Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666165 times)

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #480 on: 07/18/2009 07:06 PM »
And on the other hand with a M-E MLT you can liftoff from the ground, go into space, land on other planets, and lifotff again with the same vehicle, right? :)  At the cost of ~half percent of the whole VASIMR....
 

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #481 on: 07/18/2009 07:24 PM »
be refuelled via an ISRU fuel depot sent by chemical rockets on a slow-boat trajectory years previously

If you can take off from Earth's surface using M-E engines, the thrust efficiency should be high enough for efficient power generation using spinners.  If it's not, chemical fuels won't get you to Mars on a 1 gee trajectory...  and nuclear wouldn't need refueling that soon...

Are people afraid of the spinner idea because it seems so much like a perpetual-motion machine of the first kind?  Or is there really a reason why it wouldn't work?

[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind - but that would tend to tell against either the whole M-E thruster concept or the Second Law itself...  I really should either work through the cosmic thermodynamics or shut up about this one...]

As regards a VASIMR-based MTV, if we get either Ares V or Jupiter, or even Not-Shuttle-C, it shouldn't take that long or be that expensive.  Launching it in 12-metre-wide 100-ton chunks would be a lot easier than doing it in 5-metre-wide 20-ton chunks...  and the result should be reusable in any case...

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #482 on: 07/18/2009 10:02 PM »
"Are people afraid of the spinner idea because it seems so much like a perpetual-motion machine of the first kind?  Or is there really a reason why it wouldn't work?"

People don't talk about it for the same reasons it is anathema to use the term "anti-gravity."  It immediately turns off folks from listening.  (BTW, M-E thrusters are not "anti-gravity" so there are practical reasons to avoid the use of the term.)

Its true that if we have a very high thrust efficiency M-E thruster it can be attached to a generator and we have power, but that sort of efficiency is still speculative.  Now if we take the test results of Paul March as indicative of what we can make work, then we ought to be able to have that sort of efficiency and we won't need to refuel an M-E driven craft at all.  It will be rangeless.  We're a long way from that sort of development, one supposes; but one never quite knows what will work better than expected.

Remember, one of the keys to thrust and thrust efficiency is frequency.  Running at higher frequencies might give us the efficiencies we're all hoping for which is why Paul March is experimenting here despite M-E theory does not make predictions as to how much thrust he ought to see.  If we can suppose the linear transition through wormhole territory that Paul and Andrew Palfreyman have supposed in their extrapolations of thrust efficiencies in wormhole territory, then we certainly can see the kinds of efficiencies we're hoping for.  As always though, the proof is in experiment.  What we see there is what we get.

But in general, Mike is right.  If you can build a craft that can fly from the surface of the Earth to another planet and return without throwing away parts or burning fuel, your costs drop exponentially for all space transport as well as for craft construction--just what we need for our emancipation from this planet.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2009 06:28 AM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Eric_S

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #483 on: 07/19/2009 12:47 AM »
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #484 on: 07/19/2009 01:01 AM »
All right, I'll tone it down a bit...  Polywell would probably have higher power density anyway...

I suppose it's a bit like Direct - if you started by saying that a few dozen undercover freedom fighters have an idea for a launch system that's twice as good as what NASA chose, and that NASA management is trying to suppress them and is producing bogus analysis data to discredit the idea...  well...

Still waiting for results on a number of fronts - Direct, Polywell, Skylon/SABRE, M-E thrusters...  all low-hanging fruit, one final showdown with physics away from making the world a better place...

Offline MichaelF

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #485 on: 07/19/2009 04:20 AM »
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.



That does not appear to be the case.  In fact, it's probably the least efficient way to do anything.

We wouldn't be "constructing" anything in LEO.  EOR (similar to the Orion/EDS) of a propulsion/reactor module, a hab module and a descent module* would do quite nicely.

Since the goal is to get people to martian surface, one-way, it works quite nicely.


*-depending on how you like it, the hab module could be the descent module.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2009 04:22 AM by MichaelF »

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #486 on: 07/19/2009 06:32 AM »
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.

