Author Topic: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application  (Read 665778 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26888
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6787
  • Likes Given: 4812
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #820 on: 05/21/2010 08:19 PM »
Quote
in that case since you've done so much work in the field I'm sure you must be very knowledgeable. Would you mind pointing out what the erroneous assumption is in Woodward's work that makes it fringe?

I'm all about determining correct assumptions, not discarding a theory because the result seems incredible.

Besides the fact that Woodward is claiming a perpetual motion machine, his use of Sciama's formulation of Mach's principle is not in agreement with most scientists.   This is not an area that I am an expert in.  More knowledgeable people than I have cast doubt on it.   I am not interested in activities that require the generally accepted laws of physics be changed.  That falls under the realm of science fiction.
You are welcome to delude yourself further.
If there's a clear new experimental result that clearly doesn't agree with current theory, that's something to chew on. But "rearranging" current theory so that it appears to allow something fantastic and that seems to contradict established principles (like locality) is usually an indication that you're fooling yourself.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline GreenGlow

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • gone fishing
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #821 on: 05/21/2010 08:35 PM »
Quote
If there's a clear new experimental result that clearly doesn't agree with current theory, that's something to chew on. But "rearranging" current theory so that it appears to allow something fantastic and that seems to contradict established principles (like locality) is usually an indication that you're fooling yourself.

That applies to Woodward and others who are rearranging current theory.  Mach's principle or Mach's conjecture as Einstein referred to it is an interesting idea.  Unfortunately for Woodward it has not been proven.   I think it is somewhat like the way early cosmologists would claim the sun revolves around the Earth.  Maybe Mach's conjecture will be proven correct.   Right now there is insufficient proof. 

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #822 on: 05/22/2010 03:57 AM »
JUST IN>>   I read over Woodward's paper just now.   It requires an "adjustment" to the laws of physics.   There are a lot of other neat things you can do if we can just "think outside the box" this way.   Other researchers have tried to replicate his results but have been unsuccessful.  From their results it appears his net thrust is indistinguishable from  thermal noise.   So compare the time-line of his work with known breakthroughs - Maiman's laser, high temp superconductors, etc.  By now others would have replicated his results if there was anything to it.   I don't need to prove his idea is bogus because I know it is.  You need to prove his idea is not if you want to convince me otherwise.

1. Woodward has not claimed that his theory is correct. At all. Anywhere. He has said that IF it is correct, the consequences would be profound. In addition, he has said, in the manner of all physicists everywhere, that his experimental results are consistent with his theory -- which does not rule out the possibility of an alternate explanation, but provides (some) support for his theory of grav-inertial fluctuations.

2. Every new theory requires an "adjustment" to the laws of physics. That's what makes it "new." Think GRT didn't require an "adjustment" to Newtonian physics?

3. Not only have others tried to replicate his results, 4 of 5 have gotten similar results. The ones who didn't (ORNL) and then set it up to duplicate the effect using thermal noise did NOT use the same setup, they merely then put together a separate experiment to show how the time effect of thermal noise could mimic the same force profile graph. That's a far cry from proving the other 4 setups were due to thermal noise.

I would say that Woodward & Paul March have done a disservice to the theory by not addressing the ORNL paper directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply. The criticism of the theory itself in the paper is just plain physically wrong, for instance (while the experimental critique is at least physically grounded.)


4. On the timeline: I would note that GRT has been around for over 60 years and it still has not been fully proven yet. (heard of frame dragging?) What about the Standard Model? Notice they built the LHC for 8 Kajillian dollars because it still has not been proven? Timelines mean nothing, some things are easy to prove, some things take time.


"I would say that Woodward & Paul March have done a disservice to the theory by not addressing the ORNL paper directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply."

Woodward & Tom Mahood did reply to the ORNL experimental work and article, per the attched responses from 2000 & 2001. 

As to Greenglow, I think he needs to walk the experimental gravinertial mile before commenting further.  Reading these attached ORNL response papers might be a good start along this path.
Star-Drive

Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1115
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #823 on: 05/22/2010 10:38 AM »
Thread was being derailed/hijacked. Slightly edited back. Disruptive member removed.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #824 on: 05/22/2010 02:22 PM »
...www.wired.com/...

I don't think they're the best source of scientific proof on a controversial topic.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #825 on: 05/22/2010 08:25 PM »
directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply.


Woodward & Tom Mahood did reply to the ORNL experimental work and article, per the attched responses from 2000 & 2001. 

As to Greenglow, I think he needs to walk the experimental gravinertial mile before commenting further.  Reading these attached ORNL response papers might be a good start along this path.

