### Author Topic: Woodward's effect  (Read 738745 times)

#### Augmentor

• Member
• Posts: 91
• Liked: 52
• Likes Given: 67
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1420 on: 05/13/2018 06:35 am »
[In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined by

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.

In the second term what is the velocity v relative to?

v is instantaneous, a measure of the external velocity.

If v is the external instantaneous velocity of a body undergoing external acceleration then the jerk, j, is internal change.

So we have another issue which appears to be a frame problem. What are v, a and j related to?

Mach effects occur when a body undergoing external Newtonian acceleration also undergoes Relativistic internal change.

Basically, in nested reference frames, Mach effects can occur. Localization from Machian universe where frame dragging results. Squeezed states result from compound acceleration and higher order derivatives, notably jerk.

This brings up the question of whether a GR acceleration with Newtonian internal change results in Mach effects as well. The intuitive answer is yes. However, one needs to define GR acceleration...is it a curved path such that additional forces apply, say in a planetary or stellar gravitation field.

First, a units check:  j v == a^2  ?

( m/sec^3)  (m/sec) = m^2/sec^4 =  (m/sec^2)^2

Units wise,   j v == a^2

On that basis, we can define the a^2 term as actually a(ext)* a(int) or identically a(int) * a(ext). Makes no difference, we can transpose them. So frames identical.

F = A a^2 + B v j =  A v'^2 + B v v''  = A (a(ext) * a(int)) + (v(ext) *  j(int))

If we assign jerk to internal changes and instantaneous v to external, then we have

F = A a^2 + B j v = A (a(ext)* a(int)) + j(int) * v(ext)

So in the j v term, we may need to use an alternative term, v(int) * j(ext). Will that work?

F = A a^2 + B j v = A (a(ext)* a(int)) + v(int) * j(ext)

Internal changes are not defined. However, we can assume the changes are either linear or angular. Linear jerk forces may be due to isolated energy changes, parametric amplification, or even parasitic forces including charge, mass and fields. Angular forces has additional forces which may result in acceleration change aka jerk forces.

D

#### dustinthewind

• Full Member
• Posts: 895
• U.S. of A.
• Liked: 313
• Likes Given: 354
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1421 on: 05/13/2018 09:21 pm »
[In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined by

F' = A a^2 + B j v

where v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.

In the second term what is the velocity v relative to?

v is instantaneous, a measure of the external velocity.

If v is the external instantaneous velocity of a body undergoing external acceleration then the jerk, j, is internal change.

So we have another issue which appears to be a frame problem. What are v, a and j related to?

Mach effects occur when a body undergoing external Newtonian acceleration also undergoes Relativistic internal change.

Basically, in nested reference frames, Mach effects can occur. Localization from Machian universe where frame dragging results. Squeezed states result from compound acceleration and higher order derivatives, notably jerk.

This brings up the question of whether a GR acceleration with Newtonian internal change results in Mach effects as well. The intuitive answer is yes. However, one needs to define GR acceleration...is it a curved path such that additional forces apply, say in a planetary or stellar gravitation field.

First, a units check:  j v == a^2  ?

( m/sec^3)  (m/sec) = m^2/sec^4 =  (m/sec^2)^2

Units wise,   j v == a^2

On that basis, we can define the a^2 term as actually a(ext)* a(int) or identically a(int) * a(ext). Makes no difference, we can transpose them. So frames identical.

F = A a^2 + B v j =  A v'^2 + B v v''  = A (a(ext) * a(int)) + (v(ext) *  j(int))

If we assign jerk to internal changes and instantaneous v to external, then we have

F = A a^2 + B j v = A (a(ext)* a(int)) + j(int) * v(ext)

So in the j v term, we may need to use an alternative term, v(int) * j(ext). Will that work?

F = A a^2 + B j v = A (a(ext)* a(int)) + v(int) * j(ext)

Internal changes are not defined. However, we can assume the changes are either linear or angular. Linear jerk forces may be due to isolated energy changes, parametric amplification, or even parasitic forces including charge, mass and fields. Angular forces has additional forces which may result in acceleration change aka jerk forces.

D

I find it interesting that if, "there was a velocity relative to a local vacuum" and an object was increasing its velocity relative to it.  The vacuum that was in front of it would radially decrease in distance, so the relative velocity would be negative, decreasing the effectiveness of thrust.  That is, unless thrust is reversed.  This is like pushing against a moving carpet?

Is there any such detectable vacuum velocity?  Could any such velocity change locally in the presence of gravitational fields?  Would locally Minkowski tilting the local vacuum around an object to match the objects Minkowski tilt make it at rest with the local vacuum, reducing gamma?  Would that be related to warp drive?  If Minkowski tilting the local vacuum or curving the local vacuum is like creating artificial gravitational wells then this implies creating artificial gravitational fields is key to creating warp drives?

Some links to earlier speculation and diagrams:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976
particularly "minkowski space.png" and the connection to gamma.

Notice the tilt in the vacuum in the above mentioned image to match the tilt in the vacuum of the proposed warp drive.

Warp Drive
http://www.andersoninstitute.com/alcubierre-warp-drive.html

or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
« Last Edit: 05/13/2018 09:37 pm by dustinthewind »

#### Augmentor

• Member
• Posts: 91
• Liked: 52
• Likes Given: 67
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1422 on: 05/14/2018 05:43 am »
You've missed the point.

This is a nested system, a system within the system. Treat one system, treat the nested system, couple them together.

re: > "there was a velocity relative to a local vacuum"
And it's not clear what or who you are quoting

D

#### Jim Davis

• Full Member
• Posts: 560
• Liked: 124
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1423 on: 05/14/2018 03:51 pm »
You've missed the point.

No doubt.

Quote
This is a nested system, a system within the system. Treat one system, treat the nested system, couple them together.

And once this is done what is v relative to?

Perhaps if you used a real life kinematic example it would help. For example, a satellite in a highly elliptic orbit would have v, a, and j varying throughout its orbit. Can you show that Woodward's theory predicts the orbit of such a satellite better than either Newton's or Einstein's?

Or perhaps you could use as an example a spacecraft equipped with a Mach effect drive with certain characteristics such as thrust to power ratio and available energy. You could show how Woodward's theory predicts the motion of such a spacecraft when the drive is operating for a certain amount of time.

Anything like that.

#### Jim Davis

• Full Member
• Posts: 560
• Liked: 124
• Likes Given: 0
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1424 on: 05/15/2018 04:51 pm »
For a spaceship in space, v is relative to the rest of the universe. So stellar navigation is a requirement.

For a soccer team moving a soccer balldown the field, one can pick v relative to either goal, or simply to the surface of the field.

Are you saying that Woodward's physics is frame dependent?

Quote
The satellite example is really complex and nonlinear.  Worse, changes to v, a and j mean that v', a' and j' add additional terms as well as g and g'. Since the path is curved, there are pseudo forces.

But surely such a case would be ideal to show that Woodward's physics is a better description of the real world? Why persist with ambiguous laboratory experiments for decades when one has an example ready to hand?

Quote
OTOH Mach effects  are defined as a system undergoing acceleration with respect to the rest of the universe, and  a relativistic change by E waves, produces internal change which creates a small transient gravitational/inertial change resulting in an overall change in Force.

So when a body accelerates it sends out a signal and as each element of the universe receives this signal it returns a gravitation/inertial signal which results in a change of force? How does the distance and direction of the various elements of the universe affect the magnitude and direction of the returned force? It seems to me that the various forces would largely cancel out since they are arriving from all directions over a very long period of time.

In any event, thanks for the lengthy explanation.

#### ThinkerX

• Full Member
• Posts: 341
• Liked: 126
• Likes Given: 63
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1425 on: 05/16/2018 01:24 am »
Quote
So when a body accelerates it sends out a signal and as each element of the universe receives this signal it returns a gravitation/inertial signal which results in a change of force? How does the distance and direction of the various elements of the universe affect the magnitude and direction of the returned force? It seems to me that the various forces would largely cancel out since they are arriving from all directions over a very long period of time.

My concern as well.

Many pages ago, I posted a suspicion here that the this device might interact with the moons gravitational pull somehow - a local gravitational force strong enough to literally move oceans.

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1406
• Do it!
• Statesville, NC
• Liked: 1452
• Likes Given: 1925
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1426 on: 05/16/2018 11:56 pm »
« Last Edit: 05/16/2018 11:56 pm by WarpTech »

#### WarpTech

• Full Member
• Posts: 1406
• Do it!
• Statesville, NC
• Liked: 1452
• Likes Given: 1925
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1427 on: 05/17/2018 12:00 am »
Quote
So when a body accelerates it sends out a signal and as each element of the universe receives this signal it returns a gravitation/inertial signal which results in a change of force? How does the distance and direction of the various elements of the universe affect the magnitude and direction of the returned force? It seems to me that the various forces would largely cancel out since they are arriving from all directions over a very long period of time.

My concern as well.

Many pages ago, I posted a suspicion here that the this device might interact with the moons gravitational pull somehow - a local gravitational force strong enough to literally move oceans.

No, no, no! It instantaneously interacts with the fields of matter from the rest of the universe that "are already here". It's not a back-and-forth exchange of signals with distant matter. They refer to it as; Advanced Waves that  propagate "backwards in time". However, I think that is misleading. Matter there has already radiated those waves and they are already here.

#### flux_capacitor

• Full Member
• Posts: 708
• France
• Liked: 860
• Likes Given: 1076
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1428 on: 05/20/2018 01:28 pm »
Quote
So when a body accelerates it sends out a signal and as each element of the universe receives this signal it returns a gravitation/inertial signal which results in a change of force? How does the distance and direction of the various elements of the universe affect the magnitude and direction of the returned force? It seems to me that the various forces would largely cancel out since they are arriving from all directions over a very long period of time.

My concern as well.

Many pages ago, I posted a suspicion here that the this device might interact with the moons gravitational pull somehow - a local gravitational force strong enough to literally move oceans.

No, no, no! It instantaneously interacts with the fields of matter from the rest of the universe that "are already here". It's not a back-and-forth exchange of signals with distant matter. They refer to it as; Advanced Waves that  propagate "backwards in time". However, I think that is misleading. Matter there has already radiated those waves and they are already here.

In the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, the "retarded" (orthochronous, or "forward in time") and "advanced" (antichronous, retrochronous or "backward in time") waves are actually the SAME wave, "recorded" from a different temporal perspective.

The solution to the electromagnetic field equations in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which has been developed for electrodynamics) are symmetric with respect to time-inversion. But it has been suggested (first by Sciama) that such a concept could be extended to gravity.

An object A (the emitter) suddenly accelerates (proper acceleration) at an instant t1. It emits gravitational waves. These waves propagate forward in time through space at a velocity c (retarded solution). After some time, the wave arrives at a distant object B (the absorber) at an instant t2.

But the solution can bee seen oppositely, when reversing time (T-symmetry). Then it is the object B, the absorber, that emits a wave at t2, which propages through space at a velocity c, for "some time" and finally arrives at the object A at the instant t1, i.e. at the very same moment the object starts to accelerate in the orhochronous chronology.

Therefore the advanced solution allows an instantaneous inertial (gravitational in essence) interaction between very distant objects through space and time, although the waves themselves propagate at a limited, finite velocity c.

What is important to note, with respect to causality, is that the wave "coming back from the future" (more exactly the advanced solution) never propagates past in time before the moment of the object acceleration that initiated all of the waves.

#### Augmentor

• Member
• Posts: 91
• Liked: 52
• Likes Given: 67
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1429 on: 05/28/2018 01:02 am »
In the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory, the "retarded" (orthochronous, or "forward in time") and "advanced" (antichronous, retrochronous or "backward in time") waves are actually the SAME wave, "recorded" from a different temporal perspective.

The solution to the electromagnetic field equations in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which has been developed for electrodynamics) are symmetric with respect to time-inversion. But it has been suggested (first by Sciama) that such a concept could be extended to gravity.

An object A (the emitter) suddenly accelerates (proper acceleration) at an instant t1. It emits gravitational waves. These waves propagate forward in time through space at a velocity c (retarded solution). After some time, the wave arrives at a distant object B (the absorber) at an instant t2.