That's a sensible attitude.  I'm curious what you make of the test results of the rotator back last April or so (posted in this thread.)  I am still a bit shocked there has been no real response from academia or USG.  Even the skeptics are silent.  I don't get it.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #487 on: 07/19/2009 11:04 PM »
From another thread:

"Lastly, for said colonial program, VASIMR would be just as effective as your notional reactionless drives.  As would nuclear pulse drives."


VASIMR is nothing close to the performance possible with even a rudimentary MLT or UFG if we can trust the unverified figures to date.

It is, however, more than enough to do the job.  Which is really all that counts, for this particular instance.  Sure, getting there super-fast would be nice, but it offers only iterative (minor, in this case) advantages over the VASIMR's projected transit time of a few weeks.  Both are such improvements over the (already workable, we believe) current time of 180 days that there really is not much to choose from, especially since VASIMR is (as was stated) already moving into field prototypes.

This isn't quite so. Beyond the trip time, you need to consider the time and cost of assembling a VASIMR interplanetary vessel in orbit. This is a project in the order of building the ISS without having the benefit of the shuttle for heavy loads. So it will be twice as hard, and likely twice as much construction time, which of course increases the odds of it being cancelled before completion by a factor of ten.



That does not appear to be the case.  In fact, it's probably the least efficient way to do anything.

We wouldn't be "constructing" anything in LEO.  EOR (similar to the Orion/EDS) of a propulsion/reactor module, a hab module and a descent module* would do quite nicely.

Since the goal is to get people to martian surface, one-way, it works quite nicely.


*-depending on how you like it, the hab module could be the descent module.

Lets look at the VSE's planned budget for their Mars plan. Even before a single Mars mission is planned, much more than my estimates merely for the constellation development and the moon shots. By comparison, the ISS has cost some $34 billion.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21720.pdf
"What Are the Costs and Other Details? The Bush Administration has not
provided a total cost estimate for the President’s initiative, or specific plans on how to implement it. As noted, NASA’s “sand chart” suggests that $150-170 billion would be spent between FY2004 and FY2020. NASA has estimated the cost for returning humans to the Moon by 2020 at $64 billion — $24 billion to build and operate the CEV from
FY2004-2020, plus $40 billion for FY2011-2020 to build the lunar lander portion of that vehicle, a new launch vehicle, and operations. The cost of robotic missions are not included. A September 2004 Congressional Budget Office [http://www.cbo.gov] report cautioned that, based on historical trends at NASA, the actual cost could be much higher."

Note the JIMO (Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer) would have used a VASIMR propulsion system, scaled down from a manned sized model, and was budgeted to cost $10 billion and would have been assembled in orbit.

So it really doesnt matter whether you choose a chemical based Orion mission or a nuclear/plasma VASIMR mission, the costs will be astronomical.
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 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #488 on: 07/20/2009 03:12 AM »
Those are development and program costs.  It's important to distinguish them from incremental mission costs, especially when the mission isn't a one-off (hopefully we'll be visiting Mars a fair bit, and a reusable VASIMR MTV - or even an expendable one, although a nuclear-powered plasma rocket isn't really something I'd like to throw away after one use - would most certainly not cost $1e11 per mission).

Besides, those costs are hardly astronomical.  Obama just spent ten times that bailing out a bunch of bankers.  Canada's (!) attempt at bailing out GM cost more than JIMO.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #489 on: 07/20/2009 03:58 AM »
[Maybe it's a PMM of the second kind

No I wouldn't say that it is. What currently occupies me is weather or not the age of the universe matter for it's validity, otherwise it seems to check out (numbers wise). Which is the reason I'm waiting further experiments that are more conclusive and made by independent peer reviewed credible sources.

That's a sensible attitude.  I'm curious what you make of the test results of the rotator back last April or so (posted in this thread.)  I am still a bit shocked there has been no real response from academia or USG.  Even the skeptics are silent.  I don't get it.

G/I Thruster:

Where did Dr. Woodward publish his latest rotary mass fluctuation experimental results?  Jim's February 2009 SPESIF report was at best an introduction to this body of work without the final data set.  And truth be known, the electrostrictive effect has yet to be fully resolved in the eyes of the skeptics.  So Jim's results won't get noticed until he can get his final results published in a first-tier peer-reviewed journal like Science, Nature, or Physics Review.  And he had better have an iron glad case in place on separating the electrostrictive effect from the mass fluctuation effect before he tries publishing in those venues.
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #490 on: 07/20/2009 04:54 PM »
Star-Drive, here's the link to the post of Jim's SPESIF paper, posted in this thread, pg. 20, post # 298:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13020.285

here's the link to the first of the vids, anyone wanting more can go back and read pp.20-22 or so in this thread:

http://www.zshare.net/video/59506760a6754bd2/

I seriously doubt Jim will bother with publishing for peer review.  He publishes each year at STAIF/SPECIF and has already published for review the pure theory more than a decade ago.  (The differences between first and second tear review are irrelevant here--they're like the differences between a PhD from an ivy league school and a PhD from a state university--no one cares about the distinction except those who hold the ivy league degrees.  What people care about is the quality of the program which can be good or poor at any school.)  IMHO, there is next to nothing to be gained by continuing to publish beyond the simple efforts he's making to keep people up to date.  The proof is really in the experiment and peer review does not particularly motivate for independent replication.  It has other, quite distinct functions.

IMHO, the peer review process is what is required to properly vet theory.  That was done a decade ago.  What Jim is doing the last few years is what is required to properly vet experiment.  Its up to academia to respond or not.  As I said before the first rotator experiment was started, there is a huge difference between convincing and compelling evidence.  The rotator produces convincing evidence but it is not compelling because it is not thrust.  If you want to compel the people with the purses to action, you need to produce lots of thrust.  That seems to me a much more worthy goal than publishing.

One other observation on this topic but from a broader perspective: though independent replication is what is generally accepted as the gold standard for doing science (as opposed to doing technology which does not require this--hence the standards for Technology Readiness Levels) such replication historically is very unreliable.  It is most common for independent replications to fail to follow the same procedures and protocols as the experiment they're "replicating" so that they are not replications at all.  So, in the case of the ORNL experiment, those physicists and engineers were instructed to avoid doing what they did but they did it anyway and received questionable results.  That was not a replication: those engineers were trying to take an enormous leap past experiment to that point, despite they proved they did not understand the field physics involved.

So peer review has a place but it generally concerns theory, and replication has a place but it generally needs to be restricted to real replication to be useful.  Most replications add so much original stuff they are not replications at all.  If you'll remember, my reports from STAIF '08, none of the three replications planned for Martin Tajmar's test results of that time remotely resembled his test apparatus.  (None were built so it doesn't matter.)  That's a result of arrogance, IMHO.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2009 05:23 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #491 on: 07/24/2009 03:49 AM »
It's thrust Jim... but not as we know it.

I've been wondering if this Mach effect dampens or even cancels gravitational radiation. Gravitational radiation is produced by aspherically accelerating masses... Mach effects operate in the acceleration differential regime, and the "waves" propagate at 90 degrees to each other. I wonder if there's a Maxwellian comparison to this? Yeah, yeah I know, quadropolar vs. dipolar... just thinking out loud...
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #492 on: 07/24/2009 04:21 AM »
Lamy:

It all depends on whether the G/I field excitation wavelengths have a bearing on the issue of gravitational radiation.  If one views gravity as a longwave consequence of G/I radiation, and by longwave I mean the resonant cavity wavelength determined by the size of the causally connected universe, then the G/I based inertia thruster may also turn out to be a gravity beam projector as well...  Deck plate gravity generators anyone?
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #493 on: 08/08/2009 03:32 AM »
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 08/04/2009 08:36 PM
I'm not certain why this needs a new thread or what the topic is.  There is a field propulsion thread if you look down the list.  Those who think propellantless propulsion violates the known laws of physics are simply misinformed.  Mach's physics is not "new" physics--its century old physics, the stuff Einstein used to create his General Relativity.

GI-Thruster, this particular statement arose in the other thread. I responded to it that it's not true:
1. Mach's effects (distant matter/energy/metric affecting local matter/energy/metric "instantaneously") are not confirmed yet, it's only an interesting conjecture,
2. Einstein did not use them in SR and/or GR.

No one disputed my post there.

Yet, you are again claiming it. You really think that GR includes Machian effects? Point me to one.

-------------------------------------------

GoSpaceX, I was writing you a lengthy reply just when Andy was cleaning up the threads here and the post was lost.  Let me just answer quickly:

1) Mach's Principle has never been "confirmed" is in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sure you know how science works.  There is certainly great evidence for this found in this last year's work by Jim Woodward which you can find in this thread posted back in April or May.

2) Einstien made great use of Mach's Principle to create GR.  For the historical and philosophical background on this you'll enjoy this text:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249700226&sr=8-1

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #494 on: 08/08/2009 03:21 PM »
G/I Thruster:

The book URL you found on Mach's prinicple is a great find, thanks much for posting it!

As to the comments from the hardnosed engineers like "Jim" and others of his stripe on this forum who want to discuss only near term engineering ideas and results that they understand and/or are comfortable with, I have to point out to them that if we had only taken that approach 150 years ago, we would still be making horse drawn buggies and buggy whips and could still be communicating over the 1840s style telegraphs.  However, some scientific renegades in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who are now household names, developed a few theories like relativity, modern atomic theory, and quantum mechanics along with the data needed to support them.  Concepts and data I might add that ushered in the atomic and quantum age that has been developed during the 20th Century which in turn ushered in the age of computer.  We also developed during this time period under the duress of two world wars, the old Chinese invention called the chemical rocket to near its theoretical maximum capabilities and started dabbling with nuclear powered variants of same until we lost our collective nerve sometime in the 1970s where we stopped our explorations and burned our Apollo Moon fleet like the Chinese did with their naval fleet of exploration some five centuries earlier.

Well, now it's the beginning of the 21th century and human spaceflight is still stuck in low earth orbit because the chemical rockets that have brought us this far don’t have much more performance capabilities left in them to be exploited, and therefore for every few percentage points improvement in their performance that we gain from now on, we have to expend exponentially increasing efforts/cost to do so, while the safety of such highly stressed systems goes down proportionally as well.  (Remember that each of the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) while running, already run at a power level of ~8 GigaWatts in a 7,000 pound package or 1.42 MegaWatt / pound!) 

We are now very much to the point where if we want/need to go beyond low earth orbit in person and in large numbers, we have to look to a transportation technology with much better performance and safety capabilities than ANY chemical rocket can provide, and do so at an affordable cost.  That means if we are serious about becoming a space fairing civilization where millions of people will one day be making the rest of solar system their place of business and their homes, we have to start now developing atomic powered rockets and/or gravinertial field propulsion systems that will have much higher efficiency and safety numbers than any chemical rocket system can ever muster.  And if we want a safer less politically charged solution than nuclear fission powered rockets bring to the table, then the development of fusion powered gravinertial field propulsion is the only way to go, especially if we want to pursue interstellar flights in the future.  For me this Advanced Concept forum IS the place to discuss these later topics, while we leave the rest of the NASASpaceflight.com forum to the more near-term chemical rocket topics so near and dear to the folks like Jim the rocket scientist.   
« Last Edit: 08/09/2009 05:03 AM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #495 on: 08/08/2009 04:52 PM »
GoSpaceX:

You mention to G/I Thruster the following comments about Mach's principle:

“GI-Thruster, this particular statement arose in the other thread. I responded to it that it's not true:

1. Mach's effects (distant matter/energy/metric affecting local matter/energy/metric "instantaneously") are not confirmed yet, it's only an interesting conjecture,
2. Einstein did not use them in SR and/or GR.

No one disputed my post there.

Yet, you are again claiming it. You really think that GR includes Machian effects? Point me to one.”


OK, we both need to read the Mach-Principle book that G/I Thruster pointed out in his last post, but in the meantime, I was conversing with Jim Woodward on this question yesterday of whether Mach’s Principle was integrated into the original 1915 GRT by Einstein or not and here is Jim’s reply, which he just gave me permission to post here:


From Dr. James F. Woodward, August 08, 2009

"The issue of whether Mach's principle is contained in 1915 GR depends on how the principle is defined and whether or not one requires that initial/boundary conditions are considered part of the theory.  If all that GR is considered to be is the field equations, then one can make statements like that your correspondent makes.  It is now well-known, if not as widely appreciated as it should be, though, that Mach's principle -- which is one of Einstein's formative principles in creating GR -- is contained in 1915 GR.  That is, no modification of the 1915 field equations is required to encompass Mach's principle.  What is required is the stipulation of suitable boundary and/or initial conditions for it to be shown explicitly that the inertia of local objects is caused by the distribution of chiefly distant matter.  Derek Raine did this explicitly in his doctoral work for Dennis Sciama back in the mid-'70s.

