Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

Okay, this guy at NBF is pretty adamant in suggesting that Mach Effects violate at least one of three laws of physics : the principle of relativity, the 1st or second law of thermodynamics. This was after telling him that Woodward thinks Wheeler-Feynman advanced/retarded interactions are the way to view inertial reaction forces, so the principle of relativity is not thrown out. I'm not educated enough in physics to debate this with him, so I asked him to e-mail his criticism to Dr. Woodward


"Uh, yeah it is. You can keep it if you get rid of one of the other cherished laws... like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You pretty much have to throw out locality. I know its hard but try to think about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

You can have a preferred reference frame, which is essentially the comoving coordinates of the average velocity of all the matter in the universe. Now in the normal principle of relativity there isn't a preferred reference frame, but we have to have one now if we want to preserve the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Otherwise we're magically selecting reference frames to extract energy from in a nonlocal fashion.

Again think about this magic engine, and the very simple equation for energy related to velocity: E= 1/2 mv^2. If you're engine requires a linear energy input for constant acceleration, but your kinetic energy rises quadratically, energy is coming from somewhere. Now either the coupling efficiency with your far off reaction mass with the rest of the universe declines the higher the difference in velocity you have with the preferred reference frame (good by principle of relativity) or you can magically allways efficiently couple with some far off reaction mass that is in your reference frame ( goodbye second law of thermodynamics.) Or maybe energy just magically comes from nowhere (goodbye first law of thermodynamics.) One of these has to go.

Most likely the effect doesn't exist at all. It would be neat if it did, but the implications are pretty severe. "

Anyone who understands this stuff wanna chime in?
Last edited by GeeGee on Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

AcesHigh
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

GeeGee. Was it GoatGuy again??

you didnt provide any link to the article where the person posted...

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

Sorry about that. Here you go.

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

GeeGee wrote:Sorry about that. Here you go.
Guys:

I prefer to let Dr. Woodward explain the problem here, but off the top the person in question apparently doesn't appreciate the differences between special and general relativity. A hint, special relativity only applies to phenomenon within the local light cone of the object in question. If it doesn't you have to use GRT and 4-D analysis of the problem over the entire spacetime volume in question, i.e., the casually connected universe in the case of the M-E, to get a rational explanation of what's really going on.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

paulmarch wrote:
GeeGee wrote:Sorry about that. Here you go.
Guys:

I prefer to let Dr. Woodward explain the problem here, but off the top the person in question apparently doesn't appreciate the differences between special and general relativity. A hint, special relativity only applies to phenomenon within the local light cone of the object in question. If it doesn't you have to use GRT and 4-D analysis of the problem over the entire spacetime volume in question, i.e., the casually connected universe in the case of the M-E, to get a rational explanation of what's really going on.

Best,
Paul,

I can't seem to find any discussion of this in any of Dr. Woodward's papers. Does he plan to include it in his book? It seems it should at least get a mention since this has been the primary criticism leveled against the M-E conjecture as of late.

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

GeeGee wrote:
paulmarch wrote:
GeeGee wrote:Sorry about that. Here you go.
Guys:

I prefer to let Dr. Woodward explain the problem here, but off the top the person in question apparently doesn't appreciate the differences between special and general relativity. A hint, special relativity only applies to phenomenon within the local light cone of the object in question. If it doesn't you have to use GRT and 4-D analysis of the problem over the entire spacetime volume in question, i.e., the casually connected universe in the case of the M-E, to get a rational explanation of what's really going on.

Best,
I can't seem to find any discussion of this in any of Dr. Woodward's papers. Does he plan to include it in his book? It seems it should at least get a mention since this has been the primary criticism leveled against the M-E conjecture as of late.
GeeGee:

I really don't know what's in Woodward's book for I've not read it yet. As to Jim's discussions on this special vs general relativity topic, Dr. Woodward has gone over it several times in his M-E e-mail discussion group over the past few years, but it will take some digging to find it.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

cuddihy
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 pm

Post by cuddihy »

Now either the coupling efficiency with your far off reaction mass with the rest of the universe declines the higher the difference in velocity you have with the preferred reference frame (good by principle of relativity) or you can magically allways efficiently couple with some far off reaction mass that is in your reference frame ( goodbye second law of thermodynamics.)
I find this phrase to be nonsense, but maybe I don't understand what he's trying to say & someone can clear me up on it.

Gravitational coupling efficiency of any matter with the rest of the matter in the universe is always 100%, for everything, no matter what relative velocity is.

That's the way gravity and the universe works, especially if the Mach Principle holds. Even the phrase that Paul March and Dr. Woodward often use, the "horizon of the observable universe" refers just to the time-distance relationship between our own position in time and space and the farthest position at which light could reach us as far back as the estimated age of the universe.

"goodbye second law of thermodynamics" on the other hand is the same dismissal that GoatGuy focuses on. It is the unstated refusal to draw the mass-energy box any bigger than locally, but since without an actual physical reason to make that refusal, that is actually a weak argument. Thus it is thrown as a smoke screen via the "Second Law of thermodynamics", rather than just stating plainly "I don't believe you can draw the mass-energy box to contain all matter in the universe," which is actually the same statement and what they actually mean.

Am I missing a good argument in there? I say this as one who does not believe the evidence of physical results is terribly convincing.
Tom.Cuddihy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.

