Pretty unbelieveable...

[rashudo]

Paul,

If inertia is caused by 'most distant matter', does this mean that inertia was different shortly after the big bang, when that 'most distant matter' was not quite so distant? And if true, what kind of consequences would that have on our understanding of such events?

[ltgbrown]

rashudo,

I am most definitely not qualified to discuss the physics behind the theory, however, my meager understanding leads me to suggest a qualification of your question. Inertia is not caused by most DISTANT matter. It is caused by most matter. It just so happens that most of it (like 99.9999%) is "relatively" distant. The matter creates a gravitational inertia field, so the field would be present throughout, regardless of distance. So it shouldn't be any different when the universe was "smaller".

Over to Paul to provide the correct response!

By the way, if this proves to be correct, this is extremely exciting! Moving beyond chemical reactions or mechanical means for motion is HUGE!

[rashudo]

rashudo,

I am most definitely not qualified to discuss the physics behind the theory, however, my meager understanding leads me to suggest a qualification of your question. Inertia is not caused by most DISTANT matter. It is caused by most matter. It just so happens that most of it (like 99.9999%) is "relatively" distant. The matter creates a gravitational inertia field, so the field would be present throughout, regardless of distance. So it shouldn't be any different when the universe was "smaller".

Over to Paul to provide the correct response!

By the way, if this proves to be correct, this is extremely exciting! Moving beyond chemical reactions or mechanical means for motion is HUGE!

Thanks, i guess that makes sense, if the distance of the matter is not relevant.

[Professor Science]

It's not that I don't want this to work, I'd cut off various body parts if it meant we could get a legitimate reactionless drive, it's just I know it's not supposed to work, and it does not bode well for my enthusiasm when you use words so specialized that to me they sound made up.

[kmkramer]

This place has some interesting people reading it!

Mr. March, If I wanted to answer the question "Are you measuring what you think you are measuring?", what would be the best thing to read? Have you submitted a publication somewhere?

(I'm a physicist btw, so a technical publication would be great.)

[ravingdave]

kmkramer wrote:


So yes, I was selling step-12 as you call it in my STAIF-2007 paper since few people in the aerospace community had noticed the possible importance of the foregoing M-E proof of principle work by several different investigators both here in the USA and in Argentina. However, since then we have come to the conclusion that we will have to create a M-E demonstrator that will have to levitate itself for all to see before the mainstream will even acknowledge the possibility that we are on to something that could change the course of history in a very big way. Working…

It slowly dawned on me over the years that the American Public has been so drowned in crackpots, conspiracies, perpetual motion machines, and various other oddball theories and trivia, that they pretty much discount everything that isn't "jump out at them" obvious. We are now a very "silly" people. (look at who we have for president and for speaker of the house! )


I have been a fan of the "Woodward Effect" or "Transient Mass Flucuations." for years, and still regard it as the most reasonable theory i've ever run across to explain a possible propellantless thruster. All I can say is that you guys are doing good work and I applaud you for it.



David

[ravingdave]

It's not that I don't want this to work, I'd cut off various body parts if it meant we could get a legitimate reactionless drive, it's just I know it's not supposed to work, and it does not bode well for my enthusiasm when you use words so specialized that to me they sound made up.

If you follow the physics it doesn't violate any rules or laws. The theory is entirely dependent on Mach's theory of inertia. If Mach was correct, then this device ought to work. As I mentioned earlier, John G. Cramer was hired by Nasa to investigate the "Mach effect." However, the experiment appears to have been a failure due to technical difficulties.

In any case, I think Newton's Laws are inviolable until they are. (As in the case with Relativity theory.)


David

[djolds1]

Dr. Woodward has been doing M-E “proof of principle” tests since ~1990 and I started in 2002. In short, the M-E derivation indicates that when a capacitor dielectric is subjected to a sinusoidal time rate of change of stored energy while simultaneously being subjected to a bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars, that a mass density variation of the dielectric should be expressed at 2X the drive frequency of the dE/dt energy flux, AKA electrical power. And its magnitude should be proportional to the product of the cube of the applied voltage times the applied bulk acceleration with all other controlling parameters held constant.

Have you considered using the eestor supercap material in the next generation series of test devices, or any of the other supercap concepts that have hit maturity recently?

Now you have to remember that the M-E powered WarpStar-1 slides appended at the “Next Big Future” web site were from my third STAIF paper published in 2007 which was about the possible future applications of the M-E, IF perfected. My 2004 and 2006 papers explored the theory, math modeling and M-E proof of principle tests that had been performed up to that time, including my own Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) tests at a drive frequency 2.15, 2.2 and 3.8 MHz, where I measured a peak thrust of ~5.0 milli-Newton with a Faraday shielded test article.

So yes, I was selling step-12 as you call it in my STAIF-2007 paper since few people in the aerospace community had noticed the possible importance of the foregoing M-E proof of principle work by several different investigators both here in the USA and in Argentina.

(Shrug)

I think a few of the purists here may have conveniently managed to forget how Dr. Bussard shopped the Polywell concept for 15 years. QED rockets anyone?

However, since then we have come to the conclusion that we will have to create a M-E demonstrator that will have to levitate itself for all to see before the mainstream will even acknowledge the possibility that we are on to something that could change the course of history in a very big way. Working…

Agreed. Test stand units are open to too much variation in interpretation. You need something that will slap people upside the head and leave them groggy for a week.

[MSimon]

This place has some interesting people reading it!

Mr. March, If I wanted to answer the question "Are you measuring what you think you are measuring?", what would be the best thing to read? Have you submitted a publication somewhere?

(I'm a physicist btw, so a technical publication would be great.)

Me too (except for the physicist part - I'm an engineer). I'd especially like to have a detailed description of the electronic set up. How it was calibrated (distortion in the drive sine waves for instance). How it was shielded (lots of pictures). What was done to minimize common mode noise. Harmonic distortion and IMD distortion of the detector set up. Distortion vs level curves.

etc.

[Skipjack]

Nextbigfuture has had a follow up on the article, including some of the comments (even from this Forum) from people and some answers from Paul March. There are also a few more charts. If anyone is interested.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/mach-e ... rt-ii.html

[TallDave]

. However, since then we have come to the conclusion that we will have to create a M-E demonstrator that will have to levitate itself for all to see before the mainstream will even acknowledge the possibility that we are on to something that could change the course of history in a very big way. Working…

Extraordinary claims, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

It would be neat if you were right, even though that seems unlikely from where I sit. I'll keep an open mind, though.

[Skipjack]

Hey Dave, you and me actually agree on something for a change. Miracles do happen, LOL.
I would really love them to be right though. That would be a gamechanger. I just hope to see something soon. I am terribly impatient.

[TallDave]

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC ... 6_4911.pdf

Hmmm.

Well, you know me, I'm always in favor of more studies.

[TallDave]

Skip,

Science is easy, politics is hard. Datasets for the latter are much more contradictory and objectivity vanishes in a quantum foam of opinion.

[TallDave]

Hey, I just noticed... one of the guys on that paper is Martin Tajmar, the guy who found the weird antigravity acceleration at ESA.