
5
0
4
Your feedback is private
Was this a useful answer to your question?
Yes
No
Add Comment
Mark Williamson
Sat
Thank you for responding. Newtonian physics is simple and elegant. Quite useful. I take issue with much of Einstein’s work. For example time and mass dilation at near c and the equivalence principle, just to name a few. Gravity is not the same as acceleration. Yet, these are widely held views by so … (more)
Reply
Victorino Machava
Sat
>> If gravity is something like a fluid, and can be understood using fluid dynamics, then why are we calling it acceleration?
Aren’t you mistaking gravity with gravitational acceleration?
Those aren’t the same thing.
Reply
Upvote
EDIT: Gravitational Acceleration is an Einstein term that references the equivalence principle which wrongly equivocates the act of accelerating with a force of nature, the attraction of gravity. Acceleration is caused by body collisions and, although possessing similar characteristics, is not the same as gravity, which is a force. It is this sort of sloppiness that has lead physics to a state of stagnation. I was attempting to maintain a civil tone, but things became nasty.
Mark Williamson
Sun
Thank you for your interest.
In the statement:
>> If gravity is something like a fluid, and can be understood using fluid dynamics, then why are we calling it acceleration?
You asked, “aren’t you mistaking gravity with gravitational acceleration?”
I was discussing my non reliance upon the equivalence pr … (more)
Reply
EDIT: At this point the comments went entirely off topic and became more personal than scientific. The true scientists and genuinely curious left the conversation, and a mob mentality broke out. The Einstein adherents wanted to humiliate me and protect their interests, including an investment in their own "higher education". Rather than explore new theories and continue to endure an intellectual examination of Einstein's theories it was easier for them to simply dismiss me and call me names.
Mark Williamson
Mon
I have published a paper. It is called, “THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF THE PHYSICAL BODY SET IN TIME A Practical Guide to the Source of Gravity and Time” (PDF). New ideas do come along from time to time.
Reply
Gerhard Adam
Original Author · Sat
Absolutely new ideas come along.
just not from unqualified morons like you
Reply
Upvote
Gerhard Adam
Original Author · Sat
BTW. You can use this opportunity to tell me where you took your PhD. Of course I fully expect you’ll list all the reasons why you didn’t do that and how it is just a waste of time
Reply
Upvote
EDIT: Why pay $100 thousand to learn Einstein when I can read his papers in a few hours, and see that they are riddled with obvious errors and omissions? BTW: I began my journey by trying to correct Einstein's equations. I actually added torsion to one of his equations to more accurately represent the distortion between two bodies. I soon realized that the singular dimension, narrow minded thinking lacks sufficient sophistication to model our universe. Furthermore, e=mc^2 invents a unit of energy based upon all substance in the universe. Why not simply say that there is a lot of energy contained within matter that may be unleashed by breaking the strong nuclear force? That is all that this equation really says. Einstein did not invent this concept, nor is this equation ever used for anything other than the aforementioned assertion. Yet another silly and useless mathematical stunt lacking in functional utility. I quickly concluded that Einstein's base theories are incomplete and his equations, although technically correct, are useless because they largely model nothing real. They fail to mathematically quantify anything of a specific nature in our universe in an accurate and useful manner. Math proving wrong things has no value. Relativity is like a gold plated map that takes you nowhere. I have a new equation:
PhD=Piled higher and Deeper
Victor Ragusila, Engineer
Answered Sat
Sweet! Can I invest in your company?
I have a new theory of money, which states that I have infinite amount of this new money thats hard to detect, but its there. And I know about it.
I can invest a bunch of it in your company and own it. Interested?
86 viewsView Upvoters
8
0
1
Your feedback is private
Was this a useful answer to your question?
Yes
No
Add Comment
Peter Huang
Sun · 1 upvote from Victor Ragusila
Victor, so glad I saw your post. It relates to something I am working on
Conventional thought has maintained that the amount a container can hold is based on obsolete ‘Euclidean’ concepts like size and shape.
I have discovered by the yse of Universal tensors and filaments, this no longer true. Einstein hinted as much. The net result, a container is not bounded by how much it can hold, but by as much i can imagine that it can hold; basically an infinite size.
What does this have to do with you? Well, by chance i have built a prototype which synergizes with your experiments. Please send me your money and i will report results.
If you need more information about my container, please refer to my website:
www . hyperinfinitewallet . com
Reply
Upvote
·
1
Back to Blog Index 
