Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 286878 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2991
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #60 on: 02/09/2013 10:18 PM »
I don't care how dumb the theory is.. if it leads him to an experiment that produces results which are hard to explain then it'll be worth it.

So far, that hasn't happened, but the feeling is that he's getting there.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #61 on: 02/09/2013 10:20 PM »
I don't care how dumb the theory is.. if it leads him to an experiment that produces results which are hard to explain then it'll be worth it.

So far, that hasn't happened, but the feeling is that he's getting there.

I don't get the feeling that it's getting there at all.

But of course, whatever clear, transparent, and reproducible experiment says, I will believe.
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 grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #62 on: 02/09/2013 10:50 PM »
Again, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.

Again, I applaud your amazing capability of reading people's minds.
« Last Edit: 02/09/2013 10:51 PM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8224
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2991
  • Likes Given: 721
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #63 on: 02/09/2013 10:54 PM »
I don't get the feeling that it's getting there at all.

He's "getting there" in the sense that he's actually trying experiments.. which is more than most people in this field.

Quote
But of course, whatever clear, transparent, and reproducible experiment says, I will believe.

Yep, and Woodward indicates that he won't be happy with anything less.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #64 on: 02/09/2013 11:00 PM »
Again, it seems more like Woodward is trying to fit the universe to do what he wants it to do instead of trying to figure out how it /actually/ works and only then exploiting it.

Again, I applaud your amazing capability of reading people's minds.
It goes along with the non-locality of the Woodward Effect. ;)
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

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3576
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #65 on: 02/09/2013 11:06 PM »
Is there an accurate prediction for the amount of force?

If say there were a prediction to a few significant figures and different people's experiments keep approaching this then we are beginning to see the first evidence.

If someone finds a force ten times greater, instead of everyone saying hurrah hurrah and calculating how long it will take to reach mars, we should immediately know it is not the effect we are trying to demonstrate. They have screwed up and have to hunt down the problem before publishing.. or start their own website ;)

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2918
  • Liked: 488
  • Likes Given: 735
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #66 on: 02/09/2013 11:08 PM »
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #67 on: 02/09/2013 11:16 PM »
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:
http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf

Thanks.

I don't get this (page 7):
«
The fact that inertial reaction forces are
independent of time and place requires
that the masses of things be equal to their
total gravitational potential energies.
»

Edit.  Also, at the end there is a nice quote from Einstein, but we are not told where it comes from, and a quick search on Google revealed nothing:

«
Einstein believed in Mach’s principle in 1918 and listed it on
equal footing with his first 2 principles of relativity;
(1) The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance
(2) The principle of equivalence
(3) Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the
literature). . . . that the gμν are completely determined by the
mass of bodies, more generally by Tμν.
In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed
without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later
generation however”.
»
« Last Edit: 02/09/2013 11:46 PM by grondilu »
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3576
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #68 on: 02/09/2013 11:45 PM »
cool.. at least it talks about hitting predictions instead of how impressively large the detected force is:

The detected thrusts are to better than order of magnitude the same as those predicted when the explicit acceleration dependent formalism is used.

I have heard something about scientists wanting two orders of magnitude accuracy, 99%, before concluding something is real. So I guess once this guy thinks he has a recipe to reproduce that then he can interest someone else reputable to attempt to reproduce it. Then it begins its journey towards acceptance.

I wonder why his slides show space travel and wormholes though. I would have thought the free energy aspect was much more socially and cosmologically relevant.

''Impressive.. they can make planets" :)

I can't follow the physics but that does sort of make it look like he is pursuing a theory for flying saucers rather than having an interest in the awesome cosmological consequences if he is right. Maybe nerds think like that. I dunno.

Offline quixote

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #69 on: 02/10/2013 02:29 AM »
It's in Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, page 287 of this edition on Amazon. In fact if you use the "Search inside this book" for "contentedness", it's the first thing found.

Edit.  Also, at the end there is a nice quote from Einstein, but we are not told where it comes from, and a quick search on Google revealed nothing:

«
Einstein believed in Mach’s principle in 1918 and listed it on
equal footing with his first 2 principles of relativity;
(1) The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance
(2) The principle of equivalence
(3) Mach’s principle (the first time this term entered the
literature). . . . that the gμν are completely determined by the
mass of bodies, more generally by Tμν.
In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed
without this [third] criterion and added,
“This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later
generation however”.
»

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #70 on: 02/10/2013 02:45 AM »
It's in Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, page 287 of this edition on Amazon. In fact if you use the "Search inside this book" for "contentedness", it's the first thing found.

Thanks.
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #71 on: 02/10/2013 04:01 AM »
I can't follow the physics but that does sort of make it look like he is pursuing a theory for flying saucers rather than having an interest in the awesome cosmological consequences if he is right.

Woodward has stated before that he's not pursuing the origin of inertia as an academic exercise, but as a practical one. If there's any chance of novel propulsion schemes that don't carry propellant, it would likely be found in areas of physics that aren't fully understood, like the source of inertia. He's had an interest in exotic propulsion since his college days, or as he likes to call it "Getting things to go fast without blowing stuff out of the tailpipe".

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #72 on: 02/10/2013 05:24 AM »
See, right there. Don't even have to use my gift in reading minds.

"
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
-Richard Feynman

Btw, Einstein also had dealings--even influence--with folks who thought matter was continuous, not made of atoms.

Woodward may be able to fool himself and some others that propellant less propulsion is possible, but he won't be able to trick the Universe.
« Last Edit: 02/10/2013 05:30 AM 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 GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #73 on: 02/10/2013 06:34 AM »
You have a very warped definition of "fooling yourself". Woodward is following proper scientific procedure. His papers have been published in peer-reviewed physics journals, the findings are regularly being checked by others, his experimental protocol is top-notch, and there are on-going replication attempts. The experimental results to date are suggestive, so he continues his pursuit.

I am not sure what you think it is that he is being fooled by, other than your own hunch that propellantless propulsion is impossible. If you mean his hypothesis will prove wrong, then fine. That's what experiments are for. Scientists are wrong all the time. But the accusation of being fooled is different, as I interpret that as meaning he is trying to deceive himself and others by using faulty experimental protocols to get positive results, demonstrably incorrect, unexamined physics and the like. If that's your claim, then I'm gonna have to ask for some evidence.

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3576
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #74 on: 02/10/2013 06:45 AM »
I can't follow the physics but that does sort of make it look like he is pursuing a theory for flying saucers rather than having an interest in the awesome cosmological consequences if he is right.

Woodward has stated before that he's not pursuing the origin of inertia as an academic exercise, but as a practical one. If there's any chance of novel propulsion schemes that don't carry propellant, it would likely be found in areas of physics that aren't fully understood, like the source of inertia. He's had an interest in exotic propulsion since his college days, or as he likes to call it "Getting things to go fast without blowing stuff out of the tailpipe".
I think that is what I said ;)

Thats fine as a motivation to study inertia. But ignoring other ramifications is very likely to be ignoring other obvious ways to test the theory. Can something that so fundamentally undermines physics as we know it really have had no part in explaining the evolution of the universe that we can measure with great accuracy through our telescopes, only popping up in desk top scale physics to give us an inertialess drive?

(Edit)
Worse are people who propose FTL drives yet show no interest in how they deal with the paradoxes these create. Its not that Im bright enough to say these cannot be overcome, its just that it is one of the first things you should test your idea against.
« Last Edit: 02/10/2013 06:56 AM by KelvinZero »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #75 on: 02/10/2013 07:24 AM »
If propellantless drives are possible to build (besides trivial examples), the builders will get Noble prizes, colonization of the solar system will be pretty easy, and travel to other stars in our lifetime will be possible. I will gladly eat my shirt and repeat every day for the rest of my life that I was wrong.

But these are again, VERY extraordinary claims. The most extraordinary claims one can imagine, undermining the entire basis of physics in the 20th Century. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary skepticism to be met with extraordinary evidence. I've done science before, and it is trivial to make a mistake somewhere and make it look like you have some extraordinary result, especially if you don't have a very self-skeptical eye.

That there are SEVERAL different propellantless drives that essentially all (purportedly) operate on quite different theoretical bases should be a major red flag.

You know, everything else (with the /possible/ exception of FTL) in this Advanced Concepts section is basically more likely to come true than any of these propellantless drive concepts. This is on the same level as mind-reading (which I was accused of earlier) and telekinesis, and it should be given the same level of skepticism.
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 GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #76 on: 02/10/2013 08:15 AM »
I think that is what I said ;)

Thats fine as a motivation to study inertia. But ignoring other ramifications is very likely to be ignoring other obvious ways to test the theory. Can something that so fundamentally undermines physics as we know it really have had no part in explaining the evolution of the universe that we can measure with great accuracy through our telescopes, only popping up in desk top scale physics to give us an inertialess drive?


He's not ignoring other ramifications. I should have said that his main focus is propulsion, but he still cares about the physical implications of mach's principle.

Desktop experiments are cheap and (relatively) easy to do. Nembo Buldrini has his own on-going M-E experiment that uses ferromagnetic material instead of PZTs.

You should try to get your hands on the book and read the preface and foreword, as he explains a lot about his interest in physics, mach's principle and propulsion. The foreword is written by John Cramer.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 189
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #77 on: 02/10/2013 09:53 AM »
But these are again, VERY extraordinary claims.
The $$ required for falsification aren't extraordinary.
The pork must flow.

Online KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3576
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #78 on: 02/10/2013 10:37 AM »
He's not ignoring other ramifications. I should have said that his main focus is propulsion, but he still cares about the physical implications of mach's principle.

Desktop experiments are cheap and (relatively) easy to do. Nembo Buldrini has his own on-going M-E experiment that uses ferromagnetic material instead of PZTs.

You should try to get your hands on the book and read the preface and foreword, as he explains a lot about his interest in physics, mach's principle and propulsion. The foreword is written by John Cramer.

Sorry I dont think we are communicating. Woodward is allowed to have any motivation he likes. It is not about us understanding his motivation, but him preparing for the questions physicists will obviously be motivated to ask him. Im not sure what conclusions I am meant to draw from that mention of Nembo Buldrini. I think I will opt out of this conversation now.

(also I think we are dragging this thread off topic. If it is to serve any purpose beyond the old thread, then it probably should be a discussion of what the theory actually is and keep away from the propellentless drive application)
« Last Edit: 02/10/2013 10:42 AM by KelvinZero »

Offline grondilu

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • France
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #79 on: 02/10/2013 12:47 PM »
But ignoring other ramifications is very likely to be ignoring other obvious ways to test the theory. Can something that so fundamentally undermines physics as we know it really have had no part in explaining the evolution of the universe that we can measure with great accuracy through our telescopes, only popping up in desk top scale physics to give us an inertialess drive?

Amazingly enough, it seems that indeed there is no obvious way to test Mach's principle.   As far as I'm concerned, that's why I immediately picked interest in Woodward's effect, while I usually don't care about any other claim in propellantless propulsion.

Mach's principle is a very deep and interesting idea which tells a lot about how the universe works.  And indeed anyone who could confirm or infirm it experimentally will probably get a Nobel price.
Space is pretty much literally an astronomically-high hanging fruit.