So, as suggested here, I open this thread about Woodward's effect.I try to understand his paper called Recent Results of an Investigation of Mach Effect Thrusters, and there are already some details I don't get in the first equations.Here is a mathbin: http://mathbin.net/154127I'm not sure this 3/2 factor really matters or what but already it nags me. Funny thing is that if the test particle was "outside" of the universe, then sure, one could use the gauss theorem or stuff like that and the universe would provide a potentiel just as if it was ponctual. But if I assume the test particle is in the middle of a universe, then there is this 3/2 factor. That's weird.
I thought I'd make my first post here.
Start with Sciama 1953. Which, of course, as is well known, was the best year of the twentieth century.Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/09/2009 06:57 pmI thought I'd make my first post here.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 02:30 pmStart with Sciama 1953. Which, of course, as is well known, was the best year of the twentieth century.Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/09/2009 06:57 pmI thought I'd make my first post here.I'm not starting with something Woodward says his theory doesn't depend on.
Math?
If I'm going to evaluate something, I'm going to need to know what the /actual/ basis for the theory is. And, of course, this "slipperiness" of appealing to Sciama and then saying you don't depend on it is a sign you're trying to pull a fast one.
...What is your angle here? I'm rather patient, but this is getting lame. You clearly don't have a handle on the math, but appear to be too proud to admit it....
Math without context is useless. You can build a system of consistent math with no connection with the real world, and although it may make you /seem/ impressive, it means diddly squat for physics. We're trying to establish what equations Woodward depends on, not ancillary stuff.So, supporters of Woodward's Effect, provide a single document which we can examine.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 04:27 pm...What is your angle here? I'm rather patient, but this is getting lame. You clearly don't have a handle on the math, but appear to be too proud to admit it....A challenge. I'm in physics grad school, the math isn't the limiting factor it's the time to sift through it all.Where is the "seminal paper" on this effect? We need /one/ thing which we can examine.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/20/2013 04:31 pmQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 04:27 pm...What is your angle here? I'm rather patient, but this is getting lame. You clearly don't have a handle on the math, but appear to be too proud to admit it....A challenge. I'm in physics grad school, the math isn't the limiting factor it's the time to sift through it all.Where is the "seminal paper" on this effect? We need /one/ thing which we can examine.I have provided the one seminal paper.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 04:32 pmI have provided the one seminal paper.No, you did not. You gave me a Sciama paper, which Woodward explicitly says his "theory" doesn't depend on.
I have provided the one seminal paper.
...Sciama 1953 gives the context, consistent with the real world. You keep dodging for no apparent purpose other than pride.
Over a century has passed since Ernst Mach conjectured that the cause of inertia should somehow be causally related to the presence of the vast bulk of the matter (his "fixed stars") in the universe. Einstein translated this conjecture into "Mach’s principle" (his words) and attempted to incorporate a version of it into general relativity theory (GRT) by introducing the "cosmological constant" term into his field equations for gravity. Einstein ultimately abandoned his attempts to incorporate Mach’s principle into GRT. But in the early 1950s Dennis Sciama revived interest in the "origin of inertia"” ....