The NASA spaceflight forum discusses Goatguys criticism of the Mach Effect for propulsion.

The Mach Effect itself poses serious violations-of-physics problems, which most likely obviate its existence. Imagine for the moment that two equations of MachEffect vehicles are true:

A = ΔV = KME × PELECTRIC / M V = KME × PELECTRIC × T / M EKINETIC = ½MV² EKINETIC = ½M × ( KME × PELECTRIC × T / M )² EKINETIC = ½K²P²T²/M

Which is to say the kinetic energy rises per the square of time … since the K and E and M are constants. But, the energy put into the system is linear over time. Now – connect the dots – and you’ll realize that when T = (2M)/(K²P) … the amount of electric energy input to the Mach device equals the amount of kinetic energy of the craft itself. After that, the craft’s energy exceeds the electrical energy input…

FACTOR VALUE UNITS NOTES ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mass 10,000.00 kg 10 ton craft K 0.01 N/W low, but real conversion factor P 9,800,000.00 W power needed for "1 G" 2M/K²P 20.41 sec sec, from dead stop, to kinetic energy exceeding electrical imput A 9.80 m/s² Acceleration of craft V 200.00 m/s velocity at cut-over where kinetic exceeds electrical E 200,000,000 J Kinetic energy (== electrical input) at that point

It doesn’t matter one whit whether the ME force (K) is really weak, or really strong – the equation works out to some time T where the kinetic energy of the moving vessel exceeds the energy actually put into it. After that point, it is a perpetual-motion machine (conceptually).

The equations are not accurate, it is a simple restatement of the argument that was already covered in this thread 6 months ago.

The equations are incorrect because they are falsely constrained solutions to the ME equations Woodward derives. If you constrain mass to be constant, then yes, you get this result for these equations–but if you falsely constrain mass to be constant, than inertial fluctuations are obviously precluded as well.

So it’s a variation of disproving the means(ME) by arbitrarily precluding the stated required conditions(variability of inertial mass) and working backwards to make it look scientific.

Dishonest line of argument. You can’t disprove the statement “a+b=c” by starting from the assumption that “b” doesn’t exist.

That’s called “asking a different question..”

Paul March – Goatguy apparently doesn’t like his mass to fluctuate, I guess because Newton’s three laws didn’t mention this possibility. However, when you take Newton’s third law and apply Einstein’s GRT and Sciama’s inertial induction ideas to it, mass fluctuations fall out naturally whenever the required conditions for same are met per Dr. Woodward’s Mach-Effect (M-E) derivation. And those conditions for generating mass fluctuations are that an energy storing media like a capacitor dielectric has to be bulk accelerated relative to the distant stars, while concurrently undergoing a large power flux through this energy storing media. That in a nutshell is what the M-E is all about. And so far the M-E derivation has met all comers and has not been found wanting…

The capacitor mass is changing rapidly as it is moved.

**Other Research paper- Inertial Mass Dependency on Local Vacuum Fluctuation Mean Free Path**

The last known paper on Harold (Sonny) White’s QVF/MHD conjecture was published in the AIP sponsored STAIF-2007 Conference. The Abstract and url to same is below:

Inertial Mass Dependency on Local Vacuum Fluctuation Mean Free Path by White, H. G.

SPACE TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL FORUM-STAIF 2007: 11th Conf Thermophys.Applic.in Micrograv.; 24th Symp Space Nucl.Pwr.Propulsion; 5th Conf Hum/Robotic Techn & Vision Space Explor.; 5th Symp Space Coloniz.; 4th Symp New Frontrs & Future Con. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 880, pp. 987-994 (2007).

The intent of this narrative is to propose a relationship between the vacuum energy density, light-radius of the universe, and the plank force. The equation is proposed to infer a connection between inertial mass and an observer’s light horizon. This horizon is conjectured to be the mean free path for vacuum fluctuations as seen by an observer in deep space. This fundamental relationship will then be derived from a gravitational wave equation. Once this has been derived, the results will be extended to derive an equation to calculate the effect local matter has on the mean free path of a vacuum fluctuation, and hence the local vacuum energy density (vacuum fluctuation pileup). The paper will conclude by applying the theoretical framework to calculate expected thrust signals in an externally applied ExB application meant to induce plasma drift in the vacuum fluctuations. Current experimental results from domestic and international labs will be addressed.

*If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks*

Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.

Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.

A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.