Extract from a larger argument,Quote from: meberbs on 03/16/2017 07:29 PM... (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.) ...meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.See - quaternions :-)
... (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.) ...
Quote from: spupeng7 on 03/20/2017 12:03 AMExtract from a larger argument,Quote from: meberbs on 03/16/2017 07:29 PM... (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.) ...meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.See - quaternions :-)No, just one axis evidence : quaternions.A quaternion is defined as an axis and a rotation angle about that axis.
Quote from: meberbs on 03/20/2017 12:14 AMQuote from: spupeng7 on 03/20/2017 12:03 AMExtract from a larger argument,Quote from: meberbs on 03/16/2017 07:29 PM... (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.) ...meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.See - quaternions :-)No, just one axis evidence : quaternions.A quaternion is defined as an axis and a rotation angle about that axis.... which is proof that two people can look carefully at the same evidence and see completely different things
Quote from: spupeng7 on 03/20/2017 12:24 AMQuote from: meberbs on 03/20/2017 12:14 AMQuote from: spupeng7 on 03/20/2017 12:03 AMExtract from a larger argument,Quote from: meberbs on 03/16/2017 07:29 PM... (Saying something rotates in all 3 axes at once doesn't make sense. Things only spin in one direction at once, you might just have to tilt your head to line up coordinate systems.) ...meberbs, rotation of a single solid object can occur about two non-parallel axes at the same time, but no more.See - quaternions :-)No, just one axis evidence : quaternions.A quaternion is defined as an axis and a rotation angle about that axis.... which is proof that two people can look carefully at the same evidence and see completely different things I am curious how you came to the conclusion of 2 axes from a quaternion when, as I said, the definition of a quaternion is a rotation about a single axis, and quaternions can be used to fully describe an arbitrary orientation of a body.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 03/19/2017 07:26 PM...Jose':As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe. If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. ...Best, Paul M. Paul,It looks like that follows if the QV could be used to generate propelllant-less propulsion (something that mainstream science finds unlikely), however I'm not sure if that is the case for a gravitational effect: we can use a gravity assist in order to propel a spacecraft to much higher velocities (e.g the Pioneer 10-11 probes, or the Voyager probes) and we can use gravity to get energy from a reservoir of water in a hydroelectric dam, but in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place. So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.
...Jose':As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe. If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. ...Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Rodal on 03/19/2017 10:16 PMQuote from: Star-Drive on 03/19/2017 07:26 PM...Jose':As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe. If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. ...Best, Paul M. Paul,It looks like that follows if the QV could be used to generate propelllant-less propulsion (something that mainstream science finds unlikely), however I'm not sure if that is the case for a gravitational effect: we can use a gravity assist in order to propel a spacecraft to much higher velocities (e.g the Pioneer 10-11 probes, or the Voyager probes) and we can use gravity to get energy from a reservoir of water in a hydroelectric dam, but in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place. So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.I think your term "harvesting" is confusing the question somewhat. Spacecraft gravity assists are simply momentum exchanges in the heliocentric frame between a spacecraft and a planet via gravitational fields (the planet's velocity will be minutely changed after such an encounter). The planet's orbital momentum was embued by the original formation of the solar system, which came from... ad infinitum.The potential energy of the water in the reservoir is, as you mentioned, due to the thermal energy from the sun (and atmospheric circulation) which comes from nuclear fusion, which comes from... ad infinitum. I think Paul's point is that the energy/momentum potential of the QV could be exchanged in an analogous way given the mutable/degradable assumptions.
...There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters. Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...Best, Paul M.
I think Paul's point is that the energy/momentum potential of the QV could be exchanged in an analogous way given the mutable/degradable assumptions.
You write "I think your term "harvesting" is confusing the question somewhat. " But it was not me, it was Paul the one that originally used the word "harvesting" energy :...Why do you say that "harvesting" is my term? How can I be confusing things by using the same terminology (harvesting) that the post I am responding to ? and where I state that I disagree with harvesting On the contrary to your assertion, confusing things would be to use a different terminology than in the original post. It looks like you are the one confusing who said what, by first incorrectly stating that "harvesting" was my term and then removing Paul's wording "harvesting" from his original post and modifying his point......And if you disagree with the usage of the word "harvesting energy" then you are disagreeing with Paul, not with me.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 03/19/2017 07:26 PM...Jose':As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe. If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. ...Best, Paul M. Paul,It looks like that follows if the QV could be used to generate propellant-less propulsion (something that mainstream science finds unlikely), however I'm not sure if that is the case for a gravitational effect: we can use a gravity assist in order to propel a spacecraft to much higher velocities (e.g the Pioneer 10-11 probes, or the Voyager probes) and we can use gravity to get energy from a reservoir of water in a hydroelectric dam, but in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place. So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.
...The reason it's confusing is that you make a distinction between gravity assist and hydroelectric power as if one is "harvesting" and the other is not....
in that last case, the energy is really harvested from the atmospheric process (evaporation and rain driven by the Sun's energy) that is responsible to take the water to the higher height of the reservoir in the first place. So it looks to me like gravity really can be used for propulsion (a gravity assist), or to rapidly extract energy from a reservoir harvested by another process but not for energy harvesting itself.
...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to. ...
then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field
then rewound up to its starting point
Quote from: Star-Drive on 03/20/2017 02:22 PM...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to. ...I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle. In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:Quote then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field andQuote then rewound up to its starting point by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun.
Quote from: Rodal on 03/20/2017 02:39 PMQuote from: Star-Drive on 03/20/2017 02:22 PM...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to. ...I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle. In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:Quote then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field andQuote then rewound up to its starting point by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun....If one were able to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass of an object, (as it seems Paul was suggesting may be possible?), would that not in effect be the same as moving the mass to the top of a hill? If this were possible, the question would really be whether it would require more energy to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass than the real harvestable potential energy that change might represent....
Quote from: OnlyMe on 03/20/2017 03:30 PMQuote from: Rodal on 03/20/2017 02:39 PMQuote from: Star-Drive on 03/20/2017 02:22 PM...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to. ...I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle. In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:Quote then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field andQuote then rewound up to its starting point by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun....If one were able to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass of an object, (as it seems Paul was suggesting may be possible?), would that not in effect be the same as moving the mass to the top of a hill? If this were possible, the question would really be whether it would require more energy to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass than the real harvestable potential energy that change might represent....If the Mach Effect Hypothesis would be a possible way to generate propellant-less propulsion in Space (which I understand maybe what Paul is referring to), I still think that one would not be able to harvest energy from it, because more energy would have to be consumed to produce any such force in a closed cycle, due to entropy.Explicitly, concerning Woodward Mach Effect Hypothesis I notice that Woodward did not consider any dissipation mechanism when calculating the Mach effect propulsion force with the simple formulas. The viscoelastic dissipation in the piezoelectric material that is responsible for damping and hence for the finite amplitude of the response (the fact that Q is not infinite). The progressive internal damage to the material and hence the entropy dissipation that is responsible for finite fatigue life of the piezoelectric materials involved in vibration, the decrease in modulus of elasticity with time that such fatigue entails (and hence the decrease in the concomitant piezoelectric force with time). Also the formulas that I have seen assume speeds much lower than the speed of light and do not take into account what would happen at speeds becoming a fraction of the speed of light. It seems to me that any attempt to "engineer a geodesic" to enable propellant-less propulsion using General Relativity should entail an energy input to "engineer the geodesic" (whether in the Alcubierre scheme, or in the Woodward hypothesis or any such scheme using GR) that will be more than any energy that can be extracted from it in a closed cycle, so that in a closed-cycle no energy should be able to be gathered from a General Relativity effect (on the contrary, it seems to me that there should be a net energy loss, due to entropy), although it still may be possible (?) to use General Relativity (in theory) for propulsion. For example, using the Alcubierre scheme, a huge amount of energy would be required. Or in "engineering a wormhole" and keeping it stable, keeping it from closing, would require a huge amount of energy.
Or in "engineering a wormhole" and keeping it stable, keeping it from closing, would require a huge amount of energy.
Quote from: Rodal on 03/20/2017 02:39 PMQuote from: Star-Drive on 03/20/2017 02:22 PM...If you can dynamically vary the gravitational/inertial mass of a test mass via say Mach-Effects in an efficient manner, and then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field created by a body like the Earth or any other astronomical body, then allow that mass to fall along the local gee-field vector in its more massive state, but it is then rewound up to its starting point in its lighter mass state, then repeat as required, there can be a net amount of energy transferred from the local gee field to the cyclic variable mass pulley system that can be used to perform work that the pulley system is attached to. ...I think that Gravitation can be used to increase the velocity of a spacecraft in a given direction (not a cycle) for example with respect to the Sun, for example, by using geodesics, as in a gravity assist. I do not think that you can harvest energy from gravitation in a cycle. In your example the problem comes about in the following steps:Quote then place that test mass in a pre-exsiting gravitational field andQuote then rewound up to its starting point by what means is the test mass so placed ? by other means?a similar problem as to water reservoir in the hydroelectric dam: you can use gravity to convert the potential energy into electric energy, by exploiting the higher potential energy of the water in the reservori (or by exploiting a geodesic path in a gravity assist) but you cannot generate energy in a cycle, with gravity by itself because you need to place the water -by other means- in the higher state of potential energy, and it is the weather cycle that is responsible for that The problem is that gravitation (geodesics) -solely by itself- does not allow you to extract energy in a cycle.You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone previously placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity.So in the whole cycle, there is no energy harvested from gravity.You can use a geodesic path around Jupiter to gain velocity in a "gravity assist" on your way away from the Sun, but you cannot extract energy from gravitational assist in a closed cycle to come back to your original point with respect to the Sun.Dr Rodal,In reference to this portion of your above comments,"... You can use gravity to gain velocity from a stone placed at the top of a hill, by letting it fall.But you have to use other means to put the stone at the top of the hill, and when you do that you are working against gravity. ..."If one were able to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass of an object, (as it seems Paul was suggesting may be possible?), would that not in effect be the same as moving the mass to the top of a hill? If this were possible, the question would really be whether it would require more energy to artificially alter the gravitational/inertial mass than the real harvestable potential energy that change might represent.BTW I am not convinced that any of the above is actually possible. It seems most of the argument depends on the assumption that the curvature of Spacetime used to describe what we observe as gravitation, is the cause of gravitation. Which is to some extent like claiming that describing a tree as green is why the tree is green. I don't believe we have yet proven that the geometry of general relativity is the cause of gravitation, though it is certainly a good description of the observable effect...
Translation and Rotation of Transformation Media under Electromagnetic Pulsehttps://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1610/1610.04687.pdf"Here we investigate responses of three transformation media under electromagnetic pulses, and find that pulse radiation can induce unbalanced net force on transformation media, which will cause translation and rotation of transformation media although their final momentum can still be zero."
Quote from: Rodal on 03/19/2017 02:41 PMQuote from: Star-Drive on 03/19/2017 09:54 AM...Mulletron:One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the same thing. If this conjecture truly reflects the real world, then the GRT spacetime stiffness "constant" of 8*Pi*G / c^4 is also locally mutable under large (>100kV/m), time-varying (>10^9 Hz) E&M fields. In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field. Is there any proof that this could be real other than what is presented in the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab papers published to date? There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters. Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...Best, Paul M.It is healthy that the consequences of these theories are being honestly examined by Star-Drive as to their strange consequences, rather than being "swept under the rug". From the above discussion by Star-Drive it appears clear that Sonny White's theory about a degradable QV embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the QV. This is a very controversial consequence of the theory. A lot has been written about the energy problem concerning that a force can be produced without expelling any propellants: http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation . [image redacted for brevity]My understanding is that Dr. McCulloch also embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the Quantum Vacuum, according to McCulloch's theory.Notsosureofit has been trying to resolve this by examining the entropy in General Relativity, but my understanding is that the progress is slow and no final conclusion has been reached.Frobnicat early on showed that if the EM Drive can produce a constant force, this force could be utilized (in theory) to harvest energy. Actually, Frobnicat asked:1) if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like it would be more immediately exploitable for economic purposes (not necessarily by the scheme sketched by Frobnicat, but by any other means as discussed above by Star-Drive) as a means to produce practically "free energy" for mankind than for Interstellar Travel. 2) if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like extra EM Drives on-board could harvest energy from the QV and therefore avoid having to have (at least in part, or ideally at all) a means of providing electric energy to the EM Drive's providing propulsion, as that energy to produce the force could be harvested from the QV instead of being produced by onboard nuclear reaction or other means to provide electric energy.I am resurrecting these questions by Frobnicat, because at the time that Frobnicat posed them, Star-Drive was momentarily not active in the forum, and because Star-Drive's latest post discusses the idea that energy may be harvestable from the QV.On Turtur's experiments:https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Claus_Wilhelm_Turturhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Turturhttp://vixra.org/author/claus_wilhelm_turturquote from http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/images/1_Schrift_03f_englisch.pdfQuoteDr. Martin Tajmar from AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH atSeibersdorf near Wien (Head of Space Propulsion & Advanced Concepts) didmany discussions with me, coming to the result that he tried together withHarald Chmela to further develop the electrostatic vacuum-energy-rotor into aversion with rigidly fixed axis. (Unfortunately up to now, the experiments didnot have success.) Jose':As I already noted a mutable and degradable quantum vacuum (QV) AKA spacetime by definition permits setting up a thermodynamic cycle that should in theory be able to extract energy from the QV, i.e., degrade or lower the cosmological vacuum energy state of the causally connected universe. If Shawyer's EMdrives and/or Woodward's Mach-Effect drives work, then this has to be true. For me this does NOT mean we are creating a perpetual motion machine, but simply tapping into another energy storage source that just happens to be the cosmological gravitational field. What's the price for this kind of energy extraction process? I think it just means our energy loans hasten the cooling of the average 2.73K background temperature of the cosmos and perhaps increase the expansion rate of the universe as well, i.e., there is no free lunch. However look at the magnitude of the potential energy reserves contained in the cosmological gravitational field. If we are tapping just the potential energy contained in all the estimated ~1x10^80 atoms in the causally connected universe that created this background gravitational field, and apply E = m*c^2 to that mass, we could run a whole galactic empires from same for a billion years and not even put a dent in it...Best, Paul M.
Quote from: Star-Drive on 03/19/2017 09:54 AM...Mulletron:One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the same thing. If this conjecture truly reflects the real world, then the GRT spacetime stiffness "constant" of 8*Pi*G / c^4 is also locally mutable under large (>100kV/m), time-varying (>10^9 Hz) E&M fields. In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field. Is there any proof that this could be real other than what is presented in the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab papers published to date? There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters. Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...Best, Paul M.It is healthy that the consequences of these theories are being honestly examined by Star-Drive as to their strange consequences, rather than being "swept under the rug". From the above discussion by Star-Drive it appears clear that Sonny White's theory about a degradable QV embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the QV. This is a very controversial consequence of the theory. A lot has been written about the energy problem concerning that a force can be produced without expelling any propellants: http://emdrive.wiki/Energy_Conservation . [image redacted for brevity]My understanding is that Dr. McCulloch also embraces the idea that energy can be harvested from the Quantum Vacuum, according to McCulloch's theory.Notsosureofit has been trying to resolve this by examining the entropy in General Relativity, but my understanding is that the progress is slow and no final conclusion has been reached.Frobnicat early on showed that if the EM Drive can produce a constant force, this force could be utilized (in theory) to harvest energy. Actually, Frobnicat asked:1) if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like it would be more immediately exploitable for economic purposes (not necessarily by the scheme sketched by Frobnicat, but by any other means as discussed above by Star-Drive) as a means to produce practically "free energy" for mankind than for Interstellar Travel. 2) if the EM Drive works as proposed, it looks like extra EM Drives on-board could harvest energy from the QV and therefore avoid having to have (at least in part, or ideally at all) a means of providing electric energy to the EM Drive's providing propulsion, as that energy to produce the force could be harvested from the QV instead of being produced by onboard nuclear reaction or other means to provide electric energy.I am resurrecting these questions by Frobnicat, because at the time that Frobnicat posed them, Star-Drive was momentarily not active in the forum, and because Star-Drive's latest post discusses the idea that energy may be harvestable from the QV.On Turtur's experiments:https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Claus_Wilhelm_Turturhttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Claus_Turturhttp://vixra.org/author/claus_wilhelm_turturquote from http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/images/1_Schrift_03f_englisch.pdfQuoteDr. Martin Tajmar from AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH atSeibersdorf near Wien (Head of Space Propulsion & Advanced Concepts) didmany discussions with me, coming to the result that he tried together withHarald Chmela to further develop the electrostatic vacuum-energy-rotor into aversion with rigidly fixed axis. (Unfortunately up to now, the experiments didnot have success.)
...Mulletron:One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and the same thing. If this conjecture truly reflects the real world, then the GRT spacetime stiffness "constant" of 8*Pi*G / c^4 is also locally mutable under large (>100kV/m), time-varying (>10^9 Hz) E&M fields. In other words the stiffness of spacetime can be locally reduced under the appropriate dynamic excitation and in doing so create a local variation to the ambient gee field. Is there any proof that this could be real other than what is presented in the NASA/JSC Eagleworks Lab papers published to date? There might be in the guise of the attached 2009 paper by a Dr. Turtur in Germany that experimentally demonstrates that it IS possible to harvest energy from the QV zero point field with electrostatic and/or magnetostatic rotary converters. Now apply this QV energy harvesting lesson to the EMdrive and all other propellantless propulsion engines, but replace this experiment's rotor with large, time varying E&M fields in the frustum...Best, Paul M.
Dr. Martin Tajmar from AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH atSeibersdorf near Wien (Head of Space Propulsion & Advanced Concepts) didmany discussions with me, coming to the result that he tried together withHarald Chmela to further develop the electrostatic vacuum-energy-rotor into aversion with rigidly fixed axis. (Unfortunately up to now, the experiments didnot have success.)
One of the ideas behind Sonny White's mutable and degradable QuantumVacuum (QV) conjecture is that it and GRT spacetime are one and thesame thing.
Expansion of the universe leading to cosmological redshiftThe Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has red-shifted over billions ofyears.Each photon gets redder and redder. What happens to this energy?Cosmologists model the expanding universe with Friedmann-Robertson-Walker(FRW) spacetimes. (The familiar "expanding balloon speckled with galaxies"belongs to this class of models.) The FRW spacetimes are neither static norasymptotically flat. Those who harbor no qualms aboutpseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy.Others will say that the energy is simply lost.
And in my experience, saying "there's energy in the gravitationalfield, but it's negative, so it exactly cancels the energy you think isbeing gained in the matter fields" does not actually increase anyone'sunderstanding - it just quiets them down. Whereas if you say "ingeneral relativity spacetime can give energy to matter, or absorb it frommatter, so that the total energy simply isn't conserved," they might besurprised but I think most people do actually gain some understandingthereby.Energy isn't conserved; it changes because spacetime does. See, that wasn'tso hard, was it?
Thus, the lesson to learn is that Energy is only conserved if there'stranslational time symmetry in the problem.Which brings us to General Relativity: in several interesting cases in GR,it's simply impossible to properly define a "time" direction! Technicallyspeaking, this would imply a certain global property (called "globalhyperbolicity") which not all 4-dimensional spacetimes have. So, in general,Energy is not conserved in GR.
Strictly speaking, as we mentioned before, energy is not defined forthe Universe itself in General Relativity. But if we took the fabric of theUniverse itself and caused it to contract, what would happen to the photonsinside of it? A contracting Universe would do work on the photons (insteadof the other way around), and would cause them to gain energy.How much energy? Exactly as much as they lost when the Universe expanded.So yes, Christiaan, as the Universe expands, photons lose energy. But thatdoesn't mean energy isn't conserved; it means that the energy goes into theUniverse's expansion itself, in the form of work. And if the Universe everreverses the expansion and contracts again, that work will be done inreverse, and will go right back into the photons inside.
The peculiar properties of the false vacuum stem from its pressure, which is large and negative (see box on the right). Mechanically such a negative pressure corresponds to a suction, which does not sound like something that would drive the Universe into a period of rapid expansion. The mechanical effects of pressure, however, depend on pressure differences, so they are unimportant if the pressure is reasonably uniform. According to general relativity, however, there is a gravitational effect that is very important under these circumstances. Pressures, like energy densities, create gravitational fields, and in particular a positive pressure creates an attractive gravitational field. The negative pressure of the false vacuum, therefore, creates a repulsive gravitational field, which is the driving force behind inflation.
In the case of distant objects where the expansion of the universebecomes an important factor, the redshift is referred to as the"cosmological redshift" and it is due to an entirely different effect. According togeneral relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objectsactually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these objectsstretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched, andits wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted.(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetimechanges the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime.
...(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetimechanges the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime.
Quote from: Mulletron on 03/21/2017 11:33 AM...(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetimechanges the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime.IMO, the most sensible way to think of this is not that the photons or the light gain or lose energy. It is the clocks and rulers that change scale. On the cosmological scale, as entropy increases, everything nearby eventually collapses into a black hole. Given the effect of "length contraction", it makes the most sense to me that the cosmological redshift and the FRW spacetime, should be interpreted such that it is our local ruler that is shrinking. Over billions of years, our ruler has contracted relative to light that was emitted billions of years ago, making it's wavelength appear to be longer when it gets here.
Quote from: Mulletron on 03/21/2017 11:33 AM...(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetimechanges the wavelength of light moving through that spacetimeIMO, the most sensible way to think of this is not that the photons or the light gain or lose energy. It is the clocks and rulers that change scale. On the cosmological scale, as entropy increases, everything nearby eventually collapses into a black hole. Given the effect of "length contraction", it makes the most sense to me that the cosmological redshift and the FRW spacetime, should be interpreted such that it is our local ruler that is shrinking. Over billions of years, our ruler has contracted relative to light that was emitted billions of years ago, making it's wavelength appear to be longer when it gets here.
...(This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the"gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetimechanges the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime