A "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics". Not so with an "unverified" claim.
Is there any way to strap this thing to a balloon with neutral buoyancy inside a closed room, and see if it moves anywhere?The real proof is in how much it moves, right?
...Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved....
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 02:45 pmA "verified" claim would be "predicted and wholly supported by basic physics". Not so with an "unverified" claim.Are you saying the only way we can verify that Woodward's drive is a free energy machine, is to actually build one and demonstrate that it provides free energy? Do you see the paradox there...
I don't get it... What's the paradox...
Just the regular kind will do. Exactly how extraordinary we find the evidence is just a sign of how much skepticism we've lost.. aka complacency. If someone comes to me with experimental evidence that contradicts a well established scientific theory I'm going to say: Is it reproducible? Have you considered alternative explanations? What happens when you vary this or that.. etc, etc. All the same things as if they came to me with experimental evidence that contradicted a theory invented last Tuesday.
Quote from: Celebrimbor on 02/12/2013 03:32 pmI don't get it... What's the paradox...Basic physics tells us it will be a free energy machine, it's not necessary to build one to find out.
Only if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 01:57 am...Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved....Just to nitpick, they can't be verifying and relying on the same thing at the same time cam they?
Basic physics tells us that the claim that the machine produces or uses free energy is unverifiable.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 06:58 pm Basic physics tells us that the claim that the machine produces or uses free energy is unverifiable. Actually, basic physics (and even the more advanced physics of the pros) tells us that free energy is 100% impossible! ...
So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 06:00 pmOnly if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.I get what you're saying, that the kinetic energy might never increase beyond the energy provided to the device.But then that will violate relativity. E.g., the device going east will not accelerate as fast as the device going west, due to the 1000 mph speed of the earth's rotation.
Quote from: antiquark on 02/12/2013 06:25 pmQuote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/12/2013 06:00 pmOnly if the required energy input for a constant acceleration does not increase with the speed of the vehicle.I get what you're saying, that the kinetic energy might never increase beyond the energy provided to the device.But then that will violate relativity. E.g., the device going east will not accelerate as fast as the device going west, due to the 1000 mph speed of the earth's rotation. Wrong reference frame. Since Woodward's ME thruster claims to use the entire universe as its reaction mass (and not the earth like a car does), the entire universe should be your reference frame.
The Earth's rotation still affects it. The speed you are moving WRT the cosmic background radiation changes with time of day (and time of year, etc).
I am not saying that Woodward is right, but you counter argumentation is wrong.
Quote from: Celebrimbor on 02/12/2013 03:31 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/12/2013 01:57 am...Every time a scientist takes a reading at CERN, they are verifying and relying on those two things to be conserved....Just to nitpick, they can't be verifying and relying on the same thing at the same time cam they?They're making multiple measurements relying on it. Ridiculous discrepancies would show up if it wasn't true to a very, very high degree. Our current model of inertia and such, which don't use Woodward's effect at all, work extremely well.If you rely on a hammer for work all the time, you're also verifying that it works.