Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666006 times)

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1340 on: 06/28/2011 12:58 AM »
Anyone read reddit?

Found a thread on Woodward's recent claim of consistent and reversible 1 micronewton thrust. Of course, redditer's are quite critical of any non-mainstream physics, so here's a few I found:

"Mach effect: The math is wrong. Simply put, they make a mistake in their assumptions for the underlying physical model. All results they predict are then tainted by that.
The problem is that they assume local non-conservation of mass-energy. This leads to non-conservation of momentum, which is their "amazing" conclusion.
If you force mass-energy to be conserved by using a more accurate formulation, then the prediction is that nothing interesting happens. (Just use the electromagnetic stress tensor... it isn't hard.) In the light of this, their results are highly consistent with noise. Remember, ultrasound and static electricity are a pain to shield from. Even a small amount of leakage totally ruins the experiment.

It is also something ruled out by Noether's theorem. A device would have to warp space-time significantly in order for it to happen. (i.e. gravitational-wave rocket from black hole - black hole mergers.)"

Had to look up what Noether's theorem is on wiki:

"Noether's (first) theorem states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. The theorem was proved by German mathematician Emmy Noether in 1915 and published in 1918. The action of a physical system is the integral over time of a Lagrangian function (which may or may not be an integral over space of a Lagrangian density function), from which the system's behavior can be determined by the principle of least action."

« Last Edit: 06/28/2011 01:03 AM by GeeGee »

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 #1341 on: 06/28/2011 02:07 AM »
An electric motor and a wheel on a surface combine to convert electrical energy into forward momentum.  Heat gets lost during the conversion.  When the electricity is cut off, friction causes the wheeled mechanism to eventually come to a halt and the momentum is converted back to heat.

Here, unless I am mistaken, these people claim to convert electrical energy into forward motion.  Instead of using a wheel to push instantaneously against the local mass, they push instantaneously against distant mass somehow, which I don't understand.

If there's electrical energy involved, there's heat involved.

[Paraphrasing Sebtal]...If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law ...

That's what I picked up on, in trying to understand the operation of the ME device.  It seems to me that the second law of thermodynamics must be accounted for.  so when Cuddihy sez:

Quote
The theory does not have to contain within it a mechanism for temperature transfer consistent with the second law, in order for the theory to be valid; it merely must describe a situation (or condition) that does not exclude such a mechanism, which as far as I can tell it meets...

... I get confused.  If the theory must not exclude the mechanism, then the mechanism, by default, must be in the theory somewhere.  Otherwise, you're saying that the mechamism of temperature transfer is in fact excluded.  And it sure seems like this drive will have a heat signature.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1342 on: 06/28/2011 02:15 AM »
Anyone read reddit?

Found a thread on Woodward's recent claim of consistent and reversible 1 micronewton thrust. Of course, redditer's are quite critical of any non-mainstream physics, so here's a few I found:



The person who wrote this expanded his argument when I asked what the mathematical error is exactly:

"They forget to include the effects of the energy-momentum of the electromagnetic field. Add that, and the non-conservation of momentum goes away. Just redo their calculations using Liénard–Wiechert potentials, it isn't hard. Radiation reaction forces are perfectly fine in electromagnetism... they just are so weak as to be useless for propulsion in anything but a solar sail.
Their experimental results also aren't particularly encouraging. They seem to ignore the 1/r near-field effects from a varying electrostatic device. The induced capacitance with the external apparatus will give "spurious" forces on the test mass.
What they need to do (and haven't as far as I can tell) is put their device inside a Faraday Cage, then weigh the total mass of the device + cage as a function of system parameters. They really should also put the power supply inside the cage as well. Using a battery instead of high voltage lines would get rid of other stray forces that are of the order of what they want to detect.
However, the biggest problem they have is that their theory is inconsistent with quantum field theory. If momentum conservation isn't true, then we'd expect to see it violated on microscopic scales. (Quantum mechanically, if something isn't forbidden, then it eventually must occur.) In fact, historically speaking, the discovery of the "missing mass" in beta decay would have been an ideal time for this. However, we now know that neutrinos exist."

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1343 on: 06/28/2011 03:55 AM »
1. for the theorectical objection, if it's so easy, I'd like to see the actual "redo" of Woodward's calculation. It sounds to me like a bit of dancing that doesn't involve an actual equation.

The statement author is asserting that Woodward's model for a particle is flawed but I'm not sure what he's talking about -- Woodward does write the scalar and the vector potentials in accordance with L-W from the beginning, ( cf http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm ); so that inconsistency, plus the fact that the statement author repeatedly says "they", when he can only be referring in his criticism to one person, Woodward, makes me suspect he hasn't actually read Woodward's papers or writings, just criticisms of the effect from third sources.

The experimental objections make much more sense (even if they are wrong in the specific details of previous experiements, on the whole they are correct on likely sources of error and spurious signal).

The quantum field theory argument is emotionally the strongest point and the one that causes an immediate skepticism with regard to the theory, but following it is dangerously simplistic--after all, where in the natural world (even microscopically?) can you find rapidly varying electric potentials and kinetic energies in such a way that they are at the same frequency but out of phase? The gut says, it must be around if we look hard enough, but the brain cannot find an example. In fact they seem to be mutually exclusive natural conditions (it would be much like stumbling across an active natural nuclear reactor -- possible, but unlikely)
« Last Edit: 06/28/2011 03:57 AM by cuddihy »

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1344 on: 06/28/2011 05:26 AM »
cuddihy,

I sent him your response and will post his retort when he writes it up. I also told him to create an account so he can make his arguments here directly (I do not enjoy being a ferry between two forums.) In the mean time, he did post something else relating to a diagram in the NBF article:

"Oh yes, their "cartoon diagram" (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/SqGImjSOaVI/AAAAAAAAE1M/j3NVWJ9Gfqg/s1600-h/macheffect.jpg) of the process is also trivially broken. (The one that doesn't even bother using electromagnetism.)
You start with two masses separated by a rod. You then want to transfer mass/energy from one end to the other. What happens? The center of mass stays fixed, and the whole device appears to shift a bit as you transfer.
Now you contract the rod. What happens? The center of mass stays fixed, and the device shrinks.
Now you transfer the mass back to where it was. What happens? The center of mass stays fixed, and the device shifts a bit.
Now you expand the rod. What happens? The center of mass stays fixed, and the device expands.
Throughout each step, the center of mass stays fixed. The forces you need to apply to the delta-mass/energy to transfer it from one side to another are inversely and oppositely applied to the rod. If you ignore these forces (which they do by mistake), then you will get nonconservation of momentum.
The above assumes a dipole device. If the device has a varying quadrapole instead (perhaps by rotating instead of vibrating), then you will radiate gravitational waves. The thrust you get from this is negligible though for any reasonable sized test masses and vibration frequencies. If however, you are vibrating a set of black holes or neutron stars you could indeed get an interesting amount of delta-v. Unfortunately, engineering difficulties prevent us from using such technology at the moment."

Edit:

By the way cuddihy, I don't see how the quantum field theory assertion is strong.  It seems to be based on a false premise. That is, that the mach effect violates conservation of momentum, and it hasn't been observed on microscopic scales, therefore it can't work.

From what I understand of Woodward's hypothesis, momentum conservation will appear to be locally violated if you were to to look at an M-E drive as an isolated system, but not if you take into account that the universe is the system "box".

Similarly, if you were to isolate an electrodynamic tether without taking into account the field it is interacting with and the source, it would appear to be a local violation of conservation of momentum.


« Last Edit: 06/28/2011 06:30 AM by GeeGee »

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1345 on: 06/28/2011 10:59 AM »

The statement author is asserting that Woodward's model for a particle is flawed but I'm not sure what he's talking about -- Woodward does write the scalar and the vector potentials in accordance with L-W from the beginning,

Response to this

"You use the L-W potentials to calculate the electric and magnetic fields so you can work out their energy density correctly. Doing this allows you to fix any mistakes in the vibrating mass-dipole model.
Except that the given page doesn't actually use them for that... The L-W potentials are only exact for the electromagnetic field in flat space. Using them for the gravitational field is only a (poor) approximation.
To do a generic calculation you put a test four-volume element around your test particle. You then integrate the stress-energy tensor on the surface of that four-volume. The tensor version of Gauss's theorem shows that the energy-momentum in = energy-momentum out + integral of grad T in the four volume. Since Gab=8piTab, we can relate the divergence of energy-momentum to that of the Einstein tensor. Due to the Bianchi identities, this is identically zero, and thus energy-momentum is conserved. This is a fundamental property of General Relativity. If you make an approximation to GR, and lose this conservation, then the approximation is at fault for being inaccurate.
To be accurate, you need to use the metric tensor instead, and calculate geodesics via a variational principle. The curvature of space-time means that using a simple potential doesn't work generically. For example in a Kerr space-time, the Carter constant is due to a Killing tensor (not vector) field. In some cases you can't even define a potential at all due to there being less conserved quantities than equations of motion. In short, the only thing General Relativity cares about is the local curvature, and the potential is a global quantity."


Is anyone on Woodward's mailing list? This sounds like the kind of interesting criticism he might be interested in.

he quantum field theory argument is emotionally the strongest point and the one that causes an immediate skepticism with regard to the theory, but following it is dangerously simplistic--after all, where in the natural world (even microscopically?) can you find rapidly varying electric potentials and kinetic energies in such a way that they are at the same frequency but out of phase?

"Unfortunately, the quantum world is even more hostile than that. Due to its sum-over-all-histories effects, even a small violation will be magnified. In effect, it expands the degrees of freedom into eigenmodes. If such a mode doesn't conserve momentum (and thus energy) it will be rapidly excited. A vacuum with that property would be violently unstable.

I may join nasaspaceflight, but that particular thread isn't encouraging. Arguing with crackpots who don't understand physics isn't particularly fun."

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1346 on: 06/28/2011 02:51 PM »

The statement author is asserting that Woodward's model for a particle is flawed but I'm not sure what he's talking about -- Woodward does write the scalar and the vector potentials in accordance with L-W from the beginning,

Response to this

"You use the L-W potentials to calculate the electric and magnetic fields so you can work out their energy density correctly. Doing this allows you to fix any mistakes in the vibrating mass-dipole model.

Except that the given page doesn't actually use them for that... The L-W potentials are only exact for the electromagnetic field in flat space. Using them for the gravitational field is only a (poor) approximation.

To do a generic calculation you put a test four-volume element around your test particle. You then integrate the stress-energy tensor on the surface of that four-volume. The tensor version of Gauss's theorem shows that the energy-momentum in = energy-momentum out + integral of grad T in the four volume. Since Gab=8piTab, we can relate the divergence of energy-momentum to that of the Einstein tensor. Due to the Bianchi identities, this is identically zero, and thus energy-momentum is conserved. This is a fundamental property of General Relativity. If you make an approximation to GR, and lose this conservation, then the approximation is at fault for being inaccurate.

To be accurate, you need to use the metric tensor instead, and calculate geodesics via a variational principle. The curvature of space-time means that using a simple potential doesn't work generically. For example in a Kerr space-time, the Carter constant is due to a Killing tensor (not vector) field. In some cases you can't even define a potential at all due to there being less conserved quantities than equations of motion. In short, the only thing General Relativity cares about is the local curvature, and the potential is a global quantity."


Is anyone on Woodward's mailing list? This sounds like the kind of interesting criticism he might be interested in.

he quantum field theory argument is emotionally the strongest point and the one that causes an immediate skepticism with regard to the theory, but following it is dangerously simplistic--after all, where in the natural world (even microscopically?) can you find rapidly varying electric potentials and kinetic energies in such a way that they are at the same frequency but out of phase?

"Unfortunately, the quantum world is even more hostile than that. Due to its sum-over-all-histories effects, even a small violation will be magnified. In effect, it expands the degrees of freedom into eigenmodes. If such a mode doesn't conserve momentum (and thus energy) it will be rapidly excited. A vacuum with that property would be violently unstable.

I may join nasaspaceflight, but that particular thread isn't encouraging. Arguing with crackpots who don't understand physics isn't particularly fun."

GeeGee:

Please have S. Fuerst at reddit review Woodward's M-E derivation in the attached Woodward's "Flux Capacitors and the Origins of Inertia paper, Appendix A" and have him get back to us with any specific complaints about THIS M-E derivation.  In fact if he needs to talk directly with Dr. Woodward about it, leave me a private note here at NSF and I'll provide Woodward's home e-mail address to you to pass along to Fuerst, so Fuerst can converse with Jim about his M-E derivation concerns directly.

PS:  Dr. Woodward just came back to me with this comment on Fuerst's crtique:

"The (M-E) calculation is correct.  The conservation issues are automatically included.  And what the critic is ignoring is the momentum flux in the GRAVITY field.  As for quantum field theory, I suspect the critic doesn't have a profound grasp of that.  Transient violations of momenergy conservation -- justified by appeal to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- are routinely made in quantum field theory.  Indeed, such violations are the enabler of the virtual fields that dress elementary particles in the renormalization process.  So his point is simply worng."

EDIT: Please note that S. Fuerst has two reference on the web That we've found so far, see below.  It appears that the CSUF and Stanford GRT folks need to talk...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfuerst

"I'm a Post Doc at Stanford, currently working on General Relativistic Radiative Transfer."

http://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/SWApp/lookup?search=fuerst&key=DR916N632

Best,

Paul M.
« Last Edit: 06/28/2011 04:52 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1347 on: 06/29/2011 02:35 AM »
Paul,

I have not received a response yet from sfuerst. If I do, I will request that he speak to Woodward directly, as I find this method of ferrying messages between internet users to be quite an inefficient way of arguing.

By the way, if you do a search for "General Relativistic Radiative Transfer," you will find some material authored by Steven Fuerst, i.e.

http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/academic/theses/svf_thesis.pdf

http://gammaray.msfc.nasa.gov/~mizuno/GRMHD-radiation.pdf

http://gammaray.nsstc.nasa.gov/colloquia/abstracts_fall04/StevenF.html


Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1348 on: 06/29/2011 05:35 AM »
doing a search at Reddit.com (which is not exactly like a forum as physicsforum.com, where they DO only accept mainstream physics), the only references to Woodward and Mach Effect I found were links to two articles at Next Big Future.


can you please post a link for the discussion you mentioned, GeeGee?

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline sfuerst

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1350 on: 06/29/2011 01:39 PM »
Hello Everyone,  I'm sfuerst from Reddit.  Here is an email I sent to Paul March yesterday:

  I've read through the paper.  The problem lies with Figure 1, and
equation 11.

In figure 1, you need to explicitly say where the energy going into
and out from "FM" goes to.  i.e. Where is the battery that is charging
and discharging the capacitor? If the battery is inside FM, then the
total mass/energy of FM remains constant, and nothing interesting
happens.  If the battery is in A, then we can split the problem into
two, the reaction mass and actuator to the "left" of the battery, and
the reaction mass within the battery and actuator connected to the
fluctuating mass on the right.  Do the following analysis on both
parts.

The remaining choice is that the battery must be in (or is) the large
reaction mass "RM".  Now break the duty cycle into four parts.

Step 1: Energy flows from the battery in RM to FM
Step 2: The actuator expands
Step 3: Energy flows from FM back to RM
Step 4: The actuator contracts.

What happens to the center of mass in each step?
In step 1, due to the energy flow, the center of A is displaced from
the center of mass.  The center of mass does not move.  (The forces
required to move the mass/energy from RM to FM are balanced by equal
forces on A.)
In step 2, the center of mass does not move, but RM and FM are displaced.
In step 3, a similar things happens as in step 1.  The center of mass
does not move, but the center of the actuator does.
In step 4, the center of mass does not move, but RM and FM are displaced again.

At no stage is the center of mass moved by the duty cycle.  This means
that equation 11 is incorrect.  It appears the derivation of it has
gone wrong by ignoring the small displacements of the center of A in
steps 1 and 3.  If this is wrongly done, then the center of mass of
the system is accelerated by the mistaken non-conservation of
momentum.  (The text says the derivation assumes that the mass of RM
is infinite.  If so, then RM cannot move, and also nothing happens.)

One possibility to try to get around this is to state that there is no
"battery", and the mass fluctuations are into and out of the
gravitational field.  Unfortunately, this doesn't work either.  Due to
conservation of energy/momentum, monopole and dipole mass/energy
fluctuations do not exist in General Relativity.  If you wish to
radiate gravitational waves, you need to have a varying quadrapole
moment.  If a theory of gravity predicts dipole (or the required
monopole) radiation, then it has been ruled out by experimental
gravity wave searches.

Offline sfuerst

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1351 on: 06/29/2011 01:52 PM »
So the problem comes down to basic high-school / first year university level Newtonian mechanics.  Imagine you have a frictionless air-track, and a cart with a fairly large mass on the track.  Attach a spring connected to a small test mass to the cart.   Now excite the spring, what happens?

The center of mass will stay fixed, and the cart and test mass will vibrate oppositely in phase.  If the mass of the cart is much greater than the test mass, then it will jiggle only very slightly, whereas the test mass will move violently.  The jiggling may be small... but it is very important.  Without it, momentum is not conserved.

The problem with the derivation of the mach propulsion force comes down to ignoring this small jiggling.  The small shifting backwards and forwards of where the centers of expansion and contraction happen exactly cancels out the effects of each.

The above is fairly obvious in Newtonian mechanics.  A similar effect happens in electromagnetism, but it is more subtle.  Since E=mc^2, the displacements generated by charging and discharging a capacitor are small.  (Damped by a factor of 1/c^2 compared to other terms.)  However, they are still there, and you can't neglect them if they are the dominant terms.  (As in this case.)

It is easy to accidentally drop the required term from the calculation.  If you do so though, then you break conservation of momentum, and get incorrect results.

In short, the center of mass doesn't move.  This means that the time-averaged force on the reaction mass is zero... which means no propulsion.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1352 on: 06/29/2011 04:54 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a fundamental element of ME conjecture that you vary one of the mechanical elements' inertia?

The small mass is attached to the cart, with everything located on a frictionless surface.  The small mass, in ME conjecture, is used to propel the cart by varying that small mass' inertia (or vice versa), while exciting the spring at corresponding rhythm.

The question isn't whether momentum is conserved in this experiment, but whether the origins of inertia are as conjectured.
« Last Edit: 06/29/2011 04:57 PM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1353 on: 06/29/2011 06:14 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a fundamental element of ME conjecture that you vary one of the mechanical elements' inertia?

The small mass is attached to the cart, with everything located on a frictionless surface.  The small mass, in ME conjecture, is used to propel the cart by varying that small mass' inertia (or vice versa), while exciting the spring at corresponding rhythm.

The question isn't whether momentum is conserved in this experiment, but whether the origins of inertia are as conjectured.

Cinder:

"The question isn't whether momentum is conserved in this experiment, but whether the origins of inertia are as conjectured."

That is excatly right.  Woodward's M-E cojecture rises or falls on the actual "Origins of Inertia" as explored by Sciama and Nordtvedt and himself over the last 20years as Dr. Woodward just commented on to Dr. Feurst and me via a separate e-mail thread:

"What von Feurst says to you about gravity waves is, of course, correct.  In the standard calculation the lowest order freely propagating at infinity term is the quadrupole term.  And it is minuscule.

The "problem" here is that in standard GR, inertial reaction forces are not considered to be gravitational in origin, notwithstanding that Sciama's calculation (and one done by Nordtvedt in the 1980s on "linear accelerative frame dragging") show that when the universe is taken to be "rigidly" accelerating in some direction past a local object, it exerts a force on the object (if it is constrained to not participate in the acceleration) that is just the inertial reaction force when phi/c^2 is roughly one.

Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved.  And since inertial reaction forces are decades of orders of magnitude larger than the sort of radiation reaction forces of standard gravity wave analysis, the source of von Feurst's comments is straight-forward.  "Mach effects" are just Newtonian order tansients in the much larger inertial reaction force picture, as you note.

May I say, Dr. von Feurst, I am pleased that you have troubled yourself to look farther into this business than many, perhaps most would.  We're not trying to invent "new" physics.  And we are trying to avoid wishful thinking."


Edit: Dr Feurst, you might also want to find the time to read Dr. Woodward's Gravitation web page at his CSUF web page, especially in regards to the question surrounding the "Origins of Inertia" as sourced below:

http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/zoo/item/dr-james-f-woodward
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/ 

Best,

Paul M.
« Last Edit: 06/29/2011 06:21 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1354 on: 06/29/2011 07:21 PM »
the participation of Sfuerst on this topic is of great value.

I do hope he notices that the physics behind ME are much more consistent and well calculated and studied than other far fetched stuff, like the unfortunate EM Drive...

Btw, there is a lot of interesting info on this thread about ME, hundreds of questions answered by Paul March, etc, too bad this is NOT an ME thread... it starts with, and has dozens of pages dedicated to nonsensical stuff like Shawyer´s EM Drive (btw, what an unfortunate similar name... I have seen many people confuse EM Drive with Woodward´s Mach Effect)

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1355 on: 06/29/2011 07:25 PM »
Paul, I remember (maybe wrongly) you saying something, a few months ago, about the fact the ME Research would greatly benefit from having a relativist in the team.

maybe you found one? Just need to convince him (or not) with data and equations I guess.  :)


or maybe I am confusing several things. My memory isnt the best around ;)


Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1356 on: 06/30/2011 04:25 AM »
Paul, I remember (maybe wrongly) you saying something, a few months ago, about the fact the ME Research would greatly benefit from having a relativist in the team.

maybe you found one? Just need to convince him (or not) with data and equations I guess.  :)


or maybe I am confusing several things. My memory isnt the best around ;)


Aceshigh:

Dr. Woodward thinks that he already has on in the guise of one Prof Heidi Fern at CSUF.  She has not said much so far to me though, so we shall see how useful she turns out to be.

Best,
Star-Drive

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1357 on: 06/30/2011 05:07 AM »
oh, nice to hear about it. I was thinking o SFuerst however :)

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 #1358 on: 06/30/2011 02:50 PM »
Well, this discussion has become much more interesting.  I'd like to question Steven Feurst a tad.  First, briefly, my math skills virtually stopped at calculus, so I've approached this subject from my general knowledge of relativity.  Obviously, it is a fascinating subject.

I've read through the paper.  The problem lies with Figure 1, and equation 11. ...

I understand your criticism here to be either that the experimental setup was incorrect, or that the diagrams of the experiment are incorrect.  Therefore, you are not surprised that the center of mass does not move.

So the problem comes down to basic high-school / first year university level Newtonian mechanics.  ...

Which is the level of analysis that I can apply.  As was later mentioned in the thread by Cinder, "a fundamental element of ME conjecture [is] that you vary one of the mechanical elements' inertia".

Buried up in the thread who knows how many pages, is the simple mantra: "Push heavy, pull light".  (If it's the opposite, I think it doesn't matter.)  As I understand this mechanically, that means the center of mass is pushed, say to the left, and small relativistic forces increase the mass.  Then the mass is pushed to the right, by a carefully timed pulse of energy, at the moment that the mass has gotten lighter.  This process is repeated under a controlled fashion, so that electricity is directly converted into forward momentum in a preferred direction.  It's not clear to me at which point the mass got lighter, which is more an indication of my lack of understanding.  However, this mechanism is seen to engage the inertia of the universe as a whole, which I always thought was a "distant" mass, not a "local" mass.

One of the objections to the conjecture is that it calls for instantaneous action at a distance.  However, Woodward et al., maintain that this is not so, that action at a distance is not required for the conjecture to be true.  And then they go all math on me, and I go, huh?

But consider also, Mr. Woodward's recent comment: "Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved".  I understand that a radiative process can only proceed at the speed of light.  Therefore, I struggle to understand the process by which the distant mass of the universe, thru a radiateve process, can have an instantaneous effect on a local mass.

If you could oblige and help my understanding, I'd certainly appreciate it.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #1359 on: 06/30/2011 07:04 PM »
One of the objections to the conjecture is that it calls for instantaneous action at a distance.  However, Woodward et al., maintain that this is not so, that action at a distance is not required for the conjecture to be true.  And then they go all math on me, and I go, huh?

But consider also, Mr. Woodward's recent comment: "Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved".  I understand that a radiative process can only proceed at the speed of light.  Therefore, I struggle to understand the process by which the distant mass of the universe, thru a radiateve process, can have an instantaneous effect on a local mass.

If you could oblige and help my understanding, I'd certainly appreciate it.

Have you tried reading the wiki entry for Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory? Or Woodward's "the origin of inertia" page where the concept of retarded/advanced waves is introduced?

http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Feynman_absorber_theory


By the way, Paul, has sfuerst been communicating with Woodward in e-mail exchanges? I'm kind of interested in whether or not he's changed his mind on the math.

« Last Edit: 06/30/2011 07:06 PM by GeeGee »

Tags: