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

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.

Dear Ben,

I understand your suggestion and it is certainly right. But sometimes such a suggestion is too restrictive. Think of the most famous equation of E = mc^2. It has its value in itself - without any reference to an engine.

Sometimes visions are needed. And if we want to travel to the stars within reasonable times even a great vision is needed.

Kind Regards

Helmut

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

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

Hi Jason,

This is the real crux of the problem with quantm mechanics. Wave amplitudes as functions of probabilities were discovered by accident. There is no rigorous formulation why this is the case. And that is the real problem with quantum mechanics - it fits so lets go with it.

The real question is how are probabilites implemented in Nature. Both quantum mechanics nor string theories can explain that.

Best,

Ben

Hi Ben,

I share your dream of interstellar travel. I also wish we could travel to Mars in less than two hours. Unfortunately, the laws of physics are somewhat uncooperative. Nevertheless, this is how I think it can be done.

I started with the assumption that gravity propulsion drives (gravity field generators) are allowed by nature. For a gravity field generator to work, there has to be a way, separate from the stress energy tensor, to curve space-time. But then this raises the question: what is space-time? I decided to make a best guess at what space-time is really made of. An empty void was not helpful; I needed a medium that I could assign properties to. However, given all that we hear about virtual particles, quantum electromdynamics, DeBroglie waves, the quantum vacuum, etc., I reasoned that any of these things would ultimately be modeled with quantum mechanics and some kind of wave-function. Wave-functions describe all quantum systems (w/o exception). Wave-functions, unlike all the other mathematics in physics, wave-functions look like something that could physically exist. So I decided to elevate wave-functions to the status of an ontological physically existing medium.

The speed of light seems to be entrenched within the geometry of space-time. So I had an idea. Let's make the speed of light a characteristic of the medium. Therefore, permitivity and permeability are built in characteristics of the medium as well. But what was I going to do about space-time geometry and time dilation? Since the speed of light is intrinsically a part of space-time, I added an additional characteristic to this medium.

[math]c = \lambda f[/math]

If the medium is made of waves (borrowed from plane waves of wavefunctions), then I can use the wavelengths of these waves to ontologically create distance in space and use the frequencies to permit the progression of time.

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Ben,

I need to ask if my interplanetary travel idea makes any sense. In the most basic language, it goes like this. To build a hyperdrive, you have to be able to build a gravity drive; that is, you have to be able to curve space-time. But you can't use the stress-energy tensor because that kind of mass-energy is too bulky. I rejected the idea that space-time is nothingness because I can't curve nothingness. So I said that space-time is a medium of some kind.

Gravity (curved space-time) causes light to redshift; it's called gravitational redshift. So I had an idea. Could it work in reverse? Could I generate a repeating redshift to generate a gravity field? Specifically, I would use a rapid and repeated frequency chirp to cause space-time to curve.

I accept that you might be skeptical. But I ask you: does this line of thinking at least make sense?

Thanks,

Jason Wolfe

Probably that the system is in crisis, the lack of funds probably no?

not selected ?

:) me I have so many inventions. even for the weapons but I dislike that ! ahahahah

ROTATIONS OF SPHERES..........ENERGY !!!

New turbins :) .....gravitational acceleration EQUILIBRIUM ......revolutionary !!!