Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 288166 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #920 on: 05/15/2017 02:59 PM »
It doesn't matter if you don't get 100% of the energy (Kinetic energy) back.

Mainly because we are not arguing that a MET can create a Free Energy machine.

I understand.  Ppnl was discussing the irrelevance of entropy however, and giving as examples, systems that are well understood.

The MET device would convert electrical energy to forward momentum, in the simplest telling.  You are saying that you all are also extracting energy from the G-I field.

Quote from: Birchoff
Now, from all the theoretical work and the work shop discussions it is also obvious that the main source of energy for a MET is not the power provided by the ships power system. Star-Drive's confirmation of my interpretation here...

If if turns out to be the case that, "the increase in the attached vehicle's kinetic energy that comes from the cosmological gravitational / inertial (G/I) field will turn out to be EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF the MEGA drive's local input power times its operational loaded Q-factor...", then that is something that you all will have proven.

In a way, it would be like discovering an oil well gusher.  All of a sudden, if the process works, you will have discovered a lot of "free" energy, as compared to the energy you put into "drilling the well".  There will be entropic losses in that system, even if they have not yet been discovered.

Until then, it will be something that I only read about, however.

Y'all carry on.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline tchernik

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #921 on: 05/15/2017 03:37 PM »
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?
« Last Edit: 05/15/2017 03:43 PM by tchernik »

Online M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #922 on: 05/15/2017 04:08 PM »
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

« Last Edit: 05/15/2017 04:09 PM by M.E.T. »

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #923 on: 05/15/2017 04:45 PM »
We are not arguing about the entropy state at the universe scale, but the local measurement of a device here on Earth.

As already written by Ron Stahl and explained in wikipedia, a Mach effect thruster relies on Mach's principle, hence it is not an electrical to kinetic transducer, i.e. it does not convert electric energy to kinetic energy. Rather, a Mach Effect Thruster is a gravinertial transistor that controls the flow of gravinertial flux, in and out of the active mass of the thruster. The primary power into the thruster is contained in the flux of the gravitational field, not the electricity that powers the device. Failing to account for this flux, is much the same as failing to account for the wind on a sail.

So let's take the idea of a MEGA drive mounted on a flywheel:
1) A compact electrical nuclear generator produces a certain amount of energy E1 during some time t1, representing a certain amount of power P1.
2) During that time, a MEGA-drive uses this amount of energy to convert the whole gravinertial potential energy of the universe into a local force, accelerating the thruster and rotating the flywheel it is clamped upon to high speed.
3) After some time t1, the power supply is switched off. The MEGA drive has reached a certain amount of velocity.
4) A dynamo uses the potential energy of the rotating flywheel to convert its movement into electrical energy, slowing down the flywheel down to zero, during a time t2.

Question: Is the amount of retrieved energy E2 less or more than the input energy E1?

If the retrieved energy is always less, why? If no more energy E2 can be extracted from the kinetic energy of the flywheel than the amount of energy E1 the onboard electrical generator has consumed, then there is an unkown mechanism that prevents a MEGA drive to accelerate at a constant rate using a constant amount of electrical input energy. But this would also limit interstellar spaceship range in decent time.

I don't get the point of saying that the retrieved energy of such a device is necessary lower than the energy consumed by the electrical generator, especially since the real energy used to accelerate the device is drawn from the gravinertial flux of the universe and not from the onboard electrical power source. If a very efficient MEGA-drive can reach the stars in a few years or months at a relativistic velocity, this kinetic energy vastly exceeds the total energy of the nuclear fuel stored onboard.

Resorting to entropy, or the energy at the universe scale, or relativity with calculations having to be made based on multiple frames of references is just handwaving in a smoke screen to avoid this very simple thought experiment IMHO.

But the other way, I don't get the point of saying E2 > E1 is so critical. Do we call water and wind turbines as well as sails "over-unity devices"?
« Last Edit: 05/15/2017 05:01 PM by flux_capacitor »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #924 on: 05/15/2017 04:57 PM »
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.

Yes entropy exists. But you don't need to discuss entropy when discussing an electrical motor because the entropy losses can be made as low as you want. Same for an electrical generator/flywheel combo. For an internal combustion engine entropy places an upper limit on efficiency but there is still no doubt that an internal combustion engine can convert useful amounts of chemical energy into kinetic energy and then on to electrical energy.



The same is true of kinetic energy in general. There is no entropic argument that prevents you from converting it to electrical energy with good efficiency. Consider an asteroid in orbit around the Earth. Now put a long conducting tether on it that interacts with the Earth's magnetic field. This is just like a huge flywheel with an attached generator. This can be used to convert orbital velocity to electrical energy at pretty high efficiency. Now put a your engine on the asteroid. This drains cosmic energy into the asteroid.

Now where are the entropy losses? It cannot be in the tether generator since it is pretty efficient. Is it in the engine? How? If it gives constant acceleration for constant power then no matter how inefficient it is I can choose a velocity high enough that the energy gain blows away the losses. This follows from the fact that your power use is constant while your power output goes with the square of velocity. The higher your speed the more power your device produces while losses are constant. With a magic energy source like this entropy truly is irrelevant.

You don't need to unscramble the egg because the egg was never scrambled. Simple kinetic energy is a low entropy source of energy and can generally be converted into other forms at high efficiency. Thus entropy is irrelevant. There is no upper limit on how efficient this conversion can be done in principle.

 

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
  • Liked: 573
  • Likes Given: 782
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #925 on: 05/15/2017 05:04 PM »
Resorting to entropy, or the energy at the universe scale, or relativity with calculations having to be made based on multiple frames of references is just handwaving in a smoke screen to avoid this very simple thought experiment IMHO.

???

Either there's a mechanism to account for the seeming ease with which you can violate CoE, or the Mach Effect probably cannot be used to perform work. You're asking a valid question, but as far as I know, there isn't a good answer to it yet. Personally, I don't know where to begin to answer the question.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #926 on: 05/15/2017 05:10 PM »
Resorting to entropy, or the energy at the universe scale, or relativity with calculations having to be made based on multiple frames of references is just handwaving in a smoke screen to avoid this very simple thought experiment IMHO.

???

Either there's a mechanism to account for the seeming ease with which you can violate CoE, or the Mach Effect probably cannot be used to perform work. You're asking a valid question, but as far as I know, there isn't a good answer to it yet. Personally, I don't know where to begin to answer the question.

Then to answer the question, the flywheel thought experiment has to be transformed into an experiment. But currently any MEGA drive can not even move a paper flywheel, so this is a problem.

Online M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #927 on: 05/15/2017 05:29 PM »
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.

Yes entropy exists. But you don't need to discuss entropy when discussing an electrical motor because the entropy losses can be made as low as you want. Same for an electrical generator/flywheel combo. For an internal combustion engine entropy places an upper limit on efficiency but there is still no doubt that an internal combustion engine can convert useful amounts of chemical energy into kinetic energy and then on to electrical energy.



The same is true of kinetic energy in general. There is no entropic argument that prevents you from converting it to electrical energy with good efficiency. Consider an asteroid in orbit around the Earth. Now put a long conducting tether on it that interacts with the Earth's magnetic field. This is just like a huge flywheel with an attached generator. This can be used to convert orbital velocity to electrical energy at pretty high efficiency. Now put a your engine on the asteroid. This drains cosmic energy into the asteroid.

Now where are the entropy losses? It cannot be in the tether generator since it is pretty efficient. Is it in the engine? How? If it gives constant acceleration for constant power then no matter how inefficient it is I can choose a velocity high enough that the energy gain blows away the losses. This follows from the fact that your power use is constant while your power output goes with the square of velocity. The higher your speed the more power your device produces while losses are constant. With a magic energy source like this entropy truly is irrelevant.

You don't need to unscramble the egg because the egg was never scrambled. Simple kinetic energy is a low entropy source of energy and can generally be converted into other forms at high efficiency. Thus entropy is irrelevant. There is no upper limit on how efficient this conversion can be done in principle.

The higher your speed relative to what, though? If you build the device on an asteroid that is already traveling at 100,000km/h relative to say the sun, and switch it on, is its first 1km/h of acceleration producing more or less energy than a similar device on a spaceship that was accelerated by the MET device to match the speed of the asteroid, switched off, and then switched on again to accelerate the ship by 1 extra km/h?
« Last Edit: 05/15/2017 05:31 PM by M.E.T. »

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #928 on: 05/15/2017 05:33 PM »
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Velocity does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. As a result of that kinetic energy does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. Electrical energy OTOH is an absolute. All frames of reference will see it as the same. This creates a problem with conserving energy as see by different frames of reference.

Classical mechanics solves this by requiring that you conserve both energy and momentum. If you conserve these then you can transform between frames of reference without violating the rules. While things may look different to different people they are in a deeper sense the same.

If you violate conservation of energy or momentum - even if it is just local - you open an ugly can of worms. Now maybe you can find some way past this can of worms. But you will not do so without understanding that there is an ugly can of worms there.

Online M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #929 on: 05/15/2017 05:34 PM »
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Velocity does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. As a result of that kinetic energy does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. Electrical energy OTOH is an absolute. All frames of reference will see it as the same. This creates a problem with conserving energy as see by different frames of reference.

Classical mechanics solves this by requiring that you conserve both energy and momentum. If you conserve these then you can transform between frames of reference without violating the rules. While things may look different to different people they are in a deeper sense the same.

If you violate conservation of energy or momentum - even if it is just local - you open an ugly can of worms. Now maybe you can find some way past this can of worms. But you will not do so without understanding that there is an ugly can of worms there.

But is the entire Universe not the local frame of reference for the MET device, seeing as it reacts instantaneously with all the matter in the Universe?

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #930 on: 05/15/2017 06:13 PM »
The higher your speed relative to what, though? If you build the device on an asteroid that is already traveling at 100,000km/h relative to say the sun, and switch it on, is its first 1km/h of acceleration producing more or less energy than a similar device on a spaceship that was accelerated by the MET device to match the speed of the asteroid, switched off, and then switched on again to accelerate the ship by 1 extra km/h?

The local inertial frame of reference is the departure point where the thruster was at rest at the beginning. It's the Earth if the experiment is there. It's the moving asteroid if the probe has landed on the asteroid.

This is the same as the inertial frame of reference in Langevin's twin paradox: the aging twin is the one staying in the initial inertial reference frame (the Earth) and the younger twin is the one who accelerated wrt this initial inertial reference frame, up to a relativistic velocity. To reach a certain velocity, you have to accelerate with respect to a point of spacetime, which is the inertial reference frame. Speed is always relative to something, this is the essence of special relativity [and a very Machian idea by the way: as if there is no matter in the universe at all except one particle, you could not measure its velocity relative to anything. And if this particle could not have a velocity, it could not have a measurable mass neither, as mass varies with velocity. Hence no inertia. Thus the inertia of an object ensues from the presence of the matter in the universe Enrst Mach 1913.]

Same thing for a MEGA drive landed on an asteroid, whatever its speed wrt Earth. The asteroid can move 100,000km/h wrt Earth, when the probe takes off the asteroid, its initial speed is zero wrt to the asteroid (the inertial frame of reference).
« Last Edit: 05/15/2017 06:27 PM by flux_capacitor »

Online Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1309
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #931 on: 05/15/2017 06:16 PM »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #932 on: 05/15/2017 06:22 PM »
I have no point about entropy except that it is irrelevant. I can't understand why it was even mentioned.

Well, at least you're consistent.  I'm afraid that entropy exists as a feature of the universe regardless of your understanding thereof.

Anyhow...

Quote from: ppnl
The point is that you can store massive amounts of kinetic energy and extract it by a variety of ways. It is spinning so you can put a magnet on it and make a generator out of it for example. There is vast energy there. It can be extracted in a useful form.

This is generally true.  To be more completely accurate, one never gets one hundred percent of the energy stored back, much less more than one hundred percent.  Why?  Because entropy.

It's not clear to me what is the larger point that you may be making.

You can check out the oracle on Flywheel Energy Storage for a bit of additional info on how different forms of energy are transformed one from another, stored, and transmitted.

The oracle also offers a pretty good intro to entropy.  I always skip the math above calculus, but hey:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_entropy

Bottom line:

You can't unscramble an egg.  And you can't get something for nothing.

Yes entropy exists. But you don't need to discuss entropy when discussing an electrical motor because the entropy losses can be made as low as you want. Same for an electrical generator/flywheel combo. For an internal combustion engine entropy places an upper limit on efficiency but there is still no doubt that an internal combustion engine can convert useful amounts of chemical energy into kinetic energy and then on to electrical energy.



The same is true of kinetic energy in general. There is no entropic argument that prevents you from converting it to electrical energy with good efficiency. Consider an asteroid in orbit around the Earth. Now put a long conducting tether on it that interacts with the Earth's magnetic field. This is just like a huge flywheel with an attached generator. This can be used to convert orbital velocity to electrical energy at pretty high efficiency. Now put a your engine on the asteroid. This drains cosmic energy into the asteroid.

Now where are the entropy losses? It cannot be in the tether generator since it is pretty efficient. Is it in the engine? How? If it gives constant acceleration for constant power then no matter how inefficient it is I can choose a velocity high enough that the energy gain blows away the losses. This follows from the fact that your power use is constant while your power output goes with the square of velocity. The higher your speed the more power your device produces while losses are constant. With a magic energy source like this entropy truly is irrelevant.

You don't need to unscramble the egg because the egg was never scrambled. Simple kinetic energy is a low entropy source of energy and can generally be converted into other forms at high efficiency. Thus entropy is irrelevant. There is no upper limit on how efficient this conversion can be done in principle.

The higher your speed relative to what, though? If you build the device on an asteroid that is already traveling at 100,000km/h relative to say the sun, and switch it on, is its first 1km/h of acceleration producing more or less energy than a similar device on a spaceship that was accelerated by the MET device to match the speed of the asteroid, switched off, and then switched on again to accelerate the ship by 1 extra km/h?

It does not matter. As I was explaining to someone else velocity is not an absolute. It is relative to a frame of reference. If the asteroid is reacting with the Earth then it is the velocity relative to the Earth that matters. You are pushing against the Earth. If you are pushing on the sun then it is the velocity with respect to the sun that matters.

I find that I have to explain Galilean relativity over and over again.

If you conserve both momentum and energy then you can transform between frames of reference consistently. If you violate conservation of momentum - even if just locally - that will look like a local violation of energy. There is no argument that prevents you from converting that energy into electrical energy.

So if the drive produces constant acceleration with with constant power then you effectively have an infinite energy device. THE HORROR... the horror...

I don't know why so many dislike the energy argument. Maybe it is a lack of understanding of Galilean relativity. Maybe they don't want to be associated with perpetual motion devices. I do know that even Roger Shawyer, inventor of emdrive, showed no understanding of Galilean relativity. I got some nasty messages from people for how I described his work. I felt I was being gentle.

Offline ppnl

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #933 on: 05/15/2017 06:38 PM »
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Velocity does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. As a result of that kinetic energy does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. Electrical energy OTOH is an absolute. All frames of reference will see it as the same. This creates a problem with conserving energy as see by different frames of reference.

Classical mechanics solves this by requiring that you conserve both energy and momentum. If you conserve these then you can transform between frames of reference without violating the rules. While things may look different to different people they are in a deeper sense the same.

If you violate conservation of energy or momentum - even if it is just local - you open an ugly can of worms. Now maybe you can find some way past this can of worms. But you will not do so without understanding that there is an ugly can of worms there.

But is the entire Universe not the local frame of reference for the MET device, seeing as it reacts instantaneously with all the matter in the Universe?

Well you can choose anything as your frame of reference. But you have to choose rules such that you can transform between frames of reference consistently. No frame of reference can be any more "true" than any other. If you violate that then you have done massive damage to the entire field of physics. Maybe that damage can be repaired. But you will have to understand the damage in order to repair it.

You need to understand Galilean relativity before you even think about special or general relativity.

Online M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #934 on: 05/15/2017 06:57 PM »
I think this can be synthesized as:

- Does a MET provide thrust allowing a ship to accelerate above what a perfectly collimated photon rocket can do or not?

Thrust can change in function of speed (which would be amazing in itself), but if its thrust keeps above 1N per ~300 Mw of power spent, then it would be more efficient than an ideal photon rocket.

Ergo, there is some speed less than c where its kinetic energy is above the energy spent.

If it can't go overunity, why not? who keeps the accounting?

Is its speed really changing though? If its relative motion is being measured against the entirety of the mass in the observable universe, is it not going faster relative to some bodies and slower relative to others, but remaining at rest relative to the total mass of the Universe?

Maybe I can't quite envisage this fully, but how do you go faster or slower relative to the combined mass of the entire Universe, spread out in all directions to the end of the observable light cone, billions of light years away? Or perhaps even further. What you gain in one direction, you lose in another, so if you push against all of that mass again, you won't need  more energy to speed up by one more km/h than you did for the previous km/h.

So there is no need for anyone to "keep account".

Velocity does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. As a result of that kinetic energy does not exist as an absolute. It is frame dependent. Electrical energy OTOH is an absolute. All frames of reference will see it as the same. This creates a problem with conserving energy as see by different frames of reference.

Classical mechanics solves this by requiring that you conserve both energy and momentum. If you conserve these then you can transform between frames of reference without violating the rules. While things may look different to different people they are in a deeper sense the same.

If you violate conservation of energy or momentum - even if it is just local - you open an ugly can of worms. Now maybe you can find some way past this can of worms. But you will not do so without understanding that there is an ugly can of worms there.

But is the entire Universe not the local frame of reference for the MET device, seeing as it reacts instantaneously with all the matter in the Universe?

Well you can choose anything as your frame of reference. But you have to choose rules such that you can transform between frames of reference consistently. No frame of reference can be any more "true" than any other. If you violate that then you have done massive damage to the entire field of physics. Maybe that damage can be repaired. But you will have to understand the damage in order to repair it.

You need to understand Galilean relativity before you even think about special or general relativity.

Just to clarify, I do believe that the MET will result in greater local energy gain than the electrical power input into the device. Consider the following example, used many times before in this discussion.

The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #935 on: 05/15/2017 07:12 PM »
Not sure if this is topical but it might be.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nature-great-puzzles-expansion-universe.html

"Their calculations provide a completely different physical picture of the universe. In this new picture, the space we live in is fluctuating wildly. At each point, it oscillates between expansion and contraction. As it swings back and forth, the two almost cancel each other but a very small net effect drives the universe to expand slowly at an accelerating rate."

This is complete nonsense to me. You can't say "everything cancels out perfectly, if we except that tiny effect that shows some negative energy remains." This breaks the first part of the sentence. What is important is what remains. 10-11 is exactly the same as 100,000-100,001.

"When physicists apply the theory of quantum mechanics to vacuum energy, it predicts that there would be an incredibly large density of vacuum energy, far more than the total energy of all the particles in the universe."

The vacuum state of the Zero-point energy must have 1) the lowest possible ground state and 2) can not have negative values: in Quantum Field Theory, the T operator acting on Hilbert spaces is complex, and can be either linear and unitary, or antilinear and antiunitary; but is arbitrarily chosen antilinear and antiunitary in order to prevent inversion of energy. But when this was stated as a foundation of the theory, the accelerating expansion of the universe, which implies a negative pressure, was not known yet. But pressure is a volumetric energy density, so what drives the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is some "dark" energy which is negative in nature.

QFT states this negative state cannot exist, which shows at least that the theory is incomplete or mislead from its ground.

One can explain dark energy and the acceleration of the expansion of the universe if it allows negative energy in the theory first.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #936 on: 05/15/2017 07:22 PM »
The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

This is a common mistake. Take a conventional BFR (Big F Rocket). Let's accelerate this spaceship to a decent fraction of the speed of light. The more it approaches the speed of light, the more difficult it is for the ship to accelerate, as the mass of the spaceship increases more than the mass lost as exhaust propellant. Now switch the motor off. You can't say "the ship cannot remember its velocity, so just switch the motor on again to accelerate without the previous relativistic drag." Again, this has to do with the inertial reference frame the ship departed from.

Online M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #937 on: 05/15/2017 07:27 PM »
The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

This is a common mistake. Take a conventional BFR (Big F Rocket). Let's accelerate this spaceship to a decent fraction of the speed of light. The more it approaches the speed of light, the more difficult it is for the ship to accelerate, as the mass of the spaceship increases more than the mass lost as exhaust propellant. Now switch the motor off. You can't say "the ship cannot remember its velocity, so just switch the motor on again to accelerate without the previous relativistic drag." Again, this has to do with the inertial reference frame the ship departed from.

But you don't need to get to a decent fraction of the speed of light for the kinetic energy of the MET ship to exceed the electrical energy that powered the device.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #938 on: 05/15/2017 07:31 PM »
The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

This is a common mistake. Take a conventional BFR (Big F Rocket). Let's accelerate this spaceship to a decent fraction of the speed of light. The more it approaches the speed of light, the more difficult it is for the ship to accelerate, as the mass of the spaceship increases more than the mass lost as exhaust propellant. Now switch the motor off. You can't say "the ship cannot remember its velocity, so just switch the motor on again to accelerate without the previous relativistic drag." Again, this has to do with the inertial reference frame the ship departed from.

But you don't need to get to a decent fraction of the speed of light for the kinetic energy of the MET ship to exceed the electrical energy that powered the device.

Agree on this. I was just addressing "the ship does not remember its velocity after switching off" sentence.

Online M.E.T.

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #939 on: 05/15/2017 07:32 PM »
The device is switched on and accelerates a ship from 0 to 10,000km/h. Then it is switched off. The ship is now traveling at 10,000km/h relative to its starting position. But the device cannot "remember" this.

When it is switched on again, it will not require more input energy to accelerate from 10,000km/h to 20,000km/h than it required to accelerate to 10,000km/h in the first place.

Hence, it does indeed operate as a local energy generator.

This is a common mistake. Take a conventional BFR (Big F Rocket). Let's accelerate this spaceship to a decent fraction of the speed of light. The more it approaches the speed of light, the more difficult it is for the ship to accelerate, as the mass of the spaceship increases more than the mass lost as exhaust propellant. Now switch the motor off. You can't say "the ship cannot remember its velocity, so just switch the motor on again to accelerate without the previous relativistic drag." Again, this has to do with the inertial reference frame the ship departed from.

But you don't need to get to a decent fraction of the speed of light for the kinetic energy of the MET ship to exceed the electrical energy that powered the device.

Agree on this. I was just addressing "the ship does not remember its velocity after switching off" sentence.

Ok, I understand.