A New Massless Formula for Gravitational Acceleration g=τc2

Returning to one of my threads, "Dr. John V. Milewski's Magnetricity," to re-listen to an interview of Milewski, I clicked on the link to his bio and started reading more about a group that he is associated with, the Lifeboat Foundation.

On that group's website I clicked on their blog which led me to an interesting YouTube video with the following Description:

Published on Apr 9, 2014

Private Space exploration is gaining a lot of attention in the media today. It is expected to be the next big thing after social media, technology, and probably bio fuels. Can we take this further? With DARPA sponsoring the formation of the 100 Year Starship Study (100YSS) in 2011, can we do interstellar propulsion in our life times?

The Xodus One Foundation thinks this is feasible. . . .

The community of interstellar propulsion researchers can be categorized into three groups, those who believe it cannot be done (Nay Sayers Group -- NSG), those who believe that it requires some advanced form of conventional rockets (Advanced Rocket Group -- ARG), and those who believe that it needs new physics (New Physics Group -- NPG).

The Foundation belongs to the third group, the New Physics Group. The discovery in 2007 of the new massless formula for gravitational acceleration g=τc2 , where τ is the change in time dilation over a specific height divided by that height, led to the inference that there is a new physics for interstellar propulsion that is waiting to be discovered.

What would this physics look like if nothing can travel faster than light? Founder & Chairman, Benjamin T Solomon, of the Xodus One Foundation believes that the answer lies in our understanding of photon probability. Can we discover enough physics to figure out how to control photon probability?

www.youtube.com...

Well, I haven't seen the video yet, so it might be that I have missed crucial parts of the "masslessness" of this formular, but here is my problem:

Tau as a factor of dilation responding to a certain height divided by this height is an important part of this.

But dilation is a value coming from the difference in speed, not in height - or seen another way around, time dilation is a key in the description of a gravity well, which directly responds to mass and radius of that mass.

I don't see how that formular responds to a massless version of gravitational forces. Mass implies gravity. The only other way you can "get" gravity is by acceleration.

I don't know. I can't follow this interpretation of gravity, I guess.

Founder & Chairman, Benjamin T Solomon, of the Xodus One Foundation believes that the answer lies in our understanding of photon probability.

Here is a link to Solomon's bio on the Lifeboat Foundation website:

Benjamin T. Solomon, BSc, DipOR, MAOR, MBS is President & CEO at QuantumRisk LLC and Principal Investigator at iSETI LLC.

Ben recently completed a 12-year study into the theoretical and technological feasibility of gravity modification. He is the author of the book An Introduction to Gravity Modification: A Guide to Using Laithwaite’s and Podkletnov’s Experiments and the Physics of Forces for Empirical Results. (Read the first 25 free pages.) He discovered the generic force field equation for macro (gravity, electromagnetism & mechanical) forces, g = ô c2, where ô is the change in time dilation divided by the change in distance; gravitational, electromagnetic & mechanical noninertia Ni fields, the photon’s spatial probability field and the Var-Gamma distribution.

He has defined gravity modification as the modification of the strength and/or the direction of the gravitational effect without the use of mass as the primary source of this modification; and consists of two parts, 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 the force field. . . .

lifeboat.com...

Hey, we can find his book here: Google.books!


Aaaand its about 530 pages and I am out of here.. Sorry, don't have the time. Maybe someone else?

Soloman has been a guest on The Space Show hosted by Dr. David Livingston.

