Mach Effect progress

[kurt9]

I will say that if you want to know how to build a wormhole generator, aka "stargate" you'll want to be at SPESIF. Jim's physics for M-E generation is now much more complete than it has been. Huge step forward in theory, will be found in his "wormholes" paper.

One has to make the MLT's before one can make the wormhole generator. The proposed wormhole generator technology makes use of the same materials and processes as the MLT's, but is more complicated.

I have lately been pouring through Woodward's older papers in order to get a grasp on M-E theory as well as the design principles that derive from it.

[GIThruster]

You're right of course. I was using a little cheeky hyperbole in asking "if you want to know how to build a wormhole generator" but only a little.

I've seen the drafts for the wormhole paper he'll be delivering and it really is fantastic stuff. Most important however is that the physics is for all intents and purposes, complete.

[AcesHigh]

some interesting physics discussion on ME Effect on the last pages of the thread at NASA Space Flight Forum

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... =13020.960

let me sum it up here

Dr Fierro:
"However, it seems the derivation is fatally flawed in that the
external four-force F is taken as the time rate change of the particle four-momentum (without the constant rest
mass constraint), instead of the correct expression F = (rest mass)*(four-acceleration), which is valid irrespective
of the rest mass being constant or variable."

Star-Drive (Paul March)
"Dr. Woodward's response is below and attached:

"Paul,

Well, if the assertion about the four force were correct, there wouldn't be any predicted effects. But it is not correct. It seems to me obvious that the restmass of an object can be changing, and that this must have dynamical consequences. But perhaps I have lived with this too long. If the correct expression for the four force is the derivative with respect to proper time of the four momentum -- as it is -- then transient fluctuations in the rest masses of things do have dynamical consequences.

In any event, to counter the latest assetion, I long ago included in presentations of the derivation the words of Wolfgang Rindler in the second edition of his text on special relativity. I attach the PPT slide of his words. I don't think Mach effects will be so easily dismissed as by the claim that the definition of the four force doesn't allow them.

Best,

Jim""


Cuddihy
"Dr Ferrer, can you explain more why F=m0•a(4) =/= F=dp/dt,
especially in the context of not assuming at the start mass fluctuations are impossible prima fascia?"

Dr_Fierro
"cuddihy:

By using F=m0*dV/dt, where t stands for the proper time and V for the four-velocity, Eq. (A4)
of Woodward's paper becomes: F=-(m0*dV(0)/dt, f). Now, when dividing by m0, the new Eq. (A6)
is (F/m0)=-(dV(0)/dt, f/m0). Remember that in the rest frame dV(0)/dt=0; anyway, by taking the
four-divergence the new Eq. (A9) becomes: -(1/c)*d²V(0)/dt²-div(f/m0)=4*pi*G*rho0. Besides
some technicalities you can see that no time derivatives of the rest mass appears in the new
Eq. (A9), leaving no room for transient source terms as proposed by Woodward.
Regards.

In the meantime, Jim has confirmed these results, albeit not accepting F=m0*dV/dt as the correct
definition of the four-force.

P.S.: The thread's dynamics is a little bit too fast for my taste and my allowable spare time.
I will do my best to keep with your pace."


Paul March
"Provided below is Dr. Woodward's latest reponse to Dr. Fierro's above comments to cuddyhi. There appears to be some sort of misunderstanding developing here surrounding the definition of dv/dt in an instantaneous rest frame having to be zero, or not. Fierro indicates it has to be zero apparently by definition, but Rindler and Woodward say no it does not have to be zero. Hmmm...


"Sorry, not only is his definition of the four force wrong, he claims that dv/dt in the instantaneous rest frame is zero. That is simply wrong. This person has decided that the derivation must be wrong, and is making stuff up to get that result. That is not good physics. And the definition of the four force is the derivative with respect to proper time of the four momentum.""

[kurt9]

I've seen the drafts for the wormhole paper he'll be delivering and it really is fantastic stuff. Most important however is that the physics is for all intents and purposes, complete.

I've read this paper too.

I'm boning up on the basic theory as well as the design calculations for MLT's (these are in a paper from 2004).

[GIThruster]

Well Kurt, do we know each other from NSF? I'm curious how you have access to the drafts of Jim's current paper.

As far as MLT's are concerned, I should come clean. Since we first began to understand the import of bulk acceleration in the dielectric, about 2 years ago; I have not been a champion of the MLT. It was designed as a "silver bullet" to avoid the acoustic impedance troubles faced by the earlier design, the UFG. Since that time, Jim has moved back to UFG research, though he's also doing more rotator work and this diminishes his time available to work on thrusters.

Just recently, I came upon the notion that we might indeed enhance bulk acceleration in the proper direction by use of an old dielectric. I shouldn't say more than this here, but I will say that if you Kurt, want to play a more active part in discussions of these things, you should send me a private note and I'll see if I can get you onto the small technical distribution list.

Stuff is up in M-E research, but it's not what most people would guess from the posts published the last year. I think we'll see a breakthrough, but this really depends upon construction of a "demonstrator" and that is much Much, MUCH harder that people would guess. Still, it looks like it's within our grasp.

[GIThruster]

some interesting physics discussion on ME Effect on the last pages of the thread at NASA Space Flight Forum

Aces, it is interesting, but let me note that unless someone is a very advanced field theorist, like Jim Woodward; then most people are not going to benefit from this discussion.

Rather, let me encourage the people here and at NSF to look for conclusions. My bet is that the physics will win out, and we'll hopefully see something like a forehead slapping epiphany "oh gosh!"

Otherwise, peeps who haven't taken the time to do many years of advanced field physics are not going to benefit.

As such an uneducated outsider, all I can say is that Jim's physics was vetted in peer review 15 years ago, and it's extremely unlikely that someone posting in an online forum has made a discovery that all the real field theorists have missed for 15 years.

[kcdodd]

One of my problems is that if the momentum is being carried by the gravitational field then you must think about the power requirements one would expect to see. For instance, the EM field can carry momentum, but only in the corresponding relationship: P = E/c. This comes from the fact that the EM field has no rest mass. If one were to build a pure EM engine to produce 1 newton of thrust, then the corresponding power requirement would be about 300MW. Why would one expect a gravitational drive to do better?

[GIThruster]

M-E force generators are not transducers, converting em into gravinertial force. They're transistors, controlling the flow of gravinertial flux in and out of the active mass. There's no real limit we know so far as how much em is required for a set amount of momentum control.

If one doesn't understand this well, it will appear all M-E technology violates conservation. It doesn't, any more than a sail violates conservation when it uses the wind to do more work than the energy used to control the sail itself.

[kcdodd]

That is very poetic. However, the momentum must be carried by something. Looking at the magnitude of the four momentum E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4, which should hold for whatever you are saying the thing is, you can see that the only way for it to do better then P=E/c is if that thing has a non-zero effective rest energy. If it has a rest energy then whatever it is cannot be propagating at the speed of light. Assuming the gravitational field propagates at c, and thus no rest energy, I just don't see how you will do better then P=E/c. Thus, as I pointed out, making it an impractical device even if it worked, or at least no more practical than a pure EM drive.

[kurt9]

Well Kurt, do we know each other from NSF? I'm curious how you have access to the drafts of Jim's current paper.

As far as MLT's are concerned, I should come clean. Since we first began to understand the import of bulk acceleration in the dielectric, about 2 years ago; I have not been a champion of the MLT. It was designed as a "silver bullet" to avoid the acoustic impedance troubles faced by the earlier design, the UFG. Since that time, Jim has moved back to UFG research, though he's also doing more rotator work and this diminishes his time available to work on thrusters.

Just recently, I came upon the notion that we might indeed enhance bulk acceleration in the proper direction by use of an old dielectric. I shouldn't say more than this here, but I will say that if you Kurt, want to play a more active part in discussions of these things, you should send me a private note and I'll see if I can get you onto the small technical distribution list.

Stuff is up in M-E research, but it's not what most people would guess from the posts published the last year. I think we'll see a breakthrough, but this really depends upon construction of a "demonstrator" and that is much Much, MUCH harder that people would guess. Still, it looks like it's within our grasp.

Yes, its me on NSF. However, I'm here more often than in NSF and I prefer this forum.

I sent you a private message.

[kcdodd]

Actually, I have made a mistake. Normal rockets do better then E = P*c because the rest mass energy is effectively free. You just load matter onto the ship which gives you mc^2 energy. So what you really get is E = sqrt(p^2c^2 + m^2c^4) - mc^2 for a rocket, since that mass energy is not included in the energy calculation. However, since the premise of the ME thruster is that no mass is expelled, the total energy is just E = sqrt(p^2c^2 + m^2c^4), which means E >= pc, no matter what, which means there is no way for it to be more practical then a EM radiation source as a thruster. Of course, this should be true for any drive that does not expel matter.

[GIThruster]

I would suggest you read the papers. You certainly seem to have the skills to understand the basics, and you're approach seems to be off.

I'm not a physicist nor engineer, so even when I have some technical understanding to share, I generally avoid this. It would just be too easy for me to be mistaken, and then folks think this relates to the real physics done by the real physicists. I know it's an old sorry answer to give, but best is read the papers. That, and hope Paul has some time soon to pop in. He's quite capable and can give you a better answer I think.

But all those reservations said, I think what you don't understand is that there's technically no limit we know of, concerning just how much a mass can be fluctuated. If that mass is moving when it's fluctuated, you gain momentum. So, if any arbitrary mass is moving in any arbitrary direction, and it fluctuates at any arbitrarily high percent, you will get any arbitrarily high kinetic energy. That's high school physics says there is really no limit such as you're proposing, so far as this humble philosopher can see.

[GIThruster]

. . .However, the momentum must be carried by something. . .

I think you;re neglecting Mach's Principle. Once you understand that all inertia is the result of gravity, then you understand that this gravinertial field that connects all the universe's various component parts is what carries momentum.

Need to read the papers.

[kcdodd]

That does not change the issue I raised. With a maximum propagation of c, the momentum from an impulse must exist within r <= ct of the thruster having energy >= pc. That energy must be supplied by the thruster itself.

[GIThruster]

Well Carter, I'm afraid you really do need a better answer than I can give you. Can I ask, have you read any of the papers, or back in this thread, sufficient that you understand the basics of how M-E physics and M-E thrusters work? I don't really know what you're saying, but the words ". . .the momentum from an impulse must exist within. . ." are highly suspect to me.

Actually, you're reminding me of a dispute most of a decade ago when some physicists were just not tracking how momentum exchange works in these thrusters, so Jim and Tom built the "LA Booster" to demonstrate how they were wrong. Not really sure though, because it's way late here in NJ, I'm exhausted and I'm not a physicist.

Truly, I'm trying my best but I think you need to read the papers. The limits on M-E thrust really are all engineering issues--materials science, the limits of ionic response, etc. They're well understood so I honestly have to believe the issue you're raising is a simple misunderstanding.

Paul would know better. I'll shoot him a note for you.

If it helps, gravity certainly does propagate at c, but some momentum exchange probably does move backward through time. That's a whole new ball of wax I am TOTALLY not qualified to address, save to say that the phrase "tomorrow's momentum today" is an insiders' joke that relates to the way M-E physics works. Cramer's Transactional theory comes to bear here and really the momentum is being "stolen" from the future of the cosmos.

You can see why I don't generally want to bring this stuff up. I'm not a physicist. Besides, momentum exchange through time relates more directly to steering a wormhole than to building a simple thruster.