The Kline Directive: Theoretical-Empirical Relationship (Part 5a)

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.

I was not intending to write Part 5, but judging from the responses I thought it was necessary to explain how to read a journal paper – and a good read cannot be done without a pen and paper. If you are writing a paper, when you have completed it, I would suggest you set it aside for at least a week. Don’t think about your paper or the topic during this shmita period. Then come back to your paper with a pen & paper and read it afresh. You’d be surprised by the number of changes you make, which means you have to start well before your deadline.

Note, you can find articles on how to review or write papers and here is one, by IOP (Institute of Physics, UK) titled Introduction to refereeing, and is a good guide to read before reading or writing a paper. This is especially true for physics but applies to all the sciences and engineering disciplines.

Note, for those who have been following the comments on my (Lifeboat Foundation) blog posts, IOP explicitly states “Do not just say ‘This result is wrong’ but say why it is wrong. . .” and “be professional and polite in your report”. So I hope, we as commentators, will be more professional in both our comments and the focus of our comments. Thanks.

In this post I will address what is not taught in colleges. There are three things to look out for when reading or writing a paper, Explicit and Implicit Axioms, Mathematical Construction versus Mathematical Conjecture, and finally, Concepts and Logical Flow. In this first part I discuss Explicit and Implicit Axioms.

This may sound silly but 1+1 = 2 is not an axiom. Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell proved that 1+1 adds to 2. Therefore, we see, that the immense success of the modern civilization compared to all other previous civilizations, is due to the encroachment of the imperceptible mathematical rigor in our daily lives by nameless, faceless scientist, engineers and technicians. Now that is something to ponder about. If we lose that rigor we lose our society. We can discuss economic and political theory but without this mathematical rigor, nothing else works.

Any theoretical work is based on axioms. For example in Pythagorean geometry, one assumes that surfaces are flat in such a manner the sum of the angles of a triangle adds to 180º.  In Riemann geometry this is not the case. Explicit axioms are those stated in the paper.

Implicit axioms are axioms that are taken for granted to be true and therefore not stated, or considered too trivial to be mentioned. More often than not, the author is not aware he or she is using or stating an implicit axiom.

For example, mass causes a gravitational field is an implicit axiom, as we cannot with our current theoretical foundations nor with our current technologies prove either way that mass is or is not the source of a gravitational field. This axiom is also considered trivial because what else could?

But wait, didn’t Einstein . . . ? Yes correct, he did . . . .

Mass is a carryover from Newton. It shows how difficult it is to break from tradition even when we are breaking from tradition! Since Newton figured out that mass was an excellent means (i.e. “proxy” to be technically rigorous) to determining gravitational acceleration in mathematical form, therefore mass had to be the source. All tests pertaining to Einstein’s relativity test the field characteristics, not how the source creates the gravitational field.

But our understanding of the world has changed substantially since both Newton and Einstein. We know that quarks are at the center of matter and exist in the same ‘amount’ as mass. So how does one tell the difference between quark interaction and mass as the gravitational source?

The importance of implicit axioms in particular and axioms in general, is that when we recognize them we can change them and drive fundamental changes in theory and technologies. I asked the questions, what is gravity modification and how can we do it? These questions are at best vague, but they were as good a starting point as any? But life happens backwards. We get the answer and then only do we recognize the precise question we were attempting to ask!

When I started researching gravity modification in 1999, I just had this sense that gravity modification should be possible in our lifetimes, but I did not know what the question was. It was all vague and unclear at that time, but I was very strict about the scope of my investigation. I would only deal with velocity and acceleration.

I spent 8 years searching, examining, discarding, testing and theorizing anomalies, trying to get a handle on what gravity modification could be. Finally in 2007 I started building numerical models of how gravitational acceleration could work in spacetime. In February 2008 I discovered g=τc² and at that moment I knew the question: Can gravitational acceleration be described mathematically without knowing the mass of the planet or star?

So the implicit axiom, mass is required for gravitational acceleration, is no longer valid, and because of that we now have propulsion physics.

If, in the spirit of the Kline Directive, you want to explore what others have not, and seek what others will not, my advice is that when you read a paper ask yourself, what are the implicit and explicit axioms in the paper?

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.

Only One Interstellar Travel Community Will Succeed

There four camps that comprise the present day interstellar travel community and only one camp will succeed.

The first camp, the conventional rocket camp, believes it is possible using conventional rockets (chemical, ion, nuclear or antimatter) to realize interstellar travel to our nearest star Alpha Centauri. One of the problems is the costs, estimated at an unthinkably large $238,596 billion and upwards. It is several thousand times greater if we choose to use antimatter.

Further, John Eades, a former senior scientist with CERN, in his March/April 2012 Skeptical Inquirer article “Antimatter Pseudoscience”, lays down the reasons why antimatter based propulsion will never be technologically feasible.

Black Hole of wealth. One down three to go.

.

The second, the hypothesis camp, believes that there is some equation that will allow us to reach 1,000 x velocity of light and upwards based on quantum foam. Nonsense. Be very clear, the experimental evidence proves that anything with mass cannot be accelerated to exceed the velocity of light. Sure, we have hypotheses (i.e. mathematical guesses without experimental proof) that point every which way, but at best these are guesses and they have not or cannot be proven experimentally. In addition, Robert Nemiroff’s three photon discovery suggests that both quantum foam and quantum gravity may in part or whole invalidated while upholding relativity.

Wrong turn. Two down and two to go.

.

The third, the impossible camp, believes that interstellar travel is impossible. As Prof. Adam Franks stated in his July 24, 2012 New York Times Op-Ed, Alone in the Void, “Short of a scientific miracle of the kind that has never occurred, our future history for millenniums will be played out on Earth”. Obviously the impossible camp disagrees with the hypothesis camp on the basis of the physics.

Don’t argue. Three down one more to go.

.

I belong to the fourth, the new physics camp, that there is a new physics that the other three camps do not subscribe to. There are 57 of us physicist-engineers from 16 countries, US, Russia, UK, China, Japan, Romania, Austria, India and more, who have researched or are researching new propulsion technologies that are not based on chemical, ion, nuclear or antimatter engines or untested hypotheses. We search out and investigate anomalies.

Change is coming. We will be successful.

.

Based on my work as evidence, several important phenomena have been discovered

1. A new formula for gravitational acceleration that does not require us to know the mass of the planet or star. This is an immense discovery, never before accomplished in the 346-year history, since Newton, of the physics of gravitational fields, as all theories on gravity require us to know the mass of the planet or star.

2. Solved Laithwaite’s Big Wheel experiment, which nobody else could in the last 35 years.

3. Asked questions that neither relativity nor quantum theory has. For example, how is probability implemented in Nature?

Because we have learned to ask questions that the other three camps have not, we the new physics camp will find different answers and reach the stars before anyone else.

—————————————————————————————————

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.

Questioning the Foundations of Physics to Achieve Interstellar Travel: Part 1

Would It Keep Us Awake At Night?
It is not sufficient to just challenge the foundations of physics just for the theoretical interest. To make the challenge come alive we need a goal that will keep us awake at night at the possibility of new unthinkable inventions that will take man where no man has gone before.

Is interstellar travel possible? I have found that in trying to answer this question, I am forced to challenge the foundations of physics. This question provides a vessel to discuss how to challenge, and if we have found some of the answers, there are still more questions.

The two most important questions in my opinion are, what is force?, and what is the difference between ‘travel’ and ‘arrival’? That is, why do we need to ‘travel’, why can’t we just ‘arrive’?

I started questioning the foundations of physics in 1999. In attempting to answer the question, what is force?, in 2007 I discovered a new formula for gravitational acceleration g=τc² that does not require us to know the mass of the planet or star. τ is the change in time dilation divided by the change in distance. This is an immense discovery, never before accomplished in the 346-year history, since Newton, of the physics of gravitational fields, as all theories on gravity require us to know the mass of the planet or star.

Gerard ‘t Hooft the 1999 Nobel Laureate showed in 2008 that gravitational forces can be present in space even where planets and stars are not. My work goes a step further. We can determine the acceleration present in space without any knowledge of the planets or stars that cause this gravitational field (Solomon, 2011).

A New Schema To Understand Propulsion Physics
Unlike Newtonian gravity or General Relativity, the importance of the shape of spacetime lies in the fact that it informs us of what time dilation and length contraction are, as these two parameters are the minimum information one requires to determine gravitational acceleration. Therefore, the formalism in this essay will be different from that of Newtonian gravity or General Relativity, as a tensor treatment is outside the scope of this essay.

A schema is an outline of a model of a complex reality to assist in explaining this reality. The work of various researchers in the gravity field can be presented by a conceptual formalism referred to as source-field-effect schema. The source-field-effect schema corresponds to the mass-gravity-acceleration phenomenon, respectively.

Puthoff’s (Amoroso et al, 2002) source-field schema describes how the mass source could create a gravitational field; how General Relativity’s curved spacetime could be produced by the polarizability of vacuum in the vicinity of a mass. Rueda & Haisch (Amoroso et al, 2002) source schema is about mass only. They discuss inertia mass, mass as a field and Higgs boson as the origin of mass.

Bondi (1957) suggested the possibility of a field schema not requiring mass. Bondi made two observations when reviewing gravitation as a theory and suggested that mass may not be critical to a theory of gravitation. First, as “long as relativity is considered purely as a theory of gravitation, the inertial and passive gravitational masses do not in fact appear.” This is consistent with the fact that gravitational acceleration (but not force) is independent of the mass of the object being accelerated. His second observation was that “active gravitational mass occurs for the first time as a constant of integration in Schwarzschild’s solution” suggesting the possibility that this constant of integration could have other experimentally untested interpretations.

One could conjecture that mass is a proxy for number of quarks and therefore a proxy for quark interaction as the source of gravitational fields. Bondi did not explicitly say it, but maybe one should look into other mechanisms for gravitational field sources. Hooft (2008) takes another step in Bondi’s direction with his source-field schema. He states that the “absence of matter no longer guarantees local flatness” that the absence of mass does not guarantee that acceleration will not be present. In effect the field is being disengaged from its source. Wagoner (1998) describes a local-field schema, how a gravitational field “emerges from a local analysis” leading to a broad class of metric theories.

Solomon’s (2009) schema proposed a different local analysis, one where local field distortions in spacetime lead to a local particle distortions, and alter the ‘shape’ of the particle causing the center of mass of the particle to shift. This shifting is seen as acceleration g and is governed by g = τc², where τ is the change in time dilation divided by the change in distance across this particle; thereby providing a mathematical solution to Hooft’s (2008) assertion that “absence of matter no longer guarantees local flatness”.

 To be continued . . . Part 2 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.

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.