AB: Richard, I want to let you go ahead and read what you have, and then I've got a fax that is very important for us all to understand. So, go ahead if you found it.

RH: Okay. I have found it. Let me do two things. One is I want to make a correction. Darrel Frederick has been kind enough to put a not on our conference section at Enterprise that Dr. Chu, who was the researcher on superconductivity, who discovered in the U.S. the higher temperature versions of this ceramic, is at the University of Houston. That was close, I mean, Houston's in Texas, and for the people who are transcribing this, obviously we want to give correct attribution so I thank Darrel for reminding me. It's been a while since I've actually been looking at superconductivity in this sense, so that's important. Now, let me get to the Telegraph story and read you verbatim from Matthew's piece because it is sort of interesting. "According to Dr. Eugene Podkletnov, who led the research, the discovery was accidental. It emerged during routine on so-called superconductivity, the ability of some materials to lose their electrical resistance at very low temperatures. The team was carrying out tests on a rapidly spinning of superconducting ceramic suspended in magnetic field of three electric coils, all enclosed in a low temperature vessel called a cryostat. Quote: 'One of my friends came in, and he was smoking his pipe.' Dr. Podkletnov said. 'He put some smoke over the cryostat, and we saw that the smoke was going to the ceiling all the time. It was amazing. We couldn't explain it.' Tests showed a small drop in the weight of objects placed over the device as if it were shielding the object from the effects of gravity, an effect deemed impossible by most scientists. 'We thought it must be a mistake,' Dr. Podkletnov said, 'but we have taken every precaution. Yet, the bizarre effects persist.' The team found that even the air pressure vertically above the device dropped slightly with the effect detectable directly above the device on every floor of the laboratory.

AB: My God. That would make sense, wouldn't it? The air pressure ...

RH: Well yeah, because you're basically setting up a convective column.

AB: Sure.

RH: And that, of course...See, there are lots of ways to test and measure this in a high school physics class.

AB: And they're saying that it went right up through the building.

RH: Yep.

AB: And they probably have no idea how far up.

RH: That's right. One of the things that I would like the students to do out there is to basically set this up so we can measure the three dimensional parameters of the field.

AB: All right. Before we get to that, Richard, this is important. You covered it, but it really is important. "Art and Richard, how do we know that the anti-gravity effect was not caused by a simple air vortex, caused by a spinning object sitting in boiling nitrogen. There might be an upward airflow from the spinning object, raising smoke to the ceiling, causing the object to weigh less due to air pressure. Maybe, this was discovered, and the paper was withdrawn. Different spin speeds show different shape air vortexes. This could be tested for." And the answer is: It was, wasn't it?

RH: Exactly. Now, remember, we're dealing with four papers. The original in 1992, which is in the peer review journal, Physica C, published in Holland, clearly lays out, and this paper, verbatim, is reproduced as jpegs or gif files on our Website, so you can actually go and read the paper, and see the experimental setup. There are diagrams showing the original experiment.

AB: Yeah, but it was shielded.

RH: What he had was a plastic membrane separating the disk from the weight.

AB: So there could not have been any air vortex effecting it.

RH: That's right, and the rotating disk was below the plastic film, so that there was no communication, in terms of the air or turbulence or anything, with the weight above it.

AB: So this is not that magical. This is anti-gravity.

RH: Well, it is reduced something. Anti-gravity...remember there's also a positive gravity here at certain spin speeds.

AB: Richard, it is only a phrase. Anti-gravity is only a phrase, and so that people might understand it.

RH: It is alteration of gravity. It is definite technological alteration of gravity, if the experiment and its extensions can be confirmed, and that's why having lots of people out there tonight eagerly thinking how they can get some of this material and set it up in a high school physics lab or a commercial or a government lab or whatever and communicate the results to us in the form of writing it up as a paper and following established protocols. I mean, this is going to make one heck of a science project. Can you imagine science projects all over the country suddenly having this show up, because this stuff is reportable. None of this stuff has to be invented. It's all out there. You basically go: one from column A, one from column B, and the effects are so huge compared to the sensitivity of balances and measuring devices, that it should be pretty to statistically overwhelmingly prove this result exists, if it exists.

AB: I'll tell something, Richard. Here's something else somebody out there might try. Once you have duplicated what we have discussed this morning, and you have proven it, then, if I were experimenting, Richard, I would begin to introduce rotating RF fields at different VHF, UHF frequencies, and see what effect that had.

RH: Well, let me give you a couple of variations that were in the paper that he's withdrawn. Apparently he finds out that if you make two of these things and stack them over each other, you double the effect. If you make three, you triple the effect.

AB: Oh my.

RH: Now, if you rotate them in opposite directions you get a bigger effect.

AB: Really.

RH: Yes. In other words, this is only limited by the imagination of the listener, or the reader on the Web. There's some real neat cutting edge science here that doesn't require a couple billion and a government to do. There few times in history, Art, when something of this magnitude is discussed on radio or television or in the media that is within the realm of ordinary people to make a stunning contribution.

AB: Well, we're getting...I realize that we're a little heavy for a lot of the audience, but this is so damn important that there's just no other way to do it, and I'll try to keep us as grounded as we can. React to this, if you would: "Mr. Hoagland, what you're talking about sounds like virtual gravity. The force of gravity on a mass is reduced by centrifugal force due to motion of mass. In this equation, the component of the earth's angular velocity vector, normal to the motion of the mass, is measured. For reasonable atmospheric values, the correction terms of the order of 0.01% the magnitude of gravity, but you're discussing 0.05%, the virtual gravity equation may have to be revised."

RH: Well, but in the actual experiment, it went up to three tenths of a percent, when the disk is spinning, and in the latest version, that was in the paper that he just withdrew, he gets a 2% drop, not a tenth of a percent....

AB: Well that's way, way out of line. That cannot be accounted for.

RH: There is in the relativity equation, and this is where there's a researcher named Dr. Ning Lee, at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who has apparently been quietly looking into the theoretical possibilities of superconductors and the effect as a variant on prediction made by Einstein.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Well, unfortunately, or fortunately, the rate at which you have to spin this little disk is a percentage of the speed of light to get even a tiny effect, and there's no way that relativity can explain this. So, that was a good try, but no, what we're talking about here is very anomalous, and let me read you, again, from the Max Plank review. This is Giovanni Modenese's paper, the von Humboldt fellow at Max Plank in '95, who wrote his theoretical analysis of a reported weak gravitational shielding effect, which is basically a review of Podkletnov's paper. He says, "We show that this phenomenon has no explanation in the standard gravity theories." And I put that on the Web with that quote because what's really exciting about this is that, frankly, between you and me and a few million of our closest friends, I think this is a quintessential example of hyperdimensional physics in action, and if it is, then it means that we can think of all kinds of additions to the experiment, including the possibility of getting something that will actually levitate, that will lift off the table or the lab bench, and float around the lab.

AB: How would you...What additions to the experiment would you suggest people trying to work toward that goal?

RH: Um. Well, one is, for instance, stacking these things above each other, and at some point, if you're getting with two of them a 2% drop, if it's not linear you'll get an even larger effect by stacking them.

AB: Did they stack enough of them...

RH: We don't know. We don't know. That's...

AB: In other word, you could get to zero mass.

RH: Sure. Of course.

AB: Or zero mass, is that what...

RH: Now even...you see, if you're not in a sealed container, if you do this in an open column of air, by the time you get to a few percent, the wind effect, the rising column of air above the experiment, is going to give you the essence of a hurricane. You're going to get...you're basically going to create a miniature hurricane in a laboratory.

AB: Wow.

RH: I can see television people in Hollywood knocking themselves out on scripts right now.

AB: Yeah, so can I.

RH: Typing furiously. There's a show on Fox called "Sliders," which is kind of cute.

AB: I haven't seen it.

RH: It's kind of a variation on this. This has such amazing implications in all kinds of areas. Now, one of the questions that people have asked is, "Well, where is the energy coming from?" In fact, there was someone who wrote a note on the conference in the auditorium in the ship a few minutes ago, saying basically this is real, then they should create a miniature hurricane, and there's been no giant sucking sounds heard from Finland, therefore, it can't be real.

AB: All right. Well, is it a matter of where is the energy coming from, and I know where you're going with that one...

RH: Thank you.

AB: ...or is it a matter of a shielding from the energy that draws us all to the earth and makes the apple fall on Newton's head?

RH: I don't think it's either. Let me tell what I think it is. Remember, these guys are approaching from tangential theory. That's all they've got to work with. They have forgotten the work of Maxwell and ?Coxiter? and the stuff that we've talked about on your show, many many nights into the wee hours and dawn.

AB: All right. Well, lay that out for us.

RH: All right. Oh gosh. Um. A hundred years ago, more or less, James Clarke Maxwell, who is the father of modern physics, probably the single greatest scientist known in the world up until Einstein kind of took over the crown, laid out in a set of equations modern electromagnetic theory, which governs how generators work, how radio and television work, how computers work, lightbulbs, lasers. All of it can be traced back to this one genius. He, Maxwell, believed that the universe really was functioning, not on a three dimensional level, but a multi-dimensional level, that there were more dimensions in space that could be measured in the laboratory and that these unseen dimensions had effects on the three that we live in, and that we lived in a multi-dimensional universe which could be modeled mathematically, and that he was attempting to create the first unified expression of that universe, in terms of how it applied to electromagnetic phenomenon. He wrote something like 200 equations in a language, a geometric language called ?quiternians?, which were then savagely savaged and reduced to four by a guy named ?Heviside?, which is like throwing out everything but the top of the cream, and what we have been living with as Maxwell's equations are a pale echo of what Maxwell, himself, originally tried to give us. And we could argue in another place and venue why this happened, but that's not germane to tonight. The fact is that the cornerstone of Maxwell's version of how the universe worked was that is was multi-dimensional, or hyperdimensional, and since most modern physicists don't real that there are a lot more equations to Maxwell than four, they are limited to what we are left with, in terms of trying to apply that and other explanations to phenomena that they observe in the laboratory.

AB: All right, so you're suggesting that this is an extra-dimensional force, or hyperdimensional force, and the "ah-ha" moment for you was when they got the increased dramatic effect from the spinning.

RH: Exactly, because as a mass is spinning, the complex geometries in hyperspace, in higher dimensions will pulsate, if you will, at a frequency which is resonant with the frequency of the spin, and if you get into a certain phase relationship with the prophesies that cause gravity, then you should, in fact, dramatically increase the effect, and that's exactly what this little experiment was demonstrating, even in its primitive state back in 1992, published in Physica C.

AB: All right, but if you begin to experiment with many of these layered on top of each other, to the point where you're getting a great gravitational effect, and then you start playing with things like possibly rotating RF or whatever, then aren't you beginning to tamper, possibly, with forces that will produce an effect that might totally undesirable, if not controlled properly.

RH: Well, this is why you should not do this without supervision. This should not be done on a kitchen table, and it should be done ...The simple thing we've been talking about tonight is not going to hurt anybody unless you drop the nitrogen on you foot. So, don't do that, all right?

AB: Right, but I'm going beyond that...

RH: But the more complex version should obviously conducted by well trained people in laboratory settings with proper humility and awareness that science is not toys. I mean, we're talking about fundamental forces of the universe, here, so have some respect. You know, don't turn the ray gun on yourself and look into it and then press the trigger. All right? One of the ways you could do this would be to stack the disks. In other words, you take these little ceramic disks, and you basically make a sandwich, and let's say you stack three or four of them, and you have spacers in between so they're not physically touching, right? and then you spin the stack of them together.

AB: Richard, layered materials

RH: Yeah, layered materials. Yes, Art's parts.

AB: God.

RH: Yes. Isn't science neat?

AB: Uh. I just... I have this funny feeling.

RH: He had an "ah-ha" experience, folks. He'll recover after this following word from our sponsor.

AB: (Laughter) It's just that exactly what you're suggesting is, in effect, built in to Art's parts, that layered effect, that many layered effect.

RH: All right. Let me give you a piece of wild speculation.

AB: Yeah. Sure.

RH: I don't know whether this has any basis in reality, but it appears to be germane. The thing that's always puzzled about the IBM researchers in Zurich, who got the Nobel Prize in record time for their discovery of room temperature, so-called superconductors, although this ceramic...

AB: Yes sir.

RH: ...I mean, you can't really call something that's 300 below zero, room temperature, right? But it's a lot warmer that liquid helium. They got the Nobel Prize for finding this in record time. What people don't know is that Billy Meyers, of the famed Pleiadian Switzerland fame, ostensibly gave the IBM folks in Zurich a sample of the metal from his beam ship, that was given to him by the "E.T.'s"

AB: We're going to hold it right there. We'll be right back.