Mach Effect progress

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

ScottL wrote:When you start debating the topic instead of goading GIT into another argument, then your point will be valid
The topic is the scientific value of a theory which purports to argue that entropy can be pulled forward or backward through time itself, which is fully contrary to any currently known physics.

This is being debated. This is the topic. The scientific relevance of ME theory is the topic. Review the posts and note that GIT is the one that prefers the semantics of ad hominem discussions to actually addressing the un-reality of this fundamental outcome.

ScottL might do well to realise that 3 years before he started posting here, it was plasma and particle physics that was discussed. Solid, real, understood physical mechanisms. The conclusions of what that physics was saying about polywell was very much in question, but it was based on 'known physics', viz. it was a scientific discussion.

ScottL
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm

Post by ScottL »

chrismb wrote:
ScottL wrote:When you start debating the topic instead of goading GIT into another argument, then your point will be valid
The topic is the scientific value of a theory which purports to argue that entropy can be pulled forward or backward through time itself, which is fully contrary to any currently known physics.

This is being debated. This is the topic. The scientific relevance of ME theory is the topic. Review the posts and note that GIT is the one that prefers the semantics of ad hominem discussions to actually addressing the un-reality of this fundamental outcome.
I agree in that he tends to resort to ad hominem attacks, but the discussion has changed from the scientific relevance of ME theory to the definition of scientific theory and what constitutes such. This is a philosophy debate at best and definitely not on topic. As for your problems with the proposed theory, I think you've successfully communicated your view point, however; I've yet to see you attack the papers in a meaningful way. I'm assuming you wish not to do so or that you feel it's not worth your time, yet continuing a ridiculous discourse with GIT is some how worthy. Baffles my mind and then I realize that everyone has that insatiable desire to win an internet argument, to stroke their ego (or epeen) infront of peers.

Edit since you're editing yours:
So you're saying any thread not dealing with Polywell can be shit? Well darn, I thought there was a general agreement on scientific discourse here. It appears I've come to the wrong boards, regardless of what topic (polywell or not) I may wish to discuss. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Scott you're missing the real issue here and you're wrong. chris' intention is not to win an argument. It is to get attention. I see no indication he cares whether he wins or loses any particular debate. The point is the debate itself, not the outcome.

You have misconstrued my posts. They are not ad hominem attacks. They are pointing to what is the real issue. chris is posting as result of his sickness. It's not an ad hominem to explain why I'm not pandering to him. I'm not answering him because all he's doing is asking me to hunt back through dozens of pages when he knows he can do that himself. I'm not answering because I'm not playing the sick game chris is playing, but you are by taking him seriously.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

ScottL wrote:When you start debating the topic instead of goading GIT into another argument, then your point will be valid, until then, you're full of shit. We get it, we got it many pages ago, you don't believe in ME or it's possibilities, so why continue to provoke responses from GIT. Do you seriously get your rocks off on targetting him? I mean sure, he's pretty easy to get going, but darn, it's getting old fast.
Agreed in all particulars.
Vae Victis

rashudo
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:16 am

Post by rashudo »

So nextbigfuture has posted a summary of Woodward's book (making starships and stargates) on wormholes, warp and the mach effect, is there anyone else here who has read the book and can shine some light on it?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

I read each chapter as it was being written but I haven't read the final draft. It would be great to have a discussion chapter by chapter here, but it's already sold out and the next printing isn't due to be delivered until Jan. 31.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

My understanding from the book summary on Amazon is that Woodward has assembled a discussion of the history of exotic propulsion ideas as well as his own work, and shows how he thinks Mach Effect could be used in the context of things like Alcubierre warp drive and Kip Thorne wormholes.

Specifically, they say that the book has three parts:
To create exotic materials and technologies needed to make stargate and warp drives is the holy grail of advanced propulsion. A less ambitious, but nonetheless revolutionary, goal is finding a way to accelerate a spaceship without having to lug along a gargantuan reservoir of fuel that you blow out a tailpipe. Tethers and solar sails are conventional realizations of the basic idea... "Making Starships and Stargates" will have three parts. The first will deal with information about the theories of relativity needed to understand the predictions of the effects that make possible the "propulsion" techniques, and an explanation of those techniques. The second will deal with experimental investigations into the feasibility of the predicted effects; that is, do the effects exist and can they be applied to propulsion? The third part of the book - the most speculative - will examine the question: what physics is needed if we are to make wormholes and warp drives? Is such physics plausible? And how might we go about actually building such devices? This book pulls all of that material together from various sources, updates and revises it, and presents it in a coherent form so that those interested will be able to find everything of relevance all in one place.
So, hopefully we'll have a lot of very specific details to debate which can head off these very vague and acrimonious discussions. Right now there are too many red herrings - objections are raised about things which the theories don't propose to do. In a month or two, when I and enough other people have copies, I'd be happy to go through many of the points in the book as well.

I agree with the idea behind a couple of polls that have been run this year - a separate space propulsion ideas sub-forum should be set up. We should discuss exotic propulsion there, as well as conventional propulsion like SpaceX. We should post both news stories about spaceflight there, and general discussions and pet theories. We can then keep the spaceflight talk separate from fusion news. MSimon, is it possible to set up the new sub-forum and move threads like this one over there?

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

Out of the people who voted in the last poll, 5 said they want more specific forums, one said no, and one said set up a generic science forum.

viewtopic.php?t=3971

Why not:

1. Set up a spaceflight forum

2. Separate the General forum into: (a) General politics and events; (b) General science news and discussion

3. Maybe rename the News forum as Fusion News

I agree with the whole freedom of speech idea and I like Talk Polywell because there isn't fascist moderation with constant off-topic warnings etc., but it does become tiresome when threads are derailed by arguments over whether things should even be posted.

Edit: spaceflight ideas specifically having to do with using Polywell as part of a fusion rocket system could be in the Implications or the Spaceflight forum - I don't think it would matter which, so long as people don't double-post.

pbelter
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Post by pbelter »

rashudo wrote:So nextbigfuture has posted a summary of Woodward's book (making starships and stargates) on wormholes, warp and the mach effect, is there anyone else here who has read the book and can shine some light on it?
I am about 70% thru the book and so far there has not much talk about the stargates, the book concentrates on the thrust effect.

Generally - pretty good read. Some of the concepts are mind boggling though. I.e. Inertia is the gravitational effect of all the mass of the universe on accelerating body. Ok, but if gravity propagates at the speed of light then how come inertia is instantaneous? Woodward attributes this to "Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory" where the effect has started propagating from the future as a "retarded wave" to have effect right now. To me that implies that the future is deterministic. All our current and future actions are known already exist allowing causality propagate backwards in time...

This is really nothing new. Wheeler and Feymann came up with the idea back in 1949, still...

One overall impression is that Woodward emphasizes that the re is "no new physics" in his book and his conclusions are just results of SRT and GRT. Woodward makes sure to back that up pretty much for each argument he makes.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

pbelter wrote:Ok, but if gravity propagates at the speed of light then how come inertia is instantaneous? Woodward attributes this to "Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory" where the effect has started propagating from the future as a "retarded wave" to have effect right now. To me that implies that the future is deterministic. All our current and future actions are known already exist allowing causality propagate backwards in time...
That is extremely close to fully correct but slightly off. It is more accurate to say that the future is determined in the present, but in the future it has been determined, so retrocausal effects or a "retarded wave" is indeed traveling back from the future and that future is set. It's important to note that there is also a normal wave moving forward in time. Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory is quite elegant in that is generates a nice symmetry. That is what it was created for. The fact it makes sense to explain instantaneous inertial effects is almost a happy coincidence--certainly the kind of telltale sign scientists take as evidence a theory is on the right track.

In any event, this predetermined future that is determined in the present is in complete agreement with the historical dispute between free will and predetermination: that both are true and correct. That was why Augustine called it an "antinomy" in contrast to a "paradox". The contradiction is only seeming.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

pbelter
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 2:52 am

Post by pbelter »

Does Jim Woodward have a blog?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

No, he uses a mailing list instead. It is not so much intended for discussion as to put out his data each week. People on the list do however respond and if they have any concerns they write them to the list. This is how Jim gets feedback to his methods and protocols. Its a very good way to do science.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

MTd2
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:48 am

Post by MTd2 »

I see some mathematical and conceptual problems in the papers from Harold White.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78979805/H-G- ... -Spacetime

Mathematical wise, about the warp drive, I noticed that cosh 1/2*ln |1- v*f|, for big v, (say 10), the value 5c, instead of about 10. So, it is 1/2 of the supposedly correct number for gamma.

Conceptually, it seems that in the canonical form of the warp drive, there is an implied "second" bubble, which accelerates or slows the time, whereas it is stated that the clock is synchronized . So, I think the only way to get around this is to assume a second bubble, antisymmetrical to the other, perhaps this is the origin of the missing factor 2? But this is stated anywhere.

So, does anyone have any idea on how to solve this?

Barry Kirk
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:33 pm
Location: York, PA
Contact:

Post by Barry Kirk »

GIThruster wrote:No, he uses a mailing list instead. It is not so much intended for discussion as to put out his data each week. People on the list do however respond and if they have any concerns they write them to the list. This is how Jim gets feedback to his methods and protocols. Its a very good way to do science.
How do you sign up to get on Jim's mailing list?

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

pbelter wrote:Does Jim Woodward have a blog?
That would be nice. The email list tends to get filled with a lot of junk.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Post Reply