Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 1496840 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5911
  • USA
  • Liked: 6124
  • Likes Given: 5568
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3640 on: 12/10/2014 01:38 pm » if I am following Rodal's analysis correctly, Jack Sarfatti's counter to Woodward's  argument is...overly broad?  Flawed?
No, not at all.  Jack's review is not overly broad.  On the contrary, it is very specific and well defined: with equations precisely showing what he means.

I only addressed a few words, less than 1%, of his review: the following few words

what about the other 99%? Is Jack correct?

Piano piano si va lontano

Others in the forum can address the other 99%.  Personally, before addressing any of the other 99%, I would like Mulletron's opinion regarding Woodward's statement

(this was recently addressed by none other than Fornaro here:  )

Quote from: Woodward p.70
The thing to keep in mind is “locally measured.” As measured by a particular observer,
c and phi have their invariant values wherever he or she is located. But everywhere else, the
values measured may be quite different from the local invariant values.

where Woodward states that the speed of light is only invariant to a local observer but "everywhere else, the values measured may be quite different from the local invariant values" as we have been arguing this before with Mulletron, regarding the speed of light in a dielectric (or water, for that matter) as compared to the speed of light in vacuum.    I understand Mulletron's argument that between the particles in any media there is a vacuum, but to make calculations one has to resort to field equations, (as done by Woodward) and then it is more expedient to adopt this viewpoint.

However, for Woodward's formulation in particular this fine point becomes all the finer, as the Woodward Mach Effect depends on these derivatives !

Hence, there is an insufficiently unexplored (from a theoretical and experimental viewpoint) problem here: as Woodward is using relativity field equations involving (time and space) derivatives in materials: I think its validity really, really requires experimental verification.  Particularly when the Abraham/Minkowski paradox is unresolved. 

Others may disagree with Woodward using relativity field equations for this, but I think he is (at least) consistent in this particular issue ( I have not explored the other 99%) .
« Last Edit: 12/10/2014 08:21 pm by Rodal »

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: EM Drive Developments Thread
« Reply #3641 on: 12/12/2014 11:37 am »
Thread back on after at least a trim of bad posts over the last 10 pages or so. I honestly couldn't read back further than that without my brain turning to mush.

Pointless posts (including one post that was basically "LOL") removed. Personal attack posts removed - member removed. Stupid posts removed - member asked not to post on here again.

However, nothing that I read (at least over the pages I looked at) feels like this site's subject matter, so I'm locking it (but putting it back on view) and we'll start a new thread in an attempt to make it relevant to this site. That's the best solution, better than leaving this in moderation.

Thread 2:
« Last Edit: 12/12/2014 11:40 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**


Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography