Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 288321 times)

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2480
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #520 on: 11/09/2015 04:26 AM »
Theory of a Mach Ef ect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1

The Journal of Modern Physics is not a peer-review publication.  It is one of 244 publications of SCRIP, a company that makes money by charging people to publish their articles and publishing anything that an author will pay them to publish.  It's based in Wuhan, China.  In 2012, it accepted for publication a math paper generated by a random text generator (though the paper wasn't actually published because the author refused to pay the fee to have to published).

In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing#Controversies
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 04:29 AM by ChrisWilson68 »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #521 on: 11/09/2015 02:28 PM »
Theory of a Mach Ef ect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1

The Journal of Modern Physics is not a peer-review publication.  It is one of 244 publications of SCRIP, a company that makes money by charging people to publish their articles and publishing anything that an author will pay them to publish.  It's based in Wuhan, China.  In 2012, it accepted for publication a math paper generated by a random text generator (though the paper wasn't actually published because the author refused to pay the fee to have to published).

In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing#Controversies

So first off no where in my comment did I claim that the journal the papers were published on were peer-reviewed. I included the name of the journal along with links to the papers to be helpful to all concerned parties.

That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals. But from my perspective given the topic being discussed in this thread the importance factor of a journal isnt that important, at least to me. What is important is Woodward, and Fearn publicly publishing a theory of operation for their proposed Mach Effect Thruster. Their work is by no means complete as they really do need to begin showing more data points in their thrust prediction and scaling.

Given their efforts to build a space drive. I doubt any one will accept their work completely without them being able to show that their experiments match their theoretical predictions and they are able to either scale the output of a single MET to ION thruster levels or  build an array that shows thrust in the ION Thruster range.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #522 on: 11/09/2015 02:29 PM »

You right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to,  as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe.
 ...
In fact I have found in the litterature that in General Relativity an isolated system is asymptotically flat and that it has a Minkowski geometry in its asymptotic region.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #523 on: 11/09/2015 03:21 PM »
Breaking basic physical laws should be a topic of theoretical physics instead of aerospace engineering.

Have anybody asked relevent questions to Stephen Hawking
?

Stephen Hawking is not at all the right person to ask question about Transactional Physics !
In his young age he refused the proposition made to him by D. Sciama to work on this subject. He computed that the advanced field would have infinite energy due to the blue shift divergence caused by the universe expansion and that was sufficient for him to disqualify the proposal of Sciama.
As Stephen Hawking has a natural tendency to have a big ... big Ego, he could not imagine he had not seen everything of Sciama's idea. In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 03:34 PM by Mezzenile »

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #524 on: 11/09/2015 03:53 PM »
...
 In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.

Which is the point raised in

Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I

that allows them to claim that Energy and Momentum are conserved with the usage of a MET.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #525 on: 11/09/2015 03:58 PM »
In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.
One of the poorest rationale I have ever read on this forum. When the honest work of thought is replaced by some bureaucratic mechanism of the mind...  >:(
« Last Edit: 11/09/2015 03:59 PM by Mezzenile »

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #526 on: 11/09/2015 04:17 PM »
...
 In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.

Which is the point raised in

Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I

that allows them to claim that Energy and Momentum are conserved with the usage of a MET.
So Woodward was more than right not to ask any permission of thinking to Hawking !!  ;) True discoveries are made by people who believe in their own lights.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #527 on: 11/09/2015 04:35 PM »
...
 In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.

Which is the point raised in

Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I

that allows them to claim that Energy and Momentum are conserved with the usage of a MET.
So Woodward was more than right not to ask any permission of thinking to Hawking !!  ;) True discoveries are made by people who believe in their own lights.

Agreed, but I think the main reason Woodward may turn out to be right is because his history background has given him alot of context that I dont think alot of physicists have. I think the only reason he persevered was because he knew that Einstein supported a machian description of inertia. Unfortunately it looks like what Einstein didnt have is a way to explain the instantaenous communication of local matter with matter far away. Hoyle and Narlikar built such a theory leveraging advanced/retarded waves but without knowledge of accelerating expansion of the universe couldnt prove it would work.

Now while JFW (James, Fearn, Watsner) work on getting more data to support their force predictions from their theory. I would love to see some meaningful attempts to disprove it.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #528 on: 11/09/2015 04:58 PM »
itīs important to note that Woodward didnīt got his PhD with something like "History of Barbarian Invasions of Ancient Rome"...

it was History of PHYSICS.

History yes, but totally related to physics.