Here is the bio on Soloman from that website:

Ben Solomon has a Certificate in Relativity, Gravity, and Cosmology from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professional Institute (2006), a Bachelors degree in Electrical & Electronics Engineering, from Aston University, UK (1979), a Master’s degree in Operations Research from Lancaster University, UK (1982), and a Master’s degree in Banking & Finance, University College Dublin, Ireland (1995). Over the past 7 years Ben Solomon has presented numerous papers on gravity modification and related concepts at the National Space Society’s International Space Development Conferences, and the Mars Society’s International Mars Conferences. Ben Solomon is the inventor of proprietary electrical circuits that can change their weight, at room temperature, and without moving parts. In his day job he does extensive numerical and statistical modeling of commercial property losses. This expertise combined with his degree in electrical engineering, was the spring board for numerical modeling and statistical analysis of gravitational and quantum mechanical experimental data. The book synopsis I’m using for the book promotion is: ‘An Introduction to Gravity Modification’ shows the reader how the physics and the engineering of gravity modification work, using real dimensions, real fields, real materials, and real forces. This work is based on the author’s research of more than 10 years, with electrical circuits (no moving parts) that can change their weight, and extensive numerical modeling of experimental data. With this knowledgebase and experience the author reviews Laithwaite’s and Podkletnov’s experiments, and the physics of forces. The book presents a new concept of force, the non-inertia field, and a new equation for gravitational acceleration. There is no mass in this new equation. This makes gravity modification a portable technology. The book shows how both relativity and quantum mechanics has to change. The author has discovered a non-local particle probability distribution from published experimental data. This distribution combined with the inferences derived from numerical gravity modeling explains how and why the observer appears to alter the observation. ‘An Introduction to Gravity Modification’ points to the single most important technology after gravity modification, the technology of interstellar travel. This is possible with asymmetric transformations that bypass the velocity of light constraints.

www.thespaceshow.com...

a reply to: Mary Rose

Height as a metric is only valid when you have a defined datum (e.g. the floor of your bedroom) to measure from. It seems out of place in a discussion of cosmic proportions.

After some drilling down, I got to this paper which seems to have some substance. Interesting but too deep for my waders.
link to paper on photon probability function rethink.

a reply to: Mary Rose
Solomon's book references Podkletnov's experiments, but experimental results would be far more interesting than a book. It would be easy to write several books proposing new physics for gravity modification, but it's probably a lot harder to actually demonstrate it in experiments. I gather that Podkletnov hasn't given up, and I keep hoping to see something substantial from his experimental work, but so far, nothing he's done seems to be confirmed anywhere.

Also, Karen Carpenter's effort to become massless didn't work out so well. Apparently, we need mass to live, right?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This link to the paper above should lead to a modified double slit experiment for photon entanglement. It's one of those things I'd have to read 5 times and do a week of reading to get straight. Never mind how it gets all the way to a propulsion system.

I think it would be big news if a result from a double slit experiment showed something new or different.

I'm always interested in quantum theory because of its inherent conflicts/ambiguities. More to learn there.

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Mary Rose

Height as a metric is only valid when you have a defined datum (e.g. the floor of your bedroom) to measure from. It seems out of place in a discussion of cosmic proportions.

After some drilling down, I got to this paper which seems to have some substance. Interesting but too deep for my waders.
link to paper on photon probability function rethink.

Height is actually displacement and most of his formulas involve energy so it represents a change in potential energy.

I have only skimmed a bit, maybe will go over it more in depth later . . . but a lot it seems to be out of my own depth.

-FBB

originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
link to paper on photon probability function rethink.

Here is the Conclusion of that paper:

Numerical modeling based on empirical evidence was used to show that the photon’s probability distribution is a modified Gamma distribution whose parameters are the orthogonal and forward distances of the space around the photon. Not only is the photon’s probability distribution altered by the shapes of space around it but this paper, using available experimental data, has made the case that a photon’s response to the materials around it is related to the geometric proportions as a ratio of its wavelength. The modified Gamma distribution provides an alternative explanation for optical resolution, lends itself to a unified shielding, cloaking and invisibility hypothesis, and may even replace the sum of histories method. More importantly it presents shielding, cloaking and invisibility as distinctly different interactions of the same phenomenon. The shielding and cloaking models concur with the experimental data. The invisibility model suggests the need for a better understanding of the photon. The nano wire model shows that the skin effect can be used to model sub wavelength behavior. In summary this paper has presented a substantial body of evidence to make the case that a photon’s probability distribution is a modified Gamma distribution.

