Based on a statistical analysis of the signal/noise ratio of the pixels, you find that both 99% assessments are indeed accurate.

If it works as advertized we get weekend roadtrip times for Moon destinations...

Paul,Did Dr. Woodward ever respond to you about sfuerst's comments?

QuoteIf it works as advertized we get weekend roadtrip times for Moon destinations...Yes, but it's far too soon to get too excited about stuff like that. Heck, they can't even reconstruct Saturn V. So the weekend trip soundbite tends to disillusion many people, I'd say.

From desire, ariseth the thought of some means we have seen produce the like of that which we aim at; and from the thought of that, the thought of means to that mean; and so continually, till we come to some beginning within our own power.

Quote from: sfuerst on 07/10/2011 10:57 PMQuoteAs previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.In Newtonian physics, that is correct. In that context, it is quite mysterious why inertial mass and gravitational mass have any connection since gravity is just one force amongst many.GR is different. It models the behaviour of all mass/energy in the universe in a self-consistent manner. It handles the effects of every other force by modelling their stress-energy content. By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy.Steve:"By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy."The effects of inertia may be demonstrated by this approach, but it still doesn't tell us WHY this is so, nor HOW inertia is expressed in the local frame. However, I'm now going to ask you to take this disscussion up directly with Dr. Woodward, for as an Electrical Engineer, I'm fast getting out of my area of expertise here.Best, Paul M.

QuoteAs previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.In Newtonian physics, that is correct. In that context, it is quite mysterious why inertial mass and gravitational mass have any connection since gravity is just one force amongst many.GR is different. It models the behaviour of all mass/energy in the universe in a self-consistent manner. It handles the effects of every other force by modelling their stress-energy content. By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy.

As previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Quote from: Star-Drive on 07/11/2011 03:50 PMQuote from: sfuerst on 07/10/2011 10:57 PMQuoteAs previously said I'm a newb to GRT/SRT, but I always thought that equations of motion don't "describe" inertia; they rather require a priori, a particular understanding of inertia,that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.In Newtonian physics, that is correct. In that context, it is quite mysterious why inertial mass and gravitational mass have any connection since gravity is just one force amongst many.GR is different. It models the behaviour of all mass/energy in the universe in a self-consistent manner. It handles the effects of every other force by modelling their stress-energy content. By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy.Steve:"By using calculus of variations on the Einstein equation, the effects of inertia neatly pop out due to conservation of stress-energy."The effects of inertia may be demonstrated by this approach, but it still doesn't tell us WHY this is so, nor HOW inertia is expressed in the local frame. However, I'm now going to ask you to take this disscussion up directly with Dr. Woodward, for as an Electrical Engineer, I'm fast getting out of my area of expertise here.Best, Paul M.Actually GR is rather elegant in how it derives inertia.You use the Einstein equation G_ab=8\piT_ab, and take the covariant derivative of both sides. On the RHS you derive the equations of motion for your material based on the fact that this derivative is zero. So the effects of inertia are directly linked to the fact that the derivative is zero, and stress-energy is a conserved quantity.Why is the derivative zero? Looking at the LHS, we can perform the derivative there as well. Due to a subtle differential geometry theorem known as the Bianchi Identities, the zero result appears. In turn, these identities are related to the topological fact that the boundary of a boundary is zero.So GR links inertia to a neat result in topology.

Proving or ruling out ME is progress either way...

What is your definition of "Stress-Energy" in the GRT context? In other words what is it physically??

its an important physics forum, but I am in no mood to push the issue forward, because I dont know enough about physics or eve about the peer review process, to argue with that or other moderators. If any of you think you can prove them ME should be allowed to have a thread on that forum, feel free to do so.

When a spinning laser gyroscope is placed near a super-cooled rotating ring, the gyroscope accelerates a bit in the same direction as the ring, and scientists aren’t sure why. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html“Inertial mass has not been well understood and has been assumed to be the same as gravitational mass (the Equivalence Principle, EP),” McCulloch explained. “If MiHsC is correct, then the EP is only an approximation (the small deviation from the EP due to MiHsC could not have been detected in torsion balance experiments, as I explain in the Discussion of my paper). As a result there may be implications for General Relativity since this assumes the EP is true (and therefore also implications for low-acceleration phenomena like the orbits of stars at the edge of galaxies).“Once the cause of something is known, then it may be controllable,” he said. “The control of inertia could be useful. For example: Can we generate Unruh radiation to change the inertial mass of an object and thereby move it? I have discussed this possibility in previous papers (e.g., EPL, 90, 29001).”

According to GRT, wormholes are supposed to allow for time travel as well as distance travel. That there have been no verified accounts of anyone visiting us from the future suggests that backwards time travel is possible. If wormholes cannot be used for time travel, then they probably cannot be used for distance travel, meaning that they are impossible. Perhaps wormholes are possible, but can only be used for distance travel and not time travel.Perhaps Woodward-Mach effect can be used to make the "space drive" (sub-light, of course) but cannot be used to make wormholes. In this case, it would still open up the solar system for settlement and development, O'neill-style, and that would be good enough in itself.

I dont give a damn about wormholes. If we can reach near light speed easily and cheap, we can reach the edge of the universe in only 60 years (ship time)

It is also likely that if FTL is possible, that it will be wormholes but that FTL space craft are not possible. Eric Davis believes this to be the case.