Dear Jim,
I read through your essay and here is the promised honest feedback.
First, a quick summary: as I understand, you propose that given a particle physics type formulation of gravity, it may be possible to give a theoretical underpinning for the possibility that the effects of gravity may be canceled, and furthermore that the recently discovered phenomenon dubbed 'dark energy' may be an indication that this is indeed happening at the largest scale. In the final parts of your paper you mention the possibility that some of the unexplained UFO sightings may already demonstrate that this can be exploited technologically.
The comments I am about to make and the criticism is meant to be in the spirit of helping you make it more likely to attain what I presume you want, namely that people in your target audience, the physics community, will listen to what you have to say and consider your views seriously.
1) You should be very careful in phrasing certain sentences that are common knowledge among physicists, so as not to make obviously inaccurate statements. For example, you said:" For Einstein, gravity was not a force at all, but a curvature in space-time, otherwise known as "the fourth dimension."
This sentence contains two inaccuracies, one minor, the other major. The minor one is that the curvature of spacetime is expressed via the Riemann Tensor, yet it is not the case that gravity *is* the Riemann Tensor. Rather, gravity is expressed in terms of another tensor which can derived from the Riemann Tensor as well as the metric tensor, sometimes called the Einstein Tensor. The major inaccuracy in your sentence is that spacetime is not the fourth dimension, time is.
Now, I know exactly what you meant, but a less sympathetic reader will use this to dismiss the rest of your paper, which I'm sure is not what you want.
2) You relied in your exposition of some physics popularizers such as Krauss and Kaku, most likely in part to gain more credibility for your views.
One of my professors told me an anecdote which shows that (unfortunately) those who spend a lot of time explaining physics to the public do not enjoy a high credibility among many influential scientists because they are thought not to spent enough time doing research. He said that when he organized a certain function and invited a certain physicist of high repute, that person nearly cancelled his appearance when he found out that Carl Sagan was also invited. The only way to get him to come was to arrange it so that there would be no picture in which both would appear together.
My point is, if not even Carl Sagan had a high credibility in certain circles (which bespeaks of unbelievable arrogance to me), then mentioning Krauss and especially Kaku is not going to help with the credibility of your argument. In fact, citing them gives more of an impression that you don't really know what you are talking about, since otherwise you could have just cited the original scientists who came up with these theories.
Again, this is not my view, but I am just trying to help you see your work more from the perspective of the community you are evidently trying to reach.
3) Your mentioning of UFO's is an absolute faux pas, and it seems to me that you already know this, as you stated:" Because our science says this is impossible and such reports
tend to invite ridicule, serious investigation is left to mostly non-scientific organizations which
investigate and monitor"
The only kind of person who can state something like this and still has a chance at being taken seriously is someone who has earned the respect of the scientific community, and even such a person would risk serious damage to his reputation. Certainly if a novice to the field says something like this, it is only taken as an indication that that person suffers from a certain type of delusions
Ok, I hope you found my criticism helpful, again it was not meant as an offense but rather as a way to help you see your paper through the lens of the people you presumably are trying to reach.
All the best,
Armin
