Talk-Polywell.org

rj,

There are all manner of tests one might do as regards M-E theory.

Every test one might do can go wrong in uncounted ways, so you can't validate or falsify any theory with a single test.

HOWEVER: if you're working on a technology that conceptually cannot operate unless a specific theory is correct, then you can validate both theory and practice at once.

For example--if you perform an experiment that generates both M-E science, and M-E technology both in the same example, then you can make very broad claims about what you have shown.

To illustrate: a few years ago, Jim worked on the M-E "Rotator". He clearly demonstrated M-E physics/science but as he did not demonstrate a useful technology, people generally ignored his findings.

In order to demonstrate both physics and technology, one needs to create a useful tool.

"Tools" are what "technology" is all about.

A working propellantless thruster is a useful "tool", and anyone interested in propulsion science will be interested if they see this sort of thing.

The Aerospace Corp and NASA are both looking at this very issue now.

GIThruster wrote:Geeess. . .

This is why no one puts much stock in cheesy engineering claims. People like you PRETENDING THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T.

Woodward's theory mandates conservation by use of Noether's Theorem. Any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.

You and I can't do that math. If you want, look it up.

The difference between us is, I know my limitations and you don't.

You're a self-indulgent moron.

Enough said.

How could what I said lead to such a response? I think this needs some attention. There must be some great mistake in my judgment because I honestly don't understand the connection here. Why does my statements on what I think makes a scientific claim evoke such an emotionally based response? Why are you so sensitive about this? (was it my use of wiz-bang for M-E thrustor? was that offensive?) Also, for someone that claims to know their own limitations very well, you feel very entitled to tell everyone else how limited they are. How do you know what my abilities are? Perhaps you should just stick speaking for yourself.

Carter, you're demanding answers to questions you don't understand.

You don't get how annoying this is?

I'm doing my best to explain what science is all about and at every turn you IGNORE what is said to you and press on with childish assumptions.

I'm not exaggerating, nor acting all dopey, when I tell you again and again that SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING.

And yet you don't get it. You press me again and again about what you think ought to be proved.

No joke but just saying, you do not understand even the questions you ask. You act like a standard engineer who has no training at all in what is science, and thinks his epistemology ought to yield to him certainty that life is not offering.

Long story short--you don't even understand your own questions.

What do you want past that?

I'm telling you, you do not have the proper tools to understand either your questions nor the answers to them.

Don't beat up the messenger.

GIThruster wrote:rj,

There are all manner of tests one might do as regards M-E theory.

Every test one might do can go wrong in uncounted ways, so you can't validate or falsify any theory with a single test.

HOWEVER: if you're working on a technology that conceptually cannot operate unless a specific theory is correct, then you can validate both theory and practice at once.

For example--if you perform an experiment that generates both M-E science, and M-E technology both in the same example, then you can make very broad claims about what you have shown.

To illustrate: a few years ago, Jim worked on the M-E "Rotator". He clearly demonstrated M-E physics/science but as he did not demonstrate a useful technology, people generally ignored his findings.

In order to demonstrate both physics and technology, one needs to create a useful tool.

"Tools" are what "technology" is all about.

A working propellantless thruster is a useful "tool", and anyone interested in propulsion science will be interested if they see this sort of thing.

The Aerospace Corp and NASA are both looking at this very issue now.

Thanks. Building something that works as advertised (repeatedly) would be pretty convincing, but I was thinking about tests along the line of what was done with relativity. You know, explaining the orbit of the planet Mercury better than any other theory or the precise and accurate amount that light is bent as it goes past the sun. All sorts of things can go wrong, but as scientists begin to repeat tests (with occasional screw ups) a picture begins to emerge. And not just one test, but many different tests. I thought 3 to 5 might be a good start to help me understand and to help organize my thoughts. And not the two tests mentioned above, but tests specific to this theory.

And I just remembered, just because something (a device or idea) works as advertised, repeatedly, doesn't mean, necessarily, that it is right. I recall that the old models of the solar system worked very well based on the knowledge of the time. People could even predict eclipses and such. All with having the Earth at the cemter of the solar systm. I think the Antikythera Mechanism was supposed to have done this. As time went one, problems were found and adjustments were made, but Copernicus and Kepler knocked it down.

Anyway, a list of agreed upon tests with unambiguous answers would be of interest to me.

rj,

I think you get it. Most engineers don't so I'm happy to note you do.

I don't think there is one test that would validate Jim's theory. Rather, I think we need to look to exploit the theory to see what sorts of technology can come from it.

There is more than one option here.

We can look to create propellantless thrusters. We can look to build negative mass generators. We can look to construct warp drives.

These are three distinctly different technologies or tools, each of which have intrinsic value.

The path to each of these is apparent in Jim's book. Obviously, he's not worried about making cash. No surprise given his age and various cancers. He knows he can;t take it with him.

Anyone with the cash on hand and interest can do the experiments necessary to develop any of these three technologies. There is no doubt China is going to do this. Best guess as to whom else.

GIThruster wrote:Carter, you're demanding answers to questions you don't understand.

You don't get how annoying this is?

I'm doing my best to explain what science is all about and at every turn you IGNORE what is said to you and press on with childish assumptions.

I'm not exaggerating, nor acting all dopey, when I tell you again and again that SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING.

And yet you don't get it. You press me again and again about what you think ought to be proved.

No joke but just saying, you do not understand even the questions you ask. You act like a standard engineer who has no training at all in what is science, and thinks his epistemology ought to yield to him certainty that life is not offering.

Long story short--you don't even understand your own questions.

What do you want past that?

I'm telling you, you do not have the proper tools to understand either your questions nor the answers to them.

Don't beat up the messenger.

I did read what you said about science. I simply disagree with it. And I responded with why I disagreed with it. It is also very tiring trying to be polite to you in the face of all your insults toward me. I don't see how you intend to make any positive ground with this attitude either.

I don't feel I am pressing you on what ought to be "proved" in the sense that you are using it. You are raising a philosophical question, in epistemology, as you have said. But, I don't think I have said anything about requiring certainty in science, or demanding certainty on a scientific claim, or having no uncertainty in the results to support claims, or any other interpretation of "prove" that you are referencing. So I hope it is clear now that my point is not about demanding certainty in the outcome of experiments or in science. That is not what I am talking about.

Okay. What are you talking about?

As far as I can see, you are harping on the notion that one can't verify momentum exchange against the universe.

You don't seem to be interested in any of the real physics involved. You're certainly not cognizant of them. You certainly haven't read the book, any of the papers published in peer review journals these last 20 years nor the recent findings.

You want to argue about things you obviously have no training in--namely what is science--you have no training in philosophy of science nor research methodology.

So tell us, WHAT IS YOUR POINT? You need to continue to pretend you know about stuff you know nothing about?

You already know what my point is. You just stated it. "...one can't verify momentum exchange against the universe." Why are you asking me what my point is? But, of course, I may not understand the problem as you say. But that is my point anyway. If you disagree you have two options. One is to simply say you disagree and you don't care to explain why. This seems to be the option you have taken, with the addition of dragging the conversation on as long as possible. The other is to explain why that point is stupid. And, by the way, merely calling me stupid doesn't really count as option two. That is really option one. So, with that, I think I'm going to move on to something else.

In unmoderated forum, delinquent bans you.

GI,

I will get the book. Is it an OK read for the layperson, or should I expect tons of jargon? What is the title (sorry, I missed the title).

rj, it's a pretty easy read since it was intended for engineers rather than physicists, and Woodward is a delightful writer.

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Starships- ... +Starships

kcdodd wrote:The other is to explain why that point is stupid.

He did that. You just didn't understand him.

Basically, the idea is this: You don't have to measure a push on the rest of the universe to validate M-E theory. All you have to do is calculate what the theory predicts, and show lab results that are both consistent with M-E theory and inconsistent with any existing alternative. M-E is then the best available explanation, and it can then be assumed that its predictions re: the distant universe are correct, pending a better theory.

Looking at another angle, would a ME thruster be operationally any different from a reactionless thruster?

Example, could you fit a probe with such a thruster, and accelerate indefinitely so long as the power source holds (and you don't hit a speck of space dust loaded with BAM! due to relative speed)? WMD potential if you could.

Hanley, yes and no. Yes, it acts just like any propellantless thruster however, almost always when people do the math concerning what you envision, they neglect the fact that the thruster produces constant stationary thrust. When people do the conservation analysis you envision, they treat the thruster as with constant thrust efficiency despite it is accelerating and this is incorrect. This is one of two regular errors people make.

And I would note to you, this mistake yields conservation violations when done with any thruster, including chemical rockets.