Archive for March, 2018

March 31, 2018

Will the world ever be ready for solar geoengineering?

Many object to shielding the planet from the sun’s rays by injecting particles into the atmosphere, but a small band of researchers think the approach is worth studying before it’s too late

By Tien Nguyen

 The first time Frank Keutsch heard about solar geoengineering, he thought the idea was terrifying. To the Harvard University atmospheric chemist, schemes such as spraying millions of tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect the sun’s rays and cool the planet seemed perilous. Not only might the strategies disrupt the atmosphere in unexpected ways, but they might also dramatically alter the weather and harm the lives of Earth’s inhabitants.
In brief

Once considered taboo, discussions about solar geoengineering are growing louder. Many worry that the idea of solar geoengineering—mainly strategies to cool the planet by shooting sun-reflecting particles into the atmosphere—will distract from efforts to reduce carbon emissions and thus the underlying cause of climate change. Meanwhile, others argue that we should start thinking about how these strategies might be governed, and a few say it’s time to study solar geoengineering in earnest to understand its haz-ards. As the debate rages on, one group is pushing forward with outdoor experiments possibly later this year. Risky as these techniques may be, society may one day have to wres-tle with whether to implement them.

“It’s a very contentious topic, and for good reason,” Keutsch says. Sure, the unknowns of opening what amounts to a chemical sunshade over our heads are worrisome. But even more troubling, Keutsch says, is the “moral hazard” of solar geoengineering: the idea that instead of dealing with the cause behind climate change directly, by cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, humans would fall back on solar geoengineering to merely stave off its symptoms. The term “moral hazard,” borrowed from economists, describes the temptation for people to make riskier decisions when they feel protected from the consequences.


Scientists have discussed solar geoengineering in hushed tones for years, but fears like Keutsch’s meant that experiments had been taboo. That started changing in 2006, when Paul J. Crutzen, who had shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry more than a decade prior for his work on ozone depletion, penned a controversial essay calling for stratospheric geoengineering research (Clim. Change 2006, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y). While he hoped for a world in which we reduced carbon emissions to the point that these risky measures were never needed, he wrote, “Currently, this looks like a pious wish.”

In the intervening decade, a relatively small number of research groups took up Crutzen’s charge, mostly conducting theoretical studies. Now some say they’re just about ready to run experiments in the real world, possibly by later this year.

But most scientists still find this idea deeply troubling. Among them is Daniel Cziczo, an atmospheric scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. To Cziczo, the notion of injecting sulfates into the air as a response to climate change is a nonstarter because it would destroy ozone. It also doesn’t address ocean acidification, one of the most harmful side effects of climate change.

Credit: SCoPEx team
Researchers at Harvard propose, later this year, to launch the first real-life solar geoengineering experiment: a balloon flown 20 km above the ground that will release a plume of particles, such as ice and CaCO3, then study their physical and chemical properties.

“Scientists are throwing out proposals which are sometimes absolutely crazy,” Cziczo says. It’s “totally illogical,” he says, to instruct people to reduce carbon emissions while pushing forward an option that lets them ignore your advice.

Still, government officials and supporters of geoengineering research continue to evaluate their options. Two main classes compose geoengineering: solar geoengineering—also known as albedo modification—which focuses on reflecting sunlight before it hits Earth, and direct air capture, a suite of techniques to suck carbon dioxide from the ambient air. In 2015, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine assessed proposals for both types of approaches in a pair of reports and concluded that there wasn’t enough information to recommend any of these geoengineering technologies for large-scale deployment.

Some in Congress are now calling for the National Academies to reassess their studies, especially of solar geoengineering.

At the end of last year, after the first congressional hearing on geoengineering, focused mainly on solar technologies, in the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats Jerry McNerney of California and Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas proposed H.R. 4586 to “provide for the National Academies to study and report on a research agenda to advance the understanding of albedo modification strategies, and for other purposes.” Direct air capture, the other branch of geoengineering, has also caught federal interest. This month, Congress introduced a tax incentive designed to spur spending on carbon capture, both from point sources like power plants and straight out of the surrounding air.

Meanwhile, an ocean away, representatives from many of the world’s nations were gathering in Bonn to discuss the next steps in emissions reductions to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the rise in global temperatures to below 2 °C by 2100. The U.S. wasn’t present at this meeting, having left the agreement a few months earlier.

I actually still think it’s a terrifying concept.

—Frank Keutsch, chemist leading proposed outdoor solar geoengineering experiments, Harvard University

Amid all these scientific and policy discussions, a team of researchers at Harvard is proposing to launch the first stratospheric outdoor solar geoengineering experiment near Tucson later this year. The group plans to loft 20 km into the air a balloon carrying instruments that would release a plume of particles 1 km long and 100 meters wide, then turn around and study the particles’ basic physical properties in the upper atmosphere.

Leading this stratospheric test, despite his initial trepidation, is Keutsch.

“I actually still think it’s a terrifying concept,” he says. “But at the same time, if you look at predictions of climate change, I think they are also very frightening.”

Keutsch, like the other scientists who study solar geoengineering, is emphatic that reducing carbon emissions should be society’s first priority. But in the meantime, he says, better understanding the risks involved with solar geoengineering through experiments could be useful. “Knowledge is better than ignorance.”

If the fledgling field moves forward—and some hope to ensure that it doesn’t—solar geoengineering researchers will have no shortage of questions to answer: What types of particles should be released into the sky? How many particles and where? What happens when they fall to Earth? And perhaps most pressing: Who gets to decide if and when humankind presses “go”?

Predicting a hazy future

Credit: UCAR
Advanced models show that injecting sulfate particles into the atmosphere could cool Earth as greenhouse gas emissions continue to cause global temperatures to rise, but these strategies come with risky side effects, such as ozone depletion, acid rain, and changes in weather patterns.

Solar geoengineering, though it sounds like science fiction, wasn’t conceived from thin air. Scientists took their inspiration from a natural event: the earth-shaking eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 in the Philippines. The second-largest volcanic outburst of the 20th century, it spewed ash and 17 megatons of sulfur dioxide 35 km skyward. For several years afterward, the SO2 stayed in the atmosphere, reacting with atmospheric chemicals to form sulfate aerosol particles that reflected sunlight and caused global temperatures to drop by 0.5 °C. Once those particles eventually drifted down to Earth, temperatures rebounded.

Taking their lead from the tropical blast, some scientists developed climate models that simulated what would happen if sulfates were sprayed into the atmosphere at the equator, where Mount Pinatubo is located. Others went even simpler, taking sulfates out of the equation and simulating what would happen if we could turn down the sun’s brightness with an imaginary dimmer switch. Both types of models revealed that global temperatures would drop; however, cooling would occur unevenly, with more of it happening in the tropics and less in Arctic areas.

Last fall, several of these solar geoengineering modeling researchers who had teamed up in a collaboration spanning four institutions debuted one of the most advanced solar geoengineering models. The model accounts for complex atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric dynamics, and sulfate aerosol formation and, for the first time, allows scientists to design, instead of just predict, specific climate outcomes (J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 2017, DOI: 10.1002/2017jd026888).

According to the model, which assumes that humans aren’t going to succeed at cutting back on their emissions, if solar geoengineering began in 2020, global temperatures could be stabilized at that year’s level for the remainder of the century. The strategy would involve spraying increasing amounts of sulfur dioxide at four locations 15° and 30° north and south of the equator. By 2090, according to the team’s calculations, we would need to annually inject an amount of SO2 equivalent to up to half the total volume that burning fossil fuels releases globally each year.

“It’s not something we see as a plan B,” emphasizes Simone Tilmes, one of the coauthors of the study and a project scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. We still need to cut carbon emissions, Tilmes says, but this approach might keep temperatures low while we do so. The world may have only five to 10 more years to enact a plan to fight climate change, she says, before we’re unable to meet the Paris Agreement goals. “To me, it’s not even buying time; we already lost the time that we may have to make up for,” she says.

But for each degree of cooling we gain from sending up sulfate aerosols, the team sees a possible assortment of dangerous side effects.

While sulfate particles reflect and scatter light, they can also absorb solar radiation, heating the lower stratosphere and changing the transport of atmospheric chemicals, leading to unpredictable effects on weather patterns and precipitation, the researchers say. Large sulfate particles, which would form as SO2 is continually pumped into the air, aren’t as good as small, high-surface-area particles at reflecting light and can fall out of the sky faster, potentially as acid rain, they add.

Arguably, the most serious side effect is that sulfates could lead to the destruction of ozone. Ozone loss occurs when halogen molecules, such as hydrochloric acid and chlorine nitrate, transform into halogen radicals, which destroy ozone. Sulfate particles speed up this process by providing a surface for radical formation.

Solar geoengineering’s side effects could be numerous, from the moment an atmospheric treatment is deployed to the moment it’s abruptly cut off. Because solar geoengineering addresses only the symptoms and not the cause of climate change—greenhouse gases—stopping treatment could lead to devastating consequences, says ecologist Christopher Trisos, a postdoctoral fellow at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center.

Related: If started, geoengineering would be hazardous to stop

Global temperatures would rocket right back to previous levels so quickly that many species might struggle to survive, he says.

Trisos coauthored a study that evaluated the speed, called climate velocity, at which a species would have to move to get away from negative climate effects if solar geoengineering were abruptly cut off (Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0).

Species would have to move, on average, two to six times as fast as what would be required by climate change without solar geoengineering to escape harmful climate effects on their habitat, according to the model. Howler monkeys, for example, are able to migrate into a new habitat at about 1 km/year. If temperatures changed drastically after solar geoengineering termination, they would need to move at 10 km/year.

Given these risks, ecologists have issued one of the few directives on geoengineering. In 2010, the Convention of Biological Diversity, an institute of the United Nations with more than 190 parties—excluding the U.S.—issued what amounts to a moratorium on any large-scale climate intervention activities, including solar geoengineering or carbon capture, until there is enough scientific evidence to justify such strategies.

The decision does, however, allow small-scale research experiments, like Harvard’s balloon experiment, to march forward in an attempt to gather that evidence.

Pushing ahead

While modeling studies have been exploring the effects of sulfates in the stratosphere, researchers have also been investigating the possible consequences of another solar geoengineering approach that steers clear of the upper atmosphere.

This strategy aims a little lower—at clouds. Called marine cloud brightening, the approach was inspired by container ships, whose exhaust creates clouds often hundreds of kilometers long called “ship tracks” as they crisscross the ocean. These ship tracks reflect sunlight, but they may also disturb precipitation in unpredictable ways.

Instead of using exhaust, researchers argue that sea spray, which is safer, can also do the trick. Researchers involved with the Marine Cloud Brightening Project, a collaboration among atmospheric scientists, engineers, and social scientists, have developed a special, high-pressure nozzle that ejects nanometer-sized saltwater aerosol particles into the sky. To generate a single ship track, says Robert Wood, one collaborator at the University of Washington, 500 such nozzles would need to be grouped together and installed on each specially purposed ship, a resource that requires more funding. The team has been waiting for funding for quite some time, Wood says, estimating that it might take 10 or 20 more years. “I’m not holding my breath,” he says.

How solar geoengineering could cool the planet

In theory, strategies to reflect sunlight, by brightening clouds with sea spray or injecting SO2 into the stratosphere to generate sulfate particles, could shield the planet from the sun’s warming rays.
Credit: C&EN

Wood acknowledges the fears many have about solar geoengineering’s moral hazard but doesn’t think that developing a technology means it will necessarily get used. “I’m not doing this to prove it works,” he says. Instead, he’s trying to prove that it doesn’t work, which he says can also reveal useful information.

Other labs, like those of Keutsch and his collaborator, vocal geoengineering proponent David Keith, who’s also at Harvard, have investigated chemical alternatives to sulfate aerosols. “It’s a great chemistry problem,” Keutsch says.

Using models and testing simulated conditions in the lab, Keutsch and his colleagues hope to find particles capable of trapping less heat in the atmosphere and of reflecting more light skyward. Among the chemical candidates are diamond, titanium dioxide, and calcium carbonate. Because it’s inert, diamond has the best properties, but its price points to impracticality. TiO2 may prove problematic, researchers say, because the compound is a known photocatalyst and could thus cause unwanted side reactions.

That leaves the cheap and readily available CaCO3. According to the team’s models, CaCO3 may heat the lower stratosphere one-tenth the amount that sulfate aerosols do, and it may counter ozone loss by neutralizing acids emitted by humans (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1615572113).

V. Faye McNeill, an atmospheric chemist who studies the impact of aerosol particles on Earth’s climate at Columbia University, cautions that it remains to be seen how CaCO3 will interact with stratospheric ozone in reality. McNeill contrasts these calcite particles with sulfate aerosols, which have been thoroughly studied because they’re found naturally in the atmosphere and because they were released in abundance after Mount Pinatubo’s eruption. “So far what I have seen in the literature are reasonable, educated guesses for the stratospheric heterogeneous chemistry of CaCO3,” she says, “but this needs to be backed up with lab data.”

The Harvard team is currently studying particles of the material in the lab, using flow reactors to expose the CaCO3 to various atmospheric gases. Another idea is to coat the CaCO3 particles with compounds that would make their surfaces less inviting to the formation of ozone-depleting radicals.

The team plans to test extremely small amounts of CaCO3 in its outdoor experiment, slated to take place over Tucson, after first releasing ice particles, a lower-risk material.

“The experiment itself won’t affect anybody, but it has implications for everybody,” Keutsch says.

The public has expressed concern, and sometimes much stronger emotions, about these types of experiments. Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, for instance, who posit that the government has been poisoning the public with chemicals spread by commercial planes, have reacted rather vociferously to the idea of spraying aerosols into the atmosphere.

Over the years, Keith says he’s received hundreds of emails from people about solar geoengineering, ranging from polite curiosity to threatening. Others in the solar geoengineering field have also received hate mail and even death threats, including Douglas MacMartin of Cornell University, who testified at last year’s congressional hearing on geoengineering. MacMartin reported that he’d seen an uptick in such missives last year. “There’s some risk that somebody might get hurt,” Keith says.

Public opinion is partly what derailed an attempt to conduct an outdoor solar geoengineering experiment in the U.K. in 2012. Called Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering, or SPICE, the project proposed pumping water up through a 1-km-long hose to a tethered balloon, which would spray the water into the atmosphere.

Related: Countries Agree To Ban Geoengineering

Controversy could definitely stop solar geoengineering in its tracks, says Tim Kruger, manager of the Oxford Geoengineering Programme and a member of the board that decided whether SPICE would be funded. He says amid the public concern, the experiment ultimately fell apart after it was revealed that another member of the funding board had filed a patent on similar technology with one of the SPICE researchers. Given the clear conflict of interest and simultaneous public backlash, the project was canceled, Kruger says.

The Harvard team has no plans to patent any of the technology from the experiment, Keutsch says. But he still worries about public opinion. “The thing I don’t want to happen is I say, ‘Oh we’re ready to do the experiment,’ and then there’s such a negative backlash that it makes future solar geoengineering research impossible for a long time.”

Who will decide?

Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, coauthored an opinion piece last year with Northeastern University’s Jennie Stephens detailing ways that solar geoengineering researchers can move forward responsibly by getting informed consent from the public.

They have a few main points of advice: Scientists should set up an independent advisory board, which Keutsch’s team is in the process of doing, whose recommendations should be taken seriously. Researchers should also be transparent about funding sources and restrict funding to entities that are committed to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists should bring a diverse set of civil society stakeholders into the conversation, especially those who are most at risk, such as developing countries, Frumhoff says.

The article concludes that “solar geoengineering field research should not take place unless and until greater societal legitimacy has been established.”

Related: Geoengineering Test Fuels Debate

Various parties have offered similar guidance for responsible geoengineering research. In 2009, Kruger and a few other academics devised the “Oxford Principles,” and in 2015, legal scholars crafted a voluntary code of conduct for geoengineering research that has recently been updated by an international initiative called the Geoengineering Research Governance Project.

“There are bits and pieces of governance, but the totality does not add up to what’s needed,” says Janos Pasztor, former UN assistant secretary-general for climate change under Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Pasztor is the executive director of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2),, a small group that encourages discussions about and development of governance frameworks for solar geoengineering but doesn’t take a position on deployment of these strategies.

Since last year, Pasztor and his team have been discussing solar geoengineering with communities from around the world, including in countries like Kenya and South Africa, which so far haven’t been a part of the conversation. While many people he speaks with are positive when it comes to learning about solar geoengineering, Pasztor says, “It’s a hard step to go from positive to proactive.”

The team hopes to facilitate the presentation of a resolution at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, in March 2019. That resolution would call for governments to agree not to deploy solar geoengineering techniques until scientists better understand the risks and society agrees on solar geoengineering’s governance. Although aspects of the resolution could change during negotiations, Pasztor says, the team hopes the action will head off any unilateral decisions by rogue nations to deploy solar geoengineering. This poses a risk, given the techniques’ relatively cheap price tag, recently estimated at about $50 billion for the initial hardware and then $12.5 billion each year afterward (Earth’s Future 2018, DOI: 10.1002/2017ef000735).

“The governance of this is very, very difficult,” Pasztor says. “It’s not too early to start talking about these issues, even if these technologies will not be relevant for a couple of decades, because that’s how long it might take to build the governance framework.”

Yet those who oppose geoengineering don’t think geoengineering governance is the main issue. Linda Schneider, senior program officer at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a think tank affiliated with Germany’s Green Party, finds much of the discourse around geoengineering problematic.

“Most of the researchers in the field start from the assumption that we might need geoengineering,” she says, which she thinks leapfrogs the basic question of whether geoengineering should be done. Schneider says she was one of the few nonscientists and critical voices among attendees at the 2017 Climate Engineering Conference in Berlin in October, which drew mainly physical and social scientists.

Schneider and the foundation say it’s critical to stay focused on emissions reduction. At the conference, she led a session presenting a pathway to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 °C—a stricter version of the Paris Agreement goal. The plan involves radical emissions reduction and no geoengineering. The session essentially devolved into a “big fight,” she says.

As Schneider advocated for climate responses without geoengineering, proponents criticized scenarios relying only on drastic carbon reduction as politically unrealistic. “I think what made them upset is that they were forced to confront their own political values underlying their own research,” Schneider says. Scientists want their experiments to exist outside the real, political context, she argues.

Her group is opposed to any outdoor solar geoengineering research, including the Harvard balloon experiment. “If they do go forward, it would definitely be something we challenge publicly and openly,” she says.

Schneider says even if the Harvard group assembled an independent advisory board, she wonders whether members of a handpicked board would be truly independent. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Frumhoff agrees that it’s a legitimate concern but also wonders who else would assemble a board.

Frumhoff says the discussion is incredibly difficult, but that doesn’t mean we should shy away from it. “The scientific community is wrestling with all manner of technologies that we didn’t take seriously a few years ago,” he says. “Now is the moment to have this conversation because it’s coming at us.”

For now, solar geoengineering is likely to continue being a contentious conversation. MIT’s Cziczo says he’s willing to be wrong about solar geoengineering but that “no one has shown me that it’s a good idea.”

Cziczo and Keutsch are colleagues in the same field and are actually good friends. They’ve even discussed their opposing viewpoints over beers. “I’m not sure that either of us will fully convince the other,” Cziczo says.

He does, however, think it’s important to teach the science of geoengineering and dedicates a few lectures to it in a special course for MIT undergraduates based on the National Academies’ geoengineering reports. He notes that these students will be the ones dealing with the impact of the climate decisions his generation makes.

After the lesson, he likes to ask the class if they would choose a low-cost solar geoengineering option or if they’d pay more to reduce emissions to respond to climate change. He says it may be the way he teaches the topic, but “the students always choose to address the underlying problem.”

CORRECTION: This story was updated on March 27, 2018, to clarify that the Harvard balloon experiment would be the first solar geoengineering experiment to take place in the stratosphere, not the first one ever conducted.

Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © 2018 American Chemical Society




Holy Saturday — The Keys of Death and Hades

March 31, 2018

BlessedIsTruth's Blog

Jesus pulls Adam and Eve out of their graves that lead to Hell or Limbo before he resurrects.  St. Savior in Chora (Istanbul) 

The Harrowing of Hell

The Harrowing of Hell is a doctrine in Christian theology referenced in the Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult), which states that Jesus “descended into Hell“. His descent to the underworld has been termed the most controversial phrase in the Apostles’ Creed


The term “Harrowing of Hell” refers not merely to the idea that Christ descended into Hell, as in the Creed, but to the rich tradition that developed later, asserting that he triumphed over inferos, releasing Hell’s captives, particularly Adam and Eve, and the righteous men and women of Old Testament times. 






View original post 1,138 more words

UFT88 Read at Illinois Urbana Champaign

March 31, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

UIUC was founded in 1867 and is one of the leading research universities in the world, ranked 28 by webometrics, having just slipped out of the top twenty, 37 by Times and Shanghai and 69 by QS. It has 45,813 students and is associated with thirty Nobel Laureates, including Bardeen, and one Fields Medallist. There are probably several faulty and a number of students inside UIUC who are ECE physicists, or keep an open mind between ECE and standard. UIUC has regularly expressed interest in my work since about 1974, first by reprint requests and since 2003 by regular study of ECE theory. UFT88 is a famous classic that is the most well known refutation of Einsteinian GR, which has been quietly abandoned by standard modellers themselves in papers dealing with S star systems. They merely fall back on empiricism. ECE is by now a very powerful theory because with…

View original post 18 more words

The Thirteenth Station

March 30, 2018

BlessedIsTruth's Blog


The Thirteenth Station
Jesus Taken from the Cross

V. We adore Thee, O Christ, and we bless Thee.
R. Because by Thy holy cross Thou hast redeemed the world.

The Mystery
Consider the grief of the Mother of God when she received in her arms the body of her divine Son, all pale, covered with blood, and void of life.

The Prayer
O most holy Virgin! obtain for me the grace never more to crucify Jesus afresh by new sins, but by the practice of virtue to keep Him ever alive in me.

Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory be to the Father. Jesus Christ Crucified, have mercy on us!

Mary Magdalene — “Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. John 19: 25

The Rending of the Veil — St Matthew’s Gospel chapter 27 verse 51


View original post 52 more words

404(2) : Precession Due to a Rotating Object (Apsidal and Larmor methods)

March 30, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

This note shows that there is very good agreement between the apsidal and Larmor methods described resepctively in Note 404(1), and UFT345, giving great confidence in both methods and in an ECE2 covariant theory rather than the incorrect Einstein theory. The Larmor method is described in UFT345, where an averaging procedure was used to obtain exact agreement with experimental data from Gravity Probe B. The apsidal method can be calculated exactly with computer algebra, I have given an approximate method using hand calculations which can be checked as usual. This note shows that there is rigorous self consistency among several concepts introduced in the past two years or so. The Larmor method relies on the ECE2 gravitomagnetic field (UFT117 and UFT345) and the apsidal method on its potential. The original calculation by Lense and Thirring completely omits torsion because it was based on the torsionless Einstein equation.


View original post

Proceeding with UFT403

March 29, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

I am proceeding with calculations for UFT403 and my work is planned out for a few weeks ahead.

View original post

Note 404(1)

March 27, 2018

Fwd: Section 3 of UFT 403

March 27, 2018

Dr. Myron Evans

Many thanks, an excellent section 3 as usual. I will post the final version of Sections 1 and 2 later today. Then the three sections can be assembled and posted as usual by Dave

This is the rewritten section 3.


Am 26.03.2018 um 13:49 schrieb Myron Evans:

It is clear from the apsidal method that the change in the ellipse is a precession, because the apsidal angle is no longer pi.


View original post

@CalciteAsh News #GOP #UNIDO Sometimes STUFF just piles up! 26 March 2018 –

March 26, 2018









‘Assad Has no Right to Resign’: Migrant to Switzerland Talks War in Syria:

via @SputnikInt


Date: Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: I: Discussion of ECE and Maxwell
To: “Santini Lorenzo (E&C TGX)” <lorenzo.santini>
Cc: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Dear Lorenzo,

Prof. Evans has a new email address, see CC of this email.
Let me give some comments to your questions. Spacetime devices is a field with a lot of cheating and unproven claims. We try to seperate the weat from the chaff. The mechanisms of Osamu Ide have been proven by our Munich group but so far we have not succeeded in building a functionable energy device. The Bedini machine did not deliver overunity, we only made a theoretical study. Another field we are pursuing is magnetic generators (or “motors”). Here we are working on several concepts that are promising. As private persons, we have to use our hobbyist budget. Thing would proceed faster if we could give development orders to mechanical and EE companies but as you know this is politically delicate and nobody of other inventors who went this way succeeded with this. It would be sufficient if a research lab of a university would work with us but even this is not possible for well known reasons. We ourselves will use the open source paradigm with no information hiding. I agree with your political agenda.
There is no commercial device available to date but the LENR device E-cat of Rossi seems to be nearest to market launch, if he will overcome the problems with his financing company.

Newton’s third law is mostly equated with conservation of momentum in modern work (see the “omnicient” Wikipedia). In contrast to Einstein’s original general relativity, energy and momentum are perfectly conserved in ECE theory. This is possible because the vacuum (or aether or spacetime, which are synonyms in this respect) is included automatically in ECE theory by spacetime curvature and torsion. In Einsteinian theory, special and general relativity are quite distinct and have nearly no common point. This makes it difficult to describe a transition from special to general relativity which is well known in standard physics. ECE theory is defined as a theory of “general relativity” a priori by inclusion of spacetime curvature and torsion. The field equations (formally identical to Maxwell’s equations but based on a more general spacetime) are covariant. Special relativity is introduced by using the respective covariant line element

of the Lorentz transform. However we do not restrict to constant relative velocities but use it in the way as it is used in so-called relativistic mechanics. The problem in the latter is that it is not well defined because the Lorentz transform is only derived for constant relative velocities. We avoid this problem by using directly the above approach for deriving all kinds of effects that are usually described by special relativity. We were even able to reduce effects usually ascribed to general relativity, for example the orbital precession of planet Mercury, to this type of “special relativity”. We simply used the Lagrangian formulation of special relativity with the above line element, see UFT papers 325 and 391, section 3.3.

Currently we are preparing a paper on levitation of gyroscopes. This will show the astonishing result that even Lagrangian dynamics yields this effect because linear momentum is not conserved in purely rotating systems. Maybe this is a violation of Newton’s third law, but Newton did not consider rotational motion. Leonhard Euler was the first to work this out in detail.

The paper of Martins/Pinheiro is interesting. They derive the equivalence between fluid dynamics and electrodynamics. We did the same but based on a Japanese author named Kambe, see the papers from UFT 351 onward. I think we came to the same results concerning the Navier-Stokes equations. Also the approach of basing the physics on the potentials instead of the force fields is the same. The difference to ECE is that we use the spin connections of Cartan geometry. This goes beyond Maxwell-Heaviside. In addition, there is an intrinsic antisymmetry relation in Cartan geometry which even gives two equal definitions of the electric field:

(observe the two equality signs!). It comes out that in the electrostatic case there must be a vector potential A that is curl-free. This is a non-Maxwellian result.
Concerning the velocity appearing in the Pinheiro formula, the Lorentz force term v x B does not appear in Maxwell-like equations because there in no relative velocity of frames. For this reason only the partial derivatives appear, not the total derivatives. However if you consider moving charges, then the Lorentz force term hs to be included. This is the same in ECE theory. On the other hand, a current of moving charges is included in the Maxwell-like equations. There are open questions concerning interpretation. In ECE theory charges and currents are geometrical objects, therefore the classical motion aspect cannot be used, only in an approximation where charges and currents of Maxwellian type come out. These are two levels of abstraction. The difference can be seen when using the microscopic description of matter, the Dirac equation. In ECE we derived the equivalent equation, it contains a curvature term. Only if curvature is assumed constant, we obtain the Dirac equation (special relativity) which is the basis of quantum mechanics. You see that ECE goes beyond “common knowledge”. It is possible to replace contemparary physics of elementary particles, which is a phenomenological theory, to a geometric theory based on first-principles. This as aspect has not been worked out yet in all detail.
AIAS has shown that fluid dynamics effects can be included in all fields of physics. For example an “aether field” can lead to orbital precession of planets, as does the inclusion of relativistic effects. Another explanation is given for radiative corrections.
Another aspect of Maxwell’s equations is that there are longitudinal solutions, so-called Beltrami fields. These have been worked out in great detail. A comprehensive description of all this is given in the books

So far for today.
I wish you a good start in 2018.



“There is no reasonable doubt that the vacuum (or aether or spacetime) contains a source of inexhaustible, safe and clean energy. ”


“Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, München, Germany, Email:”


Click to access What-are-Scalar-Waves_Horst-Eckardt_Jan-2012.pdf


“Based on the fundamental insights of Albert
Einstein and Elie Cartan, Evans’ theory takes the geometry of space-time itself as the origin of all forces of Nature.
As Einstein attributed gravitation to the curvature of space-time, the new theory attributes electromagnetism to the
torsion or twisting of space-time.”



379(1): Counter Gravitation and the Faraday Cage Gyroscope Experiment

This is the first note of the three hundred and seventy ninth paper of ECE and ECE2 theories (Einstein Cartan Evans unified field theory). These papers and books have been prepared since March 2003. This note derives field potential relations (17) and (18) for the electric field strength E and the acceleration due to gravity g. The ECE wave equations for electromagnetism (Eq. (24)) and gravitation (Eq. (41)) are used to define the electromagnetic and gravitational scalar potentials in terms of the scalar curvature R of the ECE wave equations in in Eqs. (34) and (54) respectively. The electromagnetic and gravitational Euler Bernoulli equations are derived from the respective ECE wave equations, and are given by Eqs. (39) and (45) respectively. At the well known Euler Bernoulli resonance the electromagnetic and gravitational scalar potentials can become infinite. This is the key point for counter gravitational apparatus design. Since all forms of energy are interconvertible, an oscillating electromagnetic driving force can be used to produce an infinite gravitational potential. Engineering the correct sign of the potential gives counter gravitation from rigorous principles of ECE and ECE2 theory. The electromagnetic and gravitational Lorenz conditions are used in a new guise in Eqs. (29) and (51) respectively. This allows new insight to gauge theory and the Aharonov Bohm effects. So gauge theory becomes consistent with Cartan geometry. Modern physics is to a large extent based on gauge theory. The ECE2 antisymmetry laws are used together with the particular solutions (13) to (16). The structure of the theory is rigorously self consistent from 2003 to present. There are three hundred and seventy nine variations on a theme of Cartan geometry, the two Maurer Cartan structure equations and various identities of geometry. Three new identities have been discovered since 2003: the Evans identity for Hodge dual forms (an example of the Cartan identity); the Evans torsion identity (UFT109) and the Jacobi Cartan Evans identity of UFT313. In UFT354, Doug Lindstrom, Horst Eckardt and I show that tosion completely changes the now obsolete metric compatibility theory used by Einstein. These advances are known by the appellation “post Einsteinian paradigm shift”, a phrase coined by the eminent physics editor Prof. Emeritus Alwyn van der Merwe of Denver University, Colorado, U. S. A.




Date: 2016-02-13 14:14
Subject: A good read…


Sekret Machines Book 1: Chasing Shadows


Rosalie Bertell is an ethicist of the same magnitude as before her Rachel Carson with her book “Silent Spring” about the fifties and sixties of the 20th century, who was the first to create awareness about the spreading chemical contamination in nature, and its ramifications with regards to steadily growing cancer rates (Carson 1962).




Modern and prospective technologies for weather modification activities: Developing a framework for integrating autonomous unmanned aircraft systems

T.P. DeFelice a,⁎, Duncan Axisa b

a Sykesville, MD, USA

b Research Applications Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA




Tupper Saussy

[I haven’t the faintest, but I like Jon.]


There Is a River: The Story of Edgar Cayce




Spotted Mountain – AZ






On Gravity and using Inertia to overcome it – 06/07/17 written for KeelyNet by Jerry W. Decker – Sandy Kidd “What we have here is a potential space drive,” Laithwaite

March 26, 2018

KeelynetOn Gravity and using Inertia to overcome it – 06/07/17
written for KeelyNet by Jerry W. Decker – free to copy/reprint06/07/17 – Unknown physical interaction between angular momentum of a spinning gyroscope and Earth’s magnetic and electric fields. 
KeelyNet All we need to perform this Nobel Prize winning experiment is a gyroscope with a vertical support, and a Faraday cage.According to my hypothesis, there will be a measurable time difference between a freely spinning gyroscope inside, and outside the Faraday cage. A gyroscope freely spinning inside a Faraday cage will come to rest in less time than when spinning outside it.The reason for this effect is that the gyroscope inside a Faraday cage will be spinning in the absence of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields.The gyroscope spinning outside the cage in the presence of Earth’s magnetic and electric fields is subject to the influence of the Biefeld-Brown effect (a macro-scale instance of the Minkowski-Feigel effect) that causes the gyroscope to resist the attraction of Earth’s gravity, which happens to be none other than pure natural antigravity effect.“ Scientific discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody else has thought. Scientific discovery must be, by definition, at variance with existing knowledge. During my lifetime, I made two. Both were rejected offhand by the Popes of that field of science.” — Nobel Prize Laureate, 1937

06/07/17 – Beyond 2001 – How One Man Revolutionised the Laws of Physics 
I received your email via Jerry Decker, whom I have corresponded with in the past. I was quite interested in the fact that there seems to be an element of belief in my work. I have to say that over the years my machines and laboratory test reports have been treated with contempt. I am 80 years old now but it is amazingly refreshing to find that there are others who at least consider the possibility of inertial drive as it tends to be called.

30 years ago in the University of Dundee where my device was being subjected to their form of analysis I decided to demonstrate the fact that I could control the centrifugal force generated on a rod of fixed length with an attached fixed mass at a fixed rotation speed. I demonstrated to a team of two or three engineering department members which was received without any form of reaction. None are so blind.

I knew I would have problems with my claims from that time onwards. I take it that you are aware that I built a device in Australia in the mid 1980s at the request of an Australian businessman. My device on test at the VIPAC laboratories in Port Melbourne proved without doubt that Inertial Thrust had been achieved in 20 successful runs out of 20.

Unfortunately the engineering team could not make the results comply with Newton so in their opinion it could not be developed. That lab report is available with photo of the device and US Patent application.

That all said, the device shown on YouTube works for a whole set of different reasons, and I have to say that none of them are obvious to the beholder.

I can easily explain Laithwaite’s large flywheel demonstration and that other antigravity flywheel demonstration. Not many people appear to have gone to the trouble of mechanically accelerating gyroscope, or more correctly flywheel systems, as the results are not quite as expected. I do not think Euler was aware of what goes on in such systems. – Best regards, Sandy Kidd

“What we have here is a potential space drive,” Laithwaite said. “Properly developed, this would take you to the outer universe on a spoonful of uranium.”

06/07/17 – Marsden Inertial Lift 
Disturbing video from the inventor “Mike Marsden”. The device called “Mac Quan 1” is able to come to weigh “negative”. The implications of such a machine are very large. I have looked for more information about the inventor and his with without success. If someone has more information, it would be interesting to share it.

06/07/17 – Jump faster than you fall 
KeelyNet This is my favorite real world test which I understand was carried out in a research lab in Japan.

Notice the most remarkable triple jump before it lands on top of the box. Using inertia as the phantom ground to push against.

It is the single best demonstration I’ve ever seen to illustrate the myth of Baron Munchhausen jerking himself and his horse out of quicksand. – JWD

Baron Munchausen – In one of the Baron’s adventures, he rescues himself from a swamp, as a metaphor for belief in complete metaphysical free will; Nietzsche calls this belief an attempt “to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness”.[79]

When, at least in my opinion, it is a clear demonstration of how we can use inertia to lessen weight and overcome gravity.

Another remarkable claim for a commericial size inertial drive powered airship was 02/28/14 – The American Gyro ‘Gyradoscope’ Inertial Flyer – The exact mechanism by which this effect is produced is somewhat obscure, but a model of the device already built has been bolted to the floor of a freight elevator, it is claimed, and succeeded in raising and lowering it with ease. In this test a 20-horsepower gasoline engine furnished power. Lifting force exerted by the gyradoscope is likened to that of a ball thrown on the end of a string. The weight of the ball at the moment it draws the string taut exerts a lifting effect on a pencil or other object to which the bottom of the string may be tied. In the gyradoscope the moving weights on the wheels are analogous to the thrown ball.

KeelynetPost a Useful commentSomething from Nothing RevisitedRectifying ChaosWhy we don’t Want Anti-Gravity – just yet!to www.keelynet.comKeelynetYour (Mostly) Dead Predecessors

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” (Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895)”I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” (Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943)”There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.” (Ken Olsen, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977)”The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” (Western Union internal memo, 1876)”Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.” (Marshal Ferdinand Foch, French commander of Allied forces during the closing months of World War I, 1918)”The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” (David Sarnoff’s associates, in response to his urgings for investment in radio in the 1920’s)”Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.” (New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard’s revolutionary rocket work, 1921)”Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” (Harry M. Warner, Warner Brothers, 1927)”Everything that can be invented has been invented.” (Charles H. Duell, commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899)”The [flying] machine will eventually be fast; they will be used in sport, but they are not to be thought of as commercial carriers.” — Octave Chanute, aviation pioneer, 1904.”The ordinary ‘horseless carriage’ is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never come into as common use as the bicycle.” — The Literary Digest, 1889.”[It] is, of course, altogether valueless…. Ours has been the first, and will doubtless be the last, party of whites to visit this profitless locality.” — Lt. Joseph D. Ives, Corps of Topographical Engineers, 1861, on the Grand Canyon.”Landing and moving around on the moon offer so many serious problems for human beings that it may take science another 200 years to lick them.” — Science Digest, August, 1948.”X rays are a hoax.” “Aircraft flight is impossible.” “Radio has no future.” — Physicist and mathematician Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)”I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, Chairman, IBM, 1943.”The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Adm. William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Energy Project, 1945.”Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.” — Popular Mechanics, 1949.”We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.” — Decca Recording Co., in rejecting the Beatles, 1962.Keelynet

Guidelines for Alternative ScienceAlternative science covers a wide range of interests. Generally, it includes gravity control, free energy, electronic healing techniques, all forms of energy conversion, antigravity, levitation, overunity, time travel (as well as slowing down or speeding up local time).

Also clearly covered is the art of power generation (ideally zero point or aether conversion), space travel, physics of matter and energy, sound/acoustics and how it can be used to produce useful phenomena, electric or magnetic forces to produce useful phenomena, various types of motors, vacuum energy, dimensional travel and shifts, medicine, hydrogen generation and how it is used.

It also covers oil/petroleum and how it can be used to produce energy and products, weather control for cancelling earthquakes, tsunamis, fires, floods and to produce rain or clear weather on demand, oxygen/ozone therapy, nitrogen as a motor driver, water generation and manipulation via steam and vacuum, ecological restoration techniques, biophysics, rejuvenation and an unending list of other subjects, most of which are accepted by ‘orthodox’ science.

Vanguard Sciences



To: Horst Eckardt From: Myron Evans

“Congratulations on the high interest in the gyroscope paper UFT396! There is much more to the gyroscope than meets the eye.”


“Thanks, we are in contact with Sandy Kidd who built the first lifting gyroscopic device.



“This looks very interesting. With a theoretical understanding as in UFT396 the gyroscope could be used for lifting in heavy engineering.

Myron Evans”