Hello, folks. From a poster's recommendation at NextBigFuture, I have come here to participate in this ....Thanks for the consideration. GoatGuy
Hello, folks. From a poster's recommendation at NextBigFuture, I have come here to participate in this and other fora, If y'all will have it. Previous posts at NBF (of mine) have been pasted here; so far, I see little love for the position(s) I've taken.
.../...At that point, it is a free energy device. Thanks for the consideration. I hope there will be a reply that answers this fundamental flaw.GoatGuy
What is your physical explanation for the experimental measurements (of at least 6 different drives) at NASA Eagleworks?, including A) dependence on the Teflon dielectric resonator (without the dielectric resonator they measured zero thrust) andB) that when they turned the drive (by 180 degrees rotation around the Z vertical axis), with the dielectric resonator to the "left" instead of to the "right", they got a similar numerical thrust result, but now directed to the opposite direction as compared to the previous orientation (showing a thrust measurement vector dependent on physical orientation of the drive) ?
Virtual particles of the vacuum on the other hand don't appear to define a frame of reference, though they might define an "inertial reference" (tm) : Casimir effect for instance don't show different behaviour on different inertial frames (Lorentz invariant, no reference of what would be an absolute 0 speed relative to vacuum) while dynamical Casimir effect allows to measure acceleration in absolute terms (can tell an absolute 0 acceleration relative to it)....
I'd like to see some qualified explanations with Feynman diagrams showing how it's impossible to push on virtual particles (unless they are made real at equivalent energy/mass cost).
I hope there will be a reply that answers this fundamental flaw.
So really, using Newtonian mechanics to treat a Mach-effect thruster in isolation is nonsensical from the start.
....
Again, if the effect is real, then very well, we have good spaceships, and good energy generators, free energy, for all practical purpose.
as I posted before there are substantial problems with the proposed "out of the mainstream" explanations.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/13/2014 12:21 amas I posted before there are substantial problems with the proposed "out of the mainstream" explanations.Regarding the Wheeler-Feynman idea specifically, I'm not sure what you've stated constitutes an ironclad case against it.
it strikes me as premature to claim that time-asymmetry in one necessarily implies time-asymmetry in the other (though I may be misunderstanding something).
For another, according to the Wikipedia page (no, I'm not an expert; can you tell?) on W-F absorber theory, there have been calculations that recover the Lamb shift without requiring self-energy.
Dr. Woodward's also stated in that video that his interpretation for the inertia effect is a radiation interaction, and we know that the Weak Force interaction is paramount in a radiation interaction.
Quote from: Rodal on 09/13/2014 12:50 amDr. Woodward's also stated in that video that his interpretation for the inertia effect is a radiation interaction, and we know that the Weak Force interaction is paramount in a radiation interaction.I'm sorry; you've lost me. What has the weak force got to do with the propagation of changes in a gravity field?