Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 288057 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #100 on: 02/11/2013 02:35 PM »

This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.

That's absurd.  I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. 
...
People seeking to justify a means to an end use quantum mechanics arguments to say that things like telekinesis are possible. Sure, it breaks the laws of physics as understood by the mainstream, but so does (supposedly) Woodward's device. There have been many discredited telekinesis claims, just like there have been many propellantless propulsion devices. And both are a staple of mid-century science fiction. The fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence applies to both.

And while telekinesis probably has greater stigma than a claim about propellantless propulsion, the number of laws of physics (according to the mainstream understanding) it breaks are about the same. Call this histrionics if you want.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #101 on: 02/11/2013 02:38 PM »

This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.

That's absurd.  I was taking you seriously until you got histrionic. 

You can't defeat silly claims with silly claims.  Double down on the silly claim if you want, but you'll only be doubling down on a patent falsehood.

This is absolutely true.  Chris will throw math at people pretty readily.  Here he does not.
You know why? Because almost every other questionable claim on this forum still at least assumes mainstream laws of physics work (and that to their credit, by the way!!!).  This claim makes new laws of physics, thus in order to shoot it down with math (unless they've made a trivial error somewhere), one would have to learn a new set of physical laws instead of just applying existing laws of physics. I don't, frankly, have time for that.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 02:50 PM by Robotbeat »
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 D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 459
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #102 on: 02/11/2013 03:04 PM »
learn a new set of physical laws instead of just applying existing laws of physics. I don't, frankly, have time for that.

I am trying to do just that, pardon me if I set the comments from your closed mind to "ignore".
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #103 on: 02/11/2013 03:15 PM »
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine?

I mean, once I realized that, well... forget about looking at equations, if it's a perpetual motion machine, there's no point in even considering it!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #104 on: 02/11/2013 03:19 PM »
And while telekinesis probably has greater stigma than a claim about propellantless propulsion...

Which is a non-mathematical straw man.

Quote from: JF
Chris will throw math at people pretty readily.  Here he does not.

Quote from: Chris
You know why? Because almost every other questionable claim on this forum still at least assumes mainstream laws of physics work ...

The takaway here is that you don't know if the assertion that phi=c^^2 is valid either.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 663
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #105 on: 02/11/2013 03:23 PM »
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine?

Guessing you refer to the apparent exponential increase with Ww-driven vehicle's kinetic energy while consuming steady power?

Tried to ask about that earlier from propulsion perspective (energy content of propellant) but no luck. So again:

The 'extra' mass appears to the vibrating driver mass with increasing kinetic energy as the vehicle accelerates. When it's pushed backwards momentum gets exchanged and kinetic energy too. The extra mass gets returned back to the rest of the universe with less kinetic energy. So, does rest of the universe loose mass when Ww-engine runs? edit: the kinetic energy must come from somewhere and leftover returned to somewhere.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 03:28 PM by R7 »
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #106 on: 02/11/2013 03:26 PM »
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine?

I mean, once I realized that, well... forget about looking at equations, if it's a perpetual motion machine, there's no point in even considering it!

For the purposes of the current discussion, that nonsense about increasing its energy can be ignored.  Once we understand Sciama's work, then we can see if Woodward and Fearn are interpreting it correctly.

IOW, you can't already "realize" anything about this drive without understanding where the flaws in the math are.

OTOH, the time spent in understanding this math, in my case, might be better spent working on my PMP system.  But I need money for that, and not for this.  Besides, I need the tutorial!

At this point, the "stargate" is firmly ensconced within the human mind.  Once the principles can be understood and shared, then hardware can be built.  So I don't worry about imaginary hardware.

YMMV.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #107 on: 02/11/2013 03:36 PM »
Here's the equation for propellant based rocketry, no free energy there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

The perpetual motion/free energy aspect is a straightforward result of two equations: F=ma, and kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2.  If Woodward's device worked as advertised, it would provide simple free energy.

Also, the idea of sucking energy from the rest of the universe, violates the second law of thermodynamics. It's very similar to the perpetual motion idea of constructing a heat engine that works off the ambient temperature.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 03:37 PM by antiquark »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9163
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #108 on: 02/11/2013 03:48 PM »
Here's the equation for propellant based rocketry, no free energy there:

Thanks, but I didn't need that particular bit.  I think the key issue is to determine if the guy's math is ok.  Nobody seems able to tackle that question.

If the steak is real then the sizzle will follow.  I wanna know if the steak is real.  What is inertia?  You don't seem to know either.

What you and RobotBeat are saying is that the sizzle (so-called 'free' energy) can't be real, therefore the steak (M-E drive) can be assumed not to exist.  In my opinion today, Woodward has jumped off the deep end prematurely, with speculations about that 'free' energy.  In this analogy, I'm calling the understanding of the M-E effect the shallow end.  Continuing this analogy, one wonders what special relativity is... a puddle?

Maybe you don't want to discuss the derivation of the gravelectric equation.   If so, whyncha F/m out of the discussion?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #109 on: 02/11/2013 03:54 PM »
Here's the equation for propellant based rocketry, no free energy there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

The perpetual motion/free energy aspect is a straightforward result of two equations: F=ma, and kinetic energy = 1/2 m v^2.  If Woodward's device worked as advertised, it would provide simple free energy.

You've already written that, and you've been answered (see the quote from Cramer's paper for instance).  Before we talk about Woodward's engine, so far we've been talking about Woodward's effect, which consists of a variable mass, not of a stationary force.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 04:01 PM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 663
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #110 on: 02/11/2013 03:55 PM »
I want to know if the math explains where the extra KE for the extra mass keep appearing and where the leftovers go. If the math fails to explain that then...it can still propel MCT.

And does this mach field give instantaneous information of entire universe, or does "information" about mass/inertia/energy travel with speed of light in it? edit: if latter is the engine more efficient near large mass like sun than in say instellar space.

Ffp ffp.


edit2: the F/W seems to suck.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 03:58 PM by R7 »
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #111 on: 02/11/2013 03:55 PM »
Here's the problem, his math can be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT but be based on wrong physics with no basis in the reality of our universe.
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 grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #112 on: 02/11/2013 03:58 PM »
Here's the problem, his math can be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT but be based on wrong physics with no basis in the reality of our universe.

Sciama's model of PlanckMach's principle does not violate any law of physics.  So any effect deduced from it, if done with correct maths, should not either.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 04:12 PM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #113 on: 02/11/2013 04:04 PM »
Here's the problem, his math can be COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND CORRECT but be based on wrong physics with no basis in the reality of our universe.

Sciama's model of Planck's principle does not violate any law of physics.  So any effect deduced from it, if done with correct maths, should not either.
That's the /claim/, and yet local conservation of energy and momentum are invalidated (by the mainstream understanding, without inventing new fields which are not accepted by mainstream physics).

I'm pretty sure we all know where the burden of proof lies.

(and what Planck's Principle are you talking about? The sociology of science one?)
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 04:06 PM by Robotbeat »
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 grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #114 on: 02/11/2013 04:09 PM »
That's the /claim/, and yet local conservation of energy and momentum are invalidated (by the mainstream understanding, without inventing new fields which are not accepted by mainstream physics).

Well, Sciama's dissertation was accepted and granted him his PhD, didn't it?  Also, it was endorsed by Dirac himself.  I don't know what else you would like.

About "Planck's principle":  oops.  I obviously meant "Mach".
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 04:12 PM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #115 on: 02/11/2013 04:16 PM »
That's the /claim/, and yet local conservation of energy and momentum are invalidated (by the mainstream understanding, without inventing new fields which are not accepted by mainstream physics).

Well, Sciama's dissertation was accepted and granted him his PhD, didn't it?  Also, it was endorsed by Dirac himself.  I don't know what else you would like.

About "Planck's principle":  oops.  I obviously meant "Mach".

Mach's principle is considered incompatible with General Relativity by the majority of physicists who deal with relativity, if you put much weight on that sort of thing. And Woodward's purported device clearly violates the current laws of physics.

Again, you're trying to use proof-by-association (with a few degrees of separation) to give credence to an idea that violates locally the laws of currently understood physics.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #116 on: 02/11/2013 04:18 PM »
"But because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false." --some wikipedia editor.
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 grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #117 on: 02/11/2013 04:25 PM »
Mach's principle is considered incompatible with General Relativity by the majority of physicists who deal with relativity, if you put much weight on that sort of thing

Not by Einstein and Dirac apparently.  Also, Einstein did notice that physicists were ignoring Mach's principle, and stated that this "contendness" would be incomprehensible for future generations.  Maybe this time is coming.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 04:27 PM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #118 on: 02/11/2013 04:29 PM »
"But because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false." --some wikipedia editor.

I don't think Mach's principle is vague at all.  Just because an idea can be stated in many ways does not mean it has not an accurate meaning.  I'm pretty sure there are several examples of such principles in physics.

Also, quoting a Wikipedia editor is ... kind of low.
« Last Edit: 02/11/2013 04:30 PM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27034
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #119 on: 02/11/2013 04:30 PM »
The point is still valid.

Okay, tell me exactly what Mach's principle is.
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