Ground Zero of Interstellar Propulsion

Private Space exploration is gaining a lot of attention in the media today. It is expected to be the next big thing after social media, technology, and probably bio fuels . Can we take this further? With DARPA sponsoring the formation of the 100 Year Starship Study (100YSS) in 2011, can we do interstellar propulsion in our life times?

The Xodus One Foundation thinks this is feasible. To that end the Foundation has started the KickStarter project Ground Zero of Interstellar Propulsion to fund and accelerate this research. This project ends Fri, May 9 2014 7:39 AM MDT.

 

The community of interstellar propulsion researchers can be categorized into three groups, those who believe it cannot be done (Nay Sayers Group – NSG), those who believe that it requires some advanced form of conventional rockets (Advanced Rocket Group – ARG), and those who believe that it needs new physics (New Physics Group – NPG).

The Foundation belongs to the third group, the New Physics Group. The discovery in 2007 of the new massless formula for gravitational acceleration g=τc^2 , where τ is the change in time dilation over a specific height divided by that height, led to the inference that there is a new physics for interstellar propulsion that is waiting to be discovered.

What would this physics look like if nothing can travel faster than light? Founder & Chairman, Benjamin T Solomon, of the Xodus One Foundation believes that the answer lies in our understanding of photon probability. Can we discover enough physics to figure out how to control photon probability?

To facilitate this discovery one can participate in the Ground Zero of Interstellar Propulsion. If Solomon is right . . .

Background & History of the Foundation

The Xodus One Foundation[1] is a Colorado non-profit (awaiting 501(c) approval) founded by Benjamin T Solomon[2] in October 2013 with the objective of raising funds and disbursing grants to researchers with access to multimillion dollar labs, for the purpose of discovering the physics of interstellar propulsion.

The Xodus One Foundation and its Founder, Benjamin T Solomon, have been active in this outreach at the DARPA[3] sponsored 100 Year Starship Study[4]; AIAA’s SciTech 2014 Conference[5] held National Harbor, Maryland; SPIE’s Photonics West 2014[6] in San Francisco, California; and is a sponsor of the Colorado Space Business Roundtable’s (CSBR)[7] Colorado Aerospace Day (2013[8] & 2014[9] ) held in third week of March.

Background

The Researchers

The history of the investigation into gravity modification can be traced back further, and for the purposes of the Xodus One Foundation it is sufficient to consider the recent decades. Over the last 20 years about 60 serious researchers from 16 countries have investigated the field of gravity modification and/or interstellar propulsion. These include:

Klause Hense (Austria), Klause Marhold (Austria), Martin Tajmar (Austria), Fran De Aquino (Brazil), George Hathaway (Canada), Ning Li (China), Ning Wu (China), R. Nieminen (Finland), Clovis de Matos (France), Christopher Provatidis (Greece), R.C. Gupta (India), Giovanni Modanese (Italy), G.A. Ummarino (Italy), Hideo Hayasaka (Japan), Takaaki Musha (Japan), Kimio Nishino (Japan), Sakae Takeuchi (Japan), Miguel Alcubierre (Mexico), M. Agop (Romania), C. Gh. Buzea (Romania), B. Ciobanu (Romania), Eugene Podkletnov (Russia), Jozef Sima (Slovakia), Miroslav Sukenık (Slovakia), Eric Laithwaite (UK), Robert Baker (USA), John Brandenburg (USA), Whitt Brantley (USA), Andrew Beckwith (USA), Raymond Y. Chiao (USA), Rod Clark (USA), John Cramer (USA), Eric Davis (USA), Robert Forward (USA), Gustave Fralick (USA), J Gaines (USA), Bernard Haisch (USA), Jay Hammer (USA), Asit Kir (USA), Ron Koczor (USA), Jordan Maclay (USA), Paul March (USA), George Michael (USA), Peter Milonni (USA), Paul Murad (USA), Janis Niedra (USA), David Noever (USA), Richard Obousy (USA), Hal Puthoff (USA), Alfonso Reuda (USA), Center Richland (USA), Glen (Tony) Robertson (USA), Frederic Rounds (USA), L Sanderson (USA), Michael Serry (USA), Benjamin T. Solomon (USA), D.G. Torr (USA), Carlos Villareal (USA), Clive Woods (USA), and James Woodward (USA).

Solomon’s research began in 1999, and links of more than a decade of published conference & journal papers can be found at iSETI LLC[10] under ‘White Papers’ or one can request copies of his papers/presentations from the respective organizers. Having determined that there isn’t sufficient funding (either private or public) the Xodus One Foundation was set up specifically to continue this decades long tradition of investigation into gravity modification.

The funds will be used to provide grants to researchers in big science to investigate new RSQ (Relativity, String & Quantum theory) blind experiments as only big science has the multimillion dollar labs and equipment to conduct these RSQ blind experiments.

The Rational

The community of interstellar propulsion researchers can be categorized into three groups, those who believe it cannot be done (Nay Sayers Group – NSG), those who believe that it requires some advanced form of conventional rockets (Advanced Rocket Group – ARG), and those who believe that it needs new physics (New Physics Group – NPG).

Prof. Adam Franks stated in his July 24, 2012 New York Times Op-Ed, Alone in the Void[11], “Short of a scientific miracle of the kind that has never occurred, our future history for millenniums will be played out on Earth”. Obviously, logic dictates that the NSG will not deliver interstellar propulsion.

Some organizations that belong to the Advanced Rocket Group, include NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP)[12], the Tau Zero Foundation[13] , The Icarus Project[14]. The empirical evidence of the Lorentz-FitzGerald Transformations (LFT) shows that the ARG approach would be limited by the velocity of light and therefore, it would take at least 4 years to reach our nearest star system Alpha Centauri A, B & Proxima Centauri. However others claim, using mathematical physics of quantum strings that it is possible to reach unimaginable velocities[15] .

The NPG on the other hand believe that existing theories cannot deliver interstellar propulsion technologies, because some of the findings of these theories conflict with the proven empirical data such as the Lorentz-FitzGerald Transformations (LFT). The correct term to describe these “theories” is “hypotheses” as they don’t have supporting empirical data and are unproven.

In his book An Introduction to Gravity Modification: A Guide to Using Laithwaite’s and Podkletnov’s Experiments and the Physics of Forces for Empirical Results, Second Edition[16] Solomon defined Gravity Modification as:

Gravity modification is defined as the modification of the strength and direction of the gravitational acceleration without the use of mass as the primary source of this modification, in local space time. It consists of field modulation and field vectoring. Field modulation is the ability to attenuate or amplify a force field. Field vectoring is the ability to change the direction of this force field.

And a succinct working definition is modification of acceleration without the use of mass. This, therefore, informs us that our contemporary RSQ (Relativity, String & Quantum) theories cannot deliver gravity modification physics or technologies as these RSQ theories require mass in their equations.

Therefore, a ‘new physics’ working definition for interstellar propulsion & interstellar travel would be destination arrival without effecting velocity or acceleration. Is this possible? The true answer is that we don’t know. The only way to find out is to research it, and therefore, the founding of the Xodus One Foundation to fund this research. Note, that unlike the Tau Zero Foundation which is focused on rocket/thrust based propulsion funding, the Xodus One Foundation is focused on new non-RSQ physics.

About, An Introduction to Gravity Modification

The book details Solomon’s 12-year research into the physics & engineering of gravity modification, and derived from his peer reviewed publications[17] [18] [19] [20] [21].

In his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty[22], the late CUNY Professor of Mathematics, Morris Kline, explains that mathematics has become so sophisticated that it can be used to prove anything. Therefore, the antidote to this is to stay close to the empirical data. Thus, Solomon’s 12-year research into what the empirical data can inform us about gravity & gravity modification.

With respect to gravity modification, Solomon’s two most important findings[23] [24] are:
1.The massless formula for gravitational acceleration, g=τc2 , where τ is the change in time dilation over a specific height divided by that height. Unlike quantum theory which requires a different particle for each type of force, g=τc2 is valid and works for gravitational, mechanical & electromagnetic accelerations; and by Occam’s Razor a better result than the Standard Model.
2. There exist a new property of Nature, the Non Inertia (Ni) Field. The Ni Field is defined as a spatial gradient of virtual or real velocities. In a gravitational field orbital velocities are virtual until a satellite is placed in orbit. In centripetal forces (circling stone tied by a string to a pivot) the tangential velocities along the string are real. And in electromagnetism the Ni Field is formed around an electron moving orthogonally to the magnetic field.

Therefore, with respect to gravity modification, a new physics has been found, and this new formula has been published for anyone and everyone to verify for themselves that it is true and correct. (Just note that these calculations have to be done to at least 50 decimal places else rounding errors will result in incorrect answers.)

Prof Eric Laithwaite’s Big Wheel Experiment

Professor Eric Laithwaite of Imperial College, London, in his 1974 address to the Royal Institution demonstrated that a 50lb (22.7kg) motorcycle spun to 5,000 rpm would lift as he rotated it about himself at the end of a 3 foot (1 meter) rod. Videos of his experiments can be found at Gyroscopes.Org[25] To date this has been considered illusory as no one in academia has been able to solve this using classical mechanics. However, ‘illusory’ does not address how the human wrist could carry a 50lb (22.7kg) motorcycle wheel at the end of a 3 foot (1 meter) rod. It is unfortunate that this is the same problem that Cambridge University & Imperial College London[26] avoided answering when commenting on Laithwiate’s experiments.

Using the new physics of Ni Fields, Solomon solved this. There is weight change and it is both upward & downward. The observed acceleration a is governed by the formula a=ωs.ωr.h1/2, where ωs is the spin of the wheel, ωr is the rotation of the spinning wheel about Laithwaite, and h1/2 is the square root of the hypotenuse formed by the radii of the spinning wheel, and the rotation about him.

This is a net effect as there are very strong forces acting on the wheel. These experiments should not be tried at home nor should these be conducted without professional supervision as the edge of 5,000 rpm spinning wheel is travelling at several hundred miles per hour.

The formula a=ωs.ωr.h1/2 shows that when the sense of the spin and rotation are the same the acceleration is towards the observer, and when not, away. Thus one can observe both weight gain and weight loss. The rotation is a critical factor and therefore, the Hayasaka & Takeuchi experiment [27] (weight decreases along the axis of a right spinning gyroscope) should give null results as rotation is not present in their experiments. Subsequently Chinese researchers [28] found null results, which is consistent with Solomon’s a=ωs.ωr.h1/2 .

Most importantly, we now have consistency across different experimental observations, and Laithwaite was correct. (Be careful, as far as one can infer none of the Laithwaite nay saysers conducted comparable experiments to disprove Laithwaite. There have been reports of NASA’s BBP having evaluated Laithwaites’s Big Wheel experiment with null findings, but it appears that such web links are no longer valid.)

Podkletnov’s Gravity Shielding Experiment

In 1992[29] & 1997[30], the Russian researcher Eugene Podkletnov claimed to have discovered, while experimenting with superconductors, that a spinning bilayer disc-shaped ceramic superconductor reduces the gravitational effect.

Many studies have attempted to reproduce Podkletnov’s experiment.[31][32] However, a careful read of these papers show that none of these teams were able to reproduce Podkletnov’s spinning ceramic superconducting disc as their discs would crack before they could reach the disc spins required by Podkletnov. Their conclusion should not have been negative results, it should have been experiments were not reproducible.

Solomon proposed that if correctly done a Ni Field is created that allows for weight change. In particular any hypothesis attempting to solve Podkletnov’s observed gravity shielding effect need to explain 4 observations[33], the stationary disc weight loss, spinning disc weight loss, weight loss increases along a radial distance and weight increase. None of the papers written about Podkletnov’s experiments have even begun to answer these observations.

Is Interstellar Propulsion Feasible?

Yes.

Given that the new physics of gravity modification has been discovered, one can only conclude that there is a new physics for interstellar propulsion. By the definition destination arrival without effecting velocity or acceleration one can be assured that to discover this physics we have to think outside the box.

Solomon proposed a starting point for this new physics in his paper New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories[34], published in the Journal of Modern Physics.

It would be great if we as a community can come together, fund and discover, this new interstellar propulsion physics.

References

[1] “Xodus One Foundation”.

[2] “Benjamin T Solomon”.

[3] “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency”.

[4] “100 Year Starship Study”.

[5] “American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics (AIAA) Sci Tech 2014”.

[6] “International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE) Photonics West 2014”.

[7] “Colorado Space Business Roundtable (CSBR)”.

[8] “SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 13-020 CONCERNING THE RECOGNITION OF “COLORADO AEROSPACE DAY”.

[9]Sealover, Ed (March 24 2014). “Legislature declares Colorado Aerospace Day; criticizes feds for NASA cuts”. Denver Business Journal. Retrieved March 25 2014. Check date values in: |date=, |accessdate= (help)

[10] Solomon, Benjamin. “iSETI LLC”.

[11] Franks, Adam (July 24 2012). “Alone in the Void”. The New York Times. Retrieved July 24 2012. Check date values in: |date=, |accessdate= (help)

[12] “NASA Breakthrough Propulsion”.

[13] “Tau Zero Foundation”.

[14] “The Icarus Project”.

[15] Holmes, Dave (September 19, 2012). “Dr. Eric W. Davis on New Light-Speed Breaking Science”. G4 Media, LLC, A division of NBC Universal. Retrieved March 25 2014. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[16] Solomon, Benjamin (2012). An Introduction to Gravity Modification, A Guide to Using Laithwaite’s and Podkletnov’s Experiments and the Physics of Forces for Empirical Results, 2nd Edition. Boca Raton, FLorida, USA: Universal Publishers. ISBN 9781612330891.

[17] Solomon, Benjamin (August 27, 2013). “New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories”. Journal of Modern Physics. Volume 4 (8A). doi:10.4236/jmp.2013.48A018.

[18] Solomon, Benjamin (2011). “Gravitational Acceleration Without Mass And Noninertia Fields”. Physics Essays 24 (3): 327.

[19] Solomon, Benjamin (2011). “Reverse Engineering Podkletnov’s Experiments”. Physics Procedia. Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum 20: 120-133.

[20] Solomon, Benjamin (16 March 2009). “An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology”. AIP Proceedings. SPACE, PROPULSION & ENERGY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL FORUM 1103. doi:10.1063/1.3115512.

[21] Solomon, Benjamin (28 January 2010). ““Non-Gaussian Photon Probability Distributions”. AIP Proceedings. SPACE, PROPULSION & ENERGY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL FORMUM 1208: 261. doi:10.1063/1.3326254.

[22] Kline, Morris (1982). Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. Oxford & New York: Ofxord University Press. ISBN 0-19-503085-0.

[23] Solomon, Benjamin (2011). “Gravitational Acceleration Without Mass And Noninertia Fields”. Physics Essays 24 (3): 327.

[24] Solomon, Benjamin (16 March 2009). “An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology”. AIP Proceedings. SPACE, PROPULSION & ENERGY SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL FORUM 1103. doi:10.1063/1.3115512.

[25] “Gyroscopes.org”.

[26] Laithwiate’s Experiments “Laithwiate’s Experiments”. Imperial College London. Retrieved March 25 2014. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[27] Hayasaka, H. and Takeuchi, S. (1989). “Anomalous weight reduction on a gyroscope’s right rotations around the vertical axis on the Earth”. Physics Review Letters 63 (25): 2701–2704.

[28] Luo; Nie, Zhang, Zhou (2002). “Null result for violation of the equivalence principle with free-fall rotating gyroscopes”. Phys. Rev. D 65: 042005. Cite uses deprecated parameters (help)

[29] Podkletnov; Nieminen (1992). “A Possibility of Gravitational Force Shielding by Bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x Superconductor”. Physica C 203 (3): 441–444. Cite uses deprecated parameters (help)

[30] Podkletnov (1997). “Weak gravitational shielding properties of composite bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x superconductor below 70K under e.m. field”. lanl.gov.

[31] Woods, C., Cooke, S., Helme, J., and Caldwell, C., “Gravity Modification by High Temperature Superconductors,” Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA 2001–3363, (2001).

[32] Hathaway, G., Cleveland, B., and Bao, Y., “Gravity Modification Experiment using a Rotating Superconducting Disc and Radio Frequency Fields,” Physica C, 385, 488–500, (2003).

[33] Solomon, Benjamin (March 2012). An Introduction to Gravity Modification: A guide to using Laithwaite’s and Podkletnov’s experiments and the physics of forces for empirical results. Boca Raton: Universal Publishers. p. 530. ISBN 9781612330891.

[34] Solomon, Benjamin (August 27, 2013). “New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories”. Journal of Modern Physics. Volume 4 (8A). doi:10.4236/jmp.2013.48A018.

100 Starship Study

I am presenting the paper “Empirical Evidence Suggest A Need For A Different Gravitational Theory” at the DARPA sponsored, 100 Year Starship Study 2013 Conference, in Houston, TX, this weekend.

This presentation is based on one with the same title, at the American Physical Society (APS) April 2013 Conference, in Denver, CO. A complete written paper was published in the Journal of Modern Physics:

Title: New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments  Experiments for Gravitational Theories

Journal:   Journal of Modern Physics, Special Issue on Gravitation, Astrophysics and Cosmology, Vol. 8A, August 2013 Paper Link:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=36276

 

The 100YSS’s abstract is:

Abstract: This paper presents some recent finding in alternative gravitational hypotheses. Using gamma-ray burst Nemiroff [2012] showed that quantum foam could not exists. Solomon [2011] showed that gravitational acceleration is not associated with gravitating mass, and equivalent to not knowing the photon source properties to know its frequency; that gravitational acceleration g is determined by τ the change in time dilation over a specific height multiplied by c² or g=τc². Force is expressed as a Non Inertia (Ni) Field and not by the exchange of virtual particles as is required by quantum & string theories. Therefore, a key requirement for interplanetary & interstellar travel, a propulsion equation that facilitates engine designs that do not expel mass.

This paper examines 12 inconsistencies in contemporary physical theories that manifest from empirical data, to provide insights on how physical theories will change to eliminate these inconsistencies. Exotic matter, expanding strings, a moving wave function and even a fixed spacetime continuum generate inconsistencies in physics. Further, current physical theories do not explain how particle probabilities are implemented in Nature. This paper proposes alternative axioms for spacetime and particles that would be consistent with the Special Theory of Relativity. Empirical data is used to propose two new instruments, the Gravity Wave Telescope and Near Field Gravity Probe.

Unlike current hypotheses on warp drives, that require enormous quantities of matter, equivalent to carrying a planet to move a rocket, resolving these 12 inconsistencies led to the concept of subspace that is probabilistic, and the potential to manipulate subspace rather than spacetime to ‘translocate’ starships across vast distances.

Gravity Modification – What Is The Record?

If, we as a community, are intending to accelerate the development of interstellar travel we have to glower at the record and ask ourselves some tough questions. First, what is the current record of the primary players? Second, why is everyone afraid to try something outside the status quo theories?

At the present time the primary players are associated with the DARPA funded 100-Year Starship Study, as Icarus Interstellar who is cross linked with The Tau Zero Foundation and Centauri Dreams is a team member of the 100YSS. I was surprised to find Jean-Luc Cambier on Tau Zero.

Gary Church recently put the final nail in the Icarus Interstellar‘s dreams to build a rocket ship for interstellar travel. In his post on Lifeboat, Cosmic Ray Gorilla Gary Church says “it is likely such a shield will massive over a thousand tons”. Was he suggesting that the new cost of an interstellar rocket ship is not 3.4x World GDP but 34x or 340x World GDP? Oops!

Let us look at the record. Richard Obousy of Icarus Interstellar and Eric Davis of Institute for Advanced Studies claimed that it was possible, using string theories to travel at not just c, the velocity of light but at 1E32c, or c multiplied by a 1 followed by 32 zeros. However, Lorentz-FitzGerald transformations show that anything with mass cannot travel faster than the velocity of light. Note that Lorentz-FitzGerald is an empirical observation which was incorporated into Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.

It is quite clear that you can use string theories to say anything you want. I used the term ‘mathematical conjecture’.

In April 2008 the esteemed Michio Kaku said in his Space Show interview, that it would take several hundred years to do gravity modification.  But Michio Kaku is a string theorist himself. And I might add down to Earth one at that, since his opinion contradicts Richard Obousy and Eric Davis.

Then there is George Hathaway also with the Tau Zero Foundation who could not reproduce Podkletnov’s experiments, even when he was in communication with Podkletnov.

And this is the one group our astronaut Mae Jemison, leader of the 100YSS effort, has teamed up with? My sincerest condolences to you Mae Jemison. Sincerest condolences.

For the answer to the second question, you have to look within yourselves.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.

The Kline Directive: Technological Feasibility (2a)

To achieve interstellar travel, the Kline Directive instructs us to be bold, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not. To extend the boundaries of our knowledge, to advocate new methods, techniques and research, to sponsor change not status quo, on 5 fronts, Legal Standing, Safety Awareness, Economic Viability, Theoretical-Empirical Relationships, and Technological Feasibility.

In this set of posts I discuss three concepts. If implemented these concepts have the potential to bring about major changes in our understanding of the physical Universe. But first a detour.

In my earlier post I had suggested that both John Archibald Wheeler and Richard Feynman, giants of the physics community, could have asked different questions (what could we do differently?) regarding certain solutions to Maxwell’s equations, instead of asking if retrocausality could be a solution.

I worked 10 years for Texas Instruments in the 1980s & 1990s. Corporate in Dallas, had given us the daunting task of raising our Assembly/Test yields from 83% to 95%, within 3 years, across 6,000 SKUs (products), with only about 20+ (maybe less) engineers, and no assistance from Dallas. Assembly/Test skills had moved offshore, therefore, Dallas was not in a position to provide advice.  I look back now and wonder how Dallas came up with the 95% number.

Impossibly daunting because many of our product yields were in the 70+%. We had good engineers and managers. The question therefore was how do you do something seemingly impossible, without changing your mix of people, equipment and technical skills sets?

Let me tell you the end first. We achieved 99% to 100% Assembly/Test yields across the board for 6,000 SKUs within 3 years. And this, in a third world nation not known for any remarkable scientific or engineering talent! I don’t have to tell you what other lessons we learned from this as it should be obvious. So me telling Dr. David Neyland, of DARPA’s TTO “I’ll drop a zero” at the first 100YSS conference in 2011, still holds.

How did we do it? For my part I was responsible for Engineering Yield (IT) Systems, test operation cost modeling for Overhead Transfer Pricing, and tester capacity models to figure out how to increase test capacity. But the part that is relevant to this discussion was team work. We organized the company into teams, brought in consultants to teach what team work was and how to arrive at and execute operational and business decisions as teams.

And one of the keys to team work was to allow anyone and everyone to speak up. To voice their opinions. To ask questions, no matter how strange or silly those questions appeared to be. To never put down another person because he/she had different views.

Everyone from the managing director of the company down to the production operators were organized into teams. Every team had to meet once a week. To ask those questions. To seek those answers. That was some experience, working with and in those teams. We found things we did not know or understand about our process. That in turn set off new & old teams to go figure! We understood the value of a matrix type organization.

As a people not known for any remarkable scientific and engineering talent, we did it! Did the impossible. I learned many invaluable lessons from my decade at Texas Instruments that I’ll never forget and will always be grateful for.

My Thanksgiving this year is that I am thankful I had the opportunity to work for Texas Instruments when I did.

So I ask, in the spirit of the Kline Directive, can we as a community of physicists and engineers come together, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not, to make interstellar travel a reality within our lifetimes?

Previous post in the Kline Directive series.

Next post in the Kline Directive series.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.

The Kline Directive: Technological Feasibility (1)

To achieve interstellar travel, the Kline Directive instructs us to be bold, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not. To extend the boundaries of our knowledge, to advocate new methods, techniques and research, to sponsor change not status quo, on 5 fronts, Legal Standing, Safety Awareness, Economic Viability, Theoretical-Empirical Relationships, and Technological Feasibility.

In this post I will explore Technological Feasibility. At the end of the day that is the only thing that matters. If a hypothesis is not able to vindicate itself with empirical evidence it will not become technologically feasible. If it is not technologically feasible then it stands no chance of becoming commercially viable.

If we examine historical land, air and space speed records, we can construct and estimate of velocities that future technologies can achieve, aka technology forecasting. See table below for some of the speed records.

Year	Fastest Velocity	Craft	Velocity (km/h)	Velocity (m/s)
2006	Escape Earth	New Horizons	57,600	16,000
1976	Capt. Eldon W. Joersz and Maj. George T. Morgan	Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird	3,530	980
1927	Car land speed record (not jet engine)	Mystry	328	91
1920	Joseph Sadi-Lecointe	Nieuport-Delage NiD 29	275	76
1913	Maurice Prévost	Deperdussin Monocoque	180	50
1903	Wilbur Wright at Kitty Hawk	Wright Aircraft	11	3

A quick and dirty model derived from the data shows that we could achieve velocity of light c by 2151 or the late 2150s. See table below.

Year	Velocity (m/s)	% of c
2200	8,419,759,324	2808.5%
2152	314,296,410	104.8%
2150	274,057,112	91.4%
2125	49,443,793	16.5%
2118	30,610,299	10.2%
2111	18,950,618	6.3%
2100	8,920,362	3.0%
2075	1,609,360	0.5%
2050	290,351	0.1%
2025	52,384	0.0%

The extrapolation suggests that on our current rate of technological innovation we won’t achieve light speed until the late 2150s. The real problem is that we won’t achieve 0.1c until 2118! This is more than 100-years from today.

In my opinion this rate of innovation is too slow. Dr. David Neyland, of DARPA’s TTO was the driving force behind DARPA’s contribution to the 100-year Starship Study. When I met up with Dr. David Neyland during the first 100YSS conference, Sept. 30 to Oct 2, 2011, I told him “I’ll drop a zero”.  That is I expect interstellar travel to be achievable in decades not centuries. And to ramp up our rate of technological innovation we need new theories and new methods of sifting through theories.

Previous post in the Kline Directive series.

Next post in the Kline Directive series.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.

A Response to, “Leaving Earth: Former NASA Rocket Scientist On The Politics Of Going Interstellar”

Bruce Dorminey posted a link to his Forbes interview with Marc Millis titled “Leaving Earth: Former NASA Rocket Scientist On The Politics Of Going Interstellar” on the LinkedIn group Science & Technology Media Network.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2012/06/15/leaving-earth-former-nasa-rocket-scientist-on-the-politics-of-going-interstellar/

Andrew Skolnick gave an unbelievably good response to this article. I have reproduced it here with his permission. I could not have done it better. Remember we have to check the feasibility of proposed interstellar projects before we fund them. Thank you Andrew Skolnick.

————————————————————-

Andrew Skolnick • I’m tempted to call such starry-eyed dreamers “pi squarers,” but squaring pi is impossible and faster-than-light — and even human travel to the stars — is not. It’s just beyond doing — like constructing a building tall enough to take people and cargo up to low-earth orbit by elevators. Not impossible. Just beyond any prospects of achievement, now or in the foreseeable future.

I have good friends who are Star Trek and Babylon 5 fans who cannot be persuaded that interstellar travel will likely remain beyond reality. They Babylon about “warp speed,” “worm holes,” and other inventions of science fiction writers. But let’s do some math to understand why only our imaginations are ever likely to travel to other stars and galaxies:

In the referred-to article, former NASA physicist Marc Millis says if we make it a priority, in half a century we could send an unmanned probe to Alpha Centauri at 1/10th the speed of light. Obviously it wouldn’t be for the purpose of setting up a human outpost and a McDonalds for future tourists from Earth. It would be like probes we’ve sent to Mars, Jupiter, and beyond — just to get a closer look at those worlds, to sniff around and search for important stuff like signs of life.

So if we do make it a priority now — backed up by enormous effort and money — let’s see what we’d get and how long it would take to get it.

Millis says if we would pull out all stops, we could launch such a probe in about 50 years. It would speed towards A. Centauri at 18,600 miles a second — which is more than 2500 times faster than the fastest space probes Earthlings ever launched and almost 2700 times faster than the Apollo spacecraft that took men to the moon.

Reaching that velocity would require more than 2700 x 2700 the amount of energy that was needed to propel the Saturn rockets that took men to the moon. And that’s more than 7 million times the amount of energy it took to launch each Luna mission!

The Saturn rockets that took humans to the moon required 5.6 million lbs. of propellent. Multiply that by 7 million and we get approx 40 million million pounds. But the mission Millis proposes would require a great deal more energy than that.

First, you’d have to double the fuel needed if you want the probe to stop and study A. Centauri and not just wiz by at 1/10th the speed of light. So the energy needed would be equivalent to 80 trillion pounds of Saturn rocket fuel. But accelerating 80 trillion pounds of fuel to 1/10th the speed of light — and then decelerating it would require far, far, far, far, more energy than just accelerating and decelerating a space probe with comparable weight of the Apollo rocket — a feather weight of 6.2 million pounds, by comparison.

Of course, space travelers in science fiction use nuclear powered ships, “dilithium crystals,” and “warp drives.” With the exception of nuclear power, the rest is just that, fiction. While nuclear power might provide the needed energy at a small fraction of the weight of chemical fuels, you’d still need more than 26,000,000 pounds of Uranium-235 to propel the craft to A. Centauri and then slow it down when it gets there.

Compare this to the total amount of U-235 consumed in a YEAR by ALL the WORLD’s nuclear power plants: All those plants consume about 8000 tons of low-enriched uranium (less than 20% U-235) — about 1600 tons (3.2 millon lbs) of U-235 consumed annually.

So even if we were able to build such a nuclear powered ship to the stars, it would be a ship of fools. We would need to stock it with the amount of fission fuel ALL the world’s nuclear power plants consume in more than 8 years!

And after diverting the fortune of a million Midases to this mission, what would we get and when would we get it? See part 2.

————————————————-

Part 2:

So when would our grand investment pay off?

Millis predicts that if we make star travel a priority, we could launch our first star probe in 50 years. Traveling at 1/10th the speed of light, the probe would take more than another 40 years to reach A. Centauri (the larger of a pair of binary stars of relatively minor interest since it doesn’t appear to have any planets). So it would take almost a century before this unimaginably large investment would begin to “pay off.” Not one person who would vote for in favor of such a program today would be alive when the probe reaches our nearest stellar neighbor — that is IF it even reaches the star.

We need to consider the enormity of such a technological undertaking and remember how NASA continues to suffer hugely expensive set backs when their rockets go boom. Just last year, NASA’s Glory atmospheric research mission satellite crashed into the southern Pacific Ocean due to the failure of a protective nose cone to separate. Ouch! That disaster cost almost a half-billion dollars. And it followed the loss of another very expensive environmental satellite due to a similar nose cone malfunction in 2009. Ouch! squared.

A star ship that could travel thousands of times faster than rockets carrying satellites into orbit would be far more complex and would face much greater technological challenges than just getting a protective nose cone to separate when it’s supposed to. It would not cost a half a billion, but thousands of billions to build in addition to the costs of developing and testing the required technologies that do not exist today.

What could we do with all those trillions of dollars invested over the next 50 years? Think about it. What we’ve learned about our nearest and farthest cosmic neighbors and the origins of our universe from the Hubble telescope is beyond calculation. It surely was expensive (an estimated $4.5 to 6 billion to date), but nothing like the trillions of dollars it would cost to develop and launch a probe to A. Centauri some 50 years from now.

Over the next 50 years and beyond, we can develop technologies far more powerful than the technologies that gave us the Hubble telescope. Rather than invest trillions of dollars to build a ship of fools — that, if it works and reaches its goal, would pay nothing back until a hundred years from now — we can invest our limited resources in funding space missions that pay off well.

For example, the James Webb Space Telescope (previously known as Next Generation Space Telescope) was almost killed by U.S. Congress last year due to delays and cost over-runs. Planning for this incredible eye on the universe began in 1996 and may take another 6 or 8 years before it’s completed and launched — unless the anti-science contingency of Congress succeeds in killing it.

As astoundingly successful as the Hubble telescope has been in opening our eyes to the universe, it’s a Captain Cook’s spyglass compared with this next generation instrument. The James Webb Space Telescope mirror will not only have 5 times the light-collecting power of Hubble’s, it will see in the infrared — allowing it to see through curtains of cosmic dust to study the birth and evolution of the universe and the formation of the earliest galaxies, stars, and planets. It will have even more breath-taking resolution than Hubble and — being stationed in an Earth-Sun L2 point orbit — will not have its view of the heavens constantly interrupted by Earth, as Hubble has, traveling in a low-Earth orbit.

Over the next 5 decades — the time Millis says it would take to develop the technology to send a probe to A. Centauri — we could develop and deploy ever more powerful technologies for studying our planet, our sun, and our cosmic neighbors as far as the most powerful eyes of science can see — if we invest our resources wisely.

Building a ship of fools would not be wise.

Andrew Skolnick

————————————————-

Lets put some numbers together,

8E13 lbs of liquid hydrogen & oxygen at 1980s prices is $3.6/lb & $0.08/lb, respectively without adjusting for inflation that translates to $238,596 billion dollars. The 2011 world GDP was $69,970 billion, that is the rocket fuel required to do a one way trip to Alpha Centauri would be 3.41 x the 2011 world GDP using 1980s fuel prices!

Using inflation at 3% the price of fuel would increase by 11.3x 50 years from now and assuming a world GDP growth of 5% (give Millis the benefit of the doubt) world GDP would increase by 12.1x. That is, it does not get any more realistic or feasible the longer we wait.

But wait the world production of liquid hydrogen was 50,000,000 tons or about 1E11 lbs or the liquid hydrogen required to get us to Alpha Centuari is about 660x our late 2000’s world production.

Do we really think that this is feasible even in 50 years?

And there was another article A Poor Formula for Interstellar Travel which said that it would require 5 tons of antimatter to get to Alpha Centauri. Really? What does anyone think the price of antimatter would be? My guess is that in the context of world GDP it would be more expensive than liquid hydrogen, assuming that 50 years is enough time to make it. Note that in more than 70 years we still have not figured out how to do fusion how are we going to do antimatter?

Andrew Skolnick pointed me to Penn State University’s estimation of antimatter cost,

http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/papers/nasa_anti.pdf

This is excellent scientific authority of Penn State University to bring us back down to Earth. I redid the calculations it is actually worse, 5 tonnes would cost $3E+18 (!!!) or 42,876x our 2011 world GDP.

Thanks this is fun. Don’t people (especially the proposers) check their facts?

Which raises the question, is this why DARPA ‘privatized’ this effort into the 100 Year Starship Study? Because they had already done their calculations and recognized that this approach was not feasible even in a 100 years?

But seriously, funding any project because it is the only one we know of is not exactly a wise approach to doing science, engineering or in any other field of endeavor.

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative

2nd Edition Press Release

I am very, very pleased that the 2nd edition of my book is fiinally, finally out!!

Press Release:

Dr. Andrew Beckwith, astrophysicist, writes in the Foreword of my book, “If Solomon is correct, then interstellar travel is possible.”

To facilitate gravity modification as a space propulsion technology and propose new avenues towards interstellar travel, I have had to take propulsion physics out of the realm of particle-based quantum & string theories while staying close to the experimental data. The discovery of the Non-Inertia (Ni) Field unifies gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces. I am sure strong & weak nuclear forces, too, but that is not my interest.

This book documents the first major break from traditional gravitational theories in 346 years, since Newton, because we don’t need to know the mass of the gravitating body to calculate gravitational acceleration. I’ve also included a test for natural versus theoretical gravitational fields.

And yes, one day in the near future, rocket engines will be replaced by semicon chips, and then only will non-government funded Commercial Space be viable.

I hope this book increases the funding for non-mainstream theoretical physics, experimental physics, and aerospace engineering, as it extends the reach of both physics and engineering to the new physics of propulsion.

The Book:

An Introduction to Gravity Modification, 2nd Edition

Title:	An   Introduction to Gravity Modification
Subtitle:	A Guide   to Using Laithwaite’s and Podkletnov’s Experiments and the Physics of Forces   for Empirical Results, Second Edition
Publisher	Universal   Publishers, Boca Raton
Year,   Pages	2012, 530   pages
Publishers   Link	http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1612330894
1st   25 Pages, Free	http://www.bookpump.com/upb/pdf-b/2330894b.pdf
Amazon.com	See   Publisher’s link for access to Amazon
Barnes   & Noble	See   Publisher’s link for access to Barnes & Noble

–

Are there new fundamental laws of Nature that can be verified this year? Yes, a few, and all are testable today.

Can we design force field engines and shields? Yes, definitely, within this decade.

This book reaches out to a wider audience, and not just theoretical physicists, to engineers and technologists who have the funding to experiment; just as Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna and discovered the microwave background radiation. The mathematics is easier than that taught in theoretical physics and therefore accessible to a wider audience such as these engineers & technologists.

Summary:

An Introduction to Gravity Modification is the result of a 12-year (1999-2011) study into the theoretical and technological feasibility of gravity modification, that presents the new physics of forces by replacing relativistic, quantum, and string theories with process models. Gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces are unified by Ni fields, and obey a common equation g = tc² (note, no mass in this equation). Yes, a unification at last. From the physics of propulsion to the engineering of propulsion engines. Answering the question, how does one build these new engines? It is all in the book. At least a start on how to do it.

Gravity modification is defined as the modification of the strength and direction of the gravitational acceleration without the use of mass as the primary source of this modification, in local space time. It consists of field modulation and field vectoring.  Field modulation is the ability to attenuate or amplify a force field. Field vectoring is the ability to change the direction of this force field . This definition excludes the use of relativistic, quantum or string theories to solve the gravity modification problem as these theories require mass, momentum exchange and conservation of mass-energy to solve their equations. This is a major shift in paradigms.

The extensive numerical modeling and the early (1999-2001) experimental data suggests that semiconductor chips will be the future of propulsion engines. Imagine by 2020 Intel, AMD, Texas Instruments & Motorola are building the propulsion engines of the future, on semiconductor chips. Amazing, not just a shift in technology, but a shift in industrial resources, too.

The mathematical discovery of the photon’s spatial probability field (governed by the new Var-Gamma probability distribution) and the new photon model leads to the definition of subspace and more importantly how one can experimentally verify the existence of this subspace. Subspace provides an avenue for interstellar travel, by seceding out of spacetime at embarkation, into subspace and merging back into spacetime from subspace, at arrival. Why is this likely? Because the new spatial probability field provides a better fit with radiation shielding experimental data than quantum theory and leads to the unification of shielding, transmission, cloaking, invisibility and resolution as a single common phenomenon.

Thank You:

This study was an exciting but definitely not an easy (understatement) 12-year journey. Many, many people participated directly or indirectly in this journey. For that, I would like to thank Dr. Andrew Beckwith, astrophysicist (PhD in Condensed Matter Theory), for writing the foreword to this book.

2011: To thank Prof. Jack Sarfatti for his informal comments that led me to sit back and think about what I was doing and why – good professors do that to you. These are addressed in the first chapter of the book, Changing The Context. That there is the physics of propulsion. No, he has not read this book, and I believe that he does not agree with my ideas but that’s OK as it happens a lot in physics. That is why we have many different theories on gravity; relativity and its sibling theories, quantum’s gravitons and the various quantum gravity theories, and the many types of string theories.

2011: To thank Dan Scheld (N-Science Corp), Kevin Lewis (Lewis & Fowler), Edgar Johansson (Colorado Space Business Roundtable) for their companies/organizations sponsoring my trip to Orlando, FL, where I presented my paper “Non-Gaussian Radiation Shielding” at the 2011 DARPA/NASA Ames 100 Year Starship Study Public Symposium.

2009-2011: To thank the reviewers at Physics Essays (2009-2011) who asked a ton of difficult questions – I almost gave up on the paper – that transformed my SEPSIF 2009 paper (An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology) into the

2011 Physics Essays paper Gravitational Acceleration Without Mass & Noninertia Fields (http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.3595113) that lays the foundation for the theoretical modeling of the physics of propulsion.

2010: To thank Eric Laursen, Chief Technology Officer, Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services, for taking time out to attend my ½ day Evergreen, CO, seminar on gravity modification in 2010. I especially appreciate this gesture.

2009: To thank Glen Robertson & Paul Murad both of whom vetted & scrutinized my SPESIF 2009 paper An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology, presented and published in the Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences, International Forum, (SPESIF) AIP Conference Proceedings that would lay the foundation for writing future papers.

2008: To thank Dr. David Livingston, who had me on his internet/radio The Space Show (http://www.thespaceshow.com/), more than once, in 2008 and in 2003.

2007: To thank Leonard Volpi and his team for developing Xnumbers and making it available for free. This MS Excel Add-In enables MS Excel to do calculations to 250 significant digits. MS Excel only does calculations to 15 significant digits. Much of my research and the numerical modeling would not have been feasible without this tool. And I would like to thank the Microsoft MVP (apologies, I forget his name) who informed me about this Add-In.  As an example in MS Excel c^2 = 89,875,517,873,681,800. However, with Xnumbers it is 89,875,517,873,681,764 or 36 (m/s)^2 less.

2007: To thank Mike Darschewski (formerly with GMAC Commercial Holdings) for showing that the Local Acceleration Model in a gravitational field does not have an analytical solution, and thereby strongly suggesting that the more sophisticated Schrödinger wave equation, too, does not have an analytical solution in a gravitational field.

2006: To thank Prof. Paul Joss of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA, who gave me the opportunity to attend his summer 2006 Professional Program in Relativity, Gravity, and Cosmology [8.06s]. That was an eye opener, that the physics community was primarily focused on the physics of astronomy and cosmology. At that time I had not fully understood this, and only realized these subtle distinctions after my brief communications with Prof Jack Sarfatti in 2011. Sometimes, subtle shifts take a long time to percolate.

2005: To thank the National Science Foundation for turning down my grant application to redo the Laithwaite Big Wheel experiments. I, then and there, resolved to solve this enigma, and I did in 2007 after the discovery of Ni fields.

2005: To thank the Mars Society, especially the Rocky Mountain Chapter, for providing the opportunity to present my work on the Laithwaite Effect at the 2005 International Mars Society Conference.

2005: To thank Bob Schlitters of Conifer, CO, who agreed to construct 50lb steel discs and related fixtures, spin them to 3,000rpm and rotate the spin vector. We stopped the experiments when the weld connecting spinning disc to its axial rod broke off and shot across the machine shop. I have not seen 3 people (Bob, my son David & myself), before or since, scramble to safety as quickly as we did.

2005: To thank Doug of Doug Balancing of Lakewood, CO who could dynamically balance these 50lb steel discs when even the race car specialist off Santa Fe Drive could not. Imagine that!

2005: To thank Marc Millis for explaining Thomas’ reproduction of Laithwaite’s experiment at NASA.

2001-2007: To thank the National Space Society (NSS) especially George Whitesides, then Executive Director, and the many staff & volunteers who managed these great grass roots conferences, for giving me the opportunity to present all my papers at the International Space Development Conferences, between 2001 and 2007; especially, the New Mexico, California, Texas and Colorado chapters. To thank the old lady who came up to me after the 2003 San Jose presentation and told me that the US Navy had investigated gravity modification in the 1960s but nothing had come of it.

2000-2002: To thank Dr. Rob Davis, Physics Department, University of Denver, and Prof. Sen & Tom (my apologies, I’ve only known him by his first name), Electrical Engineering Department, University of Colorado at Denver, who gave me access to their department labs (2000-2002) to test my proprietary circuits.

1999-2001: To thank the many professional who now remain nameless in the distant fog of time (1999-2001) who asked me “have you tried…” this and “have you tried…” that, when I showed or talked to them about my experimental results with my proprietary electrical circuits.

1990-1995: To thank Prof. Philip Bourke (University College Dublin, Ireland) who told us one day in class ‘the academics would ask “Fine if it works in practice, but does it work in theory?” while the practitioners would ask “Fine if it works in theory, but does it work in practice?”’. I found this to be amazing statement. Its implications to physics is that both theoretical physicists and experimental physicists cannot be individually correct. They are only correct when both are correct, together! (Read ‘Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty’ by Morris Kline for an indepth discussion).

To thank my wife, Anushka, and son, David, who helped me with some of my experiments and road trips to space conferences.

As Prof. James Woodward (of the Woodward Effect) said in a recent (2011) email to some of us, ‘… it has always seemed to me that there aren’t really more than about 30 or 40 serious people in the “revolutionary propulsion” community world-wide’. With the publication of this book, I hope I have made the grade.

May you live long and prosper.

 

—————————————————————————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.

12-year investigation leads to new formula for gravity

Press Release
For immediate release

12-year investigation leads to new formula for gravity

Denver, CO (07/21/2011), iSETI LLC announced today that it’s 12-year investigation into  alternative gravitational models has been completed with the publication of the final paper “Gravitational acceleration without mass and noninertia fields” published by  the AIP journal, Physics Essays, for their September 2011 issue. It is available online as of June 23 2011 at the following link,

http://physicsessays.org/resource/1/phesem/v24/i3/p327_s1?isAuthorized=no

This paper shows that mass is not required to alter gravitational fields, because g=τc^2, where g is gravitational acceleration, tau, τ, is the change in time dilation divided by the change in distance. This new force field equation g=τc^2 has been shown to be correct for gravitational, electromagnetic & mechanical forces. This unification of gravitational, electromagnetic & mechanical forces was made possible by the discovery of Non Inertia, Ni, fields, a common property of these 3 forces. This proves the theoretical feasibility of developing gravity modification technologies without the use of mass.

iSETI defines gravity modification as the modification of the strength and/or the direction of the gravitational effect without the use of mass. Gravity modification consists of two parts, field modulation and field vectoring. Field modulation is the ability to attenuate or amplify a force field. Field vectoring is the ability to change the direction of the force field. With g=τc^2, we now have a theoretical basis for doing both.

iSETI LLC expects that these findings will lead to the development of new space propulsion technologies & new ventures, that could takes us to Mars in 3 days or less, and to the outer planets. The massless g=τc^2 force field equation now opens up the real possibility of engineering a version of the Alcubierre warp drive as spacetime can now be deformed/warped without the use of mass. These findings come at a propitious time as the close of NASA’s Shuttle program raises the urgency for the need to get back into space.

Benjamin Solomon is the founder of the private research firm, iSETI LLC. iSETI stands for Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative. This research is premised on the observation that if the brightest minds working with relativity, quantum & string theories could not solve the gravity modification problem, then iSETI would explore alternative models. Further information & published research can be found at the company’s website http://www.iSETI.us/ or contact Ben Solomon by email benjamin.t.solomon@iseti.us or phone (970) 306-7656. Note, that iSETI LLC is not in any way related to the SETI Institute, nor is this work in anyway to be associated with DARPA’s 100 year Starship Study.

—end—