The derivation of the field equation containing A) the second derivative with respect to time of Eo ("the local proper energy density") and B) the square of the first derivative with respect to time of Eo ("the local proper energy density"),* is not in these pages attached by John. John could you also attach those pages? Thanks

After catching up on the past few pages, I'd be lying if I said I really understood any of what you're discussing. I don't suppose anyone has some good ideas on testable predictions from these theories?

I realize that I asked for a lot up thread, when I requested an equational line of reasoning which started with, say, e=Mc^2 and resulted in propellantless drive or an explanation of inertia.`

Quote from: Rodal on 10/03/2014 12:16 AMHowever, if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey itI think you're conflating two things: Woodward's theory (which describes what happens when certain things occur in a material) and the properties of the material (which describe how easily and/or efficiently those things can be forced to occur in it).Woodward's theory itself has no efficiency terms. Those terms result from an attempt to map experimentally imposed parameters onto the quantities appearing in his equations. Since the electromechanical response of the material is what performs this mapping in real life, the efficiency terms represent the constitutive relations, which are not the Mach effect but mediate between the Mach effect and the attempt to force it to happen....Assuming Woodward's theory is accepted for the sake of argument, saying a real-life material doesn't obey it is like saying a real-life material doesn't obey the law of gravity. A feather may not fall as fast as a brick, but there are other reasons for that.Or perhaps a better example is a collision. Most real-life collisions don't appear to obey conservation of energy, until you account for dissipation of that energy in forms other than the bulk kinetic energy of the colliding objects.Combining these two examples, bouncing a ball off the pavement and having it not quite come back up to the height it was dropped from does not mean the ball fails to obey either the law of gravity or the law of conservation of energy.

However, if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/02/2014 05:54 PMnot to mention supersymmetry and string theory. I thought string theory was dead now since the Higgs Boson mass was wrong. Or am I totally off base (just something I heard in a talk)?

not to mention supersymmetry and string theory.

[Woodward] is not questioning mass that you can measure during low speeds. His theory try to explain mass increase during speed close to light speed and possibility manipulate increase mass/inertia at these moments.

Wanted to share info about casimir energies in cavities and vacuum expectation values in various systems. Spent all morning researching boundary conditions wrt shapes other than parallel plates. This says cones have positive casimir energy (repulsive). By repulsive do they mean net effect on the cavity walls?

Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices covert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.

I wanted to throw it out there that as I understand it, the casimir effect between the plates equates to a small negative mass energy by virtue of all other modes being excluded. This is the difference of potential, similar to volts. The sign of casimir energy doesn't denote positive/negative energy. It is negative with respect to the universe nomatter the sign. Another way to think of it is possible hole flow in electronics. Am I right?

Please continue to scan the pages ... until you reach Woodward's main result: the wave equation for the gravitational potential (the d'Alembertian of phi) on the left hand side of the equation, and on the right hand side of the equation: the term (4 Pi G rho) and the terms containing the derivatives with respect to time.

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/03/2014 12:44 PMNobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices convert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.in simple terms, Woodwards device works by using these mass fluctuations... pull when itīs light, push when itīs heavier. That is how I understand it.

Nobody has yet explained how either of these devices actually work, other than the obvious; that the devices convert electrical energy to forward momentum, which is the only thing that the term "electric propulsion" can mean.

The device aims to convert electricity to forward motion. ...There are two problems which have not yet been addressed or answered. "Push heavy, pull light", which is the summary of the M-E device's operation, relies upon action at a distance with the inertia of the entire Hubble sphere surrounding the device.

7b. AIUI, it is conjectured that the interstitial atomic bonds in the capacitor move at relativistic speeds, over small distances, with properly timed alternating, opposed electrical signals. Because it is supposed that there is a time lag between the extemes of motion in this cycle, that the electrical signals can be timed so as to "push heavy" in one dirrection, and "pull light" in the other.

Why is there a dollar sign after MachEffect as in "MachEffect$" at the top left of every page?

In the case as presented, it sort of appears that the electron stream, may be being concentrated and accelerated to increse their effective mass.

EDIT: Let's call the point at which constitutive statements are attached to Woodward's theory, a "W theory," such that "W theory" stands for the whole theory including any attached constitutive statement.So even if one were to accept Woodward's theory on a theoretical basis, at the point that Woodward's theory becomes a constitutive theory, it does not follow that actual materials would have to behave as prescribed by "W theory" with a Buldrini factor >0. I think that Buldrini understood this and that's why he allowed his "fudge factors" to range all the way from zero (for a value of zero there is no Woodward effect).Only experiments would be able to show whether they do or do not. However, if one were to accept "W theory" on a theoretical basis, and materials in nature are found not to obey it, the interesting possibility could still be raised whether such a "W theory" material could be eventually be man-made (to allow propellant-less drives) as for example now we are able to make isotropic materials with very negative Poisson's ratio that don't exist in nature. (The experiments that are trying to verify Woodward's effect now are limiting themselves to materials that are presently available for other uses, not materials that have been engineered by man first at the nano level and eventually at the molecular level with the only intent to maximize such a "W theory" effect. )

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/03/2014 02:17 PM...These are all of the equations which precede page 70. There are equations on pages 40 and 66. In between p-35 and p-70 are three addenda, reasonably presumed to support Woodward's derivation, here summarized:#1 Sciama 1953, p37#2 Brans, 1962, p388-396#3 Nordtverdt, 1988, 91395-1404Would you be so kind as to repost the PDF's for Brans and Nordtverdt? I don't have them yet.The purpose of your scanning educational exercise was to show in this thread the actual Derivation equations as they appear in The Book, to better guide discussion.Can you point out to any equation in The Formal Derivation in The Book that were not present in his previously published papers?Yes, I know that there new and different words, and supporting material. I'm talking strictly about the mathematical equations in The Formal Derivation leading to the final transient fluctuation equation .

...These are all of the equations which precede page 70. There are equations on pages 40 and 66. In between p-35 and p-70 are three addenda, reasonably presumed to support Woodward's derivation, here summarized:#1 Sciama 1953, p37#2 Brans, 1962, p388-396#3 Nordtverdt, 1988, 91395-1404Would you be so kind as to repost the PDF's for Brans and Nordtverdt? I don't have them yet.