Woodward-Mach Effect

[djolds1]

I splurged earlier this year and bought the "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" book. There are lots of concepts for breakthrough propulsion, but they seem to fall into three categories. Of all of them, the Woodward-Mach effect seems the most viable, if any propulsion breakthrough is possible (it might not, you know).

MLT work is currently the most credible of "Left Field Propulsion" concepts, definitely. Its enthusiasts are doing good experiments and releasing results, both positive and negative. Even if they're wrong, they're wrong honestly, and doing good science to find out one way or the other.

Far more than can be said of the "Heim Theory" approach. Tho for the last year and a half, my interest has been focused on a third candidate that caught my attention after Woodward endorsed it in 2009.

My impression is that the Woodward-Mach effect could result in a "space drive" but not FTL. It wasn't until the recent discussion of wormholes this past year that there was any mention of FTL at all in connection with Woodward-Mach effect.

Mistaken. At least insofar as wormholes are "FTL."

First mention of wormholes by Woodward was in his 1997 paper "TWISTS of Fate."

Definitely mentioned by Paul March in his 2007 STAIF presentation on Mach-Lorentz Thruster Applications - tho the link to the online PPT seems to be broken now.

A space drive, even one that is strictly sub-light, would be a game changer in opening up the solar system to human settlement, O'niell space colony style.

Indubitably. OTOH, I don't much like the O'Neill cylinder approach. Too big, too much of a one-shot gamble. Slow incremental accumulation of small, individually affordable modules (i.e. "houses" instead of O'Neill "Colosseums") is a much more persuasive approach.

[Giorgio]

Far more than can be said of the "Heim Theory" approach.

Heim theory is intriguing.
I spent quite some time trying to follow the logic of the math, especially trying to understand the details about Heim mass formula, but I always get lost at a certain point.
Is not something for the weak of heart

I am still lurking there time by time waiting to see if they will release something new, like a decent proposal for an experimental set up.

[djolds1]

Far more than can be said of the "Heim Theory" approach.

Heim theory is intriguing.
I spent quite some time trying to follow the logic of the math, especially trying to understand the details about Heim mass formula, but I always get lost at a certain point.
Is not something for the weak of heart

I examined it high intensity for several years. No experiments, minimal math to follow the derivations, and a flat unwillingness to acknowledge the limitations to the initial Tajmer results that Tajmer himself has admitted.

I.e., not credible.

I am still lurking there time by time waiting to see if they will release something new, like a decent proposal for an experimental set up.

As am I. But as I said, it is not what holds my interest these days.

[Giorgio]

No experiments, minimal math to follow the derivations, and a flat unwillingness to acknowledge the limitations to the initial Tajmer results that Tajmer himself has admitted.

I.e., not credible.

I do not think that Tajmar experiments can be quoted as a valid reference as they were not designed to search answers for Heim theory.
But generally I agree, it is an interesting theory but quite far from being credible at the moment.

[kurt9]

I splurged earlier this year and bought the "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" book. There are lots of concepts for breakthrough propulsion, but they seem to fall into three categories. Of all of them, the Woodward-Mach effect seems the most viable, if any propulsion breakthrough is possible (it might not, you know).

MLT work is currently the most credible of "Left Field Propulsion" concepts, definitely. Its enthusiasts are doing good experiments and releasing results, both positive and negative. Even if they're wrong, they're wrong honestly, and doing good science to find out one way or the other.

Far more than can be said of the "Heim Theory" approach. Tho for the last year and a half, my interest has been focused on a third candidate that caught my attention after Woodward endorsed it in 2009.

I have followed Heim Theory as well. My take on the Tajmar experimental results is that Bosonic coupling is probably bogus. However, I think fermionic coupling (the approach that requires the high T fields) is still an open possibility. The earlier papers (prior to 2006) on fermionic coupling seem to be more rigorous in mathematics and theory.

Testing fermionic coupling requires cables made from superconducting materials that can handle high current flux (600A/mm2) without loosing their superconducting properties. These materials are only now being developed and are very expensive. Thus, a test apparatus would be very expensive and certainly beyond the financial capabilities of D&H. I expect another 5 years before fermionic coupling can be tested. Until then, who knows on Heim Theory.

What is the third concept endorsed by Woodward in 2009? Are you talking about wormholes? Or is this something else?

My impression is that the Woodward-Mach effect could result in a "space drive" but not FTL. It wasn't until the recent discussion of wormholes this past year that there was any mention of FTL at all in connection with Woodward-Mach effect.

Mistaken. At least insofar as wormholes are "FTL."

First mention of wormholes by Woodward was in his 1997 paper "TWISTS of Fate."

Definitely mentioned by Paul March in his 2007 STAIF presentation on Mach-Lorentz Thruster Applications - tho the link to the online PPT seems to be broken now.

I did not learn of the "Twists of Fate" paper until recently. I knew about the "wormhole term" in the basic Woodward equations. But most of the discussion in the papers I have read have been about the "impulse term". In a previous paper, Woodward questions if the wormhole term is actually real.

A space drive, even one that is strictly sub-light, would be a game changer in opening up the solar system to human settlement, O'niell space colony style.

Indubitably. OTOH, I don't much like the O'Neill cylinder approach. Too big, too much of a one-shot gamble. Slow incremental accumulation of small, individually affordable modules (i.e. "houses" instead of O'Neill "Colosseums") is a much more persuasive approach.

True. Smaller habitats make sense, especially if they can be mass-produced in large numbers.

[Giorgio]

I have followed Heim Theory as well. My take on the Tajmar experimental results is that Bosonic coupling is probably bogus. However, I think fermionic coupling (the approach that requires the high T fields) is still an open possibility. The earlier papers (prior to 2006) on fermionic coupling seem to be more rigorous in mathematics and theory.

I would not dismiss Bosonic coupling. Their existence in Tajmar experiments was just a speculation of D&H as far as I know.

Additionally the effect should be more evident with Bosonic coupling than with Fermionic ones (if I still remember correctly), so we should be able to prove it with lower T fields and current.

[djolds1]

]MLT work is currently the most credible of "Left Field Propulsion" concepts, definitely. Its enthusiasts are doing good experiments and releasing results, both positive and negative. Even if they're wrong, they're wrong honestly, and doing good science to find out one way or the other.

Far more than can be said of the "Heim Theory" approach. Tho for the last year and a half, my interest has been focused on a third candidate that caught my attention after Woodward endorsed it in 2009.

I have followed Heim Theory as well. My take on the Tajmar experimental results is that Bosonic coupling is probably bogus. However, I think fermionic coupling (the approach that requires the high T fields) is still an open possibility. The earlier papers (prior to 2006) on fermionic coupling seem to be more rigorous in mathematics and theory.

I think I'm the one who coined the terms "fermionic" and "bosonic" coupling.

D&H's stubborn clinging to repudiated results unfortunately taints everything else they touch - it undermines their credibility.

What is the third concept endorsed by Woodward in 2009? Are you talking about wormholes? Or is this something else?

Something else.

http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/

I first heard of this approach in a "Space Show" podcast interview w/Woodward after SPESIF 2009. Woodward endorsed him as doing "real science," which was enough to catch my attention. Two papers presented at SPESIF 2009. The website is a bit splashy, but was produced by the guy's daughter. Cursory investigation of his CV seems to hold up - not a nut in a basement. I have been in correspondence with him for a year and a half, and have never gotten a "fraud" vibe. Might be mistaken, but honestly so.

Some hardware work, but not to the extent of the MLT team.

Unlike Heim, all derivations, mathematical chains of logic and restrictive conditions are explicitly spelled out and available. Foundational postulates are probably the simplest possible I've ever seen, yet it appears to be an original approach to unification and a GUT that ties into productive but semi-rejected work from the Einstein-Heisenberg period in the early 20th century. Far simpler in structure than Heim in terms of parsimony and elegance. Seems to account for most "oddball" findings of current physics. Also fits with some left-field intellectual suspicions voiced by Richard Hull - one of the leading cognoscenti on the old Fusor.net Forums, which partially spawned Talk-Polywell.

...I don't much like the O'Neill cylinder approach. Too big, too much of a one-shot gamble. Slow incremental accumulation of small, individually affordable modules (i.e. "houses" instead of O'Neill "Colosseums") is a much more persuasive approach.

True. Smaller habitats make sense, especially if they can be mass-produced in large numbers.

I think you're missing my meaning. The "habitat" can be as large as an Island 3 or more - in time. But you add inhabited volume incrementally, just as a city expands incrementally. An office complex module here, a sports center module there, a residential development module in the other place. Maybe a slowly expanded central structural spine as "government built infrastructure" for transit, utilities transmission, and general structural strength to the habitat. Not "smaller habitats." Large habitats, built slowly, and organically, just like we've been "growing" cities for millennia.

O'Neill cylinders are like their cousins the "Arcologies" of the '60s and '70s - attempts to "build self-contained, whole cities" in one throw. Which, when you think about it, is insanely expensive, and insanely risky. Maybe you can get everything right the first time with a jumbo jet or even an aircraft carrier - but with an entire city? ROFLMAO.

[MSimon]

Which of the something elses on this page http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/ were you referring to?

[djolds1]

Which of the something elses on this page http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/ were you referring to?

All of it. All ties back into Williams' approach, which he calls Dynamic Theory. Development dates back to at least the '70s - early papers are still available on the LANL servers. Basically the re-derivation of the laws of mechanics, relativity, QM et al starting by using the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics in mathematical form as the foundational postulates. The Second Law being Caratheodory's statement thereof.

Structure is 5D, with mass-density as the fifth dimension.

In comparison to Newton (Euclidean) and Einstein (Riemannian), the background geometry is not arbitrarily assigned, but instead derived (a hybrid Riemannian-Weyl geometry). The Weyl geometry leads directly to the derivation of QM, since Weyl gauge potentials were easily able to replicate the Schrodinger wave equations back in the '20s.

A subtle difference in the electrostatic potential compared to Coulomb's leads to a wide range of potentially productive consequences, and accounts for the Strong Force. Coulomb repulsion switches sign at a critical distance lambda (different for each particle type), becoming attractive at distances <lambda; i.e. the strong force. Neutrons are proton-electron composites (as suspected by Richard Hull) with protons in orbit of electrons.

A time dependence is introduced to gravity, making it weaken over time; Type 1a supernovas are thus no longer constant standard candles (weaker in the past due to lower mass at explosion due to stronger gravity), universal expansion is rejected and dark energy is accounted for. Similarly, time-dependent gravity accounts for observations that require the unseen yet gravitating influence of "Dark Matter" on galactic motion.

Electromagnetism and gravity are inductively coupled.

See also here:

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~pharis/

[djolds1]

Which of the something elses on this page http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/ were you referring to?

As to specifics, I would suggest you start here, and then "graze" the various pdfs

http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/DynamicTheory.html
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~pharis/

if interested.

[kurt9]

Which of the something elses on this page http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/ were you referring to?

As to specifics, I would suggest you start here, and then "graze" the various pdfs

http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/DynamicTheory.html
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~pharis/

if interested.

I downloaded the pdf book. I need time to digest this.

You say Woodward thinks this theory is valid?

[djolds1]

You say Woodward thinks this theory is valid?

He credited it as "real science" in the podcast. I'd need to go back to find the precise quote. Woodward has his own interpretations that are in many ways diametrically opposed to this approach. Reactions transmitted backward in time, inertial reactions against the entirety of the universe, etc.

[GIThruster]

I've been in conversations with both Woodward and Pharis together and Jim has been plain he neither affirms nor denies this version of 5D theory. It's not inconsistent with nor required by Woodward's work. Same is true of Higgs--Woodward's work isn't affected by positive nor negative findings in either of these fields.

I can also say that one of the big three aero corps has done some testing and says they have experimentally verified some of Pharis' theory. I can't answer any questions beyond that, however.

[djolds1]

I've been in conversations with both Woodward and Pharis together and Jim has been plain he neither affirms nor denies this version of 5D theory. It's not inconsistent with nor required by Woodward's work. Same is true of Higgs--Woodward's work isn't affected by positive nor negative findings in either of these fields.

First hand impressions? My correspondence has been all virtual.

I can also say that one of the big three aero corps has done some testing and says they have experimentally verified some of Pharis' theory. I can't answer any questions beyond that, however.

Mr. Williams has stated as much in public writings.

[GIThruster]

First hand impressions? My correspondence has been all virtual.

Perhaps I should have said "correspondence" rather than "conversations". Our talks have always been in email, though I have had several conversations with top engineers at the previously mentioned aero corp who were working with Pharis' theory.

Williams strikes me as a relatively conservative man, not the type at all prone to bragging. I'm sure that just as anyone in his place, he has some confidence in his own work, but he comes off as fairly modest and even humble. None of this says much about the quality of his work, but at the least he's not a theatrical sort nor a pretender.