I had no idea these existed! thanks, Paul!

*edit 1707 EDT: MMF-1.PDF appears to be corrupt file.

curious what it would add as the other two papers are pretty conclusive on the ORNL paper
« Last Edit: 05/22/2010 09:10 PM by cuddihy »

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #826 on: 05/23/2010 05:06 AM »
directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply.


Woodward & Tom Mahood did reply to the ORNL experimental work and article, per the attched responses from 2000 & 2001. 

As to Greenglow, I think he needs to walk the experimental gravinertial mile before commenting further.  Reading these attached ORNL response papers might be a good start along this path.

I had no idea these existed! thanks, Paul!

*edit 1707 EDT: MMF-1.PDF appears to be corrupt file.

curious what it would add as the other two papers are pretty conclusive on the ORNL paper

I just tried downloading the MMF-1.pdf file from this forum and it reads fine from my end, but I'll try converting its Word.doc to a pdf file again and see if its any better for you this time, see attached.
Star-Drive

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #827 on: 05/24/2010 02:33 PM »
directly and formally, as it is still on the web and is the first source for critics who don't read too deeply.


Woodward & Tom Mahood did reply to the ORNL experimental work and article, per the attched responses from 2000 & 2001. 

As to Greenglow, I think he needs to walk the experimental gravinertial mile before commenting further.  Reading these attached ORNL response papers might be a good start along this path.

I had no idea these existed! thanks, Paul!

*edit 1707 EDT: MMF-1.PDF appears to be corrupt file.

curious what it would add as the other two papers are pretty conclusive on the ORNL paper

I just tried downloading the MMF-1.pdf file from this forum and it reads fine from my end, but I'll try converting its Word.doc to a pdf file again and see if its any better for you this time, see attached.

Thanks, Paul, not sure what the issue was, but the second one works for me. This is really strong, I'm reading through it.

* update later *

This was really helpful in "tieing it all together for me."

*edited 2230 EDT to cut a bunch of poorly thought-out babble. shouldn't try to make sense of GRT-ME consequences out loud, sorry
« Last Edit: 05/25/2010 02:29 AM by cuddihy »

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #828 on: 05/24/2010 03:06 PM »
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

     One could also say that about the current Standard Model of physics. (More precisely, Quantum Physics).  With the rather bizaar behavior of the Pioneer priobes as tghey leave the Heliopause, the new discoveries of subatomic particles that were not predicted, Dark Matter and Dark Energy starting to fall into doubt and even the potentile of vacume energy turning out to be quite different from what has been predicted, it may be time to re-examine all of our assumptions, at least as regards to the Standard Model and Quantum Physics.

Jason

BTW: I referance a number of articles both here and on Slashdot,org as examples of what I am talking about.  I assume that most others who are interested in following this up can Google the articles, while I won't bore those who aren't with the links to these articles.
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26888
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6787
  • Likes Given: 4812
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #829 on: 05/24/2010 04:43 PM »
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

     One could also say that about the current Standard Model of physics. (More precisely, Quantum Physics).  With the rather bizaar behavior of the Pioneer priobes as tghey leave the Heliopause, the new discoveries of subatomic particles that were not predicted, Dark Matter and Dark Energy starting to fall into doubt and even the potentile of vacume energy turning out to be quite different from what has been predicted, it may be time to re-examine all of our assumptions, at least as regards to the Standard Model and Quantum Physics.
Quantum physics is one of the most successful theories in physics. You know of contradicting evidence?


Quote
BTW: I referance a number of articles both here and on Slashdot,org...
Oh. I see. No wonder! ;)

I read slashdot.org regularly. It's pretty much a crapshoot! No, it's worse than that.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #830 on: 05/24/2010 04:52 PM »
Thruster ideas that require an adjustment to the laws of physics are science fiction.   A few years ago NASA blew away a few million dollars on their Breakthrough Physics Program (BPP).  NASA has to do this because their mission requires investing in extremely risky ideas.  As expected though all that came of this program was a lot of re-hashed science fiction.  Bidfield-Brown electrostatic thrusters, Mach effect, Alcuibre (sp?) drives, etc, etc.   When you read these papers they all have the required amount of math - lots of partial derivatives, wave functions, -it's all there.  The problem is that the underlying assumptions are WRONG.   Dressing up bad science with lots of complicated math does not make the bad science correct.   All of this defective science has been bouncing around since BPP ended.   Any serious researcher can see it is just science fiction.  Maybe sometime in the future some of it may work, but no-one knows how that will happen now.
If you want to invent something that will change how we go into space I think you have to aim for something that is achievable, given the generally accepted laws of physics.   If you are really interested in this field then stop yammering about dead-end non-scientific research and start doing something.  Build a lab in your garage.  Buy some accelerometers.  Do some experiments and be critical of the results.  Then, maybe after 5-10 years of that you may have something to talk about.  If you are really lucky you will have something but you won't talk about it.

