Mach Effect progress

[chrismb]

An increase of universal acceleration is a decrease of entropy. . .

Wrong. As per usual, wrong and so wrong one has to work hard not to laugh at you, chris.

Maybe you are thinking of 'expansion', rather than 'increasing acceleration'? But of what importance are the facts of science when attempting to close a debate with a 'believer' of an alternative reality.

[happyjack27]

@happyjack27: When I said "entropy", I meant what the poster I was responding to seemed to mean by it - the principle of nondecrease of entropy, which I also referred to as the "entropy condition". Known in continuum mechanics as the Clausius-Duhem inequality, as I recall.

It's not so much a fundamental law of physics as an emergent result thereof, that doesn't apply in all circumstances (as you noted yourself).

not familiar with said inequality, but i would fathom a guess that it's related to the fact in information theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory ) that cross-entropy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-entropy ) can never be higher than self-entropy, since sum of -p*ln(q) is maximized when p=q. however this makes it more interesting when you put it in terms of information. because we see that it is an _asymmetric_ measure. that is, as signal goes from p to q, information is lost, while at the same time, a _different_ amount of information is lost going from q to p! what we have lest out here is the information gain in p. it's tricky because the information gain does not come from q. by definition it _cannot_ come from q, because it is by definition new! so what IS the information gain in p? well it's the codes in p that are not determined by q. if we were to think that p was a simulation of q, the new information would be the "noise" or the "error". it is the extra letters in the 'p' code that do not correspond to distinct states in the 'q' code.

and we see that if we take a step back from the system, we can look at it in a different way: we can look at the mutual information between p and q ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information ), and the information in p but not q, and q but not p. so we have a sort of venn diagram. and the fact that we lose a different amount of information going one way vs the other is as trivial as seeing that the size of the subset (p not q) is independent of that of (q not p).

now add a dimension of time - so now we have p at t+1 and q at t+1, lets call them p' and q'. now we add these to our diagram. and now it's a venn diagram relating 4 sets. 2x2x2x2 = 16 distinct spaces -> p&p'&q&q', p&p'&q&!q', etc. so now we see "entropy" is just a property of a relation of these sets. it always has a certain sign, just because of how the sets and how the above-mentioned inequality (regarding plnq) relate.

but that does not mean that p' is a subset of p. though it most likely overlaps w/p, (clearly, since we are identifying them both as p) there's nothing to gaurantee that it is wholly inside of it.

on the other hand, by definition, p does not contain p'&!p, which is to say that we cannot predict the future. so knowing that p' is not necessarily a subset of p does us little good, since all we have is p (what we know now). hence, we only ever concern ourselves with information that is lost as time goes forward ("heat death"), since by definition we cannot predict what information will be created - p'&!p - and more importantly, we can not use it to do work. ( http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2012/ ... orgetting/ ) and hence is born the myth of "heat death".

[GIThruster]

As per usual, wrong and so wrong one has to work hard not to laugh at you

93143 and others can manage without these. Why can't you?

I suppose when chris tries to trash a close friend of 93143 we can expect him to be impatient with the troll as well.

I should think though, it is obvious chris is arguing for the sake of being a troll. He is deliberately being contentious over things he either knows nothing about, or knows he is wrong about, such as the arrow of time. Such people do not merit courtesy. They merit a swift kick in the pants and to be shown the door.

[chrismb]

I suppose when chris tries to trash a close friend of 93143 we can expect him to be impatient with the troll as well.

I should think though, it is obvious chris is arguing for the sake of being a troll. He is deliberately being contentious over things he either knows nothing about, or knows he is wrong about, such as the arrow of time. Such people do not merit courtesy. They merit a swift kick in the pants and to be shown the door.

This is yet another very technical response to the level of your usual standard GIT. Another one of a string of such enlightening, erudite posts. Full of technical debate, carefully constructed self-explanatory counter-arguments to the salient discussion points, facts and objectivity.

Never let it be said that GIT's arguments go off-topic.


chrismb trashes no-one, and makes no personal comment towards anyone at all. chrismb only discusses and debates the discussions and arguments that people have put forward. It is their ideas and arguments that are up for discussion, not their personal traits.

As chrismb does not post here any more, none of the comments of a personal nature directed towards him (howsoever insipid and emotionally provocative they may be) are likely to elicit a response of new posts.

[GIThruster]

The very essential notion of this, irrespective of any mathematical arguments that might arise in the paper, appears to be that the centre of mass of a closed system can be altered back and forth by the conversion of mass into energy, moving the energy to another part of the system, and then back again. To demonstrate that this does, indeed, result in a fluctuation of the CoM requires some further matters to be taken into account

chris, M-E theory posits neither a mass-energy conversion nor anything remotely resembling movements of "center of mass" etc. You're complaining about the paper with extremely strong and insulting language when the problem lies all with you. You obviously don't even understand what a Mach-Effect is, so how are you going to make any sort of sensible contribution to discussion of it?

There's no doubt in anyone's mind that you're a very bright guy. The problems you have are all emotional. The reason you don't understand Woodward is psychological in nature. You're a very f&cked up guy. How many ways do I need to say the same thing? I'm not the first person to have this problem with you. I'm what, the third or fourth here in this forum alone? It wasn't a conflict with me the last time you left. I had stopped responding to you long before.

Get some therapy and please do as you've promised multiple times and leave this forum.

[Betruger]

As per usual, wrong and so wrong one has to work hard not to laugh at you

93143 and others can manage without these. Why can't you?

I suppose when chris

dodge

[tomclarke]

if you come up with a different result, that just means you did the math wrong. that or you have a GIGO problem. (garbage in -> garbage out)

That's why chris' argument holds no water. It produces an absurd outcome regardless of the type of thruster you put into the calculation. Obviously, it's the wrong calculation.

M-E thrusters are evaluated in thrust efficiency in the same way that all electric thrusters are, in N/W. That is for stationary thrust. Any accelerating thruster is in a non-inertial frame of reference, so in order to do any sort of conservation calculation, you not only need to do a transform, but a transform with a non-inertial frame. The proper tool to do this is found in the GR toolbox. Now it may be this calculation using exhaust velocity is a work around, but until I see it does this properly with the exhaust from a Hall thruster, I would not assume this. I do assume 93143 knows what he's talking about and so I think there is hope for this work-around, but certainly the complaints from chris, goatguy and Andrew do not look at exhaust velocity so they are not using this supposed work around and their examples all thus come to nothing.

I'll have to disagree with this. You don't nned GR to argue low relative speed lack of energy conservation

[GIThruster]

Tom, there is no lack of energy conservation. The thruster produces stationary thrust just like a Hall thruster.

[happyjack27]

@happyjack27: When I said "entropy", I meant what the poster I was responding to seemed to mean by it - the principle of nondecrease of entropy, which I also referred to as the "entropy condition". Known in continuum mechanics as the Clausius-Duhem inequality, as I recall.

It's not so much a fundamental law of physics as an emergent result thereof, that doesn't apply in all circumstances (as you noted yourself).

not familiar with said inequality, but i would fathom a guess that it's related to the fact in information theory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory ) that cross-entropy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-entropy ) can never be higher than self-entropy, since sum of -p*ln(q) is maximized when p=q. however this makes it more interesting when you put it in terms of information. because we see that it is an _asymmetric_ measure. that is, as signal goes from p to q, information is lost, while at the same time, a _different_ amount of information is lost going from q to p! what we have lest out here is the information gain in p. it's tricky because the information gain does not come from q. by definition it _cannot_ come from q, because it is by definition new! so what IS the information gain in p? well it's the codes in p that are not determined by q. if we were to think that p was a simulation of q, the new information would be the "noise" or the "error". it is the extra letters in the 'p' code that do not correspond to distinct states in the 'q' code.

and we see that if we take a step back from the system, we can look at it in a different way: we can look at the mutual information between p and q ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_information ), and the information in p but not q, and q but not p. so we have a sort of venn diagram. and the fact that we lose a different amount of information going one way vs the other is as trivial as seeing that the size of the subset (p not q) is independent of that of (q not p).

now add a dimension of time - so now we have p at t+1 and q at t+1, lets call them p' and q'. now we add these to our diagram. and now it's a venn diagram relating 4 sets. 2x2x2x2 = 16 distinct spaces -> p&p'&q&q', p&p'&q&!q', etc. so now we see "entropy" is just a property of a relation of these sets. it always has a certain sign, just because of how the sets and how the above-mentioned inequality (regarding plnq) relate.

but that does not mean that p' is a subset of p. though it most likely overlaps w/p, (clearly, since we are identifying them both as p) there's nothing to gaurantee that it is wholly inside of it.

on the other hand, by definition, p does not contain p'&!p, which is to say that we cannot predict the future. so knowing that p' is not necessarily a subset of p does us little good, since all we have is p (what we know now). hence, we only ever concern ourselves with information that is lost as time goes forward ("heat death"), since by definition we cannot predict what information will be created - p'&!p - and more importantly, we can not use it to do work. ( http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2012/ ... orgetting/ ) and hence is born the myth of "heat death".

i figured i'd try to draw this out, as it's really a visualization.

"q" is on the left, "p" is on the right. time goes from bottom to top.

for example "q" is our model of the universe, and "p" is the universe. the "divergence" part of the graph is p'&!p; all information in the universe at time t+1 but not at time t. by definition this part is invisible to us (to "q"; the left side) at time t. hence if we acquire tunnel vision and forget that we are only looking at certain parts of this graph, we come up with ridiculous conclusions like "heat death", because we only consider the stable and convergent parts of p (the right side).

[cuddihy]

I suppose when chris tries to trash a close friend of 93143 we can expect him to be impatient with the troll as well.

I should think though, it is obvious chris is arguing for the sake of being a troll. He is deliberately being contentious over things he either knows nothing about, or knows he is wrong about, such as the arrow of time. Such people do not merit courtesy. They merit a swift kick in the pants and to be shown the door.

This is yet another very technical response to the level of your usual standard GIT. Another one of a string of such enlightening, erudite posts. Full of technical debate, carefully constructed self-explanatory counter-arguments to the salient discussion points, facts and objectivity.

Never let it be said that GIT's arguments go off-topic.

chrismb trashes no-one, and makes no personal comment towards anyone at all. chrismb only discusses and debates the discussions and arguments that people have put forward. It is their ideas and arguments that are up for discussion, not their personal traits.

As chrismb does not post here any more, none of the comments of a personal nature directed towards him (howsoever insipid and emotionally provocative they may be) are likely to elicit a response of new posts.

Please don't take GIThruster's childishness as endemic to all who are interested in Mach Effect theory. I respect your point of view as most others do; I suggest you ignore GIThruster's posts. This why he was one of the few banned at NSF.

[Betruger]

Good luck getting him to admit that. Shame cause he certainly isn't so stupid as to be useless informationaly.

[GIThruster]

2 days after an incendiary discussion is ended, you two come in and fan the flames to see if you can get re-ignition, and you call me childish?

I am not surprised by Betruger's unprovoked personal attacks. he has made them many times before. Apparently he hates Christians. He's even made an issue out of my signature before. That's fine. Haters gotta hate. But I am very surprised at you Tom. Surprised and disappointed you would stoop to such sub-adult behavior for literally no reason except to injure. No value added.

[Betruger]

Apparently he hates Christians.

[djolds1]

Mach Effect Update on NASA Spaceflight Forums:

Found this recent paper this morning, outlining a different approach to an experimental setup for measuring the Mach effect. From the conclusion:

The purpose of this paper was to bring to attention an alternate method to investigate the existence of Mach effects postulated by Woodward. It has been shown how a particular class of materials (ferromagnetic materials) subjected to a pulsed non uniform magnetic field should acquire a final speed which is higher when compared to the same classically computed, this anomaly being produced by said Mach effects. The mechanism that should originate this anomaly has been explained by the interplay between the force applied to the active mass and its mass fluctuation: of particular relevance is the fact that, during the pulse, the force is at its maximum when the mass fluctuation reaches its maximum negative value. The general description of a possible setup to test the existence of Mach effects has been proposed. A setup that not only could be useful in investigating the reality of Mach effects, but that can also serve as starting point for the development of a new kind of propulsion system. As a final note, a study to determine the origin and the magnitude of the 1 and the 2 factors is highly desirable and recommended.

Paper: Possible-Mach-Effects.pdf

So the paper is claiming that replacing mechanically-induced displacement oscillation with magnetically-induced displacement oscillation will provide a better chance of detecting whether mass fluctuations are happening?

It sounds like he's saying that this is because of the lesser coupling of a ferromagnetic field in comparison to direct mechanical contact. So what you're losing in coupling you're gaining through reduction in "noise"? And therefore this is a useful tradeoff, since you don't care so much about coupling, and care more about noise reduction to improve your "signal"?

Can anybody correct me if my interpretation of his writings is wrong?

See, this is why I was thinking that nanotubes could be the ultimate Mach-Woodward oscillator, because they're both mechanical (high coupling) and also highly directional with less noise. Furthermore it could be possible to change their length through application of charge, which would cause a quantum-mechanical change in the length of their constituent bonds, similar to a piezo-oscillator. Nanotubes are well known for their great mechanical oscillation characteristics.

CNT piezoelectric properties have only been investigated for nano-power generation or as strain resistors, but why not for Mach-Woodward too?

Hey, is Paul March around? What do you think of that, Paul?

How about jumping beyond regular ferromagnetism, and going for the premium stuff - superconductive magnetism? No resistance/heating losses during current oscillation, and plus your magnetic field is going to be more pristine and perfect, to further reduce "noise".

Also, here are the graphs from p.79 of the PDF, showing all the parameters lined up vs time. Note the red curves on the bottom graphs, showing the enhanced effect with magnetism vs plain old mechanical force.

Image: Click Here.

[GIThruster]

I'm lost. Did this sanman from NSF perform an experiment based on Nembo's work?