Mach Effect Propulsion Research Update

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:42 pm

anyway, CuriousKid posted the following

1) His theory requires non-local interactions (is not compatible with SR and causality)
2) The "mach" comes from his theory claiming mass is due to the interactions with the rest of the universe (including interactions propagating back in time)

So, in my opinion, if you want to use this for propulsion, you can pretty safely ignore it.
If you are interested in it more for theoretical reasons, you can safely ignore it, unless you are okay with accepting all of the above. Since I doubt that is the case, I'm not going to bother commenting further.

Thus, he is not only saying that it wont work for propulsion, but also that it violates some laws of physics. Anyone has something to say about it?

I hope Paul March can answer such questions, since I am rooting his efforts will have nice results...

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:06 pm

well, forget it, a moderator just closed the thread there

~Moderator's note: this thread has been locked.

I see we have some new members, so welcome to you both.

The main purpose of Physics Forums is to teach and discuss the current state of knowledge in science, math, and technology. As a result, non-mainstream theories or speculation are not appropriate at Physics Forums. The reasons for this include:

1. Physics Forums does not have the resources to critique new theories properly.
2. Readers who are not knowledgeable in science may misconstrue such posts to be established science, when in fact they have not been tested by experimental evidence or reviewed independently by others familiar with that area of science or technology.
3. In the past, allowing such posts has been found to interfere detrimentally with our main purpose that is stated above.

Since the theory espoused in this thread is incompatible with the main purpose of Physics Forums, this thread is now closed. We hope you understand our position on this.

This topic may be reopened once it has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Regards,

Redbelly98
Physics Forums Mentor

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:17 pm

AcesHigh wrote:anyway, CuriousKid posted the following

1) His theory requires non-local interactions (is not compatible with SR and causality)
2) The "mach" comes from his theory claiming mass is due to the interactions with the rest of the universe (including interactions propagating back in time)

So, in my opinion, if you want to use this for propulsion, you can pretty safely ignore it.
If you are interested in it more for theoretical reasons, you can safely ignore it, unless you are okay with accepting all of the above. Since I doubt that is the case, I'm not going to bother commenting further.
Thus, he is not only saying that it wont work for propulsion, but also that it violates some laws of physics. Anyone has something to say about it?

I hope Paul March can answer such questions, since I am rooting his efforts will have nice results...

QED depends on interactions going backwards and forwards in time. Faster than the speed of light too. Why not inertia?

As to non-locality? EPR explains more than a few experiments.

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:27 pm

too bad the thread was closed. Any peer reviewed paper, so the moderator will open it again?

EricF · Post by **EricF** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:33 pm

AcesHigh wrote:too bad the thread was closed. Any peer reviewed paper, so the moderator will open it again?

Dos this count? It is linked right from the Wikipedia article on the Woodward Effect

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet ... yes&ref=no

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:46 pm

EricF wrote:
AcesHigh wrote:too bad the thread was closed. Any peer reviewed paper, so the moderator will open it again?
Dos this count? It is linked right from the Wikipedia article on the Woodward Effect

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet ... yes&ref=no

Thanks Eric, sent a PM to the moderator with the link, asking him to reopen the thread.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:45 am

You might also send him to http://physics.fullerton.edu/ [click Faculty, Woodward, "Recent publications"].

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 7:59 am

is Woodwards a physics or an history phd?

edit: at the physicsforum thread, Vanadium accuses him of being a historian, not a physicist. It seems he has a Master Degree in physics, but his PHD is in History.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:08 am

Dr. James F. Woodward
Professor of History (1972)
Adjunct Professor of Physics

A.B., Middlebury College, 1964 (Physics)
M.S., New York University, 1969 (Physics)
Ph.D., University of Denver, 1972 (History)

As a non-Ph.D. myself, I hope his equations don't care.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:20 am

I'm surprised Paul March hasn't chimed in anywhere. He answered questions pretty readily at the NSF forum.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 9:16 am

He also was here for a while. I guess he is really busy, probably to busy to run arround disputing his and Woodwards credibility with naysayers. I know hat I would be to annoyed to do that over and overy again, whereever I go. I did and do have simillar problems in my area, but for different reasons ("I dont believe that a small company like yours can do that, if [insert large and inefficient corporation here] can't")....

BenTC · Post by **BenTC** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:15 pm

Skipjack wrote:I did and do have simillar problems in my area, but for different reasons ("I dont believe that a small company like yours can do that, if [insert large and inefficient corporation here] can't")....

That sounds like innovation at work. I've had it explained to me that in reality, for all their resources, Big Companies don't really innovate internally. Big Companies really survive by "not failing" and innovation involves that risk of failing. Innovation is done by small companies, some of which fail and some survive. The big companies then swoop in and license, absorb or copy the successful innovations.

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:58 pm

Paul has answered the PM I sent him. I will take the liberty of posting it here, since there is nothing personal in the PM, just answers to the questions posted by people at Physicsforum.com , some of those questions people here also didnt know the answer for.

Paul March wrote: Anyway, a couple of questions posed by people there:
by Vanadium50:
"The problem, apart from the fact that Woodward's calculation is Just Plain Wrong (it takes the same momentum to stop a the mass that it did to get it going in the first place) is that momentum is conserved locally as well as globally. I can't move the momentum to the "rest of the universe" without applying a force"

The required force you seek is supplied by Newton's third law. Remember that the Mach Effect is nothing more than taking advantage of transient forces buried in normal inertial reaction forces we've ignored to date.

from CuriousKid
"For those not wanting to delve into it, here are some facts about this theory:
1) His theory requires non-local interactions (is not compatible with SR and causality).

You need to look a little closer at Woodward's M-E derivation. The Mach-Effect is compatible with SR, GRT and is Lorentz invariant in the 4D analysis.

"2) The "mach" comes from his theory claiming mass is due to the interactions with the rest of the universe (including interactions propagating back in time)"

It's not only Woodward's theory. It's based on Dennis W. Sciama's 1953 "On the Origins of Inertia" PhD thesis paper under Paul Dirac and Woodward's late 1980s discovery of some transient temporal terms in normal inertial reaction forces that people have ignored to date.

"So, in my opinion, if you want to use this for propulsion, you can pretty safely ignore it.

If you are interested in it more for theoretical reasons, you can safely ignore it, unless you are okay with accepting all of the above. Since I doubt that is the case, I'm not going to bother commenting further."

That's your priviledge.

from Kev
"The short answer is no. The mutual gravitational pull will be less, if the two bodies are moving relative to the observer. To an observer co-moving with the two bodies, the mutual gravitational pull will be the same. This is simple application of SR. If the two bodies moved towards each other faster as you suggest, this would provide a method to detect absolute motion and this would violate SR."

If you folks would actaully read and understand Sciama's 1953 "Origins of inertia" PhD thesis and Woodward's 2004 "Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia" paper before firing off these uninformed one liners, a lot of these misconceptions could be resolved before hand. I'd append their papers but this forum won't allow it, so happy hunting...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_William_Sciama
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953MNRAS.113...34S

See: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m442n70106j14012/

AcesHigh · Post by **AcesHigh** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:07 pm

I would love to see Paul creating another thread on the subject at that forum and giving the people a lesson about physics, since it seems so many people there think know it all and promptly dismiss Woodward´s theory.

But for that to happen, the darn mods would have to be convinced that there is peer reviews about Woodwards effect, and they dont seem to look forward to be convinced of what they DO NOT WANT to be convinced about. I guess they will just overlook any evidence.

Thus, maybe its better just to not worry. Results will hopefully speak for themselves.

And of course, I much preffer Paul March to occupy his precious little free time working on ME Effect than on replying to stubborn moderators and posters in all existing physics related internet forums.

Although sincerely, not being aquainted with the physics academic community nor funding processes, I dont know how important it may be or not be to dismiss this strong opposition by some physicists on the internet. My common sense says its not important... but I cant be sure.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:35 pm

Aces,

I can't tell you the amount of flak I got when suggesting that WB-6 be verified. I even had physics guys tell me (when I was just learning) that a potential well was a figment of my optimism and Dr. B was a crank.

And then I found some work the Japanese had done on the issue and those complaints ceased. There were others.