When matter is accelerated, length contracts and time dilates, this is a scale transformation. When the thrust is turned off and the coasting rocket finds itself is at rest relative to some distant planet. It's length does not spring back to "normal" and the clock does not speed up. They remain in this relative state until thrust is reversed and they return to the same vacuum energy state they started from.

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 02:19 AMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 02:13 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.Are you really saying that you reject this?What about with respect to the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" CMBR? Couldn't we say the universe has this as an absolute frame? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16121186223305818545&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48Lets say there is a God view looking above far from all gravitational fields observing the universe and stationary with respect to its boundaries. (It should have a finite size if it had a beginning and an expansion.) Light falling into gravity fields I would think should slow down, (considering the limit when light reaches an event horizon). From inside a gravity field I should think light should still appear to be going c due the shrinking of the ruller. This could give the appearance of the index of refraction (gravitational lensing). Two objects traveling towards each other @ .6c still appear from the God view to be approaching at 1.2c though I suppose the two observers both have their (space/time) warped so it appears to them they are not approaching each other at 1.2c but rather v<c. I mean sure time/space screws our perceptions all up but why not have an absolute frame of the universe or CMB where either we are moving with respect to it or we arent? Or am I missing something.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 02:13 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.Are you really saying that you reject this?

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.

Quote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?

I think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 03:21 AMWhen matter is accelerated, length contracts and time dilates, this is a scale transformation. When the thrust is turned off and the coasting rocket finds itself is at rest relative to some distant planet. It's length does not spring back to "normal" and the clock does not speed up. They remain in this relative state until thrust is reversed and they return to the same vacuum energy state they started from.WarpTech,From my understanding the length contraction and time dialation (warping of space-time) is based on velocity. From the perspective of point A, if a rocket zooms past it at constant velocity it will display the warped effect. Lets say Planet B already matches the direction and velocity of the rocket and the rocket slows down relative to planet A. Planet B would see the time dilation and length contraction start to change and that change would stop when deceleration of the rocket stops relative to planet A (at the same time - it is also accelerating away from planet B).It is my personal feeling, and not something I've read nor can quantify - that acceleration has a sort of friction against space-time because it needs to bend it. The EM Drive (if it works) bypasses this by spending it's energy on bending space-time rather than accelerating matter. It is in essence falling. I believe you are proving this but I may be wrong.The only way I can explain this away is that the EM Drive creates two gravity wells with the same energy level on both sides. The rear one is tightly focused and deep and the front one is broad and weak. Both are centered within the frustum near the ends. The reason there is motion is due to the larger/weaker gravity well extending beyond the bounds of the frustum more prominently in the front than the rear. The rear well would be spending most of it's energy tugging at the walls of the frustum. I cannot prove any of this so please consider it food for thought.I love reading your posts, please keep up the great work!

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 03:31 AMI'm sorry, but I can only entertain a further discussion if we restrict ourselves to severely subrelativistic (i.e. slow) scenarios - since that is a constraint I've imposed upon myself for the purposes of the most elementary possible discussion of the dynamics. In that framework then, and assuming (to first order, of course) a flat spacetime, do you now agree with Einstein's assertion about physics in inertial frames?Okay then. If we are restricting ourselves to Newtonian mechanics, then we have a paradox that cannot be resolved. It leads to either an over-unity device or a preferred reference frame, and momentum is not conserved.However, if we honestly want to resolve the paradox and conserve momentum, then we must use General Relativity to solve the problem, regardless of how fast it is going.I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. There is no Newtonian resolution for this argument.Thank you.Todd

I'm sorry, but I can only entertain a further discussion if we restrict ourselves to severely subrelativistic (i.e. slow) scenarios - since that is a constraint I've imposed upon myself for the purposes of the most elementary possible discussion of the dynamics. In that framework then, and assuming (to first order, of course) a flat spacetime, do you now agree with Einstein's assertion about physics in inertial frames?

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 02:19 AMQuote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 02:13 AMQuote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 01:49 AMQuote from: WarpTechI think I found the error in your analysis. You said,v = a*t = (F/m)*tThis statement "assumes" acceleration is a constant. It is not a constant, so...It is constant if and only if F is a constant of the motion. Which, as I have argued with recourse to SR, it indeed is.Did you find any other mistakes?No, and I hear you. I believe energy is Force x Distance and Power in = Power out, and energy is conserved. I also believe SR is an "approximation" to a more accurate theory that includes the relative energy of the local quantum vacuum. That is how my model works, because that is how the Math in GR and QED tells us it should work.Todd D.My mention of SR is simply in order to highlight a core principle of Einstein's thinking about space and time; to whit, there is no preferred inertial frame, such that physics there is different to physics in another one.Are you really saying that you reject this?What about with respect to the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" CMBR? Couldn't we say the universe has this as an absolute frame? https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=16121186223305818545&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48Lets say there is a God view looking above far from all gravitational fields observing the universe and stationary with respect to its boundaries. (It should have a finite size if it had a beginning and an expansion.) Light falling into gravity fields I would think should slow down, (considering the limit when light reaches an event horizon). From inside a gravity field I should think light should still appear to be going c due the shrinking of the ruller. This could give the appearance of the index of refraction (gravitational lensing). Two objects traveling towards each other @ .6c still appear from the God view to be approaching at 1.2c though I suppose the two observers both have their (space/time) warped so it appears to them they are not approaching each other at 1.2c but rather v<c. I mean sure time/space screws our perceptions all up but why not have an absolute frame of the universe or CMB where either we are moving with respect to it or we arent? Or am I missing something. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0306196

