Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10  (Read 619759 times)

Offline TheTraveller

Your last post that I was quoting was pretty much you just insulting scientists, while demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about by claiming paradoxes where none exist.

Meberbs,

Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2017 12:39 AM by TheTraveller »
"As for me, I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas.
Herman Melville, Moby Dick

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1252
  • Likes Given: 317
Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.
I have never claimed to.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
There is a difference between a questioning opinion and calling all scientists either idiots or liars. Spupeng7 could use with reading those Feynman quotes, since he seems to have no doubt in his intuition about what is a "paradox" despite the fact that experiments exist that show his intuition is wrong.

Offline Chrochne

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • Liked: 104
  • Likes Given: 251
Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.
I have never claimed to.


You did. Several times. Even went so far to insult core members of this group as aero.


Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
There is a difference between a questioning opinion and calling all scientists either idiots or liars. Spupeng7 could use with reading those Feynman quotes, since he seems to have no doubt in his intuition about what is a "paradox" despite the fact that experiments exist that show his intuition is wrong.

You say this all the time. Yet you base your ideas on something you can not explain why it exists. It is physical laws itself. Nobody was able to answer why they exist yet all accept them.

Who are you? Are you crackpot_killer from the reddit? He insulted in same way as you do and you have even same writting. Your hidden instults should be moderated.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2017 05:02 AM by Chrochne »

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.
I have never claimed to.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
There is a difference between a questioning opinion and calling all scientists either idiots or liars. Spupeng7 could use with reading those Feynman quotes, since he seems to have no doubt in his intuition about what is a "paradox" despite the fact that experiments exist that show his intuition is wrong.

There is a subtle way to point out to people they are wrong with out belittling them or dashing their hopes and dreams.  Its something a good mother or teacher might do well.   It helps to not assume their intentions are for the worse.  You might ask them if they know how that sounds.  That it sounds like they are belittling all the previous hard work of those who came before who had to start from scratch, ect.  Then ask, "Is that really your intention?" 

The problem with assuming the worst in an individual (guilty until proven innocent for example) is that it is a culture of looking down on others rather than as individuals who have dreams. 

It might also help to ask for clarification or to be specific about any claims of paradoxes or things that don't make sense.  Some times individuals assume better communication about what they are thinking then they really convey.  This is where the tactful skepticism or rebuttals come in that help clarification or help point out flaws. There is a possibility if they convey themselves clearly, they have something valuable to say.   If not then by knowing clearly what they are thinking a clear correction is more easily given. 
« Last Edit: 11/21/2017 02:09 PM by dustinthewind »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2785
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.
I have never claimed to.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
There is a difference between a questioning opinion and calling all scientists either idiots or liars. Spupeng7 could use with reading those Feynman quotes, since he seems to have no doubt in his intuition about what is a "paradox" despite the fact that experiments exist that show his intuition is wrong.

There is a subtle way to point out to people they are wrong with out belittling them or dashing their hopes and dreams.  Its something a good mother or teacher might do well.   It helps to not assume their intentions are for the worse.  You might ask them if they know how that sounds.  That it sounds like they are belittling all the previous hard work of those who came before who had to start from scratch, ect.  Then ask, "Is that really your intention?" 

The problem with assuming the worst in an individual (guilty until proven innocent for example) is that it is a culture of looking down on others rather than as individuals who have dreams. 

It might also help to ask for clarification or to be specific about any claims of paradoxes or things that don't make sense.  Some times individuals assume better communication about what they are thinking then they really convey.  This is where the tactful skepticism or rebuttals come in that help clarification or help point out flaws. There is a possibility if they convey themselves clearly, they have something valuable to say.   If not then by knowing clearly what they are thinking a clear correction is more easily given.

Very well put and something that all posters need to remember, especially those few who think they know everything and think that they are the smartest person in the world. No one knows everything and the statistically, smartest person in the world probably lives in Asia.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
What can be more revealing about the lack of news and having something factual to discuss in this thread concerning its subject "EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications"  than people arguing about moderation of the posts and now even posting things like where is (statistically speaking ?) the smartest person likely to reside   ;)

Happy Thanksgiving  8)

« Last Edit: 11/23/2017 04:18 PM by Rodal »

Offline Ricvil

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 24
Hi people!!
At another post I had trying explain how the conical cavity with flat ends could support two localized resonances at same time, and how this two trapped resonances could coupling each other by tunneling, and I call this system a asymmetrical dimer(after a "PT symmetrization").
In fact I have found another denomination of this configuration in the literature, and it's called Instanton.
In this case I think we have a Instanton formed by a TE mode resonance plus a TM mode resonance coupled by tunneling ( evanescent fields of each resonance decays from one end plate to the other, reaching other side with small but finite amplitude, and couple with correspondent mode under the superposition formed to fulfill the flat end plates boundary conditions, been mixed like a "scattering problem" dominated by the poles of dyadic green function of conical geometry writed with eigenfunctions in spherical coordinates)
I'm searching if this specific instanton could break one of current conservations of the zilch tensor associated to helicity (frequentely associated to chirality too, and chirality can be also associated with electromagnetic duality in some cases).
I think if dynamic of instanton can break the conservation electromagnetic of helicity/chirality "charge", then would occurs a coupling with gravity, or as I explained in other post, a gravitational wave will be generated by a oscillation of energy density center of mass of total electromagnetic inside the cavity, induced by a artificial PT-symmetrization (adjust of gain of the magnetron).
To conclude, I think the thrust will be generated by the force imbalance caused during the tunneling of inward photons (TE side to TM side and vice-versa), as a momentaneum net balance break of averaged to zero push/pull radiation pressure forces (on the cavity walls) of each TE/TM localized resonant modes, oscilating as a dimer like PT-symmetric phase.
:)
« Last Edit: 11/22/2017 01:59 AM by Ricvil »

Offline Augmentor

  • Member
  • Posts: 29
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 42
Hi people!!
At another post I had trying explain how the conical cavity with flat ends could support two localized resonances at same time, and how this two trapped resonances could coupling each other by tunneling, and I call this system a asymmetrical dimer(after a "PT symmetrization").
In fact I have found another denomination of this configuration in the literature, and it's called Instanton.
In this case I think we have a Instanton formed by a TE mode resonance plus a TM mode resonance coupled by tunneling ( evanescent fields of each resonance decays from one end plate to the other, reaching other side with small but finite amplitude, and couple with correspondent mode under the superposition formed to fulfill the flat end plates boundary conditions, been mixed like a "scattering problem" dominated by the poles of dyadic green function of conical geometry writed with eigenfunctions in spherical coordinates)
I'm searching if this specific instanton could break one of current conservations of the zilch tensor associated to helicity (frequentely associated to chirality too, and chirality can be also associated with electromagnetic duality in some cases).
I think if dynamic of instanton can break the conservation electromagnetic of helicity/chirality "charge", then would occurs a coupling with gravity, or as I explained in other post, a gravitational wave will be generated by a oscillation of energy density center of mass of total electromagnetic inside the cavity, induced by a artificial PT-symmetrization (adjust of gain of the magnetron).
To conclude, I think the thrust will be generated by the force imbalance caused during the tunneling of inward photons (TE side to TM side and vice-versa).
:)

I'll had that to the heap of partial, inadequate and SWAG theories on the emDrive.

Offline Ricvil

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 24
Hi people!!
At another post I had trying explain how the conical cavity with flat ends could support two localized resonances at same time, and how this two trapped resonances could coupling each other by tunneling, and I call this system a asymmetrical dimer(after a "PT symmetrization").
In fact I have found another denomination of this configuration in the literature, and it's called Instanton.
In this case I think we have a Instanton formed by a TE mode resonance plus a TM mode resonance coupled by tunneling ( evanescent fields of each resonance decays from one end plate to the other, reaching other side with small but finite amplitude, and couple with correspondent mode under the superposition formed to fulfill the flat end plates boundary conditions, been mixed like a "scattering problem" dominated by the poles of dyadic green function of conical geometry writed with eigenfunctions in spherical coordinates)
I'm searching if this specific instanton could break one of current conservations of the zilch tensor associated to helicity (frequentely associated to chirality too, and chirality can be also associated with electromagnetic duality in some cases).
I think if dynamic of instanton can break the conservation electromagnetic of helicity/chirality "charge", then would occurs a coupling with gravity, or as I explained in other post, a gravitational wave will be generated by a oscillation of energy density center of mass of total electromagnetic inside the cavity, induced by a artificial PT-symmetrization (adjust of gain of the magnetron).
To conclude, I think the thrust will be generated by the force imbalance caused during the tunneling of inward photons (TE side to TM side and vice-versa).
:)

I'll had that to the heap of partial, inadequate and SWAG theories on the emDrive.

Thank you by the "SWAG", and I accept the "inadequate" and "partial" by the use of terms like "PT symmetrization", because I can't find a better term for the exact geometric/physical symmetry involved, and not fully explain the "force imbalance" generated by the "supposed" tunneling of TE/TM photons, and at last, I forget to add my conjecture of conservation of moment of all system by the emission of the gravitational wave.
But I'm trying to be consistent, even without more detailed explanation of all involved, like the "double well potential" realized by local shift of cutoff frequency of modes (Slater formula) at neighborhood of flat end plates, viewed  as  "deformations" of the shape of cavity with spherical end plates.
My hope is someone understand what I'm trying modeling as a minimum of coerence frankenstein idea about the emdrive.
I will search and post most of all the references involved.
:)
« Last Edit: 11/23/2017 01:11 AM by Ricvil »

Offline spupeng7

Your last post that I was quoting was pretty much you just insulting scientists, while demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about by claiming paradoxes where none exist.

Meberbs,

Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.

Thankyou to everyone who supports my freedom of opinion, but I must insist that the criticism is welcome. I have proposed that time has a complex conjugate necessary for description of physical interactions.

This is a radical departure from existing analysis. Its rarity indicates the depth of conceptual re-arrangement required to consider it. No-one, with a career behind them which is invested in linear conceptions of time, is going to be able to take these arguments in without abandoning many of the filters which make them useful technicians or discerning teachers. This work is only intended for young people looking for a logical frame on which to build an understanding of the universe, or technicians so desperate to understand emdrive thrust that they will open their minds to something which they would otherwise rejected automatically.

Its relevance is, however, indicated by the fine detail of application of special relativity. Each and every charge has a rate of passage through time which varies relative to the charges near to them. Time cannot then be understood as a local phenomenon, it must be something unique to the reality of each individual atom or charge and therein lies good reason to ask many questions about the relevance of a linear conception of progress through time to anything outside of solid objects.

If these arguments interest you, and if moderators will forgive the repetition, please consider the argument in its early stages of development at http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0115 and its relevance to the emdrive at http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell. You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
Thankyou to everyone who supports my freedom of opinion, but I must insist that the criticism is welcome. I have proposed that time has a complex conjugate necessary for description of physical interactions.

This is a radical departure from existing analysis. Its rarity indicates the depth of conceptual re-arrangement required to consider it. No-one, with a career behind them which is invested in linear conceptions of time, is going to be able to take these arguments in without abandoning many of the filters which make them useful technicians or discerning teachers. This work is only intended for young people looking for a logical frame on which to build an understanding of the universe, or technicians so desperate to understand emdrive thrust that they will open their minds to something which they would otherwise rejected automatically.

Its relevance is, however, indicated by the fine detail of application of special relativity. Each and every charge has a rate of passage through time which varies relative to the charges near to them. Time cannot then be understood as a local phenomenon, it must be something unique to the reality of each individual atom or charge and therein lies good reason to ask many questions about the relevance of a linear conception of progress through time to anything outside of solid objects.

If these arguments interest you, and if moderators will forgive the repetition, please consider the argument in its early stages of development at http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0115 and its relevance to the emdrive at http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell. You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.

t + ivt/c = 0

Only has 2 solutions.
1. t = 0
2. v = ic

Neither of which is useful. Your idea about complex time doesn't help to engineer anything. It is something young people think about "before" they actually learn relativity. Most of us move on to using 4-dimensional space-time, none of which are imaginary because it has a solid interpretation.

You say; "But time, from more than one perspective, cannot be a scalar because clocks have different rates in different depths of a gravitational field."

This is pretty close to the definition of a scalar field. Time is most definitely a scalar. It is only 1 component of a 4-vector. The rest of your paper is more of the same.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2017 04:36 AM by WarpTech »

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1252
  • Likes Given: 317
You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.
-The photoelectric effect
-Absorption/emission spectra
-Radiation pressure
-Single photon emitters
-Single photon detectors

These are things that have been experimentally measured (the last 2 are devices that have been used for countless quantum mechanics experiments.) Even just the photoelectric effect provides clear evidence that there is a quantized unit of electromagnetic radiation. The name given to this is a photon. Do you really think that you have found a theory that can explain all of these experiments without referencing a quantized unit of electromagnetic radiation?

Offline spupeng7

You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.
-The photoelectric effect
-Absorption/emission spectra
-Radiation pressure
-Single photon emitters
-Single photon detectors

These are things that have been experimentally measured (the last 2 are devices that have been used for countless quantum mechanics experiments.) Even just the photoelectric effect provides clear evidence that there is a quantized unit of electromagnetic radiation. The name given to this is a photon. Do you really think that you have found a theory that can explain all of these experiments without referencing a quantized unit of electromagnetic radiation?
No meberbs, I do not.
What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables. I question, as I think we all should, the existence of anything which does not have any extension in time from its own perspective. That the 'photon' has extension in time from an external perspective is a product of that external perspective diverging in manner consequent upon time having a complex conjugate which allows a quantum of energy to traverse spacetime without requiring a mediating particle, wave or any other type of conjured explanation. I believe my viXra piece makes this clear.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline spupeng7

Thankyou to everyone who supports my freedom of opinion, but I must insist that the criticism is welcome. I have proposed that time has a complex conjugate necessary for description of physical interactions.

This is a radical departure from existing analysis. Its rarity indicates the depth of conceptual re-arrangement required to consider it. No-one, with a career behind them which is invested in linear conceptions of time, is going to be able to take these arguments in without abandoning many of the filters which make them useful technicians or discerning teachers. This work is only intended for young people looking for a logical frame on which to build an understanding of the universe, or technicians so desperate to understand emdrive thrust that they will open their minds to something which they would otherwise rejected automatically.

Its relevance is, however, indicated by the fine detail of application of special relativity. Each and every charge has a rate of passage through time which varies relative to the charges near to them. Time cannot then be understood as a local phenomenon, it must be something unique to the reality of each individual atom or charge and therein lies good reason to ask many questions about the relevance of a linear conception of progress through time to anything outside of solid objects.

If these arguments interest you, and if moderators will forgive the repetition, please consider the argument in its early stages of development at http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0115 and its relevance to the emdrive at http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell. You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.

t + ivt/c = 0

Only has 2 solutions.
1. t = 0
2. v = ic

Neither of which is useful. Your idea about complex time doesn't help to engineer anything. It is something young people think about "before" they actually learn relativity. Most of us move on to using 4-dimensional space-time, none of which are imaginary because it has a solid interpretation.

You say; "But time, from more than one perspective, cannot be a scalar because clocks have different rates in different depths of a gravitational field."

This is pretty close to the definition of a scalar field. Time is most definitely a scalar. It is only 1 component of a 4-vector. The rest of your paper is more of the same.
WarpTech,
yes, time is most definitely a scalar at any one point. No matter how hard your spaceship accelerates or what velocity it reaches, the wrist watch you are wearing will still be synchronous with the rates of chemical reaction and the Newtonian mechanics for objects travelling with you. But time does run at different rates in different places, concurrently, so it is only linear from a point perspective. From the covariant perspective linear time is manifestly inadequate.

There are some lessons from relativity which will not be clear to you so long as you insist on limiting your imagination to that point perspective. This is vital to the development of emdrive theory, because it reveals that  t = 0  for the quantum transferred, which is a very different conception of radiation to the one in use. Non?

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
« Last Edit: 11/24/2017 12:25 AM by spupeng7 »
Optimism equals opportunity.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
  • Liked: 1252
  • Likes Given: 317
What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables.
While I agree that it is an interesting thought experiment to consider what happens from the perspective of a photon, there are several specific experiments that indicate that photons exist in between emission and absorption:
-double slit experiments (including single photon versions)
-Measurements of fields when there are large numbers of photons (such as through a radio antenna) reflect the total expected field strength, not just the field of the absorbed photons.
-Recently photon-photon scattering was observed at the LHC.

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.

Your equation can be factored to be:

t(1+iv/c)=0

For this equation to be true, 1 of the 2 terms has to be 0, either t or (1+iv/c)

Setting 1+iv/c = 0, can be rearranged to 1 = -iv/c, multiply through by ic and you get ic = -i*i*v = v

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 231
  • Likes Given: 85
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7

this article says solutions for GR exist in desitter space that allow negative mass/energy without violating energy conditions in non flat space times. That's great. But the article written before positive LIGO results came in says a consequence of the resultant plasma would be screening of gravity waves. That appears to be a problem since gravity waves have subsequently detected and verified. the article says gravity waves below a certain frequency threshold would be screened out. I do not know enough to determine if the detected gravity waves ( at LIGO) were below the requisite threshold and thus the LIGO detections are a falsification  of the papers theory or they are above the threshold and thus irrelevant to the paper. Alternatively assuming the paper is true then perhaps the predicted plasma is only present near the source of the plasma?

BTW: I consider the content of this post weakly connected to the EM drive discussion because if the EM Drive effect is not due to a misunderstood mundane cause or measurement error; the source of the EM Drive propulsive effect is unknown and could be due to any number of exotic causes including this one. (Which, you must admit, would be extraordinarily cosmically cool.)
« Last Edit: 11/25/2017 06:43 AM by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline spupeng7

What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables.
While I agree that it is an interesting thought experiment to consider what happens from the perspective of a photon, there are several specific experiments that indicate that photons exist in between emission and absorption:
-double slit experiments (including single photon versions)
-Measurements of fields when there are large numbers of photons (such as through a radio antenna) reflect the total expected field strength, not just the field of the absorbed photons.
-Recently photon-photon scattering was observed at the LHC.

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.

Your equation can be factored to be:

t(1+iv/c)=0

For this equation to be true, 1 of the 2 terms has to be 0, either t or (1+iv/c)

Setting 1+iv/c = 0, can be rearranged to 1 = -iv/c, multiply through by ic and you get ic = -i*i*v = v

Thanks meberbs, I will consider my answer before posting  :)
Optimism equals opportunity.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7

this article says solutions for GR exist in desitter space that allow negative mass/energy without violating energy conditions in non flat space times. That's great. But the article written before positive LIGO results came in says a consequence of the resultant plasma would be screening of gravity waves. That appears to be a problem since gravity waves have subsequently detected and verified. the article says gravity waves below a certain frequency threshold would be screened out. I do not know enough to determine if the detected gravity waves ( at LIGO) were below the requisite threshold and thus the LIGO detections are a falsification  of the papers theory or they are above the threshold and thus irrelevant to the paper. Alternatively assuming the paper is true then perhaps the predicted plasma is only present near the source of the plasma?

BTW: I consider the content of this post weakly connected to the EM drive discussion because if the EM Drive effect is not due to a misunderstood mundane cause or measurement error; the source of the EM Drive propulsive effect is unknown and could be due to any number of exotic causes including this one. (Which, you must admit, would be extraordinarily cosmically cool.)

They mention a perfect fluid and this reminded me of this article here: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/sep/22/collider-serves-up-drop-of-primordial-soup

This reminds me of speculation that anti-matter could be negative energy running backwards in time or PT symmetric such that it's basically an electron with the charge flipped.  Flip the time and it reacts backwards in time or opposite of a normal particle but is negative energy.  Now flip the parity and it becomes a positive energy particle again.  I think upon annihilation this symmetry could be broken and its exhibits its negative energy aspects in the vacuum and explains the disappearance upon annihilation and reappearance with enough energy (e-p pairs).  I posted a video of David that had a General relativity solution to the vacuum.  It seemed to show charge (and possibly not yet done magnetic solution) may exhibit some influence over this vacuum. 

It may provide some reverse time aspect that assists in the reverse time aspect of Feynman diagrams or Wheeler Feynman behavior.  Possibly responsible for the time travel in special relativity and Lorentz contraction but not sure how exactly. 

If it exists in the vacuum as negative energy we may have all the negative energy we need in the vacuum to engineer warp drives. 

Here is a previous link of mine that is related to that discussed above: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1751063#msg1751063

Some of the papers in the post also suggest such pairs in the vacuum exhibiting negative energy may possibly account for dark matter. 

from another previous link of mine.  Provides the symmetry breaking for the e-p pair.

This might be related: http://cds.cern.ch/record/490576/files/0103054.pdf
What is PT symmetry?
Miloslav Znojil
Theory Group, Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR
CS 250 68 Re ˇ ˇz, Czech Republic 1
Quote
The smooth and growing deviation from the
Hermitian starting point A = 0 ends at a certain critical A(crit) where the two energies
merge. Next, they form a conjugate pair which moves further in the complex plane.
The PT symmetry of the system becomes spontaneously broken. The phenomenon
of this type has been detected by the various methods in the spectra of many different
PT symmetric Hamiltonians
Might be related also (goes back to the 1st thread where mulltron was considering PT symmetry): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1283569#msg1283569

A complex plane sounds familiar.  Related to Spupeng7 use of complex time?  Or possibly the dual universe of forward and reverse time.  Can't find the link to where an object falling into a gravity well contracting is actually traversing a complex plane (hyper-bolic i think it was).  I'll have to try and find that post. 

Here mentioned by Sanman here I think: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1739441#msg1739441  the paper cited seems related.   

I think this imaginary space is possibly related to the Janus Cosmological Model & FTL travel thread here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.msg1709505#msg1709505
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 12:55 AM by dustinthewind »

Offline spupeng7

What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables.
While I agree that it is an interesting thought experiment to consider what happens from the perspective of a photon, there are several specific experiments that indicate that photons exist in between emission and absorption:
-double slit experiments (including single photon versions)
-Measurements of fields when there are large numbers of photons (such as through a radio antenna) reflect the total expected field strength, not just the field of the absorbed photons.
-Recently photon-photon scattering was observed at the LHC.

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.

Your equation can be factored to be:

t(1+iv/c)=0

For this equation to be true, 1 of the 2 terms has to be 0, either t or (1+iv/c)

Setting 1+iv/c = 0, can be rearranged to 1 = -iv/c, multiply through by ic and you get ic = -i*i*v = v

Thanks meberbs,

The equation,  t + ivt / c = 0 , is just a statement that the two components (first clock time and second its complex conjugate, the addition of which is required to describe a time interval between charges or objects in relative motion) sum together to zero. Yes you can scramble this relationship by mixing the components but, and correct me if I am wrong, you can do that with any complex number where the units allow. You will, however, destroy the information they contain when you do.

The evidence for the existence of photons is a more involved question. First must be the double slit experiment which has been a source of controversy, and in my opinion misinterpretation, for two hundred years. The results of two slit experiments rely on the phase interaction consequent on variation of distance.

Light may not be a wave or a particle but may be the leap of quanta of energy from one place to another, opportune when the phases across the available lines of sight syncopate. In complex time that phase variance is a consequence of, a variance of the passage of time for the absorbing material, in comparison with the lack of passage of time for the quantum transferred, which is why the above equation is required to explain it.

The photon photon scattering observed in the LHC and the fields measured at large concentrations of photons are both situations in extrema which I will have to spend more time considering before I can answer your question. It does seem strange to me that such fields are measurable when large concentrations of photons at the focal point of a telescope do not distort the images it produces.

Appreciate your questions, please keep them coming, and any references to the LHC results or photon field measurements you may have would also be appreciated.
Optimism equals opportunity.

Online dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 267
What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables.
While I agree that it is an interesting thought experiment to consider what happens from the perspective of a photon, there are several specific experiments that indicate that photons exist in between emission and absorption:
-double slit experiments (including single photon versions)
-Measurements of fields when there are large numbers of photons (such as through a radio antenna) reflect the total expected field strength, not just the field of the absorbed photons.
-Recently photon-photon scattering was observed at the LHC.

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.

Your equation can be factored to be:

t(1+iv/c)=0

For this equation to be true, 1 of the 2 terms has to be 0, either t or (1+iv/c)

Setting 1+iv/c = 0, can be rearranged to 1 = -iv/c, multiply through by ic and you get ic = -i*i*v = v

Thanks meberbs,

The equation,  t + ivt / c = 0 , is just a statement that the two components (first clock time and second its complex conjugate, the addition of which is required to describe a time interval between charges or objects in relative motion) sum together to zero. Yes you can scramble this relationship by mixing the components but, and correct me if I am wrong, you can do that with any complex number where the units allow. You will, however, destroy the information they contain when you do.

The evidence for the existence of photons is a more involved question. First must be the double slit experiment which has been a source of controversy, and in my opinion misinterpretation, for two hundred years. The results of two slit experiments rely on the phase interaction consequent on variation of distance.

Light may not be a wave or a particle but may be the leap of quanta of energy from one place to another, opportune when the phases across the available lines of sight syncopate. In complex time that phase variance is a consequence of, a variance of the passage of time for the absorbing material, in comparison with the lack of passage of time for the quantum transferred, which is why the above equation is required to explain it.

The photon photon scattering observed in the LHC and the fields measured at large concentrations of photons are both situations in extrema which I will have to spend more time considering before I can answer your question. It does seem strange to me that such fields are measurable when large concentrations of photons at the focal point of a telescope do not distort the images it produces.

Appreciate your questions, please keep them coming, and any references to the LHC results or photon field measurements you may have would also be appreciated.

If your considering imaginary time this might be a line of related thought: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10342783944069976021&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


We discuss a thermalized vacuum in terms of the relationship between imaginary time and temperature. The strategy of introducing imaginary time is well-known in cosmology and field theory, and has been proven effective in the removal of singularities...

3 Complex time...

The time symmetry of a click, which appears as a kind of two-faced Janus along the time line, has several equivalents in quantum physics.
...
 The appearance of the factor in Eq. 15 implies that Ψ has resumed its course in laboratory time. If the + sign applies, we are looking at the creation of a particle (positive mass); if the -sign applies,this indicates the creation of an anti-particle (negative mass).
...
4 Physical meaning of complex time
...

The crucial observation is that the timeless vacuum state is described by two temporal parameters but no spatial parameter.

Looks like it might possibly tie into the Janus cosmological model.  Some parallels to what I suggested in the post above also. 
« Last Edit: 11/27/2017 02:42 AM by dustinthewind »

Tags: