Author Topic: Useful Skepticism  (Read 8893 times)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28750
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8852
  • Likes Given: 5741
Re: Useful Skepticism
« Reply #20 on: 12/06/2015 01:05 am »
How it works is like a swing.

It may be that the analogy of the swing is appropriate for some sense of understanding, within a great many limitations.  The tire swing on a tree works because there is "action at a distance"; the rope connects the swing to a tree.  The Woodward  drive may also depend on "action at a distance" in that it purports to connect to the rest of the universe via inertia.

Carry on.
Yes, some new effect that directly connects to distant objects would preserve conservation of momentum, but it definitely WOULD count as new physics.

It depends a great deal on definitions of "new" since Hoyle-Narlicker gravity, Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum theory provide the path to understanding COM as a "whole universe box" per Mach's Principle as suggested by Sciama (and now Woodward and Fearn).  So I'd respectfully argue (as a simple minded rocket engineer, not a physicist) that there seems to be an adequate and consistent theoretical basis for COM in putative propellantless propulsion devices.
As a physicist, I disagree. Other than these purported devices, there's no prior evidence that apparent COM can be violated (or worked around) in this manner. The theoretical basis is not mainstream.

If someone proved this worked, then a Nobel Prize would be awarded.
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

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28750
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8852
  • Likes Given: 5741
Re: Useful Skepticism
« Reply #21 on: 12/06/2015 01:08 am »
BTW, I firmly believe the path to legitimacy for any such devices (if they really work) lies firmly on experiment, not in trying to prove it via theory.

Of course, I'm an experimental physicist, so there's that. :)
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 HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1587
  • Liked: 1569
  • Likes Given: 415
Re: Useful Skepticism
« Reply #22 on: 12/06/2015 03:44 am »
BTW, I firmly believe the path to legitimacy for any such devices (if they really work) lies firmly on experiment, not in trying to prove it via theory.

Of course, I'm an experimental physicist, so there's that. :)

We agree on that point!  :)

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1587
  • Liked: 1569
  • Likes Given: 415
Re: Useful Skepticism
« Reply #23 on: 12/06/2015 03:48 am »
How it works is like a swing.

It may be that the analogy of the swing is appropriate for some sense of understanding, within a great many limitations.  The tire swing on a tree works because there is "action at a distance"; the rope connects the swing to a tree.  The Woodward  drive may also depend on "action at a distance" in that it purports to connect to the rest of the universe via inertia.

Carry on.
Yes, some new effect that directly connects to distant objects would preserve conservation of momentum, but it definitely WOULD count as new physics.

It depends a great deal on definitions of "new" since Hoyle-Narlicker gravity, Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum theory provide the path to understanding COM as a "whole universe box" per Mach's Principle as suggested by Sciama (and now Woodward and Fearn).  So I'd respectfully argue (as a simple minded rocket engineer, not a physicist) that there seems to be an adequate and consistent theoretical basis for COM in putative propellantless propulsion devices.
As a physicist, I disagree. Other than these purported devices, there's no prior evidence that apparent COM can be violated (or worked around) in this manner. The theoretical basis is not mainstream.

If someone proved this worked, then a Nobel Prize would be awarded.

I don't know but that "mainstream" just means what can generate grant funding via consensus.  But that's probably a cynical point of view from 45 years in the aerospace business.

And I'd note that Albert never got a Nobel Prize for GRT.  ;)

Tags: