Quote from: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 09:01 pmWith all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless. For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have. I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments. Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly. And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.Cramer experiment report:http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdfFound possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".======================March experiment abstract:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321MThe experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.
With all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless. For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have. I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments. Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly. And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.
I have a question. When a starship travels near the speed of light it's speed increases and it's mass as well, proportionally. In that case time dilation is observed in the craft. Now, what would happen if the mass of the vehicle is negative? Will there a negative effect of time dilation occur? I mean - the crew will live several times faster than the observer?
Quote from: mikegi on 08/11/2009 04:37 amQuote from: mlorrey on 08/11/2009 01:35 amSo Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.QuoteThose who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance. Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?Explain how light refracts without action at a distance. Nobody could until Feynman said, "the photon follows all possible paths until it determines which path is shortest in time", i.e. the path of refracted light is bent by matter with an index of refraction because the speed of light inside the matter is slower than in air or a vacuum, so light wants to spend as little time travelling slower as possible. He showed that all subatomic reactions work both forward and backward in time as well, and that for some quantum interactions, such as entangled photon pairs, action at a distance DOES in fact, happen.
Quote from: mlorrey on 08/11/2009 01:35 amSo Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.No, the post I was replying to used the telegraph as an example. That was based on various instantaneous-action-at-a-distance electric and magnetic laws. It caused all sorts of confusion -- eg. a telegraph line somehow "knew" how long it was, that reducing inductance in the line would speed up signalling when the exact opposite was true, etc. We would still be stuck in that age if certain physicists (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc.) had not rejected instantaneous-action-at-a-distance and discovered electromagnetic theory. Everything else followed that.QuoteThose who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.You're going to have to come up with a better slogan. Einstein was anti-action-at-a-distance. Do you *really* believe that a change light years away instantaneously causes an effect here?
So Richard Feynman made no great advances eh? The 19th century physicists other than, say Maxwell and the atomic theorists, made far fewer advances than they would have if they'd started thinking like Einstein.
Those who today reject the Mach Effect betray themselves as imprisoned in a pre-Einsteinian newtonian mindset.
This is all now well established physics and only fools and idiots refuse to recognise the fact that as far as simultaneity, these effects appear to be action at a distance, just as the Mach Effect appears to be so.
Quote from: GI-Thruster on 08/11/2009 09:01 pmWith all due respect Mike, you're quick perusal of the experiments to date is fairly worthless. For a real appraisal you'd need to pay much more attention than you have. I can't speak about Cramer but the experiments by Woodward, Mayhood and March have all been good experiments. Patent or the lack thereof doesn't even come to the issue and the fact you've conflated this issue shows you're not thinking clearly. And finally as I said, Woodward's theory makes precisely the same use of AAAD as does General Relativity, so your issue with it is somewhat. . gimped.Cramer experiment report:http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/CR-2004-213310.pdfFound possible Mach Effect signal on initial test. When he rotated the device 90°, which should have eliminated any Mach Effect, he got the same signal. Somehow this experiment was deemed "inconclusive" rather than "meaningless".======================March experiment abstract:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AIPC..813.1321MThe experimental results were off by "one to two orders of magnitude" on the high side. In other words, they didn't see the Mach/Woodward Effect but rather some unaccounted for forces/interactions in their test setup ... just like Cramer.Hop: thanks for the link.
Kinda like how the Apollo spacecraft mysteriously slowed down for a couple of days straight on its trip to the moon, even though it was in hard vacuum. Draw a box around the spacecraft and you get an unbalanced force. Include the Earth (and Moon) in the picture and it suddenly makes sense. Spooky action at a distance...Standard disclaimer: I'm not saying Woodward is right. I haven't studied this stuff anywhere near hard enough to pronounce on it one way or the other. I'm just saying that as far as conservation of momentum is concerned he could be right.