-
#20
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:10
-
Yeah, he's invented a field (which hasn't been measured before) in order to make propellantless propulsion work. This is the same thing as violating local conservation of momentum. You can't just invent fields because you want them to be true then after-the-fact invent mathematics that obfuscates what you've just done.
-
#21
by
grondilu
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:20
-
Yeah, he's invented a field (which hasn't been measured before) in order to make propellantless propulsion work. This is the same thing as violating local conservation of momentum. You can't just invent fields because you want them to be true then after-the-fact invent mathematics that obfuscates what you've just done.
How do you know he had propellantless propulsion in mind right from the start??
It seems quite unlikely by the way, considering the mathematical path from the field to the effect is far from obvious.
I don't see why he couldn't have just been studying Mach's principle and Sciama's formulation of it until he found the effect, and then deduced the possibility of propellentless propulsion.
I don't know the english for that, but it seems to me that you're doing what is called a "procès d'intention" in french.
Edit: and yes, the field was measured. Or more precisely the force that derives from it, since it is actually the inertial force. It's just that we did not considered it as a real force before. One direct consequence of Mach's principle is that this force has to be real, meaning that it derives from a field emanating from actual physical objects, chiefly the stars in the universe.
-
#22
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Feb, 2013 14:22
-
The mathematical path is non-obvious because it's not a real effect. I'll bet however much money anyone wants to.
-
#23
by
D_Dom
on 08 Feb, 2013 15:50
-
Define real...
-
#24
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Feb, 2013 15:55
-
Define real...
There's no Mach effect. This device wouldn't produce a net thrust (other than something like photon pressure) in space. And I'll put my money where my mouth is.
-
#25
by
R7
on 08 Feb, 2013 16:06
-
Certainly looks more credible than "vibrating ferrite ring moved my lego car an inch -> Inertial Control!!1" but I fear it falls to the same category. Kinda wish it would work though. Why don't these ever work outside original developer's lab? Stupid momentum, so conservative.
-
#26
by
grondilu
on 08 Feb, 2013 16:11
-
Here is the relevant quote from Woodward about this:
« If we produce a fluctuating mass in an object, we can, at least in principle, use it to produce a stationary force on
the object, thereby producing a propulsive force thereon without having to expel propellant from the object. We
simply push on the object whose mass is fluctuating when it is more massive, and pull back when it is less massive.
The reaction forces during the two parts of the cycle will not be the same due to the mass fluctuation, so a time-
averaged net force will be produced. This may seem to be a violation of momentum conservation. But the Lorentz
invariance of the theory guarantees that no conservation law is broken. Local momentum conservation is preserved
by the flux of momentum in the gravity field that is exchanged with the chiefly distant matter in the universe. »
-
#27
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Feb, 2013 16:41
-
Baloney.
-
#28
by
R7
on 08 Feb, 2013 16:42
-
I don't even understand why you guys focus on the conservation of momentum that much.
Because it seems to break it, and the established physics isn't happy about that.
If I have understood correctly a mach effect engine should work like this:
1. You vibrate a driver mass back and forth, preferable along axis that runs through your vehicle's center of mass (unless you want torque too).
2. EM field fluctuates in said driver mass, in unison with vibration.
3. Unestablished magic happens, causing the driver mass be more massive while it's pushed backward, and less massive while pulled forward.
4. Net effect is propulsive force accelerating vehicle forward.
The 'average' mass of driver mass stays the same. Nothing is getting permanently less (or more) massive while the engine is on.
The problem is concept seems to break the conservation of momentum, because the vehicle is gaining momentum while designated donor is unknown. I guess the mach field is supposed to explain somehow ("the entire rest of the universe gives because of X").
If this down to earth description is faulty please correct!
[edit: tried to improve wording adding push/pull to step 3.]
-
#29
by
grondilu
on 08 Feb, 2013 16:49
-
The problem is concept seems to break the conservation of momentum, because the vehicle is gaining momentum while designated donor is unknown. I guess the mach field is supposed to explain somehow ("the entire rest of the universe gives because of X").
If this down to earth description is faulty please correct!
Yeah, the entire rest of the universe gives it. Are you offended by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory as well?
-
#30
by
R7
on 08 Feb, 2013 16:52
-
Are you offended by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory as well?
Not unless they insulted my mother.
Well now, the mach field and related effects just have to be proven to exists. As said earlier, I'm
happy if this works
[edit: Ah Feynman, him I have heard, read even a bio, dunno who the Wheeler fellow is)
-
#31
by
D_Dom
on 08 Feb, 2013 16:54
-
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.
Studying electronics I learned to use imaginary numbers in what is to my way of thinking a "non-obvious" way. I use this knowledge in a very practical manner although I will be the first to admit I cannot explain the theory. Einstein famously said that imagination is more important than knowledge so again I ask you, "define real".
-
#32
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Feb, 2013 16:58
-
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.
Studying electronics I learned to use imaginary numbers in what is to my way of thinking a "non-obvious" way. I use this knowledge in a very practical manner although I will be the first to admit I cannot explain the theory. Einstein famously said that imagination is more important than knowledge so again I ask you, "define real".
You're confusing mathematical terminology with everyday terminology. And besides, observables in a quantum mechanical system have to be real (in the mathematical sense, i.e. it is equal to its complex conjugate) anyway.
There is no effect.
-
#33
by
grondilu
on 08 Feb, 2013 17:04
-
There is no effect.
Just to be sure: what's your take on Mach's principle? (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)
-
#34
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Feb, 2013 17:53
-
There is no effect.
Just to be sure: what's your take on Mach's principle? (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)
The effect is distinct from Mach's hypothesis.
The "Mach Effect" is a misnomer... (Mach didn't come up with it, Woodward did.) It's the Woodward Effect, and it's conjecture.
-
#35
by
grondilu
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:15
-
There is no effect.
Just to be sure: what's your take on Mach's principle? (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)
The effect is distinct from Mach's hypothesis.
The "Mach Effect" is a misnomer... (Mach didn't come up with it, Woodward did.) It's the Woodward Effect, and it's conjecture.
You're avoiding the question.
-
#36
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Feb, 2013 18:57
-
No, I'm not. The Mach principle is a somewhat philosophical question that fits entirely within our laws of physics and seeks to gain better perspective on them, while the Woodward Effect (which, sneakily, is sometimes called the Mach Effect) contradicts many laws of physics (or invents sneaky ways to get around it, inventing new physical mechanisms out of practically whole cloth in order to hope it's possible).
-
#37
by
grondilu
on 08 Feb, 2013 19:05
-
(or invents sneaky ways to get around it, inventing new physical mechanisms out of practically whole cloth in order to hope it's possible).
I like the way you're magically capable of probing other people's mind in order to guess their hidden intentions.
As far as the many laws of physics it contradicts, you're just saying that but you don't give any actual argument and ignore those that are given to you.
-
#38
by
antiquark
on 08 Feb, 2013 19:32
-
As far as the many laws of physics it contradicts, you're just saying that but you don't give any actual argument and ignore those that are given to you.
The fact that it's a perpetual motion machine, contradicts ALL the laws of physics!
-
#39
by
antiquark
on 08 Feb, 2013 19:40
-
I hate to say this, but it appears to me that what is happening is that microwaves are being bounced around in the chamber,
I think you're looking for the EmDrive thread, this is about a capacitor that produces force.
