There were a couple of articles about the nature of gravity last week. One says there are at least two types of gravity and that like neutrinos they oscillate from one type to the other. Another articles says that gravity is a result of the average of quantum collapse states at the quantum level.

Having read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for? Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects. The universe is really big. To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all. To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.

QuoteHaving read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for? Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects. The universe is really big. To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all. To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass" gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model. It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.

Quote from: Povel on 09/24/2017 07:03 PMQuoteHaving read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for? Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects. The universe is really big. To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all. To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass" gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model. It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.

Quote from: Bob012345 on 09/25/2017 04:51 PMQuote from: Povel on 09/24/2017 07:03 PMQuoteHaving read Woodward's book, I am not certain what you are looking for? Are you looking for a mathematical model for what the operation of a Mach effect device does to the momentum of an atom? or a kg? located X far away?I am more interested in quantization of the distal effects. The universe is really big. To provide the momentum to accelerate the very tiny ME active mass, it seems intuitively obvious some of the universe is moved a Planck length and some not moved at all. To me this requires "shear force" which is potentially energy robbing.Yes, that's what I'm looking for. I've also read the book, and there's no mention of this.I don't know if it is possible and/or convenient to try to trace down each contribute every far away bit of "mass" gives to the momentum/kinetic energy of the device, but if the effect is real this must be possible to do it in principle at least at a reasonable level of approximation using the relevant model. It seems to me that a classical theory should be able to handle this, with no necessity of introducing quantum mechanics. After all, general relativity with absorber interactions or Hoyle-Narlikar/gravity absorber theory are classical.I agree there is no need to invoke QM at all to explain Mach effects and the technology that might follow from such effects. It seems to me that once the force is accounted for, the energy is accounted for simply by the way kinetic energy is dependent on different reference frames, that it can be generated in one frame and harvested in another where it has a higher value. In this case, harvesting simply means the vehicle gains extraordinary kinetic energy because the force acting on it always acts from within a moving reference frame which is co-moving with the vehicle. This is not a mystery.Are you sure its pushing off something that is always at rest with respect to the observer (w.r.t.) ? Take for instance the twin paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox WarpTech brought up in the "Any resolutions to FTL paradoxes?" thread https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.0. Paralleling that with the space time cone where the person that accelerates converges their space & time axis into the light cone (blue) - making space part of time and time part of space. As a result the person that accelerates now travels through time (blue axis on light cone - motion through space is motion through time). By special relativity in the Twin paradox you might have difficulty discerning which twin ages more than the other.By their relative velocity to each other both their clocks should seem to run slow so whose axis tilts when velocity is relative???Taking into account which person actually tilts their time & space axis (blue) toward the light cone via acceleration makes it clear which person is the time traveler and who isn't (white axis of light cone). This seems to demand that one person is actually moving near c while another is not. from: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.htmlWe may see this reflected in the CMB background of our universe and discussed here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1708835#msg1708835 A web side on the matter: http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm I guess what I am saying is that I am not so sure we can think of the vacuum as being always at rest w.r.t. any moving individual. Take for instance a black hole. If the frame of the local vacuum is accelerating near a gravitational object and the vacuum frame reaches the speed of light at the event horizon then no light can escape. It might be argued that our mass prefers to be at rest w.r.t. some vacuum frame and that is why we are accelerated toward a gravitational object. This may suggest any non-accelerated object is at rest w.r.t. that vacuum but then again maybe it's just that objects resist accelerating in a vacuum but not moving at a constant velocity through it. (do super-fluids behave like this?)If we think of space/time as contracting into the planet via the same effect we can almost visualize such a forward motion through space time. That space time axis having converged some what on the light cone and our forward motion through it, suggests the possibly the reason our clock runs slower in a gravitational field. It also suggests why we end up in the universes future via slowing our time.

Today Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time. It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

Quote from: Bob Woods on 09/27/2017 03:29 PMToday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time. It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017And SSI.org will post her slides, Q&A handout and poster at approximately the same time.

poster 41 mbhttp://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_Poster.pdfslides 37mbhttp://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_Slides.pdfQ&A 10mbhttp://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_QandA.pdf

1.2 MWe seems very doable. Didnīt VASIMR required 200 MWe to send a spacecraft to Mars in 30 days?Based on those assumptions of power requirements,what our current nuclear reactor tech would allow?there is also the question of how much nuclear fuel we can take on a spacecraft and how long it takes to consume the fuel. (suppose we want to send humans to Proxima at 1G acceleration to reach 99.9% C, decelerate, and return. 200 tons spacecraft. How much of the 200 tons would need to be nuclear fuel?