Yeah, he's invented a field (which hasn't been measured before) in order to make propellantless propulsion work. This is the same thing as violating local conservation of momentum. You can't just invent fields because you want them to be true then after-the-fact invent mathematics that obfuscates what you've just done.
Define real...
I don't even understand why you guys focus on the conservation of momentum that much.
The problem is concept seems to break the conservation of momentum, because the vehicle is gaining momentum while designated donor is unknown. I guess the mach field is supposed to explain somehow ("the entire rest of the universe gives because of X").If this down to earth description is faulty please correct!
Are you offended by the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory as well?
It clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 12:38 pmIt clearly violates local conservation of momentum in any practical, testable sense.Studying electronics I learned to use imaginary numbers in what is to my way of thinking a "non-obvious" way. I use this knowledge in a very practical manner although I will be the first to admit I cannot explain the theory. Einstein famously said that imagination is more important than knowledge so again I ask you, "define real".
There is no effect.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 04:58 pmThere is no effect.Just to be sure: what's your take on Mach's principle? (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)
Quote from: grondilu on 02/08/2013 05:04 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/08/2013 04:58 pmThere is no effect.Just to be sure: what's your take on Mach's principle? (the idea that inertia results from an interaction with surrounding matter)The effect is distinct from Mach's hypothesis.The "Mach Effect" is a misnomer... (Mach didn't come up with it, Woodward did.) It's the Woodward Effect, and it's conjecture.
(or invents sneaky ways to get around it, inventing new physical mechanisms out of practically whole cloth in order to hope it's possible).
As far as the many laws of physics it contradicts, you're just saying that but you don't give any actual argument and ignore those that are given to you.
I hate to say this, but it appears to me that what is happening is that microwaves are being bounced around in the chamber,