It's a temporal issue, my good doctor. Time is assymetric.As Rafiki sez: "Loook harder"

philosophygasm

Place yourself in intergalactic space...

Anyway, all of this is relevant to the emdrive (asymmetric universe inside, asymmetric difference with our universe outside) by virtue of the true origin of inertia.

In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/08/2014 08:11 AMphilosophygasmNot at all sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. As always, assuming the good. ...First, your retelling of part of the story regarding time's apparent assymetry was very well written. So thank you for that. Still, many events in the universe are seen as being reversible, particularly on the quantum level.Quote from: MulletronPlace yourself in intergalactic space...I asked you to show me one particle which is not accelerating, and you can't, because all particles are accelerating somehow...Quote from: MulletronAnyway, all of this is relevant to the emdrive (asymmetric universe inside, asymmetric difference with our universe outside) by virtue of the true origin of inertia. Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO...Therefore, I take issue with the above statement. We still don't know what the "true" orgigin of inertia is.Now, if one law of the universe can be broken, then all laws of the universe can be broken.If a "new universe" is being created inside a copper can, which, tho not shielded from gravity, is subject to all other universal laws, two questions occur. How can it be called a "new universe" if subject to the inertial laws of this one? Is the 45 degree angled copper can the only way this assymetrical acceleration can occur? Third, does it ever have pragmatic application, since the decimal point you mention (.0000000000000000000000000000???) is so tiny?The bottom line distillation of the experimental apparatus is simply that they assert that they can convert electrical energy to forward momentum, somehow taking advantage of the Energy-momentum relation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relationAt the same time, as I've hinted at here and there in this thread, I intuitively hold the view that the old Cartesian model of reality (that there were two interacting kinds of substance - mental and physical) >was is limited.Per Bohm, "the whole notion of active information suggests a rudimentary mind-like behaviour of matter". Which ties into the Akashic records mentioned earlier; part of a unified theory that I'm working on.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_orderQuote from: David BohmIn the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv).Point being twofold: ('Fold'. Get it? .)The EM-drive explanations so far are incomplete. And maybe there's a way to consider time as reversible. There are "hidden" variables still. Hidden in the sense that we don't know about them yet. And third, there may be no practical applications of this technology at all.An analysis or description of any aspect of reality (e.g., quantum theory, the speed of light) can be unlimited in its domain of relevanceVeering briefly from the topic at hand: Reason? Who needs it? When it serves survival, yeah. I warn of the dangers of rampant reason and technology. WRT HSF, deconstructive and reductionistic scientificism holds that elective war trumps HSF. "U.S. Consul in Săo Paulo ... confiscated [Bohm's] passport." Further discussion welcome on the PM channel, particularly if you don't immediately grasp the connection I'm making.Like I always say:“It never occurred to me to abandon [my inquiry]. I just continued doing what I wanted to do. It didn’t matter to me whether I would succeed or fail.”Although it would be nice to get paid...Finally, I thought Archimedes invented the screw!

Do objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NO

QuoteDo objects undergoing NO acceleration have inertial mass? NOSorry but this is just wrong. Look up any defintion of inertial mass or EEP and you'll find that this is not true.

The algorithm I put together a few pages back is a thought experiment about what NO acceleration would be like.

Edit: Left out Turing.

...(see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).

I have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.htmlI also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).

Quote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 03:12 PMI have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.htmlI also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.

Quote from: aero on 10/08/2014 04:05 PMQuote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 03:12 PMI have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.htmlI also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.

Quote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 04:12 PMQuote from: aero on 10/08/2014 04:05 PMQuote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 03:12 PMI have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.htmlI also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.The pillbox is NOT perfectly symmetric. Loook harder.....

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/08/2014 04:14 PMQuote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 04:12 PMQuote from: aero on 10/08/2014 04:05 PMQuote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 03:12 PMI have been corresponding with Prof. McCulloch in his blog. He has kindly posted his predictions vs. experimental measurements for Shawyer and for NASA's Brady et.al. in his spreadsheet here:http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.htmlI also just submitted to Prof. McCulloch tentative MiHsC predictions vs. measurements for the Chinese experiments (see the above blog's comments for more details if interested).Those are some very interesting results. You might ask Prof. McCulloch to analyze the Cannae device which doesn't have a big end and small end, yet produced thrust. It does have the dielectric. I'm not sure if the Shawyer and the Chinese devices had dielectrics, though.Thanks @notsosureofit, for Prof. McCulloch to analyze any drive he needs the Q factor, and unfortunately I cannot find the Q factor for the Cannae device. That's one problem. The other problem is the geometry. The Cannae device has a symmetric pillbox geometry, so according to Prof. McCulloch's simplified formula it should not generate any thrust force (based on photons). I had a brief exchange with him on the issue of the dielectric. My understanding of his response is that he would have to consider the electrons in the dielectric rather than the photons in the cavity to explain the Cannae device.The pillbox is NOT perfectly symmetric. Loook harder.....As I see it, it is symmetric concerning the photons in the cavity, as relevant to Prof, McCulloch's simplified analysis: the pillbox geometry [as opposed to the truncated cones of Shawyer, NASA and the Chinese, which have one flat end larger than the other flat end].Please instead of just stating "look harder", please point out specifically what is the asymmetry of the pillbox that is relevant to Prof, McCulloch's present simplified analysis.

...The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/08/2014 04:22 PM...The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry. The Looook harder thing started as a running joke a little bit back.Well, I cannot work mathematically with a description of "The whole device, as a system is biased to one side in symmetry", and I doubt that Prof. McCulloch will be able to work out a formula based on that description, but everybody is free to post in his blog, if you think that's enough to work out a quantitative answer