Forget everything you have ever read about “antigravity”.  There is more gravity or less gravity or even expanding space, but no such thing as “antigravity”. 

Everything else on the subject deals with attempts to “trick” or divert gravity with electromagnetism and/or superconductors.

Those approaches are futile and produce miniscule effects at best.  That is not the way the universe works. 

If you stop to think about it, all of our major advances were adapted from something observed in nature.  Whether it was lodestone magnets, lightening, or the nuclear powered sun, nature always did it first.

One of the rules of nature is that "if it can happen, it will".  If gravity shields were possible they would have to exist somewhere in nature and we should have found them before now, right? 

Well, yes and no.  They do exist in nature but were not recognized as such because we were looking on the wrong scale and still did not really understand the mechanism of gravity itself.

As shown on the Gravity & Strong Force page, gravity shields do exist in the nucleus and are extremely effective.

Who has not dreamt of being able to effortlessly lift anything?

Transportation of all types would require only gravity for motion.  We would no longer waste fossil fuels in the continuous fight against gravity.  Launches and space travel would be revolutionized. 

The only way to make gravity pull an object in any chosen direction is to shield it from gravity in unwanted direction(s).  This is not a ‘something for nothing’ situation and conservation of energy is not violated. Energy to lift an object shielded from earth is in the form of gravity pulls from everything else, i.e. the distant stars.  

Effortlessly lifting water or even sand, and letting it fall on a wheel or turbine would generate electricity.  The applications are limited only by the imagination.

OK, so gravity shielding exists between nucleons but that is still of no practical use to us.  Could we somehow scale up this phenomenon to macro proportions?

If one particle were a shield then a whole bunch of closely spaced particles would also be effective.  We cannot use the nucleus as a whole for a shield however, because it has mass.  Even if we somehow packed millions together, the shield would weigh more than what we are trying to shield.

In addition, even if we could do that, the result would be dangerous.  If you think U232 has a big, ungainly nucleus, a whole bunch of ordinary nuclei pressed together would be unstable to say the least.

What we need are aggregations of closely spaced particles, something like a nucleus, but without mass.  "What", you say, "such things don't exist, do they?"  Fortunately, nature has already tried everything and very long ago it came up with just that.

Large and small aggregations of particles of matter already do exist in nature.  The fact that they are stable and appear without mass to the outside world however, also makes them almost invisible and totally inert.

Make no mistake about it, we may not have noticed them yet but they are real particles, right here in our space.  (Notice that there is no need to invoke umpteen dimensions, alternate universes, or 2d holographic projections where gravity is said to “materialize” only with the illusory third dimension).

If you can't see something in the dark, all you have to do is feel around.  That is the case here; it is very difficult to detect an aggregation with radiation or any

of the forces that act over distance. You could nevertheless see the profile of an aggregation if it is large enough to block light from behind, and feel it when you capture it between your fingers.

How many times have you heard about particles 'materializing' out of the quantum soup?  The fact is that scientists have no idea what 99% of the universe is made of.  Following the Big Bang, 73% became Dark Energy.  Only 1% became visible matter (including what we are made of).  Another 6% became Dark Matter, and 20% became invisible and inert Aggregations.  The latter range in size from simple pairs, to much more complex aggregations.  The maximum size is yet to be determined. 

Let us first examine the simplest and most common aggregation – an electron and positron. Accelerators produce electrons and their antimatter twins, positrons. When brought together, scientists witnessed the particles disappear, and energy appears in the form of photons.  Scientists then proclaimed that the particles “annihilated” and were converted to energy.  The fact is that the particles were not “annihilated” but only invisible.

Here is what really happened when particle met anti-particle, presented in the schematic form of Figure 1:

A particle of matter is always accompanied by an amount of energy proportional to its size and density.  The energy is in the form of pulls by continuous, one-dimensional links in all directions; to anything near or far.

When an electron meets its own anti-particle the positron, it is a match made in heaven.  They have the

same mass and hence the same number of energy links.  Because they are of opposite charge, the number of extra links established outgoing matches the number of extra links established incoming on the mate particle.  For every link sourced by one particle there is a corresponding termination on the other.

So why bother linking to distant bodies?  The particles instead release all external links and establish new ones strictly devoted to each other.

Without links to the outside world they are totally cut off and almost totally immune to the chaos and entropy of the restless matter and forces we now call "normal".  The particles are now “untouchable” by low energy radiation, next to invisible, without weight or inertia, and totally inert.   They just float around aimlessly in an inertial reference frame. 

The links abandoned to distant bodies let go with a ‘snap’ and this is the energy released as photons.

If the electron-positron pair are not “annihilated”, can we prove that they still exist by bringing them back?  Yes, absolutely we can. 

Because they are so small and “untouchable” by light or low energy radiation, it would be a fluke to find the exact same pair just formed.  We can however, re-separate any of countless other identical pairs.  All it takes is high velocity particles of matter to wedge the invisible pair apart.  It is a hit and miss operation but easy enough when scientists use their accelerators to fire beams of many particles at each other. 

Some invisible pairs are bound to get caught between numerous speeding particles.  (Or even between a particle and a target).

The same thing happens all the time when a hapless pair gets caught between high energy cosmic particles “rays”.

Scientists love to say this is “random materialization out of the quantum soup”.  In a way it is, but only the mechanism described can account for the fact that these particles and anti-particles always appear as separated pairs.

Larger aggregations of various sizes are mixtures of both particles and antiparticles of every type.  Things like mass and charge are ideally distributed among contiguous and surrounding adjacent particles.  Everything works out even and it is a perfect match all around.  It is so perfect that there is zero probability of links forming to the outside world.

Like star-crossed lovers, the particles devote all links to each other and are oblivious to everything else.

There is also zero probability of any normal force interaction or radiation.  "Unlikely", you may think?

Quite the opposite, immediately following the Big Bang every type of particle was in abundance and ready to enter one of these perfect unions.  This has been the natural and preferred organization ever since.

Everything else became the minority leftover, including the first atoms of hydrogen and helium.

Again, the clues were not recognized.  The most dramatic evidence followed introduction of more powerful accelerators.  Very energetic particles are now routinely collided head on and produce electron-positron pairs, or a whole spray of massive particles from what seems to be ‘nothing’.

Conventional wisdom is that the new particles are “created” from energy of the colliding particles.   No matter how big and expensive their accelerators may be, physicists are still not Gods!  

Einstein never said that energy could be converted to matter!  Einstein simply said that mass and energy are equivalent; period.  It was others who mistakenly substituted the term “matter” and read things into it about conversion.  Mass was originally defined as the measure of a body’s inertia.  Mass is actually the pull of links so intimately associated with matter; not the matter itself. 

In hindsight it is almost axiomatic to say that the pull of links equals energy. 

The fact is that particles in the spray were not “created”.  They were always there in the form of an invisible, inert aggregation.

An aggregation that has no inertia is merely brushed aside when struck by a single high energy particle.  When caught in the cross fire of high speed particles however, there is no escape. Two very energetic colliding particles can wedge the aggregation apart, destroying its perfect balance (Anim. 1).

It took tremendous energy to accelerate the colliding particles to relativistic speeds.  Those particles in turn, acquired a lot of kinetic energy (cones of pulls on their ‘forward’ faces).  The equivalent mass produced is the pull of links on particles from the smashed aggregation (now directed elsewhere).

Consider that if the energy of colliding particles really “created” matter; it would be one big particle or just a few to make up an odd value of mass.

That is not the case however.  Since the sprays contain a whole ‘zoo’ of particles, they must have come from an aggregation formed as far back as the Big Bang.

When the earth collides with large aggregations, they glance off atmospheric particles.  Being without inertia, they cannot penetrate the earth’s atmosphere very far.  To the extent they do slip into denser atmosphere, they are displaced outward because they are also weightless.

“If inert aggregations at least the sizes of peas exist in space then how come no astronaut or robotic rover has ever seen one?  There have been plenty of space walks around the shuttle or ISS, and even on the moon, but no such reports were ever made public.”

One must remember that this is no ordinary matter.   If large aggregations were that easy to see, scientists would not still be wondering what most of the matter in the universe is made of. 

Normal matter interacts in at least one of the following ways with EM radiation: a) emits, b) absorbs, c) passes/transparent, d) reflects/ re-emits.

None of the above apply to our inert aggregations however!  The closest they come to an "interaction" with light or gravity is to deny it termination so it detours away.  Unlike normal reflection, light is not ‘tied’ to a re-emitting electron or identifiable with the ‘inhospitable’ aggregation.  To an observer, these aggregations are absolutely black and featureless. 

Space is also black, so an astronaut has only a brief chance to see one in silhouette as it comes between him/her and an illuminated object.  Secondly, being able to see one actually represents an impossibly narrow window of opportunity.

An astronaut, spacecraft or our moon is always moving at thousands of km/h through local space.   

The inert aggregations on the other hand, just ‘want’ to stay wherever you leave them, and float around aimlessly in an inertial reference frame.  Collisions between a speeding astronaut and these blobs without inertia however; are less violent than a pillow crashing into cream puffs.  The aggregations are effortlessly brushed aside or roll off and are left behind.  

Because the astronaut’s fast motion is unchanged, the aggregations apparently recede at very high speed (immediately and without acceleration). 

As an astronaut could you spot a ‘pea’ pass in front of you at such speed?

That is why no one has had the opportunity to see or hold one yet.  A special mechanism such as the one described below is required to capture some large aggregations and return them to earth for study.

There is unfortunately little motivation for scientists to really go after that unknown 73% of matter in the universe.  When the predicted natural form of this unknown matter is found, it would be like trying to patent a natural substance like gold and you can’t even stake a claim because it is everywhere in space. 

Science, Government and Industry need a longer range vision to realize that when desperate enough to fix global problems, contemporary propulsion and power generation methods could be rendered obsolete.

It is difficult to predict what the maximum size of these aggregations might be or their distribution in space but we simply cannot afford to ignore them. 

There is a lot of space out there but the shuttle or ISS cuts a convoluted and amazingly long sampling swath through it.  The spacecraft hurtles along with earth and

the whole local group of galaxies at approximately 1.66 million km per hour toward the center of the Virgo cluster and an unknown “great attractor”.

Large aggregations may be rare because it takes so many particles to make an aggregation of atomic size; on the other hand, there was an infinite supply right after the big bang.  Let us also not forget the mother of all aggregations – a neutron star.

A certain percentage of the large aggregations would have been broken up if they got caught between colliding cosmic particles.  There has been plenty of time since the Big Bang but there is also plenty of space to avoid such rare collisions.  Large and small aggregations are also replaced by Supernovae so distribution may not be even, but they would still be everywhere in space.  It is now up to us to find out for sure and go get some.

Is it not ironic but somehow predictable that we have to go into space first, to get the stuff we need to revolutionize space operations? 

Various collection mechanisms should be tried over a long test period.  Getting above our atmosphere requires climbing to at least 88 km, which is within the upper range of a new class of blimps designed for surveillance and communications.  Several are to be launched in the next few years by companies such as 21^st Century Airships of Newmarket, ON and Telesphere Comms. of Atlanta, GA.  It would be more expensive but probably better to hang an experiment package outside the shuttle or space station. 

Unfortunately, collector exposure would have to be limited because of all the space junk in LEO.  A more distant mission designed for recovery would be even better.

Aerogel is a silicon-based solid, made for the space program by JPL and could be our collection medium.  Light blue in colour, it has a porous sponge-like structure in which 99.8% of the volume is empty space. 

Getting our quarry into the aerogel is not as simple as it might seem.  Wispy as the gel is, an aggregation colliding with it will still not penetrate because it has absolutely no inertia.  A mechanism is required, something like the following:

a) Space particles are allowed to collect in redundant cylindrical cavities several cm deep.  The cavities are incrementally re-oriented to ensure their apertures sometimes face aggregations floating in an inertial reference frame.  Aeorgel fills the bottom ¼ of each cavity.

b) Tampers of matching diameter are inserted into the cavities;

anything in the cavities is pressed into the aerogel and captured. 

c) The tampers are then removed.

d) A few minutes are allowed to collect more inert aggregations.

e) b,c,d are repeated.

NASA’s Stardust mission returned to earth in January ’06 after a 7-year round trip to comet Wild 2.  It succeeded in collecting ordinary dust from the comet and is also the first mission ever to return ordinary dust grains from interstellar space. 

A great feat in itself but alas, it had no mechanism to collect aggregations without inertia.  There is a small chance that some inert aggregations entered the tiny capsule before the door closed, but they would not have penetrated the aerogel.

Even if a few were floating around in the capsule, they would (in the absence of precautions) escape unnoticed as soon as it is opened in the lab.

At least we can take comfort in the fact that we are now ready with “microtweezers” and “micro-pickle forks” to extract aggregations from the aerogel. Ironically, these were not yet invented in 1999 when the stardust mission was launched.

“Of all the stuff brought back from space, how come these inert aggregations were not found before now?”  Capture requires the unique technique above, and any accidentally returned, escaped when a canister was opened.

The aerogel should be placed inside a small air filled but sealed enclosure (in case some aggregations get loose).  The interior of the enclosure must be completely white and well illuminated.  Tools such as tweezers, pliers, digital temperature probe, and a small heating element should be inside and manipulated robotically or with gloves sealed to the outside.

Inert aggregations must be carefully plucked from the aerogel.  Bear in mind that some aggregations may be no larger than small grains of black sand. 

To confirm it is an inert aggregation and not just space dust, perform simple tests: 

It will not melt or burn or glow with heat.  It will always appear to be at the same temperature as the measuring probe itself. 

Release the aggregation inside the sealed enclosure.

An inert aggregation released on earth will have two components of motion;

a) vertical displacement by the atmosphere

b) very fast motion in any direction (slowed by atmosphere) as a result of being left behind in an inertial reference frame.

Recover the little gem from the wall of the enclosure and package it with others for further tests.

When pressed together, will two aggregations re-organize their constituents into a larger and still inert aggregation?   

The aggregations can be arranged contiguously in one or more layers in a sealed package.  Only when the gaps between aggregations are closed does it become an effective gravity shield.  (Disperse aggregations in the aerogel have little effect during return to earth).

Handling the shield (with a tight grip) will take some getting used to.  The shield itself will try to zip away.  If secured, small objects placed on the shield will shoot up before falling to one side.  Using the shield to ‘fly’ an attached object will require keeping the shield between the object and earth (otherwise they will roll and crash). 

Small shields on trim surfaces are required for attitude control and forward motion.

We had to explore beyond our environment and go deep underground in order to get the minerals and fuel needed to begin exploring space.  Having crossed that threshold, we must now examine near space closely to get the inert matter needed to improve life on earth and travel on into deep space.

Once we have enough, we can make a weightless craft to return to space and collect as much as needed.  This would be the first space launch not using tons of dangerous fuel, wild acceleration and dangerous heating on re-entry.  With a stock of gravity shields, the inventions and applications would be limited only by our imagination.

The costs to collect a sample are very modest and the payoff benefits are potentially huge.  They probably would not publicize it anyway, but no space faring nation has announced any action to date.  

Private operator(s) may be able to conduct the experiment and prove the concept but not follow through to collect more samples on longer missions above LEO.  They could therefore not really “cash in” and governments(s) would predictably take over.

Without even the resources of a private space operator, I cannot independently prove this prediction either.  Only the government of a space-faring nation can take the necessary actions.

I have therefore chosen to simply ‘get the word out’ and pray that when government gets desperate enough to listen, readers will remind their Congressmen or MPs that this solution merits a try.

Deny personal credence if you like but your help is requested now more than ever.  Please tell friends and colleagues to “have a look at what some underdog has put on the web”. 

Whether coincidence or not, it is heartening to see many new ideas and concepts from these pages now being reflected in the writings of others.