Mach Effect progress

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

MSimon said:
As I said upthread: your knowledge seems to be stuck in grade school understanding of physics - or to be more charitable engineering physics.
The problems being discussed here lie in the very roots of physics, normally learnt in grade school. Sorry to tell you this, but to solve them you do need to re-examine the most basic of assumptions that you have learned back them. Most here seem to be "above' re-examining the assumptions and amazingly, the implications for those assumptions for what it is that they are proposing. You can't just redefine what 'mass' and 'momentum' are without revisiting all the logical framework we use (every day) that stems from those definitions to check for consistency. This is a road to madness, not science.

While it may make you feel knowledgeable and superior to cast haughty aspersions on the levels of knowledge of others you should at least get your facts straight. I thought better of you, once. Please stop putting words in my mouth, it is a trait of devious lawyers, only one step above slander. And since you haven't protested I'll take it that, as moderator, you approve of me being called a "pretentious prick" along with all the other nastiness that has spewed from betruger.

Well, I think there is nothing left to say on this thread, as this has descended into a circle of friends clapping each other on the back with big-sounding, albeit hollow, concepts thrown about casually. Every so often someone says ain't those experiments great ... and they are absolved for the rampant speculation and so can keep kidding yourselves some of your crazier theories are at least being tested so you can keep yapping on insanely in a bubble of ignorance and fantasy.

I note 'tom clarke' the rampant global warming alarmist is right up there with the Mach-Effect circle of 'investigators'. The concept is in fine company. Running out detractors with character assassination and shouting down logical arguments against before examination.

Write it all up when you have something, equations, proofs from first principles and of course, experimental verification.

I'll read it and see how it checks out with the other people in the real world, you know, the ones that know what the heck they are talking about, and get paid good money to do good work.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

a circle of friends clapping each other on the back with big-sounding, albeit hollow, concepts thrown about casually. Every so often someone says ain't those experiments great ... and they are absolved for the rampant speculation and so can keep kidding yourselves some of your crazier theories are at least being tested so you can keep yapping on insanely in a bubble of ignorance and fantasy.
Sounds like paranoia. Ironically enough you sound passionate about this. Even Paul March said explicitly that he doesn't believe in the conjecture yet. Everything's fantasy till there's enough evidence either consistent with or eliminating it.

Can't you take the personal argument to its own thread? Or do you not have any precise physics arguments as detractor? Other than being the one true Scotsman in here.
It doesn't matter how high or low you think of people. Only whether you bring pertinent information or arguments to the table.
You can't just redefine what 'mass' and 'momentum' are without revisiting all the logical framework we use (every day) that stems from those definitions to check for consistency. This is a road to madness, not science.
Then let's hear it. How would you rule out the M-E conjecture so definitively? It would certainly save everyone time and undue attention. By your own argument you would have an opportunity to steer the experimenters towards a quicker end to what you pretend is travesty. How is M-E so undoubtedly wrong that it doesn't warrant any experimental work to either substantiate or eliminate it?

icarus
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 12:48 am

Post by icarus »

betruge:
Then let's hear it. How would you rule out the M-E conjecture so definitively? It would certainly save everyone time and undue attention. By your own argument you would have an opportunity to steer the experimenters towards a quicker end to what you pretend is travesty. How is M-E so undoubtedly wrong that it doesn't warrant any experimental work to either substantiate or eliminate it?
But you wouldn't be informed enough to vet it, by your admission. To wit, you've been avoiding answering my first question for the last week. I don't mind that really, its the personal abuse and snideness that gets me.

I wouldn't want to prick your bubble of ignorance and fantasy unnecessarily, and its been made plain that you like it inside the bubble so I'll leave you to it. I've probably left enough behind to settle the question anyway, if you follow it through honestly and rigorously. Enough said.

Mach's principle is an elegant idea though and the true (electromagnetic?) nature of inertia is an age old question worth pursuing, I've never said otherwise, as much as others have tried to put words into my mouth (to the extent of fabricating quotes wth!?). There is something there, this is not it though.

FWIW, I was reading Woodward's "Killing Time" 13 years ago, not long after it was put up online.

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »


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

Post by tomclarke »

icarus wrote: I note 'tom clarke' the rampant global warming alarmist is right up there with the Mach-Effect circle of 'investigators'. The concept is in fine company. Running out detractors with character assassination and shouting down logical arguments against before examination.
I guess this throw-away comment merits a reply.

I have never been an AGW alarmist. I do not pretend to know precisely what are the economic & social consequences of a hotter globe. My main arguments have been against facile, anti-science oriented, and under-researched polemic blog comment - or even more facile paraphrase of the above.

Here, BTW, is some interesting and informed comment on a few of the shibboleths of anti-AGW. Interesting how the historic stance of scientists on global cooling has been so misrepresented.

In fact, I deplore equally the AGW scientists who have become political and have simplified the issues and attempted to close down debate. In science you don't fight polemic with polemic, but with facts and carefully reasoned & balanced argument.

As for the M-E stuff. I don't find the theoretical discussion about it that useful. It is obviously very unlikely to be true - the USPO does not like free energy machines and I think they are pretty unlikely. If M-E existed then free energy would be trivial.

But as an electrical engineer a good experiment to test this hypothesis is good challenge and makes an excellent student project. Given that the literature on experimental evidence for or against is not conclusive more evidence would be nice, and this well justifies such a project.

Best wishes, Tom

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

kurt9 wrote:Can anyone tell me if Mach's Principle and Heim Theory are compatible or not?
Compatible is not really applicable in this case.
Heim and Mach are starting from two completely different set of hypothesis on how the universe is structured and/or works.
If one of them proves right than it might give us clues on the soundness of the other, or both might as well be the representation of different sides of the same "dice".

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

Post by cuddihy »

icarus wrote:
Well, I think there is nothing left to say on this thread, as this has descended into a circle of friends clapping each other on the back with big-sounding, albeit hollow, concepts thrown about casually.
You're forgetting the regular ranting by some combined, usually in the same post, with whines about being being attacked in a nasty fashion.
Tom.Cuddihy

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

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

Post by cuddihy »

chrismb wrote:
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"...
[ you appear to be ascribing views to me that I do not hold]

I buy your arguments in the manner of all self-consistent tautologies, because that is what you're describing. A tautology is by itself useless, because it adds nothing to what was already there.

No, you have not replaced Newton's three laws with one. Worse, you've taken Newton's very generally applicable three laws and turned them into mush that is useless for anything other than [idle speculation]

Let me get specific -- what calculation does your statement allow you to do that accurately predicts the future state of a system given proper initial conditions in a simpler manner than Newton's laws?

Another reading comprehension issue: when I say your argument is self-consistent, that is NOT the same thing as agreeing with it. More to the point, in the same sentence I said although it may be consistent with gravity, it has nothing to do with inertia.

Are you asserting that you have said anything significant about inertia?



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!
I'd say it's more accurate that you're at stage negative one "actively mis-interpreting other's statements to make it sound like they agree with me"
Last edited by cuddihy on Wed May 19, 2010 8:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tom.Cuddihy

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

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

Post by chrismb »

cuddihy wrote:Are you asserting that you have said anything significant about inertia?
As I have said, I do not think you fully understand what you are agreeing to, if you accept this is self-consistent, and you can't see where it leads. But let me just presume to disagree about what we may or many not have meant and stick to the technical matters, for fear of ending up in the same slanging match as others have descended into. Can we do this?:-

I guess the point I have not emphasised, i was presuming it was obvious, is that 'momentum' is 'system state'. The location (e.g. in a gravity field, or at the end of a spring) and its velocity of a thing fully defines its energy. Even at the nuclear level, it is the location of the nuleons within the nucleus, and the ensemble velocity of the nucleons that fully defines it nuclear and kinetic energy (and also electromagnetic/gravitational, if it were located in an appropriate field).

A change of momentum is a change of system state, and to change system state requires energy, not force. There can be no change of momentum with force alone, but it requires energy. So, together with my 'law of force' above, it means energy can only be imparted as momentum to something that is already moving.

Are you with me so far?...

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

Post by paulmarch »

chrismb wrote:
cuddihy wrote:Are you asserting that you have said anything significant about inertia?
As I have said, I do not think you fully understand what you are agreeing to, if you accept this is self-consistent, and you can't see where it leads. But let me just presume to disagree about what we may or many not have meant and stick to the technical matters, for fear of ending up in the same slanging match as others have descended into. Can we do this?:-

I guess the point I have not emphasised, i was presuming it was obvious, is that 'momentum' is 'system state'. The location (e.g. in a gravity field, or at the end of a spring) and its velocity of a thing fully defines its energy. Even at the nuclear level, it is the location of the nuleons within the nucleus, and the ensemble velocity of the nucleons that fully defines it nuclear and kinetic energy (and also electromagnetic/gravitational, if it were located in an appropriate field).

A change of momentum is a change of system state, and to change system state requires energy, not force. There can be no change of momentum with force alone, but it requires energy. So, together with my 'law of force' above, it means energy can only be imparted as momentum to something that is already moving.

Are you with me so far?...
Chris:

One question: What is your definition of "energy". A physical description of same in your system-state world view could be illuminating...

Best
Paul March
Friendswood, TX

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

Post by chrismb »

Depends how deep you want the answer.

Energy is a value that indicates the orderliness of a system. It is 'the total information' in the system. If you were a God and needed a plan to build two particular scenarios, then the difference of energy between those two scenarios would be proportional to how much more information was needed from one to the other so that you knew enough that you could reconstruct them.

As a way of visualising this in respect of mechanical/kinetic energy; if you push a fraction of a quantity of matter to a particular momentum, that would be 'more ordered' than it was if, previously, they all had the same momentum, and so would be 'an increase in energy'. If you have a quantity of matter and magically push it all to the same momentum without having to push against something else in the opposite direction, there would be no change of energy because it would look like the same degree of orderliness as it is not 'with respect' to something else. Hence, kinetic energy is always with respect to other matter because you'd not be able to tell any difference in its orderliness if there was nothing else to compare it with. You'd need both 'fast' and 'slow' bits of a lump of matter to increase the 'orderliness' of all of it. A fast bit and a slow bit would have the same orderliness if you looked at them in isolation, so kinetic energy is always with respect to other matter.

Particularly, energy is a value proportional to the magnitude of all possible permutations of the fundamental particles in your frame of reference wherein you could swap any fundamental particles around and you'd not be able to detect the difference.

Giorgio
Posts: 2742
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

chrismb wrote:Particularly, energy is a value proportional to the magnitude of all possible permutations of the fundamental particles in your frame of reference wherein you could swap any fundamental particles around and you'd not be able to detect the difference.
So, what you are stating is that I can describe a system by a "value" that is connected to all the possible permutations of the fundamental particles of that system, so that even if I swap particles of that system among them, my "energy" value (or indicator) will not change becouse they are enclosed in the system itself (inside my frame of reference).

Is my interpretation correct?
If I did understand this correctly I see immediately two issues:

1) This interpretation leads to nowhere in terms of knowledge of the evolution of the system.

2) Different system might also share the same "value".


What I mean is that I can see two boxes with an external indicator showing me the same value, but I have no knowledge of what is going on inside both of them.
Inside one there might be ice in one corner and hot lava in the other, and inside the othere there might be an even distribution of temperature that will bring me to the same "energy" value.

You catch my point?

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Thanks for the response Paul. Too bad, I was hoping there was some prediction for LHC that could be made from the Mach Effect theory. Is it fair to say if they don't find a Higgs boson, that would tend to support Mach? That seems to flow from the idea inertia comes from gravitational tugging of all the matter in the Universe.

Personally, I'd like something that nicely wraps this up with the Tajmar effect and the Pioneer anomaly. I'm still leaning toward Grand Unified Experimental Error as the likely winner, but I'd like to be wrong.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

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

Post by chrismb »

Giorgio wrote: So, what you are stating is that I can describe a system by a "value" that is connected to all the possible permutations of the fundamental particles of that system, so that even if I swap particles of that system among them, my "energy" value (or indicator) will not change becouse they are enclosed in the system itself (inside my frame of reference).

Is my interpretation correct?
Yup!
Giorgio wrote: If I did understand this correctly I see immediately two issues:

1) This interpretation leads to nowhere in terms of knowledge of the evolution of the system.
How does the theory of gravity help explain the origin of gravity? (Note: see my next reply, to show why it might be useful)
Giorgio wrote: 2) Different system might also share the same "value".

What I mean is that I can see two boxes with an external indicator showing me the same value, but I have no knowledge of what is going on inside both of them.
Inside one there might be ice in one corner and hot lava in the other, and inside the othere there might be an even distribution of temperature that will bring me to the same "energy" value.

You catch my point?
Of course! Why would you expect my simple description to tell you any more than current physics?: Let's say I have two boxes. One contains 10kJ of useable energy and the other contains 10kJ in it aswell. Which one contains the battery and which one contains the hot rock?

I'm not saying my thermodynamic description says anything more than you can express in current terminology. But is it better to believe the earth is flat, or round? It is OK to presume the earth is flat when you're building your mud-hut and a round earth model doen't tell you anything more you need to know about building a mud hut, but if you want to get more and more sophisticated, then at some point you'd need a better model!

Reasons for needing a more spophisticated model?; what is the origin of gravity, where are these gravity waves, where's this higgs boson, what about all these gravity anomalies, where is this dark matter??? There are reasons coming out of the ears of phycists as to why more sophisticated models need to be explored, and they don't seem to have a clue what simple explanations can explain all this.

newton's 3 laws are bouncing around at the 'crystal sphere' level of theory, relativity takes it to the circular orbit theory, but when is anyone gonna take the theory of forces to the 'Kepler orbit' level of sophistication?

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

Post by chrismb »

TallDave wrote: Personally, I'd like something that nicely wraps this up with the Tajmar effect and the Pioneer anomaly. I'm still leaning toward Grand Unified Experimental Error as the likely winner, but I'd like to be wrong.
So I've got folks saying 'why does [my] theory help?', well, here is an example:

Locally, the rate of change of entropy with respect to distance as a body passes up from the earth's surface will be constant, then will begin to tail off as the body gets sufficiently far away that the space containing the earth and this body becomes large with respect to the volume actually taken up by the earth and the body. In other words, what counts in totting up the total configuration of the earth-body frame also includes the amount of space between them. OK, so this predicts gravity will diminuish as the body gets further away from the earth. So far.. so what, I hear you say.

Now imagine that this body has got sufficiently far enough away from the earth and also the sun that this solar-system-to-body frame is no longer overwhelmingly bigger than the universe-body frame. Again, so what.. this predicts that the body will eventually tend towards experiencing zero gravity, and we might anticipate that intuitively.

But what my interpretation adds is that the rate of change of entropy with respect to all the other mass in the universe will only be constant (that is, 'big G' would be constant, as we measure it) if, and only if, all the matter in the universe is distributed across uniformly distributed dimensions, e.g. an infinite space. If the space is finite and is not 'equal' in every direction, so the body far away from the solar system will get to a point where its rate of change of configuration with respect to all the other universal mass won't be constant. Then it will experience what conventional physics would describe as a change in big G.

What my description says is that big G is only as constant as the local distribution of matter permits the dE/dx to be constant. When far away from locally dominant bodies, you should expect the distrubution of mass in the universe to begin to become dominant.

Post Reply