A New Approach to Gravity & Space Propulsion Systems

1. A New Approach to Gravity & Space Propulsion Systems Benjamin Thomas SolomonB.Sc. (Elec. Eng), Dip. O.R., M.A.O.R., M.B.S. (Banking & Finance) QuantumRisk.com International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

2. Introduction This paper presents a portion of a new technology, Post-Newtonian Propulsion Technology (PNPT), it is hoped will revolutionize space propulsion systems. There still are gaps in the body of knowledge pertaining to this technology, and with enough funding and scientific scrutiny, this technology will present viable space propulsion systems within this decade. International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

3. Paper Overview The Trouble with Time. Time Dilation Gravity Model. Momentum Exchange Bypass Current Research Post Newtonian Propulsion Technology (PNPT) Experimental Results New Technology Options Technology Sensitivity Analysis Future Spacecraft Designs International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

4. 1. The Trouble with Time The Trouble with Time International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

5. 1. The Trouble with Time: Paradoxes [1] • Time travel can only be possible if we can prove, without unresolvable paradoxes, an effect prior to cause, for any case within the boundaries defined by the wormhole mechanics. • “Our current understanding” is the crux of the issue here. Lets explore options in an unbounded manner. [1] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “Wormholes Create Unresolvable Paradoxes”, Journal of Theoretics, August 6, 2001, Vol. 3-4, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

6. 1. The Trouble with Time: Explanations [1] • One possible explanation is that the wormhole mechanics is not correct. It might be mathematically correct but not the correct model of the universe. • If we start with the axiom that there is no past or future, only the present, then wormholes always return us to the present. We observe the past only because the fastest signals, light, takes time to travel across vast distances, but what is happening ‘now’, in that vast distance, is different from what we are observing ‘now’. [1] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “Wormholes Create Unresolvable Paradoxes”, Journal of Theoretics, August 6, 2001, Vol. 3-4, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

7. 1. The Trouble with Time: Explanations [1] • In order for any theory of time travel to be viable, we must first resolve any paradoxes or at least expose them of not being paradoxes. Only then can we develop any plausible theory of time travel. [1] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “Wormholes Create Unresolvable Paradoxes”, Journal of Theoretics, August 6, 2001, Vol. 3-4, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

8. 1. The Trouble with Time: The Universe [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

9. 1. The Trouble with Time: Conclusion [2] • Alternatives: The Expanding Universe as Surface Model provides an alternative explanation to “dark energy” [3]. • Centripetal Force: An expanding and rotating Universe would experience a centripetal force, which would fling all the galaxies apart at an ever-increasing rate. This explanation would circumvent the need to invent a “dark” energy. • Fundamentally Incorrect: Most importantly, it suggests that modern theories about spacetime that allow for time travel are fundamentally incorrect. [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 [3] Andrew Chaikin, “Dark Energy: Astronomers Still 'Clueless' About Mystery Force Pushing Galaxies Apart”, Editor, Space & Science posted: 07:00 am ET 15 January 2002,http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/cosmic_darknrg_020115-1.html International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

10. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model Time Dilation Gravity Model International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

11. Time not dilated. Time is dilated. Y Elongation of the right hemisphere of X a particle cloud. Z New center of mass of right hemisphere. Center of Original center of mass of left mass, of right hemisphere. hemisphere. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: The Mechanics [4] [4] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “An Epiphany On Gravity”, Journal of Theoretics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

12. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: The Mechanics [4] The new center of mass, SCM, is, SCM = (3/8) sxo (dxd/dxo - 1) Therefore, the center of mass of the particle probability cloud has shifted further to the right, in keeping with the direction of time dilation. [4] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “An Epiphany On Gravity”, Journal of Theoretics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

13. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: The Mechanics [4] s = (3/8) sxo . t The distanced moved by the particle is a function of the change in time dilation at that point. Note that the change in time dilation, t, is not the same as the duration taken to move. To put it another way, when time dilation is constant with respect to a particle’s frame of reference, the particle is stationary with respect to its own fame of reference. When time dilation is non-linear, the particle is displaced and therefore experiences motion with respect to its own frame of reference. [4] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “An Epiphany On Gravity”, Journal of Theoretics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

14. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: The Gravitational Effect [4] The gravitational effect can be summarized as follows, • Time dilation distorts the shape of a particle’s probability cloud in the direction of increasing time contraction. • This distortion of the particle’s probability cloud results in the shifting of the center of mass of the particle in the direction of increasing time contraction. • The net effect is that the center of mass of the particle moves in the direction of increasing time contraction. • This effect in space is called a gravitational field. [4] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “An Epiphany On Gravity”, Journal of Theoretics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

15. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Summary [2] When time dilation is zero, particle is symmetrical and spherical. Particle’s own frame of reference Time dilation field [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

16. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Summary [2] When time dilation is not zero, particle is symmetrical but ellipsoidal. Particle’s own frame of reference Time dilation field [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

17. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Summary [2] When time dilation is non-linear, particle is asymmetrical & ellipsoidal. Particle’s own frame of reference Time dilation field [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

18. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Lorentz/Escape Velocity[4] Assuming that at infinity, to = 1, reduces the equation to, vf = c √ (1 – 1/tv2) where vf is the free fall or equivalent Lorentz/time dilation velocity when time dilation is tv, assuming that this relationship holds. [4] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “An Epiphany On Gravity”, Journal of Theoretics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

19. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Lorentz/Escape Velocity[4] That is, the acceleration experienced by a falling body is governed solely by the change in time dilation in the gravitational field. [4] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “An Epiphany On Gravity”, Journal of Theoretics, December 3, 2001, Vol. 3-6, http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/ International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

20. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Lorentz Transformation Breakout [2] Zero-Point Particles: The logical extrapolation is, particles that do not exhibit a probability density volume will be impervious to gravitational effects. Lorentz Transformation Breakout: Not having probability density shape makes these particles impervious to relativistic effects. Zero Shifting: Substituting sxo = 0, particle size is zero, results in, SCM = (3/8) . 0 . (tR - tL) = 0 (no change in center of mass) [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

21. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Lorentz Transformation Breakout [2] Short Distance Breakdown: Even if (tR - tL) > 0, this hypothesis does not breakdown at very short distances approaching zero. New Approach: Yes, this hypothesis suggests an approach that can be used to breakout of the relativistic bind of Lorentz transformations. [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

22. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Conclusion [2] Virtual Field: The “Gravitational Field” is not real. It is a Virtual Field. Real Effect: The “Gravitational Effect” is real, and purely the result of the non-linearity of time dilation. Implicit Assumptions: This Time Dilation Gravity Model does not implicitly assume an UP or DOWN, for the model to work. [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

23. 2. Time Dilation Gravity Model: Conclusion [2] Narrow Scope: Any gravitational model that implicitly assumes an UP or Down is too narrow in scope to deliver future space propulsion technologies. Breakout Possibilities: It is possible to breakout of the relativistic bind of Lorentz Transformation equations. [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

24. 3. Momentum Exchange Bypass Momentum Exchange Bypass International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

25. 3. Momentum Exchange Bypass: Review [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

26. 3. Momentum Exchange Bypass: Collision Effects [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

27. 3. Momentum Exchange Bypass: Collision Effects [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

28. 3. Momentum Exchange Bypass: Virtual Collision [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

29. 3. Momentum Exchange Bypass: Virtual Collision [2] At this point, all I can say is, the direction of the time dilation, holds the key to the momentum vector. In compressing and bouncing back, the probability cloud is able to use the direction of time dilation to change the momentum vector. This behavior of the probability density shape/size in the absence of a real particle is termed Momentum Exchange Bypass. [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

30. 3. Momentum Exchange Bypass: Conclusion [2] Consistency: The Momentum Exchange Bypass presented here is based on the Time Dilation Gravity model, and is therefore, consistent with this model. Not Straightforward: If the Time Dilation Gravity hypothesis is correct, then there is a lot more to momentum exchange than straightforward transfer of kinetic energy and momentum vectors. A Process: Momentum exchange is a process. This process is able to change vectors, using apparently scalar functions, time dilation and probability density. [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

31. 3. Momentum Exchange Bypass: Conclusion [2] Intercede: Given that momentum exchange is a process, using electromagnetism, one is then able to intercede in this process to deliver virtual momentum exchange behavior, termed, Momentum Exchange Bypass. More Research: Most importantly, Momentum Exchange Bypass suggests that there is more to be done with regard to our understanding of momentum exchange. Propulsion Systems: If Momentum Exchange Bypass is real, then we are on our way to achieving true propellantless propulsion systems. [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

32. 4. Current Research Current Research International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

33. 4. Current Research: 1992, Superconducting Ceramics [5] • Shielding properties of single-phase dense bulk superconducting ceramics of YBa2Cu3O7-x against the gravitational force were studied at temperatures below 77 K. • A small non-conducting and non-magnetic sample weighing 5.48 g was placed over a levitating superconducting disk and the loss of weight was measured with high precision using an electro-optical balance system. [5] E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, “A possibility of gravitational force shielding by bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x superconductor”, Physica C 2O3 (1992) 441-444, http://www.gravity-society.org/phc.txt International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

34. 4. Current Research: 1992, Superconducting Ceramics [5] • The sample was found to lose from 0.05 to 0.3% of its weight, depending on the rotation speed of the superconducting disk. • Partial loss of weight might be the result of a certain state of energy which exists inside the crystal structure of the superconductor at low temperatures. • The unusual state of energy might have changed a regular interaction between electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational forces inside a solid body and is responsible for the gravity shielding effect. [5] E. Podkletnov and R. Nieminen, “A possibility of gravitational force shielding by bulk YBa2Cu3O7-x superconductor”, Physica C 2O3 (1992) 441-444, http://www.gravity-society.org/phc.txt International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

35. 4. Current Research: 1995, Hooper’s Self-Canceling Coils [6] • Experiments were conducted to test assertions from Patent 3,610,971, by W.J. Hooper that self-canceling electromagnetic coils can reduce the weight of objects placed underneath. • No weight changes were observed within the detectability of the instrumentation. • More careful examination of the patent and other reports from Hooper led to the conclusion that Hooper may have misinterpreted thermal effects as his 'Motional Field' effects. • There is a possibility that the claimed effects are below the detection thresholds of the instrumentation used for these tests. [6] NASA. Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH.  MILLIS, MARC G. WILLIAMSON, GARY SCOTT  JUN. 1995 12 PAGES, 31st Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, San Diego CA, 10-12 Jul. 1995; sponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE NASA-TM-106963 E-9719 NAS 1.15:106963  AIAA PAPER 95-2601  Avail: CASI HC A03/MF A01 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

36. 4. Current Research: 1998, Superconducting Disks [7] • We report experiments on RF-illuminated (1-15 MHz) superconducting disks with corresponding gravity readings indicating an apparent increase in observed gravity of approximately 3-5x10^-5 cm/s^2, above and to the side of the superconductor. • The observed gravitational modification range is significantly lower than the 2.1% gravity modification reported by Podkletnov. [7] David Noever & Ron Koczor, "Radio-frequency illuminated superconductive disks: Reverse Josephson effects and implications for precise measuring of proposed gravity effects." Mail Code: ES76 Space Sciences Lab, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, Abstract for NASA JPL-Ninth Advanced Space Propulsion Research Workshop and Conference, Pasadena, CA March 11-13, 1998 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

37. 4. Current Research: 1998, Rotating Magnetic Fields [8] • This configuration was applied with and without a permanent DC magnetic field levitating the superconducting disk, with corresponding gravity readings indicating an apparent increase in observed gravity of less than 1x10^-6 cm/s^2, measured above the superconductor. [8] David Noever, Ron Koczor, and Rick Roberson*, "Superconductor-mediated modification of gravity? AC motor experiments with bulk YBCO disks in rotating magnetic fields." NASA MSFC ES76, Space Sciences Lab, Huntsville, AL 35812, 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cleveland Convention Center, Cleveland, OH July 12-15, 1998, Special Session of Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (Session 6-APC-1), AIAA-98-3139 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

38. 4. Current Research: 2001, Gravity Shielding- NASA [9] • The general conclusion is that the results of these tests gave a null result. • Further, it is concluded that the balance is sensitive to mass changes at room temperature and down to approximately –175C . . . T. Robertson, “Exploration of Anomalous Gravity Effects by rf-Pumped Magnetized High-T Superconducting Oxides”, AIAA-2001-3364, NASA Marshall, Huntsville, AL http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/pdf/Robertson-JPC.PDF International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

39. 4. Current Research: Conclusion Nobody’s got it. “. . . But no one has succeeded in duplicating Podkletov’s results. . . NASA decided to spend $600,000 to prove or disprove the theory once and for all” [10] [10] Frank Vizard, “Grappling with Gravity, Out of the Box or Totally Out of Bounds?”, Popular Science, June 2002, Page 36 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

40. 5. PNPT Experiments PNPT Experiments International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

41. Device A1, aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field Device A1, aligned perpendicularly to the Earth’s magnetic field Earth’s magnetic field Earth’s magnetic field Motion predicted by conceptual framework Motion predicted by conceptual framework 5. PNPT Experiments: First Generation Experiments [11] [11] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “Post-Newtonian Propulsion Technology”, International Space Development Conference 2001, May 24-28, Albuquerque, NM International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

42. Device A1, aligned with the Earth’s magnetic field Device A1, aligned perpendicularly to the Earth’s magnetic field Earth’s magnetic field Earth’s magnetic field Motion predicted by conceptual framework Motion predicted by conceptual framework 5. PNPT Experiments: Second Generation Experiments (2GE) [11] [11] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “Post-Newtonian Propulsion Technology”, International Space Development Conference 2001, May 24-28, Albuquerque, NM International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

43. 5. PNPT Experiments: 2GE Weight Loss [11] [11] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “Post-Newtonian Propulsion Technology”, International Space Development Conference 2001, May 24-28, Albuquerque, NM International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

44. 5. PNPT Experiments: 2GE Superconductivity (Once) [11] [11] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “Post-Newtonian Propulsion Technology”, International Space Development Conference 2001, May 24-28, Albuquerque, NM International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

45. 5. PNPT Experiments: Experimental Summary as at April 2001 [11] [11] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, “Post-Newtonian Propulsion Technology”, International Space Development Conference 2001, May 24-28, Albuquerque, NM International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

46. 5. PNPT Experiments: 2GE Device type ‘B’ [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

47. 5. PNPT Experiments: 2GE Device ‘B2’, Electrical Characteristics [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

48. 5. PNPT Experiments: 2GE Device ‘B2’, Weight Loss [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

49. 5. PNPT Experiments: 2GE Device type ‘J’ [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California

50. 5. PNPT Experiments: 2GE Device ‘J1’, Electrical Characteristics [2] [2] Benjamin Thomas Solomon, The New Approach, ISBN 0-9720116-2-5, March 2003 International Space Development Conference 2003, San Jose, California