Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 08:09 PMI am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.then you now have a way to determine your absolute direction and velocity, which goes against current physics.

I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.

The current model is that you can't just change the inertia in the way Woodward supposes, there's no long-distance field (other than the usual inverse squared ones). In the current model, there is no way to "push" against the whole of the universe and develop propellantless propulsion.The current model says that momentum and energy are both conserved locally.

Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 09:46 PMThe current model is that you can't just change the inertia in the way Woodward supposes, there's no long-distance field (other than the usual inverse squared ones). In the current model, there is no way to "push" against the whole of the universe and develop propellantless propulsion.The current model says that momentum and energy are both conserved locally.Woodward claims (on the basis of Sciama) that the long-distance field that transmits inertial forces is precisely the long distance inverse square one...i.e. gravity......

So the bulk mass of the universe does affect us in the micro-newtons range.I accept the earth overwhelms due to distance.I wish I understand the mechanism for inertia, can you explain the coupling field? Not the posited "Woodward effect" but the micronewtons of the bulk mass of the universe.

Quote from: antiquark on 02/12/2013 08:52 PMQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 08:09 PMI am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.then you now have a way to determine your absolute direction and velocity, which goes against current physics. How?

Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 09:56 PMQuote from: antiquark on 02/12/2013 08:52 PMQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 08:09 PMI am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.then you now have a way to determine your absolute direction and velocity, which goes against current physics. How?Put Woodward drives on two windowless trains, one moving, one stationary. The one on the moving train will not accelerate as fast as the one on the stationary train, indicating the velocity of the train.

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 07:41 PMSo 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.

So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?

Quote from: antiquark on 02/12/2013 07:47 PMQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 07:41 PMSo 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. It does not. That much is clear.Sciama is defining inertia according to an interpretation of Mach's principle. His gravelectric equation has been peer reviewed and not disproved in 60 years.I have no idea if it's right or wrong, but my sense is that not many people understand it. This thread confirms that observation so far.

We are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.

Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2013 07:36 PMWe are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.I get it. You don't understand his math either.

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 12:40 PMQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/13/2013 07:36 PMWe are talking about woodward's purported effect, not sciama.I get it. You don't understand his math either.Give me a good reason to try.

Happy to be able to share. Glad everyone enjoyed them.

Quote from: cuddihy on 12/07/2012 05:59 PMQuote from: sfuerst on 12/04/2012 12:58 AMQuoteWho said anything about breaking conservation? M-E doesn't. If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.M-E does. Its math depends on a vector theory of gravity. The reason everyone else uses the more complex tensor theory known as GR is because vector theories break energy-momentum conservation.gross generalization. Tensor theory =/= GR.Newtonian theories are all kinds of inconsistent. That doesn't invalidate every calculation or derivation done in Newtonian calculus either. Tensor theories are shown to not work with certain parts of quantum physics. That doesn't invalidate tensor GR math either.What specific part of Woodward's derivation are you alleging cannot be calculated in vector form and why?The Woodward derivation requires the existence of a mass-energy dipole. This is possible with a vector theory (which is what they use). With a tensor theory, like GR, it is impossible. The lowest multipole order is a quadrapole. This matters because the emitted power from a quadrapole is much much less than a dipole by many orders of magnitude due to the additional G/c^2 factor.So why don't other physicists use vector gravity theories? The reason is that they don't conserve energy-momentum. In effect Woodward is assuming that momentum is not conserved, constructing a device, and then noticing that that device doesn't conserve momentum. It is the physics version of "begging the question".This particular problem is exercise 7.2 in MTW Gravitation.

Quote from: sfuerst on 12/04/2012 12:58 AMQuoteWho said anything about breaking conservation? M-E doesn't. If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.M-E does. Its math depends on a vector theory of gravity. The reason everyone else uses the more complex tensor theory known as GR is because vector theories break energy-momentum conservation.gross generalization. Tensor theory =/= GR.Newtonian theories are all kinds of inconsistent. That doesn't invalidate every calculation or derivation done in Newtonian calculus either. Tensor theories are shown to not work with certain parts of quantum physics. That doesn't invalidate tensor GR math either.What specific part of Woodward's derivation are you alleging cannot be calculated in vector form and why?

QuoteWho said anything about breaking conservation? M-E doesn't. If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.M-E does. Its math depends on a vector theory of gravity. The reason everyone else uses the more complex tensor theory known as GR is because vector theories break energy-momentum conservation.

Who said anything about breaking conservation? M-E doesn't. If the EM-Drive works (which I am not claiming), whatever makes it work can be assumed to also not break conservation unless very good evidence shows up that it does.

You have no idea if Woodward has misinterpreted Sciama.

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/14/2013 02:58 PMYou have no idea if Woodward has misinterpreted Sciama.Sciama: no free energy.Woodward: free energy.Woodward has misinterpreted Sciama.

Quote from: sfuerst on 12/08/2012 12:05 AMThis is possible with a vector theory (which is what they use). With a tensor theory, like GR, it is impossible.

This is possible with a vector theory (which is what they use). With a tensor theory, like GR, it is impossible.