Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativity

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby GIThruster » Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:59 pm

paperburn1 wrote:This short video with V sauce and bill Nye explains it all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOwRb584r1c

That's a decent vid. I would just note to you, when physicists talk about this, they use terms like the "chronological protection conjecture" and ask "whether topological change is possible" meaning, whether one can actually make a wormhole that moves backward in time. It is quite possible that moving backward in time is not possible, or at least that the wormhole which we presume enabled two way travel, would not be able to link with any time prior to its creation.

Discussions on this level turn heady and mathematical very quickly, but it's safe to say we don't know the answers to these things yet and in fact, we surely don't even know all the questions. I would still note to you though, the question of free will and human responsibility is not at issue, since we experience the freedom to make authentic choices. It is true from the perspective of the future that we made the choices we did, and as such it is fair to say we had to, but that is not our perspective when we are faced with those choices, so free moral agency is not at risk by time travel.

And just IMHO, but Bill Nye's observations while true, are completely useless and trivial. The man has no common sense and needs to learn that he is not the proper authority to speak on every issue. These are philosophical issues that are informed by physics, but he is not doing the physics at the level of say Stephen Hawking speaking of chronological protection, so should not be pretending to be offering useful insights. He's just propagating this scientistic belief that he's one of the priestly class with all the answers, and he is not.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby paperburn1 » Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:00 am

I have to agree, Bill Nye is a television personality first, and sort of a scientist second.After all he supported the 2006 reclassification of Pluto from planet to dwarf planet .
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

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

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby AcesHigh » Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:01 am

are you saying that anyone who supported the reclassification is not a real scientist? :roll:

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby Diogenes » Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:50 pm

AcesHigh wrote:are you saying that anyone who supported the reclassification is not a real scientist? :roll:




One would think real scientists have better things to do than focus on something so trivial.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

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

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby DeltaV » Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:46 pm

http://www.google.com/patents/US20140152227?cl=en

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014006616A4?cl=en

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjp%2Fi2014-14240-x
It should be emphasized that although momentum can be created in the material part of the system as described in the following work momentum cannot be created in the physical system, hence for any momentum that is acquired by matter an opposite momentum is attributed to the electromagnetic field.


Oddly, the Google PDF patent download is kaput.

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

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby DeltaV » Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:08 pm

Not in the arXiv version (no doubt a reviewer-prompted change)... does not invalidate the claims (orange box).
Attachments
Newton's Third Law in the Framework of Special Relativity_EPJ_pg1.jpg
Newton's Third Law in the Framework of Special Relativity_EPJ_pg1.jpg (137.39 KiB) Viewed 5097 times

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby GIThruster » Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:53 pm

pbelter wrote:3. The wave travelling backward through time is a poor explanation of the phenomenon. Is the 3 billion years away galaxy gravitational interacting with locally accelerating object from the spot where it was 3 billion years ago or where it is now?

Neither. I think this is a misunderstanding of absorber theory. You'll find a nice treatment of this in Heidi Fern's paper. Half the advanced wave traveling backward through time is coming from the universe, to the test mass from the future to arrive in the present and generate inertia, when combining with half the retarded wave which is traveling from the past and arriving in the present at the same time.

Einstein, Wheeler, Feynman, Cramer, Kastner, Hoyle, Narkiler, and Fern are all proposing this is so. Einstein, Hoyle and Narkiler all gave up this line of inquiry when they realized that the self energy of the electron was the serious trouble with this model, but Woodward solved the self energy issue when he explained in his modified ADM electron model that the ADM weakness, that it requires electron spin >>c, is not a bug inconsistent with Relativity, but rather a requirement of Relativity. It concerns the isotropic coordinate speed of light and the results of the electron being composed of negative mass that has been "dressed". You'll find this in Woodward chapters 6 & 7.

Also worth noting here is according to Kastner, the waves themselves are not propagating through space-time. They are pre-space-time events that give rise to events in space-time. See her vid, time index 10 minutes and especially 24 minutes:

http://experts.excelsior.edu/experts/rkastner/
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

kurt9
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby kurt9 » Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:10 pm

pbelter wrote:If we can open up a wormhole 10 light years away and measure the waves coming in then step back an know the future movements of objects in our neighborhood, then this creates a paradox, as what would stop us if we wanted o influence that movement?

