Shell. Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this? Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?
Quote from: SteveD on 04/01/2018 05:39 pmShell. Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this? Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another. As I don't think Shell talks about the Hall effect in solids (need confirmation for that though) but deals with the Hall effect in ionized gases (as in a Hall thruster) this gives rise to the question about the purpose of a Hall effect "ion drive" within a closed container. Shell, if the EmDrive really has charged particles within the cavity (ionization of the air; or free electrons or even Cu2+ (?) stripped away from the walls by microwaves) how do you plan to create any propulsive force, if these particles are accelerating indeed but eventually cannot escape the cavity? (always the same story of two astronauts playing squash in a spacecraft: the ship won't move)
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
QuoteI concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.This cannot be a closed system and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.My Very Best,Shell
Quote from: SeeShells on 04/01/2018 06:31 pmQuoteI concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.This cannot be a closed system and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.My Very Best,ShellThis makes sense for a Hall thruster acting on a "virtual" plasma according to White's QVF conjecture, even if I don't believe it is the case (I struggle to believe or not believe this or that in the field of propellantless propulsion, as only the data is important, but as a human it is very difficult to do so…).If I follow you correctly, a "solid" Hall effect implying acceleration of free electrons within the copper lattice of the walls has also to be considered, and as you link their behavior with a Machian interaction with the rest of the universe, near or distant, this makes more sense too. The I×B force acting on the electrons could then not be (directly) responsible for the net thrust, but with some Machian transient mass fluctuation, that's a whole other thing… Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).
Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 04/01/2018 06:56 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 04/01/2018 06:31 pmQuoteI concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.This cannot be a closed system and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.My Very Best,ShellThis makes sense for a Hall thruster acting on a "virtual" plasma according to White's QVF conjecture, even if I don't believe it is the case (I struggle to believe or not believe this or that in the field of propellantless propulsion, as only the data is important, but as a human it is very difficult to do so…).If I follow you correctly, a "solid" Hall effect implying acceleration of free electrons within the copper lattice of the walls has also to be considered, and as you link their behavior with a Machian interaction with the rest of the universe, near or distant, this makes more sense too. The I×B force acting on the electrons could then not be (directly) responsible for the net thrust, but with some Machian transient mass fluctuation, that's a whole other thing… Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).QuoteActually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).Yes, Montillet's paper along with Dr. Rodal's input have produced what I could see happening visually and I will add it is a head spinning ride through some wonderful math. Still not sure he has it spot on although it a great start.I date myself here...I once argued about (60 and 70's) the validity of electron holes meaning anything in conductors but as the years have passed nothing is something isn't it? There has been a lot of talk about virtual particles meaning anything more than necessary fodder for filling out the other sides of equations. I believe they are real and the effects can be observed, but maybe adding the name particle to the virtual confuses many as to what they really are. I like virtual ripple.My Very Best,Shell
Quote from: fvlad on 03/28/2018 12:22 pmThe fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.This is called a conspiracy theory. It is not welcome here, as it is basically an insult to all scientists on the planet. Try using actual facts instead of whatever things you made up because you can't accept that your claims are wrong.
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.
Quote from: fvlad on 03/28/2018 12:22 pm I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine. Then stop making evidence free assertions and ignoring the results of whatever experiments you find convenient. You resorting to insults here reveals who the belligerent one is. The rest of your post from this point on is a set of non-sequiters, false statements, and misuse of terms. None of your claims follow from your propositions, and you make exactly 0 testable predictions, even where you claim it is "easy" such as the neutrino mass. If you did the calculation, then it could be compared to the experimentally known range.
I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.
I believe that by such actions the leadership of the GP-B clearly demonstrated how to "prove" the foundations of GR, and many honest physicists were insulted. After such an assessment of the results of the mission, no self-respecting scientist can use the results of the gravity program GP-B as an argument.
I also waited for the initial data of GP-B and the technique of processing results in free access, but they not appeared. I assumed that there would be jumps in the trajectory of motion of sample B and in the behavior of the gyros, analogous to jumps of the Pioneers.
Now I do not believe in any statement of physics and I immediately find alternative explanations. I support Signature of Peter Lauwer «Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. — Richard Feynman»
It is now too late to find out who correctly made experiments to detect the movement of the luminiferous medium, who experimented incorrectly, and who falsified the data.
I found a simple and in my opinion a real explanation of the structure of the universe and the behavior of space vehicles, with the help of a single essence (I could see happening visually), which corresponds to Occam's razor.
In my explanations, I always try to give an analogy with something and to give the results of experiments.
Therefore, it does not follow to say unfoundedly: Quote from: meberbs on 03/28/2018 03:51 pmQuote from: fvlad on 03/28/2018 12:22 pm I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine. Then stop making evidence free assertions and ignoring the results of whatever experiments you find convenient. You resorting to insults here reveals who the belligerent one is. The rest of your post from this point on is a set of non-sequiters, false statements, and misuse of terms. None of your claims follow from your propositions, and you make exactly 0 testable predictions, even where you claim it is "easy" such as the neutrino mass. If you did the calculation, then it could be compared to the experimentally known range. Dear meberbs It will be better if you give specific experiments, which in your opinion, contradict my explanations.
And me, and you and to other forum participants will be interested in reading not hypothetical, fantastic and mystical explanations of phenomena, but explanations of phenomena, confirmed by experiment and observations.
Now there are other more informative experiments on the motion of the luminiferous medium, these are, first of all, the experiments of the missions Pioneer, LAGEOS, COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Probably, no one denies that the speed of 369 km/s (or 372 km/s), determined from the dipole component of the microwave background, is the speed of motion of the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves relative to the solar system.
Doppler shift and difference in the speed of light are 2 very different things. You are misinterpreting these results in a way that is inconsistent with what the results actually say.
To some extent, their results are compatible to the results of measurements of the parameters of the dipole components in the missions COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Measurements of the motion of the luminiferous medium on the Earth must have a very large variance due to the complexity of the Earth's vortex gravisphere. Therefore, such measurements must be carried out in the Earth's orbit around the Sun far beyond the points of Lagrange.
I regret that no one believed in experiments of Michelson and Morley, and science went along the path of denying the materiality of the medium of the physical vacuum.
In 1905–06 Henri Poincaré showed[4] that by taking time to be an imaginary fourth spacetime coordinate ict, where c is the speed of light and i is the imaginary unit, a Lorentz transformation can formally be regarded as a rotation of coordinates in a four-dimensional space with three real coordinates representing space, and one imaginary coordinate representing time, as the fourth dimension.
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.
Quote from: Chrochne on 04/06/2018 04:07 amNow there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.That's not fair! You have beans? Spill them!
Quote from: Bob Woods on 04/06/2018 04:38 amQuote from: Chrochne on 04/06/2018 04:07 amNow there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.That's not fair! You have beans? Spill them! Lets keep the beans in the pocket for the moment I think they have the reasons to do that, and I do not want to feed the rumours. We know that was really not good to do that in the case of the EmDrive.Now I am really interested in recent progress of the LemDrive. It was interesting to see how Travis S. Taylor and Mike McCulloch ideas work together More so that Mr. Travis S. Taylor have really interesting research position (and is part of military, space command ect.) and that such guy got interested in this. I think that we also noticed how Prof. Tajmar jumped on this. We know he was bit reluctant in the EmDrive, but tested it. Now he really jumped at this LemDrive. Lets see how it will progress. We all are sitting in front seat of this spectacle
Exciting news all around lately. First of all Mike McCuloch ideas are getting some very nice funding . We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon In his words on Twitter:https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960?s=20"My proposal for funding to test for thrust from #quantisedinertia has been accepted (subject to negotiatn). £1.3 million. The first major funding 4 #QI! It'll provide support 4 me & a new postdoc at @PlymUni & for Profs Tajmar & Perez-Diaz to try different experimental routes.""Expt 1 based on: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html … Expt 2 based on: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonatorshttp://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/2016/07/lemdrive.htmlEnd of textNow there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.
Quote from: Chrochne on 04/06/2018 04:07 amExciting news all around lately. First of all Mike McCuloch ideas are getting some very nice funding . We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon In his words on Twitter:https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960?s=20"My proposal for funding to test for thrust from #quantisedinertia has been accepted (subject to negotiatn). £1.3 million. The first major funding 4 #QI! It'll provide support 4 me & a new postdoc at @PlymUni & for Profs Tajmar & Perez-Diaz to try different experimental routes.""Expt 1 based on: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html … Expt 2 based on: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonatorshttp://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/2016/07/lemdrive.htmlEnd of textNow there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.Blimey that’s almost three times the maximum level of the Phase II funding Dr Woodward could receive.
By the way. To all - I wrote to Mr. McCulloch, if he can write us some comments here on the NSF. He used to do that in the past. Feel free folks to contact him and ask him too :-).
Mike McCulloch@memcculloch#QI will radically alter the world. It will unify physics, get rid of the red herrings of #darkmatter or strings, replace chemical rockets & show how to get energy out of horizons. Not bad for a mere £1.3million.