Quote from: momerathe on 12/04/2014 04:42 pm* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.
* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.
Ok well first thing, VDW forces are the net effect of many forces. You are confusing VDW and Casimir forces. Vacuum forces are one component to VDW forces. After controls are put in place (conducting parallel plates), Casimir forces can be measured independently. You are trying to controvert research that has been ongoing since the 1940s. The other thing is that, the lines of reasoning and authors you are quoting are failing at using the chicken vs the egg approach and fail to take into account the most fundamental foundation of all matter, forces and things, which is the reference from which all phenomena spring forward, the reference or ground state. You can't have anything, nothing nada, zilch, without something else to compare it to. The QV is that reference. It is the most fundamental thing (Wolfram would say information is more fundamental). Be it sits at a zillion or zero, it is the reference.
I shouldn't have to explain this on such an elementary level to such a smart guy, and the fact you're here being so obtuse indicates you don't really want to know the truth. It'll tell you again anyway.ZPF and QVF advocates are proposong that energy or propulsion can be drawn out of the vacuum, from virtual particles that according to Einstein, EEP and GR, cannot carry momentum. They cannot mediate momentum exchange because they have no inertial mass, and they have no inertial mass because they have no gravitational mass. If they had gravitational mass, they would collapse the universe, and EEP says gravitational mass and inertial mass must always be identical. In fact for GR to be correct, they HAVE to be the same under all conditions because these are really the same thing.When a ZPFer tells you that Casimir Effect is evidence for ZPF, what they're saying is, "see, here is an example of the virtual particles mediating momentum exchange" and they sell that tripe all the time. The fact is though, almost no real physicists believe this, because they know there are other explanations for Casimir Effect than virtual particles carrying momentum. I sent the paper that demonstrates this conclusively. There is no debate about this. Casimir in no way requires virtual particles mediate momentum exchange. That is a completely superfluous argument and a distraction fallacy. You are not thinking about the issue, because you have been distracted from it.So when someone tells you, that Casimir is evidence for QVF, they have misled you, and when you tell someone else Casimir is evidence for QVF, you are misleading them out of ignorance.BTW, I do not make these sorts of observations because I am an M-E advocate. I am an M-E advocate because I make these kinds of observations. ZPF and QVF are a scam. There is nothing to them.
The RF oscillator works very well and I have got some successfull motions of the device as mentioned in the Stavros' paper. The upward motion is not easily reproducible at each test run, but sometime a weak upward motion of the circular rim can be observed. More deep tests must be soon conducted...
I don't know enough to argue the merits of competing ideas for resolving the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity. However, jumping straight into the fray with a No True Scotsman isn't a very convincing approach.
According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.
Ron, I am not arguing in favor of ZPfers and all that. (I am really not)However, you said that if those virtual particles had mass, they would collapse the universe.And as we know, normal matter (baryonic?) constitutes only 16% of the total matter in the universe. If science understand that 84.5% of the matter in the universe is missing, but you are saying that if virtual particles had mass they would collapse the universe, does that means that if virtual particles had mass they would have a few orders of magnitude more mass than dark matter?QuoteAccording to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]
btw Ron, can you address Mulletrons post #3554, in special this part:QuoteExcept Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.obviously his rant concerning Flux Capacitor just because of it´s name instead of what it does was a cheap shot. But what about the rest? Hasn´t Woodward theory thrusters been reproduced by others, including Paul March (who works with Sonny White)?
Quote from: Mulletron on 12/06/2014 01:47 amOk well first thing, VDW forces are the net effect of many forces. You are confusing VDW and Casimir forces. Vacuum forces are one component to VDW forces. After controls are put in place (conducting parallel plates), Casimir forces can be measured independently. You are trying to controvert research that has been ongoing since the 1940s. The other thing is that, the lines of reasoning and authors you are quoting are failing at using the chicken vs the egg approach and fail to take into account the most fundamental foundation of all matter, forces and things, which is the reference from which all phenomena spring forward, the reference or ground state. You can't have anything, nothing nada, zilch, without something else to compare it to. The QV is that reference. It is the most fundamental thing (Wolfram would say information is more fundamental). Be it sits at a zillion or zero, it is the reference.I shouldn't have to explain this on such an elementary level to such a smart guy, and the fact you're here being so obtuse indicates you don't really want to know the truth. It'll tell you again anyway.ZPF and QVF advocates are proposong that energy or propulsion can be drawn out of the vacuum, from virtual particles that according to Einstein, EEP and GR, cannot carry momentum. They cannot mediate momentum exchange because they have no inertial mass, and they have no inertial mass because they have no gravitational mass. If they had gravitational mass, they would collapse the universe, and EEP says gravitational mass and inertial mass must always be identical. In fact for GR to be correct, they HAVE to be the same under all conditions because these are really the same thing.When a ZPFer tells you that Casimir Effect is evidence for ZPF, what they're saying is, "see, here is an example of the virtual particles mediating momentum exchange" and they sell that tripe all the time. The fact is though, almost no real physicists believe this, because they know there are other explanations for Casimir Effect than virtual particles carrying momentum. I sent the paper that demonstrates this conclusively. There is no debate about this. Casimir in no way requires virtual particles mediate momentum exchange. That is a completely superfluous argument and a distraction fallacy. You are not thinking about the issue, because you have been distracted from it.So when someone tells you, that Casimir is evidence for QVF, they have misled you, and when you tell someone else Casimir is evidence for QVF, you are misleading them out of ignorance.BTW, I do not make these sorts of observations because I am an M-E advocate. I am an M-E advocate because I make these kinds of observations. ZPF and QVF are a scam. There is nothing to them.
Zero-Point FieldThe Zero-Point Field (ZPF) is said to exist in a vacuum -- what is commonly thought of as empty space -- at a temperature of absolute zero (where all thermal radiation is absent; a condition obtained when reaching a temperature of absolute zero on the Kelvin scale). The background energy of the vacuum serves as the reference, or zero point, for all processes. Theoretical considerations indicate the ZPF should be a background sea of electromagnetic radiation that is both uniform and isotropic (the same in all directions). The uniform and isotropic nature of the ZPF is important, and explains why it is not readily observed. Fundamentally, the lack of asymmetry of the ZPF prevents its easy identification, just as a fish being absolutely still in a sea of constant temperature and pressure water is unable to detect the water itself. In some cases, motion through a medium can give rise to asymmetries, thus in turn allowing for the detection of the medium. However, in the case of the ZPF, motion through the “medium” (i.e. the field) at a constant velocity has not been shown to make the field detectable. This is because the field has the property of being "Lorentz invariant." (Lorentz invariance is a critical difference between the modern ZPF and nineteenth-century concepts of an ether.) In fact, the ZPF becomes detectable only when a body is accelerated through space. There is, of course, a fundamental difference between “detectable” and “useable”. It is likely necessary to go beyond a simple, constant acceleration through space (in order to detect the ZPF), and instead, transition into a variable acceleration in order to tap into the energy of the ZPF. In this case, we can assume with a reasonable confidence that the greater the change in acceleration, the greater the energy derived from the ZPF. Physicists Paul C. W. Davies and William G. Unruh, showed in the mid 1970s that a moving observer distorts the ZPF spectrum by accelerating through the field. Furthermore, this distortion increases with increasing acceleration. Extending these findings would suggest highly variable accelerations could provide increased distortions, and that these distortions could be used as an energy source. While these distortions are small, they add up rapidly. At the same time, detailed analysis shows that the distortions are fundamentally the origin of inertia.
Quote from: aceshigh on 12/06/2014 03:53 pmbtw Ron, can you address Mulletrons post #3554, in special this part:QuoteExcept Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.obviously his rant concerning Flux Capacitor just because of it´s name instead of what it does was a cheap shot. But what about the rest? Hasn´t Woodward theory thrusters been reproduced by others, including Paul March (who works with Sonny White)?Yes. The highest thrust magnitude ever recorded by any M-E researcher was recorded by Paul March in 2003, when testing a Mhz MLT--the thing Sonny ten years later renamed a "Q-Thruster" and claimed supported his model, in order to get his funding from DARPA. The trouble is, as Sonny pointed out for years; that data was not valid since it did not make use of the proper scientific protocols. There was no vacuum to isolate from things like thermal and ionic wind. So there is no reason to suppose that was a useful test, and Sonny made this point many times before he decided to misrepresent Eagleworks and give folks the impression they had done these tests rather than that Paul had done them in the spare bedroom a decade before. Sonny actually claims that his theory accurately predicts thrust from the Q-Thruster but the tests were done almost a decade before his model so obviously, he did not predict anything. He merely matched his model to the data, same as he's done time and again with the warp interferometer, the Q-Thruster, Shawyers's E-M thruster, and Woodward's work including when Woodward had a broken balance.Back in 2006 when Woodward was first characterizing the ARC-Lite, he posted that he could not explain the readings he had with an MLT on the balance, and simply owned they made no sense to him. Sonny chimed in that his theory (which is not a theory but merely a model) predicts that thrust. Then Woodward found Tom Mayhood had put the wrong Q Flex bearing in the balance and that it was broken under the mass of the balance itself. Obviously Sonny was predicting garbage, except he was not predicting at all. Real predictions always come BEFORE the data. The next year Woodward was again saying he didn't understand the thrust from the MLT and again, Sonny said his theory predicts that thrust, and it turned out the thruster had a short running through the balance and was giving false readings. Sonny does this kind of thing all the time. This is why I always tell people do not trust what comes from that lab. Everyone is all in a fuss over data taken with no vacuum. This is just silly, IMHO.
relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.
Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?
So I'm not sure what you are saying. Casimir force exists, it has been measured many times. ZPF exists, its model correctly predicts results of multiple laboratory experiments measuring said Casimir forces. A somewhat newer result, Casimir forces can be attractive or repulsive, see the above reference. But I agree, at no point does the Casimir effect invoke virtual particles.
can you please address these parts by Mulletron:Quoterelies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.Quote Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?
I will note that Woodward's mother is
Quote from: aceshigh on 12/06/2014 04:30 pmcan you please address these parts by Mulletron:Quoterelies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.Quote Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?Well, I am not a cosmologist. I will note that Woodward's mother is, and he is a fair cosmologist himself, so far better to get an answer from his book than from me. However, I think what Mullet wants to talk about is theta, not anisotropy. The question is whether the universe is essentially flat on global scale and the answer is yes, it is. ....