Considering that Woodward was one of the few researchers who got a semi-kudo from the now-defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, you'd think NASA could cough up a few taxpayer dollars for him.
Well, most of science thinks he's a kook, so no, I wouldn't expect that. He's gone out on a limb and needs to prove he's not a kook before anyone gives him the time of day.
The problem with the "kook" designation is that it delays attempts at verification or refutation.
We could even just start with the math. Why is the Mach-Einstein conjecture wrong.
Science is just too full of orthodoxies these days. I don't like it one bit. It delayed a real look at "Cold Fusion" by 10 years or more. It has given us dubious Climate "Science" etc.
Perhaps, but frankly, who has the time to take every assertion made by anyone seriously? There's a lot of crap out there.
Is this man a respected individual in his field? What can we conclude about his other contributions? I'm not going to automatically assume that people should be throwing money at him.
His experimental results seem like crap right now anyway, so I don't see why we should expect physicists to drop everything to check his math.
Just to make it clear, I want his work to bear fruit. Who wouldn't? But revolutions are rare things, while claims and dreams of revolution are many and enticing.
Experimental results don't support his predictions, and instead seem to indicate serious experimental design flaws. Maybe the next experiment and round of theory will be great, who knows, but right now, there isn't a lot of support for his claims.
The results are not discouraging to me. They show that Woodward's scaling rules work for given the ~100 nanoNewtons Jim's device is generating at 47kHz and the fact that the M-E predicts cubic frequency scaling, it fits right in with my results operating at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz. Jim just need to increasing his operating frequency by a couple of orders of magnitude to see some much more impressive resutls measured in milliNewtons.
Perhaps, but frankly, who has the time to take every assertion made by anyone seriously?
The people who are interested.
Is this man a respected individual in his field?
Ya know - when I was beating the fields for Polywell support I came up against this all the time. "His machine blew up you say? All the evidence we need to buttress our estimate of incompetence."
So let me ask - isn't any one interested in putting to rest Mach-Einstein? True or false?
I do believe it could be bad experimental design. So how about funding two or three groups.
1. Get the guys who claim results to build the experiment.
2. Let the skeptics test it.
What could this cost for 3 groups? $5 million for 3 years? Less?
It sure would be nice if we had a theory of why gravitational inertia = F=ma inertia.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The results are not discouraging to me. They show that Woodward's scaling rules work for given the ~100 nanoNewtons Jim's device is generating at 47kHz and the fact that the M-E predicts cubic frequency scaling, it fits right in with my results operating at 2.2 and 3.8 MHz. Jim just need to increasing his operating frequency by a couple of orders of magnitude to see some much more impressive resutls measured in milliNewtons.
Hmmm. Correction, that's the greatest thing I've seen all month.
I suppose trying to engineer a better arrangement of capacitor material and drive circuitry is the sort of thing that can only be done when they have some real grant money to spend?
From my own limited electronics experience, the mechanical arrangement of capacitors they are using aren't going to work much at all at GHz freqs. 'Course with cubic scaling maybe they don't need to...
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria
I think it is awesome!
Constellation was a money sink, a government job programme and an expensive one at that. Taxes were used to create jobs that produce something that the government pays for over and over again. Not a good businessmodel (for the government).
MirariNefas wrote:Experimental results don't support his predictions, and instead seem to indicate serious experimental design flaws. Maybe the next experiment and round of theory will be great, who knows, but right now, there isn't a lot of support for his claims.
Unfortunately, this could describe Polywell until WB-6 and the head slap (d'uhhh) moment.
MSimon wrote:
Science is just too full of orthodoxies these days. I don't like it one bit. ... (truncated)
Yes, so right. Why is everyone so bl**dy sure they're correct?
I made a post on "Mind Control" not long ago with links that answer your question. It is easy to convince people, it is much much more difficult to change their minds.
I guess it has to do with the observed fact that each and every one of us wants, no, has an ingrained need, to be right, and if we were to change our mind on a topic then at some level that is an admission that we were wrong.
If the topic is only of ancillary interest then changing positions can happen. But the more we have "invested" in a position, the more tightly we hold to it. It is human nature and yes, it does get in the way of the scientific method.
That's a trend that should go the way of the dodo soon enough. Common sense says the more you invest in a position, the more you ought to want to test it to make sure it's air-tight. And unless you figure you're omniscient, it's fairly obvious that you'll falter and be wrong, and the best way to keep a record of being right (if indeed it's an objective) is to recognize mistakes asap and right them.
