Mach Effect progress

[paulmarch]

Paul, as you may know, these Sonny White news you posted here were reproduced at NextBigFuture, and there are over 50 comments to the post.


these ones interested me... can you explain, please?

jonathanmccabe • 2 days ago
Say the space ship has a velocity of 0.1c to the left to one observer, and 0.1c to the right to another observer, in what dirrection is the 10c after the boost is applied? I would have said relative velocity but that is so 1800s.
0 •Reply•Share ›

Brett_Bellmore • 2 days ago • parent
THAT, I would say, is a key question. This whole, "Throw the switch, and you're going a hundred times faster" business begs the question of, a hundred times faster relative to what coordinate system? You can't go a hundred times faster in EVERY coordinate system, so the very idea suggests a preferred frame of reference. Which would make a hash of general relativity.

I'm comfortable with making a hash of general relativity, (ANY theory is subject to falling to contrary evidence.) but it would be a pretty big deal.
1 •Reply•Share ›

drewmandan • 2 days ago • parent
It's not a big deal. Even though the theory is built on relativity, it turns out that 99.999999% (not an exaggeration) of spacetime is all in the same frame that is conveniently referred to as "flat space". So although it's possible that there's someone falling into a black hole (or some other weird section of curved spacetime) somewhere that sees something different, almost everyone will agree on what they see.
0 •Reply•Share ›

Brett_Bellmore • a day ago • parent
I think you've missed the point: Imagine you're sitting out in inter-galactic space, (To make the spacetime as flat as it gets.) between two galaxies which are approaching each other. You're traveling simultaneously towards both galaxies at 100kps, because they're approaching each other at 200kps.

You throw the switch. Suddenly your speed is "boosted" by a factor of 100 times. You're now going 10,000kps towards one galaxy, and... 10,000kps towards the other??? Can't happen, that would require the galaxies to change their relative speeds, too.

"Multiplying" your speed by a "boost" is a nonsensical concept without a preferred frame of reference to decide which way you end up going.

Now, I could see this reducing the amount of thrust needed to accelerate after the drive is engaged, it could do something like that without violating relativity. But it can't change your speed when you throw the switch.
1 •Reply•Share ›

drewmandan • 19 hours ago • parent −
Brett_Bellmore: Does the boost have a direction?

I think the accelerated frame of refernce of the starship in question and its unique historical trace through spacetime provides the preferred frame of reference needed by the boost to work. Past that ask GRT experts like White or Woodward.

Best,

[GIThruster]

I think it's pretty safe to say Brett is hopelessly confused about coordinate systems and what going faster means. His examples are factually incorrect and his thinking is backward. Facts is, 100X faster is the same in every coordinate system and every frame of reference. Brett just hasn't figured it out yet. His example of approaching a pair of galaxies is completely wrong. If originally you are approaching a pair of galaxies at 100kps and you're suddenly traveling 100X as fast, you are then approaching both systems at 10,000 kps. How he got a different result escapes me, but he's wrong.

[Jded]

I think it's pretty safe to say Brett is hopelessly confused about coordinate systems and what going faster means. His examples are factually incorrect and his thinking is backward. Facts is, 100X faster is the same in every coordinate system and every frame of reference. Brett just hasn't figured it out yet. His example of approaching a pair of galaxies is completely wrong. If originally you are approaching a pair of galaxies at 100kps and you're suddenly traveling 100X as fast, you are then approaching both systems at 10,000 kps. How he got a different result escapes me, but he's wrong.

You misread the example. The ship is between the galaxies, it approaches both of them because they are coming closer together. If both speeds increase 100x, it would mean the galaxies will collide in 100x less time. One hell of a side-effect.

There's nothing confused about requiring an absolute reference frame to have an absolute speed boost. The problem is in speed being a vector.

[GIThruster]

You misread the example. The ship is between the galaxies, it approaches both of them because they are coming closer together. If both speeds increase 100x, it would mean the galaxies will collide in 100x less time.

Sounds like you're as confused as Brett. I didn't misread the example. You and Bret did. The only way for the ship to be approaching both galaxies at 100kps is that their velocities are orthogonal to the velocity of the spacecraft. This means what they're doing makes no difference. The speeds of the planets relative to one another DO NOT CHANGE when the spacecraft boosts. This is just a very confused example from someone who doesn't understand high school math.

If the ship were between the galaxies which were both approaching from opposite directions at 100 kps, then the frame of reference is of the ship at rest, not at 100 kps. There is no way to boost that velocity because there is no velocity.

Bretts mistake can be described several ways, but the simplest is to say that he's mistaken speed for velocity. If the craft is between the planets and they are approaching from opposite directions, then one has a velocity of 100 kps, and the second is -100 kps. Hence they do not have the same velocity.

