Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation [Anti-Gravity!]
PhysOrg.com ^ | 11 February 2006 | Staff

Posted on 02/11/2006 4:31:06 PM PST by 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]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cosmology; gravity; physics; podkletnov
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-223 next last
To: PatrickHenry
"why 57.7% of lightspeed?"

In fig 2, beta v/c as it appears on earth, begins to drop at his ref. distance of blk hole to test particle separation. If the particle is moving away, it gets attracted. The trick is that he's looking at things from the Earth and then claiming the field changes.

Some parpers on that site(arix) have "GR" theories that would, if they're applied to the solar system, allow all the planets to sit around as stationary objects. Like objects sitting still on a table top. One has too be careful what they pull off there.

161 posted on 02/11/2006 7:57:12 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

beta = (v/c)


162 posted on 02/11/2006 8:00:10 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

mark


163 posted on 02/11/2006 8:02:59 PM PST by eyespysomething (If I leave the apostrophe out of it's, its because I choose to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138; PatrickHenry
I thought it was 1720.

LOL !! I'd forgotten about that thread.

PH, slightly off-topic, but on your List-o-LinksTM, could you make room for unintentionally hilarious comments?

Cheers!

164 posted on 02/11/2006 8:12:40 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; js1138; PatrickHenry
could you make room for unintentionally hilarious comments?

Such artifacts are kept in a hermetically sealed vault under the GrandMaster's bed at DarwinCentral™ HeadQuarters in the Galapagos Islands.

165 posted on 02/11/2006 8:20:39 PM PST by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: All

Well, a lot can happen in 94 YEARS!


166 posted on 02/11/2006 8:24:14 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Marius3188
I hit bugs going 70mph and I can't imagine hitting a rock getting up to .57c.

Would the Felber effect repel a moose meandering across the highway?

167 posted on 02/11/2006 8:34:57 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

They are testing frame-dragging...


168 posted on 02/11/2006 9:05:33 PM PST by muffaletaman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
"Would the Felber effect repel a moose meandering across the highway?"

I think it would hang on the event horizon.

169 posted on 02/11/2006 9:07:20 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; ModelBreaker
So if you get to .57 the rest is free? How do you slow down?

Antimatter drag chute?

170 posted on 02/11/2006 9:53:27 PM PST by IonImplantGuru (Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


171 posted on 02/11/2006 10:09:09 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
" We're approaching Felber Speed, Sir ! " No, I don't like it.. I don't like it at all....

Perhaps you'd prefer "Ludicrous speed.", Lord Helmet.

172 posted on 02/11/2006 11:50:45 PM PST by prolusion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

When you are traveling at the speed of light can you see anything?


173 posted on 02/12/2006 1:14:23 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
I've read the paper (scanned it, really). It is as you said:
The relativistically exact calculation in this paper shows that a mass radially approaching or receding from a payload with a relative velocity faster than 3-1/ 2c gravitationally repels the payload, as seen by a distant inertial observer.
Fine, but so what? Why do the black hole and the approaching payload care what a distant observer sees? If the distant observer's view of things somehow controls the situation -- which I doubt -- then how could a black hole ever increase in mass?
174 posted on 02/12/2006 3:27:30 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: M203M4; PatrickHenry; Physicist
I think that he is very close to, or has has passed the limit to Bravo Sierra. His idea is based on gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM), a theory under test by NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/19apr_gravitomagnetism.html That is why they are interested.

You may read an article by Mashhoon: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511129 that as well describes the origin of the 1/sqrt(3) term. However, with other assumptions you get a critical velocity that is 1/sqrt(2).

My guess is that Felber has shown that GEM is invalid at high velocities.

Yes, I am conservative ;-)
175 posted on 02/12/2006 3:57:00 AM PST by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
" Fine, but so what?"

the field of the black hole doesn't change with the test particle. IOWs the space remains unchanged. There is no forward propagating beam that diminishes the field, even to the point of reversing it. No forward beam that reduces the curvature of space.

"Why do the black hole and the approaching payload care what a distant observer sees?"

They don't. There is no repulsive force. The test particle just sees the curvature of space due to the blk hole.

I just realized you were asking rhetorical questions directed at Felber, but I haven't had my coffee yet. :)

176 posted on 02/12/2006 4:53:49 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith

Gravitomagnetism is real. It exists with nonspinning moving masses also. Felber isn't using that though.


177 posted on 02/12/2006 5:13:29 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
There must be an error somewhere here.

If you're traveling in a spaceship at .577c, and you stand on the nose, and drop an object, it is going to fall toward the ship because of the ship's (slight) gravitational attraction. That means it will approach and collide with your ship. Otherwise, the principle of relativity would be contradicted. That principle requires that experiments work the same regardless of the speed at which you are moving.

The "distant observer" will also see the object approach and collide with your ship, although he will measure the time required for the collision to be different. Therefore, he cannot see the object as being repelled.

178 posted on 02/12/2006 5:15:45 AM PST by wotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: NicknamedBob
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 6th.

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.

You're missing the point. It is January 6th on Earth, in his frame. In his frame, time is moving more slowly on Earth. His calculation is exactly correct. He and the Earth-bound twin do not share the same axis of simultaneity; the moment when he does his calculation is simultaneous with Earth's January 6th in his frame; that same event is simultaneous with June 30th in the Earth's frame. They're both right.

If the traveller were receiving continuous timing signals from Earth--listening to WWV, for example--he would hear something from the middle of January 1st, just before he makes his turn-around. Time is passing more slowly on Earth, from his POV, but also Earth is a light-month away, from his POV, and a month ago, it was January 1st. Meanwhile, from the Earth's POV, he's been travelling near the speed of light, so of course the signal will only catch up to him very slowly; it's only barely overtaking him.

It's not just a math thing, either, but a measurable effect. There are all sorts of thought-problems involving lattices of clocks and meter sticks, where all the clocks are synchronized in the lattice's rest frame, where the traveller can instantaneously and locally measure what the time is on the clocks. The traveller can make two simultaneous (to him) measurements of clocks, one near the front of his ship, and another near the back of his ship. What the traveller notices is that, according to his measurements, the clocks are not synchronized.

179 posted on 02/12/2006 5:30:20 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: wotan
"relativity would be contradicted. That principle requires that experiments work the same regardless of the speed at which you are moving."

Right. Felbers analysis works, but he's playing tricks by telling fairy tales about the underlying reality.

See post #138. Your example results in the same analysis. The numbers are just far less in magnitude and the "effect" likewise, far less apparent.

180 posted on 02/12/2006 5:34:06 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-223 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson