His ideas sold me the steak but not the whole cow.

http://m.phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.htmlNot 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.

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/09/2014 02:29 PMhttp://m.phys.org/news/2011-07-gyroscope-unexplained-due-inertia.htmlNot 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.From the link: "causing the gyroscope’s inertial mass to decrease to less than its gravitational mass."Just noting, all of GR stands on EEP and EEP says that inertial and gravitational mass are always the same. There are weak and strong readings of this, but what Dr. McCulloch is proposing would seem to imply all of GR is wrong, as EEP is wrong. Or am I overstating the case?I do however appreciate when anyone tries to make sense of Tajmar's findings. It was a big surprise that he got the same readings both with and without the superconducting ring that was supposed to be causing this effect.

Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/09/2014 01:48 AMQuote from: frobnicat on 10/09/2014 01:25 AMQuote from: aero on 10/09/2014 12:52 AMI 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'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.http://samos.martech.fsu.edu/chapters/chapters/md.PDFhttp://cua.mit.edu/8.422_S07/BECinDiluteGases205-214.pdf

Quote from: frobnicat on 10/09/2014 01:25 AMQuote from: aero on 10/09/2014 12:52 AMI 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'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.

Quote from: aero on 10/09/2014 12:52 AMI 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 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...

Thus, again we can identify cs = k/(2ma) as an effective sound speed of the axion fluid.

The speed of sound largely depends on the absolute temperature of the gas, and not so much due to the enhancement of quantum mechanical effects....The question wasn't asking why it was 0.0022 m/s but why sound moves so slowly (compared to air). We are comparing a low, almost zero, energy medium to normal air. The elephant in the room is temperature. Air is around 300 Kelvin and a BEC has temperatures in the nano kelvin range. As mentioned in [1] paragraph 3, a good estimate for the speed of sound in an ideal gas as a function of temperature is speed=constant*sqrt(Absolute Temperature). Calculating the speed of sound in a BEC using this model I got an answer of the same magnitude as [2].

As far as explosions go, the atoms comprising a BEC are still very cold and even after a shockwave you would expect a relatively slow thermal expansion of the atoms. The way the atoms expansion would be similar to glass shattering into tiny pieces and expanding radially outward, but only very slowly.

GR doesn't have to be wrong in order for EEP to not fit every situation. Especially artificial situations. . .. . .Prove me wrong.

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/09/2014 03:02 PMGR doesn't have to be wrong in order for EEP to not fit every situation. Especially artificial situations. . .. . .Prove me wrong.I don't need to prove you wrong. What you're saying is completely at odds with GR and history, as well as simple observations one can make on wiki. You are simply wrong. All of GR depends upon weak equivalence, and in addition, Einstein's version or EEP, that holds equivalence is velocity and acceleration independent. All of GR requires that inertia and gravitational mass be the same under all conditions, or a preferred frame of reference will emerge. I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Look it up on Wiki.

Of course, McCulloch's theory needs to satisfy, for example, these tests within the tests's precision:Researcher Year Method ResultFriedrich Wilhelm Bessel 1832 measure the period of pendulums of different mass but identical length no measurable differenceLoránd Eötvös 1908 measure the torsion on a wire, suspending a balance beam, between two nearly identical masses under the acceleration of gravity and the rotation of the Earth difference is less than 1 part in 109Roll, Krotkov and Dicke 1964 Torsion balance experiment, dropping aluminum and gold test masses |\eta(\mathrm{Al},\mathrm{Au})|=(1.3\pm1.0)\times10^{-11}[8]David Scott 1971 Dropped a falcon feather and a hammer at the same time on the Moon no detectable difference (not a rigorous experiment, but very dramatic being the first lunar one[9])Braginsky and Panov 1971 Torsion balance, aluminum and platinum test masses, measuring acceleration towards the sun difference is less than 1 part in 10^12Eöt-Wash group 1987– Torsion balance, measuring acceleration of different masses towards the earth, sun and galactic center, using several different kinds of masses \eta(\text{Earth},\text{Be-Ti})=(0.3 \pm 1.8 ) \times 10^{-13}[10]

GR doesn't have to be wrong in order for EEP to not fit every situation. Especially artificial situations. "The rindler sphere is defined by the boundaries of the cavity *(horizon 1) and the approaching Rindler horizon (horizon 2)."This new rindler sphere I just described denotes a new rindler sphere. A whole new variable. There are 2 rindler spheres, well ellipses is more accurate. Squashed spheres then. They share an arc. The one as I drew and the one as I described. I need to add an arc to the drawing. Thanks! Edit:Added pic with changes. Close enough.It seems evident to me that MIHSC describes only the inertia component of emdrive which then enables Dr. White's ideas of thrust interactions. Prove me wrong.

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/09/2014 03:02 PMGR doesn't have to be wrong in order for EEP to not fit every situation. Especially artificial situations. "The rindler sphere is defined by the boundaries of the cavity *(horizon 1) and the approaching Rindler horizon (horizon 2)."This new rindler sphere I just described denotes a new rindler sphere. A whole new variable. There are 2 rindler spheres, well ellipses is more accurate. Squashed spheres then. They share an arc. The one as I drew and the one as I described. I need to add an arc to the drawing. Thanks! Edit:Added pic with changes. Close enough.It seems evident to me that MIHSC describes only the inertia component of emdrive which then enables Dr. White's ideas of thrust interactions. Prove me wrong.First of all thank you for going through the effort to put your ideas into pictorial form. That is very commendable, as it much easier for people to write words.Second, it appears to me that you favor physical (rather than mathematical) explanations. I draw that conclusion from the notes about Casimir attraction, and for you searching for a physical interaction that will ultimately enable the movement. I operate differently, I prefer John von Neumann's mathematical approach to physics. One critical aspect of this approach are conservation laws. I don't interpret the Casimir effect as an attractive force due to the quantum vacuum. What I see in Prof. McCulloch's formulation is the assumption that a finite number of Unruh waves can fit in one or the other surfaces perpendicular to the 1 D direction of motion. Again to me conservation of momentum is a critical law and given a change of inertia, that there must be a force (producing an acceleration) to conserve momentum is a satisfactory explanation. The reason why this looks "unphysical" is because we are all accustomed to EEP: anything that deviates from EEP by its very nature feels unphysical. Explaining the movement as enabling Dr. White's interactions with the Quantum Vacuum (modeled by him as a plasma) may be helpful to you but not to me, I just prefer McCulloch's explanation that it must be acted by a force to conserve momentum. And as difficult as it maybe if forced to dispense with one or the other, I rather dispense with EEP than with conservation of momentum. Of course, one still has to consider that the NASA, Chinese and Shawyer experiments still maybe an experimental artifact and they may not serve as a means of propulsion in outer space.

So if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.

Quote from: aero on 10/09/2014 05:36 PMSo if the inertia varies within the cavity then what is to prevent a Dean drive from working like depicted in the attached sketch? Apart from interference effects.In words, the mass rotates around a central support with high inertia at the bottom and low inertia at the top pulling the whole attached cavity downward by centrifugal force. Of course a spinning flywheel would work just as well, better in fact, but the blob of mass is easier to visualize.McCulloch is dealing with the inertia of the electrons (in the walls) and the photons within the cavity. His simple formula is a 1 dimensional approximation along the (proposed unidirectional) direction of motion (of the drive's center of mass), with the small and large flat surfaces perpendicular to the direction of motion. To posit a rotation as envisioned in the diagram one needs at least a 2-D analysis and propose a reason why the photons in the cavity and the electrons in the copper walls would be executing an overall rotational motion. In general (refer to the wave modes in the cavity, at 2 GHz the modes shapes are not executing such overall rotation but there are rotational cells of smaller scale). If I am not mistaken the rotational cells are such that they are clockwise and counterclockwise like eddies in a fluid, to satisfy the same direction of motion at their common boundary. As such their rotations seem to be self-cancelling.