Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14299
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Mon May 17, 2010 6:20 am

icarus wrote:Before you descend again into outright name-calling and abuse, how about you just answer the question instead of obfuscating? You were the one who bought these junk physics arguments up after all ... re: your 'universe tugging to circumvent conservation of momentum' statement

"What happens to the center of mass of the universe when you do this 'tugging' thing on it that you are talking about?"

Just attempt to think, and then answer the question and you'll see how ridiculous the proposition, and your statement is.


Ah so Feynman is a junk physicist? I'll have to inform the Nobel committee at once. We can't have such junk physicists polluting our pure sciences.

I'm always amused by folks with a grade school physics education (and I don't care if you have a Ph.D. in physics) pontificating on subjects they have not studied in even moderate depth.

Feynman is of the opinion that inertia is one of the great unknowns and may be at least partially electromagnetic in origin. He may very well be wrong. OTOH he says that some experiments at the time of his writing Lectures (1967) indicated that the electromagnetic origin of inertia was very likely.

I think a further look with macro experiment of various types is in order.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://protonboron.com/
THE OPEN POLYWELL FUSION CONSORTIUM

Giorgio
Posts: 2640
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Mon May 17, 2010 6:48 am

paulmarch wrote: But general relativity theory tells us that the presence of local objects does not produce “forces”. It distorts the local spacetime and causes inertial motion to deviate from that that would otherwise occur in flat spacetime. True gravitational forces are inertial reaction forces, and they are not small. They are as large as the forces that excite them.


This is also my view of the behaviour of the field we call gravity. Exactly like a rock in a river breaks the flat flow of the water.

What we are still missing anyhow is to understand what gravity is and from where it comes from. I am sure that when we will have the reply to this basic question all the answers will go in their right place and will all look ourselves in a mirror and say "that was so logic..!"

Personally, I am still skeptic that we can exchange momentum with the universe and hence create a thrustless drive.
What I believe is happening into those capacitors is very similar to what happens when you discharge a volume of water in a quick way into a container resting on the ground.
Energy from the water is transmitted to the container and an oscillation occurs. The container exchange energy with the immediate surrounding and whole systems oscillates to a still position.

Just my 0,02 US$, of course, and I couldn't be more happy if I will be proven wrong and the Mach effect works like stated.

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Mon May 17, 2010 6:50 am

MSimon: I didn't say anything about what Feynman said ... although I'm pretty sure Feynman said nothing about gaining propulsion by 'tugging on the rest of the universe'.

934313: You've proved nothing, answered my question with an unsupported 'nothing', and then proceeded to ask a rhetorical, puerile question about existence of spacecraft that adds nothing to the discussion. Probably better if you stayed the heck out of it if you have nothing useful to add besides a statement that screams, 'I'm not that smart but I'll kick him too and see if anyone notices me'.

bedreggsers: You still haven't even attempted to answer my question that was prompted by your offhand 'tugging at the universe for propulsion' statement. (Hint; also you obviously don't know what a strawman argument is and make yourself look silly by trying to sling that mud at me, better to drop that one old chap).

Just attempt to answer the question and show us you can think and then you might regain some respect. It's all very well to throw around far out concepts, fringe physics and a few links and then claim mea culpa as soon as someone says 'yeah but what do you actually know about it?'.

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

Postby chrismb » Mon May 17, 2010 7:08 am

MSimon wrote:
chrismb wrote: viz. inertia is thermodynamic in origin
Some very smart people might disagree with you.
If they do disagree, then maybe it is a smarter person disagreeing with them. Maybe. But it is of no consequence as the truth of what someone says does not depend on where they are in a hierarchy of smartness - whatever that means.

Feynman cannot disagree with me. But if he were alive then if he were to want to disagree I am sure he would do so through pinpointing logical errors or omissions, not by saying how clever he thought he was. There seems to have been a change in the last few decades in science (well-reflected by the way debates go on this website) in which the justifications for one's arguments do not depend on the logic therein, but in what qualifications you have.

I laid out a "1..2..3.." above to make it oh-so easy for you to say "2 is wrong" "2 to 3 is unjustified", or whatever you think, but it seems beyond anyone to show a specific error in the logic and instead it is generalisations they throw because they are uncomfortable that what they think they know is being questioned. Just tell me where the logic is in error rather than saying you think I'm not as smart as someone else so I have nothing to offer on the subject.

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

Postby chrismb » Mon May 17, 2010 7:25 am

paulmarch wrote:Chris:

Would you please point us to some peered reviewed papers on these energy/entropy ideas you are espousing? I’ve known for a long time that there are disconnects between the energy and force definitions, and it could be education for me to see another viewpoint.

Thanks much.

Paul, as far as I know I have never heard anyone else formalise the argument as specifically as I have, so there are no references; you heard it here first!

D'you think I should write a paper on it? This whole realisation came about when I was researching liquid surface interactions and I realised that surface tension is wholly, and trivially, explained by entropic arguments. It is brutally difficult to try to describe a 3-phase interaction by forces, but is trivial by entropy. So trivial that I feel I am able to say, merely from the corollary of known physics; "force is the manifestation of a change of entropy with respect to a displacement of matter, or incipient displacement of matter, where there is an insufficient source of free energy to spontaneously perpetuate that displacement, or insufficient sink for released energy, and is proportional to the rate of incipient change of entropy with respect to a vector in the direction of the manifest force".

(I'll consider whether I can make that any clearer, but for now consider it; "Macdonald-Bradley's law of motion, version 1!")

I've no more a reference for that than did Newton for his laws of motion. But, actually, this substitutes for all 3 laws of his, and additionally gives some insight into why they are so.

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

Postby CaptainBeowulf » Mon May 17, 2010 7:48 am

Y'know, I find reading Chris' interpretation of physics interesting. I don't agree with it, but I like to see the occasional attempt to come up with a simpler model than, say, string theory or Heim.

While skeptical, I read through some of the papers on MLTs last year and it's possible that the things could work - if they do or if they don't either way will tell us something interesting about some of our current physics models.

The theories may be out in left field, but I don't see anyone pushing what I would call junk science in this thread. Just unconventional - it becomes junk only if the person proposing the theory tries to dress it up and oversell it hukster-style.

tomclarke
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby tomclarke » Mon May 17, 2010 8:29 am

chrismb wrote:
paulmarch wrote:Chris:

Would you please point us to some peered reviewed papers on these energy/entropy ideas you are espousing? I’ve known for a long time that there are disconnects between the energy and force definitions, and it could be education for me to see another viewpoint.

Thanks much.

Paul, as far as I know I have never heard anyone else formalise the argument as specifically as I have, so there are no references; you heard it here first!

D'you think I should write a paper on it? This whole realisation came about when I was researching liquid surface interactions and I realised that surface tension is wholly, and trivially, explained by entropic arguments. It is brutally difficult to try to describe a 3-phase interaction by forces, but is trivial by entropy. So trivial that I feel I am able to say, merely from the corollary of known physics; "force is the manifestation of a change of entropy with respect to a displacement of matter, or incipient displacement of matter, where there is an insufficient source of free energy to spontaneously perpetuate that displacement, or insufficient sink for released energy, and is proportional to the rate of incipient change of entropy with respect to a vector in the direction of the manifest force".

(I'll consider whether I can make that any clearer, but for now consider it; "Macdonald-Bradley's law of motion, version 1!")

I've no more a reference for that than did Newton for his laws of motion. But, actually, this substitutes for all 3 laws of his, and additionally gives some insight into why they are so.


The idea that gravity is an entropic force is respectable and has some advantages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_as ... opic_force

I don't think this necessarily makes M-E ideas impossible. Nor do I worry per se about the non-locailty inherent in M-E ideas. Anyone who has paid attention to QM and current ideas about GUTs realises that locality is a pretty fragile concept.

However the current evidence, experimentally, for M-E is very weak. The experimental evidence against M-E is similarly weak. However the idea seems to me inherently unlikely. If true then antigravity machines, also (therefore) "free energy" machines, become relatively easy to engineer.

So let's get some strong experimental evidence!

Best wishes, Tom

Giorgio
Posts: 2640
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Postby Giorgio » Mon May 17, 2010 8:38 am

chrismb wrote: So trivial that I feel I am able to say, merely from the corollary of known physics; "force is the manifestation of a change of entropy with respect to a displacement of matter, or incipient displacement of matter, where there is an insufficient source of free energy to spontaneously perpetuate that displacement, or insufficient sink for released energy, and is proportional to the rate of incipient change of entropy with respect to a vector in the direction of the manifest force".

(I'll consider whether I can make that any clearer, but for now consider it; "Macdonald-Bradley's law of motion, version 1!")


You might find interesting to give a read to:
"On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton"
Dott. Erik Verlinde
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 0785v1.pdf

93143
Posts: 1130
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Postby 93143 » Mon May 17, 2010 5:46 pm

icarus wrote:934313: You've proved nothing, answered my question with an unsupported 'nothing', and then proceeded to ask a rhetorical, puerile question about existence of spacecraft that adds nothing to the discussion. Probably better if you stayed the heck out of it if you have nothing useful to add besides a statement that screams, 'I'm not that smart but I'll kick him too and see if anyone notices me'.


All right, I'll spell it out for you.

Spacecraft with M-E thruster generates 1000 N of thrust. The rest of the universe experiences 1000 N in the other direction, distributed (not necessarily evenly) over everything in it (including the spacecraft, but since it is such a small part of the universe its share of the reaction force is miniscule).

Result? Spacecraft moves in one direction, rest of universe moves in the other direction. Momentum is conserved. The centre of mass of the universe (which includes the spacecraft) stays put.

Better?

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

Postby cuddihy » Mon May 17, 2010 6:58 pm

chrismb wrote:
cuddihy wrote:Only a post-modern physicist could say this with a straight face and mean it.
Not at all. A description of the universe which excludes the use of the idea of forces is entirely consistent* - more so than with that idea. We, as humans, have an experience of reality that is 'macroscopic' and is the accumulation of underlying phenomena. We experience what we have come to term as 'force', but it is just an idea in much the same way it is only an idea that physics will behave in exactly the same way tomorrow, and that things are consistent and not subject to chance. So, our experience excludes us from properly understanding quantum physics, for example, in an intuitive way.

*[I'm not suggesting don't use forces in calculations, it would be far too complex to calculate only with 'energy', but recognise they are derivative of other 'real' physical quantities.]

When you go to work, what is happening is that the system-state is changing; you go from being not-at-work to being-at-work. A system-state change requires energy. Force, without dimensional displacement, isn't energy so you can't get to work using forces. You get to work by using energy, and as you use energy with respect to displacement so we, as macroscopic humans, call that 'force'.



blah blah blah, what does this add to understanding of the universe exactly? This is an accounting question, the same amount of information is present in both depictions of how I get to work. It is reductio ab nihil.



Dropping the notion of 'force' immediately provides, for example, a complete description of gravity. We live in an expanding universe and so the space in which our planet and us reside is expanding. But the dimensional relationship we have with our planet doesn't change because matter doesn't expand along with the space it occupies.
However, as there is a 'system-state change' [that we have gone, from one second to the next, from occupying a different fraction of space] so we experience that change of state as 'the force of gravity'. If you can drop the notion of 'force' and instead embrace my idea that force is fully explicable simply by looking at the of change of energy with respect to distance (in gravity's case; with respect to spatial expansion) so the origin of inertia and gravity becomes self-evident.



I think this explanation is self-consistent (if of questionable utility) with regard to gravity, but you lose me on inertia. What exactly does inertia have to do with any of the above?


Just consider where you might disagree with me in the following sequence of axiomatic/ logical statements, and if you don't [and remain oper-minded] then you should get to the end of this and say "oh! I see...";
1) force is the derivative of the amount of energy converted with respect to distance
2) a change of state requires a change of energy
3) an expanding universe means that from one moment to the next, the universe has changed its state (else there wouldn't have been 'expansion'). So, by (2), there has been a change of energy in the unverse from one moment to the next
4) the change of energy experienced by the universe, as refered to in (3), is measured as a change of dimension and as there is a change of energy with respect to distance, so, according to (1), there must be some 'force' manifest somewhere.....

what do you think that force is... if it ain't gravity?....


4) Not sure what you're getting at here. What does this sequence add to understanding of the universe? You could do the same reductio ab nihil with entropy over time, and still be no closer to being able to describe where Venus will be in three months.
Tom.Cuddihy

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

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

Postby chrismb » Mon May 17, 2010 7:17 pm

cuddihy wrote:blah blah blah, what does this add to understanding of the universe exactly? This is an accounting question, the same amount of information is present in both depictions of how I get to work. It is reductio ab nihil.

I think this explanation is self-consistent (if of questionable utility) with regard to gravity, but you lose me on inertia. What exactly does inertia have to do with any of the above?

4) Not sure what you're getting at here. What does this sequence add to understanding of the universe? You could do the same reductio ab nihil with entropy over time, and still be no closer to being able to describe where Venus will be in three months.

This is quite strange to read.

You appear to be saying "yeah, sure, I buy all this. You've just explained gravity and replaced Newton's 3 laws with one. But, hey, it doesn't tell me anything I don't know"...

Well, if that is true that you think this, then that is a pretty radical change in your understanding of the Universe, even though you don't seem to realise it.

So if you [and others] are, actually, saying 'yeah, I can agree with you on this [..so what]' then I've just achieved more than I expected by posting that. Paradigm shifts are never very easy for people to understand. Most people get very uncomfortable about them and dismiss them because it causes them to feel that something they always held as fundamental truth maybe wasn't (and so subconsciously they wonder what else isn't how they see it), but then they might start thinking 'I could live with that' and then start saying 'so what'. You're at stage two. Result!

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Postby DeltaV » Mon May 17, 2010 7:55 pm

Energy is interchangeable with Matter.
Energy has the same physical dimensions as Torque (Mass*Length^2*Time^-2 = Force*Length, or in units, N*m or J).
Rotation is more fundamental than Translation.
Look around. It's all Torque.
SWAT has arrived. Gotta run.

Betruger
Posts: 2263
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Mon May 17, 2010 8:36 pm

off topic
Last edited by Betruger on Tue May 18, 2010 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

ltgbrown
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Albania

Postby ltgbrown » Mon May 17, 2010 8:54 pm

Paul, thank you for updating us on where you (and Dr. W) are at in your attempt to validate/verify or disprove (or more likely provide just enough to cause one to think there still might be something to all this but not enough to prove or disprove! science can be frustrating! :D ) the earlier work on ME.

For those of interested in hearing the results of your work, where might we keep on eye out to see/hear about initial findings and when do you hope to have some?

While I find it difficult to believe (using a term usually associated with items with no real way to prove or disprove seems somehow inappropriate when you are attempting to do just that!) in the Mach Effect, I sure as hell hope it proves to exist and that the engineering to take advantage of it is "as easy" at it appears to be. Best of luck and when you are ready to accept meager funding, let me know, I'm in!
Famous last words, "Hey, watch this!"

icarus
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Postby icarus » Mon May 17, 2010 9:55 pm

93143:
.. rest of universe moves in the other direction ..


ahhh, rest of the universe moves, he? .... relative to what exactly?

and you're are getting close to the crux of the fallacy.


bedreggers: I have no idea where you dredged that sick quote up from but it is more likely from your mind than mine. Perhaps someone would like to moderate betrugers descent into obscenities or is this place a free-for-all now MSimon?

PS: he still refuses to answer the question, arguing now that it is beneath him or off topic, not clear more obfuscation. First, he didn't know anything about it, now he does but my question is beneath him .... uh-huh.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests