Mach Effect progress

[GIThruster]

I sent Paul that note for you.

Best!

[IntLibber]

what kcdodd is misunderstanding is that an ME thruster isn't a "pure electromagnetic energy thruster", so his E >= pc limit doesn't apply. It is the mass of the caps dielectric thats varying, and with each cycle of the piezos, there is momentum extracted.

Furthermore, the E>=pc limit also is a mere approximation for the thrust from a photon beam, essentially. It completely ignores the bare mass/gravinertial mass differential in the structure of the electron that Jim talks about in his papers, so it cannot account for Mach Effects.

[93143]

Or, to put it very simply, the rest of the universe is the reaction mass, and the exhaust velocity is stupendously low, leading to an Isp extremely close to zero (and thus, extremely low jet power for a given thrust).

This thruster would be really, really, really bad if it had to carry all of its reaction mass, like a rocket, or an ion drive, or even a photon thruster. But it doesn't, and that's the trick.

It's sort of like a turbojet, using the medium it's passing through as reaction mass - except that with a turbojet, the engine has to ingest the air in order to push on it, whereas the M-E thruster can push on the rest of the universe without having to be big enough to pass it through a fan.

(Assuming it does, in fact, work at all...)

EDIT: I get the impression that the above wasn't the issue. If you want to know how it's supposed to do that, yeah, it does get a bit complicated...

[icarus]

Anybody got a reference to an experimentally observed speed of gravity, c?

[pfrit]

Anybody got a reference to an experimentally observed speed of gravity, c?

Not a great deal of accuracy, but http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/gravity/

[kcdodd]

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.

Its simply combining conservation of momentum with the limit of c. If an object experiences a change in momentum, an impulse, then momentum must be transfered to something else such that the total change is zero. Now, that transfer can happen through a stress field (aka momentum flux). However, since the effect can supposedly be turned on and off, the effect of such a stress field can only exist within r <= ct; where t is the time from which the effect is turned on. Otherwise one gets transmission of information at speeds greater then light. So, in other words, wherever that momentum is going, and whatever form it is in (gravity field or whatever), must be within r <= ct. And since momentum and energy are not independent quantities there is a certain energy associated with it.

[paulmarch]

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.

Its simply combining conservation of momentum with the limit of c. If an object experiences a change in momentum, an impulse, then momentum must be transfered to something else such that the total change is zero. Now, that transfer can happen through a stress field (aka momentum flux). However, since the effect can supposedly be turned on and off, the effect of such a stress field can only exist within r <= ct; where t is the time from which the effect is turned on. Otherwise one gets transmission of information at speeds greater then light. So, in other words, wherever that momentum is going, and whatever form it is in (gravity field or whatever), must be within r <= ct. And since momentum and energy are not independent quantities there is a certain energy associated with it.

Carter:

You are missing several things about the M-E that you need to keep in mind when discussing the M-E's gravity/inertia (G/I) field phi, which is equal to the speed of light squared (c^2) per Sciama. So the power & momentum flux requirements for a given M-E thruster’s thrust level and how to deal with its momentum and energy conservation using the G/I 4D Spacetime field as its momentum conduit are going to be different from E&M, and in fact they are very different except for the shared assumption that disturbances in both these fields propagate at light speed c.

Now assuming you’ve already read at least some of Sciama’s and Woodward’s papers on the origins of inertia, (and yes this really will help your understanding of this M-E stuff), the intensity of the G/I waves in the G/I field required to carry an arbitrary power/momentum flux of say 1.0 watt, is ~42 orders of magnitude smaller than the same magnitude power flux conveyed by the E&M field. Do NOT assume that just because disturbances in the G/I field propagate through 4D spacetime at light speed in a vacuum, that this power flux is conveyed by E&M photons for they are not. Since no one has measured gravitons yet, all we can say is that this G/I power flux is carried by the actual deformations or kinks in the universe’s 4D spacetime matrix which is far, far stiffer by 42 orders of magnitude than the 3D spacetime channel used by E&M effects. BTW, this E&M to G/I stiffness ratio is defined in General Relativity Theory (GRT).

Second point: The Machian/GRT view of Newtonian inertial reaction forces, i.e., Newton’s third law upon which the M-E is partially based, requires the simultaneous G/I interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe with the locally accelerated mass. This G/I interaction of the locally accelerated mass with the ambient G/I field, which is created by the summation of the G/I interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe, IS the Machian/GRT answer to what is inertia. In fact this tells us what “mass” really is as far as kinematics is concerned. However, this solution to the “Origins of Inertia” question requires two concessions from us. The first is that we have to accept that retrocausal Wheeler-Feynman radiation reaction forces, which travel both forwards and backwards in time at light speed, exist at least for G/I 4D spacetime field interactions. The second concession is brought to us by GRT and that weird fact is that the past, present, and future are equally real and coexist together in a universal “NOW”, with thermodynamics providing our perception of the arrow of time and our ideas of what the “Present” is. I believe that this atemporal requirement of GRT is the root cause of the weirdness of Quantum Mechanics (QM) where entangled QM states can interact over arbitrarily long distances in NO-time.

Bottom line, if you want to deal with the M-E, you will need to expand your Special Relativity Theory (SRT) viewpoints to include the Machian origins of inertia, GRT, and retrocausal Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces, or if you prefer, John Cramer’s Transaction Interpretation of QM. Then you will understand how the M-E can convey momentum and energy from a locally accelerated mass to/from the rest of the causally connected universe in NO- time. It’s a large pill to swallow I grant, so perhaps you would just be happier to follow the M-E experimental results that we continue to develop.

All the best

Paul March
Friendswood, TX

[Skipjack]

so perhaps you would just be happier to follow the M-E experimental results that we continue to develop.

I am totally hanging on your lips Paul. Please keep going with your expiments and dont hesitate to share your results.
I am sceptical and I dont give it a high chance of success (sorry), but if you guys can get that going, it will change the world!

[paulmarch]

so perhaps you would just be happier to follow the M-E experimental results that we continue to develop.

I am totally hanging on your lips Paul. Please keep going with your expiments and dont hesitate to share your results.
I am sceptical and I dont give it a high chance of success (sorry), but if you guys can get that going, it will change the world!

All:

You might like to download a book review from NSF.com that Dr. Woodward authored on a Brian Greene book entitled "The Fabric of the Cosmos" where Jim provides some more meat to his views on the origins of inertia. I also appended Jim's latest comments to Dr. Fierro as well.

See: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... 20.new#new

Skipjack:

You are right. If we can pull this off, the world changes at that moment, hopefully for the better. In the meantime, experimental data trumps theoretical musings, but one must have the musings to know what to test. So when I can find time, and that will be early next year probably after I get laid off from JSC, then M-E data gathering will get much higher priority...

All the best.

[AcesHigh]

so perhaps you would just be happier to follow the M-E experimental results that we continue to develop.

I am totally hanging on your lips Paul. Please keep going with your expiments and dont hesitate to share your results.
I am sceptical and I dont give it a high chance of success (sorry), but if you guys can get that going, it will change the world!

I am about 50% skeptic on this, but I garantee you guys that I will tell my grandchildren that I was the best pal of Paul March and that I gave several ideas that helped him and Woodward to develop the thruster of the spaceships that will be all around in 2060...

[D Tibbets]

Perhaps or perhaps not related. I'm not able to follow the complexity of these arguments. But, does any of it involve the Higgs, Boson? If the LHC detects it in its' expected energy range will this reenforce of demolish the arguments for the Mach effect, since both seem to involve the nature of mass/ inertia.?

Dan Tibbets

[chrismb]

The best I can judge it by is that it appears to conflict with thermodynamics yet requires a new paradigm on gravity. If so, then I do not really see why one would drop the long-established principles of thermodynamics merely to go along with an unproven speculation on gravity.

It is true that gravity is 'odd'. It is a far fetched idea that massive bodies pull towards each other. I suspect that today's scientific press would not accept a publication by Newton on the subject today, had it not been deduced intuitively before. Sure, one can take many measurements of it and show a 1/r^2 relationship, but what is the force? I suspect most journals would tell Newton to go away and provide a theory for the origin of this 'supposed force'!

But it is not so odd once you realise the universe is expanding and there is a lack of incipient free energy to 'permit' that expansion. To ask what the force of gravity/source of intertia is is to ask the wrong question, in an expanding universe. Because if these forces did not exist, then the question would be 'how can the entropy of the universe carry on changing as a function of the expanding universe?'.

I have said this before, but it seem that its simplicity belies a profoundness that is not immediately obvious to those lovers of fiendishly complex explanations.

[GIThruster]

Perhaps or perhaps not related. I'm not able to follow the complexity of these arguments. But, does any of it involve the Higgs, Boson? If the LHC detects it in its' expected energy range will this reenforce of demolish the arguments for the Mach effect, since both seem to involve the nature of mass/ inertia.?

Dan Tibbets

M-E theory os not affected by the Higgs-Boson. Whether they find it or not doesn't come to the origin of inertia question at all.

[GIThruster]

The best I can judge it by is that it appears to conflict with thermodynamics yet requires a new paradigm on gravity. If so, then I do not really see why one would drop the long-established principles of thermodynamics merely to go along with an unproven speculation on gravity.

It is true that gravity is 'odd'. It is a far fetched idea that massive bodies pull towards each other. I suspect that today's scientific press would not accept a publication by Newton on the subject today, had it not been deduced intuitively before. Sure, one can take many measurements of it and show a 1/r^2 relationship, but what is the force? I suspect most journals would tell Newton to go away and provide a theory for the origin of this 'supposed force'!

But it is not so odd once you realise the universe is expanding and there is a lack of incipient free energy to 'permit' that expansion. To ask what the force of gravity/source of intertia is is to ask the wrong question, in an expanding universe. Because if these forces did not exist, then the question would be 'how can the entropy of the universe carry on changing as a function of the expanding universe?'.

I have said this before, but it seem that its simplicity belies a profoundness that is not immediately obvious to those lovers of fiendishly complex explanations.

M-E physics doesn't conflict with thermodynamics at all. Not sure why you would think that. It doesn't conflict with any established physics. Indeed, one could argue that it's been known for a long time that Mach's Principle has been experimentally proven. Some would argue not, but Mach, Sciama, Woodward--none of these are at odds with any standard physics. If you study the origins of GR, it becomes obvious Einstein owed much of his understanding of gravity to Hans Mach. Without Mach, there might well be no GR.

[icarus]

Anybody who has studied the origins of General Relativity probably knows that is was Ernst Mach behind Mach's principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach

not Hans Mach, who was he?