Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Star Ship

Term "vacuum propeller" invented at fourmilab.ch

Jim Woodward's Mach Effect Star Ship Engine the way I understand it.
I have reformulated it using Feynman's Rule
What I cannot construct independently
I do not understand

Jack SarfattiFrom: Paul Zelinsky [mailto:yksnilez@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:55 AM
To: GNPellegrini@aol.com
Cc: jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU; adastra1@me.com; Kafatos, Menas
Subject: Re: [PhysicsFellows] Getting back to Jim's MET & DARK ENERGY COSMOLOGICAL CON...

OK here I agree with Menas.

On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:

On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:

"Agree with Paul.

So now let’s move on.

What is next?"

Jack writes: Glad u asked.

My version of Jim's MET CONJECTURE

C = Mach Effect

Just in toy model Newtonian mechanics first for simplicity in an inertial frame

F = Cmd^2r/dt^2 + m(dC/dt)dr/dt + mrd^2C/dt^2

effective "dark energy" potential

V ~ (r/c)^2d^2C/dt^2

/ "cosmological constant" ~ d^2C/dt^2

In Einstein's GR this goes into g00

and a nonunitary dissipative friction term

In Einstein's GR this goes into the gravimagnetic metric gi0

Propellantless propulsion is when F = 0

Also

C = CDestiny + CHistory

The Hungarian claims CHistory = 0.82

therefore back from the future CDestiny = 0.18

In a toy GR model imagine only spherical Earth of mass ME and of radius rE and distant matter given by the Mach Cosmological Screening Coefficient C taken to be a pure dimensionless variable that Jim hopes to manipulate with his gizmo.

g00 = 1 - 2GME/c^2|r + rE| + (|r + rE|/c)^2d^2C/dt^2

gi0 = (dC/dt)(xi/c)

  1. Working on review of Jim Woodward's new Star Ship book (Springer-Verlag)
    Like · · Share
    • Jack Sarfatti On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

      He's saying that inertia is a real Newtonian force, not a fictitious force.

      If you don't disagree, then why disagree?

      My point here is that in Newtonian terms it isn't an "impressed" force, although it can appear that way in a rotating frame.

      I answered: Jim in his book clearly says

      "m" = inertia

      With that definition "inertia" is NOT a FORCE!

      REAL 4-Force on a test particle = Covariant derivative of 4-Momentum of that test particle with respect to that test particle's PROPER TIME

      The CONNECTION PART on the RHS contains ALL FICTITIOUS INERTIAL PSEUDO-FORCES from the proper accelerations on the DETECTOR NOT the test particle!

      NOW - IN THE VERY SPECIAL CASE OF THE REST FRAME OF THE NOW OFF-GEODESIC TEST PARTICLE a piece of the connection survives and cancels against the Real Force ON THE TEST PARTICLE. IN THIS SPECIAL CASE IT IS THE DETECTOR ITSELF THAT IS ALSO THE CONSTRAINT CAUSING THE REAL FORCE ON THE TEST PARTICLE, AND THE SURVIVING PIECE OF THE CONNECTION IS NOW THE REAL INERTIAL REACTION FORCE BACK ON THE DETECTOR/CONSTRAINT! THUS NEWTON'S THIRD LAW IS OBEYED LOCALLY, BUT THE QUANTUM THEORY EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF BOTH THE REAL FORCE ON THE TEST PARTICLE FROM THE DETECTOR, WHICH NOW IS ALSO THE CONSTRAINT, AND THE INERTIAL REACTION FORCE BACK ON THE CONSTRAINT FROM THE TEST PARTICLE IS ELECTROMAGNETIC-WEAK-STRONG + PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE LOCAL CONTACT NEAR FIELD FORCES - NOT ANYTHING IN CLASSICAL GR OR MACH'S PRINCIPLE IS NEEDED OR CAN EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF "m" - that is a quantum effect! "m" is a free parameter in classical physics.

      SEE WHAT LANCZOS WROTE BELOW EQ (5)

      (REAL FORCE ON TEST PARTICLE OF INERTIA m)i - (m/g44){^4^4i} = 0 IN THE LNIF REST FRAME OF THE CONSTRAINED TEST PARTICLE
    • Jack Sarfatti PS
      On Feb 1, 2013, at 4:58 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

      (REAL FORCE ON TEST PARTICLE OF INERTIA m)i - (m/g44){^4^4i} = 0 IN THE LNIF REST FRAME OF THE CONSTRAINED TEST PARTICLE

      NOTE THE REAL HORIZON SINGULARITY

      g44 = 0 where the curvature is finite

      here, putting in the quantum gravity Planck cutoff

      the Unruh temperature on the horizon is hc/LpkB

      but far away that temperature redshifts down to hc(LpA^1/2)^1/2kB

      i.e. the Planck scale for Hawking blackbody radiation asymptotically redshifts down to the GEOMETRIC MEAN of the Planck scale with scale of the horizon A^1/2 where A is the AREA-ENTROPY of the g44 = 0 horizon.

      in cosmology this horizon is observer dependent - the observer always see the above GEOMETRIC MEAN.

      In the case of our universe, the COSMOLOGICAL GEOMETRIC MEAN is (10^-33 10^28)^1/2 cm ~ 10^-2 cm.

      That Hawking temperature using Stefan-Boltzmann law T^4 gives the observed dark energy density hc/Lp^2A
Like · · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti I state my bias, and I hope I will prove wrong, but I think large scale variations in inertia is not a viable idea.
    Even if it could be done, I think it would be suicidal destroying the Star Ship. I am also skeptical of the
    1/G effect, but again that's because the DARPA-NASA paper I gave in Orlando on Oct 1, 2011 on "low power warp drive" is a G effect, more specifically, (index of refraction)^4G/c^4 amplifying the coupling of the applied stress-energy current density tensor Tuv to the WARP FIELD Guv in Einstein's 1916 classical field theory of the geometrodynamical field. With Bose-Einstein Condensates (BEC) we can get (index of refraction) ~ 10^10 giving an effective amplification of the G-coupling of 10^40. Furthermore, with a high Tc BEC that is also a meta-material with negative electric permittivity and negative magnetic permeability. Therefore, an applied EM field energy density ~ E.D + B.H < 0 we have "exotic matter" giving a repulsive anti-gravity effect.

    Jim Woodward has made spurious objections to my scheme in his book. I will briefly address them in this introductory commentary.

    Current experiments using laser light passing though atomic BEC's will not show the effect in any obvious dramatic way because the measurement is very short lived and it is at high frequency using real photons f = kc in Glauber coherent states. Furthermore the atomic BECs are not metamaterials so certainly no anti-gravity would be expected. More importantly, I am talking about non-radiative near EM field sources in Tuv where f =/= kc. These near field sources induce near Warp Fields. We are not interested at all in GRAVITY WAVES! They are leaks in the WARP FIELD DYNAMO to be avoided.

    For the moment using weak fields in first order perturbation theory against a non-dynamical globally flat Minkowski background,

    guv = (Special Relativity Metric)uv + huv

    guv(k,f) = huv(k,f)

    Einstein's NEAR FIELD equations are approximately (we really need convolution integrals - so this is very rough).

    Guv(k,f) + (index of refraction k,w)^4GTuv(k,f)/c^4 = 0

    T00(k,f) ~ E(k,f).D(k,f) + B(k,f).H(k,f) < 0 etc.

    Note, for example, the metric NEAR field of the Earth of mass M for static detectors at fixed r is

    g00 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r = - 1/grr etc.

    This is a Glauber coherent state of NON_RADIATIVE VIRTUAL LONGITUDINAL POLARIZED GRAVITONS f = 0, all k analogous to the Coulomb field of a charge in its rest frame that is a coherent Glauber state of f = 0 all k virtual longitudinal polarized photons.

    The rest massless SPIN 1 photon has one longitudinal polarization in the near field with two transverse polarizations in far radiation field.

    The rest massless SPIN 2 graviton has THREE NEAR FIELD VIRTUAL POLARIZATIONS that do not appear as FAR FIELD GRAVITY WAVES with only two transverse polarizations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GravitationalWave_PlusPolarization.gif

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GravitationalWave_CrossPolarization.gif

    AGAIN WE ARE NOT AT ALL INTERESTED IN THESE GRAVITY WAVES FOR CONSTRUCTING STAR GATE TIME MACHINES AND WARP DRIVE DYNAMOS. We are only interested in what electrical engineers call induction fields both EM and GRAVITY.

    In terms of quantum field theory, we are not interested in the poles of the Feynman propagators/S-Matrix in the complex energy plane. We are only interested in the stuff away from the poles of the S-Matrix.

    RADIATION FIELDS
    electriciantraining.tpub.com/14182/css/14182_64.htm
    This radiation field is responsible for electromagnetic radiation from the antenna. ... 2-4 All the energy supplied to the induction field is returned to the antenna by ...
    Near and far field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
    Absorption of radiation from the reactive part of the near-field, however, does affect the load on the transmitter. Magnetic induction (for example, in a transformer) ...
    You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 12/24/11
    Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
    Jump to Near and far fields: Electromagnetic radiation thus includes the far field part of the ... as the magnetic induction inside an electrical transformer, ...
    Antenna And Wave Propagation - Page 1-24 - Google Books Result
    books.google.com/books?isbn=8184317220
    U.A.Bakshi, A.V.Bakshi - 2009
    This term is called radiation or distant field. 2. The second term varies inversely with the square of distance r. This term is called induction field. When distance r ...

    To be continued
    commons.wikimedia.org
    In case this is not legally possible:MOBle grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.


OK now we are honing in on the fly in Jim's soup. Jim wrote:

"a fictitious force is one that produces the same acceleration irrespective of the mass of the object on which it acts.  It has nothing to do with whether the force is real or not." Footnote 5

Jim's first sentence is correct as far as it goes. It does not go far enough to explain the concept in its fullness. Jim's second sentence is misleading.

First: What is the proper definition of a "real force"?

A real force acting locally in a small region of spacetime is what an accelerometer placed in that region measures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer

also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics

Special Relativity SR works locally in GR (EEP).

Non-rotating accelerometers on timelike geodesics measure ZERO.

The pattern of timelike geodesics are the INERTIAL PROPERTIES of space. e.g. Lense-Thirring effect dragging of LIFs by rotating source masses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

Mach's Principle (MP) would conceivably apply to this pattern of timelike & null geodesic.

The timelike geodesics provide the local GEOMETRODYNAMIC reference field upon which "inertia" according to Newton's 2nd law is measured.

Inertia is the ratio of applied external electromagnetic-weak-strong force to what accelerometers measure.

Real test particles obey Einstein's mass shell constraint

E^2 = (mc^2) + (pc)^2

(poles of the Feynman propagator in the complex energy plane in quantum field theory)

Virtual particles violate the above constraint.

Both real and virtual particles directly bend space time in different ways i.e. both contribute to the Tuv source tensor in

Guv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv = 0

Mach's principle and Einstein's GR have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the rest masses m of the elementary particles.

The pattern of rest masses m come from quantum field theory (including Higgs) of the electromagnetic-weak-strong interactions.

The rest masses m are UNDETERMINED PARAMETERS as far as MP & GR are concerned.

m is also called inertial mass = gravity mass (part of the EP).

Therefore, anyone who claims that the actual values of m are determined by GR & MP is most definitely confused and wrong in my opinion.

They confuse the inertial properties of space-time given by GR with the inertia of elementary particles m.

On Dec 26, 2012, at 6:40 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

No point wasting more time on this quicksand rut.
I want to move on reading Jim's book.
I think I have made the point clearly with detailed math for two independent situations that I think u & Jim confound.
I argue with equations as much as possible and Z your verbal explanations generally make no sense to me.
What you still don't understand Z is that

Case 1: the observed test particle on geodesic when observed in a non-inertial frame will show apparent fictitious Coriolis, Euler, centrifugal forces and Newtonian gravity forces on that test particle whose accelerometer pointer stays at zero. In contrast the frame accelerometer pointer is off zero. Therefore, in that case, the apparent forces on the geodesic test particle are simply optical illusions.

Case 2: The observed test particle is now pushed off geodesic by a real constraint force. In that case the test particle will obey Newton's third law LOCALLY and will exert an equal and opposite CONTACT LOCAL INERTIAL REACTION FORCE on the ACCELERATING AGENT ( to use Jim's phrasing).


In some cases, e.g. the CYCLOTRON PROBLEM that electrical inertial reaction force will be outward centrifugal on the magnetic flux mr x w x w = (e/c)v x B where v = rw in the tangential direction of the circular orbit of period  1/w.

Now this term the real electrical local contact inertial reaction force mr x w x w in Case 2 MIMICs a term in the fictitious force Case 1 for the rotating non-inertial frame B (do not confuse with magnetic field pseudo-vector in BOLD FACE) where:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/1/5/515d0a6a1c2cca13eae083c7fad66a19.png

A is the inertial frame, and B is the rotating frame.

On Dec 26, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/26/2012 12:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote
I .Z I think you & Jim are seriously confused on the concept of inertial forces so much so that your views are not even wrong in Pauli's sense - indeed mystical in the worst sense of the word. If I am right, then Jim's entire scheme for Mach propulsion seems fatally flawed. I am withholding final judgement till I real more in his new Star Ship book.



A website means nothing. It's the funding that counts. I never heard of this group.
Mae Jemison has a lot of fund-raising clout in the Democratic Party. Mae can call up Bill Clinton, Obama's top people etc.
If Obama gets re-elected she has a very good chance of raising big private $.
How effective that will be in terms of technological development is another story of course because her tech people are afraid of the UFO flying saucer issue even though some of them worked on it in the past with Joe Firmage and Robert Bigelow.
In any case, all bets are off until the POTUS election is over.
It's clear that the Star Ship effort will split into parallel competing efforts. This is a good thing.

On Sep 30, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Angelo wrote:

Jim,

regarding Mae Jemison's institute "the Way", it seems that there is already a brand new interstellar research institute:

http://www.i4is.org/

Best,
Angelo


Inviato: Domenica 30 Settembre 2012 8:52
Oggetto: Re: 29 September 2012

Gentlefolk,

..
In a related vein, Mike L. put me on to an article about the recent 100YSS meeting where in an interview with Mae Jemison, she allowed that maybe the 100YSS operation was not the ideal way to actually get work done on the starship project. . . .  She's tinkering with the idea of another operation (she calls "the way") as the thing that actually tries to get something done.  My sense is that that isn't what the creators of the 100YSS project had in mind. . . .  But we'll see.  :-)

Have a good what's left of the weekend,

Jim Woodward