Quote from: GeeGee on 04/03/2011 08:29 PM.Unfortunately, it can be shown that in GR this "Sum for inertia" of the effects of the individual accelerations cannot exactly duplicate this effect, mainly because in GR the gravitational constant G is fixed, but the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed. This means that either this neat Mach's Principle model is wrong or GR is wrong. (I personally suspect that GR is an approximation which is very accurate at the solar system scale but very inaccurate at larger scales)."Is this accurate? If Dennis Sciama's model is correct, then it invalidates GR? Can someone explain?Hard to say, I have no idea what explanation this comment is referring to by "it can be shown."I think in Woodward's derivation that the statement "the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed" would be dismissed pretty easily -- in fact I think IIRC effectively the distribution of the masses in the universe is fixed, due to the increasing effect of the greater amount of mass at greater distances. So in other words, although it is NOT fixed, it is close enough for GR to see no difference.In fact it's parallel to the argument that first-time viewers of ME theory often raise, that if inertia was gravitational in nature, you would see the effect of local masses (such as the earth, Jupiter, or the Sun,) very easily because they are so close. In fact Woodward shows via calculation that, counter-intuitively, the local masses actually have a 9-to-10 orders of magnitude smaller effect than the "distant far-off active mass," (i.e. all other mass inside the observeable universe horizon), despite their much farther average distance, due to the (literally) overwhelming mass differential of the rest of the mass.So basically from the viewpoint of any local mass, "G" is effectively fixed. There's just no way to observe a difference. So GR is valid even in an ME universe.

.Unfortunately, it can be shown that in GR this "Sum for inertia" of the effects of the individual accelerations cannot exactly duplicate this effect, mainly because in GR the gravitational constant G is fixed, but the sum depends on the distribution of the masses of the universe and therefore cannot be fixed. This means that either this neat Mach's Principle model is wrong or GR is wrong. (I personally suspect that GR is an approximation which is very accurate at the solar system scale but very inaccurate at larger scales)."Is this accurate? If Dennis Sciama's model is correct, then it invalidates GR? Can someone explain?

http://www.angryflower.com/woodwa.html

Quote from: sanman on 04/04/2011 04:41 AMhttp://www.angryflower.com/woodwa.htmlHilarious!Captures the current 'state of the Mass fluctuation evidence' perfectly, no matter which side you come down on theoretically.

It sure would be nice to have an update on efforts with the MLT thruster...

Woodward is finalizing a paper on the most recent experiments using an older thruster design as part of the graduate work of one of his students...

I still think Woodward and his "followers" (like Paul March) should just drop any mention of propellantless propulsion. this is a scientific dogma area. If they only investigated the mass fluctuation phenomena, etc, without ANY MENTION of propellantless propulsion, they would have much more support.

Science and dogma in the same sentence?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Still waiting on that proof, and wanting it to be extraordinary.

much of the evidence for quantum mechanics extraordinary claims only came much later...