### Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 450021 times)

#### flux_capacitor

• Full Member
• Posts: 656
• France
• Liked: 779
• Likes Given: 1053
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #800 on: 01/07/2017 12:55 PM »
CW, the "exact event mirror of two parallel folds" is not the way the absorber theory works, but your point about the antimatter travelling backwards in time is interesting.

Antimatter has a positive mass, it does not "fall upwards" in a gravitational potential. Having a positive mass, it has a positive energy, for E = mc2. Incidentally, if antimatter had a negative energy, the annihilation of an antiparticle of energy -E with a particle of energy E would produce… nothing.

An antiparticle in the sense of Dirac is the C-symmetry of its particle (charge conjugation).

It is true Feynman described another beast, PT-symmetry of a particle: Parity and time reversal of normal matter. This "antimatter in the sense of Feynman" does indeed "travel backwards in time". It is NOT Dirac's antimatter as we know it.

This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

T-symmetry of a particle simply means inverting the energy of that particle, and its mass if it has one.

If you search for the roots of such a withdrawal of antichron and negative energy particle in physics, you will discover this has been decided because such solutions (the negative mass solution in particular) are "evidently preposterous" due to the runaway paradox. See "Negative mass: Runaway motion" on Wikipedia.

So instead of finding theoretical ways to resolve such a paradox due to the physical existence of negative energy particles, scientists decided to use only half of Physics!

And there is a way to resolve the preposterous runaway motion paradox, which rightly uses Feynman's PT-symmetrical particles and a 2-metric description of the universe in general relativity, allowing the physical existence of the two kinds of particles. BTW it is very similar to your own idea! Such a solution is described in the last two peer-reviewed papers referenced at the end of the section "Arrow of time and space inversion" of the same page about the negative mass.

#### Stormbringer

• Full Member
• Posts: 1340
• Liked: 237
• Likes Given: 92
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #801 on: 01/07/2017 01:12 PM »
it is generally assumed that such anti physical results of physics math are unreal and thus should be excluded when modeling what is possible in the physical universe. But this is not a universally held notion. At least not when exploring strange phenomenon. At such times theorists sometimes evoke hidden sectors in which at least some if not all of the normally discarded non physical results are real. These hidden sectors preserve real physics in our familiar world while allowing really weird physics to be real so long as they are generally walled off from measurement.

I have mentioned this several times in the past and just the other day in the EM drive thread. The first time i heard of hidden sectors was in reference to mirror neutrons. The last time was about something else all together. I know considering such things makes"serious" physicists buttocks itch but these ideas come from serious physicists as well;  so i suggest getting some analgesic creme for that itch.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2017 01:14 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

#### flux_capacitor

• Full Member
• Posts: 656
• France
• Liked: 779
• Likes Given: 1053
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #802 on: 01/07/2017 01:27 PM »
Yes, "hidden sector" is a trending name nowadays. In the past cosmologists used other terms such as "parallel universe", "multiverse", "bubble universe", "membrane universe", "shadow universe", "mirror matter", "twin fold", "bimetric", bigravity, etc. (not all equivalent)
« Last Edit: 01/07/2017 01:50 PM by flux_capacitor »

#### Stormbringer

• Full Member
• Posts: 1340
• Liked: 237
• Likes Given: 92
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #803 on: 01/07/2017 01:47 PM »
well this is the article i referred to as being the most recent:

http://phys.org/news/2017-01-multiple-standard-hierarchy-problem.html

and the one below is the one that originally blew my mind. i consider myself as wading in the fringe a bit. But i knew of no serious credentialed respectable science equivalent of the gooey raving mad goodness of some of the fringe stuff that holds my interest. And i know nearly all of it is utter fantasy.

Until i saw:

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html

and later i saw

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm

(It's not important that Dr Tajmar retracted due to experimental error. It's important that the articles on this acknowledge a predicted coupling (in relativity) between magnetism and gravity. and that credentialed commentary acknowledged that this has been known all along (at least since the time of Einstein.) )

« Last Edit: 01/07/2017 01:49 PM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

#### flux_capacitor

• Full Member
• Posts: 656
• France
• Liked: 779
• Likes Given: 1053
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #804 on: 01/07/2017 01:58 PM »
and later i saw

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm

(It's not important that Dr Tajmar retracted due to experimental error. It's important that the articles on this acknowledge a predicted coupling (in relativity) between magnetism and gravity. and that credentialed commentary acknowledged that this has been known all along (at least since the time of Einstein.) )

This Tajmar experiment is related to Podkletnov, isn't it?

#### Stormbringer

• Full Member
• Posts: 1340
• Liked: 237
• Likes Given: 92
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #805 on: 01/07/2017 02:13 PM »

This Tajmar experiment is related to Podkletnov, isn't it?

I think it may be. He did try to replicate podkletnov in one of his experiments but i am not sure it was this precise set of experiments. I believe he went on to try something that required a similar experimental set up. I am not sure if this is about his replication experiment or another one. I recall that he later said his results were really due to sublimation gases of his cryocoolant flowing into the set up. But i think Podkletnov complained that even Tajmar could not fully replicate his test article and set up. he made similar claims about NASA and Boeing. Maybe he didn't about Tajmar. i cannot recall for sure.

(parenthetically Podkletnov is still experimenting and claims even more definite proof of his effect. you can find video interviews in the fringe portion of Youtube and places like that.)
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

#### sanman

• Senior Member
• Posts: 4362
• Liked: 660
• Likes Given: 8
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #806 on: 01/07/2017 02:43 PM »
This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

Doesn't this PT-symmetry then amount to a "trivial solution" which can be invoked for all cases?
Isn't that why many physicists would avoid it?

This Tajmar experiment is related to Podkletnov, isn't it?

I thought Podkletnov stuff was the hokier claim of "anti-gravity" using a superconducting wheel, whereas Dr Tajmar's experiment also happened to use a superconductive wheel but was about measuring a gravitomagnetic moment and did not involve any claims about anti-gravity.

Anyway, what happened to a different claim about the laser gyro being affected by the rotation of a superconductive ring nearby? Is that experimental observation still valid, or has it been de-bunked yet?

In the other thread you guys just now once again cited McCulloch's theory of MiHSC quantized inertia, which was also previously cited to explain the laser gyro acceleration thing, to make predictions about the EMdrive.
Can McCulloch's MiHSC/quantized-inertia theory similarly make predictions for Woodward's MEGA-drive?

« Last Edit: 01/07/2017 02:50 PM by sanman »

#### Stormbringer

• Full Member
• Posts: 1340
• Liked: 237
• Likes Given: 92
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #807 on: 01/07/2017 02:52 PM »

I thought Podkletnov stuff was the hokier claim of "anti-gravity" using a superconducting wheel, whereas Dr Tajmar's experiment also happened to use a superconductive wheel but was about measuring a gravitomagnetic moment and did not involve any claims about anti-gravity.

I believe there were two sets of experiments. You are right about the later Tajmar experiments. but i seem to recall that he was also involved in a replication experiment concerning Podkletnovs claims earlier. If this is true it is best not to conflate both sets of experiments even though the hokiness factor of Podkletnovs stuff remains undecided as far as i am concerned.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

#### CW

• Full Member
• Posts: 188
• Germany
• Liked: 141
• Likes Given: 51
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #808 on: 01/07/2017 06:18 PM »
it is generally assumed that such anti physical results of physics math are unreal and thus should be excluded when modeling what is possible in the physical universe. But this is not a universally held notion. At least not when exploring strange phenomenon. At such times theorists sometimes evoke hidden sectors in which at least some if not all of the normally discarded non physical results are real. These hidden sectors preserve real physics in our familiar world while allowing really weird physics to be real so long as they are generally walled off from measurement.

I have mentioned this several times in the past and just the other day in the EM drive thread. The first time i heard of hidden sectors was in reference to mirror neutrons. The last time was about something else all together. I know considering such things makes"serious" physicists buttocks itch but these ideas come from serious physicists as well;  so i suggest getting some analgesic creme for that itch.

The thing is that itching buttocks in and of themselves do not make for great arguments . It at least seems to me as if half of physics is ignored due to phlegma and (as of now) scientific incompetence, and resulting from that, seemingly weird things like EM-drive happen. If we suppose that there were a mirror half space, the humans on the other side would come to exactly the same conclusions as us here. Same arguments, same incompetence in grasping what's going on. OK, I'm silent again. Let the pros do their stuff.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2017 06:21 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

#### flux_capacitor

• Full Member
• Posts: 656
• France
• Liked: 779
• Likes Given: 1053
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #809 on: 01/07/2017 07:33 PM »
This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

Doesn't this PT-symmetry then amount to a "trivial solution" which can be invoked for all cases?
Isn't that why many physicists would avoid it?

Why PT-symmetric particles would be a "trivial solution"?

According to Dirac and Feynman we should account for 4 types of matter:
• our own normal matter
• our antimatter (C-symmetric matter)
• mirror matter (PT-symmetric of our matter)
• mirror antimatter (C-symmetric of the mirror matter, and CPT-symmetric of our matter)

Because of the T-symmetry, mirror matter and mirror antimatter have negative energy and negative mass, and emit negative energy photons, so they can't be seen directly, they could only be detected indirectly through their gravitational effects on the matter in the universe. They are good alternate candidates to explain all effects usually attributed to the mysterious dark matter.

May I add that if our matter dominated the cosmological antimatter because of the CP-violation, the same but opposite CP-violation may have occurred during the baryogenesis of the adjacent sector. This is very speculative but this elegant solution to preserve the symmetry globally has been first proposed by Andrei Sakharov in 1967.

Apparent problem: the mirror antimatter, C-symmetric of the mirror matter and CPT symmetric of our matter, would contradict the CPT theorem, which states the CPT-symmetric of a particle behaves like that particle, that it is the same. This implies that T-symmetry, as classically viewed by the quantum field theory, does not reverse the energy. But this is a postulate originating from an ad hoc arbitrary choice with respect to the time-reversal operator.

Quantum mechanics depends on the structure of operators, and we have P and T operators. In dynamical group theory, these operators are real, so that T-symmetry goes with the inversion of energy. But in quantum mechanics, operators become complex so that they may be:

unitary – antiunitary
linear – antilinear

If the time-inversion T would be unitary and linear, T-inversion would create negative energy states.

Steven Weinberg wrote in the "bible" "The Quantum Theory of Field", pp. 74-76, section "Space inversion and Time-Reversal":
Quote from: Steven Weinberg
There are no states of negative energy. If we supposed that T is linear and unitary then we get the disastrous conclusion that for any state Ψ of energy E there is another state T-1Ψ of energy -E. To avoid it we are forced here to conclude that T is antilinear and antiunitary.

Until the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, nothing in physics indicated that negative energy would be present somewhere. But this acceleration implies the action of a negative pressure. A pressure is a density of energy per unit of volume by the way.

So this question must be reconsidered. It's anything but trivial.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2017 08:32 PM by flux_capacitor »

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1374
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1426
• Likes Given: 1894
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #810 on: 01/10/2017 03:51 AM »
...

MET:

I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Hi Paul,

I for one would really like to read Sonny's response to Dr. Woodward's recent JBIS article. He makes a really good case, in that if the QV were the propellant, it would be easily detectable by its mass. I add to this, that it would also be detectable by an enormous amount of heat.

It could be, as you've told me that, the virtual electron-positron pairs are not fully formed. They do not have the full on-shell mass that real particles would have. Therefore, their annihilation might not produce that much hea. However, if they have enough mass to make a reasonable propellant, then the temperature of annihilation should still be detectable, but just not 1000's of Kelvin.

#### dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 666
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 259
• Likes Given: 290
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #811 on: 01/10/2017 04:03 AM »
This idea of Feynman (PT-symmetrical particles) implies the presence of antichron components in the complete extended Poincaré group. Yet, such antichron components are usually withdrawn from conventional physics equations, in both general relativity and quantum mechanics. Yet, when you work with the complete Poincaré group in the dynamic group theory, you see that time inversion from the coadjoint action of the group on its momentum space changes the sign of the mass and energy.

Doesn't this PT-symmetry then amount to a "trivial solution" which can be invoked for all cases?
Isn't that why many physicists would avoid it?

Why PT-symmetric particles would be a "trivial solution"?

According to Dirac and Feynman we should account for 4 types of matter:
• our own normal matter
• our antimatter (C-symmetric matter)
• mirror matter (PT-symmetric of our matter)
• mirror antimatter (C-symmetric of the mirror matter, and CPT-symmetric of our matter)

Because of the T-symmetry, mirror matter and mirror antimatter have negative energy and negative mass, and emit negative energy photons, so they can't be seen directly, they could only be detected indirectly through their gravitational effects on the matter in the universe. They are good alternate candidates to explain all effects usually attributed to the mysterious dark matter.

May I add that if our matter dominated the cosmological antimatter because of the CP-violation, the same but opposite CP-violation may have occurred during the baryogenesis of the adjacent sector. This is very speculative but this elegant solution to preserve the symmetry globally has been first proposed by Andrei Sakharov in 1967.

Apparent problem: the mirror antimatter, C-symmetric of the mirror matter and CPT symmetric of our matter, would contradict the CPT theorem, which states the CPT-symmetric of a particle behaves like that particle, that it is the same. This implies that T-symmetry, as classically viewed by the quantum field theory, does not reverse the energy. But this is a postulate originating from an ad hoc arbitrary choice with respect to the time-reversal operator.

Quantum mechanics depends on the structure of operators, and we have P and T operators. In dynamical group theory, these operators are real, so that T-symmetry goes with the inversion of energy. But in quantum mechanics, operators become complex so that they may be:

unitary – antiunitary
linear – antilinear

If the time-inversion T would be unitary and linear, T-inversion would create negative energy states.

Steven Weinberg wrote in the "bible" "The Quantum Theory of Field", pp. 74-76, section "Space inversion and Time-Reversal":
Quote from: Steven Weinberg
There are no states of negative energy. If we supposed that T is linear and unitary then we get the disastrous conclusion that for any state Ψ of energy E there is another state T-1Ψ of energy -E. To avoid it we are forced here to conclude that T is antilinear and antiunitary.

Until the discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, nothing in physics indicated that negative energy would be present somewhere. But this acceleration implies the action of a negative pressure. A pressure is a density of energy per unit of volume by the way.

So this question must be reconsidered. It's anything but trivial.

I have been suggesting for some time now that I think anti-matter is actually negative-mass and runs backwards in time.  This makes a positron actually a negative energy electron running backwards in time such that its charge is reversed to be positive.  The positron "negative energy" running backwards in time appears to be "positive energy".  When an electron and positron come together in contact the time cancels between them and the positron's properties become negative-mass like, so that when they come together they disappear (matter+negative matter).

Where do they go?  Their energy is carried away in a blast of light.  What is light?  I suspect light is actually the other electron-position pairs that make up the vacuum.  That's right the vacuum may be a swarm of such pairs.   In fact we already have created such pairs right from the vacuum with very intense light!  With large enough electric fields these pairs pop right out of the vacuum.  So they are like phantom particles just waiting there.

They can not completely disappear.  There is a minimum osculation amplitude they can decay to.  This would be the minimum temperature of the vacuum which can not reach exactly absolute zero.

So how is light considered not having mass?  Because the pairs appear to almost have no mass when combined. So how can light change in mass?  It depends on how far you separate the e-p pairs.  The further your separate them the more massive they become till they are fully separated.  In a sense this converts the energy of the electric fields into a form of mass.  Small osculations may have a linear effect where large may become non-linear.

I have pondered if the antimatter counterpart of light, if it really is a positron, could possibly send a wave back in time, as in Feynman's absorber twist.

Here is when I first started really thinking about it: 8/22/2016 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1572016#msg1572016 and it grew from there.  It even makes sense when you consider the current of the pairs inducing E and B fields and why the vacuum can carry such fields.  Matter itself may be in a dance with them as Warp has suggested to me before that matter was in such a dance/equilibrium with something in the vacuum.
« Last Edit: 01/10/2017 04:22 AM by dustinthewind »

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1374
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1426
• Likes Given: 1894
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #812 on: 01/10/2017 04:14 AM »
Yes, "hidden sector" is a trending name nowadays. In the past cosmologists used other terms such as "parallel universe", "multiverse", "bubble universe", "membrane universe", "shadow universe", "mirror matter", "twin fold", "bimetric", bigravity, etc. (not all equivalent)

Left out "Unimatrix 0".

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1374
• Do it!
• Vista, CA
• Liked: 1426
• Likes Given: 1894
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #813 on: 01/10/2017 04:41 AM »
There is an easier way to think of inertia, without using advanced waves.

1. All matter is composed of superimposed wave functions, which are composed of particular combinations of frequencies, phase differences, wavelengths, spin, charge, etc. All according to Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED).
2. The speed of light, c is a constant in a local, inertial reference frame.
3. The speed of light sets the maximum speed of the wave function. In the Dirac equation for example, the equations of motion for a free electron are such that it moves (zitterbewegung) about its location with velocity +/- c, and is spread-out in space on the order of the Compton wavelength. (See Milonni.)
4. When we exert a force on the electron, the wave function is doppler shifted. It is ALWAYS doppler shifted to a higher frequency, shorter wavelength and higher energy.

In effect, when we push on an object, its internal frequency increases in the non-inertial reference frame. It requires "work" to be done to shift to a higher frequency (shorter wavelength) in order to conserve energy. That work being done is what we experience as the reaction force. Inertial mass is the resistance to acceleration.

Now, in the Polarizable Vacuum model, c/K is a variable "coordinate speed of light" in the frame of a distant observer, due to a variable vacuum refractive index, K that represents the gravitational field. The gravitational field potential is derived from matter and energy. Therefore, it is very, (very!) possible, that the maximum speed of light is determined by the sum of all the other matter in the universe, and is only slightly modified (reduced) by the local planet or star, where K > 1.

In this sense, Inertia, being resistance to acceleration caused by a fixed, finite velocity of light, is due to all the other matter and energy in the universe setting the maximum speed limit. Very simple, and I have derived the same equations as Dr. Woodward, using the PV Model.

Todd

#### sanman

• Senior Member
• Posts: 4362
• Liked: 660
• Likes Given: 8
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #814 on: 01/17/2017 06:46 PM »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect

Quote
The three issues are:

whether potentials are "physical" or just a convenient tool for calculating force fields;
whether action principles are fundamental;
the principle of locality.

Because of reasons like these, the Aharonov–Bohm effect was chosen by the New Scientist magazine as one of the "seven wonders of the quantum world".[8]

Whatever's going on, it almost seems like this Aharonov–Bohm effect could be a bridge between understanding the Newtonian world and the Quantum world (admittedly, that latter is outside of the Mach-Woodward conjecture phrasing)

Quote
Global action vs. local forces
Similarly, the Aharonov–Bohm effect illustrates that the Lagrangian approach to dynamics, based on energies, is not just a computational aid to the Newtonian approach, based on forces. Thus the Aharonov–Bohm effect validates the view that forces are an incomplete way to formulate physics, and potential energies must be used instead(Prof Woodward's criticism of EMdrive as "pushing on the car windshield" may likewise be incomplete). In fact Richard Feynman complained[citation needed] that he had been taught electromagnetism from the perspective of electromagnetic fields, and he wished later in life he had been taught to think in terms of the electromagnetic potential instead as this would be more fundamental. In Feynman's path-integral view of dynamics, the potential field directly changes the phase of an electron wave function, and it is these changes in phase that lead to measurable quantities.

Locality of electromagnetic effects
The Aharonov–Bohm effect shows that the local E and B fields do not contain full information about the electromagnetic field, and the electromagnetic four-potential, (Φ,A), must be used instead. By Stokes' theorem, the magnitude of the Aharonov–Bohm effect can be calculated using the electromagnetic fields alone, or using the four-potential alone. But when using just the electromagnetic fields, the effect depends on the field values in a region from which the test particle is excluded. In contrast, when using just the electromagnetic four-potential, the effect only depends on the potential in the region where the test particle is allowed. Therefore, one must either abandon the principle of locality(this sounds Mach-ian/Woodward-ian!), which most physicists are reluctant to do, or accept that the electromagnetic four-potential offers a more complete description of electromagnetism than the electric and magnetic fields can. On the other hand, the AB effect is crucially quantum mechanical; quantum mechanics is well-known to feature non-local effects (albeit still disallowing superluminal communication), and Vaidman has argued that this is just a non-local quantum effect in a different form.[9]
« Last Edit: 01/17/2017 06:54 PM by sanman »

#### Star-Drive

• Member
• Full Member
• Posts: 853
• TX/USA
• Liked: 935
• Likes Given: 17
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #815 on: 01/17/2017 07:30 PM »
...

MET:

I've always found it curious that Dr. Woodward so wanted to bash the quantum vacuum (QV) approach to this business, especially the way Dr. White derived his QV conjecture that uses Woodward's Mach-Effect wave equation at the heart of Sonny's conjecture, see attached 05-09-2012 Q-Thruster Operations slide.

Best, Paul M.

Hi Paul,

I for one would really like to read Sonny's response to Dr. Woodward's recent JBIS article. He makes a really good case, in that if the QV were the propellant, it would be easily detectable by its mass. I add to this, that it would also be detectable by an enormous amount of heat.

It could be, as you've told me that, the virtual electron-positron pairs are not fully formed. They do not have the full on-shell mass that real particles would have. Therefore, their annihilation might not produce that much hea. However, if they have enough mass to make a reasonable propellant, then the temperature of annihilation should still be detectable, but just not 1000's of Kelvin.

Todd:

Just like Woodward's TRANSIENT mass fluctuations, whatever they are composed of, White's e/p pair compression fluctuations are transient in nature with their average lifetimes a measure of their on-brane density in our normal mass universe.  So when Woodward says that these e/p pair mass density fluctuations can't be used for reaction mass because they are not generating the same effects as full time on-brane electrons and positrons would, well duh, of course they don't at the average driven densities of 1x10^-12 kg/m^3 obtained to date in the frustum experiments.  And Jim's M-E "mass-fluctuations" won't either.

Best,
Star-Drive

#### HMXHMX

• Full Member
• Posts: 1469
• Liked: 1143
• Likes Given: 326
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #816 on: 04/06/2017 11:56 PM »
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.

#### HMXHMX

• Full Member
• Posts: 1469
• Liked: 1143
• Likes Given: 326
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #817 on: 04/07/2017 12:14 AM »
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.

Several of our colleagues (José Rodal, Paul March, Bruce Long, Nolan van Rossum and Marshall Eubanks) are Co-PIs or consultants.  Prof. Jim Woodward will also consult on the project. SSI will administratively manage the grant for the team.

The Project Summary from our proposal:

We propose to study the implementation of an innovative thrust producing technology for use in NASA missions involving in space main propulsion. Mach Effect Thruster (MET) propulsion is based on peer-reviewed, technically credible physics. Mach effects are transient variations in the rest masses of objects that simultaneously experience accelerations and internal energy changes. They are predicted by standard physics where Mach’s principle applies – as discussed in peer-reviewed papers spanning 20 years and a recent book, Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes published by Springer-Verlag. These effects have the revolutionary capability to produce thrust without the irreversible ejection of propellant, eliminating the need to carry propellant as required with most other propulsion systems.

Our initial Phase 1 effort will have three tasks, two experimental and one analytical:

1. Improvement of the current laboratory-scale devices, in order to provide long duration thrust at levels required for practical propulsion applications.

2. Design and development of a power supply and electrical systems to provide feedback and control of the input AC voltage, and resonant frequency, that determine the efficiency of the MET.

3. Improve theoretical thrust predictions and build a reliable model of the device to assist in perfecting the design. Predict maximum thrust achievable by one device and how large an array of thrusters would be required to send a probe, of size 1.5m diameter by 3m, of total mass 1245Kg including a modest 400 Kg of payload, a distance of 8 light years (ly) away.

Ultimately, once proven in flight and after more development, these thrusters could be used for primary mission propulsion, opening up the solar system and making interstellar missions a reality. The MET device is not a rocket, it does not expel fuel mass, and does not suffer from the velocity restriction of rockets. Freedom from the need to expel propellant means very high velocities might be achievable simply by providing electrical power and adequate heat rejection for the drive system. A mission to Planet 9 is possible in the near future using RTG power and thruster arrays. A future goal would be interstellar travel to the nearest exoplanet, within 5-9 Ly distance. A mission of this type might take 20 or more years using the MET thruster. Although the nearest exoplanet is 14 or so ly distance, more Earth-like planets are being discovered daily.

This aerospace concept is an exciting TRL 1 technology, ready to take the next step to providing propellantless propulsion, first in incremental NASA smallsat missions, but later enabling revolutionary new deep space exploratory capabilities beyond anything achievable by conventional chemical, nuclear or electric propulsion systems. This unexplored opportunity has been uniquely developed by our co-Principal Investigators, breaking new ground in both science and engineering. Finally, it is technically credible – if bold and unconventional – and is fully consistent with modern physics, having been demonstrated over ten years of careful laboratory demonstration and investigation.

#### Elmar Moelzer

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3165
• Liked: 584
• Likes Given: 847
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #818 on: 04/07/2017 04:40 AM »
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.
This is great news Gary! Very happy for you guys!

#### M.E.T.

• Full Member
• Posts: 574
• Liked: 242
• Likes Given: 18
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #819 on: 04/07/2017 07:26 AM »
Just an FYI – Space Studies Institute (ssi.org) was selected as a NASA NIAC Phase I grantee:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

for our proposal "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission". Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute in Mojave, California and CalState Fullerton will be PI.

Several of our colleagues (José Rodal, Paul March, Bruce Long, Nolan van Rossum and Marshall Eubanks) are Co-PIs or consultants.  Prof. Jim Woodward will also consult on the project. SSI will administratively manage the grant for the team.

The Project Summary from our proposal:

We propose to study the implementation of an innovative thrust producing technology for use in NASA missions involving in space main propulsion. Mach Effect Thruster (MET) propulsion is based on peer-reviewed, technically credible physics. Mach effects are transient variations in the rest masses of objects that simultaneously experience accelerations and internal energy changes. They are predicted by standard physics where Mach’s principle applies – as discussed in peer-reviewed papers spanning 20 years and a recent book, Making Starships and Stargates: the Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes published by Springer-Verlag. These effects have the revolutionary capability to produce thrust without the irreversible ejection of propellant, eliminating the need to carry propellant as required with most other propulsion systems.

Our initial Phase 1 effort will have three tasks, two experimental and one analytical:

1. Improvement of the current laboratory-scale devices, in order to provide long duration thrust at levels required for practical propulsion applications.

2. Design and development of a power supply and electrical systems to provide feedback and control of the input AC voltage, and resonant frequency, that determine the efficiency of the MET.

3. Improve theoretical thrust predictions and build a reliable model of the device to assist in perfecting the design. Predict maximum thrust achievable by one device and how large an array of thrusters would be required to send a probe, of size 1.5m diameter by 3m, of total mass 1245Kg including a modest 400 Kg of payload, a distance of 8 light years (ly) away.

Ultimately, once proven in flight and after more development, these thrusters could be used for primary mission propulsion, opening up the solar system and making interstellar missions a reality. The MET device is not a rocket, it does not expel fuel mass, and does not suffer from the velocity restriction of rockets. Freedom from the need to expel propellant means very high velocities might be achievable simply by providing electrical power and adequate heat rejection for the drive system. A mission to Planet 9 is possible in the near future using RTG power and thruster arrays. A future goal would be interstellar travel to the nearest exoplanet, within 5-9 Ly distance. A mission of this type might take 20 or more years using the MET thruster. Although the nearest exoplanet is 14 or so ly distance, more Earth-like planets are being discovered daily.

This aerospace concept is an exciting TRL 1 technology, ready to take the next step to providing propellantless propulsion, first in incremental NASA smallsat missions, but later enabling revolutionary new deep space exploratory capabilities beyond anything achievable by conventional chemical, nuclear or electric propulsion systems. This unexplored opportunity has been uniquely developed by our co-Principal Investigators, breaking new ground in both science and engineering. Finally, it is technically credible – if bold and unconventional – and is fully consistent with modern physics, having been demonstrated over ten years of careful laboratory demonstration and investigation.

Wow. This is fantastic news. I've been waiting for this for years. (Heck, this is why I joined the forum and how I chose my forum name in the first place).

As I have said before, I remain perplexed that the upstart EMdrive (sorry EMdrive fans) has diverted so much intellectual effort and resources from what in my view is the so much more elegant, theoretically supported, (and frankly simpler to understand for a layman like me), Mach Effect, which seems to have been on the verge of a massive breakthrough for the last two decades.

I simply have not been able to understand why Profs Woodward and Fearn have been tinkering away in a little private lab for decades, while so much money and attention has been thrown at concepts like the EMdrive which no one, even now, seems able to agree on as to why it works, if it works at all.

Hopefully the Mach Effect will finally be proven beyond doubt, and take us to Centauri in our lifetimes. Not to mention open up the solar system for humanity. And probably win Prof Woodward a Nobel Prize, if confirmed.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 07:27 AM by M.E.T. »