Quote from: Mulletron on 11/24/2014 10:47 pmI remember that Mach and Einstein ended up being at odds. Mach never accepted Einstein's theory. Check for yourself.Alto. You make it sound like there was a scientific feud between 'em. There was not.Einstein could not integrate Mach's principle in his work, but Einstein also realized that his own work was incomplete regarding the definition of inertia.
I remember that Mach and Einstein ended up being at odds. Mach never accepted Einstein's theory. Check for yourself.
Sorry. An immaterial bit of background history regarding Woodward's humility regarding Mach, but still an immaterial bit that adds nothing of substance to the pragmatic implementation of Woodwards's work.In short. Who cares?
Quoting @Ron Stahl: And no, there is nothing in Woodward's work that is inconsistent with Einstein.
"Tomorrow's Momentum Today"
will a copy of this be forwarded to Dr White?
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/25/2014 12:33 amIn a nutshell....Push while FM is heavy, pull while it is light. But on the flip side, the finite power supply that is exciting the FM is literally strapped down to the RM, reaction mass (the ship). So if the FM is gaining mass, then the power supply is losing mass by the same rationale.This is very close but not quite right. The thing that is losing mass when the fluctuating or active mass gains mass, is the rest of the universe. The reaction mass is just the thing the active mass pushes off of. The source of the gravinertial flux of the universe, is the mass of the universe itself. So it is accurate to say, that when a gravinertial transistor like a Mach-Effect Thruster (MET) harvests momentum from the gravinertial field, it is causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion and hastens the arrow of time (entropy). This is in fact why Tom Mayhoood, Woodward's grad student back in the 90's, put the sign on the lab door reading "Tomorrow's Momentum Today". This is accurate to the physical theory.Though Woodward has never weighed in on the issue so far as I'm aware, i would just note this could be an explanation for Dark Energy, or whatever force it is that is causing the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe. We've known since 1997, that instead of the universe expanding ever more slowly as it fights its own gravity as we'd expect, the universe is accelerating in its expansion, and this is the effect we ought to observe from LOTS of gravinertial harvesting from Mach-Effect devices.
In a nutshell....Push while FM is heavy, pull while it is light. But on the flip side, the finite power supply that is exciting the FM is literally strapped down to the RM, reaction mass (the ship). So if the FM is gaining mass, then the power supply is losing mass by the same rationale.
Alto. You make it sound like there was a scientific feud between 'em. There was not.
Einstein could not integrate Mach's principle in his work, but Einstein also realized that his own work was incomplete regarding the definition of inertia.
The reason Mach didn't accept Einstein's ideas is because Einstein didn't accept Machian inertia. Einstein stuck with Newton......
Yet Mach's principal is central to the Mach Effect. Mach rejected Einstein. Therefore Mach effects are inconsistent with Einstein.
Einstein operated on Newtonian inertia, which was inherent to matter itself.
So Woodward is going his own way.
Indeed Woodward acknowledges his split from Einstein several times in his book:
Pages 18 & 22 Woodward uses the terminology "so-called Einstein Equivalence Principle". Showing in my view not complete acceptance.
Yet on page 123, He acknowledges EEP as correct: "The reason why the Equivalence Principle is important in this case is that itasserts that the active gravitational, passive gravitational, and inertial masses of an object arethe same. So, if you vary one of the masses, the other masses change, too. If this aspect of theEquivalence Principle is correct (and it is), then it is almost trivial to show that massvariation has serious propulsive advantages."He acknowledges Einstein is correct in every way, but except how inertia works.
One of the major pitfalls in science, and indeed here on this forum, (whereby picking one theory vs another) is the problem of black and white thinking.
I don't see any way it can ever ever work.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/25/2014 08:45 pmI don't see any way it can ever ever work.I'm getting the strong impression that you still think the "mass fluctuations" are just the energy/matter being pumped back and forth in the device.This is wrong.
This is very close but not quite right. The thing that is losing mass when the fluctuating or active mass gains mass, is the rest of the universe.
Flux capacitors? Couldn't he have picked a better name that didn't scream gobbledygook?
I just can't mess with Flux Capacitors........and I want to go to space really really really bad. That's where I'm leaving them. If I'm wrong about them.....Mea Culpa.