Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 05:26 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:04 pm...I can rule out thermal radiation pressure right now by virtue that heating and cooling are not instantaneous. ..I agree. I just did a quick calculation. I edited the record accordingly.Where is the record/living document? How did you do it so everyone can share?
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:04 pm...I can rule out thermal radiation pressure right now by virtue that heating and cooling are not instantaneous. ..I agree. I just did a quick calculation. I edited the record accordingly.
...I can rule out thermal radiation pressure right now by virtue that heating and cooling are not instantaneous. ..
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:48 pmThe more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?
The more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 05:50 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:48 pmThe more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?In order from simple to not simple top 6:1. It doesn't work2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, like heat and isn't useful.2.5 Same as above but is useful.3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh zpf/casimir McCulloch et al4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et alI edited this >9000 times.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:58 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 05:50 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:48 pmThe more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?In order from simple to not simple top 6:1. It doesn't work2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, like heat and isn't useful.2.5 Same as above but is useful.3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh zpf/casimir McCulloch et al4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et alI edited this >9000 times.Mmmm simplest explanations for the measurements for NASA Eagleworks , let's see1, 2.5 do not explain the measurements2 I thought you had ruled out heat (too slow)3 Unruth zpf/casimir McCulloch (no zpf needs to be involved, that's just an interpretation) rises to the top but has the "Q" problem I discussed4 I don't recall we discussing that one (De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda )5 No way that (EM ZPF, Haisch) this is more likely than dark mass 4 and 5 are not simple explanations and they have lots of problemsNeed more editing and review agreed ?And what happened with interaction between magnetic damping / power cable and dielectric ? Is that really more unlikely than Haisch ?
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful. 2.5 Same as above but is useful.3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al 4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et alOk I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 06:21 pmIn order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful. 2.5 Same as above but is useful.3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al 4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et alOk I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers . Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
Quote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 06:28 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 06:21 pmIn order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful. 2.5 Same as above but is useful.3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al 4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et alOk I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers . Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?Yeshttp://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9906084v3.pdf
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:05 pmI really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower. My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger? Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated. JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 06:36 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/05/2014 06:28 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 06:21 pmIn order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful. 2.5 Same as above but is useful.3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al 4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et alOk I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers . Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?Yeshttp://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9906084v3.pdfWhat we need is a calculation using this theory that comes close to the measured thrust force. Where is such a calculation?
Quote from: aero on 10/05/2014 06:36 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:05 pmI really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower. My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger? Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated. JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.Akin to my previous logic, the universe would need to be absolutely saturated with dark matter and folded up upon itself and the emdrive would not work using dark matter solely because it doesn't interact with by anything. A photon would then interact with it solely by the mass energy the photon possesses from its momentum, giving rise to its own gravity. Photons work like this, and that is why you get gravitational lensing.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 06:41 pmQuote from: aero on 10/05/2014 06:36 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:05 pmI really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower. My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger? Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated. JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.Akin to my previous logic, the universe would need to be absolutely saturated with dark matter and folded up upon itself and the emdrive would not work using dark matter solely because it doesn't interact with by anything. A photon would then interact with it solely by the mass energy the photon possesses from its momentum, giving rise to its own gravity. Photons work like this, and that is why you get gravitational lensing.Inverse Primakov effect http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0701198
Ok I'm reading it. I'm also reading up on tunnel diodes for you. At some point, we need to stop adding layers of complexity and start focusing on what we got and rule them out as a team from order of least to most likely.What is the connection to emdrive for the axion paper? Is it the strong cp problem or the dark matter candidate? I'm really trying here. Lead me the right way.
I think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:05 pmI really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.Agreed, but good science also takes time to enable thoughtful responses. Just like thermal effects
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 06:56 pmOk I'm reading it. I'm also reading up on tunnel diodes for you. At some point, we need to stop adding layers of complexity and start focusing on what we got and rule them out as a team from order of least to most likely.What is the connection to emdrive for the axion paper? Is it the strong cp problem or the dark matter candidate? I'm really trying here. Lead me the right way.The dark matter candidate . I have to go now. 'Later
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:04 pmI think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.I would say, do it on this forum. Perhaps start a thread, "Anomalous Thrust Theory Lineup", or something. In the OP, state the "living document nature" of the thread, and ask that others not post, just you.The principle is like the political SpaceEx vs ULA lawsuit update thread, which is separate from the discussion thread. the primary benefit would be that the "Living Document" thread, with one author, who would link to pertinent work by the others of your gang of genii as required, would be very short and cogently written.The links would supply the background knowledge. The second post would be an executive summary of the several theoretical approaches to date. Subsequent posts would elaborate on the pros and cons of each approach, along with current suggestions of experimental apparatus.This would require much of you, in that, were someone to object to this or that phraseology or terminology, or even propose another approach, they should be honor bound to discuss it with you via PM. If a dissenting voice persists, the "Living Document" could at least say something along the lines of So-and-so disagrees with the "pony to unicorn transition", and link back to this thread for moree info.The key benefit to all is the long, messy thread supports the short concise thread.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 10/05/2014 07:26 pmQuote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:04 pmI think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.I would say, do it on this forum. Perhaps start a thread, "Anomalous Thrust Theory Lineup", or something. In the OP, state the "living document nature" of the thread, and ask that others not post, just you. ...The key benefit to all is the long, messy thread supports the short concise thread.I don't know how to make that work and not be a mess and take up some poor poster's time. We all have lives to tend to. I'm down for a shared google doc. They have access control and versioning.http://www.google.com/docs/about/
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/05/2014 05:04 pmI think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.I would say, do it on this forum. Perhaps start a thread, "Anomalous Thrust Theory Lineup", or something. In the OP, state the "living document nature" of the thread, and ask that others not post, just you. ...The key benefit to all is the long, messy thread supports the short concise thread.