Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 286558 times)

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #140 on: 02/12/2013 02:54 PM »

A "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics".  Not so with an "unverified" claim.

Are you saying the only way we can verify that Woodward's drive is a free energy machine, is to actually build one and demonstrate that it provides free energy?  Do you see the paradox there...

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3893
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #141 on: 02/12/2013 02:54 PM »
Is there any way to strap this thing to a balloon with neutral buoyancy inside a closed room, and see if it moves anywhere?

The real proof is in how much it moves, right?

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #142 on: 02/12/2013 02:59 PM »
Is there any way to strap this thing to a balloon with neutral buoyancy inside a closed room, and see if it moves anywhere?

The real proof is in how much it moves, right?

It only provides a few microNewtons of force (i.e. the weight of a grain of salt) so probably natural air currents would be a problem and drown out the actual effect.

But in general I agree, the device should be revamped so it produces, say, a few Kg of force, then it would be obvious if the effect was real.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #143 on: 02/12/2013 03:31 PM »
...
Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved.

...

Just to nitpick, they can't be verifying and relying on the same thing at the same time cam they?

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #144 on: 02/12/2013 03:32 PM »

A "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics".  Not so with an "unverified" claim.

Are you saying the only way we can verify that Woodward's drive is a free energy machine, is to actually build one and demonstrate that it provides free energy?  Do you see the paradox there...

I don't get it... What's the paradox...

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #145 on: 02/12/2013 03:38 PM »
I don't get it... What's the paradox...

Basic physics tells us it will be a free energy machine, it's not necessary to build one to find out.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #146 on: 02/12/2013 03:40 PM »

Just the regular kind will do. Exactly how extraordinary we find the evidence is just a sign of how much skepticism we've lost.. aka complacency. If someone comes to me with experimental evidence that contradicts a well established scientific theory I'm going to say: Is it reproducible? Have you considered alternative explanations? What happens when you vary this or that.. etc, etc. All the same things as if they came to me with experimental evidence that contradicted a theory invented last Tuesday.

 

Admirable. But really?  All theories deserve equal scepticism in the face of contradictory evidence? Im not sure...

Online Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2918
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #147 on: 02/12/2013 06:00 PM »
I don't get it... What's the paradox...

Basic physics tells us it will be a free energy machine, it's not necessary to build one to find out.
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #148 on: 02/12/2013 06:25 PM »
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.

I get what you're saying, that the kinetic energy might never increase beyond the energy provided to the device.

But then that will violate relativity. E.g., the device going east will not accelerate as fast as the device going west, due to the 1000 mph speed of the earth's rotation. 

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #149 on: 02/12/2013 06:44 PM »
...
Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved.

...

Just to nitpick, they can't be verifying and relying on the same thing at the same time cam they?
They're making multiple measurements relying on it. Ridiculous discrepancies would show up if it wasn't true to a very, very high degree. Our current model of inertia and such, which don't use Woodward's effect at all, work extremely well.

If you rely on a hammer for work all the time, you're also verifying that it works.
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 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 #150 on: 02/12/2013 06:58 PM »

A "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics".  Not so with an "unverified" claim.

Are you saying the only way we can verify that Woodward's drive is a free energy machine, is to actually build one and demonstrate that it provides free energy?  Do you see the paradox there...

You're not listening.  You're stuck on this "unverified" "free energy" claim of his, and ignoring the actual experiment where he is attempting to verify his earlier claim about his understanding of inertia.

I understand your fixation.  I believe that the shuttle could be turned around in two weeks, because the "experts" verified that claim for me.  I now know that there was no verification whatsoever in those early claims.

The ability to convert electricity into forward momentum would indeed be a propulsive game changer.  You could have a big old solar array and explore the solar system out to Saturn.  Wouldn't have to carry propellant.

I don't get it... What's the paradox...

Basic physics tells us it will be a free energy machine, it's not necessary to build one to find out.

