For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently)
Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles.
Even if momentum is conserved at a distance as you suggest, nothing else has ever done that.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 06/19/2009 06:19 am"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.This just isn't true. For two particles in inertial frames (assuming they have not been accelerated recently), their fields extend infinitely far from the particles themselves. Because relatively shows us that any two inertial frames are equivalent, we can choose a frame that follows the proton or the ion. There is nothing special about the frame of the proton. In either case, the field of the particle we are approaching imparts force on us, but the field of the particle we are traveling with travels with the particle, and imparts force on the other particle. Apart from the already dangerous practice of trying to determine what happens first at relativistic velocities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity) let's examine a frame that follows the center of mass of the particles. In this frame, the proton travels in from the left, and the ion in from the right. Both of them slow down at the same time (although not the same rate as the velocity of the heavier particle is already slower than that of the proton so that they have equal momentums) as momentum is transferred through the fields of the two particles to the other. Once again, there is nothing delayed about it.
"permittivity" and "permeability" are both used to describe the vacuum WRT magnetic fields.One of the objections against rocket motors in space was that they "don't have anything to push against." Picture a charged particle (a proton), rushing through space. It encounters a big positively charge particle (Fe3+?) directly in its path.What happens is that the proton is nudged aside *before* the Fe3+ ion feels the effects. If you think of the ions as being nuts embedded in balls of (weightless) jelly you get the idea. The momentum is stored in the jelly before the nuts (and the rest of the jelly) feel it. Exactly the same thing happens with the G/I field except on a much longer time scale.
However, if I understand them correctly, they (Woodward, March, et al) are also claiming that there is a different term in the equation they use called the wormhole term, or something similar. If they can use this term, they can "extract" energy from the universe to power their device in excess of the power they provide, unless I'm mistaken.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 06/18/2009 05:41 pmLampy:The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water. If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away? And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there?? The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system. The devil IS in the details! And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question: There is nothing whatsoever delayed about submarine propulsion. Momentum is immediately conserved as the water expelled has the same momentum as that imparted to the sub. As the wake moves downstream away from the sub, it entrains more water, lowering velocity, but the momentum is still there. Eventually the momentum is transferred to the Earth as viscous shear forces or stagnation at the landmass. Throughout this entire process momentum is always locally conserved. Momentum is always locally conserved with the lizard as well. The lizard is in effect a pulsejet pointed slightly down and to the rear. The momentum imparted by the foot impact travels down and back in a wake that eventually imparts its momentum to the earth, just like the sub wake. There is nothing astonishing or "by your bootstraps" about it.
Lampy:The delayed conservation of momentum in the cosmological gravinertial field problem is very much akin to the case of the submarine's propeller back-reacting off the expelled water. If the sub is in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, how long does the expelled water from the prop take to interact with the crust of the Earth if the water flux is directed horizontally to the surface of the ocean where the nearest land could be thousands of miles away? And how washed out will that water flux become before it gets there?? The time lags, velocity magnitudes and amount of water participating in the propeller's conservation dance with the Earth will be very much different than when this water flux started at the prop.BTW, I like your Jesus Lizard example, for it makes for a great visual example of describing this "by your bootstraps" propulsion system. The devil IS in the details! And just for fun find below a U-Tube URL to the Lizard in question:
When I say I'm working on the math, in regard to the M-E effect, it doesn't mean I'm working on the math to prove it wrong, or to advance the subject. It means that I'm trying to understand it. One could say I'm "pretending" in my intent, but that would be a ludicrous extrapolation implying some sort of telepathic theory. This stuff is way over my head, and I don't get it. My ego tells me: "Keep studying, you can get it!" If ever I do get it, I'll modify my Segway with a M-E driver and....However, the analogy about an object falling and not expelling propellant is not the definition of work. What we all want to understand is how an object rises and does not expel propellant. Same with the slingshot manuever, which can only happen after the object is made to rise out of a gravity well. As to the extraction of energy, the planetary body slows its rate of revolution and momentum is conserved.We understand that magnetism and gravity "act at a distance". The new GRT tweak here is that inertia also acts at a distance. So I ask blazotron: "Is that what you're asking as well?" The submarine and the lizard use local inertia, whose center of gravity is very close to the sub and lizard. The M-E effect purports to use the center of gravity of the universe to perform the same action of pushing.So here's another question for Star-Drive: Blazotron says that "momentum is immediately conserved", which was my understanding. Are you also saying that momentum has a speed of propagation, and it is the speed of light?
I'm still working on the math, but I want to add an observation. Part of the problem with M-E as reported here in this thread are the fairly small forces compared to the power required to activate them. Presumably this can be remedied by better understanding from further experimentation, which is fine, for the moment. Now I expect criticism for not metioning thrust efficiency in the proper units, but such a rocket, as currently envisioned, will require a reactor to generate the electicity to realize this effect. Paul March is claiming to be able to convert electricity directly into forward momentum with the use of the M-E driver. The main benefit is that this reactor will weigh substantially less (x orders of magnitude?) than a chemical rocket of the same thrust. And that would be a wonderful improvement, if it can be achieved. And converting energy into momentum is one way of conserving momentum, right?However, if I understand them correctly, they (Woodward, March, et al) are also claiming that there is a different term in the equation they use called the wormhole term, or something similar. If they can use this term, they can "extract" energy from the universe to power their device in excess of the power they provide, unless I'm mistaken.