Honestly Not Sure How A Turd Like This Calls Itself A Scholar.....,

chronicle  |  It is not surprising for a boss to think that employees should avoid saying things in public that might damage the organization for which they both work. It is not even surprising for the boss to understand “damage” to include making the boss’s own life more difficult.

But college faculty members have fought very hard, for a very long time, to be protected from such attitudes. They have established that, unlike employees at most organizations, they have the right to publicly criticize their employer and their administration. So it is notable when an especially prominent administrator publicly announces that faculty speech rights should be rolled back a century or so. That is what Lawrence D. Bobo, dean of social science and a professor of social sciences at Harvard University, did last week in an opinion essay published in The Harvard Crimson with the ominous title, “Faculty Speech Must Have Limits.”

Members of the faculty, Bobo argued, have the right to debate “key policy matters” in “internal discussion,” but they should be careful that their dissent not reach outside ears:

A faculty member’s right to free speech does not amount to a blank check to engage in behaviors that plainly incite external actors — be it the media, alumni, donors, federal agencies, or the government — to intervene in Harvard’s affairs. Along with freedom of expression and the protection of tenure comes a responsibility to exercise good professional judgment and to refrain from conscious action that would seriously harm the university and its independence.

Such public criticisms, Bobo says, “cross a line into sanctionable violations of professional conduct.” If a group of faculty members, for example, decides that a dean’s policies are inimical to their institution’s core mission, and if they take their criticism to the press, then — according to Bobo — they should be properly disciplined.

Bobo’s views were conventional wisdom among university officials and trustees in 1900. They are shocking in 2024. Shocking, but unfortunately no longer surprising. The Harvard dean’s arguments resonate with a growing movement of those who wish to muzzle the faculty. Professors are to be free to speak, so long as they do not say anything that might disturb the powers that be. Those in power may not want the faculty to march to the same tune, but they do all like giving the faculty their marching orders and expecting them not to step out of line.

The 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, issued jointly by the American Association of University Professors and what was then called the Association of American Colleges, established the now widely adopted rules regarding faculty speech. It specifies that when professors “speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.” The statement does suggest that professors have some “special obligations” when speaking in public, though the AAUP has long urged that those be treated as suggestive rather than obligatory. Even so, the statement merely urged professors to “be accurate” and “exercise appropriate restraint.” They “should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances,” and thus they should avoid embarrassing themselves in public by being rude or ignorant. But there was no suggestion that they should avoid airing the university’s dirty laundry.

Harvard’s own free-expression policy, first adopted in the Vietnam era, is if anything even more emphatic about the need for officials to tolerate dissent and critique. It notes that “reasoned dissent plays a particularly vital part” in the university’s existence and that all members of the university community have the right to “advocate and publicize opinion by print, sign, and voice.” Dissenters are not to obstruct “the essential processes of the university” or interfere “with the ability of members of the university to perform their normal activities,” but they are free to “press for action” and “constructive change” by organizing, advocating, and persuading. Bobo’s ideas about where the limits of faculty speech are to be found are plainly at odds with both AAUP principles and common university policies, not to mention First Amendment principles that would bind officials at state universities.

The AAUP’s 1915 Declaration of Principles provided the rationale for such protections of faculty dissent. “With respect to certain external conditions of his vocation,” a professor “accepts a responsibility to the authorities of the institution in which he serves,” but “in the essentials of his professional activity his duty is to the wider public to which the institution itself is morally amenable.” The “university is a great and indispensable organ of the higher life of a civilized community,” and the members of the faculty “hold an independent place, with quite equal responsibilities” for caring for and preserving those institutions. For those purposes, the “professorial office” was not that of an employee doing the bidding of a boss but that of a scholar answering to a public trust. The faculty’s ultimate duty is not to the college as such but to the larger public that even private universities, as charitable institutions, serve.

KC Gets KKFI Community Radio And Kultcha That Y'all Don't Get...,

pbs.org   |  [Cerrone's "Supernature" playing] Woman: The disco sound was just wonderful.

It was exciting, powerful, you know, spank you, and you just had a good time.

Barry Walters: Disco brought together Black Pride, women's liberation, and LGBT culture.

It was the coming together of that that made it so powerful.

Allen Roskoff: Listening to the music and letting yourself go, you become a different person.

Singers: ♪ Supernature ♪ ♪ Supernature ♪ ♪ Supernature ♪ ♪ Supernature ♪ There was this powder keg chain reaction that happened that made it suddenly totally take over the airwaves.

Singers: ♪ Supernature ♪ Jake Shears: It was, of course "Saturday Night Fever" that really, like, tipped everything over, that, like, tipped the scales.

It just set the world on fire.

Disco was on everybody's lips.

Clubs were packed every night.

♪ Woman: Studio 54, I created it as a playground.

Sex, drugs, disco, whatever you need.

Singer: ♪ Angry with the man ♪ ♪ 'Cause he changed their way of life ♪ Bill Bernstein: In the late seventies, the outsider became the insider.

Singer: ♪ Take their sweet revenge ♪ Woman: The Black disco diva was a breakthrough persona.

Someone like Donna Summer, she was a disco queen.

Don't forget Gloria in all her gloria.

Singers: ♪ Supernature ♪ I think that era music allowed the disco diva to have this stage to be adored and celebrated.

♪ Candi Staton: Disco freed me.

It saved me.

[Cheering] ♪ Singers: ♪ Supernature ♪ [Protestors shouting] ♪ Richard Nixon: In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the nation.

Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me.

Woman: In the mid-1970s, the United States was not a happy place.

There was the Watergate scandal, and any faith that Americans had in government was shaken to its core.

What percentage of the American people do you think still have confidence in President Nixon?

Well, among young people, very few, I'd say less than 25%.

Nixon: Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.

P.A.

announcer: Nixon has announced he will resign as president of the United States at noon tomorrow.

Roskoff: In my life and everybody I knew, Nixon was detested, but it was an intense period of time.

You knew you were living history.

You knew that this is monumental.

♪ [Machineguns firing] George McCrae: Was a hard time because of the Vietnam War.

Also a nuclear bomb threat And Russia, you know.

that they might drop a bomb any day.

"Oh, my God.

What we gonna do?"

♪ Farrington: The flip side of this dark moment is that when life gets hard, you party harder.

[Gloria Gaynor's "Never Can Say Goodbye" playing] ♪ I was living in New York in the 1970s.

All we wanted to do was dance to disco music.

Gaynor: ♪ I never can say goodbye ♪ David Depino: There was a freedom.

It was like express yourself was so welcome and wanted, and music was the common denominator.

Gaynor: ♪ Heading for the door ♪ ♪ There's a very strange... ♪ Nicky Siano: I mean, it was just igniting people's dance souls.

Gaynor: ♪ It says, "Turn around, you fool" ♪ ♪ "You know love him" ♪ Man: Why is everybody rushing and flooding the doors of discotheque?

Oh, I think it's because with all of the hardships that are going on in the world today, people need a place to go and relieve tension and release their anxieties, and discotheques are a great place to do just that.

Gaynor: ♪ Say goodbye, boy ♪ ♪ Ooh, ooh, baby ♪ ♪ I never can say goodbye ♪ ♪ No, no, no, hey ♪ ♪ I never can say goodbye ♪ ♪ Say goodbye ♪ ♪ Oh, no, I ♪ Reporter: Gloria Gaynor is a rock 'n' roll singer whose records have really never made it before until she decided to specialize in a brand-new rock 'n' roll musical style called disco music.

Gaynor: ♪ All gonna work out ♪ ♪ But there's that same unhappy feeling ♪ ♪ And that anguish and that doubt ♪ Depino: She made you raise your hands up and want to touch the ceiling while you were dancing and screaming.

When Gloria was doing her thing, I think she was the First Lady of Disco.

♪ Say goodbye ♪ ♪ It is so ♪ ♪ I don't want to let you go ♪ Vince Aletti: She was one of the earliest people to have a major presence in the clubs, was, you know, Queen of Disco before there was such a title.

Gaynor: ♪ No, no, no, no, no, ooh ♪ Gloria, did you ever think this would happen?

No, I really didn't.

Not like this, anyway.

I always thought I would sing eventually, but I never thought all this would happen.

♪ I never can say goodbye ♪ ♪ No, no, no, no, no, no, no ♪ Woman: I think disco means to most people, probably it means a lot of fun.

To me, it meant a change.

♪ Farrington: In the early seventies, Black women were caught between a rock and a hard place.

Statistically, they were at the bottom of the heap.

They earned less than most any other group, male or female.

They were victimized by a notorious government-sponsored report called the Moynihan Report.

It was a report that discussed what were the particular problems of Blacks and Jews and Puerto Ricans.

Black women were literally blamed for the problems of Black men.

Black women were heads of their families, too matriarchal, too strong, and unfortunately, when scholars produce a document that is government-approved, people tend to believe it, and so rather than fight against this, which was virtually impossible for a group that oppressed to do, they tried not to be like that.

Nona Hendryx: You had to work hard to fit in, and to fit in, you're gonna be quiet.

You're not gonna bring all your loud culture with you or whatever it is and make demands.

You're gonna try and fit in.

[Church choir singing] Ward: When I was growing up, the only time that people heard my voice, I was singing.

My father had been a minister, so we just had to kind of stick to what we were told to do.

I just wanted to sing.

Woman: ♪ I can hear Jesus calling me ♪ Choir: ♪ Calling me ♪ Staton: The pastor called me up on the stage, and I started singing, and the church people started shouting and screaming and standing up and waving.

"Sing, baby!

Sing that song."

That was the beginning.

♪ Ohh ♪ Woman: The gospel diva or the soul diva, that's a really powerful, full-bodied sound that moved into the mainstream in the sixties.

Man: Sarah Dash, Nona Hendryx, Patricia Holt, known as Patti LaBelle and the Bluebelles.

♪ Somewhere over ♪ ♪ The rainbow ♪ Hendryx: In the sixties, se were a traditional girl group, and we dressed alike.

We did the kind of, you know, lead singer with backing singers waving their arms and looking very nice.

Farrington: Patti LaBelle and the Bluebelles were fulfilling a vision of Black womanhood that was on the tail end of the early sixties Motown era.

They embodied that non-threatening persona that America wanted to place Black women in.

♪ Hey, hey, oh, oh, oh ♪ Hendryx: We were expected to carry ourselves a certain way in the public, you know, well-dressed, well-behaved.

That's how it was.

♪ Really do come true ♪ Staton: In the music industry, we were fighting, trying to get out of that box that we were put in in the sixties, so disco was wonderful.

Royster: Disco did offer Black women new opportunities.

Disco did give space for Black women to kind of add soul and funk and depth to a lot of different kinds of music to kind of take center stage like Patti LaBelle and the Bluebelles.

[Labelle's "Lady Marmalade" playing] ♪ Woman: My next guest stars are the hottest girl group in America.

Man, they are truly hot, and they've got the hottest single, too, "Lady Marmalade," and here they are-- Nona Hendryx, Sarah Dash, and Patti LaBelle known throughout the music industry as Labelle.

♪ Go, sister, soul sister ♪ ♪ Flow, sister ♪ ♪ Go now ♪ ♪ Go, sister, soul sister ♪ ♪ Flow, sister ♪ ♪ He met Marmalade ♪ ♪ Down in old New Orleans ♪ ♪ Struttin' her stuff on the street ♪ Farrington: When Patti LaBelle and the Bluebelles changed their name, they changed their look, and they changed it dramatically.

♪ Da da ♪ ♪ Gitchi gitchi ya ya here ♪ ♪ Mocha ♪ ♪ Mocha chocolata, ya ya ♪ Hendryx: Patti LaBelle And the Bluebelles were a girl group, right?

Labelle were a girl band.

♪ Voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir?

♪ ♪ Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?

♪ Ana Matronic: Labelle looking like they just, like, beamed in from some crazy, funky galaxy.

It was just so over the top and so amazing and so out there.

That to me meant a certain kind of freedom.

♪ Oh, gitchi gitchi ya ya here ♪ The architect of the look of Labelle was Legaspi.

He also designed the look for KISS.

Patti LaBelle: ♪ Ahh ahh ♪ Farrington: He also designed the look for Funkadelic.

Labelle: ♪ Coucher avec moi ce soir?

♪ Larry was already sort of making things that looked like a futuristic look, and then with us being open to even going further, he began to design more.

♪ More, more, more ♪ Farrington: I was mesmerized and delighted to see my people in a way that was unlike any way anyone had ever imagined them.

Labelle: ♪ More, more, more ♪ ♪ Gitchi gitchi ya ya da da ♪ ♪ Gitchi gitchi ya ya here ♪ Hendryx: Just singing songs that felt right to us or mattered to us, and the audience were responding to it.

♪ Touching her skin, feeling silky smooth ♪ ♪ Ahh ♪ ♪ Ahh ♪ Royster: Lady Marmalade is talking about, I mean, basically sex tourism and sex work.

♪ Roar until it cried ♪ All: ♪ "More, more, more!"

♪ Royster: Women don't often get center stage, or if there is a story that's being told, it's also a story that's about titillation or about fetishization.

Hendryx: It's like a playwright, you know, someone describing something as opposed to judging it and in a way that-- not celebratory, but in a way that was not downtrodden and horrible and that this is just yet another aspect of life.

[Indistinct chatter] Royster: I really think that music is really important in terms of creating social change, and in this moment, you know, music was reflecting Black women's lives in a way that it hadn't ever been.

Staton: I was so glad disco came in.

You know, good music, good lyrics, songs that had a meaning to them.

In the sixties, we were known as R&B singers.

♪ I'd rather be lonely ♪ ♪ Than to lose you ♪ My songs were, like... ♪ I'm just a prison ♪ and begging men not to leave me and "Oh, God, if you leave me, I'm just gonna die," you know, I mean, this was the kind of songs they would play on us.

Women.

Women.

Men could sing anything they wanted to sing.

So to make a long story short, disco freed me.

It saved me.

♪ You know, I been married a few times, and I don't mind telling it because, you know, I was in one of those type of marriages, but it was dangerous.

It was a really a dangerous marriage.

So I was doing Las Vegas with Ray Charles.

I was opening for Ray Charles.

The last night, I decided I was gonna just sit in the audience and watch Ray do his show, and my ex-husband, he was looking for me, and he couldn't find me, and I was in the audience, and he kept walking up and down the aisle.

I saw him.

And that's the night when he went completely nuts.

My suite was on the--way up on the 20th-something floor, and he pushed me.

You know, he was pushing me all the way through the lobby to the elevator, and then we get to the floor.

He said, "I'm--I'm gonna kill you tonight.

"I tell you what I'm gonna do.

I'm gonna throw you off the balcony."

20-something floors.

He picked me up, and had me--holding me over the banister like this, and I'm like, "This man is gonna kill me tonight.

"How in the world?

Well, how am I gonna get out of this one?"

I said, um, "You know you're in this hotel, "and it's owned by Mafia.

This is Las Vegas.

We're in Las Vegas now."

I said, "You got to get out of here.

"You got to walk out of here.

"How are you gonna feel with my body splattered at the bottom and my name is on the marquee?"

And I said, "You won't make it out of Vegas."

He thought, and he brought me back in, and he said, "I'll tell you what I'm gonna do.

I'm just gonna shoot you."

So I laid--I just, you know, I was so tired.

I just laid down on the bed.

I said, "OK.

Shoot me."

I went to sleep.

He had the gun like this.

I said, "Just shoot me.

I won't know it.

I just--forget it."

That's how "Young Hearts Run Free" came about.

Can It Be That It Was All So Simple Then....,

 

Don't Believe Your Lying Eyes - Whatever They're Telling You About Biden Is Disinformation

Biden campaign spokesman Adrienne Elrod tries to spin the viral video of Biden wandering aimlessly across Italy as "disinformation" — and demands "social media platforms" censor it. pic.twitter.com/hfMuZpMkwU

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 14, 2024

thesun.co.uk  |  "He was wandering around, he sort of wandered off and Giorgia Meloni, the Italian premier had to sort of guide him back to the crowd. It was quite painful viewing.

"Everyone's putting a slight brave face on it this morning. We've got some more for that for the paper tomorrow. But you can see from that footage yourself, can't you?

"This is getting embarrassing now. It makes you really wonder how President Biden is going to be able to run an election campaign in October and November for re election and if that is a man who really thinks he's going to get through the next four years?"

It comes as earlier this week, Biden appeared to freeze again for a moment during a Juneteenth celebration at the White House.

He looked static at the event - sparking further concern just months before the presidential election.

The Democrat's term has been plagued with gaffes and blunders.

He has fallen up the stairs of Air Force One and has stumbled on countless occasions.

Last year, Biden took a tumble at the Air Force Academy graduation ceremony.

In February, Biden confused the leaders of Mexico and Egypt while delivering a rambling address to the nation after it emerged he wouldn't face criminal charges over storing secret docs.

Last week, Biden seemed to fumble for his seat while on stage with the Macrons and his wife, Jill, at a D-Day event - but there was no chair behind him.

Questions continue to swirl over Biden's health and competency for office - just months before Americans go to the polls.

And polling suggests Biden's re-election bid could be tricky.

This week's G7 meeting was also shrouded in controversy after Putin vowed an "extremely painful" reaction to a deal made at the event to raise $50billion for Ukraine.

The Kremlin dubbed the deal "cynical and criminal" after hearing the money will be raised using frozen Russian central bank assets.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke with the leaders before the viral clip asking for the "historic" loan to keep Putin's soldiers from breaking through the frontlines.

 

Did You Humans Crack This Isht And Then Hide It From Yourselves 70 Years Ago?

airplanesandrockets  |  By far the most potent source of energy is gravity. Using it as power future aircraft will attain the speed of light.

Nuclear-powered aircraft are yet to be built, but there are research projects already under way that will make the super-planes obsolete before they are test-flown. For in the United States and Canada research centers, scientists, designers and engineers are perfecting a way to control gravity - a force infinitely more powerful than the mighty atom. The result of their labors will be anti-gravity engines working without fuel - weightless airliners and space ships able to travel at 170,000 miles per second.

If this seems too fantastic to be true, here is something to consider - the gravity research has been supported by Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Co., Convair, Bell Aircraft, Lear Inc., Sperry Gyroscope and several other American aircraft manufacturers who would not spend milli0ns of dollars on science fiction. Lawrence D. Bell, the famous builder of the rocket research planes, says, "We're already working with nuclear fuels and equipment to cancel out gravity." And William Lear, the autopilot wizard, is already figuring out "gravity control" for the weightless craft to come.

Gravitation - the mutual attraction of all matter, be it grains of sand or planets - has been the most mysterious phenomenon of nature. Isaac Newton and other great physicists discovered and described the gravitational law from which there has been no escape. "What goes up must come down," they said. The bigger the body the stronger the gravity attraction it has for other objects ... the larger the distance between the objects, the lesser the gravity pull. Defining those rigid rules was as far as science could go, but what caused gravity nobody knew, until Albert Einstein published his Theory of Relativity.

In formulating universal laws that would explain everything from molecules to stars, Einstein discovered a strong similarity between gravitation and magnetism. Magnets attract magnetic metals, of course, but they also attract and bend beams of electronic rays. For instance, in your television picture tube or electronic microscope, magnetic fields sway the electrons from their straight path. It was the common belief that gravitation of bodies attracted material objects only - then came Einstein's dramatic proof to the contrary.

The G-plane licks "heat barrier" problem of high speed by creating its own gravity field. Gravity generator attracts surrounding air to form a thick boundary layer which travels with craft and dissipates heat. Electronic rockets provide forward and reverse thrust. Crew and passenger cabins are also within ship's own gravity field, thus making fast acceleration and deceleration safe for occupants.

Pre-Einstein physicists were convinced that light traveled along absolutely straight lines. But on May 29, 1919, during a full eclipse of the sun, Einstein proved that the light rays of distant stars were attracted and bent by the sun's gravitation. With the sun eclipsed, it was possible to observe the stars and measure the exact "bend" of their days as they passed close to the sun on their way to earth.

This discovery gave modem scientists a new hope. We already knew how to make magnets by coiling a wire around an iron core. Electric current running through the coiled wire created a magnetic field and it could be switched on and off at will. Perhaps we could do the same with the gravitation.

Einstein's famous formula E = mc² - the secret of nuclear energy - opened the door to further research in gravitation. Prying into the atom's inner structure, nuclear scientists traced the gravity attraction to the atom's core - the nucleus. First they separated electrons by bombarding the atom with powerful electromagnetic "guns." Then, with even more powerful electromagnetic bombardment, the scientists were able to blast the nucleus. The "split" nucleus yielded a variety of heretofore unknown particles.

In the course of such experiments, Dr. Stanley Deser and Dr. Richard Arnowitt of Princeton Institute of Advanced Study found the gravity culprit - tiny particles responsible for gravitation. Without those G-(gravity) particles, an atom of, say, iron still behaved as any other iron atom except for one thing - it was weightless.

With the secret of gravitation exposed, the scientists now concentrate their efforts on harnessing the G-particles and their gravity pull. They are devising ways of controlling the gravity force just as the vast energy of a nuclear explosion has been put to work in a docile nuclear reactor for motive power and peaceful use. And once we have the control of those G-particles, the rest will be a matter of engineering.

According to the gravity research engineers, the G-engine will replace all other motors. Aircraft, automobiles, submarines, stationary powerplants - all will use the anti-gravity engines that will require little or no fuel and will be a mechanic's dream. A G-engine will have only one moving part - a rotor or a flywheel. One half of the rotor will be subjected to a de-gravitating apparatus, while the other will still be under the earth's gravity pull. With the G-particles neutralized, one half of the rotor will no longer be attracted by the earth's gravitation and will therefore go up as the other half is being pulled down, thus creating a powerful rotary movement.

Another, simpler idea comes from the Gravity. Research Foundation of New Boston, N. H. Instead of de-gravitating one half of the rotor, we would merely shield half of it with a gravity "absorber." The other half would still be pulled down and rotation would result (see sketch).

The anti-gravity engine rotor is partially shielded by the gravity absorber. The gravity force acting only on the exposed half of the rotor which creates a powerful rotary motion. This particular device is suitable for powering ground vehicles.

For an explanation of how the gravity "absorber" would work, lets turn to gravity's twin brother - magnetism. If you own an ordinary watch, you must be forever careful not to get it magnetized. Even holding a telephone receiver can magnetize the delicate balance wheel and throw the watch out of time. Therefore, an anti-magnetic watch is the thing to have. Inner works of such a watch are shielded by a soft iron casing which absorb the magnetic lines of force. Even in the strongest magnetic field, the shielded balance wheel is completely unaffected by the outside magnetic pull. In a similar manner, a gravity "absorber" would prevent the earth's gravity from acting upon the shielded portion of our G-engine.

Applied to engines, a gravity absorber would be a boon, but its true value would be in aircraft construction where the weight control engineers get ulcers trying to save an ounce here, a pound there. Of course, an indiscriminate shielding of an aircraft and the resulting total weightlessness is not what we would want. A de-gravitated aircraft would still be subject to the centrifugal force of our rotating globe. Freed from the gravity pull, a totally weightless aircraft would shoot off into space like sparks flying off a faster spinning, abrasive grinding wheel. So, the weight, or gravity, would have to be reduced gradually for take-off and climb. For level flight and for hovering, the weight would be maintained at some low level while landing would be accomplished by slowly restoring the craft's full weight.

The gravity-defying engineers claim that the problem of this lift control is a cinch. The shield would have an arrangement similar in principle to the venetian blind - open for no lift and closed for decreased weight and increased lift.

No longer dependent on wings or rotors, the G-craft would most likely be an ideal aerodynamic shape - a sort of slimmed-down version of the old-fashioned dirigible balloon. Since weight has a lot to do in limiting the size of today's aircraft, a perfect weight control of the G-craft would remove that barrier and would make possible airliners as big as the great ocean liner the S.S. United States.

A G-airliner would be a real speed demon. The coast-to-coast flight time would be cut to minutes even with the orthodox rocket propulsion. You may wonder about the air friction "heat barrier" of high-speed aircraft, but the gravity experts have an answer for that, too. Canadian scientists headed by Wilbur B. Smith - the director of the "Project Magnet" - visualize an apparatus producing a gravitational field in the G-ship. This gravity field would attract the surrounding air to form a thick "boundary layer" which would move with the ship. Thus, air friction would take place at a distance from the ship's structure and the friction heat would be dissipated before it could warm up the ship's skin (large diagram).

When electric current from battery is switched on the coil will create a magnetic field which repels the aluminum disk and makes it shoot upward. Future sips may be built of diamagnetic metals with specially rearranged atomic structure.

The G-ships own gravity field would perform another useful function. William P. Lear, the chairman of Lear, Inc., makers of autopilots and other electronic controls, points out, "All matter within the ship would be influenced by the ship's gravitation only. This way, no matter how fast you accelerated or changed course, your body would not feel it any more than it now feels the tremendous speed and acceleration of the earth." In other words, no more pilot blackouts or any such acceleration headaches. The G-ship could take off like a cannon shell, come to a stop with equal abruptness and the passengers wouldn't even need seat belts.

This ability to accelerate rapidly would be ideal for a space vehicle. Eugene M. Gluhareff, President of Gluhareff Helicopter and Airplane Corporation of Manhattan Beach, California, has already designed several space ships capable of travel at almost the speed of light, or about 600,000,000 miles per hour. At that speed. the round trip to Venus would take just over 30 minutes. Of course, ordinary chemical rockets would be inadequate for such speeds, but Gluhareff already figures on using "atomic rockets."

At least one such "atomic rocket" design has been worked out by Dr. Ernest Stuhlinger, a physicist of the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Stuhlinger's rocket would use ions - atoms with a positive electric charge. To produce those ions, Dr. Stuhlinger takes cesium, a rare metal that liquefies at 71° F. Blown across a platinum coil heated to 1000° F., liquid cesium is ionized, the ions are accelerated by a 10,000 volt electromagnetic "gun" and shot out of a tail pipe at a velocity of 186,324 miles per second.

The power for Dr. Stuhlinger's "ion rocket" would be supplied by an atomic reactor or by solar energy. The weight of the reactor and its size would no longer be a design problem, since the entire apparatus could be de-gravitated - made weightless. Revolutionary as Dr. Stuhlinger's idea may seem, it is already superseded by the Canadian physicists of the "Project Magnet." The Canadians propose to do away with the bulk of the nuclear reactor and use the existing magnetic fields of the earth and other planets for propulsion.

As we well know, two like magnetic poles repel each other, just as under certain conditions, an electromagnet repel the so-called diamagnetic metal, such as aluminum. Take a flat, aluminum ring, slip it over a strong electromagnet and switch on the current. Repelled by the magnetic field, the disk will fly off with quite a speed. (see sketch). Of course, the earth's magnetism is too weak to repel a huge G-ship made of a diamagnetic metal. However, the recent studies of the atomic nucleus and the discovery of G-particles make it possible to rearrange the atomic structure so as to greatly increase the diamagnetic properties of metals. Thus, a G-ship with a magnetic control could be repelled by the earth's magnetic field and it would travel along the magnetic lines of force like the aluminum ring shooting off the electromagnet.

The entire universe is covered by magnetic fields of stars and planets. Those fields intertwine in a complex pattern, but they are always there. By proper selection of those fields, we could navigate our G-ship in space as well as within the earth's magnetic field. And the use of the magnetic repulsion would eliminate the radiation danger of the nuclear reactor and the problem of atomic fuel.

How long will it take to build the weightless craft and G-engines, the gravity experts don't know. George S. Trimble, Vice-President in charge of the G-project at Martin Aircraft Corporation thinks the job "could be done in about the time it took to build the first atom bomb." And another anti-gravity pioneer, Dudley Clarke, President of Clarke Electronics Laboratories of Palm Springs, California, believes it will be a matter of a few yeas to manufacture anti-gravity "power packages."

But no matter how many years we have to wait, the amazing anti-gravity research is a reality. And the best guarantee of its early success is the backing of the U.S. aircraft industry - the engineers and technicians who have always given us tomorrow's craft today.

Do What I Do - ENJOY THE CHASE - And Stay Amused....,

 

"Many years ago I was convinced the Heisenberg uncertainty principle was incomplete, and people shouldn't just believe it because that is what modern science says. It wasn't until I learned the math and derived it in a university classroom that I realized it is a truth and I was wrong."

Since you have a physics background, you should be able to understand most of this:

The physics of Electrostatics and General Relativity shows that above a threshold electric field strength, static electricity creates repulsive anti-gravity:

https://www.reddit.com/r/antigravity/comments/10kncca/antigravity_theory/

The 1st proof in this paper shows that static electricity induces negative pressure/tension

σ = -F/A, Force per unit Area. Negative pressure has the same units as energy density E/V, Energy per unit Volume.

And General Relativity shows that negative pressure/negative energy density creates repulsive anti-gravity.

The 2nd proof shows that if negative pressure/tension is within a superconductor, the energy required to create repulsive anti-gravity is reduced by orders of magnitude - from an astronomically high level - to a level that makes it much easier to engineer anti-gravity.

 

SUMMARY OF THE PROOFS IN THIS PAPER

https://www.reddit.com/r/antigravity/comments/10kncca/antigravity_theory/

 

ON THE SURFACE OF A SPHERE CHARGED WITH STATIC ELECTRICITY THE CONDUCTION ELECTRONS ARE UNDER negative pressure, tension:

In a conducting metal sphere charged with static electricity, according to Gauss's law, all excess electrons migrate to the outer surface. These conduction electrons repel each other. The components of the electrostatic repulsive forces tangent, parallel, to the sphere surface cancel out. That leaves a net repulsive electrostatic force perpendicular to the surface. So the conduction electrons on the surface experience an outward directed electrostatic force.

Each free conduction electron on a metal conductor surface is a delocalized wave (wave function) - with potential energy proportional to the positive charges in the metal’s periodic atomic lattice, called a Bloch wave function: - meaning the electron wave on the surface is attracted to the positively charged sphere. Assuming the sphere is charged with high voltage static electricity, the conduction electron on the surface will experience an outward directed electrostatic force. This outward force is opposed by an equal attractive force in the opposite direction toward the positively charged atoms in the interior. So the electron wave is acted on by two forces: a repulsive force from the other surface electrons repelling it away from the surface; and an equal and opposite force from the positively charged interior pulling it toward the surface. This is the physics and engineering definition of negative pressure, tension. So these two equal opposing forces put the electron under negative pressure, tension.

 

PROOF AN ELECTRON CAN BE UNDER TENSION

(1) https://i.imgur.com/DoRmSOE.png

(2) https://i.imgur.com/iDRjIi6.png

(3) https://i.imgur.com/BpccTDz.png

The General Relativity gravitational field equation shows

negative pressure, tension creates

repulsive anti-gravity.

That means static electricity-induced electron

negative pressure, tension should create

repulsive anti-gravity.

 

The following paper gives the detailed physics proving that if the static electricity electric field strength is great enough, the negative pressure/tension induced in the static electricity electrons will create repulsive anti-gravity; and if the static electricity is in a superconductor the energy requirement is reduced by many orders of magnitude - - - making it orders of magnitude easier to engineer repulsive anti-gravity:

https://www.mediafire.com/file/wxlhhczku5896ga/Antigravity_Physics_101_.pd