The Missing Link, The Ω Function
General Relativity is based on separation vectors. Splitting this separation vector into two equations, gives one part a function of mass and the other a vector-tensor function. This gives rise to the question, can the mass part be replaced by something else say an Ω function, where Ω is as yet undefined but not a function of mass? Maybe the Ω function should be a description of quark interaction, and not mass?
Now it becomes obvious that the theoretical physics community has focused on the vector-tensor part to the complete omission of the Ω function. That is, there is definitely the opportunity to question the foundations of physics.
Looking at the massless equation for gravitational acceleration g = τc2, change in time dilation divided by the change in distance is what describes a gravitational field. A small body orbiting the Earth has a certain velocity which can be converted to time dilation. Change the orbital radius of the small body by a small amount, less or more, gives a new orbital velocity and a new time dilation. Therefore, divide this change in time dilation by the change in height and multiply by the velocity of light squared, gives the gravitational acceleration present. The same is with a centripetal motion. Use the velocity along the radius at any two points. Determine the change in time dilation then divide this change in time dilation by the change in radius, the distance between the two points. Then multiply by the velocity of light squared, gives the acceleration present.
The same is true for an electron traveling in a magnetic field, but this cannot be explained without the use of equations. See Solomon 2011 for a detailed explanation. Further, this approach now explains why force is orthogonal to both electron motion and magnetic field. Contemporary electromagnetism cannot explain why other than stating it has to be a vector cross product. Which raises the question, what is the electron doing in the magnetic field? In addition to the arched motion of the electron, does the electron experience rotation? That is, is it rotating with respect to the magnetic field i.e. is the electron orientation locked with respect to the radius of the arch? Or is the electron orientation rotating with respect to the radius of the arch i.e. is the electron orientation locked with respect to the magnetic field? Or is some other orientation function present?
It is important to note that time dilation as a spatial gradient is the key to acceleration and is termed Non Inertia or Ni Field. The Ni field concept is the first major challenge to quantum mechanics in a hundred years. Quantum mechanics states that force is transmitted by the exchange of virtual particles, whereas the Ni field states that it is the spatial gradient of time dilation. Unlike quantum mechanics, the Ni field is able to unify gravity, electromagnetism and mechanical forces.
My Philosophy Behind the New Propulsion Physics
How did I arrive at these discoveries? Let us back up a little. If a 100,000 of the brightest scientist & engineers, over the last 100 years could not solve the gravity modification problem, then the problem is not with the tool users but with the tools. Along this note Space.com has an article Have Three Little Photons Broken Theoretical Physics?, that suggests that some if not all of quantum gravity may be invalidated.
Niels Bohr (I could not find the reference) is reputed to have said that the mathematical equation is all we need to describe the Universe, and explains why theoretical physics has become very abstract (not a judgement). Einstein on the other hand said use your imagination. Both had different approaches to discovery. Both used mathematics as a tool to describe the Universe. But as Prof. Morris Kline describes in his book “Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty”, mathematics has become so sophisticated that it can now be used to prove anything, and therefore the loss of certainty. Ironically it was Einstein who started the search for a unified theory of everything.
How did I avoid trying to prove ‘anything’? By staying close to the experimental data.
One arrives at new hypotheses by breaking old axioms. Some of the axioms are explicit and some are implicit. Two explicit axioms are, a charged particle moving in a magnetic field is equivalent to a point, and all the laws of physics in this Universe are consistent with each other. An implicit axiom would be that the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformation somehow does not operate on a particle falling in a gravitational field. I show that this is incorrect in my Physics Essays paper.
In my research I chose to explore physical properties that contemporary physics had not, that particles are real physical three dimensional objects. Therefore to answer questions like what would happen to the shape of a particle falling in a gravitational field? Or how would the shape of an electron affect its motion in a magnetic field, if at all? Or how would the distribution of mass within an elementary particle affect its motion in a gravitational field?
To be continued … Part 3 Here
—————————————————————————————————
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.
I’m sorry but I cannot help beating the drum that all ‘particles’ will exhibit gravitational effect if they are considered closed waves. Refraction of the wave producing an apparent pull. If the Electron is considered to be a closed wave at low velocities then, when in orbit around the nucleus, I suggest it ‘spreads’ into the form of an Helical wave. This consideration is strengthened by Dirac’s now proven hypothesis that a high energy photon translates into an electron and a positron. Clockwise and anti-clockwise Helices. (This may also suggests a route to explain electron pairing in orbit) The electron ‘cloud’ analogy would fit with distributed waves of indeterminate radii.
Francis Higgins, this post is not about “beating the drum”.
A 100 years ago that would be like saying we don’t need quantum mechanics or relativity because classical physics can explain a lot, and given enough time, money and resources classical physics will solve all problems.
If you have done as you claim, and altered mass with an electrical circuit, then you already have the core of a propellantless propulsion system. Just add a periodic force, phased to the periodic mass changes (“push heavy, pull light”) and the thing will move unidirectionally. I presume you would not like to talk about momentum conservation? What really is a key question is why you haven’t built such a machine? You would be stinking rich if it worked. I therefore conclude that it doesn’t.
If you like, I’ll build it for you.
Andrew Palfreyman, I’m not going to give you a free lesson on Securities Law. Please consult legal counsel or attend some classes.
I am compelled by conscience to add further comment with a view to supporting your disquiet re the existing understanding of the laws of Physics. (carefully chosen words)
Schroedinger and Neils Bohr disagreed strongly re Quantum Physics. Schroedinger evolved his ‘Cat’ thought experiment in order to dispute Quantum Theory, not to prove it, as many appear to be under this impression. He himself suspected that matter was the effect of ‘standing’ or superimposed waves. Maxwell also had suspicions in a similar vein, in as much he suggested that matter was the result of vortices in the Aether.
Perhaps to save much space here, you will allow me to refer you to a remarkable publication by Manjit Kumar entitled ‘Quantum’. Page 195 onwards. In the 1920’s there was serious dissent between leading physicists regarding the nature of ‘particles’. Whilst Manjit Kumar struggles somewhat to break away from pre-ordained Quantum Theory, there is enough meat for those proposing the Wave Theory of Matter to get their teeth into.
Kind regards to you sir.
Francis Higgins, thanks for your comments.
It is very good to know that even then there were disagreements. We need serious dissent because that is part of the process of innovation and progress, i.e. there is something to work against, to channel the creative thought process.
How much more dissent am I going to stir? In my book I proposed an even more radical idea that will probably upset quite a few, and we need to. Here it is:
The wave function is not the photon. The wave function is not a description of the photon. The wave function is the effect of the photon disturbing spacetime.
So we detect the photon’s presence by detecting it signature wave function. Just as we observe a contrail and know that a fighter jet is present, yet we don’t mistake the contrail for the fighter jet.
This signature is unique to the type of particle, and therefore, we easily mistake the wave function for the actual ‘particle’.
Next question, how do we experimentally prove or disprove this? At this point I’m not sure. But rest assured one day we will.
Dear B.T. Soloman, In fact I agree with you. My reference to the Electron being a wave I did not expand since I thought this would be too much of a jump to my re-interpretation of the Michelson Morley experiment. This experiment told us much more than its original purpose. It underlined the fact that light/ photons ars totally dependent on adjacent Mass/Matter; the speed of light etc.
Therefore, my suggestion is that photons travel, for want of a better way of putting it, on the back of the ‘matter wave’. The substance of the Matter wave being the old concept of the Aether. A non viscous ‘fluid’ of no mass and perfectly elastic. The ‘photon’ being in effect a ripple or perturbation on an existing oscillatory field. Since the refraction of a ‘photon’ occurs due to the ‘wave’ suffering a velocity change across its front, your spacetime distortion,and Einstein’s explanation of the Gravitational ‘pull’ on matter, which has a wave function, (even if he didn’t exactly mean that) is the common denominator.
Maybe not exactly as you envisage, but hopefully in an adjacent Ball Park.
Off the cuff, I believe a research team now say that Eisenberg’s uncertainty principle does not hold good. My interpretation is that observations using, or involving, very low energy do not effect an event or particle. This makes sense if the mistake made has been to assume that the energy transferred during an observation causes deviation as per billiard-balls in classical Physics, whereas very small amounts of energy, below some ‘Quantum’ level perhaps, only cause, say, oscillatory deviations. The norm/mean not effected.
My thoughts only.
Please excuse the assumption I make re Matter Waves——I cannot yet begin to envisage the medium in which they could exist—–another Aether conundrum? However, spacetime may have a lot to answer for. :-)
Best regards, Frank.
Francis Higgins, let us back up a little.
I think it is safe to say that we both agree to disagree with contemporary physics. And at least in my case, not because contemporary physics is wrong — it cannot be because of the phenomenal number of answers it provides — but because it cannot answer some very specific question relating to gravity modification and interstellar travel.
But we don’t agree with each other. You propose ‘matter waves’ I don’t.
Best, Ben
No Sir, I accept we don’t have exactly the same views and that is why I specifically referred to us being in ‘adjacent’ ball parks. Certainly my belief is that the Mathematicians have hi-jacked the philosophical consideration of Physics. Since Einstein admitted he was poor at maths, yet has not yet been proven to be in error when explaining Gravity as a spacetime warping (refraction), my confidence in the belief that Gravity is the refraction of the particle/matter-wave has not been shaken.
We must agree to disagree until more research dictates otherwise.
Regards, Frank.
p.s. my comment re the uncertainty principle maybe I should clarify just a little. That energy may be exchanged during any observation, as per Eisenberg I can understand but, as a firmly mounted bell has several modes of oscillation without changing its physical position, I can envisage that particles etc. may superficially ‘ring’ without this causing measurement difficulties. Energy below a certain level acceptable.
Only thoughts, not cast in concrete.
Frank.
Francis Higgins, you are probably right in your opinion that “Mathematicians have hi-jacked the philosophical consideration of Physics”, but in some ways that is not their fault as mathematics is the best tool we have for investigating the Universe.
If you have developed a mathematical model of your concepts 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/