Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 287665 times)

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 #180 on: 02/14/2013 07:36 PM »
GeeGee: going back to that other thread, I see see that you and I had some interaction back there.  If you don't mind, you need to help me, and those with similar math skills to better understand the differentiation that you point out.

The salient differences between tensor and vector theories of GR.  What I hear you saying is that ... well, actually, I don't know for sure what you're saying...

Woodward's conjecture does not hinge on Sciama's vectory theory of gravity. He has stated before that Sciama's model is only an approximation to GR, and the phi=c^2 result can be obtained in GR using Nordtvedt's PPN formalism.

Here's a quote of his I found explaining this distinction

"I am not claiming (nor have I claimed) that Sciama's 1953 theory is exactly correct. ...

I have several of Woodward's papers, but not that one that you quote.  Could you link that one too?

Thanks for your various comments here and there on this.  Hopefully, you can give us math phobes some insight into the derivations.

Right now, and still, for me, the problem is where to start.  Sciama 1953 seems like a good place.

Link to Nordtvedt's paper is behind this Springer paywall:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t834127482nuv384/

If someone could attach the PDF as "fair use" educational materials, it would be appreciated.

Here is Raine's paper:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1975MNRAS.171..507R/0000509.000.html
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #181 on: 02/14/2013 09:38 PM »
John,

I'm only a computer science student and certainly not a physics expert. I just felt the need to point out that sfruerst's claims about a vectory theory of gravity being required is not true, since I had a quote from Woodward in hand from the mailing list that explains the issue.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #182 on: 02/15/2013 12:51 AM »
We 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.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.
The pork must flow.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #183 on: 02/15/2013 01:07 AM »
We 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.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.

Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #184 on: 02/15/2013 01:30 AM »
We 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.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.

Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.
And why this and not the hundreds of other perpetual motion machines? I'll be interested if there is independent, transparent replication.
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 #185 on: 02/15/2013 01:35 AM »
We 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.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.

Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.

I don't get it.  I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it.  Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?
« Last Edit: 02/15/2013 01:54 AM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #186 on: 02/15/2013 01:39 AM »
Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.
And why this and not the hundreds of other perpetual motion machines?

Because they can be explained without it?

Quote
I'll be interested if there is independent, transparent replication.

Agreed.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #187 on: 02/15/2013 02:03 AM »
We 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.
It'd be more pertinent than arguing the politics of it.

Agreed, but in scientific terms, a good reason to try would be experimental results that can't be explained without it.

I don't get it.  I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it.  Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?
Not at all. I'm saying he wanted to build a propellantless device (in spite of not being possible with mainstream physics), found some not-so-mainstream physics/math that either would let him do so or tweaked to let him do so, then built a device. He thinks he has a signal, but it doesn't entirely fit his predictions and it hasn't been independently replicated. This is a tried and true process for many a breaking-the-laws-of-physics device.
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 #188 on: 02/15/2013 02:42 AM »

Quote from: JF
I don't get it.  I thought Woodward did the math, then created an experiment to "prove" it.  Are you saying that he did an experiment, then is looking for the math to prove his results?

Not at all. I'm saying he wanted to build a propellantless device (in spite of not being possible with mainstream physics), found some not-so-mainstream physics/math that either would let him do so or tweaked to let him do so, then built a device. He thinks he has a signal, but it doesn't entirely fit his predictions and it hasn't been independently replicated. This is a tried and true process for many a breaking-the-laws-of-physics device.

I will listen to that line of reasoning for a bit, but I'm not sure that "he wanted to build" the device first.  My take is that he noticed the "not-so-mainstream" physics (which you cannot address... no blame from me on that) and decided to take advantage of it, which led him to design his experiment.

But still, I totally agree that there is no independent replication, largely because his apparatus and protocol is not completely divulged.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2013 02:43 AM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #189 on: 02/15/2013 02:47 AM »

Not at all. I'm saying he wanted to build a propellantless device (in spite of not being possible with mainstream physics), found some not-so-mainstream physics/math that either would let him do so or tweaked to let him do so, then built a device. He thinks he has a signal, but it doesn't entirely fit his predictions and it hasn't been independently replicated. This is a tried and true process for many a breaking-the-laws-of-physics device.

Mach's principle was mainstream physics for quite some time in the last century. Indeed, if you do a search on arxiv, you'll find quite a few high-caliber physicists still write papers on the subject.

The earlier predictions suggested the signals were orders of magnitude smaller than they should be, but those predictions were wrong. They are within an order of magnitude the same as those predicted when the mass fluctuation is written with explicit acceleration dependence (see slide 17 and 34 in the ASPW presentation).

I agree about the independent replication. The replication attempts have been inconclusive so far. I know Nembo Buldrini is currently working on one.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2013 05:30 AM by GeeGee »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #190 on: 02/15/2013 04:47 AM »
I don't care why someone builds an experiment.. if it gives a result that no-one can explain, and others can replicate it, then huzzah!

"That's weird" is the nicest two words in science.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #191 on: 02/15/2013 05:07 AM »
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.
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 QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2993
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #192 on: 02/15/2013 05:13 AM »
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

Well, I could almost agree with that, if I didn't have complete apathy towards pre-validation results. If you're just expressing your desire to see folks on this side of the forum stop pinning their hopes to rainbows, I can sympathize with that.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

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 #193 on: 02/15/2013 01:29 PM »
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4889
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #194 on: 02/15/2013 05:57 PM »
No, you don't get it ;). You can make up assumptions that can't be readily proven and disproven and then put those assumptions in a consistent mathematical framework. I don't doubt Woodward's mathematical skills.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2013 05:58 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 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 #195 on: 02/15/2013 07:35 PM »
No, you don't get it ;). You can make up assumptions that can't be readily proven and disproven and then put those assumptions in a consistent mathematical framework. I don't doubt Woodward's mathematical skills.

Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline antiquark

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #196 on: 02/15/2013 07:49 PM »
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #197 on: 02/15/2013 11:17 PM »
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.
« Last Edit: 02/15/2013 11:18 PM by cuddihy »

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #198 on: 02/15/2013 11:24 PM »
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.

And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.

You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".

However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now.  And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving.  If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?

I would argue the "null result" test is pretty big news, it entirely eliminates (if replicatable) vibration as a source of error. Since thermal effects have already been pretty well ruled out, the only major piece missing is a totally independent replication-- I just don't buy that it's so complex it can't be correctly done.

Till then, it remains speculative. But most accidental sources of error have been eliminated already just as of this year.

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 #199 on: 02/16/2013 02:30 PM »
Understood.  What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?

My guess would be: free energy!

That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.

Worse, Cuddihy continues to focus on the extravagant claim, without investigating the backup material.  The claim is easily ignored.  The backup material doesn't lead inexorably to free energy, from my take.

Maybe there needs to be a thread on inertia?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.