Honda’s Gravity Modification Research

Gravity modification, the scientific term for antigravity, is the ability to modify the gravitational field without the use of mass. Thus legacy physics, the RSQ (Relativity, String & Quantum) theories, cannot deliver either the physics or technology as these require mass as their field origin.

Ron Kita who recently received the first US patent (8901943) related to gravity modification, in recent history, introduced me to Dr. Takaaki Musha some years ago. Dr. Musha has a distinguished history researching Biefeld-Brown in Japan, going back to the late 1980s, and worked for the Ministry of Defense and Honda R&D.

Dr. Musha is currently editing New Frontiers in Space Propulsion (Nova Publishers) expected later this year. He is one of the founders of the International Society for Space Science whose aim is to develop new propulsion systems for interstellar travel.

Wait. What? Honda? Yes. For us Americans, it is unthinkable for General Motors to investigate gravity modification, and here was Honda in the 1990s, at that, researching this topic.

In recent years Biefeld-Brown has gained some notoriety as an ionic wind effect. I, too, was of this opinion until I read Dr. Musha’s 2008 paper “Explanation of Dynamical Biefeld-Brown Effect from the Standpoint of ZPF field.” Reading this paper I realized how thorough, detailed and meticulous Dr. Musha was. Quoting selected portions from Dr. Musha’s paper:

In 1956, T.T. Brown presented a discovery known as the Biefeld-Bown effect (abbreviated B-B effect) that a sufficiently charged capacitor with dielectrics exhibited unidirectional thrust in the direction of the positive plate.

From the 1st of February until the 1st of March in 1996, the research group of the HONDA R&D Institute conducted experiments to verify the B-B effect with an improved experimental device which rejected the influence of corona discharges and electric wind around the capacitor by setting the capacitor in the insulator oil contained within a metallic vessel . . . The experimental results measured by the Honda research group are shown . . .

V. Putz and K. Svozil,

. . . predicted that the electron experiences an increase in its rest mass under an intense electromagnetic field . . .

and the equivalent

. . . formula with respect to the mass shift of the electron under intense electromagnetic field was discovered by P. Milonni . . .

Dr. Musha concludes his paper with,

. . . The theoretical analysis result suggests that the impulsive electric field applied to the dielectric material may produce a sufficient artificial gravity to attain velocities comparable to chemical rockets.

Given, Honda R&D’s experimental research findings, this is a major step forward for the Biefeld-Brown effect, and Biefeld-Brown is back on the table as a potential propulsion technology.

We learn two lesson.

First, that any theoretical analysis of an experimental result is advanced or handicapped by the contemporary physics. While the experimental results remain valid, at the time of the publication, zero point fluctuation (ZPF) was the appropriate theory. However, per Prof. Robert Nemiroff’s 2012 stunning discovery that quantum foam and thus ZPF does not exist, the theoretical explanation for the Biefeld-Brown effect needs to be reinvestigated in light of Putz, Svozil and Milonni’s research findings. This is not an easy task as that part of the foundational legacy physics is now void.

Second, it took decades of Dr. Musha’s own research to correctly advise Honda R&D how to conduct with great care and attention to detail, this type of experimental research. I would advise anyone serious considering Biefeld-Brown experiments to talk to Dr. Musha, first.

Another example of similar lessons relates to the Finnish/Russian Dr. Podkletnov’s gravity shielding spinning superconducting ceramic disc i.e. an object placed above this spinning disc would lose weight.

I spent years reading and rereading Dr. Podkletnov’s two papers (the 1992 “A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor” and the 1997 “Weak gravitational shielding properties of composite bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x superconductor below 70K under e.m. field“) before I fully understood all the salient observations.

Any theory on Dr. Podkletnov’s experiments must explain four observations, the stationary disc weight loss, spinning disc weight loss, weight loss increase along a radial distance and weight increase. Other than my own work I haven’t see anyone else attempt to explain all four observation within the context of the same theoretical analysis. The most likely inference is that legacy physics does not have the tools to explore Podkletnov’s experiments.

But it gets worse.

Interest in Dr. Podkletnov’s work was destroyed by two papers claiming null results. First, Woods et al, (the 2001 “Gravity Modification by High-Temperature Superconductors“) and second, Hathaway et al (the 2002 “Gravity Modification Experiments Using a Rotating Superconducting Disk and Radio Frequency Fields“). Reading through these papers it was very clear to me that neither team were able to faithfully reproduce Dr. Podkletnov’s work.

My analysis of Dr. Podkletnov’s papers show that the disc is electrified and bi-layered. By bi-layered, the top side is superconducting and the bottom non-superconducting. Therefore, to get gravity modifying effects, the key to experimental success is, bottom side needs to be much thicker than the top. Without getting into too much detail, this would introduce asymmetrical field structures, and gravity modifying effects.

The necessary dialog between theoretical explanations and experimental insight is vital to any scientific study. Without this dialog, there arises confounding obstructions; theoretically impossible but experiments work or theoretically possible but experiments don’t work. With respect to Biefeld-Brown, Dr. Musha has completed the first iteration of this dialog.

Above all, we cannot be sure what we have discovered is correct until we have tested these discoveries under different circumstances. This is especially true for future propulsion technologies where we cannot depend on legacy physics for guidance, and essentially don’t understand what we are looking for.

In the current RSQ (pronounced risk) theory climate, propulsion physics is not a safe career path to select. I do hope that serious researchers reopen the case for both Biefeld-Brown and Podkletnov experiments, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) leads the way by providing funding to do so.

(Originally published in the Huffington Post)

Advertisements

Is Photon Based Propulsion, the Future?

I first met Dr. Young Bae, NIAC Fellow, at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) sponsored 2011, 100 Year Starship Study (100YSS) at Orlando, Fla. Many of us who were there had responded to the NASA/DARPA Tactical Technology Office’s RFP to set up an organization “… to develop a viable and sustainable non-governmental organization for persistent, long-term, private-sector investment into the myriad of disciplines needed to make long-distance space travel viable …”

Yes, both DARPA and NASA are at some level interested in interstellar propulsion. Mine was one of approximately 35 (rumored number) teams from around the world vying for this DARPA grant, and Dr. Bae was with a competing team. I presented the paper “Non-Gaussian Photon Probability Distributions”, and Dr. Bae presented “A Sustainable Developmental Pathway of Photon Propulsion towards Interstellar Flight”. These were early days, the ground zero of interstellar propulsion, if you would.

Dr. Bae has been researching Photon Laser Thrust (PLT) for many years. A video of his latest experiment is available at the NASA website or on YouTube. This PLT uses light photons to move an object by colliding with (i.e. transferring momentum to) the object. The expectation is that this technology will eventually be used to propel space crafts. His most recent experiments demonstrate the horizontal movement of a 1-pound weight. This is impressive. I expect to see much more progress in the coming years.

At one level, Dr. Bae’s experiments are confirmation that Bill Nye’s Light Sail (which very unfortunately lost communications with Earth) will work.

At another level, one wonders why or how the photon, a particle without mass, has momentum that is proportion to the photon’s frequency or energy. A momentum that is observable in Dr. Bae’s and other experiments. This is not a question that contemporary physics asks. Einstein was that meticulous when he derived the Lorentz-FitzGerald Transformations (LFT) from first principles for his Special Theory of Relativity (STR). Therefore, if you think about it, and if we dare to ask the sacrilegious question, does this mean that momentum is a particle’s elementary property that appears to be related to mass? What would we discover if we could answer the question, why does momentum exist in both mass and massless particles? Sure, the short cut don’t bother me answer is, mass-energy equivalence. But why?

At the other end of photon momentum based research is the EmDrive invented by Roger Shawyer. He clearly states that the EmDrive is due to momentum exchange and not due to “quantum vacuum plasma effects”. To vindicate his claims Boeing has received all of his EmDrive designs and test data. This is not something that Boeing does lightly.

In this 2014 video a member of NASA’s Eagleworks explains that the EmDrive (renamed q-thruster) pushes against quantum vacuum, the froth of particle and antiparticle pairs in vacuum. Which raises the question, how can you push against one type and not the other? In 2011, using NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope photographs, Prof. Robert Nemiroff of Michigan Technological University, made the stunning discovery that this quantum foam of particle and antiparticle pairs in a vacuum, does not exist. Unfortunately, this means that the NASA Eagleworks explanation clearly cannot be correct.

So how does the EmDrive work?

In my 2012 book An Introduction to Gravity Modification, I had explained the importance of asymmetrical fields and designs for creating propellantless engines. For example, given a particle in a gravitational field and with respect to this field’s planetary mass source, this particle will observe an asymmetrical gravitational field. The near side of this particle will experience a stronger field than the far side, and thus the motion towards the planetary mass. Granted that this difference is tiny, it is not zero. This was how I was able to determine the massless formula for gravitational acceleration, g=τc^2, where tau τ is the change in the time dilation transformation (dimensionless LFT) divided by that distance. The error in the modeled gravitational acceleration is less than 6 parts per million. Thus validating the asymmetrical approach.

In very basic terms Shawyer’s New Scientist paper suggests that it is due to the conical shape of the EmDrive that causes microwave photons to exhibit asymmetrical momentum exchange. One side of the conical structure with the larger cross section, has more momentum exchange than the other side with the smaller cross section. The difference in this momentum exchange is evidenced as a force.

However, as Dr. Bae points out, from the perspective of legacy physics, conservation of momentum is broken. If not broken, then there are no net forces. If broken, then one observes a net force. Dr. Beckwith (Prof., Chongqing University, China) confirms that Dr. Bae is correct, but the question that needs to be addressed is, could there be any additional effects which would lead to momentum conservation being violated? Or apparently violated?

To be meticulous, since energy can be transmuted into many different forms, we can ask another sacrilegious question. Can momentum be converted into something else? A wave function attribute for example, in a reversible manner, after all the massless photon momentum is directly proportional to its frequency? We don’t know. We don’t have either the theoretical or experimental basis for answering this question either in the positive or negative. Note, this is not the same as perpetual motion machines, as conservation laws still hold.

Shawyer’s work could be confirmation of these additional effects, asymmetrical properties and momentum-wave-function-attribute interchangeability. If so, the future of propulsion technologies lies in photon based propulsion.

Given that Shawyer’s video demonstrates a moving EmDrive, the really interesting question is, can we apply this model to light photons? Or for that matter, any other type of photons, radio, infrared, light, ultraviolet and X-Rays?

(Originally published in the Huffington Post)

Crypto-Info Approach to the Ethics of Genetic Engineering

I just read Wired’s America Needs To Figure Out The Ethics of Gene Editing Now, by Nick Stockton.

We are naïve to think that a moratorium would work because there are countries out there who are determined to supersede the US. Therefore, the focus should not be to halt research but to make it safer – for everyone, not just us. Recall how AIDS became a major health consideration in the US. Therefore, making this research safer for everyone makes it safer for us, too.

According to this Wired article, there are two scientific perspectives on this, need for open discussion (these include, George Q. Daley, R. Alta Charo, Steven Martin, Jennifer Doudna, Hank Greely, Mike Botchan) and temporary moratorium of “baby making” (Edward Lanphier, R. Alta Charo, Steven Martin).

In my opinion it is not correct to restrict scientists’ research to “safe” research but we have to weigh that against the benefits of progress. Learning, experimentation and research are all part of the process of making progress. “Safety” is something that we discover with hindsight – airplanes as weapons came to our national consciousness with 9/11. And for Christians who believe this is wrong, see Genesis 1:26.

What this article shows is that we don’t know enough about genes, gene splicing, and germline editing. Proof of this lies in answering this question I had asked at the 2013 100 Year Starship Study held in Houston, TX. What would happen if we took the entire nucleus/DNA of a simple animal and placed inside a plant cell, and do the reverse, a plant nucleus/DNA into an animal cell. Would the animal nucleus still develop into an animal, and would the plant nucleus still develop into a plant?

The findings will give us many answers. Are specific enzymes/proteins required per type of life form? Is there a universal information transference mechanism between nucleus and organelles for both animal and plant cells? Or are each life form’s mechanism different? If so how did evolution come up with two different mechanisms, and are there other mechanisms? Can the nucleus change the proteins within the cells to match its requirements? Can an animal (plant) nucleus convert the cell to an animal (plant) cell? Did the cell evolve independently of the nucleus? . . . .

