I guess it was bound to happen. I’m just sorry that blog post no. 2 has to focus on the ordure of an intellectually lazy troll. But so be it.
 
One of the good things about the Internet is the ease of communication, which allows anyone to express an opinion and have it heard by a wide audience. One of the bad things about the Internet is the ease of communication — which allows people with worthless ideas or bad intentions, or both, to reach a wide audience, including many people who don’t know enough to be able to distinguish between truth and lies. This renders their careless opinions acts of vandalism.
 
One such casual hit-and-run artist, “Destin Scott,” has written a negative review of “Gravity Control with Present Technology” on Amazon. His criticisms are baseless, but it has driven down the star rating of the book from five stars to three-and-a-half, because of the dearth of other reviews. Right now, Scott’s weak little review is 33% of the opinion on “Gravity Control.”
 
Unfortunately, Amazon will not allow me to refute Scott’s inane criticism. But I know that many of my friends, and several hundred people I don’t know, have copies of the book and have read them, if not acted on them in various ways, but have been too preoccupied with daily life to write a review on Amazon.
 
Now is the time to speak up if you have any passion at all for what I’m trying to accomplish, against all odds, etc., and drown out this barking troll’s overly large voice with honest reviews.
 
Here are a few observations on Mr. Scott’s review, which is short on specifics because he is eager to rip up the book and leave the bloody scene in a hurry. It is clear from what he says that he never read the book or he intentionally skipped large parts of it — or he did read it and is intentionally misrepresenting the content.
 
Here’s the meat of what he says (quoting directly from his review, typos and all):
 
“There are a lot of words, but they say nothing. 90% of the book (and this is a big book) is dialogue about the theory of gravity control, and how this mystical device theyre talking about the whole time ‘just works’.”
 
It’s hard to know where to start. “Dialogue”? I think he means transcriptions of recorded lectures and expert technical discussion from Part V, “Theoretically Speaking.” These are valuable parts of the book, but only a tiny fraction of its overall content.
“Words that say nothing”? Really? This is patently false: Every word has a calculated impact, some of them having to do with the specifics of the theory and the technology, some of them having to do with the implications of the technology for society and the future, and some having to do with establishing credibility for the book’s incredible claims. Great pains were taken to build all of my arguments on factual content throughout. As an editor and a writer, I am highly sensitive to “words that say nothing,” and there are none fitting that description in the book. For an engineer who is capable of building, say, a microwave oven, there’s MORE than enough information in the book to reconstruct the experiment of 1994 (more on that below), and abundant supporting technical documentation can be found in the reference lists and appendices. More than one reader of the book has found it more than adequate to initiate an attempt to recreate the results of 1994.
 
Perhaps by “words that say nothing,” Scott meant the theory. If so, it seems to escape Scott that no effort to engineer gravity control will work without a theory of gravitation that describes the physical mechanism behind gravity. Since no such theory exists at this time outside of my father’s, it needed to be documented and credibility needed to be established for its author. Apparently he glossed over the parts of the book dedicated to accomplishing these goals, but they are essential. The requirements for such a theory are extremely stringent: It must be a unified field theory, because it must describe the interaction between gravity and the other forces in nature: namely electromagnetism, and the strong and weak force. Further, it must incorporate proven theories of the past, such as Newtonian mechanics, the special theory of relativity, and quantum electrodynamics. No physicist could possibly take the content of the book seriously unless these theoretical requirements were met FIRST.
 
But I was also aware that theoretical physics is likely to put some readers — probably Scott among them — to sleep, so I provided all of this in graded form. Scott completely overlooks this graded approach, which makes the book “user friendly,” instead of stodgy and overly intellectual. I wanted it to be accessible to all. Further, it is especially deceitful of him to say that the device is “mystical” and that I’ve claimed that it “just works.” These claims are outrageous falsehoods.
 
The description of the device and the mechanism it uses to control gravity is down-to-earth and richly detailed. It includes numerical calculations for the rate of weight removal, which were given in the 1989 Grant Proposal, on pages 119 – 121 of the book. As mentioned above, several engineers have already begun efforts to build a device based on nothing more than is found between the covers of this “mystical” book.
 
Do I “just claim that it works”? Check the book yourself: Part V – The 1994 Experiment, which encompasses Chapters 20 through 25, shows that the device worked exactly as predicted by the theory. The instrumentation is described and the exact parameters are given for every experimental trial. Scott never mentions any of that. Maybe he missed it.
 
Why gravity control works is not a matter of “mysticism,” which Scott would have noticed if he’d read any of the chapters devoted to explaining the theory and the technology, including Chapter 17, the layman’s introduction, through Chapter 18 — The 1989 Grant Proposal, through all of the chapters in Part V – Theoretically Speaking, which explains, again, how the device works in concrete terms and why, for example, the sample (or vehicle hull) should be made of aluminum with colloidal iron and many other telling technical details. There is also a three-page essay in Appendix B, A Notebook Fragment, that provides a somewhat more sophisticated explanation. If more sophistication is required, Appendix C, p. 259, gives the references for more papers whose reading level is beyond PhD (and one more layman’s article by Charles A. Yost that is available online). I mentioned all this in the book, but Mr. Scott seems to have overlooked it. For a theory based on logical positivism and the scientific method, the charge of “mysticism” is especially stupid and insulting. The truth is diametrically opposed.
 
“Destin Scott” has only one other review on Amazon, a review of audio headphones. He may or may not have been a paid troll, but he is undoubtedly wrong on everything he says about Gravity Control with Present Technology. Unfortunately that doesn’t mean his words aren’t destructive. Therefore I implore my friends, especially those who understand the broader purpose behind the book, to drown out this little dog with the loud bark with their own honest and well-supported opinions about the book and its content. It is entirely unjust that such an intellectual nonentity such as Destin Scott should have such a disproportionate impact on the legacy of a man who devoted his entire life to physics, and whose many accomplishments beyond the area of gravity control more than testify to his capability as an inventor, researcher, mathematician, and scientist.
Thank you. (7/31/2018)