thankyou for your excellent references.
Unlike you I am not trying to insult anyone,
I am simply saying that you are too easily satisfied and too quick to reject potentially interesting experimental evidence. It is a bad plan to reject any evidence on the basis that it challenges your presumptions.
Science is an open investigation of reality, there is reason in consideration of the possibility that we do not yet have a perfect definition of electromagnetic interaction.
There are good reasons not to reject difficult questions.
If it offends you that other people choose to pursue this, well good for you, go get a better hobby would be my advice.
...There was never any practical evidence in the early tests and data that supports scalability. Nothing to say that a larger or smaller frustum, functioning at higher or lower frequencies or power levels, would produce similar results. A great deal of speculation, but data?I don’t know if there is any practical potential in the EmDrive concept. At the same time I don’t believe that any test data in the public domain proves that there is no practical potential. Even a few ounces of propellant less thrust, could revolutionize the space industry from low earth orbit on...
Quote from: RotoSequence on 12/05/2018 09:45 amhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962A paper by J. S. Farnes proposes a negative mass model of cold dark matter and dark energy. By adding a Creation Tensor to the model, constantly adding negative-mass dark matter to the cosmos, the accelerating expansion of the universe is preserved. Interestingly, his "toy model" also predicts Dark Matter Halos around galaxies.Quote from: AbstractDark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the observable Universe. Yet the physical nature of these two phenomena remains a mystery. Einstein suggested a long-forgotten solution: gravitationally repulsive negative masses, which drive cosmic expansion and cannot coalesce into light-emitting structures. However, contemporary cosmological results are derived upon the reasonable assumption that the Universe only contains positive masses. By reconsidering this assumption, I have constructed a toy model which suggests that both dark phenomena can be unified into a single negative mass fluid. The model is a modified ΛCDM cosmology, and indicates that continuously-created negative masses can resemble the cosmological constant and can flatten the rotation curves of galaxies. The model leads to a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter, potentially providing compatibility with the current tension that is emerging in cosmological measurements. In the first three-dimensional N-body simulations of negative mass matter in the scientific literature, this exotic material naturally forms haloes around galaxies that extend to several galactic radii. These haloes are not cuspy. The proposed cosmological model is therefore able to predict the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles. The model makes several testable predictions and seems to have the potential to be consistent with observational evidence from distant supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and galaxy clusters. These findings may imply that negative masses are a real and physical aspect of our Universe, or alternatively may imply the existence of a superseding theory that in some limit can be modelled by effective negative masses. Both cases lead to the surprising conclusion that the compelling puzzle of the dark Universe may have been due to a simple sign error. EDIT: The author wrote this entry as wellhttps://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922I was about to post this as it appears Mike McCulloch has some serious competition. In my opinion, this is exactly the kinds of things McCulloch should be doing to bolster his theory. Jamie Farnes is an established cosmologist at Oxford who took the time to base his theory in seemingly well-founded math and significant computational methods. He has some simulations with interesting results. He is able to show that his model creates dark matter halos, large-scale structure, and he has observation time at the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) soon. Here is his youtube channel: {snip}
https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962A paper by J. S. Farnes proposes a negative mass model of cold dark matter and dark energy. By adding a Creation Tensor to the model, constantly adding negative-mass dark matter to the cosmos, the accelerating expansion of the universe is preserved. Interestingly, his "toy model" also predicts Dark Matter Halos around galaxies.Quote from: AbstractDark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the observable Universe. Yet the physical nature of these two phenomena remains a mystery. Einstein suggested a long-forgotten solution: gravitationally repulsive negative masses, which drive cosmic expansion and cannot coalesce into light-emitting structures. However, contemporary cosmological results are derived upon the reasonable assumption that the Universe only contains positive masses. By reconsidering this assumption, I have constructed a toy model which suggests that both dark phenomena can be unified into a single negative mass fluid. The model is a modified ΛCDM cosmology, and indicates that continuously-created negative masses can resemble the cosmological constant and can flatten the rotation curves of galaxies. The model leads to a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter, potentially providing compatibility with the current tension that is emerging in cosmological measurements. In the first three-dimensional N-body simulations of negative mass matter in the scientific literature, this exotic material naturally forms haloes around galaxies that extend to several galactic radii. These haloes are not cuspy. The proposed cosmological model is therefore able to predict the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles. The model makes several testable predictions and seems to have the potential to be consistent with observational evidence from distant supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and galaxy clusters. These findings may imply that negative masses are a real and physical aspect of our Universe, or alternatively may imply the existence of a superseding theory that in some limit can be modelled by effective negative masses. Both cases lead to the surprising conclusion that the compelling puzzle of the dark Universe may have been due to a simple sign error. EDIT: The author wrote this entry as wellhttps://theconversation.com/bizarre-dark-fluid-with-negative-mass-could-dominate-the-universe-what-my-research-suggests-107922
Dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the observable Universe. Yet the physical nature of these two phenomena remains a mystery. Einstein suggested a long-forgotten solution: gravitationally repulsive negative masses, which drive cosmic expansion and cannot coalesce into light-emitting structures. However, contemporary cosmological results are derived upon the reasonable assumption that the Universe only contains positive masses. By reconsidering this assumption, I have constructed a toy model which suggests that both dark phenomena can be unified into a single negative mass fluid. The model is a modified ΛCDM cosmology, and indicates that continuously-created negative masses can resemble the cosmological constant and can flatten the rotation curves of galaxies. The model leads to a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter, potentially providing compatibility with the current tension that is emerging in cosmological measurements. In the first three-dimensional N-body simulations of negative mass matter in the scientific literature, this exotic material naturally forms haloes around galaxies that extend to several galactic radii. These haloes are not cuspy. The proposed cosmological model is therefore able to predict the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles. The model makes several testable predictions and seems to have the potential to be consistent with observational evidence from distant supernovae, the cosmic microwave background, and galaxy clusters. These findings may imply that negative masses are a real and physical aspect of our Universe, or alternatively may imply the existence of a superseding theory that in some limit can be modelled by effective negative masses. Both cases lead to the surprising conclusion that the compelling puzzle of the dark Universe may have been due to a simple sign error.
[the runaway motion] behaviours violate no known physical laws. Negative masses are consistent with both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.
What happens if one attaches a negative and positive mass pair to the rim of a wheel? This is incompatible with general relativity, for the device gets more massive.
As a consequence (but nobody seems to notice?) Farnes' model is an overunity theory.EDIT: Comments from Sabine Hossenfelder about Farnes' theory. Hossenfelder is a physicist who published in Physical Review D a bimetric theory that also unifies dark matter and dark energy as one dark fluid, in 2008, ten years before Farnes (yet today ignored by memorylessness media). See also her 2009 presentation paper. She was the first to publish a Lagrangian derivation of a system of two coupled field equations managing positive and negative masses in cosmology with no runaway paradox, in a very similar way to the Janus cosmological model, which uses about the same sets of equations (except various additional "pull-overs" in Hossenfelder's theory).
December 2018A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here. The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Loadhttp://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf
Enjoy the latest www.emdrive.com newsQuoteDecember 2018A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here. The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Loadhttp://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdf
Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/11/2018 02:22 amEnjoy the latest www.emdrive.com newsQuoteDecember 2018A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here. The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Loadhttp://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdfAnyone actually need a detailed explanation of how everything in the provided link is nothing but gibberish?
The rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html
Quote from: OnlyMe on 12/09/2018 07:35 pm...There was never any practical evidence in the early tests and data that supports scalability. Nothing to say that a larger or smaller frustum, functioning at higher or lower frequencies or power levels, would produce similar results. A great deal of speculation, but data?I don’t know if there is any practical potential in the EmDrive concept. At the same time I don’t believe that any test data in the public domain proves that there is no practical potential. Even a few ounces of propellant less thrust, could revolutionize the space industry from low earth orbit on...The problem with "proves that there is no practical potential" is the typical problem with proving a negative. There is always going to be some other variable or combination that hasn't been tested. This is why I think it is important to set some kind of defined boundaries for when to call it a dead end. At this point with the available data, there is certainly some additional final testing that can reasonably be done, as there are a few ongoing experiments that haven't been finalized. But given that there is little in potentially positive data that hasn't been countered with more sensitive experiments I am not sure how much more is reasonable. It is also useful to keep in mind that electrodynamics really has been well tested in a wide range of regimes, spanning everything that occurs in an emDrive. This is why from the beginning it was just short of certain that the data that showed thrust was nothing other than experimental errors.As to your suggestion for higher power tests, there were issues with magnetrons, and their poor frequency stability, which is a problem for matching good resonance, it could be done, but despite the lower total power, more recent tests have been more sensitive in a force/power ratio sense. I am not going to tell anyone not to run an experiment (unless there are clear flaws that would make the experiment useless), I would just suggest defining in a precise sense what "good enough" means for what testing you want to do. (Even if you aren't planning on funding or doing more testing yourself, you can still state your opinion on what you think is worthwhile.)
Quote from: meberbs on 12/11/2018 04:30 amQuote from: TheTraveller on 12/11/2018 02:22 amEnjoy the latest www.emdrive.com newsQuoteDecember 2018A short Technical Note on Thrust performance versus Load conditions of EmDrive Thrusters is given here. The note explains why EmDrive complies with both the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as well as the Law of Conservation of Energy.Technical Note on Emdrive Thrust v Loadhttp://www.emdrive.com/thrustvload.pdfAnyone actually need a detailed explanation of how everything in the provided link is nothing but gibberish?Meberbs,Please note that in 2006 the Demonstrator EmDrive had a 8.2g frictional load applied while it accelerated on the rotary test rig.QuoteThe rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlMight ask yourself why the frictional load was required?
Meberbs,Please note that in 2006 the Demonstrator EmDrive had a 8.2g frictional load applied while it accelerated on the rotary test rig.QuoteThe rotary air bearing supports a total load of 100kg, with a friction torque resulting in a calibrated resistance force of 8.2 gm at the engine centre of thrust.http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.htmlMight ask yourself why the frictional load was required?
