Lampyridae:You and Karl might find the following article from NewScientist of some interest entitled: "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html?full=true&print=trueSince matter appears to be just self-contaiend vacuum-fluctuations smoke rings that make up the proton's quarks & gluons as well the electrons, then artifically affecting these elements by externally applied E&M fields as proposed in the MLT and QVF/MHD thruster devices becomes much less of a reach don't you think?
Quote from: Star-Drive on 11/22/2008 04:08 amLampyridae:You and Karl might find the following article from NewScientist of some interest entitled: "It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations"http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html?full=true&print=trueSince matter appears to be just self-contaiend vacuum-fluctuations smoke rings that make up the proton's quarks & gluons as well the electrons, then artifically affecting these elements by externally applied E&M fields as proposed in the MLT and QVF/MHD thruster devices becomes much less of a reach don't you think? An isolated proton is not a vacuum state, hence, it is not a vacuum fluctuation. It does provide evidence for quantum chromodynamics (QCD) (the theory with quarks and all forces but gravity in it) which does have vacuum fluctuations. And even if vacuum fluctuations exist (which I consider very likely), doesn't mean we can exploit it for a propulsion technology. The MLT (Mach Lorentz Thruster for those who haven't been keeping up) is pushing back and forth a capacitor whose inertia we can control via charging and discharging the capacitor. In other words, the capacitor's inertia fluctuates, but in a way we control.The QVF/MWD (Quantum Vacuum Fluctuation/MagnetoHydroDynamics) thruster is attempting to do the same (as far as I can tell) for a patch of fluctuating vacuum for which we do not control the "fluctuation". Even attempting to observe the vacuum (in order to figure out whether to push or pull, let's say) will change to some degree the state of the vacuum. I just don't see the mechanism for generating a predictable, consistent thrust in a particular direction.
Surely that is just a conformation that E=mc**2 .
Yet we *are* observing the vacuum, at a macroscopic state, because mass is real and not virtual. Somehow, all the quantum vacuum fluctuations even out and we don't live in a bubbling mass of quantum soda.
Quote from: nacnud on 11/22/2008 04:50 amSurely that is just a conformation that E=mc**2 . True, but it seems that matter is closer to energy than we would have thought. And that there seems to be a clearer link between energy and gravity, not just some unexplained space-time distortion in the presence of matter or energy. I'm keen to see where this research goes.
Well, with the rumblings in the beltway, I think that may be the case. Fingers crossed. I'm sure the DoD is quietly conducting its own experiments on this, but you can rest assured they won't be for public consumption. Star-Drive, is there a diagram available illustrating how the QVF thruster works, or a design?At the moment, I'm just guessing at how this all fits together. I'm just digesting stuff on vacuum energy and pair production (oh how shallow my physics knowledge is...). But the e/p pairs do have an influence thanks to vacuum polarisation. What purpose does the 100 MHz RF generator therefore have? How does it set up phonons in the e/p plasma? I gather it would pull them apart and make them dipoles for a little bit longer before they annihilate.
I take it you mean an accelerometer. It depends on the nature of the propellantless propulsion device. The MLT is a kind of rocket thruster using Far-Off Active Mass as "propellant." Therefore acceleration would be felt as normal, and without issues like intense vibrations and so on. Gravity-based drives for example wouldn't produce noticeable acceleration in the craft as it would be "falling" wherever its artificial gravity well pointed.
Dr. James F. Woodward has recently completed a series of rotary based experiments designed to test his Mach-Effect (M-E) Conjecture--that when a capacitor dielectric's mass is driven by a time varying electromagnetic (E&M) power flux, while simultaneously undergoing bulk acceleration relative to the distant stars; that this will give rise to Mach Effects, or the temporary fluctuation of relativistic mass.
I don't think Dr. Woodward's work has anything to do with Brown and he'd probably be the first to tell you he has no confidence in Brown's work for several reasons.