Conservation of momentum and energy is guaranteed by the interaction with the distant universe. No violation.Technically, this isn't a "propellantless" thruster. The rest of the observable universe is the propellant.
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!
Quote from: antiquark on 02/16/2013 05:10 pmY'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!Woodwards ME drive is supposedly as much propellantless as a car is.It is good to be skeptical, but lets not make hasty conclusions without doing the math.
Quote from: 93143 on 02/16/2013 08:45 pmConservation of momentum and energy is guaranteed by the interaction with the distant universe. No violation.Technically, this isn't a "propellantless" thruster. The rest of the observable universe is the propellant.I would think the fact that the M-E equation is Lorentz invariant would be enough to settle the issue.
This probably violate thermodynamics. For example, suppose an airplane propeller could select only the particles in the surrounding air that happen to be moving at the same velocity to push against. In that case you could also increase velocity proportional to energy and then extract energy proportional to velocity squared, magically concentrating kinetic energy out of the random motions of atoms in the air.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/15/2013 05:07 amWoodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now. And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving. If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?
Woodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.
Quote from: cuddihy on 02/15/2013 11:17 pmQuote from: antiquark on 02/15/2013 07:49 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 07:35 pmUnderstood. What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?My guess would be: free energy!That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.Worse, Cuddihy continues to focus on the extravagant claim, without investigating the backup material. The claim is easily ignored. The backup material doesn't lead inexorably to free energy, from my take.Maybe there needs to be a thread on inertia?
Quote from: antiquark on 02/15/2013 07:49 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 07:35 pmUnderstood. What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?My guess would be: free energy!That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 07:35 pmUnderstood. What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?My guess would be: free energy!
Understood. What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 02/16/2013 10:06 pmQuote from: antiquark on 02/16/2013 05:10 pmY'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!For that reason, y'all should be very skeptical about propellantless propulsion!Woodwards ME drive is supposedly as much propellantless as a car is.It is good to be skeptical, but lets not make hasty conclusions without doing the math.It is a bit different from a car pushing on the ground. A car is better than a rocket but you still have the Ek=0.5mv2 relationship. This Woodwards drive is apparently always fortunate enough to find some mass that is in average moving at the same velocity, so it can increase velocity directly proportional to energy.
You are referring (basically) to Maxwell's Demon! That's a free energy machine that even the top physicists were stumped by, over 100 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demonBut don't worry, they eventually figured out what "the catch" was. The demon in the experiment would need more energy to run, than the energy produced by the machine.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/16/2013 02:30 pmQuote from: cuddihy on 02/15/2013 11:17 pmQuote from: antiquark on 02/15/2013 07:49 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 07:35 pmUnderstood. What's the friggin' assumption here that you're having a bolide about?My guess would be: free energy!That's a conclusion, not an assumption. You keep getting this confused. Einstein's theory of special relativity has the speed of light being the max speed as a conclusion, not an assumption. Woodward's theory of inertial and mass fluctuation has the potential of harvesting energy from distant, far-off mass at low (not no) cost as a conclusion, not an assumption.Worse, Cuddihy continues to focus on the extravagant claim, without investigating the backup material. The claim is easily ignored. The backup material doesn't lead inexorably to free energy, from my take.Maybe there needs to be a thread on inertia?That's Antiquark, not me.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 01:29 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/15/2013 05:07 amWoodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now. And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving. If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?Dec 2012: http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/ASPW2012.pdfSummer 2012 (Joint Propulsion Conf. AIAA): http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/JPC2012.pdfEdit: date correction
Quote from: HMXHMX on 02/17/2013 04:38 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/15/2013 01:29 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 02/15/2013 05:07 amWoodward talked, if I recalled correctly, about wanting to build a propellantless thrusting device since undergrad.And while the motivation doesn't matter once it has been independently verified (by disinterested parties) to high certainty, before that happens it certainly should affect our judgement of how likely it is Woodward is fooling himself.You and I both know that the correct solution to the pertinant equations is the only way to determine the liklihood of him "fooling himself".However, there has been no news on the experimental side for some months now. And that lack of news is on top of several years of sketchily reported results with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving. If anybody has "complete apathy towards pre-validation results", who could argue otherwise?Dec 2012: http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/ASPW2012.pdfSummer 2012 (Joint Propulsion Conf. AIAA): http://physics.fullerton.edu/%7Ejimw/JPC2012.pdfEdit: date correctionPerfectly acceptable nit, but still, with little reported evidence of the dang thing actually moving in a way that can be replicated by other labs, nor widespread agreement about the fundamental math of the explaining theory. If anybody has complete apathy towards these results, why shouldn't they?
"Nevertheless, it moves..." I'd like to see replication, surely, but that means someone has to try. These days, almost no one will do replication of any experiment.
Y'all are forgetting that propellantless propulsion will INEVITABLY lead to free energy!
Quote from: antiquark on 02/12/2013 07:47 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 07:41 pmSo you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?If the equation predicts free energy, then sorry, I don't plan on reading it. It [the gravilectric equation] does not. That much is clear.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/12/2013 07:41 pmSo you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?If the equation predicts free energy, then sorry, I don't plan on reading it.
So you don't know about Sciama's gravelectric equation either?
2) The objectors are latching on to the extravagant claim, instead of the experimental claim, largely because the math is obtuse.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/18/2013 11:57 pm2) The objectors are latching on to the extravagant claim, instead of the experimental claim, largely because the math is obtuse.The "free energy" claim isn't some weird obtuse interpretation of quantum physics. If someone invented a usable propellantless propulsion device, you would be able to show, within an hour, that it produces free energy! And the mathematics behind it is taught in high school. So it's perfectly valid to argue that Woodward's device will produce free energy.
The only way I'll say "fine", is if you give the hour long math lesson here.