Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

AcesHigh wrote:new article by Woodward, at Centauri Dreams
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=18076
thanks, that was a good read.

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

Post by Giorgio »

AcesHigh wrote:like if Einstein didnt himself refused several of the principles of quantum mechanics brought by the physicists from Copenhagen.

you should judge whole books (persons) by what they say. But judge not each idea of the book by the whole book. Judge each idea of the book by the idea itself.
The logic is correct and the idea in principle is good.
The difference being that Einstein made some predictions that was quickly verified by independent researcher, while Woodward predictions (as far as I know) have not been seen to date by any independent research lab.

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

Post by AcesHigh »

Giorgio wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:like if Einstein didnt himself refused several of the principles of quantum mechanics brought by the physicists from Copenhagen.

you should judge whole books (persons) by what they say. But judge not each idea of the book by the whole book. Judge each idea of the book by the idea itself.
The logic is correct and the idea in principle is good.
The difference being that Einstein made some predictions that was quickly verified by independent researcher, while Woodward predictions (as far as I know) have not been seen to date by any independent research lab.

nor has string theory, branes, etc. Have gravitons already been detected? Higgs Boson? These must be investigated. If every theory that can not be quickly verified was discarded, science would be frick up. Too bad you cant see that.



and either way, you completely changed the subject. You quoted something where we werent EVEN talking about Woodward.

it was about some famous scientist refusing some concept that proved to be true and implying that if such scientist is wrong on ONE thing, then everything else he worked on is wrong too.

thats why I brought Einstein on the subject. How the hell is that related to his relativity theories being proven quickly or not, unlike Woodward?

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

AcesHigh wrote:
Giorgio wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:like if Einstein didnt himself refused several of the principles of quantum mechanics brought by the physicists from Copenhagen.

you should judge whole books (persons) by what they say. But judge not each idea of the book by the whole book. Judge each idea of the book by the idea itself.
The logic is correct and the idea in principle is good.
The difference being that Einstein made some predictions that was quickly verified by independent researcher, while Woodward predictions (as far as I know) have not been seen to date by any independent research lab.
nor has string theory, branes, etc. Have gravitons already been detected? Higgs Boson? These must be investigated. If every theory that can not be quickly verified was discarded, science would be frick up. Too bad you cant see that.

and either way, you completely changed the subject. You quoted something where we werent EVEN talking about Woodward.

it was about some famous scientist refusing some concept that proved to be true and implying that if such scientist is wrong on ONE thing, then everything else he worked on is wrong too.

thats why I brought Einstein on the subject. How the hell is that related to his relativity theories being proven quickly or not, unlike Woodward?
Because they can't be easily tested string theory, branes, and even the Higgs get serious scepticism.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

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

Post by Giorgio »

AcesHigh wrote:nor has string theory, branes, etc. Have gravitons already been detected? Higgs Boson? These must be investigated. If every theory that can not be quickly verified was discarded, science would be frick up. Too bad you cant see that.
Where do you read in my post that I am opposing research on these issues?
I believe exactly the opposite. A part of research budget should always be allocated to theories that diverge from common knowledge.
If they are discarded you have proven that common knowledge holds.
If they are proven a whole new branch of science will open.
AcesHigh wrote:thats why I brought Einstein on the subject. How the hell is that related to his relativity theories being proven quickly or not, unlike Woodward?
It is not related at all, I misread the post before replying, it happens.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Giorgio wrote:The difference being that Einstein made some predictions that was quickly verified by independent researcher, while Woodward predictions (as far as I know) have not been seen to date by any independent research lab.
Yes. The trouble of course is the engineering to demonstrate Mach Effects is exceedingly difficult and crosses several disciplines. The UFG for instance, requires extremely complex acoustics. It's simply not easy to make something change energy and resonate at two frequencies at once. In order to do these experiments, you not only need to have a sound grasp of the underlying M-E physics, you need to have much of the training and expertise of a mechanical engineer, an acoustic engineer and for the power systems, an electrical engineer. That's hard to do, especially with no funding.

Also, it's good to note that the first experiments done after SR was published appeared to show it was wrong. The Kaufmann-Bucherer experiments announced in 1906 (SR was published in 1905) seemed to imply SR was in error, and that was the argument Kaufmann made.

How long it takes to get experimental verification is more a function of things like funding and just how many physicists are working in the field, than of clarity and correctness. Einstein was working on the same physics that everyone had been working on. He therefore had an enormous stage and plenty of people to follow up doing their own experiments.

Note too, that for these kinds of M-E experiments that are trying to generate thrust, you not only need to do all the above, but you then need to also have a decent thrust balance, vacuum, controls for E and B coupling, etc. These are not cheap nor easy things to provide in a lab.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

That said, the money spent on mach effect research has been miniscule compared to other theories that have skeptics. They've dumped many billions into the LHC primarily to find the higgs boson.

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

Post by Giorgio »

IntLibber wrote:That said, the money spent on mach effect research has been miniscule compared to other theories that have skeptics. They've dumped many billions into the LHC primarily to find the higgs boson.
Or not to find it. In both cases we will need to rethink our model.

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

Giorgio wrote:
IntLibber wrote:That said, the money spent on mach effect research has been miniscule compared to other theories that have skeptics. They've dumped many billions into the LHC primarily to find the higgs boson.
Or not to find it. In both cases we will need to rethink our model.
Does anyone know how much time/data needs to be consumed before they decide they are simply not going to find the Higgs?

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

Post by GIThruster »

I'm sure they won't look for any answers that could people out of work for years. They're not even due to run at full power until 2014.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

I've been reading as much as I can about thsi concept as far as CERN is concerned; so if I understand this right, they propose that any particle with mass (including an electron or photon?) has somewhere hidden within it this 'Higgs particle"? Is it supposed to form some sort of 'mass cloud' when coupled to other force or charge carriers, in the way that an electron forms a cloud around a nucleus? And it will become uncoupled and show up in the detectors due to the high energy collision of the particles?

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

Post by GIThruster »

EricF wrote:I've been reading as much as I can about thsi concept as far as CERN is concerned; so if I understand this right, they propose that any particle with mass (including an electron or photon?) has somewhere hidden within it this 'Higgs particle"? Is it supposed to form some sort of 'mass cloud' when coupled to other force or charge carriers, in the way that an electron forms a cloud around a nucleus? And it will become uncoupled and show up in the detectors due to the high energy collision of the particles?
Higgs is the only particle in the Standard Model that has never been observed. It supposedly gives mass to massive particles (includes electron but not photon). If they don't find it, there will be huge reason to think the Standard Model is not as complete as most like to think.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

I dunno, I guess I feel like the information on it is too vague. Is there a proposed mechanism for the higgs becoming bound to other particles? Where do they predict it will show up ex: an electron, does the higgs particle hover about the point particle in some kind or orbit? Is it locked inside, or merged completly with some other negative charge carrier the whole of which creates the electron (and if the electron is a wave, does that mean the higgs has to be a wave too?) To take this a step further, is the electron has 1 "higgs unit" of mass, does that mean that a proton has 1836 of them trapped somewhere inside?
Last edited by EricF on Sun May 29, 2011 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

parallel
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:24 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Post by parallel »

GIThruster wrote:
EricF wrote:I've been reading as much as I can about thsi concept as far as CERN is concerned; so if I understand this right, they propose that any particle with mass (including an electron or photon?) has somewhere hidden within it this 'Higgs particle"? Is it supposed to form some sort of 'mass cloud' when coupled to other force or charge carriers, in the way that an electron forms a cloud around a nucleus? And it will become uncoupled and show up in the detectors due to the high energy collision of the particles?
Higgs is the only particle in the Standard Model that has never been observed. It supposedly gives mass to massive particles (includes electron but not photon). If they don't find it, there will be huge reason to think the Standard Model is not as complete as most like to think.
O yes? When did anyone see an individual quark? Kind of tough to do if you believe the binding force between quarks does not decrease with distance.

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

Post by GIThruster »

Well, I guess you can dicker whether a three-jet event is an observation of a gluon or not. Physicists usually precise between direct and inferred observations. Did you want to say observation of a three-jet event with two quarks is not evidence of a gluon? Or did you just want to argue about the nature of observation?

I'm not the one who writes that the Higgs is the "only unobserved particle in the Standard Model". That statement is all through the literature concerning the LHC. The point is, that in order to verify the Higgs portion of the Standard Model, they need to find the Higgs. If they don't, the model will need serious revision.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Post Reply