Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1843264 times)

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
...


Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?
What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.

Shell

The scale of rulers and clocks is relative to the gravitational potential with which they are in equilibrium. The scale is variable in a gravitational field. So in that sense, a vehicle starting on Earth has a scale that is different than say a vehicle starting near the event horizon of a black hole. In that regard, the "preferred frame" is the one from which the vehicle originated. It is not absolute, it is relative, but it is different from some other location at a different gravitational potential. So, there is a preferred frame but it's not absolute, it's relative.
Todd
Consider asymptotically flat, field-free spacetime please. You may keep your gravitational potential, but please don't change it. It simply muddies the waters and confuses people.  Leave gravity out of this because all it does is obfuscate. I trust your intentions are not to obfuscate.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 11:14 PM by deltaMass »

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
...


Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?
What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.

Shell
I'm sorry to say that light doesn't help in an asymptotically flat and field-free spacetime - i.e. floating in the black, empty void of deep space, far from anything. Light always presents the same face to you, unwavering and constant; it always wizzes past you at the same speed. It doesn't care about "how fast you are going relative to X"
That's correct but doesn't answer the question. The EMDrive is a tyre (tire for us Rebels) and it is something that maintains a relative gravitational potential no matter where it is. It warps spacetime, just a little but it does.

I can follow you both, I've worked with physicists and theories and engineers and techs all my life and they worked for me. The question is very relevant for I believe it's one of the keys here.

How would you put it together to make sense of what Todd is trying to say. I really would like to read and understand how you would do it. Your a very sharp guy, a very nice and respectful please.   

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?

Are we back to Mach's Conjecture?  "Inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
Ehhh let me think about it. ok, not really, good idea though.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
...


Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?
What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.

Shell

The scale of rulers and clocks is relative to the gravitational potential with which they are in equilibrium. The scale is variable in a gravitational field. So in that sense, a vehicle starting on Earth has a scale that is different than say a vehicle starting near the event horizon of a black hole. In that regard, the "preferred frame" is the one from which the vehicle originated. It is not absolute, it is relative, but it is different from some other location at a different gravitational potential. So, there is a preferred frame but it's not absolute, it's relative.
Todd
Consider asymptotically flat, field-free spacetime please. You may keep your gravitational potential, but please don't change it. It simply muddies the waters and confuses people.  Leave gravity out of this because all it does is obfuscate. I trust your intentions are not to obfuscate.
No, quite serious here. I just see everything modifying and bending spacetime from the smallest to the largest. You need to include it.

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
In principle a resounding "Yes". In practice, obfuscatory. It's all about orders of magnitude.  The gravitational effects considered by @Warptech were also considered by @StrongGR. He concluded that they were so many orders of magnitude smaller than the macroscopic effects that they could be disregarded.

A similar thing happened with @Warptech's latest attempts to include the loss of mass of the battery via special relativity. It is so incredibly tiny (10 orders or more down) that it too can be disregarded.

It's easy to do this maths. Take someone like Shawyer using a certain power for a certain time. Divide that energy by c2, and compare that mass to the mass of his rig. It's about 14 orders down, I reckon.
(1 KW, 30 seconds, 50 Kg)
« Last Edit: 07/10/2015 11:52 PM by deltaMass »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
...


Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?
What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.

Shell
I'm sorry to say that light doesn't help in an asymptotically flat and field-free spacetime - i.e. floating in the black, empty void of deep space, far from anything. Light always presents the same face to you, unwavering and constant; it always wizzes past you at the same speed. It doesn't care about "how fast you are going relative to X"
That's correct but doesn't answer the question. The EMDrive is a tyre (tire for us Rebels) and it is something that maintains a relative gravitational potential no matter where it is. It warps spacetime, just a little but it does.

I can follow you both, I've worked with physicists and theories and engineers and techs all my life and they worked for me. The question is very relevant for I believe it's one of the keys here.

How would you put it together to make sense of what Todd is trying to say. I really would like to read and understand how you would do it. Your a very sharp guy, a very nice and respectful please.
Todd has been a Rebel in physics since I've known him (over ten years I reckon, dating back to my Woodward days and my collaborations with Woodward, Paul March and others). My love affair with Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lasted 15 years and consumed large amounts of my time, both theoretically and experimentally. As legacy and witness, I sit in a room festooned with equipment and tools and instruments, all dedicated to the cause. Todd has had a love affair with Hal Puthoff's Polarisable Vacuum (PV) theory for at least as long. My affair ended; Todd's continues. That's the short version :)



Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
In principle a resounding "Yes". In practice, obfuscatory. It's all about orders of magnitude.  The gravitational effects considered by @Warptech were also considered by @StrongGR. He concluded that they were so many orders of magnitude smaller than the macroscopic effects that they could be disregarded.

A similar thing happened with @Warptech's latest attempts to include the loss of mass of the battery via special relativity. It is so incredibly tiny (10 orders or more down) that it too can be disregarded.

It's easy to do this maths. Take someone like Shawyer using a certain power for a certain time. Divide that energy by c2, and compare that mass to the mass of his rig. It's about 14 orders down, I reckon.
(1 KW, 30 seconds, 50 Kg)
It is very small no doubt, gravity is such a weak force but not that weak, but what it has is  the potential to scale to effect and overcome all other forces. You have to love it, it's the gorrilla in the pink panties. :D

I'm still wondering how you could, if you could re-write what you both have been working on to make it work. And honestly I don't care if you make the old masters turn over in their graves. So violate them just a little for me.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6043
  • Likes Given: 5315
We had agreed to explore the Poynting vector field in circular cross-section planes of the truncated cone EM Drive other than the big and small base, previously shown, to find out whether there were other locations in the azimuthal (circumferential) direction other than the y and z axis previously shown for the xy and xz planes where the Poynting vector may reach higher amplitude than in the xy and xz plane.  @aero has made available a number of csv files at 4 internal locations in the longitudinal x direction: at x=38, x=97, x=149, and x=208 (x ranging from 1 to 245, with x=1 at the extreme end beyond the big base and x= 245 at the extreme end beyond the small base).  The plane x=208 is near the antenna, and x=149 is the very important wave that is downstream of the antenna in the direction towards the big base.

See the very last picture attached below to locate the 4 locations x=38, x=97, x=149, and x=208, where the x axis is the horizontal axis in the last picture

CONCLUSION:  although these images show Poynting vector fields in the interior that are much more complicated than the m=1 (1 full-wavepattern in the azimuthal direction), and n=1 mode, the important thing, for the Poynting vector in the x direction perpendicular to the circular cross-sections shown, are the sources and sinks in these cross-sections, because the Poynting vector peak magnitude in the x direction will show up as sources or sinks in these planes.  One can verify that the sources and sinks are in the y and z directions.  Hence it is perfectly valid to look for the Poynting vector maxima in the x-y and x-z planes, as suspected to be valid for mode shapes m=1, n=1.

We start by showing the circular cross-sectional yz plane at  x=38, located on the interior, closest to the big end
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 01:39 AM by Rodal »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
****UNDER CONSTRUCTION *****
[snip...]
NO COMMENT. I didn't say a word. Honest, guv. Nada, Zip, Nichevo, Rien.  ::)

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
...


Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.

Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?
What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.

Shell
I'm sorry to say that light doesn't help in an asymptotically flat and field-free spacetime - i.e. floating in the black, empty void of deep space, far from anything. Light always presents the same face to you, unwavering and constant; it always wizzes past you at the same speed. It doesn't care about "how fast you are going relative to X"
That's correct but doesn't answer the question. The EMDrive is a tyre (tire for us Rebels) and it is something that maintains a relative gravitational potential no matter where it is. It warps spacetime, just a little but it does.

I can follow you both, I've worked with physicists and theories and engineers and techs all my life and they worked for me. The question is very relevant for I believe it's one of the keys here.

How would you put it together to make sense of what Todd is trying to say. I really would like to read and understand how you would do it. Your a very sharp guy, a very nice and respectful please.
Todd has been a Rebel in physics since I've known him (over ten years I reckon, dating back to my Woodward days and my collaborations with Woodward, Paul March and others). My love affair with Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lasted 15 years and consumed large amounts of my time, both theoretically and experimentally. As legacy and witness, I sit in a room festooned with equipment and tools and instruments, all dedicated to the cause. Todd has had a love affair with Hal Puthoff's Polarisable Vacuum (PV) theory for at least as long. My affair ended; Todd's continues. That's the short version :)
But you know I love you guys, you keep my head spinning and between the both of you I don't think IMHO few have such a wonderful grasp of just how this can do what it does. I don't care you argue and disagree that's ok, I just want to see this puzzle completed and the picture it shows.

I think you're both better than the past theories and I think if the two of you really sat down, poo would happen in a very good way. But that is my humble opinion.

Shell

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Here's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 12:31 AM by deltaMass »

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
The irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity -  by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!

WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.
I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?

If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.
Todd

No idea where you got this notion that Ein=Eout is an impossible condition.  That's literally COE.  The emdrive must obey Ein=Eout for all t (and all values of v,c,P,k etc) unless you can prove it is an open system where energy can come from somewhere else, not accounted for in the Ein and Eout expressions.

In fact, something that has been completely ignored up to now is the fact that many of your expressions have Ein greater than Eout until a limiting velocity is reached.  So where does this missing energy go?  If it goes to heating the frustum walls, then boom, we now have the patented wallofwolfsteet thermal velocimeter.  By measuring the temperature/heat flux coming off of an emdrive, one can measure it's velocity uniquely by understanding the relationship between Ein and Eout.     

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
...
That's correct but doesn't answer the question. The EMDrive is a tyre (tire for us Rebels) and it is something that maintains a relative gravitational potential no matter where it is. It warps spacetime, just a little but it does.

Todd has been a Rebel in physics since I've known him (over ten years I reckon, dating back to my Woodward days and my collaborations with Woodward, Paul March and others). My love affair with Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lasted 15 years and consumed large amounts of my time, both theoretically and experimentally. As legacy and witness, I sit in a room festooned with equipment and tools and instruments, all dedicated to the cause. Todd has had a love affair with Hal Puthoff's Polarisable Vacuum (PV) theory for at least as long. My affair ended; Todd's continues. That's the short version :)

Had I known that you had a << love affair with Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lasted 15 years and consumed large amounts of ...time, both theoretically and experimentally>>...  :)

I would like to ask many questions then.

So, first three questions: 


1) do you consider Woodward's version of Mach's Principle to be within what you have called in previous posts "mainstream physics" ?

2) does Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lead to overunity and free-energy?)

3) can an EM Drive without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?
Oh crap - now I did it. :o

1) No
2) Yes**
3) Yes

** but globally no, taking "the universe" as "the system"
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 12:36 AM by deltaMass »

Offline wallofwolfstreet

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 436
The irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity -  by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!

WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.
I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?

If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.
Todd
I'm surprised alarm bells aren't sounding for you and your theory, then. As another poster remarked, Ein=0 is a perfectly physical situation. But it causes your mathematical edifice to explode, without any consideration for breakeven and the like. That fact alone should tip you off that your theory is wrong.
No, it proves your theory is wrong. That Ein =/= Eout. My formula for Eout is perfectly correct. It is only when I try to equate it to Ein that it fails, because it can never happen. There is no "break even" in the relativistic case.
Todd

So you're saying COE is obeyed because Ein can't equal Eout???  If COE is obeyed, then where is this missing energy such that Ein will equal Eout, which it must for COE to be valid?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
Here's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)
HA! That never stopped me or my old business partner, he didn't have a degree, but he taught computer science at Case Western, he had patents up the kazzo at Motorola and the list goes on and he even routinely debated with Brian Green and sometimes won. Ack, degree. :)

Shell   

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Here's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)
HA! That never stopped me or my old business partner, he didn't have a degree, but he taught computer science at Case Western, he had patents up the kazzo at Motorola and the list goes on and he even routinely debated with Brian Green and sometimes won. Ack, degree. :)

Shell
I confess I do have an honours degree in Physics (Oxford, got a place when I was 16, my biggest claim to fame I suppose) but that was the sixties and I did get a bit... distracted.  8)

I also have about 18 patents. I'm a bit of a klutz with my hands, so experimental work is somewhat uphill sledding for me. But there's nothing like strong motivation to get me bending metal and soldering (I built my first radio aged nine). If I saw some decent experimental results coming out of the superb DIY community here, I'd be clearing off the dusty workbench in two shakes of a lamb's tail; you can take that to the bank.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6043
  • Likes Given: 5315
...
3) can an EM Drive without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?
...
3) Yes

How can an EM Drive  without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
Here's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)
HA! That never stopped me or my old business partner, he didn't have a degree, but he taught computer science at Case Western, he had patents up the kazzo at Motorola and the list goes on and he even routinely debated with Brian Green and sometimes won. Ack, degree. :)

Shell
I confess I do have an honours degree in Physics (Oxford, got a place when I was 16, my biggest claim to fame I suppose) but that was the sixties and I did get a bit... distracted.  8)

I also have about 18 patents. I'm a bit of a klutz with my hands, so experimental work is somewhat uphill sledding for me. But there's nothing like strong motivation to get me bending metal and soldering (I built my first radio aged nine). If I saw some decent experimental results coming out of the superb DIY community here, I'd be clearing off the dusty workbench in two shakes of a lamb's tail; you can take that to the bank.
I'm going to do my absolute best to make you hold to that. ;) I've never backed away from a challenge.  I must admit you beat me out at 9 took me to 14-15 to do my first TV.
Shell 

PS: Yep the 60's and 70's at the UofM were kinda spacy.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2015 01:01 AM by SeeShells »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
...
3) can an EM Drive without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?
...
3) Yes

How can an EM Drive  without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?
Because it's general enough to talk about time rate of change of energy density in anything. That would putatively include the frustum itself, but putatively also the equivalent mass of its contained fields. Remember that, since 1905, we talk about mass-energy, because they are two sides of the same coin. Todd will be the first to tell you that fields gravitate just like Pluto.

Offline SeeShells

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2335
  • Every action there's a reaction we try to grasp.
  • United States
  • Liked: 2982
  • Likes Given: 2601
Here's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)
HA! That never stopped me or my old business partner, he didn't have a degree, but he taught computer science at Case Western, he had patents up the kazzo at Motorola and the list goes on and he even routinely debated with Brian Green and sometimes won. Ack, degree. :)

Shell
I confess I do have an honours degree in Physics (Oxford, got a place when I was 16, my biggest claim to fame I suppose) but that was the sixties and I did get a bit... distracted.  8)

I also have about 18 patents. I'm a bit of a klutz with my hands, so experimental work is somewhat uphill sledding for me. But there's nothing like strong motivation to get me bending metal and soldering (I built my first radio aged nine). If I saw some decent experimental results coming out of the superb DIY community here, I'd be clearing off the dusty workbench in two shakes of a lamb's tail; you can take that to the bank.
I'm going to do my absolute best to make you hold to that. ;) I've never backed away from a challenge.  I must admit you beat me out at 9 took me to 14-15 to do my first TV.
Shell 

PS: Yep the 60's and 70's at the UofM were kinda spacy.
An honours degree in Physics at Oxford? To me that's better than the real thing, very classy.
Shell

Tags: