I’ve read enough fringe material on the internet to know the similarities between most of the well-meaning but usually worthless crap out there and my own theory of gravity. It’s about thirty pages of fanciful speculation, twenty-six illustrations, and almost no math. The passerby audience for that is very select, and I doubt it includes any trained physicists. They have reputations to uphold, and chalkboards to weaponize.
Nevertheless, I stand by the material. Like I probably argued to at least one of my teachers, I shouldn’t have to show all of my work if I have the right answer. But in an effort to pump it up, allow me to draw attention to three particular points in the paper that maybe even a serious academician would consider worthy of their time and effort to dismantle (or God forbid, prove).
Stellar aberration. The theory offers an explanation for aberration which could also be used to prove the theory itself. You may not fully understand how it works just by reading the aberration part. The explanation of the [atom motion] diagram would also be particularly helpful. The predicted effect is very small, and the slow speed of the Earth combined with the need to adjust for the Earth’s gravitational lensing effect may make it difficult to confidently isolate. But I’m only guessing, and could stand for someone to help me give some mathematical legs to what I’m saying.
Special Relativity thought experiment. The theory takes all of Special and General Relativity for granted except for the reciprocity of kinematic time dilation, which hasn’t been concretely proven. The thought experiment presented makes the reasonable point that at the end of a kinematic time dilation experiment, two clocks put into relative motion (which also experience matching accelerations) should show the same time once returned to the same reference frame. Yet from Hafele-Keating forward, all respected tests of kinematic time dilation end with one clock showing a different time from the other. This seems to prove time dilation, while disproving its reciprocity. Why is no one saying anything about this?
Mercury experiment. It won’t increase my credibility to say this, but I’m well aware that the element mercury gets more than one mention in UFO lore. To be honest, along the way, I did occasionally wonder “if mercury were relevant to this theory, what part could it possibly play?” Once I imagined the drive as a toroidal synthetic atom powered by a glorified Van de Graaff generator, it was a stab in the dark to test mercury as a workable substitute for the generator’s rubber belt. During the experiment, the mercury seemed to illuminate with a greenish glow, and afterward, the Teflon had developed a considerable positive charge. I have since discovered this is a known phenomenon, seen in something called a barometric light. In a barometric light, the mercury surrenders electrons to the glass which then interact with nearby air creating the light. In my experiment, presumably, as the mercury loses electrons to the glass, it then collects more from the Teflon. I’m thinking of ways to improve on the experiment, but I put it in this list because it’s something anyone (willing to spend some money) can try.
Compared to most of the gravity paper, these items seem like low-hanging fruit, ready for debate in the real world. What do you think?