Mach Effect progress

[tomclarke]

Apparently tomclarke is unreachable.
Does anyone else in which paper this constant K appears ?

Woodward's original derivation of mach effect could not determine its magnitude, except by a hand wavinbg argument that the constant of proportionality should be 1 in some natural units. (g/c^2 or something, I can't remember).

When it was clear any effect was much smaller than this (after woodwards more recent experiments, which were a lot more accurate) Woodward introduced a constant.

Of course, it makes the derivation much less convincing.

Tom

This isn't quite accurate. you are speaking of phi = c^2, which is also phi/c^2 = 1 and the "less than 1" is 0.23 only if you count all far off active mass including: visible matter, COBE, Dark matter, and Dark energy. HOWEVER, as Jack Sarfatti has stated, if you count the backward acting de Sitter universe event horizon, this value returns to 1.

Woodward's latest experiments rule out this value being ~1, because the mach effect is much smaller than that would imply.

that is all I'm saying. It does mean it is more likely mach effect does not exist. (That was always likely of course). But I think paul march still has some hopes, and perhaps would not agree with this.

Tom

[GIThruster]

Em. . .I'm sorry but this seems to be a terribly misinformed series of comments. To make clear the situation: Dr. Woodward has never made any sort of quantitative prediction of what magnitude thrust to expect. It was Andrew Palfreyman's math model, as used by Paul March, that made such predictions. There have always been however, several reasons to suspect that Andrew's model is broken, especially including the presumptions it makes regarding a linear transition across the wormhole boundary, which according to theory is not so.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that the work has always involved a host of "loose variables" that would make quantitative prediction near impossible. For example, we do not know the percent dielectric as opposed to sinter used in any of the caps to date. We do not know how successful the sinter is in repressing the piezo-mechanical action in the ceramic. (We do know that the sinter was chosen to do this, and that this reduces the force from any thruster since they rely upon this action.) We do not know the relative polarization of the ceramic, and we do not know how much if at all this changes with time.

There are many reasons Dr. Woodward has never made any quantitative predictions in this work, so when we read someone who discounts the work because of such predictions, we're reading someone sadly mistaken in their presumptions.

Jim has continued to generate evidence from the lab and to publish this to his reading list. IMHO, the trouble is certainly that no matter how much he demonstrates things like scaling, reversibility, etc., because he is in the uN rather than commercial mN range, people don't take the work seriously. Rather, they jump to hasty conclusions based upon inadequate familiarity with the facts--much like Tom has done above. Fact is, if you don't generate mN thrusts, people just don't much care what "proof of science" you provide.

[tomclarke]

Em. . .I'm sorry but this seems to be a terribly misinformed series of comments. To make clear the situation: Dr. Woodward has never made any sort of quantitative prediction of what magnitude thrust to expect. It was Andrew Palfreyman's math model, as used by Paul March, that made such predictions. There have always been however, several reasons to suspect that Andrew's model is broken, especially including the presumptions it makes regarding a linear transition across the wormhole boundary, which according to theory is not so.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that the work has always involved a host of "loose variables" that would make quantitative prediction near impossible. For example, we do not know the percent dielectric as opposed to sinter used in any of the caps to date. We do not know how successful the sinter is in repressing the piezo-mechanical action in the ceramic. (We do know that the sinter was chosen to do this, and that this reduces the force from any thruster since they rely upon this action.) We do not know the relative polarization of the ceramic, and we do not know how much if at all this changes with time.

There are many reasons Dr. Woodward has never made any quantitative predictions in this work, so when we read someone who discounts the work because of such predictions, we're reading someone sadly mistaken in their presumptions.

Jim has continued to generate evidence from the lab and to publish this to his reading list. IMHO, the trouble is certainly that no matter how much he demonstrates things like scaling, reversibility, etc., because he is in the uN rather than commercial mN range, people don't take the work seriously. Rather, they jump to hasty conclusions based upon inadequate familiarity with the facts--much like Tom has done above. Fact is, if you don't generate mN thrusts, people just don't much care what "proof of science" you provide.

Well I'll happily accept that correction, but it is still a negative change. The quantitative model was one of the best things about the m-e theory, because it made it disprovable. Otherwise it would appear to be impossible to disprove.

As for Jim's demonstrations at uN level the problem is that such results are extremely easy to be subject to extraneous influence. Jim has done a good job of ruling out some such, but in no ways all.

For example at uN level nonlinearities in effects which cancel out first order become significant, and this makes any definitive analysis of the data difficult.

I would not dismiss new good data, but it will be difficult to prove good when the effect is so small.

