Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 288095 times)

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #540 on: 11/12/2015 06:56 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.

In addition the intent behind posting the links to those papers and being transparent about where they were published was centered on letting people following this thread know that something new has happened. Alongwith spuring some conversations about the CONTENT of the papers.

For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #541 on: 11/12/2015 06:57 AM »
Mezzenile,
You're actually quoting the company's own website about whether the company is genuine? They publish whatever you pay then to publish. That's what makes them fake. Saying "open source" three times while holding an egg doesn't make it so.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #542 on: 11/12/2015 07:23 AM »
EDIT:  I do not think it is wise to for me comment on SCIRP or the Journal of Modern Physics without further investigation.  It doesn't seem to be as open-and-shut as Paul451 is making out, but I can't peg the situation based on what I've been able to find out so far.

For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?
« Last Edit: 11/12/2015 08:25 AM by 93143 »

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #543 on: 11/12/2015 09:03 AM »
Mezzenile,
You're actually quoting the company's own website about whether the company is genuine? They publish whatever you pay then to publish. That's what makes them fake. Saying "open source" three times while holding an egg doesn't make it so.
A question : do you know the story of Paul's Conversion on the Road to Damascus ?
One day or the other I think you will accept that freedom of thinking is better for Science than the strict obedience to any dogma of Roman Catholic Church style.

I propose you to perform a "scientific experience" on SCRIP policy : submit your CV to service@scirp.org to ask to participate to the peer review of the Mach Effect Truster articles and let us informed of what is happening to your proposal.

An other question : do you know the amount of the fee asked to have an article published by SCRIP ? 

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #544 on: 11/12/2015 02:29 PM »
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #545 on: 11/12/2015 04:49 PM »
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.

You can find specifics here:

H. Fearn, Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology, Accepted for publica-
tion in J. Mod. Phys. 6, 260-272 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031. See also
arXiv:1412.5426 [gr-qc].

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #546 on: 11/12/2015 05:47 PM »
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.
The fact that the accelerated expansion solves the problem of divergence to infinity is addressed in a paper of Heidi Fearn :http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031. This point is explained at page 15 (1524) in the "Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster I " : "...  This problem has been solved by the recent discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe. This leads to a Rindler horizon which acts as a cutoff for the advanced wave integral and there is no longer a divergence, [12]. ", where [12] refers to the paper of Heidi Fearn.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2015 06:08 PM by Mezzenile »

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #547 on: 11/12/2015 06:03 PM »
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.

You can find specifics here:

H. Fearn, Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology, Accepted for publica-
tion in J. Mod. Phys. 6, 260-272 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031. See also
arXiv:1412.5426 [gr-qc].
Sorry, I missed your post which refers to the article of Heidi Fearn.  :(
« Last Edit: 11/12/2015 06:09 PM by Mezzenile »

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
  • Australia
  • Liked: 631
  • Likes Given: 535
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #548 on: 11/12/2015 09:55 PM »
It doesn't seem to be as open-and-shut as Paul451 is making out

SciRP has been caught fraudulently copying papers out of other (legitimate) journals without the authors' permission or knowledge, in order to pad out their own "journals" with real research. They've been caught fraudulently listing academics and researchers on editorial boards, without the academics/researchers' permission or knowledge. They continually spam university and lab addresses to try to trick naive academics/researchers to submit papers or sign up as reviewers or editors.

Today - even if people use legally-safer terms like "Vanity publishing" or "Lack of quality control" - academics, researchers and their employers treat SciRP journals as fraudulent publications. To the point where an academic who publishes papers in those journals, in order to keep their stats up, will be considered to have committed academic fraud.

SciRP are the bad guys. They give genuine Open Journals a bad name.

One day or the other I think you will accept that freedom of thinking [...]

"It's one thing to keep an open mind, it's quite another to let the geese run around in there."

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #549 on: 11/12/2015 11:49 PM »
...
For example, there doesn't seem to be any mathematical rigor given to the claim that the accelerating expansion of the universe is enough to solve the divergence critique raised by Hawking.

Could you elaborate on why you are dissatisfied by the mathematical approach taken in the paper?

There doesn't seam to be any. From my recollection of the Two papers it seems to be only mentioned that the solution for divergence is an accelerating expansion of the universe. Since they (Fearn and Woodward) have mentioned that critique that Hawking raised about HN Theory before I was hoping that they would dig into concrete specifics. From my perspective, either the inclusion of an accelerating universe is embedded in their mach effect derivation and I just missed something or they assume the reader will do homework to convince themselves that the statement is in fact true.

You can find specifics here:

H. Fearn, Mach's principle, Action at a Distance and Cosmology, Accepted for publica-
tion in J. Mod. Phys. 6, 260-272 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2015.63031. See also
arXiv:1412.5426 [gr-qc].
Sorry, I missed your post which refers to the article of Heidi Fearn.  :(

Thanks for the both you pointing me to that paper. When I originally read through it. I don't think I had grasped what the goal of the paper was. Primarily because until Theory of Mach Effect Thruster I & II it wasnt clear to me why Fearn and Watsner had done all this work on Hoyle Narlikar's theory of gravitation. In light of the strong argument Woodward gave (In his book) for how Mach Effects arise from GR. Its now clear to me that the primary reason all the work has been done on HN Theory of Gravity was because GR didn't have the radiative action at a distance component needed to completely support Mach Effects.

While they have shown the derivation of the Impule Mach Effect Force equation from their updated HN Theory. I wonder when we will see work on the other part of the mach effects, the worm hold term. Since the work on deriving the impulse force equation has shed light on a more accurate thrust prediction equation. I wonder if it would also shed light on how to accomplish the worm hole generation. I suspect there wont be any work done on this in the short term but it would be nice if the planned second edition of Woodward's book covered it.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3039
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #550 on: 11/13/2015 04:22 AM »
It doesn't seem to be as open-and-shut as Paul451 is making out

SciRP has been caught fraudulently copying papers out of other (legitimate) journals without the authors' permission or knowledge, in order to pad out their own "journals" with real research. They've been caught fraudulently listing academics and researchers on editorial boards, without the academics/researchers' permission or knowledge. They continually spam university and lab addresses to try to trick naive academics/researchers to submit papers or sign up as reviewers or editors.

I know all that.  I get spam from them regularly, generally for journals and/or conferences totally unrelated to my field.  But I did some checking last night, and it seems their journals are technically peer-reviewed, and they have supposedly requested revisions and even outright rejected papers based on their reviewers' recommendations.  The Journal of Modern Physics has (ironically enough considering its rather inauspicious first issue) reportedly pulled papers for plagiarism.

At this point, it doesn't look to me like they're "fake".  Shady, yes.  Poor quality control, certainly.  But they are apparently publishing real peer-reviewed journals; it is not quite true that they will "publish whatever you pay them to publish", although it's no doubt a good deal more true than it is of something like Langmuir or JFM...  This is not an especially well-informed opinion and may change as I encounter more data.

I have no idea why Fearn published with them.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2015 04:37 AM by 93143 »

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #551 on: 11/13/2015 07:48 AM »
Typing error ?

In "Theory of a Mach Effect Thruster I" I do not understand the passage from equation 43 to equation 44. How can equation 43 be divided by m2/2 without changing its left term delta M ?
« Last Edit: 11/13/2015 10:35 AM by Mezzenile »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #552 on: 11/13/2015 04:45 PM »
I have no idea why Fearn published with them.

we can always ask her?

hfearn@fullerton.edu

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #553 on: 11/16/2015 10:09 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #554 on: 11/17/2015 08:14 AM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #555 on: 11/17/2015 12:49 PM »
Woodward Lab update at http://www.ssi.org includes a monograph on "over-unity" controversy as it relates to propellantless propulsion.

It answers the question raised by Mezzenile a few pages ago. I attach Woodward's document "Over-Unity Argument & Mach Effect Thrusters" to this message for more convenience.

It is worth noting besides that Woodward & Fearn are also currently working on a theoretical explanation for EmDrive's thrust.

If the last part of your comment came from the SSI update I dont think its correct. according to the SSI update it is my interpretation that Woodward and Fearn are working on additional experiments to verify their thrust generation equation and thrust scaling predictions. Which jives with the conclusion of their most recently published papers.

The way you phrased it gives the impression that there is still additional theoretical work to do. Which I do not believe is the case. Barring a valid objection to the work published in Theory of Mach Effect Thrusters I & II all the Theoretical work needed to explain why the MET works should be complete; outside of some details around nailing down the actual scaling of the effect.

Also, on a seperate note Woodwards argument looks very convincing for why COE is maintained. But I am left wanting. MAinly because towards the end it looks like he arbitrarily picks a t for total energy integral that is defined to always be below the point where COE would be violated. Now I may need to read this a few more times to be sure but thats my first impression so far.

Offline flux_capacitor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 929
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #556 on: 11/17/2015 01:22 PM »
Yes, my statement comes from the SSI website. Please note its about Shawyer's EmDrive and not Woodward's MET. Woodard will apparently try to explain the EmDrive thrust with some Mach effect.

Offline birchoff

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • United States
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #557 on: 11/17/2015 04:26 PM »
Yes, my statement comes from the SSI website. Please note its about Shawyer's EmDrive and not Woodward's MET. Woodard will apparently try to explain the EmDrive thrust with some Mach effect.

I read that and had a crap ton of questions explode in my brain so I decided to ignore that part of the update. The main question being what pushed Woodward from HARD SKEPTIC to potential believer. Granted he has always been accurate with his skepticism around the EmDrive by only calling out the theory as being flawed not necessarily the experiments. I would be very VERY impressed if they not only have a theory but a replication.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1379
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #558 on: 11/17/2015 04:33 PM »
Yes, my statement comes from the SSI website. Please note its about Shawyer's EmDrive and not Woodward's MET. Woodard will apparently try to explain the EmDrive thrust with some Mach effect.

I read that and had a crap ton of questions explode in my brain so I decided to ignore that part of the update. The main question being what pushed Woodward from HARD SKEPTIC to potential believer. Granted he has always been accurate with his skepticism around the EmDrive by only calling out the theory as being flawed not necessarily the experiments. I would be very VERY impressed if they not only have a theory but a replication.

I wrote the update on the website, so I guess I should clarify.  Woodward has always maintained that if the EMdrive produces thrust, it is likely due to the Mach Effect. On the other hand, NASA Eagleworks says it is a quantum vacuum interaction. Woodward Lab is doing an experiment regarding the quantum vacuum explanation with the expectation to disprove any QV explanation, but not doing anything to explain any putative EMdrive thrust on his own, beyond continuing to believe it would be ME-related.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2015 04:34 PM by HMXHMX »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #559 on: 11/17/2015 04:34 PM »
well, Woodward always had contact with Paul March and from his interview at The SpaceShow, as I understand, he knows Sonny White personally... (doesn´t seemed however to have a very high opinion of Dr White).


I would have to re-listen to the interview, but I think Woodward mentioned something about thinking that EM Drive could be related to his own ME theory.

He completely dismissed as baloney Dr White's virtual particles, QVF, etc, theories however...