Talk-Polywell.org

a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:25 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 147  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 3678
GeeGee, in my experience, people who make the claim that Woodward's theory violates conservation are laboring under one of two misconceptions. First is indeed what Tom Cuddihy is saying, that they simply haven't drawn their box for a closed system appropriately. Given M-E apparatus makes use of gravinertial flows into matter that give matter its mass and inertia, it's vital that one includes the entire universe when looking for a system in which to do a conservation calculation.

The other trouble people seem to me to have when critiquing M-E physics is they don't appreciate what negative mass with negative inertia entails. If you try to do a naive analysis of a system that includes a variable mass, and especially if it includes a negative mass, you will always come up with what appears a conservation violation. The base question then becomes whether mass can indeed be fluctuated, and whether it can ever obtain a negative mass condition. Naive analyses of negative mass conservation calculations always deliver what appear to be conservation violations. Fortunately, once one looks at the real physics one starts to see where this trouble lies.

IMHO, if one wants to take up this issue of conservation, the first place to start is the math and if one can't do that sort of math, one wants to look at the response of the real physicists whom are able to do the math. It's totally telling, that there are no surviving objections to Woodward's theory coming from those able physicists that have looked at it. Jim Woodward's theory has survived 18+ years of peer review.

It's important to note that unless one concedes the possibility of a negative mass condition, one is going to have objections, at least to the physics that predicts such conditions. Unfortunately, most of the people making conservation objections haven't even begun to consider the consequences of fluctuating mass and of what all mass fluctuations entail. This is IMHO, why we get these uninformed objections.

_________________
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:50 pm
Posts: 16
Hi,

I'm following this thread carefully. If I understood the mass fluctuation hypothesis, I'm not sure to properly get the fact that such a fluctuation could reach the point to which the mass would become negative.

if mass m becomes negative mass
then its energy E becomes negative energy Ē = m̄ c^2
Right?

Some problems would arise with such an inversion, as if two particles with opposing energies meet, that gives:
E + Ē = 0
which is… nothing. They would literally annihilate, i.e. the classical matter and the negative matter would completely disappear. This would pose a problem according to the conservation of energy.

They would annihilate but not in the same way matter and antimatter classically "annihilate" actually releasing energy, since they both have positive mass and energies.
Talking about antimatter: its description is usually made according to Dirac, where antimatter has positive energy, hence positive mass, geometrized as C-symmetry.

There is another description of some antimatter according to Feynman, where the antiparticle runs "backwards in time".
Such antimatter, having negative energy and negative mass (but charges not reversed, different from Dirac's description), running backward in time, is geometrically described as PT-symmetric.

Indeed if you reverse time, group theory (Lorentz group) indicates it's the same thing as the inversion of energy.
Don't be mislead by this, it doesn't say you could travel back through time. It just indicates that particles which we say "are going backward in time" according to the maths, simply have negative mass and negative energies.

I stop there because I don't want to get too much off-topic. But this connects to the assumption of ME effect telling mass fluctuation can lead to mass inversion.

My question is: did Woodward or someone else, involved in this ME effect applied to the physics of interstellar travel, already talked about implications of generating negative mass, especially its consequences about energy and time inversion, and the interaction of such "new matter" with the surrounding matter of the spaceship?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:11 pm
Posts: 155
I would note that although Mach Effect requires acceptance of mass/inertia fluctuations, it does not require further acceptance of the reality of the "warp term," which implies ability to create negative mass with GI fluctuations.

_________________
Tom.Cuddihy

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm
Posts: 747
cuddihy wrote:
I would note that although Mach Effect requires acceptance of mass/inertia fluctuations, it does not require further acceptance of the reality of the "warp term," which implies ability to create negative mass with GI fluctuations.


Mass fluctuations of capacitors between charge and discharge is well known and commonly observed/reported. Thats not new. Thats why Woodward decided to use them in his research to begin with. The only thing "new" is an explanation for the phenomenon that is consistent with general relativity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2012 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 95
Thomas Mahood, who was advised by Dr. Woodward in his graduate studies chronicles his experience at CSUF as well as his research into exotic propulsion:

http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/phys ... fullerton/

Tom seems to think there are possibly 2 explanations for the effect: dean drive-type effect or a real effect that nature is trying hard to suppress. If it's the latter, then it may just be a matter of resources, "just so" conditions and engineering to get large effects for commercial use.

Dr. Woodward recently eliminated the dean drive effect as a plausible explanation for what he's seen. He'll be presenting a paper at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference this July that will include a host of tests he's done to check for spurious effects.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Posts: 580
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III
GeeGee wrote:
Thomas Mahood, who was advised by Dr. Woodward in his graduate studies chronicles his experience at CSUF as well as his research into exotic propulsion:

http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/phys ... fullerton/

Tom seems to think there are possibly 2 explanations for the effect: dean drive-type effect or a real effect that nature is trying hard to suppress. If it's the latter, then it may just be a matter of resources, "just so" conditions and engineering to get large effects for commercial use.

Dr. Woodward recently eliminated the dean drive effect as a plausible explanation for what he's seen. He'll be presenting a paper at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference this July that will include a host of tests he's done to check for spurious effects.

I think Dr. Woodwards willingness (and effort) to attempt to rule out any spurious causes that can be suggestioned for what he appears to be seeing is one of the best things to be said for his work. Now if only he could win the lottery or something. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 924
GeeGee wrote:
Thomas Mahood, who was advised by Dr. Woodward in his graduate studies chronicles his experience at CSUF as well as his research into exotic propulsion:

http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/phys ... fullerton/

Tom seems to think there are possibly 2 explanations for the effect: dean drive-type effect or a real effect that nature is trying hard to suppress. If it's the latter, then it may just be a matter of resources, "just so" conditions and engineering to get large effects for commercial use.

Dr. Woodward recently eliminated the dean drive effect as a plausible explanation for what he's seen. He'll be presenting a paper at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference this July that will include a host of tests he's done to check for spurious effects.


I read his take on it as though he felt that its either a dean-drive effect, a real effect, or some form of mistaken reading. He mentioned that the measurement has actually shrunk over more indepth experimentation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 1219
ScottL wrote:
GeeGee wrote:
Thomas Mahood, who was advised by Dr. Woodward in his graduate studies chronicles his experience at CSUF as well as his research into exotic propulsion:

http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/phys ... fullerton/

Tom seems to think there are possibly 2 explanations for the effect: dean drive-type effect or a real effect that nature is trying hard to suppress. If it's the latter, then it may just be a matter of resources, "just so" conditions and engineering to get large effects for commercial use.

Dr. Woodward recently eliminated the dean drive effect as a plausible explanation for what he's seen. He'll be presenting a paper at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference this July that will include a host of tests he's done to check for spurious effects.
I read his take on it as though he felt that its either a dean-drive effect, a real effect, or some form of mistaken reading. He mentioned that the measurement has actually shrunk over more indepth experimentation.
Link for that analysis?

_________________
Vae Victis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 924
djolds1 wrote:
ScottL wrote:
GeeGee wrote:
Thomas Mahood, who was advised by Dr. Woodward in his graduate studies chronicles his experience at CSUF as well as his research into exotic propulsion:

http://www.otherhand.org/home-page/phys ... fullerton/

Tom seems to think there are possibly 2 explanations for the effect: dean drive-type effect or a real effect that nature is trying hard to suppress. If it's the latter, then it may just be a matter of resources, "just so" conditions and engineering to get large effects for commercial use.

Dr. Woodward recently eliminated the dean drive effect as a plausible explanation for what he's seen. He'll be presenting a paper at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference this July that will include a host of tests he's done to check for spurious effects.
I read his take on it as though he felt that its either a dean-drive effect, a real effect, or some form of mistaken reading. He mentioned that the measurement has actually shrunk over more indepth experimentation.
Link for that analysis?



My analysis is based on the following quotes from the link, but specifically this part of that article:

Quote:
But Tom, is this stuff ……real?

I….don’t…. know. And I say that after being involved in chasing it down for 10+ years. At this point, I see arguements on both sides.


Quote:
As time progressed and the experimental apparatus more refined, the “effect” seemed to get smaller, and that’s a REAL bad sign. It was already well below what the theory predicted. That sets off alarm bells. After all this time, if something isn’t in hand to float around a table top, its should still at least be producing unequivocal results.


Quote:
I am aware of only one positive replication attempt, and even that experimenter (Paul March) had concerns over its validity. All other replication attempts have either been negative or ambiguous. My own experiments were ambiguous.


Quote:
It seems to make the effect happen, a lot of parameters for the test devices, some not clearly understood, need to be “just so”. The question remains, are the devices being dialed in to create a real effect, or do things need to be just so to cause merely a false positive?


Quote:
Despite any doubts I might have about the effect being real or not, I thoroughly enjoyed my work at CSUF.


I read that as he has some very real doubts yet and that the effect seemed to become smaller as the experiments became more robust.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Posts: 4781
Location: North East Coast
Quote:
It says that all motion is relative and you get the same results whether you smash two cars together head on at 30 miles per hour as you would if one car was stationary and you hit it with another car at 60 miles per hour. In either case the cars close at 60 mph. Again, nothing strange there, just common sense.


I want to disagree. Roll two cue balls at each other at equal speed and see what happens. Then roll one at the other at twice speed while it is stationary and see what happens.

Quote:
It turns out that every piece of matter in the universe creates its own little bit of a gravitational field. The value of this field at a distance is called the "gravitational potential". Taken by themselves, these little bits and pieces of matter around us don't amount to a whole lot, gravitationally speaking. Look how much matter you need in one place (i.e., the Earth) before anything interesting happens. And even then by simply jumping you can temporarily break the Earth's grip. Furthermore, this
gravitational potential diminishes with distance, which is why our much larger Sun doesn't pull us off the surface of the Earth to a toasty doom. The much closer (though smaller) Earth wins the tug-of-war.


Or, the cumulative background 'cancels (averages) out' the pull of the sun (or other object) the farther away you get from it. It may not be that the pull diminishes.
<Takes another shot of whiskey, then ponders some more>

_________________
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 95
New NBF article on the M-E

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/tom-ma ... -mach.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am
Posts: 1219
ScottL wrote:
Quote:
As time progressed and the experimental apparatus more refined, the “effect” seemed to get smaller, and that’s a REAL bad sign. It was already well below what the theory predicted. That sets off alarm bells. After all this time, if something isn’t in hand to float around a table top, its should still at least be producing unequivocal results.
Quote:
I am aware of only one positive replication attempt, and even that experimenter (Paul March) had concerns over its validity. All other replication attempts have either been negative or ambiguous. My own experiments were ambiguous.
I read that as he has some very real doubts yet and that the effect seemed to become smaller as the experiments became more robust.
Yes. Twenty+ years of effort and the measured effect is zeroing out instead of amplifying, in defiance of theory's claims? Not good.

A shame. Ah well, next idea?

_________________
Vae Victis


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:00 pm
Posts: 95
djolds1 wrote:
Yes. Twenty+ years of effort and the measured effect is zeroing out instead of amplifying, in defiance of theory's claims? Not good.

A shame. Ah well, next idea?


These devices are actually pretty difficult to get working right. It's not surprising at all that there have been null results and inconclusive results.

The latest work has ruled out thermal effects and dean drive-type effects, so it seems quite likely at this point there is probably a real effect here. It also seems to scale with power. Only people like Paul, Nembo Buldrini and Dr. Woodward can properly explain the difficulties associated with getting larger effects. Nembo's SPESIF paper actually covers the difficulty or reproducing and measuring these effects in one of the sections.

Dr. Woodward is soon going to be running these devices at higher power in pursuit of larger effects.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:59 am
Posts: 543
GeeGee wrote:


and new GoatGuy rants, of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 924
djolds1 wrote:
ScottL wrote:
Quote:
As time progressed and the experimental apparatus more refined, the “effect” seemed to get smaller, and that’s a REAL bad sign. It was already well below what the theory predicted. That sets off alarm bells. After all this time, if something isn’t in hand to float around a table top, its should still at least be producing unequivocal results.
Quote:
I am aware of only one positive replication attempt, and even that experimenter (Paul March) had concerns over its validity. All other replication attempts have either been negative or ambiguous. My own experiments were ambiguous.
I read that as he has some very real doubts yet and that the effect seemed to become smaller as the experiments became more robust.
Yes. Twenty+ years of effort and the measured effect is zeroing out instead of amplifying, in defiance of theory's claims? Not good.

A shame. Ah well, next idea?


Of course I don't speak for the work, just my interpretation of the linked article. I'm hoping the best for Dr. Woodward and I hope he is able to amplify the effect with proper experimentation, but if the scaling isn't matching theory, as the article says, that could be a big red flag.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2196 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 ... 147  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group