Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 692357 times)

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #540 on: 09/10/2009 07:17 PM »
G/I thruster:

Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)10−35 meters.  It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.  Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."

Star-Drive

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #541 on: 09/10/2009 07:23 PM »
Philosophers get stuck on Zeno's paradox for the same reason they flunked calculus. ;)
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 #542 on: 09/10/2009 07:31 PM »
Philosophers get stuck on Zeno's paradox for the same reason they flunked calculus. ;)

That's entirely true.  I'm surprised you know this as it's not particularly common knowledge that those who calously mishandle the notion of infinity, such as engineers and physicists, are the ones who simply don't understand--infinity is not a number.  It's not.  It's only when one presumes it is, as do most engineers, that one can step over the real issues.  Those who understand what the concept of infinity entails would never for example, divide by it.  Division is only suitable with numbers and infinity is not a number because it does not satisfy the identity theorm A=A.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #543 on: 09/10/2009 07:32 PM »
G/I thruster:

Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

"In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)10−35 meters.  It is a base unit in the system of Planck units.  The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant.  Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."



They are the same.  In QM, the claim is about what can be known.  In Loop theory, the claim is concerning existence itself.  In Loop theory, space is the place where existence can occur, meaning it can only occur within the loops and there is literally no "between" them or "outside" them.  So in Loop theory for example, if one presumes our big bang is the only big bang, then existence itself cannot occur outside the farthest reaches of the universe.  There is literally an outside where there are no loops, but there is no way for existence to occur there so "outside" the universe is literally not a place or a space.

QM is talking only about knowledge.  Loop theory is making much stronger claims about existence itself.  More importantly, QM is not saying that space-time has this fabric of quantum loops.  In QM, we have the notion that space is this empty void that stuff like particles move around in.  In Loop theory, the void has structure and reality whether or not a particle is present.  This structure connects all things and can indeed be used to explain spooky action at a distance.  I'd bet if Einstein were with us today, he'd be a very strong proponent of Loop theory.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2009 08:07 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #544 on: 09/10/2009 10:20 PM »
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?
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Quote
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.
Waves coming from the future?


Quote
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.
The "well established" part is interesting. Is there a well established theory for why an electron accelerates due to an incident electric field? All I see is a bunch of handwaving about virtual photons, etc. What the heck is an electron, anyway? I guess these are foolish and idiotic questions...

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #545 on: 09/11/2009 01:53 AM »
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?
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.

Standard electromagnetic theory doesn't believe in collapsing probability spheres either.
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 #546 on: 09/11/2009 02:35 AM »
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.
You don't see that as evidence against QM and the photon model??? Look at the contortions that QM has to go through to explain simple things like refraction.

Quote
Standard electromagnetic theory doesn't believe in collapsing probability spheres either.
I don't think that nature believes in "collapsing probability spheres" either.


Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #547 on: 09/11/2009 02:54 AM »
Refraction is explained with standard electromagnetic theory.

Not to my knowledge. For refraction to work, without a quantum backward in time, multiversal explanation, you have to assume that photons are intelligent pool players and always know ahead of time what angle through every piece of matter between points A and B is the fastest path.
You don't see that as evidence against QM and the photon model??? Look at the contortions that QM has to go through to explain simple things like refraction.


The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2009 02:55 AM by mlorrey »
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #548 on: 09/11/2009 05:21 AM »
The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #549 on: 09/12/2009 05:27 AM »
The problem is that electromagnetic theory doesnt explain refraction at all, the best it can do is describe it mathematically without explaining why, for instance, in the Huygens-Fresnel principle, waves coming through parallel slits (or more properly, wave peaks for a given frequency) know to line up with each other at a new angle to create a new wave front moving in a new direction, rather than lining up with other waves ahead or behind. The Huygens-Fresnel principle fails in this description as well because it still requires that the photons in the wave front to know and communicate with each other (i.e. QE entanglement) what the speed of light is going to be in the new material it is hitting and spontaneously reorganize a new wave front at the proper angle for the change in wavelength caused by the slowing of the speed of light. There's a whole lot of helpless hand waving going on in the HF principle that remained unexplained until quantum theory came along to explain it.
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?


Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
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 Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 877
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #550 on: 09/12/2009 03:00 PM »
Guys:

You might consider taking a look at Richard Feynman's 1979 Auckland, New Zealand video lecture series on photons, reflections, refractions, electrons and the QM frontier from his vantage point in 1979.  I'm halfway thru them at the moment and I'm once again blown away by how brillant this man was both in physics and as a teacher.

http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

BTW, in regards your E&M discussions, think about photons, electrons, and their respective interacting temporal phasers instead of classical E&M waves.  That is the road taken by Feynman during these 1979 lectures and it made my QM classes from college so much easier to understand...
Star-Drive

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 454
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #551 on: 09/12/2009 03:24 PM »
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #552 on: 09/14/2009 10:01 AM »
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.


The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.

Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.
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 #553 on: 09/14/2009 05:22 PM »
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?

Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.


The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.

Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.
The interactions discussed here are almost exclusively between photons/em waves and electrons, regardless of whether the electrons are bound or free.

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #554 on: 09/14/2009 06:23 PM »
While I admit I'm not following every aspect of this very interesting discussion, I'm enjoying it.  Allow please for me to refocus the original intent: we were talking about action at a distance as relates to gravity theory and specifically, Mach's Principle.  From wiki on AAAD:

"A related question, raised by Ernst Mach, was how rotating bodies know how much to bulge at the equator. How do they know their rate of rotation? This, it seems, requires an action-at-a-distance from distant matter, informing the rotating object about the state of the universe. Einstein coined the term Mach's principle for this question."

If a rotating body did not know there was a rest of the universe, it would not know it was rotating.  So somehow, all the universe's parts know about each other--hence Mach's Principle.

BTW, for a fascinating discussion of this, see "A Closed Universe Cannot Rotate" by D.H.King found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252952457&sr=8-3
« Last Edit: 09/14/2009 06:24 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #555 on: 09/14/2009 06:48 PM »
It seems that you can sum this up like this: There is not fixed origin in the universe, or a specific point where you can say "okay, you are now at complete rest". However, this doesn't apply to rotational speed. Clearly, you can tell if an object is rotating or not (by whether or not it experiences centrifugal forces--i.e. it is in a non-inertial reference frame). Why is that? Is it because of the distribution of mass of the universe? Perhaps, but this isn't proven.

But, it seems to me that the Gravi-inertial effect is dependent on concepts like frame-dragging, yet frame-dragging (if it occurs at all) can barely be measured at all (see the difficulty in getting results from Gravity Probe-B), let alone be used for propulsion. It seems to me that the physics behind the gravi-inertial effect thruster experiments are far from proved, even if it is theoretically possible to get SOME sort of exceedingly-small value from it. It seems to me like you're better off developing a propulsion system to ride magnetic-field gradients.
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 #556 on: 09/14/2009 06:58 PM »
"It seems to me that the physics behind the gravi-inertial effect thruster experiments are far from proved. . ."

I agree.  In science, in order to have anything approaching "proof"; one of the things we require is repeatability.  This implies that experiments will have to be repeated.  Of course, the notion of "proof" is not really a part of science.  Science doesn't ever prove anything; it merely disproves the alternatives.  So before we can see anything we might want to call substantial evidence of Mach's Principle, something approaching "proof"; we'll need to see a lot of replications of the sorts of experiments James Woodward ran this last year.

In the meantime, it is only fair to recognize that the data to date is more than encouraging.  Anyone who invests the time to understand Woodward's work this last year would be forced to agree.  He DID find a signal at the second harmonic in anti-phase with electrostriction--just as his theory indicates he should.  We therefore need to see some independent replications of this urgent and important experiment.

You're a physicist, Robo.  What's more important in the physics world than discovering the origins of inertia and a way to have a measure of mastery over it?

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #557 on: 09/14/2009 07:15 PM »
"But, it seems to me that the Gravi-inertial effect is dependent on concepts like frame-dragging, yet frame-dragging (if it occurs at all) can barely be measured at all (see the difficulty in getting results from Gravity Probe-B), let alone be used for propulsion. . ."

Mach Effects do not rely upon frame dragging but FD is a necessary consequence of GR.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

"The Gravity Probe B experiment[50][51] is currently under way to experimentally measure another gravitomagnetic effect, i.e. the Schiff precession of a gyroscope,[52][53] to an expected 1% accuracy or better. Unfortunately, it seems that such an ambitious goal will not be achieved: indeed, first preliminary results released in April 2007 point toward a so far obtained accuracy of[54] 256-128%, with the hope of reaching about 13% in December 2007.[55] However, in 2008 the Senior Review Report of the NASA Astrophysics Division Operating Missions stated that it is unlikely that Gravity Probe B team will be able to reduce the errors to the level necessary to produce a convincing test of currently-untested aspects of General Relativity (including Frame-dragging).[56] [57]"

Note, the claim is not that Gravity Probe B has failed to find frame dragging but rather, that it is incapable of doing so.  Lack of evidence is never evidence of lack.  Our best bet is still with GR.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2009 07:17 PM by GI-Thruster »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #558 on: 09/14/2009 07:29 PM »
Note, the claim is not that Gravity Probe B has failed to find frame dragging but rather, that it is incapable of doing so.

That's my point. You're proposing to use an effect related to frame-dragging to produce propulsion. We can barely even measure such an effect, let alone use it to provide a propulsion method capable of competing with a rocket. If such an effect is real, I can see it being used for interstellar travel, but certainly not for reaching LEO. Just saying that it scales very rapidly isn't justifiable, unless you can actually prove it. I really have a hard time believing that you can change the mass of a system with forces internal to the system, since energy is conserved (i.e. to change its mass, you must change its energy--i.e. E=mc^2, but that can't happen in a closed system, and in an open system, that energy would be radiated away, not just available for you to use again, unless you are being pumped by an outside energy source, like a laser).
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 #559 on: 09/14/2009 07:45 PM »
"That's my point. You're proposing to use an effect related to frame-dragging to produce propulsion."

Mach Effects are not related to frame dragging except that FD is a consequence of GR which current M-E theory is based upon.  M-E does not scale with dragging or anything else like this so the size of FD has nothing to do with the size of M-E (though, I can see why this might be a misunderstanding.)

M-E scales with many things, such as frequency; but not with any FD effects.  The rest of your post is based on what you don't know and really has nothing to do with M-E physics.  Hopefully Paul can come along here and post some of the scaling laws for us.

But if I may just clear up one point, the mass of the system (the universe) is constant but the mass of the thruster is NOT.  Mach Effects are mass fluctuations.  It is entirely appropriate to generalize that the proof of the pudding here is whether it's possible to fluctuate mass at all.  If it is not, then your complaints obtain.  If it is, they are not coming to the issue.

If mass fluctuations based upon Mach's Principle, General Relativity and Woodward's theory, are possible; the rest is just engineering and yeah, we ought to be able to build very powerful, efficient thrusters.

You should read the papers.  You'd be amazed at what pops out of the math.

Edit: one proviso, we don't yet know how M-E scales through the wormhole boundary.  If it turned out we can't use M-E within wormhole territory, then we would have a serious restriction to thrust efficiency, but it would still seem possible to build very highly efficient thrusters.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2009 07:59 PM by GI-Thruster »

Tags: