Questions and Answers

In this page you can post your questions about Paul LaViolette’s work and the various theories discussed on  Currently Posting of Questions is Turned Off.

202 Responses to Questions and Answers

  1. Adrian Ellis says:

    I’ve found it a fascinating journey to think of the physical effects of SQK, from tectonic activity to anomalous stars. One area on which I haven’t seen comments is how SQK affects metrology. For example, one way that scientists calculate the Avogadro constant is by creating a high-precision silicon-28 sphere and measuring its weight. The scientists and engineers concerned are seeking an uncertainty of ten parts per billion with their creation, but are they facing an unseen challenge? SQK postulates that new matter appears in concentrations of existing matter and so new atoms would therefore be appearing in the silicon sphere all the time. It would be a tiny amount but the volume of the sphere is very precisely measured. My fun question is therefore; would enough new matter, according to SQK, appear in the silicon-28 sphere to be detectable by the metrologists? Would they be unwittingly measuring SQK at work in a laboratory and mistakenly concluding that it’s experimental error?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      No, how many billion years would you like to wait to see a particle emerge in your silicone sphere? I won’t give an exact calculation here, but it is a long time. If you are interested, you could go to the section of my book SQK where I discuss the matter creation rate within the Earth. Figure the Earth’s volume or mass and use that rate and scale down to your silicone sphere.

  2. Ben says:

    What’s a good introduction to Systems Theory? Just heard your interview on higherside chats where you suggested that every college/university student should first do 4 years of systems theory before going into specialization.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Some books are General System Theory by L. von Bertalanffy; The Relevance of General System Theory (E. Laszlo ed.), and A Systems View of the World by E. Laszlo. Also my book Genesis of the Cosmos contains some background in the first few chapters.

  3. John amans says:

    I apologise if you have already been asked this. What is your opinion of the electric universe theory. I wondered how it gelled with your theory?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I have not taken time to examine the theory. I prefer subquantum kinetics since it has such a high track record of verified predictions and is essentially a unified theory. I do however agree with their theory that moon craters may have been formed by solar plasma ejections (if I am remembering their theory correctly).

  4. John smith says:

    Hi Paul, I wanted to connect with you to discuss some research I am doing.

  5. Clara says:

    Hello Dr. Paul LaViolette,

    I would like to ask three questions:

    1. What is your opinion about et’s and the psychic phenomena? ( because you mention things like this in your work)
    2. Why do you think the galactic wave will look something like(if this is correct information) the Starfish explosion?
    3. Will a superwave also do something in the magnetic field in the human body?

    Thank you very much!

    With kind regards,


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Yes I believe in the existence of ETs since I have deciphered radio signals being sent to us by intelligent beings. Based on various disclosures it appears that 2 million currently live on the planet in hiding. But that is for you to find out what you can on the internet. As for psychic phenomena, I believe they are real. I have not said that the superwave will look like the Starfish nuclear explosion. All I said is that the superwave may carry an EMP on its forefront that has an effect similar to the Starfish explosion that caused a power blackout in Honolulu. The shift of the ambient galactic potential (rising) and the electron volley which also would cause a rising gravity potential (according to subquantum kinetics) will have psychological effects on humans and animals. Negative ions are healing. So this will tend to be positive. It could also boost psychic abilities in people. In an extreme rise of gravity potential could cause invisibility, as the Navy succeeded in doing in the infamous Phladelphia Project. Whether this will happen is anyone’s guess.

      • Clara says:

        Thank you very much! Do you think I can share my experience with you in private? I just want to share my experience, and you can think of it want you want, I do not need a reply . All I am asking is please read it. I can do it here if you do not publish the reaction or through an email. I think it might be important. Please do know I am very concrete en detailed and that I am a nobody who does not share it for fame or anything. I am just a person who is worried because of the experiences. Please consider it and read it very critical, if you want to. That is why I also aksed about you opinion about the psychic phenomena. I know anybody can say it, but what I want to share, really happend. And not just in my head. I tried to research it the best way that I could and I do not just assume things.

        Thank you!

      • Adrian Ellis says:

        It’s a very interesting point that this gravity super-wave may also have spiritual effects. It’s worth noting, on that subject, that Hopi legends say that the time of the Blue Star Kachinka (probably the galactic core X-ray wave) and the Red star Kachinak will be a time of spiritual transformation, where spirits of the dead become visible. Other predictions, such as relating to the Fatima Prophecies, talk of a rain of high energy particles in the near future, causing a critical challenge to human beings, where only a small minority, pure in heart, survive. It’s strange to connect spiritual challenges to high-energy physics, but as the ancient Hindu text, the Yoga Vashista says, ‘‘The world is nothing but a mere vibration of consciousness in space’. It looks as if our near future may be very interesting indeed. My money’s on something happening next month, but I really shouldn’t gamble…

  6. Pedro says:

    Is there any way to facilitate conceptualizing the ether in your model? In the book Genesis of The Cosmos it is compared to the “organic conception of space of whitehead”, is this a clue? Could I conceptualize it as a kind of living space?

    And how to conceptualize the X and Y ethers and their manifestations on the world?

    Thank you

  7. Armen Levonian says:

    Hi Paul,

    I just read:

    Although I have not seen (found) an actual paper, I find what is suggested to agree with subquantum kinetics.

    …from the article…
    “The idea of ​​negative matter was previously ruled out because it was thought that the material would be less dense as the universe expanded – something that did not support observations on dark matter.

    However, the Oxford team applied a new “creation sensor” to the model, allowing negative masses to be created continuously.

    The tensor shows that when more and more negative masses burst into existence, the new material – the negative mass liquid – is not diluted because of the expansion of the universe.”

    Thanks for your work.

    • Mr. Paul, why is it Subquantum Kinetics is not taught in Universities or any other educational institution. I’ll be the first student to enroll. Tnx

      • Paul LaViolette says:

        Because it entirely replaces physics as we know it, and becuase physics today does not want to change. Academic physicists today all want to be inquisition priests demanding obedience to their word. Unlike the Klu Klux Klan, they do not wear hoods. But they are not much better. The change will happen after the superwave when most of society as we know it today will have collapsed. Maybe in a few years I will begin to plan a course at a university. Nothing yet. Too many otherimportant things to do currently, like bringing down relativity theory with experimental results that are coming out.

        • Cory Mtpleasant says:

          Looking forward to the results regarding your current work on disproving the theory of relativity.
          Although I would also be interested in this course I am by no means at that point in my journey.
          I heard an interview you did with Greg Carlwood and of all the information, books, podcasts, etc. Your interview was filled with information and books I am currently working my way through.
          Being a First Nations when I hear someone speak of such information with clarity and understanding it resonates in a way where you could feel it was true what I was hearing.
          Knowing how valuable your time is and just wanting to say thank you I will say good day Dr.
          Thank you for your time and research, it is truly inspiring and will surely stand the test if time.

  8. David says:

    The “Cow” Supernova?”

    What the hell is that all about?

    Discovery image of AT2018cow – nicknamed The Cow by astronomers – acquired by the ATLAS telescopes. Image via Stephen Smartt/ATLAS.

    Space might seem unchanging as you stand on Earth looking up at the inky blackness, but it isn’t, always. Indeed, the stillness can be punctuated at times by immense explosions, such as when stars go supernova in brilliant bursts of light. Supernovae are common, relatively speaking. But now scientists have observed a new type of explosion in space, and so far they don’t have an explanation for it. A science team reported the explosion on June 17, 2018, in The Astronomer’s Telegram, which is an internet-based publication service for disseminating new astronomical information quickly. The discovery team then discussed the explosion in a June 22 article in the popular weekly science magazine New Scientist. They said they saw the immense flash coming to us from another galaxy, 200 million light-years away. And, they said, this flash must have been 10 to 100 times brighter than a typical supernova.

    The mysterious flash has been nicknamed The Cow by astronomers since it was listed as AT2018cow in a database, thanks to the randomized three-letter naming system.

    The asteroid-tracking ATLAS telescopes in Hawaii were the first to see the mystery explosion. At first, astronomers thought it originated in our own galaxy. They thought it might be what’s called a cataclysmic variable star, typically two stars orbiting one another and interacting in a way that increases the whole system’s brightness irregularly. But subsequent spectroscopic observations showed the explosion came from another galaxy – labeled CGCG 137-068 – located some 200 million light-years away in the direction of the constellation Hercules.

    As astronomer Kate Maguire of Queen’s University Belfast noted simply to New Scientist:

    It really just appeared out of nowhere.”

    David Mendenhall

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      While standard astrophysics has difficulty explaining this, such large energy outputs are entirely expected in subquantum kinetics which postulates that such stellar progenitors are powered by genic energy and had entered a mode of collapse and exponential energy increase.

  9. Adrian Ellis says:

    Thank you for your reply on July 27th, regarding the next galactic-core event and the Mesopotamian prophecy of ‘the Fox and the Rope of Heaven’. On a slightly different topic, have you heard of Przybylski’s Star? I mention it because Standard Physics states that stars should only have trace amounts of elements larger than iron in their cores, as fission overcomes fusion for larger elements than Fe. Any elements larger than iron can only be created in supernovae.

    Sub-quantum kinetics though, as far as I can understand from your books, postulates that larger elements than iron will be present in stellar cores, as the continual, new influx of matter would drive larger-element formation. Przybylski’s Star seems to prove sub-quantum kinetics to be correct, as it contains large amounts of transuranic elements, something that Standard Physics says is impossible. I had never heard of it until this week, which is annoying as it is a blatant refutation of the official view of stellar composition.

    You may already know about the star but I thought it was worth passing the information on, just in case.

    Best Regards, Adrian Ellis.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Yes, you are right. Przybylski’s star refutes standard theory and confirms SQK.
      Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

  10. Adrian Ellis says:

    In your book ‘Earth Under Fire’, you postulate that the periodic galactic super waves have entrained Earth’s axial precession. I first assumed that this would make the periodicity of the galactic super waves to be 25,800 years, the length of a Great Year, but then I realised that a galactic super wave periodicity of 12,900 years would also be able to create the same axial periodicity. Since the Younger Dryas Impact event was roughly 12,900 years ago, which a galactic super wave could have caused, it would seem that we may experience another super-wave very soon.

    I’ve also recently discovered that this possibility seems to be supported by an ancient Mesopotamian legend that ‘When the Fox finally gnaws through the Rope of Heaven, the present World-Age will come to a catastrophic end and the heavens will fall’. After some research, I’ve found evidence that the Fox is the star Polaris. and the Rope of Heaven is the celestial North Pole. What’s alarming is that the Fox’s closest approach to the Rope of Heaven, due to celestial precession, is in fact now. The Fox is gnawing at the Rope of Heaven as I write this.

    It would therefore seem that the Mesopotamians were warning us that the next global catastrophe would occur imminently, half-a-Great-Year from our last massive, celestial bombardment.

    Should we be preparing for this?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Yes, people should be prepared. I have always said that we are overdue for another superwave arrival event. Don’t know how intense it will be, but it should arrive soon. We know this from analyzing the periodicity of Be-10 peaks in the ice core record. Thank you for sharing the Mesopotamian legend.

  11. Dear Dr. LaViolette:

    I have just discovered your work through Genesis of the Cosmos and I am currently going through your textbook on SQK.

    What strikes me as amazing is that many of the dynamic properties of the seven sided Chestahedron in water and air discovered by Frank Chester can be explained by your seven variable Turing Reaction-Diffusion Model. The Chestahedron may symbolize the transmutative ether (Quintessence) and may be a Rosetta Stone/Cypher used by the ancients to construct their creation science. The golden mean and many other properties can be deduced

    Also the vortices produced by the bell shaped structured may produce levity and this may be the physical basis for antigravity propulsion.

