Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 666682 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #520 on: 08/12/2009 02:22 PM »
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Mike & Hop:

I have to second hec031 in with this M-E modeling business.  You make the best set of guesses you can with the theoretical model you have available, convert that into a spreadsheet format for easier calculations knowing that some parts of the model like the linearized M-E wormhole predictor is going to be WAY off, make your predictions based on that preliminary design tool, run the experiment, and then see what Mother Nature has to tells us. 

In the case of Jim's and my Faraday can shielded Mach-2MHz running at 3.8 MHz that produced ~5.0 milli-Newtons with 20W of input power with a cap voltage of ~125V- peak, (No ion-wind generation in this case folks!), Andrew P. and my STAIF-2006 M-E spreadsheet model, (See attached report),  under-predicted these recorded results by approximately two orders of magnitude.  Since we linearized the M-E wormhole term results because we don’t have the programming skills and super computers required to compute this very nonlinear relativistic gravitational term, (See: Numerical Relativity at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_relativity ), we were prepared to see something larger than predicted.  Guess what, we did.  That was because we were running well above the calculated M-E  dm/m ratio of 1.0, and in fact for the Mach-2MHz, 3.8 MHz case running at 125V-p, the dm/m = ~3.0.

If we had seen a much lower or zero thrust signature than expected with this Mach-2MHz test article, we could have called it a null test results, but since the tests came back with much larger results than predicted by the linearized M-E wormhole term, we said we needed to fall back and punt on the M-E modeling front, much like John Cramer’s group did with their Machian Guitar test series.  They said their results were inconclusive instead of meaningless because due to technical issues they had to run their final test article at a voltage and test frequency (~1,000V-p at ~220 Hz) that almost assured them that they would get a null results per the linearized M-E model, even though they did unofficially see an M-E signal that was running just above their noise limits.  As conservative as John Cramer is in this venue, that says volumes if you know the details of the test and the academic politics surrounding this kind of research.

BTW, I took special care with this Mach-2MHz test article to resolve all the objections raised with my first unshielded MLT-2004 test article, so except for the issue of not running this test article in a hard vacuum to remove the last vestiges of concern over ion and supersonic wind contributions to the recorded thrust signature, (The test article’s metal Faraday shield took care or the first 99% of those concerns including the EMI issues I ran into on the first test series), I have high confidence that these test results reflect a real effect and NOT a test artifact.   And I’m really not sad that the results were higher than expected because that indicates that we should be able to design and build working M-E thrusters once we figure out a way around the short lifetime issues surrounding the use of the high-k ceramic dielectrics used in these test articles.
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #521 on: 08/12/2009 03:55 PM »
The trouble with these judgements above is not so much that they're uninformed (which they are ) as that they're hasty generalizations.  Lumping together issues like patent, old experiment, reinterpretation of test results, and formulating a position in a couple hours is just about as hasty as one can get.

Cramer considered his test results inconclusive because he saw several ways to improve his test but was not able to make the changes because he ran out of funding.  When the pesos dried up, so did his work.  Rather than look at decade old test results and reinterpret them in a contextual vacuum, better is to look at the most recent work and judge it on its own merits.  This takes time.  If you think you're going to look at a complex issue with complex apparatus and complex data and formulate a useful judgement in a few minutes, you're suffering delusions of grandeur.  I would suggest if anyone can't be bothered to invest the time to understand any experiment, they keep their ignorance to themselves.  This business is tough enough that we don't need to waste our time rebutting folks who haven't even taken the time to understand what's going on around them.

Yah. . .stuff like what's posted in THIS thread last April and May. . .

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #522 on: 08/12/2009 04:08 PM »
"I have to second hec031 in with this M-E modeling business.  You make the best set of guesses you can with the theoretical model you have available, convert that into a spreadsheet format for easier calculations knowing that some parts of the model like the linearized M-E wormhole predictor is going to be WAY off, make your predictions based on that preliminary design tool, run the experiment, and then see what Mother Nature has to tells us. 

In the case of Jim's and my Faraday can shielded Mach-2MHz running at 3.8 MHz that produced ~5.0 milli-Newtons with 20W of input power with a cap voltage of ~125V- peak, (No ion-wind generation in this case folks!), Andrew P. and my STAIF-2006 M-E spreadsheet model, (See attached report),  under-predicted these recorded results by approximately two orders of magnitude.  Since we linearized the M-E wormhole term results because we don’t have the programming skills and super computers required to compute this very nonlinear relativistic gravitational term, (See: Numerical Relativity at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_relativity ), we were prepared to see something larger than predicted.  Guess what, we did.  That was because we were running well above the calculated M-E  dm/m ratio of 1.0, and in fact for the Mach-2MHz, 3.8 MHz case running at 125V-p, the dm/m = ~3.0. "

This is why especially when working in wormhole territory, we need to be satisfied with qualitative rather than quantitative predictions.  There are far too many variables in all these experiments to make useful thrust level predictions.  For instance, we don't even know the actual mass of the capacitor material we've used in ANY of these experiments.  We don't know the percent of the sinter, or the degree the sinter mitigates piezo and electrostatic effects.  We don't know if hydrostatic effect is linear with voltage or if polarizing the active dielectric affects results.  We only barely know what it is we don't know.

However, we DO know of no other effect than the proposed M-E that is found at the second harmonic and in anti-phase with electrostriction.  The only proposed effect here is M-E.  Now of course as hop suggests, there may be another effect.  But this is how science proceeds--primarily through process of elimination of alternatives.  If someone, anyone wants to propose an alternative explanantion for the rotator results, I suggest they step forward and do so.  To date, there have been no takers.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #523 on: 08/12/2009 06:16 PM »
G/I Thruster:

"For instance, we don't even know the actual mass of the capacitor material we've used in ANY of these experiments."

Ummm, well we actually do know what the dimensions and mass of the Ceramite 500PF at 15kV, Y5U caps used by Woodward in most of his recent experiments as well as our Mach-2Mhz test article to within 0.001” and a tenth of a gram.  I obtained that information by going to the trouble of stripping off these cap’s epoxy overcoat with MEK solvent, desoldering their #20 AWG wire leads and then measuring their OD and thickness dimensions to within 0.001”, weighing them to within 0.10 grams, then averaging the results for both sets of parameters.  Off the top of my head it turned out that they averaged 0.95cm OD, 0.635" thickness, and ~2.4 grams of active mass per cap, which yielded an as-fired sintered density of ~5.45 grams/cc, which is 5.45/5.6 = 97.3% of their ideal density.  These cap volume and weight figures are then used to calculate the dm/m ratio in the M-E spreadsheets, so I had to have them in hand to make any of these predictions.  I've also performed this procedure for over 20 other caps that Andrew P. and I have tested over the last four years. 

I've also tested for the 500 pF cap's piezoelectric effect response coefficient  and found that the population of 50, 500pF caps so tested followed a Gaussian distribution in their piezoelectric response per a test I devised on the fly.  However, to perform a set of calibrated piezoelectric and electrostrictive response tests, we would have to cough up a lot more coin for the required NIST traceable calibrated test equipment than I have at my disposal.

Bottom line in all this is that the state of these M-E tests are not as qualitive as you imply.
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #524 on: 08/12/2009 06:24 PM »
"Ummm, well we actually do know what the dimensions and mass of the Ceramite 500PF at 15kV, Y5U caps used by Woodward in most of his recent experiments as well as our Mach-2Mhz test article to within 0.001” and a tenth of a gram."

Yes but you don't know what percentage of that mass is BaTiO3, nor the dielectric properties of the sinter.  And as we both know, we're still discovering just how non-linear these caps are, with huge capacitance drop off at high voltage, etc.  Also, they are not marketed for use at high frequency, so the unknowns here compound quickly.

The point is, there are too many guesses for quantitative predictions at this point.  It is because of the mistaken predictions to date that people keep throwing up this issue that your past work found 2 orders magnitude higher thrust than prediction.  Well that was a BAD prediction based upon a BAD model that linearized transition through wormhole territory with only assumptions this would be adequate.  It was obviously NOT adequate.  The error here was to make the quantitative prediction based upon assumption, which in science; is an unwarranted action.

We do not know enough to make quantitative predictions.  Period.

Period with a caveat: while it's a violation of scientific method to make predictions based upon inadequate theory, it is not a violation to design measurement apparatus based upon a "best guess."  So for example, it's quite correct to take your best guess and design a 2 meter pendulum for testing.  That doesn't violate scientific procedure.  You may find that the test item produces too little thrust to get a measurable deflection on the pendulum, but this doesn't invalidate your method, only your protocol; and you can then simply go to a more precise measurement apparatus (which we know is what you have planned for should that need arise.)  So even though "best guesses" are worthless for scientific prediction, they are entirely worthwhile in designing test apparatus.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 06:46 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Sith

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 181
  • Bulgaria, EU
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #525 on: 09/07/2009 05:45 PM »
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #526 on: 09/08/2009 04:32 AM »
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?

The entirety of the vehicle will never be negative mass. ME thrust does not negate mass, it channels mach effect generated mass changes in a centrifuge to produce thrust.
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 Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #527 on: 09/08/2009 11:56 PM »
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.

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to point that out. There are some other examples which point this out, but for the time being there's no way to use them to transmit information. QM weirdly seems to preserve causality. Heck, some people are still arguing for really fast speeds of gravity, millions of times c. And what is aspin-2 particle doing travelling faster than light?

Star-Drive also pointed out retrograde signals, part of Maxwell's original equations, and again there's no good reason to dismiss them. Again, action-at-a-distance doesn't work if you're just looking at your 4-D space. But we have no idea how many dimensions we actually live in.

Quote
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.

Well, that's a bit harsh, but I guess things like tachyons (or rather, tachyonic fields) are gaining popularity again as solutions for a few theories. It'll be a while yet before it even becomes a really big controversial thing, because right now the effects just don't appear in a direct causative manner. But I gues in QM thinking, the effects ARE there, they just aren't there.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Online Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #528 on: 09/09/2009 12:07 AM »
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?

The negative mass won't be anywhere near enough to be significant. However M-E effects in an inertially accelerated frame of reference are quite interesting. It would seem to get harder to accelerate (requiring higher driving freq's) as your tau gets higher because the FOAM is moving "faster in time." Or maybe not.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Online Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1645
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 121
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #529 on: 09/09/2009 12:18 AM »
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless.  For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have.  I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments.  Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly.  And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Cramer experiment report:

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdf

Found possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".

======================
March experiment abstract:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321M

The experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.


Hop: thanks for the link.

Cramer used a mechanical oscillator, a spring.  The previous experiment by NASA's BPL used exactly the same thing, and as I recall they got similar results. Mechanical oscillators just don't have the responsiveness. I personally think it warrants more serious investigation, but this is what, 5 years now, nothing new from NASA? Subscribe to Prof. Woodward's emailing list, it's very enlightening (no pun intended).


"A net unidirectional and reversible force on the order of +/- 3.14 milli-Newton or 0.069% of the suspended test article mass was recorded by us in our first high frequency 2.2 MHz test article. "

This is nothing like what Cramer et al. report.*

"As a null check of this result, we rotated the Mach
Guitar apparatus from a horizontal orientation to a
vertical one, as shown in figure 10. Now, if a varying
gravitational force is present, it should be
perpendicular to the allowed string displacement.
Thus, we would expect only zero or small excitation of
the oscillator. However, we find that in the 90°
orientation, the excitation of the mechanical oscillator
is qualitatively the same as that shown in figure 9."

Star-Drive's and James Woodward's setups use electromagnetic drivers at far higher freq's. Star-Drive runs his at what, 2MHz for the latest rig?
« Last Edit: 09/09/2009 12:22 AM by Lampyridae »
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 #530 on: 09/09/2009 03:15 AM »
The MLT-2004 ran at 2.2 MHz.  The Mach-2 MHz ran at 2.15 or 3.80 MHz. 

Now think about the M-E math model that Andrew Palfreyman developed in our STAIF-2006 paper that indicates that the M-E delta mass density scales with the cube of the drive frequency.  Compared to Cramer's 1,000 Hz maximum operating frequency that indicates that the delta mass density ratio between the Mach Guitar and my Mach-2MHz experiment running at 3.8 MHz for a given drive voltage would be (3.8x10^6 / 1,000)^3 = 54.872x10^9 times larger. 

And yes the Mach-2MHz maximum drive voltage was down around 125 V-p vs the Mach Guitar's 2.0 kV, but even taking that into account and the difference in capacitance, the net effect of operating at 3.8 MHz with the Mach-2MHz vs the Mach-Guitar at 1.0 kHz yielded a net delta mass density ratio increase of ~2.0 million times to work with for the Mach-2MHz.  In other words this HF drive frequency provided a much larger delta mass leverage arm for the MLT's crossed B-field to work on, so HF to VHF drive frequencies is the only way to fly an MLT... 
Star-Drive

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26903
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 4818
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #531 on: 09/10/2009 01:30 PM »
It seems to me that the whole point of these things is to NOT conserve momentum. Am I wrong?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #532 on: 09/10/2009 04:22 PM »
Yes, you're wrong.  The system has to conserve momentum or it would be nothing more than a bad joke.  The key to understanding how the system conserves momentum is to realize that the entire universe is the system--all of the universe is causally connected through gravinertial force as per Mach's Principle.  It is this connection, chiefly with the farthest matter in the universe; that is what causes inertia.  Given this is so, all gravinertial thrusters and other sorts of Mach Effect technology, rotators, etc.; are harvesting momentum from the rest of the universe.  They are taking advantage of gravinertial flux in and out of the item in question, not unlike how a sail harvests the momentum of the air around it to push a boat.  So to calculate for conservation, you MUST take to account this gravinertial flux.  If you fail to do so, you will certainly think you see a violation of conservation, which is also the case if you fail to account for the wind pressing on a sail.

Gravinertial thrusters are therefore not really best likened to transformers, converting electrical energy to kinetic energy, but rather they are transistors, controlling gravinertial flux.  You absolutely must account for that flux or you will think you are seeing a violation of conservation.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #533 on: 09/10/2009 04:52 PM »
Kinda like how the Apollo spacecraft mysteriously slowed down for a couple of days straight on its trip to the moon, even though it was in hard vacuum.  Draw a box around the spacecraft and you get an unbalanced force.  Include the Earth (and Moon) in the picture and it suddenly makes sense.  Spooky action at a distance...

Standard disclaimer:  I'm not saying Woodward is right.  I haven't studied this stuff anywhere near hard enough to pronounce on it one way or the other.  I'm just saying that as far as conservation of momentum is concerned he could be right.

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2791
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #534 on: 09/10/2009 04:58 PM »
Kinda like how the Apollo spacecraft mysteriously slowed down for a couple of days straight on its trip to the moon, even though it was in hard vacuum.  Draw a box around the spacecraft and you get an unbalanced force.  Include the Earth (and Moon) in the picture and it suddenly makes sense.  Spooky action at a distance...

Standard disclaimer:  I'm not saying Woodward is right.  I haven't studied this stuff anywhere near hard enough to pronounce on it one way or the other.  I'm just saying that as far as conservation of momentum is concerned he could be right.

If he is right, he is conserving momentum. 

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #535 on: 09/10/2009 05:07 PM »
That's what I mean - conservation of momentum is satisfied in his theoretical description, and thus is not an impediment to him being right.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #536 on: 09/10/2009 05:20 PM »
The theory is sound, meaning it is consistent with known physics.  It does however rely upon Mach's Principle.  If indeed inertia arises as a result of the gravitic connection between all the universe's various parts, then Woodward's theory obtains and his technology ought to work.  If on the other hand inertia is an intrinsic property of matter, or arises from some other function such as is proposed in ZPF theory, then Woodward's technology ought not to work.  The proof therefore is in empirical experiment--that's how we determine such things in science--and that's why Woodward spent this last year building and running the rotator rather than continue on with thrusters.

The rotator data therefore is extremely important discovery science.  C'est domage the scientific community has not yet caught up to just how urgent and important this research is.  Hopefully this will change when Jim presents at SPESIF in February.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #537 on: 09/10/2009 06:19 PM »
GI-Thruster:

"Hopefully this will change when Jim presents at SPESIF in February."

Don't forget Jim's presentation today at John Cramer's 75th Birthday Symposium at the Universtiy of Washington at 3:10 PDT, entitled "Why science fiction has little to fear from science".  I wish I was there to hear it...

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~lisa/CramerSymposium/
Star-Drive

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #538 on: 09/10/2009 06:55 PM »
No joke, that's going to be one conference to remember.  And for those who don't know, Jim, like most profesional educators, is way past being an accomlished communicator.  He's a thoroughly engaging and compelling communicator.  I'm sure his presentation will be great fun for all.  Wish I were there too.

I hope someone thinks to film the sessions and put them on UTube.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #539 on: 09/10/2009 06:56 PM »
I should mention a couple other things with regards the field theory above.  It's true that some proponents of ZPF theory like Paul March, don't see any conflict between Mach's Principle and ZPF theory.  Paul believes ZPF theory is perfectly consistent with Mach's Principle and about this there can and should be open debate.  Jim would certainly say ZPF theory is wrong and explain how he thinks he knows this.  For the record, I think Jim's arguments against ZPF theory obtain, but Paul doesn't.  That debate will no doubt continue, just as it should, between real physicists.

ZPF theory is appealing to some because it proposes to explain spooky action at a distance with particle theory.  People like particles.  They're something we can visualize to replace the distinctive lack of image associated with field theory.  I like to have a mental image too, which is one reason I'm a proponent of Quantum Loop theory.

I think Loop Quantum Gravity is a better explanation for action at a distance than ZPF theory for several reasons.  First of all, Loop theory appeals because it shows a real connection between all the universe's various parts.  It gives us an image of a multidimensional fabric of space-time, very like the chain mail armor used in ages past, where loops are connected to their closest neighbors and through those neighbors to others, extending out across all space and time.  Loop theory also appeals to me in particular because as I wrote many years ago, it is the only solution to an historic philosophical problem known a "Zeno's Paradox Against Motion."

Zeno was a pre-Socratic philosopher in Greece.  Like most pre-Socratics, Zeno was a monist, like those supposed philosophers much later in India and the far East.  Zeno's argument for monism can be slightly reduced (the real version is longer) just so:

-To get from point a to point b, one must pass through the midpoint between (a')
-To get from point a' to b, one must pass through a second midpoint (a'')
-There are an infinite series of midpoints like this
-Since one can never get to the end of an infinite series, all motion is impossible and illusion

Now, you can pretend you have an answer for Zeno that firmly establishes how he's wrong, but if you have any idea of what the concept of infinity entails, you know that if you grant his premises, his conclusion necessarily follows.  This paradox, like many others of his, obtains if indeed you grant his premises and is truly one big black eye for philosophers for more than 2400 years.

What I like about Loop theory is it denies the premise that there is an infinite number of midpoints between any two points because it says that like matter and energy, space and time have a smallest possible unit.  Basically, Zeno's argument is wrong because it relies upon an infinite regression when Loop theory dictates that is not how reality works.  If space-time is composed of quantum loops with a specific size, it cannot be infinitely parsed.  There will come a point when it can no longer be divided so there is no infinite regression.

I like Loop theory.

One should also note that Loop theory is in accord with the philosophers of the far East who claim to have personal experience with the "connectedness" of all things.  Supposed "enlightenment" experiences all claim to have an ineffable apprehension of this connectedness, and from this posit monism.  But monism is not the experience.  Only the connectedness is the experience, and this is in concert with Loop theory. 

So Loop Quantum Gravity not only gives us an understanding of how fields and action at a distance may work, but answers this ancient paradox of Zeno's and gives us a framework for understanding some kinds of mystical experience.  It is also completely coherent with Mach's Principle and this is all why I like it.

Tags: