If only it were that simple. These papers appear to be based on initiating assumptions that are not supported within the body of the text. These papers appear to be test-examples for how to string together a sequence of non-sequitur fallacies.cuddihy wrote:I suggest you actually read Woodward's papers, they're actually quite well-written regardless of your conclusions of his math.
For example, look at his last paper; http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/JPC2012.pdf
Where did equation 1 come from? Magicked out of the air, having been previously evoked by Sciama, it seems. What other justification for equation 1 does Woodward give, other than 'Sciama said it' and it looks like an EM equation? Woodward even says that it is for 'an idealized set of circumstances' yet does not seek to disclose those, nor adds that caveat once the conclusion (based on that presumptive equation) has been arrived at.
Next is 'Mach's principle' wherein he claims phi/c^2=1 as some sort of given. Why would the 'scalar gravitational potential' always be the square of the speed of light? Is the 'scalar gravity potential' not 'g' here on earth, or else what is being discussed as 'scalar gravity potential'? Again, is this another assumption that has been evoked by Mach but without any tangible justification by Woodward (unless it is described poorly and relates to some other concept of 'gravitational potential' already proven elsewhere).
It's not good enough to say 'such-and-such suggested X' then go on to derive further equations and suggest they are proven. All it proves is that someone previously came up with an idea that, if it were true, would result in the conclusions obtained. Starting with an unproven presumption then proving it by its own consequences is the fallacy called petitio principii (begging the question).
The experiment is based on
Why is this 'obvious'? There is no 'obvious' about it because electric and magnetic tensors in relativistic frames are variant - an electric field will be observed as a magnetic field in another frame and the trans-location of an object bearing up a given electric field (which carries some due electrical energy) is by no means an 'obvious' way to generate a mass fluctuation."The obvious way to test for the presence of proper matter density fluctuations of the sort predicted in Equations
( 8 ) and (12) is to subject capacitors to large, rapid voltage fluctuations. Since capacitors store energy in dielectric
core lattice stresses as they are polarized, the condition that E0 vary in time is met as the ions in the lattice are
accelerated by the changing external electric field. If the amplitude of the proper energy density variation and its
first and second time derivatives are large enough, a detectable mass fluctuation should ensue. "
That being said, if 'mass fluctuations' could be generated within bounded accelerating frames then maybe there is a route through this maths to suggest a possible mechanism. So, next, one needs to look at whether 'mass fluctuations' can occur. The very essential notion of this, irrespective of any mathematical arguments that might arise in the paper, appears to be that the centre of mass of a closed system can be altered back and forth by the conversion of mass into energy, moving the energy to another part of the system, and then back again. To demonstrate that this does, indeed, result in a fluctuation of the CoM requires some further matters to be taken into account;
a) that energy, alone, does not generate its own gravitational field (that can contribute to 'equation 1', seeing as the whole basis of the equations has not accommodated electro-magnetic energy terms, even though he claims it is a “gravelectric force"),
b) that the energy contained within a sustained electric or magnetic field does not vary when the whole assembly containing that field undertakes a time-dependent displacement,
c) that a sustained electric or magnetic field (otherwise within an assembly containing that field) does not, itself, require a force to accelerate it,
d) that electrical and magnetic energy within a field is frame-invariant.
These may or may not be issues at all and may have solutions. However, this is not alluded to in the paper that you claim is one that should be read to 'avoid ignorance' and that is 'well-written'.
So the derivation of the equations is only substantiated if the basis of the founding equations is correct (and there is nothing that demonstrates they are, only that other people said it), this is the first fallacy, a sort of combined 'begging the question' and 'appeal to authority', whilst the latter issue of not dealing with accelerating electric fields is a fallacy of the 'complex question', in which the proposed experiment does not actually address whether its mechanism (which is an electromagnetic one) is influenced by the proposed mechanism but instead the non-EM derived equations are supposedly demonstrated.
The conclusions of the paper do not even seek to remind the reader that the whole edifice has 'an idealized set of circumstances' [undisclosed by the author] as a caveat to the first equation of the paper.
NONE of the above is a disproof of the idea, of course, because there may be answers that address each point. But the above IS a proof that the paper is not as educational and well-written as you claim, and that a casual reader has, as yet, no cause to be minded to accept the claims made. It is all for the experimenters to prove that an unbound object can be accelerated by these means, and claiming equations with unfounded starting assumptions is not the means to do it. chrismb, if he still posted here, would wish the experimenters well in their efforts as he has always done so, whilst remaining wholly sceptical (as they would likely expect him to).