Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Tag: Gravity Modification

In April 2012 I met Lisa Randall while book signing at the National Space Symposium, held every April at the Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado. She is the Frank B. Baird, Jr., Professor of Science at Harvard University.

She autograph my copy of her book “Warped Passages” and I showed her the proof copy of my book “An Introduction to Gravity Modification, 2nd Edition” with the g=tau.c^2 massless formula for gravitational acceleration, solving the gravity modification physics.

More in the video …

The future propulsion community are those who believe in or are actively researching rocketry, gravity modification & interstellar propulsion engineering & physics.

In this video I discuss the 3 groups within the future propulsion community. These groups are the Nay Sayers — they don’t believe that it is in the near future, Advanced Rocket — that only rockets can do this, & New Physics — that a new physics will solve this soon.

I also discuss briefly the European/French and Chinese interest in my work.

I am so glad to have the new video for my Kick Starter project, Ground Zero of Interstellar Propulsion and covers briefly Gravity Modification aka Anti-Gravity, Interstellar Propulsion, UFOs, Laithwaite, Crisis In Physics

The crisis in super symmetry physics is causing physicist to search for a new physics. Could this new physics be non-particle based? A physics closer to General Relativity than to either Quantum or String theories?

The video blog shows 2 of the 400 experiments I conducted between September 1999 and at least April 2001, maybe later. I used various weight measuring scales, battery packs and power supplies. These experiments convinced me that something was a miss with contemporary physics, thus leading to my 12-year study into gravity modification.

This study has been published under the title “An Introduction to Gravity Modification, 2nd Edition”. It documents the new massless formula g=(tau)c^2, for gravitational, mechanical & electromagnetic accelerations; the discovery of Non Inertia (Ni) Fields and non-Gaussian photon probability, and the subsequent unification of photon shielding, transmission/cloaking, invisibility and resolution into a single phenomenon.

My paper “New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories” was finally published by the Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 8A, 2013. That is today Aug 26, 2013.

Over the last several years I had been compiling a list of inconsistencies in modern contemporary physics. This paper documents 12 inconsistencies. If I’m correct there will sooner or later, be a massive rewrite of modern physical theories, because I do not just criticize contemporary theories but critique them, i.e. provide positive suggestions based on empirical data, on how our theories need to be modified.

The upshot of all this is that I was able to propose two original, new experiments, never before contemplated in physics journals. Both involve new experimental devices, and one is so radically new that it is unthinkable. This is the gravity wave *telescope*.

The new physics lends itself to a new and different forms of weaponizations achievable within the next few decades, with technologies *not* predicted in science fiction. How about that?

I have deliberately left this weaponization part vague because I want to focus on the propulsion technologies. Definitely not something string or quantum-gravity theories can even broach.

We will achieve interstellar travel in my lifetime, and my paper points to where to research this new physics and new technologies.

Paper Details:

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

Author: Benjamin T Solomon

Journal: Journal of Modern Physics, 2013, Vol 8A

Journal Link (2013, Vol 8A): http://www.scirp.org/journal/JMP/

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

Notes: Down load count is displayed at the paper link on the journal web page, so you can see how many people are interested in this topic.

——————————————

Benjamin T Solomon is the author of the 12-year study An Introduction to Gravity Modification

Gravity Modification – New Tools

Posted by Benjamin T. Solomon in business, cosmology, defense, education, engineering, general relativity, particle physics, philosophy, physics, policy, spaceTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment on Gravity Modification – New Tools

To understand why gravity modification is not yet a reality, let’s analyze other fundamental discoveries/inventions that changed our civilization or at least the substantially changed the process of discovery. There are several that come to mind, the atomic bomb, heavier than air manned flight, the light bulb, personal computers, and protein folding. There are many other examples but these are sufficient to illustrate what it takes. Before we start, we have to understand four important and related concepts.

(1) Clusters or business clusters, first proposed by Harvard prof. Michael Porter, “a business cluster is a geographic concentration of interconnected businesses, suppliers, and associated institutions in a particular field. Clusters are considered to increase the productivity with which companies can compete, nationally and globally”. Toyota City which predates Porter’s proposal, comes to mind. China’s 12 new cities come to mind, and yes there are pro and cons.

(2) Hot housing, a place offering ideal conditions for the growth of an idea, activity, etc. (3) Crowdsourcing, is a process that involves outsourcing tasks to a distributed group of people. This process can occur both online and offline. Crowdsourcing is different from an ordinary outsourcing since it is a task or problem that is outsourced to an undefined public rather than a specific body. (4) Groundswell, a strong public feeling or opinion that is detectable even though not openly expressed.

I first read about the fascinating story of the making of the atom bomb from Stephane Groueff’s The Manhattan Project-the Making of the Atomic Bomb, in the 1970s. We get a clear idea why this worked. Under the direction of Major General Leslie Groves, and J. Robert Oppenheimer the US, UK & Canada hot housed scientist, engineers, and staff to invent and produce the atomic bomb physics, engineering and manufacturing capabilities. Today we term this key driver of success ‘hot housing’, the bringing together a group of experts to identify avenues for further research, to brainstorm potential solutions, and to test, falsify and validate research paths, focused on a specific desired outcome. The threat of losing out to the Axis powers helped increase this hot housing effect. This is much like what the Aspen Center for Physics is doing (video here).

In the case of the invention of the light bulb, the airplane, and the personal computer, there was a groundswell of public opinion that these inventions could be possible. This led potential inventors with the necessary basic skills to attempt to solve these problems. In the case of the incandescent light bulb, this process took about 70 years from Humphrey Davy in 1809, to Thomas A. Edison and Joseph Wilson Swan in 1879. The groundswell started with Humphrey and had included many by the time of Edison in 1879.

In the case of the airplane the Wright brothers reviewed other researchers’ findings (the groundswell had begun much earlier), and then invented several new tools & skills, flight control, model testing techniques, test pilot skills, light weight motors and new propeller designs.

The invention of the personal computer had the same groundswell effect (see Homebrew Computer Club & PBS TV transcripts). Ed Roberts, Gordon French, Fred Moore, Bob Harsh, George Morrow, Adam Osborne, Lee Felsenstein, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, John Draper, Jerry Lawson, Ron Jones and Bill Gates all knew each other before many of them became wealthy and famous. Bill Gates wrote the first personal computer language, while the others invented various versions of the microcomputer, later to be known as the personal computer, and peripherals required. They invented the products and the tools necessary for the PC industry to take off.

With protein folding, Seth Cooper, game designer, developed Fold It, the tool that would make the investigation into protein folding accessible to an undefined public. Today we describe this ‘crowdsourcing’. Notice that here it wasn’t a specialized set of team that was hot housed, but the reverse, the general public, were given the tools to make crowdsourcing a viable means to solving a problem.

Thus four key elements are required to foster innovation, basic skills, groundswell, hothouse or crowdsourcing, and new tools.

So why hasn’t this happened with gravity modification? Some form of the groundswell is there. In his book The Hunt for Zero Point, Nick Cook (an editor of the esteemed Jane’s Defense Weekly) describes a history that goes back to World War II, and Nazi Germany. It is fund reading but Kurt Kleiner of Salon provides a sober review of The Hunt for Zero Point.

There are three primary reasons for this not having happened with gravity modification. First, over the last 50 years or so, there have only been about 50 to 100 people (outside of black projects) who have investigated this in a scientific manner. That is, the groundswell of researchers with the necessary basic skills has not reached a critical mass to take off. For example, protein folding needed at least 40,000 participants, today Fold It has 280,000 registered participants.

Second, pseudoscience has crept into the field previously known as ‘antigravity’. In respectable scientific circles the term used is gravity modification. Pseudoscience, has clouded the field, confused the public’s perception and chased away the talent – the 3 C’s of pseudoscience. Take for example, plutonium bomb propulsion (written by a non-scientist/non-engineer), basic investigation shows that this is neither feasible nor legal, but it still keeps being written up as a ‘real’ proposition. The correct term for plutonium bomb propulsion is pseudoscience.

Third reason. Per the definition of gravity modification, we cannot use existing theories to propose new tools because all our current status quo theories require mass. Therefore, short of my 12-year study, no new tools are forth coming.

—————————————————————————————————

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.

OK, why do we need a different technology to achieve commercial viability (as in mass space tourism) for either interplanetary or interstellar travel?

In many of my previous posts I had shown that all the currently proposed technologies or technologies to be, are either phenomenally expensive (on the order of several multiples of World GDP), bordering on the impossible or just plain conjecture. This is very unfortunate, as I was hoping that some of the proposals would at least appear realistic, but no joy. I feel very sorry for those who are funding these projects. For a refresher I have posted an updated version of the Interstellar Challenge Matrix (ICM) here which documents 5 of the 11 inconsistencies in modern physics. I give permission to my readers to use this material for non-commercial or academic uses.

I recently completed the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravity modification published under the title An Introduction to Gravity Modification, 2nd Edition. For the very first time we now have a scientific definition for gravity modification:

Gravity modification is defined as the modification of the strength and/or 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.

Note that this definition specifically states “without the use of mass”, for obvious reasons – for example it does not make sense to carry around the mass of a planet to propel 7 astronauts, does it?

By this definition alone, we have eliminated all three status quo theories – general relativity, quantum gravity and string theories. Therefore, the urgent need to construct a new theory that will facilitate the development of gravity modification technologies.

And further, by this definition we know the additional requirements of such a new theory. The theory should show us, firstly, how to attenuate or amplify the gravitational field strength, and secondly, how to change the direction of this force field – all without using mass.

—————————————————————————————————

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.

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 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.

The Kline Directive: Theoretical-Empirical Relationship (Part 3)

Posted by Benjamin T. Solomon in cosmology, defense, education, engineering, particle physics, philosophy, physics, policy, spaceTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments on The Kline Directive: Theoretical-Empirical Relationship (Part 3)

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, we learned that Einstein was phenomenally successful because his work was deeply meshed with the experimental evidence of the day. In Part 2, we learned that to be successful at developing new useful theories and discovering new fundamental properties of Nature that will bring forth new interstellar travel technologies, we need to avoid hypotheses that are not grounded in experimental data, as these are purely mathematical conjectures.

In my book on gravity modification I classified physics hypotheses and theories into 3 categories, as follows:

A. Type 1: The Millennium Theories
These are theories that would require more than a 100 years and up to 1,000 years to prove or disprove. Mathematically correct but inscrutable with physical verifiable experiments, even in the distant future.

String and quantum gravity theories fall into this category. Why? If we cannot even figure out how to engineer-modify 4-dimensional spacetime, how are we going to engineer-modify a 5-, 6-, 9-, 11- or 23-dimensional universe?

How long would it take using string theories to modify gravity? Prof. Michio Kaku in his April 2008 Space Show interview had suggested several hundred years. Dr. Eric Davis in his G4TV interview had suggested more than 100 years maybe 200 years. So rightly, by their own admission these are Millennium Theories. It should be noted that Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize 1965) & Sheldon Lee Glashow (Nobel Prize 1979) were against string theory, but their opinions did not prevail.

Even hypotheses that conjecture time travel should be classified as Millennium Theories because they require ‘exotic’ matter. John Eades, a retired CERN senior scientist, in his article Antimatter Pseudoscience, states in no uncertain terms that antimatter is impossible to handle and create in real quantities. Then what about exotic matter?

For that matter any hypothesis that requires antimatter or exotic matter should be classified a Millennium Theory.

B. Type 2: The 100-Year Theories
These are theories that show promise of being verified with technologies that would require several decades to engineer, test and prove.

These types of theories do not lend themselves to an immediate engineering solution. The engineering solution is theoretically feasible but a working experiment or technology is some decades away, because the experimental or physical implementation is not fully understood.

Note there is this gap. We do not have 100-Year Theories in our repertoire of physical theories to keep the pipeline supplied with new and different ways to test the physical Universe.

C. Type 3: The Engineering Feasible Theories
These are theories that lend themselves to an engineering solution, today. They are falsifiable today, with our current engineering technologies. They can be tested and verified in the laboratory if one knows what to test for and how to test for these experimental observations.

Today Relativity falls into this category because we have the engineering sophistication to test Einstein’s theory, and it has been vindicated time and time again. But, there is a very big ‘but’. But Relativity cannot give us gravity modification or new propulsion theories, because it requires mass. We need to stand on Einstein’s shoulders to take the next step forward.

Therefore, if we are to become an interstellar civilization, in the spirit of the Kline Directive, we need to actively seek out and explore physics in such a manner as to bring forth Engineering Feasible and 100-Year Theories.

We need to ask ourselves, what can we do, to migrate the theoretical physics research away from Theory of Everything research to the new field of propulsion physics? Gravity modification is an example of propulsion physics. Here is the definition of gravity modification, from my book:

“Gravity modification is defined as the modification of the strength and/or 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.”

Note by this definition requiring no mass, relativity, quantum mechanics and string theories cannot be used to theorize propulsion physics. Therefore, the urgent need to find genuinely new ways in physics, to achieve interstellar travel.

Can we get there? The new physics? To answer this question let me quote Dr. Andrew Beckwith, Astrophysicist, Ph.D.(Condensed Matter Theory) who wrote the Foreword to my book:

“I believe that Quantum Mechanics is an embedded artifact of a higher level deterministic theory, i.e. much in the same vein as G. t’Hooft, the Nobel prize winner. In this sense, what Benjamin has done is to give a first order approximation as to what Quantum Mechanics is actually a part of which may in its own way shed much needed understanding of the foundations of Quantum Mechanics well beyond the ‘Pilot model’ of DICE 2010 fame (this is a conference on the foundations of Quantum Mechanics and its extension given once every two years in Pisa , Italy, organized by Thomas Elze).”

Why does Dr. Andrew Beckwith reference quantum mechanics in a book on gravity modification?

Because my investigation into gravity modification led me to the conclusion that gravitation acceleration is independent of the internal structure of the particle. It does not matter if the particle consists of other particles, strings, pebbles or rocks. This led me to ask the question, so what is the internal structure of a photon? I found out that the photon probability is not Gaussian but a new distribution, Var-Gamma. Therefore I believe Robert Nemiroff’s three photon observation will be vindicated by other physicist-researchers sifting through NASA’s archives for gamma-ray burst.

Previous 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.