Gravity Shielding

he most robust laws of physics are those of thermodynamics. They have been tested so thoroughly that any deviation from expectation would be viewed as the collapse of physics alltogether.

Such is the consequence of any proposed (recent) gravity shielding:

Any mechanism whereby gravity is negated and a mass is lifted through a gravitational gradient without paying the energy bill for the upload.
Clearly, the creation of any sort of a gravity shield would allow us to transport a mass to some height (x) then turn off the shield and drop the mass back down where it came from while extracting energy in any of the standard fashions.

A gravity shield is, therefore,
a perpetual motion machine

(thinly disguised).

Of course, we might speculate that the amount of energy required to create the gravity shield was a function of the height to which we raise the weight. But this is analogous to (though not a function of) a simple rocket whose lifting capacity corresponds to the height lifted (with many other considerations).

Finally, let us suppose that an electromagnetic shield of the type recently proposed were feasible and that the relationship between that field and the gravitational field was a direct one ... and ... somehow not a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

Then we must necessarily conclude that the "Einsteinian Holy Grail" of physics has been found - The Unified Field Theory.

There can be no middle ground here.

A gravity shield requires (absolutely):

  • The abandonment of all the known laws of physics (as an integrated entity)


  • The achievement of a proper Unified Field Theory (one which raises a weight in a G-field and releases it without allowing us to generate energy in excess of what it took to raise it (a technologically useless tool).
This is why the physics community does not even wish to look at such an idea.

"Take your place with the seekers after gold"
- Leonardo DaVinci

Next Page

Ebtx Home Page