Author Topic: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY  (Read 23949 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #20 on: 02/20/2013 04:48 PM »
Math without context is useless.

I don't want context...

The farce is strong in this one...
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28380
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8242
  • Likes Given: 5444
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #21 on: 02/20/2013 04:48 PM »
So freaking what? It's not widely accepted and taken as nearly axiomatic ("textbook") the way GR is now.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #22 on: 02/20/2013 04:51 PM »
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!

That is exactly what Woodward is claiming:  He has found a periodic fluctuation of mass.

What's more, he claims that his experiment shows how much it fluctuates.  Not as much as he might want or predict, mind you.  Mind everybody, actually.

I don't know if you can do this or not.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2013 05:00 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28380
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8242
  • Likes Given: 5444
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #23 on: 02/20/2013 04:52 PM »
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).

I think you're just trolling, now.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #24 on: 02/20/2013 04:55 PM »
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).

I know where, and have shown where to start looking for the math, but I cannot give the math.   Neither can you.  No blame to you from me on that.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28380
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8242
  • Likes Given: 5444
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #25 on: 02/20/2013 04:58 PM »
Burden on proof is on supporters to come up with something that can be examined. I'm going to sit here, lazy, until that is done.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #26 on: 02/20/2013 04:58 PM »
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!

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/dt

And plot F.  Is it periodic?  Then no net force exists.  Game over.  Thread Dead, stop wasting Chris' bandwidth.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2013 05:11 PM by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #27 on: 02/20/2013 05:14 PM »
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!

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


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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #28 on: 02/20/2013 05:18 PM »
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!

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/dt

And 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.
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.

" ***he adds electricity****" seriously? Irrelevant.

They want to build a thruster.  They say the thrust comes form the push heavy/ pull light cycle.  Where is the electricity in this besides making the mass fluctuate?  Even if its making the push and pull happen (i.e. giving you your V(t)) that obviously averages to zero, no excel exercise needed there, and it doesn't change anything I said.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2013 05:30 PM by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline GeeGee

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #29 on: 02/20/2013 06:01 PM »
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 momentum

momentum = mass*velocity

if 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.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #30 on: 02/20/2013 06:49 PM »

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.


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?

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #31 on: 02/20/2013 06:58 PM »
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 momentum

momentum = mass*velocity

if 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.

What can those possibly say besides "I get to ignore Newtons Laws because I'm special" anyway?

*this response deliberately flippant because I want to provoke someone into doing the reading and summarizing it for me because the burdon of proof is on them/ the supporters and I do not have the time or will to dig into it myself.
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #32 on: 02/20/2013 07:01 PM »

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.


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?
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!  Its also in every physics/ mechanics textbook ever written for an audience that is familiar with calculus.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2013 07:04 PM by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #33 on: 02/20/2013 07:30 PM »
...if both mass and velocity are functions of time then the chain rule applies.

F = v*dm/dt + m*dv/dt.

My understanding is very basic; if any little thing is wrong, I get lost. 
The product rule is a special case of the chain rule and is what is applicable here.  I think.

But typically, it is thought that mass is constant, therefore dm/dt=0; hence F=m(dv/dt).  Of course, a=dv/dt.  So what am I missing here?

If mass could fluctuate, you could then say:

F = v*dm/dt + m*dv/dt. (Which is also F = dp/dt.)

So I kinda get where you're coming from, but I don't know how to solve it with a fluctuating mass.  I can't get mass on one side of the equation.  Can I divide by dt/dm?  dt/dv?

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.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2013 07:33 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Cinder

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 626
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 384
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #34 on: 02/20/2013 08:03 PM »
 This is my last post in this thread.


Random math to satisfy Cinder:
Playing with words.  The topic is not random math but "Woodward" math.

"Lazy" is correct.  You sabotage this topic for the sake of your opinion.  You cannot pretend QED till it is.  The burden of proof is not on Woodward & co because they have yet to make as absolute an assertion WRT their proposed model(s) as you have on this forum.

This kind of attitude is why science is not totally politics-proof. 
« Last Edit: 02/20/2013 08:03 PM by Cinder »
The pork must flow.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28380
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8242
  • Likes Given: 5444
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #35 on: 02/20/2013 08:05 PM »
What am I trying to prove or disprove? Give me one (Woodward) paper.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #36 on: 02/20/2013 08:16 PM »
Ok, but clearly, we all understand that you didn't say you'd even read it, much less explain it:
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #37 on: 02/20/2013 08:34 PM »

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.

If we're talking relativistic velocities, we need to consider momentum p as a 4-vector.  Changes to a 4-momentum can only be made via a 'Lorentz' boost.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum

If you do that then "conventional wisdom" is that you don't consider the inertia itself to change under relativistic velocities.

Woodward might say something different... I've only just finished Sciama '53...

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3038
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #38 on: 02/20/2013 08:50 PM »
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.

Ever heard of Galilean invariance?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 620
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: Woodward's Effect - MATH ONLY
« Reply #39 on: 02/20/2013 08:57 PM »
Yes, and the evidence is that leaking something while moving at a particular velocity doesn't produce a net force proportional to that velocity.

Wait a sec.  Are you saying that SLS leaks?  And that's why it can't get 70 tons to LEO on its own?

What are we paying these people to do?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags: