Questioning the Foundations of Physics To Achieve Interstellar Travel by Benjamin Thomas Solomon

From your essay, page 5, "But gravity modification is not the means for interstellar travel."

Yes it is, we simply have to understand how gravity works.

Have you been successful in presenting a paper to one of the 100yr Starship conferences?

I had submitted an abstract for a paper, for the 2011 DARPA/NASA 100Yr Starship Conference, that described how to produce artificial gravity, and it could be implemented as "push or pull." I included a communications section that would utilize the artificial gravity field for instantaneous communications for solar system distances and near instantaneous to the closest star to our Sun. My abstract was rejected, and I do not know why. Some of the elements of the communications protocol have already been developed for other purposes.

At least I thought NASA would be interested in improving spacecraft communications within the solar system distances, but no.

I am amazed that DARPA/NASA seems to have no active solution for "hazard avoidance" of the junk that is in space, and not just what is obviously known within our Solar system. The arms of our galaxy outline a massive debris path, and it is reasonable to expect that it will contain aggregations of solids, large and small, that can readily damage or destroy a spacecraft that does not have a detection and avoidance system. It is doubtful a starship spending a 100 years for transit from earth to some far Sun would ever make it there without multiple debris encounters. An artificial gravity "push or pull" could be used for hazard deflection, as well as for spacecraft acceleration and deceleration.

I have a number of references of how high-speed spin, with a specific handedness, results in weight reduction of objects above the spinning object or spinning EM field. My gravity push-pull implementation does not involve physically spinning objects.

It doesn't appear that any "solutions" that employ classical physics concepts get any consideration.

Dear Benjamin,

You have some interesting thoughts. Regarding the idea of "just arriving," I have often thought that the concept of "locality" in physics ought to be redefined. Rather than worrying about "nonlocal" interactions, we ought to consider A to be local to B if A directly influences B. This means giving up the assumption that spacetime is a manifold, but it allows for the possibility of a "short path" between two locations even if other paths are "long." Take care,

Ben

Frank Makinson, yes, I presented the paper "Non Gaussian Radiation Shielding" at the 2011 DARPA/NASA 100YSS Public Symposium, and my team was one that responded to the DARPA/NASA rpf, and we were not selected.

I am willing to start an equivalent to the current 100YSS team if I can get the funding. I am sure me & my team can do it in less than a hundred years because of the theoretical-empirical work I've completed.

I also had the paper "Gravitational acceleration without mass and noninertia fields" published in the AIP journal Physics Essays, Sept 2011. Here is the link:

http://physicsessays.org/doi/ref/10.4006/1.3595113

I must admit that their peer-review process was very difficult. It took about 1 1/2 years. But it was worth it because this peer-review process helped clarify many of my thought and I introduced an elegantly simple test for natural versus theoretical gravitational fields.

If you are still interested in getting published, you could submit it to SPSISW, Space Propulsion Sciences International Symposium/Workshop, if it fits their agenda. Their web page is:

http://ias-spes.org/SPSISW2013/

Best

Ben

Dear Benjamin,

In your essay I find: < Prof. Eric Laithwaites Big Wheel experiment would be such a problem. Until now no one has solved it. > But there is the explanation of the experiment at the site http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/gyroscopes/laithwaite.html .

Sergey Fedosin

Thanks, Sergei Fedosin.

Regarding the link. Quite obviously 'solved' by someone who has no idea how to empirically test a concept.

Before rushing into exotic mathematics there a very simple question he could have asked himself.

How does the human writs hold a 50 lb (approx 23 kg) weight at the end of a 3 ft ( or 1 m) rod, with one hand.

Also, note that the late Prof. Morris Kline in his book "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" said that mathematics has become so very sophisticated that it is now used to prove anything.

And therefore, this tremendous success of mathematics has led to the loss of certainty of whether what mathematics has proved is real or not.

Coming back to the link you provided. With all that sophisticated mathematics the author has not answered the question, how does the human wrist carry a 50 lb weight at the end of a 3 ft rod?

My apologies for the spelling mistakes. Should read . . .

Thanks, Sergei Fedosin.

Regarding the link. Quite obviously 'solved' by someone who has no idea how to empirically test a concept.

Before rushing into exotic mathematics there a very simple question he could have asked himself.

How does the human wrist hold a 50 lb (approx 23 kg) weight at the end of a 3 ft (or 1 m) rod, with one hand?

Also, note that the late Prof. Morris Kline in his book "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" said that mathematics has become so very sophisticated that it is now used to prove anything.

And therefore, this tremendous success of mathematics has led to the loss of certainty of whether what mathematics has proved is real or not.

Coming back to the link you provided. With all that sophisticated mathematics the author has not answered the simple question, how does the human wrist carry a 50 lb weight at the end of a 3 ft rod?

and who checks my pc ?f course anybody.

You want waht, the last time I have seen your seti institute and hop I have click on a page and hop my pc was finished.

It is what this strategy, if it is an other country who tries to imply confusions, so it is sad.

That will not change my decisions.

It is what the probelm, the lack of funds or what ?

I am surprised by these comportments from said responsible scientists.!!!a pure ironical strategy from a team implying confusions for their own strategy.I know these persons Mr Solomon, I know that it is not you. I know from who it is ! They are in fact now in a very bad situation. They are obliged to kill me these pseudo scientists loving money and forgetting the essential. Ironical no? they have played, so I will finish. all my lifes, I will fight and also after my death.

Regards

Dear Ben,

I am convinced, too, that interstellar travel could be a real possibility.

I discovered a sort of STARGATE - a specific bifurcation point of velocity, where the relativistic function is splitted into two branches. One branch is our usual relativistic space-time-continuum, limited by the speed of light, the other one is a superluminal section embracing all velocities only limited by the velocity of infinity. This section I am calling GOEDELS TRENCH.

The bifurcation point can be reached - at least in principle: It is given at the velocity of .707 c (or exactly: 1/SQR 2 c). But I have no idea, whether it is possible or not to switch from the relativistic part of spacetime into Goedels Trench.

If you google: Do Space and Time have an Archetypal Design? some points of this vision are explained in greater detail.

Good Luck for Essay as well as for your WORK.

Kind Regards

Helmut

Thanks, Hoang Cao Hai.

I wasn't sure what your questions were. I think you had several question:

1. What is your opinion about mass?

2. How does mass work since it is lighter on the Moon than on Earth?

3. How did CERN detect the Higgs-type boson since you cannot detect it without smashing particles?

First, to do what I have done I have had to restrict my focus to just acceleration and velocity, otherwise there are too many unanswered question in physics, one could attempt to answer and end up not getting anywhere.

Therefore, I have no interest in figuring out what mass is.

So with respect to the 1st question I have no opinions about what mass is.

With respect to your 2nd question, it is not mass but weight that is less on the Moon than on Earth, simply stated, because the acceleration present in the Moon's gravitational field is less than the acceleration present in the Earth's gravitational field.

And this is my focus, how does Nature implement acceleration in a gravitational field? And more importantly why is this acceleration independent of the mass of falling body?

I discovered that acceleration for all macro forces is governed by g=(tau).c^2, for gravitational, mechanical & electromagnetic forces. This may be true for weak & strong nuclear forces, but I have no interest in proving that because there is no commercial value, at least not this century, in investigating nuclear forces.

So with respect to the 3rd question, how to detect a Higgs-type boson, I have no idea.

I have questions myself, such as if a Higgs boson gives a particle its mass, then if a mass particle is traveling close to the velocity of light does that mean that the Higgs boson, is also traveling at the same velocity and direction as the particle it gives mass to? Can one Higgs particle give mass to several particles? If so if they are moving in different directions, how does this happen?

You see I have no ideas how Higgs works, and assume that mass is given and we have to work with that. My interest is, how do we develop new propulsion engines to do interplanetary and interstellar travel?

Thanks Helmut Hansen.

First, I would suggest developing your ideas more until you have a better mathematical framework to publish in a journal. Look at it this way. How would you explain to an engineer how to implement these formulae so that (s)he can build a test or an engine?

Yes, I am sometimes critical of how people jump into the mathematics and consider mathematics an end in itself. But if you have asked the basic questions and stay closer to empirical data, then mathematics is indispensable, and science progresses.

Second, if you are using numerical modeling, an Intel machine (eg Excel) calculates correctly to 15 significant digits, and so be careful as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation does not evaluate correctly when v is close to c.

True,Helmut Hansen. And I totally agree with your statement about vision.

However, if I remember the history of physic correctly, E = mc^2 was not derived from theory. It was known before Eisnstein's time from experimental data as dE = dmc^2, where dE is the change in energy and dm is the change in mass.

Dear Benjamin,

I think that rotation of rotating wheel (gyroscope) in horizontal plane with the help of rod gives precession of the rod which is in vertical direction diminish weight. So the work of rotation is used to counteract to force of gravity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope.

Sergey Fedosin

Thanks, Sergey Fedosin for pointing out this formula.

If you put numbers into this formula and then compare the results with what Laithwaite was doing with the Big Wheel experiment, gyroscopic precession is off by 2 orders of magnitude.

It all in my book "An Introduction to Gravity Modification, Second Edition". Publisher's link is

http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1612330894

Best

Ben

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Sergey Fedosin, thanks for rating this essay, and more importantly asking question. From the average score your rating was probably a low one for this essay.

I'm not surprised. Most people's idea of change is a perturbation of their world view or knowledge. Anything significantly different than that causes an knee jerk reaction of dislike.

There is real world confirmation of this. Just look at the history of string theories. String theories took decades (30-years?) to become mainstream, primarily because the then establishment did not want anything really new or at least different to deal with.

I'm not waiting on the physics community to accept my work I'm going ahead to develop technologies that I have researched. I'm confident because my research is based on experiment/empirical data. And that is the fastest way to change technology.

Dear Benjamin Solomon,

I wanted to let you know I have taken a look at your essay. I have noticed you have not yet had a message from Jason Wolf who has been a long time member of the FQXi blogs community, frequently talking about his ideas for interstellar propulsion or space modification to facilitate it. I regret that I am unable to fruitfully discuss many of his ideas as they do not fit well with my own way of thinking about how the universe functions. However I can see that you two might have much in common in your desire to accomplish interstellar travel, despite the theoretical limitations of current theory. I will recommend he takes a look at your essay. In my essay I set out what basic physical assumptions are wrong and give an explanatory framework for physics that allows many of the current problems of physics to be overcome. High res. diagram in discussion thread. Perhaps that theoretical solution might also be useful to you in your in consideration of the important practical issues for developing interstellar travel. Kind regards Georgina.

Thanks Georgina Parry.

I searched and found this essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1350?search=1

We are so very different. For starters, the wavefunction is not the particle. The wavefunction is the effect of the particle on spacetime.

Second, I used very extensive numerical modeling* to arrive at many of my results, the crux of which the Non Inertia (Ni) Field is defined as the spatial gradient of time dilation. I don't even think aether.

But thanks.

Ben

* g=(tau)c^2 took about 4 months of daily 8-10 hrs of number crunching, by the computer, not me manually doing it, to discover.

I must also add that Robert Nemiroff & his colleagues have observed a 3 photon occurance from a gamma-ray burst that suggests that quantum foam may not exists and therefore invalidate some or all of quantum gravity. Here is the article,

http://www.space.com/17399-gamma-ray-photons-quantum-spacetime.html

Hi Ben,

Wave-functions are of course probability amplitudes; they are used to describe quantum systems. In the essay contest before this one, I asserted that space-time was ontologically made of wave-functions. Readers had trouble understanding how space-time could be made of math. So in this essay, I rephrased it this way. If wave-functions had an ontological physically existing counterpart, the space-time continuum would be composed of it.

I gotta run.

Jason Wolfe