    It has been discovered that it is the vortices in the heart that is responsible for the blood flow in the body, and the heart cannot produce the required propulsion to pump the blood around the body. It is the vortices of the blood that moves the heart and NOT the heart that moves the blood. This may be a case of cosmic biomimicry teaching us about how to harness the stored antigravity potential within the ether for clean energy propulsion.

    The Chestahedran may be the key.

    Frank Chester’s video is here, if you have not seen it already.

    Best regards,


  12. Kieran O'Flaherty says:

    If the paper cited by Julian Knight independently verifies the Hubble Constant by showing that gravity waves lose energy at the same rate as light, how is this consistent with tired light? Is it not more consistent with an expanding universe? How can light and gravity waves lose energy at the same rate under tired light?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      In SQK, a propagating gravity potential pulse should lose energy at the same rate as a photon. So both should exhibit the tired-light effect.

  13. Pedro M. says:

    Hello, I have read Genesis of the Cosmos and since I’m not trained in science, many things are unclear.

    1. Is the sub-quantum ether a kind of container that is like the set of all points in the universe?

    2. Since the X and Y ethers are the opposites which make up our world, can we say then that gravitation and radiation are like two different strains in the ether, one compressive and the other expansive?

    3. If the ether is the all encompassing substrate, what is the definition of space, and its relationship to space? Why are space and ether interlinked such that Einstein said that relativity needed the ether since space is endowed with physical properties? Does that mean that an ether theory forcefully postulates that space has properties?


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Answers to your questions:
      1. No
      2. No
      3. I agree with Tesla who said “I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties.” The ether resides in space, but space has only dimensions, not other properties.

  14. Jay says:

    Dr. LaViolette,
    I heard you on The Higherside Chats podcast and your interview connected some dots for me I’ve been researching for a while and I look forward to reading your works.

    On the show, Greg asked your thoughts on the hollow earth theory and while fun to explore, my question is somewhat related to it.

    I have a theory that there is something at the north pole the public does not know. From Adm. Byrd’s account of flying through a tunnel of water to end up in a lush green world to the current no fly areas and lack of convincing satellite images of the area, something seems suspicious

    The stories and lore surrounding the north pole are fascinating to me. I’ve brainstormed many possible things but I guess I need a scientist’s perspective.

    My theory is that it probably isn’t a physical opening but moreso some sort of anomaly or vortex created by the intense concentration of the magnetic field.

    I guess my question is would it be possible for a strong magnetic field to either manipulate gravity based on your theory of it and either created some sort of cloaking to bend light around a city or mountain (again, great NP stories out there) or even create a portal of sorts to breach through time, space and/or dimension?

    Or if any of that is theortically possible under the right circumstances and equipment. (The conspiracies of CERN come to mind,another topic I’d be interested to hear your opinion on.)

    I look forward to compiling your works to study. Thank you for your contributions.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      You make some interesting points. Who knows maybe there is a cover up. I have always felt this idea to be unlikely, but keep an open mind. If anyone can find an unphotoshopped picture of the north pole, maybe they could let us know. Plain magnetic fields should not cause cloaking. But cloaking technology does exist. See discussion of the Philadelphia Expt. in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.

  15. Michael Moore - not the political one says:

    Not so much a question but I heard you speak on the higherside chats. I thought your topics were great and interesting, the beginning of the recording of kings began at the end of the end of the last hominid species, the stars being artificial and guides or warnings. And I agree that science is way too close minded and the fact they won’t even consider possibilities unless it is mainstream goes against the whole definition as to what a scientist should be in my opinion, which is to consider all possibilities. I think what you talked about was great.

  16. David says:

    Dear paul,

    It seems we are due for something more significant in the year 2020, than the G2 Cloud.

    It appears that at the Galactic Core things are still happening, and yes is the answer to the old riddle if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, did it really fall? Yes

    Well I think the orbit of SO-102 around SO-2 is going to proof, that an (acceptable) Bonifide Certified Scientist is not needed to see an event for and event to actually occur.

    According to the information available, SO-102 has made 2,000 orbits around SO-2 in the past 23,000 years, and each of those orbits has lengthened the orbit time, as they are supposedly getting to be farther apart.

    Our The important question I suppose would be how wide does their orbit get before S)-102 doe not make the pass, and we have a collision?

    Our Bonfides tell us they expect a Gamma EVENT, and that our telescope will be able to see it…

    Perhaps Dr. LaViolette can expand on this CRYPTIC answer offered by the BONIFIDES

    Gamma Ray Events at Galactic Center | 2018/2020

  17. Julian Knight says:

    I came across this paper from Nature magazine (2nd November 2017), which claims to prove that gravitational waves independently verify the Hubble constant and therefore disprove tired light theory. I would be most grateful if you could respond to this.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      No, I think you have misread this paper. All it has done is confirm the approximate value of the Hubble constant. Both the expansion hypothesis and the tired-light hypothesis predict a redshift-distance relationship, hence a Hubble constant. The difference is that one claims the redshift is due to expansion and the other claims it is due to photon energy loss. All cosmology tests that I am aware of confirm the tired-light model over the expansion hypothesis. Soon the big bang theory edifice will crumble.

  18. sonic says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette,

    I would like to duplicate some of the experiments that were illustrated in your books and first of all I’m trying to find out what kind of stuff do I need to acquire in order to get 500kv DC please, thank you.

  19. Mateo says:

    No way to get write access to the forums…
    Is this a webpage error or why isnt there a link to register at the forums?
    Plz fix soon.

  20. Ian Dolby says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette,

    I have read your book Subquantum Kinetics (3rd edition) with much enthusiasm and, by the end, excitement. I have a number of questions about it.

    1) What is the SQK explanation of radioactive decay?

    2) I think SQK says that the concentric shell pattern + etheron diffusion would naturally generate particle spin. Wouldn’t this mean that ALL particles should have spin? If so, what would be the explanation for spin-less particles like photons or the Higgs particle?

    3) Can SQK replicate or explain wavefunctions? I have looked into Quantum Monte Carlo methods which do seem to use wavefunctions to generate experimentally-verifiable predictions. I was thinking that wavefunctions looked a little like diagrams of X and Y etheron concentrations in the concentric shell pattern.

    4) With antigravity, SQK says that a G-well followed by a G-hill produces a thrust in the direction of the G-well. Since a G-well corresponds to a low X etheron concentration and a G-hill corresponds to a high X concentration, this implies that the mere presence of separated positive and negative charge should be enough to cause thrust. If this is the case, why is pulsed power needed for electrogravitic devices? Why isn’t just a static/stationary build-up of charge sufficient?

    5) NASA claimed to have tested a lifter in a vacuum, with an incredibly high voltage, but achieving no thrust (I can’t provide a link). Would this result be because in a vacuum the required ion clouds would be non-existant?


    Ian Dolby

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Ian, your first question should be answered in the 4th edition of Subquantum Kinetics which is available on this site in electronic form. Re: question 1: I give the example there of beta decay where a neutron decays into a proton and electron. This occurs as a secondary bifurcation of the primary bifurcation branch characterizing the Model G ether reaction system.
      Question 2: Photons are inherently traveling waves, hence different from particles. So spin would not occur there. I don’t believe in Higgs particles. They are not needed in SQK and the evidence for their existence is very sketchy. The Nobel Prize should never have been given for this. The particle that was found was nowhere near the mass predicted for the Higgs particle.
      Question 3: I have not considered wave functions. They might be used as an artificial model of a SQK dissipative soliton, but nothing more than that.
      Question 4: Your question is addressed in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, which I suggest you read. The reason has to do with polarization of the dielectric which counters the initial electrogravitic effect.
      Question 5: Yes, for a lifter to work, the rig must emit ions and in a vacuum, few ions are emitted.

  21. Tobi says:

    Hi Mr. LaViolette,

    I have a question which might sound a little silly, but then I’ve decided I want to learn/teach myself physics, definitely not via the inadequate route of academia, I dropped out of school last year to teach myself electronics engineering, but then I want to have an understanding of the science behind what i am engineering, I have a whole bibliography of physics books I want to read, from beginner to advanced so things like(CM,EM,QM,SR/GR,QFT,ST) but apparently some of the theories in there are dead ends, (I’ve always had a feeling relativity is) Ok but do you still reckon it is substantial for my physics journey to still educate myself on these? before delving into what I feel are more advanced theories like sub quantum kinetics? As i can’t just jump into sub quantum kinetics without any physics background. Also maybe it’ll be good to even study the fraudulent theories so I can see some of the areas that are wrong and make comparisons?


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I recommend that you take a college course on classical physics, also sometimes called “general physics” Also it would help to have taken courses on differential calculus. You will find that a course on “modern physics” is far more difficult and worthwhile only from the standpoint of learning about experimental findings. Any theories they teach as in regard to relativity and quantum mechanics will be of no help since they are effectively replaced by subquantum kinetics which makes the phenomena far easier to understand.

  22. Jordan Walsh says:

    Dear Paul LaViolette,

    I am so pleased to find both you and this website. I am a high school student (yes I know, I’m young!) going into my senior year. A few years ago I had brainstormed the idea of what you have called “electrogravitics”. I thought this was a world changing idea, and searched and searched to see if anyone else had come up to similar or the same conclusion. Unfortunately, it seems like electrogravitics is an overlooked idea, as I could not find any data on the subject. Earlier today I stumbled upon your Columbia Disaster paper, and my jaw dropped! That was what I have been looking for! So my questions for you are as follows: How much has electrogravitics been studied? And why hasn’t it been applied in practice yet? And another thing is that I know I am just a young, inexperienced High School student aiming to become an engineer, I was wondering if it would at all be possible for us to email privately?

    Thank you,


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I devote several chapters to Townsend Brown’s electrogravitics work in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion which can be ordered at the book store and elsewhere. You will find that the technology has been applied in aviation by the military although it has not been publicized.

  23. Brendan says:

    Dear Dr. LaViolette,

    I am attempting to read the “Subquantum Kinetics” book, to gain a better understanding. I am a PhD student in Physics at a London University (UCL), specifically in electromagnetic imaging using eddy currents.

    There is not really anyone at UCL whose interested in your work on the surface, except for one or two people.

    Someone I know doing a PhD in theoretical quantum mechanics, is interested in new ideas and may read the book. I told him to him that subquantum kinetics is not quantum mechanical nor relativitic, and he wasn’t turned off by that.

    Can you can you point me to any papers you’ve written that are good starting points as an introduction to subquantum kinetics.

    Best wishes,

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      If you go to and select the Archive tab and “paper downloads”, you should find quite a few listed there.

  24. Hi I’m making some molecular gravitational, I would like to ask how you see the mixture of oxide yellow lead (litharge) and glycerin, I read that use this mixture as a sealant in gas lines, I think Mr. Brown used Bakelite & litharge, the bakelite as binder, in this case glycerine has a higher dielectric constant than the bakelite. The resulting mixture should have very good dielectric properties. As I understand, the Gravitater, once it is charged to a high potential, generates a thrust until the dielectric is polarized. The thrust generated is due to the stress produced by the electrical potential. Once the dielectric is polarized, the Gravitator stops pushing, so Mr. Brown devised a system to be loaded and unloaded sequentially gravitators to generate a continuous thrust, what do you think?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I made changes to your comment to hopefully make it more understandable. I have no information about the mixture you are using. As for cycling the gravitater, I discuss this in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.

  25. Hola Amigos, estoy muy emocionado pues voy a poner en practica algunas ideas expuestas en el libro de Paul, he leido que la duración del impulso una vez el gravitator molecular es energizado es solamente hasta que se polariza la mezcla, yo en mi caso voy a probar una mezcla que emplean los instaladores de tuberias de gas a base de óxido de plomo amarillo (litargirio) mas glicerina, esta masa bien mezclada se hace dura como una roca en 24 horas, la idea es mediante moldes crear varios gravitators moleculares y después darle varias capas de parafina líquida para sellar las armaduras metalicas, se me ha ocurrido un motor con escobillas para energizar secuencialmente los bloques gravitartor del rotor, de esta forma mientras uno es energizado el resto de los bloques gravitator estan en cortocircuito con una resistencia de 10 giga ohmios, todo va a ir sumergido en gasoleo el cual es muy buen dielectrico, ligero y no explota con la chispa
    Hello Friends, I am excited because I will put into practice some ideas in the book of Paul. I read that the pulse duration once the molecular Gravitator is energized is only until the mixture is polarized, in my case I will try a mixture employed by pipefitters based on gas oxide yellow lead (litharge) with glycerin, this well-mixed dough becomes hard as a rock in 24 hours. The idea is to use molds to create various molecular gravitators and then give layers of liquid paraffin to seal metal skeletons, an engine I happened with brushes for energizing sequentially gravitator blocks rotor, thus while one is energized the other Gravitator blocks are shorted with a resistance of 10 giga ohms, everything will be immersed in diesel oil which is very good dielectric, lightweight and does not explode with sparkle.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      If you are using two gravitaters, you might try polarizing them and then linking them together in series with a coil to form a tank circuit. Then you excite the circuit at its resonant frequency and the gravitaters should both cycle between zero and twice the bias voltage with very little input power to drive them.

  26. Hola Paul, mucho gusto de poder hablar directamente contigo, He devorado practicamente todo lo que has escrito sobre T.T.Brown, soy un experimentador aficionado Español, actualmente me estoy fabricando una balanza rotatoria y algunos condensadores planos para verificar electrokinetics, voy a hacer una mezcla que espero de resultados positivos, consiste en mezclar PbO (litargirio amarillo) con glicerina, esta mezcla mientras se endurece va a estar polarizada con alta tension a modo de electret, me gustaría estar en contacto con vosotros mediante foro, lo he intentado con el foro de Linda Brown pero tiene cerrada sus puertas. Os dejo algunos videos de mi proyecto
    Hi Paul, nice to talk directly with you, I devoured almost everything you’ve written about TTBrown, I am an amateur experimenter Spanish, I am currently making a rotational balance and some planes to verify electrokinetics capacitors, I’ll make a mixture I hope positive results, involves mixing PbO (yellow litharge) with glycerin, this mixture as it hardens will be polarized with high voltage as an electret, I would be in contact with you via forum, I tried to forum Linda Brown but has closed its doors. I leave some videos of my project

  27. George Papado says:

    Dr LaViolette i’d like to please ask you a question. If the electrogravitics propulsion system works why didnt any company try to use it to make super fast transportation?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I talk about this in my book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion, which I suggest you read. Electrogravitics and electrokinetics technology developed by Brown was incorporated into the B-2 bomber. So the military uses this for “super fast transportation.” Boeing requested the military for permission to incorporate some classified electrogravitics technology on commercial jets, but was turned down.

  28. Aridzonan_13 says:

    I recently dropped a note to Eric Dollard on a Brown / Lindemann / Dollard (Borderland Science`87 video). Where Brown and Lindemann demonstrated a modification to the Faraday disc. The modification was the addition of 4 magnets to the disc. So, when the modified Faraday disc was spun up by an electric motor it produced AC as opposed to DC. I am building a pneumatic driven ver. So, there is no threat of induction from an electric motor. Where I am attempting to prove that bodies in motion generate an electric field. If successful, I want to add 4 Tesla bifilar coils to try and induce voltage from the magnets. Your thoughts?

  29. John Perry says:

    Dear Dr. Laviolette,

    I want to thank you for opening my mind to the truly amazing and study-worthy phenomena that exist in our world but are often ignored or treated as taboo. When I first came across your work about a year ago, it was like a key that opened my mind to explore many new ideas and realms. As a college student at a technical university, these topics are very criticized (as you know), and this was a breath of fresh air.

    I have since explored many alternative ideas and subjects, and they were all interesting. However, when I was looking into the subject of “qi” energy that is widely studied in Chinese medicine and martial arts, I came across a qigong practice called Falun Dafa. Initially skeptical, I read the main text, Zhuan Falun, and tried some of the simple exercises it teaches. The main principles of the practice are truth, compassion, and tolerance. The health benefits and mental clarity I experienced after just two weeks of practicing it were astounding, and I have continued practicing for the last 4 months.

    The teachings of Falun Dafa are broad and profound, ranging from the human body, time-space, morality, and alien beings. This practice has elevated my understanding of nearly every part of my life and made everything in my life more positive. Over 100 million people around the world practice it and have benefitted greatly. I know that you, and most people on this forum, are fearless seekers of truth. The teachings of Falun Dafa are available for free online, and I would highly recommend that you or anyone else take a moment to look at them; it would be well worth your time, and would probably inspire your work to even greater heights.

    Warm regards,
    John Perry

  30. Herb Pigott says:

    Have you vetted Corey Goode? If so, what do you think?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I looked at the Corey Goode interview (#5) on the GaiamTV channel in which Goode, a whistleblower, claims that the Secret Space Program has known about superwaves for many years and is preparing for an upcoming event with the help of giant “energy sphere” space beings. But I was very disappointed. My first impression was that it is a bunch of hooey. He was very vague about the subject of superwaves as if recalling details from a dream state. He does not react like someone who is concerned to inform the public about an upcoming catastrophic threat. We have no way of knowing whether operatives may have preprogrammed his mind hypnotically, as in Total Recall. I believe the same may have been done to Preston Nichols and Bob Lazaar. Regardless of this, for “Secret Space Program” intelligence operatives to include rudimentary mention of the superwave idea indicates that at least they are aware of it.
      Also Wilcox seems to slip up about relativity as indicated in the #6 interview in his statement to Goode that time would speed up as you approach the speed of light. Actually, it will slow down. But then he gets it right that people not in the space ship will have had a more rapid flow of time. But the statement by Goode that ET’s said that only part of relativity was right, that one of its equations needed flipping, seems to me like true baloney, as does his statement that Einstein later revised relativity but was prevented from communicating his revision publicly. Relativity is easily shown to be wrong and the best approach is to throw out the hypothesis entirely and adopt subquantum kinetics which anticipates all observed relativistic effects, but without relativistic paradoxes.
      Goode’s comments about the soul, etc. towards the end of #5 seem to me plausible however and his statement that he meditates daily for one hour seem truthful and to come from his own experience. His comments about meditation helping someone who is easily angered/infuriated by daily life events, makes me wonder whether Goode has himself at one time had an anger problem or PTSD syndrome and had to undergo some sort of hypnotic therapy to alleviate it. His haircut seems to have a military look so who knows. All of these of course are my first impressions and I admit that I have not viewed the other episodes, which possibly could give a different impression of him.

  31. Hoyt Yeatman says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette:
    I feel for those of us who are asking questions of you it is only right for us to stand up and support your cause by donating to the Starburst foundation in which I have just made a donation. Acquiring knowledge and information is not free and I appreciate all the work you have done through the years on these subjects. I am interested in finding any examples of Electrogravitics that clearly demonstrated the use of solid high K dielectric (Barium Strontium Titanate) ceramic thruster that produces more than the infinitesimal thrust produced with the open air exposed electrodes devices such as with common “lifters”. In your book “Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion” you mention several examples such as the French researcher Lafforge whose patented (2651388) design of a solid ceramic thruster supposedly is capable of lifting hundreds of pounds with the correct construction and voltage. Even T.T. Brown’s patent 3,187,206 shows asymmetrically cast dielectric material composites to again allegedly produce significant propulsion. The Hector Serrano patent US 6,492,784B1 in 2000 shows the use of solid high K dielectric ceramics powdered by high frequency high voltage AC instead of continuous or pulsed DC to produce supposedly impressive propulsion. Today a medium sized hobbyist Tesla coil can produce 500 KVA of power so I believe power supplies are available to power these devices to high potential. With all these examples and claims through the years of devices using high K dielectric ceramics I have yet to find a single example or demonstration that proves these results! I have found no evidence of any high K ceramic electrogravitic thrusters producing any significant propulsion from any University, Industry, or independent researcher. Dr. LaViolette do you know of any evidence that clearly demonstrates electrogravitics using high K ceramic dielectrics producing any significant propulsion? These high K ceramic materials, power, and manufacturing techniques are available to many. Why have we not seen a single creditable example of this electrogravitic technology? Thank you for your thoughts.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Dear Hoyt, thank you for your donation to Starburst. I have not seen any tests conducted with high-K dielectrics attempting to verify Brown’s work. Barium titanate rods can be purchased. Don’t know why any hobbyists have not tried a duplication experiment, just this youtube video which gives few details: Also here is a forum where someone claims to want to duplicate Brown’s vertical thruster test: Also here is one researcher who reported a failed attempt to get thrust from a group of barium titanate doorknob capacitors: He may have used DC rather than pulsed DC. But I also have had no luck with doorknob capacitors. The doorknob capacitor has symmetrical end plates and possibly intervening plates along its length which does not correspond to Brown’s configuration. I know of one researcher who for the past few years has been working to construct a Lafforgue thruster using barium titanate, but have not heard that he has completed the thruster yet.

  32. hajila says:

    Bonjour M Laviolette . Je vous prie de bien vouloir m’excuser de m’exprimer en français. j’ai chercher en vin vos livres en traduction française mais sans réussite. De tel livres devrait être connu et reconnu dans le monde entier . Est il possible d’avoir vos livres en traductions française ? je vous remercie d’avance.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      “Hello M Laviolette. I beg you to excuse me to express myself in French. I look in vain for your books in French translation without success. Of such books should be known and recognized worldwide. Is it possible to have your books in French translations? I thank you in advance.”

      There have been no French publishers that have expressed interest. They continue to be available for publication in French translation. Any publishers should contact Inner Traditions.

  33. Patryk says:

    Dear Doctor LaViolette I’m not a scientist and I have not been in school for long time so if my question is stupid I apologize in advance but I have two questions. First does electro gravity become stronger if voltage is stronger without need to increase current? That is my first question. Second question is if electricity and gravity are connected in matter described is it possible to make superconductor that conducts antigravity as much better than Brown’s motors as electric superconductor at low temperature conducts electricity better than conventional conductor?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      The electrogravity effect depends on voltage, not current. But the voltage must continually discharge and recharge which produces current. Second question makes no sense to me. Do any of you people who post these questions think of contributing to the Starburst Foundation that pays my now nonexistent salary? The world is an open system, without “food” (money) input, systems inevitably die, as will this website and as will the Greek economy.

  34. Justin says:

    Dear Dr. LaViolette,

    My name is Justin, I am from the northwestern United States and have been following your work and research, that of Thomas Valone, and others for the last several years now. My area of study is geology for which I am currently pursuing a bachelors degree at a state university, however I posses an insatiable curiosity for the intricacies of anything classifiable as fringe science or alternative energy. Thankfully, I am also an amateur electronics hobbyist. To my point, research during my own time has led me to the current proclivity I have acquired for reading absolutely all of the material I can locate regarding T. Townsend Brown’s work on electrogravitics. I have read through an absolutely tremendous amount of material on this subject, including many books (Secrets of AG Propulsion as well, fantastically compelling) written by other researchers aforementioned, and patents issued to Brown as well as the work you have done on among other things, electrokinetic thrust and its potential for use as an overunity device.

    As I consider myself a scientist, I am not interested in the ramblings of internet tabloids and the “maybe, maybe not” theories put fourth as methods of explaining the obvious violations of the laws of thermodynamics and general/special relativity that are supposedly blatantly committed by these thrust-producing electrogravitic/electrokinetic devices. (Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly FASCINATED by the potential of these simplistic devices to end mankind’s dependence on expensive, archaic, polluting fuels and whatever else accompanies that revelation, and I am impressed by the theory of subquantum kinetics and the etheric implications it explains, I of course am not implicating it when I say of other explanations of “ramblings”.) But I must make my intentions clear: I am only a seeker of truth, and I respectfully request your insight into one simple question I have regarding electrogravitics and its implications as a viable overunity phenomenon, providing you can spare me the time. I indeed am very appreciative of your willingness to assist, as aside from the material you have published, information on this and all related subject matter I have found has been highly speculative, classified, rare, or just plain unreliable and sketchy.

    My question is as follows, please bear with it because it is lengthy:

    If indeed, it is true as claimed by yourself in your books and presentations among others and T. Townsend Brown himself within his patents (British patent #300,311 for example) that the “gravitator” device he developed (which is nothing but a large, rectangular conglomerate consisting of cells of alternating high-k dielectric material and conductive plating in the form of a very long, bulky series capacitor bank also called a series condenser) is capable of a thrust to power ratio high enough to render it an overunity device which consumes no real amount of wattage but uses only a high voltage in the range of several KV to produce a tremendous amount of thrust, which can be EASILY generated by a cockroft-walton multiplier type power supply that can be built on a $400 budget or less in one’s garage, why is there even STILL a “SEARCH” for overunity? If it is this easy to construct a test apparatus consisting of a pair of thrusters of the type mentioned above using Brown’s patents, and they are supposedly over 3000% percent efficient, then it seems to me, that all that would be required to end the global energy crisis as we know it, would be to…

    …mount a group of these gravitator blocks around the radius of a shaft that is connected to a central rotor, connected at its base to a small motor-generator as sold on ebay, and use the high voltage power supply to energize the gravitators to a high voltage, and as they start to rotate about the shaft, the power produced by the generator could be fed back into the system where it will be again used to spin the gravitators, but also producing an amount of excess power that could be stored in a simple 12v car battery bank, in order to prove the concept of a device that produces more power than it consumes.

    My question is, WHY. Why, in the world, if these claims are true and it is THIS EASY to test it, WHY sir, has no one replicated it successfully?

    With the warmest regards and deepest admiration,


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Remember that the gravitaters must be repeatedly charged and discharged to zero in order to maintain an average thrust. So it is not as simple as hooking up a DC potential to them and expect the thrusters to rotate. Perhaps power may be conserved by embedding each thruster between the plates of a second capacitor that is hooked to a coil to form a tank circuit. Charge could be shuttled between two such capacitors connected with a coil between them. By properly adjusting the AC frequency of exciting these outer capacitors their peak AC voltage could be adjusted to half of the DC potential charging the gravitaters and cause the voltage on the gravitaters to cycle between zero and some maximum amount, but never reverse. Only on the outer capacitors would have their voltage reverse.

      • Justin says:

        Dear Dr. Laviolette,

        Thank you very much for your reply. I am of the mindset of serious experimentation into this area. Thank you for the information, if you have the time I would like to pose several more follow up questions pertaining to the Biefield-Brown effect.

        First of all, I am wondering about the validity of the effect in the first place. Is it actually real? Naturally, I must remain skeptical until I have seen proof aside from patents. But that’s not to say that I am not incredibly excited about the possibilities if the proposed electrogravitic effect is indeed real. Please don’t mistake my skepticism for disrespect. It’s just that I have never heard of such unorthodox principals before, and it’s precisely this that makes me so curious! I have read and continue to read as much information as I can find on the alleged phenomena, but I digress…

        I understand that according to Brown’s research, the eventual polarization of the gravitator when connected to a non-pulsating DC high voltage from around 75-300 kV would STILL induce a brief movement of the gravitator by way of a thrust that acted on the dielectric of the gravitator, despite the fact that the voltage is steady and not pulsed. (“How I Control Gravitation”, patent 300,311, etc.) So if one were inclined, as per my purpose of simply proving that the effect is real, one could use a non pulsating high voltage DC source to at least induce a motion in a massive series condenser when connecting it to the potential as described in the methodology utilized by Brown, correct? Even though the force would not be sustained, it would indeed act on the gravitator for a brief period of time, correct? Enough time for visual proof. That is all that would be required to prove the existence of the effect for myself before making improvements to the power supply to provide for high voltage non-reversing AC testing, if that is the type of signal that is most ideal in creating a sustained thrust. As I said, I am of the mindset of serious experimentation on this phenomena, especially because of its potential for use as an overunity device. (U.S. patent #1,974,483)

        I am concerned by the attempted and failed replication of Brown’s gravitator that I have located here:

        I was hoping you could tell me, why wasn’t this gravitator replication successful? The power supply in question produced at least the minimum amount of potential that was stated by Brown to be capable of at least producing a small amount of physical motion in this type of gravitator, if my memory serves. Could it have been the plate spacing? The k value of the resin used as the dielectric was too low perhaps?

        Since my goal is to produce a successful replication of the gravitator device, I wish to be aware of any mistakes in the construction of a test rig.

        (Also, I realize that the “Question and Answer” page here may not be the best place to discuss these technical and practical questions, so I would be more than happy to initiate an email based correspondence with you providing you have the interest or inclination to continue our conversation.)

        Thank you again, Dr. Laviolette

        • Paul LaViolette says:

          You said that you had read Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. If you had read it entirely you would have seen the section on Patrick Cornille’s duplication of the pendulum experiment which had positive results. He published his findings in a refereed scientific journal which establishes them as fact until otherwise disproven. I have met him. He is an academic and careful researcher. I suggest you read his work.
          The pendulum experiment that he did, though, was not a gravitater. Just metal spheres separated by an insulator.
          From reading the reference you site, it is obvious why this would not work. He calls it a gravitater, but in actuality it is not because he has very little mass between the plates. If you read carefully what I have written about Brown’s gravitater, he had used either litharge (lead oxide) or metallic lead for his plates. Since the electrogravitic effect produces an artificial gravity field, you want to maximize the mass between the plates. The experiment you refer to used aluminum plates which have one tenth of the mass of lead plates. So any electrogravitic effect would have been 10 times smaller. Also I believe his plate spacing was too large. You want to make the plate spacing as small as possible in order to maximize the field gradient. I don’t know how good an insulator epoxy resin is. But being a liquid initially, it allows movement of the plates and any movement of the plates too close to one another can cause a point for break down. Brown used glass plates as his insulator which ensure even spacing.

          • Justin says:

            Dear Dr. LaViolette,

            I apologize for the tardiness of my reply. I have just been reeling from the tremendous amount of clarity I’ve received from your last post. Again, many thanks.

            I will admit, the section of Secrets of AG propulsion that described in detail the pendulum experiment of Dr. Patrick Cornille was something I had either skimmed, or had not paid close enough attention to during my first read-through. I have been so long in response, because I have been studying it both with the book, and using Naudin’s website. Thank you for pointing out to me a successful demonstration of the effect, as my understanding is still in its infant stages. (One of the reasons I purchased your book.)

            Secondly, regarding the Biefield-Brown effect and the early cellular gravitater designs, I have been until your last post, curious as to whether it is only the mass of the DIELECTRIC material sheeting that correlates to the magnitude of the observed thrust on the device, OR if the mass of the conductive PLATES chosen contribute to the thrust as well. If I understand you correctly, then that is indeed the case. In that regard, I now understand what you are saying about why the aluminum plates/resin attempted gravitater replication failed, as you said.

            Therefore, I would submit to you a design for a test gravitater rig, for your analysis if you would be so kind. I am well aware that your experience trumps that of a second year college student in his early 20’s, so obviously I will defer to your expertise as long as I have access to it. My intended design is as follows. Microscope slides composed of Borosilicate glass (B720, “water white”) which have an alleged dielectric breakdown of anywhere from 5-30kV/mm (multiple sources contradicting each other, difficult to ascertain exact figure), would act as the dielectric sheets. Ergo, a 70 cell gravitater at 1.2mm of plate spacing (MUCH less than that of the resin/aluminum failure), between a dielectric of thickness 1.2mm, with the dielectric constant of B720 water white glass slides being 7, at a plate area of 2 7/8 x 7/8 inches (2.515625 inches^2), will have a total capacitance of 1.2 picofarads. Then, at a potential difference of 300 kV for example, each cell will see approx. 4285.71 V. This voltage is below the dielectric breakdown voltage of the material. Then, as per your suggestion of a heavy mass for the conductive plates, metallic lead sheeting of uniform composition and dimension would separate each sheet of microscope glass. Just my thought process, please, I welcome any criticisms for the sake of improving the design of the test rig. There are two factors in this design that I am unsure of and would like clarification: First, its length and width (dictated by the small area of the microscope slides) would be much less than Brown’s 4 inch by 4 inch by two foot device. I don’t know if for some reason the reduced size would somehow inhibit the effect? Second, (and this relates to the Cornille experiment you pointed out to me), are bare wires a necessity to seeing thrust produced by this hypothetical test rig I have just outlined? I know that Brown was able to achieve thrust under an oil bath, but that still does not explain the status of his feed wires.

            In conclusion, I know these questions of mine are very pedestrian to a man of your accomplishment and intrinsic understanding of this physical effect… But to me, they are each a step closer to understanding the phenomenon. I deeply appreciate your assistance and time in helping me.

            Warm regards and best wishes,


          • Paul LaViolette says:

            My impression is that your glass slides are far too small and you will get arcing around the edges. To bad to go to all that trouble and have your experiment ultimately fail. Brown had a good size for his experiment, why not use his dimensions. I am sure you can find square glass slides 3″ or 4″ square having the same thickness as microscope slides if you look around. Just use Google. Cornille did an electrogravitic experiment, but it was not a gravitater experiment. In his case he needed his wires to radiate ions in order to create a gravity gradient across his spheres. In the Brown gravitater, no ion emission is needed from the feed wires. They can be insulated.
            P.S. if you are at a university, why not arrange for me to give a lecture there? I am always willing to lecture at universities provided that they pay transportation and lodging. Usually they also give speakers an honorarium. With the average university raking in $50,000 per student, I am sure they can afford a small honorarium.

        • Phaseshifter says:

          I’m also quite interested in performing experiments ^_^. Check out some of these sources. They seem to clearly demonstrate the effect (except for my site xD)

          spacepi link contains 4+ additional links

          Good luck mate ^.^

          • Paul LaViolette says:

            Larry Davenport’s apparatus demonstrates Brown’s electrokinetic effect, not his electrogravitic effect. Don’t mix up these things.

  35. John says:

    Hello Mr. LaViolette.

    What is your take on Viktor Schauberger? You surely must have heard of him or read his works?

    His WW2 work (forced by the nazis) on “flying saucer” propulsion ties in with Townsend Browns Electrogravitics.

    But Schauberger also developed a very deep understanding of nature, with vortex/spirals and some kind of underlying “free energy” in the universe. He foresaw the deadly effects of human technology on nature and proved many contemporary scientists wrong with his inventions. He believed that water was very very important to nature, ít is “the blood of the earth” like he said.

    His take on mainstream science was that it was far away from the actual truth.

    • John says:

      Also, there is speculation by Nick Cook for instance (in Hunt for Zero point), that Eugene Podkletnov’s “gravity shield” experiment with superconductive materials, was helped by patents from Schauberger. And that the german engineers of WW2 used Schaubergers patents as well, to help with their jet engines.

      • Paul LaViolette says:

        I don’t know, sounds speculative to me.

        • John says:

          You should take a look at Schauberger’s works, it will astound you how many of his inventions, if not all, worked and cooperated with nature. Like he said “Comprehend and copy nature”…

          His patents are still available as well.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Of course I have heard of Schauberger. My book was already too long to go into all aspects of field propulsion or free energy generation which is why I did not have a chapter on his work. I understand that one innovator has succeeded in replicating Schauberger’s turbine. When he is ready to go public undoubtedly you will hear about it.

      • John says:

        Sorry, just saw your other post…

        That would be very exciting to hear about. Seeing how the americans stole his original works, so the one who finds the “missing pieces” is very clever indeed.

        Thank you for your time.

  36. Phaedrus says:

    Excellent. Thank You so much. That is consistent with my view that physical reality emerges from an all-penetrating underlying substrate, but I do not see them as separate things although the substrate is intangible. We are constrained in our conscious thinking by our physicality. I cannot, however, do the math.

    Quantum mechanics is very accurate within its bounds but is limited by its assumptions. As to macro, dark energy and dark matter are clearly bogus ideas put forth to compensate for ignorance. I would say “as below, so above” and that seems to me to be your approach.

    Thanks again.

  37. Phaedrus says:

    I have read Earth Under Fire and most recently Genesis of the Cosmos, both fine works. As may be recalled, I am a devoted student of The Seth Material, having found there for myself more truth than from any other source. Your works are more-or-less consistent with it.

    I have a couple of questions. First, I seem to recall that your take on Zero Point Energy is that it is not an immense untapped source of energy that if accessed would provide a source of energy far beyond our ability to consume. This would be, I assume, the conventional view. My question is to what quantitative extent is ZPE an ocean of accessible energy? My second question what is the role of consciousness in all this? This might relate to your reference to “feeling tone” as a mover.

    I appreciate that these are not easy questions but would appreciate your take on them.

    Thank you.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Conventional science has greatly exaggerated the amount of energy present in zero-point energy fluctuations. According to subquantum kinetics, the true energy per cubic centimeter is about 10^100 times smaller. Whereas in conventional physics this energy should be difficult if not impossible to access due to the fact that the fluctuations appear as particle-antiparticle pairs whose energies cancel out one another, in SQK this energy is readily available since the fluctuations are unipolar energy pulses, either positive or negative charge and non-paired. It is these fluctuations that spontaneously create matter throughout our universe, albeit at a relatively slow rate; e.g., see the video Parthenogenesis: A Sacred Journey. The true source of energy is the etheric flux driven by an undefinable cosmic prime mover. If we view the etheric flux as a higher dimensional river that flows “through” our universe, zero point energy fluctuations are merely ripples on the surface of this river. Tesla spoke of tapping into the very wheel work of the universe. He was referring to this etheric flux. It is not possible to put a paddle wheel out there and expect it to be turned by this flux. But we can tap into it by throwing the First Law of Thermodynamics out the window and allowing ourselves the freedom to design devices along new lines of logic that conventional physics deems impossible. Most inside-the-box technologies are designed in accordance with the view that there is no such thing as a free lunch. When we design outside-the-box technologies based on principles that allow the possibility of tapping into an unseen source of energy, that regard the universe as basically an open system (not as a closed system as physicists currently view it), then we stand a good chance of developing free energy power. Some such technologies are described in some of the papers and books I have written which are accessible at this website.

  38. charles l umnus says:

    as the portal zodiac ring is incomplete opheacus the 13th symbol on a 28 day mens cycle readjusting puts it in i believe lyra. You must forgive spelling. Anyway if you see jesus as the 13th of group its all numerical. It is all about resonance and frequencies, waves and harmonics. Nature is our guide if we can stop tearing her down and listen, look, we will see whats behind the veil. C.L.U.

  39. Bob Gray says:

    Hi Dr. LaViolette,

    I’ve been trying to figure out how to explain 2 aspects of electrodynamics using your subquantum kinetics theory with no luck, yet. Perhaps you could explain or point me in the right direction.
    1) How to use subquantum kinetics to describe a constant, uniform magnetic field? For example in a solenoid. I am particularly hung up with the magnetic field at the center of the solenoid, along the solenoid symmetry axis. In what direction are the subquantum particles (X, Y, etc.) moving for positions along the symmetry axis? What direction is their gradient? On the symmetry axis, the magnetic field is suppose to be the same as any other position in the solenoid. But I don’t see how this can work with the X, Y particles.
    2) How to explain the polarizability of light using subquantum Kinetics? I see in your book, Fig. 45 where you have high and low phiX and phiY, as a model for EM-waves, but I don’t see how you get a polarizability from this.

    By the why, I think the conventional picture of EM waves you have in Fig. 45 is incorrect. Correct that it is the conventional picture, but the conventional picture is wrong. The problem is that the H-vector should be shifted by 90 degrees. This is because the maximum *change* in E induces maximum H. The picture shows zero change in E (derivative of E) inducing maximum H.

    Bob Gray

  40. John P. says:

    Hi Dr. LaViolette,

    I’m currently reading “Subquantum Mechanics: 3rd Edition” and would like some elucidation on the different modes of waves described in Chapter 3.

    I’m an undergraduate studying mechanical engineering and physics a research university, and I find myself unable to communicate the idea of a ‘periodic steady state wave’ to my colleagues. An ‘inhomogeneous oscillatory state’ wave structure intuitively makes more sense to me as it is a wave that propagates (it seems to me that all waves should propagate in some way). I can’t think of an appropriate analog for a stationary and sustained wave though. It seems easier to think about it as a spatially sustained concentration gradient than any wave I can think of wave. If you have any metaphor or analog or information that could make this concept clearer to me I would appreciate it.

    I also would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your contribution thus far to the field of mircophysics and science in general. Your work has brought real meaning to the path I’m pursuing, and I look forward to exploring the boundaries of science and engineering through the lens of subquantum kinetics.

    John P.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Understanding how a reaction-diffusion wave is created can be understood by understanding a simple two-box model with two variables X and Y which diffuse between the boxes. X is high in one box and Y is high in the other box. Even though X diffuses from the high-X/low Y box into the high-Y/low-X box, Y still remains high because reactions in that box convert X into Y. This happens just as fast as Y leaves that box due to its diffusion into the high-X/low-Y box. So there is a steady state maintained. The analogy in every day experience is the process of conformity, where people immigrate to a new country and begin adopting the language and customs of that new country even though they used to speak a different language and have different customs in the country they came from. These are universal principles found in many parts of nature. As above, so below.

    • Mary says:

      Kudos to you John P. !
      It thrills my heart that you, one from the next generation,
      is taking up the torch of Subquantum Kinetics.
      You pay our beloved Dr. LaViolette a great homage,
      and bring joy to his heart as well, I am sure.
      With great respect and encouragement for success in your studies,
      Mary Schanno

  41. john doe says:

    Dear Dr. Laviolette,

    Are you aware of the DTIC portal of hundreds of thousands of tech reports in pdf format?

    Here for example is a search for ‘antigravity propulsion’ which retrieved 74 tech reports:*

  42. I’m sorry if someone’s already asked– direct me to the comment if so– but have you (or someone you know of) tried to create a vehicle driven by this electrogravitic principle?

    I’m interested in designing and building one as well.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Some have a field propulsion vehicle project in progress. It is only a matter of time before they have built one.

  43. Klemen says:

    Hello Paul

    I have question regarding our sun.

    15 years ago I attended a lecture on Indian Vedas.
    Speaker among others talked also about our sun and on how vedas describe sun differently then our modern science.

    Vedas claim that sun is created and after some time it expires. Life span of our sun is specified in vedas with exact number of years (I don’t remember number but it was large).

    He went on saying that vedas claim that the coldest and darkest planet in our sun system is our sun.
    He said that this planet (our sun) is surround by water(he did not said if this was liquid water or vapour) and this water is key to power that is emitted from sun.
    He said also that universe is pervaded by some kind of energy that vedas call it paramesthya( I am not sure if I got name right but spelling for sure is not : )
    This energy somehow interacts with water that surrounds sun and this interaction gives power to the sun.

    Back then I thought this to be strange concept, but by listening to your theory I find it more likely.

    What is your opinion on this concept?

    Thanks And best Regards

  44. Thomas says:

    Hello. Some questions for Mr. LaViolette. I am very interested in the nature of gravity itself. As I understand, the best explanation mainstream science has, is Einsteins General Relativity. Since his Special Relativity has been proven beyond reasonable doubt (according to the experts) isn’t his GR equally proven? I understand that you do not agree with GR? Could you please point me to where I can understand for myself, that his theory is not a fact? Is there really any observational/experimental evidence for GR? Physicists say that all their observational evidence (bending of light near massive objects etc) point to the direction that Einstein was right. How do you refute them? I’m just curious, not arguing against you.

    I understand that your theory is subquantum kinetics. Forgive me, I have not read through it perfectly. But what do you say of Gravitational and Acceleration Fields? NASA scientist Paul R. Hill came to the conclusion in his analysis of UFOs, that they are propelled by force fields or acceleration fields generated inside the object.

    So, can’t Einstein’s “distortion of space-time” instead be “force fields around masses” as an alternative explanation for gravity? That all bodies have their own force fields, like UFOs?

  45. Garland Bauch says:

    Would it be possible to localize the anti-gravity effects into a column from earth’s surface to earth orbit for the use of launching Space Shuttles with payload from earth’s surface?

  46. Pete Nelson says:

    I first encountered the phrase “feeling tone” in The Seth Material ( some 30 or so years ago. I have read all of that Material, much of it numerous times, and I am most definitely a devotee (still). I would describe myself as an “advanced student”, since learning never stops.

    I am wondering whether you are familiar with The Material. It has much in common with yours. I have also read several of your books and very much like and agree with your theory of continuous creation.


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Yes, years back when I was in the process of developing subquantum kinetics, I came across the Seth Material and purchased a few of the books. My father also got very interested in it and we used to have long discussions about it, among other things on how its ideas about creation related to what subquantum kinetics taught. By the way, before she began her writing, the author and channeler, Jane Roberts, used to work as a secretary in Niskayuna, NY at the GE Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, where my father used to work when I was growing up.

  47. Matt Crowson says:

    Hi Doc;

    I have been doing hobby research for years on T.T. Brown, Tesla, and Victor Schauberger’s theories, also being an amateur physics nerd since I was as kid.

    I ran across and read you book a year or so back, and was wondering if you had tried reconstructing Brown’s Asymmetric capacitor thruster disc using a high k dialectic shaped based on Schauberger’s Logarithmic vortex spirals, basically looks like the valve out of car engine. There is a picture in Schauberger’s book “Living Energies” in the chapter on the Repulsin.

    I haven’t had a chance to build one myself but from what I understand of Brown’s work and what I read in your book. in theory it should increase the thrust of the “thruster.”

    Any thoughts on this?


  48. Hoyt Yeatman says:

    Hi Dr. Laviolette:
    Just read your book “Secretes of Antigravity Propulsion”. Very well written book with a lot of historical and scientific information explaining Electrogravitics. Loved it!!
    You have pointed out as well as others that a High K dielectric is needed along with high voltage to get a reasonably powerful propulsion effect. Since this high K dielectric material (BaSrTiO2 powder) is commercially available to most anyone why haven’t we seen any examples of these high power thrusters demonstrated publicly? Even the electrogravitic work demonstrated by Jean Naudin all produce feeble results using air and low K dielectrics like Styrofoam instead of a core of Barium Strontium Titanate? Whats the deal?? Why hasn’t anyone taken this information and demonstrated a electrogravitic device with some impressive power? Thank you for your thoughts.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      The barium titanate powder is only the raw material. One then needs to construct a mold and have the powder smelted into a ceramic. That requires a facility that works with these kinds of material. This all requires a lot of money. A less expensive approach is to purchase a ceramic dielectric rod already made. There are several sources available. Then try attaching the rod to capacitor plates to make an asymmetrical capacitor. So far I know of no one who has done this in the 6 years since my book was first published.

  49. Matthew Bell says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette,

    Would you agree that neutrino’s would be the best form form of fuel for warp propulsion drives and that black before they become black holes or mother stars are an abundant source of neutrino’s?
    Also does one have to worry about being careful not to ignite the planet Jupiter as it could become another sun?

    Kind regards,

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      No, I don’t think that neutrinos hold any promise for space propulsion.
      Also it is time to stop using the word “warp”, that is 20th century Einsteinian thought.
      I use the term “gradient propulsion”, because it is field gradients established in the ether around a craft that propel the craft forward.
      No, you have not to worry about Jupiter igniting fusion reactions, at least not for at least a trillion years.
      I think you should read some of my books, like subquantum kinetics before asking any more of your questions.

  50. Ric says:

    Dr. Laviolette,

    In my last question I asked about other gravitational forces affecting the electrogravitity device. I am also curious as to the affects of water and pressure. Knowing that T. T. Brown submerged his test equipment in oil so as to eliminate ion wind. Would these crafts be able to function under sea water and because of the gravitational field that they produce, be able to withstand or nullify the water pressure? Your description of how the B2 uses electrogravitity to displace the air molecules to reduce friction. Will this same technology create the same results in water?

    Thank you again,


  51. Ric says:

    Dr. Laviolette,

    Let me start off by saying I read “Secrets of antigravity propulsion” and loved it. I am now reading it for the second time and getting ready to start my own experiments.

    In one point of the book you wrote “Because the wavelike distortion of the local gravitational field would pull with an equal force on all particles of matter, the ship, its occupants, and its load would allrespond equally to these maneuvers. The occupants would feel no stress at all, no matter how sharp the turn or how great the acceleration.” Also,“electro-gravitational fields whose polarity can be controlled to cancel out gravity.” He told this correspondent: “All the (mass) materials and human beings within these fields will be part of them.” You go on to mention that the craft or people in the craft are not affected by any other gravitational forces of earth or any celestial bodies. Does this mean we would be able to enter a black hole without feeling the gravitational forces?

    Thank you, have a great day.

  52. Peter Light says:

    Hi Dr. LaViolette, have you ever considered the thought that a superwave could also come from Orion’s Nebula? And would it be possible that there could also be a core explosion in Orion’s Nebula as well?


    • Paul LaViolette says:

      No, it is highly unlikely that something in Orion’s Nebula would produce a superwave. The superwave phenomenon is produced from supermassive cores, which as a rule are found at the centers of galaxies.

      • Peter Light says:

        Ok, but there is also a black hole or super massive dark star in Orion’s Nebula. So why couldn’t a superwave event happen in Orion’s Nebula as well?

        The Day of the Lord as you discussed in your book, “Earth Under Fire” is connected with Orion in Amos 5 if you read it closely.

        I believe the 3 pyramids and the Sphinx was built as a marker of an Earth cataclysm around 13,000 years ago and it is obviously connected with Orion.

        Also, do you believe our solar system came from a nebula or even possibly Orion’s Nebula? Just thinking out of the box here.

        • Paul LaViolette says:

          Again, black holes do not exist. As far as supermassive cores, these are usually found at the center of a Galaxy. Nothing with any significant mass in Orion. You should read my book Earth Under Fire. As early as 1997 I was explaining that Orion commemorates the people that died in the last cataclysm and the Gizeh pyramid complex which is symbolically associated with Orion through Osiris and through shaft sightings is also a memorial.

          The matter composing the solar system came from the Galactic center, as did the stars in Orion. Orion did not spawn the solar system.

  53. Matthew Bell says:

    Dear Paul,

    Thank you for your reply to my questions on how mother stars explode and to my other questions. I will read your book to get a better understanding of SQK.
    I am a bit confused about what some people say about sub-luminal travel, using magnetic propulsion devices, how they can do this without warping time or using wormhole type navigation to fold two points together.
    Kind regards,

  54. M. Duncan says:

    Dear Paul: Somewhere in some New Age type forum, I have come across the idea that our solar system is now conjunct to the center of the Milky Way in a way that is ‘closest’ or unique, if that is possible, in the 27000 year cycle of the precession. I am not a scientist, so in very simple language please: If this is true, is it possible that the Earth is encountering energies unlike anything we have witnessed in the past? New healers would have us believe so, and I would really like to understand how this claim can be justified, if it is justified. Or is this channeled disinformation on top of erroneous ascptions… This question is relevant to the context of a paper I am writing on people receiving information in their dream life from alien sources (Not the negative abduction or pathological varieties of experiences)… Thanking you in advance for your consideration.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      The Mayans held significance to the precession of the December solar solstice relative to the Galactic plane. They believed that these marked world cycle transitions. There is no causative effect to this alignment. It is just for time keeping on a grande scale. This alignment occurred over a decade ago, as I discuss in my book Earth Under Fire. Nothing happened then.
      It is not true that Earth is encountering energies unlike what we have witnessed in the past. Sounds like baloney. It is better to rely on scientific reports rather than psychic reports for the current situation. As for the future (regarding superwaves), we might look to psychic sources as an additional information input since superwave arrivals can occur suddenly without much advance warning.

  55. Matthew Bell says:

    Hi Dr LaViolette,

    Thank you for your reply to my Malachite observation.

    I am having a little difficulty visualizing and understanding the life cycle of how a “Black Hole” or ‘Mother star’, works?
    I get the fact that they are the most dense things in galaxies but you said that black holes/mother stars explode in a cycle when they get to a critical…mass or force or something.
    1) What happens when they explode, is the explosion projected omni-directional?
    I thought that two jets formed to expel the matter.
    2) If it is possible that wormholes can be created using technology and also as you say with the subquantum kinetics laws of physics, is it not possible for the mass of a mother star to break free into another part of the universe or even a different universe?
    Sort of like a White Hole appears somewhere else.
    3) Or does it explode back into its local galaxy creating more stars etc?
    Sorry, so many questions. I apologize for my naivety on these cosmological matters, but as an artist I like to visualize different systems at work. I believe your theory is the most accurate and would like to see more visual descriptions of the processes you are describing. I am currently painting Professor John Searls portrait. I would be happy to do a portrait of you if you ever visit the UK.
    Kind regards,
    Matthew Bell

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      1) The explosion is omnidirectional, but there is less screening of the cosmic rays aligned close to the Mother star’s magnetic pole axis; so emission in these polar directions can be enhanced as compared with other directions, as is the case with the gamma ray bubbles which I have discussed on the superwave forum (

      2) I don’t believe in the existence of wormholes. If you read my work you will find that subquantum kinetics replaces special and general relativity and does not advocate any warping of space.

      3) To learn more about how core explosions create and expel matter, read the book Subquantum Kinetics. Parts are technical though.

  56. Matthew Bell says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette,

    I am an artist and a new fan to your work, I am enjoying all the different fields of study you have undertaken and read with great interest. I tend to think in a similar way but different. Forgive me if you already know this but I couldn’t help but match up the geometric structural similarities between Belousov-Zhabotinskii chemical reaction and cross sections of the green stone Malachite. Concentric ring formation.
    I also think that may be a further source of research for more validation of your subquantum kinetics model to be accepted.
    Kind regards,
    Matthew Bell

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Yes, if I remember correctly, these patterns in malachite are believed to be formed by a deposition-diffusion process that resembles the reaction-diffusion processes that operate in systems like the Brusselator or Model G.

  57. Dan Hayden says:

    Dr. LaViolette,

    What is your opinion of the hyperspace model of Burkhard Heim?

  58. Sidney Somes says:

    Dear Dr. LaViolette, I found the answer to a question I asked a couple of days ago about Quantum Entanglement exquisitely answered in a pdf of your “Introduction to Subquantum Kinetics”. I’m sure it is in some of your other publications I perhaps forgot about. Your writings have been a revelation to me since I first read “Beyond the Big Bang” years ago.

    Thank you, Sidney Somes

  59. Sidney Somes says:

    Dear Dr. LaViolette, I have had the privilege of reading Genesis of the Cosmos and Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. I think the evidence for your theories is convincing and mounting, as science continues to do research. I think I have accounted for most of the differences between your theories and the orthodoxy, but one thing that bothers all orthodox physicists is entanglement. I do not expect you to have a theory on this, as it seems almost to reveal the man behind the curtain, and he seems to want to keep his presence a secret. But, on the off chance, perhaps you can speculate if it isn’t a consequence of SQK.

  60. jitendra says:

    I really appreciate you Sir for giving us such book (Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion). One question that is always troubling me: how to conclude, as everyone claims that USA has advanced technology, if they failed to land on moon in 1969. How can they harbor such startling technology (ufo`s,aliens…..) ?

    Please answer

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      As you can read in my book, a Canadian official back in the late 50’s disclosed that the subject of UFO’s is classified two levels above the hydrogen bomb. This kind of advanced aerospace propulsion technology likely had similar classification. They just kept it secret. As I explain in my book, NASA is a cover operation, a publicly visible program that keeps the taxpayers happy and gets us some nice shots of the planets and galaxies.

  61. Paul LaViolette says:

    Yes, I was informed about this. I plan to make a posting about it. This is not evidence of highly speculative dark matter collisions as the astronomers propose (after the fact). It is gamma emission produced by galactic superwaves traveling outward from the Milky Way’s core, and it verifies a prediction to this effect that I made years ago.

  62. Andrei says:

    What do you think about the Electric Universe hypothesis?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I have no opinion since I have not read the books written about it. I concentrate mainly on developing subquantum kinetics. Others can compare the two views.

  63. mark lund says:

    Prof. …. Thank you for the painstaking time you take to answer so many questions. You have said that in the last 5,300 years there have been 13 superwave spikes of varying magnitudes.
    You also mentioned that the spikes are roughly periodical in that they occur approximately every 500 years or so… I couldn’t help but notice the number 13 without being reminded of the Mayan Baktuns… Do you see any possible correlation between your findings of the 13 spikes and the similar Mayan period which began 5,200 “tuns” ago and which has the 13 baktun time markers placed at 400 “tun” intervals ?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I don’t think it is warranted to read into such a thing so much detail.

    • mark lund says:

      I read your post the other day where you wrote………….. Do any of you people who post these questions think of contributing to the Starburst Foundation…… I think that is a valid point, and so when I came across two events (Observing the Frontiers) that are going to be held by “Suspicious 0bservers” (the “o” is a zero), it occurred to me that you would be a very welcome speaker. Are you aware of their site and posts? Speak to the founder of Suspicious 0bservers: Ben Davidson.

  64. Mark Zinberg says:

    Dr. LaViolette. I am a little confused by the strength of a core explosion relative to a supernova outburst. A supernova outburst according to astro scientists wouldn’t affect Earth unless it was close to us, around 50-100 light years away. Thus, if a supernova outburst happened with Rigel that is around 850 light years away or Betelgeuse that is around 650 light years away, it wouldn’t harm Earth. But according to your theory a brown dwarf star plunging into Galactic Center that is 26,000 light years away would affect Earth with a superwave depending on magnitude. How is a brown dwarf star creating a superwave from Galactic Center that is 26,000 light years away that much more powerful by a huge margin to a supernova explosion only 100 light years away that wouldn’t damage Earth much? Thanks.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Actually, my assessment is that the GC is closer than that. It is about 23,000 light years away. A core explosion would be equivalent to over a million of type II supernova explosions (which are the more powerful type of supernova explosions). So that would be equivalent to a supernova going off about 23 light years away or closer. The energy of the released superwave would far exceed the energy released by the in falling brown dwarf. The brown dwarf only acts as a trigger, its energy being amplified in the core’s supercritical energy-amplifying environment.

  65. Mark Zinberg says:

    Another question for your Dr. LaViolette. If a core explosion occurs and possibly makes the Sun over active, what magnitude would the superwave be if intense Carrington like solar flares lasted 5 months to a year on Earth? I am confused if this would be a Mag 1 superwave event or a higher magnitude event that possibly occurred around 11,000 B.C.?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Magnitude 3. Information on the magnitude scale is given in one of the aker links in the superwave stargate.

      • Mark Zinberg says:

        Thank you for the reply Dr. LaViolette. By the way, I love your new web site layout and design. I remember first coming across your web site and your work back in 2007. This new web site design/layout is stellar. Now here is another question for you. If a massive brown dwarf star were to plunge into the Galactic Core within the next few months and create a potentially dangerous superwave, how quickly would the superwave get to Earth? I guess once we see the light from the Galactic Core explosion that the superwave would be at our doorstep since the gravity waves and the comic rays are traveling at the speed of light? I am actually particularly concerned about the April/May 2015 time period. Yes, 2015 not 2014 for a variety of reasons that I will soon share with you once I complete my research soon.

        • Paul LaViolette says:

          Yes, the highest energy cosmic ray component would arrive only seconds after the electromagnetic component. Lower energy cosmic rays would arrive progressively later.

  66. Mark Zinberg says:

    Dr. LaViolette. Have you ever considered that the 10 plagues of Exodus during the time of Passover might have been caused by a Gamma Ray outburst, or a Supernova explosion, or a Galactic Center superwave, or a Carrington like solar flare?

    The reason why I ask this, is that in Exodus 13 it describes a “Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire” possibly alluding to a star that went supernova or a gamma ray outburst? Maybe even a GC superwave event?

    It was also at this time, around 1440 B.C. when Exodus occurred that the first reported supernova sighting happened.

    Thank you!

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      A core outburst is a possibility for this event. In this article that you cite, the Chinese record in the 14th century BC a guest star that appears in the sky accompanying the star Antares which is in Scorpio. The archaeoastronomers attempt to associate it with a supernova remnant in Vela which is quite far south from Antares, about 17° of arc away, and likely below the visible horizon for someone living in China. So I tend to doubt this association. On the other hand, the Galactic core has about the same angular deviation from Antares (19°) and would definitely have been visible to the ancient Chinese. In my Ph.D. dissertation I predict a GC outburst date of 1040 ± 450 BC based on the neon cloud observations which due to the imprecision of knowing its date could have occurred anytime between 1500 BC and 600 BC. So this event does span the period that this guest star was observed. It could very well have been a brief core outburst rather than a supernova. We can get a better fix on the superwave date by checking the ice record. Incidentally another Chinese guest star is recorded to have appeared in the constellation of Scorpius in 393 AD. This date comes close to another of the minor core outburst dates which the neon cloud record dates at 253 ± 259 AD. Again this date as well could be made more precise with ice core investigations.

      • Mark Zinberg says:

        Thank you Dr. LaViolette. Very very interesting than that a core outburst could have happened during the time of Exodus. This could possibly be the light that was seen “Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire” in Exodus 13? hmmmm

  67. Mark Zinberg says:

    Hi Dr. LaViolette. I am a huge fan of your theories, research, and books, especially “Earth Under Fire”.

    I believe you mentioned before if I am not mistaken that a Galactic Superwave could enable one of the potential stars that is nearing supernova outburst to actually go supernova.

    Do you think a Galactic Superwave could make the star Betelgeuse to go supernova?

    Thank you so much!

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I doubt it very much. Red supergiants are candidates for supernova explosions only in standard theory. A star would most likely need to evolve into a blue supergiant or blue hypergiant before being susceptible to producing a supernova explosion. The one case where the precursor star was known, the star, Sandulek, was a blue supergiant not a red supergiant. See ch. 9, sec. 17 of Subquantum Kinetics.

      • Mark Zinberg says:

        Thank you for the reply Dr. LaViolette. Very interesting! So you think then that the Blue supergiant Rigel in constellation Orion as well has a much higher likelihood going supernova than Red supergiant Betelgeuse? If Rigel goes Supernova it would essentially create a “Second Sun” in our skies for possibly a few weeks or month.

        • Mark Zinberg says:

          This thought of Rigel, the Blue Star going supernova brings to mind the Blue Star of the Hopi’s and the myth of constellation Scorpio stinging Orion’s foot?

          • Paul LaViolette says:

            I would rather interpret the Hopi’s blue star with Sgr A* not with a supernova. The synchrotron radiation from a core explosion has this characteristic blue-white color. You may refer to my book Earth Under Fire to learn more about this.

        • Paul LaViolette says:

          The last time a superwave was accompanied by a gravity wave strong enough to trigger many supernova explosions was around 14,200 years ago. There appear also to have been some less significant stellar disturbances associated with the minor superwave event that occurred 5300 years ago. For example, the slow nova Eta Carinae and the P Cygni outbursts are correlated with this 5250 years BP event horizon. P Cygni incidentally is a luminous variable blue hypergiant star. Unless the next superwave is a strong event, unlike the 12 Magnitude 1 events that have occurred in the last 5300 years, it is unlikely to trigger supernova explosions.

          • Mark Zinberg says:

            Thank you for the reply Dr. LaViolette. That is right! I do remember you mentioning that that Sgr A* would be associated with the Hopi Blue Star in your awesome book “Earth Under Fire”.

            I have much more to share with you in the near future from my research.

            I believe Rigel could very well be “the great star that fell from heaven, Wormwood” and the other star that fell from heaven “Sgr A*” is the key to the bottomless pit (black hole).

            And out of the smoke of the pit and great furnace gave rise to the King over them, Apollyon, which I believe Apollyon is in reference to the Sun (Apollo). And Apollyon had power to sting men for 5 months like the sting of a Scorpion.

  68. Daniel Knight Hayden says:

    I have read all your books and I agree with your theories. What is your opinion of the new article “First direct evidence of cosmic inflation?”


  69. Ira Stone says:

    Hello Mr. LaViolette! On the topic of continuous creation theory in comparison to the main stream’s big bang theory–and this question maybe a bit off topic but with the main stream who is more inclined to showcase the idea of cosmology with a base in the big bang theory– I am curious to know if you have watched the new series reboot of the “Cosmos” presented by Neil deGrasse Tyson? If you have watched it, what do you think of it? Also, what do you make of the possible detection of “gravitational waves”?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I have not viewed the Tyson documentary, but have heard that it is rather boring, mundane rehash of the same worn out theories. I think the so called detection of gravity waves is not very believable. I think they put their own spin on their interpretation of the data. Their first mistake is to assume that the universe is expanding. It is not, and can be easily proven that it is not based on cosmological test data.

  70. Peter Pezzei says:

    Dr. LaViolette, concerning the Swift X-Ray Observations: Once you see abnormal activity there at the Core how many hours would it take to have increasing seismic activity on earth? And from then on there is a day or two to seek shelter if I understood it correctly. Best regards, Peter

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      If a star companion were stripped off and began disintegrating upon making a high velocity entry into the Sgr A* gravity well, the Swift X-ray data would likely give us only a one day warning. The superwave would arrive two days from the time that Swift initially observes the outburst, and for us the warning would be just one day assuming that there is a one-day delay for the Swift team to get the data posted and notify us of the upswing in activity. If a gravity wave preceded the superwave by a day and a half and produced significant world wide seismic activity, it might occur even before we became aware of the preoutburst warning from Swift results. True advance warning would be if the G2 cloud was seen to divide in two and astronomers communicated this to the public without delay. Then this would give a two weeks warning that a superwave could be about to be created, but still a superwave would not be a definite outcome of a star companion strip off event. I have added this information to the Swift data news posting page.

  71. Gary Collins says:

    Dr. LaViolette,
    I think I heard you mentioned in a super-wave interview that the last one occurred around 5300 years ago. This would put the event about -3286 bce. I have it from sources that the period of Noah’s Flood occurred in -3102 bce. Within 184 years of the approximate date you gave for the last super-wave. This is also darn close to a 5000 cycle that occurs in history. My question is do you think the last super-wave and the flood of Noah (who was also an astronomer, and could have known about this cycle) are the same event, and if possible then could a polar disruption of some sort occur causing a similar type of flood event to occur? My thinking is yes.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I believe that Noah’s Flood occurred during the end of the last ice age. There is no evidence for global flooding 5300 years ago, regardless of how people have interpreted the Bible. If you read my book, Earth Under Fire, you will find out my interpretation of the book of Genesis which I believe is metaphorical with respect to the ages of the patriarchs and encodes a climate profile of the end of the ice age. The 5300 years ago event was very short, only about 100 years along, with climate effects lasting only 20 years. It does not compare in magnitude to the ones that impacted us at the end of the ice age.

      • Gary Collins says:

        I agree in a way with your interpretation of the metaphorical encoding. But it goes way deeper than that in the mythology. For example: The Adam cycle is 930 years. It is the 50th series of the 18.6 year Lunar Nodal Cycle. The Lunar Nodal cycle is key to climate change, the waxing and waning of animal populations, just to name a few. The bible as a whole is an Almanac of Astrological/Astronomical cycles cleverly encoded in its mythology.

        • Paul LaViolette says:

          Interesting, I didn’t know about that lunar nodal cycle encoding. Is it something you discovered, or is there a reference to it? Is there a reason why they would have picked 50 as a multiplier?

          • Gary Collins says:

            There are no references to my knowledge that explain what the cycles are that are encoded. I believe that would be an ‘oral law’ that is not passed down to the masses, or is lost to all but a few. I discovered that is what the Adam cycle is by applying my knowledge of the astrological cycles.
            ‘They’ picked 50 because the 50th of any cycle is a ‘cycle of cycles, or to use the Hebrew words, a Jubilee of Jubilees. The Jewish law goes back to the corrupt Babylonian Astro-theology that permeates still today. The Jewish lunar-solar calendar is worthy of study as is the Mayan calendar. The ancients knew what these cycles were and how to apply them. The 49/50 year cycle is a 7 of 7s year cycle, also based on lunar obviously. The 50th is like a zero starting base for the next. But within the 50 is five-ness. Example: Venus and Earth trace out a pentagram in the sky every 8 years with an earth/sun/venus conjunction on an 8 year cycle. 5 of these is 40 years, significant in the bible. 50 of these is a 400 year cycle, which I think is a Solar cycle. I don’t have all the answers, but i ‘know’ this is the right track of discovery.

          • Gary Collins says:

            If ever there was an astrological ‘center’ date for a time frame, the earliest it might be for a “Knowing”
            kind of event, I’d proffer this date, June/July 2032. Just thinking out loud.

  72. Gwen says:

    Dear Mr. LaViolette,
    I live on the North American Central Plains Conductivity Anomaly, near a sacred site, in Canada. In the past few years I have been noticing compass anomalies, circadian rhythm flips, amoung other oddities. Sometime during this past week my homemade iron compass has moved its position approximately 5 degrees clockwise. Although the compass does oscillate at certain intervals, it has stayed at its new position so far. I believe you had mentioned something about magnetic anomalies and I was hoping you might have some insite into this. I realize there may be many factors involved, but I am not having much luck in finding information on this anomaly, and why my circadian rhythm is reeling havoc on my daily functioning. I appreciate any direction on this subject and thank you for sharing your eloquent knowlege with us. I am a huge fan.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      This magnetic anomaly is likely due to plate movements deep within the Earth’s crust and the unusual composition of the crust in your area. I suggest either moving to some other location which doesn’t have these effects, or taking melatonin every night before you go to sleep.

  73. Patryk says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette I recently purchased your book Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. I must say what I read so far was very interesting. However I have some questions, The theory about gravity proposed there states that the positive gravitational charge of proton is slightly greater then negative gravitational charge of electron therefore they don’t completely cancel each other out creating gravity that we know. This might seem like a stupid question however I’m not a physicist or went to college plus English is a second language for me, so please bare with me. Alike charges repel each other if they are electric at least that is what we have been thought. The residual gravitational fields would be all slightly positive so they should repel also. Sorry if this is a stupid question like I said I don’t have PhD. I have another question If electromagnetic force has two polarities and now it seems gravitational force has two polarities and it is suggested most forces in nature have two polarities. Shouldn’t strong nuclear force have two polarities is it possible that inside the atom there is force that is to strong nuclear force what this more fundamental gravity is to gravity we observe? Furthermore the book states that the third law of motion was broken by gravitational disks. According to most people if Newton’s third law of motion would be broken we could not walk or sit or interact at all. How do you explain that. In addition I would like to know if the fact that Newton’s third law of motion was broken would be useful for something. Like greater achievable speed in particle collider or something like that.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      In subquantum kinetics there is no need to postulate a new force for the nuclear force. In my book Subquantum Kinetics I suggest that the force involves the coupling of the spins between two nucleons. Newton’s third law is that every action requires an equal and opposite reaction. The reason why this law is not broken when we sit is that we are not generating a high voltage polarized field around our body. My discussion of the violation of Newton’s Third Law in my Secrets book pertains to experiments on asymmetrical capacitors charged to many kilovolts. I think if you read my book, it is explained very thoroughly what the propulsion advantages are for such thrusters.

  74. Charles F. Schatz says:

    Mr. Naudin –

    I have been working on reproducing the Lafforgue Thruster and Frolov Hat experiments. Thus far, both projects have been a failure to produce any thrust at all.

    I reverse-engineered your version 2 Lafforgue force calculator from the Web page. I re-derived the force equations to verify the correctness of the final force equation and reprogrammed the force equations into Mathematica. I have discovered several things about the formula, the foremost of which is the fact that the thruster overall length is 24 times the dielectric gap “e”, always making the thruster shape long and thin. This means the dimensions from Mr. Lafforgue’s patent don’t match the equation in shape.

    I was reminded of your work by reading Dr. LaViolette’s “Secrets of Antigravity” and decided to test whether Mr. Lafforgue’s thruster would produce any thrust at all.

    I happened to have on hand a 25KVolt dc power supply from another project. Using 25-millimere-thick Styrofoam (relative permittivity 1.03) sheets as stock material, I created a series of thrusters and a version of your ELG scale, but had problems with the power supply operation and arcing of the thruster conductive surface edges (aluminium foil). I scaled up the thruster (to 277 millimetres length and about 50 millimetres in total width, 50 millimetres thick) to deal with the higher voltages and narrowed the conducting strips to prevent corona arcing. The 25KV supply died, but I have a Honeywell 15-17 KVDC(pulsed) ignition transformer. I also used a Cockcroft-Walton half-wave voltage multiplier with output 1200VDC. The expected thrust was 0.55 grams-force at 15KVDC.

    The only result I got was the slightest of thrusts using the 1200Volt supply, which appeared to be ion wind, as it was reversible thrust if the power supply polarity is changed. According to Dr. LaViolette, the polarity should make no difference to the thrust. If placed on insulating plastic, the thrust disappears. I test on the floor, which is bamboo with a cement and electric wire underlay.

    Much to my surprise, the 17KVDC(pulsed) supply produced no weight change or thrust at all. The ELG scale can detect a weight of change less than a milligram, as far as I can ascertain.

    The Frolov Hat was slightly less difficult to make, and under the same voltages produced no thrust at all.

    Do you have any comments concerning this?

    Regards, Charles F. Schatz

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Naudin’s Lafforgue capacitor used a dielectric with a K factor of 3.7 whereas you state that yours had a K of only 1.03. Hence all other things being equal your thrust would have been 3.6 times smaller. I would expect that you would get more thrust with the your plates being thicker than his; Naudin’s were only a few mm thick. But adding thickness also increases overall weight. Unfortunately, I don’t know of anyone else besides Naudin who has posted information of tests on the Lafforgue thruster.

  75. Charles F. Schatz says:

    I have been trying to contact someone about Lafforgue Thrusters. I made a few from Styrofoam, designed from the force equation web-page solver 2 shown by Mr. JL Naudin of France, JLN Labs. 15KVDC(pulsed) driving voltage and got no thrust from an expected 0.55 grams-force design. Ditto on the Frolov Hat design by Mr. Naudin. I was wondering if anyone might have a comment about this.

    Cheers, Chas.

  76. trekwell says:

    I stumbled across Aspen’s circuit a couple of years ago in my intensive experiments. Its a simple circuit that isn’t capable of perpetual cycle due to the high resistance in the capacitors. There is a misconception that capacitors have very low resistance. That’s only partially true. To charge past 50% a capacitor’s internal resistance begins to increase exponentially. The high resistance makes the very act of charging a capacitor a heavy cost. Much more cost than the small gain aquired during the dump from the previously charged source into the empty (zero resistance) capacitor.
    What seems to be a simple solution to this dilemma is to series connect two or more capacitors and raise the working voltage higher to avoid use above 50% capacitance but with some experimenting one see’s more problems than one fixes by doing this.

    Forgot to mention: negative and positive poles are never allowed connection. I cleverly use like poles. Large coils have capacitance. What happens when placed in series with other large sources of fully charged battery is a momentary excitement as the electrons align themselves. A Short lived oscillation that can be tapped.

  77. trekwell says:

    Dear Doctor, I been researching free energy using very large capacitors with success. My relatively simple circuit produces small amounts of additional usable energy without actually draining the capacitor tank. Quite possibly the cassmir effect inside the 3k farad capacitors I use. Your comment about a Canadian’s house being swat teamed weighs heavy on me because I am poor and need this tech to be patentable to I can make a living off it. Would love to show you this device if your in the west TN area anytime. Any advice is greatly appreciated. BTW hundreds of joules additionally are created

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      It sounds like an interesting device you have created. Perhaps you could interest some university physics professors to come to their university and give a demonstration to the students. It could open their minds in regard to the validity of the first law of thermodynamics. By the way, Harold Aspen also worked with a similar phenomenon. I believe he was discharging a storage battery to charge a second storage battery and found that the result was overunity.
      P. LaV.

  78. tessa tavanti says:

    I read his book “EARTH UNDER FIRE”, think that the alleged 13rd zodiac sign,Ophiuchus is connecteed?

  79. The neat supposition by Dr. Richard Firestone as to the cause/affect of the Pleistocene mass extinction is the presence of thousands of “Carolina bay” oblong gouges in the earth, all pointing to a possible comet impact at the edge of the Laurentian ice sheet. This impact would have thrown cubic miles of ice southeast , causing these gouges, and then melting, leaving no physical evidence other than nano-diamonds.

  80. Dean says:

    Paul, Being electromagnetic as we are. Do you know what effects this Superwave event will have on us physically and emotionally, not by the outside of ourselves but within. If it shuts down the electrical systems, can it shut us down.

  81. John says:

    I have read on the net about the pyramids around the world emitting energy beams. Do you have any theory’s as to how or why?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      I am not aware of energy beams being emitted from any stone pyramids. But a brief reading indicates that some of these claims are hoaxed. Put in Google search “pyramids beams and hoax” and see what you find. Normally, I don’t attempt to find explanations for phenomena that have not been firmly established as real.
      P. LaViolette

      • Mary says:

        Hi Dr.
        You are very beloved by many and we thank you for your kindness and humility. This is an honor to comment.
        As to the question of energy beams and pyramids I believe if you take 3 hrs (especially beginning at 50 min) to view this movie The Pyramid Code, you may relate to the scholars who criticize the accepted history story and you may have insights we do not. It was compiled by PhD’s like yourself. Thank you so much for all you do.

  82. Mark says:

    Hi. A year or so back I saw a short video made, if I recall, by someone at abovetopsecret explaining your model of electrogravitivs (as per your book). Know which vid this is and where it might reside as I can’t find it now?
    Perhaps there’s a better (free) vid? I’m just looking for the basics as anything else is likely abovemyhead.

    Also, what’s your take on the Rodin Coil?


  83. Michael says:

    Hi, Doc. I read your book, Secrets of Anti-Gravity Propulsion, and was blown away. My question is this. Have you ever had contact with Stephen Hawking? I would love to be a fly on the wall should you two ever meet. If he could be won over, maybe the congnoscenti could pull their heads out of their, well, you get it. This is the stuff kids ought to be doing for science fairs. I mean, how hard would it be to build a tiny demonstration model of T.T. Brown’s capacitor? Also, what does Richard Branson think of all this? Surely, he would be the guy to get on your side. Him and Moller of Moller Air Cars.

  84. Hello Dr. LaViolette,

    Will your book, subquantum kinetics 4th edition, be available in
    the paperback form. The good thing about a hard copy is that one
    can access it at any time; even when the electric power goes offline.
    Of course, if we could source our power from ZPE, then digital
    copies of you books would be fine.

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      We will eventually issue the 4th edition. But for now Starlane Publications still has many 3rd edition paperbacks that must be sold before then.

  85. petros says:

    From the little i can understand you have accepted some things from greeks (e.g. ether).What you think about greek civilization and how can you be explain their advanced knowledge in so many fields (mathematics,geometry,astronomy……) ?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      The Greek civilization was more advanced than many history books indicate. They had many creative thinkers.

  86. Tom says:

    Not sure if this is the place to ask but I wanted to know what format are the e-books on sale at What is need to view? and print them?

    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Our site sells just the Subquantum Kinetics ebook which can be downloaded in either 1) epub format which is readable on an ipad or a few other readers or 2) in mobi format which is readable on a kindle ereader. You can also download ereader programs that run on a PC or mac, but the display quality is not as good. They cannot be printed. A 3rd edition of Subquantum Kinetics is available for an additional modest fee. Genesis of the Cosmos, Earth Under Fire, and Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion are available in ereader format. Sites include, Google Books, and others. Just search with the title and ereader to find outlets.

      • Tom says:

        I tried to purchase Subquantum Kinetics ebook 4’th edition and wanted to get the 3rd edition hard-copy for $6 as the site says but I could find no way to add the 3rd edition hard-copy to my order?

        • admin-lx says:

          Dear Tom, after you make the purchase of the ebook you will get an email with a link to a form where you can add your address and complete the order of the hard copy.
          We made it a two phases process, because the download order doesn’t need an address, and we don’t want to ask for it if not needed.

  87. Adam says:

    Dear Dr LaViolette
    I have recently discovered your work. I am profoundly shaken. I have seen your lecture on secrets of antigravity propulsion
    The fact so much is hidden from us and we are being lied to. I feel like turning to religion. In fact, discovering your SQKT has made me look differently at what is going on in the world today and I am scared
    Leaving aside all these discoveries, this Superwave. If one hits are we finished, and don’t have a chance, is it all over?
    How can we protect ourselves

  88. Forrest says:

    I have a few questions about subquantum kinetics, and its relation to the current physical theories:

    1. Does subquantum kinetics conflict with general relativity or quantum field theory? As I understand it, general relativity and quantum field theory are thought to be the low-energy limits of a more fundamental theory. Is subquantum kinetics this fundamental theory? In other words, can subquantum kinetics be reduced to general relativity and quantum field theory, under certain conditions?

    2. Does subquantum kinetics explain all of the experimental data that we have accumulated over the years? In other words, are there any known situations in which the predictions of subquantum kinetics contradict experimental evidence?

    3. If subquantum kinetics makes more accurate predictions (sometimes unforeseen) than the leading theories and does not contradict experimental evidence, then why hasn’t it seen mainstream acceptance in the scientific community? Is this because, as Max Plank said, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”?



    • Paul LaViolette says:

      Hi Forrest,

      I have made your questions into a separate news posting and respond to them there.

      Paul LaViolette

Leave a Reply to sonic Cancel reply

