It didn't start with research, per se. In fact, it started at the end in some ways. I spotted what looked to me like the base set of mechanisms, the fundamental physical interactions that could, if only the right lever could be found to set them in motion, modify a gravitational field.
It was an interesting mental exercise; having the end in view and lacking only the means to get there. But, the more I looked at it, the more convinced I became that it was real. Part of the reason for that is its simplicity. Once armed with the requisite knowledge to understand the topic, to understand the terms in which the solution is expressed, the approach becomes simplicity itself.
In my years of somewhat passively studying physics, if there's a single defining characteristic of the natural universe that has astounded me most, it's the elegance of it. Mass-energy equivalence, for example, doesn't require volumes to express; it's E=mc2. An awful lot is implied within that simple string of characters. If you happen to possess the knowledge to understand the depths of it, it becomes as spellbinding to behold as a sunset. Even something as simple as calculating the volume of a sphere, shares some underlying commonality with the natural languages of physics that somehow, speaks of its shared heritage, its shared genes with the other pure constructs of reality: V=4/3πr3. Yes, that looks- right. There is a conciseness, a brevity, a balance to it. It is a declaration unencumbered with complexities and exceptions, expressed in the purest dialect of the physical language.
There seems to be an inevitability to the notion of gravity modification. Given how effectively other systems of nature can be exercised, such as electromagnetics, chemical interactions, thermodynamics, sound, and so on; gravitation can seem an odd holdout. Why can’t we control gravity like we can electricity? Looking into gravitation and understanding its nature in terms of General Relativity brings quick clarity to the question, and reveals the enormity of the problem.
In my years of somewhat passively studying physics, if there's a single defining characteristic of the natural universe that has astounded me most, it's the elegance of it. Mass-energy equivalence, for example, doesn't require volumes to express; it's E=mc2. An awful lot is implied within that simple string of characters. If you happen to possess the knowledge to understand the depths of it, it becomes as spellbinding to behold as a sunset. Even something as simple as calculating the volume of a sphere, shares some underlying commonality with the natural languages of physics that somehow, speaks of its shared heritage, its shared genes with the other pure constructs of reality: V=4/3πr3. Yes, that looks- right. There is a conciseness, a brevity, a balance to it. It is a declaration unencumbered with complexities and exceptions, expressed in the purest dialect of the physical language.
There seems to be an inevitability to the notion of gravity modification. Given how effectively other systems of nature can be exercised, such as electromagnetics, chemical interactions, thermodynamics, sound, and so on; gravitation can seem an odd holdout. Why can’t we control gravity like we can electricity? Looking into gravitation and understanding its nature in terms of General Relativity brings quick clarity to the question, and reveals the enormity of the problem.
Yet, gravity occurs anywhere there is mass. I'll overlook Dark Matter for now. It is present in the internal furnaces of the sun, and in a cup of water sitting on a dining room table. Because of this, I have been led from the start to refuse to believe that gravity modification should require exotic conditions and weird one-off fiddling with matter.
In my years as a software and systems architect, I began to spot within the design of systems the tell-tale signs of symmetry and elegance that spoke of good bones. If a developer had to resort to complex, obscure operations within a database transaction, for example, I would begin wondering what in his design had led to the need for such an exception. The answer was not a usually; it was an always. There was always an unnecessary complexity that drove the developer to the extraordinary circumstances that required the use of obscure solutions. Let's rethink this, I would say.
My belief is that gravitational modification is straightforward in principle. I can't construct the lever, but I know what it looks like, and where it goes. I have written a paper on the subject. I'll get it out soon.
More to come.
In my years as a software and systems architect, I began to spot within the design of systems the tell-tale signs of symmetry and elegance that spoke of good bones. If a developer had to resort to complex, obscure operations within a database transaction, for example, I would begin wondering what in his design had led to the need for such an exception. The answer was not a usually; it was an always. There was always an unnecessary complexity that drove the developer to the extraordinary circumstances that required the use of obscure solutions. Let's rethink this, I would say.
My belief is that gravitational modification is straightforward in principle. I can't construct the lever, but I know what it looks like, and where it goes. I have written a paper on the subject. I'll get it out soon.
More to come.
