...Yes there is no problem with a photon rocket. There is no important difference between it and any other rocket. Now if you can point to the terrawatt laser beam shining out the ass end of your drive and show me the terrawatt nuclear power plant powering it then I agree there is no violation of conservation of energy and momentum. Photon rockets are possible if profoundly impractical and horribly wasteful for any velocity short of a good fraction of the speed of light.But until you show me the planet melting laser and the massive power supply...If you are in an electric car with the windows blacked out you can still figure out how fast you are traveling by measuring how much energy it takes to accelerate. The faster you are going the more energy it takes to go faster.If you are pushing against the quantum vacuum you could try the same trick. If it works then you have established a universal frame of reference. That is bad.If it does not work then you have violated conservation of energy. That is worse.Through all this you have not said which you believe. How much power does it take to accelerate at perfect efficiency and does that power depend on velocity like a car? You are on the horns of a dilemma here.
Quote from: ppnl on 04/19/2018 08:24 pm...Yes there is no problem with a photon rocket. There is no important difference between it and any other rocket. Now if you can point to the terrawatt laser beam shining out the ass end of your drive and show me the terrawatt nuclear power plant powering it then I agree there is no violation of conservation of energy and momentum. Photon rockets are possible if profoundly impractical and horribly wasteful for any velocity short of a good fraction of the speed of light.But until you show me the planet melting laser and the massive power supply...If you are in an electric car with the windows blacked out you can still figure out how fast you are traveling by measuring how much energy it takes to accelerate. The faster you are going the more energy it takes to go faster.If you are pushing against the quantum vacuum you could try the same trick. If it works then you have established a universal frame of reference. That is bad.If it does not work then you have violated conservation of energy. That is worse.Through all this you have not said which you believe. How much power does it take to accelerate at perfect efficiency and does that power depend on velocity like a car? You are on the horns of a dilemma here.Think of it this way as an example of what I mean by "pushing on the QV", because we are talking apples and oranges around each other. If I have a plate with a large surface area, which oscillates along the Normal axis of that plane. For 1/2 cycle, the plate moves toward the rear and imparts momentum to the QV by providing a time-varing acceleration, thereby increasing the relative temperature via Unruh radiation. The radiation generated exerts a Radiation-Reaction force on the plate, pushing back, and pushing the supporting ship in the opposite direction. The exhaust is photons, so it performs like a photon rocket. It still requires fuel of some sort to drive the oscillating plate and restore the energy that was given to the QV. This comes from the fuel or a battery. On the reverse 1/2-cycle, the acceleration is minimized so that there is asymmetry, thereby rectifying the reaction force to be mostly in one direction. From an outside observer's point of view, it is radiating more in one direction over the other, but it still performs like a photon rocket.
....Ok your engine isn't a car. But that is only the first horn of the dilemma. The other horn is the problem of constant power for constant acceleration. Ok, let me ask the question in a simpler way. You say it works like a photon rocket. Fine. A laser pointer is small, cheap to make, has amazing energy efficiency and produces enough photons to, you know, actually measure. In what way is your drive better than a laser pointer?
Quote from: ppnl on 04/20/2018 01:22 am....Ok your engine isn't a car. But that is only the first horn of the dilemma. The other horn is the problem of constant power for constant acceleration. Ok, let me ask the question in a simpler way. You say it works like a photon rocket. Fine. A laser pointer is small, cheap to make, has amazing energy efficiency and produces enough photons to, you know, actually measure. In what way is your drive better than a laser pointer?It's not. My point was to set proper expectations. Based on QED, "on average" pushing against the QV is not expected it to be any better than a photon rocket. Similarly, based on my Engineering Model of QG, a gravity drive is not expected to be any better than a photon rocket either. Sad but true.
What do you think about a premise of the mach effect such that if the curvature of local space causes a gradient in acceleration, then inducing a gradient in the acceleration of an object might have an effect to impose curvature on local space? Similar to the reversibility of some physical mechanisms such as magnetic induction. One question I am not sure of is why in matter, would there be some non-symmetric acceleration inherent, so as to curve local space, and cause the gravitational effect. I suppose if you consider the boundaries of a proton/neutron nucleolus, containing large amounts of energy, is there some massive acceleration at the boundary as opposed to the center required to contain that energy? That energy being in some inherent osculation.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 04/20/2018 03:35 amWhat do you think about a premise of the mach effect such that if the curvature of local space causes a gradient in acceleration, then inducing a gradient in the acceleration of an object might have an effect to impose curvature on local space? Similar to the reversibility of some physical mechanisms such as magnetic induction. One question I am not sure of is why in matter, would there be some non-symmetric acceleration inherent, so as to curve local space, and cause the gravitational effect. I suppose if you consider the boundaries of a proton/neutron nucleolus, containing large amounts of energy, is there some massive acceleration at the boundary as opposed to the center required to contain that energy? That energy being in some inherent osculation. What is "curvature on local space"? In my Engineering Model of QG, the curvature is determined by the gradients in the radiative damping. The damping is induced by coupled photon pairs, in QED it would be written <A*A>, where "A" is the EM gauge 4-vector field. This is proportional to the energy density, which when quantized is simply the SUM of all photon energies in the volume.Based on this, the curvature is seen as a means of exchanging momentum with atoms, using photons. Gravity appears to exert a much larger acceleration than a comparable photon rocket of equal potential energy, but in reality the energy density around the Earth is in the GPa, and if you calculate the power in/out of the system, it's a lot greater than any photon rocket, because it takes place in a narrow bandwidth around the Compton wavelength (zitterbewegung) of the individual fermion particles matter is composed of, (electrons and quarks).IMO the MEGA is reproducing this process on a macroscopic scale. The mass fluctuation depends on the asymmetry, as you derived previously in the graph you posted. The peak of the graph will produce instantaneous thrust greater than a photon rocket by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude. But the average thrust will be at best, the same as a photon rocket because it is exchanging momentum with the gravitational field using massless particles (photons).
...Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it. That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame. Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total. Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion. Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.
Quote from: dustinthewind on 04/20/2018 12:56 pm...Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it. That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame. Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total. Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion. Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.
Quote from: WarpTech on 04/20/2018 03:41 pmQuote from: dustinthewind on 04/20/2018 12:56 pm...Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it. That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame. Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total. Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion. Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.If the vacuum is so coupled to matter then why is the vacuum so decoupled with respect to matter concerning the Gravitomagnetic effect?
Quote from: dustinthewind on 04/21/2018 02:17 amQuote from: WarpTech on 04/20/2018 03:41 pmQuote from: dustinthewind on 04/20/2018 12:56 pm...Is it possible, while photons being considered mass-less, that induction of motion to the local frame of photons has some momentum associated with it. That inducing an asymmetric curvature on the vacuum (unlike matter) causes an effect of changing the frame. Similar to Lense-Thirring effect or Gravitomagnetism (change in the angular rotation frame of light) or similar to the frame change of light falling toward a gravitational source, except that the gravitational source is symmetric, so no net effect on the frame of the vacuum in total. Assuming some energy level associated with the vacuum so giving it a net push allowing greater than photon propulsion. Implying some momentum stored in the vacuum from Gravitomagnetism.From this, it sounds like you are differentiating between the "empty" vacuum which you refer to as having a "frame" and the "stuff" that is in it. In my Model, the "empty" vacuum has no curvature, it has no frame. If it can't be measured or observed, it has no effect on reality, which to me says "it doesn't exist". What exists is the stuff that fills the volume, in this case it is quantized fields of oscillators. The curvature is simply a geometrical interpretation of the interaction that takes place between particles and fields when there are both driving sources and damping (sinks) of energy for the harmonic oscillations of the field.If the vacuum is so coupled to matter then why is the vacuum so decoupled with respect to matter concerning the Gravitomagnetic effect?A field oscillator (particle or quanta) is constantly exchanging virtual photons with the vacuum. EM field coupling strength depends on the polarization of the fields as well as the intensity of virtual photons. Gravity is the result of damping the oscillator, where the gradient in the damping factor causes an imbalance in the EM exchange. Damping only affects a tiny percentage of the photons, so the coupling strength is much smaller. Make sense?
Just an FYI: one of the organizers of the 2016 Estes Park workshop, Dr. Lance Williams, now affiliated with The Aerospace Corporation, presented the following at an American Physical Society meeting recently. It has now been released publicly. Thanks to Lance for sharing.
Does this mean that the MEGAdrive is interacting primarily with the gravitation field of the Virgo supercluster rather than local gravity wells? Does the nearness of closer gravity wells effect the performance of the drive?
Consider that the MEGAdrive is first interacting with the local gravinertial field, and that this field is a product of the arrangement of all matter in the universe.
Quote from: sanman on 04/28/2018 08:21 amConsider that the MEGAdrive is first interacting with the local gravinertial field, and that this field is a product of the arrangement of all matter in the universe. Does the performance of the MEGAdrive depend on its velocity relative to the local gravintertial field? If so, exactly how does performance vary?
[In it's simplest form, the derivative of force is defined byF' = A a^2 + B j vwhere v is velocity, a is acceleration, and j is jerk (change in acceleration) and A and B are constants.