Quote from: GeeGee on 06/10/2011 09:09 pm"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this? Currently we don't have the R&D budget to try this kind of experiment.Best,
"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this?
Quote from: Star-Drive on 06/11/2011 04:19 amQuote from: GeeGee on 06/10/2011 09:09 pm"Paul451" over at NBF claimed the measured effect is most likely due to a vibrating spring inertia illusion. Have you guys tested for this? Currently we don't have the R&D budget to try this kind of experiment.Best, I suppose then the only way to discard such vibrations as being ME effect is to create devices with stronger thrust. Of course, expensive, but much less than putting an ME device in space to test if it accelerates or not. There isnt much of an option here. If at stronger levels (milli newtons or a full newton) it maintains, not only it will be proved as budget will stop being a problem
So in the end analysis, some of the M-E critics will use this kind of data to become convinced that the M-E is real and in need of development, but the majority of the critics will never be satisfied until we can float the M-E test article into the conference room. And even then some will still claim it's a fraud or just magic trick because it doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of reality. At that point though we don't care anymore what these critics think, for we will then be able to build my concept WarpStar Lunar and Mars transports, which has been my objective all along in this business. Best, Paul March
Also, regarding Sebtal and GoatGuy's claims of apparent second law violations over at NBF: has Woodward ever addressed this in any of his papers? I'm quite familiar with the conversation of momentum argument (which has been addressed and refuted by Woodward) made against the Woodward/Mach effect, but this is the first time I've heard of it breaking the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is not broken if you view the universe as a whole, instead of just a small portion. Which is required when you use the Mach-effect.
Quote from: Joris on 06/12/2011 07:46 pm The second law of thermodynamics is not broken if you view the universe as a whole, instead of just a small portion. Which is required when you use the Mach-effect. Here is the gist of Sebtal's argument (responding to the claim that the M-E might decrease the overall temperature of the universe) "The theory from a mathematical standpoint doesn't have a provision for this decrease in temperature. By all means, if you can show from the equations that cosmic temperature decreases, by all means, the theory is then at least compliant. But if the theory doesn't have that in, and we have to randomly assume that the cosmic temperature decreases, then the only thing we have to tell us how and why the cosmic temperature should change as a response to this flywheel is "it must do so for Woodwards theory to be correct", and of course, there is no requirement that Woodwards theory be correct. If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law and is in it's present formulation wrong, in which case, there is no particular reason to think this device is possible."
Nonsense, no theory is required in order to be valid to contain within it explanations for how every derivative question it raises is answered. Newton himself coildn't have passed that test. How a woodward effect thruster transfers momentum, energy, or temperature is a derivative topic for future speculation once the effect is proven to exist, not a critical question to proving or disproving the existence of the effect. Science doesn't work that way. Otherwise Einstein would have had to prove how the cosmological constant works before SRT was accepted... And that obviously hasnt happened.
But that can barely lift a sheet of paper
and to how much do you think the frequency can be increased? Mhz? Thz?
the B-field production in the MLT caps. Assuming that the M-E conjecture's predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling still holds
Quote the B-field production in the MLT caps. Assuming that the M-E conjecture's predicted MLT cubic frequency scaling still holds I wasn't aware that the scaling had been experimentally seen.
Unrelated to the current discussion but....does Woodward have any plans to get one of his future papers published in a highly prestigious physics journal (i.e. Nature, Physics Review Letters, etc)? It would definitely help him get noticed.
GeeGee:Dr. Woodward follows his own path these days and is at a stage in his life that he is not interested in pursuing the publish or perish paradigm of a lot of academics. As to his Stargate paper, he will probably just submit it to the Foundations of Physics Journal and let that be good enough.Best,Paul M.
Nonsense, no theory is required in order to be valid to contain within it explanations for how every derivative question it raises is answered. Newton himself coildn't have passed that test.
If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law...