Jded
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:01 am

Post by Jded »

cuddihy wrote:
"goodbye second law of thermodynamics" on the other hand is the same dismissal that GoatGuy focuses on. It is the unstated refusal to draw the mass-energy box any bigger than locally, but since without an actual physical reason to make that refusal, that is actually a weak argument. Thus it is thrown as a smoke screen via the "Second Law of thermodynamics", rather than just stating plainly "I don't believe you can draw the mass-energy box to contain all matter in the universe," which is actually the same statement and what they actually mean.
Not quite. That one was saying that ME is breaking the first law.

This guy means that if you are drawing the additional kinetic energy from interaction with the rest of Universe's mass, you are concentrating usable energy from all around, at no real cost (you can pay back the electricity bill from kinetic if you design it wisely), lowering enthropy at least locally.

Of course he forgot about the possibility that doing it will rise enthropy globaly more than lower it locally. But this needs some math to check out...

alexmclin
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:09 pm

Dependence of Mach effects on distant future cosmic horizon

Post by alexmclin »

I'd like to understand some aspects of the theory behind the Mach effect. So far, what I understand of Woodward's explanation, inertia depends on interaction of advanced and retarded gravitational waves with the mass that make up the cosmic horizon in the far future.

It is this cosmic horizon in the distant future that plays the role of the source of inertia? Only the future horizon can interact with present matter, any matter in the past do not participate at all?

My logical deductions tell me that ultimately Mach effects is a function of the amount of mass that is casually accessible in the future light cone.

So given our discovery of a form of dark energy which implies that the universe is accelerating and that the amount of accessible mass in an observer's cosmic horizon is declining as time goes by.

Does this mean if we imagine we're now trillions of years in the future, at a point when mass outside our immediate local cosmic neighborhood has receded beyond the horizon. With a much reduced cosmic horizon in our future cone, does this mean that correspondingly inertia is reduced from present day's strength?

In other words, if Mach effect is a function of accessible mass in our future cone, does this mean that measuring strength of the mass fluctuations and/or inertia will allow us to determine the size of the cosmic horizon in the distant epoch and be able to distinguish between theories of the universe's future evolution(closed, open, accelerating, etc)?

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

Paul M., when reading this (Jan 2012) American Journal of Physics paper, I couldn't avoid thinking of its possible relevance to Woodward's theory, and his and your experiments involving mechanically oscillating dielectrics with varying energy content:

Resource Letter EM-1: Electromagnetic Momentum
This Resource Letter surveys the literature on momentum in electromagnetic fields, including the general theory, the relation between electromagnetic momentum and vector potential, “hidden” momentum, the 4/3 problem for electromagnetic mass, and the Abraham–Minkowski controversy regarding the field momentum in polarizable and magnetizable media.
...the notion that fields carry momentum leads to several intriguing problems, some of which are not entirely resolved after more than a century of debate.
...locating this "hidden momentum" can be subtle and difficult.
A moving charge drags around the momentum in its fields, which means (in effect) that it has "extra" mass. But this "electromagnetic mass" is inconsistent with what you get from the energy in the fields (using Einstein's formula E = mc^2)--by a notorious factor of 4/3, in the case of a spherical shell. Which mass (if either) is "correct"?
...Newton's Third Law (although it holds in electrostatics and magnetostatics) is not obeyed in electrodynamics (Refs. 22 and 2).
Baxter and Loudon (Ref. (91)) associate "Abraham ...momentum with the motion of a dielectric specimen as a whole and ...Minkowski momentum with the motion of objects embedded in the dielectric."
The paper is behind a paywall, but maybe you have online NASA access.

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

Hector Brito wrote a few papers a couple of years ago on how if the Minkowski formualism of the Energy-Momentum tensor is the right one, you could manipulate inertia with electromagnetism for propulsion

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/0994.pdf

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Post by DeltaV »

STAIF 1999. OK, Dr. Woodward and Paul are then no doubt already familiar with this momentum controversy.

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

Woodward does mention Brito's scheme in his 2004 paper "Flux Capacitors and the Origin of Inertia" that was published in Foundations of Physics Letters.

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

DeltaV wrote:STAIF 1999. OK, Dr. Woodward and Paul are then no doubt already familiar with this momentum controversy.
Delta-V:

Yes, Woodward is very familar with the issues rasied about hidden momentum in E&M fields, as is so well descibed in Richard Feynman's 1960s lecture series, Book-2. However you do have to remember that Woodweard's M-E conjecture is not based on hidden momentum in E&M fields as interesting as they might be, but gravitational fields that convey momentum from the bulk of the mass & energy in the universe that gravitates to the locally accelerated mass. And yes, this interaction is posited to be near instantaneous in nature because as-measured inertial reaction forces developed in a locally accelerated mass are near instantaneous. That's an observed fact, not a theory. As to why this is so, that question is what's up for an elegant solution that might tell us how to build starships. Several really smart folks out there inlcuding Dr. Woodward think they may have possible solutions to this problem, but as in all things, in God we trust, all others bring data.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

WizWom
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 1:00 pm
Location: St Joseph, MO
Contact:

Post by WizWom »

On the Nature of "Hidden Momentum"
http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp? ... n+momentum
or rather, its non-existence.

Photons carry momentum. So do all other field mediators that I have heard of.
Wandering Kernel of Happiness

Post Reply