Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 762621 times)

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3540 on: 12/06/2014 06:16 AM »
hutchinson apparently knows all about them ;)

Hutchinson; a canadian fringer made an experiment by throwing random surplus military electronic gear together in a cement tumbler truck and apparently mucked with everything from gravity to van  der wals forces.

too bad he did not record in written form his set up, time, conditions and procedure so that he could replicate it himself let alone let anyone else replicate it. The video record is impressive though. Which is why we should all go there and kick his sloppy adle brained no record keeping ass.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Online cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 139
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3541 on: 12/06/2014 12:03 PM »

* Woodward, having an internally consistent theory (though I wouldn't put any money on it), being an exception to this.

Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.


If you want to fisk someone's post, rather than putting your comments in blue, I suggest you use the '[/quote' your comment '[quote' method as that way it's clear who's talking.

Can you explain in what way CMB anisotropy would imply inertial aniosotropy under Machian effects?

The anisotropies of the CMB shouldn't affect inertia unless they are on the size scale of the observable universe.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 12:09 PM by cuddihy »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3542 on: 12/06/2014 01:53 PM »
Ok well first thing, VDW forces are the net effect of many forces. You are confusing VDW and Casimir forces. Vacuum forces are one component to VDW forces. After controls are put in place (conducting parallel plates), Casimir forces can be measured independently. You are trying to controvert research that has been ongoing since the 1940s.

The other thing is that, the lines of reasoning and authors you are quoting are failing at using the chicken vs the egg approach and fail to take into account the most fundamental foundation of all matter, forces and things, which is the reference from which all phenomena spring forward, the reference or ground state. You can't have anything, nothing nada, zilch, without something else to compare it to. The QV is that reference. It is the most fundamental thing (Wolfram would say information is more fundamental). Be it sits at a zillion or zero, it is the reference.

I shouldn't have to explain this on such an elementary level to such a smart guy, and the fact you're here being so obtuse indicates you don't really want to know the truth.  It'll tell you again anyway.

ZPF and QVF advocates are proposong that energy or propulsion can be drawn out of the vacuum, from virtual particles that according to Einstein, EEP and GR, cannot carry momentum.  They cannot mediate momentum exchange because they have no inertial mass, and they have no inertial mass because they have no gravitational mass.  If they had gravitational mass, they would collapse the universe, and EEP says gravitational mass and inertial mass must always be identical.  In fact for GR to be correct, they HAVE to be the same under all conditions because these are really the same thing.

When a ZPFer tells you that Casimir Effect is evidence for ZPF, what they're saying is, "see, here is an example of the virtual particles mediating momentum exchange" and they sell that tripe all the time.  The fact is though, almost no real physicists believe this, because they know there are other explanations for Casimir Effect than virtual particles carrying momentum.  I sent the paper that demonstrates this conclusively.  There is no debate about this.  Casimir in no way requires virtual particles mediate momentum exchange.  That is a completely superfluous argument and a distraction fallacy.  You are not thinking about the issue, because you have been distracted from it.

So when someone tells you, that Casimir is evidence for QVF, they have misled you, and when you tell someone else Casimir is evidence for QVF, you are misleading them out of ignorance.

BTW, I do not make these sorts of observations because I am an M-E advocate.  I am an M-E advocate because I make these kinds of observations.  ZPF and QVF are a scam.  There is nothing to them.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 02:06 PM by Ron Stahl »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
  • USA
  • Liked: 5898
  • Likes Given: 5246
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3543 on: 12/06/2014 02:46 PM »
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 02:50 PM by Rodal »

Offline RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Liked: 554
  • Likes Given: 762
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3544 on: 12/06/2014 03:08 PM »
I shouldn't have to explain this on such an elementary level to such a smart guy, and the fact you're here being so obtuse indicates you don't really want to know the truth.  It'll tell you again anyway.

ZPF and QVF advocates are proposong that energy or propulsion can be drawn out of the vacuum, from virtual particles that according to Einstein, EEP and GR, cannot carry momentum.  They cannot mediate momentum exchange because they have no inertial mass, and they have no inertial mass because they have no gravitational mass.  If they had gravitational mass, they would collapse the universe, and EEP says gravitational mass and inertial mass must always be identical.  In fact for GR to be correct, they HAVE to be the same under all conditions because these are really the same thing.

When a ZPFer tells you that Casimir Effect is evidence for ZPF, what they're saying is, "see, here is an example of the virtual particles mediating momentum exchange" and they sell that tripe all the time.  The fact is though, almost no real physicists believe this, because they know there are other explanations for Casimir Effect than virtual particles carrying momentum.  I sent the paper that demonstrates this conclusively.  There is no debate about this.  Casimir in no way requires virtual particles mediate momentum exchange.  That is a completely superfluous argument and a distraction fallacy.  You are not thinking about the issue, because you have been distracted from it.

So when someone tells you, that Casimir is evidence for QVF, they have misled you, and when you tell someone else Casimir is evidence for QVF, you are misleading them out of ignorance.

BTW, I do not make these sorts of observations because I am an M-E advocate.  I am an M-E advocate because I make these kinds of observations.  ZPF and QVF are a scam.  There is nothing to them.

I don't know enough to argue the merits of competing ideas for resolving the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity. However, jumping straight into the fray with a No True Scotsman isn't a very convincing approach.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 03:13 PM by RotoSequence »

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
  • USA
  • Liked: 5898
  • Likes Given: 5246
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3545 on: 12/06/2014 03:13 PM »
Some older work (middle 1990's) started at the University of Manchester proposing an electromagnetic drive.  The "thrust" in this case is derived to be proportional to the square of the quality factor Q:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/stvdmdoc/prplessp.htm

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/162279790/Propellant-less-Electromagnetic-Propulsion-by-Dimitriou-Stavros

http://jnaudin.free.fr/stvexp/html/stvrxp1a.htm

http://jnaudin.free.fr/stvdmdoc/stvcap.htm


http://www.electrogravity.com/STAVROS/Stavros1.pdf

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/stvrfpend.htm

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/stvrfpnd2.htm

http://jnaudin.free.fr/stvexp/html/stvcqtl.htm



Naudin claims to have reproduced this effect:


Quote from: Jean-Louis Naudin ( France )
The RF oscillator works very well and I have got some successfull motions of the device as mentioned in the Stavros' paper. The upward motion is not easily reproducible at each test run, but sometime a weak upward motion of the circular rim can be observed. More deep tests must be soon conducted...





« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 03:36 PM by Rodal »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3546 on: 12/06/2014 03:31 PM »
I don't know enough to argue the merits of competing ideas for resolving the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity. However, jumping straight into the fray with a No True Scotsman isn't a very convincing approach.

Are you saying I wasn't clear?  I don't see how I could be any clearer, and I am not "jumping straight into the fray".  We've had this conversation now for many weeks and Mullet doesn't seem to get the most obvious stuff no matter how many ways it is explained to him.  I would just let it go, but he's continuing to mislead others as well.

He's plainly wrong, and obviously wrong.  Is this not apparent to everyone here?  I'm not making a complex argument, and it's got nothing to do with the incompatibility between QM and GR.

Virtual particles cannot have mass, and therefore cannot exchange momentum.  If they did they would collapse the universe.  Since they don't, they are not useful for energy nor propulsion physics.  I was a ZPF adherent 10 years ago, before i understood the import of this very simple observation.  It is because of how ZPFers fail to answer this challenge that I have turned my back on this physics, as pseudo-science.  ZPF and QVF both fail to make any attempt to answer their obvious challenges with real science.  They are NOT science.  They are at best pseudoscience and at worst, pathological science.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 03:40 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3547 on: 12/06/2014 03:49 PM »
Ron, I am not arguing in favor of ZPfers and all that. (I am really not)

However, you said that if those virtual particles had mass, they would collapse the universe.

And as we know, normal matter (baryonic?) constitutes only 16% of the total matter in the universe. If science understand that 84.5% of the matter in the universe is missing, but you are saying that if virtual particles had mass they would collapse the universe, does that means that if virtual particles had mass they would have a few orders of magnitude more mass than dark matter?


Quote
According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 03:49 PM by aceshigh »

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3548 on: 12/06/2014 03:53 PM »
btw Ron, can you address Mulletrons post #3554, in special this part:

Quote
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.

obviously his rant concerning Flux Capacitor just because of it´s name instead of what it does was a cheap shot. But what about the rest? Hasn´t Woodward theory thrusters been reproduced by others, including Paul March (who works with Sonny White)?

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3549 on: 12/06/2014 04:04 PM »
Ron, I am not arguing in favor of ZPfers and all that. (I am really not)

However, you said that if those virtual particles had mass, they would collapse the universe.

And as we know, normal matter (baryonic?) constitutes only 16% of the total matter in the universe. If science understand that 84.5% of the matter in the universe is missing, but you are saying that if virtual particles had mass they would collapse the universe, does that means that if virtual particles had mass they would have a few orders of magnitude more mass than dark matter?


Quote
According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[2][3] Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of the total content of the universe.[4][5]

Yes.  No matter where you get your numbers for the virtual particles that should exist, if they were to gravitate, the universe could never have been born, or would have collapsed directly after birth.  This is an adjacent problem to the even more daunting issue that ZPF gives rise to the famed "Vacuum catastrophe" or the single worst prediction in all of modern science.  That is an amusing issue all on its own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3550 on: 12/06/2014 04:24 PM »
btw Ron, can you address Mulletrons post #3554, in special this part:

Quote
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.

obviously his rant concerning Flux Capacitor just because of it´s name instead of what it does was a cheap shot. But what about the rest? Hasn´t Woodward theory thrusters been reproduced by others, including Paul March (who works with Sonny White)?

Yes.  The highest thrust magnitude ever recorded by any M-E researcher was recorded by Paul March in 2003, when testing a Mhz MLT--the thing Sonny ten years later renamed a "Q-Thruster" and claimed supported his model, in order to get his funding from DARPA.  The trouble is, as Sonny pointed out for years; that data was not valid since it did not make use of the proper scientific protocols.  There was no vacuum to isolate from things like thermal and ionic wind.  So there is no reason to suppose that was a useful test, and Sonny made this point many times before he decided to misrepresent Eagleworks and give folks the impression they had done these tests rather than that Paul had done them in the spare bedroom a decade before.  Sonny actually claims that his theory accurately predicts thrust from the Q-Thruster but the tests were done almost a decade before his model so obviously, he did not predict anything.  He merely matched his model to the data, same as he's done time and again with the warp interferometer, the Q-Thruster, Shawyers's E-M thruster, and Woodward's work including when Woodward had a broken balance.

Back in 2006 when Woodward was first characterizing the ARC-Lite, he posted that he could not explain the readings he had with an MLT on the balance, and simply owned they made no sense to him.  Sonny chimed in that his theory (which is not a theory but merely a model) predicts that thrust.  Then Woodward found Tom Mayhood had put the wrong Q Flex bearing in the balance and that it was broken under the mass of the balance itself.  Obviously Sonny was predicting garbage, except he was not predicting at all.  Real predictions always come BEFORE the data.  The next year Woodward was again saying he didn't understand the thrust from the MLT and again, Sonny said his theory predicts that thrust, and it turned out the thruster had a short running through the balance and was giving false readings.  Sonny does this kind of thing all the time.  This is why I always tell people do not trust what comes from that lab.  Everyone is all in a fuss over data taken with no vacuum.  This is just silly, IMHO.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 04:27 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2736
  • 92129
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 235
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3551 on: 12/06/2014 04:26 PM »
Ok well first thing, VDW forces are the net effect of many forces. You are confusing VDW and Casimir forces. Vacuum forces are one component to VDW forces. After controls are put in place (conducting parallel plates), Casimir forces can be measured independently. You are trying to controvert research that has been ongoing since the 1940s.

The other thing is that, the lines of reasoning and authors you are quoting are failing at using the chicken vs the egg approach and fail to take into account the most fundamental foundation of all matter, forces and things, which is the reference from which all phenomena spring forward, the reference or ground state. You can't have anything, nothing nada, zilch, without something else to compare it to. The QV is that reference. It is the most fundamental thing (Wolfram would say information is more fundamental). Be it sits at a zillion or zero, it is the reference.

I shouldn't have to explain this on such an elementary level to such a smart guy, and the fact you're here being so obtuse indicates you don't really want to know the truth.  It'll tell you again anyway.

ZPF and QVF advocates are proposong that energy or propulsion can be drawn out of the vacuum, from virtual particles that according to Einstein, EEP and GR, cannot carry momentum.  They cannot mediate momentum exchange because they have no inertial mass, and they have no inertial mass because they have no gravitational mass.  If they had gravitational mass, they would collapse the universe, and EEP says gravitational mass and inertial mass must always be identical.  In fact for GR to be correct, they HAVE to be the same under all conditions because these are really the same thing.

When a ZPFer tells you that Casimir Effect is evidence for ZPF, what they're saying is, "see, here is an example of the virtual particles mediating momentum exchange" and they sell that tripe all the time.  The fact is though, almost no real physicists believe this, because they know there are other explanations for Casimir Effect than virtual particles carrying momentum.  I sent the paper that demonstrates this conclusively.  There is no debate about this.  Casimir in no way requires virtual particles mediate momentum exchange.  That is a completely superfluous argument and a distraction fallacy.  You are not thinking about the issue, because you have been distracted from it.

So when someone tells you, that Casimir is evidence for QVF, they have misled you, and when you tell someone else Casimir is evidence for QVF, you are misleading them out of ignorance.

BTW, I do not make these sorts of observations because I am an M-E advocate.  I am an M-E advocate because I make these kinds of observations.  ZPF and QVF are a scam.  There is nothing to them.
I'm not sure what you are saying Paul, but taken at face value your remarks seem to disagree with well established theory.  For example, from
http://www.halexandria.org/dward155.htm

Quote
   
Zero-Point Field

The Zero-Point Field (ZPF) is said to exist in a vacuum -- what is commonly thought of as empty space -- at a temperature of absolute zero (where all thermal radiation is absent; a condition obtained when reaching a temperature of absolute zero on the Kelvin scale).  The background energy of the vacuum serves as the reference, or zero point, for all processes.  Theoretical considerations indicate the ZPF should be a background sea of electromagnetic radiation that is both uniform and isotropic (the same in all directions). 

The uniform and isotropic nature of the ZPF is important, and explains why it is not readily observed.  Fundamentally, the lack of asymmetry of the ZPF prevents its easy identification, just as a fish being absolutely still in a sea of constant temperature and pressure water is unable to detect the water itself. 

In some cases, motion through a medium can give rise to asymmetries, thus in turn allowing for the detection of the medium.  However, in the case of the ZPF, motion through the “medium” (i.e. the field) at a constant velocity has not been shown to make the field detectable.  This is because the field has the property of being "Lorentz invariant." (Lorentz invariance is a critical difference between the modern ZPF and nineteenth-century concepts of an ether.)  In fact, the ZPF becomes detectable only when a body is accelerated through space. 

There is, of course, a fundamental difference between “detectable” and “useable”.  It is likely necessary to go beyond a simple, constant acceleration through space (in order to detect the ZPF), and instead, transition into a variable acceleration in order to tap into the energy of the ZPF.  In this case, we can assume with a reasonable confidence that the greater the change in acceleration, the greater the energy derived from the ZPF. 

Physicists Paul C. W. Davies and William G. Unruh, showed in the mid 1970s that a moving observer distorts the ZPF spectrum by accelerating through the field.  Furthermore, this distortion increases with increasing acceleration. Extending these findings would suggest highly variable accelerations could provide increased distortions, and that these distortions could be used as an energy source.  While these distortions are small, they add up rapidly.  At the same time, detailed analysis shows that the distortions are fundamentally the origin of inertia.

As for the need for virtual particles to cause force, virtual particles are not needed. The Casimir force can be calculated strictly using Maxwell's equations and using the ZPF field model. I have seen the derivation in analytical form, unfortunately I did not save the link. But it can also be calculated numerically in the time domain. Here is the link to that program and calculation.

http://ab-initio.mit.edu/wiki/index.php/Casimir_calculations_in_Meep

Note that the Meep software is freely available for download and the link gives complete instructions for calculating the Casimir force. Anyone who doubts the result can download the source software, evaluate it, compile and run it to see the results personally.

So I'm not sure what you are saying. Casimir force exists, it has been measured many times. ZPF exists, its model correctly predicts results of multiple laboratory experiments measuring said Casimir forces. A somewhat newer result, Casimir forces can be attractive or repulsive, see the above reference.

But I agree, at no point does the Casimir effect invoke virtual particles.

Retired, working interesting problems

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3552 on: 12/06/2014 04:30 PM »
btw Ron, can you address Mulletrons post #3554, in special this part:

Quote
Except Woodward's theory relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia. And his theory/thrusters have never been reproduced outside his own lab. Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions? Sometimes you just gotta let it go already, unless you wanna sell some books.

obviously his rant concerning Flux Capacitor just because of it´s name instead of what it does was a cheap shot. But what about the rest? Hasn´t Woodward theory thrusters been reproduced by others, including Paul March (who works with Sonny White)?

Yes.  The highest thrust magnitude ever recorded by any M-E researcher was recorded by Paul March in 2003, when testing a Mhz MLT--the thing Sonny ten years later renamed a "Q-Thruster" and claimed supported his model, in order to get his funding from DARPA.  The trouble is, as Sonny pointed out for years; that data was not valid since it did not make use of the proper scientific protocols.  There was no vacuum to isolate from things like thermal and ionic wind.  So there is no reason to suppose that was a useful test, and Sonny made this point many times before he decided to misrepresent Eagleworks and give folks the impression they had done these tests rather than that Paul had done them in the spare bedroom a decade before.  Sonny actually claims that his theory accurately predicts thrust from the Q-Thruster but the tests were done almost a decade before his model so obviously, he did not predict anything.  He merely matched his model to the data, same as he's done time and again with the warp interferometer, the Q-Thruster, Shawyers's E-M thruster, and Woodward's work including when Woodward had a broken balance.

Back in 2006 when Woodward was first characterizing the ARC-Lite, he posted that he could not explain the readings he had with an MLT on the balance, and simply owned they made no sense to him.  Sonny chimed in that his theory (which is not a theory but merely a model) predicts that thrust.  Then Woodward found Tom Mayhood had put the wrong Q Flex bearing in the balance and that it was broken under the mass of the balance itself.  Obviously Sonny was predicting garbage, except he was not predicting at all.  Real predictions always come BEFORE the data.  The next year Woodward was again saying he didn't understand the thrust from the MLT and again, Sonny said his theory predicts that thrust, and it turned out the thruster had a short running through the balance and was giving false readings.  Sonny does this kind of thing all the time.  This is why I always tell people do not trust what comes from that lab.  Everyone is all in a fuss over data taken with no vacuum.  This is just silly, IMHO.

thanks Ron, but you ended up only talking about the part about it being tested outside Woodward's lab.

can you please address these parts by Mulletron:

Quote
relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.

Quote
Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3553 on: 12/06/2014 04:43 PM »
So I'm not sure what you are saying. Casimir force exists, it has been measured many times. ZPF exists, its model correctly predicts results of multiple laboratory experiments measuring said Casimir forces. A somewhat newer result, Casimir forces can be attractive or repulsive, see the above reference.

But I agree, at no point does the Casimir effect invoke virtual particles.
That is really the issue.  I don't think anyone doubts Davies and Unruh.  It is the later work by Haishe, Puthoff and Ruada that argues inertia comes from virtual particles, that makes no sense, and especially that these particles can be used for propulsion and energy as QVF argues--again makes no sense.

Casimir has indeed been observed, but with no virtual particles at all, it is easy to explain.  So Casimir in no way provides evidence for virtual particles mediating momentum exchange.

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3554 on: 12/06/2014 04:58 PM »
can you please address these parts by Mulletron:

Quote
relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.

Quote
Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?

Well, I am not a cosmologist.  I will note that Woodward's mother is, and he is a fair cosmologist himself, so far better to get an answer from his book than from me.  However, I think what Mullet wants to talk about is theta, not anisotropy.  The question is whether the universe is essentially flat on global scale and the answer is yes, it is.  This theta is the issue that makes or breaks Mach's and Woodward's models, not anisotropy.  And in fact, this has been the subject of ongoing argument on Woodward's list for 18 months now, with Jack Sarfatti.  The issue is explained in the book, and the argument made direct from the WMAP data, that Mach's Principle must be true because we observe the flatness of the universe.  This is a very complex argument, but essentially what it boils down to is, whether the gravitational field of the universe exists only where we see gradient, or even when the field is flat.  The answer is, there is field everywhere that is a where, regardless of the gradient of the field at that point.  For a better explanation see Woodward's book.

As to Mach's Principle making no predictions, well obviously that's not true.  It predicts thrust from Jim's thrusters.  All his papers are full of equations that can be used to make predictions.  That's just silly rhetoric.  Mach's Principle was set aside, not because Einstein and Mach fell out, nor because it was considered wrong, but because GR was so successful Mach's explanation seemed an unnecessary aside.  And in fact, it is unnecessary unless you want control over inertia.  We have done quite nicely without it for a century, but then again, we have done without control over inertia as well.

Offline aceshigh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3555 on: 12/06/2014 05:09 PM »
I will note that Woodward's mother is

IS??? Woodward seems to be some 80 years old already by the photos. How old is his mother? 105?

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3556 on: 12/06/2014 05:42 PM »
Woodward is in his early 70's.  I'm not sure if his mother is still alive.  He doesn't speak much of family and keeps that part of his life private.  I believe he says in his book however, that his father was a patent lawyer and his mother an astronomer.

Online Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
  • USA
  • Liked: 5898
  • Likes Given: 5246
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3557 on: 12/06/2014 06:32 PM »
can you please address these parts by Mulletron:

Quote
relies on magic Machian inertia, "gravinertial flux" and "Flux Capacitors"....And ignores recent scientific observations showing anisotropy of the CMB, yet there is no anisotropic inertia.

Quote
Did I mention that Mach is so old school that he didn't believe in atoms? Did I mention that Machian inertia is so generalized, that it makes no actual predictions?

Well, I am not a cosmologist.  I will note that Woodward's mother is, and he is a fair cosmologist himself, so far better to get an answer from his book than from me.  However, I think what Mullet wants to talk about is theta, not anisotropy.  The question is whether the universe is essentially flat on global scale and the answer is yes, it is. ....

No, what Mullet asked about was concerning ANISOTROPY of the CMB, and not anything regarding flatness of the spatial dimensions of the universe.  Anisotropy has nothing necessarily to do with whether space is  flat or curved.  Anisotropy has to do with different properties in different directions.

This is an excellent observation by Mullet.

Although I have no affinity with Woodward's Machian approach, I would answer it this way.

The anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) consists of very small temperature fluctuations in the blackbody radiation (left over from the Big Bang).  The average temperature of this radiation has been measured by the instrument on the COBE satellite as 2.725 K.  The temperature variations have been measured as (at most) plus or minus 0.00335 K variation with one hot pole and one cold pole.  Other, newer, estimates are of  0.0005 K.

Let's take the range as +/- 0.00335 K,  this is only (0.00335 K) / (2.725 K) = +/- 0.12 %  (about one part in 1,000 )

Integrating this over the whole space, this variation would have a very small effect on inertia, because the regions with higher and lower temperature of the CMB are small and most of the CMB is much closer to the average temperature.  I would question whether experiments on inertia have been conducted that would be able to discriminate within such small diffferences regarding orientation.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 07:12 PM by Rodal »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3558 on: 12/06/2014 07:23 PM »
There is at least one discussion of this in Barbour and Pfister, in the piece by Hans Reissner on "Relativity of Accelerations in Mechanics", on page 144, but I don't think this is the issue you think it is.  Inhomogeneity does not beget anisotropy.  Keep in mind that according to Mach, it is not the closest masses that most affect local inertia it is those that are farthest away.  Still, there was this debate in the early teens with Schrodinger and Reissner and you'll find it referenced in Barbour & Pfister.  Schrodinger's response is immediately following.

B&F is truly the indispensable source for understanding Mach's Principle in its historic context.  However, also see:

"Mach's relativity of inertia does not necessarily imply an anisotropy of inertial masses in an anisotropic universe and the Mach-Einstein doctrine is compatible with the isotropy of mass in each cosmos."

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1992AN....313...65T&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 07:27 PM by Ron Stahl »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1361
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #3559 on: 12/06/2014 07:28 PM »
Just a quick nod to Mullet.

The doppler frequencies that give the AFR do indeed add up to the drive frequency. 

Thanks !

Tags: