-
#920 by Notsosureofit on 22 Sep, 2014 20:34
-
Still poking around, found this interesting exercise (using neutrinos) in particle based gravity. I have the 1999 but I notice that its on arXiv as 2008
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0102109.pdf
-
#921 by aceshigh on 22 Sep, 2014 20:48
-
A lot of what I discussed may not be useful to others. But I have room to improve in the future...
my point when I said it was not useful was based on what apparently was a wrong interpretation of you saidQuote from: RodalBecause if there are no people on this thread willing and able to answer Woodward-derivation-questions, it looks like such a thread would be a debate where one of the parties doesn't show up...
if you are saying it is useful despite that quote, I gather the problem lies in my previous interpretation of what you said. No problems then. -
#922 by Rodal on 22 Sep, 2014 21:27
-
A lot of what I discussed may not be useful to others. But I have room to improve in the future...
my point when I said it was not useful was based on what apparently was a wrong interpretation of you saidQuote from: RodalBecause if there are no people on this thread willing and able to answer Woodward-derivation-questions, it looks like such a thread would be a debate where one of the parties doesn't show up...
if you are saying it is useful despite that quote, I gather the problem lies in my previous interpretation of what you said. No problems then.
@aceshigh
You are correct. What happened is that when I wrote << it looks like such a thread would be a debate where one of the parties doesn't show up>> I had not yet realized that Woodward himself had acknowledged making that key assumption, equating fluctuations in Rest Energy with fluctuations in Input Electric Power to a capacitor without much justification. I just realized this very recently.
Mas não faz mal
-
#923 by 93143 on 22 Sep, 2014 23:31
-
I'm a little dubious about Woodward's derivation myself (though I haven't had the time to acquire a full understanding of it), but that isn't the part I'd have picked on. Energy is energy, is it not? If you store energy in a capacitor, is not that energy electromagnetic, therefore localizable and gravitating? If you cause a deformation in an object, can you not say the same thing about the deformation energy?
It seems to me that the "assumption" in question is not some sort of unjustifiable physical equivalence, but merely a supposition of 100% efficiency in part of the process, made for the sake of convenience rather than to trick the calculation into working out.
As always, I haven't fully explored the theory, so I could be misunderstanding... -
#924 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2014 00:23
-
I'm a little dubious about Woodward's derivation myself (though I haven't had the time to acquire a full understanding of it), but that isn't the part I'd have picked on. Energy is energy, is it not? If you store energy in a capacitor, is not that energy electromagnetic, therefore localizable and gravitating? If you cause a deformation in an object, can you not say the same thing about the deformation energy?
It seems to me that the "assumption" in question is not some sort of unjustifiable physical equivalence, but merely a supposition of 100% efficiency in part of the process, made for the sake of convenience rather than to trick the calculation into working out.
As always, I haven't fully explored the theory, so I could be misunderstanding...
<<Energy is energy, is it not?>>
No, there are different types of energy and not distinguishing them brings confusion and inability to solve problems. Particularly in this case where the types of energy differ by incommensurate orders of magnitude and type.
Rest Energy is not just any kind of energy. It is defined as the product of mass and the square of light velocity.
This is a huge amount of energy (which you are never going to see significantly released unless it is in a nuclear reaction).
The rest energy equivalent of just one gram (0.002 lb) of mass is equivalent to:
89.9 terajoules
25.0 million kilowatt-hours (≈ 25 GW·h)
21.5 billion kilocalories (≈ 21 Tcal)
85.2 billion BTUs
or to the energy released by combustion of the following:
21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy (≈ 21 kt)
568,000 US gallons of automotive gasoline
Would you equate potential energy fluctuations (weight times change in height) in a hydrogen balloon as it rises in the sky (such potential energy is completely insignificant compared to its rest energy) to the energy fluctuations due to a nuclear-fusion reaction transforming hydrogen into helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy ?
I don't understand what you mean by efficiency in this context (rest energy fluctuations). We are not talking thermodynamics here, we are talking the concept of rest energy and rest mass in Relativity.
Rest Energy = Rest mass c^2
Prof. Woodward derived the fluctuation in mass equation from Relativity theory, not from a thermodynamics theory. -
#925 by JohnFornaro on 23 Sep, 2014 01:11
-
... I guess discussing the derivation of Woodward's equations here is a bit useless?
If the math in the published papers is complete, then no, the discussion would be very useful. Jose up there has suggested several instances where Woodward's assumptions are not theoretically nor mathematically justified.
O wait. The good doctor Rodal is speaking, even as I type...Dr. Woodward himself states "his leap of faith"
blah, blah, blah...
This is not the wording associated with a factual discovery, and it is painful to read.
The older experiment was to have proven that mass fluctutions exist, even tho the theory, per Jose's telling, does not accomodate mass fluctuations. Remember, the results of that experiment never prduced a signal that was statistically, undeniably, and repeatably over the background noise. If you look at the old thread, and the word that was to have come next, you will find little. Paul March's last post on that thread....we are talking about gravity/inertial (G/I) field propulsion systems that use the ambient G/I field to generate the Mach-Effect (M-E) momentum transfers from the vehicle to the field and thus to the rest of the universe that created this field in the first place....
BTW, in Sonny White’s Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation (QVF) conjecture, Woodward’s G/I field is replaced with the Quantum Electrodynamic Vacuum field and the local reactive forces are generated and conveyed by momentum fluxes created in this QED vacuum field by the same process used to create momentum fluxes in the G/I field, but Sonny uses MHD plasma rules to quantify this local momentum interaction where Woodward does not. As to whether Woodward’s or White’s approach to this propellantless propulsion problem turns out to be closer to our reality is yet to be determined, but obtaining comprehensive and high quality data on these types of propulsion devices is the only way we will find out. In the end analysis though, Woodward and/or White’s conjectures may turn out to be wrong or just provide us some partial insights into the truths needed to build the impulse and warp drives needed to build our starships. ...And we're to have a definitive answer to both concepts by the end of this summer. Is this correct?
Dr. White and I hope to have at least two Q-Thruster test articles run through their paces by the end of September. We also hope to have started the warp-field interferometer work as well, but Sonny keeps getting dragged off to work on other more pressing NASA projects at the moment, so we will see how far that Eagleworks project gets when Sept shows up.
As far as the M-E work is concerned, you'll have to ask Dr. Woodward what his M-E test schedule is going to be for the rest of this year, but at least he has already demontrated a 10uN thruster back in January that could be the M-E in action or it could be something else equally interesting, but he won't be able to tell IMO until he can figure out the frequency scaling of the thrust effect he is measuring with his current shuttler test article. Whether Dr. Woodward will be able to accomplish that feat this year is TBD.
This current experiment is based on a different principle, and it's theoretical underpinnings haven't yet been discussed completely.I hate to say this, but it appears to me that what is happening is that microwaves are being bounced around in the chamber, being a tunnacated cone...
Just a note - you're describing Shawyer's EM-Drive specifically. Woodward's M-E drive is a completely different animal...
O, mas faz mal. -
#926 by 93143 on 23 Sep, 2014 01:17
-
Would you equate potential energy fluctuations (weight times change in height) in a hydrogen balloon as it rises in the sky (such potential energy is completely insignificant compared to its rest energy) to the energy fluctuations due to a nuclear-fusion reaction transforming hydrogen into helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy ?
No, because gravitational potential energy is not localizable and does not gravitate.
If you're going to complain about orders of magnitude, which is not what you seemed to be doing originally, you have to show why it's a problem with Woodward's theory, rather than just assuming people will fill in the blanks.
Because people will fill in the blanks, whether or not there is any merit in your argument. -
#927 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2014 01:37
-
...
I'm copyrighting my name, so from now on you can only refer to Dr. X
O wait. The good doctor Rodal is speaking, even as I type...
-
#928 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2014 01:43
-
Would you equate potential energy fluctuations (weight times change in height) in a hydrogen balloon as it rises in the sky (such potential energy is completely insignificant compared to its rest energy) to the energy fluctuations due to a nuclear-fusion reaction transforming hydrogen into helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy ?
No, because gravitational potential energy is not localizable and does not gravitate.
If you're going to complain about orders of magnitude, which is not what you seemed to be doing originally, you have to show why it's a problem with Woodward's theory, rather than just assuming people will fill in the blanks.
Because people will fill in the blanks, whether or not there is any merit in your argument.
