Mach Effect progress

tomclarke · Post by **tomclarke** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:43 pm

GIThruster wrote:Well, what you're saying does indeed sound like "no game here". Do you mind if I copy your comments here to a private mail list discussing this, or would you like to join the list?

Sure, by all means. I am not exactly sure what your constraints are, but high ED from high k looks pretty unlikely to me. Normally you get high ED from very high field, lowish k. I think ultra-pure glass is one of the best contenders, around 10J/cc or more. I don't know of anyone using IBLCs for high ED.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:00 pm

As it turns out, last night Jim made the same explanation you had.

One of the constraints is we need to produce a large bulk acceleration, so some sort of "memory material" or electro-mechanically active material is called for. Piezoaction, electro or magneto-strictive, even some dielectric elastomers, but the phase angle needs to be high enough that the material can run at the frequencies Jim is working in (Khz) or Paul is working in (Mhz) so most elastomers won't work.

Right now the discussion is on PMN-PT.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:15 pm

cuddihy wrote:GIThruster, i remain troubled by the specific charge that there is a math error right in plain sight at the beginning of Woodward's derivation. I am clearly not a physicist but this charge, and specifically that it stems from incorrectly setting Phi as a variable has been leveled by numerous physicists including Lubos Motl in 2009, Steve Lajoie in 2011, and an additional one in 2010 that i can't seem to find right now (buried in the NSF thread somewhere).

Additionally others have dismissed the entire theory as stemming from carrying out a math error from the beginning. If the charge is not true than it at least serves as the root source of a large legend about ME theory.

Woodward's response to this specific charge as I understand it has been to repeat 2 things: 1) "there is no error in the derivation". 2) "the derivation has been peer reviewed and found to be without error."

If those criticisms really had any validity, they would have been submitted for peer-review. For every peer-reviewed paper out there with a math error or illogical conclusion, there is a paper rebutting it. Do you remember the Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory shenanigans? There were at least 3 published papers that showed Evans math was wrong, and Evans never responded to any of them. T'Hooft declared in an editorial note that any discussion of ECE theory in FOP would be rejected. So I have to conclude that if there was really any glaring errors in the M-E derivation as some claim, there would at least be one peer-reviewed rebuttal paper demonstrating this fact in the last 15-20 years. The fact that there is none (besides the ORNL paper and the ZPF/Machs principle debate, both of which Jim has responded to in the peer-reviewed literature) should tell you something.

Regardless of all this, there is a very simple solution to your worries. Just e-mail him and ask him about this particular criticism. Jim is a very open and civil person. He even responded politely to every single snarky, uninformed criticism from Jack Sarfatti on the mailing list.

cuddihy · Post by **cuddihy** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:44 am

GeeGee wrote:
cuddihy wrote:GIThruster, i remain troubled by the specific charge that there is a math error right in plain sight at the beginning of Woodward's derivation. I am clearly not a physicist but this charge, and specifically that it stems from incorrectly setting Phi as a variable has been leveled by numerous physicists including Lubos Motl in 2009, Steve Lajoie in 2011, and an additional one in 2010 that i can't seem to find right now (buried in the NSF thread somewhere).

Additionally others have dismissed the entire theory as stemming from carrying out a math error from the beginning. If the charge is not true than it at least serves as the root source of a large legend about ME theory.

Woodward's response to this specific charge as I understand it has been to repeat 2 things: 1) "there is no error in the derivation". 2) "the derivation has been peer reviewed and found to be without error."
If those criticisms really had any validity, they would have been submitted for peer-review. For every peer-reviewed paper out there with a math error or illogical conclusion, there is a paper rebutting it. Do you remember the Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory shenanigans? There were at least 3 published papers that showed Evans math was wrong, and Evans never responded to any of them. T'Hooft declared in an editorial note that any discussion of ECE theory in FOP would be rejected. So I have to conclude that if there was really any glaring errors in the M-E derivation as some claim, there would at least be one peer-reviewed rebuttal paper demonstrating this fact in the last 15-20 years. The fact that there is none (besides the ORNL paper and the ZPF/Machs principle debate, both of which Jim has responded to in the peer-reviewed literature) should tell you something.

Regardless of all this, there is a very simple solution to your worries. Just e-mail him and ask him about this particular criticism. Jim is a very open and civil person. He even responded politely to every single snarky, uninformed criticism from Jack Sarfatti on the mailing list.

Thanks, Gee Gee, that's a thoughtful response. You're correct, I haven't seen this claim in a peer-reviewed paper as the ORNL paper was. I haven't asked woodward because I suspect I myself could not judge the correctness of the answer. I am merely trying to judge based on the perception of fair mindedness based on critics' statements. Your answer is enough for me to pull it off the 'something isn't sound here' pile in my head and move it back to 'interesting but as yet not sufficiently proven, extraordinary claims, etc'.

I'll cross post relevant sections of your reply on NSF if you dont mind as a part of my climbdown.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:41 pm

cuddihy wrote:
Thanks, Gee Gee, that's a thoughtful response. You're correct, I haven't seen this claim in a peer-reviewed paper as the ORNL paper was. I haven't asked woodward because I suspect I myself could not judge the correctness of the answer. I am merely trying to judge based on the perception of fair mindedness based on critics' statements. Your answer is enough for me to pull it off the 'something isn't sound here' pile in my head and move it back to 'interesting but as yet not sufficiently proven, extraordinary claims, etc'.

That's my stance on this as well. Jim has an interesting solution to the propulsion problem, but more experimentation needs to be done to be certain that the evidence thus far is not just a fluke/experimental error, and that the effect can be scaled to practical levels.

Another important thing to note is that one of the ORNL people who wrote that "hit piece" was a world-class general relativist, and if he did not spot this particular "glaring error," then it is likely the result of people who do not know what they're criticizing. This is not the least bit surprising because physicists don't usually read the works of others, especially if the work is controversial.

The Oak Ridge boys however did claim that there were mathematical errors in the derivation, but this was later shown to be false by Woodward in his rebuttal.

It should be mentioned that one valid criticism, that Woodward himself pointed out is that if gravity is dynamically well-behaved, then it's a show stopper for mach effects.

I'll cross post relevant sections of your reply on NSF if you dont mind as a part of my climbdown.

Of course.

kurt9 · Post by **kurt9** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:59 pm

Woodward's wormhole paper has been published:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9211005724

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:35 pm

I guess based on what's on this agenda, Dr. Woodward did not get the funding he was hoping for?

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:38 pm

Gee Gee, I think that this is based on last years funding round.

cuddihy · Post by **cuddihy** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:48 am

Skipjack wrote:Gee Gee, I think that this is based on last years funding round.

Then again, it's not like you'd expect to see a paper and talk if it were detailing how years of anomalous thrust results were due to experimental error--unless that error was 'interesting' in another way!

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:50 am

Latest work is a specific experiment to rebut critics claims that Woodward's device is simply using Dean Drive effects. All vibration dampening was removed from the test article, and results showed no Dean Drive type effects involved. This is a good negative result that negates one of the biggest arguments made by critics. The book continues progressing.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:25 am

Anyone interested in the basic theory stuff may like to look here:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... cWhYGPQmYw

I just read it again for the first time in a coupe years and it as all fresh, despite this paper is not old enough to vote.

GeeGee · Post by **GeeGee** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:22 pm

That link does not seem to be working.

GIThruster · Post by **GIThruster** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:10 pm

It's working fine for me.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:16 pm

The link appears to be to a document behind an account (assuming yours GI). I believe you'll have to put it in a public view space as it doesn't work for my account either.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:00 am

Sorry, we were unable to find the document at the original source. Verify that the document still exists.
You can also try to download the original document by clicking here. Alternatively, you can view the plain HTML (automatically redirecting).

plain HTML link gives

We’re sorry, but your Gmail account is temporarily unavailable. We apologize for the inconvenience and suggest trying again in a few minutes.

If the issue persists, please visit the Gmail Help Center »

Which does look like the type of error you'd get if the original link was indeed to private account document.