Propellantless Field Propulsion and application

[GeeGee]

Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.

By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?

The gravitational mechanism to generate mass II

[Nathan]

Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.

By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?

The gravitational mechanism to generate mass II

Machs principle never left theoretical physics

[GeeGee]

Machs principle never left theoretical physics

No, but it's certainly not discussed as much. All the attention has been focused on dark energy, dark matter and the Higgs mechanism.

[Star-Drive]

Machs principle never left theoretical physics

No, but it's certainly not discussed as much. All the attention has been focused on dark energy, dark matter and the Higgs mechanism.

GeeGee:

Jack Sarfatti's comments on the Mach's Principle and mass paper you pointed to is attached.  Note the yellow highlights and comments embedded in the paper by Sarfatti.

PS; Woodward liked the paper as well.

Best,

[aceshigh]

Paul, any chance you guys might contact Mario Novello or Eduardo Bittencourt?

[JohnFornaro]

This month's Photonics Spectra had an interesting picture of what gravity waves might look like.

[GeeGee]

Paul,

Has Goatguy and Sebtel's objections on the M-E ever been discussed on Woodward's mailing list? Did Woodward respond to them?

[kurt9]

Loll and Ambjorn have done some CDT computer modeling that shows that wormholes are not possible.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.0352v1.pdf

Can anyone here comment on this?

[GeeGee]

Not qualified to comment on that, but my guess is this has to do with the quantum foam picture where tiny wormholes pop into and out of existence.

You might have better luck e-mailing this as a new topic to Woodwards group.

[GeeGee]

In his wormhole paper, Woodward said:

"What about Heisenberg’s UP [Uncertainty Principle] argument about energy and confinement size?
Well, if you believe that the UP is a statement about our ability to measure reality, rather than an assertion
about the inherent nature of reality, you won’t have a problem with the negative bare mass ADM electron.
After all, how big something is is not the same thing as how accurately you can measure its position. If
you think the UP is an assertion, with Bohr and his followers, about the inherent nature of reality, you
will have a problem with all this. And you won’t be likely to think it possible to build stargates, ever.
You may be right."

This article came out today which seems to suggest Bohr's interpretation of the HUP is correct (unless I misunderstood). What are the implications for the ADM negative bare mass solution?

[Sith]

If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

[GeeGee]

If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).

[Star-Drive]

If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??

Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).

Guys:

Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz.  My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time.  We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now.  Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us.  If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system.  However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me.  Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before.  Cross your fingers...

Best,

Paul M. 

[GeeGee]

Paul,

I don't think anyone has asked you this but when you ran the experiment in 2004, the bulk acceleration condition was not known, correct?

If so, how can you be confident in the results?

[Sith]

Guys:

Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz.  My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time.  We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now.  Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us.  If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system.  However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me.  Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before.  Cross your fingers...

Best,

Paul M. 

That's nearly an ion engine thrust