Questions and Answers

In this page you can post your questions about Paul LaViolette’s work and the various theories discussed on Etheric.com.

222 Responses to Questions and Answers

  1. Herb Pigott says:

    Have you vetted Corey Goode? If so, what do you think?
    Thanks
    Herb

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I looked at the Corey Goode interview (#5) on the GaiamTV channel in which Goode, a whistleblower, claims that the Secret Space Program has known about superwaves for many years and is preparing for an upcoming event with the help of giant “energy sphere” space beings. But I was very disappointed. My first impression was that it is a bunch of hooey. He was very vague about the subject of superwaves as if recalling details from a dream state. He does not react like someone who is concerned to inform the public about an upcoming catastrophic threat. We have no way of knowing whether operatives may have preprogrammed his mind hypnotically, as in Total Recall. I believe the same may have been done to Preston Nichols and Bob Lazaar. Regardless of this, for “Secret Space Program” intelligence operatives to include rudimentary mention of the superwave idea indicates that at least they are aware of it.
      Also Wilcox seems to slip up about relativity as indicated in the #6 interview in his statement to Goode that time would speed up as you approach the speed of light. Actually, it will slow down. But then he gets it right that people not in the space ship will have had a more rapid flow of time. But the statement by Goode that ET’s said that only part of relativity was right, that one of its equations needed flipping, seems to me like true baloney, as does his statement that Einstein later revised relativity but was prevented from communicating his revision publicly. Relativity is easily shown to be wrong and the best approach is to throw out the hypothesis entirely and adopt subquantum kinetics which anticipates all observed relativistic effects, but without relativistic paradoxes.
      Goode’s comments about the soul, etc. towards the end of #5 seem to me plausible however and his statement that he meditates daily for one hour seem truthful and to come from his own experience. His comments about meditation helping someone who is easily angered/infuriated by daily life events, makes me wonder whether Goode has himself at one time had an anger problem or PTSD syndrome and had to undergo some sort of hypnotic therapy to alleviate it. His haircut seems to have a military look so who knows. All of these of course are my first impressions and I admit that I have not viewed the other episodes, which possibly could give a different impression of him.

  2. Hoyt Yeatman says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette:
    I feel for those of us who are asking questions of you it is only right for us to stand up and support your cause by donating to the Starburst foundation in which I have just made a donation. Acquiring knowledge and information is not free and I appreciate all the work you have done through the years on these subjects. I am interested in finding any examples of Electrogravitics that clearly demonstrated the use of solid high K dielectric (Barium Strontium Titanate) ceramic thruster that produces more than the infinitesimal thrust produced with the open air exposed electrodes devices such as with common “lifters”. In your book “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion” you mention several examples such as the French researcher Lafforge whose patented (2651388) design of a solid ceramic thruster supposedly is capable of lifting hundreds of pounds with the correct construction and voltage. Even T.T. Brown’s patent 3,187,206 shows asymmetrically cast dielectric material composites to again allegedly produce significant propulsion. The Hector Serrano patent US 6,492,784B1 in 2000 shows the use of solid high K dielectric ceramics powdered by high frequency high voltage AC instead of continuous or pulsed DC to produce supposedly impressive propulsion. Today a medium sized hobbyist Tesla coil can produce 500 KVA of power so I believe power supplies are available to power these devices to high potential. With all these examples and claims through the years of devices using high K dielectric ceramics I have yet to find a single example or demonstration that proves these results! I have found no evidence of any high K ceramic electrogravitic thrusters producing any significant propulsion from any University, Industry, or independent researcher. Dr. LaViolette do you know of any evidence that clearly demonstrates electrogravitics using high K ceramic dielectrics producing any significant propulsion? These high K ceramic materials, power, and manufacturing techniques are available to many. Why have we not seen a single creditable example of this electrogravitic technology? Thank you for your thoughts.
    Best,
    Hoyt

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Dear Hoyt, thank you for your donation to Starburst. I have not seen any tests conducted with high-K dielectrics attempting to verify Brown’s work. Barium titanate rods can be purchased. Don’t know why any hobbyists have not tried a duplication experiment, just this youtube video which gives few details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjYtsLnTrx0. Also here is a forum where someone claims to want to duplicate Brown’s vertical thruster test: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3537-electrogravitics.html. Also here is one researcher who reported a failed attempt to get thrust from a group of barium titanate doorknob capacitors: http://rimstar.org/sdprop/highk/barium_titanate_doorknob_capacitor_propulsion.htm. He may have used DC rather than pulsed DC. But I also have had no luck with doorknob capacitors. The doorknob capacitor has symmetrical end plates and possibly intervening plates along its length which does not correspond to Brown’s configuration. I know of one researcher who for the past few years has been working to construct a Lafforgue thruster using barium titanate, but have not heard that he has completed the thruster yet.

  3. hajila says:

    Bonjour M Laviolette . Je vous prie de bien vouloir m’excuser de m’exprimer en français. j’ai chercher en vin vos livres en traduction française mais sans réussite. De tel livres devrait être connu et reconnu dans le monde entier . Est il possible d’avoir vos livres en traductions française ? je vous remercie d’avance.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      “Hello M Laviolette. I beg you to excuse me to express myself in French. I look in vain for your books in French translation without success. Of such books should be known and recognized worldwide. Is it possible to have your books in French translations? I thank you in advance.”

      There have been no French publishers that have expressed interest. They continue to be available for publication in French translation. Any publishers should contact Inner Traditions.

  4. Patryk says:

    Dear Doctor LaViolette I’m not a scientist and I have not been in school for long time so if my question is stupid I apologize in advance but I have two questions. First does electro gravity become stronger if voltage is stronger without need to increase current? That is my first question. Second question is if electricity and gravity are connected in matter described is it possible to make superconductor that conducts antigravity as much better than Brown’s motors as electric superconductor at low temperature conducts electricity better than conventional conductor?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      The electrogravity effect depends on voltage, not current. But the voltage must continually discharge and recharge which produces current. Second question makes no sense to me. Do any of you people who post these questions think of contributing to the Starburst Foundation that pays my now nonexistent salary? The world is an open system, without “food” (money) input, systems inevitably die, as will this website and as will the Greek economy.

  5. Justin says:

    Dear Dr. LaViolette,

    My name is Justin, I am from the northwestern United States and have been following your work and research, that of Thomas Valone, and others for the last several years now. My area of study is geology for which I am currently pursuing a bachelors degree at a state university, however I posses an insatiable curiosity for the intricacies of anything classifiable as fringe science or alternative energy. Thankfully, I am also an amateur electronics hobbyist. To my point, research during my own time has led me to the current proclivity I have acquired for reading absolutely all of the material I can locate regarding T. Townsend Brown’s work on electrogravitics. I have read through an absolutely tremendous amount of material on this subject, including many books (Secrets of AG Propulsion as well, fantastically compelling) written by other researchers aforementioned, and patents issued to Brown as well as the work you have done on among other things, electrokinetic thrust and its potential for use as an overunity device.

    As I consider myself a scientist, I am not interested in the ramblings of internet tabloids and the “maybe, maybe not” theories put fourth as methods of explaining the obvious violations of the laws of thermodynamics and general/special relativity that are supposedly blatantly committed by these thrust-producing electrogravitic/electrokinetic devices. (Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly FASCINATED by the potential of these simplistic devices to end mankind’s dependence on expensive, archaic, polluting fuels and whatever else accompanies that revelation, and I am impressed by the theory of subquantum kinetics and the etheric implications it explains, I of course am not implicating it when I say of other explanations of “ramblings”.) But I must make my intentions clear: I am only a seeker of truth, and I respectfully request your insight into one simple question I have regarding electrogravitics and its implications as a viable overunity phenomenon, providing you can spare me the time. I indeed am very appreciative of your willingness to assist, as aside from the material you have published, information on this and all related subject matter I have found has been highly speculative, classified, rare, or just plain unreliable and sketchy.

