hey Dr Rodal, regarding the derivation of Woodward's Mach Effect, I asked GiThruster at TalkPolywellQuote from: GiThrusterI would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.

I would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.

<<Virtual particles, [this means the virtual electron as well as the virtual positron] which are what appear in the loop in that diagram, are not particles. They are not nice ripples, but more general disturbances. And only particles have the expected relation between their energy, momentum and mass; the more general disturbances do not satisfy these relations. So your intuition is simply misled by misreading the diagram. Instead, one has to do a real computation of the effect of these disturbances. In the case of the photon, it turns out the effect of this process on the photon mass is exactly zero.>>Yes, this is certainly correct. There is not even a mathematical reason to think otherwise. (that I know of anyway)Always assuming that the experimental results are real:The only hope I see from QED (so far anyway) is with the 2-photon interaction mediated w/ the dielectic dipoles, and not the symmetrical case. The dispersion in the microwave cavity would have to be connected to a nonlinear term that could generate a massive real escaping particle. (dark matter ??)What bothers my gut is the symmetry of the GR situation in an AFR. The presence of the dielectric (and it's charge pairs) might be the antacid for that. I don't remember anyone trying to add another (nonlinear) differential equation to the EM cavity solutions to get transport properties. ( ~ bulk viscosity as in acoustics etc)OK, enough grousing, off to dig around in the paper pile .

I'll leave the construction ... to John: he was moving some large masses yesterday.

I take from this that GiThruster (whoever he is) thinks that such a discussion (Woodward's derivation) can only take place there and not here at NASAspaceflight.

Quote from: aceshigh on 09/22/2014 02:48 PMhey Dr Rodal, regarding the derivation of Woodward's Mach Effect, I asked GiThruster at TalkPolywellQuote from: GiThrusterI would just recommend the book. If Dr. Rodal wants to be placed on Woodward's general reading list where he can have a dialog on this issue, have him send me a note to this effect with a couple sentences of his background and interest and I'll forward this to Jim.I take from this that GiThruster (whoever he is) thinks that such a discussion (Woodward's derivation) can only take place there and not here at NASAspaceflight. Concerning the derivation of transient mass terms, I would rather use the peer-reviewed papers by Dr. Woodward than a book "Making Starships and Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes"I'll leave the construction of Stargates and Absurdly Benign Wormholes to John: he was moving some large masses yesterday Guarda, sto solo dicendo

I do still have Sciama '64 and Erratta. It'll take a while to remember how to read it ! The only comment I can remember was "Remember, these Maxwellian equations are just tautological relations between a particle representation and a field representation."

Reviews of Modern Physics vol 36 pp463 and 1103

As a scientific concept, the existence of zero-point energy is not controversial, although the ability to harness it is.[11] Over the years, there have been numerous claims of devices capable of extracting usable zero-point energy. None of the claims have ever been confirmed by the scientific community at large, and most of these claims are dismissed either by default, after third-party inspection of such a device or based on disbelief in the viability of a technical design and theoretical corroboration. Current claims to zero-point-energy-based power generation systems are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large [12][13] and skeptics usually dismiss efforts to harness zero-point energy by default.

Despite the scientific stance to typically discount the claims, numerous articles and books have been published addressing and discussing the potential of tapping zero-point-energy from the quantum vacuum or elsewhere. Examples of such are the work of the following authors: Claus Wilhelm Turtur,[15] Jeane Manning, Joel Garbon,[16] John Bedini,[17] Tom Bearden,[18][19][20] Thomas Valone,[21][22][23] Moray B King,[24][25][26] Christopher Toussaint, Bill Jenkins,[27] Nick Cook[28] and William James.[29]

At the end of section 2.2 "It will also be interesting to see whether in the quantized theory the inertial waves have zero rest mass" ref: P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963)

well, since people who have access to Dr Woodward's discussion list do not participate in this forum (except for Paul March, but he seldom posts), since Dr Woodward is not a discussion forum user as far as I know, and since Dr Rodal doesnīt seem interested in joining Dr Woodward's emailing list, I guess discussing the derivation of Woodward's equations here is a bit useless?