Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by TallDave »

CaptainBeowulf wrote:I understand your point, but the basic point of the singularity idea is that in almost all cases the transition to singularity happens very fast at a certain point, forestalling the K-III stage. So, you might only get K-III civilizations in a few galaxies, and the light from those galaxies still has hundreds of millions of light years to travel before it reaches us.

I also wouldn't be surprised if intelligent life doesn't emerge all that often. I can see there being a lot of "dead" solar systems out there. I can also imagine that, as someone already said, "Cambrian explosion" events might be rare, and that when they do happen, complex organisms frequently never get past the intelligence level of birds, dolphins, elephants or chimpanzees. Throw in self-destruction in nuclear wars and rapid transitions to singularities and, yeah, you might only have two or three recognizably intelligent species per galaxy at any one time.
Yes, I've long suspected that the rise of spacefaring intelligent life is so exceptionally unlikely that we will never encounter another within our causal lightcone.

In a universe of infinite size (as ours seems to be) the weak anthropic principle has an infinitely powerful ability to explain our existence, no matter how unlikely.

As a great man once said, there are the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns. We know that we don't yet know some basic things, such as how likely habitable planets are (to date we've only found hunks of rock in zones that might conceivably be habitable), how unlikely the eukaryotic mutations were, how unlikely intelligent tool-users are to evolve, how unlikely the development of a scientific Western Civ was (remember, most civs were still Neolithic even a few hundreds years ago), and even how likely free, capitalist, tech-friendly societies are (it took us a really long time to get here -- what if the Communists or Nazis had won out in this world, and humanity entered a long period of decline?). But there are probably even more things we still don't know about the chain of coincidences that led us here.

The Drake equation may end up with quite a few more variables than is generally appreciated. My guess is eventually we'll find the odds are closer to 1 spacefaring species per trillion light-years radius than 1 per thousand light-years.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

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

Post by GIThruster »

Barry Kirk wrote:How do you sign up to get on Jim's mailing list?
Send me a private message with a couple sentences describing your background and interest with your email and I'll forward this to Jim.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by chrismb »

djolds1 wrote:
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.
ScottL does not appear to have quite followed the sequence of postings, in which chrismb posts follow, rather than lead, GIT posts that seek to have the last word on all things.

The unusual way in which this fusion forum has gone, in which those that question unsubstantiated claims are the ones held up to scrutiny, suggests the irresistible cultural change that is at work here is now irreversible.

However, ScottL's observations and implications that the points under chrismb have already been laid out plain, and repetition is meritless, are clearly correct. chrismb posts do, indeed, appear only to create GIT frustration, the implication being that GIT is quite unable to ever resist having the last word on something and unwilling to change his point of view at all. chrismb posts should therefore desist as they became pointless some pages of posts ago.

Naturally, GIT will insist on having something further to say. GIT posed a complaint that chrismb, himself, was 'infesting' the forum. This is a curious claim from someone who is currently posting at a rate of around 12 posts per day in multiple threads, more than twice the number of posts per day to his nearest competitor poster, on topics that are totally unsubstantiated and are merely hyperbolic sensationalisms on science fiction topics.

Where a forum has such generous freedoms that no-one is 'moderated', even when the location, frequency and subject material is so out of kilter with a forum's specifically nominated purpose, then it is inevitable that certain like-minded individuals will accumulate there without any due regard for the values that the forum once had, such as staying within the bounds of demonstrable scientific realism.

Like a quiet upmarket street-corner where adolescents gather and cause mayhem, such is an inexorable consequence if they are not moved on at an early enough opportunity so when action is finally taken because they now crowd the street and obstruct it then they plead 'unfair!' and demand equalities and remedies.

The course of the forum has been set, and it now appears to be on its inexorable trajectory.

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

Post by GIThruster »

chrismb wrote:The course of the forum has been set, and it now appears to be on its inexorable trajectory.
Well of course, chris. How can you be a proper misanthrope unless you find a way to judge literally everyone else as somehow inadequate and worthy of your contempt?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by GIThruster »

TallDave wrote:
pbelter wrote:Does Jim Woodward have a blog?
That would be nice. The email list tends to get filled with a lot of junk.
There have been many people over the years who have offered to set up a blog. Jim's response has always been that he doesn't need one more thing to do. He invests significant time in his email communications and adding a blog would not relieve the need to answer his mail. Hence, email remains the default.

People writing me to get on Jim's list: please remember to include your email address. I am not an admin here and I do not have access to your address unless and until you send it.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by ScottL »

GIThruster wrote:
TallDave wrote:
pbelter wrote:Does Jim Woodward have a blog?
That would be nice. The email list tends to get filled with a lot of junk.
There have been many people over the years who have offered to set up a blog. Jim's response has always been that he doesn't need one more thing to do. He invests significant time in his email communications and adding a blog would not relieve the need to answer his mail. Hence, email remains the default.

People writing me to get on Jim's list: please remember to include your email address. I am not an admin here and I do not have access to your address unless and until you send it.
I imagine someone on the list, if so moved to do so, could create a blog of previous email releases. This person could then also collect questions and present them to Dr. Woodward via his mail list, acting as an intermediary. Obviously this requires someone wanting to do the job though.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Yes Scott. There was a move in this direction just about 3 weeks ago. The response was null. Basically, Jim is doing things the way he likes and despite others have ideas they think would be improvements, Jim doesn't agree and neither do I.

Try to bear in mind that Jim is extremely busy. He always has more things on his plate than he can handle. He has no interest in moving to a new communications platform. What he has works, despite the difficulties. Best is, if you have an interest in the work; send me 2 sentences about your background and interest and your email address and I'll forward them so you'll be added. Even this requires time from Jim but he's willing to include as many people as he has reason to believe will form a well informed and cooperative science team.
"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 »

Where a forum has such generous freedoms that no-one is 'moderated', even when the location, frequency and subject material is so out of kilter with a forum's specifically nominated purpose, then it is inevitable that certain like-minded individuals will accumulate there without any due regard for the values that the forum once had, such as staying within the bounds of demonstrable scientific realism.
Chris,

A major problem is that there is no new data on Polywell. So, we find other things to talk about, because most of us, no matter how eccentric, seem to find each others' ideas interesting.

Now, I realize there are a bunch of LENR boosters over in the LENR thread who are "true believers" in things like Rossi's scheme, but they seem to get constantly mocked. If you're looking for an offending thread, that one is a lot longer, and has a lot more mindless rhetoric than this one.

On this thread GIT and Paul March are fairly convinced that warp drives are an achievable technology. The rest of us would like to see such things created if possible, and so are interested in following any serious research. However, my impression is that people such as myself, Scott etc. are not convinced that such devices will ever be physically possible, but think that if certain poorly understood areas of physics turn out to operate in certain ways, such things might become possible.

The fact is that the people who have done thought experiments and relatively low-budget lab experiments into exotic propulsion have already ruled out ways that propulsion systems can not work. For instance, your objection a couple of pages back that a space-time warp would rip the ship itself apart. People like Kip Thorne and Alcubierre did the math two decades or more ago, and it was peer-reviewed and published, and such problems were quite apparent. So, they narrowed it down: if you want a usable warp drive or wormhole, the only way you can manipulate space time is to have a distortion around an area of flat space in which a vehicle would sit. The math indicates that to create a big enough distortion for any meaningful propulsion would require a negative energy density somehow concentrated in a thin shell around that area of flat space.

Having come to that conclusion a long time ago, people are taking an interest in the question: is creating such a thin shell of negative energy density possible? Woodward has one theory, "Sonny" White has a different one, both think it is possible... most of the rest of us say that we don't know, but we're very interested in whether any of the experimentation returns even a marginally positive result.

When someone describes the common basis of these theories - that you create a shell of very high negative energy density - it doesn't make him or her a "religious believer." It just means that the person is pointing out what is generally accepted by anyone who's studied the idea: if you were to be able to do this, you would have to do it with a thin shell of negative energy density.

I'll also note that the addition of warp drives and wormholes to the discourse has muddied the last twenty or so pages of this thread. Much of Woodward's Mach Effect research over the years was oriented towards a sublight propellantless drive, which is significantly more plausible than a FTL one. Woodward thinks the idea could carry over to FTL. No one really knows whether it will. Most of us are aware that there are a large number of steps still to be taken. In the case of Mach effect, these include:

1. A much better electrical system to power, designed by an experienced EE to power Woodward's PZT devices. Preferably an EE on site at least part of the time to help operate it as well. Also, hopefully, custom-designed ceramics. With such improvements, hopefully Woodward can get a consistent effect rather than a hit-and-miss one, and he can get it without having to fiddle with most of the setups before they work. If he can get a consistent and reproducible thrust signature, and especially if it went an order of magnitude or two higher, it would give many of us more confidence that we're not seeing some sort of noise.

2. If favorable results emerged from step 1, the next step would be to do what you've asked for a few times on this thread: a completely self-contained device. Such a thing would probably be significantly more expensive than the current experiments, but if step 1 is successfully achieved someone, or a few people, may be much more likely to spend a bit more money to find out if the effect is real. A self contained device should show thrust in many situations. It should, for instance, create meaningful movement in a pendulum arm if attached to it. It should also be able to slowly crawl across a table. Something like a table isn't a very good experiment, since simple vibration could cause something to creep across a table, but the basic point is that it should move around, even if very slowly, in various environments.

3. If step 2 is achieved the next thing would probably be to look for enough funding to add a device as a "microsatellite" secondary payload on a rocket. Say a Falcon 9 which is already launching a couple of large satellites, and has 1000 to 2000kg left over payload. A M-E powered mircosatellite weighing anywhere from a few to a few hundred kg could be sent up at relatively low cost as an extra. The claim made repeatedly is that early model M-E devices will have thrust in the same range as Hall thrusters or small ion drives. So, if the microsatellite flies around as well as one with a Hall thruster, Woodward's basic theory of gravity and inertia would be demonstrated. This alone would be fascinating for the study of physics.

4. If step 3 works, a lot of organizations would probably become interested. Funding at this point would probably become available to design and build much larger vehicles using the effect. At this point it would become an engineering, rather than study of physics issue.

5. At this point, physicists could start studying whether all aspects of Woodward's theory are correct. Does the M-E effect really also translate to being able to create negative energy densities and therefore the possibility of warp drive? I think at this point that there are only broad outlines of experiments you might conduct to study this.

6. If the "warp" effect were proven real, then people would start to study whether it's practical to actually engineer a device than can generate and control it consistently. If someone figures out how to do so, you could actually have a warp drive.

Of course, the whole idea could hit a show-stopper at any of those steps. Most of us are perfectly aware of this.

Similarly, Sonny White's theory would also have to go through many steps before demonstrated feasible.

Discussing it is really no different than having the "implications" sub-forum on this forum. Various propulsion schemes have been discussed from the basis that: "if Polywell works, we could maybe build this kind of spaceship with it." Similarly, here we are saying: "if Mach Effect theory is correct, we could maybe build this kind of spaceship with it." That's all.

cuddihy
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 pm

Post by cuddihy »

Well said, Captain Beowulf.
Tom.Cuddihy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith is the foundation of reason.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Well said, indeed.
"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 »

cuddihy wrote:Well said, Captain Beowulf.
Seconded.
Vae Victis

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

Post by chrismb »

Yes, well said, Capt B.

His post has successfully described a theoretical position without any need to make unsubstantiated claims, but instead use a formal logic in which target conclusions are correctly predicated with terms such as 'if', 'if possible', 'fairly convinced' and conditional terms like 'math indicates', '[not] convinced]', &c..

It's not difficult to stick to rigorously correct conditional statements and have a discussion about something beyond the edge of accepted science, the issue raised in posts under chrismb is that it has become routine not to do so. And it does make a difference, because a reader needs to see in which parts of a discussion are emphasised as very tentative, or tentative, or presumptive, or conditional, or demonstrate, or proven, to be able to progress and respond with a meaningful question, or critique.

If everything is stated as a fact, but actually there are some parts which are facts and some are speculations, then when a critique is laid the original claimant may argue for the fact known and glosses over the speculative element which is the actual subject of the critique. This appears to be a technique of fallacious argument being increasingly used on this forum and is rapidly becoming 'modus operandi'. It is difficult to tell if the use of such fallacies is intentional (such as in GIT's case, because he has told the forum that he is formally trained in such things) or 'accidental' by those following suit and less pedantic than usefully serves a scientific discussion.

For example, posts under chrismb have raised the inconsistency of ME claims with thermodynamics, but in response GIT has claimed that 'chrismb' does not know anything about GRT so the question can be ignored. He made no logical connection between thermodynamics and the conclusions gained from GRT, but by attacking one element which he may be able to justify he has sought to belittle the element of the question on entropy.

He has claimed that he will stop posting if he cannot answer a question, but he has never justified how the laws of thermodynamics are consistent with ME theory. All he has done, in 100 pages, has wrongly attributed the direction of entropy to the arrow of time then declined to progress that point when it was highlighted.

Arguing about the fallacies (especially these 'fallacies of the complex question') rather than the points, then creates an ever-spiralling argument about the semantics itself, which has occurred here. In the LENR threads, when chrismb posted here it may be noted that he was also rigorous about pulling up the logical confusions between statements of facts and speculations, for precisely the same reasons, though this occurred with only a few particular individuals in that thread. Since then, this sort of thing has become more routine.

GIT claims to have been edified in the ways of philosophy and logic, the inference being he knows full-well how to manipulate and maximise statements to exceed the reality of what is actually known by means of the logical fallacies in which he has been trained. Take a look at Paul M's posts and it can be seen that, just like Capt B's post above, he have never failed to correctly use predicate logic in the manner which makes his comments 'not incorrect'. His form of words progresses a discussion, not foreshortens it.

So the 'subject' is somewhat immaterial, it is the way the subject is discussed that has stepped the line to take this forum from 'science' to 'irrationality'.

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

Post by GIThruster »

chrismb wrote:This appears to be a technique of fallacious argument being increasingly used on this forum and is rapidly becoming 'modus operandi'.
Show three examples. You're full of hot air, looking for these things and claiming you found them to justify your atrocious behavior.
It is difficult to tell if the use of such fallacies is intentional (such as in GIT's case. . .
Philosophers never stoop to such behavior. That's the role of the politician.
He has claimed that he will stop posting if he cannot answer a question. . .
I have never said such a thing. In fact I routinely tell people when I can't answer a question. For example, when I say I am not the person to speak to the warp mechanics issue. You are manufacturing words for my mouth, chris and slandering me.
Arguing about the fallacies (especially these 'fallacies of the complex question') rather than the points, then creates an ever-spiralling argument about the semantics itself, which has occurred here.
Where? Are you accusing me of using such a fallacy?
GIT claims to have been edified in the ways of philosophy and logic, the inference being he knows full-well how to manipulate and maximise statements to exceed the reality of what is actually known by means of the logical fallacies in which he has been trained.
Are you accusing me of fallacious arguments?
So the 'subject' is somewhat immaterial, it is the way the subject is discussed that has stepped the line to take this forum from 'science' to 'irrationality'.
chris, if you don't stop, I'm going to contact Joe and ask he ban you from this forum for harassment. If you have a serious interest in the conservation issue, or the thermodynamics issue, read back in this thread to those points where they were covered and stop requiring others do your reading for you.

Now let me ask you a question: what is a Mach Effect?

Given you have repeatedly misrepresented what it is, it seems obvious to me you are not the person to be whining about thermodynamic consequences of a theory you don't understand. In more than 2 decades of peer review, there have been no physicists make this objection you're raising. Doesn't it seem to you if you want to go out on a limb here, you ought to understand the theory you're criticizing first?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

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

Post by chrismb »

GIThruster wrote:Now let me ask you a question: what is a Mach Effect?
It is an unproven effect, the originating principles of which are attributed to Mach, that is currently the subject of scientific experimentation by certain proponents of a so-called 'mass-fluctuation' scheme.

Naturally, GIT's, and others, fallacies are interwoven within text that, if re-examined, can be dismissed as 'unintentional' fallacies or even just 'confusing language', there is no doubting that. But no-one can be bothered to pick through 100 pages in an attempt to pick out the most obvious examples. Fallacies, by their very nature, pervade a series of statements rather than show up as an obvious logical discontinuity.

If GIT's statement is that he will avoid such fallacies (because he always has and will), and assuming that he will use appropriate pre-conditional statements* before making claims of extant fact (e.g. 'the Mach effect DOES' becomes 'the theory suggests the Mach effect does...') then pray trust that GIT posts may continue unimpeded by chrismb post intrusions. Contravene those basics and thou shalt reap the responses thou doth sowest. So, the exclusion of further chrismb posts is within YOUR gift by simply ensuring your posts are not fallacious and use appropriate pre-conditional statement. If you choose NOT to avoid fallacies and TO USE unconditional statements in regards matters for which there is not a shred of evidence, then you need to ask yourselves why you would want to do that and whether it would be correct and proper to be pulled up for it.

*(Note that GIT did not seek to raise the matter of the veracity and logical consistency of unconditional statements, because it would be too easy to pick off such examples to feed back to him. This is an example of the argument fallacy alluded to, that one part of a whole case is addressed, but another is not. Picking off the easiest part to critique and then forgetting the rest on the basis that the part-answer is enough, is exactly the issue at hand. It's quite funny that GIT's demand for an example is, itself, an example of the fallacy alluded to that only part of the argument is addressed!!)

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

Post by GIThruster »

Well that's closer than the last time, chris, but no. Mach Effects are not attributed to Mach. They fell out of Jim's math 20+ years ago. So here again we see quite clearly you don't understand what it is you're complaining about.

If I use a fallacy of any kind, for any reason, I can assure you both that it is unintentional, and that someone here will call me on it. That doesn't need to be you, chris. And point in fact, you are already toeing the bar at harassment and don't need to dedicate yourself to future harassment.

I don't need to raise the matter of veracity or logical consistency, chris. If you're raising it and saying I've been lying somehow, you darn well better just say it and get to the point, because these bogus general charges against me are indeed examples of harassment and the kind of thing one would use to expel you from this forum.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Post Reply