Propellantless Field Propulsion and application

[GeeGee]

lets clarify. I do give a damn about FTL. But I dont think its necessary yet. I will be content with sub luminal Mach in my lifetime. We still have to colonize the whole solar system, including dozens of moons and hundreds of asteroids, before we need to worry about other star systems. WHILE we colonize the solar system, we can already dispel hundreds of Mach propelled probes to several different stars and wait for their data

In fact, with Mach we would be able to build huge space telescopes that would probably be able to look at planets in other star systems with the same clarity we can see Mars (from Earth) nowadays.

One step at a time is enough for me.

I do agree with you, I'm just pointing out some problems that need to be addressed by Woodward and others working on the stargate problem. Exotic matter is not the only thing getting in the way of stargates/warp drives. It's also the problems I mentioned above, and of course, the principle of causality, which is held VERY dearly by physicists. For example, closed timelike curves always surface in solutions for two black holes orbiting each other, yet they are dismissed as mathematical artifacts by most physicists. That's because most physicists find the idea of violating causality to be offensive to nature. Wormholes and other FTL solutions to Einstein's field equations are dismissed for similar reasons (it is trivially easy to make a wormhole into a time machine).

That's why I'm hoping John Cramer's retrocausality experiment works. If it is successful, we will have to seriously re-evaluate our understanding of time. CTC's and FTL space-times will also have to be reconsidered. Even if the experiment fails, something valuable will be learned.

[mlorrey]

I dont give a damn about wormholes. If we can reach near light speed easily and cheap, we can reach the edge of the universe in only 60 years (ship time)

For interstellar flight to be economical and safe, we need FTL. Period. The kind of trip you're proposing is a one-way suicide mission (unless of course you know that there's a habitable Earth-like planet at your destination and you plan on colonizing it).

If it's not possible, then you can kiss those dreams good bye. If I am not mistaken, Paul shared similar sentiments on the polywell forum.

FTL is completely unnecessary for interstellar travel. Firstly, the average distance between stellar neighbors is around 6 ly. Our closest is 4.2, or possibly closer (if Nemesis exists, or as many astronomers believe, there are brown dwarfs in interstellar space undiscovered as yet). At 0.9C, that is a shorter trip than Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe.

as for knowing whether there are habitable planets at ones destination, thats a false argument, given how many extrasolar planets are being discovered now, within 10-20 years or so we'll be able to observe earth sized planets pretty closely so any interstellar voyage will know exactly what sort of planet is at their destination.

Right now, we know of a planet in the goldilocks zone around GJ581, 20 ly away. While it is a jovian world, odds are that there is a moon in orbit around it that is habitable.

[GeeGee]

FTL is completely unnecessary for interstellar travel. Firstly, the average distance between stellar neighbors is around 6 ly. Our closest is 4.2, or possibly closer (if Nemesis exists, or as many astronomers believe, there are brown dwarfs in interstellar space undiscovered as yet). At 0.9C, that is a shorter trip than Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe.

as for knowing whether there are habitable planets at ones destination, thats a false argument, given how many extrasolar planets are being discovered now, within 10-20 years or so we'll be able to observe earth sized planets pretty closely so any interstellar voyage will know exactly what sort of planet is at their destination.

Right now, we know of a planet in the goldilocks zone around GJ581, 20 ly away. While it is a jovian world, odds are that there is a moon in orbit around it that is habitable.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it will be hard to justify manned interstellar flights economically given multi-decade voyages (or longer).

Also, I was specifically responding to the idea of a trip to the edge of the universe. That really is a suicide mission.

[Star-Drive]

FTL is completely unnecessary for interstellar travel. Firstly, the average distance between stellar neighbors is around 6 ly. Our closest is 4.2, or possibly closer (if Nemesis exists, or as many astronomers believe, there are brown dwarfs in interstellar space undiscovered as yet). At 0.9C, that is a shorter trip than Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe.

as for knowing whether there are habitable planets at ones destination, thats a false argument, given how many extrasolar planets are being discovered now, within 10-20 years or so we'll be able to observe earth sized planets pretty closely so any interstellar voyage will know exactly what sort of planet is at their destination.

Right now, we know of a planet in the goldilocks zone around GJ581, 20 ly away. While it is a jovian world, odds are that there is a moon in orbit around it that is habitable.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it will be hard to justify manned interstellar flights economically given multi-decade voyages (or longer).

Also, I was specifically responding to the idea of a trip to the edge of the universe. That really is a suicide mission.

GeeGee:

Sonny White has a possible way around the warp drive/wormhole stability problem that may work out in practice, see attached paper.  Past that even if conventional GRT analysis indciates that wormholes will be unstable, and don't forget that the last word in that venue won't be said until we have a vetted quantum gravity theory that will replace GRT, so what?  Helicopters are by definition unstable, but we have learned over the years how to make them stable enough to make them a vital part of our transportation system.  In a like manner I can think of at least a few ways to apply active negative control feed back loops to a wormhole generator that could stabilize them for our uses.  It may take a bit to get it right, but this kind of engineering has been done before.

Best,

Paul M.   

[GeeGee]

GeeGee:

Sonny White has a possible way around the warp drive/wormhole stability problem that may work out in practice, see attached paper.  Past that even if conventional GRT analysis indciates that wormholes will be unstable, and don't forget that the last word in that venue won't be said until we have a vetted quantum gravity theory that will replace GRT, so what?  Helicopters are by definition unstable, but we have learned over the years how to make them stable enough to make them a vital part of our transportation system.  In a like manner I can think of at least a few ways to apply active negative control feed back loops to a wormhole generator that could stabilize them for our uses.  It may take a bit to get it right, but this kind of engineering has been done before.

Best,

Paul M.   

Thanks for the paper. I'll read it when I get the chance.

The problem in the instability issue Stephen Hsu brings up is not one that seems to have an engineering solution. They found that matter violating the null energy condition leads to instability for a broad class of models. That is a fundamental constraint.

But then again, the other paper I linked provided counter-examples where systems violating the null energy condition are stable. So it all depends on the model you're using.

Is Woodward aware of this wormhole paper? I'm curious about his opinion on it.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0504003

[aceshigh]

thats my issue with discussing FTL... let Woodward devote his entire time and brain power to propellantless propulsion at sublight speeds...

[Sith]

thats my issue with discussing FTL... let Woodward devote his entire time and brain power to propellantless propulsion at sublight speeds...

If he's healthy...

[aceshigh]

any news from Paul?

[mlorrey]

any news from Paul?

Actually, theres been a bunch of us having a rather energetic and deep scientific discussion on Jims mail list about how Jim's theory fits in with modern cosmology. Physicist Jack Sarfatti has been arguing for his own cosmological view and alternatively being skeptical of Jim's maths then trying to shoehorn it into his own cosmology. Paul Zielinski has been the primary third arguer with his own frame based view of gravity theory, while Jim calmly explains his theory and how it fits into things and why things are as they are (I have contributed little other than getting Jack to drop the acrimony and stick to the science). There are some interesting developments there with a lot of too and fro, which should have some impact on Jim's theory that will likely solidify it more in terms of not only GR but more modern cosmological developments like de Sitter, etc. I'll leave it at that for now until Jim has something to publish about it. The paper will probably be something Jim presents at SPESIF or STAIF that he's been finalizing. We'll see, stay tuned.

[qraal]

On the FTL warp-drive "impossibility" issue I have it on good authority that we'll see a paper before long refuting the extreme Hawking radiation predicted when a warp goes FTL. Apparently the 1-D approximation used to get that result artificially exaggerated the effect and a 3-D computation gets a much, much more benign outcome.

[aceshigh]

thanks for update Mlorrey. Try to keep us informed of whatīs going on Jimīs mail list.

muito obrigado

[BarryKirk]

Just wondering if anything coming out of the LHC will have any effect on this discussion?

I understand that the only important thing is the experimental results, and it sounds like Paul March and Jim Woodward are providing excellent results.

However, with the possible or probably non-existance of the Higgs and the possible non-existance of super symetrical particles.  Is that putting a damper on dark matter?

If so, than would the Mach effect be able to explain the astronomical observations such as Galaxies rotating too rapidly?

[Star-Drive]

Just wondering if anything coming out of the LHC will have any effect on this discussion?

I understand that the only important thing is the experimental results, and it sounds like Paul March and Jim Woodward are providing excellent results.

However, with the possible or probably non-existance of the Higgs and the possible non-existance of super symetrical particles.  Is that putting a damper on dark matter?

If so, than would the Mach effect be able to explain the astronomical observations such as Galaxies rotating too rapidly?

Barry:

Per Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture, there is no need for the Higgs boson.  Per the M-E, what gives inertial mass its measurable properties is how the cosmological gravity field created by all the mass & energy contained in the causally connected universe interacts with each subatomic particle in a dynamic balance between the electrical, magnetic and gravitational forces.  Woodward explored this topic in his SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper that will finally be published later this year.  Woodward is also writing a book on all of this that he hopes to publish next year.

Meanwhile more convincing experimental data in support of the M-E is required, so that is what I am still working on while I'm also helping Dr. Harold (Sonny) White at JSC in experimentally investigating Sonny's complementary IMO QVF/MHD conjecture as well.

Best,

Paul M.

[GeeGee]

  Woodward explored this topic in his SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper that will finally be published later this year.  Woodward is also writing a book on all of this that he hopes to publish next year.

Paul,

I am on Woodward's mailing list now (thanks to Ron Stahl). Would you mind emailing me this stargate paper?

[Star-Drive]

  Woodward explored this topic in his SPESIF-2011 Stargate paper that will finally be published later this year.  Woodward is also writing a book on all of this that he hopes to publish next year.

Paul,

I am on Woodward's mailing list now (thanks to Ron Stahl). Would you mind emailing me this stargate paper?

GeeGee:

Pass me your e-mail address at my SBCglobal address and I will.

Best,

[mlorrey]

Just wondering if anything coming out of the LHC will have any effect on this discussion?

I understand that the only important thing is the experimental results, and it sounds like Paul March and Jim Woodward are providing excellent results.

However, with the possible or probably non-existance of the Higgs and the possible non-existance of super symetrical particles.  Is that putting a damper on dark matter?

If so, than would the Mach effect be able to explain the astronomical observations such as Galaxies rotating too rapidly?

Galaxies rotating "too rapidly" is a function of dark matter's gravitational influence. That said, one problem with the "rotating too rapidly" claim is that people treat galaxies as monolithic structures when they arent. Firstly, you've got super black holes at their centers causing significant frame dragging effects (and thus time dilations in what you observe of the galaxies spin at various radii from the galactic center). Secondly, "galactic arms" arent structures, but gravitationally influenced waves. The stars, planets, clouds, etc within each arm are not trapped in any particular arm, they orbit their galaxies at normal orbital velocities and drift from arm to arm. It's like traffic on a highway, which clumps up in certain places and breaks apart elsewhere. A traffic jam isn't a structure, it is merely an emergent behavior of many drivers.

[GeeGee]

GeeGee:

Pass me your e-mail address at my SBCglobal address and I will.

Best,

Just read it. It answered a lot of questions I had about approaches to making wormholes (i.e. if the idea of inflating a quantum foam wormhole  to macroscopic size is feasible at all).

I am curious about the relationship between the ADM model (incorporating spin) and the standard model, though. If the standard model is correct (we cannot say it is complete until the Higgs is discovered), does this imply the ADM model is not a realistic alternative? How does the success of the standard model affect the ADM model?

[Star-Drive]

GeeGee:

Pass me your e-mail address at my SBCglobal address and I will.

Best,

Just read it. It answered a lot of questions I had about approaches to making wormholes (i.e. if the idea of inflating a quantum foam wormhole  to macroscopic size is feasible at all).

I am curious about the relationship between the ADM model (incorporating spin) and the standard model, though. If the standard model is correct (we cannot say it is complete until the Higgs is discovered), does this imply the ADM model is not a realistic alternative? How does the success of the standard model affect the ADM model?

Gee Gee:

News flash, the standard particle physics model can be accurate in its predictions but it can be hardly considered compete with or without the Higgs particle.  In fact its an ad-hoc theory that has so many theoretical holes in it that it will not stand the test of time much longer.  Woodward's addition of gravitational and inertial spin effects to the ADM model may be all the push needed to topple the standard model's house of cards...

Best,

Paul M.

[GeeGee]

CERN physicists have recorded subatomic particles traveling faster-than-light

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15017484

If this experiment can be replicated, it would be the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity.

[aceshigh]

no, the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity is the Mach Effect. Although its not really PROVED yet. So maybe FTL neutrinos are the biggest discovery in physics since general relativity and until Mach Effect is proved without a doubt.