Propellantless Field Propulsion and application

[Celebrimbor]

So...are you saying it's basically impossible to build an M/E device with a T/W >1?

Where did you get the notion that the thrust to weight ratio would have to be less than 1.0?  All I'm speculating about is where the extra energy from an M-E based drive could be coming from when running with the energy supplied through M-E impulse term.  It says nothing about the maximum obtainable power and therefore its maximum thrust that can be generated relative to the drive's mass.  In fact this conjecture implies that an M-E device's available energy and power for thrust generation could be very large relative to its mass just because of the noted E= m*c^2 relationship using the local on-board mass to energy conversions.  And when you add the extra energy available through the non-local M-E wormhole term interactions, the mind boggles at the possibilities...

So what you're really saying is that through some mechanism (that I don't understand at all) there is some acceleration/boost/increase in kinetic energy. And this energy is accounted for by E=mc^2, which you refer to as gravitational potential energy, but most people call rest-mass energy.

Aren't you describing the theoretical limit of rocket propulsion? How is your idea fundamentally different from this:

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

Are you counting photons as propellant? Would you count gravitons as propellant? If not, why not?

[mikorangester]

Ok.  I bit.  From:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=mass+of+an+electron

electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms

and from:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=mass+of+a+proton

proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms

Which is about 1/1836?  Ish?  So when I got to the part in your blog where you state that  "The mass of the electron is 1/10000 the mass of the proton", I stopped.  Personally, I'm not in total understanding of the theory as outlined by Woodward and March;  I don't have what it takes to work with data that appears incorrect.  I notice that Mike Lorrey posted a comment on your site.  In addition, your "How to" graphic was illegible in my viewer.

As a side note, I wondered about the "reactions" that you seem to be expecting from your readers:  "Funny"?

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?

[khallow]

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?

Your explanation has obvious flaws. In addition to what John noticed, changing the radius of orbit of an electron wouldn't shift the center of gravity. Any oscillating signal will also pull as much as it pushes (so no net movement of a targeted atom). And someone else pointed out other notable flaws in the model (such as transparency of ordinary matter to the photons of these frequencies and arbitrary choice of frequencies).

Ultimately, as mentioned before, this is a rather fancy solar sail. And we don't require production of focused gamma rays or materials which are opaque to gamma rays.

[mikorangester]

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?

Your explanation has obvious flaws. In addition to what John noticed, changing the radius of orbit of an electron wouldn't shift the center of gravity. Any oscillating signal will also pull as much as it pushes (so no net movement of a targeted atom). And someone else pointed out other notable flaws in the model (such as transparency of ordinary matter to the photons of these frequencies and arbitrary choice of frequencies).

Ultimately, as mentioned before, this is a rather fancy solar sail. And we don't require production of focused gamma rays or materials which are opaque to gamma rays.

OK. You know everything even when you are wrong.

[Cinder]

Why say he's wrong without detailing how; demonstrating it?

[mlorrey]

So...are you saying it's basically impossible to build an M/E device with a T/W >1?

Where did you get the notion that the thrust to weight ratio would have to be less than 1.0?  All I'm speculating about is where the extra energy from an M-E based drive could be coming from when running with the energy supplied through M-E impulse term.  It says nothing about the maximum obtainable power and therefore its maximum thrust that can be generated relative to the drive's mass.  In fact this conjecture implies that an M-E device's available energy and power for thrust generation could be very large relative to its mass just because of the noted E= m*c^2 relationship using the local on-board mass to energy conversions.  And when you add the extra energy available through the non-local M-E wormhole term interactions, the mind boggles at the possibilities...

So what you're really saying is that through some mechanism (that I don't understand at all) there is some acceleration/boost/increase in kinetic energy. And this energy is accounted for by E=mc^2, which you refer to as gravitational potential energy, but most people call rest-mass energy.

Aren't you describing the theoretical limit of rocket propulsion? How is your idea fundamentally different from this:

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

Are you counting photons as propellant? Would you count gravitons as propellant? If not, why not?

Ok, firstly, you don't seem to understand the difference between special relativity and general relativity. e=mc^2 is Special Relativity and has nothing to do with what we are talking about (or rather, very little to do) directly. The Mach Effect is a precursor to and a required condition of General Relativity. Please google the difference.

[mlorrey]

Ok.  I bit.  From:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=mass+of+an+electron

electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms

and from:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=mass+of+a+proton

proton mass = 1.67262158 × 10-27 kilograms

Which is about 1/1836?  Ish?  So when I got to the part in your blog where you state that  "The mass of the electron is 1/10000 the mass of the proton", I stopped.  Personally, I'm not in total understanding of the theory as outlined by Woodward and March;  I don't have what it takes to work with data that appears incorrect.  I notice that Mike Lorrey posted a comment on your site.  In addition, your "How to" graphic was illegible in my viewer.

As a side note, I wondered about the "reactions" that you seem to be expecting from your readers:  "Funny"?

Its an approximation only. The model is what is interesting, well to me anyway. Reactions? Thought I was indicating that there are models out there that shows propellantless field propulsion not only to be workable but within technological reach, or is simple explanations not egg headish enough?

My reaction is you still haven't responded to my comment on your blog, which correctly points out that using electromagnetic waves to cause atoms to move is the central method of the Hall Thruster, a form of ion or plasma drive. It most certainly is NOT propellantless or reactionless, and has absolutely nothing to do with Woodward's Mach Effect. You are a, to quote Jack Sarfatti, a scientific cargo cultist.

[Crispy]

*finger in the air*

Actually it was Feynman who coined the term Cargo Cult Science

[Sith]

Guys, theoretically, could we negatively energize a vehicle and apply  certain frequency in order to lift it up? I imagine the craft as a giant electron that gets feed by EM waves just like the photoelectric effect  

[Lampyridae]

Guys, theoretically, could we negatively energize a vehicle and apply  certain frequency in order to lift it up? I imagine the craft as a giant electron that gets feed by EM waves just like the photoelectric effect  

Electrons have a very, very small mass compared to atoms. I can't see how this would work.

[JohnFornaro]

I gotta say:  I did like the "finger in the air" point.

[mlorrey]

*finger in the air*

Actually it was Feynman who coined the term Cargo Cult Science

Yes, though Sarfatti tends to accuse anybody who is promoting reactionless propulsion of cargo cultism. In this case, the label is accurate.

[Star-Drive]

So...are you saying it's basically impossible to build an M/E device with a T/W >1?

Where did you get the notion that the thrust to weight ratio would have to be less than 1.0?  All I'm speculating about is where the extra energy from an M-E based drive could be coming from when running with the energy supplied through M-E impulse term.  It says nothing about the maximum obtainable power and therefore its maximum thrust that can be generated relative to the drive's mass.  In fact this conjecture implies that an M-E device's available energy and power for thrust generation could be very large relative to its mass just because of the noted E= m*c^2 relationship using the local on-board mass to energy conversions.  And when you add the extra energy available through the non-local M-E wormhole term interactions, the mind boggles at the possibilities...

So what you're really saying is that through some mechanism (that I don't understand at all) there is some acceleration/boost/increase in kinetic energy. And this energy is accounted for by E=mc^2, which you refer to as gravitational potential energy, but most people call rest-mass energy.

Aren't you describing the theoretical limit of rocket propulsion? How is your idea fundamentally different from this:

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

Are you counting photons as propellant? Would you count gravitons as propellant? If not, why not?

Celebrimbor:

I'll try to paint a picture of the M-E and rockets that you can relate to, but this stuff is not easy to navigate through so bear with me. 

BTW, until we have an experimentally verified quantum-gravity theory that merges QM and GRT into a harmonious whole, we have no clue whether "gravitons" or the quantification of gravity into particles exist or does not.  So the GRT community talks about spacetime distortion waves being the seat of all gravitational and inertial phenomenon's instead.  In fact, Woodward claims that Newtonian inertial reaction forces are the only TRUE force of gravity!  Local gravitational disturbances, like the gee-field of the Earth, are just minor local spacetime distortions…


Woodward’s transient Mach-Effect (M-E) conjecture is inextricably tied to his proposed origins of inertia theory based on Newton's three laws of motion, Mach’s Principle, Special and General Relativity Theories (SRT & GRT), Lorentz Invariance, with the latter requirement guarantying that the resulting conjecture observes all known conservation laws, along with Dennis Sciama’s 1953 and 1969 origins of inertia papers.   The strength of Woodward’s arguments relies on the strength of these underlying assumptions, which have yet to be disproven in or out of the labs.  Also note that since we are talking about using a hidden attribute of regular Newtonian inertial reaction forces instead of gravity effects to create the M-E, the magnitude of these predicted M-E transient inertial forces are in line with everyday inertial reaction forces that can be very large dependent on the magnitude of the applied acceleration, instead of the pico-picoscopic forces described by gravity effects or GRT predicted gravity waves due to the ~1x10^40 measured difference in gravity verses inertial derived effects.  One may legitimately then ask why does this huge difference in magnitude exist between spacetime distortions derived effects such as gravity and inertia?  It results from the fact that the gravitational forces are created by spacetime distortions created by local mass/energy concentrations only, whereas inertial forces are created by the interactions of all the causally connected mass/energy in the universe which is currently pegged as having a radius of 13.7 billion light years.
 
Now why did I provide all of the foregoing when talking about the difference between the M-E based thrusters and rockets?   First off the reader has to remember that the rocket and its propellant form a small  CLOSED-loop system.  It has NO pertinent interactions with the outside universe as far as its maximum delta-V generation capability is concerned.  This closed system restriction limits a rocket vehicle’s maximum obtainable delta-V to the total amount of onboard propellant and the amount of useable energy that is stored in the vehicle’s propellant or reactors be it chemical or nuclear derived.   This local onboard energy and propellant limitation IS the origins of the Tyranny of the rocket equation!   

An M-E based thruster on the other hand is a much larger closed-loop propulsion system that can react with ALL the mass/energy in the causally connected universe that participates in the creation of the local acceleration induced inertial forces.  (See Sciama’s and Woodward’s “Origins of Inertia” papers.)  So an M-E based thruster not only uses this cosmologically derived mass/energy reaction force for most of its equivalent reaction mass, (It also has to have a minimum recyclable amount of local mass that will allow it to react with the gravinertial (G/I) field, just like a submarine has to have a propeller to react with the ocean’s waters.)   However, it also can extract energy and momentum from this near infinite sea of G/I mass/energy field and convert it into the local kinetic energy of the locally accelerated M-E powered vehicle above and beyond what the vehicle’s local power supply can provide.  However it can do this only if a G/I pressure differential of the proper sign can be established across the M-E device’s dielectric “propeller”.   

Ok, so why did I evoke Einstein’s e=m*c^2 energy/mass equivalency in my previous comments?  Simply because of Einstein’s GRT based equivalence principle or EEP that states that there can be no measureable difference between gravitational and inertial mass when measured in the same local frame of reference.  The EEP therefore requires that acceleration measured inertial mass has to have the same value as gravitationally measured mass in the same frame of reference, which is defined by Einstein’s mass/energy equivalency equation of m= e/c^2.  This implies that the G/I field phi, which has a theoretical value equal to c^2, is created by the summation of ALL of the mass/energy created spacetime distortions in the causally connected universe.  Therefore given the cosmologically derived estimates of the mass/energy contained in the causally connected universe that is ~13.7 billion light years in radius, which is measured to be 9.1x10^-27 kg/m^3 in mass density terms, times the total volume of the cosmos, and converting that figure back to energy gives us an upper bound for the available energy that any M-E device can tap.   Another way to estimate the magnitude of this upper energy storage bound of the causally connected universe can be estimated by noting that there are ~1x10^80 atoms in this cosmos, plus the associated dark matter and dark energy that goes with it and then converting that figure into energy and adding them all up.  So the theoretical G/I field energy so extracted by an M-E device is therefore near infinite and not limited by its local energy resources stored in the vehicle even if it’s nuclear power derived.  It is only limited by the power handling and phase control capabilities of the M-E device‘s components and its overall efficiency at pumping G/I field energy from this cosmological energy resource to the local vehicle or power plant in question.  How much energy that can be extracted from the G/I field by any one M-E device will ultimately be determined by the maximum operational G/I pressure differential that can be established across any given M-E device.

[SiriusGrey]

Three comments:

First, technically, E=mc^2 (or E=m for us particle physicists, as c=1) is a formula that emerged and is central in special relativity. In general relativity this is taken as given in the computation of the energy-momentum tensor.

Secondly, theorists define fields with large numerical values all the time. This does not mean any physical effect arises from them. Calculating the amount of matter in the visible universe only detracts from any argument you make.

Lastly; although you have given many buzzwords; you have not actually made it clear why the mach effect would have any effects on a scale smaller than some lightyears. Try to explain in one paragraph.

Cheers,
Sirius

[Star-Drive]

Three comments:

First, technically, E=mc^2 (or E=m for us particle physicists, as c=1) is a formula that emerged and is central in special relativity. In general relativity this is taken as given in the computation of the energy-momentum tensor.

Secondly, theorists define fields with large numerical values all the time. This does not mean any physical effect arises from them. Calculating the amount of matter in the visible universe only detracts from any argument you make.

Lastly; although you have given many buzzwords; you have not actually made it clear why the mach effect would have any effects on a scale smaller than some lightyears. Try to explain in one paragraph.

Cheers,
Sirius

SiriusGrey

"Lastly; although you have given many buzzwords; you have not actually made it clear why the mach effect would have any effects on a scale smaller than some lightyears. Try to explain in one paragraph."

I did but you didn't seem to notice.  It's called Newtonian inerital reaction forces and the predicted transient M-E forces that surrounds them.  As to the buzzwords, you might take the time to read the comments and the references already provided in this thread, but I'll make it easy for you and append one of the more important papers and a teaser as well.

Best.

Paul March
Friendswood, TX

[SiriusGrey]

I did but you didn't seem to notice.  It's called Newtonian inerital reaction forces and the predicted transient M-E forces that surrounds them.  As to the buzzwords, you might take the time to read the comments and the references already provided in this thread, but I'll make it easy for you and append one of the more important papers and a teaser as well.

For reference: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t834127482nuv384/

I read the paper. It is a good account how the linear approximation to general relativity is not invariant under the Lorentz Transform.

The equations of general relativity are nonlinear. However, you can approximate the equations in case you have low velocities and a spacetime that is almost flat (like everything except black holes). In first order, there are three terms: A scalar term that describes the "newton-like" gravity, a vector term describing frame dragging, and a tensor term describes gravity waves.

The main observation referred to in this paper is the "standard" prediction of general relativity - the light of a star is bent if it passes close to a massive object like the sun. You can also observe this deflection if you are far from the star. The paper points out that at that point (far from strong gravitational fields) special relativity demands that your observations are lorentz-invariant - you can choose any inertial frame to describe your physics.

Lorentz-invariance is intricately tied to electrodynamics. Thus, the first-order approximation of GR also follows the electrodynamic transformation laws; and you can define a gravito"static", gravito"magnetic" and gravity wave part of the approximations. (scalar, vector and tensor perturbations)

The central point of the author is that one must not only consider any obersvations made in our "stationary" reference frame, but also in any boosted frame.

Can you explain to me how a propulsion effect arises from this observation?

Cheers,
Sirius

[93143]

He's attached two documents.  The front page of the gravitomagnetics paper is the second document.  The first document (a full paper in PDF format) is more along the lines of what you're looking for.

I think you might be underestimating each other...

[aceshigh]

this discussion, to me, is almost like trying to decypher hieroglyphs for the first time without the Rosetta stone. But keep it on guys. Its quite interesting. I can grasp a few concepts here and there.

btw, I am not impartial here. And I wont be scientific either, by saying I want StarDrive to convince Sirius of his arguments. Not because I believe the MachEffect to be true. But because I want it to be true. Haha, yes, not scientific at all. Sorry.

[SiriusGrey]

Sorry - i did not see the first PDF at all the first time i looked.

I now had a chance to go over the calculations.

As far as I understand; the central effect you use is the mass fluctuation calculated for a test mass.

Unfortunately; I think a fundamental error is introduced in equation A4 in the appendix A, page 24, where your central equation is derived:

You write "In this frame we can ignore the difference between coordinate and proper time, and gammas (since they are all equal to one)" 

However, even if the relativistic gamma factor equals one at that time and in that frame of reference, the time derivative of gamma in that frame is of course not zero! Gamma is a function only of the particle velocity. This is the missing piece in the equation.

This derivative of gamma is not a relativistic correction - this is the change in the kinetic energy of the particle!

At this point, a time derivative on the rest mass is introduced, compensating for the missing kinetic energy. Subsequently, this leads to equations which predict fluctuation in mass.

Cheers,
Sirius

[aceshigh]

I calculate that there is a 75% chance this has already been pointed out to Star Drive along the 63 pages of discussion in this thread.

And a 60% chance he has already replied to this observation