Quote from: flux_capacitor on 12/10/2018 12:21 pmAs a consequence (but nobody seems to notice?) Farnes' model is an overunity theory.EDIT: Comments from Sabine Hossenfelder about Farnes' theory. Hossenfelder is a physicist who published in Physical Review D a bimetric theory that also unifies dark matter and dark energy as one dark fluid, in 2008, ten years before Farnes (yet today ignored by memorylessness media). See also her 2009 presentation paper. She was the first to publish a Lagrangian derivation of a system of two coupled field equations managing positive and negative masses in cosmology with no runaway paradox, in a very similar way to the Janus cosmological model, which uses about the same sets of equations (except various additional "pull-overs" in Hossenfelder's theory).I am by no means a proponent of the theory and would not want to die on this hill, but I thought this point was covered by Farnes in the paper here, which you partially quoted:{extensive quotes of Hossenfelder and Farnes}
Also, the explanation for the first row of the table is yet again Shawyer using reaction force as a term he just inserts wherever he finds in convenient, ignoring the actual definition. In reality if the emDrive was actually generating a force, the readout of the scale would reduce, because the scale measures only the force pushing down on it, which is just the portion of the weight of the object not cancelled by the magical upwards force generated by the emDrive.
But the true fact is, according to these fundamental hypotheses, if one attaches Farnes' negative mass next to a positive mass (of the same amount |m | ) on a wheel, it accelerates as a perpetual motion and "gets more massive" which is incompatible with general relativity, as noted by Gold.
Quote from: meberbs on 12/11/2018 05:18 pmAlso, the explanation for the first row of the table is yet again Shawyer using reaction force as a term he just inserts wherever he finds in convenient, ignoring the actual definition. In reality if the emDrive was actually generating a force, the readout of the scale would reduce, because the scale measures only the force pushing down on it, which is just the portion of the weight of the object not cancelled by the magical upwards force generated by the emDrive.Agreed. Let's say otherwise it the simplest way possible. This would work if the EmDrive was a rocket expelling matter (hot gas) backward behind its nozzle, but the EmDrive has no exhaust and does not expel ANYTHING. So if it worked as a genuine propellantless thruster, it would be rather like an aerostat or a warp drive. TT: if you have a 800-pound gorilla sitting in a room on a scale, the scale reads 800 pounds, OK? Now suppose you have a big helium balloon able to lift a mass of exactly 400 pounds. Being kind with him, you attach your balloon to the gorilla. What is the result? The gorilla does not lift in the air, for the ballon does not apply enough force upward to counteract gravity. But according to 1st row of table 1, Shawyer says the scale still reads 800 pounds. This is wrong: it now reads 400 pounds.
In example 1, as per Roger's assumptions, the EmDrive can't move / accelerate so there is no force generated, being F = ma, and the result is correct. This has been the case since day one.
Yes in reality the scale does move down slightly to record the 2g added mass and thus a 1g upward force from the EmDrive will cause a very small upward acceleration and a reduction in the displayed mass. However it is no way as simple as either case given here nor are the effects linear at the start of acceleration plus the thrust will stop when the EmDrive has moved upward as far as it can and acceleration stops.
All of this has been gone over many times, so nothing new here.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/12/2018 11:40 pmIn example 1, as per Roger's assumptions, the EmDrive can't move / accelerate so there is no force generated, being F = ma, and the result is correct. This has been the case since day one.As anyone who has taken introductory physics knows, the F in that equation is the sum of all forces on an object.For Shawyer's example, there is the force of the balance beam which is equal and opposite to the force of gravity on the drive, there is the force of the mass pushing the drive down, there is the force of the scale keeping the drive from moving downwards (which is what the readout of the scale reports) and there is the magic upwards force produced by the drive (or the 400lb upwards force of the balloon in flux_capacitor's example.) There being no acceleration just means that these forces are balanced. It does not make any of them zero. By the logic in your statement, the scale reading would not change when the balloon is attached to the gorilla, which is simply wrong. Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/12/2018 11:40 pmYes in reality the scale does move down slightly to record the 2g added mass and thus a 1g upward force from the EmDrive will cause a very small upward acceleration and a reduction in the displayed mass. However it is no way as simple as either case given here nor are the effects linear at the start of acceleration plus the thrust will stop when the EmDrive has moved upward as far as it can and acceleration stops.Nope, Shawyer claims none of this. Statements about nonlinearities, or necessity of freedom for downwards motion (when any motion would be upwards anyway) irrelevant.Quote from: TheTraveller on 12/12/2018 11:40 pmAll of this has been gone over many times, so nothing new here.Yet you still deny that Shawyer is failing introductory level physics, and simply ignore things like the obvious incongruity moving from line 3 to line 2 of the table Shawyer wrote that I pointed out.
Meberbs,As has been stated from day one, if an EmDrive can't accelerate, as in example one, there is no force generated. Ie if a = 0 then F = ma = 0. Using an example of a helium filled balloon, which generates upward force even if not accelerating, is clearly not a valid argument to use with example 1.