Exploring 5 Dimensions | The Dynamic Theory of Pharis Williams: A New View of Space-Time-Matter
This work is an extension of previous research that I’ve published. The amount of preliminary research was massive, but very insightful so I will provide a link to it at the end of the intro.
If this post is too long for you I have made a YouTube video version.
https://youtu.be/XSIDAuReupc
Intro
I learned of Pharis Williams and The Dynamic Theory from Oke Shannon’s first ever interview concerning the famous Wilson Memo of UFO lore. I use the term lore loosely here as it’s fairly well agreed amongst most researchers that the memo is real. Regardless, my concern isn’t actually with the UFO debate, as we know Oke Shannon is a nuclear physicist that was employed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and worked with Pharis Williams at LANL. They are credentialed physicists and researchers that were employed at one of the most knowledgable institutions on the subject of nuclear physics and these are verifiable facts.
Oke Shannon mentions Pharis Williams’ The Dynamic Theory during the interview and alludes that he believes it’s possible some people may have secretly tested the theory. I found this interesting and began researching Williams and his 5 dimensional theory. The basic overview is that he claims mass density is a fifth dimension and that he uses the laws of thermodynamics to derive the equations of different branches of physics such as relativity and quantum mechanics. I strongly suggest exploring my previous post I compiled just trying to get all of Williams’ work into one place for research purposes.
https://medium.com/@Observing_The_Anomaly/advanced-physics-theory-oke-shannon-of-the-famous-wilson-memo-claims-the-work-of-pharis-williams-3f42b920dfd7
A New View of Space-Time-Matter
Williams has many interesting papers worth exploring in depth, but in this post I’m going to attempt to give an overview of the theory itself from Williams’ book on the theory and dive into suggested experiments from a technical document produced at the Air Force Space Technology Center in which Williams is cited as an advisor. Below is William’s words from the preface of his book, The Dynamic Theory.
For instance, if we wish to approach a unification, what should we unify? Should we unify the fields, or should we unify the various branches of physics? It seems rather difficult to believe that nature is divided into the different branches of physics, such as thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, relativistic mechanics, and quantum mechanics, just because we learned how to formulate the basis for each branch at different times in our scientific advancement. Further, given a variational principle and a metric we know how to derive field equations and force laws. Therefore, shouldn’t we be seeking to unify the various branches of physics and deriving the necessary fields from that unification rather than trying to unify the fields and not reconciling the difference between the foundations of the different branches?
Link to a free online version of the book: https://web.archive.org/web/20161025211455if_/http://physicsandbeyond.com/DynamicTheory.html
Williams is discussing why he believes his approach of deriving the equations of the branches of physics from the same set of assumptions makes more sense than trying to stitch together the equations from different branches as almost everyone else attempts to do. In my opinion, he is absolutely correct. Of course it’s always possible he may simply have found a clever mathematical trick. This is why it’s important to look into new predictions made by this theory and to test them. This theory does in fact make some new predictions that are testable.
Some of the predictions and implications from this theory may be controversial, but I implore you to take it very seriously. Williams was an applauded physicist by his peers and of high credentials. Some of his peers were proponents of his theory as well. He was literally in charge of nuclear safety for the United States stockpile of nuclear weapons. He was considered knowledgable enough to be entrusted with overseeing the safety of our nuclear weapons, so I hope you would consider his theory worthy of review. There’s hardly a more serious and difficult responsibility I can think of having. Williams was allowed to spend half of his time working on his theory at LANL, so when he wasn’t overseeing the nuclear weapons and studying explosive shock physics he was working on his 5 dimensional theory.
For instance, Williams also states in the preface:
What resulted from the attempt to unify the branches of physics produced not only the desired result, but, also that of unifying the fields and forces of nature also. The fundamental laws, which could be written on a T-shirt, produce field equations and force laws which accurately describe phenomena intended to be included in Hawking’s “Theory of Everything.” It does not, however, allow for the existence of a Big Bang or beginning or end of time. Furthermore, since the fundamental laws are based upon generalizations of classical thermodynamics, the equations of motion derived from them come complete with an Arrow of Time built in. I first reported this predicted flow of time in 1981.
Before you lose your mind at the proposition that the Big Bang didn’t happen, I implore you to take the time to understand the theory because it is not refuting the common observations cited as direct evidence of the Big Bang. It is interpreting that information differently and this portion is covered under his insights about the nature of the red shift of light.
Williams also recounts his difficulties in getting his theory published.
The many attempts to get portions, or all, of this research published in the refereed journals have produced many interesting comments. These comments are interesting from the point of view that they expose the human side of referees, not that they are based upon scientific evaluation. Let me offer three excerpts as examples: from the physics department of a name university, “While the equations you’ve derived are not wrong, we somehow like it better the old way,” from a scientist at a government laboratory, “If you ask me to shoot you down, I can’t. If you ask me to help you, I won’t. I suggest that you learn to play the game and then someone may listen to you,” and from a journal dedicated to speculation, “We no longer have the time to consider articles which look into the foundations of physics.”
Williams elaborates on why his theory doesn’t prove most other theories wrong, but that some current interpretations are wrong, misleading or too restrictive.
What I sought to do was to answer some personal questions about science using all of the rigor contained in the logic of mathematics. What I found was a methodology by which we may see how the various physical phenomena from the nuclear realm to the cosmos come from a single, simple set of three fundamental assumptions. Many current interpretations concerning fundamental aspects of several existing theories are shown to be wrong, misleading, or too restrictive. Notice that I said many current interpretations are wrong, not many current theories are wrong. What I found is that there is a much more general theory available in which the current theories are subsets or first, or second, order approximations. That doesn’t mean these theories are wrong any more than the validity of the Special Theory of Relativity means that Newton’s equations of motion are wrong. It only means that Newton’s dynamics applies only to a limited range of velocities. If we then use Newton’s equations of motion for velocities approaching the speed of light our interpretations will of necessity be wrong. However, we didn’t know these interpretations were in error until Einstein put forth his more general theory. The same is found to be true of many interpretations based upon the current theories which the Dynamic Theory shows to be wrong when viewed in its more general light. Also, the reported research shows how the various branches of physics fit together into a unified picture of a nature built upon the dimensions of space, time, and mass.
In the forward of a different edition of the book a Dr. Dan Conner Ross (also of LANL) says,
When I first found the Dynamic Theory, it was only in a few obscure Los Alamos technical papers. But as I researched more and more physical theories looking for new development and predictions, this one theory stood out. It seems to have gone without the recognition it deserves even many years later. This book will hopefully correct that and motivate others to persue this fruitful path. I saw and still see Williams’ theory as a fresh theory that generates precise predictions and concepts that, so far, do not conflict with actual experiments — our views and interpretations of them perhaps, but not the actual observble data. His theory is comforting in that it derives general relativity from thermodynamics. I see no other plausible theory that does that. It does take a little while to fully appreciate the approach. But just like the path integrals approach to QED develops by giving up “knowing” exact paths and focusing on the end states, the Dynamic Theory derives its power by focusing on limiting the gauge function by the second law. This gives a new way of looking at the gauge function and ultimately to quantization.
I know of no other theory that can so closely calculate the nuclear energy of low Z isotopes from first principles, generates quantum numbers directly from metric field equations, gives a limit to mass-density conversions, or makes so many concrete predictions with so few assumptions. At first, I was concerned about the views it generated about neutrinos, multiple n photons, gravitational interactions but testing our beliefs should be the role of a new theory. We must look at the observables in our experiments to guide us and not our views and interpretations we hold from our previous theories.
The Dynamic Theory is a 5 dimensional one. Yet, unlike most Kalusa-Klein theories it does not impose an artificial restraint on the 5th dimension. Here the added dimension is a function of mass and just like the fourth dimensional addition to our understanding imposed a limit to how fast matter could travel, the fifth dimension limits the rate at which that mass can be converted to energy. This alone is a an important concept. I fully expect it will ultimately moderate energy released from atomic bombs, limit a star’s lifetime and justify the cutoffs to QED. When I look at its EM/gravitational field equations, I see possibilities for explaining why phonons can produce virtual mass particles without interaction with a mass, and why a mass-less particle can have no charge. There are still treasures that could be mined from the theory.
Link to source: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1248828
Predictions
Williams has derived the equations of many standard theories from the laws of thermodynamics with his theory using only 3 assumptions and treating mass density as a real fifth dimension. It also more accurately derives nuclear values than current standard theories when compared to experimentally measured results. What’s more interesting is where it deviates from standard theories and makes new predictions. This has always been the way to validate a theory and is proper scientific method. So let’s explore what this theory predicts and even some suggested experiments. I implore those interested to recall that Williams was not only a nuclear physicist at LANL, but was in charge of overseeing safety for the US nuclear stockpile so take his nuclear predictions seriously no matter how far fetched they may sound. The new insights and predictions below are not a complete list.
