Propellantless Field Propulsion and application

[Moe Grills]

Moe is probably dreaming about what he'd like to do, and not suggesting a scientific proposal to implement a specific propellantless drive system.  At least that's how I interpreted his final comment:  Dream on.

You missed some subtle but sharp and brutal sarcasm in my post.
You and others on this topic (propellantless field propulsion) fall into the
same category as (life and time-wasting) dreamers.
Alas, the clock is ticking on all your lives; and what will go on your tombstones? ....Words to the effect that you wasted the gift of time, given you, imagining things that can NEVER come to pass?
There's the laws of Physics; and then there is FANTASY.
I think you badly blur the distinction.

You tell me, John, who here on this forum has the MEANS  to bring any of these fanta--(IDEAS) to fruition?
  Let's broaden the horizons then! Who on Earth? What nation or combination of nations on Earth can bring ANY of these "propellantless
field propulsion" ideas to pass?
  I will come right out and say it! Propellantless field propulsion is humbug!
     You think it will work? You think it can be made practical?
PROVE IT!
SHOW ME THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS!
SHOW ME A YOUTUBE LINK!

I'm not interested in your words, I'm interested in proof.
Good day.
 
SHOW ME THE MONEY
     
 

   The laws of physics

[Giovanni DS]

Since you asked for a youtube link as ultimate proof (and all in upper case)...

Actually there are emdrive "experimental results" on youtube:

I imagine this removes doubts more than 106 pages of discussion (and relevant links).

PS. I don't think emdrive is real.

Giovanni

[GeeGee]

You and others on this topic (propellantless field propulsion) fall into the
same category as (life and time-wasting) dreamers.
Alas, the clock is ticking on all your lives; and what will go on your tombstones? ....Words to the effect that you wasted the gift of time, given you, imagining things that can NEVER come to pass?
There's the laws of Physics; and then there is FANTASY.

Skepticism is fine, but this is just ad-hominem. Don't presume to know what others want out of life or how they should use their time. I'm sure the same thing was said to people who dreamed about going to the moon or flying. Not to imply that propellantless propulsion will happen simply because people can dream it, but simply dismissing something out of hand  (as you are doing) is short sighted.

[JohnFornaro]

Moe is probably dreaming about what he'd like to do, and not (1) suggesting a scientific proposal to implement a specific propellantless drive system.  At least that's how I interpreted his final comment:  Dream on.

(2) You missed some subtle but sharp and brutal sarcasm in my post.  (3) You and others on this topic ... fall into the same category as (life and time-wasting) dreamers.  Alas, the clock is ticking on all your lives; and what will go on your tombstones? ....Words to the effect that you wasted the gift of time, given you, imagining things that can NEVER come to pass?  There's the laws of Physics; and then there is FANTASY.  (4)I think you badly blur the distinction.

(5) You tell me, John, who here on this forum has the MEANS  to bring any of these ... (IDEAS) to fruition?

(6) Let's broaden the horizons then! ...

(7) ... Propellantless field propulsion is humbug!  You think it will work? You think it can be made practical?  PROVE IT! SHOW ME THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS!  SHOW ME A YOUTUBE LINK!

I'm not interested in your words, I'm interested in proof.  (8) Good day. SHOW ME THE MONEY  ...

(1) Good, then.  I'm correct in asserting that you're not "suggesting a scientific proposal".

(2) That I did; and I'm no amateur in the sarcasm department, either.  Even so, your analysis of my position is completely faulty:

(3) Accepting your minimalist categorization for the moment, you appear to have read the last page or two of posts, and have completely overlooked my skeptical lines of questioning earlier in the thread.  Much earlier.  The questions I asked then were simply not answered; rather my questions themselves were held up as evidence of my paltry math skills for the most part.  Since then, I have done a good bit of reading on the subject, and have gained some knowledge of relativity along the way.

FWIW, I have slogged thru Ciufolini & Wheeler in its entirety.  In fact, there is a typo on page 19, for one thing.  They, C&W, assert instantaneous action at a distance as a precept of Mach's principle: "Inertia here arises from mass there".

One thing I don't get is how they can draw conclusions about inertial frame dragging, while admitting that there is a good deal of "missing" mass in the universe.  I suppose, by your analysis, a discussion of that would be a "wasting" of the gift of time.  Their math, of course, is impenetrable to me in large part, but their descriptive speculations and conclusions are illuminating.  Section 4.8 Cosmology and Origin of Inertia is a good example. 

C&W admit, "with regard to the origin of inertia, we try to do the same in this section (and in this book): to determine and distinguish among some formulations and interpretations of the origin of inertia in Einstein geometrodynamics, in other metric theories, and in classical mechanics, and come up with experiments that might test these different interpretations".  Italics theirs.

True, C&W get a mite poetic here and there:  Page 274. "Adopting this language, we can declare that spacetime and inertia here do not see mass-energy there; they feel it".  The language they're adopting is that of Sciama and Ellis: "the Coulomb field of a charged particle that lies outside of our particle horizon is still inprinciple detectable today.  We can express this situation by saying that although we cannot see acharge outside of our light cone, we can certainly feel it".  As I put it; if I stomp on the planet right now, the beings on Arcturus will feel it immediately, at least in principle.  In the documentary film "A New Hope", the scientist Alec Guinness points out that he has "felt a major disturbance in the Force".

There is some other mass-energy force out there and it is a huge component of the whole; I continue to struggle with understanding it beyond my math abilities.  The rest of the universe outside of our light cone can simply not cease to exist without there being some effect here; not only that, but there are "things", like planets, for example, out there which we cannot see.  I guess.  I think that the prop-less propulsion folk believe that they have found some demonstrable evidence of this force.

(4) I wrote a few paragraphs only which informed your analysis, and you conclude grandly that I blur the distinction between fantasy and reality.  Certainly you are entitled to speak your mind; clearly there isn't all that much you are willing to offer to the discussion.

The experiments they propose are interesting, to me at least, and well within the capabilities of chemical rocketry, were they to be seriously considered for funding. 

(5)  Of course, you don't define "means".  It could mean money.  There's certainly not much being spent on Woodward and March's research, compared to other research programs.  Or do you mean "means", as in the theoretical means which would tend to lend credence to their theories?  You're certainly free to criticize my paltry checking account, OTOH; others have, but I'm not sure what they mean to prove by the criticism.

(6) Now you're flailing.

(7) It may very well be humbug, but it should be proven so the discussion could center on more productive issues.  As to your reliance on ewe-toob for any proof whatsoever, I'd have to leave you to your own devices on that one.

Regarding experimentation, tho.  I see that the proposed MIGO experiment is, for all intents and purposes, the Michelson Morley experiment redux, albeit on a more appropriate scale.  My intuitive sense is that there is a missing field, and I'd be happy to see it called the ether.  And frame dragging may be related to finding this other field.  The LAGOS experiment would be pretty cool too, but I don't see it happening any time soon.  It sounds very expensive to develop and launch.  Perfect for SLS.  I'm sure a few hints could be taken from the JWST proposal in initially vastly underestimating the difficulties of placing and maintaining such a huge (10^^7km) sat array in place, over a period of ten years.  But my viewpoint might be a tad sarcastic.

In any case, you're going to have to wait for the experimental results.

(8) There's always the PageDn key.

... Don't presume to know what others want out of life or how they should use their time.  ...

QFT.

[GeeGee]

As to your reliance on ewe-toob for any proof whatsoever, I'd have to leave you to your own devices on that one.

I missed that point.

The very fact that Moe Grills thinks a youtube video is considered experimental evidence makes me question whether he understands the scientific process or "the laws of physics!" as he likes to tout.

Just FYI Moe, most of this thread is about James Woodward's mach effects, which are published in scientific journals. It doesn't break any laws of physics, but it does assume Mach's principle is essentially true. I'd suggest reading Sciama's 1953 dissertation, Ken Nordtvedt's 1988 paper on the existence of gravitomagnetism and Derek Raine's paper showing Mach's principle is correct in all FRW cosmologies to understand Woodward's line of reasoning.

[JohnFornaro]

Ken Nordtvedt's 1988 paper on the existence of gravitomagnetism and Derek Raine's paper showing Mach's principle is correct in all FRW cosmologies ..

Links please?  I'm a mite lazy on looking for these at the moment, and I haven't read them.  I do have  and have read Sciama's 1953 dissertation.

[GeeGee]

Ken Nordtvedt's 1988 paper on the existence of gravitomagnetism and Derek Raine's paper showing Mach's principle is correct in all FRW cosmologies ..

Links please?  I'm a mite lazy on looking for these at the moment, and I haven't read them.  I do have  and have read Sciama's 1953 dissertation.

Nordtvedt's paper

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

Here is Raine's paper

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1975MNRAS.171..507R/0000509.000.html

Edit: Linked the wrong paper by Raine. This is the correct one, titled "Mach's Principle in general relativity."

[mlorrey]

Moe is probably dreaming about what he'd like to do, and not suggesting a scientific proposal to implement a specific propellantless drive system.  At least that's how I interpreted his final comment:  Dream on.

You missed some subtle but sharp and brutal sarcasm in my post.
You and others on this topic (propellantless field propulsion) fall into the
same category as (life and time-wasting) dreamers.
Alas, the clock is ticking on all your lives; and what will go on your tombstones? ....Words to the effect that you wasted the gift of time, given you, imagining things that can NEVER come to pass?
There's the laws of Physics; and then there is FANTASY.
I think you badly blur the distinction.

You tell me, John, who here on this forum has the MEANS  to bring any of these fanta--(IDEAS) to fruition?
  Let's broaden the horizons then! Who on Earth? What nation or combination of nations on Earth can bring ANY of these "propellantless
field propulsion" ideas to pass?
  I will come right out and say it! Propellantless field propulsion is humbug!
     You think it will work? You think it can be made practical?
PROVE IT!
SHOW ME THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS!
SHOW ME A YOUTUBE LINK!

I'm not interested in your words, I'm interested in proof.
Good day.
 
SHOW ME THE MONEY
     
 

   The laws of physics

Dr. Woodward and others have released a lot of results. Apparently you can't read.

[JohnFornaro]

GeeGee:  Thanks for the links.  Managed to download Raine's paper, but the other one seems to be behind Springer's paywall.  Raine's paper will slow me down enough tho.

[GeeGee]

John,

That's strange, that link showed the full article for me before but now it's not for some reason. Try this link:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t834127482nuv384/fulltext.pdf

[JohnFornaro]

GeeGee:  Thanks.  That seems to have worked.  i wish I could get paid by the word for just reading.  I'd be pretty well off.  Dream on, I guess.

[GeeGee]

For anyone that's interested, here is Nembo Buldrini's paper on using a different experimental method of verifying mach effects (impulsive forces caused by non-uniform magnetic fields):

Possible Mach Effects in Bodies Accelerated by Non-Uniform Magnetic Fields

[ScottL]

Moe clearly does not work in the scientific field and providing him proper research is most likely a waste of time. He's of the mind that if you don't have proof now, it's not possible.....fortunately for us, that's not true in reality. Most notable scientists and physicists had theories which took time to devise experiments to prove. In this case experiments have been conducted and research published, but that's not enough for Mr. Moe.

He also fails, for some odd reason to realize that in no way does Woodward's research on Mach Effect violate the laws of physics. If found true, it rather compliments them nicely in my opinion. That of course is if its true, which one should be rightly skeptical for now, however; this does not mean you shouldn't be open minded to well developed science.

[cuddihy]

Well, "in no way" might be streching it. Most proponents agree it that if true it would require radical revision of our understanding of causality-- i.e. the speed-of-light issue.

[GeeGee]

Well, "in no way" might be streching it. Most proponents agree it that if true it would require radical revision of our understanding of causality-- i.e. the speed-of-light issue.

Mach effects may or may not be related to issues of causality. The most controversial aspect of the M-E equation (possible generation of negative mass-energy to create wormholes, warp drives, etc.) has not been thoroughly investigated.

However, transient mass fluctuations seem to be consistent with the laws of physics as long as you are willing to accept Mach's principle is true.

[mlorrey]

Well, "in no way" might be streching it. Most proponents agree it that if true it would require radical revision of our understanding of causality-- i.e. the speed-of-light issue.

Mach effects may or may not be related to issues of causality. The most controversial aspect of the M-E equation (possible generation of negative mass-energy to create wormholes, warp drives, etc.) has not been thoroughly investigated.

However, transient mass fluctuations seem to be consistent with the laws of physics as long as you are willing to accept Mach's principle is true.

Well, it is accepted physics that matter changes mass with velocity, so the idea of mass fluctuations has been accepted long before Woodward came on the scene.

[GeeGee]

New article on the M-E at NBF

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/higgs-and-mach-effect.html

[GeeGee]

Here's a comment made by Goatguy that I found to be very telling:

"PS: the "uses-restmas-of-the-universe" is a singular piece of bullsnot, if I ever heard one.  The whole and entire effect is one of changing the masses of the two charged plates.  Period.  No "universe tug" involved. 

=GG=  (and I've pointed this out to you before)"

It seems to me Goatguy refuses to understand (or accept) how mach's principle plays a central role in the M-E. Conserving momentum globally by "tugging on the universe" is a direct consequence of mach's principle.

[aceshigh]

reply by Steve Lajoie at Physics Forum Mach Effect thread:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=259842&goto=newpost

The idea is that a the mass of the piezoelectric material changes with the square of the rate of change of the energy in the material. You can even make the mass go negative.

Note: This is a violation of conservation of energy. You can lift an arbitrarily large mass upwards in a gravitational field with an arbitrarily small amount of energy, as only the square of the change in energy wrt time causes the mass change. One can then remove the changing energy that is applied to the capacitor and "drop" the mass (say, with a string on a generator) and obtain a net positive energy output.

To test this effect of mass change, in 2009 I put a piezoelectric capacitor on a tuning fork and applied a voltage at the resonate frequency of the tuning fork + capacitor device. This would amplify the expected magnitude of the Woodward effect so it could be measured. The experimental design was such that I expected to see the fork vibrate if a changing mass was affected by gravity on the fork. I measured the amplitude of the tuning fork with an inductive sensor and I had worked out the parameters of the fork so I could tell with 2 digit precision what the driving force (the mass change under the force of gravity) was. A "naive" application of the Woodward equation would have been detected, tho' it was argued that the Woodward equation was a difference equation and I was doing it wrong.

After accounting for the piezoelectric effect itself and for effects of the earth's magnetic field by nulling them out, I could measure no change in mass of the capacitor.

I found no mass change. Zippo. Nada. Zilch.

This experiment was done for my master's project under the Guidance of Dr. John G. Cramer at the University of Washington. We did not publish because I more tests were required for verification of the null result. As Dr. Cramer was retiring and I was graduating, I didn't do more testing.

I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.

This experimental result could be disputed by noting that I was checking for a gravitational mass change and not an inertial mass change. The original experimental design (aka "Mach Guitar") checked for an inertial mass change. However, the original experiment couldn't be done as the mass of the capacitor significantly changed the resonate frequency of the Mach Guitar. I mathematically studied the experiment, and found that I needed a guitar "string" as thick as a tuning fork tine.

This experiment was difficult to construct. I had planned on repeating the experiment to do a statistical study of the results, and to try driving the fork to see if I could detect a change in INERTIAL mass, but personal issues and a lack of a High voltage amplifier prevented me from proceeding. I also was fairly confident in my initial result, and felt it was a bit like beating a dead horse.

can Paul March comment on this, preferentally directly on the above thread?

[cuddihy]

This is awesome! Lays it out in detail. Throw M-E on the 'interesting, but ultimately nutty' pile.