Hi Paul. I hope you are not too nationalistic because I am brazilian and I would like to take part in the exploration of the solar system (and beyond) hopefully using the M-E propulsion system . Not that Earth nationalities will have much importance once the final frontier is open.Anyway, technical questions aside... looking back, do you guys have any regret about ever mentioning in papers (or even in internet forums!) the possible APPLICATION of the M-E effect as a propellantless field propulsion system? Has such an "outrageous" idea affected support and even worse, funding on the research?Because clearly, you guys are researching a theoretical effect that regardless the applications, if proved true, could mean a Nobel.While its true that propellantless propulsion would be one of its main benefits, I guess that simply by mentioning it, lots of serious scientists stop reading at the first line, even before trying to understand the underlining principles. Ive seen it happen in a lot of forums (even this one), dont know if it would be really any different in the larger academical community.So... how do you see reactions to the research? Do you think they would be less extreme if the research never mentioned the possible implications and solely focused on the effect itself? Do you and Dr Woodward team have any sort of timeline? IF the effect proves to be real, do you think we could be having real world applications of it before 2030 (when we should be going to Mars according to recent plans)?
The Mach Effect is pretty standard in the Standard Model of modern physics. People who scoff at the theory generally are people who really aren't physicists and slept through that part of their university physics classes, and who cannot generally visualize the concept that wrt inertia, the conservation of momentum is a relationship between an object and every other object in the universe.Its amusing the sort of retorts one sees. One fellow claimed inertia was proven by Einstein to be caused by distortions in the fabric of space time created by mass... which obviously demonstrated he was confusing inertia and gravity.
Lubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist...
Lubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist, has had several diatribes where he has described belief in the Mach Effect as the source of inertia as the GRT equivalent of belief in the luminiferous aether, on the basis that it violates the fundamental understanding of GRT that gravity propogates, like all other forces, at the speed of light.
Can't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.
Quote from: cuddihy on 05/11/2010 04:37 pmLubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist......and vehement skeptic of anything non-conventional. You need people like him in the discussion, but if you always listen to him, you'll never advance the state of science. Not surprised at all he doesn't like the M-E effect, as it messes up his pretty notions of locality.Can't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.
what??? I had not heard about that!! Fantastic... I am crossing my fingers... any timeline?
Quote from: jimgagnon on 05/11/2010 05:23 pmCan't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.what??? I had not heard about that!! Fantastic... I am crossing my fingers... any timeline?
Anybody with a common interest in the exploration and colonization of the universe by humanity, and for the betterment of same in my book already has a ticket to ride the M-E express! That is the major reason that Jim W and I have kept the communications lines on this M-E work open to forums like NASASpaceflight.com.
Woodward has set forth a very rational, "no new physics" approach to his "origins of inertia" and Mach-Effect conjectures based on Dennis Sciama's initial work in the 1950s and 60s on the origins of inertia question,
Lorentz invariance, SR and GRT, with the last three elements being accepted theoretical physics constructs by most practicing physicists. The only thing new that Jim W derived was the gravinertial transient terms that are hidden away in Newton's third law,
and the recent possibility of reworking the particle physics “Standard Model” into a rational and non-contradictory theoretical construct that finally takes into account the origins of inertial mass for elementary particles for the first time. These M-E gravinertial transient reaction terms can be as large, or larger than the forces that create them. And they appear to be engineerable for propulsion and other yet to be determined purposes as well. Getting to the M-E demonstration phase though has taken much longer than one would have liked due to the lack of reliable M-E analysis tools, engineering implementation details, and available time, but until we can float an M-E test article into the conference room, or at least run it across the air-hockey table under RC control, we are stuck pushing the M-E cart forward using our own resources on a time available basis. BTW, Jim W. is building up a new more robust shuttler test article as we speak, and I'm building up a new Mach-Lorentz Thruster (MLT) prototype based on some N4700 COTS caps that should produce at least an order of magnitude higher thrust than my last successful test article, the Mach-2MHz, which generated up to 0.5 gram-force, (~5.0 milli-Newton). As to when these new test articles will see first light, my guess is sometime this summer, barring unforeseen time sinks at work for me, or health issues with Jim. (Jim W. is currently in remission from his lung cancer at the moment. Let's us hope that it stays that way...!)
Quote from: jimgagnon on 05/11/2010 05:23 pmQuote from: cuddihy on 05/11/2010 04:37 pmLubos Motls (motls.blogspot.com), a very competent physicist......and vehement skeptic of anything non-conventional. You need people like him in the discussion, but if you always listen to him, you'll never advance the state of science. Not surprised at all he doesn't like the M-E effect, as it messes up his pretty notions of locality.Can't wait for Stardrive and Woodward to get that air-table demo working, just to watch people like Motls squirm.of course I wasn't suggesting that Motls is right about that, merely correcting mlorrey in his assertion that the Mach Effect as a souce of inertia is accepted or that the critics don't know physics.
Woodward's latest paper pretty much demonstrates that general relativity itself depends on Mach's Principle to function. If Motl took the time to actually read it, he may change his mind.
Quote from: mlorrey on 05/13/2010 02:06 amWoodward's latest paper pretty much demonstrates that general relativity itself depends on Mach's Principle to function. If Motl took the time to actually read it, he may change his mind.Which paper is that?
...no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked....
Quote from: cuddihy on 05/11/2010 04:37 pm...no alternative of what exactly causes inertia is ever proffered. The question is never asked....I don't think that inertia is understood just yet.Per:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia#Source_of_Inertia