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.

The Kline Directive: Theoretical-Empirical Relationship (Part 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:

1. Legal Standing.
2. Safety Awareness.
3. Economic Viability.
4. Theoretical-Empirical Relationship.
5. Technological Feasibility.

In Part 1 of this post I will explore Theoretical-Empirical Relationship. Not theoretical relationships, not empirical relationships but theoretical-empirical relationships. To do this let us remind ourselves what the late Prof. Morris Kline was getting at in his book Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, that mathematics has become so sophisticated and so very successful that it can now be used to prove anything and everything, and therefore, the loss of certainty that mathematics will provide reasonability in guidance and correctness in answers to our questions in the sciences.

History of science shows that all three giants of science of their times, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton & Christiaan Huygens believed that light traveled in aether medium, but by the end of the 19^th century there was enough experimental evidence to show aether could not be a valid concept. The primary experiment that changed our understanding of aether was the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887, which once and for all proved that aether did not have the correct properties as the medium in which light travels.

Only after these experimental results were published did, a then unknown Albert Einstein, invent the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) in 1905. The important fact to take note here is that Einstein did not invent SRT out of thin air, like many non-scientists and scientists, today believe. He invented SRT by examining the experimental data to put forward a hypothesis or concept described in mathematical form, why the velocity of light was constant in every direction independent of the direction of relative motion.

But he also had clues from others, namely George Francis FitzGerald (1889) and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1892) who postulated length contraction to explain negative outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment and to rescue the ‘stationary aether’ hypothesis. Today their work is named the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation.

So Einstein did not invent the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) out of thin air, there was a body of knowledge and hypotheses already in the literature. What Einstein did do was to pull all this together in a consistent and uniform manner that led to further correct predictions of how the physics of the Universe works.

(Note: I know my history of science in certain fields of endeavor, and therefore use Wikipedia a lot, not as a primary reference, but as a starting point for the reader to take off for his/her own research.)

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: Introduction

Science and engineering are hard to do. If it wasn’t we would have a space bridge from here to the Moon by now. If you don’t have the real world practical experience doing either science or engineering you won’t understand this, or the effort and resources companies like Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, Orbital Sciences Corp, Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, and the Ad Astra Rocket Company have put into their innovations and products to get to where they are, today.

If we are to achieve interstellar travel, we have to be bold. We have to explore what others have not. We have to seek what others will not. We have to change what others dare not.

The dictionary definition of a directive is, an instruction or order, tending to direct or directing, and indicating direction.

Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, US Department of Defense 2005, provides three similar meanings,

1. A military communication in which policy is established or a specific action is ordered.
2. A plan issued with a view to putting it into effect when so directed, or in the event that a stated contingency arises.
3. Broadly speaking, any communication which initiates or governs action, conduct, or procedure.

In honor of the late Prof. Morris Kline who authored Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, I have named what we need to do to ensure the success of our endeavors for interstellar space travel, as the Kline Directive.

His book could be summarized into a single statement, that mathematics has become so sophisticated and so very successful that it can now be used to prove anything and everything, and therefore, the loss of certainty that mathematics will provide reasonability in guidance and correctness in answers to our questions in the sciences.

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:

1. Legal Standing.
2. Safety Awareness.
3. Economic Viability.
4. Theoretical-Empirical Relationship.
5. Technological Feasibility.

I will explore each of these 5 fronts on how we can push the envelop to reach the stars sooner rather than later.

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.

Questioning the Foundations of Physics to Achieve Interstellar Travel: Part 3

Part 2 Here

Need For New Experiments To Test Quantum Mechanics & Relativity
We now have a new physics, without adding additional dimensions, that challenge the foundations of contemporary theories. Note very carefully, this is not about the ability of quantum mechanics or relativity to provide exact answers. That they do extremely well. With Ni fields, can we test for which is better or best?

A better nomenclature is a ‘single-structure test’, a test to validate the structure proposed by a hypothesis or theory. For example, Mercury’s precession is an excellent single-structure test for relativity, but it does not say how this compares to say, quantum gravity. On the other hand, a ‘dual-structure’ test would compare any two different competing theories. The recent three photon observation would be an example of a dual-structure test. Relativity requires that spacetime is smooth and continuous but quantum gravity requires spacetime to be “comprised of discrete, invisibly small building blocks”. This three photon observation showed that spacetime was smooth and continuous down to distances smaller than predicted by quantum gravity. Therefore, suggesting that both quantum foam and quantum gravity maybe in part or whole invalidated, while upholding relativity.

Therefore, the new tests would authenticate or invalidate Ni fields as opposed to quantum mechanics or relativity. That is, it is about testing for structure or principles not for exactness. Of course both competing theories must first pass the single-structure test for exactness, before they can be considered for a dual-structure test.

Is it possible to design a single-structure test that will either prove or disprove that virtual particles are the carrier of force? Up to today that I know of, this test has not been done. Maybe this is not possible. Things are different now. We have an alternate hypothesis, Ni fields, that force is expressed by the spatial gradient of time dilation. These are two very different principles. A dual-structure test could be developed that considers these differences.

Except for the three photon observation, it does not make sense to conduct a dual-structure test on relativity versus quantum mechanics as alternate hypotheses, because they operate in different domains, galactic versus Planck distances. Inserting a third alternative, Ni fields, could provide a means of developing more dual-structure tests for relativity and quantum mechanics with the Ni field as an alternate hypothesis.

Could we conduct a single-structure test on Ni fields? On a problem where all other physicist-engineers (i.e. quantum mechanics, relativity or classical) have failed to solve? Prof. Eric Laithwaite’s Big Wheel experiment would be such a problem. Until now no one has solved it. Not with classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity or string theories. The Big Wheel experiment is basically this. Pivot a wheel to the end of a 3-ft (1 m) rod. Spin this wheel to 3,000 rpm or more. Then rotate this rod with the spinning wheel at the other end. The technical description is, rotate the spin vector.

It turns out that the solution to the Big Wheel experiment is that acceleration a=ωrωs√h is governed by the rotation ωr, spin ωs, and the physical structure √h, and produces weight loss and gain. This is the second big win for Ni fields. The first is the unification of gravitational, electromagnetic and mechanical forces.

How interesting. We have a mechanical construction that does not change its mass, but is able to produce force. If the spin and rotation are of like sense to the observer, the force is toward the observer. If unlike then the force is away from the observer. Going back to the Ω function, we note that in the Ω function, mass has been replaced by spin and rotation, and more importantly the change in the rotation and spin appears to be equivalent to a change in mass. Further work is required to develop an Ω function into a theoretical model.

The next step in challenging the foundations of physics is to replace the mass based Ω function with an electromagnetic function. The contemporary work to unify electromagnetism with gravity is focused on the tensor side. This essay, however, suggests that this may not be the case. If we can do this – which we should be able to do, as Ni fields explain electron motion in a magnetic field – the new physics will enable us to use electrical circuits to create force, and will one day replace all combustion engines.

Imagine getting to Mars in 2 hours.

The How Of Interstellar Travel
But gravity modification is not the means for interstellar travel because mass cannot be accelerated past the velocity of light. To develop interstellar propulsion technology requires thinking outside the box. One possibility is, how do we ‘arrive’ without ‘travelling’. Surprisingly, Nature shows us that this is possible. Both photons and particles with mass (electrons, protons & neutrons) have probabilistic natures. If these particles pass through a slit they ‘arrive’ at either sides of the slit, not just straight ahead! This ‘arrival’ is governed by probabilities. Therefore, interstellar travel technology requires an understanding of how probability is implemented in Nature, and we need to figure out how to control the ‘arrival’ event, somewhat like the Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’s ‘infinite improbability drive’.

Neither relativity nor quantum mechanics can or has attempted to explain probabilities. So what is probability? And, in the single slit experiment why does it decrease as one moves orthogonally away from the slit? I proposed that probabilities are a property of subspace and the way to interstellar travel. Subspace co-exists with spacetime but does not have the time dimension. So how do we test for subspace? If it is associated with probability, then can we determine tests that can confirm subspace? I have suggested one in my book. More interestingly, for starters, can we alter the probability of arrivals in the single slit experiments?

To challenge the foundations of pshyics, there are other questions we can ask. Why is the Doppler Effect not a special case of Gravitational Red/Blue shift? Why is the Hubble parameter not a constant? Can we find the answers? Will seeking these answers keep us awake at night at the possibility of new unthinkable inventions that will take man where no man has gone before?

References
R.L. Amoroso, G. Hunter, M. Kafatos, and Vigier, Gravitation and Cosmology: From the Hubble Radius to the Plank Scale, Proceedings of a Symposium in Honour of the 80th Birthday of Jean-Pierre Vigier, Edited by Amoroso, R.L., Hunter, G., Kafatos, M., and Vigier, J-P., (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 2002).

H. Bondi, Reviews of Modern Physics, 29-3, 423 (1957). G. Hooft, Found Phys 38, 733 (2008).

B.T. Solomon, “An Approach to Gravity Modification as a Propulsion Technology”, Space, Propulsion and Energy Sciences International Forum (SPESIF 2009), edited by Glen Robertson, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1103, 317 (2009).

B.T. Solomon, Phys. Essays 24, 327 (2011)

R. V. Wagoner, 26th SLAC Summer Institute on Particle Physics, SSI 98, 1 (1998).

—————————————————————————————————

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.

Questioning the Foundations of Physics to Achieve Interstellar Travel: Part 2

 Part 1 Here

The Missing Link, The Ω Function
General Relativity is based on separation vectors. Splitting this separation vector into two equations, gives one part a function of mass and the other a vector-tensor function. This gives rise to the question, can the mass part be replaced by something else say an Ω function, where Ω is as yet undefined but not a function of mass? Maybe the Ω function should be a description of quark interaction, and not mass?

Now it becomes obvious that the theoretical physics community has focused on the vector-tensor part to the complete omission of the Ω function. That is, there is definitely the opportunity to question the foundations of physics.

Looking at the massless equation for gravitational acceleration g = τc², change in time dilation divided by the change in distance is what describes a gravitational field. A small body orbiting the Earth has a certain velocity which can be converted to time dilation. Change the orbital radius of the small body by a small amount, less or more, gives a new orbital velocity and a new time dilation. Therefore, divide this change in time dilation by the change in height and multiply by the velocity of light squared, gives the gravitational acceleration present. The same is with a centripetal motion. Use the velocity along the radius at any two points. Determine the change in time dilation then divide this change in time dilation by the change in radius, the distance between the two points. Then multiply by the velocity of light squared, gives the acceleration present.

The same is true for an electron traveling in a magnetic field, but this cannot be explained without the use of equations. See Solomon 2011 for a detailed explanation. Further, this approach now explains why force is orthogonal to both electron motion and magnetic field. Contemporary electromagnetism cannot explain why other than stating it has to be a vector cross product. Which raises the question, what is the electron doing in the magnetic field? In addition to the arched motion of the electron, does the electron experience rotation? That is, is it rotating with respect to the magnetic field i.e. is the electron orientation locked with respect to the radius of the arch? Or is the electron orientation rotating with respect to the radius of the arch i.e. is the electron orientation locked with respect to the magnetic field? Or is some other orientation function present?

It is important to note that time dilation as a spatial gradient is the key to acceleration and is termed Non Inertia or Ni Field. The Ni field concept is the first major challenge to quantum mechanics in a hundred years. Quantum mechanics states that force is transmitted by the exchange of virtual particles, whereas the Ni field states that it is the spatial gradient of time dilation. Unlike quantum mechanics, the Ni field is able to unify gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces.