As I said, the only way for the ship to approach both planets with the same velocity is if its velocity is orthogonal to that of the galaxies.

[93143]

I'm sorry, GIThruster, but you're disregarding Galilean invariance here, and that makes you almost certainly wrong.

There is no known physical reason not to pick either of the galaxies as stationary. This is the whole point of the idea of a reference frame.

If this "boost" idea is to make any sense at all, it's going to have to get somewhat more complicated than you're making it out to be.

[GIThruster]

I'm not disregarding invariance. The example as stated is incorrect for precisely the reasons I explained. Here is the error:

"I think you've missed the point: Imagine you're sitting out in inter-galactic space, (To make the spacetime as flat as it gets.) between two galaxies which are approaching each other. You're traveling simultaneously towards both galaxies at 100kps, because they're approaching each other at 200kps."

This is obviously wrong. The ship cannot be traveling simultaneously in two directions at once, with or without a boost. The example is in error. If the galaxy to the left is reference, the ship is moving at 100 kps left and the second galaxy at 200 kps left. If the galaxy to the right is the reference, then the ship is traveling 100 kps right and the galaxy to the left is traveling 200 kps right. If the ship is the reference, both galaxies are closing at 100 kps from right and left, and the ship is not moving.

In no instance does the ship travel simultaneously towards both galaxies at 100 kps. That is a hopeless conflation from two different reference frames. Warp and boost have nothing to do with the mistake in this example.

[93143]

Okay, so the example was poorly worded.

Now take each object as a reference in turn, and tell me what the boost does in each case.

[GIThruster]

The boost makes no difference. The issue is not the boost. The issue is that the guy who posted the objection thinks that something can be traveling simultaneously in more than one direction because he thinks you can have more than one reference frame at a time. You can't. If you could, all objects would have all velocities in all magnitudes and directions at all times. This is high school physics he has screwed up. There is no issue here. The error has nothing to do with warp. It's a failure to understand what a frame of reference is and why there can be only one at a time.

[93143]

You're dodging the question.

...

Let us assume that the spacecraft is midway between the two galaxies, at exactly their mean velocity. Assuming no warp field, the two galaxies will collide at the position of the spacecraft in an amount of time T.

From the perspective of one galaxy, the spacecraft is moving toward it at 100 km/s. Boost the spacecraft's velocity by a certain factor X, and the time to intercept is now T/X.

From the perspective of the other galaxy, the spacecraft is moving toward it at 100 km/s. (The other galaxy is moving toward it at 200 km/s.) Boost reduces the time to intercept to T/X, but it doesn't affect the time to galactic collision because the other galaxy doesn't have a warp drive.

From the perspective of the spacecraft, both galaxies are moving towards it at 100 km/s, and it is itself stationary (this is true regardless of all prior acceleration, of course, if the spacecraft is chosen as the reference). So the boost does nothing from the perspective of the spacecraft (this is a general result, not specific to this case), and the time to intercept remains T.

And all of these perspectives are simultaneously valid.

So from the perspective of each galaxy, the spacecraft arrives at that galaxy well before the collision, and from the spacecraft's perspective, the arrival times and collision coincide. This is a physically inconsistent result, as it requires the spacecraft to be in three places at once. More, if you decide to analyze with a few more randomly-chosen reference frames. You will note that the inconsistency does not depend on superluminal or even relativistic travel, or large light lags between positions; you could in principle do this on an air table.

...

I haven't read any technical literature on warp boost, so I'm not going to say that White is full of it, but if he isn't, the theory has to be more involved than the simplistic picture being discussed here.

[GIThruster]

So the boost does nothing from the perspective of the spacecraft. . .

Here you have put your finger on the real issue. The real issue is, that for the warp to take its direction from velocity, velocity would have to be absolute rather than relative. That's true. I'm sure what Paul and Sonny intended to say is that in Sonny's model, the spacecraft has to have an initial acceleration to point the direction for the warp boost, not an initial velocity as this would indeed leave the craft directionless.

I'm not advocating for this view of warp as I don't understand Sonny's model well enough to accept it, but I am just saying, the trouble you and Brett seem to have identified concerns an inability to point a warp vehicle based on initial velocity is a real one, because this does imply an absolute frame of reference. Using an initial acceleration to point a warp trajectory does not suffer this issue.

BTW, if Woodward's work ever turns a buck, his intention is to create an environment that pays people to study things like warp full-time, so we can have real answers. Without a way to generate exotic matter, there are no reasons the best of the best would focus on such work--it's not practical.

[paulmarch]

So the boost does nothing from the perspective of the spacecraft. . .

Here you have put your finger on the real issue. The real issue is, that for the warp to take its direction from velocity, velocity would have to be absolute rather than relative. That's true. I'm sure what Paul and Sonny intended to say is that in Sonny's model, the spacecraft has to have an initial acceleration to point the direction for the warp boost, not an initial velocity as this would indeed leave the craft directionless.

I'm not advocating for this view of warp as I don't understand Sonny's model well enough to accept it, but I am just saying, the trouble you and Brett seem to have identified concerns an inability to point a warp vehicle based on initial velocity is a real one, because this does imply an absolute frame of reference. Using an initial acceleration to point a warp trajectory does not suffer this issue.

BTW, if Woodward's work ever turns a buck, his intention is to create an environment that pays people to study things like warp full-time, so we can have real answers. Without a way to generate exotic matter, there are no reasons the best of the best would focus on such work--it's not practical.

"Using an initial acceleration to point a warp trajectory does not suffer this issue."


Isn't that I said in the first place?: "I think the accelerated frame of refernce of the starship..."

BTW, I posted Woodward's latest N5 PZT-Stack data over at NSF where he meaured 130 uN thrust pulse using the new more massive reaction mass than before. Now to find ways to make this outcome a consistent results verses the current hit or miss results...


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... 13020.1650

Best,

[Ric Capucho]

And I assume Jim's still using his old style caps? Ric

[tomclarke]

So the boost does nothing from the perspective of the spacecraft. . .

Here you have put your finger on the real issue. The real issue is, that for the warp to take its direction from velocity, velocity would have to be absolute rather than relative. That's true. I'm sure what Paul and Sonny intended to say is that in Sonny's model, the spacecraft has to have an initial acceleration to point the direction for the warp boost, not an initial velocity as this would indeed leave the craft directionless.

I'm not advocating for this view of warp as I don't understand Sonny's model well enough to accept it, but I am just saying, the trouble you and Brett seem to have identified concerns an inability to point a warp vehicle based on initial velocity is a real one, because this does imply an absolute frame of reference. Using an initial acceleration to point a warp trajectory does not suffer this issue.

BTW, if Woodward's work ever turns a buck, his intention is to create an environment that pays people to study things like warp full-time, so we can have real answers. Without a way to generate exotic matter, there are no reasons the best of the best would focus on such work--it's not practical.

"Using an initial acceleration to point a warp trajectory does not suffer this issue."


Isn't that I said in the first place?: "I think the accelerated frame of refernce of the starship..."

BTW, I posted Woodward's latest N5 PZT-Stack data over at NSF where he meaured 130 uN thrust pulse using the new more massive reaction mass than before. Now to find ways to make this outcome a consistent results verses the current hit or miss results...


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... 13020.1650

Best,

It is a matter of controlling for all possible effects. If he's going for unidirectional force it would be mechanical coupling of high frequencies to apparatus, with rectification, or residual electrical (appears screened well) or magnetic (difficult to screen) fields.

You can list all the possibilities. Then, rather than dismiss them as too small, work out how positively to measure them in controls.

I know Jim has been doing this, but from what I've read there are still loopholes.

Of course, if these loopholes are causing the force it will be inconsistent, whereas if real it will be consistent, so it is true that consistent effect is helpful.

[tomclarke]

Sorry, I missed some things:
or temperature effects:

convection - if vacuum not good
radiation - (don't dismiss it!)
radiometer type effects (which I don't properly understand)

It is a pity Jim probably can't publish his stuff. You really need the type of critical appraisal from multiple 3rd parties that comes from referees to identify all possible holes.

[paulmarch]

Sorry, I missed some things:
or temperature effects:

convection - if vacuum not good
radiation - (don't dismiss it!)
radiometer type effects (which I don't properly understand)

It is a pity Jim probably can't publish his stuff. You really need the type of critical appraisal from multiple 3rd parties that comes from referees to identify all possible holes.

Tom:

Jim has been publishing his M-E related experimental results on a regular basis in the Foundations of Physics and various engineering journals such as the AIAA, STAIF/AIP and SPECIF proceedings for decades now. And ALL of the spurious effects you've mentioned have been checked, double checked and mitigated as required. Jim is seeing a real thrust signal and no, its origins are not from any mundane source we have investigated to date which are close to a hundred now. We do know where the major problem in getting consistent force output results are with these present M-E PZT based stacks and its making their mechanical and electrical resonances align and track each other over both frequency, phase and Stack temperature variations that directly affect the stack's mechanical and electrical resonant frequencies. Once this thrust stability issue is resolved, it’s back to finding ways to increase the thrust by at least another couple of orders of magnitude that is comparable with current Hall Effect ion thrusters such as Busek produces, see below. That kind of performance immediately leads to commercial applications that can pay the bills while further optimization research on these types of M-E devices is pursued.

http://www.busek.com/technologies__hall.htm