Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Postby 93143 » Mon May 17, 2010 10:34 pm

icarus wrote: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.


Relative to the entire universe, of course.


The spacecraft is part of the universe. All the rest of the matter in the universe excluding the spacecraft is also part of the universe.

You have (I trust) no problem with the concept of a spacecraft accelerating, provided that a force is applied to it?

Now, the mass of a spacecraft is m = U*(mf_s), where U is the mass of the universe and mf_s is the fractional mass represented by the spacecraft, right?

Why should there be a problem with an aggregate mass of U*(1-mf_s) accelerating under an applied force? The principle is exactly the same; it's just that the quantity involved is larger, and closer to the total mass of the universe. Provided U itself doesn't accelerate (yes, I know I'm not using rigorous notation), nothing unthinkable happens.

There's no fallacy involved. It's just a question of scale.

Betruger
Posts: 2249
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Mon May 17, 2010 11:45 pm

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

Betruger
Posts: 2249
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Tue May 18, 2010 12:19 am

It appears J.Woodward is working on a new paper that's estimated to be released in a few weeks.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... #msg588325

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

Postby icarus » Tue May 18, 2010 2:02 am

bedreggers: did you or did you not misquote me intentionally for the purpose of calling me obscenties without having the spine to just come out and say the??

icarus wrote:
Uncanny reenactment of 18th century man in fancy civilized getups who'd make monkey sounds and gestures and talk to black men as if they weren't present, as if the continued pretense that no matter what the black man did it was an ape, rather than himself being pinheaded pretentious prick


Hey now, don't get your panties in too much of a bunch.


But your tirade is infantile and I don't want to get into it. I don't come here to be abused, if the quote is not removed and yourself reprimanded Talk-Polywell will be a lesser place for it. Please remove this insidious quote that you have put my moniker on.

If you are heartily offended by a light-hearted "Kool-Aid" reference well I think the mirror is a good place to begin for you, sir. Afterall you yourself admit at this point, the "Mach Effect" is more of belief system than a real physical phenomen.

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

Postby icarus » Tue May 18, 2010 2:12 am

93143::
Relative to the entire universe, of course.


Okay, so the rest (not the spacecraft) of the mass of the universe moves (ever so slightly) with respect to the mass of the entire universe and the center of mass of the whole system is stationary?

And you don't see any problem with the logic here?

You have (I trust) no problem with the concept of a spacecraft accelerating, provided that a force is applied to it?


Another facetious, rhetorical question ... give it up, you were busted.

There's no fallacy involved. It's just a question of scale.


darn right it is a question of scale. Now you have involved the whole of the rest of the mass of the universe, (but not the entire universe I should remember which universe I'm talking about here it seems). So now tell me how quickly is this information that rest of the mass of the universe has moved is transmitted to the center of mass telling it to stay where it is? (and at the same time perhaps you'll explain how fast the information travelled from the spacecraft to the rest of the universe telling it that it should move)

Hint: the answer can not be instantaneously as per GR.

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

Postby 93143 » Tue May 18, 2010 3:31 am

icarus wrote:Okay, so the rest (not the spacecraft) of the mass of the universe moves (ever so slightly) with respect to the mass of the entire universe and the center of mass of the whole system is stationary?

And you don't see any problem with the logic here?

Nope. I'm starting to wonder if you've ever actually worked a simple vector mechanics problem...

The entire universe includes the spacecraft. That's the key.

You have (I trust) no problem with the concept of a spacecraft accelerating, provided that a force is applied to it?

Another facetious, rhetorical question ... give it up, you were busted.

Busted how?

I was trying to lead into the rest of the explanation. Yes, I'm getting impatient and it's affecting my style. You seem to be too busy being contemptuous to actually understand what I'm talking about.

How about you come out and explain what it is you think is wrong with the conservation-of-momentum argument, instead of hinting around that I'm some kind of idiot for not figuring it out myself?

darn right it is a question of scale. Now you have involved the whole of the rest of the mass of the universe, (but not the entire universe I should remember which universe I'm talking about here it seems). So now tell me how quickly is this information that rest of the mass of the universe has moved is transmitted to the center of mass telling it to stay where it is? (and at the same time perhaps you'll explain how fast the information travelled from the spacecraft to the rest of the universe telling it that it should move)

Hint: the answer can not be instantaneously as per GR.

That's a completely different issue and you know it. Talk to Paul March about gravinertial fields and reversed-time waves; I'm not going to get into that.

Also,
how quickly is this information that rest of the mass of the universe has moved is transmitted to the center of mass telling it to stay where it is
is nonsense; either it was posted too quickly or you are somehow under the impression that the "center of mass" is somehow a separate, discrete thing rather than just the abstract concept of a mass-average of the "rest of the mass" and the spacecraft...

Bear in mind that according to current theory the universe doesn't have a centre of mass in the location-in-3D-space sense, only in the velocity/momentum sense...
Last edited by 93143 on Tue May 18, 2010 6:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Betruger
Posts: 2249
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Tue May 18, 2010 4:28 am

Offended if you consider it not knowing whether to laugh or scratch my head. My tirade? Abused? Light hearted? Seriously? Cause that's not how you came through (e.g. the name distortion thing is in my mind almost a guarantee that I'm dealing with a teenager). You could've cleared this up earlier; it's curious you wouldn't have. And it's clear what I said, it's there in black on white.
Did you or did you not throw a fit only because the ME conjecture I had to mention to answer two people's questions is junk in your opinion, and because I refused to take responsibility for how credible or not said ME conjecture is, and had the spine to call your insistence that I am for the strawman it is? A rhetorical question.

I'm going to delete my off topic posts so this thread is back on track.
Afterall you yourself admit at this point, the "Mach Effect" is more of belief system than a real physical phenomen.
No, and this is why I can't take you seriously - and the only thing I'll reply to henceforth:
1- It's clear as daylight that I haven't and am not admitting any such thing either way. I'm only passing on the information requested.
2- I don't see how you can believe that it is or isn't a real physical phenomenon without proper research. Which is what J.Woodward & co are trying to see through. Or alternatively by debating the technicalities like 93143 is doing above and like P.March would probably be glad to do with you if you did more than call what he proposes junk.

MSimon
Posts: 14279
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Tue May 18, 2010 11:37 am

icarus wrote: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'.


If inertial mass is electromagnetic in origin you can manipulate it with electromagnetic fields. Feynman did not go into the implications of what he posited for engineering i.e. inertial drive.

I don't see why conjectures by some of the great minds of physics upset you so.

====

The question of course is why inertial mass = gravitational mass. If gravitational mass is geometric (per Einstein) and inertial mass is at least in part electromagnetic (per conjectures arising out of Maxwell and hypothesized by Mach and Feynman among others) there is a unification theory missing. Feynman called it one of the very big holes in physics. And yet exploration of this fundamental question is done out of pocket by folks interested in it.

Good on the people (March et. al.) doing this for trying to get answers from macro systems. So far all we have to go on is indications from micro systems (particles with similar behaviors but different masses depending on charge).

icarus,

I don't understand your hostility to exploring a fundamental question. Are you heavily invested in mass ejection rockets?

What would I suggest? Read Chapter 28 Volume II of Lectures to get up to speed.

And the title of the Chapter? Electromagnetic Mass.
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

MSimon
Posts: 14279
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Postby MSimon » Tue May 18, 2010 12:06 pm

So now tell me how quickly is this information that rest of the mass of the universe has moved is transmitted to the center of mass telling it to stay where it is?


Would that be by advanced or retarded electromagnetic waves?

As I said upthread: your knowledge seems to be stuck in grade school understanding of physics - or to be more charitable engineering physics.

Why not educate yourself some (always fun and sometimes profitable) and then come back and poke holes when you at least understand the questions. It is only one chapter in Feynman. How hard can it be?
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

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Tue May 18, 2010 3:51 pm

The question of course is why inertial mass = gravitational mass.


I think Higgs is the fashionable answer. LHC may tell us for sure pretty soon. (It sure is an exciting couple years ahead, isn't it?)

Which reminds me: will anything coming of out LHC impact Mach effect theory? If so, what if any predictions does MET make for LHC results (looking in Paul's direction)? I know it has implications for Heim and (obviously) string theory and Standard Model.

tomclarke wrote:Anyone who has paid attention to QM and current ideas about GUTs realises that locality is a pretty fragile concept.


No kidding. And I suspect there are yet more implications to nonlocality that will become apparent over the next century.

93143: As always, thanks for your contributions to this thread, they greatly increase my understanding of things I haven't studied enough.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Nik
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:14 pm
Location: UK

Mach effect vs Mach principle vs Mach conjecture...

Postby Nik » Tue May 18, 2010 4:12 pm

Is this related to the 'enclosed thruster' proposed a year or two back ? Where the energy density in a *closed*, tapered waveguide theoretically causes thrust ? I remember the uproar, and reading that the math comes down to a Y/N result depending on arcane, ambiguous interpretations of the physics. IIRC, the only way to conclusively disprove it is to build and fly it...

Uh, back on topic, given entangled particles may be half the known universe apart when they next interact, Mach's principle may have a mechanism...

Entangled gravitons, any-one ??

OT: Why doesn't 'Mach Effect' wiki have a disambiguation link to lengthy wiki on 'Mach's Principle' ??

( Apologies for spelling: One of our cats is helping me type ;-)

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

Postby paulmarch » Tue May 18, 2010 6:06 pm

TallDave wrote:
The question of course is why inertial mass = gravitational mass.


I think Higgs is the fashionable answer. LHC may tell us for sure pretty soon. (It sure is an exciting couple years ahead, isn't it?)

Which reminds me: will anything coming of out LHC impact Mach effect theory? If so, what if any predictions does MET make for LHC results (looking in Paul's direction)? I know it has implications for Heim and (obviously) string theory and Standard Model.

tomclarke wrote:Anyone who has paid attention to QM and current ideas about GUTs realises that locality is a pretty fragile concept.


No kidding. And I suspect there are yet more implications to nonlocality that will become apparent over the next century.

93143: As always, thanks for your contributions to this thread, they greatly increase my understanding of things I haven't studied enough.


"Which reminds me: will anything coming of out LHC impact Mach effect theory? If so, what if any predictions does MET make for LHC results (looking in Paul's direction)? I know it has implications for Heim and (obviously) string theory and Standard Model."

As far as Woodward is concerned, the existence of the Higgs particle has no bearing on the M-E or what causes inertial mass in a GRT based universe. The interactions of the cosmological gravinertial field with the local electromagnetic fields in electrically charged elementary particles like electrons and quarks is the causative agent for inertial mass per Woodward and the Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner (ADM) model of elementary particles pended around 1960. In that model with Woodward's modifications to same, (See Woodward’s “Making History Safe for Historians” (MUSH) & "Twists of Fate:..."), the very large but finite negative "Bare" electromagnetic mass of these elementary charged particles is mostly cancelled or balanced out by their interactions with the gravinertial field. The small imbalance between these two competing agents results in the measured inertial mass of all subatomic particles. In other words as far as Woodward is concerned, the Higgs field and particle is just another error of the current elementary particle "Standard Model".

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k1163w0615k62q84/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k1163w0615k62q84/


From Woodward's latest still unpublished paper:

"They (ADM) asked what the solution of the field equations of general relativity was for the case of a spherical cloud of electrically charged “dust”, which they assumed to have some bare mass. It turns out that this problem has an exact solution. And, as Abay Ashtekar pointed out in a review article on quantum gravity he wrote in 1990, the ADM model suggests that in a correct theory, renormalization should be unnecessary for gravity and electromagnetism compensate in such a way as to keep things finite in even the most extreme circumstances."
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

Diogenes
Posts: 6705
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Postby Diogenes » Tue May 18, 2010 8:40 pm

MSimon wrote:
So now tell me how quickly is this information that rest of the mass of the universe has moved is transmitted to the center of mass telling it to stay where it is?


Would that be by advanced or retarded electromagnetic waves?

As I said upthread: your knowledge seems to be stuck in grade school understanding of physics - or to be more charitable engineering physics.

Why not educate yourself some (always fun and sometimes profitable) and then come back and poke holes when you at least understand the questions. It is only one chapter in Feynman. How hard can it be?


Speaking of Feynman...

http://bill.wards.net/blosxom/humor/story/feynman.html

AcesHigh
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Mach effect vs Mach principle vs Mach conjecture...

Postby AcesHigh » Tue May 18, 2010 11:45 pm

Nik wrote:Is this related to the 'enclosed thruster' proposed a year or two back ? Where the energy density in a *closed*, tapered waveguide theoretically causes thrust ? I remember the uproar, and reading that the math comes down to a Y/N result depending on arcane, ambiguous interpretations of the physics. IIRC, the only way to conclusively disprove it is to build and fly it...


no. I think you are talking about the EM-Drive, by Roger Shawyer, not ME-Thruster. The name is similar, but they are worlds apart, completely unrelated effects, theories, physics and PLAUSABILITY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive

kurt9
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Postby kurt9 » Wed May 19, 2010 2:13 am

Can anyone tell me if Mach's Principle and Heim Theory are compatible or not?


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests