Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/10/2013 07:24 amThis is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.That's absurd. I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. ...
This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.
Quote from: mrmandias on 02/11/2013 01:05 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/10/2013 07:24 amThis is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.That's absurd. I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. You can't defeat silly claims with silly claims. Double down on the silly claim if you want, but you'll only be doubling down on a patent falsehood.This is absolutely true. Chris will throw math at people pretty readily. Here he does not.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/10/2013 07:24 amThis is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.That's absurd. I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. You can't defeat silly claims with silly claims. Double down on the silly claim if you want, but you'll only be doubling down on a patent falsehood.
learn a new set of physical laws instead of just applying existing laws of physics. I don't, frankly, have time for that.
And while telekinesis probably has greater stigma than a claim about propellantless propulsion...
Chris will throw math at people pretty readily. Here he does not.
You know why? Because almost every other questionable claim on this forum still at least assumes mainstream laws of physics work ...
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine?
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine? I mean, once I realized that, well... forget about looking at equations, if it's a perpetual motion machine, there's no point in even considering it!
Here's the equation for propellant based rocketry, no free energy there:
Here's the equation for propellant based rocketry, no free energy there:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equationThe perpetual motion/free energy aspect is a straightforward result of two equations: F=ma, and kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2. If Woodward's device worked as advertised, it would provide simple free energy.
Here's the problem, his math can be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT but be based on wrong physics with no basis in the reality of our universe.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 03:55 pmHere's the problem, his math can be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT but be based on wrong physics with no basis in the reality of our universe.Sciama's model of Planck's principle does not violate any law of physics. So any effect deduced from it, if done with correct maths, should not either.
That's the /claim/, and yet local conservation of energy and momentum are invalidated (by the mainstream understanding, without inventing new fields which are not accepted by mainstream physics).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 04:04 pmThat's the /claim/, and yet local conservation of energy and momentum are invalidated (by the mainstream understanding, without inventing new fields which are not accepted by mainstream physics).Well, Sciama's dissertation was accepted and granted him his PhD, didn't it? Also, it was endorsed by Dirac himself. I don't know what else you would like.About "Planck's principle": oops. I obviously meant "Mach".
Mach's principle is considered incompatible with General Relativity by the majority of physicists who deal with relativity, if you put much weight on that sort of thing
"But because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false." --some wikipedia editor.