Dr. Woodward himself wrote that it is a "wildly optimistic " and "arguable" assumption to equate fluctuations in rest energy to fluctuations in capacitor electric power input. Read his paper (Flux capacitors and the Origin of Inertia), he is the one "not filling the blanks" when he makes this (admittedly) unjustified assumption. I don't have to fill the blanks for him. You can also equate to each other all types of energy, and put an efficiency term into Relativity's equations for rest energy and rest mass equation. It is a free country, you can have your own Relativity theory. It certainly does not make sense to me
-
#929 by Vultur on 23 Sep, 2014 01:52
-
Yeah, I'm confused too. I thought mass-energy equivalence really did mean that a charged battery (or capacitor) would have (a very very very infinitesimally tiny amount) more mass than an uncharged one. Isn't that why photons have momentum, and so on?
-
#930 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2014 02:06
-
very very very very very very very very very very very very very very .....infinitesimally teeny tiny as a proportion
Woodward's reference, Sciama, himself wrote in his 1953 paper that the variation of rho with time is negligible.
<<Since the change of rho [the density] with time is very small, the gravelectric part of the field is approximately>> p. 38 of ON THE ORIGIN OF INERTIA © Royal Astronomical Society http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1953MNRAS.113...34S
-
#931 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2014 02:41
-
Notice that Woodward writes:
delta rho ~ (constant/(rho c2)) d2Eo/dt2 +..,
and Eo=rho c2
therefore
delta rho ~ (constant/(Eo)) d2Eo/dt2 +..,
so it is the (fluctuation of the rest energy) divided by the (total rest energy) in the original equation
(more precisely, the second derivative of the rest-energy with respect to time, divided by the total rest-energy)
or, as he shows, the (fluctuation in rho) divided by (total rho) that matters.
So it is the fluctuation fractional amount that enters the equation (the change in rest energy divided by total rest energy). -
#932 by 93143 on 23 Sep, 2014 03:16
-
Dr. Woodward himself wrote that it is a "wildly optimistic " and "arguable" assumption to equate fluctuations in rest energy to fluctuations in capacitor electric power input.
No, what he said was: "Note that the assumption that all of the power delivered to the capacitors ends up as a proper energy density fluctuation is an optimistic, indeed, perhaps wildly optimistic, assumption. Nonetheless, it is arguably a reasonable place to start."
That doesn't sound like a physics equivalence on thin ice to me. That sounds like a caveat regarding practical considerations; that is, an efficiency argument. The key phrase is "all of".
And as we've already established, the physics equivalence is sound. -
#933 by JohnFornaro on 23 Sep, 2014 12:32
-
Dr. Woodward himself wrote that it is a "wildly optimistic " and "arguable" assumption to equate fluctuations in rest energy to fluctuations in capacitor electric power input.
No, what he said was: "Note that the assumption that all of the power delivered to the capacitors ends up as a proper energy density fluctuation is an optimistic, indeed, perhaps wildly optimistic, assumption. Nonetheless, it is arguably a reasonable place to start."
That doesn't sound like a physics equivalence on thin ice to me. That sounds like a caveat regarding practical considerations; that is, an efficiency argument. The key phrase is "all of".
And as we've already established, the physics equivalence is sound.
Oooo. Thanks for the rest of the context.
Even so:
0. The fluctuations are incredibly small.
1. The latest experimental results are inconclusive, and are completely different from earlier experiments.
2. Several of the experimentors refuse engagement, insisting upon arcane and arbitrary rules of third party engagement.
3. Other math areas in the theory are grey, including the 2/k argument.
4. It is still "arguably" a "reasonable place to start"; therefore argue that starting point.
5. Inertia is not understood.
6. If there was an FTL period of expansion in the cosmos early on, how did causality get broken, and what applicability could there be to the idea of inertial action at a distance.
7. "Wildly optimistic" is still an assumption, albeit seen in better relationship to the whole argument.
8. Comme toujours, directement à partir du traducteur, snappy répliques de langue romantiques ont une applicabilité universelle. -
#934 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2014 12:38
-
If an isolated capacitor is to be at rest, there must be internal mechanical stresses that are equal and opposite to the electromagnetic ones.
One has to consider the mechanical energy-momentum stress tensor as well. Sometimes people assume that the capacitor plates are held apart without completely examining how they are held in place, thus ignoring the stresses involved.
The mechanical energy density is Eo = ρo c2, where ρo = mass density when there is no electric field in the capacitor.
The total energy-momentum-stress tensor is the sum of the mechanical and electromagnetic tensors. In the rest frame (*) of the capacitor the total mass density in the rest frame is
ρo* + E2/(8 Pi c2)
where E is the electric field. It is completely unjustified to equate fluctuations in E with fluctuation in Eo. Sciama neglects fluctuations in Eo = ρo c2, as just every other physicist does (unless dealing with reactions like nuclear reactions, etc.) and Sciama explicitly states this in his 1953 paper (that Woodward uses as a reference). Now I understand why the physics community at large has ignored Prof. Woodward's theory of mass fluctuations, as the assumption to equate fluctuations in E with fluctuation in Eo is indeed, unjustified for a mundane capacitor.
________________________
The total energy of a body moving with velocity v (lower than c) and with mass m is the sum of its rest energy m c2 plus its kinetic energy, m v2/2:
total energy = (rest energy ) + ( kinetic energy)
total energy = m c2 + m v2/2
This is actually an approximation for speeds significantly lower than light, see (Low speed expansion section):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
Usually fluctuations in rest energy are ignored:
<<The classical energy equation ignores the rest energy m c2 part...Since only changes in energy affect the behavior of objects, whether we include the [rest energy] m c2 part makes no difference, since it is [practically] constant. For the same reason, it is possible to subtract the rest energy from the total energy in relativity. >>
Again, equating "fluctuations in rest energy", which are known to be extremely small (Sciama himself ignores them ! ), to fluctuations in the Electric power input to a capacitor, is an assumption that Prof. Woodward himself states to be "wildly optimistic" and "arguable". I argue that it is an unjustified, dangerous assumption that is leading some readers to very unphysical expectations (the unphysical expectation that fluctuations in electric power input to a mundane capacitor can result in measurable thrust forces useful for "propellant-less" space propulsion)
-
#935 by Rodal on 23 Sep, 2014 13:59
-
Proposing the inclusion of an "efficiency" term (in a derivation using energy and mass from Relativity, never involving any thermodynamics in the derivation) is like somebody postulating their own Relativity theory predicting some unusual prediction that can be experimentally tested. When the experiments show that the prediction is not confirmed, but the experiments show a much lower uncertain level, to come back and claim some unknown "efficiency" being responsible for the much lower uncertain value.
Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicted the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. He didn't get to put an "efficiency" term on the precession of the perihelion of Mercury to accommodate to experimental results.
Prof. Woodward himself does not use any "efficiency" in his peer-reviewed papers that I have read - and that goes to Prof. Woodward's credit, because in my opinion to place an "efficiency" term in his theory would be tantamount with a "fudge-factor" that does not belong in a derivation from Relativity. -
#936 by JohnFornaro on 23 Sep, 2014 13:59
-
Quote from: Jose
Sometimes people assume that the capacitor plates are held apart without completely examining how they are held in place, thus ignoring the stresses involved.
Aw jeeze, man! I've been ignoring capacitors for years. I'm not starting to stress about them now. I just don't have, well, the capacity. Plus, French is hard!
As an aside, my romantic interests, which include the romantic languages, rest completely upon a world at peace. For that matter, so too do all on this forum, regardless of their interests.
Note 17 of the oracle's article above, brings this need into the forefront of the careful reader's mind:Quote from: Alfred E.A.Einstein "E = mc2: the most urgent problem of our time" Science illustrated, vol. 1 no. 1, April issue, pp. 16–17, 1946 (item 417 in the "Bibliography"
Still is.
Considering nuclear proliferation and the verifiable rise in violence in the world's hotspots, it is not clear how much longer we can expect the world to be largely at peace.
Just sayin'. -
#937 by JohnFornaro on 23 Sep, 2014 14:06
-
...the unphysical expectation that fluctuations in electric power input to a mundane capacitor can result in measurable thrust forces useful for "propellant-less" space propulsion...
I point out that, unless there is newer, unpublished experimental work which has been accomplished using the "flux capacitor", that this approach seems to have been abandoned. Furthermore, the current experimental apparatus looks a lot like Shawyer's EM device, known to be based upon faulty theory.
No news is no news. -
#938 by JohnFornaro on 23 Sep, 2014 14:49
-
Thanks to Jose... errr... Dr. X, for suggesting a read of the oracle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalenceQuote from: the oracleWhen an object is pulled in the direction of motion, it gains momentum and energy, but when the object is already traveling near the speed of light, it cannot move much faster, no matter how much energy it absorbs. Its momentum and energy continue to increase without bounds, whereas its speed approaches a constant value—the speed of light. This implies that in relativity the momentum of an object cannot be a constant times the velocity, nor can the kinetic energy be a constant times the square of the velocity. ...
A property called the relativistic mass is defined as the ratio of the momentum of an object to its velocity. ...
The fact that the released energy is not easily weighed in many such cases, may cause its mass to be neglected as though it no longer existed. This circumstance has encouraged the false idea of conversion of mass to energy, rather than the correct idea that the binding energy of such systems is relatively large, and exhibits a measurable mass, which is removed when the binding energy is removed. ...
In physics, there are two distinct concepts of mass: the gravitational mass and the inertial mass. The gravitational mass is the quantity that determines the strength of the gravitational field generated by an object, as well as the gravitational force acting on the object when it is immersed in a gravitational field produced by other bodies. The inertial mass, on the other hand, quantifies how much an object accelerates if a given force is applied to it. ...
Due to inefficient mechanisms of production, making antimatter always requires far more usable energy than would be released when it was annihilated. ...
We walked up and down in the snow, I on skis and she on foot. ...and gradually the idea took shape... explained by Bohr's idea that the nucleus is like a liquid drop; such a drop might elongate and divide itself... We knew there were strong forces that would resist, ..just as surface tension. But nuclei differed from ordinary drops. At this point we both sat down on a tree trunk and started to calculate on scraps of paper. ...the Uranium nucleus might indeed be a very wobbly, unstable drop, ready to divide itself... But, ...when the two drops separated they would be driven apart by electrical repulsion, about 200 MeV in all. Fortunately Lise Meitner remembered how to compute the masses of nuclei... and worked out that the two nuclei formed... would be lighter by about one-fifth the mass of a proton. Now whenever mass disappears energy is created, according to Einstein's formula E = mc2, and... the mass was just equivalent to 200 MeV; it all fitted!
Thought experimenting for a bit on my take on the idea alone of a "flux capacitor".
1. Ignore the concept of "free energy", from the quantum whatever, since that concept has not been demonstrated in reality.
2. Therefore, the idea is to convert electricity to free space forward momentum by other than rotary motion.
3. Allow that the electricity generation device is available, and can be included in the spacecraft design.
4. Contemplate only getting around in the solar system, from an L-point, with chemical rocketry doing the initial lifting.
5. Abandon interstellar travel crockery.
6. Allow that the thrust of the flux capacitor can be scaled appropriately.
7a. Now we can focus on whether the tiny mass fluctuations exist, and can be detected, since the only way to pragmatically design one's spacecraft, is to apply real thrust numbers. Ipso fatso:
7b. AIUI, it is conjectured that the interstitial atomic bonds in the capacitor move at relativistic speeds, over small distances, with properly timed alternating, opposed electrical signals. Because it is supposed that there is a time lag between the extemes of motion in this cycle, that the electrical signals can be timed so as to "push heavy" in one dirrection, and "pull light" in the other.
8. I believe that I have given a dispassionate summary of how the flux capacitor is supposed to work.
9. If such an effect can be shown, it does not seem credible that it could be scaled to a useful device.
10. Standard closing. -
#939 by Notsosureofit on 23 Sep, 2014 15:10
-
Still just poking around. This ref from another list (Polywell ?)
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/10455
Suggests to me that the dielectric may not be there because of "flux capacitors", but rather to make that surface look as close to a superconducive surface as possible (perfect reflectivity). This is done all the time by adding a dielectric layer onto an existing reflective surface. (in extreme cases we've made neutron mirrors w/ 1300 layers, but I digress) You need all 3 complex indices at the wavelength of interest to get "perfect" reflectivity. Typical telescope reflector is Al/SiO2, etc etc
No way of telling unless someone tells what the model is.
Could be just a big case of mirror charge attraction ?