There is no such machine, only an unverified claim that there could be such a machine.  Basic physics tells us that the claim that the machine produces or uses free energy is unverifiable. 

No paradoxes here.  Move along.  Move along.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #151 on: 02/12/2013 07:04 PM »
"Free" energy (either harvesting it from "zero-point," from just room-temp background thermal energy, or some very non-local energy source like described here) or perpetual motion machines have a very well-deserved stigma.
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 antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #152 on: 02/12/2013 07:09 PM »
Basic physics tells us that the claim that the machine produces or uses free energy is unverifiable. 

Actually, basic physics (and even the more advanced physics of the pros) tells us that free energy is 100% impossible!

And in the history of free energy, this fact has been verified many times over.  I.e., every free energy machine made thus far--- didn't work as advertised!
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 07:10 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 #153 on: 02/12/2013 07:41 PM »
Basic physics tells us that the claim that the machine produces or uses free energy is unverifiable. 

Actually, basic physics (and even the more advanced physics of the pros) tells us that free energy is 100% impossible!

...

I would certainly agree that the impossible is unverifiable, or some semantic game to that effect.  So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 07:42 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #154 on: 02/12/2013 07:47 PM »
So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?

If the equation predicts free energy, then sorry, I don't plan on reading it.

Online Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2918
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #155 on: 02/12/2013 08:02 PM »
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.

I get what you're saying, that the kinetic energy might never increase beyond the energy provided to the device.

But then that will violate relativity. E.g., the device going east will not accelerate as fast as the device going west, due to the 1000 mph speed of the earth's rotation. 
Wrong reference frame. Since Woodward's ME thruster claims to use the entire universe as its reaction mass (and not the earth like a car does), the entire universe should be your reference frame.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #156 on: 02/12/2013 08:05 PM »
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.

I get what you're saying, that the kinetic energy might never increase beyond the energy provided to the device.

But then that will violate relativity. E.g., the device going east will not accelerate as fast as the device going west, due to the 1000 mph speed of the earth's rotation. 
Wrong reference frame. Since Woodward's ME thruster claims to use the entire universe as its reaction mass (and not the earth like a car does), the entire universe should be your reference frame.
The Earth's rotation still affects it. The speed you are moving WRT the cosmic background radiation changes with time of day (and time of year, etc).
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 Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2918
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 733
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #157 on: 02/12/2013 08:09 PM »
The Earth's rotation still affects it. The speed you are moving WRT the cosmic background radiation changes with time of day (and time of year, etc).
How would that affect anything? We are talking about the mass of the entire universe, not particles of the entire universe. You are thinking in local terms, when the theory is talking about a non local reference frame.
I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #158 on: 02/12/2013 08:52 PM »
I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.

If Woodwards device accelerates more and more slowly based on how fast it's already going, then you now have a way to determine your absolute direction and velocity, which goes against current physics.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #159 on: 02/12/2013 09:39 PM »
...
Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved.

...

Just to nitpick, they can't be verifying and relying on the same thing at the same time cam they?
They're making multiple measurements relying on it. Ridiculous discrepancies would show up if it wasn't true to a very, very high degree. Our current model of inertia and such, which don't use Woodward's effect at all, work extremely well.

If you rely on a hammer for work all the time, you're also verifying that it works.

Ok, Chris, if our current model of inertia (somehow in opposition to Woodward's model I presume) works so well, please link to a description of what that model is!

The whole reason Woodward's theory is so intriguing (apart from potential applications like propellant-recycled propulsion) is that it offers a testable theory of how inertia works.

You'll find fairly quickly that there is no standard model of how inertia "works" beyond the assumption that it works "as classically expected".

In fact Woodward doesn't dispute this, just adds that in addition, there are interesting things happening during changes in acceleration and internal energy, and that these things are observable in the right conditions.

Conditions that are well described and don't often occur in nature. Including at CERN.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2013 09:47 PM by cuddihy »