I see couple of options to resolve it

1. We can't build wormholes or devise any other way to get information form a different point is space faster than the speed of light can deliver it to us

2. We can but there is really no free will and all of our future actions are already predetermined no matter what we do.

3. The wave travelling backward through time is a poor explanation of the phenomenon. Is the 3 billion years away galaxy gravitational interacting with locally accelerating object from the spot where it was 3 billion years ago or where it is now? It would make sense that the interaction is from where it was 3 billion years ago, when the wave was generated and this potentially may be measurable by very advanced tech, proving or disproving the hypothesis. This would be a way to distinguish the Wheeler–Feynman absorber from an instantaneous force propagation.

4. There is no way to measure that wave as any measurement would interact with it and therefore the wave could not be generated in the first place. Similar issue as in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But if that it the case then we are looking at theory that predicts a phenomenon that cannot be measured and therefore it is not falsifiable

1 & 2 are depressing, 3 means that we really don't understand what is going on , or at least not in easily comprehensible terms. 4 means we have a non falsifiable hypothesis, which means that we can't prove anything except getting a working apparatus and even then we still cannot be sure whether it works the way we think it works.


I can think of another explanation. Time is either a localized phenomenon or simply does not exist. There is no such thing as "time".

If you make your wormhole and have it open up 10 light years from here, step through it, and measure the wave, you have measured the wave as it passes through the point 10 light years from here. Whatever information that wave is carrying, its about stuff that occurred at that 10 light year location and beyond. It does not carry any information about what happens at your start location because it hasn't gotten that far (this takes another 10 years). You can step back through your wormhole with the knowledge of that wave, but it won't contain any information of your current location. I don't see any unusual paradox with this scenario.

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

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby AcesHigh » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:02 am

Diogenes wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:are you saying that anyone who supported the reclassification is not a real scientist? :roll:




One would think real scientists have better things to do than focus on something so trivial.


it was not trivial at all, just like taxonomy definitions on biology are not trivial.

there were good reasons to apply more rigorous definitions, as our knowledge of the solar system expanded.

it´s people who base the definitions on nostalgia rather than scientific vigor that complain about the reclassification.


if astronomers had not decided to get together to decide on classifications, we would have thousands of planets on the Solar System, as Ceres was once considered a planet... until we found two more of similar size and orbit...


Historical parallel
The refining understanding of Pluto echoed a debate in the 19th century that began with the discovery of Ceres on January 1, 1801.[3] Astronomers immediately declared the tiny object to be the "missing planet" between Mars and Jupiter. Within four years, however, the discovery of two more objects with comparable sizes and orbits had cast doubt on this new thinking. By 1851, the number of "planets" had grown to 23, and it was clear that hundreds more would eventually be discovered. Astronomers began cataloguing them separately and began calling them "asteroids" instead of "planets".[5]

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby D Tibbets » Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:25 am

Sorry to contribute to the topic drift, but...

The recent decision of the criteria for a planet is arbitrary and foolish. The requirement for the body to be large enough to gravitationally form a sphere is reasonable, but how perfect of a sphere do you need? The Earth is egg shaped, and what about mountains?

Clearing out everything in it's orbit is the other criteria. Again, it is a matter of scale. Jupiter is certainly good at collecting or dispersing dust and other objects from nearby. But it still hasn't cleared out its orbit, mostly because it is a continuous process, even after billions of years things are still colliding with Jupiter. There is always new stuff entering the domain where the gravity of a body perturbes it . Only the scale is different. Ceres has cleared it's orbit just as well as Jupiter, as has Vesta, or any other rock that has survived to the current age of the Solar system.

You might argue that Pluto is not a planet because it is in a resonant orbit with Neptune, but you could reverse that argument and say that Neptune is not a planet. You could say that only the larger body could be a planet, but what about other star systems? If you have two bodies like Neptune and Uranus that is in a resonate orbit, which do you reject as a planet? Note that a resonant orbit is not the same as being a trogen. In that case it would be difficult to justify a planet designation. But, what if a Earth like object was in a trojan orbit with a super Jupiter. Would it be a planet?

The argument that Pluto is similar in size to several additional "trans-Neptunian objects" , thus does not deserve the title of a planet can be equally reversed and the newly discovered bodies should be called planets based on sphericity. I think Mercury fits into this situation as well. Which direction you go is only a cultural bias. Oh no, we can't have 30 planets, how would we calculate our horiscopes!

Only the requirement for sphericity (within some arguable limits) is a definitive measure, along with survival over the age of the star system (implies it has cleared it's orbit to any meaningful extent) . What of a perfectly acceptable planet like Earth that is ejected from a star system by a super Jupiter or a binary star. Is it no longer a planet if it is not orbiting a star?

The new naming system is designed specifically to exclude Pluto, and the criteria are imprecise even so. It is a political and cultural decision and has little if any use for describing star system formation or evolution. Note that this reasoning would place Ceres as a planet. That is fine. At least it would be consistent. Defining a dwarf planet as being under some defined radius (again calls up consideration of Mercury) is also fine, but I do not think they wanted to ventured that far.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby paperburn1 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:20 pm

Well stated Mr. Tibbets
or in a more youthful parlance "What he said!"
And on one other note Then.., why is a strawberry called so? it is a fruit not a berry. A banana is a berry but it is referred as a fruit and I do not even want to get started on Tomato and eggplants which are legally vegetables but in reality berries so declared by the supreme court (1893 case of Nix v. Hedden)
So because of rules Pluto is not a planet. Just because a group of men gather and say something does not make it correct.

I was born with nine planets in the sky and will most likely die with the same belief.

:lol: Warning signification thread drift :lol:
Last edited by paperburn1 on Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

paperburn1
Posts: 2454
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby paperburn1 » Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:14 pm

kurt9 wrote:
2. We can but there is really no free will and all of our future actions are already predetermined no matter what we do.



I consider a explanation that Time is equivalent to a large river . We can change the path of one cup of water but it eventually makes its way back to the overall path of of the river . Flow,eddies and whirl pools are all feature of the river that can be observed and quantified but in the total picture make no difference in the overall flow. This would allow a degree of free will but in the large scale of the River be of no consequence. You could go back and kill Hitler but someone could probably take his place. Major events set in motion would most likely still occur whether we interfered or even because we interfered but the rivers general motion still remains the same. The larger disruption you could cause in the flow the more easily observable the effect would be. You could jump back upstream but the energy required would be the same as moving down stream plus X to gain headway. It would be larger and larger the farther you jumped making travel back in time have a diminishing return. But as a whole the river still flows in the same direction un-perturbed by out actions. This would give us "free will" but keep everything working toward entropy.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

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

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby AcesHigh » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:48 am

D Tibbets wrote:The recent decision of the criteria for a planet is arbitrary and foolish. The requirement for the body to be large enough to gravitationally form a sphere is reasonable, but how perfect of a sphere do you need? The Earth is egg shaped, and what about mountains?



1 - The object must be in orbit around the Sun.
2 - The object must be massive enough to be a sphere by its own gravitational force. More specifically, its own gravity should pull it into a shape of hydrostatic equilibrium.
3 - It must have cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.

Going in depth in two:
Hydrostatic equilibrium is the current distinguishing criterion between dwarf planets and small Solar System bodies, and has other roles in astrophysics and planetary geology. This qualification typically means that the object is symmetrically rounded into a spheroid or ellipsoid shape, where any irregular surface features are due to a relatively thin solid crust. There are 31 observationally confirmed such objects (apart from the Sun), sometimes called planemos,[2] in the Solar System, seven more[3] that are virtually certain, and a hundred or so more that are likely.[3]




Clearing out everything in it's orbit is the other criteria. Again, it is a matter of scale. Jupiter is certainly good at collecting or dispersing dust and other objects from nearby. But it still hasn't cleared out its orbit, mostly because it is a continuous process, even after billions of years things are still colliding with Jupiter. There is always new stuff entering the domain where the gravity of a body perturbes it . Only the scale is different. Ceres has cleared it's orbit just as well as Jupiter, as has Vesta, or any other rock that has survived to the current age of the Solar system.


I think you are not aware of what exactly "clearing it's neighborhood means".

"Pluto fails to meet the third condition, because its mass is only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit (Earth's mass, by contrast, is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its own orbit).[146][148] The IAU further resolved that Pluto be classified in the simultaneously created dwarf planet category, and that it act as the prototype for the plutoid category of trans-Neptunian objects, in which it would be separately, but concurrently, classified.[149]"

In other words, clearing it´s neighborhood means that the particular object must be by far the largest mass in it's orbit.

Thus, Jupiter has cleared it´s orbit LOOOOONG ago, during the formation of the solar system, when it was already millions of times larger in mass than any other object in it´s orbit. It doesn´t matter there are 1 trillion objects on Jupiter's orbit. What matters is the % of the mass in that orbit those objects sum.


You might argue that Pluto is not a planet because it is in a resonant orbit with Neptune, but you could reverse that argument and say that Neptune is not a planet.


no, you cannot, because Neptune is by far, VERY FAR, the largest mass in it´s orbit.


You could say that only the larger body could be a planet, but what about other star systems? If you have two bodies like Neptune and Uranus that is in a resonate orbit, which do you reject as a planet? Note that a resonant orbit is not the same as being a trogen. In that case it would be difficult to justify a planet designation. But, what if a Earth like object was in a trojan orbit with a super Jupiter. Would it be a planet?


I am sure that when we are confronted with such a case, we will create a definition.

Fact is, we need a threshold, otherwise we would have hundreds (not 30) plants on the solar system. It seems you people are not searching for a good scientific definition of a planet... the definition you guys want is "what I studied at school".

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby palladin9479 » Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:33 am

I think you are not aware of what exactly "clearing it's neighborhood means".

"Pluto fails to meet the third condition, because its mass is only 0.07 times that of the mass of the other objects in its orbit (Earth's mass, by contrast, is 1.7 million times the remaining mass in its own orbit).[146][148] The IAU further resolved that Pluto be classified in the simultaneously created dwarf planet category, and that it act as the prototype for the plutoid category of trans-Neptunian objects, in which it would be separately, but concurrently, classified.[149]"

In other words, clearing it´s neighborhood means that the particular object must be by far the largest mass in it's orbit.

Thus, Jupiter has cleared it´s orbit LOOOOONG ago, during the formation of the solar system, when it was already millions of times larger in mass than any other object in it´s orbit. It doesn´t matter there are 1 trillion objects on Jupiter's orbit. What matters is the % of the mass in that orbit those objects sum.


That definition was deliberately chosen to exclude smaller solar objects that are farther from the sun. The farther out you are the larger the orbit and thus the more "stuff" that happens to be included in that orbit. A solar object the size of pluto could be considered a "planet" if it was closer to it's orbiting star and there was a larger gas giant like Saturn or Jupiter not too far away that had hoovered up all the stray stellar matter. It would been better for them to say "larger then X mass is planet, smaller then X but larger then Y is demi-planet, smaller then Y is asteroid". I don't care for politics and real-fact vs good-fact getting involved in science, it never results in anything good.

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

Re: Propellantless propulsion from plain-old Special Relativ

Postby AcesHigh » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:36 pm

That definition was deliberately chosen to exclude smaller solar objects that are farther from the sun.


well, yes, just like we needed a definition back in the 19th century to exclude all the thousands of objects we started finding on the asteroid belt, and Ceres also ended up being removed from the definition of a planet. In the same way, with the previous definition of a planet, we would end up with hundreds or thousands of objects farther from the sun being considered as planets. And I am sure that just as some people were against removing Pluto from the planets list, the same people would be against having a Solar System with 150 planets. However, they were not the ones providing a scientific definition that could serve as a threshold for removing those objects that had the same characteristics as Pluto.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest