I have a 30,000 page theory that says unicorns can fly us to Mars. Unless you read all 30,000 pages and follow every detail in them, you're not qualified to even talk about space unicorns.
Woodward also posits that due to the fact that inertial reaction forces apparently occur instantaneously, (I can’t find any experiments that have directly measured this assumption.), that the M-E's posited gravitational effects with the mostly distant mass-energy in the causally connected universe that give rise to the M-E have to interact effectively in no-time. I.e. it’s Einstein’s famous "Spooky action at a distance" problem. And IMO it is a problem in this regard, for how does an instantaneous g-field interaction in spacetime, TRANSIENTLY shield a locally accelerated mass from the rest of the cosmological g-field? It would be nice if Dr. Woodward could explain to us how instantaneous g-field like Wheeler/Feynman radiation reaction forces can give rise to transient effects that take time to occur in the local laboratory frame of reference.
The truth of the matter is that Shawyer's resonant cavity work has now been replicated not only by the Chinese, twice, but in at least two other labs here in the USA with similar results.
To recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/14/2013 07:02 amQuote from: QuantumG on 06/14/2013 06:32 amWhat I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.Well the shortest answer is that it would eliminate the #1 ending reason for ending the life of a communications satellite because they would never run out of fuel for station keeping. That's worth $$$ to the operators of communications satellites would could lower the cost of your satellite TV subscription. Thanks for repeating my basic argument (which you seemed to miss).
Quote from: QuantumG on 06/14/2013 06:32 amWhat I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.Well the shortest answer is that it would eliminate the #1 ending reason for ending the life of a communications satellite because they would never run out of fuel for station keeping. That's worth $$$ to the operators of communications satellites would could lower the cost of your satellite TV subscription.
What I wanna know is what it has to do with spaceflight... other than grandiose claims about what it might mean for spaceflight if it works - in which case, we might as well talk about unicorns as I hear you can ride them to Mars without even a spacesuit.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 05:20 amFor example, suppose someone hands you a 5,000 page purported proof that pi is rational. You needn't read and understand even a single page of this proof to correctly conclude it is wrong. It is enough to know there is a valid proof of the contrary, that pi is irrational.Newton proved light is a wave.Einstein won a Nobel for proving light is also a particle.cheers, MartinPS I'm neutral on Woodward effect.
For example, suppose someone hands you a 5,000 page purported proof that pi is rational. You needn't read and understand even a single page of this proof to correctly conclude it is wrong. It is enough to know there is a valid proof of the contrary, that pi is irrational.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 05:20 amAs another example, take the EmDrive. It's inventor claims that bouncing microwaves around a closed container in a clever way leads to a net force on the container.Just a friendly reminder of the Law of Internets Posting History. Just because you may not have read others' comments, doesn't mean that the others have not addressed an issue on the table at the current moment.In the other thread, I followed the EmDrive logic to the same conclusion. Moving right along:
As another example, take the EmDrive. It's inventor claims that bouncing microwaves around a closed container in a clever way leads to a net force on the container.
The instantaneous reaction of inertia that we observe locally, is said, first by Sciama, and then by Woodward, to be dependent upon an intantaneous "connection" with the rest of the universe.
Nobody on this thread, or the other one, can explain why Sciama is necessarily wrong.
Again, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama. It's Woodward.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 07:55 pmAgain, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama. It's Woodward.It would seem that Woodward insists otherwise.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 08:11 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 07:55 pmAgain, the point of divergence in Woodward's theories from mainstream physics is not Sciama. It's Woodward.It would seem that Woodward insists otherwise.Yes, that is quite true! Woodward insists that his results are simply the logic results of applying Sciama's framework. No mainstream physicist seems to agree with this.
In fact, since Sciama's results are mathematically equivalent to formulations that follow certain laws and Woodward's theories violate those laws, it's not mathematically possible that Woodward is simply following Sciama.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 06:54 amNo, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true. Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.Nice ad hominem on Woodward, but you miss the point of Sciama's suggested explanation for inertia.
No, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true. Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.
Why would further experimental work be done without the proof of the existance of gravitons?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 02:03 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 06/14/2013 06:54 amNo, Sciama never claimed the Woodward Effect or anything like it was true. Woodward and his circle simply claim they are basing their theory on his work, and Sciama is conveniently dead and unable to protest having his name be sullied by association with the Woodward Effect.Nice ad hominem on Woodward, but you miss the point of Sciama's suggested explanation for inertia.My quote is not an ad hominem argument.The term ad hominem blah blah blah...What I'm doing is responding to the reverse of an ad hominem argument: an appeal to authority. The claim I'm rebutting is that the Woodward Effect should be taken seriously because Sciama was a respected authority and Sciama's respectability gives credence to the Woodward Effect.It's a subtle but very real and critical distinction.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/14/2013 02:46 pmWhy would further experimental work be done without the proof of the existance of gravitons?At least partially because no proof is likely to be forthcoming. There is no good method of attack on it. Energies needed to probe it would be huge.Probing gravitons is beyond our reach for some time.
Showing that a theory is incomplete with new experimental results that aren't consistent with the theory has nothing at all to do with the validity of being able to dismiss a theory without knowing all its details if that theory's premise can be shown mathematically to be inconsistent with its conclusions.
An experimental proof of the existence of gravitons is not necessary for the work to proceed.
Quote from: 93143 on 06/15/2013 03:29 amAn experimental proof of the existence of gravitons is not necessary for the work to proceed.Quote from: Star-Drive, again... quoting Mr. Woodward on 06/13/2013 03:35 amTo recap Carver's argument, he noted that both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course).You're going to have to tell me straight up, with no weasel words or subtle qualifications, why Mr. Woodward is saying that, "both gravity and electromagnetism, as long range fields, have zero rest mass field quanta (assuming that gravitons actually exist of course)".He is hanging the crux of this argument on the "assumption" of the existance of gravitons.Are we just talking about theories with words, and "elegant" mathematical constructs, or are we talking about theories based on this autonomous universe which surrounds us?If the damn things cannot be shown to exist, and worse, require huge power expenditures in the hopes of finding them, why do further experiments based on the assumption of their existance?