     One could also say that about the current Standard Model of physics. (More precisely, Quantum Physics).  With the rather bizaar behavior of the Pioneer priobes as tghey leave the Heliopause, the new discoveries of subatomic particles that were not predicted, Dark Matter and Dark Energy starting to fall into doubt and even the potentile of vacume energy turning out to be quite different from what has been predicted, it may be time to re-examine all of our assumptions, at least as regards to the Standard Model and Quantum Physics.
Quantum physics is one of the most successful theories in physics. You know of contradicting evidence?


Quote
BTW: I referance a number of articles both here and on Slashdot,org...
Oh. I see. No wonder! ;)

I read slashdot.org regularly. It's pretty much a crapshoot! No, it's worse than that.

Only a crapshoot if you don't follow the links to the refered articles, and check their references and associated articles as well.  Might want to try that some time.

Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #831 on: 05/25/2010 07:58 PM »
But what if Mach's Principle is wrong?

If the surrounding stars are many lightyears away from me, then any interaction between myself and them should take years to be felt, because of the lightspeed barrier.

Yet if I start rotating right now, I will feel the effects of rotational inertia right away, instead of it taking years to feel it.

That's an indication that my rotational inertia effects are not the result of my interaction with distant stars, but rather the result of some local interaction. But local interaction with what? Well, the local interaction between myself and local spacetime, of course.

So that then requires that this "field propulsion" concept work by generating some kind of enhanced interaction between myself and spacetime. How can that be done? How can you get traction with space itself?

I think the answer lies in the Vacuum Fluctuations which are believed to make up space. The fluctuations have a periodicity on the scale of Planck length. It's a matter of being able to produce directionally-aligned fields which can push off the momentary Planck-duration fields generated by the Vacuum Fluctuations.







Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3756
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #832 on: 05/25/2010 08:36 PM »
Furthermore, I would call such an idea "space drive" and not "star drive"

Because the name "star drive" would associate itself with Mach's Principle and interaction with distant stars, whereas the name "space drive" would associate itself with Quantum Foam and interaction with local spacetime.

Maybe for hints on how to achieve such a "foam drive" or "space drive" we could look to more mundane examples of how to deal with foam using conventional fluid mechanics.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26888
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6787
  • Likes Given: 4812
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #833 on: 05/25/2010 08:45 PM »
So, replace violating the principle of locality with violating the conservation of momentum.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 795
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #834 on: 05/25/2010 09:07 PM »
But what if Mach's Principle is wrong?

If the surrounding stars are many lightyears away from me, then any interaction between myself and them should take years to be felt, because of the lightspeed barrier.

Yet if I start rotating right now, I will feel the effects of rotational inertia right away, instead of it taking years to feel it.



That's the crux of the whole thing. If on principle you don't accept the possibility of instant / time traveling (what Woodward calls Wheeler-Feynman Radiation Reaction-like) aspects of grav-inertial reaction, you therefore rule out the Mach effect as the source of inertia. There's not really a way to localize it.

I can't begin to  square the circle myself but pretty clearly the ME derivations of Sciama and Woodward, while accepting that gravitational effects as understood under GRT propagate at the speed of light, insist that gravinertial effects propagate effectively instantaneously.
 
Quote


That's an indication that my rotational inertia effects are not the result of my interaction with distant stars, but rather the result of some local interaction. But local interaction with what? Well, the local interaction between myself and local spacetime, of course.

So that then requires that this "field propulsion" concept work by generating some kind of enhanced interaction between myself and spacetime. How can that be done? How can you get traction with space itself?

I think the answer lies in the Vacuum Fluctuations which are believed to make up space. The fluctuations have a periodicity on the scale of Planck length. It's a matter of being able to produce directionally-aligned fields which can push off the momentary Planck-duration fields generated by the Vacuum Fluctuations.

As Woodward mentions in most of his papers, there's no way to square SRT / GRT with vaccuum energy fluctuation  or the Mach effect because the mass density caused by the large amount of energy would curl the universe into a tiny ball.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 825
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #835 on: 05/25/2010 10:34 PM »
Tom:

"I can't begin to  square the circle myself but pretty clearly the ME derivations of Sciama and Woodward, while accepting that gravitational effects as understood under GRT propagate at the speed of light, insist that gravinertial effects propagate effectively instantaneously."

It's an observed fact that inertial reaction forces are instantaneous in nature.  Our task is to explain why this is so.  However if we have a locally invariant gravinertial field with a scalar potential of phi that is created by the mostly distant mass/energy in the causally connected universe, then you really don't need an instantaneous reaction with that same distant matter to balance the local momentum books, provided the required momentum transaction charge isnít too large.  What you can use to balance the momentum books in this case is the local G/I field to supply the back-reaction forces, that then balances the momentum books as the inertial reaction forceís spherical G/I kink radiates out at light speed towards infinity.  The bigger the inertial reaction force, the longer it takes to balance the books.  If we really do have to supply all of this inertial transaction energy at T0, the only other way to balance the momentum books that doesn't rely on local QVF, (See Puthoff, et al.), is to appeal to either Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces that use backward and forward in time momentum propagations, or string theories that have higher spatial dimensions that can provide instantaneous wormhole like connections between the mass/energy parties concerned.

"As Woodward mentions in most of his papers, there's no way to square SRT / GRT with vaccuum energy fluctuation or the Mach effect because the mass density caused by the large amount of energy would curl the universe into a tiny ball."

Unless the G/I field uses the quantum vacuum's Plank foam wormholes as the conduit for the momentum exchanges.  In this way the 4D spacetime can remain flat.  However we are then back to needing higher dimensional theories that allow such momentum tranporting wormholes to exist.  The next question is does this reality need 5, 6 or, 11 dimensions to play...
Star-Drive

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #836 on: 05/26/2010 12:24 AM »
But what if Mach's Principle is wrong?

If the surrounding stars are many lightyears away from me, then any interaction between myself and them should take years to be felt, because of the lightspeed barrier.

Yet if I start rotating right now, I will feel the effects of rotational inertia right away, instead of it taking years to feel it.

That's an indication that my rotational inertia effects are not the result of my interaction with distant stars, but rather the result of some local interaction. But local interaction with what? Well, the local interaction between myself and local spacetime, of course.

So that then requires that this "field propulsion" concept work by generating some kind of enhanced interaction between myself and spacetime. How can that be done? How can you get traction with space itself?

I think the answer lies in the Vacuum Fluctuations which are believed to make up space. The fluctuations have a periodicity on the scale of Planck length. It's a matter of being able to produce directionally-aligned fields which can push off the momentary Planck-duration fields generated by the Vacuum Fluctuations.


If Mach's Principle is wrong, then relativity is wrong, because Mach's Principle is really the avenue by which Relativity makes a mathematical model of Newtonian gravity that agrees with the limitations of the speed of light.

It doesnt matter that gravity is relativistically invariant, just as it doesnt matter that the speed of light is 186,000 mps when photons can be entangled and as a result communicate instantaneously.

So while gravity itself propagates at light speed, the quantum effects of gravity in creating inertial tension with all matter within the causally linked universe is instantaneous. So you can have both gravitational frame dragging caused by light speed limits AND inertia caused by instantaneous action at a distance in the same universe as you have light travelling at light speed with photons that are instantaneously entangled at great distance from each other...
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26888
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6787
  • Likes Given: 4812
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #837 on: 05/26/2010 02:38 AM »
...
     I have some theories about how a field effect drive WOULD interact with Space / Time, byt until I can sit down with an open minded physicist who has the math background to eithe prove or disprove my current theories, that's all that they will remain, theories....
You'd call those "conjectures", not theories, then.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2133
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #838 on: 05/26/2010 10:46 AM »

     Again, until such time as either I am able to do the math myself, (And I am beginning to suspect that thst will be the only way I will be able to get it done) or I find a physicist with both the mathematical background and an open mind, willing to work with me, my "conjectures" will remain, as an incompletely defined, theory.

Jason

A theory is a mathematical explanation for a conjecture. A conjecture without a theory is just conjecture, a statement of assumption. Little more than a glorified opinion. Thats what you've got.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2409
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Propellantless Field Propulsion and application
« Reply #839 on: 05/26/2010 12:27 PM »

     Again, until such time as either I am able to do the math myself, (And I am beginning to suspect that thst will be the only way I will be able to get it done) or I find a physicist with both the mathematical background and an open mind, willing to work with me, my "conjectures" will remain, as an incompletely defined, theory.

Jason

A theory is a mathematical explanation for a conjecture. A conjecture without a theory is just conjecture, a statement of assumption. Little more than a glorified opinion. Thats what you've got.

Theories don't have to be mathematical in nature, those are usually proofs.

However, your point is made and I am removing my posts.



Jason
My God!  It's full of universes!

Tags: