Also, when particles are made to collide, they're definitely moving faster than the "Felber point," so if they were each putting out an anti-gravity beam, the results of their collision would be way different than what's predicted -- and routinely observed. Or ... maybe this accounts for what's observed, but in a totally different way. I can't handle that speculation.
Exact Relativistic `Antigravity' Propulsion
- Franklin S. Felber
- Physics Division, Starmark, Inc., P. O. Box 270710, San Diego, CA 92198
The Schwarzschild solution is used to find the exact relativistic motion of a payload in the gravitational field of a mass moving with constant velocity. At radial approach or recession speeds faster than 3–1/2 times the speed of light, even a small mass gravitationally repels a payload. At relativistic speeds, a suitable mass can quickly propel a heavy payload from rest nearly to the speed of light with negligible stresses on the payload. ©2006 American Institute of Physics
One thing to keep in mind, some conferences are easier than others when it comes to letting you present papers, and the rigor of the peer review varies accordingly. This guy might be using conferences that um, "entertain" far-fetched ideas in order to get publicity for his novel notion. I don't know what the reputation is of the conference in question, but the fact that they permit this guy to present his paper is not the same thing as a prestigious peer-reviewed physics journal accepting it ffor publication.
Lastly, I'll point out that this conference, whatever it's merits are, isn't THE conference/symposium that the heavy hitters in Gravitation attend every year. I forget the name of it, but I think Hawking present a paper a couple years ago at "the big one" when it was in Dublin. If this guy has a valid theory that predicts anti-gravity effects, why isn't he presenting his paper and the BIG conference, or in a major peer-reviewed physics publication?