[Paraphrasing Sebtal]...If there is no mechanism for this temeprature change to occur within the theory itself, then the theory is not compliant with the second law ...

The theory does not have to contain within it a mechanism for temperature transfer consistent with the second law, in order for the theory to be valid; it merely must describe a situation (or condition) that does not exclude such a mechanism, which as far as I can tell it meets...

Anyone read reddit?Found a thread on Woodward's recent claim of consistent and reversible 1 micronewton thrust. Of course, redditer's are quite critical of any non-mainstream physics, so here's a few I found:

The statement author is asserting that Woodward's model for a particle is flawed but I'm not sure what he's talking about -- Woodward does write the scalar and the vector potentials in accordance with L-W from the beginning,

he quantum field theory argument is emotionally the strongest point and the one that causes an immediate skepticism with regard to the theory, but following it is dangerously simplistic--after all, where in the natural world (even microscopically?) can you find rapidly varying electric potentials and kinetic energies in such a way that they are at the same frequency but out of phase?

Quote from: cuddihy on 06/28/2011 03:55 AMThe statement author is asserting that Woodward's model for a particle is flawed but I'm not sure what he's talking about -- Woodward does write the scalar and the vector potentials in accordance with L-W from the beginning, Response to this"You use the L-W potentials to calculate the electric and magnetic fields so you can work out their energy density correctly. Doing this allows you to fix any mistakes in the vibrating mass-dipole model.Except that the given page doesn't actually use them for that... The L-W potentials are only exact for the electromagnetic field in flat space. Using them for the gravitational field is only a (poor) approximation.To do a generic calculation you put a test four-volume element around your test particle. You then integrate the stress-energy tensor on the surface of that four-volume. The tensor version of Gauss's theorem shows that the energy-momentum in = energy-momentum out + integral of grad T in the four volume. Since Gab=8piTab, we can relate the divergence of energy-momentum to that of the Einstein tensor. Due to the Bianchi identities, this is identically zero, and thus energy-momentum is conserved. This is a fundamental property of General Relativity. If you make an approximation to GR, and lose this conservation, then the approximation is at fault for being inaccurate.To be accurate, you need to use the metric tensor instead, and calculate geodesics via a variational principle. The curvature of space-time means that using a simple potential doesn't work generically. For example in a Kerr space-time, the Carter constant is due to a Killing tensor (not vector) field. In some cases you can't even define a potential at all due to there being less conserved quantities than equations of motion. In short, the only thing General Relativity cares about is the local curvature, and the potential is a global quantity."Is anyone on Woodward's mailing list? This sounds like the kind of interesting criticism he might be interested in.Quote from: cuddihy on 06/28/2011 03:55 AMhe quantum field theory argument is emotionally the strongest point and the one that causes an immediate skepticism with regard to the theory, but following it is dangerously simplistic--after all, where in the natural world (even microscopically?) can you find rapidly varying electric potentials and kinetic energies in such a way that they are at the same frequency but out of phase?"Unfortunately, the quantum world is even more hostile than that. Due to its sum-over-all-histories effects, even a small violation will be magnified. In effect, it expands the degrees of freedom into eigenmodes. If such a mode doesn't conserve momentum (and thus energy) it will be rapidly excited. A vacuum with that property would be violently unstable.I may join nasaspaceflight, but that particular thread isn't encouraging. Arguing with crackpots who don't understand physics isn't particularly fun."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a fundamental element of ME conjecture that you vary one of the mechanical elements' inertia?The small mass is attached to the cart, with everything located on a frictionless surface. The small mass, in ME conjecture, is used to propel the cart by varying that small mass' inertia (or vice versa), while exciting the spring at corresponding rhythm. The question isn't whether momentum is conserved in this experiment, but whether the origins of inertia are as conjectured.

Paul, I remember (maybe wrongly) you saying something, a few months ago, about the fact the ME Research would greatly benefit from having a relativist in the team.maybe you found one? Just need to convince him (or not) with data and equations I guess. or maybe I am confusing several things. My memory isnt the best around

I've read through the paper. The problem lies with Figure 1, and equation 11. ...

So the problem comes down to basic high-school / first year university level Newtonian mechanics. ...

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.