Mach Effect progress

[D Tibbets]

.....But, you still cannot spontaneously create momentum. It ultimately comes from whatever is pushing on the particle to begin with.

Perhaps not in the mundane current universe, but this apparently happened in the big bang/ inflation, unless you assume something existed in some parent universe/ set of dimensions that led to our own.

Would you explain this statement please? You seem to be stating that somehow momentum was spontaneously created at the big bang? Is that your meaning? If so, why do you think that?

Again, my limited understanding of the big bang theory is that it created the universe as we know it (at least once inflation had ended), and that a number of physical laws were set at that time. Or, at least we cannot know if these conditions were created then or carried over from some earlier existence. If you take S. Hawking's assertion that contemplation of what came before the Big Bang was meaningless, because time did not exist till the big bang at face value, then anything that incoproates time also did not exist till the big bang. Can you describe momentum without time?

Dan Tibbets

[D Tibbets]

I am saying that photons are stationary, and we, the sun, and all 'matter' is moving at c relative to the CoM of the universe. We move relative to the photons. The photons are the things which are stationary.

I actually was afraid that the answer could be that one.
You are implying that the sun, (the biggest source of photons of our local star system) is actually drifting in the fabric of the universe itself leaving behind a path of stationary photons.

No, the sun is spewing stationary photons in all directions but is imploding at the speed of light. Must be honkin big!

Or , is continuously powering a distortion of the universe- aka gravity in general relativity. My light immersion in this thread, coupled with my limited knowledge is a dangerous thing, but I wonder if what Chrismb is suggesting is that photons are actually a manifestation or analog of the structure of spsce/ time- the aether. After all, I believe the Michelson Morley experiments that susposedly disproved the existence of the aether was meaningless in light of special relativity. Is there some other evidence disproving the aether?

Dan Tibbets

[KitemanSA]

... If you take S. Hawking's assertion that contemplation of what came before the Big Bang was meaningless, because time did not exist till the big bang at face value, then anything that incoproates time also did not exist till the big bang. Can you describe momentum without time?

Ok, so you are saying that the concept of momentum was meaningless until the big bang, not that the universe was created at the big bang with a set, non-zero amount of momentum. From a metaphysics standpoint, I can see that.

[93143]

I haven't been following this particularly closely, but...

...you do realize that photons can be pushed/pulled on, thus altering their momentum and kinetic energy, right?

[dnavas]

And, indeed, a photon appears to be such an object. A thing with a 'force-less momentum'. Which implies we are moving at the speed of light with respect to the CoM of the universe, and the photons are stationary.

Of course they are, they're stationary in time, following a curved path around the center of the origin of the universe. We are moving at the speed of light in time, Lorentz is derived from a Pythagorean treatment on velocities, inflation denotes a period of time when 'c' was different (there's a lovely book I read about that last year -- very interesting), gravity is a 4D deformation which is a side effect of both the expansion of the Universe and matter's tendency not to (not to expand -- unlike energy, whose wavelength does change) -- sort of like a bowshock, I guess. I think an even more interesting phenom is the black hole -- the original mass appears to be moving away at the speed of light, yet is not following a curved path. It's like someone stapled it's existence at a certain point, and the Universe leaves it behind.

At least, that's the picture I've had in my head for ages. At some point I got off the physics bandwagon and became a CS major, so, it's probably wrong in any number of ways (not the least of which is talking about velocities through time). But regardless, I confess I don't understand how this relates back to Mach?

-Dave

[ladajo]

In relation to the idea of momentum and inertia related to electomagnetic forces; I thought this was interesting...it is from a Master's Thesis by Micheal J Putnam and the Naval Postgraduate School, publishedin December, 2009, exploring if recoil is present in an electromagnetic railgun's rails.

"This experiment investigated recoil exerted on the
rails by simultaneously measuring armature Lorentz force
and rail recoil with real-time data recording. If the
recoil was seated in the rails, it was expected to have a
magnitude nearly equal to the Lorentz force in the opposite
direction. Simultaneous measurements over a large range of
currents were compared. The max current attained was
2.7 kA, and the measured Lorentz force was 1.7 N, while the
recoil peaked at less than 2% of this value and then
dropped to less than 1%, as seen in Figure 19. Appendix
section 1 shows graphical results for various current
levels, which are consistent with the results in Figure 19.
The recoil readings are not current dependent, and are
interpreted as artifacts of the experiment."

Bottom Line:
"We conclude that the recoil, or corresponding equal and opposite reaction force to the force on the armature, is not seated in the rails."

So where is the recoil?

[Giorgio]

So where is the recoil?

I don't see why there should be a recoil in the first case, there is no projectile involved in the experiment.
No mass expelled no recoil.

Or am I missing something?

[ladajo]

"measuring armature Lorentz "

[Giorgio]

I see, this resamble a variant of the Trouton experiment, charging a capacitor suspended from the ceiling and trying to get a reaction out of it.
Give a look here as a quick example:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20f ... 022005.pdf

[ladajo]

But that supposses the conservation of mass and energy occurs between the battery and the capacitor.

In the case of the rail gun that does not seem so (on the surface).

Interestingly, railgun recoil is manifested in the breech, but if the breech is open, and the rails do not generate a recoil force while accellerating the armature, how does the recoil manifest at the breech?

[GIThruster]

Heh. 10 pages over a week. Tell me, those with the complaints or who were just arguing over gravity theory, did any of you go and read those papers?

Just 3 points response to the entire thread (and no I'm not new at this but haven't been here in ages and couldn't figure out what my handle here is so I have a new one. . .

One important distinction to draw when considering these devices is that they are not transducers, that convert one form of energy into another. They are transistors that control the flow of gravinertial energy or momentum. If you think of them as transducers, you will have all manner of trouble with conservation violation.

To Tom Clarke, good to see you here. I just want to take issue with the attitude about not expecting this M-E approach to work because it could lead to "free energy".

If M-E devices such as thrusters only work outside wormhole territory, meaning with less than 100% mass fluctuation or dm<m condition, then we are not tapping into negative mass or energy and the devices ought not produce energy under any circumstances. It's only if these items operate well in wormhole territory that they might actually control more energy than the electrical input. In any case, the energy is not "free" anymore than the wind is free in the case of a windmill. You're still harvesting energy, but the opportunities are far greater if you can operate in wormhole territory, just as the opportunities are greater with a lateen sail, to force a sailboat faster than the air around it than they are with a square rigger.

Now it could be your reference (which I understand and generally sympathize with) is just a reaction to the enormous possibility of tapping into the forces of gravity and inertia. If that's what you're responding to, let me say this is not the attitude held by the Wright Brothers when they tapped into Bernoulli, nor of Maxwell, nor Lorentz, etc. These guys gave us mastery over flight, electromagnetism, etc. and anyone before their time would certainly have thought "gee, that's too good to be true."

Mastering inertia SOUNDS too good to be true, but is it really?

[hanelyp]

...
Bottom Line:
"We conclude that the recoil, or corresponding equal and opposite reaction force to the force on the armature, is not seated in the rails."

So where is the recoil?

I can't be certain without seeing the experimental setup, but I suspect in a part of the current loop not instrumented to measure recoil.

[AcesHigh]

Heh. 10 pages over a week.

hi GI. Too bad you were banned from the NASA Spaceflight forum.

Any idea where else there are good discussions about the ME Thruster, aside here and the Nasa Spaceflight forum?

[GIThruster]

Well gee, Aces, thanks for reminding me of that warm fuzzy experience. Can I have a root canal to go with that?

No, I've had time for very little lurking or pleasure posting these days and the experience with the trolls at NSF was enough to send me on vacation from such. I have to say this forum seems to have broadened considerably since the last time I surfed through. Stuff from new batteries to backyard fusion reactors gone wrong. . .great fun!

[ladajo]

...
Bottom Line:
"We conclude that the recoil, or corresponding equal and opposite reaction force to the force on the armature, is not seated in the rails."

So where is the recoil?

I can't be certain without seeing the experimental setup, but I suspect in a part of the current loop not instrumented to measure recoil.

check Putnam 2009 out at:

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA514371

There is also another Thesis for Schroeder 2007 posted on DTIC. And one by Kathe in November 2000, titled Recoil Considerations for Railguns. Kathe thinks it is all hoo-hah. But Schroeder and Putnam seem to have demonstrated that it does not add up.

I can email the pdf's if you like.