The reason why this has not become textbook stuff (and your correspondent can make the sort of statements he does without looking like a complete jackass) is that while Mach's principle is part of 1915 GR with boundary/initial conditions that correspond to the universe as we see it, it comes with a price.  Either one must accept that, at least as far as inertia is concerned, GR is an "action at a distance" interaction (to account for the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces) -- see Hoyle and Narlikar's book Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (Freeman, 1974) -- or inertial effects must be considered to be contained in the "constraint" equations on initial data (which are elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, and "propagate" instantaneously as a result) -- see Ciufolini and Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia (Princeton, 1995).

Wheeler hardly mentions Raine at all -- presumably because Raine didn't include the energies associated with gravity waves in his analysis -- and perhaps because Wheeler, despite being an early advocate (with Feynman) of action at a distance electrodynamics, seems to have regarded action at a distance as a serious theoretical consideration as silly.

Actually, of course, who believes what, and why, is irrelevant as far as the physical reality of Mach effects is concerned.  The ONLY relevant question is: are inertial reaction forces produced by the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter (in GR or any other theory you happen to choose to believe in)?  The answer to this question is clear.  They are.

This was shown by Sciama decades ago.  And the same result can be demonstrated for GR conditions using Nordtvedt's formulation of the PPN formalism for linear accelerative frame dragging.  Once you have accepted the fact that inertial forces are produced by the gravitational action of chiefly distant matter, then the rest of the derivation of transient Mach effects follows inexorably.  Whether your corresponded chooses to understand and appreciate this is irrelevant to the facts of the nature of reality.  Science, ultimately, is not a beauty contest determined by fashion or wishful thinking.  Experiments, not the opinions of others, will eventually decide the issues involved.

I suggest that you not waste your time on trying to convince others to take Mach's principle Mach effects seriously.  People get silly theoretical fixations, and it is impossible to get them to abandon them.

As Planck once said, his critics didn't change their minds.  They died.
Building something that works is the only thing that warrants serious attention."
« Last Edit: 08/09/2009 09:50 PM by Star-Drive »
Star-Drive

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #496 on: 08/11/2009 12:20 AM »
... Either one must accept that, at least as far as inertia is concerned, GR is an "action at a distance" interaction (to account for the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces) -- see Hoyle and Narlikar's book Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (Freeman, 1974) -- or inertial effects must be considered to be contained in the "constraint" equations on initial data (which are elliptic, rather than hyperbolic, and "propagate" instantaneously as a result) -- see Ciufolini and Wheeler, Gravitation and Inertia (Princeton, 1995).

Wheeler hardly mentions Raine at all -- presumably because Raine didn't include the energies associated with gravity waves in his analysis -- and perhaps because Wheeler, despite being an early advocate (with Feynman) of action at a distance electrodynamics, seems to have regarded action at a distance as a serious theoretical consideration as silly. ...
Instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is the kiss of death of a physical theory, and rightly so.

Quote
... I have to point out to them that if we had only taken that approach 150 years ago, we would still be making horse drawn buggies and buggy whips and could still be communicating over the 1840s style telegraphs. ...
Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #497 on: 08/11/2009 01:35 AM »
Instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is the kiss of death of a physical theory, and rightly so.

Physicists who rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance made those great advances in the late 1800s. Physics transitioned from the electric+magnetic laws to electromagnetic waves.


So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.

Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
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 mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #498 on: 08/11/2009 04:37 AM »
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.

Quote
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance.

Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #499 on: 08/11/2009 04:56 AM »
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.

Quote
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance.

Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?


Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.

This is all now well established physics and only fools and idiots refuse to recognise the fact that as far as simultaneity, these effects appear to be action at a distance, just as the Mach Effect appears to be so.
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.

Tags: