Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/30/2011 02:50 pmOne of the objections to the conjecture is that it calls for instantaneous action at a distance. However, Woodward et al., maintain that this is not so, that action at a distance is not required for the conjecture to be true. And then they go all math on me, and I go, huh?But consider also, Mr. Woodward's recent comment: "Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved". I understand that a radiative process can only proceed at the speed of light. Therefore, I struggle to understand the process by which the distant mass of the universe, thru a radiateve process, can have an instantaneous effect on a local mass.If you could oblige and help my understanding, I'd certainly appreciate it.Have you tried reading the wiki entry for Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory? Or Woodward's "the origin of inertia" page where the concept of retarded/advanced waves is introduced?http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler-Feynman_absorber_theoryBy the way, Paul, has sfuerst been communicating with Woodward in e-mail exchanges? I'm kind of interested in whether or not he's changed his mind on the math.
One of the objections to the conjecture is that it calls for instantaneous action at a distance. However, Woodward et al., maintain that this is not so, that action at a distance is not required for the conjecture to be true. And then they go all math on me, and I go, huh?But consider also, Mr. Woodward's recent comment: "Since inertial reaction forces are acceleration dependent, a radiative process is involved". I understand that a radiative process can only proceed at the speed of light. Therefore, I struggle to understand the process by which the distant mass of the universe, thru a radiateve process, can have an instantaneous effect on a local mass.If you could oblige and help my understanding, I'd certainly appreciate it.
its a lot of info to chew through.
I was reading Harold White's presentation on QVF/MHD thrusters and I'm curious...is there any test you can perform to tell this effect apart from the Mach effect?I kind of understand the picture of how a MLT is supposed to work (push heavy, pull light), but this QVF/MHD effect seems a tad harder to visualize.
BTW, one of Dr. White's QVF/MHD conjecture predictions indicated that when high voltage (HV) direct current (dc) potentials are applied to the MLT caps with a crossed DC B-field, that it would generate milli-Newton forces. I tested this conjecture with ~25kV-dc and ~1,000 Gauss dc B-field in a 4" OD Teflon cap MLT structure and found zero thrust produced. At a minimum, it appears that the QVF/MHD model has to be restricted to its alternating current (ac) predictions, or that the M-E is right and the QVF/MHD conjecture is wrong. Another failure in the QVF/MHD conjecture is that it does not predict a thrust in devices built like Woodward's PZT stacks, since the crossed E-field and B-fields in the PZT stack cap’s produce net zero Lorentz forces needed to accelerate the QVF/MHD’s posited semi-virtual electron/positron pair plasma out of the stack configuration. Best,Paul M.
By the way, the latest slides seem encouraging. It seems like you guys are getting to a point where experimental error seems less plausible. Now we just have to see whether or not the effect can be scaled up for space propulsion, or if York Dobbyns was right when he asserted that at best, the effect is very minuscule. After reading the Economist's "The end of the space age" article, I really hope Dobbyns is wrong.
Quote from: GeeGee on 07/06/2011 09:49 pmBy the way, the latest slides seem encouraging. It seems like you guys are getting to a point where experimental error seems less plausible. Now we just have to see whether or not the effect can be scaled up for space propulsion, or if York Dobbyns was right when he asserted that at best, the effect is very minuscule. After reading the Economist's "The end of the space age" article, I really hope Dobbyns is wrong. Concur, the level of detail & serious attention to clear explanation of the testing and elimination of spurious causes is really encouraging. Even in the current "that's a specialty area, I don't know" mentality that pervades science these days, it's hard to ignore when it hits you in the face.I would say if he can get the thrust levels above the "arguably greater than six sigma" stage (i.e., to where the word "arguably" begins to seem silly, as opposed to necessary), it will be convincing proof that the device produces measurable thrust due to unconventional explanations.If one of the contributers can do the same with a MLT or other device that operates on the same proposed principles, but using different methods, that would provide the clear evidence that not only is scalable propellantless propulsion within reach, but that that the source of intertia is gravitational, Mach's principle is correct, and we can at last give dm0~(1./4.pi.G)[(1./rho.c^2)(dP/dt)-(1./rho.c^2)^2(P^2./V^2)] its proper name, the Woodward effect equation. That would launch a new dawn in science and perhaps return theoretical physics a bit closer to, well, phenomena that are investigatable within human lifespans.For now, however, the current data .pdf is pretty darn exciting.
I wonder if SFuerst will return to the topic. Paul, do you have any info if Fuerst has contacted Dr Woodward???well, the least we can assume is that Dr Fuerst is spending a lot of his time to read all the info provided.
Folks:I forgot to append the following Woodward paper that was referenced in Part-1 of the latest M-E data dump. It's a deeper explanation of action-at-a-distance and what it really means in the M-E context. I.e., James C. Maxwell's E&M derivation's negative square root propagation solution that predicts possible acausal effects must be taken seriously not only for E&M, but also for gravitational effects as well.Best,Paul M.
Ya know, if for no other reason, it'd be great if ME panned out. Just so it pulls the carpet under contemporary science's reluctance to going off the beaten path more than it does now.
Quote from: Cinder on 07/07/2011 07:36 amYa know, if for no other reason, it'd be great if ME panned out. Just so it pulls the carpet under contemporary science's reluctance to going off the beaten path more than it does now.Strangely enough, Woodward isn't even really doing 'off-beat' physics when you realize what he's really trying to do is trying to answer a fundamental question of physics - what is the source of inertia? If Woodward's right, then the space drive is an added bonus.I don't really understand why this isn't a 'hot topic' in physics anymore. Dark energy, String theory and the Higgs particle get all the attention these days.
Mikegi:Thanks for the Heaviside paper!
Woodward just opened up his M-E distribution to the ZPE folks in the hopes of getting a constructive dialogue going between the M-E and ZPE camps. A dialogue will hopefully push forward developments in advaced gravity physics and building Advanced Deep Space Transports (ADST).
Quote from: Star-Drive on 07/07/2011 12:41 pmMikegi:Thanks for the Heaviside paper!You're welcome. I hope your theory and experiments succeed. I'm skeptical but the kind of effort and dedication you have is exactly what it will take to make breakthroughs. Even if Woodward's theory doesn't pan out, you never know what other things you'll discover in the post-mortem.QuoteWoodward just opened up his M-E distribution to the ZPE folks in the hopes of getting a constructive dialogue going between the M-E and ZPE camps. A dialogue will hopefully push forward developments in advaced gravity physics and building Advanced Deep Space Transports (ADST).I recommend using a private forum rather than email or other "distribution" list formats. There are websites that let you create a private forum for free (advertisements). You/Woodward would have control over who is allowed to read/signup/post/etc. I could setup a phpBB forum on one of my servers for y'all (which would be totally free -- i.e. no annoying advertising).
We keep trying, but I need a data point. What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E? In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer? Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices? Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? Best,Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 07/07/2011 10:39 pmWe keep trying, but I need a data point. What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E? In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer? Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice? So are we now talking about the need for proof of the M-E input power to output thrust scaling rules being observed, and/or, do we need to increase thrust levels to 10 micro-Newton, 100 micro-Newton, 1.0 milli-Newton, 10 milli-Newton, or even more, and what selection critera are you using for your choices? Or does the M-E unit really have to be a battery powered, self contained system hovering over your hand for an hour or two to put all qualms aside?? Best,Paul M.Demonstration of scaling rules into the milli-Newton range (say, 1 milli-Newton or so) would convince me.
We keep trying, but I need a data point. What kind of M-E data set will be required to tear you away from being "skeptical" and make you a believer in the M-E? In other words, do we really need to float a self-contined, battery powered M-E test article into the confernce room under R-C control, while keeping it floating for XXX minutes to make you a believer? Or can some subset of this M-E thruster performance level suffice?
This latter floating senario will ultimately be doable IMO, but please remember that we are doing all of this M-E R&D work on our personal dime and time, and we can only keep chasing that "Proof" carrot for so long...