« Tens of thousands of Sea Lions starve and die as Pacific marine ecosystem succumbs to radioactive contamination | Main | Theory of Objective Motions - Einstein was wrong »

PrintPrinter-friendly version

Spin and rotation in gravity, magnetism and star formation

What are the underlying causes of gravity and magnetism? For me, this has been a slowly maturing concept. I am sharing my thoughts here and would like to get your feedback. Yes, I am going against much of the "received wisdom" of science. Just take these thoughts as a pointer, an invitation to look at things from a different point of view. Perhaps much of this will be found correct as time passes, but then ... perhaps not.

Terms: I know that there is supposed to be a difference between the two terms gravity and gravitation with the first referring to the earth's gravitational attraction and the second to the phenomenon in general, but here I am using both terms to refer to the phenomenon as such. Spin is generally used to describe the twisting motion inherent in particles, while rotation refers to an accumulation, a mass of particles, for instance a planet, rotating as a whole.

Gravitation, as observed and modeled by mainstream physics, seems to be insufficient to explain the continued existence of galaxies as unitary systems. There just doesn't deem to be enough mass in all those numerous stars to be able to hold them galaxies together by gravitational pull alone. Mainstream scientists resort to such nebulous concepts as "dark matter" to explain there might be a great deal of mass we just can't detect. I do not think that is a good way to approach the problem.

To make any headway in this, we actually need to conceptualise the cause of gravity, something which physicists have been quite reluctant to do ever since the times of Newton, who described gravity, but when asked what the cause was, he recused himself with the words ("hypotheses non fingo") or "I'm not proposing a hypothetical mechanism." We are associating gravity with mass, but we have no conceptual understanding why masses "gravitate" towards each other. There are theories all right, and there is much discussion, but we have no agreed way of modeling the cause of gravity.

Perhaps Einstein came closest to describing a mechanism when he said that gravity is a distortion of space-time, he called it 'space-time' curvature...


There is a very common illustration of a ball pulling a flat sheet out of shape to represent Einstein's curvature of space but that depiction of the concept is not really accurate. We do not live in a two-dimensional world of sheets of flat space-time and gravity isn't just a bending, but a twisting curvature. Imagine the ball rotating and thus distorting that matrix of space to create a vortex in the space matrix, and you'd have a good analogy.

We should really think of space as a 3-dimensional matrix filled with "potential" particles. That matrix seeks to arrange itself in orthogonal patterns, but it can also be slightly twisted out of shape by a rotating mass sitting inside that spatial matrix. The distortion would be a twist, a vortex form, in the space matrix.

Gravitation is a consequence of spin-induced curvature of the matrix of space

I am postulating that gravitation is in essence a consequence of rotation or 'spin'. The spin of particles causes gravity, and the effect is additive, meaning the more particles are in a mass, the stronger the common gravitational field. The rotation of macroscopic accumulations of matter - planets, stars, black holes and galaxies also causes gravity. Both twist (distort) 3-d space and so induce a vortex-shaped region of stress that spreads far and almost instantly, due to the rigidity of the space matrix. Two or more of those stressed regions of space have attraction for each other. The space matrix strives to unstress. It can't unstress by itself, as the rotating mass keeps distortion constant. But it could find some stress relief by bringing two particles that have a stressed field closer to each other. So gravitationally stressed areas of space have a definite affinity for each other, they attract, in an effort to relieve stress.

Distortion of space takes the form of an extended vortex, eventually folding in on itself, creating a spherical field. The distortion of space itself does not need to propagate like radiation does, it adapts almost instantly to changes. Remove the source of distortion and the field collapses. All of the distorted space snaps back to normal. The effect of gravity is thus not limited by the speed of light, it has quasi-instantaneous long distance effects. I could imagine applications in advanced, superluminal communications if we learn to modulate gravity like we do radio waves today.

There is some controversy about the speed of gravity, but Newton's celestial mechanics work and they work only when gravity is assumed to be a force that acts instantaneously (or nearly so) at great distances. The Speed of Gravity...

Macroscopic rotation of particle accumulations is additive to the effect of quantum or particle-spin induced gravity. We thus have a doubling of the force in the sense that the effects of particle spin and macroscopic rotation are separate and additive. The twisting of space-time by the rotation of a star or planet combines with the effect of the rotation (spin) inherent in the mass of the individual particles that constitute it.

This gives rise to to a prediction: A non-rotating body of mass should be found to have a smaller overall gravitational effect compared with a rotating body of the same composition.

Actually, Prof. Eric Laithwaite was experimenting with spinning masses in the 1950s and he found definite changes in their gravitational properties when spinning at high rates. Here is a video showing how a heavy mass can be "insulated" against normal gravity, it can kind of "go its own way" just because it is spinning at a high rate. The demonstration in the video is quite instructive.

You can find more videos on Laithwaite's experiments with gyroscopes that exhibit anomalous gravitational properties.



Unfortunately, the scientific establishment of his time was so embarrassed to not be able to explain those anomalies that they simply resolved to cut Laithwaite (who is the inventor of maglev trains) off from all collaboration and funding. The facts were suppressed and the experimenter ostracised.

The strength of the gravitational force is determined by two parameters: The amount of mass involved, and the rotational speed or angular momentum of the mass rotating in space-time.


Magnetism also involves spin, and it would seem to be a close cousin of gravitation. However in contrast to gravitation, magnetism appears to have the dynamic characteristics of an energy flow, rather than those of 'attraction by affinity' of an essentially static distortion of space-time. Magnetism is a much stronger force than gravity, but its effects are felt over a very much shorter distance. Perhaps the strong and weak force observed in particle interactions are the particles' magnetic and gravitational field effects.

Electric Universe proponents hold that the cosmos is permeated by electromagnetic currents that link the heavenly bodies in a constant dance of energy exchange. What they say makes sense, but in my view something important is missing. Each and every rotating mass, from planets to stars to galaxies actually creates both gravity and magnetism as a consequence of its rotation, giving rise to not only gravitational but also electromagnetic effects.

Magnetic fields have been shown to be present in space and they follow the spiral patterns of galactic vortices. This illustration is from a paper titled Magnetic Fields in Galaxies.


Spiral galaxy M51. Total radio intensity (contours) and B-vectors at 4.86 GHz (6.2 cm), combined from observations with the VLA and Effelsberg 100-m telescopes (Fletcher et al. 2011). The background optical image is from the HST (Hubble Heritage Team). Graphics: Sterne und Weltraum

Ferromagnetism or "permanent magnetism", is a special case. Some materials - iron is the most well known - can set up permanent magnetic fields by the configuration and alignment of the material's internal 'domains'. The alignment of magnetic domains comes about when ferromagnetic material is exposed to a strong magnetic field while still in a plastic state. The alignment of those domains will then set up a vortex-shaped path which encourages magnetic currents to flow. Those currents - also described as magnetic field lines - are twisting flows of space energy. They exhibit mutual attraction and repulsion, depending on polarity.

In recent times, permanent magnets have been combined in novel ways to create and maintain imbalance of their respective attractive and repulsive forces, while transforming the energy of the magnetic flow into kinetic, rotational energy. An example of this is Yildiz' permanent magnet motor as demonstrated in the following video at the University of Delft in the Netherlands.

It appears that groups of rotating magnets, such as the 1200 permanent magnets contained in Yildiz' magnetic motor, or the magnetic rollers John Searl employed in his early generators, may set up their own secondary and more powerful magnetic field with effects which are different from the combined effects of the stationary magnets. Much like the rotation of a star or planet would increase the gravitational effect, the rotation of groups of magnets appears to weave a more intense field of magnetic interaction. Ionisation and anti-gravity are among the effects that have been reported by some experimenters.

Vortices and Toroids

We see vortex shapes everywhere in nature. They are obvious in galaxies and black holes, but are present in many everyday phenomena. Hurricanes and tornadoes are vortical air flows, sea shells follow vortical growth patterns. The shape and flow pattern is ubiquitous throughout the universe.

Any source of rotation induces a space-time vortex. It is the vortex that twists the space-time matrix out of shape and that twisting in turn causes both the gravitational and the magnetic effect.

Giesbert Nijhuis has theorised the shape of elemental particles to be a Double Toroidal Vortex and he has produced animations showing the principle. I believe he may be very close...


See Giesbert Nijhuis' animations here

Notice that Nijhuis' double toroidal vortex approaches a spherical shape, one we see in particles as well as in planets and stars...

The Primer Fields

Primer Fields, as I understand the theory gives us a very similar perspective. David LaPont posits that every particle, every planet, every star and even galaxies are the result of the action of two opposing bowl-shaped magnetic fields.

In a series of videos, David LaPoint describes how two opposed bowl shaped magnets can actually cause a rotating plasma to manifest, when exposed to strong DC electric current in a vacuum chamber. The resulting magnetic field is a structured entity. It arranges particles into regular polygonal structures. The configuration of the magnetic fields explains how particles may join to form elements of matter. It also provides close match parallels for the visible structure of the galaxies we see in space.

In this first video, LaPoint describes in detail how the magnetic fields in his experiments are configured and how they act to order matter particles. He also proposes a mechanism for the magnetic ejection of matter along the plasma's axis of rotation.

The second video explains Super nova remnants in terms of the magnetic fields involved. Far from being remnants though...

Black holes

Black holes are objects with extremely strong gravitational and magnetic effects. So strong that light waves will have a hard time escaping. I am postulating that this is majorly an effect of the ultra-fast rotation of a great mass at the center, the gravitational effect is not caused by the mass alone but by its rotation. Black holes should be possible to be formed by even relatively small masses, as long as the rotational velocity, their angular momentum, is sufficiently high.

There are so-called jets of "ejected mass" that are often seen to be associated with black holes. Those jets are apparently composed of matter, which is ejected along the central axis of the exceedingly strong, incoming black hole vortex.


Artist's impression of the surroundings of a supermassive black hole, typical of that found at the heart of many galaxies Found on space.com

Those "jets" are said to be matter moving outwards at close to light velocity, but what we observe may well be a dual phenomenon. There is matter moving outwards, but there is also a strong incoming vortex.

The gravito-magnetic vortex brings in vast quantities of interstellar hydrogen, which is fused in the central plasma and processed into higher elements of matter. The matter is caught in the magnetic confinement area, until it is ejected as stars or clusters of stars, only to be caught another time by the magnetic field to form orbital patterns around the galactic nucleus.

Stellar light emission

Physicists describe the sun as a solid or rather very much compressed gaseous ball, where gravity induces so much internal pressure and heat that hydrogen fusion occurs. The fusion is then thought to be responsible for stellar light emission. I do not believe this description to be quite accurate. The sun is not, in other words a gravity-driven nuclear fusion reactor.

An observed inconsistency that would support this argument is that, while the temperature of the sun's corona is very high, about two million degrees C, the surface temperature of our mother star is only 6000 degrees C. An atomic furnace does not get first hot (in the center) then cool (on the surface) and then hot again (in the corona). Officially, this puzzle remains unresolved and this is generally admitted.

Stanford University's Solar Center says: "The question of why the solar corona is so hot remains one of most exciting astronomy puzzles for the last 60 years. There is no definite answer to that question yet."

This is from a page titled Explain the Coronal Heating Problem, Please. There is some speculation that the sun's magnetic field may play a role in the heating of the corona, but the idea that electromagnetic emissions might be the primary emissions of our star is not entertained.

Could electromagnetic radiation be the result of a clash of forces at the heart of cosmic bodies?

A double vortex, much like the one described by Nijhuis in his particle theory and by LaPoint in Primer Fields, brings in matter from space and those two incoming vortices collide, with immense force, at the central point of the magnetic field. This gives rise to fireworks, to a highly energetic clash of forces, where the two vortices meet. That incredibly energy rich event at the very center of rotation becomes a gigantic oscillator that emits radiation in a large band of the electromagnetic spectrum. We majorly perceive the visible light range and the heat of the infrared band, but there is everything in those emissions, from X-rays to the radio band from the highest to the lowest frequencies.

The matter that is brought in from space is mostly hydrogen. The central oscillator fuses the hydrogen, producing helium as well as the whole range of heavier elements. During the birth phase of the star, much of the matter produced is ejected by centrifugal force and forms a proto-planetary disc. Eventually though, the ejected elements are caught by gravitational forces at a certain distance from the central oscillator where radiation pressure is counterbalanced by gravitational attraction. In a long process of maturation, the matter produced by the central oscillator goes to make up the more or less spherical gaseous or solid "body" of the star. That may be why we see the sun's surface temperature to be a relatively measly 6000 degrees "cold".

The high degree of heating further out, in the photosphere and the corona, could be a consequence of the very strong magnetic field "shaking" and superheating particles present in the sun's gaseous atmosphere, creating super hot plasmas which emit light.


Image found here: Sun Emits a Mid-level Solar Flare (NASA)

Planets and stars are essentially the same...

Planets follow a similar evolutionary path as stars. A seed of angular momentum or rotational energy creates a pair of vortices which, in time, form the hollow shell that makes up the body of the planet. Smaller planets have a rocky shell, while larger ones tend to be gaseous.

We should find, at the center of each planet, an oscillator formed by the planet's vortices, a focus point of magnetic fields, that emits light and heat. That would of course mean that all spherical rotating bodies are of a hollow configuration, composed of a central oscillator, the incoming vortices, and a near spherical shell of matter.

The matter brought in by the vortices eventually aggregates to form the planet's body, its hard (or soft) shell. At the point of equilibrium between radiation pressure and gravitational attraction, a spherical, hollow shell will form. First, it is merely a faint concentration, an increase in density of the gases. With time, gases get more and more dense and heavier elements start accumulating at the same distance. From here on, the shell will have its own gravitational potential and will attract matter at an accelerated rate.

Since hydrogen, continually brought in by the vortex, is transformed into heavier elements during the lifetime of a planet, its spherical shell would tend to grow. We see this in the theory of an expanding earth, where some argue that the continents on this earth were at first one and then drifted apart. They broke into shapes, which seem to perfectly fit each other.

The oceans between continents are formed by the hydrogen, apparently present in large quantities in the deeper rocky strata of the shell. Where that hydrogen comes into contact with atmospheric oxygen, it is transformed into water, which ends up forming the oceans. Water, which is commonly thought to have been brought in by colliding comets, is here thought to be formed continually in the spherical planetary shell.

Is the Earth Expanding, Or drifting apart as held by the Pangaea Theory? Neal Adams proposes that there was a Pangaea "super-continent" in the past, but that the change to is due to the Earth expanding, not continental drift and tectonic plate movement.

Volcanic activity

Volcanic activity is thought to be due to molten lava from the core to be pushing up through the mantle to the surface. Another view is that volcanic activity may be due to the heat released when hydrogen, which saturates much of the rocky strata in the planetary shell meets atmospheric oxygen and is transformed into water, releasing copious amounts of heat able to melt rock in the process, which then pushes up through volcanoes to the surface.

An article which explains this process is Volcanism: Activity at the Hydrogen/Oxygen Interface

The presence of thermal energy in planets that are too far distant from the sun to be significantly warmed by direct solar radiation is thought to be due to heat produced by "tidal forces". The heat however can also be an effect of the planet's internal oscillator, the "central sun", which is an emitter of radiation in both the infrared (heat) and visible light electromagnetic band.

Now if planets are hollow, could there be life on the inside of that shell as well as on the outside? Some say yes, and they maintain that conditions on the inside are actually more clement than "out here" on the surface. We do not have unequivocal proof of this, but Admiral Byrd's expeditions to both the North and later the South Pole have found surprises. Unfortunately reports remain classified to this day.

Coming back to gravity and magnetism being closely related to rotation, there is a recent experiment that may be worth mentioning.

"Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory. Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity..."

Gravitational Equivalent Of A Magnetic Field Measured In Lab

So if, as I believe, both gravity and magnetism are the result of spin and rotation, we will need to re-think much of physics. We will need to take account of the two distinct ways gravity can be produced, and we should prepare to find, as we continue exploring our planet and the rest of the Solar system, that planets and our sun are not at all the solid balls we imagine them to be, but are points of rotation that have accumulated, throughout their history, shells of matter with both an internal and an external surface. We need to look beyond the merely external appearance to study the internal mechanisms.

Science believes the universe to be strictly mechanical, with no animating principle at the bottom of it. It also believes the brain, matter, to be the source of consciousness. Both of those views will need to be revised. There is life at the basis of matter. Life, I believe, provides the angular momentum that creates everything from particles to planets, stars and galaxies.

Here are some earlier articles to see how the idea developed...

Vortex - The Natural Movement

Star Formation: Vortex Builds Stars, Planets

Some more research and info along these lines...

The SAFIRE Project - simulating an electric sun in the lab

Mystery of coronal heating problem: Magnetically driven resonance helps heat sun's atmosphere

Does rotation influence the gravitational constant? Thierry De Mees certainly thinks so. Here are some works of his...

Gravitational Constants, the Earth's Expansion and Coriolis Gravity

Gravito-magnetism including an introduction to the Coriolis Gravity Theory

And here an interesting page with videos on patterns that emerge in magnetism as permanent magnets' fields are made visible in a ferrofluid arrangement...

Magnetism Toroidal Dynamics

PrintPrintable Version


more precisely it is the golden ratio - phase conjugate ANGLE of curvature that causes gravity (centripetal charge acceleration produced by phase conjugate compression) - which we proved www.fractalfield.com/conjugategravity

Equating the gravitational force with the quantity or density of inert matter is incorrect. The correct interpretation of Kepler’s third law is: Gravitational force is equal to acceleration times the area: F = a . A. The weight of a body is equal to its mass times the acceleration: W = m . a. Weight is not Force. Please see my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN, my articles “New concepts in Gravitation” in PHYSICS ESSAYS, Volume18, (2005), pages 37–49, “Problems with the Gravitational Constant” in INFINITE ENERGY, Volume 10, No. 59, page 39, and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYoe8KdU21A
http://parispolter.com/ Biography of Dr. Pari Spolter is in Contemporary Authors, Volume 163.
Equal areas are swept in equal intervals of time only near perihelion and aphelion, and that is all that Kepler himself has claimed. Please see "Kepler's Second Law and Conservation of Angular Momentum" In PHYSSICS ESSAYS, volume 24 (2011) pp. 260-266 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYoe8KdU21A and http://parispolter.com

Mainstream physics would do a lot better if they tried to restore some solid right-brained thinking and reasoning to what it does, so I am glad to see your efforts. The challenge then is how to translate this kind of intuition into mathematics (and vice-versa).

When I try to do that, I still see a framework like that of general relativity -- a "fabric of space-time" and
sources of change in that fabric. For gravity, it sounds as if you are proposing the same kind of gravitational fabric that Einstein proposed, modified by a different source term. But in addition, you are also proposing that
angular momentum somehow creates vortices, particles, stability, the whole thing.

I guess I know more about the second part than the first part. The more I get into it, the more I agree that
"solid" elementary particles, like electrons and the particles that protons and neutrons are made of, are indeed vortices. I don't agree with those nuclear physicists who think that protons themselves follow the "skyrmion" model of a vortex, because high energy scattering definitely shows that protons and neutrons are made up of things which are smaller and harder, but why can't THOSE things be vortices?

The chief problem is that the mathematics of stable "vortices" in three dimensional space and time
(3+1D) is very difficult, and surprisingly still undeveloped despite the huge number of people working on related topics. MOST Hamiltonians you can write down result in vortices which are not really stable. We often think of gyroscopes as the stablest things we know of -- but if you look at the practical literature, they only work in the real world because of various special stabilization techniques or, more realistically, to technology moving to "gyrospcopes" which are not really gyroscopes. (Scully and Zubairy have an excellent chapter on that.)
Makhankov, Rybakov and Sanyuk, in their important though murky book The Skyrme Model, even claim to prove a theorem ("Generalized HObart-Derrick") that a stable vortex is impossible in the usual kinds of second-order field theory; I don't believe the result, and note how Hobart himself published simple examples of fourth order theory with stable vortex, but even so, to model the components of the proton I would see the "topological soliton" (with topology emergent from the effect of a special kind of Higgs term) as our best hope.
But,,, have not had much luck in getting collaboration with folks to work out the properties of the most promising Hamiltonians, which do fit a lot of your words, but which I have chosen not to publish, given that people are hardly ready to think rationally even about the spin of the photon in baby experiments already done in top labs.

Sepp, you must know that I would agree that you are on the right track, but I do see a stumbling block in your reference to 'the space-time matrix'. my recent essay explains most clearly why. see http://www.einsteins-revolution.com/EinsteinsAppendixV.pdf

Thank you Dan Winter,

I suppose that the vortices set up by the central oscillator that provides the angular momentum would exhibit that phase conjugate ANGLE of curvature...

Thanks for your comment Paul, I agree wholeheartedly that more work should be done to translate these concepts into mathematical formulae. Perhaps my conceptual exposition here can stimulate that...

I agree with you Robert, and I don't insist on the concept of a space-time matrix.

More likely it is a matrix of the background of space filled with potential particles as per Quantum theory. The matrix should be exceedingly "stiff" to resist the twisting, with gravity an effect of the stress that it is subjected to.

Commenting for Charles Sven, who replied by email:

MY REPLY - See The Big Bang Book: How, Where, & When - Demonstrated

To Sepp Hasslberger ~

Only because you sent me a note am I replying.

For the best explanation of the Big Bang ––all we need is replicable physics.
[Explanation includes complete documentation and links to above physics.]

In order to completely understand an event one needs
four things. A list of components involved, their source,
how constructed or consumed, and all facets of the
outcome; all in a user friendly, logically sequenced
language with diagrams where called for. That’s what
we find in Sven’s Big Bang Book.

Full title is -
The Big Bang Book: How, Where, & When - Demonstrated

Free preview available at Amazon, link at:

Charles Sven

Thank you for comment Pari Spolter.

I agree with your statement that "Equating the gravitational force with the quantity or density of inert matter is incorrect."

But then, Kepler's law models the behaviour of gravity, not its cause. I am, in the article, trying to conceptualise the cause of gravity, which physicists have stayed well away from for some unfathomable reason...

You are making a very interesting observation of Kepler's second law not being generally applicable, i.e. the area swept at perihelion and at aphelion being equal, but not the area swept at major axis.

Could it be that Kepler's (second) law holds true only for a two-body system, while in a multi-body system like the solar system, other influences (influence of the other planets) come into play that skew the outcome?

I am really bemused by comments saying "your description is not correct because it is not identical to my theory." Last I heard from leaders in the gravity field, it is still an issue to nail down the empirical data to give us real confidence in anything else but good old general relativity.

Which leads me to wonder -- is there any kind of follow on to the gravity part of your story which would explain the effects now attributed to "dark energy," which Moffatt's theory of gravity successfully predicts?

Can one follow up on the essence of your hypothesis (for the gravity side) simply by assuming a different source term for general relativity? Would that have interesting or testable implications?

I once even sent an email (via the Perimeter Institute system) to Moffatt, asking whether anyone had worked out Alcubierre type solutions for HIS model, to see whether FTL or inertialess solutions might be possible WITHOUT matter of negative mass-energy; no reply. That is one interesting question for any alternative theory of gravity.

"Is there any kind of follow on to the gravity part of your story which would explain the effects now attributed to 'dark energy'..."

Well yes, my understanding is that the gravitational field of rotating cosmic bodies (large moons, planets, stars) has two distinct components, which we have not so far learned to distinguish.

One of these is the gravitational field built up as a consequence of the spin of the individual particles. This it is the gravity exhibited by the 'matter content' of any object that is not itself rotating as a whole. And that is the only way we currently view gravity - it depends solely on the “gravitational mass” of an object.

There is however another source that may contribute a great deal of the gravitational field - the rotation of the cosmic body as a whole. There is also a variable: The faster the rotation the greater the gravitational effect.

These two sources or components are constituting the overall observed gravitational effect.

If I am right, this means that our calculations of gravity are WAY off. They disregard half the story. We try to fit into the "matter" part of gravity all of the observed gravitational field strength. Take neutron stars for instance, they are an ad-hoc assumption that we have been forced to make, an attempt to stuff enough matter close enough together to account for the observed strength the object’s gravitational field.

We should be modelling the “mass part” and the “rotation part” of gravity separately and see where those calculations lead us. The mass part of gravity should be prevalent for the effect on near surface objects. The rotation part instead would be predominant in long term interactions, orbits, trajectories out there in space.

Astronomic calculations involving sources of gravity are wrong at the origin. We observe an object and say “by the amount of mass a solid ball of matter of this size can have, it cannot have sufficient gravity to account for the observed gravitational effects. So it must be made out of iron, or out of some other more heavy element, or the matter must have been collapsed and we start inventing neutron stars.

So basically we should apply ourselves to distinguishing the two sources of gravity and to modelling their respective predominant effects. We might find we don't need dark matter to make up for missing gravitational mass.

Michael Anteski responded by email. Here is what he said and my reply.


In my ether model, gravity results from interactive resonance between elemental ether energy units, which act as radiated packets of etheric energy. These units exist in space and identical units exist in bodies being gravitationally attracted, and the attraction between the bodies is due to the resonance among the identical units of the ether. Various phenomena - light, gravity, spontaneous combustion, "quantum entanglement," all represent the same basic process - an underlying vibrational ether having different vibratory patterns for each phenomenon, which then leads to vastly-different quantum phenomena, after the ether forces magnetically convert to spin-vector forces..

Original space, prior to the first appearance of forces, was self-compatible such that point localities were oscillating symmetrically and reciprocally with each other. Then pairs of adjacent "points" (the oscillatory reciprocity-distance-parameters were not infinite, so the oscillating "points" that led to an energic ether were finite - vanishingly minute, but finite.) underwent oscillatory fatigue, in "Yin and Yang" - like fashion). The point pairs disrupted the perfect symmetry of space, and eventually led to a vibrational (as derived from the oscillational) energic ether.

So-called "quantum entanglement" represents radiated packets of etheric energy which have the same vibratory pattern. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in that phenomenon, with the quantum units kinetically "walled off," like cool "arms" of a quiet purring ether mechanism, which can turn itself on and off, by itself, any time.

Michael Anteski"

- - -

"Well Michael,

it seems we have a good similarity of views.

You put more emphasis on oscillation, I am putting more emphasis on what causes the oscillation in a physical sense (which would be spin and rotation where particles would be seen to oscillate (the famous zitterbewegung) and where cosmic bodies are composed of a central oscillator that is a result of huge angular momentum and that produces electrogravitic emissions and oscillations as well as a hollow "shell" of matter responsible for the lower frequency oscillations that are characteristic of those bodies…


Michael Anteski again, by email, and my reply...


My e mail was brief and I may not have made it clear how "oscillation" applies to my model of an ether. -In my model, oscillation only entered in at the first-causal-stage in space, in forming a universal ether. In the very beginning, there was just Space. This space, prior to the first appearance of forces, was self-compatible, such that point-localities were oscillating symmetrically and reciprocally with each other. This led to oscillatory fatigue of point-pairs, which combined with each other curvilinearly, in "Yin and Yang" fashion. (Oscillatory fatigue is known to occur in metals, but since metallic oscillatory fatigue is a quantum process, it cannot be definitively correlated with oscillatory fatigue in first-causal space.)

That process produced vibrational (as derived from the oscillational) elemental, etheric, energy units in space (Oscillation is not energic, it is non-directional. Vibration, on the other hand, in my model, is energic. -As the vibrations extend outwardly, they form loose connections (not "fixed" connections) with each other, analogous to their having "nodes" that interact resonationally. -This then leads to linear energic entrainments, which, in the early universe, led to foci of super-refined etheric energy.

The concept of a universal ether is rejected by physics. This dates back to the Michelson-Morley Experiment(MMX) of 1887, which was reported as failing to show the existence of an ether medium which transmits forces. (That then led physicists like Einstein to form theories about space and matter, like General Relativity.) -However, I would submit that the MMX went wrong by using a false basic assumption as to how an ether would behave in space relative to solid bodies.

In the MMX, it was assumed an ether would manifest an inertial-type "wind-dragging" effect as earth moved through it in space. This was the key basic assumption of the MMX. Subsequently, the optical refractive measurements in the MMX failed to show such a drag effect, and an ether medium was dismissed by physics, which has continued to the present day.

However, if an ether were non-inertial in its behavior, the basic assumption in the MMX would be false, the MMX would be cosmically irrelevant, and the ether concept would remain viable. -In my model, the ether's primary mode of action is resonance between identical ether units,which exist in space and in solid bodies, with a body's ether constantly interacting with the ether of space, and the ether would tend to "follow" a body like earth as it moves through space, non-inertially. -That's why the MMX was wrong, and why physics is wrong now to continue rejecting the ether.

Sepp, there is a lot more to my model of the ether. I derived the model from a long term codebreaking of a code in a historical Document. This source also describes a field test to show the ether, but it would be expensive to perform. I'm trying to find a financial backer to get the field test done.

Regards, Michael"

- - -

"Thank you Michael,

do you have a website (or a document somewhere on line) where you explain your aether model?

I’m posting our conversation in the comments section of the article, so others can read it as well.
Please let me know if you prefer not to have this in public space.

Kind regards

Sepp! Your insights are out of sight! (punny, I know). I just wanted to chime in with a small article, containing very real experiences, i shared back in 04.


In the article, it is posited that black holes are much more magnetic than originally thought. The commonalities between magnetics and gravitics much more intimate than generally realized. I touch upon such principles giving rise to the engineering of glass magnets, even wood! Recently, ferromagnetic diamonds were discovered, which experts thought impossible. Give it a read; hope you like it.

And remember, dear readers, it's not wise to Hassel the Berger!

Ok, that was a bad misappropriation of "don't hassle the Hoff", of David Hasslehoff fame.

Great minds think alike!

Lesser minds like to think that they're thinking.

Thank you for that article, Techstuf, interesting. I hear there are several groups of earth humans that have found/evolved real space technology. The craft you observed may be from one of those groups.

And I agree, that black holes are powered by strong magnetic fields, rather than gravity alone. Actually the faster the rotation, the stronger the resulting magnetic field...

Here is a comment (by email) of Harold Kyriazi:

"I've been reading over your page (which you'd linked below), including some of its videos and links.

The demonstration by Eric Laithwaite was interesting. I wish he'd weighed his spinning wheel (and attached pole) again once it was spinning. I'm sure it'd precess, but I can't imagine it'd actually weigh consistently less. It may have seemed (to him) to not have any centrifugal force when he moved it in a circular way, but I suspect that was because he was moving it in the direction of its natural precession.

This brings to mind, from the book "Gravity" by George Gamow, the story of French physicist Jean Perrin carrying a running aviation gyro in his suitcase (see Gamow's Figure 15). When an attendant at the Paris railway was carrying Perrin's suitcase, in trying to turn a corner the suitcase twisted in his hand and raised itself up at an unusual angle, causing the porter to drop it and run away, exclaiming, "The devil himself must be inside there!"

I just did a quick Google search, and found this page, which supposedly provides links to mainstream, Newtonian physics explanations for Dr. Laithwaite's demonstrations:


Unfortunately, the videos at "gyroscopes.org" no longer seem to be supported (at least none of the ones I clicked on worked).

My main question to you (and others who've commented on your page, mainly it seems to promulgate their own theories :-) ) is: what do you think your "space matrix" consists of? The matrix of vortices I've been led to believe exists, and constitutes the vacuum, is tightly connected, at vastly greater than light speeds, over both short and long distances, by mutually exchanged streams of gravitational gyrons. I think this can account for the findings of quantum field theory, that everything seems to be linked, and dependent, to some extent, upon everything else.

Finally, the video link you provide at the very end, on the SAFIRE project, says "This video is private" and will not play.

Best Wishes,
Harold Kyriazi

My reply, also by email:

"The site on gyroscopes seems a bit biased … something like “nothing to see here - move on!” They can “explain” gyros as much as they want, they aren’t asking the right questions. In my view, gyros create their own gravitational potential, which is different depending on whether they are still or spinning. That potential somehow links into the surrounding gravitational environment. The linkage shows a sense of direction, making for some very strange observations…

Maybe you should try some of the Laithwaite videos that are on youtube. He did interesting experiments and demonstrations.

As for the matrix of space, I would agree that it is tightly connected and that effects propagate at greater-than-light speeds, probably by a mechanism quite different from that of electromagnetic (light) energy.

What that matrix consists of … well that is a rather difficult question. I don’t think we are quite ready to answer that. Your hypothesis, at this point, is as good as anyone else’s, until we actually start seriously researching in that direction.

Kind regards

... and a note to Harold just in case he checks back in here:

Your email address isn't functioning - the pitt.edu mailbox, the server said, is full. No more space to receive messages.

Leave a comment


Receive updates

Email updates for new articles

Enter your Email