This is an important consideration and question. First of all, what exactly is electrogravity? In a nutshell, it is the usage of high volt and high frequency charges to ionize and move an air or liquid or plasma medium to harness gravitational forces to move a vehicle (vessel). Typically in an atmospheric craft, the positive charge is on one end, and the negative on the other. The craft moves in the direction of the positive charge, and the air or plasma material moves toward the negative charge/pole. The air flow is a thrust, yet consequentially to its motion, creates a gravity force behind it due to an overall unified inertial field of mass at very high energy and speed. E=MC^2.
Recently, with the new addition of the page "Updates and Design Improvements," Townsend Brown's technology came to light. That includes the "Stressing of the Di-electric" concept which includes a di-electric material between capacitor plates (positive and negative charge), to operate. With that in mind, that also adds to a new dynamic of an achievement of electrogravity.
There are many different ways to achieve it, as seen here, yet the conditions are always the same.
The general conditions are: time slows down all around, in the reality outside the ship's immediate space, whereas time speeds up on board, and within the ship's immediate space. No inertial G-forces are physically felt in the ship, the pilot doesn't feel the ship's motions, and won't feel any tight 90 degree angle cornering, or any sudden acceleration and deceleration.
. . .
It has been claimed that Nikola Tesla's electrogravity designs used charged hull plates all over the hull, 6 inches of a air gap at the equator (horizontal; latitudally) between plates, and 4 inches of air gap between the plates (longitudinally, or the vertical gaps). Ceramic material was on the outside of the charge plates, acting as armor and allowing the magnetic field to penetrate, and preventing carbon buildup shorting out the plates. Yet, it is such an idea to use plates that can be charged to move a ship electrogravitically to fly very fast in an atmosphere without a buildup of friction or heat on the hull.
I wish to point out that Tesla had used rotating electromagnetic AC charges. And, I wish to point out the nature of the electromagnetic wave being used, not necessarily electro-statically "hard-connected" to the air outside the ship as in a conventional understanding of electrogravity as using the charge force, rather than the magnetic force. He used charged plates, but with a ceramic covering on the outside.
In that sense, look at the benefit of those two styles, as a redundancy-engine feature using rotating AC magnetic forces (like John Searl used), vs AC forces of electrical charge!
That is a point to remember when reading this website. The X-1 uses co-counter-rotating AC electromagnetic fields. So does the outer ring, but it also uses magneto-electrostatic forces!
Simple electrogravity is achieved in an atmosphere by charging the outside of the hull with electro-(magnetic)-static energy, and the air from the atmosphere of a planet then speeds around the ship, ionized from the ship, and that force harnessed by the outside hull rather than like the space shuttle merely being subject to those forces of ionized friction of atmosphere upon re-entry.
That makes for a nice redundant engine feature.
A proton moving at near light speed is an energy of inertia, an energy of mass and charge in motion. Mass approaches near infinite proportions as it approaches the limit of "light speed," where it will never go faster than light because its mass will start to increase exponentially. So obviously E (Energy) of volts, frequency, and inertia is an energy of substance, mass, charge, magnetic field, and solidity. How can energy be solid like an object when energy itself is without substance? The answer: the very substance of the universe is Energy.
It does not mean that the air will travel at near light speeds around the hull, just very fast. Fast enough to fly at a couple hundred thousand miles per hour without a problem of heat on the hull. There's no heat because there's no resistance. The air vibrates at the same vibration as the hull plating. It's not the same as slamming into still air at high speeds; the air is energized to flow over the hull. This is true when using di-electric materials in between the positive and negative charges of the layers of hull plating, but there can also be air flow around the ship.
There should be air flow around the ship, because the electrogravity hull plating is also used as shielding against high energy cosmic rays and proton storms from stars. That means the charge of the hull plating will affect the space around the ship at electrical frequency. It doesn't have to, but that's how it's designed throughout the website, so I'm not going to change anything now.
To be more specific, the air flow will be there, but that is a secondary force and effect. The "stressing of the di-electric" actually accelerates the mass of the di-electric, causing gravitation. That's the primary force of such electrogravity applications ...
Yet . . . It must be said . . . Light is the unity of energy (and matter). All is Light. What is light, is another question. Light is heat. The Space Shuttle vents heat as light through the radiators in the cargo bay, while in space since there is no atmosphere to conduct heat.
. . .
I used the sphere of granite to understand how gravity would be felt on board a ship, if at all, in deep space, to start learning about that. It appears there will be a natural on-board gravity on the ship, through several reasons, including the spinning X-1 disk below. If it is strong enough to overcome Earth gravity, then it is strong enough to generate an Earth gravity on-board condition, even if the engine is turned on in a heavy-gravity planet environment.
However using di-electric resonance, it can be seen how gravity plating can be used, and just kept charged by the ship's engines.
When I contemplated the onboard gravity thinking about how the sphere worked, I had the floors cambered in a fairly pronounced arch to make it happen. Then I started learning more about this stuff and found out it was more of a natural by-product of directed inertia in geometries.
Regarding a pilot experiencing G-forces, the pilot would not experience any g-forces taking sharp 90 degree turns at fast speeds, because the craft flies in its own independent gravity spacetime field. I get into a lot of this stuff in my book. It might be a bit too much information to explain on a website. I'm mainly concerned with just the engines and the physics itself more importantly.
We stand on the surface of Earth and don't feel Earth spinning at 2,000 miles per hour, after all. We don't feel the inertia of being thrown against the wall as the Earth rotates around the Sun. We stand on a relative field of a frame of gravity, independent of how Earth moves around in space.
The craft uses its inertial energy field to travel through other inertial energy fields (fields of gravity). A car or jet aircraft does not create a gravity field with which it uses to travel, it travels through Earth gravity field, although not independent of Earth's gravity field.
The ship doesn't use wings to fly, it uses gravity fields to fly. Those inertial energy fields are kind of like wings, but I don't want to confuse people.
Furthermore, the ship vibrates faster than solid matter anyway. You would feel no impact with another object, because the X ships more in independent gravity (inertial) fields, independent OF gravity fields. As long as the inertia of the engines is in motion, it can be free to fly up, down, left, right, straight, like how a box would fly. John Searl's experiences with his crafts too, and he was taking on passengers and large additions were being built at a few English airports to accommodate his crafts, the pilots and passengers felt no accelerations and g-forces.
If you CAN take a sharp 90 degree turn at mach 3, and it doesn't tear the aircraft apart, then it surely won't tear the Human body apart, because such a turn would be like hitting a solid brick wall.
How much does an airplane weigh with 500 chickens on board? Will it weigh the same if all 500 chickens were flying around in the plane? Yes, because that airplane would have an increased mass value due to all those chickens, flying around or sitting (and standing). Putting 500 chickens on board a jumbo jet would increase the jet's mass. It would weigh the same if the chickens were all in cages on board, or standing on the seats, or flying around not touching the sides.
It's like asking how much helium does it take for you to have one pound of that gas? How do you weigh helium balloon if it lifts off from the scales?
These are interesting questions though. If a chicken could fly as fast as a jumbo jet, it could keep from being pressed against the back of the seat when the jet takes off. Even though you are moving at hundreds of miles per hour though, a chicken can fly faster than a jet simply taking off from the back of the airplane and flying to the front of the plane. These are also speed of light questions.
If a rocket ship is flying just under the speed of light, then if you shine a flashlight from the back of the rocket ship to the front, that beam of light will still travel at 186,000 miles per second from the back of the rocket to the front.
These are all examples of paradoxes.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states you can't measure where an electron is simultaneous to which direction and how fast it's moving. You can only measure where it is, OR what direction and how fast it's moving, not both at once. That is also a paradox.
The only way you won't feel yourself being thrown back against the chair when the hyperdrive kicks in, is if gravity pull in front of the ship is equal to the force of accelerating up to speed.
As, for example in atmospheric electrogravity using charged plates to "fly" a ship in Earth's atmosphere, the air is supercharged into ions, diverting electrons and propelling protons very rapidly from the front of a flying electrogravity ship to the back, becoming ionized, and then meeting up with electron pairs behind the ship, normalizing and neutralizing again after the ship has flown by. So if you put a positive high volt/high frequency charge on front (leading edge) of an airplane's wings, and a negative on the trailing edge of the wings, air is ionized and propelled better than any jet engine. But, it's not quite the same.
The charged air picks up more mass energy, because now that inertia of a charged force is also moving very rapidly. The effect of large mass forces (inertia and motion) is exactly what gravity is.
So as the ship takes those right angled turns, it's falling into a gravity pocket the whole way, equalizing the force of a sudden change of vector, a sudden acceleration, to a zero state so the pilot would feel NO g-forces or forces of inertia and acceleration.
The charged proton at very high volt/frequency moving at very high speeds makes gravity directed in opposite to where it's going. Like how a jet accelerating forward throws you back to the seat, or how a centrifuge throws you to the side walls and you don't slide down.. If you're tiny and in front of a proton when it's flying at high speeds, you'll be forced back against that proton.. that is which way the polarity of gravity is oriented. The proton makes gravity behind where it's inertia is directing it to go.
Super particle colliders and accelerators, they are huge tubes that stretch for miles around in a circle. They get protons up near light speed, and the mass gets so high, it causes the whole ground all in that area to shake. Meanwhile, a 40 foot Tesla tower can cause the ground to shake on its own from forces of electrical resonance, without even using a battery, just powered by the Earth's own electrical field.
Flying in an independent inertial field (altering temporal frequency) would not be affected by the inertia of surrounding space, or other bodies and mass-objects. It would be one with inertia itself, there would be no objects that could solidly affect inertia upon the ship in an independent inertial field. It would appear invisible to all but of a similar vibration.
So why would on-board gravity be felt? Well in a charged field where positive is up and negative is down that's making gravity and inertia, wouldn't that polarity of gravity be felt? Would the field of gravity be "magnetized" and captured in the inertial energy bubble of an X class ship when running (in motion)?
Well, if all flight gravity forces was relative to a zero point, and that zero neutral point condition is Earth-like gravity, then those gravity forces would all be in balance when the craft flies around in planets and in space.
Certainly something to consider none-the-less . . .