But the solution can bee seen oppositely, when reversing time (T-symmetry). Then it is the object B, the absorber, that emits a wave at t2, which propages through space at a velocity c, for "some time" and finally arrives at the object A at the instant t1, i.e. at the very same moment the object starts to accelerate in the orhochronous chronology.

Therefore the advanced solution allows an instantaneous inertial (gravitational in essence) interaction between very distant objects through space and time, although the waves themselves propagate at a limited, finite velocity c.

What is important to note, with respect to causality, is that the wave "coming back from the future" (more exactly the advanced solution) never propagates past in time before the moment of the object acceleration that initiated all of the waves.

Things are little bit more complicated than that in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory. If you carefully read the original papers (Wheeler and Feynman 1945, 1949), you will find that there are six distinct waves in play:

1. Retarded wave from the emitter
2. Advanced wave from the emitter
3. Retarded wave from the future absorber
4. Advanced wave from the future absorber
5. Retarded wave from the past absorber
6. Advanced wave from the past absorber

All six waves should be taken into account + the boundary conditions of the universe in both time directions, as Hogarth did in his calculations (Hogarth 1962). You're talking about waves #1 and #4, and you are right that they are indistinguishable. But waves #2 do propagate backward in time before the moment of emission (from an anthropocentric view of time), and they violate our naive concept of causality:

Hmmmmm...(thinking)

1. Retarded wave from the emitter
2. Advanced wave from the emitter
3. Retarded wave from the future absorber
4. Advanced wave from the future absorber
5. Retarded wave from the past absorber
6. Advanced wave from the past absorber

I'll take another look at the papers, but in a situation of radiation reaction, one should also consider an additional six equations, a source of potential energy

7. Retarded wave from the absorber
8. Advanced wave from the absorber
9. Retarded wave from the future emitter
10. Advanced wave from the future emitter
11. Retarded wave from the past emitter
12. Advanced wave from the past emitter

David

#### flux_capacitor

• Full Member
• Posts: 708
• France
• Liked: 860
• Likes Given: 1076
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1430 on: 06/25/2018 09:37 am »
By February 2018, Woodward loaned a good Mach Effect Thruster (accompanied by a specially designed isolation transformer) to Martin Tajmar at TU Dresden, Germany.

But for an unknown reason (do they fully understand what they are doing ?) Tajmar and his team didn't use the mandatory stepup/isolation transformer: Therefore they operated the device at the wrong frequency, one that could never trigger any thrust signature!

Even worse: as the Dresden team saw nothing conclusive, they increased the voltage for too long and the temperature in the PZT stacks, so they also managed to toast the initially good-working device before returning it to Woodward in California four months later.

BTW same kind of casualness in their EmDrive testing, as already reported on these boards in the dedicated thread, for example here and there.

The media completely failed to account properly for these events and even reported that Mach effects may finally not exist, on the basis of that failed experiment.

What a pity. Complete story attached as a PPT file.

Hopefully Tajmar can resume another test with a new device and a valid protocol in the near future.

Quote from: Jim Woodward
Having known Martin for years, we decided to LOAN him the device we had been using in our lab as a “demonstrator” for a couple of years.  The device was shipped to him, along with some associated hardware – especially, a stepup/isolation transformer for the power circuit – so that he and his students could test it.  He was to return the device and hardware in a month or two.  It showed up in early June.

Running without the transformer had led them to run at the wrong frequency. But this aside, those in the popular and semi-popular press latched onto his ambiguous low power results and took them to be grounds for claiming that Mach effects had been falsified. Most of the press attention was lavished on the EM drive for there is no plausible physics to explain its operation should real thrust actually be generated in it. Mach effects were collateral damage.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2018 09:40 am by flux_capacitor »

• Full Member
• Posts: 1926
• Liked: 315
• Likes Given: 552
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1431 on: 06/25/2018 02:02 pm »
After that debacle (one cant help but wonder WHY the MET was tested along with EmDrive. Was Tajmar's group just trying to do a clearing-house on anything they could fit in the vacuum chamber? ) I hope that the drive gets a proper test regime from someone else.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

#### Augmentor

• Member
• Posts: 91
• Liked: 52
• Likes Given: 67
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1432 on: 06/27/2018 05:22 am »

>Therefore they operated the device at the wrong frequency, one that could never trigger any thrust signature!

Sort of.

The isolation transformer also provide impedance matching. To those familiar with the MEGA drive, 31 kHz means that you have a DC component and that the 36KHz frequency cannot be obtained.

Part of the reason that Tajmar's group published on two different drives was an attempt to show how good his new expensive equipment would perform. So really this was not about testing the two different drives but new equipment testing as well as a new universal experimental setup that was not so universal.

The experimental setup was to test the emDrive. The wrong type of balance was used.

Magnetic dampening has artifacts that may contribute to false negatives or false positives.

The result appeared to be make out the emDrive as a magnetic compass.

IMHO the tests were not valid and the experiment was not valid.

A) The future requires retesting of both drives. Try, try again.

B) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

C) Really, it was an interim report.

D) At least the press spelled Tajmar correctly.

"I don't care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right."
PT Barnum, Barnum and Bailey Circus

D

#### M.E.T.

• Senior Member
• Posts: 2027
• Liked: 2523
• Likes Given: 394
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1433 on: 06/27/2018 01:20 pm »
Well this is some of the best news I have read in a while. MET is alive and kicking.

#### Star-Drive

• Member
• Full Member
• Posts: 925
• TX/USA
• Liked: 1031
• Likes Given: 31
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1434 on: 06/27/2018 03:42 pm »
Well this is some of the best news I have read in a while. MET is alive and kicking.

All:

Find attached Jim Woodward's June 2018 critique of Tajmar's spring 2018 Mach Effect Gravity Assist (MEGA)-drive Seville report that Dr. Woodward sent out to his email distribution on June 25, with some editorial clean-ups from me.  I hope you find it informative.

Best, Paul March, Friendswood, TX
Star-Drive

#### meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3373
• Likes Given: 771
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1435 on: 06/27/2018 04:45 pm »
IMHO the tests were not valid and the experiment was not valid.
As you said, the point of the experiments was to demonstrate the quality of the setup. The primary result was they need to improve the magnetic shielding.

Nothing in your post explains why this experiment would be "not valid." Also, your claims about the "wrong type of balance" aren't supported by the paper. The errors seen in the experiments can easily be generated by Earth ambient magnetic fields. (Actually the paper doesn't even claim that it is necessarily magnetic, because the experiment only is enough to know that the thrust wasn't from the drive.)

A) The future requires retesting of both drives. Try, try again.

B) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

C) Really, it was an interim report.

D) At least the press spelled Tajmar correctly.
Not really a "take your pick" situation. C is true, and is clear if you read the paper. The word interim  also implies A more or less regardless of the results.

Well this is some of the best news I have read in a while. MET is alive and kicking.
This changes nothing about Tajmar's results which were stated in the paper to be run with too low of a voltage to expect to see a signal over the other effects present.

The new presentation shows strange data, usually with the "force" oscillating significantly while power is applied. Many artifacts in the data are not discussed in it, and generally, until and unless Woodward retracts previous papers he has written that fail at high school level physics (discussed previously in this thread) data from him is not trustworthy (note: I am not claiming he is intentionally messing with data.)

Once Tajmar improves his setup and does more thorough testing, hopefully that will be enough to show some relevant conclusions.

#### Povel

• Member
• Posts: 89
• Liked: 49
• Likes Given: 18
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1436 on: 06/28/2018 10:22 pm »
The new presentation shows strange data, usually with the "force" oscillating significantly while power is applied. Many artifacts in the data are not discussed in it

If the allegations Woodward made about the damage caused by Tajmar incorrect operation of the device are true it's not surprising that the data don't look the same as before and that they are "strange", regardless from the reality of the underlying effect. The signal surely looks fainter.

Moreover, it seems to me that this is an unofficial Power Point presentation, not a published paper; there's a more in depth discussion on the noise sources and the way he accounted for them in his book.

[..]until and unless Woodward retracts previous papers he has written that fail at high school level physics (discussed previously in this thread) data from him is not trustworthy (note: I am not claiming he is intentionally messing with data.)

Are you referring to his "Overunity" paper? I'm not aware of any other writing he made that contains glaring mistakes. It would surely benefit his credibility if he removed that article from SSI page.

While I respect the opposite opinion, I think  this single case is not enough to conclude that he does not deserve any thrust (and that he is an incompetent, like you seem to imply).

For instance, both on his own web page and in the NIAC award presentation it is clearly stated that the device operates thanks to some external source of energy/momentum, showing that he understands  this point.

By the way, if some mistake in basic physics was enough to destroy the credibility of a scientist one would expect to have seen this happen with all those scientist in the 1920s-40s that stated with no doubts that a rocket could not fly in a vacuum. Seemingly, this did not happen, and I don't even know if each one of them later corrected his previous remarks.

As for the rest, I agree with your post.

#### meberbs

• Senior Member
• Posts: 3096
• Liked: 3373
• Likes Given: 771
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1437 on: 06/29/2018 06:54 am »
Not much to comment on, since we are more in agreement than not.

Moreover, it seems to me that this is an unofficial Power Point presentation, not a published paper; there's a more in depth discussion on the noise sources and the way he accounted for them in his book.
I don't want to spend the time to go into the details now, but I recognize this presentation wasn't intended to answer everything.

Are you referring to his "Overunity" paper? I'm not aware of any other writing he made that contains glaring mistakes. It would surely benefit his credibility if he removed that article from SSI page.
As far as I know it is just the one paper. Trust is easy to lose and can be hard to earn.  Thankfully, we don't need to rely on trust since independent confirmation is a useful tool.

By the way, if some mistake in basic physics was enough to destroy the credibility of a scientist one would expect to have seen this happen with all those scientist in the 1920s-40s that stated with no doubts that a rocket could not fly in a vacuum. Seemingly, this did not happen, and I don't even know if each one of them later corrected his previous remarks.
As far as I am concerned that would have severely impaired their credibility with me. I have heard that claim before about scientists doubting rockets, but don't remember any firm sources. An attempt to google it just led to a bunch of flat earther sites (and a reminder that people today seriously promoting that level of ignorance is a real thing). I suspect it is primarily apocryphal, with a mix of misquotes and selective quotes similar to that whole bumblebee flying thing. If you have actual sources please share, though maybe in PM, since it isn't really on topic.

#### Star One

• Senior Member
• Posts: 13462
• UK
• Liked: 3735
• Likes Given: 220
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1438 on: 06/29/2018 10:16 am »
Not much to comment on, since we are more in agreement than not.

Moreover, it seems to me that this is an unofficial Power Point presentation, not a published paper; there's a more in depth discussion on the noise sources and the way he accounted for them in his book.
I don't want to spend the time to go into the details now, but I recognize this presentation wasn't intended to answer everything.

Are you referring to his "Overunity" paper? I'm not aware of any other writing he made that contains glaring mistakes. It would surely benefit his credibility if he removed that article from SSI page.
As far as I know it is just the one paper. Trust is easy to lose and can be hard to earn.  Thankfully, we don't need to rely on trust since independent confirmation is a useful tool.

By the way, if some mistake in basic physics was enough to destroy the credibility of a scientist one would expect to have seen this happen with all those scientist in the 1920s-40s that stated with no doubts that a rocket could not fly in a vacuum. Seemingly, this did not happen, and I don't even know if each one of them later corrected his previous remarks.
As far as I am concerned that would have severely impaired their credibility with me. I have heard that claim before about scientists doubting rockets, but don't remember any firm sources. An attempt to google it just led to a bunch of flat earther sites (and a reminder that people today seriously promoting that level of ignorance is a real thing). I suspect it is primarily apocryphal, with a mix of misquotes and selective quotes similar to that whole bumblebee flying thing. If you have actual sources please share, though maybe in PM, since it isn't really on topic.

I’ve read about this as well that people believed rockets wouldn’t work in a vacuum. If memory serves its even mentioned in passing in the Haynes manual on the Saturn V.

#### tdperk

• Full Member
• Posts: 369
• Liked: 152
• Likes Given: 91
##### Re: Woodward's effect
« Reply #1439 on: 06/29/2018 01:58 pm »
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is a non-L2 section and can be linked to externally, correct?
« Last Edit: 06/29/2018 03:09 pm by tdperk »

Tags: