Comments on: Debunking the Black Hole Interstellar Drive

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:16:37 +0000

Gary — after writing a couple of papers on BH theory earlier this year ( http://vixra.org/author/thomas_b_kerwick ) and being on the particle physics and engineering boards here, I feel it is more apt to weigh in my opinion than not. Though don’t be concerned — I do not intend to engage in cyclical debate.

By: GaryChurch

GaryChurch — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:03:30 +0000

Stop feeding the troll Tom

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 04:00:38 +0000

Benjamin — I have suggested that a TRUE design would be much less than 1,000,000 tons. Note my point regarding maintaining a fairly constant rate of HR for such a craft — its mass would require to be initially smaller and topped up from time to time to remain approx same mass to keep it in the ‘sweet spot’. Also note that it is the BH and not the 1 ton payload that would be the source of energy for the acceleration, so the relative mass is irrelevant.

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:29:25 +0000

And I might add, even if the published hypothetical conjecture (that is what it is) turns out to be experimentaly verifiable, how would you maneuver a 1,000,000 ton object with a 1 ton craft?

This defies the laws of physics unless the 1 ton craft is somehow moving a 1,000,000 times faster than the black hole.

Therefore, debunked.

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:57:05 +0000

And you place intentions in other people’s work that are not there.

If I was pushing my book I would not have announced Dr. Takaaki Musha and Prof. Mario J. Pinheiro book “Physics of the Zero Point Field and its Applications to Advanced Technology”.

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:53:45 +0000

Tom Kerwick, if you read my blog carefully you would notice that I was not debuking Crane & Westmoreland’s academic exercise. I was debunking the possibility that it was somehow engineering feasible. And that is a big difference.

By: Tom Kerwick

Tom Kerwick — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:51:43 +0000

Benjamin — back to your citation that BH quickly radiate their charge, you should note that the Frolov & Novikov paper referred to dates back to 1998, and more recent papers on BH theory — most notably the CERN LHC safety report of 2008 — which was endorsed by the American Physical Society — suggests that BH are likely to hold their charge (though they do some risk assessment on uncharged BH also)…

I would also suggest you are debunking just a preliminary study and doing so with dubious motivation (to push your book). Such studies should not be kicked to touch in their infancy, regardless of being only on the edge of possibility — after all, all designs of interstellar travel are at best only on the edge of possibility. Best of luck with yours.

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:35:58 +0000

Thanks,Mathew Ervin for pointing out the misspelling of Westmoreland. I have fixed it.

If you read my blog carefully you would notice that I was not debuking Crane & Westmoreland’s academic exercise. I was debunking the possibility that it was somehow engineering feasible. And that is a big difference.

By: Matthew Ervin

Matthew Ervin — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:23:23 +0000

If you are going to "debunk" someone, could you at least give them the courtesy of getting their name right? It's 'Westmoreland'. And your initial quote from Chown regarding a parabolic mirror is actually an idea put forward by Crane and Westmoreland, except they suggest a parabolic reflector made out of an electron gas. I don't take this work as anything but what it is, speculative. But speculation tends to spur progress....

By: Benjamin T. Solomon

Benjamin T. Solomon — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:02:14 +0000

Tom, my astrophysicist friend has decades of experience in theoretical work. Very sharp and not someone to be “nice” when it is incorrect. Maybe your friends are like that, definitely not mine. My friends and I are progressing away from hypothetical conjecture to real engineering feasible solutions.

If he says it is a “great” article, then it is.

You contradict Crane & Westmore. They explicitly say “Note that if an isolated SBH is initially endowed with an electric charge, then it will quickly, and almost completely, radiate this charge away”. Note the word ‘quickly’.

Yes, black hole interstellar drives are totally, totally, debunked.

CERN’s black hole? Just because some scientists want to do apparently foolish things that does not mean we need to cheer them on.

And think about the logic of trying to hold at the very least 1,000,000 ton black hole? With what a 1,000,000,000 ton contraption? Really? Or are you suggesting that something on the order of 1 ton will suffice. Think conservation of momentum.

Assuming you could build a real contraption (not a hypothetical model) think about the energy required. That is like saying we can do interstellar travel with conventional rockets but don’t tell anyone that it will eventually cost $240 trillion or 3.4x World GDP.

As an academic exercise, I quote Crane & Westmore “we are confident it will pose many interesting problems for classical and quantum relativity”, but as an “engineering feasible” solution the term to use is “on your bike”.