Tom

[TDPerk]

"It does mean it is more likely mach effect does not exist. (That was always likely of course). "

It's my understanding that unless Einstein was only accidentally correct, the M-E must be real--although it may well not be practically exploitable.

Perhaps TomClarke could explain his giving greater weight to uN reports from Woodward but essentially (it seems) no weight to the mN thrusts reported by Paul March?

[tomclarke]

"It does mean it is more likely mach effect does not exist. (That was always likely of course). "

It's my understanding that unless Einstein was only accidentally correct, the M-E must be real--although it may well not be practically exploitable.

Perhaps TomClarke could explain his giving greater weight to uN reports from Woodward but essentially (it seems) no weight to the mN thrusts reported by Paul March?

Jim had much better control of extraneous forces than Paul.

Furthermore, the effect dynamics are known, so any experiment can bound the value of the constant.

I don't think there is any theoretical necessity for m-e to be real.

[madsci]

After thinking more about the Woodward effect, it seems to me that you can generate energy from nothing using it.

Suppose you have a 1kg capacitor whose mass that can be reduced up to 0.5kg using the Woodward effect.
The you can do the following:
-when its mass is 0.5kg, accelerate the capacitor to 1m/s: the energy consumed is mv^2/2 or 0.25J
-when its mass is 1kg, slow down the capacitor from 1m/s to 0: the energy gained is 0.5J

So, in this cycle you "created" 0.25J of energy from nothing, therefore the Woodward effect implies the violation of the energy conservation ?
Is this true or am I missing something ?
Is there a theoretical "way around it" ?

[tomclarke]

After thinking more about the Woodward effect, it seems to me that you can generate energy from nothing using it.

Suppose you have a 1kg capacitor whose mass that can be reduced up to 0.5kg using the Woodward effect.
The you can do the following:
-when its mass is 0.5kg, accelerate the capacitor to 1m/s: the energy consumed is mv^2/2 or 0.25J
-when its mass is 1kg, slow down the capacitor from 1m/s to 0: the energy gained is 0.5J

So, in this cycle you "created" 0.25J of energy from nothing, therefore the Woodward effect implies the violation of the energy conservation ?
Is this true or am I missing something ?
Is there a theoretical "way around it" ?

It is energy from the rest of the universe. But yes, it is possible, and it is not entirely clear that it can't break entropy, which would be worrying. I have not thought about that much.

[madsci]

It is energy from the rest of the universe. But yes, it is possible, and it is not entirely clear that it can't break entropy, which would be worrying. I have not thought about that much.

Thanks for the reply. You say it's energy from the rest of the Universe. Has anyone proven that even with the Woodward effect the energy conservation holds over the entire Universe even if it doesn't hold locally as shown above ?

The reason I keep asking this is because I think it's a very important issue. A theory where the energy conservation is violated "blatantly" doesn't have much chance of being correct IMHO.

[ladajo]

Have you really looked at the theory of how M-E works? It (in theory) postulates the answer to what you are looking for.

It is the $64 question.

[madsci]

Have you really looked at the theory of how M-E works? It (in theory) postulates the answer to what you are looking for.

It is the $64 question.

I looked at several papers available - the newest ones are not publicly available yet.
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could point out which paper provides the answers.

[ladajo]

I will look at what I have at home. I am at work currently, do not have the full store of things I have archived at home. You can also PM Paul March, he can help you out as well.

[tomclarke]

It is energy from the rest of the universe. But yes, it is possible, and it is not entirely clear that it can't break entropy, which would be worrying. I have not thought about that much.

Thanks for the reply. You say it's energy from the rest of the Universe. Has anyone proven that even with the Woodward effect the energy conservation holds over the entire Universe even if it doesn't hold locally as shown above ?

The reason I keep asking this is because I think it's a very important issue. A theory where the energy conservation is violated "blatantly" doesn't have much chance of being correct IMHO.

That is an interesting question and I suspect not, however I know Woodward et al have hypothesised (as they must) that the effect results in an energy transfer . The main issue here is entropy, since the energy used is high entropy and that resulting low entropy.

[madsci]

I will look at what I have at home. I am at work currently, do not have the full store of things I have archived at home.

Thanks, please let me know what you find.

[madsci]

I will look at what I have at home. I am at work currently, do not have the full store of things I have archived at home. You can also PM Paul March, he can help you out as well.

Ladajo, did you find something interesting in your archive ?

[ladajo]

Stand by. Late day yesterday followed by Swim Team shuttling for my daughter.

I have not forgotten. Sorry.