Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666013 times)

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1260 on: 04/04/2011 09:44 AM »
.
Unfortunately, it can be shown that in GR this "Sum for inertia" of the effects of the individual accelerations cannot exactly duplicate this effect, mainly because in GR the gravitational constant G is fixed, but the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed. This means that either this neat Mach's Principle model is wrong or GR is wrong. (I personally suspect that GR is an approximation which is very accurate at the solar system scale but very inaccurate at larger scales)."

Is this accurate? If Dennis Sciama's model is correct, then it invalidates GR? Can someone explain?

Hard to say, I have no idea what explanation this comment is referring to by "it can be shown."

I think in Woodward's derivation that the statement "the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed" would be dismissed pretty easily -- in fact I think IIRC effectively the distribution of the masses in the universe is fixed, due to the increasing effect of the greater amount of mass at greater distances. So in other words, although it is NOT fixed, it is close enough for GR to see no difference.

In fact it's parallel to the argument that first-time viewers of ME theory often raise, that if inertia was gravitational in nature, you would see the effect of local masses (such as the earth, Jupiter, or the Sun,) very easily because they are so close. In fact Woodward shows via calculation that, counter-intuitively, the local masses actually have a 9-to-10 orders of magnitude smaller effect than the  "distant far-off active mass," (i.e. all other mass inside the observeable universe horizon), despite their much farther average distance, due to the (literally) overwhelming mass differential of the rest of the mass.

So basically from the viewpoint of any local mass, "G" is effectively fixed. There's just no way to observe a difference. So GR is valid even in an ME universe.

Since inertia is due to gravity, it is easier to say that inertia is a general macro average resistance to acceleration by far off active mass, while we ALREADY see resistance to acceleration by local masses like the sun, earth, moon, jupiter, etc that is ALSO due to their gravity, but we correctly attribute that resistance to acceleration to their gravitational influence, otherwise known in the rocket equation as "gravitational losses".

The earth of course is the greatest gravitational attractor ON earths surface, but the moon imposes a tidal influence, as does the sun (about 1/3 of the moon's influence) as does Jupiter (I think about 1/100th or so of the Moon's influence, could be less).

This is why the three body problem is so difficult, though.

It would be interesting to compare two rocket launches, one when the moon is on the horizon, the other while it is overhead, with the same fuel mass and payload mass, to see what the orbital altitude winds up being. Do mission planners account for this already?
« Last Edit: 04/04/2011 09:46 AM by mlorrey »
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1261 on: 04/05/2011 07:42 PM »
http://www.angryflower.com/woodwa.html

Hilarious!

Captures the current 'state of the Mass fluctuation evidence' perfectly, no matter which side you come down on theoretically.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
« Last Edit: 04/23/2011 12:20 AM by marsavian »

Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3761
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1263 on: 04/23/2011 04:17 AM »
http://www.angryflower.com/woodwa.html

Hilarious!

Captures the current 'state of the Mass fluctuation evidence' perfectly, no matter which side you come down on theoretically.

http://angryflower.com/experi.html

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1264 on: 04/24/2011 09:57 PM »
85 years ago, the same cartoon would be made depicting the traditionalists led by Einstein against the HERETICS of quantum mechanics like Heinsenberg, Bohr, etc.


Offline UncleMatt

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1265 on: 05/01/2011 03:03 AM »
It sure would be nice to have an update on efforts with the MLT thruster...

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1266 on: 05/01/2011 04:44 AM »
It sure would be nice to have an update on efforts with the MLT thruster...

Woodward is finalizing a paper on the most recent experiments using an older thruster design as part of the graduate work of one of his students...
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1267 on: 05/01/2011 07:09 PM »

Woodward is finalizing a paper on the most recent experiments using an older thruster design as part of the graduate work of one of his students...


How recent is recent?

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1268 on: 05/02/2011 01:53 PM »
I still think Woodward and his "followers" (like Paul March) should just drop any mention of propellantless propulsion.

this is a scientific dogma area. If they only investigated the mass fluctuation phenomena, etc, without ANY MENTION of propellantless propulsion, they would have much more support.

Offline Giovanni DS

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
    • ChibiOS/RT Project
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1269 on: 05/02/2011 02:48 PM »
Science and dogma in the same sentence?

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1270 on: 05/02/2011 03:02 PM »
I still think Woodward and his "followers" (like Paul March) should just drop any mention of propellantless propulsion.

this is a scientific dogma area. If they only investigated the mass fluctuation phenomena, etc, without ANY MENTION of propellantless propulsion, they would have much more support.

It's too late for that. The best they can do now is continue experimentation and hope that the evidence becomes compelling enough for other scientists to take notice.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1271 on: 05/03/2011 01:30 AM »
Science and dogma in the same sentence?

yes, and its quite common. Of course, scientific dogma IS bent after its pushed enough, but the resistance is high enough sometimes to novelties, that research into a given subject will run into a wall, simply because resources will not be available, careers can be destroyed, etc.


Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3761
  • Liked: 469
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1272 on: 05/03/2011 02:01 AM »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8097
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2878
  • Likes Given: 686
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1273 on: 05/03/2011 02:05 AM »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.

First of all, the quote is "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence", not proof, and while it's a nifty soundbite, I think it is grossly overused.  Extraordinary claims require just as much evidence as any other claim.. by saying you demand more evidence for stuff you are skeptical about than you do for stuff that you've already accepted as fact then the problem is with you, not the person making the claim.

Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1274 on: 05/03/2011 01:04 PM »
And second of all, I thought that the quote was: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".   But I agree, in principle; that evidence should be exactly the same validity for both ordinary and extraordinary claims.   The "extraordinary" thing about the evidence would be slapping your forehead and going, "Why didn't I think of that?"  Or:  "It all seems so clear now..."
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1275 on: 05/03/2011 02:51 PM »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.

much of the evidence for quantum mechanics extraordinary claims only came much later...

also, how exactly can you provide extraordinary evidence for stuff that requires extraordinary money to make???



imagine if noone believed in the possibility of controlled net-gain fusion. There would be no money available to fusion projects and thus it wouldnt be proven.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1276 on: 05/03/2011 08:35 PM »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.

What is an extraordinary claim, however? It is one that is in violation with current accepted physical theory. Mach Effect theory does not violate current accepted physical theory, it relies upon general relativity and has a valid published pedigree beyond Woodward going back through Sciama. Therefore, it is not an extraordinary claim. It remains such only to people who continue to think Newton is the be-all/end-all of physics.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8097
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2878
  • Likes Given: 686
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1277 on: 05/03/2011 10:14 PM »
much of the evidence for quantum mechanics extraordinary claims only came much later...

Nonsense.. everything that came out of quantum mechanics was the result of experiments saying what we knew was wrong.  The double slit experiment is one you can do with polarizing filters on your kitchen top and trying to explain it before the era of quantum mechanics would have been quite a head scratch.  That's the most valuable form of evidence you can ever put forward, easily repeatable and unexplainable in the current framework. 
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1278 on: 05/03/2011 11:14 PM »
While I do disagree with the application of Carl Sagan's quote, I would say that many of us want to see better evidence for the effect. Scaling up thrust levels to the Newton range would do it for me.

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8097
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2878
  • Likes Given: 686
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1279 on: 05/03/2011 11:21 PM »
It wouldn't for me.. it might help though.. all you have to do is provide linear motion and sufficient description so others can reproduce the experiment.  Then we'll have an unexplained phenomena.  Higher thrust would mean you can more easily overcome friction.. then you wouldn't need rails or tethers or some other form of friction reducing apparatus.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Tags: