Glad to see that at least a few people with a serious understanding of physics are trying to break the mold of classic propulsion systems:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-good-kind-of-crazy-the-quest-for-exotic-propulsion/

He claimed he could induce tiny, ultraquick variations in an object’s mass, making it lighter and then heavier. And then, by tugging and shoving it back and forth strategically as its mass changed, he could create thrust.
...
Working together since then, the odd couple has been developing MEGA: the Mach effect gravity-assist drive. And although it is still on the outer limits of mainstream science, it has gained credibility.

 

Can't see how that would work in free space! No different to have a couple of weights connected with a spring that pushed and pulled on one of them.wouldn't go anywhere.

 

Can't see how that would work in free space! No different to have a couple of weights connected with a spring that pushed and pulled on one of them.wouldn't go anywhere.

And I'm sure that @nsaspook would probably agree with you, but I'm also sure that if physicists had a clear and precise picture of all the effects of the proposed device then NASA wouldn't be pouring its money on its research and experimentation.

 

I didn't read the whole thing, (much too long), but it sound like: Push a mass, reduce that mass, pull it back, restore the mass, push it, reduce the ass, pull it back, restore the mass, push it.........

 

...reduce the ass...

The new QM Diet Plan. $Millions!

 

And I'm sure that @nsaspook would probably agree with you, but I'm also sure that if physicists had a clear and precise picture of all the effects of the proposed device then NASA wouldn't be pouring its money on its research and experimentation.

It can't work (Conservation of momentum, electrical or gravitational), simply because all reaction-less systems with greater than photon thrust are perpetual motion free energy machines.

NASA has an account just for fringe science on the remote off chance something crazy does work. Crazy good things do happen. I was at the local Casino this weekend when the person playing next to me won $910,000 on a $3.75 slot bet.
https://www.facebook.com/spiritmountain/posts/10157502526586804

 

No different to have a couple of weights connected with a spring that pushed and pulled on one of them.wouldn't go anywhere.

That's true if the mass of the weights doesn't change.
But in their experiment, they say the mass will change slightly as the masses are accelerated and decelerated due to the slight gain and loss of kinetic energy (energy has mass).
I believe the theory is that there will be a net thrust from the proper accelerating and decelerating of the masses, which is translated into net movement and increase in total kinetic energy (which is supplied by the energy moving the masses).
It's the direct transfer of energy (such as from solar or a nuclear generator) into net kinetic energy without having to use the momentum transfer of throwing out some mass as a rocket engine does (sort of the holy grail of space travel).

I suppose in theory you could then retrieve that kinetic energy by moving the masses so they create a net deceleration rather than acceleration at the end of your interstellar journey (no wasting all that kinetic energy ).

The only thing better would be a warp drive or worm-hole, which can theoretically transfer a mass from one location in space to another without changing its kinetic energy.

Or perhaps some field that will cancel the inertia of a ship so it can be moved without requiring the addition/subtraction of kinetic energy.
(Is that how flying saucers can accelerate so rapidly and move so fast? )

 

Or perhaps some field that will cancel the inertia of a ship so it can be moved without requiring the addition/subtraction of kinetic energy.

I think the SciFi folks call them "Inertial dampeners".

 

I think the SciFi folks call them "Inertial dampeners".

Yeah... and they qualify in their believability right up there with "Heisenberg compensators"

 

That's true if the mass of the weights doesn't change.
But in their experiment, they say the mass will change slightly as the masses are accelerated and decelerated due to the slight gain and loss of kinetic energy (energy has mass).
I believe the theory is that there will be a net thrust from the proper accelerating and decelerating of the masses, which is translated into net movement and increase in total kinetic energy (which is supplied by the energy moving the masses).
It's the direct transfer of energy (such as from solar or a nuclear generator) into net kinetic energy without having to use the momentum transfer of throwing out some mass as a rocket engine does (sort of the holy grail of space travel).

If this theory is true (physically) then we have a variable speed of light because the energy/mass equivalence is dependent on a constant called c (in vacuum). Any effect that causes a energy/mass equivalence imbalance must then include a factor that changes light speed in some way. The entire basis of modern physics is that c is invariant.

This is just a fancy re-spin of an old idea.
https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm

 

Any effect that causes a energy/mass equivalence imbalance must then include a factor that changes light speed in some way.

Where is there an energy/mass imbalance in this scheme?
If you increase the kinetic energy of a mass, that its mass increases by the mass equivalent of that energy.
The energy goes along for the ride.

This is just a fancy re-spin of an old idea.
https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm

That is not equivalent.
It doesn't depend upon the small change in mass due to the change in kinetic energy.

But I do admit it would seem to violate the conservation of momentum in the classical sense (but perhaps not in the the Relativistic sense).

 

If this theory is true (physically) then we have a variable speed of light because the energy/mass equivalence is dependent on a constant called c (in vacuum). Any effect that causes a energy/mass equivalence imbalance must then include a factor that changes light speed in some way. The entire basis of modern physics is that c is invariant.

This is just a fancy re-spin of an old idea.
https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm

Interesting ... after all the discussions we've been having, I'm beginning to understand what you've been saying. And obviously, you know more about the subject of relativity and its relationship to the conservation of momentum than I do ... And yet, I'm fascinated whenever I find someone with a respectable reputation trying to break the mold of spaceship propulsion ... that's because it's a fact that we do not yet know everything there is to know about the laws of physics, by far. In fact, I'm beginning to think that we do not know is a lot more than what we think we know ... dark matter and dark energy come to mind.

 

Where is there an energy/mass imbalance in this scheme?
If you increase the kinetic energy of a mass, that its mass increases by the mass equivalent of that energy.
The energy goes along for the ride.
That is not equivalent.
It doesn't depend upon the small change in mass due to the change in kinetic energy.

But I do admit it would seem to violate the conservation of momentum in the classical sense (but perhaps not in the the Relativistic sense).

Energy is not just going along for a ride. It's being transformed into a thrust greater than a photon rocket. This transformation from energy into a massless something called an 'effect' is the root of the problem.
There needs to be some preferred inertial frame of reference for c in order for reaction-less propulsion to be possible. The only way that's possible is where light speed is NOT invariant in a Lorenz transformation (variations in an object’s mass, making it lighter and then heavier from acceleration) and then added momentum exits the closed system as thrust.

His explanation of how it works.
Local momentum conservation is preserved by the flux of momentum in the gravity field that is chiefly exchanged with the distant matter in the universe.

Is there so instantaneous communication with the distant matter in the universe in the short time the mass changes slightly from the local acceleration?

Most people think this is poppycock, Einstein was one of them.

 

Most people think this is poppycock, Einstein was one of them.

Careful .... even Einstein had it wrong when he was confronted with quantum mechanics and with Lemaître's expanding universe... hell, he was also twice wrong about his own cosmological constant!

 

Careful .... even Einstein had it wrong when he was confronted with quantum mechanics and with Lemaître's expanding universe... hell, he was also twice wrong about his own cosmological constant!

IMO he believed quantum mechanics was correct but incomplete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

He’d be a convert today.

 

He’d be a convert today.

Yes ... what I liked about him, was that he guided his opinion through facts ... if facts contradicted him (and convinced him), then he'd adjust his opinion ... not just a great scientist, but also an honest person.

 

Yes ... what I liked about him, was that he guided his opinion through facts ... if facts contradicted him (and convinced him), then he'd adjust his opinion ... not just a great scientist, but also an honest person.

I found the perfect energy source to create thrust using this effect.

 

I found the perfect energy source to create thrust using this effect.
View attachment 182894

Oooohhhh... I liked the tanned blonde on the right! ...

 

Hi,

Article was a little long i didnt read the entire thing yet.
It raises an interesting question about the changing mass and also about inertia itself which i am always interested in.
I once described inertia as a "property of the universe" but i had no idea that this was to be taken as the entire universe acting on one body somehow. I also looked for a more intrinsic explanation which i never got to experiment with, which given gravity waves, it would make more sense but as i said i was never able to experiment with that idea (yet).

As to the thrust issue, it makes some sense but of course experimentation proves or disproves it. It's very hard to determine if it works or not without the experiment because the universe holds mysteries that we dont yet understand, and the chief here is inertia.

A similar question perhaps is an electronic one which we all know about.
We have a capacitor charged to a voltage V then the energy is (1/2)*C*V^2 which we all know.
But what happens to the energy if the capacitance decreases? It has to go down, but then where does the energy go. Can we assume that the voltage goes up?
So can we expand and contract a capacitor to get a thrust somehow? Would be interesting.

 

Hi,

Article was a little long i didnt read the entire thing yet.
It raises an interesting question about the changing mass and also about inertia itself which i am always interested in.
I once described inertia as a "property of the universe" but i had no idea that this was to be taken as the entire universe acting on one body somehow. I also looked for a more intrinsic explanation which i never got to experiment with, which given gravity waves, it would make more sense but as i said i was never able to experiment with that idea (yet).

As to the thrust issue, it makes some sense but of course experimentation proves or disproves it. It's very hard to determine if it works or not without the experiment because the universe holds mysteries that we dont yet understand, and the chief here is inertia.

A similar question perhaps is an electronic one which we all know about.
We have a capacitor charged to a voltage V then the energy is (1/2)*C*V^2 which we all know.
But what happens to the energy if the capacitance decreases? It has to go down, but then where does the energy go. Can we assume that the voltage goes up?
So can we expand and contract a capacitor to get a thrust somehow? Would be interesting.

The root problem is reactionless propulsion with greater than photon thrust is a free energy machine. The problem is not a thrust conversion process using inertia, electrical, nuclear or any from of energy. The limit is more thrust than a massless particle propellant while having the ability to just start moving, on its own, without touching or exuding anything. It's imbalanced momentum, a violation of Newton’s laws with no (known) exceptions.

IMO, wishful thinking in the same arena as the Albecurrie drive. The math might be impeccable but the physical universe doesn't care, it has hard limits.

This has been a 'trope' for true believers some time with no real progress.

2006 magical thinking