Theoretical Analysis of Anti-Gravity Propulsion

This work presents an exploratory theoretical analysis of multiple proposed anti-gravity and propellantless propulsion approaches, including negative mass models, metric engineering concepts, resonance amplification mechanisms, Alcubierre-type spacetime metrics, higher-dimensional frameworks, and several speculative gravity-related hypotheses. The study combines analytical estimates, computational modeling, order-of-magnitude constraints, and engineering feasibility evaluations across multiple independent approaches. Both positive and negative results are included. A complete computational notebook (v1–v20) is provided together with the manuscript for transparency and reproducibility. Notebook filename: anti-gravity. ipynb (previously anti-gravity-fixed. ipynb in earlier versions). Version v12 (June 2026): A post-submission internal verification (Kaggle notebook v21) identified a volume inconsistency of factor ~1, 206× in the Section 7. 2 CAL calibration — Vₒbj (basketball device volume, 7. 24 × 10⁻³ m³) was used instead of the real SM-111 laboratory stack volume VSM111 (6. 00 × 10⁻⁶ m³), confirmed by two independent sources with 0. 04% agreement. Corrected CALcorrect = 16. 2034 is documented in Sections 7. 2, 7. 3, 11. 1, and 12. 3. Key impact: with CALcorrect, the v6 engineering device predicts F = 0. 18 N at P = 2 kW (gap 54. 65× below target), not 216. 5 N as stated in the original submission. Closing this gap requires approximately 14–17 kW CW RF power, using Woodward's F ~ P¹. 895 scaling law extrapolated 70–83× beyond its measured range (P < 200 W) — this extrapolation is the primary remaining uncertainty. MET remains the only approach not closed by a physics theorem or experimental refutation. A companion supplementary document (SupplementaryAnalysisMETKurmanchuk₂026. docx) is included with the full verification analysis, all code, and caveats. This work is an independent exploratory preprint developed with AI assistance. It is intended as an honest attempt to examine hypotheses rather than to claim experimental verification. Errors in assumptions, formulations, calculations, or interpretations may remain. Comments, critiques, and independent reviews are welcome: publicgmailfor@gmail. com