Congratulations Skydiver Felix Baumgartner, on the success of your 24 mile skydive. You proved that it is possible to bail out of a space ship and land on Earth safely.
The records are nice to have but the engineering was superb!
Category: physics – Page 355
To achieve interstellar travel, the Kline Directive instructs us to be bold, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not. To extend the boundaries of our knowledge, to advocate new methods, techniques and research, to sponsor change not status quo, on 5 fronts:
1. Legal Standing. 2. Safety Awareness. 3. Economic Viability. 4. Theoretical-Empirical Relationship. 5. Technological Feasibility.
In this post I will explore Safety Awareness.
In the heady rush to propose academically acceptable ideas about new propulsions systems or star drives it is very easy to overlook safety considerations. The eminent cosmologist Carl Sagan said it best “So the problem is not to shield the payload, the problem is to shield the earth” (Planet. Space Sci., pp. 485 – 498, 1963)
It is perfectly acceptable if not warranted to propose these technologically infeasible star drives based on antimatter and exotic matter, as academic exercises because we need to understand what is possible and why. However, we need to inform the public of the safety issues when doing so.
I do not understand how any physicist or propulsion engineer, in his/her right mind, not qualify their academic exercise in antimatter propulsion or star drive with a statement similar to Carl Saga’s. At the very least it gets someone else thinking about those safety problems, and we can arrive at a solution sooner, if one exists.
We note that the distinguished Carl Sagan did not shy away from safety issues. He was mindful of the consequences and is an example of someone pushing the limits of safety awareness in the spirit of the Kline Directive, to explore issues which others would (could?) not.
We have to ask ourselves, how did we regress? From Sagan’s let us consider all ancillary issues, to our current let us ignore all ancillary issues. The inference I am forced to come to is that Carl Sagan was a one-man team, while the rest of us lesser beings need to come together as multi-person teams to stay on track, to achieve interstellar travel.
In interstellar & interplanetary space there are two parts to safety, radiation shielding and projectile shielding. Radiation shielding is about shielding from x-ray and gamma rays. Projectile shielding is about protection from physical damage caused by small particle collisions.
I may be wrong but I haven’t come across anyone even attempting to address either problems. I’ve heard of strategies such as using very strong electric fields or even of using millions of tons of metal shielding but these are not realistic. I’ve even heard of the need to address these issues but nothing more.
Safety is a big issue that has not been addressed. So how are we going to solve this? What do we need to explore that others have not? What do we need to seek that others would not? What do we need to change, that others dare not?
Previous post in the Kline Directive series.
Next post in the Kline Directive series.
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.
To achieve interstellar travel, the Kline Directive instructs us to be bold, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not. To extend the boundaries of our knowledge, to advocate new methods, techniques and research, to sponsor change not status quo, on 5 fronts:
1. Legal Standing. 2. Safety Awareness. 3. Economic Viability. 4. Theoretical-Empirical Relationship. 5. Technological Feasibility.
In this post I will explore Legal Standing.
With respect to space exploration, the first person I know of who pushed the limits of the law is Mr. Gregory W. Nemitz of The Eros Project. He started this project in March 2000. As a US taxpayer, Nemitz made the claim that he is the Owner of Asteroid 433, Eros, and published his claim about 11 months prior to NASA landing its “NEAR Shoemaker” spacecraft on this asteroid.
Within a few days of the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft landing on his property, Nemitz sent an invoice for twenty dollars to NASA, for parking and storage fees at twenty cents per year, payable in one century installments.
Citing faulty interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, NASA refused to pay the fees required by Nemitz. This issue then proceeded to court. Unfortunately, on April 26, 2004 U.S. District Court Judge Howard McKibben Ordered the case to be dismissed.
The moral of this real story is that you don’t have to be a high flying physicist, planetary geologist, astrobiologist or propulsion engineer to advocate &/or sponsor interstellar travel initiatives. You could even be a retired coastguard, and miraculous things might happen.
Congratulations Gregory Nemitz for trying something nobody else dared to do in the spirit of the Kline Directive.
Planetary Resources, Inc. whose founders are Eric Anderson and Peter H. Diamandis could possibly provide the second challenge to space law. How? The “treaty also states that the exploration of outer space shall be done to benefit all countries” … you see where I’m going with asteroid mining?
I’m not an attorney, but these are things we need to watch for. In the light of Planetary Resources objectives and activities Nemitz’s parking fee case poses some dilemmas. First, if the US Government will not stand up for its citizens or entities, what is to stop other governments from imposing taxes for mining what is “to benefit all countries”?
Unfriendly governments will be quick to realize that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by pursuing such claims in international courts, and through UN organizations.
Second, the judicial system could not intervene because, were it to agree, then everyone would have a claim to outer space property without investing in their claim. That would be like saying John Doe, during the gold rush of the 1840s & 1850s, could claim half of California but had no intention to exercise his mining rights.
Everything hinges on what one could consider an ‘investing’. The Homestead Acts of 1862 to 1909 would be a useful analog. These Acts gave an applicant ownership at no cost of farmland called a “homestead” to anyone who had never taken up arms against the U.S. government, had to be 21 or older or the head of a family, live on the land for five years, and show evidence of having made improvements.
So what would an interplanetary equivalent be? You, the reader could propose your version. Here is a first pass at it. There are two parts:
1. Asteroids: An applicant may claim ownership to an asteroid, provided the claimant had never taken up arms against the U.S. government, and can exercise the claim by placing a token of claimant’s ownership on the claimed asteroid within 1,000 Earth days or equivalent, of submitting the claim. Upon placing the token on the asteroid, the claimant is then given 2,000 Earth days or equivalent, to show evidence of having developed the commercial value of the asteroid.
Failure to comply will cause the claim to be null & void and return the asteroid to the public for future applicants to claim the property.
2. Planetary Resources: An applicant may claim ownership of up to 25 km2 of planetary surface, and the mineral & water rights within the area, provided the claimant had never taken up arms against the U.S. government, and can exercise the claim by placing a token of claimant’s ownership on the claimed planetary surface within 1,000 Earth days or equivalent, of submitting the claim. Upon placing the token on the planetary surface, the claimant is then given 2,000 Earth days or equivalent, to show evidence of having developed the commercial value of this planetary surface.
Failure to comply will cause the claim to be null & void and return the planetary surface to the public for future applicants to claim the property.
In the case of gaseous planets like Jupiter, the claim shall be limited to 25 km3 at specified altitudes, longitudes, and latitutes.
Planetary Resources, Inc. I wish you the best.
Previous post in the Kline Directive series.
Next post in the Kline Directive series.
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.
The Kline Directive: Introduction
Posted in business, complex systems, defense, economics, engineering, ethics, finance, philosophy, physics, policy, space
Science and engineering are hard to do. If it wasn’t we would have a space bridge from here to the Moon by now. If you don’t have the real world practical experience doing either science or engineering you won’t understand this, or the effort and resources companies like Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, Orbital Sciences Corp, Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, and the Ad Astra Rocket Company have put into their innovations and products to get to where they are, today.
If we are to achieve interstellar travel, we have to be bold.
We have to explore what others have not.
We have to seek what others will not.
We have to change what others dare not.
The dictionary definition of a directive is, an instruction or order, tending to direct or directing, and indicating direction.
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, US Department of Defense 2005, provides three similar meanings,
1. A military communication in which policy is established or a specific action is ordered.
2. A plan issued with a view to putting it into effect when so directed, or in the event that a stated contingency arises.
3. Broadly speaking, any communication which initiates or governs action, conduct, or procedure.
In honor of the late Prof. Morris Kline who authored Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, I have named what we need to do to ensure the success of our endeavors for interstellar space travel, as the Kline Directive.
His book could be summarized into a single statement, that mathematics has become so sophisticated and so very successful that it can now be used to prove anything and everything, and therefore, the loss of certainty that mathematics will provide reasonability in guidance and correctness in answers to our questions in the sciences.
To achieve interstellar travel, the Kline Directive instructs us to be bold, to explore what others have not, to seek what others will not, to change what others dare not.
To extend the boundaries of our knowledge, to advocate new methods, techniques and research, to sponsor change not status quo, on 5 fronts:
1. Legal Standing.
2. Safety Awareness.
3. Economic Viability.
4. Theoretical-Empirical Relationship.
5. Technological Feasibility.
I will explore each of these 5 fronts on how we can push the envelop to reach the stars sooner rather than later.
Next post in the Kline Directive series
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.
Previous posting in this Debunking Series.
In this post we will look at the last three types of engines. Can these engine technologies be debunked?
Start with the boring stuff. Nuclear/plasma engines. For more information look up Franklin Chang-Diaz’s Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR). Real. Cannot be debunked.
Now for the more interesting stuff. The second is Pulse Detonation Engines (PDE). This type of engine uses detonation waves to combust fuel and oxidizer mixture. “The engine is pulsed because the mixture must be renewed in the combustion chamber between each detonation wave initiated by an ignition source.” Theoretically this type of engine is capable of speeds from subsonic to Mach 5.
Here is an UT Arlington Feb 2008 YouTube video that shows how elegantly simple, a workable engineering concept is. According to the posting this engine was built and tested in 2005.
Here is a link to Mojave Skies blog posting which shows photographs of an Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) subsonic pulsed detonation engine trials (about May 2008), made from off-the-shelf automotive parts. Impressive!
Some history regarding the Mojave Skies blog posting. Scaled Composites is led by Burt Rutan, whose team won the Ansari X-Prize in 2004. Scaled Composites is now owned by Northrup Grumman a defense contractor. What a small world. Everyone is interconnected to everyone else.
What about supersonic trials?
Here is a link to Military, Aviation & Space forum where the jet plumes appeared to be pulsed. The date of this posting is Feb 2008, while the AFRL’s press release is dated May 2008. Here is the AboveTopSecret’s link to a Jun 2008 discussion about what appears to be PDE aircrafts in action. The writers appear to be experienced and leaning toward the PDE aircrafts in the video being real.
My guess is that conventional fuel pulse detonation engines are a reality in experimental supersonic aircrafts, and that the May 2008 AFRL’s press release is about making PDEs cheaper. These engines are real and cannot be debunked.
Now for the third type of engine technology, atomic bomb or nuclear pulse engines. It is quite obvious from the Medusa design that the nuclear energy released by such a device that is used to propel this starship is only 1/6th of the useful energy. Note, useful energy is less than total energy released. Therefore this is an inefficient design.
Further, as the Wikipedia article on nuclear pulse engines points out, there is the Partial Test Ban Treaty that makes such engines illegal. Debunked.
Therefore, nuclear or atomic bomb pulsed engines are debunked, and people who support such ideas are out of touch with reality. Let me quote Billy Currington “God is great, beer is good, people are crazy”.
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.
Previous post in this Debunking Series.
——-
This video was broadcast on G4TV, September 19th 2012.
http://www.g4tv.com/videos/60838/dr-eric-w-davis-on-new-ligh…g-science/
Major Notes from the Video are:
a. Dr. Eric Davis, Senior Research Physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin TX.
b. Use exotic energy, quantum energy from vacuum energy, to generate warp drive by surfing space.
c. Surfing on space at faster than the velocity of light.
d. Theory requires stupendous amount of vacuum energy.
e. Sonny White (correct name?) suggests that it could be done with much less energy.
f. Disruptive innovations can happen at any time.
g. Richard Obousy of Icarus Interstellar Inc, using string quantum theory shows that the limit of velocity is 10E32 x c (velocity of light) using quantum string theories.
——-
Need to bear in mind that for interstellar travel to become a reality three factors must be realized.
1) Costs:
From the video this group has not been able to quantify their costs.
2) Technological Feasibility:
As Dr Eric Davis states it might take anywhere from a 100 year to 200 years for this technology to become a reality, but you never know that some disruptive innovation might change all that.
There is another problem with this. Dr. Robert Nemiroff’s Three Photon Observation, which suggests that quantum foam may not exists, therefore falsifying the ability to do interstellar travel in this manner.
Actually come to think about Dr. Eric Davis was describing Dr. Miguel Alcubierre work but substituting Alcubierre’s General Relativity tensors solutions with ‘string quantum’ theory.
3) Safety: Don’t know how to navigate or how to protect crew.
That is a fail on all three counts.
Finally, if I remember correctly, the string theories sits on top of quantum theory and therefore all the discoveries in quantum theory have been translated into string theories. But the string theories by themselves have not been able to predict any new physical behavior, in an ‘a priori’ manner.
For a simple description of quantum foam and vacuum energy see, here.
——-
I put forward a test for these type of proposals, in the comments section of an earlier posting,
https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/10/debunking-antimatter-rocke…lar-travel
And here it is, if you had a few millions dollars can you demonstrate experimental feasibility as a propulsion device?
If the answer is ‘no’ then it is debunked if it is ‘yes’ then let’s get the funding. From Dr Eric Davis comments it is clear that the answer is ‘no’.
Appreciate your comments & feedback.
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.
Previous Post in this Debunking Series.
Why is it necessary to debunk bad or unrealistic technologies? If don’t we live in a dream world idealized by theoretical engineering that has no hope of ever becoming financially feasible. What a waste of money, human resources and talent. I’d rather we know now upfront and channel our energies to finding feasible engineering and financial solutions. Wouldn’t you?
We did the math required to figure out the cost of antimatter fuel one would require just to reach 0.1c and then cost at that velocity, never mind about reaching Alpha Centauri.
| Table 2: | Antimatter Rocket Fuel Costs to Alpha Centuariat 0.1c (in metric tons) | ||||
| Source of Estimates | Amount of Antimatter Required | Maximum Velocity |
Spacecraft Mass |
||
| (metric tons) | (metric tons) |
Gerald Smith |
NASA |
||
|
2.5E+16 |
6.25E+16 |
||||
|
Total $ Cost of Fuel for Trip |
|||||
| A Poor Formula for Interstellar Travel |
5 |
0.1c |
2,000 |
1.25E+20 |
3.13E+20 |
| Project Valkyrie |
100 |
0.1c |
100 |
2.5E+21 |
6.25E+21 |
The table above compiled from various sources shows that the cheapest cost of just reaching 0.1c velocity is of the order of $125,000,000,000,000,000,000. This so unthinkably large even I don’t know how to conceptualize it, and by comparison, conventional rockets appear realistic!
Also note that the large variations in the estimates of the amount of antimatter required combined with the larger variations in the mass of the spacecraft antimatter engines could propel. That is no one reallys has a handle on what this would take.
But wait, let me quote EJ Opik, “Is Interstellar Travel Possible?” Irish Astronomical Journal, Vol 6, page 299.
The exhaust power of the antimatter rocket would equal the solar energy power received by the earth — all in gamma rays (and Opik quotes Carl Sagan, Planet. Space Sci., pp. 485–498, 1963) “So the problem is not to shield the payload, the problem is to shield the earth”
I don’t need to say more. Debunked.
Next psot in this Debunking Series.
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.
Previous Post in this Debunking Series.
Why is it necessary to debunk bad or unrealistic technologies? If don’t we live in a dream world idealized by theoretical engineering that has no hope of ever becoming financially feasible. What a waste of money, human resources and talent. I’d rather we know now upfront and channel our energies to finding feasible engineering and financial solutions. Wouldn’t you?
We did the math required to figure out how much fuel one would require just to reach 0.1c and then cost at that velocity until you reach Alpha Centauri and reverse thrust to orbit the star.
| Table 1: | Conventional Rocket Fuel Costs to travel to Alpha Centauri at 0.1c | |||||
| Maximum Velocity (km/s) |
1980’s cost ($/lb) |
Proportion by Weight |
Amount (lb) |
Cost (in 1980 $) |
||
| Apollo | Fuel Mass |
11.2 |
5,625,000 |
$20,250,000.00 |
||
| Alpha Centauri | Liquid H2 |
0.1c or 29,970 km/s |
$3.60 |
82.46% |
6.60E+13 |
$237,473,684,210,526 |
| LOX |
$0.08 |
17.54% |
1.40E+13 |
$1,122,807,017,544 |
||
| Total |
8.00E+13 |
$238,596,491,228,070 |
||||
| Note: | 1) Fuel mass required to reach 0.1c or 29,970 km/s is twice 5,625,000*(29,979/11.2)^2, | |||||
| once to accelerate 0.1c on leaving Earth and a second time to decelerate at mid | ||||||
| journey to arrive at zero km/s | ||||||
| 2) 8.00E+13 lbs converts into 36,287,389,600 metric tons | ||||||
This analysis assumes that your payload is the about the same size as the Apollo 11 command, service and lunar modules with a combined mass of 46.7 metric tons. That gives you an idea of how impractically small 100 tons is for an interstellar flight.
The total cost of a conventional rocket interstellar trip is on the order of $238,596 billion! Even if we said that the costs are over estimated by 1,000x it would still costs $238 billion!
It is so unrealistic that if you search the internet the parties who say such a trip never discuss how much it will cost. The parties who say it cannot be will also point out the mass of fuel required.
I don’t need to say more. Debunked.
The next in this Debunking Series.
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.
Previous Post in this Debunking Series.
I just watched Looper the movie. It is such a good movie and a great story. But then I’m biased. Anything with Bruce Willis is a great movie. Bruce Willis is getting older, which reminds me so am I!
For those who have not watched Looper I won’t give the story away … Looper is a must watch for science fiction fans. And there were other great movies and episodes about time travel. The three Back to the Future, and the Star Trek episodes, for starters.
That was the good news, and now for the bad news. Time travel is impossible. The mathematics behind time travel is excellent, but the physics is not. In contemporary physics, the mechanism of time travel requires wormholes. You get into a wormhole on one side and you pop out the other side either in the future or in the past, depending on what the wormhole was designed to do.
I did some digging, and found the Polchinski’s billiard ball paradox which is a version of the matricide paradox (travelling back through time before one’s birthday and killing one’s mother, hey what about father?) without the free will component. “A billiard ball sent through a wormhole which sends it back in time. In this scenario, the ball is fired into a wormhole at an angle such that, if it continues along that path, it will exit the wormhole in the past at just the right angle to collide with its earlier self, thereby knocking it off course and preventing it from entering the wormhole in the first place.”
Then Kip Thorne’s students came up another solution “to avoid any inconsistencies, by having the ball emerge from the future at a different angle than the one used to generate the paradox, and deliver its younger self a glancing blow instead of knocking it completely away from the wormhole, a blow which changes its trajectory in just the right way so that it will travel back in time with the angle required to deliver its younger self this glancing blow.”
Add to this second scenario that one collects the older billiard ball in a basket. Of course there are some boundaries driven by conservation of mass and when the wormhole was created, that constraint what is observed. But this then raises some questions. How many balls are there in the basket at the start? How many billiard balls does one observe in the middle of this experiment? Think parallel processing not sequential logic.
And, what can I do?” That is, since cause and effect no longer have a consistent relationship, if the basket fills up with billiard balls before I set off the experiment, can I choose not to set off the experiment?
It is sufficient to stop here to make the case that time travel is not possible.
I’m sure Kip Thorne, his students and many, many others are doing good work to develop theoretical models. I hope these older theoretical wormhole models would evolve to new ‘tunneling’ models that do not allow for inconsistent relationships between cause and effect. And these new ‘tunneling’ models will one day allow us to do interstellar travel using some kind of tunneling technology.
Right now time travel is just too easy to debunk. We are not there, yet.
The next in the Debunking Series.
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.
EOH events are events that cause the irreversible termination of humanity. They are not events that start the physical destruction of humanity (that would be too late), but fundamental, non-threatening and inconspicuous events that eventually lead to the irreversible physical destruction of humanity. Using nations and civilizations I explain how.
(1) Fundamental: These events have to be fundamental to the survival of the human species or else they cannot negatively impact the foundation of humanity’s existence.
On a much smaller scale drought and war can and have destroyed nations and civilizations. However, that is not always the case. For example, it is still not know what caused the demise of the Mayan civilization.
The act of war can lead to the irreversible destruction of a nation or civilization, but the equivalent EOH event lay further back in history, and can only be answered by the questions who and why.
For example, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria is the EOH event that triggered a domino effect which started with Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia, and Central Powers (including Germany and Austria-Hungary) and the Allies of World War I (countries allied with Serbia) to declare war on each other, starting World War I.
In this case Europe was not destroyed as it still had the capability to rebuild, but it led to massive loss of human lives.
Lesson: This illustrates that an EOH event acts like a trigger. Therefore, EOH events must have the capability to trigger destruction in such a manner as to annihilate the capability to rebuild, too.
(2) Non-Threatening: They have to be non-threatening or else these types of events cannot take hold and become main stream.
The Hindu numeral system designed for positional notation in a decimal system, invented (trigger event) in India, was transmitted via the Arab traders to Europe where it took root, and bloomed into the counting and mathematical systems we now accept universally.
Note, the Roman Empire, essentially Southern Europe, Mediterranean and parts of the Middle East, used a comparatively awkward system, by contrast, and this has not survived into general usage today.
The development of mathematics in a Europe, hungry not to be left behind, led to the development of the sciences and engineering not envisioned by India. And several hundred years later came back to India in the form of the British Raj, and changed how Indians live.
Lesson: This illustrates that for an EOH event to prosper it requires a conducive environment – in this case a Europe hungry not to be left behind.
(3) Inconspicuous: They have to be inconspicuous to facilitate the chain reaction of irreversible events. If these events were visible to the majority of humanity when they occur, people could intervene and prevent these chain reactions to irreversible destruction of humanity.
The 9/11 attacks on the Twin World Trade Towers was inconspicuous simply because no one believed that commercial airplanes could be used as weapons of destruction. The subsequent chain reaction, the sequential collapse of building floors, lend to destruction and major loss of lives.
Lesson: Inconspicuous does not necessarily mean ‘cannot be seen’ as the 9/11 example illustrates that it would also encompass ‘cannot be believed’.
.
In summary an EOH event is a non-threatening inconspicuous trigger in a conducive environment, that chain reacts into irreversible physical destruction of the foundations of humanity in a manner that prevents rebuilding.
By this definition there are two EOH events within our comprehension.
The first that comes to mind is the irreversible expansion of our Sun into a red giant will lead to the total destruction of humanity with the inability to rebuild if we remain on Earth, and is triggered by the inconspicuous exhaustion of hydrogen in the Sun’s core which switches to the thermonuclear fusion chain reaction of hydrogen.
Therefore, the EOH event is the exhaustion of hydrogen.
.
The second are experiments in small black hole production. The hypothesis that small black holes can be used for interstellar propulsion (https://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/09/debunking-the-black-hole-interstellar-drive) lends a conducive environment to trigger the funding for such experiments. The realization of small black holes without experimentally proven controls will lead to the irreversible chain reaction of black hole growth as it consumes matter around it at increasingly faster rates. This will result in the complete destruction of humanity and everything within our reach, in manner we cannot rebuild.
Therefore, the EOH event is the approval of funding into small black hole experimental research. And with CERN we have achieved an EOH event.
—————————————————————————————————
Benjamin T Solomon is the author & principal investigator of the 12-year study into the theoretical & technological feasibility of gravitation modification, titled An Introduction to Gravity Modification, to achieve interstellar travel in our lifetimes. For more information visit iSETI LLC, Interstellar Space Exploration Technology Initiative.
Solomon is inviting all serious participants to his LinkedIn Group Interstellar Travel & Gravity Modification.