Astrodynamics delivers conundra of astronomical proportions. The sheer size of the Universe, its mass and the velocities of bodies stretch the imagination to the limit.

It is little-known that Einstein did NOT receive the Nobel Prize for relativity. He had ALREADY received the 1921 prize in 1922 for PHOTOELECTRICS. Yet even a distinguished scholar like Einstein can be snubbed when the theories become too extravagant.

Subsequently, his relativity theory - within its narrow, specialised constraints - was proven to be true.

At my website I show the principles behind the REAL anti-gravity. You can read it from http://wehner.org/agrav .

The concept is simple. However, science CAN ONLY advance by small steps. Elaborate conjectures based upon such ideas as the "Gravitron" particle - without SOLID proof that they actually exist - are doomed to fail.

The simple idea is that the Moon is held to the Earth by gravity, and experiences due to its orbit a repulsive force known as "centrifugal force". These two forces balance, to produce a stable system that has survived since pre-historic times. So much is KNOWN.

Then we imagine the "Man in the Moon". He has lived on the "illuminated" side of the Moon since pre-historic times, and knows that the Moon is held to the Earth by gravity. But the counterbalancing force cannot be explained as "centrifugal force". The "Man in the Moon" sees only the ROTATION of the Earth - one degree every FOUR MINUTES - and has to use this fact to explain the stability of the system.

So the "Man in the Moon" would use IDENTICAL mathematics to those on Earth who compute ORBIT. However, the sums would be UPSIDE DOWN. He would compute how much thrust (ANTI-GRAVITY) is delivered by the SPIN of a body.

I have done this on my website, and show that the upside-down equations reveal a thrust that increases LINEARLY with distance for any constant spin.

This is surprising, because thrust increases INVERSELY with distance for any constant orbital velocity.

So, if in our dreams we could create an anti-gravity machine (NO!!! I DO NOT HAVE ANY DESIGN-PLANS!), it would not lift off the CARPET, but off some distant place, such as the centre of the Earth. The further away the object, the greater the thrust - and the carpet is too near.

In our imagining, we can visualise some machine lifting away from the carpet, and the pile of that carpet IMMEDIATELY standing erect - because the anti-gravity "footprint" would be far away.

The mathematics shows us what WOULD happen, but not how to build a machine.

The "Action at a Great Distance" conclusion from the anti-gravity equations suggests that building such a machine would not be easy.

Einstein had been working as an assistant to an eminent Swiss astronomer when he found that the Newtonian mechanics broke down when applied to astrodynamics. This was the origin of the new mechanics that was to become known as "Relativity".

My own conjectures on ANTI-GRAVITY come up against similar problems, and deliver a similar solution.

The Moon travels around the Earth at about 65,000 miles per hour. This is equivalent, as stated, to a spin of just 15 arc-seconds per minute.

Astrodynamicists have FREQUENTLY ignored the tiny rotational motion of bodies in the solar system, because they SEEMED to be NEGLIGIBLE. The new discovery shows, however, that such small rotations are NOT TO BE DISCOUNTED, because when the mathematics is turned around they represent sizeable orbital velocities.

This leads to the question as to whether ALL equations can be turned around. Can EVERY spin be translated into an orbit?

The size of the Universe suggests otherwise. If antigravity increases linearly with distance, it must be INFINITE, or nearly so, at the outer fringes of the Universe.

So the hand of a child can spin a spinning-top (the energy required is small). However, can the hand of a child put the Universe into orbit around that spinnin-top, and at several times or several hundred times per second?

Spin-orbit duality breaks down somewhere.

One can use the "Law of Conservation of Energy" to avoid such absurd notions as a child setting the Universe in motion. However, we must consider RELATIVITY.

Newtonian mechanics says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Einstein's relativity says that energy can be destroyed. If there is MATTER, such as an ELECTRON, it has REST-MASS. Here we must already say "AT rest - RELATIVE to what"? However, we will leave this point unanswered, because this article is very general.

According to Relativity, a tiny increase in speed from rest of that electron will give it energy HALF M (V squared), where M is the rest-mass. This energy will be destroyed by being incorporated into the mass of the electron. So using M2 (C squared), we can compute M2.

As the electron goes faster, by an identical tiny increase in speed, its energy is HALF (M+M2) (V squared), then HALF (M+M2+M3) (V squared) and so on.

When the Moon is travelling at 65 thousand miles per hour, this compares with light travelling at 669,600,000 miles per hour, approximately.

Light travels therefore at a speed about TEN THOUSAND times faster than the Moon.

The change in mass is proportional to C-squared, just as the energy of motion is proportional to V-squared. So speeds of one ten-thousandth of that of light (four places) will deliver energy equations that are accurate to EIGHT.

It would be nonsense, however, to use my antigravity equations to TWENTY places of decimals and to expect all places to be valid.

We see relativity creeping in, and upsetting the mathematics - but in the Earth-Moon system it is still imperceptible. That is why I used the "Law of Conservation of Energy" to derive the results - the errors are still small.

The Moon is a quarter of a million miles away from Earth. So is we multiply this by ten thousand we get TWO-AND-A-HALF THOUSAND-MILLION miles. This is about 26.8 Astronomical Units. At this point, the orbital velocity is similar to the speed of light, and Einstein says that the mathematics breaks down.

So if we consider the hand of a child spinning a top, and INSIST on the conservation of energy, we must adjust the expression HALF M (V-squared) as we move away from the child's top.

Either the mass M of bodies must be adjusted to become less and less, the further away we go (RELATIVITY MASS), or the velocity V of bodies must become less and less as we move away from the spinning body (RELATIVITY VELOCITY).

It makes a kind of sense to choose to alter V. However, this is composed of two fundamental units, distance D and time T, where V=D/T.

We cannot alter the distance, because it is Pi times the diameter of the "orbit". So if D cannot diminish, T must INCREASE.

What this means is that a perceived time T is actually LONGER at that distant place than we had known.

So we need TIME DILATION to deal with the breakdown of spin-orbit duality at relativistic speeds.

Fortunately, linear particle-accelerators have successfully slowed down time until mesons that lived for just a microsecond could be studied for SECONDS.

So Einstein's time-dilation has been PROVEN.

The conundrum of spin-orbit duality breakdown has delivered a similar result. Einstein has been vindicated again.

Charles Douglas Wehner