Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation [Anti-Gravity!]

PhysOrg.com ^ | 11 February 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, noted physicist Dr. Franklin Felber will present his new exact solution of Einstein's 90-year-old gravitational field equation to the Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF) in Albuquerque. The solution is the first that accounts for masses moving near the speed of light.

New antigravity solution will enable space travel near speed of light by the end of this century, he predicts.

Felber's antigravity discovery solves the two greatest engineering challenges to space travel near the speed of light: identifying an energy source capable of producing the acceleration; and limiting stresses on humans and equipment during rapid acceleration.

"Dr. Felber's research will revolutionize space flight mechanics by offering an entirely new way to send spacecraft into flight," said Dr. Eric Davis, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin and STAIF peer reviewer of Felber's work. "His rigorously tested and truly unique thinking has taken us a huge step forward in making near-speed-of-light space travel safe, possible, and much less costly."

The field equation of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has never before been solved to calculate the gravitational field of a mass moving close to the speed of light. Felber's research shows that any mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it. The closer a mass gets to the speed of light, the stronger its 'antigravity beam' becomes.

Felber's calculations show how to use the repulsion of a body speeding through space to provide the enormous energy needed to accelerate massive payloads quickly with negligible stress. The new solution of Einstein's field equation shows that the payload would 'fall weightlessly' in an antigravity beam even as it was accelerated close to the speed of light.

Accelerating a 1-ton payload to 90 percent of the speed of light requires an energy of at least 30 billion tons of TNT. In the 'antigravity beam' of a speeding star, a payload would draw its energy from the antigravity force of the much more massive star. In effect, the payload would be hitching a ride on a star.

"Based on this research, I expect a mission to accelerate a massive payload to a 'good fraction of light speed' will be launched before the end of this century," said Dr. Felber. "These antigravity solutions of Einstein's theory can change our view of our ability to travel to the far reaches of our universe."

More immediately, Felber's new solution can be used to test Einstein's theory of gravity at low cost in a storage-ring laboratory facility by detecting antigravity in the unexplored regime of near-speed-of-light velocities.

During his 30-year career, Dr. Felber has led physics research and development programs for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Department of Energy and Department of Transportation, the National Institute of Justice, National Institutes of Health, and national laboratories. Dr. Felber is Vice President and Co-founder of Starmark.

Source: Starmark [Felber's own firm, apparently]

[spunkets]

Yes it is. I looked at his paper.

[PatrickHenry]

Then this is nothing new. And why 57.7% of lightspeed?

[bobdsmith]

ah I see now, although it is a bit strange

[Physicist]

I understood that better before I read your explanation.

OK, try this. Suppose the ship can accelerate very quickly, and travel so close to the speed of light, that time is dilated by a factor of 6, so that on a 1-year journey (Earth time), only two months elapse on the ship.

The ship goes out on January 1st. The pilot waits until a month elapses, and calculates what the time is on Earth. Only five days have passed; it's January 6th.

Then he slams on the brakes, turns it around, and heads for home, quickly ramping back up to cruising speed. In another month, he'll be back on Earth. He again calculates what the time is on Earth. It's December 26th; only five more days will pass on Earth until he gets there. Happy Boxing Day.

[muir_redwoods]

Okay, so I only live to be 500 years old, how do I slow the ship down? I guess I could smack into a comet or some other debris, that would slow me down.

[DB]

It is 1 over the square root of 3 (negative exponent).

[bobdsmith]

To an observer on Earth, the clocks on the ship slow down and the mass of the ship goes huge

Does that mean the force of gravity the ship exerts on the Earth increases?

[PatrickHenry]

So it is. Thanks.

[spunkets]

"And why 57.7% of lightspeed?"

See fig 2 in the paper on post #74. His reference frame is Earth and he's looking at black hole test particle dynamical situation. Then he attributes the action to the gravitational field intensity.

the paper on post #74

[muawiyah]

May be an infinite number of solutions, but most of the solutions don't work. Something about there being other dimensions and such.

This is why winemaking is such arduous work, to say nothing of making good beer out of rice!

[spunkets]

" Does that mean the force of gravity the ship exerts on the Earth increases?"

The ship is off near a black hole. The field between the blk hole and the ship don't change. It only looks like it from Earth.

[Coyoteman]

[Oh, how I wish I had stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night!]

[grey_whiskers]

Supposedly it can be resolved by going to General (not Special) Relativity.

The correct solution to the twins "paradox" has been known all along. It's only ever been a source of mystery to those who don't know the math.

Please correct me if I'm wrong -- I was under the impression that Special Relativity only held for systems moving at constant velocity...

So if one of the twins accelerates away from the other, then SR doesn't formally apply?

Again please correct me if I am wrong; any reputable links would be appreciated.

Any relativity I studied goes back to Calvin and Hobbes:

Cheers!

[Paved Paradise]

Could you translate in plain English for us unscientific ones? Does this mean if we can travel this fast that we could "beam up" so to speak? or does it have more to do with the aging process (e.g. the traveler could be gone for 10 years and come back but it's only been like one day). I might be getting some of this stuff confused but I've always been intrigued by time travel, energy and mass, and dimensions and some of that stuff that I know has no hold over God.

[Paved Paradise]

too funny.

[bobdsmith]

or the square root of a third

[O Neill]

What Felber is suggesting in his paper, IMHO, is that instead of 'thrust' propulsion (as we presently use it to 'blast off' or through space) we might be able to accelerate a massive payload through space by trailing behind a high-speed particle moving near c, essentially being sucked through space at ever-increasing velocities (without gravitational stress to the massive payload) by the leading particle's anti-gravitational field seen to exist by Felber's exact calculation of the Swartzchild solution to Einstein's equation at speeds greater than 57.7% of c.

Still, as General Yeager said, "Spam in a can..."

[NicknamedBob]

"Does that mean the force of gravity the ship exerts on the Earth increases?"

Yes. The energy that went into its acceleration has increased its mass, and that mass has a multiplied effect on Earth. However, it is very, very distant. We wouldn't notice. (Unless he actually reaches c, and then he would have infinite mass. We'd notice that.)

[js1138]

I thought it was 1⁷²⁰.

[NicknamedBob]

Here's where you lose me -- "The pilot waits until a month elapses, and calculates what the time is on Earth. Only five days have passed; it's January 6th."

Why doesn't he "calculate" that six months have gone by? True that he has no way to measure it, but he should know that it is not January 6^th.

If he can still receive signals from Earrth, they would tell him it is the middle of the year, minus the travel time of the signals he is receiving.