When an object ‘gains momentum’ it reaches a higher energy state, which is equivalent to saying that an object ‘gains mass’ which is equivalent to stating that an object possesses a more powerful gravitational field. When energy is imparted to an atom the result is ionization, and this suggests that momentum is not conserved in an atom, for excess energy is expelled from the space occupied by the atom, and so it follows from this observation that momentum must be conserved in the ‘gravitational field’ which any ‘unified field theory’ would then interpret to be the ‘electromagnetic field’. Therefore we could assign the ‘absolute mass’ of an object to the atom and the ‘relativistic mass’ of an object would consist of conserved field energy.

A rising weather balloon

Objects which are ‘to energetically dense’ rise in a gravitational field. We know this is true for when we wish to launch an object into space we are required to increase the field energy of that object. It therefore follows from this that when a hydrogen atom rises in the gravitational field it exhibits this anti-gravitational behavior because its ‘field energy’ is ‘to dense’. The spatial-energy field dilates the further away from a gravitational source an object is located, and this results in decreasing density (the Inverse Square Law describes the manner in which field density falls off quickly as an object moves upward in the field). For this reason the hydrogen atom decelerates as it rises in the field. It begins with a sudden burst of velocity (it has conserved momentum) and then as the field density decreases it begins to decelerate (this process being the inverse of falling in a gravitational field where an object has almost no velocity at all, and then accelerates as it falls into the denser regions of the field, which then results in a relativistic increase in the field density of the falling object).

Any object aboard the space station would have a total field energy which would already lie somewhere just below the ‘orbital escape energy level’ and so therefore it just logically follows that the correct location to experimentally test any hypothesis that proposes that ‘momentum’ is ‘conserved’ in an ‘electromagnetic field’ would be on board the space station. What would be required here would not be a ‘relativistic increase in energetic density’ but rather a real increase in the total system energy, or a stronger magnetic field. A stronger magnetic field ‘warps space’, according to this hypothesis, resulting in a relativistic increase in the density of the atom (the absolute mass of the atoms remains constant, but the density function increases due to the warping of space). Therefore it should be possible to test the anti-gravity effect (the ‘warp drive’) by imparting a minimal amount of energy into a magnetic field around some object and thus cause the object to begin to rise in external gravitational field. It would also be possible to test the Pioneer effect on board the Space Station, for an object rising in a gravitational field decelerates, and then comes to a stop at a particular location in the field (the location where the gravitational field density of the object is equal to the density of the external field, which then results in a total loss of ‘momentum’ and zero velocity).

It should also be possible to demonstrate that objects that are ‘not energetically dense enough’ (objects which have a gravitational field energy that is to weak, which is to say, objects that possess ‘less momentum’) are objects that fall in a gravitational field. This effect could be demonstrated by removing energy from the magnetic field around the object, at which time the object should begin to drift down in the surrounding field.