Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

it seems that while GiThruster thinks Paul is a devious person trying to put down Jim´s work, Paul is actually quite supportive of Jim Woodward... in fact, I dont remember Paul ever being anything but supportive of Woodward!

Anyway, for the layman, Paul, how good at these latest findings REGARDING the possibility of propellantless propulsion? What do they really mean for that?

Well, EVEN if the effect is too small to be used for propulsion, is still a very important physics finding, which I suppose, if totally proved beyond any shadow of doubt to the skeptics, could be worth a Nobel. Or not. What you guys think?

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

Post by GIThruster »

Please don't put such sick words in my mouth. I didn't say anything remotely like that Paul is devious. I said that he was my mentor for 2+ years and I still consider him a friend. It is however obviously true that Sonny White is making use of the work Paul did 8 years ago under the mantle of the MLT, and making false claims that this supports Sonny's current model when he knows that there were not sufficient scientific controls for those lab results to be useful in any way. Sonny is currently employing Paul, and if that sort of chicanery is what Paul is stuck with, then I guess that's what he's stuck with.

Also I did not say Paul puts down Jim's work. I did report accurately that Paul has on several occasions compared these two mutually exclusive models and made bold statements that Sonny's theory is the better predictor of the data, when in fact it came years after the data. I have since corrected both Paul and Sonny on their abuse of jargon so that they know what the word "prediction" actually means. This hasn't stopped the false claims.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Ric Capucho
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:05 am

Post by Ric Capucho »

Awwww, just as Jim Woodward stabilises his experimental rig enough to report a consistent 2-3 uN thrust signal (which should be a cause for celebration, even though we should maintain a degree of healthy scepticism, see below) this thread degenerates into such harsh words.

Shame on us, but I guess these things happen on the Web.

Paul suggests that the next step for Jim is to convince the physics world as to the underlying mechanism for the Effect, but I'm not so sure:

1. Until a number of researchers across the physics community take the time to replicate and validate the Effect, then that healthy scientific scepticism as to whether the Effect truly exists will remain.

2. Furthermore, scaling up the Effect would make the scientific verification of the effect much more attainable... and likely bring the Effect to the attention of the engineers.

So, I'd advocate scaling up using the better suited materials that Paul (and others, many posts ago) have theorised. Of course, Jim, Paul and others will spend their time on whatever they think is best, and good luck to them (they've got the Effect this far, haven't they?). But hopefully someone out there will see the practical advantages of demonstrating the Effect by "bouncing it off the walls" (a quote from Jim himself that had me in fits of giggles).

Hopefully a happier thread from now on...

Ric

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

Post by paulmarch »

Ric Capucho wrote:Awwww, just as Jim Woodward stabilises his experimental rig enough to report a consistent 2-3 uN thrust signal (which should be a cause for celebration, even though we should maintain a degree of healthy scepticism, see below) this thread degenerates into such harsh words.

Shame on us, but I guess these things happen on the Web.

Paul suggests that the next step for Jim is to convince the physics world as to the underlying mechanism for the Effect, but I'm not so sure:

1. Until a number of researchers across the physics community take the time to replicate and validate the Effect, then that healthy scientific scepticism as to whether the Effect truly exists will remain.

2. Furthermore, scaling up the Effect would make the scientific verification of the effect much more attainable... and likely bring the Effect to the attention of the engineers.

So, I'd advocate scaling up using the better suited materials that Paul (and others, many posts ago) have theorised. Of course, Jim, Paul and others will spend their time on whatever they think is best, and good luck to them (they've got the Effect this far, haven't they?). But hopefully someone out there will see the practical advantages of demonstrating the Effect by "bouncing it off the walls" (a quote from Jim himself that had me in fits of giggles).

Hopefully a happier thread from now on...

Ric

AcesHigh & Ric:

IMO, something like the M-E exists, period. And yes the scientific method now requires its supporters to implement multiple independent replications of Jim's M-E experiments before the general public can be assured of this conclusion. However being somewhat familiar with this topic, independent replications of the M-E are going to take a number of years because of the large learning curve needed to master this field. In the meantime and IMO, I agree that Jim needs to focus on increasing the magnitude of the observed effect. He also needs to work with John Cramer in conclusively proving that gravitational and inertial effects require both advanced and retarded time interactions with all of the rest of causally connected mass/energy in the universe. Until this is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in multiple impendent labs, the mainstream physics community will ignore the M-E as being "unphysical".

Ron:

The M-E and Sonny's QVF conjectures are mutually exclusive only in your own mind. I advise you to get a copy of Peter W. Milonni "The Quantum Vacuum" book and pay special attention to the material that leads up to Chapter 11.9 on "Radiation Reaction and the Vacuum Field” where you will find that Jim's Works can legitimately be looked at as a quantum vacuum interaction as well as a delta mass interaction. They can be viewed as the flip side of each other. And if you recall, Woodward has stated repeatedly now that the M-E's mass fluctuations to NOT occur in the rest mass of the bulk accelerated ions, but in the spacetime vacuum fields that surround these ions. Another PhD at Rice University also has a paper on this topic entitled “The Hydrodynamics of the Vacuum” by Paul M. Stevenson that is well worth reading.

See: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0409292

“Abstract:

Hydrodynamics is the appropriate "effective theory" for describing any fluid medium at sufficiently long length scales. This paper treats the vacuum as such a medium and derives the corresponding hydrodynamic equations. Unlike a normal medium the vacuum has no linear sound-wave regime; disturbances always "propagate" nonlinearly. For an "empty vacuum" the hydrodynamic equations are familiar ones (shallow water-wave equations) and they describe an experimentally observed phenomenon -- the spreading of a clump of zero-temperature atoms into empty space. The "Higgs vacuum" case is much stranger; pressure and energy density, and hence time and space, exchange roles. The speed of sound is formally infinite, rather than zero as in the empty vacuum. Higher-derivative corrections to the vacuum hydrodynamic equations are also considered. In the empty-vacuum case the corrections are of quantum origin and the post-hydrodynamic description corresponds to the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. I conjecture the form of the post-hydrodynamic corrections in the Higgs case. In the 1+1-dimensional case the equations possess remarkable `soliton' solutions and appear to constitute a new exactly integrable system.”
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

GIThruster wrote:Please don't put such sick words in my mouth. I didn't say anything remotely like that Paul is devious.
well, sorry. I had understood you were saying Paul and Sonny were involved in fraud, that what they were doing could "earn a go to jail card. Depends upon the state or country, obviously."


I suppose you meant Sonny is doing the fraud and Paul is only a victim for trusting Sonny? Or is Paul aware of Sonny´s fraud.

Because of course, if you think Paul is aware of the fraud (a fraud in your opinion of course), is what you are saying "much different" from saying Paul is devious?


Well, english is not my first language, so I guess I made a mistake in equaling "commiting fraud" to "being devious".

:lol:


@Paul: thanks for the updates.

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

Post by GIThruster »

paulmarch wrote:The M-E and Sonny's QVF conjectures are mutually exclusive only in your own mind.
No Paul. You have been told by both Jim and Sonny that their theories are not compatible. I have explained to you on many occasions how they are incompatible. If you can't make use of all these explanations for your benefit there's little to be done about it. The QVF model and M-E theory form completely divergent explanations for intertia, they most often make completely different predictions and cannot account for the same phenomena. You only believe they're compatible models because that's what you want to believe.
"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 »

AcesHigh wrote:
I suppose you meant Sonny is doing the fraud and Paul is only a victim for trusting Sonny? Or is Paul aware of Sonny´s fraud.

Because of course, if you think Paul is aware of the fraud (a fraud in your opinion of course), is what you are saying "much different" from saying Paul is devious?
I haven't jumped to the conclusions you have, because I don't have all the facts. You're conveniently quoting me out of context to make the point you think I should have made but didn't.

I don't know who is responsible for failing to note the lack of controls in the work 8 years ago and placing that experiment as evidence of Sonny's model, and I don't know if that was used for fundraising. I do know that many states have laws against making false or misleading statements in order to raise money, so depending upon the details, this fraud may or may not rise to the level of a criminal issue.

I also said I don't think that it does, but someone with the facts, and a jury of peers would be required to make that determination.

I likewise noted that Sonny for years refused to accept Paul's lab data for lack of scientific controls so it's not as if he didn't know what he was looking at when that info was put into a paper, and I noted that both Paul and Sonny have been corrected by me on multiple occasions where they were using the term "prediction" improperly and leading people to believe predictions had been made when they hadn't. And I noted that in the case of the specific document I cited, no mention is made that the test data preceded the "predictions" from Sonny's model by several years.

The only conclusion I drew, was that one obviously cannot trust Eagleworks. By presenting the data in fraudulent manner, Eagleworks has shown they cannot be trusted. That was and is the only conclusion I have drawn from these very sad facts.
Last edited by GIThruster on Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"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 »

AcesHigh wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Please don't put such sick words in my mouth. I didn't say anything remotely like that Paul is devious.
well, sorry. I had understood you were saying Paul and Sonny were involved in fraud, that what they were doing could "earn a go to jail card. Depends upon the state or country, obviously."


I suppose you meant Sonny is doing the fraud and Paul is only a victim for trusting Sonny? Or is Paul aware of Sonny´s fraud.

Because of course, if you think Paul is aware of the fraud (a fraud in your opinion of course), is what you are saying "much different" from saying Paul is devious?


Well, english is not my first language, so I guess I made a mistake in equaling "commiting fraud" to "being devious".

:lol:
You made no mistakes with your grammar or interpretation.

AcesHigh wrote:@Paul: thanks for the updates.
Ditto.
Vae Victis

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

Post by GIThruster »

Ric Capucho wrote:Awwww, just as Jim Woodward stabilises his experimental rig enough to report a consistent 2-3 uN thrust signal (which should be a cause for celebration
Dunno what you mean. Jim has had stabile results for years. The news this last year was really the 10uN signal.
"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:That's pathetic, Paul.
chrismb says he is shocked! He thought you were chums!

paulmarch wrote:IMO, something like the M-E exists, period.
Paul. chrismb doesn't post here at the moment, but he'd still like to see some explanation/experiment showing that any effects seen in practice have nothing to do with source current flowing from a static electrical source around the test kit.

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

NBF has picked up the latest update on the M-E

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/latest ... qus_thread

Goatguy is still claiming the M-E violates fundamental laws of physics. Oh boy.

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Post by krenshala »

GeeGee wrote:NBF has picked up the latest update on the M-E

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/latest ... qus_thread

Goatguy is still claiming the M-E violates fundamental laws of physics. Oh boy.
He'd probably still be arguing with Gallileo given the option ...

GeeGee
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Post by GeeGee »

From what I can understand, Goat just doesn't accept the premise that the M-E is a non-local gravitational/inertial interaction. He constrains the "system box" to the device, and not the entire universe. That's why he's getting conservation law violations.

If he was serious about this criticism, he would get it published, instead of posting in article discussion threads where he has to take no responsibility for being dead wrong.

AcesHigh
Posts: 655
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Post by AcesHigh »

GeeGee wrote:NBF has picked up the latest update on the M-E
yes, I emailed Brian Wang yesterday to tell him about the updates here at Polywell :)

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

Post by GIThruster »

I went 30 rounds with GoatGuy on this many months back, so his failure to draw the proper box when pretending to do conservation calcs is not especially honest.

Just to be honest: there are plenty of tech savvy folks who get a charge from trying to show how clever they are. If you look at the peer review community, you see the precise opposite--legitimate participants who are held to accounts for their claims and criticisms don't make these unsubstantiated complaints. It's people who don't fully understand that apply kiddy reasoning to situations they don't comprehend, who do the vast bulk of the whining.

This is just one reason why it's critical to distinguish between what has passed peer review, and what is common fodder on the blogs.

Too, I would note that to take exceedingly preliminary results that someone like Jim says he has not fully analyzed, and post them to a public blog is not responsible journalism. Could turn out Jim's thoughts here will be proved out, but it is not responsible journalism to pretend he's made a public statement when all he's done is posted to a private email list.

Jim posts his health care updates in these notes too, so it's obviously a private list. I think this knee-jerk reaction people are making to what he and Heidi seem to have found is most premature. We'll have better data on this in a week, so why the rush?

And Aces, get a grip! Brian who runs NBF is on Jim's email distribution. He doesn't need to be pushed into making premature web releases.

Please act like an adult.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Post Reply