Quote from: R7 on 06/20/2013 06:12 amIf not, why? He says someone has managed ~10 mN, but won't say who...
If not, why?
Quote from: 93143 on 06/20/2013 06:19 amQuote from: R7 on 06/20/2013 06:12 amIf not, why? He says someone has managed ~10 mN, but won't say who... SpaceX. Not that I have any proof, but the pieces fit quite nicely, with:A - Elon Musk talking about investigating Warp Drive recently, and saying it might work or notB - Elon Musk each time more sure he can colonize... NOT JUST VISIT Mars, in a decent timeframe... even saying he wont make an IPO of SpaceX while not COLONIZING Mars. Seriously... to COLONIZE Mars, meanign, taking LOTS OF PEOPLE THERE, Elon Musk is probably looking beyond conventional propulsion means. C - Woodward Effect being investigated at NASA Eagleworks Laboratory by Paul March and Dr Sonny White... Sonny white of the Warp Drive (which was referenced by Elon Musk in the recent interviews) and Paul March which is quite involved with Woodward Effect and the QVF Thruster... and is the same person telling us "someone" got such good results.D - the fact these good results probably depended on more MONEY being poured on acquiring the state of the art solid state materials needed for better Woodward Effects, the sort of which Woodward himself doesnt have the money to buy and research.Anyway, want anything more space related than an propulsion effect being researched at a NASA Laboratory, and probably (my own instincts however) by SpaceX???
This thread is on incredibly shaky ground. If you think we're going to have a thread that is about "what?" and is calling people "lunatics" then you're on the wrong site.I'll be back later today to see if we're still on a physics forum or a space flight forum.
I'll throw in one more question hoping for an answer before thread closes;Assuming the effect is real will the drive work only if reaction mass is vibrating linearly back'n'forth? Haven't read much except wiki article said 'proper acceleration' is required. Would centrifugal acceleration qualify as such, enabling the driver to be spinning wheel with capacitors on the rim, charged and discharged in sync with rotation? Could easily enable several hundred kHz frequency with much larger stroke than stack of piezoelectrics, no?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 06/20/2013 12:59 pmThis thread is on incredibly shaky ground. If you think we're going to have a thread that is about "what?" and is calling people "lunatics" then you're on the wrong site.I'll be back later today to see if we're still on a physics forum or a space flight forum.Then you might as well close or delete this thread now. We can only talk about space flight once an experimental phenomenon has been clearly demonstrated and the theoretical aspects of it have been worked out and fully understood. That's how practical applications work. Otherwise, this discussion is always destined to devolve to a debate about fundamental physics. Honestly, I'm surprised it took you 23 pages to bring up these concerns. If you are that strict on physics discussions not being allowed on this site, you should have locked this thread when it was first started. In my opinion, this sub-forum should stick with conventional and known physics and its implications, rather than speculative ideas that have no experimental basis (and Woodward's Effect wouldn't even fall under that; it is fringe science).
How to talk about the spaceflight implications: if it works, what would it allow you to do? Actually think about that answer instead of yelling PONIES! and you might come up with something worth talking about.
Quote from: 93143 on 06/20/2013 05:22 amYour string theorist is not a reliable authority on the subject. I doubt such a thing exists at this point in time.I disagree. While not directly related, a good string theorist will have an eye for good ideas even if there is no experimental verification given the nature of the field they work on.
Your string theorist is not a reliable authority on the subject. I doubt such a thing exists at this point in time.
Unfortunately, it makes no predictions of any cosmological or astrophysical phenomena, and is not at all consistent with general relativity.
As for inertia, this is easily explained by general relativity which posits that inertial effects are the byproduct of matter's interaction with local spacetime.
I haven't asserted that Woodward's hypothesis or interpretation explains everything about what we don't know
speculative ideas that have no experimental basis
Quote from: Cinder on 06/21/2013 05:28 amWould centrifugal acceleration qualify as such, enabling the driver to be spinning wheel with capacitors on the rim, charged and discharged in sync with rotation? Could easily enable several hundred kHz frequency with much larger stroke than stack of piezoelectrics, no?This sounds like the flywheel that 93143 (?) described a number of times in the Propellentless Propulsion thread where much of the 'Mach/Woodward Effect' discussion took place before this here thread.
Would centrifugal acceleration qualify as such, enabling the driver to be spinning wheel with capacitors on the rim, charged and discharged in sync with rotation? Could easily enable several hundred kHz frequency with much larger stroke than stack of piezoelectrics, no?
...100 kHz is 6 Mrpm. That's really fast...
Quote from: 93143 on 06/20/2013 06:19 amQuote from: R7 on 06/20/2013 06:12 amIf not, why? He says someone has managed ~10 mN, but won't say who... SpaceX. Not that I have any proof, but the pieces fit quite nicely, with:A - Elon Musk talking about investigating Warp Drive recently, and saying it might work or not...
If memory serves, the kid correctly answering math questions first was rarely spitballin'. Not saying never, but exceedingly rare.
I think that's a bit of a stretch given what we know of humans, but even if we go with it, it doesn't mean his word should be taken as gospel on a topic he doesn't specialize in.I've seen him hold forth on the subject before. His opinion is certainly strongly held, but he's not a reliable authority.
which string theorist are you referring to?
a very interesting article:http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110023492_2011024705.pdf
You said this already, so why repeat it other than push the thread closer to being locked? Your argument has already been presented in past discussion of Mach/Woodward Effect here at NSF.
Notice that your language (lunatics etc) is specifically mentioned as cause for locking. Consider that previous much longer thread on this same topic was not locked. Why spoil it for others who are willing to play by the rules?
I think that's a bit of a stretch given what we know of humans, but even if we go with it, it doesn't mean his word should be taken as gospel on a topic he doesn't specialize in.
His idea of what Mach's Principle is doesn't seem to be comprehensive, for one thing. There are certainly formulations of it that are false, but the larger question is not settled yet, perhaps because modern physics has been concentrating on extending quantum mechanics while more or less ignoring GR as a settled, complete theory.
Sciama's interpretation is a derivation from general relativity, and it does involve a prediction. Namely, that the total gravitational potential Φ is equal to c². Which is (so far as we can determine) pretty much true, based on cosmological data Sciama didn't have.
But they aren't emergent from the field equations themselves without something like Sciama's approach. Inertia is pretty much assumed to work the way it does; its origin is an unsolved problem that people still write papers on now and then.
Quote from: 93143 on 06/21/2013 06:29 amBut they aren't emergent from the field equations themselves without something like Sciama's approach. Inertia is pretty much assumed to work the way it does; its origin is an unsolved problem that people still write papers on now and then.That is because you are assuming it is a problem. Most mainstream physicists don't and believe inertia simply is what it is. There's really nothing more to it than that. Sometimes, there doesn't need to be an answer to everything. For example, why is the strong interaction stronger than the electromagnetic interaction? There really isn't any way to answer that question at least from a physicist's perspective. It simply just is and let's leave it at that.
from my understanding so far, Sciama's work on this seems to be using a different mathematical formulation to come to the same results as predicted by GR
and not Mach's Principle, which is essentially "spooky action at a distance" and is not limited causally by the speed of light according to the interpretations of Woodward et al.
Sometimes, there doesn't need to be an answer to everything.