Mach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter aredetermined by the global matter distribution in the universe.Why did Woodward change it to flatness in his book? That isn't what Mach said at all.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 12/08/2014 05:26 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 12/08/2014 05:14 pmBy wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution.which also deteriorates or damp[ens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/08/2014 05:14 pmBy wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution.
By wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.
In performing an EPR experiment, a wormhole would be opened between the twoentangled particles, keeping their quantum mechanical phases the same.Now suppose that intense laser light is projected on that part of the screenwhere one of the entangled particles is expected to emerge and be measured.Under these conditions a laser signal might be seen on the other screenwhere the other entangled particle is expected to emerge, with the laser signalhaving passed through the wormhole made by the entangled particles.
Thank you for the answer, but as expected in the question I don't find it satisfying. I won't read the book, main reason being I feel I should study complete and solid GR course first. . .
"Inertia manipulation" would be just a particular configuration of accelerations and energy swapping between different forms. . .
I can understand such Machian physics could predict such inertia manipulation, different from what SR would predict, but not how SR would fail to predict anything at all !
I mean, just show ME thruster design (and its internal power dynamics...) to a good physicist who don't know what it's supposed to do, you really think he/she will scratch head for a few days and conclude "how strange, we need an extended theory of inertia to predict how it will behave, classical frameworks have nothing to tell !" Really ?
Can't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ?
The question was rather, what other lab experiments could be devised to check for the reality or falsify Machian theory ? Is a ME thruster the most simple arrangement where such effect would manifest ?
... the book is now about 2 years old with no objections from the academic community, is pretty consoling to me. Remember it was published by Springer--an educational publishing house, and it has been reviewed now by academics all over. I have not yet seen a rebuttal of any kind. Of course that could change tomorrow.
Quote from: frobnicat on 12/08/2014 06:07 pmThank you for the answer, but as expected in the question I don't find it satisfying. I won't read the book, main reason being I feel I should study complete and solid GR course first. . .The book is written specifically for engineers. I'm sure you can understand what's in there. The equations are all there too, but they're mostly endnoted and on those occasions they are in the text, the text makes perfect sense without them. Though you are investing a little trust that the equations are correct, the fact they're peer reviewed for 20 years with no objections, and that the book is now about 2 years old with no objections from the academic community, is pretty consoling to me. Remember it was published by Springer--an educational publishing house, and it has been reviewed now by academics all over. I have not yet seen a rebuttal of any kind. Of course that could change tomorrow.
Quote"Inertia manipulation" would be just a particular configuration of accelerations and energy swapping between different forms. . . Not at all. Mass fluctuations are actually radiation reactions that suffer a time delay. The best way to visualize it is that there is a "gravinertial flux" formed by the gravity of the universe, that produces inertia, and that this flux can be made to flow in and out of matter under specific conditions. The energy in the bonds is necessary, because it is the change in those energies combined with acceleration that gives rise to the fluctuation.
QuoteI can understand such Machian physics could predict such inertia manipulation, different from what SR would predict, but not how SR would fail to predict anything at all ! Like GR, SR is not a theory of inertia. You might just as well object that we don't find this in Bernoulli's Principle. It does not pertain.
QuoteI mean, just show ME thruster design (and its internal power dynamics...) to a good physicist who don't know what it's supposed to do, you really think he/she will scratch head for a few days and conclude "how strange, we need an extended theory of inertia to predict how it will behave, classical frameworks have nothing to tell !" Really ? Certainly not. Without understanding the physics behind the device, no one would have any idea what it is supposed to do, nor why.
QuoteCan't the theory devise one other type of experiment that is at least as astounding and that could lend itself to more convincing reproducible results ?Yes. Woodward did the M-E experiment back in 2008-9 where he fluctuated the mass of a ceramic on a "Rotator' but did not rectify the fluctuation into useful force. He merely measured the fluctuation and noted it was as expected, at twice the frequency of the power into the device. Years before that he measured the time averaged loss of mass in one of the original design thruster as predicted by theory, on his modified U-80 load cell. There isn't one experiment that's been done. There are half a dozen such experiments. The important thing that hasn't been done so far as I'm concerned, is a high quality thruster experiment done at sufficient frequency that we see commercial grade thrusts. IMHO, what is needed now is a commercial thruster with thrust to mass, thrust to power and temperature bandwidth figures of merit that makes the device useful and can for example be run continuously and have its thrust revered easily on command by altering the phase angle between the 1w and 2w components of the drive signal. There's been quite enough useless proof of science. If that's what you really want is proof of science, read the book. That's what the second third of the book is all about. And really if that's what you are all about asking, what excuse could you possibly have to not go get the answer yourself?QuoteThe question was rather, what other lab experiments could be devised to check for the reality or falsify Machian theory ? Is a ME thruster the most simple arrangement where such effect would manifest ? Someone send me a life jacket please.In some ways the thruster is the most simple. It adds to the Rotator experiment the requirement to oscillate at 2 frequencies instead of just one, and to measure reliably some very small thrusts, but the Rotator has different issues. While such an experiment removes the thrust measurement requirement, it adds things like spinning the caps at several hundred gees without suffering explosive decomposition, and feeding the power through a set of expensive slip rings. It's a toss up which is the "simpler". My contention before the Rotator tests was that people would not care what he predicted and found, because he was not demonstrating a useful technology, but rather just a proof of science. I think that was an accurate prediction on my part. People don't care about stuff that isn't useful, and most people are far too skeptical to be convinced by mere proof of science. Take for example the folks here--they don't want to look at the data, so what is the point in proof of science? We need useful thrust.
The question was rather, what other lab experiments could be devised to check for the reality or falsify Machian theory ? Is a ME thruster the most simple arrangement where such effect would manifest ? Someone send me a life jacket please.
Cold charged battery, hot depleted battery, same energy, same mass equivalence, no mass fluctuation.
If this flux gets outside, we have an open system, and SR states that the price is equal or more than 3E8 Watts per Newton.
Time delays seem irrelevant for transformation from chemical bonds energy to kinetic energy back and forth in a bulk, again my battery example (please comment the battery thing : right ? wrong ? irrelevant ? Why irrelevant since it's about conversion from chemical bond energies to kinetic energies in a bulk ?)
Certainly not what ? I'm not asking if such mainstream scientists could tell what it is supposed to do, I'm asking if they could give a prediction of what it will do from admitted frameworks (no net thrust, at least not more than power/c would be my prediction, but I'm not a top notch senior physicist) or meet inconsistencies in the equations or interpretation so specific that they know they have reached the limits of usual frameworks.
you are trying to sell a Machian physic as fully compatible with GR
And SR does predict "closed system in deep space => no departure from inertial trajectory", so SR compatible Mach theory should say the same, me think.
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/08/2014 05:16 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2014 05:15 pmThat random walk doesn't seem to go anywhereNow put that scenario in the video in the Shawyer cavity.Gazakly. Which gets back to asking again what a "medium with intrinsic momentum" means.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2014 05:15 pmThat random walk doesn't seem to go anywhereNow put that scenario in the video in the Shawyer cavity.
That random walk doesn't seem to go anywhere
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/08/2014 04:27 pmMach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter aredetermined by the global matter distribution in the universe.Why did Woodward change it to flatness in his book? That isn't what Mach said at all. Is that moving the goal post after WMAP found things like the Eridanus Supervoid, and the Giant Void and other lumps, bumps and holes?He didn't change anything. I thought you had the book?
Mach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter aredetermined by the global matter distribution in the universe.Why did Woodward change it to flatness in his book? That isn't what Mach said at all. Is that moving the goal post after WMAP found things like the Eridanus Supervoid, and the Giant Void and other lumps, bumps and holes?
Since we don't have a proposed mechanism for dark energy, M-E seems to be the only viable candidate, but that is not the same as providing for falsification.
Quote from: Rodal on 12/08/2014 07:43 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2014 07:33 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 12/08/2014 05:26 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 12/08/2014 05:14 pmBy wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution....which also deteriorates or dampens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.1) Besides, Mull's outright dismissal of any possible description of the quantum vacuum as a superfluid has no basis in physics as discussed at major institutions, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory. None other than the great Paul Dirac inspired this approach. 2) As to scale, I already addressed that, and I'm content with the fact that none other than the great Feynman suggested quantized vortex lines:see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_turbulence (actually quantum turbulence is much simpler to model than classical turbulence in fluids like water)3) Winterberg proposed that the quantum vacuum is a kind of superfluid plasma compound of positive and negative Planck masses, called a Planck mass plasma. Here is a 2013 paper by him: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-381/aflb381m775.pdf where he proposes the following experimental verification:Quote from: Winterberg In performing an EPR experiment, a wormhole would be opened ...4) How do electromagnetic waves, photons etc. move through space, where there is believed to be nothing? Several prominent scientists have suggested and continue to suggest that it is in fact a superfluid. But you, Fornaro, are allowed to call it the aether.4) Many thanks for that. The aether, as conceived in classical physics leads to several contradictions; in particular, aether having a definite velocity at each space-time point will exhibit a preferred direction.What can "intrinsic momentum" mean, if it does not include a "preferred direction"?If the energies and momenta are below the excitation threshold then the superfluid background behaves like the ideal fluid, therefore, the Michelson–Morley-type experiments would observe no drag force from such aether.Therefore, if it does have a "preferred direction", it wouldn't result in a "drag force" on light. Aether way, cough, guess what it would be called?I'm just askin' the questions here, 'cause typically, I'm the guy giving the Dbug salute, when I'm not engaged in all those deletable activities I'm apparently fond of photographing and posting.3) This so-called experimental verification is, well, not benign. "A wormhole would be opened..."? Seriously?2) As to scale, I point to the submarine graphic you posted earlier. The propellor (EM drive) is but so big geometrically. The "turbulent wake" in either water or the QV is much longer geometrically. That's what I mean by scale.Perhaps this suggests a different experimental approach. Crank up the power, and don't worry if the mass of your apparatus won't move. Try to detect the "turbulent" "flow" of the QV, in the wake of the EM propagator. Whatever the turbulence might be, it will have to extend thru a piece of ordinary space-time.1) Interesting. Mulletron?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2014 07:33 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 12/08/2014 05:26 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 12/08/2014 05:14 pmBy wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution....which also deteriorates or dampens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.1) Besides, Mull's outright dismissal of any possible description of the quantum vacuum as a superfluid has no basis in physics as discussed at major institutions, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory. None other than the great Paul Dirac inspired this approach. 2) As to scale, I already addressed that, and I'm content with the fact that none other than the great Feynman suggested quantized vortex lines:see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_turbulence (actually quantum turbulence is much simpler to model than classical turbulence in fluids like water)3) Winterberg proposed that the quantum vacuum is a kind of superfluid plasma compound of positive and negative Planck masses, called a Planck mass plasma. Here is a 2013 paper by him: http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-381/aflb381m775.pdf where he proposes the following experimental verification:Quote from: Winterberg In performing an EPR experiment, a wormhole would be opened ...4) How do electromagnetic waves, photons etc. move through space, where there is believed to be nothing? Several prominent scientists have suggested and continue to suggest that it is in fact a superfluid. But you, Fornaro, are allowed to call it the aether.
Quote from: Notsosureofit on 12/08/2014 05:26 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 12/08/2014 05:14 pmBy wake, you're assuming some sort of fluid like behavior. This isn't water or an aether. Picture the "snow" on an old tv set.By "wake" I'm assuming some sort of propagating residual field distribution....which also deteriorates or dampens over time, and is ultimately at a much larger "scale" than the thing which caused the disturbance, whether a propeller or a sail.
In performing an EPR experiment, a wormhole would be opened ...
...There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry. I based that off of many things such as this: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html..In plain English for clarity, If you're getting blasted from all sides equally, there is no momentum transfer.
The vacuum state therefore has zero momentum and infinite energy !
Zero-point fluctuations are usually regularized by `normal ordering' - a rather ad hoc procedure which involves the substitution ak ak† rightarrow ak† ak in [63]. In curved space-time a single regularization is not enough to rid <Tik> of all its divergences. Three remaining `infinities' must be regularized, leading to the renormalization of additional terms in the one-loop effective Lagrangian for the gravitational field, which, in an FRW universe becomes: curlyLeff = sqrt-g [Lambdainfty + R / 16pi Ginfty + alphainfty R2 + betainfty Rij Rij]. Renormalization of the first term Lambdainfty rightarrow 0 corresponds to normal ordering. The presence of the second term R / 16pi Ginfty, led Sakharo v to postulate that the gravitational field might be `induced' by one-loop quantum effects in a curved background geometry, since one could recover the ordinary Einstein action by renormalizing the `bare' value Ginfty to its observed value: Ginfty rightarrow Gobs [173]. Thus both the cosmological constant Lambda and the gravitational constant G may be induced by quantum effects. The remaining two terms in curlyLeff give rise to vacuum polarization effects and have been extensively discussed in the literature
A central tenet of the general theory of relativity is that the gravitational force couples to all forms of energy through the Einstein equations Gik = (8piG / c4)Tik. Therefore if the vacuum has energy then it also gravitates !
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/09/2014 08:47 am...There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry. I based that off of many things such as this: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html..In plain English for clarity, If you're getting blasted from all sides equally, there is no momentum transfer.OK, please let me try to understand your point of view, by using this reference that you used to base your ideas:1) The reference states:Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html The vacuum state therefore has zero momentum and infinite energy ! (bold added for emphasis)a) Stating that the vacuum state has infinite energy is not acceptable. When the answer to a problem is infinities (as in this statement) it shows that there is something wrong with the analysis.The reference addresses this in a footnote as follows:
b) This reference does state that the vacuum state has zero momentum. Please show me where does it state that "There is no net momentum transfer without finding a way to break that symmetry." or where does this reference state words to the effect that it is possible to break the symmetry of the vacuum state to transfer momentum
2) Please address the following statement in the reference that you used:Quote from: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Sahni/Sahni5.html A central tenet of the general theory of relativity is that the gravitational force couples to all forms of energy through the Einstein equations Gik = (8piG / c4)Tik. Therefore if the vacuum has energy then it also gravitates ! (bold added for emphasis)
It would be helpful if you would clarify:a) how do you address normalization: the infinite vacuum energyb) how do you address the issue of vacuum energy gravitatingc) how do you address the issue of "breaking of symmetry" (no directional momentum of the vacuum) to result in useful propellant-less propulsion of the EM Drive by the vacuum
Thank you.
Ron, it is as simple as this, M-E isn't the only game in town.
....The momentum transfer and symmetry breaking is from the van Tiggelen papers. The other asymmetry is/are the cavity shapes and placement of the dielectric.... Here's my take on the van Tiggelen papers. The PT symmetry breaking is only half of the puzzle. This just enables the momentum transfer to happen, ...
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/09/2014 01:41 pm....The momentum transfer and symmetry breaking is from the van Tiggelen papers. The other asymmetry is/are the cavity shapes and placement of the dielectric.... Here's my take on the van Tiggelen papers. The PT symmetry breaking is only half of the puzzle. This just enables the momentum transfer to happen, and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small. The rest of the puzzle is the uneven radiation pressure across the dielectric, as seen inside the Shaywer device, as well as Cannae.... (bold added for emphasis)Could you please provide a link to the specific papers that you refer (above) as "the van Tiggelen papers" ?
....The momentum transfer and symmetry breaking is from the van Tiggelen papers. The other asymmetry is/are the cavity shapes and placement of the dielectric.... Here's my take on the van Tiggelen papers. The PT symmetry breaking is only half of the puzzle. This just enables the momentum transfer to happen, and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small. The rest of the puzzle is the uneven radiation pressure across the dielectric, as seen inside the Shaywer device, as well as Cannae....
No, that is not an acceleration. That (50nanometers per second) is a velocity.
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/09/2014 09:38 amRon, it is as simple as this, M-E isn't the only game in town.Actually, it is.....
and as they note it is a very very small acceleration. What was it like 50nanometers per second IIRC? Small.