they wouldn't give a kopeck two bits on the whole line of research...
Oh. E dal dipartimento di "Solo Dicendo", che lo scorso Martini tuo mancava di sostanza, diciamo.
......And people able to judge the theory wont be interested to even read the book before there are clear enough signals in clean enough experimental setups (see above -> necessary).......
Rumor is, Stennis, JPL, Glenn and one of the National Labs are all considering replications of the Eagle work, and this all from a little conference paper! That's quite a reaction!
And let me note again, that when you are not familiar with the details of what has been published on this subject, to complain there has not be what you want published, is a little silly. Read Woodward's book. It's a fascinating read meant for engineers. I promise it is fun or I owe you a beer.
Quote from: frobnicatSo far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all.Agreed, but those who have read the book are starting to make their sentiments known. Sometimes these things take time. The book is not even 2 years old.
So far my feeling is that the "propellantless propulsion proponents" are doing a really great job at NOT convincing an (admittedly already reluctant) mainstream science community that there is any effect at all.
QuoteBut it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens. . .All of Woodward's data has been given to Creon Levit, NASA's main comp guy at Ames. Also this summer, Woodward upgraded his instrumentation to Labview, so the data will be easier to obtain and digest in the future. I believe that data acquisition system goes online in just another week or so.
But it seems strange to me (and my guess to a majority of scientists and engineers), if effect is real then it is worth fundamental physics methodology, not necessarily billions $ but at least complete open access to blueprints, complete experimental datafiles (including preliminary adjustments and settings) and not just snapshots of a few screens. . .
Quote. . .can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?As noted, all what you're asking for save the self-contained issue has previously been addressed, and you should not presume Eagle hasn't done the same. NASA has its own analysts and they don't need unpaid peanut galleries to make decisions. Nothing against this forum, but online engineering forums are notoriously ill-mannered and dysfunctional when it comes to real analysis. You should not expect to see that kind of thing here. Dennis and Creon are top notch guys. Sometimes you just need to wait for the hammer to fall.
. . .can't they dump the raw values of those instruments on some disk?
...At one time I was ready to unsheathe my gnuplot and make a few scatterplots of reported thrusts versus sidereal time to see if there is correlation that could indicate a coupling of device with a flow or a particular local (at least solar system wide) frame of reference. I don't know of any attempt at doing that, that may be completely off topic in the views of the leading theories of Woodward, White et al, but since those theories are far from verification other mechanisms than thought may be at play (assuming a real effect). Asked here and there if such sidereal time was ever taken into account, appears no, or no one knows (or I missed an answer on that ?)Well, probably it would be a negative, but that could be the kind of small third party hobbyist level lateral investigation that could stand a little chance of helping the topic... In this particular case, I complain timestamped experimental data in readable format are either not publicly available or very hard to find. If any-one knows something like a list of a dozen (preferably 100s) of timestamped on/off thrust sessions results. I can't believe dr White (anomalous thrust...) did only 5 or 6 30s sessions, said "ok we got a signal" and switched to another device ... Even at hobbyist level of funding, we would expect more logged and published data points from this kind of experiments.If anyone points me to such collected rich enough dataset I would be delighted to test my little hypothesis.
Quote Rumor is, Stennis, JPL, Glenn and one of the National Labs are all considering replications of the Eagle work, and this all from a little conference paper! That's quite a reaction! Yes it is, that is good news and may make some of my previous remarks partly irrelevant.
...mai ti ho promesso...
John C. Mather
Si je ne trouve pas que ce fait vous me devez un ours.
It might be silly to try to contribute to more than a decade of work before diving in all every single publication.
If anyone points me to such collected rich enough dataset I would be delighted to test my little hypothesis.
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.
Yes, the basic issue is whether rest mass can change at the particle level and not just as a rearrangement of kinetic energy.
I do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.
Notice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.
Quote from: birchoff on 10/02/2014 02:04 pmI do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.Frustrated as I am about the debate, I end up not wording my comments at carefully as I should. I did say "probably the only source of info". But still, allow me to rephrase:Quote from: JFNotice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.I include a scan of pages 33-35 of Woodward's "Stargate" book, claiming fair use for educational purposes.I have relied upon a friend of mine with far better grounding in the math and GR theory, for his opinion that these few pages are not a complete derivation of the operating principles of the device.Break it down to my level, ok?Algebraic and undergrad calculus.
As you probably realize, if the sources of the "external" accelerating force are taken into account, the second term still vanishes.
QuoteThe experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on. That makes no sensible sense to me. In this context this would be an application driven research ? So the trouble is the experimental setup. Why should they care about theories ? If the effect is hinting at being anything like it says it is, then pour the money and hire the third party experimentalists to do an all or nothing confirmation of any real effect at all. Even if all it takes is a mW thruster mounted on an atomic force microscope cantilever to get a few pN of thrust, just to see it's real. Then make phenomenological model. Then build better/bigger devices and see if it fits such or such ground breaking theory.Even if the fact to pursue a higher thrust might contribute to show this is not a real effect and therefore allow for a progress, my point is that putting the focus on that is not the best way to assert the reality of any effect at all.Again, the "this is impossible" hypothesis appears not well accommodated by the strategy.
The experimental setup is not the trouble. Since they cannot do a real evaluation of theory, what they've asked for is more thrust, which is what Jim is working on.
Time permitting I will try to find and read it. If I don't find it factual you owe me a bear.
It has been asserted and supported that the spurious signals associated with the experimental apparatus are a flaw in the experimental procedure which should be accommodated.
Attempts to calculate the magnitude of some kinds of the spurious forces depend upon dimensional data of the apparatus, data which has been deliberately kept under wraps.
Analysis of the theory itself has suggested substantial flaws, with several attempts to propose more and more esoteric phenomena instead of the mass fluctuations which are the foundation of Woodward's theory.
In fact, some posters have suggested that the experiment will be sufficient proof of the anomalous thrusts, regardless of the correctness of the theory.
Many posters here have provided the caveat of how they don't have the time to understand and critique the theory, but go on to assert, without support, the soundness of the theory, or to propose yet another far fetched special effect of physics in support of the theory.
Quote from: birchoff on 10/02/2014 02:04 pmI do not believe anyone is considering the book to be the only source of TRUE information.Frustrated as I am about the debate, I end up not wording my comments at carefully as I should. I did say "probably the only source of info". But still, allow me to rephrase:Quote from: JFNotice how in this thread, "the book" is now being referred to as if it were the ultimate, and probably the only source of "true" information on the theory. It cannot be the case that the previous twenty years or so of theoretical work, some of it peer reviewed, is supplanted by this new book.
You're deliberately mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my word's, John.