-
#3380 by Mulletron on 24 Nov, 2014 21:38
-
Nordtvedt effect, is this needed for Mach effects? I see reference to it in Woodward's book.
-
#3381 by Stormbringer on 24 Nov, 2014 21:56
-
Instead, Sonny has funding and Woodward does not. That is a real scientific tragedy.
all of about 50K worth if i recall correctly. You could get that couch fishing in all the NASA break room chair cushions.
Dr Woodward has some funding from his book/SSI deals plus he has tenure. -
#3382 by Supergravity on 24 Nov, 2014 22:19
-
I am chasing the truth. I have just done the diligence and know that White and Shawyer and 15 other nuts are wrong. That stuff is all wishful thinking that has no part in science.
I find it incredibly interesting how you're calling White and others 'nuts', but somehow don't extend that to Woodward et al. If you've concluded that Sonny's work is pseudo-scientific nonsense, then you must also cede that Woodward is not far behind. He's just about as fringe and his work can trivially be shown to be inconsistent with Einstein.
IMO, there's only two options here. You can either take the rational and physically justified position that all of this stuff is nonsense and will never work, or you can take the position that there's some possible validity to all these fringe projects and just wait and see the results. You can't just attack certain approaches, and glorify others, despite the fact the two approaches are on the same scientific footing. Well, you can, if you have an agenda and are not interested in what actually will work. -
#3383 by Ron Stahl on 24 Nov, 2014 22:21
-
I've never heard what sort of funding Eagle has, but with 4 full time staff and 2 interns, and hundreds of thousands in equipment, I doubt they got $50k from DARPA. NASA provides the facilities but DARPA is paying the real bills. By contrast, Woodward has always supplied his own funding. And he's in his 70's with 4 forms of terminal cancer.
-
#3384 by 93143 on 24 Nov, 2014 22:23
-
Nordtvedt effect, is this needed for Mach effects?
No. Quite the opposite, if I understand correctly.his work can trivially be shown to be inconsistent with Einstein.
Then go ahead. No one's done it so far, not that I'm aware of. -
#3385 by Ron Stahl on 24 Nov, 2014 22:26
-
I'm sorry, but are you seriously telling me I'm not entitled to make rational judgements about what is crackpot and what is not? I need to just accept it all for whatever crazy reason? How is that science based? Science REQUIRES we make these judgements.
I am chasing the truth. I have just done the diligence and know that White and Shawyer and 15 other nuts are wrong. That stuff is all wishful thinking that has no part in science.
I find it incredibly interesting how you're calling White and others 'nuts', but somehow don't extend that to Woodward et al. If you've concluded that Sonny's work is pseudo-scientific nonsense, then you must also cede that Woodward is not far behind. He's just about as fringe and his work can trivially be shown to be inconsistent with Einstein.
IMO, there's only two options here. You can either take the rational and physically justified position that all of this stuff is nonsense and will never work, or you can take the position that there's some possible validity to all these fringe projects and just wait and see the results. You can't just attack certain approaches, and glorify others, despite the fact the two approaches are on the same scientific footing. Well, you can, if you have an agenda and are not interested in what actually will work.
And there is nothing inconsistent with Einstein in Woodward's work. You simply don't know what you're talking about. -
#3386 by Supergravity on 24 Nov, 2014 22:38
-
I'm sorry, but are you seriously telling me I'm not entitled to make rational judgements about what is crackpot and what is not? I need to just accept it all for whatever crazy reason? How is that science based? Science REQUIRES we make these judgements.
I just find it rather humorous that you're so fervently attacking one fringe approach while in complete support of another equally fringe approach. To the scientific community, Woodward's and White's devices are considered to about as equally grounded in science (not grounded at all). All I'm saying is, it's rather easy for someone on the other team to attack you and dismiss the team you think will produce something as 'nuts'. This is not to say you have made some very valid points against Sonny's work, but I believe a similar analysis will yield the same enormous problems with Woodward's proposed device.And there is nothing inconsistent with Einstein in Woodward's work. You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Really? There's absolutely nothing inconsistent about Mach's principle with GR? I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but I can at least say you don't know any GR if you think Woodward's device follows from standard relativity theory. -
#3387 by Mulletron on 24 Nov, 2014 22:47
-
I remember that Mach and Einstein ended up being at odds. Mach never accepted Einstein's theory. Check for yourself.
-
#3388 by Ron Stahl on 24 Nov, 2014 22:56
-
Yes, I've had 9+ years to study all the details of the fallout between Mach and Einstein. Anyone who wants those details can look here:
http://www.amazon.com/Machs-Principle-Newtons-Quantum-Einstein/dp/0817638237
I think the difficulty we're having with some here thinking I'm not entitled to draw distinctions is that I am actually looking at the details whereas others are suggesting blind generalities are more the method, and I'd just note that's not how science gets done. The devil is always in the details. You can't for example judge Woodward's work no matter your level of competency, unless you look at the work. Same with Shawyer. You can look at the lab data and make some judgements, but if you don't even do that, how then are these vague generalities worth the time to type?
And no, there is nothing in Woodward's work that is inconsistent with Einstein. That does not mean it necessarily follows from Einstein alone. It does not. It follows from Einstein and Sciama and Mach, but if there were inconsistencies with good old Uncle Al, I would not be a proponent of M-E theory.
I would here just remind that its not as if I chose a model out of a hat. Originally I was smitten with ZPF theory. It was more than a year until I understood how it has consistently avoided answering the critics. It is result of looking at all the details that I hold my position and this position is open to change as the details come in. That is how we do science. The QVF stuff is not science. Call it fringe if you like but scientists draw careful distinctions based on facts, not on vague generalities and lose groups one carelessly tosses models into labeled "fringe". -
#3389 by aceshigh on 24 Nov, 2014 23:29
-
I am chasing the truth. I have just done the diligence and know that White and Shawyer and 15 other nuts are wrong. That stuff is all wishful thinking that has no part in science.
I find it incredibly interesting how you're calling White and others 'nuts', but somehow don't extend that to Woodward et al. If you've concluded that Sonny's work is pseudo-scientific nonsense, then you must also cede that Woodward is not far behind. He's just about as fringe and his work can trivially be shown to be inconsistent with Einstein.
IMO, there's only two options here. You can either take the rational and physically justified position that all of this stuff is nonsense and will never work, or you can take the position that there's some possible validity to all these fringe projects and just wait and see the results. You can't just attack certain approaches, and glorify others, despite the fact the two approaches are on the same scientific footing. Well, you can, if you have an agenda and are not interested in what actually will work.
well, turns out itīs his opinion, based on what he knows, that Woodward's theories are fringe only to who doesnīt understand / has not really read about it.
He is entitled to consider some fringe theories less fringe than others. Otherwise, because we are investigating White's theories here and something by Woodward, we would also have to accept some stuff definitely proved to be crackpot, just because Woodward and White are in the fringe.
Thatīs quite a black and white universe, donīt you think so? There are clearly many shades of gray, from total crackpottery to established theories, and in the middle many stuff there may have something going on there, etc. -
#3390 by aceshigh on 24 Nov, 2014 23:33
-
I remember that Mach and Einstein ended up being at odds. Mach never accepted Einstein's theory. Check for yourself.
as far as I understand, they call it Mach Effect, not Mach Theory. Itīs not Mach Theory. Some say Woodward should even totally drop the Mach but then they would call it Woodward Theory and it seems Woodward doesnīt want that. -
#3391 by Ron Stahl on 24 Nov, 2014 23:42
-
Woodward's theory is usually referred to as Mach Effect theory, and in fact if Mach's Principle (the name coined by Einstein) is not correct, Woodward's theory is utterly mistaken. All of his work depends upon it being correct.
Einstein repudiated Mach after Mach refused to accept Relativity theory. Mach did believe in quite a few things that are seemingly odd today, but he was an elder scientist and everything changed with the younger generation of his time--changed around Einstein's work. That all said, Einstein drew heavily from Mach and this is detailed in the book at the link I posted. It's actually quite an interesting read. -
#3392 by 93143 on 24 Nov, 2014 23:51
-
Woodward's theory is usually referred to as Mach Effect theory, and in fact if Mach's Principle (the name coined by Einstein) is not correct, Woodward's theory is utterly mistaken. All of his work depends upon it being correct.
Specifically, the Sciama variant, in which inertia works the way it does because of the kind of universe we're in. There are other interpretations of Mach's Principle that have been shown to be inconsistent with GR - and there are solutions of GR that have been shown to be inconsistent with Sciama-type Mach's principle; we just don't live in one. -
#3393 by Mulletron on 25 Nov, 2014 00:33
-
Ok, from page 76 of Woodward's book:
"The principle of operation is simple. A voltage signal is applied to the FM element and
PZT actuator so that the FM element periodically gains and loses mass. A second voltage
signal is applied to the PZT actuator. The actuator voltage signal must have a component
at the power frequency of the FM voltage signal, that is, twice the frequency of the signal
applied to the FM. And it must also have a component at the FM signal frequency to
produce the acceleration of the FM required for a Mach effect to be produced. The relative
phase of the two signals is then adjusted so that, say, the PZT actuator is expanding (at the
power frequency) when the FM element is more massive and contracting when it is less
massive. The inertial reaction force that the FM element exerts on the PZT actuator is
communicated through the actuator to the RM.
Evidently, the reaction force on the RM during the expansion part of the PZT actuator
cycle will be greater than the reaction force during the contraction part of the cycle. So, the
time-averaged force on the RM will not be zero. Viewed from the field perspective, the
device has set up a momentum flux in the gravinertial field that is, the gravitational
field understood as the cause of inertial reaction forces coupling the FM to the chiefly
distant matter in the universe that causes the acceleration of the mechanical system
of Fig. 3.1."
Pages 17, 123, and here (flux capacitors...http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/flux-cap.pdf) state that the mass being modified is inertial mass and that it is being modified by adding energy to the system.
Page 17: "When you write, as Einstein did in 1905, m = E/c2 completely
different thoughts come to mind. Instead of ogling the enormous amount of energy present
in small amounts of rest mass, you appreciate that all non-gravitational energy contributes
to the inertial masses of things."
Page 123: "The reason why the Equivalence Principle is important in this case is that it
asserts that the active gravitational, passive gravitational, and inertial masses of an object are
the same. So, if you vary one of the masses, the other masses change, too. If this aspect of the
Equivalence Principle is correct (and it is), then it is almost trivial to show that mass
variation has serious propulsive advantages."
Creating inertial mass fluctuations (and whereby also creating active gravitational and passive gravitational mass fluctuations, page 123) aside by charging capacitors.....Which I could try and argue against, but won't because there is lower hanging fruit. Do charged capacitors fall differently than discharged capacitors?......are charged vs uncharged caps easier to push around?.....Does Einstein's mass energy equivalence principle apply...yes...to extremely small effect.....the author doesn't go this route.
In a nutshell....Push while FM is heavy, pull while it is light. But on the flip side, the finite power supply that is exciting the FM is literally strapped down to the RM, reaction mass (the ship). So if the FM is gaining mass, then the power supply is losing mass by the same rationale. The entire system is being accelerated, which is required for Mach effects to occur. I see a paradox. Where is the net force? Please educate me.
Disclaimer and excerpt form copyright statement page 4:
Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or
scholarly analysis.
-
#3394 by Mulletron on 25 Nov, 2014 00:43
-
#3395 by 93143 on 25 Nov, 2014 00:45
-
Take with a grain of salt, because I haven't yet been able to devote enough time to fully understanding what Woodward's done, but as far as I can tell he is not talking about simple E/cē from charge/discharge when he refers to mass fluctuations.
The expected E/cē fluctuations occur, of course, as part of the device's operation, but to excite the effect in question they have to occur at the same time as some quite brisk bulk accelerations. This, I believe, is supposed to produce much larger fluctuations in mass, which are not trivially balanced out in the rest of the local thruster system and can thus be used propulsively.
(You can see this, I think, by considering the actual equation he uses to describe the mass fluctuations, particularly the term that is always negative. That's not something charging and discharging a capacitor would do on its own.)
Gotta work on this... but my Ph.D. comes first, and I'm lagging... -
#3396 by Mulletron on 25 Nov, 2014 00:54
-
It was inertial mass....
Found this thread, lots of similar info here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17338.msg416737#msg416737
-
#3397 by JohnFornaro on 25 Nov, 2014 02:19
-
Nordtvedt effect, is this needed for Mach effects? I see reference to it in Woodward's book.
The Nordberg effect again. Have I posted this one yet?
-
#3398 by Stormbringer on 25 Nov, 2014 02:38
-
Actually i cite Dr Kramer of Washington U and some of his audience who were there asking him questions or just trying to show how gosh darned smart they were. but...Quote
A freak wormhole opened in the fabric of the space-time continuum and carried your words far far back in time across almost infinite reaches of space to a distant galaxy where strange and warlike beings were poised on the brink of frightful interstellar battle. The two opposing leaders were meeting for the last time. A dreadful silence fell across the conference table as the commander of the Vl'Hurgs, resplendent in his black jeweled battle shorts, gazed levelly at the G'Gugvunt leader squatting opposite him in a cloud of green, sweet-smelling steam. As a million sleek and horribly beweaponed star cruisers poised to unleash electric death at his single word of command, the Vl'Hurg challenged his vile enemy to take back what it had said about his mother. The creature stirred in its sickly broiling vapour, and at that very moment the words drifted across the conference table. Unfortunately, in the Vl'hurg tongue this was the most dreadful insult imaginable, and there was nothing for it but to wage terrible war for centuries. Eventually the error was detected, but over two hundred and fifty thousand worlds, their peoples and cultures perished in the holocaust. You have destroyed most of a small galaxy. Please pick your words with greater care.
-
#3399 by ThinkerX on 25 Nov, 2014 06:51
-
Professor McCulloch's latest:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/
I note that his 'MiHsC' seems very close to the theories/effects of Woodward and Mach, if not the same thing. He talks of using MiHsC to account for tiny velocity changes in spacecraft.