a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
I think you can post a review under the Kindle version.raelik wrote:Looks like I'll have to wait until the book is actually available on Amazon before I can post a review. I'll put a note in my calendar to do that so I won't forget.
There would still need to be a quantum gravity theory built in accordance to this formulation, but one can definitely envision the route that would likely take.Posted not because I have either time or energy to understand the argument, but because it may pertain directly to Woodward's theory.The derivation of absorber theory is outlined in very detail. Absorber theory is based on classical action-at-a-distance electrodynamics, but it deviates from that theory at a crucial point. It is shown that (a) absorber theory cannot achieve any of it's essential results without this deviation, and that (b) this deviation restricts the application range of absorber theory to stationary radiation processes. Furthermore an error which crept into Wheeler's and Feynman's interpretation of their equation (19) is pointed out. These shortcomings can probably be eliminated by a quantum-theoretical formulation of absorber theory.
Kastner's Possibilist Transactional Interpretation (PTI) is a quantum-theoretical formulation of absorber theory, and is most certainly not restricted to stationary radiation processes, so I would say that shortcoming could definitely be eliminated by PTI.DeltaV wrote:Remarks on Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory
http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03516Posted not because I have either time or energy to understand the argument, but because it may pertain directly to Woodward's theory.The derivation of absorber theory is outlined in very detail. Absorber theory is based on classical action-at-a-distance electrodynamics, but it deviates from that theory at a crucial point. It is shown that (a) absorber theory cannot achieve any of it's essential results without this deviation, and that (b) this deviation restricts the application range of absorber theory to stationary radiation processes. Furthermore an error which crept into Wheeler's and Feynman's interpretation of their equation (19) is pointed out. These shortcomings can probably be eliminated by a quantum-theoretical formulation of absorber theory.
Quantum effects are second-order illusions. The oil pan droplet experiments are probative. Reality will be found in deterministic physics.raelik wrote:So I had a very enlightening discussion with Dr. Kastner over e-mail, in which she led me to consider the causal set formulation as the framework upon which a quantum gravity theory compatible with TI can be formed, and linked me to her recent paper on transactions and causal sets: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.2072.pdf
A much more elegant solution than what I had envisioned, I'll readily admit
Jim's latest update indicated that the emdrive and cannae drives worked only when plastic inserts were placed in the metal chambers - a possible dielectric/Mach effect.birchoff wrote:Any new news on the Mach Effect front?
Saw a similar post by Paul March on NSF. Though I am honestly more intrigued by next steps Jim's taking in the lab. My personal opinion is if one assumes that the MET and EmDrive both work. I personally believe that the MET is on a stronger theoretical ground. The only question I have yet to see answered with any great detail is whats next. I Know GiThruster is off trying to build a company around the technology. But in light of all the improvements in Woodward's theory matching experimental results I would think the desire to get some third party replication kits out the door would be on the table.djolds1 wrote:Jim's latest update indicated that the emdrive and cannae drives worked only when plastic inserts were placed in the metal chambers - a possible dielectric/Mach effect.birchoff wrote:Any new news on the Mach Effect front?
That has been also my first idea.ladajo wrote:Plastic outgassing / decay in a vacuum and/or strong RF field?
It's not clear from the pictures and there was no detailed sections in the papers I saw.JoeP wrote:are the resonant cavities in these devices sealed or no?