Dimensional analysis (sanity check) :(1) kg m /s² = kg m² /s^3 s /m OK (Q dimensionless)(2) kg m /s² != kg m² /s^3 m² s /m² /m² = kg /s² the expression lacks a meter unit somewhere

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/12/2014 06:47 PMQuote from: Rodal on 10/12/2014 06:14 PMFrom my knowledge, the formula from Prof. McCulloch's and the formula from Shawyer remain the only formulas that come close to predicting the experimental thrusts in the USA, UK and China experiments. Everything else is orders of magnitude off.http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdfThe paper says clearly and provides data that the dielectric is key. The question is how. Now on the flipside, with no dielectric present, you would get uneven heat of the cavity from fore to aft and some movement of the device. How else could it move? Internal stresses would convert to wall strain. Where is the reaction mass?With @notsosureofit finding that the dielectric was PE, 1 inch thick, the chirality theory is back into consideration due to polyethylene being able to have spherulites melt-crystallised. (I still have reservations about the amount of chirality in commonly available samples)http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/Publications/Highlights/2011/scm/scm4

Quote from: Rodal on 10/12/2014 06:14 PMFrom my knowledge, the formula from Prof. McCulloch's and the formula from Shawyer remain the only formulas that come close to predicting the experimental thrusts in the USA, UK and China experiments. Everything else is orders of magnitude off.http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdfThe paper says clearly and provides data that the dielectric is key. The question is how. Now on the flipside, with no dielectric present, you would get uneven heat of the cavity from fore to aft and some movement of the device. How else could it move? Internal stresses would convert to wall strain. Where is the reaction mass?

From my knowledge, the formula from Prof. McCulloch's and the formula from Shawyer remain the only formulas that come close to predicting the experimental thrusts in the USA, UK and China experiments. Everything else is orders of magnitude off.

This means that propellantless or field propulsion, whatever form it takes, isconstrained to involve coupling to the external universe in such a way that thedisplacement of the CM of the spaceship is matched by a counteracting effect in theuniverse to which it is coupled, so as not to violate the global CM constraint.

Quote from: Mulletron on 10/13/2014 07:29 AMThis means that propellantless or field propulsion, whatever form it takes, isconstrained to involve coupling to the external universe in such a way that thedisplacement of the CM of the spaceship is matched by a counteracting effect in theuniverse to which it is coupled, so as not to violate the global CM constraint.Ipso fatso, any copper clad "new universes" are not all that new. There's some fan clubbing going on in this thread, and so IMO, language should be a bit more carefully considered; "otherwise the cake is a lie".Put another way, propellantless propulsion is not as easy as falling off a piece of cake.

Again (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1269787#msg1269787), acceleration due to a change of inertia follows from the basic principle of conservation of momentum. There is no basic principle that for something to move "thrust must be involved" in Physics. Physics has conservation laws. Conservation of momentum is one of the basic laws of Physics, obeyed in General Relativity as well as in Quantum Mechanics. As we know from Physics and Engineering the relevant consideration is how such an acceleration (and resulting force) may compare with other accelerations (and forces) to produce a net acceleration (or force). Scientific criticism may address thermodynamic considerations, information theory, and the arrow of time, for example, but never "thrust must be involved for something to move", there is no such principle in physics. The language of physics is conservation laws, virtual work principles and mathematical equations and not words/and/or/music like "the cake is a lie."

"There is no basic principle that for something to move "thrust must be involved" in Physics."

As John so eloquently put it, "Ipso fatso... "Love you guys!

The language of physics is conservation laws, virtual work principles and mathematical equations and not words/and/or/music like "the cake is a lie" or "you."