Online synchrotron

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 299
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #529 on: 11/09/2015 05:04 PM »
In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.
One of the poorest rationale I have ever read on this forum. When the honest work of thought is replaced by some bureaucratic mechanism of the mind...  >:(

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”  ― Isaac Asimov

Peer review is the gold standard, baby.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #530 on: 11/09/2015 05:22 PM »
Peer review is the gold standard, baby.
I am afraid there is little hope for your case : you seem to have chosen to turn in round forever !  ;) ;)

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #531 on: 11/09/2015 06:24 PM »
itīs important to note that Woodward didnīt got his PhD with something like "History of Barbarian Invasions of Ancient Rome"...

it was History of PHYSICS.

History yes, but totally related to physics.

LOL, my bad. I should have been much clearer on that.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #532 on: 11/09/2015 06:33 PM »
In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.
One of the poorest rationale I have ever read on this forum. When the honest work of thought is replaced by some bureaucratic mechanism of the mind...  >:(

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”  ― Isaac Asimov

Peer review is the gold standard, baby.

I don't think anyone here disagree's that the work Jim and Heidi are doing requires peer-review. What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories, experimental results and lobby other scientists to review them and provide replications of your experiments; even if those replications are negative.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #533 on: 11/10/2015 04:07 AM »

You right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to,  as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe.
 ...
In fact I have found in the litterature that in General Relativity an isolated system is asymptotically flat and that it has a Minkowski geometry in its asymptotic region.

I just noticed the quote in bold and underlined which I have to disagree with.  The suggestion that an object accelerated then interacts with the while universe (maybe I am mistaken here) but it seems to smack of instantaneous information transfer.  Maybe if the quote is saying, "it interacts with the delayed information with the rest of the universe", but then again what doesn't?  In a sense every system is isolated for an instant in time before its information can propagate.  Electrodynamics is all about delayed information.  That is what light is all about.  It is a time delayed propagation of change in the magnetic field of an accelerating charge.  With out that delay, we wouldn't have light.  That time retarded information isn't a disadvantage but rather an advantage, and can be used as a form of propulsion.  Normally for every force there is an equal and opposite force as given by Newton's 3rd law but with delayed information we can flip that on its head (although it requires fairly high frequencies to achieve small distances).  I am pretty sure I have figured out how to induce propulsion greater than photon forces as it was related to my thesis but only an actual test will show it to be true.  Unfortunately life would have me currently be ridiculously broke even though I put forth a good effort.  Hope things change. 
« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 04:10 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #534 on: 11/10/2015 07:49 AM »

You right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to,  as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe.
 ...
In fact I have found in the litterature that in General Relativity an isolated system is asymptotically flat and that it has a Minkowski geometry in its asymptotic region.

I just noticed the quote in bold and underlined which I have to disagree with.  The suggestion that an object accelerated then interacts with the while universe (maybe I am mistaken here) but it seems to smack of instantaneous information transfer ...
Apart the fact that I should have written "as soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole causally connected universe", this thesis is in fact the core of the transactional interpretation of the radiative physics which encompass electromagnetism, quantum field theory, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, all theories for which mathematics give both retarded and forward solutions to their wave equations. Retarded and forward components can be interwined to provide immediate correlation while preventing instantaneous transfert of information.

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #535 on: 11/10/2015 11:53 PM »
That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.
What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories

The issue isn't that they made their work public, there are plenty of ways to do that, even if you can't get into a peer-reviewed journal. There's arxiv.org or even just putting a pdf on your own website or google-docs.

The concern is that they instead went out of their way to pay to have their work published in a fake journal. JoMP isn't just "non-mainstream" or "arbitrarily unimportant", it's a pretend scientific journal designed to trick people into thinking your work has "been published in a scientific journal".

As an analogy: Say you have two people, one person has no higher degree, no doctorates for example. The second person claims a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Surname", but it turns out he merely bought a fake doctorate from a fake "university" operating out of a POBox in Florida. Who would you trust more? The honest, but unqualified; or the deliberate fraud?

(It's possible that they simply didn't understand that JoMP was fake. Perhaps responding to spam or fake online reviews for JoMP, and got suckered in. Some people are that naive. But it wouldn't exactly reduce people's skepticism if they have so little connection with genuine academia or science that not one person they knew said, "Uh, that's not actually a real journal...")

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #536 on: 11/11/2015 02:02 AM »
That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.
What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories

The issue isn't that they made their work public, there are plenty of ways to do that, even if you can't get into a peer-reviewed journal. There's arxiv.org or even just putting a pdf on your own website or google-docs.

The concern is that they instead went out of their way to pay to have their work published in a fake journal. JoMP isn't just "non-mainstream" or "arbitrarily unimportant", it's a pretend scientific journal designed to trick people into thinking your work has "been published in a scientific journal".

As an analogy: Say you have two people, one person has no higher degree, no doctorates for example. The second person claims a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Surname", but it turns out he merely bought a fake doctorate from a fake "university" operating out of a POBox in Florida. Who would you trust more? The honest, but unqualified; or the deliberate fraud?

(It's possible that they simply didn't understand that JoMP was fake. Perhaps responding to spam or fake online reviews for JoMP, and got suckered in. Some people are that naive. But it wouldn't exactly reduce people's skepticism if they have so little connection with genuine academia or science that not one person they knew said, "Uh, that's not actually a real journal...")

I find it interesting that more emphasis is being paid to ONE (Papers are also available from ResearchGate and Fearn's academic web page) of the areas that the papers has been made available. Instead of the content of the paper. Have you read the papers? Do you have any respectful criticism about the ideas described in the papers?

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #537 on: 11/11/2015 12:34 PM »
That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.
What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories

The issue isn't that they made their work public, there are plenty of ways to do that, even if you can't get into a peer-reviewed journal. There's arxiv.org or even just putting a pdf on your own website or google-docs.

The concern is that they instead went out of their way to pay to have their work published in a fake journal. JoMP isn't just "non-mainstream" or "arbitrarily unimportant", it's a pretend scientific journal designed to trick people into thinking your work has "been published in a scientific journal".

As an analogy: Say you have two people, one person has no higher degree, no doctorates for example. The second person claims a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Surname", but it turns out he merely bought a fake doctorate from a fake "university" operating out of a POBox in Florida. Who would you trust more? The honest, but unqualified; or the deliberate fraud?

(It's possible that they simply didn't understand that JoMP was fake. Perhaps responding to spam or fake online reviews for JoMP, and got suckered in. Some people are that naive. But it wouldn't exactly reduce people's skepticism if they have so little connection with genuine academia or science that not one person they knew said, "Uh, that's not actually a real journal...")

I find it interesting that more emphasis is being paid to ONE (Papers are also available from ResearchGate and Fearn's academic web page) of the areas that the papers has been made available. Instead of the content of the paper. Have you read the papers? Do you have any respectful criticism about the ideas described in the papers?


maybe that is exactly his point? BECAUSE he canīt understand and criticize the content of the papers, he only wants to trust papers who were reviewed by other people who can understand and criticize the contents?

I take the instance that if it was not peer reviewed, I wont trust it but I also wonīt distrust it. Peer review is subject to politics and some more revolutionary stuff like Woodward's might be difficult to peer-review. That doesnīt mean you should consider it as fake or a scam. But as an on-going research that if we are not qualified to discredit, itīs best to just wait.

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #538 on: 11/12/2015 04:18 AM »
maybe that is exactly his point? [...] he only wants to trust papers who were reviewed by other people who can understand and criticize the contents?

No, my point was that publishing in a fake science journal makes you less trustworthy. I thought I explained that pretty clearly.

(And I mean fake. Not "non-mainstream" or "non-approved", but fake.)

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #539 on: 11/12/2015 06:20 AM »
No, my point was that publishing in a fake science journal makes you less trustworthy. I thought I explained that pretty clearly.

(And I mean fake. Not "non-mainstream" or "non-approved", but fake.)
SCRIP is a publisher of open access journals. This philosophy of open access is supported by a parallel open Peer-Review Program  which is presented as follows and to which you can apply if you have the desire to do so :

Quote
SCIRP is one of the largest academic Open Access publishers worldwide. Manuscripts submitted to all our journals are peer-reviewed. Reviewers are involved in all manuscripts submitted to our journals. Based on the reviewer’s comments, a Handling Editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief) is subsequently making a final decision about the way a manuscript needs to be improved.

We at SCIRP sincerely invite you to join our peer-review program. By participating you will provide help to authors from all over the world and will supply them with your ideas and suggestions based on your valuable expertise. Your input will certainly improve their papers a lot. On top of that, you also benefit from the experience. You are exposed to the latest research findings, and will certainly mention your volunteer contribution to the scholarly literature as reviewer for SCIRP along with your other scientific achievements.

If you are ready to be a volunteer, please submit your CV to service@scirp.org with email subject: Peer-Reviewer Application. After evaluation we will contact you and let you know where to start.

Procedure:
(1) Send us your CV;
(2) Become a peer-reviewer;
(3) Receive manuscripts from us, review the manuscripts, and send back your comments within 5 days.

So the door is open to you to provide your Peer Review of the article. But this means that you have to seriously read and study the content of the article ...  ;)

An other point: Recent history has shown us that Open Source software is not fake software.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2015 06:46 AM by Mezzenile »