Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 764502 times)

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1780 on: 10/09/2014 01:29 PM »
...
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>

I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end)  that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?

We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.

 Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
Sorry, I don't understand you.  Do you have an alternative explanation  for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?, yes or no ?

I just said it. Regardless of if you understand me. Yes.

Listen, if you have an object with a differential of inertia inside of it. How does that make it want to move? How are the conditions inside the cavity communicated (its inertial differences inside, and the state of its particles as a result) with the universe outside of the cavity, so that the thing is compelled to move? It isn't just as simple as "just because it does." There has to be a mechanism for that to happen.

Edit:
Put more simply, how is linear momentum transferred from inside to outside, if nothing leaves that cavity? It can only do so by something that is both INSIDE and OUTSIDE the cavity..........OR an asymmetric force acting on the outside of the cavity.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:34 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1781 on: 10/09/2014 01:35 PM »
...
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>

I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end)  that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?

We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.

 Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
Sorry, I don't understand you.  Do you have an alternative explanation  for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?, yes or no ?

I just said it. Regardless of if you understand me. Yes.

Listen, if you have an object with a differential of inertia inside of it. How does that make it want to move? How are the conditions inside the cavity communicated (its inertial differences inside, and the state of its particles as a result) with the universe outside of the cavity, so that the thing is compelled to move? It isn't just as simple as "just because it does." There has to be a mechanism for that to happen.
Well I still don't see your alternative explanation for how you conserve momentum under McCulloch's assumption.  Maybe I need some more coffee to wake up.  What I see is that you are not satisfied with the explanation as to what makes it move.  The answer to that is simply conservation of momentum.

It looks like your main problem with McCulloch's theory is what makes it move under his assumptions.
To me that's not the main problem (I find the answer: because of momentum conservation to be sastisfactory).
To me the main problem is why should the microwave cavity copper walls have to act as a Rindler horizon?
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:37 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1782 on: 10/09/2014 01:40 PM »
...
Can anyone explain why it would move?
...
McCulloch stated << the microwaves bouncing around within the cavity have inertial mass (em radiation does: that's why it can push a Solar sail) and their inertia is determined by MiHsC (quantised inertia). In MiHsC the Unruh waves are allowed only if they fit exactly within the Hubble horizon or within a local Rindler horizon, .. if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon... then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.as a microwave beam goes from the narrow end to the wide end it gains inertial mass. Now I can try something I've used before (for the Tajmar effect [see http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266 ]) and say, in order to still conserve momentum (mass*velocity) for the whole system, if mass goes up then velocity must go down, and the only way to achieve that is to have the whole structure move towards the narrow end.>>

I know he says that. I just modeled that (what he said) in my most recent huge post and it failed. He maintained himself it is a leap. I tried to push the "I believe button" and it still didn't work. This thing doesn't expel any reaction mass. So now I'm back in line with Dr. White. The question is how?
Can you explain in as few words as possible, what alternative explanation you have for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing the whole systemtowards the narrow end)  that will conserve momentum with the EM drive not accelerating?

We have to react against something. That something isn't blocked by the boundary conditions of the enclosed cavity.

 Looks like we're back to it reacting against the QV again.......somehow.

http://arxiv-web3.library.cornell.edu/abs/1404.5990 (what I've been saying) Maybe this way.
Sorry, I don't understand you.  Do you have an alternative explanation  for conserving momentum (instead of McCulloch's proposal to have a force pushing towards the narrow end) that conserves momentum without the EM drive accelerating?, yes or no ?

I just said it. Regardless of if you understand me. Yes.

Listen, if you have an object with a differential of inertia inside of it. How does that make it want to move? How are the conditions inside the cavity communicated (its inertial differences inside, and the state of its particles as a result) with the universe outside of the cavity, so that the thing is compelled to move? It isn't just as simple as "just because it does." There has to be a mechanism for that to happen.
Well I still don't see your alternative explanation for how you conserve momentum under McCulloch's assumption.  Maybe I need some more coffee to wake up.  What I see is that you are not satisfied with the explanation as to what makes it move.  The answer to that is simply conservation of momentum.

It looks like your main problem with McCulloch's theory is what makes it move under his assumptions.
To me that's not the main problem (I find the answer: because of momentum conservation to be sastisfactory).
To me the main problem is why should the microwave cavity copper walls have to act as a Rindler horizon?

MiHSC appears to be consistent (IMHO) with every aspect of this except the final reaction, which would need to be classical mechanics. Equal and opposite reactions (like rocket reaction chambers) are not MiHSC.

The Rindler horizon is not the copper walls. It is a wall of causality behind the device. Thanks for listening. I enjoy our discussions and I think we're furthering emdrive as a result.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:43 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1783 on: 10/09/2014 01:44 PM »
...
The Rindler horizon is not the copper walls. It is a wall of causality behind the device.

No. That contradicts what Prof. McCulloch wrote:

<<.. what if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon? Well, then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.>>

Prof. McCulloch wrote that his assumption is that the cavity walls are acting like a horizon. That's his assumption.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:45 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1784 on: 10/09/2014 01:47 PM »
...
The Rindler horizon is not the copper walls. It is a wall of causality behind the device.

No. That contradicts what Prof. McCulloch wrote:

<<.. what if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon? Well, then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.>>

Prof. McCulloch wrote that his assumption is that the cavity walls are acting like a horizon. That's his assumption.

Would fit between the cavity walls and the Rindler Horizon. Hold on. Finding the sources again.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1785 on: 10/09/2014 01:50 PM »
...
The Rindler horizon is not the copper walls. It is a wall of causality behind the device.

No. That contradicts what Prof. McCulloch wrote:

<<.. what if the cavity wall in this case was acting like a horizon? Well, then the microwaves at the wide end would have more inertia than those at the narrow end since more Unruh waves would fit.>>

Prof. McCulloch wrote that his assumption is that the cavity walls are acting like a horizon. That's his assumption.

Would fit between the cavity walls and the Rindler Horizon. Hold on. Finding the sources again.
It looks like you have been working under another assumption than Prof. McCulloch's.

I have posed the question to him (in his blog) as to what is his basis to assume that the microwave cavity copper walls can act like a Hubble or a Rindler horizon.  We'll see what he answers.


Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1786 on: 10/09/2014 01:52 PM »
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf

This paper needs accelerated peer review.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation


Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.


Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1787 on: 10/09/2014 01:53 PM »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1788 on: 10/09/2014 01:55 PM »
I think I'm on board with him on Rindler Horzons, just the reaction producing motion. I can't figure out how the Unruh radiation could push you if that were the case. There is less Unruh radiation behind you than in front.......Yeah in ref to your pic you just posted. The horizon in front of you, I consider as infinity. You can't catch it. The one behind you gets closer and closer to you as you get faster and faster. Just like you get with length contraction in SR.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:56 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1789 on: 10/09/2014 01:56 PM »
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf

This paper needs accelerated peer review.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation


Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.

What needs "peer review" is the assumption that the microwave cavity copper walls can act like a Hubble or a Rindler horizon [please notice that as of late Prof. McCulloch has been writing Hubble horizon -- not Rindler horizon--].
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 01:57 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1790 on: 10/09/2014 01:58 PM »
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf

This paper needs accelerated peer review.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation


Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.

What needs "peer review" is the assumption that the microwave cavity copper walls can act like a Hubble or a Rindler horizon [please notice that as of late Prof. McCulloch has been writing Hubble horizon -- not Rindler horizon--].

Well the Hubble horizon is all around you. Rindler horizon is behind you. You can't see the Hubble horizon behind you through the Rindler horizon. He said that in the forum post I just shared. Quoted below.

Edit:
Quote:

"Thank you for your interesting question. The following is what I assumed in the paper. If you accelerate to the right, the Rindler horizon to your left is a boundary beyond which things are in principle unobservable for you. So, as soon as the nearer Rindler horizon forms, the far cosmic horizon behind it becomes unobservable and therefore (following the attitude of Mach) irrelevant. I assumed that the distance to the cosmic horizon on the right remains the same. I hope this answers your questions. It probably raises a lot of new ones!"
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 02:01 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline frobnicat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1791 on: 10/09/2014 01:59 PM »

I guess its time for my 10^7 contribution.

I've attached a current estimate of dark matter in the solar system, and for convenience converted 16.5E16 kg / AU^3 to 4.5E-17 kg/m^3.  That is quite a lot more than your number...

Yeah, I just, you know, forgot the G in GeV. Off by 9 orders of magnitude. Post corrected. Many thanks for not making myself a fool for too long. ...

This is weakly interacting after all. Please detect DM before pushing too much on it.

I was wondering about all the strike thrus.  Just go ahead and edit it so it reads better.  Add a "mea culpa" at the end.  I'm not gonna ask for an apoligy, 'cause I drop zeros all the time.

It strikes through the first (erroneous) version like dark matter, you know, the strikes are not really interacting. In a few hours it will be buried under 50 or 100 posts so... next time I do a blunder I will do the mea culpa. If we are to publish in peer reviewed paper I'll have to rephrase the whole thing anyway  ;D

Quote
It's true tho, that you can't push very hard on something that is so rare.  But then I got confused.  You're not talking about "DM fusion", right?

Ai chihuahua.

No, it was about using naturally occurring DM mass "as is", for its momentum, not using its energy (equivalent mass) content (by fusion or other hypothetical "burning" mass->energy method)

Ay Caramba !

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1792 on: 10/09/2014 02:01 PM »
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf

This paper needs accelerated peer review.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation


Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.

What needs "peer review" is the assumption that the microwave cavity copper walls can act like a Hubble or a Rindler horizon [please notice that as of late Prof. McCulloch has been writing Hubble horizon -- not Rindler horizon--].

Well the Hubble horizon is all around you. Rindler horizon is behind you. You can't see the Hubble horizon behind you through the Rindler horizon. He said that in the forum post I just shared.


http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014_10_01_archive.html <<What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)?>>

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1793 on: 10/09/2014 02:06 PM »
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2775v1.pdf

This paper needs accelerated peer review.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/54313/does-unruh-radiation-replace-the-cosmic-horizon-radiation


Anyway my take on Rindler Horizons is that it is an apparent event horizon. Defined as variable with your velocity. The waves that fit or don't fit are between the walls of your particle and the Rindler horizon, which gets closer the faster you go.

What needs "peer review" is the assumption that the microwave cavity copper walls can act like a Hubble or a Rindler horizon [please notice that as of late Prof. McCulloch has been writing Hubble horizon -- not Rindler horizon--].

Well the Hubble horizon is all around you. Rindler horizon is behind you. You can't see the Hubble horizon behind you through the Rindler horizon. He said that in the forum post I just shared.


http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014_10_01_archive.html <<What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)?>>

"What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon....."

It does. One side of the horizon. Every horizon has more than one side. Go walk outside and see. Or imagine yourself in a black hole. The unruh waves fit within the bounds of the horizon.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 02:07 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1794 on: 10/09/2014 02:09 PM »
Going to Arizona to see whether I can get a sense of Yuma.

I'm taking my banjo and my microwave with me.

I'll take a look at the horizons in front of me and behind me while I drive to Yuma. 

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1795 on: 10/09/2014 02:10 PM »
MiHsC if proven correct would be the biggest thing since GR. It would essentially unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, answer many open questions in physics, which he blogs about, and allow emdrive to work too.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 02:12 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1796 on: 10/09/2014 02:14 PM »
... imagine yourself in a black hole. The unruh waves fit within the bounds of the horizon.

To quote astrophysicist Marshall Eubanks (from an exchange I had with him in the MIT Alumni Group in LinkedIN):

<< The Unruh effect is very similar to the Hawking radiation - suppose you were suspended over a black hole event horizon - you would be accelerated _and_ you would see the Hawking radiation (assuming it exists, etc.) So, if you are just accelerated it makes sense that you would see the same Hawking radiation (and that's the Unruh effect). If you think about it, it's a quantum gravity extension of the principle of equivalence - in other words, acceleration by gravity and by rocketship still do the same thing.

Another way to think of this is that, if you are in a Minskowski space time, there is no horizon, but when you accelerate, you are in a Rindler space-time, which means that you cannot see all quantum states, and so what you do see are mixed states, and these have a temperature. Now, how do the walls of the container act as a horizon ? In other words, when I read "What if the resonant cavity walls acted like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length (as they are in this case)? " I simply think, why? Why should a copper and brass waveguide act like an event horizon? Either I am missing something, or it's a bad analogy.>>

I added bold letters for emphasis
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 02:18 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1797 on: 10/09/2014 02:29 PM »
http://m.phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.html

Not comparable.

The ring and the gyro are 2 physical systems, separate, but in common with the universe.

Emdrive is 2 separate physical systems one inside the other. In series.


Also there is no supercooled rotating anything in emdrive. Interesting effect and I don't doubt it wrt rotating objects, but not applicable to emdrive.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 07:09 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5259
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1798 on: 10/09/2014 02:34 PM »
Great, here is McCulloch's answer to why the EmDrive walls might make an event horizon:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html

What gave you the intuition that the resonant cavity copper walls could possibly act like a Hubble horizon, especially for Unruh waves of a similar length? What enables a copper cavity to act like an event horizon? Can you provide an analogy or some physical reason for the cavity walls to act like a Hubble horizon? Thanks
9 October 2014 04:47 

 Mike McCulloch said...

OK. This is why I'm thinking the EmDrive walls might make a horizon: MiHsC assumes that inertia is caused by Unruh waves and the Hubble horizon is a boundary for information so all patterns within the cosmos must close there otherwise they let us deduce what lies beyond (this looks like a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) this includes the Unruh waves, so it affects inertia. Now, for normal accelerations a metal box will not effect Unruh waves because for typical accelerations (9.8m/s^2) they are light years long, but for huge accelerations (as I assume for the light/electrons in the EmDrive) the Unruh waves are affected by the copper wall because they are partly em waves and the electrons in the copper move to cancel the field, so the Unruh wave patterns have to close at the wall just as at the Hubble horizon (but for a different reason), so we have a mini-MiHsC going on. In both cosmic & mini cases it seems to explain anomalies.
« Last Edit: 10/09/2014 02:38 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Liked: 775
  • Likes Given: 1012
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1799 on: 10/09/2014 02:38 PM »
His ideas sold me the steak but not the whole cow.
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Tags: