Mach Effect progress

[GIThruster]

GeeGee, they are asking you to explain what the momentum is transferred to over at your link. Obviously the answer is "the rest of the universe".

And just noting again, here is a naysayer who knows NOTHING about Jim's theory, and yet is willing to pronounce that it is wrong with NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

This just gets so old, and is the reason Jim never answers critics outside peer review journals. You noted the only exception: that he did indeed answer the Oak Ridge Boys. I think though, guys from our national labs make good exceptions to the rule.

[kcdodd]

Can you explain how "pushing on the rest of the universe" is a testable claim, even in principle. I think I explained this problem before. If that is what something does, then there is not really any way to know that is what it is doing because the observer is a part of the universe too. It would simply appear to violate conservation of momentum.

[GIThruster]

If the claim is not true, no Mach-Effect devices will function. The test of all science is always observation. We observe a time averaged loss of mass, or thrust, or warp, depending upon the application, but the only way to explain these things needs to be M-E theory. If there is more than one explanation, then we look for tests that will eliminate other possibilities. At present, I know of no other explanations for what Jim has found in the lab.

It is still good to note though, that science is not in the business of proving things. It is really in the business of disproving all the alternatives to the theory in question. Science doesn't ever offer ultimate proof, because there are always explanations not yet considered, and some of them can't be disproved. We can't for example ever prove there are no purple gremlins that make the flowers grow because one can never prove a negative, but we are still justified in saying science has given us pretty good evidence that purple gremlins are not the cause of plant growth.

[kcdodd]

So, if you say the answer is 5, and you show the answer is not 4, then you must be right.

[kcdodd]

The point is that the claim that conservation of momentum is violated is indistinguishable from the claim that momentum is conserved by pushing on the entire universe. Science tends to like falsifiable claims.

[GIThruster]

No offense Carter, but what I posted above is completely true whether you happen to like it or not. Science does not prove anything. It disproves alternatives. If by some miracle you could clearly demonstrate that the answer is 4 or 5, and then clearly showed it is not 4, then you would have done your best to show the answer is 5. You however did not show any way to rule out all answers except 4 and 5, so your illustration fails start to finish.

Whether you like it or not, the way to clearly demonstrate that M-E devices push on the rest of the universe is to have them push at all. That is doing good science. If afterward you want to argue that well, according to your theory, the M-E device is pushing because it is harnessing purple gremlins, then you'll need to come up with a test to falsify the claim that M-E devices push on the rest of the universe, and reasons to think purple gremlins are at work.

Yes, I understand your objection. Do you understand that as an explanation, pushing on the universe is easily falsified if you simply can't get any push?

Arguments about the appearance of conservation violations have no place in science. Science doesn't care about appearances and admits no such violations. It simply does not matter, when people make this complaint.

[paperburn1]

Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth. .... "Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing," answered Holmes thoughtfully.

[GIThruster]

Yes well, perhaps Carter you'll understand when I say that if you read the book, it will be clear--the connection between gravinertial thrusters and the rest of the universe falls out of the math. Without Mach's Principle, you cannot formulate any theory that proposes what M-E theory proposes, and would thus have no reasons to build M-E devices. With all M-E devices, if Mach's Principle is incorrect, the devices will fail to operate at all. If Mach's Principle is correct, and we have the best experimental evidence in the world that it is from the WMAP; then the momentum and energy conservation is obviously guaranteed by the gravinertial connection with the universe's past and future.

It's all in the book.

[raelik]

So really (assuming that all extraneous inputs have been eliminated and the experiments to date HAVE proven Mach's principle within a reasonable margin of doubt) the remaining question that Jim, Paul and Andrew (and to a lesser degree Sonny) need to answer is whether the wormhole term is a truly exploitable effect, or simply an artifact of the math that will ultimately preclude the possibility of achieving negative mass.

[GIThruster]

I think almost anyone who reads and understands the basics as laid out in Jim's book is ultimately capable of answering whether the wormhole term is exploitable. It's quite possible many will try and fail, but it only takes one positive result to say we have an exploit.

There are lots of ways forward on this. I'm not certain how many "low budget" notions are worthy of the attempt, but I think for less than $1 million, most operations can do their own warp tests, and most of that is money spent on human resources.

It certainly helps to have the backing of NASA like the Eagleworks lab. Despite the chicanery, one expects their interferometer is more than up to the task of detecting a warp. That sort of equipment is not simple to assemble but it is not difficult either. A microwave Mach Effect Thruster or negative mass generator can be built by most thin film manufacturers and the power system needs to be laid up by hand. That is probably the most serious challenge--to have a power system that contains the proper scientific controls that you can actually learn from the system once its operating.

[kcdodd]

The claim that this thing is pushing on the rest of the universe is different than the claim of thrust being generated. The only thing that proves is that thrust is generated under a set of conditions. You claim that the set of conditions needed for thrust are predicted by this theory. A completely different claim is that thrust is generated on other objects in the universe under these same conditions. So, how do you prove that claim? You have to measure the thrust on them, right? Do you understand that they are different claims requiring different measurements? What set of measurements do you make to see if the whole universe gets pushed? Could we not then see who all else in the universe might be using M-E thrusters?

[GIThruster]

No Carter. You do not have to measure thrust on the universe to prove a claim. Do you need to actually measure the difference of rotation of the Earth when you claim it is changed when you walk East or West?

You are thinking about all of this BACKWARD. Science does not proceed by proving things,. It proceeds by disproving the alternatives.

You're confusing a demonstration of a phenomena with proof and the two are world's apart. Demonstrating thrust from an M-E device does not prove Jim's theory. Disproving all the alternative explanations for thrust from a device validates his theory, but it does not prove it. There is no way to prove it. That's not what science does.

Likewise, though you have a point that we can make no direct observations of the Universe being pushed on, science proceeds through indirect observations all the time. We have no direct observations of life's origin, nor dinosaurs, nor even evolution (at least not of things like punctuated equilibria) and yet science makes statements about these things based on indirect observations.

When we make an observation that an M-E device produces thrust, we isolate it from all the possible spurious effects we can imagine, and only when it is properly isolated do we claim it is producing thrust. Since M-E theory posits that this can ONLY happen through a gravinertial connection between all the universe's various parts, it is perfectly reasonable to posit that the universe is being pushed upon. One needs no direct observation for this, but there are the obvious tests that need to be done in order to ensure the thruster has been properly isolated.

BTW Carter, so you know, this same kind of interesting argument you make comes up when one looks at the history of gravity physics concerning the debate and position that "a Closed Universe Cannot Rotate". Obviously we cannot make direct observations about this issue, but science still has a lot to say about this. You'll find one excellent paper on this subject here:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-N ... +principle

[kcdodd]

I think you are missing my point again. You say science disproves alternatives. Alternative, what? Theories? What does a theory do, exactly. Well, a theory predicts correlations. We take measurements of the things that the theory says are correlated. If they are not correlated, the theory is thrown out, correct?

So here, we have two sets of predicted correlations. One is that when this capacitor wiz-bang is hooked up, its momentum changes. So, we measure when the wiz-bang is connected or energized or whatever, and we measure the momentum changes of it at the same time. Then see if there is any correlation there.

The other is that when this wiz-bang is hooked up, the momentum of the entire universe changes. And actually, the momentum changes of the object are anti-correlated to the changes to the universe in some way (all argued to dis-way the problems of "conservation of momentum" you see). Ok, so we can still measure when it's turned on or off, or when the momentum of the capacitor changes, but, ok, so what. There is no way to make the other measurements, even in principle. There is no way to measure that claim. And without that, there is no correlation, even in principle. Nothing to actually predict. That is the whole point. That is why it isn't a scientific claim.

And i try not to discriminate. I try to treat all claims like that. And there are plenty of non-scientific claims flying around in science (the community that is). So, it's not like you are in small company.

[GIThruster]

Geeess. . .

This is why no one puts much stock in cheesy engineering claims. People like you PRETENDING THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T.

Woodward's theory mandates conservation by use of Noether's Theorem. Any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.

You and I can't do that math. If you want, look it up.

The difference between us is, I know my limitations and you don't.

You're a self-indulgent moron.

Enough said.

[rj40]

Ya'll are as far above me as I am above...wait for it...the amoeba. But I thought I would ask a question anyway since this is kind of interesting and would be cool if it worked.

I have tried to read up on some of this, but it is still beyond me. So, even though this has probably been covered, and is maybe being argued right now, here goes:

Can ya'all list out, in laymen's terms, three to five falsifiable and repeatable tests for this theory? Tests that could be done today, or within a few years. You know, the old idea that falls along the lines that the results of each test better match the predictions of this theory as compared to any other. And, that if they don't match, this theory is shown to be wrong (no matter how much I want it to be true - oh man, I sure want it to be true!). And, maybe the tricky part, the tests have to be something most (>95%) qualified scientists agree upon as the right tests to make a determination as to real vs. bunk. Even the ones that think the theory is goofy.

How much would each test cost? How long before we could do it such that the output was clear and easily repeatable? Not something just on the edge of detectability?

Or, can someone direct me to a document and page number with the bulletized tests I refer to? Written in laymen's (oh brother, that's me) terms.

Thanks.