I would like to thank Peter Marino whose website swarm knowledge is at: Swarm Knowledge and Dr. Massimo Villata whose website is at: Massimo Villata's official website.

My name is Adam G. Freeman and I have been trying to promote to the scientific community a theory that I have that will enable conventional space travel in our own lifetimes.

The purpose of this website is twofold. First to explain the theory in layman's terms that anyone should be able to understand without diving too far into the mathematics or the physics. Also if one chooses to dig deeper, links to papers that elucidate the mathematics and physics are presented here as well. Of course the primary goal of this website is to get the scientific community to realize the potential of this theory and how if it is proven to be true through experimentation it will help us in achieving our goal of conventional space travel in our own lifetimes.

The basic premise of this theory is that anti-matter exists in a spacelike spacetime and because it exists in this type of spacetime, it compresses spacetime distances such that faster than light speeds can be achieved by creating and manipulating anti-matter in a spacecraft. My theory is that black holes are entirely composed of anti-matter and that anti-matter is gravitationally repulsive to matter. Basically anti-matter and black holes have these properties:

- * anti-matter and black holes are gravitationally repulsive to matter.
- * anti-matter and black holes exist in a spacelike spacetime. In a spacelike spacetime, faster than light speeds can be achieved by compressing or "shortening" spacetime distances.
- * anti-matter and black holes have the geometry of a pseudo-sphere. A pseudo-sphere is the shape of objects in spacelike spacetime. Unlike a sphere which is the shape of objects in timelike spacetime, a pseudo-sphere shortens spacetime distances that are traveled along its surface.
- * the black hole at the center of each galaxy is entirely composed of anti-matter which makes sense if one considers that anti-matter is repulsive to matter. If anti-matter is in fact repulsive to matter, then it would most likely tend to aggregate at the center of a matter galaxy since the repulsive gravitational forces would push it there.
- * anti-matter and black holes are what will conceptually lead to anti-gravity: that is they exert a repulsive force against matter and our traditional concept of gravity. Just as electricity exhibits a symmetry and has a positive and a negative, gravity also is symmetrical and has a positive and a negative. Just as matter has anti-matter, gravity has anti-gravity.

I will be adding diagrams to this as I go along but let me give you a real basic primer on general relativity. I know the words **general relativity** are scary if you are not a physicist but the concept is pretty simple. The theory of general relativity basically says that spacetime is curved and the degree to which it is curved is determined by the amount of mass present. So a simple example is our planet Earth. On the planet Earth, we exist in a timelike spacetime. In a timelike spacetime the amount of time it takes you to travel along the surface of the planet is always going to be longer than the amount of time it would take for a light ray to go that same distance. So no matter how fast you move along the surface you will always be moving slower than a light ray would move the same distance that you just traveled. If you try to move faster than this speed, that is no longer possible because then you will no longer be in a timelike spacetime but a spacelike spacetime. When you do travel along the surface of the Earth you are following a "geodesic path."

Every day when you travel in your car from one place to another or from point A to point B, you are following what general relativity refers to as a geodesic path in spacetime. A geodesic path is simply the path that you travel from one point to another which has three spatial co-ordinate values and one time co-ordinate value at your point of departure and has three new spatial co-ordinate values and one new time co-ordinate value at your time of arrival with the geodesic describing your path from one point to the next. In a timelike spacetime with positive curvature, geodesic paths are spherically curved. In a flat spacetime with no curvature, geodesic paths are straight lines. In a spacelike spacetime with negative curvature, geodesic paths are pseudo-spherically curved.

Another way to think about geodesic paths is using the triangle law which says that the sum of the three inner angles in a triangle must equal 180 degrees. This is true in a flat spacetime. In a positively curved spacetime however, the sum of the angles will be greater than 180 degrees because its edges will be bent outwards and this is based on the curvature of the spacetime. This is something that the mathematical genius Gauss determined. Conversely in a negatively curved spacetime, the sum of the angles will be less than 180 degrees and its edges will be bent inwards. A geodesic path through a spacetime could be considered analogous to an edge of a triangle in that spacetime.

To help better visualize how spacetime curvature and geodesic paths relate, if you were to entirely tile the Earth with triangles or quadrilaterals, it is easy to conceive that these triangles or quadrilaterals would be bent outwards slightly in accordance with the curvature of the surface and geodesic paths along that surface would be like the edges of the triangles or quadrilaterals and bent outwards slightly. Likewise if the Earth had the geometry of a pseudosphere, then the triangles or quadrilaterals that you would use to tile the surface would be bent inwards slightly in accordance with the curvature of the surface. Here are a couple links that describe a pseudosphere mathematically and include illustrations so you can conceptualize what the Earth would look like as a black hole with the geometric shape of a pseudosphere:

The Earth as a black hole tiled with spacelike quadrilaterals

So what if you woke up one morning and decided that you wanted to convert the Earth into a black hole. The Earth could potentially be converted into a black hole. Black holes were originally predicted by Schwarzschild because there is a certain radius called appropriately enough the "Schwarzschild radius" that if matter in a celestial body is pushed into a radius smaller than this radius then it forms a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius is not some magical number but is equivalent to two times the gravitational constant times the amount of mass all divided by the speed of light squared. While I have not calculated this radius for the Earth, the value is going to be much, much smaller than the present radius but this is the value that if you were to put pressure on every side of the Earth and start compressing it into a smaller volume once you reached this radius and made it slightly smaller, the Earth would then turn into a black hole. Well what would really happen? The Earth would still have the same amount of mass as it did before it was a black hole but it would change its geometry to become pseudo-spherical and now geodesic paths along its surface could be traveled at speeds that are faster than the speed of light. I will try to put up some diagrams that visualize this better eventually.

Now if matter is present in a timelike spacetime then it **curves** the spacetime such that the distance you have to travel between two points in that spacetime is longer than the distance you would travel if there were no curvature. If you think about traveling along the surface of the Earth, then the curvature of the Earth is going to make the distance that you travel somewhat longer than if the Earth were not there. This curvature and the extra distance that you have to travel is directly related to the amount of mass present and that is what causes gravitational pull and attracts us to the surface of the Earth so we do not fly off.

Now if you think about a black hole, a black hole is just like the Earth but it has been squeezed into a different shape. Instead of being spherical, it is pseudo-spherical. If you travel along a pseudo-spherical surface, the distance you travel is actually less than the distance you would travel if that surface were not present. This is the essence of the theory that black holes and anti-matter have a pseudo-spherical geometry and thus the distances traveled in these regions of spacetime are less than the equivalent distances would be in a flat or spherical spacetime. So if it takes you almost three hours to drive from Cleveland to Detroit in a timelike spacetime, then it might only take you a second to drive from Cleveland to Detroit in a lightlike spacetime traveling at the speed of light and it might only take you a micro-second or smaller to drive from Cleveland to Detroit in a spacelike spacetime traveling at a speed faster than the speed of light.

So what does happen at a black hole's event horizon? There has been a lot of speculation and I can tell you pretty simply what really happens. Since matter which exists in a timelike spacetime cannot exist in a spacelike spacetime, matter can never really enter a black hole. That is why matter and anti-matter annihilate each other. The equations for a spacelike spacetime actually have been derived using general relativity to reveal that a pseudo-spherical spacetime is the spacetime of a black hole and anti-matter which are gravitationally repulsive to matter and this paper is here: Antimatter, CPT transformations and results for general relativity. If one considers from the weak field approximation that anti-matter is gravitationally repulsive to matter, then from the GR field equations a spherical volume does not coincide with this gravitational repulsion. A pseudo-spherical volume however does coincide with this gravitational repulsion as revealed in the paper.

I am not the first person to theorize that anti-matter is gravitationally repulsive to matter. Dr. Massimo Villata has written a paper theorizing this as well by applying CPT transforms to the GR equations. This paper is here: CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity. The importance of my paper listed above is that if anti-matter is gravitationally repulsive to matter as Dr. Villata proposes, then the weak field approximation must flip its sign from negative to positive. If the sign is flipped to positive, then a spherical volume solution such as the Schwarzschild solution does not coincide with this change in sign. A pseudo-spherical solution such as in the paper listed above does coincide with this change in sign. So the mathematics and the physics agree with the theory given only one assumption: that anti-matter and matter are gravitationally repulsive towards each other.

Once one considers that anti-matter shortens spacetime distances, designing a spaceship capable of interstellar travel fueled by anti-matter is not that difficult of a task. The two biggest challenges are generating enough anti-matter to fuel such a craft and isolating that anti-matter from the rest of the matter in the craft such that the the two do not annihilate each other. Once these two challenges are met, all the craft needs to be capable of is pointing the anti-matter in the direction that the craft wants to move and keeping the anti-matter just ahead of the rest of the matter in the craft. That way the matter in the craft will follow the distortion in spacetime in the direction that it wants to move and at faster than the speed of light. So if one wants to move in a northerly direction, one would point the anti-matter powering the craft 'just in front of the craft' in a northerly direction. The anti-matter will also provide a limitless fuel source for the craft since it is not depleted over time but just needs to be isolated from the rest of the matter in the craft. The easiest way to isolate the anti-matter would probably involve some sort of magnetic field that would keep an anti-matter barrier such as a bunch of positrons in a line that would encase the anti-matter and keep it from escaping this barrier. I am not sure exactly how this would work but I can envision a bunch of anti-matter such as a large quantity of anti-hydrogen atoms bouncing around in a barrier lined with positrons that are kept in place by a magnetic field.

When you want to make a new dish, all you have to do is find the recipe online go out and buy the ingredients and cook it up. Unforunately, anti-matter does not have such an easy recipe for being made. Current methods that we employ for creating anti-matter such as that are used in the Large Hadron Collider or LHC or other colliders unfortunately do not produce enough anti-matter for its gravitational properties to be observed or for the property of shortening spacetime distances to be confirmed or rejected. But that does not mean that there are not methods for generating larger amounts of anti-matter. Nature generates large amounts of anti-matter every day *via* thunderstorms. Check out this link: Fermi thunderstorms. If we can figure out how thunderstorms create anti-matter and then mimic the process ourselves to create and then isolate larger quantities of anti-matter, perhaps more conventional processes for generating and isolating larger quantities of anti-matter can be developed.

Anti-matter is also created when high energy electrons that are moving close to the speed of light through quantum perturbation move faster than the speed of light and become positrons. Here is yet another argument for anti-matter existing in a spacelike spacetime because that is how electrons become positrons in the first place. Perhaps the process of electrons transforming naturally through quantum physics into positrons will lead us to a better understanding of how to create larger quantities of anti-matter such that its gravitational effects and other more macroscopic properties can be studied and utilized.

Before Newton's laws of gravitational attraction had been adopted by the scientific community as being the *de facto* explanation for gravitational attraction between bodies, many prominent scientists of the time such as Descartes theorized that the planets moved in an ether. Once it was determined by Newton and Kepler that the planets moved according to a gravitational force exerted on them, the ether was dismissed *via* Occam's razor since it no longer needed to be present in order to explain the rotational movement of the planets. Currently, the notion of dark or exotic matter has been introduced to explain the theoretical vs. measured discrepancies in the speeds of rotating bodies such as our Sun. Perhaps once we truly understand anti-matter and how it influences the rotation of our Sun and other celestial bodies, dark or exotic matter will be no longer necessary and can be dismissed *via* Occam's razor just as ether was dismissed.

When Einstein first introduced his theory of general relativity, the current thinking of the time was that we exist in a static Universe and that galaxies in this Universe do not move towards or away from each other. Because of this Einstein introduced a constant *lambda* into his general relativity equations. When it was later determined by Hubble that the galaxies in our Universe were in fact moving away from each other, Einstein realized that the cosmological constant *lambda* was no longer necessary for describing our Universe and called it "his biggest mistake." The reason I bring this up is because it is important to remember that physics is simply a way of symbolically representing what occurs naturally. When physics does not agree with what is observed naturally it needs to be modified or rejected or rethought. So experimentation on more macroscopic quantities of anti-matter than are currently used will support whether the theory is potentially correct or not. If through experimentation it is revealed that anti-matter is not gravitationally repulsive to matter and does not compress spacetime distances, then the theory is probably wrong. But if through experimentation it is revealed that anti-matter is gravitationally repulsive to matter and does compress spacetime distances, then perhaps our current views in physics need to be rethought and physics needs to undergo a paradigm shift. Whatever concepts and symbolic representations and equations we use to describe the physical Universe should actually agree exactly with what is observed and measured. Of course in quantum physics, there is the issue of the observer affecting the measurement or observation but when experimenting with more macroscopic quantities such as yourself or a toaster or a building or a planet, this issue does not come into play.

Recently I co-authored a couple of papers with another engineer Policarpo Yoshin Ulianov about a new theory to supplant the Big Bang Model and that is in more accordance with the Cosmic Inflation Hypothesis. This theory is called "The Small Bang Theory" and these papers are here:

- * The Small Bang Model - A New Explanation for Dark Matter Based on Antimatter Super Massive Black Holes
- * Small Bang - A New Model to Explain the Origin of Our Universe

In 1919, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was given experimental support because light rays that passed near the Sun were seen to be shifted. In other words, the observed position of stars during a solar eclipse were seen to be shifted away from the Sun as opposed to the observed position of these stars not during a solar eclipse implying that the Sun exerts gravitational influence on light rays and bends light rays towards itself or red-shifts the light. According to the Theory of General Relativity, everything that passes through a region of spacetime curvature will experience that curvature even light rays. So light rays that pass through flat spacetime will not experience any curvature influence but light rays that pass near the Sun or another celestial body composed of matter will experience a shift towards the celestial body. When the position of stars during a solar eclipse were shown to be different than the positions at other times, this was experimental validation that Einstein's theory of general relativity could be true. To understand this better, there is a good diagram and explanation here: Light bending explained at UCR. Here is the original famous telegram sent to Einstein by Eddington "validating" the Theory of General Relativity:

Just as matter which has positive spacetime curvature and bends light rays towards itself, according to the theory anti-matter which has negative spacetime curvature should bend light rays away from itself. So light rays that pass near regions in spacetime that are spacelike should be bent away from these regions and not towards these regions. This sets up a possibility for an experiment to either validate or invalidate the theory. If one looks at starlight that comes from behind a black hole and compares that starlight not coming from behind a black hole, the starlight should be shifted but in the opposite direction that it would be shifted if coming from behind a matter star. So just like the experiment performed by Eddington, one could look at the position of a star that is behind a black hole and compare that same star's position when it is not behind a black hole and the positions should be different but instead of being positioned away from the black hole when it is not behind the black hole it should be positioned towards the black hole when it is not behind the black hole. This is because the black hole bends the starlight away from itself. If the star is experimentally revealed to be positioned away from the black hole, then the theory is probably wrong. But if it is experimentally revealed to be positioned towards the black hole, then this is a strong indication that the theory could be correct. According to the theory, light that is bent by a black hole or antimatter should be "blue-shifted" as opposed to "red-shifted." So if our Sun were really a black hole, sunsets would be bright blue not bright red. Since our Sun will never become a black hole, this will never be observed in nature but is fun to think about.

I conclude hoping you understand the implications of this theory for space travel and with a couple of quotes:

- * "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -
*Albert Einstein* - * "All of physics is either impossible or trivial. It is impossible until you understand it and then it becomes trivial." -
*Ernest Rutherford*

comments powered by Disqus