    My question is as follows, please bear with it because it is lengthy:

    If indeed, it is true as claimed by yourself in your books and presentations among others and T. Townsend Brown himself within his patents (British patent #300,311 for example) that the “gravitator” device he developed (which is nothing but a large, rectangular conglomerate consisting of cells of alternating high-k dielectric material and conductive plating in the form of a very long, bulky series capacitor bank also called a series condenser) is capable of a thrust to power ratio high enough to render it an overunity device which consumes no real amount of wattage but uses only a high voltage in the range of several KV to produce a tremendous amount of thrust, which can be EASILY generated by a cockroft-walton multiplier type power supply that can be built on a $400 budget or less in one’s garage, why is there even STILL a “SEARCH” for overunity? If it is this easy to construct a test apparatus consisting of a pair of thrusters of the type mentioned above using Brown’s patents, and they are supposedly over 3000% percent efficient, then it seems to me, that all that would be required to end the global energy crisis as we know it, would be to…

    …mount a group of these gravitator blocks around the radius of a shaft that is connected to a central rotor, connected at its base to a small motor-generator as sold on ebay, and use the high voltage power supply to energize the gravitators to a high voltage, and as they start to rotate about the shaft, the power produced by the generator could be fed back into the system where it will be again used to spin the gravitators, but also producing an amount of excess power that could be stored in a simple 12v car battery bank, in order to prove the concept of a device that produces more power than it consumes.

    My question is, WHY. Why, in the world, if these claims are true and it is THIS EASY to test it, WHY sir, has no one replicated it successfully?

    With the warmest regards and deepest admiration,

    Justin

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Remember that the gravitaters must be repeatedly charged and discharged to zero in order to maintain an average thrust. So it is not as simple as hooking up a DC potential to them and expect the thrusters to rotate. Perhaps power may be conserved by embedding each thruster between the plates of a second capacitor that is hooked to a coil to form a tank circuit. Charge could be shuttled between two such capacitors connected with a coil between them. By properly adjusting the AC frequency of exciting these outer capacitors their peak AC voltage could be adjusted to half of the DC potential charging the gravitaters and cause the voltage on the gravitaters to cycle between zero and some maximum amount, but never reverse. Only on the outer capacitors would have their voltage reverse.

      • Justin says:

        Dear Dr. Laviolette,

        Thank you very much for your reply. I am of the mindset of serious experimentation into this area. Thank you for the information, if you have the time I would like to pose several more follow up questions pertaining to the Biefield-Brown effect.

        First of all, I am wondering about the validity of the effect in the first place. Is it actually real? Naturally, I must remain skeptical until I have seen proof aside from patents. But that’s not to say that I am not incredibly excited about the possibilities if the proposed electrogravitic effect is indeed real. Please don’t mistake my skepticism for disrespect. It’s just that I have never heard of such unorthodox principals before, and it’s precisely this that makes me so curious! I have read and continue to read as much information as I can find on the alleged phenomena, but I digress…

        I understand that according to Brown’s research, the eventual polarization of the gravitator when connected to a non-pulsating DC high voltage from around 75-300 kV would STILL induce a brief movement of the gravitator by way of a thrust that acted on the dielectric of the gravitator, despite the fact that the voltage is steady and not pulsed. (“How I Control Gravitation”, patent 300,311, etc.) So if one were inclined, as per my purpose of simply proving that the effect is real, one could use a non pulsating high voltage DC source to at least induce a motion in a massive series condenser when connecting it to the potential as described in the methodology utilized by Brown, correct? Even though the force would not be sustained, it would indeed act on the gravitator for a brief period of time, correct? Enough time for visual proof. That is all that would be required to prove the existence of the effect for myself before making improvements to the power supply to provide for high voltage non-reversing AC testing, if that is the type of signal that is most ideal in creating a sustained thrust. As I said, I am of the mindset of serious experimentation on this phenomena, especially because of its potential for use as an overunity device. (U.S. patent #1,974,483)

        I am concerned by the attempted and failed replication of Brown’s gravitator that I have located here:

        http://rimstar.org/sdprop/gravitat/12inchresinmk1and2/12inchresinmk1and2.htm

        I was hoping you could tell me, why wasn’t this gravitator replication successful? The power supply in question produced at least the minimum amount of potential that was stated by Brown to be capable of at least producing a small amount of physical motion in this type of gravitator, if my memory serves. Could it have been the plate spacing? The k value of the resin used as the dielectric was too low perhaps?

        Since my goal is to produce a successful replication of the gravitator device, I wish to be aware of any mistakes in the construction of a test rig.

        (Also, I realize that the “Question and Answer” page here may not be the best place to discuss these technical and practical questions, so I would be more than happy to initiate an email based correspondence with you providing you have the interest or inclination to continue our conversation.)

        Thank you again, Dr. Laviolette

        • Paul LaViolette says:

          You said that you had read Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. If you had read it entirely you would have seen the section on Patrick Cornille’s duplication of the pendulum experiment which had positive results. He published his findings in a refereed scientific journal which establishes them as fact until otherwise disproven. I have met him. He is an academic and careful researcher. I suggest you read his work.
          The pendulum experiment that he did, though, was not a gravitater. Just metal spheres separated by an insulator.
          From reading the reference you site, it is obvious why this would not work. He calls it a gravitater, but in actuality it is not because he has very little mass between the plates. If you read carefully what I have written about Brown’s gravitater, he had used either litharge (lead oxide) or metallic lead for his plates. Since the electrogravitic effect produces an artificial gravity field, you want to maximize the mass between the plates. The experiment you refer to used aluminum plates which have one tenth of the mass of lead plates. So any electrogravitic effect would have been 10 times smaller. Also I believe his plate spacing was too large. You want to make the plate spacing as small as possible in order to maximize the field gradient. I don’t know how good an insulator epoxy resin is. But being a liquid initially, it allows movement of the plates and any movement of the plates too close to one another can cause a point for break down. Brown used glass plates as his insulator which ensure even spacing.

          • Justin says:

            Dear Dr. LaViolette,

            I apologize for the tardiness of my reply. I have just been reeling from the tremendous amount of clarity I’ve received from your last post. Again, many thanks.

            I will admit, the section of Secrets of AG propulsion that described in detail the pendulum experiment of Dr. Patrick Cornille was something I had either skimmed, or had not paid close enough attention to during my first read-through. I have been so long in response, because I have been studying it both with the book, and using Naudin’s website. Thank you for pointing out to me a successful demonstration of the effect, as my understanding is still in its infant stages. (One of the reasons I purchased your book.)

            Secondly, regarding the Biefield-Brown effect and the early cellular gravitater designs, I have been until your last post, curious as to whether it is only the mass of the DIELECTRIC material sheeting that correlates to the magnitude of the observed thrust on the device, OR if the mass of the conductive PLATES chosen contribute to the thrust as well. If I understand you correctly, then that is indeed the case. In that regard, I now understand what you are saying about why the aluminum plates/resin attempted gravitater replication failed, as you said.

            Therefore, I would submit to you a design for a test gravitater rig, for your analysis if you would be so kind. I am well aware that your experience trumps that of a second year college student in his early 20’s, so obviously I will defer to your expertise as long as I have access to it. My intended design is as follows. Microscope slides composed of Borosilicate glass (B720, “water white”) which have an alleged dielectric breakdown of anywhere from 5-30kV/mm (multiple sources contradicting each other, difficult to ascertain exact figure), would act as the dielectric sheets. Ergo, a 70 cell gravitater at 1.2mm of plate spacing (MUCH less than that of the resin/aluminum failure), between a dielectric of thickness 1.2mm, with the dielectric constant of B720 water white glass slides being 7, at a plate area of 2 7/8 x 7/8 inches (2.515625 inches^2), will have a total capacitance of 1.2 picofarads. Then, at a potential difference of 300 kV for example, each cell will see approx. 4285.71 V. This voltage is below the dielectric breakdown voltage of the material. Then, as per your suggestion of a heavy mass for the conductive plates, metallic lead sheeting of uniform composition and dimension would separate each sheet of microscope glass. Just my thought process, please, I welcome any criticisms for the sake of improving the design of the test rig. There are two factors in this design that I am unsure of and would like clarification: First, its length and width (dictated by the small area of the microscope slides) would be much less than Brown’s 4 inch by 4 inch by two foot device. I don’t know if for some reason the reduced size would somehow inhibit the effect? Second, (and this relates to the Cornille experiment you pointed out to me), are bare wires a necessity to seeing thrust produced by this hypothetical test rig I have just outlined? I know that Brown was able to achieve thrust under an oil bath, but that still does not explain the status of his feed wires.

            In conclusion, I know these questions of mine are very pedestrian to a man of your accomplishment and intrinsic understanding of this physical effect… But to me, they are each a step closer to understanding the phenomenon. I deeply appreciate your assistance and time in helping me.

            Warm regards and best wishes,

            Justin

          • Paul LaViolette says:

            My impression is that your glass slides are far too small and you will get arcing around the edges. To bad to go to all that trouble and have your experiment ultimately fail. Brown had a good size for his experiment, why not use his dimensions. I am sure you can find square glass slides 3″ or 4″ square having the same thickness as microscope slides if you look around. Just use Google. Cornille did an electrogravitic experiment, but it was not a gravitater experiment. In his case he needed his wires to radiate ions in order to create a gravity gradient across his spheres. In the Brown gravitater, no ion emission is needed from the feed wires. They can be insulated.
            P.S. if you are at a university, why not arrange for me to give a lecture there? I am always willing to lecture at universities provided that they pay transportation and lodging. Usually they also give speakers an honorarium. With the average university raking in $50,000 per student, I am sure they can afford a small honorarium.

        • Phaseshifter says:

          I’m also quite interested in performing experiments ^_^. Check out some of these sources. They seem to clearly demonstrate the effect (except for my site xD)

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrWPnBOU5ew

          http://spacepi.me/experimentsPage/physics/physics.html

          spacepi link contains 4+ additional links

          Good luck mate ^.^

          • Paul LaViolette says:

            Larry Davenport’s apparatus demonstrates Brown’s electrokinetic effect, not his electrogravitic effect. Don’t mix up these things.

  6. John says:

    Hello Mr. LaViolette.

    What is your take on Viktor Schauberger? You surely must have heard of him or read his works?

    His WW2 work (forced by the nazis) on “flying saucer” propulsion ties in with Townsend Browns Electrogravitics.

    But Schauberger also developed a very deep understanding of nature, with vortex/spirals and some kind of underlying “free energy” in the universe. He foresaw the deadly effects of human technology on nature and proved many contemporary scientists wrong with his inventions. He believed that water was very very important to nature, ít is “the blood of the earth” like he said.

    His take on mainstream science was that it was far away from the actual truth.

    • John says:

      Also, there is speculation by Nick Cook for instance (in Hunt for Zero point), that Eugene Podkletnov’s “gravity shield” experiment with superconductive materials, was helped by patents from Schauberger. And that the german engineers of WW2 used Schaubergers patents as well, to help with their jet engines.

      • Paul LaViolette says:

        I don’t know, sounds speculative to me.

        • John says:

          You should take a look at Schauberger’s works, it will astound you how many of his inventions, if not all, worked and cooperated with nature. Like he said “Comprehend and copy nature”…

          His patents are still available as well.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Of course I have heard of Schauberger. My book was already too long to go into all aspects of field propulsion or free energy generation which is why I did not have a chapter on his work. I understand that one innovator has succeeded in replicating Schauberger’s turbine. When he is ready to go public undoubtedly you will hear about it.

      • John says:

        Sorry, just saw your other post…

        That would be very exciting to hear about. Seeing how the americans stole his original works, so the one who finds the “missing pieces” is very clever indeed.

        Thank you for your time.

  7. Phaedrus says:

    Excellent. Thank You so much. That is consistent with my view that physical reality emerges from an all-penetrating underlying substrate, but I do not see them as separate things although the substrate is intangible. We are constrained in our conscious thinking by our physicality. I cannot, however, do the math.

    Quantum mechanics is very accurate within its bounds but is limited by its assumptions. As to macro, dark energy and dark matter are clearly bogus ideas put forth to compensate for ignorance. I would say “as below, so above” and that seems to me to be your approach.

    Thanks again.

  8. Phaedrus says:

    I have read Earth Under Fire and most recently Genesis of the Cosmos, both fine works. As may be recalled, I am a devoted student of The Seth Material, having found there for myself more truth than from any other source. Your works are more-or-less consistent with it.

    I have a couple of questions. First, I seem to recall that your take on Zero Point Energy is that it is not an immense untapped source of energy that if accessed would provide a source of energy far beyond our ability to consume. This would be, I assume, the conventional view. My question is to what quantitative extent is ZPE an ocean of accessible energy? My second question what is the role of consciousness in all this? This might relate to your reference to “feeling tone” as a mover.

    I appreciate that these are not easy questions but would appreciate your take on them.

    Thank you.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Conventional science has greatly exaggerated the amount of energy present in zero-point energy fluctuations. According to subquantum kinetics, the true energy per cubic centimeter is about 10^100 times smaller. Whereas in conventional physics this energy should be difficult if not impossible to access due to the fact that the fluctuations appear as particle-antiparticle pairs whose energies cancel out one another, in SQK this energy is readily available since the fluctuations are unipolar energy pulses, either positive or negative charge and non-paired. It is these fluctuations that spontaneously create matter throughout our universe, albeit at a relatively slow rate; e.g., see the video Parthenogenesis: A Sacred Journey. The true source of energy is the etheric flux driven by an undefinable cosmic prime mover. If we view the etheric flux as a higher dimensional river that flows “through” our universe, zero point energy fluctuations are merely ripples on the surface of this river. Tesla spoke of tapping into the very wheel work of the universe. He was referring to this etheric flux. It is not possible to put a paddle wheel out there and expect it to be turned by this flux. But we can tap into it by throwing the First Law of Thermodynamics out the window and allowing ourselves the freedom to design devices along new lines of logic that conventional physics deems impossible. Most inside-the-box technologies are designed in accordance with the view that there is no such thing as a free lunch. When we design outside-the-box technologies based on principles that allow the possibility of tapping into an unseen source of energy, that regard the universe as basically an open system (not as a closed system as physicists currently view it), then we stand a good chance of developing free energy power. Some such technologies are described in some of the papers and books I have written which are accessible at this website.

  9. charles l umnus says:

    as the portal zodiac ring is incomplete opheacus the 13th symbol on a 28 day mens cycle readjusting puts it in i believe lyra. You must forgive spelling. Anyway if you see jesus as the 13th of group its all numerical. It is all about resonance and frequencies, waves and harmonics. Nature is our guide if we can stop tearing her down and listen, look, we will see whats behind the veil. C.L.U.

  10. Bob Gray says:

    Hi Dr. LaViolette,

    I’ve been trying to figure out how to explain 2 aspects of electrodynamics using your subquantum kinetics theory with no luck, yet. Perhaps you could explain or point me in the right direction.
    1) How to use subquantum kinetics to describe a constant, uniform magnetic field? For example in a solenoid. I am particularly hung up with the magnetic field at the center of the solenoid, along the solenoid symmetry axis. In what direction are the subquantum particles (X, Y, etc.) moving for positions along the symmetry axis? What direction is their gradient? On the symmetry axis, the magnetic field is suppose to be the same as any other position in the solenoid. But I don’t see how this can work with the X, Y particles.
    2) How to explain the polarizability of light using subquantum Kinetics? I see in your book, Fig. 45 where you have high and low phiX and phiY, as a model for EM-waves, but I don’t see how you get a polarizability from this.

    By the why, I think the conventional picture of EM waves you have in Fig. 45 is incorrect. Correct that it is the conventional picture, but the conventional picture is wrong. The problem is that the H-vector should be shifted by 90 degrees. This is because the maximum *change* in E induces maximum H. The picture shows zero change in E (derivative of E) inducing maximum H.

    Cheers,
    Bob Gray

  11. John P. says:

    Hi Dr. LaViolette,

    I’m currently reading “Subquantum Mechanics: 3rd Edition” and would like some elucidation on the different modes of waves described in Chapter 3.

    I’m an undergraduate studying mechanical engineering and physics a research university, and I find myself unable to communicate the idea of a ‘periodic steady state wave’ to my colleagues. An ‘inhomogeneous oscillatory state’ wave structure intuitively makes more sense to me as it is a wave that propagates (it seems to me that all waves should propagate in some way). I can’t think of an appropriate analog for a stationary and sustained wave though. It seems easier to think about it as a spatially sustained concentration gradient than any wave I can think of wave. If you have any metaphor or analog or information that could make this concept clearer to me I would appreciate it.

    I also would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your contribution thus far to the field of mircophysics and science in general. Your work has brought real meaning to the path I’m pursuing, and I look forward to exploring the boundaries of science and engineering through the lens of subquantum kinetics.

    Regards,
    John P.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Understanding how a reaction-diffusion wave is created can be understood by understanding a simple two-box model with two variables X and Y which diffuse between the boxes. X is high in one box and Y is high in the other box. Even though X diffuses from the high-X/low Y box into the high-Y/low-X box, Y still remains high because reactions in that box convert X into Y. This happens just as fast as Y leaves that box due to its diffusion into the high-X/low-Y box. So there is a steady state maintained. The analogy in every day experience is the process of conformity, where people immigrate to a new country and begin adopting the language and customs of that new country even though they used to speak a different language and have different customs in the country they came from. These are universal principles found in many parts of nature. As above, so below.

    • Mary says:

      Kudos to you John P. !
      It thrills my heart that you, one from the next generation,
      is taking up the torch of Subquantum Kinetics.
      You pay our beloved Dr. LaViolette a great homage,
      and bring joy to his heart as well, I am sure.
      With great respect and encouragement for success in your studies,
      Sincerely,
      Mary Schanno

  12. john doe says:

    Dear Dr. Laviolette,

    Are you aware of the DTIC portal of hundreds of thousands of tech reports in pdf format?

    Here for example is a search for ‘antigravity propulsion’ which retrieved 74 tech reports:

    http://dsearch.dtic.mil/search?site=default_collection&q=antigravity+propulsion&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&client=dticol_frontend&proxystylesheet=dticol_frontend&proxyreload=1&ulang=en&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&wc=200&wc_mc=1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&tlen=200&filter=0&getfields=*

  13. I’m sorry if someone’s already asked– direct me to the comment if so– but have you (or someone you know of) tried to create a vehicle driven by this electrogravitic principle?

    I’m interested in designing and building one as well.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Some have a field propulsion vehicle project in progress. It is only a matter of time before they have built one.

  14. Klemen says:

    Hello Paul

    I have question regarding our sun.

    15 years ago I attended a lecture on Indian Vedas.
    Speaker among others talked also about our sun and on how vedas describe sun differently then our modern science.

    Vedas claim that sun is created and after some time it expires. Life span of our sun is specified in vedas with exact number of years (I don’t remember number but it was large).

    He went on saying that vedas claim that the coldest and darkest planet in our sun system is our sun.
    He said that this planet (our sun) is surround by water(he did not said if this was liquid water or vapour) and this water is key to power that is emitted from sun.
    He said also that universe is pervaded by some kind of energy that vedas call it paramesthya( I am not sure if I got name right but spelling for sure is not : )
    This energy somehow interacts with water that surrounds sun and this interaction gives power to the sun.

    Back then I thought this to be strange concept, but by listening to your theory I find it more likely.

    What is your opinion on this concept?

    Thanks And best Regards
    Klemen

  15. Thomas says:

    Hello. Some questions for Mr. LaViolette. I am very interested in the nature of gravity itself. As I understand, the best explanation mainstream science has, is Einsteins General Relativity. Since his Special Relativity has been proven beyond reasonable doubt (according to the experts) isn’t his GR equally proven? I understand that you do not agree with GR? Could you please point me to where I can understand for myself, that his theory is not a fact? Is there really any observational/experimental evidence for GR? Physicists say that all their observational evidence (bending of light near massive objects etc) point to the direction that Einstein was right. How do you refute them? I’m just curious, not arguing against you.

    I understand that your theory is subquantum kinetics. Forgive me, I have not read through it perfectly. But what do you say of Gravitational and Acceleration Fields? NASA scientist Paul R. Hill came to the conclusion in his analysis of UFOs, that they are propelled by force fields or acceleration fields generated inside the object.

    So, can’t Einstein’s “distortion of space-time” instead be “force fields around masses” as an alternative explanation for gravity? That all bodies have their own force fields, like UFOs?

  16. Garland Bauch says:

    Would it be possible to localize the anti-gravity effects into a column from earth’s surface to earth orbit for the use of launching Space Shuttles with payload from earth’s surface?

  17. Pete Nelson says:

    I first encountered the phrase “feeling tone” in The Seth Material (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Roberts) some 30 or so years ago. I have read all of that Material, much of it numerous times, and I am most definitely a devotee (still). I would describe myself as an “advanced student”, since learning never stops.

    I am wondering whether you are familiar with The Material. It has much in common with yours. I have also read several of your books and very much like and agree with your theory of continuous creation.

    Thanks.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Yes, years back when I was in the process of developing subquantum kinetics, I came across the Seth Material and purchased a few of the books. My father also got very interested in it and we used to have long discussions about it, among other things on how its ideas about creation related to what subquantum kinetics taught. By the way, before she began her writing, the author and channeler, Jane Roberts, used to work as a secretary in Niskayuna, NY at the GE Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, where my father used to work when I was growing up.

  18. Matt Crowson says:

    Hi Doc;

    I have been doing hobby research for years on T.T. Brown, Tesla, and Victor Schauberger’s theories, also being an amateur physics nerd since I was as kid.

    I ran across and read you book a year or so back, and was wondering if you had tried reconstructing Brown’s Asymmetric capacitor thruster disc using a high k dialectic shaped based on Schauberger’s Logarithmic vortex spirals, basically looks like the valve out of car engine. There is a picture in Schauberger’s book “Living Energies” in the chapter on the Repulsin.

    I haven’t had a chance to build one myself but from what I understand of Brown’s work and what I read in your book. in theory it should increase the thrust of the “thruster.”

    Any thoughts on this?

    Thanks,
    Matt

  19. Hoyt Yeatman says:

    Hi Dr. Laviolette:
    Just read your book “Secretes of Antigravity Propulsion”. Very well written book with a lot of historical and scientific information explaining Electrogravitics. Loved it!!
    You have pointed out as well as others that a High K dielectric is needed along with high voltage to get a reasonably powerful propulsion effect. Since this high K dielectric material (BaSrTiO2 powder) is commercially available to most anyone why haven’t we seen any examples of these high power thrusters demonstrated publicly? Even the electrogravitic work demonstrated by Jean Naudin all produce feeble results using air and low K dielectrics like Styrofoam instead of a core of Barium Strontium Titanate? Whats the deal?? Why hasn’t anyone taken this information and demonstrated a electrogravitic device with some impressive power? Thank you for your thoughts.
    Best,
    Hoyt

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      The barium titanate powder is only the raw material. One then needs to construct a mold and have the powder smelted into a ceramic. That requires a facility that works with these kinds of material. This all requires a lot of money. A less expensive approach is to purchase a ceramic dielectric rod already made. There are several sources available. Then try attaching the rod to capacitor plates to make an asymmetrical capacitor. So far I know of no one who has done this in the 6 years since my book was first published.

  20. Matthew Bell says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette,

    Would you agree that neutrino’s would be the best form form of fuel for warp propulsion drives and that black before they become black holes or mother stars are an abundant source of neutrino’s?
    Also does one have to worry about being careful not to ignite the planet Jupiter as it could become another sun?

    Kind regards,
    Matthew

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      No, I don’t think that neutrinos hold any promise for space propulsion.
      Also it is time to stop using the word “warp”, that is 20th century Einsteinian thought.
      I use the term “gradient propulsion”, because it is field gradients established in the ether around a craft that propel the craft forward.
      No, you have not to worry about Jupiter igniting fusion reactions, at least not for at least a trillion years.
      I think you should read some of my books, like subquantum kinetics before asking any more of your questions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.