Math without context is useless.

I don't want context...

Now find a periodic function of mass and a periodic function of velocity of your choice that gives you a non periodic Force? YOU CAN NOT DO IT!

Give me math to prove or disprove and the physical context (by this I mean assumptions, not papers by different authors that is not dependent on the problem in question).

Quote from: LegendCJS on 02/20/2013 04:32 PMNow find a periodic function of mass and a periodic function of velocity of your choice that gives you a non periodic Force? YOU CAN NOT DO IT!That is what Woodward is claiming: He has found a periodic fluctuation of mass.I don't know if you can do this or not.

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 04:51 PMQuote from: LegendCJS on 02/20/2013 04:32 PMNow find a periodic function of mass and a periodic function of velocity of your choice that gives you a non periodic Force? YOU CAN NOT DO IT!That is what Woodward is claiming: He has found a periodic fluctuation of mass.I don't know if you can do this or not.I sense you missed the point. For this proof take Woodward at his word. Allow for periodic mass fluctuations. It doesn't matter. You can not get a net force out of the effect EVEN IF ITS TRUE

Quote from: LegendCJS on 02/20/2013 04:58 PMQuote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 04:51 PMQuote from: LegendCJS on 02/20/2013 04:32 PMNow find a periodic function of mass and a periodic function of velocity of your choice that gives you a non periodic Force? YOU CAN NOT DO IT!That is what Woodward is claiming: He has found a periodic fluctuation of mass.I don't know if you can do this or not.I sense you missed the point. For this proof take Woodward at his word. Allow for periodic mass fluctuations. It doesn't matter. You can not get a net force out of the effect EVEN IF ITS TRUE I encourage everyone to try it. Open Matlab or your favorite spread sheet. Create a periodic function called M(t), and one called V(t) . Be creative, get crazy, try to make the fantasy come true.Then calculate F as shown:F = v*dm/dt + m*dv/dtAnd plot F. Is it periodic? Then no net force exists. Game over. Thread Dead, stop wasting Chris' bandwidth.He adds electricity to provide the motive force, AIUI. So I don't think the simplification you provided is complete. You gotta have an energy supply to change the direction of the momentum.

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 02/20/2013 04:51 PMQuote from: LegendCJS on 02/20/2013 04:32 PMNow find a periodic function of mass and a periodic function of velocity of your choice that gives you a non periodic Force? YOU CAN NOT DO IT!That is what Woodward is claiming: He has found a periodic fluctuation of mass.I don't know if you can do this or not.I sense you missed the point. For this proof take Woodward at his word. Allow for periodic mass fluctuations. It doesn't matter. You can not get a net force out of the effect EVEN IF ITS TRUE I encourage everyone to try it. Open Matlab or your favorite spread sheet. Create a periodic function called M(t), and one called V(t) . Be creative, get crazy, try to make the fantasy come true.Then calculate F as shown:F = v*dm/dt + m*dv/dtAnd plot F. Is it periodic? Then no net force exists. Game over. Thread Dead, stop wasting Chris' bandwidth.

Woodwards effect or not, mass fluctuations or not, the math to show how you can not get a force out of any push heavy/pull light scheme is pretty simple, and can be worked by anyone who has seen the chain rule in intro calculus.With words:Force = change in momentummomentum = mass*velocityif both mass and velocity are functions of time then the chain rule applies.F = v*dm/dt + m*dv/dt.Now find a periodic function of mass and a periodic function of velocity of your choice that gives you a non periodic Force? YOU CAN NOT DO IT!(happy to be proven wrong.)

I didn't provide this simplification, Newton did. p is momentum. F = dp/dt is the proper form of Newtons second law. F = ma is only true if m is a constant.

Quote from: LegendCJS on 02/20/2013 04:32 PMWoodwards effect or not, mass fluctuations or not, the math to show how you can not get a force out of any push heavy/pull light scheme is pretty simple, and can be worked by anyone who has seen the chain rule in intro calculus.With words:Force = change in momentummomentum = mass*velocityif both mass and velocity are functions of time then the chain rule applies.F = v*dm/dt + m*dv/dt.Now find a periodic function of mass and a periodic function of velocity of your choice that gives you a non periodic Force? YOU CAN NOT DO IT!(happy to be proven wrong.)I'm not sure, but I think you're referring to the vdm/dt term argument, which is addressed in the following papers on page 1 of this thread: "Origin of inertia JF Woodward 2004" in Appendix B , "Refutation 02 ORNL of Woodward" and "Refutation 03 ORNL Woodward of ORNL" on page 7.

Quote from: LegendCJS on 02/20/2013 05:18 PMI didn't provide this simplification, Newton did. p is momentum. F = dp/dt is the proper form of Newtons second law. F = ma is only true if m is a constant.This is a physics question not a maths one but hey: what is the experimental evidence that F = dp/dt is more correct than F = ma? Without observing mass fluctuations, how can we tell the difference?It may be that nature is somewhere in between no?

...if both mass and velocity are functions of time then the chain rule applies.F = v*dm/dt + m*dv/dt.

Random math to satisfy Cinder:

We do know that relativity wise, mass does fluctuate with velocity; the faster the velocity, the greater the mass. So that's the "push heavy" part.What I gather from Woodward's experiment is that the nuclei of PZT thing resonate, or vibrate or move back and forth under the varying electromagnetic field of the capacitor, which has an A/C current of "x" Hertz.My intuition tells me that the dern nuclei vibrate back and forth at "x" megahertz, and so what if they do change mass? On the next cycle, they change mass in the other direction. The thing just sits there and vibrates.

Because you can apply F = dp/dt to a leaking water balloon or any other system whose mass is changing in a conventional way and get all the experimental evidence you need, silly!

Yes, and the evidence is that leaking something while moving at a particular velocity doesn't produce a net force proportional to that velocity.