Mach Effect progress

[mdeminico]

Anybody got a reference to an experimentally observed speed of gravity, c?

Not a great deal of accuracy, but http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/gravity/

I wouldn't be surprised:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

[chrismb]

M-E physics doesn't conflict with thermodynamics at all. Not sure why you would think that.

I think it does because [if I get it even half right] that the momentum is reacted [by some remote means] to the rest of the cosmos which implies there is a CoG for the cosmos, which in turn implies that you can be travelling towards or away from that CoG, which implies a M-E thruster needs power if you accelerate away from that CoG or generates power if you accelerate towards it. So it seems to me that if you stick an M-E thruster on the edge of a disc, you'd be able to generate power from seemingly nowhere by turning it on when it is heading towards the cosmic CoG, and off when it is heading away from it, and the rotation of the disc would actually increase whilst you are sucking power off of it.

[GIThruster]

Sorry, Chris. No need to worry about the center of gravity of the universe.

If you want a handle on this stuff, you need to read the papers or at least what the web will say about Mach's Principle.

Not trying to sound patronizing, but there is absolutely no way to understand even the basics of M-E force generators, without having at least a smidgeon of understanding of Mach's Principle.

That is after all, why Woodward has maintained this all needs to be named after Hans Mach.

[icarus]

implies that you can be travelling towards or away from that CoG,

Unless you were always travelling on the hyper-spherical surface azimuthally to the CoG of the cosmos ....

EDIT: In which case you would be borrowing 4-D angular momentum from the cosmos not 4-momentum, I think I can go along with that.

[chrismb]

Sorry, Chris. No need to worry about the center of gravity of the universe.

If you want a handle on this stuff, you need to read the papers or at least what the web will say about Mach's Principle.

Not trying to sound patronizing, but there is absolutely no way to understand even the basics of M-E force generators, without having at least a smidgeon of understanding of Mach's Principle.

That is after all, why Woodward has maintained this all needs to be named after Hans Mach.

which "mach" are we talking about here? who is hans? and why do i not need to worry about cog?

i could equally read the bible and put my trust in jesus to bestow m-e and free energy upon us, but i'd prefer to think for myself first.

[IntLibber]

Sorry, Chris. No need to worry about the center of gravity of the universe.

If you want a handle on this stuff, you need to read the papers or at least what the web will say about Mach's Principle.

Not trying to sound patronizing, but there is absolutely no way to understand even the basics of M-E force generators, without having at least a smidgeon of understanding of Mach's Principle.

That is after all, why Woodward has maintained this all needs to be named after Hans Mach.

which "mach" are we talking about here? who is hans? and why do i not need to worry about cog?

i could equally read the bible and put my trust in jesus to bestow m-e and free energy upon us, but i'd prefer to think for myself first.

There is no need for a center of gravity of the universe because the observable universe is always smaller in size than the actual universe, so wherever you go "there you are" at your very own center of gravity of your personal light cone....

[chrismb]

if as you say you are your own centre (which i have no reason to counter) then to what is your gain in momentum attributed when an me thruster is switched on?

[icarus]

I thought Copernicus already over-turned such anthrocentric hubris in natural philosophy or is it just an observer bias thing, a preferred reference frame?

If you feel like being re-humbled, a view back at the the path that has been fought through the thicket of confusion and falsehoods, starting here may help

http://www.amazon.com/History-Theories- ... 0883185237

there is a second volume also. Quite comprehensive.

[icarus]

So if we are to imagine that the rest of the universe pulling on the parts of our spaceship isotropically is what is the origin of its inertia (Mach conjecture) then what happens as we get near to an appreciable speed to that of light (relative to the fixed observable universe)?

The propagation of the grav-inertia signals are propagated at the speed of light/gravity so the hemisphere of the universal masses ahead of us will have a larger resultant contribution to our spaceships inertia than the hemisphere of mass behind us owing to the finite speed of propagation, i.e. the mass of the spaceship will want to increasingly fall in the direction of motion .... but the electrodynamic effects of mass increases due to special relativity will have to be added in also. Which one wins? FTL?

[GIThruster]

Sorry, Chris. No need to worry about the center of gravity of the universe.

If you want a handle on this stuff, you need to read the papers or at least what the web will say about Mach's Principle.

Not trying to sound patronizing, but there is absolutely no way to understand even the basics of M-E force generators, without having at least a smidgeon of understanding of Mach's Principle.

That is after all, why Woodward has maintained this all needs to be named after Hans Mach.

which "mach" are we talking about here? who is hans? and why do i not need to worry about cog?

i could equally read the bible and put my trust in jesus to bestow m-e and free energy upon us, but i'd prefer to think for myself first.

My bad, I meant Earnst Mach, the fellow Einstein named Mach's Principle after. This all concerns his physics--essentially that the property of inertia is the result of gravity, or all the universe's various parts pulling on one another, but chiefly the action of the most distant stars or Far Off Active Mass (FOAM).

None of this concerns a center of gravity, thermodynamics or your unusual prayer practices.

"Lord Jesus, please give us a troll-free holiday season? Amen."

[Giorgio]

Lord Jesus, please give us some new physics with an experimental proof before the theoretical model instead of the other way around.
I might even start believe in you if it happens during my lifetime. I might even believe in Santa Claus if it happens during this holiday season.

Thank you.

[KitemanSA]

Lord Jesus, please give us some new physics with an experimental proof before the theoretical model instead of the other way around.

Theory ALWAYS precedes proof.

• One finds inconsistencies with old theory.
  One melds new theory to cover known data.
  One hypothesize an effect (like the Mach Effect), and
  One seeks data to disprove the hypothesis.

Standard scientific procedure. AFAICT, the Mach Effect is a hypothetical derivitive of other widely accepted theory. At this point, the task should be to invent experiments to DISPROVE the effect. If you can't disprove it...

Any experiment seeking to PROVE the effect is scientifically inconsequential. It may be valuable for commercial purposes (indeed will be very good for that if it works), but if it can't disprove, it ain't scientific.

Please remember that a theory can be totally wrong and a mechanism can still work. The M-E Thruster may work just fine, for a totally different reason.

[chrismb]

Theory ALWAYS precedes proof.

That is simply not true, and is a very modern take on science. Science used to be about discovering something, and once a phenomenon is discovered then you'd posit a theory to account for it. Not enough discoveries these days to see that happen, any more.

I guess that's why people who make the science industry their pay-check provider have to come up with endless theories that are right up there at the end of the credibility fence, because they don't know how to actually go off and discover something new anymore.

[chrismb]

"Lord Jesus, please give us a troll-free holiday season? Amen."

You're the only one that goes on and on about 'trolls', seemingly at least once in any thread. Ironic, really!

[icarus]

kiteflyer:

The M-E Thruster may work just fine

As far as we know, to date the M-E doesn't work at all ... they are doing a good job of disproving that it works.

I woke up this morning in a half-dream with the idea that if you trapped a super-photon as a plane wave in a electromagnetic field then rotated that trap about the longitudinal direction of the super-photon wave, i.e. rotated the plane of the wave, you could create an Archimedes screw type traction against the aether, medium, space-time continuum (call it what you may). The super photon would have to translate one wavelength for every revolution of the trap to satisfy the polarisation condition that it must remain plane in the frame of the trap, maybe less some slippage. In this way you could just go screw yourself through space-time.

How about that one GIT? An angular momentum conserved M-E effect thruster.

Ideally you would want to trap a fairly large super-photon so that the number of revolutions of the trap per distance covered was minimised. So lets say you had a super-photon of the order 3 [m], to get into LEO, i.e. 300km up, you would need to rotate the trap through 100,000 revolutions, plus some for slippage. Quite the wind-up to get into those lovely space dollars though.

If you want proof you'll have to go read the literature:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdon ... _52_97.pdf
(optical spanner for wrenching space-time)

http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/8/083053

http://www.amazon.com/History-Theories- ... 0883185237

and I don't want to sound patronising or anything but if you still can't see the connection then you probably need to study the history of physics and philosophy more deeply, say for 2 decades or more until you understand.