Don't be so quick to call this an open and shut case. We have not heard anything from Paul or Woodward on this matter yet.The need for non-locality (as I understand it) stems from the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces. This can only be explained in one of two ways: elliptical, instantaneous constraint equations as described by Ciufolini and Wheeler, or the advanced/retarded waves interpretation of electrodynamics.Here's Ron Stahl's thoughts on the matter (on Steve's experiment)http://talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2215&start=720
GeeGee:Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics. In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power. We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day. Meanwhile back to the lab...Best,
I would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 12/18/2011 04:10 amGeeGee:Woodward's M-E conjecture is selfconsistent, but still incomplete IMO since it still does not include QM effects that we know exists in real world components like ceramic dielectrics. In the end though the only thing that will really matter is one of us floating the test article into the conference room under its own power. We can then argue which of our cherished scientific paradigms will have to scuttled to explain this fact and then replace it with another equally bright idea of the day. Meanwhile back to the lab...Best, What about Steve's claim of an error in the derivation itself?QuoteI would note that there is a math error in the derivation of the Woodward effect's theory. If one uses Sciama's result of (Phi+phi)/c^2 = -1/G, one cannot treat the speed of light as a constant and phi as a variable.
Now I'm kind of curious why Steve would neglect the bulk acceleration condition. This is just my opinion, but it seems from Steve's tone that he is not at all interested in pursuing "fringey" physics.By the way Paul, there was a recent paper published by Brazilian physicists on substituting gravity for the Higgs as the mechanism for generating mass (though I'm not sure substitute is a good word here, as Wilczek has pointed out several times that the majority of mass of ordinary matter has origins that have nothing to do with the Higgs) that Woodward and co might be interested in. The authors calls this "modified mach's principle." Is it a sign of mach's principle making a return in theoretical physics?The gravitational mechanism to generate mass II
Machs principle never left theoretical physics
Quote from: Nathan on 12/20/2011 06:32 amMachs principle never left theoretical physicsNo, but it's certainly not discussed as much. All the attention has been focused on dark energy, dark matter and the Higgs mechanism.
If I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??
Quote from: Sith on 02/08/2012 12:03 pmIf I was a billionaire and I give you 10 billion dollars and say to you: "I wanna have a propellantless field propulsion in 5 years.", Will you get it??Paul could probably provide a better answer to that, but Jim has mentioned on radio shows and on the mailing list that breakthrough propulsion research is very cheap. About $100,000 would probably be enough to see unambiguous results (meaning much higher thrust levels that could not be explained by anything other than a novel effect).
Guys:Woodward has already demonstrated +/-10 micro-Newton in vacuum using his latest shuttler design running at ~40 kHz. My MLT-2004 and Mach-2MHz test articles repeateldy demonstrated 1-to-10 milli-Newton in Faraday shielded configurations several years ago while in air since I couldn't afford a working vacuum system at the time. We are now trying to replicate those results under a hard vacuum in the JSC Eagleworks Lab when we finally get the lab up and running, hopefully in 2-to-3 months now. Past that it all depends what the replication investigation efforts bring to us. If we again see what I saw in the home lab back in the 2004 through 2006 time frame, then we crank up the power and frequency to see if the MLT-2004_Rev-A can generate 100's of milli-Newtons running at 3.68 MHz on our new torque pendulum system. However, if we see nothing out of this newly revidsed test article, then this could all have been just a bad dream for me. Considering Woodward's experimental results to date though, I'm betting on seeing at least the same 4-to-10 milli-Newtons I obsered before. Cross your fingers...Best,Paul M.