Proton-Proton Scattering
The non-singular electrostatic force drastically changes the prediction of the data to be expected in proton-proton scattering. Because of the non-singular nature of the electrostatic potential and force, the repulsive force between the protons begin to diminish exponentially as their separation drops to nuclear distances. This rapid reduction in the repulsive forces between the protons predicts data similar to the data obtained in the proton-proton scattering experiments. It remains to analyze the data using the non-singular force. However, the community has far too much invested in the notion of a strong nuclear force for funds to be made available for such analysis in the near future.
The Neutron
When we applied the non-singular forces between unlike particles we found that a proton in orbit around an electron becomes a neutron. Of course one needs to use the fact that the unit of action is control by the gauge function and we found that for the protons orbit around the electron within the neutron to be roughly 2/3 of Plank’s constant. On the other hand we found that all of the spin and magnetic moment relations were satisfied if the unit of action for the electron within the neutron was approximately that of the proton reduced by the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass.
It’s not new to suggest that the neutron consist of a proton and an electron. Indeed every disintegration of a neutron results in the appearance of a proton and an electron and motion of the center of mass. This would suggest strongly that a neutron consist of a proton and electron. However, arguments such as using the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to forbid the possibility of an electron being confined to such a small space eventually won since there was no theoretical means of countering this argument. Also, with only the tacit assumption that the force holding the neutron together obeyed Newton’s third law there was no basis for understanding why the center of mass should move upon disintegration.
There is another reason to commend the non-singular forces that do not obey Newton’s third law in the neutron. The standard model does not provide a functional form for the weak force that may be used to predict the life time of the neutron. In the Dynamic Theory the fact that the center of mass is trapped in a positive energy well means that the concept of quantum tunneling may be used to calculate the lifetime with the result comparing favorably with the experimentally determined value. This ability to predict the lifetime of a neutron is new.
Fusion
When the spin axes of two deuterium nuclei are aligned we may calculate the fusion barrier by solving the six-body problem that involves the four protons and two electrons of the two deuterium nuclei. The non-singular, repulsive forces between the protons are reduced significantly when the seperation of the protons approach nuclear seperations. Also the repulsive force between the two electrons is reduced when their separations reach the sub-nuclear separations achieved within the helium nucleus. This reduction in the repulsive forces between protons and between the electrons allows the very strong remaining attractive force the protons have for the electrons to reduce the fusion barrier tremendously when compared with the standard nuclear model. The standard nuclear model requires the energy required for fusion to overcome the repulsive force of the Coulombic force between the protons and, therefore, the fusion barrier is expected to be much, much higher than the non-singular forces require.
Further, it is the trick of aligning the spin axes of the two deuterium nuclei that establishes this greatly reduced fusion barrier. If the two deuterium nuclei approach each other with their spin axes in any other orientation with respect to each other the fusion barrier increases to the fusion barrier of the standard model or greater. It is this alignment of the spin axes of the deuterium together with the non-singular forces which cause the significant reduction in the fusion barrier that is new.
Link to source: https://web.archive.org/web/20110427040617if_/http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/CompactReactor.html
I felt is was important to use Williams’ own words for the nuclear section of his theory because he is a nuclear physicist with the proverbial keys to the kingdom. To be very clear he is predicting that hydrogen to helium fusion can take place at far lower energies than the standard model predicts if you align the spin axes of the nuclei. I covered earlier how he spoke of this prediction during his interview with APEC as well as on The Space Show and even claimed his theory was being tested by an unnamed group at that time. I also shared that Williams patented a device for this reaction, but unfortunately passed away not long after.
Link to source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130235963A1/en
There is no company associated with the patent and it expired due to lack of a response. That seems a bit odd for an issued patent, but I’m not a patent attorney. My guess is that it was legally challenged in some way and he forfeited by not responding. Another interesting thing is that in John Alexander’s book “Reality Denied” he states in chapter 1 that Robert Bigelow offered to fund William’s research.
