since GoatGuy didnt came here, and PaulMarch didnt went there, I am bridgeing the two topics by copying and pasteing the arguments in the two threads. I invited GoatGuy to this thread, since it would be better than all this copy/pasteQuote from: GoatGuyI'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue. If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(k²P) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really. Most would not consider that as a 'drawback', but reality always has a few wrinkles-- after all, the theoretical physics tells us that all our energy needs should be easily met by nuclear fission alone, yet we choose less efficient methods for most needs all the same-- no one really knows what engineering difficulties might present themselves with trying to use ME to generate power.It's not by itself an argument that it doesn't work though.QuoteNOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic. OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation. So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.
I'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue. If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(k²P) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really.
NOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic. OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation. So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.
Folks:{snip}Now it is only when the M-E wormhole term's asymmetrical negative going mass fluctuations become dominate that the M-E device can start to harvest the gravinertial (G/I) field energy of the causally connected uninverse by using the leverage supplied by the 1/2 cycle to 1/2 cycle asymmetry in these negative going mass fluctuations that the M-E wormhole term supplies. There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field. However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...
It's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.
If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.
QuoteIf you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.The equations he assumes are valid are valid. It's simple Newtonian mechanics, applied not to the dielectric but to the entire spacecraft. In fact, the thruster can be assumed to be off at both endpoints of his analysis, so it literally can't affect the equations at all. All this talk about back-EMF and mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.
There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field. However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...
Quote from: Star-Drive on 02/22/2011 04:24 am There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field. However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is entirely your own speculation as to the mechanism that would actually transfer momenergy from the dieletric to the rest of the universe. I don't believe Woodward has ever said one way or the other what mechanism he thinks exists for basic "less than 100%" mass fluctuations OR for the wormhole term. Correct?Also, thanks for posting that paper. It really puts a bow on a lot of the criticisms. It's exactly the "from the basics" exploration of mass fluctuations and what an experiment would actually present that I had been looking for.I never thought before about the problems of a speed-of-light mass fluctuation propagation vs. the speed-of-sound propagation of an oscillating acceleration like a PZT stack, but it makes perfect sense.
There seems to be a lot of unnecessary handwaving going on here, and I suspect it may be damaging the reputation of the M-E effort. I'm sorry, but...Star-Drive, either you're wrong or I've utterly misunderstood how M-E thrusters are supposed to behave in a practical sense. Please read carefully:It doesn't matter at all what regime the thruster is operating in. It doesn't matter how the thruster works, so long as it does. If it can thrust indefinitely without expending propellant or experiencing significant thrust decay, then eventually, the kinetic energy of the vehicle will exceed the total energy input to the thruster, because the former is proportional to v^2 and the latter is proportional to v.This can happen because the drive is reacting off the rest of the universe, and that is what GoatGuy is missing. That is how the drive must work in order to conserve momentum, and if it does work this way, then it can be shown that (a) momentum is conserved universally, (b) energy can be conserved universally depending on how exactly the device is supposed to work (if it does work, I rather suspect it will be in such a way as to conserve energy...), and (c) the thruster can, in principle, be used to harvest energy from the rest of the universe, appearing locally to be an over-unity device.The example could just as easily be cast as a flywheel with a set of M-E thrusters on the edge, rotating it. At some steady-state angular velocity, the power required to run the thrusters could be completely supplied by a generator hooked up to the flywheel. Past that speed, you get net power. It doesn't matter what the thrust efficiency of the thrusters is; as long as it's above zero it is possible, in principle, to specify sufficiently large values of radius and angular velocity for the flywheel such that hooking it to a generator would yield more power than the thrusters consume.The key question, I think, is this: what is the thruster pushing on? What is the relative velocity of the Far-Off Active Mass? On Earth, if you drive a car you're pushing on the ground to go faster, and it's very efficient, but it's not over-unity because the ground is at a set reference velocity and doesn't move to help you along. But if an M-E thruster is pushing on distant matter, there's no substantial difference between 0 km/s and 1 km/s, because the matter in the universe is flying all over the place. And it seems to me that in order to achieve a measurable thrust efficiency, an M-E thruster would have to preferentially interact with matter near its own velocity. Any way you slice it, the conditions seen by the thruster do not change markedly as the vehicle accelerates. In other words, the ground moves with the car.Quote from: cuddihy on 02/22/2011 12:41 amIt's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.Yeah, basically.QuoteIf you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.The equations he assumes are valid are valid. It's simple Newtonian mechanics, applied not to the dielectric but to the entire spacecraft. In fact, the thruster can be assumed to be off at both endpoints of his analysis, so it literally can't affect the equations at all. All this talk about back-EMF and mass fluctuations has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.
If the thruster is interacting with "Far Off Active Mass", what is the impact on that mass?Cosmologists postulate a "dark energy" that began accelerating expansion of the universe about 5 billion years ago (IIRC). Could that be evidence that some advanced civilisation began exploiting M-E to such an extent that it affected the universe at a cosmological level?cheers, Martin
This is just as speculative, but Paul mentioned in one of his presentations that this G/I field could be used for instantaneous communications which are not electromagnetic in nature. If this is true, then it could explain Fermi's paradox (The great silence).
Quote from: aceshigh on 02/21/2011 06:32 pmsince GoatGuy didnt came here, and PaulMarch didnt went there, I am bridgeing the two topics by copying and pasteing the arguments in the two threads. I invited GoatGuy to this thread, since it would be better than all this copy/pasteQuote from: GoatGuyI'm not sure I should thank you for 'cutting and pasting', but your intentions are pure, no doubt.Got something for you - the mass fluctuations absolutely do not matter external to the Mach Effect system. It would be one thing if the mass of the ME components was diminishing, and remaining smaller/diminished after the driver is turned off. Then - all would be well. Mass, converted to energy. If the mass of the components return to their original mass, then ... what happens to all the conserved kinetic energy that was imparted to them? Do they suddenly decelerate, again conserving the energy invested in the device? If yes ... then again "we're good", and I'll stop debating the issue. If not - if the device retains its velocity (which is at the very core of the purported and imagined uses for the drive, should it ever become practical), and moreover, if the host apparatus ("space ship", or "flywheel", or "lab bench pendulum" or whatever) retains the kinetic energy imparted to it at constant acceleration for constant ME device input power, then after exactly 2M/(k²P) seconds, the whole thing - space ship, flywheel, maglev train, you name it - the whole thing has more kinetic energy than was invested in the ME propulsion device itself.Thereafter, one can tap the whole for real, useable power, and we can get rid of virtually all nuclear, thermodynamic, hydroelectric and climactic (wind, sun) power sources. Really. Most would not consider that as a 'drawback', but reality always has a few wrinkles-- after all, the theoretical physics tells us that all our energy needs should be easily met by nuclear fission alone, yet we choose less efficient methods for most needs all the same-- no one really knows what engineering difficulties might present themselves with trying to use ME to generate power.It's not by itself an argument that it doesn't work though.QuoteNOTE - to those who continue to cite that "Goatguy doesn't like..." this is not the case at all. I'm merely taking an exception to one huge - absolutely titanically huge - problem. Constant acceleration, regardless of velocity, for constant power invested in the Mach Effect propulsion device. I don't care if it has gerbils, spheres of unobtanium, plates of basalt, or extra-dark roast Sumatra coffee beans inside, and whether they change mass, turn colors, sing Dixie or have dark sexual liasons inside. Viewed as a "black box", the box violates the underlying principle of conservation (and equivalence) of energy - electrical and kinetic. OR SOMEONE will just up and admit that the device has a special property that makes it seem like it is violating the energy/kinetic dynamic ... but really it is (as someone else said) "catching the gravinertial force that pervades the whole universe, like a sail on a sailboat catches the wind". Very eloquent and expressive! If this is so, then is the "wind" directional? It should be! Indeed, it should be easily measurable to have diurnal and seasonal, and latitudinal and longitudinal variation. So again, instead of continually citing that GoatGuy is bringing up long-disproven (or simply battered-to-death) arguments, just take it on one more time, from the ground-floor up, so that all our good readers can see the debate, instead of the results of some other debate. The results won't be the same.It's much simpler than that goatguy--the statement of Mach effect is that it is getting energy from the background gravinertial field of the observeable universe. That is the description, period. There is no way to describe it in smaller boundaries. So refusing to allow that it is changing the gravinertial potential of the rest of the universe ( as Woodward says of the Far Off Active Matter) is the point of disagreement. If you want to draw the system box smaller than the physics says you ought, then fine, but you're doing opinion, not science.If you can tell me how to derive the equations you assume are valid without pulling m out of the integral, I'll take a second look. Till then, you're pontificating without evidence.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 02/22/2011 04:24 amFolks:{snip}Now it is only when the M-E wormhole term's asymmetrical negative going mass fluctuations become dominate that the M-E device can start to harvest the gravinertial (G/I) field energy of the causally connected uninverse by using the leverage supplied by the 1/2 cycle to 1/2 cycle asymmetry in these negative going mass fluctuations that the M-E wormhole term supplies. There is still a lot of debate as to where this M-E wormhole term derived energy comes from, but it appears to be wrapped up in the structure of the subatomic particles that make up the accelerated dielectric in the M-E engine and their interactions with the G/I field. However we are effectively talking about transient amounts of 100% conversion of mass into energy (E= m*c^2) during the peak of each negative going mass excursion...So let me see if I understand this correctly: you're saying that every mass turns into a tiny bit of negative mass every once in a while? This is the "negative going mass excursion"?
Ok, I'll bite: how? Gravity and mass fluctuations propagate at light speed. The 'faster than light' observed effect of inertial reaction is caused by the fluctuations propagating fwd& bkwds through time along the lightcone, an effect that only works because the initial mass and the inertial reaction are symmetrical. And by that I mean they originate in the same mass at the same location in space-time. So how does this in any way allow FTL communication that is not symmetrical?
lol, it seems you wrote it directly to GoatGuy, expecting me to copy your answer and post there. Gee, you could cut me the trouble and post directly there, haha.