The point is still valid.Okay, tell me exactly what Mach's principle is.
Also, quoting a Wikipedia editor is ... kind of low.
empty space is really empty.
Quote from: grondilu on 02/11/2013 04:32 pmempty space is really empty. Is there such thing? (Casimir etc)
Okay, tell me exactly what Mach's principle is.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/11/2013 04:30 pmOkay, tell me exactly what Mach's principle is.Magical space drives will always have supporters, no matter how ridiculous they sound. Honestly, I think Woodward should do a kickstarter to launch a nanosat with his thruster in it. Only "true believers" would have to pay for it, but in 0.0000000001% chance it worked, we would all benefit.
Well, Sciama's dissertation was accepted and granted him his PhD, didn't it? Also, it was endorsed by Dirac himself. I don't know what else you would like.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/09/2013 11:08 pmNot sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdfUses Comic Sans. Blasphemy!
Not sure whether this has been posted here yet, but Heidi Fearn's presentation is up:http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/ASPW2012.pdf
Isn't anyone here concerned that Woodward's drive is a perpetual motion machine? I mean, once I realized that, well... forget about looking at equations, if it's a perpetual motion machine, there's no point in even considering it!
By the way, talking about what is and isnt possible, Here is another 'possible' as far as I can tell. if there were such a thing as a tractor beam that could reach across interstellar distances we could swing though the stars like tarzan, always chosing a new star with the desired relative velocity to us. This also gives us energy for free, at least locally.
Propellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same, at physics so incredibly trivial compared to the extremely esoteric physics invoked to justify it.
Quote from: KelvinZero on 02/11/2013 09:02 pmPropellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same, at physics so incredibly trivial compared to the extremely esoteric physics invoked to justify it.I'm not convinced by this argument. You make it sound like it's not possible for an object to be moved by a constant force. Of course it is, provided there is a reaction force somewhere.
Personally, I am a bit on the fence with this. I am still waiting for more convincing results to come out of their experiments before I make a decision. The idea is intriguing, but as has been said, there is reason to be sceptical. It sure would solve a lot of problems, if it worked.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/11/2013 10:46 pmPersonally, I am a bit on the fence with this. I am still waiting for more convincing results to come out of their experiments before I make a decision. The idea is intriguing, but as has been said, there is reason to be sceptical. It sure would solve a lot of problems, if it worked.It's good that you're on the fence, and it's important to stay there. You should remain skeptical regardless of whether or not it would "solve a lot of problems", or whether you've been "convinced" by the results of their experiments. There's never a time when you should make a "decision" to not be skeptical.This cuts both ways. If Woodward is successful at producing experimental results that contradict "mainstream science", then we should both be skeptical of his methods and be skeptical of the science they contradict. Belief is not a luxury we have in science. The whole apple cart could be upset tomorrow. We could find out the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. We could find out the universe is expanding. We could find out the expansion is accelerating. Surprises happen in science. This is a good thing.
For some reason my comment was removed.. so I'll try saying this more explicitly and diplomatically. I'm not being snarky here, I just think there's an obvious disconnect here between fundamental elements of the scientific method and the thinking I commonly see on threads like this.Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/11/2013 10:46 pmPersonally, I am a bit on the fence with this. I am still waiting for more convincing results to come out of their experiments before I make a decision. The idea is intriguing, but as has been said, there is reason to be sceptical. It sure would solve a lot of problems, if it worked.It's good that you're on the fence, and it's important to stay there. You should remain skeptical regardless of whether or not it would "solve a lot of problems", or whether you've been "convinced" by the results of their experiments. There's never a time when you should make a "decision" to not be skeptical.This cuts both ways. If Woodward is successful at producing experimental results that contradict "mainstream science", then we should both be skeptical of his methods and be skeptical of the science they contradict. Belief is not a luxury we have in science. The whole apple cart could be upset tomorrow. We could find out the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. We could find out the universe is expanding. We could find out the expansion is accelerating. Surprises happen in science. This is a good thing.
I disagree. We can start being skeptical of modern scientific theory once the effect has been replicated a few times by outside parties.
You act like there hasn't been mountains of experiments done which confirm GR in all kinds of ways, or conservation of energy and momentum.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You can be skeptical that science is complete,
but you cannot have equal levels of skepticism for a non-clearly-replicated claim that is made by a small group motivated by wishful thinking and that of all of mainstream science.
To me it is a big hoot. Propellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same...
Quote from: KelvinZero on 02/11/2013 09:02 pmTo me it is a big hoot. Propellentless propulsion and perpetual motion machine are so obviously the same...The Tesla motor car is a propellantless drive machine.
By focusing solely on the completely unverified claims of "free" energy, everybody here is quietly acknowledging that they don't have the math to tackle the fundamental equations, sine qua non est nihil.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 02:03 pmBy focusing solely on the completely unverified claims of "free" energy, everybody here is quietly acknowledging that they don't have the math to tackle the fundamental equations, sine qua non est nihil.Not "unverified" claims, but "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics" claims.