Answer is we don’t know, because we don’t know enough of how information is transmitted from the nucleus to the cell organelles, as we are still experimenting with bits and pieces of DNA. That is, even though our research is very advanced our considerations are very primitive.

I suspect that if we change our perspective, from researching bits of DNA, to forming a 3-layer model (DNA, gene & information), we can progress faster. This crypto-info model consists of a bottom foundational layer, the DNA; the middle recording layer, genes, and the top information layer. The foundational layer is the physical implementation consisting of adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine bases, and a couple of other things. The recording layer is the store of select information, and the information layer has what, how, when to do it, and maybe more.

Our current research is based on the middle layer, splicing and moving around recording units or genes. Why are these recording units or genes combined together as strands and not individually present in the nucleus? The answer would suggest that there is information in the positional arrangement of these genes. Interpolating would suggest that the positional arrangement of the bases within a gene is how gene specific information is stored. So we understand how information is stored in the DNA. We don’t, however, understand what this information is. It is encrypted, therefore the term crypto-info. What is this information and how is it structured? An examination of the smallest genes would be a start to understanding this. The earlier animal-plant question raises another, is this coded information context-sensitive?

Of course once we get a working crypto-info model we will probably discover many more things about the DNA, its information, and its storage transference mechanisms. This crypto-info model raises another question, since silicon is the closest chemical to carbon, could a silicon-based DNA be constructed? What about other elements?

Coming back to the original questions about open discussions and temporary moratoriums, the crypto-info model shows that to address these issues we need to lay down guidelines of HOW to do DNA related research as opposed to WHAT DNA research we could do.

SpaceX’s Success

I read all the news about SpaceX’s Falcon 9 latest “failure” to land on an autonomous spaceport drone ship aka barge. I view these as trials to success. Here’s why.

1. Grasshopper Successes: The two videos below show that the early landing trials aka Grasshopper from several heights between 250m and 1,000m.

The lessons here are:

a) Pinpoint landing of a 1st stage rocket is technologically feasible.

b) This 1st stage rocket has to attain zero vertical velocity at a minimum 250m above the barge.

Video of 250m test

Video of 1,000m test

2. Falcon 9 1st stage crash landing – 1st attempt: SpaceX tells us that the failure was due to a hard landing (see video below) but at 0:03 minutes into the video one can see that the 1st stage has substantially tilted before it hit the deck i.e. the 1st stage did not tilt because it hit the deck.

The lessons here:

a) A wobble – a dynamic instability – occurs before landing.

b) The guidance systems are unable to cope with new wobble.

Video of 1st attempt

3. Falcon 9 1st stage crash landing – 2nd attempt:  The video of the second attempt (below) confirms that indeed a wobble has been introduced before the stabilization fins are deployed. Further, this deployment exacerbates the wobble, and the guidance systems is unable to handle this exacerbated wobble.

The lessons here:

a) 1st stage vertical velocity needs to be zero by at least 250m above deck.

b) The stabilization fins need to be redesigned to alleviate exacerbation.

c) Like the Space Ship One’s shuttlecock approach, the 1st stage upper fins need to be deployed before the lower fins are.

d) Upgrade the landing guidance system to account for more severe wobbles.

If at a minimum, SpaceX achieves zero velocity at 250m before deployment of landing gear it will be successful. The other recommendations are good to have.

I expect SpaceX to be successful by their 3rd try.

Super Physics for Super Technologies

CoverThumbnailTitle: Super Physics for Super Technologies
Sub Title: Replacing Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger & Einstein
Author: Benjamin T Solomon
Paperback: 154 pages
Publisher: Propulsion Physics, Inc. (March 19, 2015)
ISBN-10: 1508948011
ISBN-13: 978-1508948018
Language: English

Publisher’s Link: Super Physics for Super Technologies
Amazon’s Link: Super Physics for Super Teconologies

Reviewer’s comments: “Benjamin is the second researcher I have met who has tried to consider a nonsingular cosmology. The first was Christi Stoica, which I met in 2010”.
Andrew Beckwith PhD

The Objective: This book, Super Physics for Super Technologies, proposes that a new physics exists. The findings are based on 16 years of extensive numerical modeling with empirical data, and therefore, both testable and irrefutable.

The Need: In 2012 Prof. Nemiroff, using Hubble photographs, showed that quantum foam cannot exists. In 2013, Solomon showed that both exotic matter and strings could not exists. In 2015 the Kavli Foundation, with Prof. Efstathiou, Prof. Pryke, Prof. Steinhard discussed the issues with the Planck Space Telescope findings of a Universe that is significantly simpler than our theories. Therefore the need for new physics.

The Benefits: The replacement of the Schrödinger wave function with a simpler probabilistic wave function, results in a new electron shell model based on the Rydberg equation, giving exact results with quantum mechanics; leading to a new Standard Model and the unification of photon shielding, transmission and invisibility as the same phenomenon. Solomon’s inference is that any current or future stealth technology can be neutralized.

The Possibilities: Is it possible to rewrite physics and the old great cherished masters? This work is based on extensive numerical modeling of known empirical data and theorizing. Therefore, the answer must be YES.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Lockheed for nominating me to the position of Committee Member, Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA)

Building Gravitational Column Launch Engines

Status: Xodus One Foundation is in the process of raising funds for the design, prototype, manufacture of these space propulsion engines.

Engine Design: Engine design is in part based on the research by Solomon and by Podkletnov. Both researchers’ work are accessible through peer reviewed publications.

Theoretical Basis: In classical gravity, gravitational acceleration is dependent upon the mass of the planet or star. The discovery of the new equation g=τc^2 for gravitational acceleration (Physics Essays, Sept. 2011) will lead to new types of propulsion engines as mass is not present in this equation.

Historical Basis: In the 1990s the Finnish-Russian materials scientist, Podkletnov, had shown that a superconducting ceramic disc could shield gravity. A sample held above this device would lose a small amount of weight. Solomon only know of three teams who attempted to reproduce this effect, but either did not get off the ground or had their ceramic disc crack in mid experiment. Solomon believes today we have resolved the whys of Podkletnov’s experimental observations.

The New Technology: Knowing that gravity shielding was observed above Podkletnov’s device, we know anything above this device would lose weight. Therefore, if we laid out a square matrix of these devices, maybe 1,000 x 1,000, several feet under the launch pad, we could generate a gravitationally modified launch column. The launch sequence would be, roll space vehicle over matrix launch pad. Activate matrix. Neutralize gravity to almost zero. Start count down . . . t-minus 3, t-minus 2, t-minus 1, lift off. At lift off the matrix power would be substantially increased to reverse gravity in the launch column. Thus impelling the space vehicle into outer space.

The Navy’s Rail Gun Hides a Secret

The Navy’s Rail Gun technology hides a secret, that the Navy’s projectile accuracy has been substantially increased by about 45x.

But first some history. The US government brought Prof Eric Laithwaite to help them build a rocket launcher based on linear motor principles. Today we call this the Rail Gun.

In terms of its original objectives it was not a success, because astronauts could not survive the accelerations required to launch from a rail gun and cargo required a much longer rail gun than feasible with the then technologies.

The Navy succeeded with ship based rail guns as a means to shoot projectiles. Bloomberg TV has a good video on the Navy’s Rail Gun. http://www.bloomberg.com/video/watch-navy-s-new-supergun-launch-shells-at-5600-mph-bfCXOGXZQziZgHnsbq9VzQ.html

Watching this video I realized that the secret to the Navy’s Rail Gun project was not the rail gun itself, but the substantially increased accuracy attained by the much higher muzzle velocity.

I present two important point. Using quick & dirty theoretical reasoning and real examples showing that the rail gun projectile has an increased accuracy of between 28x to 45x over conventional ship-based guns.

And the real possibility that the rail gun projectile traveling at Mach 7.4 has the ability to shoot down the X-51 traveling at Mach 5 at an altitude of 70,000ft. PowerPoint is here http://www.iseti.us/pdf/NavyRailGun(2014-05-23).pdf Enjoy.