“The caller announced that he was Bob Bigelow. He had heard about me and asked if there were any projects that needed funding. Coincidence? Possibly, but how did it happen that a complete stranger would call asking about funding projects just as some of the leading scientists in the world had completed a discussion of the topic…Having recently retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, I was looking for new options and suggested to Bob that we get together. A short time later he flew over to Santa Fe, and as a result of that meeting he did fund a project of a friend of mine, Pharis Williams. “Willie,” as he was known, had been working on his Dynamic Theory for a long time and want to complete it.”
So, at least according to John Alexander, we can deduce that Robert Bigelow was likely the funder of this research that Williams claimed was happening. I haven’t thoroughly assessed the information in Alexander’s book to mine deeper so there may be more confirmation in there. I also implore some good investigative journalists to look into this. I only research information that is already publicly available.
Protons
Williams’ theory predicts that the mass energy of the virtual particles within the proton is 7,254 MeV, or approximately the 7,000 MeV output of the Large Hadron Collider. Because that’s only slightly higher he predicts that some of the protons should be busted up to produce positrons and electrons.
5D QM, Magnetic Moments and Octets
When the fifth dimension is allowed a physical reality there are at least two things that come to light. First, physical reality of the field for the fifth dimension leads to the prediction of magnetic moments for a body without electric charge. Second, the spin states of the five dimensions include two more spin vectors in addition to the currently used spin states.
The prediction of a magnetic moment for electrically neutral, spinning bodies is new in the sense of the source of this prediction. This means that it is a new prediction that the fifth dimensional field, being the gravitational field, leads to a magnetic moment for a gravitating body that is electrically neutral. Spinning gravitational bodies have previously been thought to have magnetic moments. The source of the magnetic moment in the five dimensional field is what’s new.
When the charge to mass ratio is used with the parameters of the Earth’s angular momentum the predicted magnetic moment of the Earth is verified by the experimental value.
According to Williams the addition of the extra dimension also leads to a new three component spin vector and a four component spin vector that are added to the usual three component spin vector appearing in Dirac’s four dimensional equations of relativistic quantum mechanics. This leads to a new prediction of octets within particle physics.
Time Dependence of Gravity
In a five dimensional manifold of space, time and mass density a gauge function must then depend upon each of these dimensions or one or more of the gauge potentials and fields will vanish. The gauge function is found to be dependent upon time through an exponential function that causes the gravitational field to get weaker with time. This is new.
A time dependence of the Earth’s gravitational field was reported in the 1970’s by Van Flandern of the US Naval Observatory. The time dependence he obtained using the measured distance between the Earth and the moon over decades matches Hubble’s constant very well. Williams’ reveals that he spoke with Flandern before his death and that Flandern was convinced the apparent time dependence was due to an error.
Dark Matter
Because the gravitational field strength diminishes in time this means that an object at distance away from the gravitating body would be responding to a gravitational field that was stronger when it left the gravitating body. Therefore, the stars in the arms of the spiral galaxies are responding to a gravitational field strength that was greater in the past when its effects would have left the galaxy center.
Therefore, in the Dynamic Theory the time dependent gravitational field shows that the tangential velocity of the stars is the results of a time dependent gravitational field and dark matter is not necessary. The first order approximation to this time dependent effect is the same as the Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) that has been hypothesized for the explanation of this effect.
Dark Energy
The time dependence of gravity also results in a time dependence of the Chandrasekhar limiting mass used to calculate the luminosity of type Ia supernovas. The result is that they are not constant in time as predicted by the standard model. This is important because they are used as the standard candle when determining the expansion of the universe.
Cosmological Red Shift
The fact that the light from distant stars is red shifted is old news. The fact that the red shift is due to the distance to the star and its gravitational field has also been known for some time. What is new here is that the red shift depends exponentially upon both the star’s distance and the gravitational field. The exponential distance provides predictions of high red shifts for objects that are closer than would be the case or a linear dependance. This means that quasars may not be as queer as previously thought. At least the light output can now be attributed to a natural nuclear energy rather than needing to conjure up a new energy source to explain what had appeared as prodigious energy output for their apparent distance using the linear distance red shift prediction.
Another aspect of the cosmological red shift is the prediction that by comparing the red shift obtained on the Earths surface and that obtained at heights above the Earth one may separate the red shift due to distance from the red shift due to the star’s gravitational field. This means that these data can provide distance and gravitational field strength of the cosmological objects.
Big Bang and Black Holes
Singularities do not exist in the Dynamic Theory. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR)has an explanation in the zero pressure radiation required by the five dimensional gauge fields. There is also a theoretical alternative to black holes according to Williams, but I’m having difficulty finding it. Below is a link to his explanation of CMBR using zero pressure radiation.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180408123257if_/http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/pdf/Zero%20Radiation%20Pressure.pdf
Converting Wave Energy
Williams’ theory predicts that there is the ability to transfer energy between transverse and non-transverse waves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFbqppwcVpw
Suggested Experiments
I found a 1990 paper from the Air Force Space Technology Center titled “Electric Propulsion Study” with Pharis Williams cited as an advisor. The paper is authored by Dennis J. Cravens. The abstract reads,
This report reviews inductive theories and experimental approaches which provide for inter actions between gravitational and electromagnetic fields. The theoretical section develops a general relativistic five dimensiunal theory to the point that electromagnetic effects can be interpreted. Emphasis is placed on modifications to the classical Maxwell equations and field vector equations. The theories are then used to propose specific experimental studies which can verify the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions. Specific recommendations are made for experiments that would both verify the theories and serve as a basis for electric propulsive systems that would convert between electromagnetic and inertial momentum.
It then goes on to recommend a series of experiments in the conclusions after explaining the theories. It is unclear if the Air Force ever attempted any of the recommended experiments.
The multidimensional theories in this report are still unverified. One approach would be to find an experiment that would prove or disprove the theories and then try to make use of the information to design a technology using the effect. An alternative is to try to look for desired technology using the nonclassical effects predicted by the theories and then design experiments that best demonstrate the effect. The best experiment from the first view is the Radiation Pressure experiment. The best from the later view is the charging capacitor (Biefield-Brown) approach.
Radiation Pressure
Five dimensional theories suggest that there is a difference in radiation pressure and radiation energy density due to the new terms. One way to test this is by the comparison of the radiation pressure with bolometer readings. Some difficulties can be avoided by using the fact that the effect depends on the square of the frequencies and may be isolated by using experimental designs using two frequencies.
This difference may lead to an experiment to compare the two expressions. The classical experimental approach dates to Nichols and Hall at Dartmouth College (1901–1903), who measured the radiation pressures using a torsion balance. They did this by allowing a beam of light to fall on a mirror mounted to a torsion fiber so that it could react to the radiation pressure. The experimental results reported in flalliday and Resnick (33) were 7.01x10–6 N/m2 for the radiation pressure and 7.05x10–6 N/n 2 for the radiation energy density. This was considered very good experimental technique at the turn of the century. If their numbers are accurate there is a 5% difference in the two values. The difficulty in the experiment is in the calibration of the bolometer. There may be a way around this impasse.
The ratio depends on the frequency of the light. Thus, if we conduct experiments to measure the ratio over a range of frequencies, then it will be possible to determine the coupling constant without being limited by the bolometer calibration accuracy.
It should be noted that this experimental approach also allows for balancing the energy received at the bolometer and then reading any torque with the torsion balance. This would be a useful check to the technique. A larger signal-to-noise ratio can be obtained by using more modern high intensity lamps and lasers than were available to Nichols and Hull.
Requirements for this experiment include:
Materials-
laser (double frequency),
beam splitters,
torsion balance,
bolometer (flat frequency response), vacuum enclosure,
neutral density filter,
wave length calibration,
diffraction grating,
monochrometer,
and Expertise in -
optical measurements,
vacuum technology,
mechanical construction of torsion system.
RECOMMENDATION- This approach has much to recommend it. First, it is potentially a very clean experiment. Unlike most of the other approaches, it avoids high electric fields, high vacuums, and sensors sensitive to environmental interference. Second, it can be useful even if its sensitivity is too low to detect a nonzero coupling coefficient. Third, there is some historical basis to believe some effect may be present. Studies of radiation pressures would become useful in absolute laser power measurement and solar sail applications. Experiments such as this often require few equipment expenditures when conducted at the right site. It is suggested that consideration be made for adding such an approach to a USAF Summer Faculty Research program, to existing radiation pressure studies in solar sail research, or to other similar programs.
BIEFIELD-BROWN EFFECTS
In 1933 T.T. Brown experimented with capacitors which seemed to demonstrate a nonzero coupling between electric and gravitational fields. He received several patents (British U.S. 3187206, 3022430, 2949550, 3018394, and 1974483) for the claimed effect. The work has usually been discounted, the results being attributed to ion wind and corona discharge from the high voltage (to 100 kV) employed. Brown’s claimed forces were developed within his asymmetric capacitors upon application of large static potentials. He also claimed the forces were proportional to the capacitance, weight of the dielectric, charging potential, and divergence of the electric field. A great deal of popular (but little technical) literature has developed from his work. It is now common to call any apparent mass effects on charged (or charging) capacitors the Biefield-Brown effect.
There is little theoretical support for effects generated by static fields. Most theoretical approaches require the use of time varying fields. It is doubtful that Brown had a well filtered 100 kV DC power supply during his work. This would mean that he could have been seeing an event initiated by time varying fields. Currently at least two groups are pursuing work to demonstrate gravitational field effects with capacitors. The one is led by Dr. Woodward and the second is led by Bob Talley.
In the Dynamic Theory this is taken as the change in the mass density (and hence the energy density). Any effects not currently seen in our 4-D theories must be a result of the newly added coordinate. Thus, novel effects can be seen only when there is a change in the mass or energy density within the experiment. This can take one of two forms. Either the energy density can change in time during the experiment or the mass density could change as a function of the spatial coordinates. The first effect is much easier to handle experimentally and to treat theoretically. Such an effect would appear as a change in the inertia or mass of the object in the local field or the change in a dynamic property of a moving object.
Woodward is getting some results. The difficulty is in seismic isolation and sensitivity of his sensors. With a limited amount of funds his work could be improved about an order of magnitude with currently commercially available sensors.
If there is a nonzero coupling in the second term of the Taylor series expansion for the gravitational force, then AC currents can be expected to result in apparent mass changes. Such changes would be proportional to the square of both the applied potential and the frequency. The effect would have a nonzero change in inertia when integrated over an entire cycle.
This approach is exceptionally interesting in regards to propulsion advances. In effect, it changes the gravitational field interaction due to both energy (hence mass) density and the time rate of change of that density. In other words, power density levels may be tied to gravitational field interactions. This is consistent with the view taken in the theoretical section (see Section 1.3). Recall that there is a term in the fundamental line element resulting from the change in mass (and hence energy) density. It is during processes of changing mass or energy density that the 5-D nature is expected to be detected.
Due to the recent progress and the apparent theoretical validity of Woodward’s approach, it is recommended that efforts be made to encourage and support his work. It appears to be the best experimental project aimed at nonzero coupling that is now underway.
Gravitational Rotor
It can be seen from the 5-D equations for charge conservation that electromagnetic effects can create a gravitational mass density. This is in keeping with the principle that the goal of unification efforts is to write a single expression that relates all the fundamental forces. In Williams’ technical consultant report this principle has been applied to create torque on a conductive member which has a divergence in its current flow. There was a small attempt made to measure such an effect. Appendix B gives a detail development of the principle- Two cones (naps of right cones) were joined at their bases. Electrical contact to the copper cones was made through two rods immersed in a mercury. As current was passed through the device the rotational torque was measured by a optical lever by a laser. The experiment failed to witness any large effect but it was a relatively insensitive device. Due to the symmetry of the device, some calculations of the torque yield zero as the expected value. This is due to the symmetry of the device.
The overall theoretical base for the experiment is sound but the mathematical complexity of the theory does not yield itself to a simple apparatus. This report concludes that the “conductive submarine” may be a more practical method. The torque measurements in this approach require a small static balance be measured. The submarine (see Section 3.4) can be read as an integrated value of a total length of travel. The later is much easier to measure. When the two cone geometry was calculated independently, it seemed that the divergence at one cone cancelled the convergence of the other cone.
RECOMMENDATION — This approach scores high due to the theoretical underpinning. However, it is not recommended at this time. Should better calculations of the divergent fields and material structure be developed this approach should be reconsidered.
I only mentioned the above experiment because it sounds an awful lot like an experiment Williams describes in his interview with APEC. In that interview he describes trying to test his theory by measuring the torque of two cones, but that it was not successful because it was not sensitive enough. He then claimed that somebody from SARA modified his experiment and got good results. It’s unclear if it was the “conductive submarine” approach from this paper or some other modification.
Link to the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IB2wIBhAoVs
There are many other interesting experiments listed in this document, but I will not cover them all in this post.
If you enjoy my work please follow me on Medium.
You don’t have to join Medium to read my content, but if you use the link below.
https://medium.com/@Observing_The_Anomaly/membership
