So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time",
To the best of my knowledge, and please correct me if I'm wrong here; there is no experimental evidence to date of either gravity waves or gravity particles, but there is evidence for Mach Effects
BTW, are you a physicist?
I ask because I'm a bit stymied that you consider action at a distance the "kiss of death". We've been looking for gravity waves and gravitons for more than three decades with no success and yet you're so sure they have to exist? I find the reasoning behind this eludes me.
On the other hand, we do have physical evidence of Mach Effects. . .Mike, no. I'm a philosopher, not a physicist; which is why I am wholly dependent upon things like peer review. Don't leave home without it. :-)BTW, Woodward is not proposing anything about AAAD that is not included in General Relativity. There's no new physics here--it's just a combination of Einstein and Mach with the only novelty being their combination.
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with Woodward's theory and even if there is, theories can be updated and changed. The facts still stand, he has a real effect, the theory only helps develop the technology further, that's it's main purpose. The theory does not make the effect any less real.
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless. For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have. I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments. Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly. And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 06/28/2009 10:04 pmIf you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer. He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September. There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls. There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised. I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned. However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec. I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it.
If you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer. He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September. There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls. There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 06/29/2009 04:42 amQuote from: GI-Thruster on 06/28/2009 10:04 pmIf you're asking about the M-E work, Jim is on vacation until the end of the Summer. He'll have a UFG on the thrust stand by early Fall so given no unforeseen engineering issues, we might have thrust figures by late September. There has already been made an offer of help in constructing next gen power equipment including active phase tracking and modulation so there's an oportunity there for a generational leap forward in test controls. There is also talk of a next generation rotator that can manage a higher DC offset in order to examine the parametric amplification issue, but no word as to when that will be approached. Paul is working a different schedule with his MLT so he'll have to weigh in with what he thinks is reasonable.I finished the MLT-2009 this morning and I'm currently running instrumentation calibration tests on it to see if the beast will work as advertised. I did find out today though that it resonates at ~51.6 MHz verses the 52.0 MHz design point, but the capacitive voltage divider for the cap-ring doesn't seem to be working as planned. However the 2-turn B-field sensor coil is working to spec. I hope to have this test article on a shielded load cell by the end of July to see if it will produce any detectable thrust with the maximum peak voltages obtainable uising my 100W, 52MHz RF generator driving it. Any results yet?