Mach Effect progress

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:34 pm

Didn't Doc Fuerst mention a specific paragraph and/or equation from one of those papers, that he had issue with?

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:42 pm

Betruger wrote:Didn't Doc Fuerst mention a specific paragraph and/or equation from one of those papers, that he had issue with?

Yes. The following was in response to "Flux Capacitors & The Origin of Inertia"

"I've read through the paper. The problem lies with Figure 1, and
equation 11.

In figure 1, you need to explicitly say where the energy going into
and out from "FM" goes to. i.e. Where is the battery that is charging
and discharging the capacitor? If the battery is inside FM, then the
total mass/energy of FM remains constant, and nothing interesting
happens. If the battery is in A, then we can split the problem into
two, the reaction mass and actuator to the "left" of the battery, and
the reaction mass within the battery and actuator connected to the
fluctuating mass on the right. Do the following analysis on both
parts.

The remaining choice is that the battery must be in (or is) the large
reaction mass "RM". Now break the duty cycle into four parts.

Step 1: Energy flows from the battery in RM to FM
Step 2: The actuator expands
Step 3: Energy flows from FM back to RM
Step 4: The actuator contracts.

What happens to the center of mass in each step?
In step 1, due to the energy flow, the center of A is displaced from
the center of mass. The center of mass does not move. (The forces
required to move the mass/energy from RM to FM are balanced by equal
forces on A.)
In step 2, the center of mass does not move, but RM and FM are displaced.
In step 3, a similar things happens as in step 1. The center of mass
does not move, but the center of the actuator does.
In step 4, the center of mass does not move, but RM and FM are displaced again.

At no stage is the center of mass moved by the duty cycle. This means
that equation 11 is incorrect. It appears the derivation of it has
gone wrong by ignoring the small displacements of the center of A in
steps 1 and 3. If this is wrongly done, then the center of mass of
the system is accelerated by the mistaken non-conservation of
momentum. (The text says the derivation assumes that the mass of RM
is infinite. If so, then RM cannot move, and also nothing happens.)

One possibility to try to get around this is to state that there is no
"battery", and the mass fluctuations are into and out of the
gravitational field. Unfortunately, this doesn't work either. Due to
conservation of energy/momentum, monopole and dipole mass/energy
fluctuations do not exist in General Relativity. If you wish to
radiate gravitational waves, you need to have a varying quadrapole
moment. If a theory of gravity predicts dipole (or the required
monopole) radiation, then it has been ruled out by experimental
gravity wave searches."

Woodward responded with:

"What von Feurst says to you about gravity waves is, of course, correct. In the standard calculation the lowest order freely propagating at infinity term is the quadrupole term. And it is minuscule.

The "problem" here is that in standard GR, inertial reaction forces are not considered to be gravitational in origin, notwithstanding that Sciama's calculation (and one done by Nordtvedt in the 1980s on "linear accelerative frame dragging") show that when the universe is taken to be "rigidly" accelerating in some direction past a local object, it exerts a force on the object (if it is constrained to not participate in the acceleration) that is just the inertial reaction force when phi/c^2 is roughly one.

Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved. And since inertial reaction forces are decades of orders of magnitude larger than the sort of radiation reaction forces of standard gravity wave analysis, the source of von Feurst's comments is straight-forward. "Mach effects" are just Newtonian order tansients in the much larger inertial reaction force picture, as you note."

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:53 pm

GeeGee wrote:While I understand your frustration, it is best to stay away from ad-hominem attacks. Fuerst has not made any ad-hominem towards Woodward. . .

I quite agree and treated Fuerst with respect until he wrote me that Woodward's work is incompetent to the point of looking like a scam and then refused to give any examples. If you check those radiative papers of Fuerst's you'll note they are not published works at all. I can't find any material published by Fuerst.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:08 pm

GIThruster wrote: I quite agree and treated Fuerst with respect until he wrote me that Woodward's work is incompetent to the point of looking like a scam and then refused to give any examples. If you check those radiative papers of Fuerst's you'll note they are not published works at all. I can't find any material published by Fuerst.

If that's true, then it's really quite distasteful. However, he hasn't made any statements on NSF or reddit that seem to demonstrate that attitude. He's only displayed skepticism due to some alleged error in the math that I don't quite understand (and neither does anyone over at NSF).

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:15 pm

Just a note to everyone here but there was a thread on physicsforums.com on the M-E that was prematurely locked a year ago (moderators believed the subject was not peer-reviewed). I PMed the moderator the related peer-reviewed papers and he has re-opened the thread (in response to a poster at NSF that was unsuccessful in re-opening the thread).

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=259842

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:29 am

GeeGee wrote:Just a note to everyone here but there was a thread on physicsforums.com on the M-E that was prematurely locked a year ago (moderators believed the subject was not peer-reviewed). I PMed the moderator the related peer-reviewed papers and he has re-opened the thread (in response to a poster at NSF that was unsuccessful in re-opening the thread).

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=259842

helloooooo

I use the same nickname here and at NSF, dont I?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:33 am

Yes but it's confusing why you're quoting someone who claims M-E theory is incompatible with SR and causality when this is plainly not so.

cuddihy · Post by **cuddihy** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:54 pm

GIThruster wrote:Yes but it's confusing why you're quoting someone who claims M-E theory is incompatible with SR and causality when this is plainly not so.

That's a distortion:
1. I don't see anywhere he stated that M-E theory is incompatible with causality.
2. With regard to SR, Dr. Fuerst stated that the way Woodward's notional device was modeled, not the theory itself, was incompatible with SR.

In fact his points are very salient and deserve an honest answer, even if that answer is beneath Dr. Woodward. After all, if Woodwards's calculations showing the existence of M-E are due to an error WRT to the way the model (and hence the base equation) is developed, better to know that now.

Your claims against Dr. Fuerst in this thread have come down to public ad hominem attacks while I have yet to see an ad hominem from Dr. Fuerst despite an ample target.

I am beginning to get the picture as to why you were banned at NSF.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:03 pm

cuddihy wrote:
GIThruster wrote:Yes but it's confusing why you're quoting someone who claims M-E theory is incompatible with SR and causality when this is plainly not so.

That's a distortion:
1. I don't see anywhere he stated that M-E theory is incompatible with causality.
2. With regard to SR, Dr. Fuerst stated that the way Woodward's notional device was modeled, not the theory itself, was incompatible with SR.

In fact his points are very salient and deserve an honest answer, even if that answer is beneath Dr. Woodward. After all, if Woodwards's calculations showing the existence of M-E are due to an error WRT to the way the model (and hence the base equation) is developed, better to know that now.

Your claims against Dr. Fuerst in this thread have come down to public ad hominem attacks while I have yet to see an ad hominem from Dr. Fuerst despite an ample target.

I am beginning to get the picture as to why you were banned at NSF.

He was referring to AcesHigh post in the physicsforums thread.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:56 pm

[edited since GeeGee provided the same answer.]

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:13 pm

GIThruster wrote:Yes but it's confusing why you're quoting someone who claims M-E theory is incompatible with SR and causality when this is plainly not so.

sorry, I am confused. Who am I quoting who claims such things? And where did I make such quotes?

edit: I see, the quote from Curious Kid.

notice the thread was locked twenty minutes after I posted that. I dont remember very well (since it was posted in february 2010) but as I recall, and from what I wrote BEFORE that quote, I was posted Curious Kid quote from NSF and then started editing a LOOONG post with Paul March replies to Curious Kid. When I tried to resubmit the post, with all Paul March quotes, the thread had already been locked, and I lost all that long post full of quotes.

Nevetherless, I tried speaking with the moderator to reopen the thread. I talked with Paul asking for help. Paul sent me the link of a conference, which I submited to the moderator, who didnt accept it. Paul told me to forget it, it was not that important, he had better things to do then try to convince a stubborn moderator from a forum Paul didnt even take part.

This issue just resurfaced recently at NSF.

ps: yes, I know that I should had clicked on preview and go on adding the quotes, instead of submitting the incomplete message, then adding other quotes by editing the post. But that is the way I am. I have already edited this post three times, adding new stuff. lol

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:51 pm

You would think that with Woodward's 40+ papers published in his lifetime, that mod would have found something had he bothered to search. I can't can't be too concerned with a forum that so cavalierly intrudes and locks down topics. Sounds pretty kids stuff to me.

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:39 pm

GIThruster wrote:You would think that with Woodward's 40+ papers published in his lifetime, that mod would have found something had he bothered to search. I can't can't be too concerned with a forum that so cavalierly intrudes and locks down topics. Sounds pretty kids stuff to me.

thats exactly why the thread stood locked for such a long time. After the moderator did not accept the first link Paul sent, through me, we just dropped the issue and said "frick it, not worth our time".

its not a small forum, however, so I am not sure it was the best attitude.

cg66 · Post by **cg66** » Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:54 pm

Curious to hear everyones thoughts on this gyroscope experiment....

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-gyr ... ertia.html

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:48 am

I haven't followed Tajmar's work since 2007, but as I recall, he got the same result whether he rotated the superconductor, or rotated just the fluid it had been suspended in. I'd love to hear an update but as far as I know, even Dr. Tajmar had no explanation for his result, at least back then.

First glance at this paper looks like warmed over theory of a first result that has not followed Tajmar's work. If this is so, it would be the third or forth time this has happened in the last 4 years.

I think Tajmar presented at SPESIF in 2011. I'd look there for current theory. If anyone does this, I'd suggest its own thread.