# Obama’ Space Policy

May 20, 2010 Leave a comment

There are pros and cons to all sides but the bottom line is if we don’t fund radical or unproven ** ideas today**, we won’t have future

**. A 100 years ago relativity was considered radical if not heresy. I’m sure you agree that the only way we are going to find out what works and what does not is through experimental verification. The emphasis should be on what works or not, and not radical or mainstream.**

*technologies tomorrow*Funding is required for all three stages, (1) theoretical exploration, (2) technological feasibility, & (3) commercial viability. Without all three steps there is no future space exploration technology that will be different from what we have today. The Army/von Braun and later NASA addressed the first 2 steps. Now private space companies are attempting to address the 3^{rd} step, commercial viability.

From my own private experiments I was working backwards, from experimental data to theoretical explanations. Keeping things brief, I proposed a different approach to gravity (not based on mainstream relativity, quantum theory or string theory). But a rather straight forward one, that gravity deforms the space and therefore the shape of an elementary particle. This deformation results in acceleration. The theoretical formulations do not lend themselves to an analytical solution, and I had to use numerical integration to solve the formulation. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AIPC.1103..317S)

I have shown that gravitational acceleration can be defined without mass by an elegantly simple formula g = τc^{2}, where τ is the change in time dilation divided by the change in distance. No mass required. Not accelerating body’s mass. Not gravitational mass. And have shown that this formula works for mechanical and electromagnetic forces.

Note, one has to use an Excel Add-In like Xnumbers to enable computations to 250 significant digits to test and very this formula. For example Excel handles only 15 significant digits, and typing in c^{2} or 299,792,458^{2} does not give the correct value in Excel.

There are two inferences from my hypothesis. (1) That gravity modifying technologies that do not require mass are possible, and (2) quite possibly that there is something more fundamental going on that shows up as conservation of mass-energy and conservation of momentum.

In a subsequent paper (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AIPC.1208..261S), again using numerical methods, I had shown that a photon’s (and therefore any particle’s?) probability distribution is not Gaussian. It is a form of a Gamma distribution, for the want of a better term I call a *modified Gamma* distribution. This says that just maybe, one may be able to develop a Gamma (not a Gaussian) version of a quantum theory, if the funding is available.

The numerical modeling suggests that the photon’s modified Gamma distribution is huge (and possibly field-like), and given the deformation hypothesis I had proposed, it just may be that a relativistic type field theory may be more amenable to future propulsion technology rather than one based on quantum theory.

In conclusion I think we should make available a much bigger budget for non-mainstream physics and engineering if we expect to see new propulsion technologies any time soon.