Mach Effect progress

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:52 am

Yeah, I corresponded briefly with Tajmar a few years back, right around the time he realized it wasn't a SC issue. I mentioned Heim as a possibility, he said it was too early know the proper theoretical explanation.

Curious to see what he thinks of the paper.

DennisP · Post by **DennisP** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:11 pm

DARPA has started a "100-year starship" program...maybe it's a good time for Paul to ring them up.
http://www.100yss.org/

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:51 pm

Here is the September symposium agenda

http://www.100yss.org/agenda.html

Lots of interesting talks under "Propulsion" and "Exotics". I wonder why Woodward was not invited to speak?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:28 am

I don't think that anyone from Woodward's group attending, but there is one extremely well known physicist attending who has committed to recommend M-E work at the symposium, as well as to several of his billionaire friends interested in the 100YSS program, and to DARPA. In fact, he's calling for a JASON investigation of M-E and he might get it. That would be terrific!

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:54 am

GIThruster wrote:I don't think that anyone from Woodward's group attending, but there is one extremely well known physicist attending who has committed to recommend M-E work at the symposium, as well as to several of his billionaire friends interested in the 100YSS program, and to DARPA. In fact, he's calling for a JASON investigation of M-E and he might get it. That would be terrific!

what is JASON? And who is this wl known physicist?

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:11 am

Wikipedia wrote:JASON is an independent group of scientists which advises the United States government on matters of science and technology. The group was first created as a way to get a younger generation of scientists—that is, not the older Los Alamos and MIT Radiation Laboratory alumni—involved in advising the government. It was established in 1960 and has somewhere between 30 and 60 members.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:55 am

GIThruster wrote:I don't think that anyone from Woodward's group attending, but there is one extremely well known physicist attending who has committed to recommend M-E work at the symposium, as well as to several of his billionaire friends interested in the 100YSS program, and to DARPA. In fact, he's calling for a JASON investigation of M-E and he might get it. That would be terrific!

Are you not allowed to tell us his (the well known physicist) name?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:19 pm

Kite, I'm not sure where you got that quote but it's missing a single word. JASON functions in providing consulting services to USG in matters of defense science and technology. It's pretty much like the National Academies except focused on defense.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/

Jack Sarfatti is the physicist who has committed to presenting M-E at the 100YSS symposium, along with his own WWD scheme. He's made this very public on a very large group post so I can't see there's any harm in mentioning.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:23 pm

I am surprised he is the one presenting the concept. I've seen some of his e-mail exchanges with Woodward on his website and yahoo group page. He is insufferably arrogant and is quick to dismiss other peoples ideas as "not even wrong." He claims Mach's principle has no mathematical formalism and basically wants to be feed sentence by sentence how an MLT is supposed to work. When Woodward tells him the peer-reviewed papers are on the internet for all to see, including the Sciama paper where the mathematical formulation of the strong form of Mach's principle is laid out, he says "that's not good enough, send them directly to me." I imagine it was very difficult for Woodward to convince him to do this, but at least now the Mach effect might get the proper attention it deserves.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:07 pm

Jack Sarfatti believes that the negative energy conditions necessary to realize wormholes can be generated by superconductor-based metamaterials that significantly slow the speed of light as well as create a negative index of refraction. Woodward discounts this possibility in a recent paper where he suggests if this was the case, that anomalous heating or cooling effects would be observed around such metamaterials. More recently, Woodward has suggested ways that Sarfatti's metamaterial concept can be tested. Needless to say, I am rather skeptical of Sarfatti's metamaterial concept.

Anyways, its Sarfatti who is presenting his metamaterial concept at the NASA conference next month. I don't think either Woodward or March are attending this event because, for one thing, they are too busy doing experiments to scale up and demonstrate the Mach effect.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:16 pm

Yes well, Jack is a strong personality to be sure, and despite all attempts has yet to really read nor understand Woodward's work in depth. He's quite capable of this but truth is, all physicists are somewhat loathe to read the work of others and give an opine.

Jack did however look over the math briefly, and some of the experimental evidence and came to the conclusion he needed to support the work so far as 100YSS, DARPA, CIA and his billionaire friends, so we'll see what comes of it.

And yes, Jim did actually look in detail at Jack's work. As an historian of gravity physics, Jim reads EVERYONE's work in the field unless he finds a reason not to. He did indeed identify a way to tell whether a meta-material is producing negative energy inside, the alternate heating and cooling on the sides of the material; and his argument was very clear. I think there are obvious conservation violations but I do hope I'm wrong and that Jack has something. Any way to the stars is better than no way.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:33 pm

Sarfatti's argument is based on incorporating Snell's Index of Refraction equation into the Einstein field equation. Woodard argues in his latest wormhole paper why this is not valid.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:45 pm

I wasn't aware it had been published. Where can I read it?

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:49 pm

It hasn't been published yet. Kurt is on the inside track.

GeeGee, I have an open offer here for anyone who wants to be included in such private communications to shoot me a private note. Send your name, a couple sentences about your background and interest, and your email address; and I'll forward them to Woodward to get you included in his private mailing list if you like.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:49 am

GIThruster wrote:Kite, I'm not sure where you got that quote but it's missing a single word. JASON functions in providing consulting services to USG in matters of defense science and technology. It's pretty much like the National Academies except focused on defense.

Dominantly defense, I'll grant you, but not exclusively I think. But as I indicated, "Wikipedia wrote".