Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 284152 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #280 on: 06/14/2013 02:04 PM »
I have a 30,000 page theory that says unicorns can fly us to Mars.  Unless you read all 30,000 pages and follow every detail in them, you're not qualified to even talk about space unicorns.

My 40,000 page theory on ponies completely disproves your wretched notions of unicorns.

So there.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #281 on: 06/14/2013 02:38 PM »
Woodward also posits that due to the fact that inertial reaction forces apparently occur instantaneously, (I can’t find any experiments that have directly  measured this assumption.), that the M-E's posited gravitational effects with the mostly distant mass-energy in the causally connected universe that give rise to the M-E have to interact effectively in no-time.  I.e. it’s Einstein’s famous "Spooky action at a distance" problem.  And IMO it is a problem in this regard, for how does an instantaneous g-field interaction in spacetime, TRANSIENTLY shield a locally accelerated mass from the rest of the cosmological g-field?   It would be nice if Dr. Woodward could explain to us how instantaneous g-field like Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces can give rise to transient effects that take time to occur in the local laboratory frame of reference.

Page 262 talks about the Mossbauer Effect, "one of the last major discoveries in physics to be originally reported in German language".

Whatever the original language used, the affect [effect, affect.... whatevs] appears to have nothing to do with the physical movement of the iron lattice thru space, in a macroscopic scale and timeframe which would be useful for making spacecraft.

We would be happy to make our spacecraft out of iron, if that would work.

So, if the question was, "How does an instantaneous g-field interaction in spacetime, TRANSIENTLY shield a locally accelerated mass from the rest of the cosmological g-field?", and the answer is, "if the thing pushed is extended, but rigid, there are no Mach effects", one might reasonably and tentatively conclude that a rigid iron spacecraft could not be made to work using the Mach Effect, even if you bombarded it with gamma rays.

A quick review of Chapter 2 confirms that Sciama's theory of Mach's principle must first be proven experimentally before spending money building a spacecraft.
« Last Edit: 06/14/2013 07:40 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #282 on: 06/14/2013 02:40 PM »
The truth of the matter is that Shawyer's resonant cavity work has now been replicated not only by the Chinese, twice, but in at least two other labs here in the USA with similar results.

Everybody is waiting for the actual device to be floated into the conference room.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #283 on: 06/14/2013 02:46 PM »
To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).

Why would further experimental work be done without the proof of the existance of gravitons?

Or is it not necessary to the possible existance of Mach Effects that there be gravitons?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 507
  • US
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #284 on: 06/14/2013 07:16 PM »
What I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.

Well the shortest answer is that it would eliminate the #1 ending reason for ending the life of a communications satellite because they would never run out of fuel for station keeping.

That's worth $$$ to the operators of communications satellites would could lower the cost of your satellite TV subscription.  :)

Thanks for repeating my basic argument (which you seemed to miss).


Usually decisions about whether a topic belongs on this forum are made by Chris.  If you have a beef, take it up with him.

Otherwsie, don't read the thread.  That works too.
« Last Edit: 06/14/2013 07:19 PM by mrmandias »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #285 on: 06/14/2013 07:39 PM »
For example, suppose someone hands you a 5,000 page purported proof that pi is rational.  You needn't read and understand even a single page of this proof to correctly conclude it is wrong.  It is enough to know there is a valid proof of the contrary, that pi is irrational.

Newton proved light is a wave.

Einstein won a Nobel for proving light is also a particle.

cheers, Martin

PS I'm neutral on Woodward effect.

You're confusing experimental evidence which supports a particular theory in a particular set of circumstances with a mathematical proof.

Newton showed that certain experimental results were consistent with light being modeled as a continuous wave.  Modern experiments show that other experimental results are consistent with light also having some properties of a discrete particle.

Showing that a theory is incomplete with new experimental results that aren't consistent with the theory has nothing at all to do with the validity of being able to dismiss a theory without knowing all its details if that theory's premise can be shown mathematically to be inconsistent with its conclusions.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #286 on: 06/14/2013 07:43 PM »
As another example, take the EmDrive.  It's inventor claims that bouncing microwaves around a closed container in a clever way leads to a net force on the container.

Just a friendly reminder of the Law of Internets Posting History.  Just because you may not have read others' comments, doesn't mean that the others have not addressed an issue on the table at the current moment.

In the other thread, I followed the EmDrive logic to the same conclusion.  Moving right along:

You missed the point of my EmDrive example.  I'm not trying to convince anyone about anything related to the EmDrive here, so it doesn't matter what anyone else here has said about the EmDrive.  I'm simply using EmDrive as an example of how logic can be used to rule out something without knowing all its details.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #287 on: 06/14/2013 07:50 PM »
The instantaneous reaction of inertia that we observe locally, is said, first by Sciama, and then by Woodward, to be dependent upon an intantaneous "connection" with the rest of the universe.

Words like "instantaneous" and "connection" are vague and open to interpretation.  To whatever extent you want to consider Sciama's framework to deal with an instantaneous connection, it's not in the physical sense of being able to instantaneously transfer inertia.

Sciama's framework is simply a different way of looking at well-established physical laws.  It makes no predictions that are any different from any other formulation of those laws.

That is totally different from what Woodward claims.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #288 on: 06/14/2013 07:55 PM »
Nobody on this thread, or the other one, can explain why Sciama is necessarily wrong.

Sciama simply proposes another framework that always gives exactly the same physical results as other formulations of known laws of physics.  So there's nothing to be right or wrong about in Sciama's ideas.  They're simply another way of formalizing the same theory.

Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama.  It's Woodward.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #289 on: 06/14/2013 08:11 PM »
Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama.  It's Woodward.

It would seem that Woodward insists otherwise.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #290 on: 06/14/2013 08:18 PM »
Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama.  It's Woodward.

It would seem that Woodward insists otherwise.

Yes, that is quite true!  Woodward insists that his results are simply the logic results of applying Sciama's framework.  No mainstream physicist seems to agree with this.  In fact, since Sciama's results are mathematically equivalent to formulations that follow certain laws and Woodward's theories violate those laws, it's not mathematically possible that Woodward is simply following Sciama.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #291 on: 06/14/2013 08:29 PM »
Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama.  It's Woodward.

It would seem that Woodward insists otherwise.

Yes, that is quite true!  Woodward insists that his results are simply the logic results of applying Sciama's framework.  No mainstream physicist seems to agree with this.

source? What about the peer reviews?


Quote
  In fact, since Sciama's results are mathematically equivalent to formulations that follow certain laws and Woodward's theories violate those laws, it's not mathematically possible that Woodward is simply following Sciama.

you have proof Woodward´s formulations violate those laws?

Or are you saying they violate those laws because they are unlike Sciama´s formulations, and they are unlike Sciama´s formulations because they violate those laws?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2477
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #292 on: 06/14/2013 08:33 PM »
No, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true.  Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.

Nice ad hominem on Woodward, but you miss the point of Sciama's suggested explanation for inertia.

My quote is not an ad hominem argument.

The term ad hominem doesn't apply to all attacks on a person's credibility.  Ad hominem specifically means to attack an idea itself by attacking the credibility of a proponent of that idea rather than the idea itself.

What I'm doing is responding to the reverse of an ad hominem argument: an appeal to authority.  The claim I'm rebutting is that the Woodward Effect should be taken seriously because Sciama was a respected authority and Sciama's respectability gives credence to the Woodward Effect.

It's a subtle but very real and critical distinction.

Offline ddunham

  • Member
  • Posts: 47
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #293 on: 06/14/2013 10:54 PM »

Why would further experimental work be done without the proof of the existance of gravitons?

At least partially because no proof is likely to be forthcoming.  There is no good method of attack on it.  Energies needed to probe it would be huge.

Probing gravitons is beyond our reach for some time.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #294 on: 06/15/2013 02:56 AM »
No, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true.  Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.

Nice ad hominem on Woodward, but you miss the point of Sciama's suggested explanation for inertia.

My quote is not an ad hominem argument.

The term ad hominem blah blah blah...

What I'm doing is responding to the reverse of an ad hominem argument: an appeal to authority.  The claim I'm rebutting is that the Woodward Effect should be taken seriously because Sciama was a respected authority and Sciama's respectability gives credence to the Woodward Effect.

It's a subtle but very real and critical distinction.

Well, if you're not going all ad hominem, then do refrain from pointing out that Sciama is "conveniently" dead, and can't "protest" that his name is being "sullied".

If instead, you're using the "reverse" ad hominem argument, I'd guess that would be an "ad idea" argument?  (E-Z translation)   A surface reading of some of the comments here, without acknowledgement of the various posters' histories, might draw your tentative conclusion, but I am not saying anything about the "respectability" of either of these authors.

I'm willing to grant Woodward (quite realizing that my granting is, well, massless) a read.  I do note that with each subsequent new reading, Woodward appears to dig the hole of obscure reference even deeper, along the lines of your 30,000 page unicorn theory.  Combine that with the lack of a "floating device" on the one hand, or even his own acknowlegement about the low magnitude of the results he has gotten so far, and you don't impress the phycisist community all that much.

Still, my interest lies more with the Mach conjecture, and Sciama's interpretation of it, which seems to have pragmatic application to the possibility of propellantless propulsion, given the "right" application of electrical energy to a mass.

As we all know, electrical energy can be converted to magnetism, which can be constrained in a rotational fashion resulting in an electric wheel, which by friction, ends up converting electrical energy to forward momentum.

As they say, "where we're going, we don't need roads".  If electrical energy can be converted into forward momentum without a wheel and a road, that would be a very convenient technology worth understanding and using.

Bottom line is (for the moment), and I know you're rather busy and important no doubt, but... could you address Sciama with more than a passing reference as to his respectability?  My guess is that you don't care for the wording of my question, and are probably unwilling to try and understand what I'm asking, but hey.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #295 on: 06/15/2013 02:58 AM »

Why would further experimental work be done without the proof of the existance of gravitons?

At least partially because no proof is likely to be forthcoming.  There is no good method of attack on it.  Energies needed to probe it would be huge.

Probing gravitons is beyond our reach for some time.

Which I kinda knew in general? So why bother with more experimental work?  Given that what's needed for the work to work, is proof on gravitons?  Is he just writing papers? 
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #296 on: 06/15/2013 03:29 AM »
An experimental proof of the existence of gravitons is not necessary for the work to proceed.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #297 on: 06/15/2013 03:39 AM »
Showing that a theory is incomplete with new experimental results that aren't consistent with the theory has nothing at all to do with the validity of being able to dismiss a theory without knowing all its details if that theory's premise can be shown mathematically to be inconsistent with its conclusions.

Which is true and also something that you haven't yet done.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #298 on: 06/15/2013 03:50 AM »
An experimental proof of the existence of gravitons is not necessary for the work to proceed.

To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).

You're going to have to tell me straight up, with no weasel words or subtle qualifications, why Mr. Woodward is saying that, "both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course)".

He is hanging the crux of this argument on the "assumption" of the existance of gravitons.

Are we just talking about theories with words, and "elegant" mathematical constructs, or are we talking about theories based on this autonomous universe which surrounds us?

If the damn things cannot be shown to exist, and worse, require huge power expenditures in the hopes of finding them, why do further experiments based on the assumption of their existance?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 829
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 876
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #299 on: 06/15/2013 04:53 AM »
An experimental proof of the existence of gravitons is not necessary for the work to proceed.

To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).

You're going to have to tell me straight up, with no weasel words or subtle qualifications, why Mr. Woodward is saying that, "both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course)".

He is hanging the crux of this argument on the "assumption" of the existance of gravitons.

Are we just talking about theories with words, and "elegant" mathematical constructs, or are we talking about theories based on this autonomous universe which surrounds us?

If the damn things cannot be shown to exist, and worse, require huge power expenditures in the hopes of finding them, why do further experiments based on the assumption of their existance?

Folks:

It is Dr. James F. Woodward, now retired from the California State University - Fullerton (CSUF) Campus and he is still working on campus in his lab.

Next for those new to this Mach-Effect (M-E) topic on this thread, you might consider reading and understanding the attached 2004 and 2012 papers from Dr. Woodward and then analyzing the 2004 paper's appendix A, which has the full M-E derivation in it.  Many people have tried to shoot holes in Dr. Woodward's M-E derivation over the years and they have failed to date.  If you are up to the task and find a credible error in the M-E derivation, Dr. Woodward would love to hear about it.  He can be reached at his CSUF e-mail address or you can ask me for his personal e-mail address if you would prefer that com-link.

http://physics.fullerton.edu/component/zoo/item/dr-james-f-woodward

For more insight into what Woodward is up to, you might also consider reading and again making the effort to understand Dr. Woodward's "Making Starships and Stargates: The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes" book on this topic which can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships-Stargates-Interstellar-Exploration/dp/1461456223/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371271272&sr=1-1&keywords=james+f.+woodward

Meanwhile serious experimental work on verifying and expanding the M-E conjecture continues in several labs with some modest successes along the way, but alas no floating test articles into the conference room just yet.  However if you still have to ask about the significance of this work in regards to spaceflight, think about what just the 0.4 N/kWe specific force performance metric that I reported for an experimental device that I built back in 2003 and reported on in my STAIF-2006 paper will do for space flight if we can perfect the device's run time.

Best,

Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Star-Drive