My Philosophy Behind the New Propulsion Physics
How did I arrive at these discoveries? Let us back up a little. If a 100,000 of the brightest scientist & engineers, over the last 100 years could not solve the gravity modification problem, then the problem is not with the tool users but with the tools. Along this note Space.com has an article Have Three Little Photons Broken Theoretical Physics?, that suggests that some if not all of quantum gravity may be invalidated.

Niels Bohr (I could not find the reference) is reputed to have said that the mathematical equation is all we need to describe the Universe, and explains why theoretical physics has become very abstract (not a judgement). Einstein on the other hand said use your imagination. Both had different approaches to discovery. Both used mathematics as a tool to describe the Universe. But as Prof. Morris Kline describes in his book “Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty”, mathematics has become so sophisticated that it can now be used to prove anything, and therefore the loss of certainty. Ironically it was Einstein who started the search for a unified theory of everything.

How did I avoid trying to prove ‘anything’? By staying close to the experimental data.

One arrives at new hypotheses by breaking old axioms. Some of the axioms are explicit and some are implicit. Two explicit axioms are, a charged particle moving in a magnetic field is equivalent to a point, and all the laws of physics in this Universe are consistent with each other. An implicit axiom would be that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation somehow does not operate on a particle falling in a gravitational field. I show that this is incorrect in my Physics Essays paper.

In my research I chose to explore physical properties that contemporary physics had not, that particles are real physical three dimensional objects. Therefore to answer questions like what would happen to the shape of a particle falling in a gravitational field? Or how would the shape of an electron affect its motion in a magnetic field, if at all? Or how would the distribution of mass within an elementary particle affect its motion in a gravitational field?

 To be continued . . . Part 3 Here

—————————————————————————————————

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.

Feasibility Versus Viability

Bruce Dorminey of Forbes Magazine wrote “Living The Interstellar Sci-Fi Future: Next Stop Proxima Centauri?“, and I quote his article,

“Sending a probe all the way there, even at the, as yet, unobtainable speed of a tenth that of light, would still require more than four decades of travel time . . . . The physics of getting there remains a challenge, but is not insurmountable.”

Bruce, there are two issues here, feasibility versus viability.

Yes, it is feasible to send a rocket to the Moon, Mars & Beyond. But is it viable to build a commercial enterprise around rocket technology?

An asteroid mining venture, Planetary Resources, Inc., where a single rock is worth $500 billion? Yes.

A space tourism venture where passengers pay $250 for a round trip to the Moon? No.

The second is the problem the space & scientific communities are not addressing. For that matter the first has only recently became viable. It wasn’t viable 10 years ago.

40 years to get to Proxima Centauri is just barely feasible, as the astronauts would be in their 80s at best. Rockets are not viable, for such a venture. What about getting back?

As the author of “An Introduction to Gravity Modification” (http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1612330894), based on a 12-year study on the subject, I can assure that change is here. Imagine semiconductor chips creating artificial gravitational fields.

The discovery of the new formula for gravitational acceleration g=(tau)c^2 that does not require us to know the mass of the planet or star to calculate the gravitational acceleration, lends itself to force field propulsion technologies. (Besides messing with our theories on dark matter.)

Talk to any physicist and they will tell this is not possible. I took the perspective that if a 100,000 of our best minds could not solve the gravity modification problem using relativistic, quantum & string theories, then who was I to even try. Was I more learned? No. Was I more skilled? No. Was I more talented? No. Was I better equipped? No. Did I have bigger budgets? No. But I had a different perspective.

From their view, I agree with these scientists that relativistic, quantum & string theories make this an impossible task. I used a different approach, process models, and my first breakthrough was the massless g=(tau)c^2.

The problem is with their tools, not with the minds!

How did I do this? I ignored Niels Bohr, who is reputed to have said all that was necessary was the equation. However, Morris Kline in ‘Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty’ shows us that one can use mathematics to say anything. Therefore, a grounding was required – physical representation – or process models.

And coming back full circle, viability will be achieved when we replace rockets with force field engines.

We will reach the stars sooner than we suspect.

—————————————————————————————————

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.