Quote from: birchoff on 09/26/2016 01:42 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 01:26 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/26/2016 01:10 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 08:39 am...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: seehttps://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.Quote from: Stormbringer on 09/25/2016 05:55 pm...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect. Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea. Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?your recollection is correct. I remember the same comment. However, Woodward was never actually against the EmDrive. He was just against the theory, Dr. White's i believe, that was being used to explain it. I would have to troll through the em drive thread but I believe this was relayed to us by Paul March in one of his ghostly appearances on the forum.Yes, the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation theory in particular was the one he disagreed with I believe. Also, in his audio interview on the Space Show about a year or so ago, which I listened to, he was quite clear in his disagreement with the above. I just find it exciting that after all of the focus on the EMDrive, and the apparent disregard for Woodward's work during this time (this thread received almost no updates for months on end compared to the multitude of EMDrive threads), things seem to be going full circle, back to his Mach Effect theories once more.What I'm trying to ascertain is whether this is indeed the case, or whether I am misinterpreting the latest developments.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 01:26 pmQuote from: Rodal on 09/26/2016 01:10 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 08:39 am...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: seehttps://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.Quote from: Stormbringer on 09/25/2016 05:55 pm...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect. Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea. Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?your recollection is correct. I remember the same comment. However, Woodward was never actually against the EmDrive. He was just against the theory, Dr. White's i believe, that was being used to explain it. I would have to troll through the em drive thread but I believe this was relayed to us by Paul March in one of his ghostly appearances on the forum.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/26/2016 01:10 pmQuote from: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 08:39 am...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: seehttps://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.Quote from: Stormbringer on 09/25/2016 05:55 pm...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect. Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea. Am I interpreting the above correctly? Is the suggestion that the Mach Effect was the underlying cause of the thrust signatures all along, and that the EMdrive theorists' search for alternative explanations might merely lead them back to the Mach Effect in the end?If so, I believe this is something Prof. Woodward alluded to some years ago. Rather than saying that the EMdrive results were completely flawed, I seem to recall him suggesting originally that if there is any thrust there, it might be due to accidental Mach Effects being generated.Are we approaching some kind of consensus among those involved in studying both phenomena that this might indeed be the case?
Quote from: M.E.T. on 09/26/2016 08:39 am...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.Perhaps the same mechanism is responsible for both the EM Drive and the piezoelectric/electrostrictive stacks tested by Woodward/Fearn: seehttps://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588165#msg1588165https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1588214#msg1588214for Dr. Montillet's paper explaining the EM Drive's acceleration as being due to the Mach/Sciama/Woodward gravitational effect.Quote from: Stormbringer on 09/25/2016 05:55 pm...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.I don't know what was his opinion previously, but the above statement is incorrect as of the Estes Park Breakthrough Workshop, as Prof. Woodward was agreeable to Dr. Montillet's explanation of the EM Drive as being due to the Mach effect. Actually Prof. Woodward proposed an experiment (that a superconducting EM Drive's performance will be less than expected because of the much reduced skin depth) to test this idea.
...could we, in the EM drive and Mach Effect Thruster, potentially be looking at two unrelated mechanisms that might both eventually prove to have value in the area of thrust generation?I would find this a rather remarkable development, if so.
...Woodward does not think his Mach drive and the EM drive operate on the same principle. As of the 1st edition of his book he was skeptical of the EM drive as being anything other than experimental error of some sort. Of course with the cross fertilization that has happened since then (E.G; the SSI conference) he may have changed his opinion on that point. The conference attendees would know if that is still the case or not.
I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 12/31/2016 03:04 pmI've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.Best, Paul M.Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411
Quote from: sanman on 01/01/2017 09:55 amQuote from: Star-Drive on 12/31/2016 03:04 pmI've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.Best, Paul M.Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411Sanman:"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"In short, no he does not. Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue. Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?" Drum roll please...Best, Paul M.
Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Sanman:"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"In short, no he does not. Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue. Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?" Drum roll please...Best, Paul M.
I think that Woodward subscribes to Einstein's 1920 interpretation of the aether:http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.htmlQuote from: EinsteinSince according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.Bold added for emphasis
Quote from: Star-Drive on 01/03/2017 02:04 pmQuote from: sanman on 01/01/2017 09:55 amQuote from: Star-Drive on 12/31/2016 03:04 pmI've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.Best, Paul M.Well, if he's from the Mach-Einstein relativistic school/perspective, then he'll similarly distrust the quantum "spooky action" approach, which lies completely outside of that school/ perspective.I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?http://www.ibtimes.com/neutron-star-provides-first-observational-evidence-vacuum-birefringence-empty-space-2454411Sanman:"I'm curious - does Prof Woodward believe in the Quantum Vacuum itself?"In short, no he does not. Jim's view is that the vacuum is a pure void with no structure over than GRT based spacetime itself and that is as far is Dr. Woodward is willing to go in that venue. Of course the next question one should ask is, "What is spacetime?" Drum roll please...Best, Paul M.I think that Woodward subscribes to Einstein's 1920 interpretation of the aether:http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.htmlQuote from: EinsteinSince according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter.Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion. The contrast between ether and matter would fade away, and, through the general theory of relativity, the whole of physics would become a complete system of thought, like geometry, kinematics, and the theory of gravitation. An exceedingly ingenious attempt in this direction has been made by the mathematician H Weyl; but I do not believe that his theory will hold its ground in relation to reality. Further, in contemplating the immediate future of theoretical physics we ought not unconditionally to reject the possibility that the facts comprised in the quantum theory may set bounds to the field theory beyond which it cannot pass.Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.Bold added for emphasis
So just a question regarding the relationship between Mach Effect and the whole "distant masses of the rest of universe" thing -- why would the oscillation of the masses in the apparatus produce an instantaneous effect in terms of motion, when the rest of the universe that the apparatus is supposed to be interacting with is so distant? Doesn't Mach's Principle take into account lightspeed delay when interaction is happening across vast distances?
A first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore. Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges. The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
I agree our brain is not wired to visualize two simultaneous events counter-propagating in time. But the absorber theory doesn't violate causality because the advanced wave never propagate before (said in our own chronological order) the event that triggered the departure of the retarded wave.There is a concrete image given by Woodward in his book "Making Starships and Stargates" allowing to grasp the mathematical idea a bit, that I wrote in this post in the EM drive thread:Quote from: flux_capacitorA first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore. Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges. The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 01/06/2017 12:30 pmI agree our brain is not wired to visualize two simultaneous events counter-propagating in time. But the absorber theory doesn't violate causality because the advanced wave never propagate before (said in our own chronological order) the event that triggered the departure of the retarded wave.There is a concrete image given by Woodward in his book "Making Starships and Stargates" allowing to grasp the mathematical idea a bit, that I wrote in this post in the EM drive thread:Quote from: flux_capacitorA first image to understand would be filming a sequence where a rock is thrown in the middle of a pond, making concentric ripples on the water propagating towards the shore. Running the sequence backwards (thinking it as seeing events running backward in time) we then observe concentric waves propagating from the shore towards the center of the pond, where a rock emerges. The thing to understand is that advanced waves coming back from the future never propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves.But it seems to hint at "pre-determination" though -- that wave is heading "backward in time" toward you, the observer -- meaning that it's coming backwards from the future.You're saying that's okay, just as long as you haven't experienced any of these events yet, that they can keep moving back towards you from the farther future into your immediate future, where they will then combine to create your present.But from a causality perspective, something that hasn't happened yet is reacting to my present-moment action -- ie. the distant mass of the universe is already interacting with something I have yet to do -- moving on an intercept course with it.
I could be wrong here... but I am wondering if the model you're applying in your question is really the problem here.It feels like your question presupposes that pre-determination requires that actions define the space of possible reactions available to the universe.
I would argue another model would be, what if the universe already has defined every possible action that could ever be taken within it. It doesn't know or need to know the order of those actions. It doesn't need to know when or how far away those actions are. It has simply defined that only these set of actions will be allowed for the lifetime of the universe. If that is true, then one potential answer to your question about pre-determination; would be that the chiefly distant matter of the universe is always emitting advanced waves of every possible configuration. Then when you trigger an event, that event emits a specific retarded wave that matches a specifically configured advanced wave. Thereby bringing the effect the event is supposed to trigger into existence.It is in a way a kind of pre-determination. but I would argue this kind of pre-determination is required for the scientific method to work. The system has a finite set of possibilities and is aware of all the possibilities it can support. It just can't pre-determine which possibility it will see next.