Talk-Polywell.org

Giorgio wrote:

GIThruster wrote:Hmm. . .not exactly sure what you're saying. All motion is relative to time. From what I remember reading the papers several years ago, the momentum that is found in the thruster, goes missing from the rest of the universe in such a way that it effects the far future--there's less momentum there. I can't venture much past that as I'm not a field theorist and this is really GR stuff. Best is read Jim's papers.

That can be very misleading.

Motion can be considered "over a time axe" or "within a time frame", but not "relative to time" if you want to invoke an exchange of momentum. That is becouse exchange of momentum with time is mathematically impossible to describe (at least at the best of my knowledge) unless you accept the idea that our universe splits every infinitesimal time to create an alternate universe with whom exchange momentum.

Okay. I'll take your word for it. I'm not really following the connection with other universes. I will admit here though, since you asked, to being a proponent of Loop Quantum Gravity, specifically because it proposes that like matter and energy, time and space are not infinitely divisible. In Loop theory, all motion is really more like dislocation. There is no smooth gliding form one position to another, but rather existence takes up residence in a loop at one instant, and in another loop at the next instant. It's more like film than video.

but now we're so far from the original question. . .

I don't want to disparage it, but it is a separate question from the conservation issue.

It is not a separate question but the crux of the matter ... no matter how much ink you blow up, classical momentum cannot be conserved.

You should just fess up and say that to a mechanical engineer asking a good question.

As far as field theory and theoretical papers goes .... I'll wait to read the experimental results papers first. There are infinite amount of theories but experimental results to back them are up are rare, and worth the effort.

icarus wrote:

I don't want to disparage it, but it is a separate question from the conservation issue.

It is not a separate question but the crux of the matter ... no matter how much ink you blow up, classical momentum cannot be conserved.

You should just fess up and say that to a mechanical engineer asking a good question.

Honestly, it's not THAT good a question. If we have an open universe, the answer is yes, the universe displaces. If we have a closed universe, the answer is it does not.

I somehow doubt that satisfies you. Maybe you should take some pause to remember that the papers dealing with this were peer reviewed in places like Foundations of Physics more than a decade ago, and the reviewers didn't have the troubles understanding that you seem to.

GIThruster wrote: Okay. I'll take your word for it. I'm not really following the connection with other universes. I will admit here though, since you asked, to being a proponent of Loop Quantum Gravity, specifically because it proposes that like matter and energy, time and space are not infinitely divisible. In Loop theory, all motion is really more like dislocation. There is no smooth gliding form one position to another, but rather existence takes up residence in a loop at one instant, and in another loop at the next instant. It's more like film than video.

but now we're so far from the original question. . .

My bad, I should have explained better what I was visualizing in terms of equations.

As you cannot exchange momentum with time you need to have a new mass coming into your model to exchange momentum with in the considered infinitesimal time "dt".
This can only be accomplished by accepting the idea of the Multiverse hypothesis, where a new universe (or a new part of it) is created every "dt".

FWIW, I am not a beliver of either the Multiverse and the Quantum Loop Gravity as they both lack a solid logical and mathematical background.

Ahem. You guys are debating the merits of a physics conjecture by debating over a once-removed interpretation/recollection of it, instead of the actual conjecture itself. Again.

We just want to know how this thing doesn't violate conservation of momentum.

So far there has been an endless stream of metaphors and "go read the peer-reviewed literature" every time, what is in essence the same question, comes up. Just show us the data, extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence.

Mach Effect Thruster seems to play with coupling of a mass to the universe. As such, "momentum" has strange meanings, because "mass" has strange meanings.
Take it to a Mach effect thread.

Polywell will let VASIMR meet its expectations, that is, a 1-month transit to Mars, because the direct generation will significantly reduce the thermal load on the spacecraft. A polywell power system might even be able to get more than 1 MWe per ton of mass in vacuum operations.

icarus wrote:So far there has been an endless

insistence to not read the literature; to not get down to the bottom of things.

icarus wrote:

When you walk East, the planet responds slightly by accelerating West. We don't notice this, but the same is true when you steal momentum from the universe.

.... and yet again .... the universe moves relative to what exactly???

I believe he miss-stated the intent. Should that have been "but the same is true when you steal momentum from the rest of the universe"? In which case the "rest of the universe" moves relative to the universe as a whole. I don't see any issue with that.

I'm not really sure how I can be more direct and obvious about this than I've been. icarus, if you just don't get it, it could be maybe you never will. I think everyone else gets it.

One last try: if you consider a person walking on the Earth, and you see momentum imparted by that person to himself, but don't see the momentum imparted to the Earth by the walking, your system is too small and you will appear to have a violation of momentum conservation. You would be wrong to think this, because momentum is conserved and you only appear to have a violation because you chose a system that is too small, and does not represent the thing you're looking to examine.

Same with any M-E thruster. Now if you don't get this, icarus, there's nothing more I can do for you.

As far as extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence, okay. But you haven't looked at any of the evidence and you don't intend to, just as you have no intention of reading any of the papers. So who did you think you were kidding?

As far as extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence, okay. But you haven't looked at any of the evidence and you don't intend to, just as you have no intention of reading any of the papers. So who did you think you were kidding?

Well I haven't stooped as low as casting aspersions on what you might or might not have done ... so before you turn nasty lets leave it at that shall we? Before I 'drop it' ans 'stop kidding you' consider this:

I have read some of Woodwards papers ... over 13 years ago IIRC. Now since you are so well schooled in this wonderful theory could you please cite me the exact paper, section and equation set that proves to you that conservation of momentum is not violated using this new theory of inertia?

I could follow your learned footsteps and would appreciate very much your advanced insight in these matters and willingness to lead all others into the light and beautiful future that awaits us with dawning of such fantastical technologies.

Now if we could respect WizWorm's wishes to take this discussion to the appropriate thread and stop pushing this stuff into where it shouldn't be?

icarus, sorry, you'll need to hunt through the papers yourself. I've already given you the answer you asked for three times. The rest is up to you.

icarus wrote:

As far as extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence, okay. But you haven't looked at any of the evidence and you don't intend to, just as you have no intention of reading any of the papers. So who did you think you were kidding?

Well I haven't stooped as low as casting aspersions on what you might or might not have done ... so before you turn nasty lets leave it at that shall we? Before I 'drop it' ans 'stop kidding you' consider this:

I have read some of Woodwards papers ... over 13 years ago IIRC. Now since you are so well schooled in this wonderful theory could you please cite me the exact paper, section and equation set that proves to you that conservation of momentum is not violated using this new theory of inertia?

I could follow your learned footsteps and would appreciate very much your advanced insight in these matters and willingness to lead all others into the light and beautiful future that awaits us with dawning of such fantastical technologies.

Now if we could respect WizWorm's wishes to take this discussion to the appropriate thread and stop pushing this stuff into where it shouldn't be?

See reply to your query in the News/Mach Effect Progress section of this forum.

To rephrase the conservation of momentum question:
With a person walking on the Earth it is in principle, if not practice, possible to observe Earths reaction by motion relative to the rest of the universe. With a M-E thruster, where the universe as a whole reacts, how, in principle, would the thrust delivered be demonstrated to not be reactionless? Is part of the universe acted on more than other parts? Is the reaction a wave sweeping out from the thruster observable like a gravity wave?

hanelyp wrote:To rephrase the conservation of momentum question:
With a person walking on the Earth it is in principle, if not practice, possible to observe Earths reaction by motion relative to the rest of the universe. With a M-E thruster, where the universe as a whole reacts, how, in principle, would the thrust delivered be demonstrated to not be reactionless? Is part of the universe acted on more than other parts? Is the reaction a wave sweeping out from the thruster observable like a gravity wave?

Since gravity is an inertial reaction to a localized distortion in the spacetime metric by a body of mass, what emanates from a ME thruster is waves of spacetime distortion that propagate outward at light speed, in synch with the variations in capacitor mass in the thruster... imagine a water bug using surface tension variations to move itself across the surface of a pond, it emanates lots of tiny little ripples from its exertions.