Woodward's conjecture does not hinge on Sciama's vectory theory of gravity. He has stated before that Sciama's model is only an approximation to GR, and the phi=c^2 result can be obtained in GR using Nordtvedt's PPN formalism.Here's a quote of his I found explaining this distinction"I am not claiming (nor have I claimed) that Sciama's 1953 theory is exactly correct. ...
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 12:40 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2013 07:36 pmWe are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.I get it. You don't understand his math either.Give me a good reason to try.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2013 07:36 pmWe are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.I get it. You don't understand his math either.
We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/14/2013 01:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 12:40 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2013 07:36 pmWe are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.I get it. You don't understand his math either.Give me a good reason to try.It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.
Quote from: Cinder on 02/15/2013 12:51 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/14/2013 01:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 12:40 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2013 07:36 pmWe are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.I get it. You don't understand his math either.Give me a good reason to try.It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.
Quote from: QuantumG on 02/15/2013 01:07 amAgreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.And why this and not the hundreds of other perpetual motion machines?
Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.
I'll be interested if there is independent, transparent replication.
Quote from: QuantumG on 02/15/2013 01:07 amQuote from: Cinder on 02/15/2013 12:51 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/14/2013 01:35 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 12:40 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2013 07:36 pmWe are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.I get it. You don't understand his math either.Give me a good reason to try.It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.I don't get it. I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it. Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?
Quote from: JFI don't get it. I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it. Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?Not at all. I'm saying he wanted to build a propellantless device (in spite of not being possible with mainstream physics), found some not-so-mainstream physics/math that either would let him do so or tweaked to let him do so, then built a device. He thinks he has a signal, but it doesn't entirely fit his predictions and it hasn't been independently replicated. This is a tried and true process for many a breaking-the-laws-of-physics device.
I don't get it. I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it. Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?
Not at all. I'm saying he wanted to build a propellantless device (in spite of not being possible with mainstream physics), found some not-so-mainstream physics/math that either would let him do so or tweaked to let him do so, then built a device. He thinks he has a signal, but it doesn't entirely fit his predictions and it hasn't been independently replicated. This is a tried and true process for many a breaking-the-laws-of-physics device.
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.
No, you don't get it . You can make up assumptions that can't be readily proven and disproven and then put those assumptions in a consistent mathematical framework. I don't doubt Woodward's mathematical skills.
Understood. What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 07:35 pmUnderstood. What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?My guess would be: free energy!
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/15/2013 05:07 amWoodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now. And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving. If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?
Quote from: antiquark on 02/15/2013 07:49 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 07:35 pmUnderstood. What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?My guess would be: free energy!That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.