-
#3400
by
Lampyridae
on 25 Nov, 2014 07:37
-
Professor McCulloch's latest:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/
I note that his 'MiHsC' seems very close to the theories/effects of Woodward and Mach, if not the same thing. He talks of using MiHsC to account for tiny velocity changes in spacecraft.
At a glance, no, I don't think this has anything to do with ME, other than Machian inertia. MiHsC very clearly violates the equivalence principal, whereas ME palms mass shifts off to the rest of the universe. It's an intriguing theory but I don't see how that gets a spacedrive (it's on the order 10^-10 m/s differences and the only time you notice "it" is in the mm/s flyby anomaly).
I think the LHC and a better understanding of current physics models will eventually account for these anomalies. But unfortunately no usable spacedrive would be my guess.
-
#3401
by
momerathe
on 25 Nov, 2014 12:13
-
Woodward actually has a theory. A potentially revolutionary, paradigm breaking theory, but he has one. (I remain to be convinced, but.)
I've read one of White's papers and he doesn't. He has the equivalent of "1) Quantum vacuum 2) ? ? ? 3) Profit!". It's notable it was published in an engineering journal, cause I can guarantee you that a physics journal review panel would have torn it to shreds.
-
#3402
by
Ron Stahl
on 25 Nov, 2014 13:26
-
One of the very few physicists at top institutions that dares write about the science-fiction of wormholes, Kip Thorne ...
I think it's important to note that Thorne did his work with his graduate students in 1988, and the original Stargate movie that came before the TV series was in 1994. In this instance, the fiction writers got their ideas from contemporary physics, not the other way around. Also note that although Alcubierre published his warp mathematics in 1997 and Startrek was 30+ years in advance, Roddenberry based his notions on the best gravity physics of the 50's, meaning Dennis Sciama. So in both these cases--warp and wormhole--we find the physicists did the work first and the fiction writers stole from them. The fiction writers fleshed out the notions people later assumed were just fiction and lets face it, they're full of drama as result, but the really visionary stuff came first from the physicists like Kip Thorne.
-
#3403
by
Ron Stahl
on 25 Nov, 2014 13:32
-
Actually i cite Dr Kramer of Washington U and some of his audience who were there asking him questions or just trying to show how gosh darned smart they were. but...
A freak wormhole opened in the fabric of the space-time continuum and carried your words far far back in time across almost infinite reaches of space to a distant galaxy where strange and warlike beings were poised on the brink of frightful interstellar battle. The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time. A dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'Hurgs, resplendent in his black jeweled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvunt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green, sweet-smelling steam. As a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, the Vl'Hurg challenged his vile enemy to take back what it had said about his mother. The creature stirred in its sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment the words drifted across the conference table. Unfortunately, in the Vl'hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war for centuries. Eventually the error was detected, but over two hundred and fifty thousand worlds, their peoples and cultures perished in the holocaust. You have destroyed most of a small galaxy. Please pick your words with greater care.
It's insightful to note Cramer is famous not only for his fiction published in Analog, but especially for his Transactional Interpretation of QM, and that this theory fits Woodward's remarkably well. These both make judicious use of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory with both advanced and retarded waves . I'm told Cramer has actually published the authoritative paper on how to steer a wormhole, but I've never seen the paper. I know he wrote the forward in Woodward's book, but I have yet to dive into the dynamics of what it takes to steer a wormhole generator. If anyone finds that work by Cramer online, please do share. I'd love to have access.
-
#3404
by
Ron Stahl
on 25 Nov, 2014 13:35
-
The "book" which one of our notable thread contributors keeps insisting upon not buying, contains many "careful" explanations of the Mach Effect, none of which seem to hold water. Or rather: None of which seem to move mass.
One wonders why it would seem that way to anyone given so many years of success in the lab. What are you referring to?
-
#3405
by
Ron Stahl
on 25 Nov, 2014 13:37
-
"QVF" stands for "Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations". That's the title of Dr. White's model, which is derived from the Haishe, Putthoff, Rueda ZPF model that was something like 15 years before it.
-
#3406
by
Ron Stahl
on 25 Nov, 2014 13:47
-
In a nutshell....Push while FM is heavy, pull while it is light. But on the flip side, the finite power supply that is exciting the FM is literally strapped down to the RM, reaction mass (the ship). So if the FM is gaining mass, then the power supply is losing mass by the same rationale.
This is very close but not quite right. The thing that is losing mass when the fluctuating or active mass gains mass, is the rest of the universe. The reaction mass is just the thing the active mass pushes off of. The source of the gravinertial flux of the universe, is the mass of the universe itself. So it is accurate to say, that when a gravinertial transistor like a Mach-Effect Thruster (MET) harvests momentum from the gravinertial field, it is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion and hastens the arrow of time (entropy). This is in fact why Tom Mayhoood, Woodward's grad student back in the 90's, put the sign on the lab door reading "Tomorrow's Momentum Today". This is accurate to the physical theory.
Though Woodward has never weighed in on the issue so far as I'm aware, i would just note this could be an explanation for Dark Energy, or whatever force it is that is causing the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe. We've known since 1997, that instead of the universe expanding ever more slowly as it fights its own gravity as we'd expect, the universe is accelerating in its expansion, and this is the effect we ought to observe from LOTS of gravinertial harvesting from Mach-Effect devices.
-
#3407
by
Ron Stahl
on 25 Nov, 2014 13:52
-
Woodward actually has a theory. A potentially revolutionary, paradigm breaking theory, but he has one. ...
My theory is that his theory is incomplete, unsubstantiated, missing important details, anc continually changing.
It was first published in Foundations of Physics in 1993 I think? Hasn't changed since then. Not sure why you'd assume the worst of something you haven't read. Woodward's theory is peer reviewed for more than 20 years. He points out where it is incomplete and is not bashful about it, but he is after space propulsion, not theory.
It's worth noting Woodward both starts and ends his book pointing out what is incomplete and what needs to happen in the work in both the short and long term future.
-
#3408
by
Stormbringer
on 25 Nov, 2014 14:16
-
It's insightful to note Cramer is famous not only for his fiction published in Analog, but especially for his Transactional Interpretation of QM, and that this theory fits Woodward's remarkably well. These both make judicious use of Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory with both advanced and retarded waves . I'm told Cramer has actually published the authoritative paper on how to steer a wormhole, but I've never seen the paper. I know he wrote the forward in Woodward's book, but I have yet to dive into the dynamics of what it takes to steer a wormhole generator. If anyone finds that work by Cramer online, please do share. I'd love to have access.
I posted a video lecture by Kramer. i could find the link again if you are interested. Basically; it's the very thing that is supposed to destroy traversible wormholes: Cosmic Back Reaction.
According to Dr. Kramer it's actually quite useful for maintaining a wormhole, resizing a wormhole and driving a wormhole aperture around like a boss. On top of that, it actually allows you to do some awesome things other than merely bypassing FTL restrictions E.G; you could make a monopole out of a wormhole and you can use it to make some exotic matter for free.
-
#3409
by
Ron Stahl
on 25 Nov, 2014 14:29
-
I posted a video lecture by Kramer. I could find the link again if you are interested.
I'm very interested. I've been interested in this for years but never tracked it down. I know Woodward and Cramer are friends of many years. Woodward actually presented at Cramer's birthday party (was it 75th?). Sounds like it was a fun gathering.
-
#3410
by
JohnFornaro
on 25 Nov, 2014 14:31
-
Not sure why you'd assume the worst of something you haven't read.
When you tell the truth about what I have read, then you can address my opinions on the matter.
-
#3411
by
Stormbringer
on 25 Nov, 2014 14:32
-
I posted a video lecture by Kramer. I could find the link again if you are interested.
I'm very interested. I've been interested in this for years but never tracked it down. I know Woodward and Cramer are friends of many years. Woodward actually presented at Cramer's birthday party (was it 75th?). Sounds like it was a fun gathering.
here is the one i am talking about. it discusses the topic and if lucky you should catch something on the screen you can web search for the papers you are looking for from.
-
#3412
by
JohnFornaro
on 25 Nov, 2014 14:33
-
...[it actually allows you to do some awesome things other than merely bypassing FTL restrictions E.G; you could make a monopole out of a wormhole and you can use it to make some exotic matter for free.
I move mountains by faith and faith alone too.
-
#3413
by
Stormbringer
on 25 Nov, 2014 14:35
-
lol. i can take as given *you'll* never invent a wormhole drive then.
-
#3414
by
Stormbringer
on 25 Nov, 2014 15:14
-
Watched it again. Paul Davies (in the audience at the very end) is a real party pooper.
-
#3415
by
Rodal
on 25 Nov, 2014 15:44
-
Watched it again. Paul Davies (in the audience at the very end) is a real party pooper.
It is very revealing and very telling that Cramer himself (when prompted by a question from the audience regarding solving Einstein's equations with the proper boundary conditions) admits (at 34:00 minutes) that he
"has done no mathematics at all on this, and it is just a handwaving idea"He mentions towards the end of this video Woodward's wormhole term as something one would consider as if "
grasping at straws" (Cramer's own words).
-
#3416
by
Stormbringer
on 25 Nov, 2014 15:53
-
i wouldn't put too much stock in that. Cramer is published on this sort of thing. remember what prompted me to post the video was someone looking for some of Cramer's papers.
-
#3417
by
Rodal
on 25 Nov, 2014 15:59
-
i wouldn't put too much stock in that. Cramer is published on this sort of thing. remember what prompted me to post the video was someone looking for some of Cramer's papers.
When Kip Thorne goes out of his way to write (a couple of days ago) that he thinks that it is very unlikely for wormholes to
ever exist, you don't put too much stock in Prof. Thorne's latest statement?
When Prof. Cramer states (in the video you posted) that he has done no math on this, and it is just a handwaving idea, you also don't put too much stock in that?
Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
-
#3418
by
Ron Stahl
on 25 Nov, 2014 16:35
-
When Kip Thorne goes out of his way to write (a couple of days ago) that he thinks that it is very unlikely for wormholes to ever exist, you don't put too much stock in Prof. Thorne's latest statement.
That's several times in a row now you've mischaracterized statements on this issue. First of all, Cramer did not say no calculations had been done on topology change, he said he had not done any and in fact, that is not his field. (Even if it were, he is retired.) He also did not say Woodward's work was grasping at straws as you suggest, but rather he said if you want to grasp at straws, he recommends Woodward's work. You've really twisted Cramer's words in a torturous manner here. You're also mischaracterizing and misrepresenting Kip Thorne's words. He did not say he thinks it unlikely wormholes ever exist. He said he doubts they are natural. Actually from the way he made the stateent it sounds as if pressed, he does believe in wormholes. Somehow you have that all twisted around and one wants to ask why all three of these misrepresentations? Do you have a presuppositional bias about wormholes?
-
#3419
by
Rodal
on 25 Nov, 2014 16:48
-
When Kip Thorne goes out of his way to write (a couple of days ago) that he thinks that it is very unlikely for wormholes to ever exist, you don't put too much stock in Prof. Thorne's latest statement.
That's several times in a row now you've mischaracterized statements on this issue. First of all, Cramer did not say no calculations had been done on topology change, he said he had not done any and in fact, that is not his field. (Even if it were, he is retired.) He also did not say Woodward's work was grasping at straws as you suggest, but rather he said if you want to grasp at straws, he recommends Woodward's work. You've really twisted Cramer's words in a torturous manner here. You're also mischaracterizing and misrepresenting Kip Thorne's words. He did not say he thinks it unlikely wormholes ever exist. He said he doubts they are natural. Actually from the way he made the stateent it sounds as if pressed, he does believe in wormholes. Somehow you have that all twisted around and one wants to ask why all three of these misrepresentations? Do you have a presuppositional bias about wormholes?
Mr. Stahl, the readers will determine who is "mischaracterizing" anything or who has an agenda here. I invite you to reconsider who has actually reacted and posted in such a partisan manner.
Concerning Prof. Cramer, I have referred the readers to the video where Cramer makes his statement.
Concerning Prof. Thorne, I reproduce again what I posted concerning what Prof. Thorne wrote (where I reproduced entirely Prof. Thorne's complete statement):
One of the very few physicists at top institutions that dares write about the science-fiction of wormholes, Kip Thorne (Professor of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus at CalTech) wrote the following letter to the Wall Street Journal (this weekend's edition, page A12, November 22/23 2014), to clarify some pretense (triggered by the movie "Interstellar") about the feasibility of whether our human civilization could actually travel through wormholes to reach planets in other stars: (bold added for emphasis)
Regarding the Weekend Interview on Nov. 15 by Sohrab Ahmari ("Finding our place in the stars"), in which I was interviewed:
We physicists have tried to figure out what the laws of physics say about wormholes. We don't yet have an absolutely firm answer, but it appears very likely that the physical laws prevent wormholes from ever existing, and that if wormholes can exist, they cannot occur naturally - they must be created by some very advanced civilization, such as the bulk beings in "Interstellar".
Prof. Thorne has been clear that << it appears very likely that the physical laws prevent wormholes from ever existing>>. That's why he went through the trouble to write the letter to the WSJ this weekend: to make it clear that it is his present opinion that naturally occurring wormholes are very unlikely to ever exist. Ditto in his recent book (quoted above). He has investigated "natural occurring wormholes" and he has concluded that they are unstable: if they were ever to form they would naturally collapse almost instantaneously.
Here is a direct link to Prof. Thorne's letter:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/the-laws-of-physics-regarding-wormholes-1416606575
