It seems that people are determined to talk to themselves until they convince themselves that this is not a ‘zero-G' frog, but rather it is a kind of ‘electro-static' frog, for you see you can magnetize the electron state in any matter if you apply a strong enough field, thus resulting in phony display of antigravity. Thus we find antigravity being ‘simulated' by the maglev frog which was not an antigravity frog, but an EM frog.
My response to this matter based tautology would be to say that if it looks like a zero-G frog and floats like a zero-G frog that is close enough to a ‘zero G frog' to suit me. We can call it an electro-static frog, and I don't mind, just as long as it behaves just like a zero-G frog should behave. I don't mind ‘simulated antigravity' just so long as the result produced is exactly equivalent to anti-gravity. I will take my antigravity anyway I can get it, simulated or otherwise. Therefore I make note of the fact that we can artificially simulate antigravity using an EM field and in this simulated way we can generate zero-G and if zero-G is what we want, this simulated effect will suffice, just so long as it produces zero-G.
There are other matter based tautologies that drive me crazy as people go about that business of talking themselves right out of the Unified Field Theory and right back into matter based thinking. For example we can say that hydrogen or helium fall up in a gravitational field because they are ‘lighter than air'. This is a tautology because we can then ask ‘why is hydrogen lighter than air' and the answer would be something along the lines that it has such a light atomic mass. At this point we could then ask why it would be the case that some gravitational field insists on sorting items such that those that are lighter than air will fall up instead of falling down. At this point the argument will turn to pressure given that this is a gas.
We could ask why it is that ‘gravitational field energy' is converted to electrical current by means of moving water through three dimensional space in the Hoover Dam. The matter based tautology that will result is to say that water in the Hoover Dam has ‘potential energy', for you see if you place an object up higher in a gravitational field that means that it has ‘potential energy' which can become expressed energy when it finally comes tumbling down. Let's say that you were to hold up a hammer over top of a saucer on the floor and then you were to release the hammer. You would then see the ‘potential energy' of that hammer as it smashes that saucer to bits when it reached the floor.
Water has a lot of this ‘potential energy'. This then explains why it would be the case that you could imagine a stretch of river with 12 dams constructed and all generating electrical current because it turns out that just because you suck the ‘potential energy' out of water one time that does not drain the gas tank. I can imagine a scenario where you could suck the same ‘potential energy' out of the exact same water over and over and over again in a kind of step ladder approach, and why not, if you could just find the right spot to pull a stunt like that one. If such a step ladder approach did not work that would be enough to convince me that the water had ‘potential energy' and that the source of the electrical current was not the gravitational field itself.
A Newtonian rocket is an antigravity device. We know that it is an antigravity device because it falls up instead of falling down because it has ‘gained momentum'. It turns out that you have to ‘gain momentum' if you want to generate antigravity and this requires the actions that make an equal and opposite reaction. There just is no other way to gain momentum. We assume that if momentum is like gasoline, then there must exist a gas tank where we could ‘conserve momentum' and the way you put gas into the tank is by means of physical actions so that you can generate equally and opposite reactions. There is just no other way to get gasoline into that conserved momentum tank. It is for this reason that Carl Sagan stated on the Cosmos program that the Newtonian rocket engine must become our engine to the stars and always will be, for you see there is only the physical way of knocking something around somewhere that can possibly generate the action for that equally opposite reaction of fueling up that gas tank.
Now let us assume that this idea is false, and that since momentum is just a measure of energy therefore it should be possible to skip the ‘physical physics' and maybe use some ‘energy physics' and just put gas right into the tank and skip the redundant step of rubbing two sticks together or maybe banging on something with a hammer or a mallet. I also notice that if you wanted to put some momentum into a croquet ball you never use a mallet in the equally and opposite direction. That would never work. Similarly a Newtonian rocket engine is most efficient when the wasted exhaust velocity is exactly equal to the velocity of the rocket, which implies when that it most efficient when the opposite velocity is equivalent to the desired velocity. This leads me to believe that the Newtonian rocket is most efficient when the pressure build up in the engine is ideally balanced so that the wasted exhaust velocity is exactly equal to the croquet mallet velocity which is going to hit the walls of the chamber of that Newtonian rocket in exactly the same and not opposite direction, just as you would do if you wanted to knock a croquet ball with a mallet. You never knock a croquet ball in the equally opposite direction. That would never work.
By the way I am aware of that bit about the equally opposite ‘inertia' in the croquet ball. However I am not convinced that when one billiard ball hits another billiard ball, the first ball stops not because of that ‘inertia' but rather I am convinced that momentum moves from ball to ball in the exactly equal and same direction, and it is the loss of momentum that stops a billiard ball and it is this transfer of field energy that gets the second ball moving. What people call ‘inertia' is a lower state of conserved momentum.
Now it is obvious that a Newtonian Rocket is an antigravity device. We can see that. It rises in the field. What I am looking for is the correct way to input momentum directly into a momentum field, the ‘energy paradigm' you might say, as opposed to the matter based physical paradigm employed in that antigravity device known as the Newtonian Rocket. We know that antigravity exists because the Newtonian rocket works. All I want to do is skip that redundant step of pounding the inside guts of some rocket with billions of tiny croquet mallets. What is important here is not the equally and opposite mallet approach, what is important in generating ‘antigravity' is the conserved momentum. If you have conserved momentum you have antigravity. Since conserved momentum is the description of an energy state it seems redundant to think that we get conserved momentum, and thus antigravity, by pounding with a mallet.
Granted, pounding with a mallet does work. It works equally well with croquet balls and rockets, which is interesting in and of itself, but just because we can see that pounding with a physical mallet is one way to get ‘conserved momentum', a certain energy state, does not exclude achieving the same conserved energy state through a direct transfer of energy, which would be cleaner and a lot more efficient.
One way to generate (or ‘simulate') antigravity is by means of an energy field, such as the EM field, as in the case of our ‘simulated zero-G frog' and I would assume that we can also ‘simulate' conserved momentum using such a field, if the field is powerful enough. If we assume that E=MC2, and if adding ‘P' (momentum energy) results in propulsion, it seems logical to conclude that if the EM field is strong enough and is strongly associated to the shape of our craft (another possible design consideration), given that EM fields even affected noncharged matter if the field is strong enough, this should be sufficient to generate the ‘P' effect, and result in the energy state interpreted as ‘conserved momentum' in this universe.