@Rodal: You want me to agree to the statement that the onboard battery, located one million LY distant from our galaxy and far away from any ponderable masses and where all fields are miniscule, depletes at a different rate when moving at 10 m/s relative to our galaxy than when it is moving at 1 m/s relative to our galaxy?Why on earth would you expect me to agree to something as silly as that?
Precisely. That is all I am saying. Todd and Rodal, however, seem to think differently.
The kinetic energy, and also the change in this energy due to a change in velocity, depends on the inertial frame of reference. The total kinetic energy of an isolated system also depends on the inertial frame of reference
changes with time of the total kinetic energy do not depend on the inertial frame of reference.
Quote from: deltaMass on 06/07/2015 09:10 pm@Rodal: You want me to agree to the statement that the onboard battery, located one million LY distant from our galaxy and far away from any ponderable masses and where all fields are miniscule, depletes at a different rate when moving at 10 m/s relative to our galaxy than when it is moving at 1 m/s relative to our galaxy?Why on earth would you expect me to agree to something as silly as that?I have no idea what battery you are talking about. Where did I ever ask you to agree about a depletion of a battery one million light years away?and why do you write Quote Precisely. That is all I am saying. Todd and Rodal, however, seem to think differently. ? ? ?What I wrote was this: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1386124#msg1386124
Quote from: deltaMass on 06/07/2015 07:20 pmConsider the domain of the following to be a field-free region of flat spacetime...No such domain exists. The EM and Gravitational fields span the entire universe. There is no way to "eliminate" them for convenience and have a meaningful discussion of this topic. Sorry!Please read my paper and tell me where I made the mistake in the Math, rather than another long analogy in a nonexistent universe with no fields to interact with. The problem cannot be solved without them, not even at rest.Thank you.ToddQuote...I rest my case.
Consider the domain of the following to be a field-free region of flat spacetime...
...I rest my case.
Quote from: RodalThe kinetic energy, and also the change in this energy due to a change in velocity, depends on the inertial frame of reference. The total kinetic energy of an isolated system also depends on the inertial frame of referenceand immediately after:Quote from: Rodalchanges with time of the total kinetic energy do not depend on the inertial frame of reference.Is it just me, or does this strike you also as a pair of inconsistent statements?
If the effect as measured on lab balances is real (not a force exchanged with earthly surroundings), I find constant_thrust/constant_power + frame invariant proper source/reserve of energy in vacuum actually quite less unbelievable than other proposed schemes positing a span/duration/velocity limit so far. Just an opinion.
...Because you assert that P is frame-dependent. For a long time now we have used P to denote input power Pin. This can be thought of as being supplied by a battery.
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/07/2015 06:21 pmEvery particle of matter in both devices still absorbed the increased inertia when it was accelerated by the rocket engine to the new potential, (v - v0)^2. Note, this is the "change" in velocity, relative to where it started from, relative to its rest frame. The rest frame it started in is a preferred frame for that object, but it was not at rest in any "absolute" sense of the word. If you and the EM drive were aboard the spaceship after the conventional rocket finished accelerating it, would you be able to take apart and inspect the EM drive to tell that it was "spent" (as in already at its maximum velocity)? Presumably (if I am understanding your predictions correctly), you could tell it was spent by running it and seeing if it accelerated your ship further, but could you tell by looking at its particles?Thanks for all your patience with us!
Every particle of matter in both devices still absorbed the increased inertia when it was accelerated by the rocket engine to the new potential, (v - v0)^2. Note, this is the "change" in velocity, relative to where it started from, relative to its rest frame. The rest frame it started in is a preferred frame for that object, but it was not at rest in any "absolute" sense of the word.
Quote from: deltaMass on 06/07/2015 09:19 pm...Because you assert that P is frame-dependent. For a long time now we have used P to denote input power Pin. This can be thought of as being supplied by a battery.1) You are addressing Todd's paper2) When Todd uses P in his equations 2 and 3, P depends on velocity
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/07/2015 06:21 pm...To answer your question, if the rocket engine and the EM Drive have the same thrust-to-power ratio, then switching off the rocket and switching on the EM Drive will make no difference. Just because EM Drive 2 was only along for the ride makes no difference. Every particle of matter in both devices still absorbed the increased inertia when it was accelerated by the rocket engine to the new potential, (v - v0)^2. Note, this is the "change" in velocity, relative to where it started from, relative to its rest frame. The rest frame it started in is a preferred frame for that object, but it was not at rest in any "absolute" sense of the word. So to be absolutely clear, you agree and have yourself now stated that an absolute rest frame is required for your theory to work (when you postulate that COE is forbidden, but that the EMdrive may still create net thrust)....
...To answer your question, if the rocket engine and the EM Drive have the same thrust-to-power ratio, then switching off the rocket and switching on the EM Drive will make no difference. Just because EM Drive 2 was only along for the ride makes no difference. Every particle of matter in both devices still absorbed the increased inertia when it was accelerated by the rocket engine to the new potential, (v - v0)^2. Note, this is the "change" in velocity, relative to where it started from, relative to its rest frame. The rest frame it started in is a preferred frame for that object, but it was not at rest in any "absolute" sense of the word.
Hi. New here. I'm trying to make an analogue between a hypothetical non-CoE violating em-drive and a momentum wheel.Is this a worthwhile analogy to make? In a momentum wheel, how does the angular momentum (torque?) scale with the input power? It doesn't violate the conservation of energy. It's my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), that a preferred rotational reference frame is not completely confirmed to exist. If a non absolute rotational reference frame isn't known to be certainly true, there must be some kind relationship between the difference in reference frames of both the small mass wheel and the big mass spaceship, and the kinetic energy of the whole system? I can understand of course how a momentum wheel obeys the conservation of momentum and newton's third law, and I can understand that the rotational energy is limited by the strength of the wheel, but couldn't an analogy be drawn where the momentum wheel flywheel is represented by an em-drive's "working photons", and the spacecraft (or whatever the motor is attached to) of a momentum wheel is represented by an em-drive's frustum?
Quote from: not_a_physicist on 06/07/2015 08:20 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 06/07/2015 06:21 pmDoes that about sum it up? I really do hope I'm helping to facilitate understanding of all these things. ToddWell done...very well done. To everyone here very well done. I did and I hope others learned something.All my life I was told you can't do that or that will not work and I never believed them. You can't like electronics, you're a girl. Didn't work. You can't do a degree in 2 years, didn't work. You can't, you can't, it will not work, gag me. Well the you can'ts gave me a couple dozen patents and proved to me that if you raise red flag of "you can't" in front of me I'll somehow prove you can. You see when someone says you can't, it will not work. The first thing I do is look for ways it will work. (The hardest thing for me is to finally know and accept it just might not work and that's not often). This is not the case with the EMdrive as there is enough (barely) real test data to prove to me there is something there. Dozens of people have seriously worked on this and against those who have said it's not gonna work. Well, my hat is off to them for we are alike. Why is what drives you and for me the why is the reason you have pushed to know the world around you.I was retired, but you know, I still like a good fight when someone says, you can't do that. So I'm building this newfangled EMdrive violation contraption and learning. And this is the other side to the equation as to why many are here and it's just as important as all the math and all the conjecture. Shell
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/07/2015 06:21 pmDoes that about sum it up? I really do hope I'm helping to facilitate understanding of all these things. ToddWell done...very well done. To everyone here very well done. I did and I hope others learned something.All my life I was told you can't do that or that will not work and I never believed them. You can't like electronics, you're a girl. Didn't work. You can't do a degree in 2 years, didn't work. You can't, you can't, it will not work, gag me. Well the you can'ts gave me a couple dozen patents and proved to me that if you raise red flag of "you can't" in front of me I'll somehow prove you can. You see when someone says you can't, it will not work. The first thing I do is look for ways it will work. (The hardest thing for me is to finally know and accept it just might not work and that's not often). This is not the case with the EMdrive as there is enough (barely) real test data to prove to me there is something there. Dozens of people have seriously worked on this and against those who have said it's not gonna work. Well, my hat is off to them for we are alike. Why is what drives you and for me the why is the reason you have pushed to know the world around you.I was retired, but you know, I still like a good fight when someone says, you can't do that. So I'm building this newfangled EMdrive violation contraption and learning. And this is the other side to the equation as to why many are here and it's just as important as all the math and all the conjecture. Shell
Does that about sum it up? I really do hope I'm helping to facilitate understanding of all these things. Todd
Okay.... but how does that solve the problem? Instead of referring to the gradient of (F/P), you are referring to the gradient of (P/F)2, correct?
So in my example, wtih a ball just sitting in a gravitational field, the F/P ratio is just given by 1/v. There is no spatial dependence. It is not uniquely defined.There is no such thing as the gradient of (P/F)^2 for this case.So is there something special in my hypothetical case that causes you theory to be inapplicable?
I'm fascinated in a way by WarpTech's insistence of including elements of metric tensors, and of the Lorentz boost gamma, in his calculations. It is surely clear that space is "almost flat" and that the relative velocities involved in foreseeable lab tests, or even in space in the mid-term, will have a gamma factor as close to unity as makes "no difference".So Todd, can you quantify please by what kind of percentage your calculations would be affected if you dropped these SR and GR references? 0.000001%? 0.00000000001%? less?And if you agree that they are so small, then why do you bother with them when they don't change the outcome in a materially significant way? That's a serious question. I just don't get why you would bother with them.