Questions and Answers

In this page you can post your questions about Paul LaViolette's work and the various theories discussed on  Currently Posting of Questions is Turned Off.

202 Responses to Questions and Answers

  1. Dear Dr. LaViolette:

    I have just discovered your work through Genesis of the Cosmos and I am currently going through your textbook on SQK.

    What strikes me as amazing is that many of the dynamic properties of the seven sided Chestahedron in water and air discovered by Frank Chester can be explained by your seven variable Turing Reaction-Diffusion Model. The Chestahedron may symbolize the transmutative ether (Quintessence) and may be a Rosetta Stone/Cypher used by the ancients to construct their creation science. The golden mean and many other properties can be deduced

    Also the vortices produced by the bell shaped structured may produce levity and this may be the physical basis for antigravity propulsion.

    It has been discovered that it is the vortices in the heart that is responsible for the blood flow in the body, and the heart cannot produce the required propulsion to pump the blood around the body. It is the vortices of the blood that moves the heart and NOT the heart that moves the blood. This may be a case of cosmic biomimicry teaching us about how to harness the stored antigravity potential within the ether for clean energy propulsion.

    The Chestahedran may be the key.

    Frank Chester's video is here, if you have not seen it already.

    Best regards,


  2. Kieran O'Flaherty says:

    If the paper cited by Julian Knight independently verifies the Hubble Constant by showing that gravity waves lose energy at the same rate as light, how is this consistent with tired light? Is it not more consistent with an expanding universe? How can light and gravity waves lose energy at the same rate under tired light?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      In SQK, a propagating gravity potential pulse should lose energy at the same rate as a photon. So both should exhibit the tired-light effect.

  3. Pedro M. says:

    Hello, I have read Genesis of the Cosmos and since I'm not trained in science, many things are unclear.

    1. Is the sub-quantum ether a kind of container that is like the set of all points in the universe?

    2. Since the X and Y ethers are the opposites which make up our world, can we say then that gravitation and radiation are like two different strains in the ether, one compressive and the other expansive?

    3. If the ether is the all encompassing substrate, what is the definition of space, and its relationship to space? Why are space and ether interlinked such that Einstein said that relativity needed the ether since space is endowed with physical properties? Does that mean that an ether theory forcefully postulates that space has properties?


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Answers to your questions:
      1. No
      2. No
      3. I agree with Tesla who said “I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties." The ether resides in space, but space has only dimensions, not other properties.

  4. Jay says:

    Dr. LaViolette,
    I heard you on The Higherside Chats podcast and your interview connected some dots for me I've been researching for a while and I look forward to reading your works.

    On the show, Greg asked your thoughts on the hollow earth theory and while fun to explore, my question is somewhat related to it.

    I have a theory that there is something at the north pole the public does not know. From Adm. Byrd's account of flying through a tunnel of water to end up in a lush green world to the current no fly areas and lack of convincing satellite images of the area, something seems suspicious

    The stories and lore surrounding the north pole are fascinating to me. I've brainstormed many possible things but I guess I need a scientist's perspective.

    My theory is that it probably isn't a physical opening but moreso some sort of anomaly or vortex created by the intense concentration of the magnetic field.

    I guess my question is would it be possible for a strong magnetic field to either manipulate gravity based on your theory of it and either created some sort of cloaking to bend light around a city or mountain (again, great NP stories out there) or even create a portal of sorts to breach through time, space and/or dimension?

    Or if any of that is theortically possible under the right circumstances and equipment. (The conspiracies of CERN come to mind,another topic I'd be interested to hear your opinion on.)

    I look forward to compiling your works to study. Thank you for your contributions.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      You make some interesting points. Who knows maybe there is a cover up. I have always felt this idea to be unlikely, but keep an open mind. If anyone can find an unphotoshopped picture of the north pole, maybe they could let us know. Plain magnetic fields should not cause cloaking. But cloaking technology does exist. See discussion of the Philadelphia Expt. in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.

  5. Michael Moore - not the political one says:

    Not so much a question but I heard you speak on the higherside chats. I thought your topics were great and interesting, the beginning of the recording of kings began at the end of the end of the last hominid species, the stars being artificial and guides or warnings. And I agree that science is way too close minded and the fact they won't even consider possibilities unless it is mainstream goes against the whole definition as to what a scientist should be in my opinion, which is to consider all possibilities. I think what you talked about was great.

  6. David says:

    Dear paul,

    It seems we are due for something more significant in the year 2020, than the G2 Cloud.

    It appears that at the Galactic Core things are still happening, and yes is the answer to the old riddle if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, did it really fall? Yes

    Well I think the orbit of SO-102 around SO-2 is going to proof, that an (acceptable) Bonifide Certified Scientist is not needed to see an event for and event to actually occur.

    According to the information available, SO-102 has made 2,000 orbits around SO-2 in the past 23,000 years, and each of those orbits has lengthened the orbit time, as they are supposedly getting to be farther apart.

    Our The important question I suppose would be how wide does their orbit get before S)-102 doe not make the pass, and we have a collision?

    Our Bonfides tell us they expect a Gamma EVENT, and that our telescope will be able to see it...

    Perhaps Dr. LaViolette can expand on this CRYPTIC answer offered by the BONIFIDES

    Gamma Ray Events at Galactic Center | 2018/2020

  7. Julian Knight says:

    I came across this paper from Nature magazine (2nd November 2017), which claims to prove that gravitational waves independently verify the Hubble constant and therefore disprove tired light theory. I would be most grateful if you could respond to this.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      No, I think you have misread this paper. All it has done is confirm the approximate value of the Hubble constant. Both the expansion hypothesis and the tired-light hypothesis predict a redshift-distance relationship, hence a Hubble constant. The difference is that one claims the redshift is due to expansion and the other claims it is due to photon energy loss. All cosmology tests that I am aware of confirm the tired-light model over the expansion hypothesis. Soon the big bang theory edifice will crumble.

  8. sonic says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette,

    I would like to duplicate some of the experiments that were illustrated in your books and first of all I'm trying to find out what kind of stuff do I need to acquire in order to get 500kv DC please, thank you.

  9. Mateo says:

    No way to get write access to the forums...
    Is this a webpage error or why isnt there a link to register at the forums?
    Plz fix soon.

  10. Ian Dolby says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette,

    I have read your book Subquantum Kinetics (3rd edition) with much enthusiasm and, by the end, excitement. I have a number of questions about it.

    1) What is the SQK explanation of radioactive decay?

    2) I think SQK says that the concentric shell pattern + etheron diffusion would naturally generate particle spin. Wouldn't this mean that ALL particles should have spin? If so, what would be the explanation for spin-less particles like photons or the Higgs particle?

    3) Can SQK replicate or explain wavefunctions? I have looked into Quantum Monte Carlo methods which do seem to use wavefunctions to generate experimentally-verifiable predictions. I was thinking that wavefunctions looked a little like diagrams of X and Y etheron concentrations in the concentric shell pattern.

    4) With antigravity, SQK says that a G-well followed by a G-hill produces a thrust in the direction of the G-well. Since a G-well corresponds to a low X etheron concentration and a G-hill corresponds to a high X concentration, this implies that the mere presence of separated positive and negative charge should be enough to cause thrust. If this is the case, why is pulsed power needed for electrogravitic devices? Why isn't just a static/stationary build-up of charge sufficient?

    5) NASA claimed to have tested a lifter in a vacuum, with an incredibly high voltage, but achieving no thrust (I can't provide a link). Would this result be because in a vacuum the required ion clouds would be non-existant?


    Ian Dolby

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Ian, your first question should be answered in the 4th edition of Subquantum Kinetics which is available on this site in electronic form. Re: question 1: I give the example there of beta decay where a neutron decays into a proton and electron. This occurs as a secondary bifurcation of the primary bifurcation branch characterizing the Model G ether reaction system.
      Question 2: Photons are inherently traveling waves, hence different from particles. So spin would not occur there. I don't believe in Higgs particles. They are not needed in SQK and the evidence for their existence is very sketchy. The Nobel Prize should never have been given for this. The particle that was found was nowhere near the mass predicted for the Higgs particle.
      Question 3: I have not considered wave functions. They might be used as an artificial model of a SQK dissipative soliton, but nothing more than that.
      Question 4: Your question is addressed in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, which I suggest you read. The reason has to do with polarization of the dielectric which counters the initial electrogravitic effect.
      Question 5: Yes, for a lifter to work, the rig must emit ions and in a vacuum, few ions are emitted.

  11. Tobi says:

    Hi Mr. LaViolette,

    I have a question which might sound a little silly, but then I've decided I want to learn/teach myself physics, definitely not via the inadequate route of academia, I dropped out of school last year to teach myself electronics engineering, but then I want to have an understanding of the science behind what i am engineering, I have a whole bibliography of physics books I want to read, from beginner to advanced so things like(CM,EM,QM,SR/GR,QFT,ST) but apparently some of the theories in there are dead ends, (I've always had a feeling relativity is) Ok but do you still reckon it is substantial for my physics journey to still educate myself on these? before delving into what I feel are more advanced theories like sub quantum kinetics? As i can't just jump into sub quantum kinetics without any physics background. Also maybe it'll be good to even study the fraudulent theories so I can see some of the areas that are wrong and make comparisons?


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I recommend that you take a college course on classical physics, also sometimes called "general physics" Also it would help to have taken courses on differential calculus. You will find that a course on "modern physics" is far more difficult and worthwhile only from the standpoint of learning about experimental findings. Any theories they teach as in regard to relativity and quantum mechanics will be of no help since they are effectively replaced by subquantum kinetics which makes the phenomena far easier to understand.

  12. Jordan Walsh says:

    Dear Paul LaViolette,

    I am so pleased to find both you and this website. I am a high school student (yes I know, I'm young!) going into my senior year. A few years ago I had brainstormed the idea of what you have called "electrogravitics". I thought this was a world changing idea, and searched and searched to see if anyone else had come up to similar or the same conclusion. Unfortunately, it seems like electrogravitics is an overlooked idea, as I could not find any data on the subject. Earlier today I stumbled upon your Columbia Disaster paper, and my jaw dropped! That was what I have been looking for! So my questions for you are as follows: How much has electrogravitics been studied? And why hasn't it been applied in practice yet? And another thing is that I know I am just a young, inexperienced High School student aiming to become an engineer, I was wondering if it would at all be possible for us to email privately?

    Thank you,


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I devote several chapters to Townsend Brown's electrogravitics work in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion which can be ordered at the book store and elsewhere. You will find that the technology has been applied in aviation by the military although it has not been publicized.

  13. Brendan says:

    Dear Dr. LaViolette,

    I am attempting to read the "Subquantum Kinetics" book, to gain a better understanding. I am a PhD student in Physics at a London University (UCL), specifically in electromagnetic imaging using eddy currents.

    There is not really anyone at UCL whose interested in your work on the surface, except for one or two people.

    Someone I know doing a PhD in theoretical quantum mechanics, is interested in new ideas and may read the book. I told him to him that subquantum kinetics is not quantum mechanical nor relativitic, and he wasn't turned off by that.

    Can you can you point me to any papers you've written that are good starting points as an introduction to subquantum kinetics.

    Best wishes,

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      If you go to and select the Archive tab and "paper downloads", you should find quite a few listed there.

  14. Hi I'm making some molecular gravitational, I would like to ask how you see the mixture of oxide yellow lead (litharge) and glycerin, I read that use this mixture as a sealant in gas lines, I think Mr. Brown used Bakelite & litharge, the bakelite as binder, in this case glycerine has a higher dielectric constant than the bakelite. The resulting mixture should have very good dielectric properties. As I understand, the Gravitater, once it is charged to a high potential, generates a thrust until the dielectric is polarized. The thrust generated is due to the stress produced by the electrical potential. Once the dielectric is polarized, the Gravitator stops pushing, so Mr. Brown devised a system to be loaded and unloaded sequentially gravitators to generate a continuous thrust, what do you think?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I made changes to your comment to hopefully make it more understandable. I have no information about the mixture you are using. As for cycling the gravitater, I discuss this in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.

  15. Hola Amigos, estoy muy emocionado pues voy a poner en practica algunas ideas expuestas en el libro de Paul, he leido que la duración del impulso una vez el gravitator molecular es energizado es solamente hasta que se polariza la mezcla, yo en mi caso voy a probar una mezcla que emplean los instaladores de tuberias de gas a base de óxido de plomo amarillo (litargirio) mas glicerina, esta masa bien mezclada se hace dura como una roca en 24 horas, la idea es mediante moldes crear varios gravitators moleculares y después darle varias capas de parafina líquida para sellar las armaduras metalicas, se me ha ocurrido un motor con escobillas para energizar secuencialmente los bloques gravitartor del rotor, de esta forma mientras uno es energizado el resto de los bloques gravitator estan en cortocircuito con una resistencia de 10 giga ohmios, todo va a ir sumergido en gasoleo el cual es muy buen dielectrico, ligero y no explota con la chispa
    Hello Friends, I am excited because I will put into practice some ideas in the book of Paul. I read that the pulse duration once the molecular Gravitator is energized is only until the mixture is polarized, in my case I will try a mixture employed by pipefitters based on gas oxide yellow lead (litharge) with glycerin, this well-mixed dough becomes hard as a rock in 24 hours. The idea is to use molds to create various molecular gravitators and then give layers of liquid paraffin to seal metal skeletons, an engine I happened with brushes for energizing sequentially gravitator blocks rotor, thus while one is energized the other Gravitator blocks are shorted with a resistance of 10 giga ohms, everything will be immersed in diesel oil which is very good dielectric, lightweight and does not explode with sparkle.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      If you are using two gravitaters, you might try polarizing them and then linking them together in series with a coil to form a tank circuit. Then you excite the circuit at its resonant frequency and the gravitaters should both cycle between zero and twice the bias voltage with very little input power to drive them.

  16. Hola Paul, mucho gusto de poder hablar directamente contigo, He devorado practicamente todo lo que has escrito sobre T.T.Brown, soy un experimentador aficionado Español, actualmente me estoy fabricando una balanza rotatoria y algunos condensadores planos para verificar electrokinetics, voy a hacer una mezcla que espero de resultados positivos, consiste en mezclar PbO (litargirio amarillo) con glicerina, esta mezcla mientras se endurece va a estar polarizada con alta tension a modo de electret, me gustaría estar en contacto con vosotros mediante foro, lo he intentado con el foro de Linda Brown pero tiene cerrada sus puertas. Os dejo algunos videos de mi proyecto
    Hi Paul, nice to talk directly with you, I devoured almost everything you've written about TTBrown, I am an amateur experimenter Spanish, I am currently making a rotational balance and some planes to verify electrokinetics capacitors, I'll make a mixture I hope positive results, involves mixing PbO (yellow litharge) with glycerin, this mixture as it hardens will be polarized with high voltage as an electret, I would be in contact with you via forum, I tried to forum Linda Brown but has closed its doors. I leave some videos of my project

  17. George Papado says:

    Dr LaViolette i'd like to please ask you a question. If the electrogravitics propulsion system works why didnt any company try to use it to make super fast transportation?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I talk about this in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, which I suggest you read. Electrogravitics and electrokinetics technology developed by Brown was incorporated into the B-2 bomber. So the military uses this for "super fast transportation." Boeing requested the military for permission to incorporate some classified electrogravitics technology on commercial jets, but was turned down.

  18. Aridzonan_13 says:

    I recently dropped a note to Eric Dollard on a Brown / Lindemann / Dollard (Borderland Science`87 video). Where Brown and Lindemann demonstrated a modification to the Faraday disc. The modification was the addition of 4 magnets to the disc. So, when the modified Faraday disc was spun up by an electric motor it produced AC as opposed to DC. I am building a pneumatic driven ver. So, there is no threat of induction from an electric motor. Where I am attempting to prove that bodies in motion generate an electric field. If successful, I want to add 4 Tesla bifilar coils to try and induce voltage from the magnets. Your thoughts?

  19. John Perry says:

    Dear Dr. Laviolette,

    I want to thank you for opening my mind to the truly amazing and study-worthy phenomena that exist in our world but are often ignored or treated as taboo. When I first came across your work about a year ago, it was like a key that opened my mind to explore many new ideas and realms. As a college student at a technical university, these topics are very criticized (as you know), and this was a breath of fresh air.

    I have since explored many alternative ideas and subjects, and they were all interesting. However, when I was looking into the subject of "qi" energy that is widely studied in Chinese medicine and martial arts, I came across a qigong practice called Falun Dafa. Initially skeptical, I read the main text, Zhuan Falun, and tried some of the simple exercises it teaches. The main principles of the practice are truth, compassion, and tolerance. The health benefits and mental clarity I experienced after just two weeks of practicing it were astounding, and I have continued practicing for the last 4 months.

    The teachings of Falun Dafa are broad and profound, ranging from the human body, time-space, morality, and alien beings. This practice has elevated my understanding of nearly every part of my life and made everything in my life more positive. Over 100 million people around the world practice it and have benefitted greatly. I know that you, and most people on this forum, are fearless seekers of truth. The teachings of Falun Dafa are available for free online, and I would highly recommend that you or anyone else take a moment to look at them; it would be well worth your time, and would probably inspire your work to even greater heights.

    Warm regards,
    John Perry

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.