Electrogravitics

Not to be confused with

Biefeld–Brown effect

.

Electrogravitics (also electromagnetogravitics, magnetogravitics) is the alleged field of study and engineering practice concerned with coupling electrostatic and electromagnetic fields to gravity and inertia, so as to reduce, negate, or direct the weight and inertial mass of a physical body. The name covers an area of inquiry rather than a single settled mechanism, and it is used in at least three distinguishable senses that sources rarely mark: narrowly, for the lineage of charged-capacitor thrust research opened by Thomas Townsend Brown in the 1920s; more broadly, for any claimed engineerable coupling between electromagnetism and the spacetime metric, including inertial mass reduction and gravity control schemes that share no apparatus with Brown's; and, loosely, as shorthand for the whole alleged classified exotic propulsion enterprise said to have grown out of both. As a claimed mode of gravity control, electrogravitics sits within the broader class of exotic propulsion alongside spacetime metric engineering, the Alcubierre metric, and field propulsion; it draws its foundational laboratory observation from — but is not identical to — the Biefeld–Brown effect, and it subsumes the narrower claimed sub-effects of inertial mass reduction, gravitational shielding, and what mid-1950s trade literature called dynamic counterbary.

The knowledge said to constitute the field is not distributed evenly across the public record. A large body of independent inventors, aerospace insiders, patent examiners, and investigative journalists holds that the substantive work passed into corporate and classified programmes in the late 1950s and has been released since only in a thin and non-uniform trickle, varying by decade and by subject matter, so that the open literature represents a handpicked sliver rather than the state of the art. If the coupling is real and engineerable, it would displace chemical and nuclear propulsion for atmospheric and interplanetary flight, permit the inertia-less manoeuvring reported of UAP, and — through the zero-point energy coupling proposed for it — bear directly on clean power generation, which is the stake most often cited for its alleged suppression.

Three readings of the field run through its whole literature and are taken up at each point below. On the first, there is no electrogravitic phenomenon at all: the laboratory results that founded the field are corona discharge and ion wind artefacts, a reading supported by the vacuum-chamber measurements of Tajmar (2004, 2024) and R. L. Talley (1990) and by the 2003 U.S. Army Research Laboratory analysis of Bahder and Fazi. On the second, the coupling is a real feature of nature that was demonstrated, taken seriously at the highest levels of American science management, and then classified out of public view — the reading advanced by Nick Cook, Tom Valone, Mark McCandlish, and Jesse Michels. On the third, something anomalous is genuinely present but has been misidentified: the real effect is electrohydrodynamic, or a gravitational shielding or quantum vacuum interaction, rather than the direct gravity control the term advertises — a position Michels states of the founding effect itself, and one that would explain both the persistence of the anomaly and the failure of the gravity-control interpretation to survive testing.

Basic principles

Terminology and scope

The field has never settled on a single name, and the variants are not exact synonyms. Electrogravitics is the oldest and broadest, coined in the Brown lineage for an electricity–gravity coupling; electromagnetogravitics and magnetogravitics extend the claim from electrostatic to full electromagnetic and magnetic field configurations; electrogravitic propulsion names the application rather than the principle. The mid-1950s trade and industry literature used a further vocabulary now largely abandoned — gravity control, G-engines, electrostatic motion, counterbary, dynamic counterbary, and barycentric control, the last three appearing in the title of the 1956 Aviation Studies International survey, Electrogravitics Systems: An Examination of Electrostatic Motion, Dynamic Counterbary, and Barycentric Control. Later terminology, arising from a different institutional lineage, prefers inertial mass reduction and spacetime metric engineering — formulations that describe modifying a body's inertia or its local metric rather than opposing gravitation directly.

Two boundaries matter for what the field is taken to contain. The first separates electrogravitics from the Biefeld–Brown effect: the effect is one specific, reproducible laboratory observation — a net force on a charged asymmetric capacitor — whereas electrogravitics is the interpretation of that observation as gravitational, together with the whole programme of engineering built on the interpretation. A body of work accepts the effect while rejecting the electrogravitic reading of it, and the two therefore cannot be treated as the same subject. The second separates electrogravitics from electrohydrodynamics, the conventional and uncontested physics of forces on ionized fluids, which produces genuine thrust in air by a mechanism that involves no gravitational coupling whatever and which supplies the leading alternative account of every atmospheric demonstration in the field.

The claimed coupling

The unification of electromagnetism and gravitation has been an unsolved problem in physics since Einstein's 1915 general theory of relativity, and electrogravitics is best characterized as the claim that the unification is not merely formal but technologically exploitable. On the account given within the field, James Clerk Maxwell's original field equations contained coupling terms between electromagnetic potentials and spacetime geometry that were allegedly discarded when Oliver Heaviside and Gibbs reformulated them into the four-equation vector set taught today — a reduction which, on this view, severed a formal link between electromagnetism and gravitation that the original quaternion formalism had encoded, and with it the theoretical route to engineering the one with the other. The historical claim about the reformulation is contested on its own terms and is not a mainstream reading of the development of vector calculus.

The mechanism proposed for the coupling varies with the lineage. In the Brown lineage the coupling is electrostatic and the observable is a directional force: a charged capacitor is said to be urged toward its positive pole, so that a unit suspended on a pendulum reportedly swings toward whichever direction the positive plate faces, and units mounted on a pivot reportedly rotate continuously while charged. In the later lineage the coupling is dynamic rather than static, requiring accelerated charged matter: Salvatore Pais's patent disclosures for the U.S. Navy describe high-frequency vibration or rotation of a charged hull or plasma to generate energy densities sufficient to perturb the local metric and so suppress inertia. Tom Valone, a patent examiner at the USPTO who published two volumes on the subject, treats the difference as decisive rather than incidental, distinguishing pulsed electrogravitics from the continuous direct-current configurations Brown used and arguing that the pulsed approach is far more effective and the likelier basis for any classified application.

The Superforce and metric coupling

The one quantitative relation the field's recent literature offers is due to Salvatore Pais of the U.S. Naval Air Station Patuxent River, who proposed that the relation between electromagnetism and spacetime curvature is carried by what he termed the Superforce — a unified force existing as an energy gradient at every point in spacetime, obtained by dimensional scaling of Einstein's gravitational field equations:

FSuperforce = c4/G ≈ 1.2 × 1044 N

where c is the speed of light and G the gravitational constant. The quantity is the Planck force, a standard combination in Planck units whose appearance in general relativity is uncontroversial; what is contested is the further claim that it names a physically available reservoir rather than a unit of measure. Because the gradient is held to be present everywhere at the Planck scale (10−35 m), Pais argued that coupling to it through the accelerated vibration of charged plasma could locally distort spacetime geometry and reduce the effective inertial mass of an enclosed craft — reportedly requiring electromagnetic energy fluxes on the order of 1033 W/m² and spin rates approaching 104 rad/s.

This connects the field to spacetime metric engineering proper. The Alcubierre metric (1994) supplies a mathematical basis for a warp drive within general relativity, describing a geometry that contracts space ahead of a craft and expands it behind so that the craft moves without local acceleration; Hal Puthoff, who directed the Defense Intelligence Agency programme that preceded AATIP from the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, has described metric engineering as the propulsion physics most consistent with the reported manoeuvring of UAP — right-angle turns at high Mach, absence of sonic booms, apparent inertia-less acceleration. On this account electrogravitics supplies the actuator and metric engineering the description: a sufficiently intense rotating electromagnetic field that couples to the metric would place the craft in a modified geometry, so that the apparent violations of Newtonian mechanics would require no physics beyond general relativity. David Chester, a quantum gravity research scientist, has argued along parallel lines that UAP flight characteristics are consistent with electrogravitics extended into a quantum-gravity framework, in which curvature is manipulated at the quantum level.

Vacuum coupling and mass cancellation

A second proposed mechanism routes the coupling through the zero-point energy of the quantum vacuum rather than through the metric directly. Mark McCandlish has proposed that an electrogravitic system absorbs vacuum energy and prevents it from interacting with the atomic structure of the vehicle, so that the craft's effective inertial mass falls — a state he termed mass cancellation — while the absorbed energy is fed back into the propulsion system's capacitors. The proposed feedback loop — mass cancellation reducing the energy needed for further acceleration, which in turn deepens the cancellation — is the mechanism by which a very low input power is said to suffice for extreme velocity, McCandlish citing two 24-volt marine batteries as the input to a craft capable of light speed or beyond. The coupling agent is identified as scalar or longitudinal electromagnetic waves: pulsed Tesla coil discharges into the capacitor array are said to produce longitudinal waves that form a barrier against the zero-point flux, reducing inertia.

The vacuum-coupling proposal carries the field's sharpest theoretical liability and its sharpest reply. A device drawing more energy from its environment than it is supplied would breach the conservation of energy if the system were closed; the answer offered within the field is that the vacuum is an open reservoir rather than part of the closed system, so that no conservation law is engaged — an answer that stands or falls entirely with the reality of the proposed coupling, and which concedes the objection if the coupling is not there. On the third reading of the field, this is where the misidentification would lie: an anomaly genuinely rooted in quantum vacuum interaction — the direction Michels points when he ties the founding effect to Puthoff's vacuum-fluctuation work — would be neither gravity control nor a violation of thermodynamics, but would have been mislabelled as both.

The ion-wind question

The persistent objection to every atmospheric demonstration in the field is that the observed thrust is ion wind — momentum transferred to neutral air by ions accelerated in the electric field — rather than any gravitational interaction. The objection is not marginal: it is the settled reading of the founding observation in the peer-reviewed literature, where corona discharge at the sharp electrode is held to account for the force in full. Its decisive test is whether thrust survives in vacuum, where there is no air to ionize.

Both outcomes are reported. Talley's 1990 Air Force Research Laboratory measurements at 10−6 torr found no thrust from electrodes similar to Brown's, and Tajmar's 2004 study enclosed the apparatus to exclude corona wind and observed no linear thrust. Against this, Valone cites an Air Force Research Laboratory investigation which he reports as concluding that ion wind "has been shown not to be a major contributor to the electrogravitic effect," and describes a military contractor at a space society conference in Orem, Utah, who allegedly confirmed on videotape having levitated a hockey puck with pulsed high voltage, quieting objections from conventional aerospace engineers on the panel. Brown's own vacuum results, obtained in France in 1956 and at Chapel Hill in 1957, are the historical pivot of the dispute and remain unreplicated in the open literature.

Independent replication at high voltage has been reported outside institutional settings. According to McCandlish, a researcher at the University of Tucson built a plate capacitor from quarter-inch copper plates driven by a high-voltage DC supply and achieved levitation at approximately one million volts; the apparatus was reportedly confiscated by personnel claiming authority under invention-secrecy legislation, and everyone who had seen the experiment was instructed not to discuss it. The single-disc configuration is said to have produced lift but not controllable flight, directional control purportedly requiring the capacitor array to be segmented into independently addressable sections. A confiscation of this kind is read within the field as the suppression model working as predicted; read from outside, an unreplicated result whose apparatus is no longer available is simply an unverifiable one, and neither reading can claim the episode as decisive.

Applications

Main article:

Corporate electrogravitics programmes

The applications attributed to electrogravitics fall into three general classes, of which only the third has any acknowledged operational instance. The specific corporate, national, and classified programmes said to have pursued them are treated in detail at Corporate electrogravitics programmes and, for the German lineage, at Electrogravitics development in Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany.

The first and central class is propulsion: lift and thrust without reaction mass, moving parts, or combustion. This is what Project Winterhaven proposed to the U.S. Navy in 1952 in the form of a Mach-3 electrostatically propelled disc, and it is the application attributed to the human-built reverse-engineered craft said to have been developed under black programmes, among them the TR-3B and the ARV Flux Liner. McCandlish's account of the latter describes a toroidal capacitor array energized by a central nuclear source, generating an amplified electromagnetic field that reduces the craft's gravitational interaction — the general electrogravitic architecture applied to a specific vehicle. Within this class the claimed capability ranges from atmospheric flight through interplanetary transit to the superluminal regime, the higher end resting entirely on the mass-cancellation feedback mechanism rather than on any demonstrated thrust.

The second class is power generation. Because the vacuum-coupling account has the system drawing energy from the zero-point field as a condition of reducing inertia, the same architecture is presented as a clean energy source independent of its propulsive use — the application most often named as the reason for the field's alleged suppression, on the argument that it would displace existing energy markets and transportation industries outright. No demonstrated device of this class exists in the public record.

The third class is drag reduction and boundary-layer control, and it is the one with a claimed real-world instance. Michels has described a former deputy chief technology officer of Northrop Grumman — who reportedly also served as the Army representative to the UAP Task Force alongside David Grusch — confirming that Brown's work informed the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, though expressly not the gravitational component: what allegedly transferred was the electro-hydrodynamic effect, which reduces drag and improves boundary-layer control at altitude. Aviation journalist Bill Scott wrote in Aviation Week around the aircraft's early-1990s unveiling that "the B-2 surfs its own wave and uses a Biefeld-Brown effect," and the aircraft's charged leading edge has since been cited, by Valone among others, as an operational electrogravitic system on an acknowledged platform.

The B-2 case is where the three readings of the field separate most cleanly on a single piece of evidence. Read as vindication, a classified derivative of Brown's work flies today. Read as refutation, an aircraft using a known electrohydrodynamic effect for drag reduction demonstrates precisely the conventional mechanism that the gravitational interpretation was invoked to replace. Read as misidentification — the reading Michels himself gives, and the one that accounts for both the transfer and the absence of any gravity-control capability — something real did pass from Brown's laboratory into production aerospace, and it was never the anti-gravity part.

History

The field's documented history runs from the early 1920s to the present in a characteristic shape: three decades of individual experiment, a brief and conspicuous burst of open industrial research in the mid-1950s, an abrupt and simultaneous disappearance from the public record around 1957, and a long silence broken only by patent filings and insider testimony. Whether that shape records a classification event or a research programme that simply failed is the question on which the field's three readings turn, and it cannot be settled from the shape alone.

Claimed prehistorical use

A substantial body of the literature holds that electrogravitic flight is not a twentieth-century invention but a recovery, and that the principle was in use both by non-human intelligences operating on Earth in deep antiquity and by the human high civilizations said to have been erased by cyclical cataclysm. The vimana accounts of the Sanskrit corpus, describing self-luminous flying vehicles that manoeuvre without visible propulsion, are read within the field as a cultural memory of the same flight regime electrogravitics proposes to recover, as are the megalithic construction anomalies attributed to some form of weight cancellation.[citation needed] On this account the mid-century American programmes were re-derivation rather than discovery, and the technical assistance said to have reached twentieth-century programmes from non-human sources — as alleged of the Vril Society's receipt of technical specifications in the German lineage — is continuous with a far older transfer. This strand has no experimental content and is not evidentially continuous with the laboratory lineage below; it is set out here because it is a live and widely held position within the field, not because the two bodies of claim support one another.

Pre-war precursors

Nikola Tesla's high-voltage, high-frequency resonance experiments at Colorado Springs and Wardenclyffe Tower reportedly produced anomalous mechanical effects that he attributed to longitudinal waves in the ether — the precursor to the scalar claim later systematized by Thomas Bearden, and the earliest strand of the lineage. Working independently in the early 1920s with physicist Paul Alfred Biefeld at Denison University in Ohio, Thomas Townsend Brown observed that a heavily charged asymmetric capacitor produces thrust toward its positive pole, and spent the following three decades attempting to establish that the observation was electrogravitic rather than ionic — conducting vacuum-chamber tests directed at the ion-wind objection and building tethered disc-shaped models that reportedly flew in circular patterns. Brown joined Martin Corporation in 1943, the year Skunk Works was established, placing him inside the aerospace industry a decade before the open research phase began.

1950–1952: Navy demonstrations and Project Winterhaven

In the early 1950s Brown demonstrated his flying disc models to U.S. Navy officials and Lockheed representatives, and in 1952 submitted Project Winterhaven — a formal proposal for a Mach-3 disc aircraft using electrostatic propulsion. Brown reportedly pursued classified electrogravitics research through the Office of Naval Research alongside the Winterhaven proposal. The two accounts of what followed are not easily reconciled, and they correspond directly to two of the field's readings. On the public record the Navy showed no interest and declined funding, which on the first reading is simply what happens to a proposal resting on a misattributed laboratory artefact. On the account given by Michael Salla and others, the declination was nominal: the work was absorbed into classified channels at once and Brown was instructed to cease public research.

Brown's collaboration with the physicist and industrialist Agnew Bahnson belongs to the same period, the two conducting extended experiments on what they termed "electrographic propulsion" and presenting the results to the Navy; 16 mm film shot by Bahnson's daughter, originally titled Daddy's Laboratory, purportedly documents small discs levitating amid visible electrical discharge. Brown's assistant James F. King Jr. filed a patent in 1960, secured in 1967, for a device using the radially oriented capacitor plates and circumferential coils that later appear in the alien reproduction vehicle design.

1954–1956: the open-literature phase

Main article:

Corporate electrogravitics programmes

By 1954 the major American aerospace corporations had electrogravitics programmes running in the open, and the scale of the phase is what makes it hard to read as a fringe episode: as Michels puts it, "anti-gravity in the fifties was loose in the wind — it was everywhere." Nick Cook, then aviation editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, identified Bell Aircraft as the most active contractor, with a line back to German scientists brought over under Operation Paperclip who had worked on the Die Glocke programme. The 1956 Aviation Studies International survey catalogued active programmes at fourteen contractors — among them Boeing, General Electric, Bell, Martin, Convair, Northrop, Lockheed, Douglas, Hiller, Sikorsky, Lear, Sperry-Rand, Curtiss-Wright, and North American Aviation — and concluded that electrogravitic disc aircraft were achievable within five to ten years.

The institutional focus of the phase was Martin Corporation's Research Institute for Advanced Studies (RIAS), whose representative at the 1957 Institute of Field Physics conference at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was the physicist Louis Witten; the conference was sponsored by Wright Field, the historical centre of American reverse-engineering work, and drew Northrop, Lockheed, and Martin alike. Parallel work ran at Douglas Aircraft Company, where, according to the Tompkins testimony, an Advanced Design group under Dr. Wolfgang Klemperer spent some seven years developing "unconventional propulsion schemes" — ion, electromagnetic, and anti-gravity systems intended to replace rockets for interplanetary missions — in collaboration with Dr. H. E. Salzer, and applied them to designs for kilometre-long naval spacecraft under "Alien Threat File Number 44022," with the stated intention that every ship in a space battle group be electromagnetically or antigravitically powered. Tompkins placed the effort in a far wider frame, describing "the 1,442 all over the planet" — a global population of scientists and engineers allegedly working to skip rockets in favour of electromagnetic antigravity propulsion "in a way that defies even Einstein's theories" — a figure that, if anywhere near right, would put the named American programmes at the visible edge of something much larger.

1956–1959: classification and disappearance

Within months of the Aviation Studies survey, contractor research ceased public activity across the board, and by 1957–1959 the open-literature stream documented by Cook in The Hunt for Zero Point — reports from the Gravity Research Foundation, from Convair and Glenn L. Martin, and from government laboratories including Wright-Patterson Air Force Base — had vanished. Cook reads the simultaneity as a coordinated classification directive rather than a scientific dead end, on the argument that independent programmes failing independently would have wound down at different times and left different traces; the competing reading, equally available from the same fact, is that a fashionable line of research collapsed at once when the underlying effect failed to reproduce. No corporate history of any listed firm has since acknowledged the involvement.

The classification account has one named channel. Wilbert Smith, the Canadian magneticist who ran Project Magnet and reportedly conducted research and development for Vannevar Bush at Washington National Labs, allegedly found that UAP work — and with it the associated propulsion research — was classified two levels above the hydrogen bomb, the highest classification he had encountered. On Michels's account Smith was the conduit through which Brown's results reached that level: once Smith reported that Brown had produced electrogravitic thrust in a vacuum, the programme was allegedly elevated into the deep classification structure, which would make the field's disappearance a consequence of its having worked rather than of its having failed. Brown was himself reportedly read into classified programmes in the same period. On the account given within the field, the work continued thereafter exclusively within Special Access Programs, with no further open literature for decades.

A documentary trace of the transition survives at Northrop. Floyd Odlum, the majority investor in the pre-merger firm, had been funding Brown's research in Santa Monica; the programme was terminated in 1967, and three months later Northrop published a paper on "electroaerodynamics" in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics archive — a paper subsequently retracted, which disappeared from the record shortly before the B-2 programme began.

Post-war transfers and alleged escape operations

The German lineage enters the American story through Operation Paperclip, which transferred over 1,600 German scientists to the United States together with captured technical files from the Silesian propulsion projects, and through the Die Glocke and Haunebu programmes to which Bell Aircraft's standing as the most active contractor is traced. Beyond the documented transfer, allegations persist that electrogravitic research continued in remote locations after Germany's defeat: that scientists used electrogravitic craft to reach Argentina and the New Swabia region of Antarctica, and thence off-world destinations including the Moon, Mars, and Ceres, the resulting capability being folded into American military-industrial black projects.[citation needed]

Commercialization and publicity efforts

Main article:

Commercialization of electrogravitic propulsion

Plans for the widespread commercial deployment of electrogravitic propulsion were reportedly entertained during the 1950s as a means of transforming transportation, and a parallel strand of activity has been read as public conditioning rather than engineering. According to Dan Willis and Steven Greer, a series of incidents through the 1950s and 1960s functioned as advance publicity for an electrogravitic propulsion industry then expected to become public — campaigns intended to acclimate the public to the technology, tied to corporate initiatives and, in some accounts, to extraterrestrial technology recovered from incidents of the Roswell type. The last publicly attempted civilian programme was Otis T. Carr's OTC-X1 circular craft (1955–1961), built on claimed Tesla-derived knowledge and reaching a claimed 45-foot prototype test around 1959 before being shut down by federal fraud prosecution. The prosecution admits both readings without strain: a fraud conviction is what a fraudulent device attracts, and it is also the standard instrument by which an inventor working outside the classified structure is removed from the field.

Later developments

After the open literature closed, the field's public output consisted of patents, testimony, and reconstruction rather than published experiment. Valone's two volumes on electrogravitics and his pulsed-versus-DC distinction date from this period, as does the reported Orem hockey-puck demonstration. Hal Puthoff's classified paper on spacetime metric engineering was submitted to AATIP, and the Defense Intelligence Agency commissioned a series of papers on warp drive, dark energy, and traversable wormholes that were declassified in 2019. Between 2016 and 2019 Salvatore Pais filed at least four patents for the U.S. Navy explicitly describing craft achieving inertial mass reduction through electromagnetic field manipulation, including "Craft Using an Inertial Mass Reduction Device" (U.S. patent 10,144,532); they were granted over examiner scepticism after the Navy argued that apparent Chinese progress made a public statement of intent strategically necessary, and Pais has maintained that the disclosures describe achievable near-term technology and that "the physics is real." That a service branch filed and defended such patents is read within the field as the first institutional acknowledgement that the lineage produced viable physics; read otherwise, a granted patent certifies novelty and not operability, and no device answering to the disclosures has been demonstrated.

Timeline

Mainstream physics assessment

Mainstream physics does not recognize electrogravitics as a field, and on the English Wikipedia the term redirects to the Biefeld–Brown effect entry, where it is treated as an anti-gravity hypothesis whose underlying laboratory observation has a conventional explanation. The conclusions of the peer-reviewed and institutional literature are consistent on the specific experimental question. Talley's 1990 work at the Air Force Research Laboratory measured no thrust in 10−6 torr vacuum from electrodes similar to Brown's; the Tajmar 2004 AIAA Journal study enclosed the electrode apparatus in a box suspended on wires to exclude the corona-wind contribution and observed no linear thrust; and the 2024 follow-up by Tajmar, Kößling and Neunzig in Scientific Reports found no coupling between gravity and electromagnetism under steady-field conditions. The 2003 U.S. Army Research Laboratory technical report by Bahder and Fazi attributed the atmospheric thrust to corona discharge and ion wind rather than to new physics, a conclusion echoed by the NASA contractor study of Canning, Melcher and Winet (2004), which found that the effect "is generally believed to rely on corona discharge," and a 2014 review in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science concluded that the anti-gravity interpretation "has been scientifically disproved."

The same literature is unambiguous that the underlying force is real and technologically useful under its conventional description. Electrohydrodynamics is an established discipline, asymmetrical capacitor thrusters are a working atmospheric propulsion method, and the 2014 review that rejects the anti-gravity reading is itself a review of electrohydrodynamic applications. The mainstream position is therefore not that nothing happens, but that what happens is ion wind — which is why the third of the field's readings, that a real effect has been misidentified rather than invented, is the one on which the two bodies of literature come closest to describing the same thing.

Open questions

See also

• Biefeld–Brown effect
• Corporate electrogravitics programmes
• Electrogravitics development in Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany
• Aviation Studies International electrogravitics survey (1956)
• Suppression of exotic physics
• Gravity manipulation
• Zero-point energy extraction
• Pais Effect
• Casimir effect
• Hutchison effect
• Heim theory
• Repulsine
• Viktor Schauberger
• Die Glocke

References

Source ratings:

(Color-coding) (

[1 Wikipedia-grade]

·

[2 Questionable]

·

[3 Reporting/Analysis]

·

[4 Speculative/Hearsay]

·

[5 Ungrounded]

). (To change source ratings,

edit this page

.)