Not only is the photon’s probability distribution altered by the shapes of space around it but this paper, using available experimental data, has made the case that a photon’s response to the materials around it is related to the geometric proportions as a ratio of its wavelength.

When he uses the term "space," he's not talking about empty space, is he?

originally posted by: Mary Rose

Not only is the photon’s probability distribution altered by the shapes of space around it but this paper, using available experimental data, has made the case that a photon’s response to the materials around it is related to the geometric proportions as a ratio of its wavelength.

When he uses the term "space," he's not talking about empty space, is he?

What is empty space, do we know?

a reply to: Mary Rose

While I am not claiming to have a good overall grasp of this subject, I do feel I have a small bit to offer to the conversation.

If I remember correctly, photon polarization is also a part of the probability discussion. I did a quick search, to refresh my thinking, on the subject at wikipedia.
As I looked over a few notes, my eye caught upon an illustration showing the refraction of writing through a calcite crystal. This was to show a natural polarization. This may not seem all that significant except for my remembering reading about a discovery many years ago in a large cavern system.
It seems the remains of a Naitve American was found very deep in a cavern which had fallen in and trapped him. He had passed through several tight spots and crossed one large sink hole to get to this location. In his hand was a large calcite crystal.
There have been only scant amounts of calcite being noted as used as jewelry in pre-history. So the question becomes, why was someone so in need of this material to go to such lengths to get it and how would they know it was in this location.
Also, most "UFO" sightings are because they give off a bright light. Why would a ship in space need to give off light unless it was some how involved, or a by-product, of it's propulsion system. They have also been reported to simply "disappear" or "cloak themselves". Could there be a corrolation between the natural refractive effects of calcite and some "photon polarization probability" which could be useful in a power system.
Yes, I know this sounds like I am reaching WAAAY out there, but sometimes it's the "thinking outside the box" that best defines the box.

I have to ask questions to which I can find no answers alone.

a reply to: Mary Rose

If it were to prove possible to generate "massless gravity" would it approch anything similar to "anti-gravity"?
I have been told that gravity is a function of mass.
If this is true, could it be extrapulated to also be said that gravity without the present of mass would be negative gravity?
Would this negative gravity be the same as anti-gravity?

a reply to: teamcommander

I don't know whether this has anything to do with your post, but the term "massless gravity" makes me think of another term, "electric gravity," proposed by Wal Thornhill of the Thunderbolts Project. Here is a section of his essay, "Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe":

Antigravity?

Conducting metals will shield electric fields. However, the lack of movement of electrons in response to gravity explains why we cannot shield against gravity by simply standing on a metal sheet. As an electrical engineer wrote, “we [don’t] have to worry about gravity affecting the electrons inside the wire leading to our coffee pot.” [19] If gravity is an electric dipole force between subatomic particles, it is clear that the force “daisy chains” through matter regardless of whether it is conducting or non-conducting. Sansbury explains:

“..electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common orientation. Hence their effect on a conductive piece of metal is less to pull the free electrons in the metal to one side toward the center of the earth but to equally attract the similarly oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the nuclei and free electrons of the conductive piece of metal.” [20]

This offers a clue to the reported ‘gravity shielding’ effects of a spinning, superconducting disk.[21] Electrons in a superconductor exhibit a ‘connectedness,’ which means that their inertia is increased. Anything that interferes with the ability of the subatomic particles within the spinning disk to align their gravitationally induced dipoles with those of the earth will exhibit antigravity effects.

Despite a number of experiments demonstrating antigravity effects, no one has been able to convince scientists attached to general relativity that they have been able to modify gravity. This seems to be a case of turning a blind eye to unwelcome evidence. Support for antigravity implicitly undermines Einstein’s theory.[22]

www.holoscience.com...

Could it be that it's not mass per se that causes gravity, but the electric force at work in the mass?

a reply to: Mary Rose

I had read and seen references to "electric gravity" in several places.
I had always thought of it more in terms of the natural attraction of the particles charges rather than gravitional attraction of their respective masses. Even tho, even masses on the atomic scale would, by nature, still exert a certain amount of gravity.

a reply to: teamcommander

But if it's the charge at the atomic scale causing the force, maybe there is a way to manipulate the mass of an object via charge at the atomic level?

I don't know what any of this has to do with photon probability distribution, however.

a reply to: Mary Rose



I knew I had read something else about this subject and, after a little digging, found this:

www.hpcc-space.de...

Because of your posting this article, I thought you might be specialyy interested in paragraph 2.1
which deals with Gravito-Magnetic Force by Photon Conversion into Gravitophotons.
Just trying to help further some study.

Who knows, you may be the one to put this all together.

a reply to: teamcommander

I see that the Abstract of the 16 page .pdf, "Advanced Propulsion Systems from Artificial Gravitational Fields," mentions Extended Heim Theory (EHT), which pulls up 10 pages of search results on ATS:

Abstract: Spaceflight, as we know it, is based on the century old rocket equation that is an embodiment of the conservation of linear momentum. Moreover, special relativity puts an upper limit on the speed of any space-vehicle in the form of the velocity of light in vacuum. Thus current physics puts severe limits on space propulsion technology. These limitations can only be overcome if novel physical laws can be found. During the last two decades, numerous experiments related to gravity shielding or gravito-magnetic interaction were carried out, but eventually all proved to be incorrect. However, in March 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) announced credible experimental results, reporting on the generation of artificial gravitational fields (also termed gravito-magnetic fields, GMF), in the laboratory. The GMF was generated by a rotating niobium superconductor ring, subjected to angular acceleration. The GMF existed only during the acceleration phase of the ring, counteracting the mechanical acceleration, thus obeying some kind of gravitational Lenz rule. These experiments were performed by M. Tajmar and colleagues from ARC Seibersdorf, Austria and C. de Matos from ESA, and since then were repeated with increased accuracy, leading to the same results. Extended Heim Theory (EHT), published in a series of papers since 2002, predicted the existence of such an effect, resulting from a proposed interaction between electromagnetism and gravitation. . . .

www.hpcc-space.de...

From the section "1 ARTIFICIAL GRAVITATIONAL FIELDS FOR SPACE PROPULSION":

. . . Therefore, gravitation, as we know it, seems to be comprised of three interactions, the graviton (attractive), gravitophoton (attractive and repulsive), and the quintessence or vacuum (repulsive) particle that is, there exist three quanta of gravitation. This means that the gravitational constant G contains contributions of all three gravitational constants, termed GN;Ggp and Gq, respectively. The quintessence interaction, however, is much smaller than the first two contributions. For further details see [10].

www.hpcc-space.de...

originally posted by: teamcommander
Because of your posting this article, I thought you might be specialyy interested in paragraph 2.1
which deals with Gravito-Magnetic Force by Photon Conversion into Gravitophotons.

The opening sentence:

The force produced by gravitophoton generation is termed gravito-magnetic force. It is a gravitational force, but it is caused by photons that are converted into neutral 8 gravitophotons, which eventually decay via two different channels.

www.hpcc-space.de...

The footnote 8 says "a gravitophoton is termed neutral if it does not interact with matter."

Continuing:

. . . The process of conversion of photons into gravitophotons should be possible in two ways, namely via Fermion (vacuum polarization) [10] and through Boson coupling (Bose-Einstein condensates). . . .

www.hpcc-space.de...

Reviewing what a photon is:

The quantum of electromagnetic energy, regarded as a discrete particle having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

So, if you convert photons into an artificial gravitational field, you have massless gravity?

Soloman uploaded another video:

Published on May 6, 2014

The May 2014 Scientific American article, "Super Symmetry, A Crisis in Physics", got me thinking. If the proton mass is substantially greater that the sum of the masses of the quarks & gluons in the proton then there is an outrageous question regarding the Standard Model.

Before I attempt to answer that question we need to understand the concept of falsifiability.

The reason why I am qualified to ask this outrageous question is because I solved the physics of gravity modification, and falsifiability opens up more avenues for research, more questions and the finally the reasons for the outrageous question.

www.youtube.com...