Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by GIThruster »

Aces, I did post about a dozen times over at NBF in order to explain M-E. What I found was a very small pond with three big fish, who spend their days and night arguing with anyone else who posts in the forum. They were not open to learning about Mach Effects and their constant complaint was that it had not been explained sufficiently, this despite none of them had ever bothered to read any of the published works by Woodward. Rather than read the papers, they wanted to be spoon fed each paragraph so they could argue with it, despite that two of these guys are engineers and certainly not capable of understanding very advanced field theory.

In short, the environment is a mess, where three guys read their board, post and posture. Not worth my time nor yours.
"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 »

rjaypeters wrote:
GIThruster wrote:...but Woodward would not accept any funding. He has steadfastly refused such help...
Though I respect integrity, perhaps it would be acceptable to begin a KickStarter project on his behalf?

http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/cat ... ref=footer
I'll forward this to one of the business guys and see what he thinks. Thanks!
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Well I'm not about to be that difficult. I just want to read how their last assertion could be wrong -

1 Is the energy leveraged concentrated from a homogeneous background?
2 Is there a violation of the second law of thermodynamics if it is?

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

GIThruster wrote:Aces, I did post about a dozen times over at NBF in order to explain M-E. What I found was a very small pond with three big fish, who spend their days and night arguing with anyone else who posts in the forum. They were not open to learning about Mach Effects and their constant complaint was that it had not been explained sufficiently, this despite none of them had ever bothered to read any of the published works by Woodward. Rather than read the papers, they wanted to be spoon fed each paragraph so they could argue with it, despite that two of these guys are engineers and certainly not capable of understanding very advanced field theory.
The technical level of discussion on NBF is generally lower than that here. The discussion on the NASA forum is somewhere in between.

There is certainly enough published material on Woodward's website as well as the alternative one, 100's of pages, in fact. The only papers not available for download are the STAIF papers because of copyright issues. I got these from the university research library near to where I live.

If people are complaining about not having sufficient explanation, this is just commentary on their laziness.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Betruger wrote:Well I'm not about to be that difficult. I just want to read how their last assertion could be wrong -

1 Is the energy leveraged concentrated from a homogeneous background?
2 Is there a violation of the second law of thermodynamics if it is?
Well, this is an example of something that one can get easy, detailed answers to by reading Woodward's works. I'm not a physicist, and I haven't read the papers that answer this question in several years, but I will say that according to theory, gravity causes inertia and under specific conditions, matter's mass can be made to temporarily fluctuate and this involves a radiation reaction. The fact there is such radiation in the theory precludes the notion of a gravinertial homogeneity. The radiation itself is an energy gradient. I explained this over at NSF many months ago, and suggested those interested read the papers. If half a year later they're still asking the same questions, seems they didn't read the papers.

Big surprise. . . :-)

And just being honest, when you ask a certain level of question, soon or later you are going to run into seriously complex physics. It's not best for me to try to answer questions I have only a basic grasp of. If someone wants to ask seriously complex questions, like this above as regards gravinertial homogeneity, one needs to ask a physicist--which I'm not.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

"Kickstarter" project.

Post by TDPerk »

I've glanced at and emphatically 2nd the "kickstarter" concept.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

Betruger wrote:Well I'm not about to be that difficult. I just want to read how their last assertion could be wrong -

1 Is the energy leveraged concentrated from a homogeneous background?
2 Is there a violation of the second law of thermodynamics if it is?
Betruger:

Jim Woodward would be the best person to answer these two questions, but since he's not here and I am, I'll give it a try.

1. The gravity/inertial, gravinertial, or G/I field for short is evenly distributed throughout the causally connected universe. Per GRT it is considered to be locally "Flat" or of critical density (cosmology) of 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 as far as spacetime curvature is concerned. Generating dimples and wrinkles in spacetime is not all that hard to do though in that any mass concentration can cause a dimple or 4-D distortion in spacetime, and any time varying energy flux can cause a time varying wrinkle in spacetime since energy concentrations per GRT gravitate just like mass does. These GRT based wave effects are usually considered to be VERY small relative to E&M effects, but where it gets really interesting though is when G/I radiation reaction forces come into play. Their E&M equivalent’s strange behaviors were first examined by John Wheeler and Richard Feynman back around the time I was born in 1947, and their work indicated that for radiation reaction forces to work as they appear to do, they have to propagate both forwards AND backwards in time. So their local effects on the accelerated mass are effectively communicated to/from the rest of the causally connected universe, instantaneously. In the 1960s I believe, John Cramer then picked up that same radiation reaction thread and integrated it into his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) that he has been trying to experimentally verify ever since.

So what does all this have to do with Mach Effects (M-E)? G/I based radiation reaction forces provide the means to instantaneously exchange momentum and energy between all the mass/energy in the casually connected universe with a locally bulk accelerated dielectric mass that is concurrently experiencing a time rate of change of energy flux in the accelerated dielectric, which causes the noted M-E transient mass fluctuations in the rest mass of the dielectric mass so accelerated. That in a nutshell is what the M-E is all about.

2. If the forgoing conjecture is correct, no thermodynamic cycle violations are committed by the M-E due to the fact that the locally accelerated and energy varying dielectric mass can no longer be considered a closed system relative to the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe. Of course it is up to Dr. Woodward and his Crew to experimentally prove that this M-E conjecture is true.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

The wikis are a good place to start, imho. Lots of links to follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_Principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

I need to chew on that. Thanks Paul :)

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

paulmarch wrote:2. If the forgoing conjecture is correct, no thermodynamic cycle violations are committed by the M-E due to the fact that the locally accelerated and energy varying dielectric mass can no longer be considered a closed system relative to the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.
I still can't get to terms that the whole universe background temperature should decrease as a matter of using an M-E based engine.
Anyhow, I still can't get to terms that the whole idea can work, so I will just hold and wait until further tests are available :)

TallDave
Posts: 3140
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Giorgio wrote:
paulmarch wrote:2. If the forgoing conjecture is correct, no thermodynamic cycle violations are committed by the M-E due to the fact that the locally accelerated and energy varying dielectric mass can no longer be considered a closed system relative to the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.
I still can't get to terms that the whole universe background temperature should decrease as a matter of using an M-E based engine.
Anyhow, I still can't get to terms that the whole idea can work, so I will just hold and wait until further tests are available :)
I think it's just the causally connected universe.

It's funny that this goes all the way to the spinning bucket of water.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

Giorgio wrote:
paulmarch wrote:2. If the forgoing conjecture is correct, no thermodynamic cycle violations are committed by the M-E due to the fact that the locally accelerated and energy varying dielectric mass can no longer be considered a closed system relative to the rest of the mass/energy in the causally connected universe.
I still can't get to terms that the whole universe background temperature should decrease as a matter of using an M-E based engine.
Anyhow, I still can't get to terms that the whole idea can work, so I will just hold and wait until further tests are available :)
To All:

For a more detailed explanation of the M-E I suggest you first go to Dr. Woodward's CSUF web page on Gravitation:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/ ... f-woodward and then
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/

May you have an interesting read!

BTW, Giorgio, my thoughts on how we pay for using tomorrow's meomentum today may not be as simple minded as lowering the uninverse's background temperature. It may be more along the lines of slowing the clock rate of the uninverse so that the rate of time in flat spacetime becomes less than the current 1.0 second per second.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

paulmarch wrote:BTW, Giorgio, my thoughts on how we pay for using tomorrow's meomentum today may not be as simple minded as lowering the uninverse's background temperature. It may be more along the lines of slowing the clock rate of the uninverse so that the rate of time in flat spacetime becomes less than the current 1.0 second per second.
That would have even more critical implications.

Also, if flat spacetime time slows all over the universe flat spacetime (pardon me the word trick), how do we realize it? I mean, where is the reference over which we realize that the spacetime time has slowed?
And even if we find an extra dimensional reference point we would not feel any difference, for us time will flow at the same speed.

Can you articulate a little bit more your idea?

paulmarch
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:06 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX USA

Post by paulmarch »

Giorgio wrote:
paulmarch wrote:BTW, Giorgio, my thoughts on how we pay for using tomorrow's meomentum today may not be as simple minded as lowering the uninverse's background temperature. It may be more along the lines of slowing the clock rate of the uninverse so that the rate of time in flat spacetime becomes less than the current 1.0 second per second.
That would have even more critical implications.

Also, if flat spacetime time slows all over the universe flat spacetime (pardon me the word trick), how do we realize it? I mean, where is the reference over which we realize that the spacetime time has slowed?
And even if we find an extra dimensional reference point we would not feel any difference, for us time will flow at the same speed.

Can you articulate a little bit more your idea?
Frist off another URL on Woodward's latest ideas on Stargates:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=18076

Next is your question. If the momentum and energy extracted locally slows the rate of time in payback for this energy & momentum loan, what does that really mean? Perhaps it is nothing more than the slowing of the current rate of the expansion of the universe, which might be a good thing in the long term. However you are correct that a rate of time slowdown would not be observable from within the system and in fact could only be observed from outside of our universe from either a hyper-dimensional realm or from another altogether different universe that could still interact with our universe in some manner.

One of my PhD buddies on the other hand, thinks that extracting the far off active mass (FOAM) of the universe’s kinetic energy locally in an M-E drive would just slow ALL the rest of the universe’s mass energy state by a like amount in the "NOW" to keep the energy & momentum books even. This is the simplest interpretation of this M-E energy balance probelm and it follows Newton’s third law to the letter without evoking any other weird temporal effect we currently have great troubles dealing with. And of course this conjecture leads us back to my first supposition that the average kinetic energy, AKA the temperature of the FOAM, would just decrease as we pulled energy from it locally. Hmmm, but that locally extracted FOAM energy will be re-radiated back into deep space in the now, so we are still stuck with dealing with the temporal issues surrounding such “tomorrow’s momentum today” energy extractions entails. Looks like these ME drives really do lead us back to time machines as Woodward talks about in his latest, but yet to be published M-E Stargate paper.

Best,
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

paulmarch wrote: Looks like these ME drives really do lead us back to time machines as Woodward talks about in his latest, but yet to be published M-E Stargate paper.

Best,
Time machines is really not my field. I think I'll just hold and wait for further data when available.

Thanks for sharing your thought.

Post Reply