Inside the frustum, toward the large end is a reflector. Toward the small end, the taper is a high-pass filter. As waves are attenuated, they shift toward longer wavelengths and are cut-off by the dimensions of the waveguide. The cut-off is analogous to a black hole. The wave velocity goes to zero and that end of the frustum absorbs the momentum because it can't escape. There is only 1 gravity well inside it. That is in the direction of the lowest group velocity.

Quote from: WarpTech on 05/07/2015 04:10 AMInside the frustum, toward the large end is a reflector. Toward the small end, the taper is a high-pass filter. As waves are attenuated, they shift toward longer wavelengths and are cut-off by the dimensions of the waveguide. The cut-off is analogous to a black hole. The wave velocity goes to zero and that end of the frustum absorbs the momentum because it can't escape. There is only 1 gravity well inside it. That is in the direction of the lowest group velocity.What perplexes me is that the latest improvements to Shawyer's design have been to optimize reflectivity. Which to me seems that the goal is to accumulate the energy within the frustum rather than trying to absorb the energy by capturing momentum. In your opinion - does one exclude the other?

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 12:00 AMIt's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.Or you could also give the example of EM Drive ship 1 (which started from a different place) being overtaken by EM Drive ship 2 ...EDIT:See White and Joosten, Appendix :http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140013174.pdf

It's good that at least one person understands what I'm on about. Consider an EmDrive in free space and accelerating. We switch it off temporarily and let it coast at speed v relative to the inertial frame in which it began its acceleration. When we switch it back on, are we going to assert that somehow the thrust F knows what speed it's going and adjusts the thrust like F = P/v?I assert again that this kind of thinking requires a preferred frame, and thus violates SR.

Hypothetically, if there were a black box with a gravitational field "inside", i.e., it has a NET acceleration vector along the X axis, pointing toward the blue side of the box..., (which is opposite the red side of the box) but has no discernible gravitational field "outside" of the box other than what a normal box of that mass would have. Let's say that inside the box there is all the equipment and energy storage, necessary to generate this field. Nothing comes in or goes out, but the energy stored inside it (battery) is being dissipated without being expelled. What sort of motion would YOU expect to see? 1. Will it move forward with the blue side leading?2. Will it move forward with the red side leading?3. Will it not move at all because nothing is coming out?Keep in mind, by definition, it has a NET acceleration vector inside along the X axis.Todd

Hi guys, on the theoretical side, has someone looked into this:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0508246Using strong external fields to modify locally a space-time

If my EM Drive experiment generates significant thrust, it will be time to move onto the next experiment which will answer the COE question.Plan is to build a rotary test device that drives a DC generator and it a variable load. Then can vary the load on the DC generator and observe changes in the energy delivered by the power supply to the RF amp versus energy consumed by the load. All data logged. Will draw a line in the sand about if an EM Drive obeys COE while it delivers energy to it's load.

Quote from: TheTraveller on 05/07/2015 07:02 AMIf my EM Drive experiment generates significant thrust, it will be time to move onto the next experiment which will answer the COE question.Plan is to build a rotary test device that drives a DC generator and it a variable load. Then can vary the load on the DC generator and observe changes in the energy delivered by the power supply to the RF amp versus energy consumed by the load. All data logged. Will draw a line in the sand about if an EM Drive obeys COE while it delivers energy to it's load.It is going to be a mechanical challenge! I wish you all the best though.And you are quite correct that such a rotary device can answer the CofE question without going all the way up to breakeven. It is a rotary version of the thought experiment I wrote about above. The principle of operation can be tested at quite low speeds. For some stupid brainfarty reason I had imagined that one had to go right up to breakeven speed. If you believe Appendix A (and I hope you don't) then you do have to get up to breakeven and beyond, because of the strange knee function that is proposed there. It can't be like that.

The main attraction would be to get an EmDrive to accelerate a wheel from rest, period.That would be a Red Letter Day indeed - irrespective of the CofE issue.That would be headline news.Because of the coax RF feed I assume you'll mount the RF amp and any associated electronics next to the cavity?

Quote from: deltaMass on 05/07/2015 07:31 AMThe main attraction would be to get an EmDrive to accelerate a wheel from rest, period.That would be a Red Letter Day indeed - irrespective of the CofE issue.That would be headline news.Because of the coax RF feed I assume you'll mount the RF amp and any associated electronics next to the cavity?Already been done.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlWatch the videos.RF amp will be mounted next to the cavity but outside the Faraday Cage. If it leaks too much RF, will put it in it's own Faraday Cage.