I don't care how dumb the theory is.. if it leads him to an experiment that produces results which are hard to explain then it'll be worth it.So far, that hasn't happened, but the feeling is that he's getting there.
Again, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.
I don't get the feeling that it's getting there at all.
But of course, whatever clear, transparent, and reproducible experiment says, I will believe.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/09/2013 10:14 pmAgain, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.Again, I applaud your amazing capability of reading people's minds.
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf
Edit. Also, at the end there is a nice quote from Einstein, but we are not told where it comes from, and a quick search on Google revealed nothing:«Einstein believed in Mach’s principle in 1918 and listed it onequal footing with his first 2 principles of relativity;(1) The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance(2) The principle of equivalence(3) Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered theliterature). . . . that the gμν are completely determined by themass of bodies, more generally by Tμν.In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceedwithout this [third] criterion and added,“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a latergeneration however”.»
It's in Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, page 287 of this edition on Amazon. In fact if you use the "Search inside this book" for "contentedness", it's the first thing found.
I can't follow the physics but that does sort of make it look like he is pursuing a theory for flying saucers rather than having an interest in the awesome cosmological consequences if he is right.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 02/09/2013 11:45 pmI can't follow the physics but that does sort of make it look like he is pursuing a theory for flying saucers rather than having an interest in the awesome cosmological consequences if he is right. Woodward has stated before that he's not pursuing the origin of inertia as an academic exercise, but as a practical one. If there's any chance of novel propulsion schemes that don't carry propellant, it would likely be found in areas of physics that aren't fully understood, like the source of inertia. He's had an interest in exotic propulsion since his college days, or as he likes to call it "Getting things to go fast without blowing stuff out of the tailpipe".
I think that is what I said Thats fine as a motivation to study inertia. But ignoring other ramifications is very likely to be ignoring other obvious ways to test the theory. Can something that so fundamentally undermines physics as we know it really have had no part in explaining the evolution of the universe that we can measure with great accuracy through our telescopes, only popping up in desk top scale physics to give us an inertialess drive?
But these are again, VERY extraordinary claims.
He's not ignoring other ramifications. I should have said that his main focus is propulsion, but he still cares about the physical implications of mach's principle. Desktop experiments are cheap and (relatively) easy to do. Nembo Buldrini has his own on-going M-E experiment that uses ferromagnetic material instead of PZTs. You should try to get your hands on the book and read the preface and foreword, as he explains a lot about his interest in physics, mach's principle and propulsion. The foreword is written by John Cramer.
But ignoring other ramifications is very likely to be ignoring other obvious ways to test the theory. Can something that so fundamentally undermines physics as we know it really have had no part in explaining the evolution of the universe that we can measure with great accuracy through our telescopes, only popping up in desk top scale physics to give us an inertialess drive?