Peter Dunn

Hi Star-struck To take your last question first - magnetism does, I believe, behave in the same manner in space as it does down here so a variable polarity pulse system would work well enough for, say, voyages to Mars etc even though it would not produce the brute power of a rocket motor. I very much like the electromagnetic catapult concept; this would be ideal for achieving initial escape velocity (6.94 mps) the one drawback being a craft launched by this system, if it was planned that it land on another planet, would have to be capable of carrying a prefabricated electromag' launcher in the hold. Thanks for the info on neodymium I'll consult Encarta to learn more. All the very best Peter Dunn

Hi Star-struck Thanks for the input. I looked up neodymium in the dictionary (as it was new to me) which described it as a toxic metallic element - has it any properties that make it more suitable than iron (ie does a dymium atom have more electrons than an iron atom?)? If so please advise. As to the adviseability of using EMP waves to power the magnets I'm not so sure. Part of the reason for my proposal was to remove the dangerous explosive reaction used at present to power rockets. Also, I must confess, I am anti nuclear power as I believe it be a kind of 'jam today" solution to energy needs; it seems cheap to generate at the moment but the real cost is just being passed down to future generations. Reading your post did, however, make me appreciate the fact that the initial stage of a spacecraft's journey: liftoff - requires enormous amounts of energy regardless of the propulsion method employed. I then realised, though, that; unlike a rockect that must carry all its stored energy (fuel) inboard - a system using electromagnet energy could have some of its energy requirement supplied from a ground station with, say, a powerful laser beam focussed on super efficient photo-electric cells attached to the craft. Another, even simpler method, would be to have the craft trailing a cable behind it - like a TOW missile - that would be released when the craft cleared the atmosphere. Once in the weightless environment of space the craft's energy requirements fall dramatically as constant aceleration means that the thousands of shoves a second generated by the magnets would allow it to attain awesome velocities. I think having one of the magnets rotate might have some mileage in it (see attachment) as this might preclude having to develope a variable polarity magnet. Thanks again Peter Dunn

Hi Sayonara The all seeing one - would that equate with all knowing? If so answer me this: how is it possible for me to patronise (act condescendingly toward) someone whom I do not know? Yours Peter Dunn

Hi Sayonara I did read Stevil's post but couldn't fathom where he was going with the diagram. Also - I accept that my idea couldn't be transformed into a fully functioning system as it stands (I don't even know if there is such a think as an electromagnet with switchable polarity). This is the reason I posted the message here instead of taking out a patent, making millions and retiring to a remote tropical paradise. Further - may I, with all respect, suggest to you that the best way to improve the performance of an electric motor would be to introduce superconducting technology into the equation. Furthermore, I feel I have to say this, what's with this confrontational approach? I didn't subscribe to this forum to start arguments over the aether. Let me repeat - I would be grateful for any constructive input even if that input is technologically difficult (or, for that matter, impossible) for me to understand. Respectfully yours Peter Dunn

Hi Kettle Thanks for the info. Will visit site. Hi Sayonara Electric motors produce rotary mechanical energy not thrust. All the best Peter Dunn

Manned spaceflight is an extremely dangerous undertaking for those involved at the sharp end: the actual crew members, whose continued commitment and bravery, despite the tragic losses incurred by the shuttle program, is an inspiration to us all. They are - both astronauts and cosmonauts - giants amongst men. I salute them all. There is a risk attached to all aspects of a manned space mission: from lift off - when the crew is propelled upward by a barely controlled explosive chemical reaction - during the actual spaceflight where the crew are exposed to hard radiation and the possibility of a catastrophic encounter with a piece of debris left over from previous missions - to re-entry where even a slight miscalculation could spell disaster. The system that I am proposing should, if developed, provide a much safer and cheaper method for placing people in orbit and beyond. To avoid disappointing anybody I will state, here, that the system I am proposing does not amount to a warp drive; that kind of technology is still some way off in the future. My system would exploit phenomena with which we are all familiar: magnetic attraction and repulsion. It would work like this: The basic components of an electromagnetic propulsive engine would be, no prizes for guessing, electromagnets. The system, in its most basic configuration, would require two magnets of exactly equal mass with at least one of the magnets being capable of phased switchable polarity. Lets place the magnets one atop the other with the variable polarity magnet uppermost. At the moment they are switched off: the rest position. When they are switched on the magnets are in repulsive mode (like pole to like pole) so the upper magnet (let's call it M1) moves upwardly, at speed, away from the lower magnet (likewise M2). Because M1 is moving its momentum increases the amount of inertial mass it possesses: it is now heavier than M2. Before this extra mass is lost to deceleration the polarity of M1 is switched so that attractive force is generated and, because M1 is the heavier of the two magnets, M2 is pulled upward toward it. We now have a situation where M2's mass is increasing and M1's is falling. When M1's mass falls significantly below that of M2's we switch its polarity again so that M1 is propelled upward away from the heavier M2. This process is repeated, say, one thousand times a second producing enough kinetic energy to propel a spacecraft. This not a complete description of how such a system would actually operate in practice. There is, for instance, the problem of how to transmit the kinetic energy from within the system to any craft utilising it. This could, perhaps, be acheived by having the magnets (or arrays of magnets) themselves suspended within a powerful magnetic field so that they first push against the field which - in turn - pushes against the coil generating the field which is, itself, bolted to the hull of a spacecraft. This is really just the genesis of an idea; what it needs to take it further - to hopefully make it reality - is loads of input from you lot out there. Futher posts required; all constructive comments and suggestions welcomed. Peter Dunn

The geometric term for a doughnut shape is a torus (plural tori) which comes from ancient Greek (the bottom or plinth of the columns supporting the upper structure of the Parthenon [the Doric building on top of the Acropolis] are this shape). Doughnut, or toric (probably not in the dictionary), shapes are common and occur at every level of scale from the sub-atomic to the super-macrosmic levels. Quantum particles, as revealed by the tunneling electron microscope, are (what I term) circular closed waveforms (doughnuts). The magnetic field around a humble bar magnet is, essentially, toric shaped. This is repeated at higher levels of scale: the magnetospheres of planets and stars; with their characteristic dimples at the poles, are, quite obviously, inversionally (another word you will not find in the dictionary) rotating tori. At the highest level yet seen the plumes of gas and plasma spewing out from the magnetic poles of jet galaxies give stark evidence of monstrously accelerated magnetospheres that seem to conform to this basic cosmic paradigm (a kind of auora borealis/australis in reverse). So, in fractal fashion - where the iterated part reflects the shape of the whole - I think it can safely be inferred that the ultimate shape of the Universe is similar to that of a doughnut. Homer Simpson eat all our hearts out. Thank you and good night.

Hi Dave I completely agree with your opinion of governmental priorities. Recent history (I'm thinking of communism's demise) has, however, shown us that pressure exerted from the bottom up (people power) can work wonders. What is needed, then, is to get people - millions of people - to place the doomsday scenario higher up on their own personal agendas. We have the tool to desseminate this message (if you're reading this you're looking at it) so lets get spamming. I would suggest a chain letter style of approach - simply type out an e-mail voicing your concerns about the powers-that-be's lack of concerted action to prepare for the coming catastrophe and respectfully suggest that the addressee re-e-mail the message to at least two other people. Once started this process could, eventually, reach millions of people and a lot of those people will take the message to heart and take it further, maybe out onto the street or, perhaps, into the corridors of power. Let's spam the World to save it! All the best Peter Dunn

I once saw a map (I forget where) illustrating the damage that would have occured if the meteorite that exploded over Tunguska in Russia early in the last century had fell on London: it was comparable to the destruction wrought by a thermonuclear warhead upon detonation - millions of people would have died. We were extremely lucky that it landed in such a remote area. We were also extremely lucky late in the last century when Jupiter sucked in: and absorbed the staggering multiple impacts of, comet Shoemaker-Levy. How long can our luck last? The only uncertainties about these cataclysmic events is not if they'll occur but when and how are we deal going to with them. The whole of humankind has a cold, implacable enemy out there in the void and whilst we squabble and bicker over trivialities he draws ever nearer.

Firstly Gravitons have never been detected: they are still only a postulated particle; whereas neutrinos have (and they do possess mass) even though they are very weakly interactive and zoom through planetary masses without slowing down. Secondly If gravitons are massless and carry no charge they couldn't interact with anything. Thirdly For the present model to work it must be accepted that: 1) There is just the right amount of matter in the universe exerting just the right amount of gravitational force for it to exist at all (critical density). Juxtaposed with 2) 96% of this matter is missing, dark (whatever) and although we cannot experience this missing material directly it must still contribute to the sum total of, say, a galaxy's mass. 3) Over long, as yet unspecified, distances gravity either ceases to be an attractive force and becomes repulsive or is counteracted by some other force (dark energy). Fourthly Gravitons are thought to be particles: not massless photons, which renders them incapable of travelling around at light speed. To finish: everybody is aware that there is some pretty radical revision required to bring gravitational theory in line with the empirical evidence so I would strongly recommend, to all concerned, do not write anything out of the equation; get constructive not deconstructive.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the current model we have of gravitation needs serious revision. So much so that a newer version: one that can accomodate critical density, dark energy and matter and the integration of forces at the macrocosmic and quantum levels of scale, might be unrecognisable to the original version's progenitors: Newton and Einstein. What I am going to attempt here is to disprove two of the fundamental tenets of the current model: the first being - gravity is generated by mass; and the second - gravitational effects are transmitted via the graviton. If gravity were simply generated by mass certain solar phenomena, ie the solar wind and coronal mass ejections, would not occur. This is why. The escape velocity required for an object (spacecraft - whatever) to break free of the Earth's gravitational embrace is 6.94 miles per second. Now the Sun's mass has been calculated at 333,400 times that of the Earth's so to calculate the corresponding escape velocity for the Sun we can simply multiply 6.94 by 333,400 which gives a speed of two million, three hundred and thirteen thousand, seven hunderd and ninetysix miles per second or, to put it another way, an impossible to achieve velocity that is a shade under twelve and a half times the speed of light. Material (in the form of the solar wind: calculated at 400mps, and coronal mass ejections: calculated at 600mps) is, however, streaming outward from the Sun all the time. Some might argue that this material does not really escape the Sun's gravity as it forms the heliosphere but, come on, a gravitational field of such intensity would not allow material to be thrown out beyond Mercury's orbit let alone Pluto's. I would like, now, to turn to the proposed bearer of gravitational force: the graviton - the discovery of which is crucial to the future viability of both gravitational and particle theory (the standard model). If it were proven that the graviton does not, or - indeed - could not, exist then the entire house of cards comes tumbling down. There are, at this moment in time, attempts being made to trap gravitons in huge water tanks situated down mineshafts deep underground. So far this method has not produced any results. Why is this? Surely for the graviton to achieve all that it does: bringing forth order and structure out of chaos and holding celestials bodies firmly within their orbits, it would have to be one of the most numerous entities in the Universe and possess more than a modicum of mass (how else could it carry an effect?). Wouldn't this mean that we should be, quite literally, tripping over them at every turn; not finding them impossible to detect? Then there is the question of their behaviour. Is it proposed that gravitons remain in situ somewhere and project their power across the intervening astronomical distances between bodies? If so where are they? Are they bound up within mass; within the structure of the atom? If it is thought that they are actually emitted by one celestial body to zoom across space and impact on, and somehow attach themselves to, another body and then attempt to drag their target back from whence they came then another question needs to be answered: wouldn't this imply that gravitons must either possess some form of memory ie they remember where they came from or carry a signature that makes them unique to their point of origin? Then there is the problem of their mass (it must be suspected that gravitons possess mass otherwise why employ water tanks to trap them?). Any massive body emitting gravitons must, in accordance with the conservation law, give up some of its mass in the process; this would mean that, over time, celestial bodies would evaporate and that, over the eons, the Universe would ultimately become populated by one species of entity: the graviton. Lastly there is the sad, for the graviton, fact that the speed of gravitational effect propagation has been successfully calculated and found to be, as Einstein suspected, the same as the speed of light which would make it impossible for such propagation to be achieved via a material particle. All that can safely be said about gravity is that its effects can only be observed in the presence of mass. As for the graviton, well, I am forced to the conclusion that any money spent trying to isolate this fictional particle is money wasted. If there is, out there, any open minded, bona fide physicists, cosmologists (including advanced students) etc that would like to learn more about my version of quantum reality please feel free to e-mail me. Peter Dunn

This is an extract (actually a footnote) from a complete exposition of quantum reality and the forces that both create and shape it. 'Time is simply change - evolution brought about by the movement imparted to all things by oppositional forces. Time slows down when approaching light speed because it is incremental or quantised with successive events equating with a succession of single quantum states so an observer travelling at, or near, light speed is actually catching up with the rate of change (a cinematographer slows down the action by increasing the film speed in much the same fashion).' I will not attempt to fully explain what I mean by oppositional forces (my theory of gravitation) here as there isn't the room. Suffice it to say that everything that exists moves - ie possesses angular and orbital angular momentum; this is true at all levels of scale from the macrocosmic down to the microcosmic levels of scale. At the quantum level particles (what I define as oscilatory state closed waveforms) vibrate: this is also a form of movement. The question we need to ask ourselves is this, "Is it simply the case that everything that exists moves or is it the case that everything that exists does so because everything moves?'