Author Topic: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster  (Read 38592 times)

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1802
  • Likes Given: 2930
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #60 on: 04/07/2023 07:09 pm »
amount of energy used must increase rapidly. Every energy source is finite and so will eventually be used up.

I don't see gravity being used up any time soon.

The mass that generates gravity is being used up in the Sun via fusion, but it's got billions of years left.

Don't confuse infinite with "really really large".

What the energy limiting factor of quantized inertia is, I don't know.  Not sure if McCulloch has explained it.  Presumably the Rindler horizon would get so close that no more energy could be tapped from it.

Dr. Mculloch refused to publish a comment on his blog similar to what I wrote above about testing the IVO device in a rotating frame.  I left out all trigger words, I just used basic freshmen level physics.

Which makes me suspect he's got a problem.  If one can thought experiment a simple freshmen physics experiment that seems go to infinity, one needs to figure out where why there are not reasonable limits on your hypothesis.

Then again we didn't understand what the maximum velocity of a particle was until about a century or so ago, and why it was that way.

Offline chazemz

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • england
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #61 on: 04/08/2023 04:34 pm »
Infinite means unobtainable, there is no confusion. Unless an object has an infinite energy source, perpetual
motion is unobtainable. That is all I am trying to say. If a reactionless drive is invented,( and you can use the spartan "if") it should not be classed as a perpetual motion device.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #62 on: 04/09/2023 05:08 pm »
 Several space probes, and not only the Pioneer spacecrafts, have shown anomalies in their speed during space missions. These anomalies have been also observed during gravity assist maneuvers, which involve using the gravitational pull of a planet to change the spacecraft's speed and trajectory.

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected in the 1980s when the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts experienced a small, unexplained acceleration as they traveled through the outer solar system. The anomaly persisted even after all known sources of acceleration, such as the gravity of the planets and the pressure of sunlight, were accounted for.

Other space probes, such as the Galileo and Cassini spacecrafts, have also shown similar anomalies during their gravity assist maneuvers. These anomalies are generally very small, but they are still not fully understood.

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these anomalies, including thermal radiation pressure but also the possibility of new physics beyond our current understanding of gravity like the quantized inertia proposed by Mike McCulloch. I think that the last word has not yet been said on this subject which deserves further research and data analysis to determine the true causes of these anomalies.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2023 05:20 pm by Mezzenile »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #63 on: 04/09/2023 05:41 pm »
Several space probes, and not only the Pioneer spacecrafts, have shown anomalies in their speed during space missions. These anomalies have been also observed during gravity assist maneuvers, which involve using the gravitational pull of a planet to change the spacecraft's speed and trajectory.

The Pioneer anomaly was first detected in the 1980s when the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts experienced a small, unexplained acceleration as they traveled through the outer solar system. The anomaly persisted even after all known sources of acceleration, such as the gravity of the planets and the pressure of sunlight, were accounted for.

Other space probes, such as the Galileo and Cassini spacecrafts, have also shown similar anomalies during their gravity assist maneuvers. These anomalies are generally very small, but they are still not fully understood.

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these anomalies, including thermal radiation pressure but also the possibility of new physics beyond our current understanding of gravity like the quantized inertia proposed by Mike McCulloch. I think that the last word has not yet been said on this subject which deserves further research and data analysis to determine the true causes of these anomalies.
Wrong. The Pioneer Anomaly was explained years ago based on RTG thermal effects. For example

https://astronomy.com/news/2018/08/how-the-pioneer-anomaly-was-solved

Extraordinary IVO claims require extraordinary evidence. In other words, please do not try to explain an unproven IVO concept with vagueness and grasping at outdated stuff. Only rigorous experimental evidence should convince investors.

In my opinion, this drive should be build on Earth, by several independent institutes, and then compare results. Either it works or not. Same thing as with the solved Pioneer Anomaly.

For all I know, you could launch a painted brick into space and measure the course corrections based on thermal effects, orientation and solar wind.

We look forward to reproducible experimental evidence 

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #64 on: 04/09/2023 05:54 pm »
[...]
However, they make every effort to make sure their results match up with classic physics.  Thus, it's very difficult to create an experiment that would prove anything. 

I started looking at the quantum vacuum after reading an interview conducted with Albert Einstein.  Paraphrasing, the interviewer asked how Einstein discovered spacetime and where it came from and was it around even before the big bang?  Einstein responded that he created spacetime.  It is just a mathematical construct so he can make predictions.  Nothing more.
The problem is generally not with "new" physics not matching "old" or "classical" physics but rather with them not matching the actual repeatable and carefully measured observations that led the formulation of them in the first place...

New physics by definition makes predictions beyond what our current best models do but if they do not predict the old observations as well they do not describe our reality.
The best way to support the idea that free source of energy cannot be ruled out in the universe, is the evidence that UFO seems to be able to used enormous quantities of energy to make their incredible maneuvers.
Quantized Inertia would only be a small step in this direction that UFO show us since centuries !!

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #65 on: 04/09/2023 06:03 pm »

Wrong. The Pioneer Anomaly was explained years ago based on RTG thermal effects. For example
Galileo and Cassini anomalies cannot be explained by RTG thermal effects !!

Abnormal acceleration, like the Tajmar effect, has also been observed in laboratories. The Tajmar effect refers to a reported phenomenon in which a spinning superconductive disc undergoes a small, unexpected acceleration. The effect is named after its discoverer, Martin Tajmar, a physicist at the Dresden University of Technology in Germany (The same Tajmar who has shown that EMDrive with photon doesnt produce expected thrust).

The Tajmar effect was first reported in 2004, and has since been studied by Tajmar and his colleagues in a number of experiments. The effect is observed when a spinning disc made of a superconductive material, such as niobium or yttrium barium copper oxide, is subjected to a magnetic field.

According to Tajmar's research, the effect is very small, with an acceleration of around one part in 10 billion. However, if the effect is real, it could have important implications for our understanding of the laws of physics and the behavior of superconductors.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: IVO Quantised Inertia Thruster
« Reply #66 on: 04/09/2023 06:47 pm »
...
Extraordinary IVO claims require extraordinary evidence.
The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not a fundamental principle of science !!
It is a commonly used heuristic or rule of thumb in skepticism. It suggests that a claim that is highly improbable or contradicts established knowledge requires more evidence than a more plausible claim. This rule of thumb is often attributed to the philosopher and skeptic Carl Sagan who is not known by his real scientific creativity.

This heuristic can be misleading in certain contexts. In particular, it assumes a Bayesian perspective, which is a particular way of reasoning about probabilities and evidence.

From a Bayesian point of view, the probability of a claim depends on both the prior probability of the claim and the strength of the evidence supporting it. In this framework, an extraordinary claim is one that has a very low prior probability, and therefore requires strong evidence to overcome the skepticism that accompanies it.

However, from a frequentist point of view, which is another way of reasoning about probabilities, the strength of evidence required to support a claim does not depend on the prior probability of the claim. Instead, it depends on the statistical significance of the evidence relative to the null hypothesis or baseline assumption.

In practice, the appropriate level of evidence required to support a claim depends on a variety of factors, including the prior probability of the claim, the strength of the evidence, the potential consequences of accepting or rejecting the claim, and the degree of certainty or confidence required.

Therefore, while the heuristic "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" plays with the music of the repeated "extraordinary" word to catch an agreement of the naive listener, it is not a fundamental principle of scientific discovery and should be applied with caution in specific contexts.

Offline Mezzenile

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 24
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14642
Experimental observation of a Rindler horizon

Morgan H. Lynch1, ∗Center for Theoretical Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
(Dated: March 28, 2023)
In this manuscript we confirm the presence of a Rindler horizon at CERN-NA63 by exploring its thermodynamics induced by the Unruh effect in their high energy channeling radiation experiments. By linking the entropy of the emitted radiation to the photon number, we find the measured spectrum to be a simple manifestation of the second law of Rindler horizon thermodynamics and thus a direct measurement of the recoil Fulling-Davies-Unruh (FDU) temperature. Moreover, since the experiment is born out of an ultra-relativistic positron, and the FDU temperature is defined in the proper frame, we find that temperature boosts as a length and thus fast objects appear colder. The spectrum also provides us with a simple setting to measure fundamental constants, and we employ it to measure the positron mass.

The article discusses how the pursuit of quantum field theory in curved spacetime has led to surprising discoveries, including the Parker, Hawking, and Fulling-Davies-Unruh effects, which involve kinematic particle production induced by horizons. These horizons also allow for thermodynamic quantities, such as entropy, to be ascribed to the system, with the energy/momentum flux of particles giving rise to an area change in the horizon. This implies that gravitation is an emergent quantity born out of vacuum fluctuations. The recent experimental observation of radiation reaction and the Unruh effect by CERN-NA63 presents an unprecedented opportunity to investigate these concepts via the thermodynamics of the Rindler horizon.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2023 01:20 pm by Mezzenile »

Offline qraal

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 183
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 22
Interesting work, but irrelevant to McCulloch's claims. No one denies the Rindler Horizon is a real physical effect. What's much harder to accept is the handwaving crankiness McCulloch derives from it.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14642
Experimental observation of a Rindler horizon

Morgan H. Lynch1, ∗Center for Theoretical Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
(Dated: March 28, 2023)
In this manuscript we confirm the presence of a Rindler horizon at CERN-NA63 by exploring its thermodynamics induced by the Unruh effect in their high energy channeling radiation experiments.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1