Quote from: Star One on 09/16/2018 09:01 amQuote from: meberbs on 09/14/2018 02:57 pmQuote from: Star One on 09/14/2018 02:40 pmMaybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.Try actually reading my post.I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.You might find it that but I’d say I found your OP in response to what seemed to me a genuine enquiry, if maybe mistaken, to be both rude and dismissive. Hence my response.I don’t generally post in here these days as the matter seems a lot settled now and that’s partly through your sterling work, and I wouldn’t have posted now if not genuinely taken aback by OP.I pointed out that a logical fallacy was being employed and demonstrated why it was a fallacy.For any given statement "X", a question of the form"why not X" is best answered by explaining "X is a fallacy, and here is why." There is nothing inherently rude about doing that, and it is only dismissive in the sense that there is a solid and easy to state reason why what I was responding to should be dismissed.If you think the original statement was anything less than a complete fallacy, you are going to have to say something that actually acknowledges the content of the original post.
Quote from: meberbs on 09/14/2018 02:57 pmQuote from: Star One on 09/14/2018 02:40 pmMaybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.Try actually reading my post.I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.You might find it that but I’d say I found your OP in response to what seemed to me a genuine enquiry, if maybe mistaken, to be both rude and dismissive. Hence my response.I don’t generally post in here these days as the matter seems a lot settled now and that’s partly through your sterling work, and I wouldn’t have posted now if not genuinely taken aback by OP.
Quote from: Star One on 09/14/2018 02:40 pmMaybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.Try actually reading my post.I answered with a simple counterexample that shows that spupeng7's post was a fallacy.I literally said that exact same thing in my previous response to you. You are trying to accuse me of "slight of hand" while you are ignoring what I said. Repeatedly. This is both rude and hypocritical.
Maybe because as I said above did you actually answer anything or was it just a slight of hand.
But it appears to be you just assuming this person has fallen into this fallacy without actually knowing if they had or not. I don’t see what was so wrong with what they said or more importantly that there was enough evidence in their post for you to be justified in making that assumption of their thinking that you gave it the response you did.To sum up in my opinion you made an unjustified assumption of what they meant without the evidence in what they said to back it up.
Dear Meberbs.The difficult to find the solution is not the point.One can find a path integral representation of the problem.The problem are the ad-hoc choices made in the process to mantain the unitarity of final form of the path integral representation of the simplified problem.A lot of prescriptions to disapear with "unwanted" terms.The "problem" emerge when the ad-hoc prescriptions cannot be applied because of topological restrictions.
Quote from: Star One on 09/17/2018 03:34 pmBut it appears to be you just assuming this person has fallen into this fallacy without actually knowing if they had or not. I don’t see what was so wrong with what they said or more importantly that there was enough evidence in their post for you to be justified in making that assumption of their thinking that you gave it the response you did.To sum up in my opinion you made an unjustified assumption of what they meant without the evidence in what they said to back it up.I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.
Quote from: meberbs on 09/17/2018 03:53 pmI made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.This is getting really confusing because how can you claim you made no assumption when your OP was couched in terms of an assumption, and yes I have read what you posted several times?
I made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.
Quote from: oyzw on 09/16/2018 12:14 pmMaybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?Professor Yang and I have endorsed the theoretical explanations of Dr. Chen Yue and Cannae's patents that emdirve uses an asymmetric structure to induce the electromagnetic field distribution to form a gradient difference, which produces a radiation pressure difference. In order to achieve this goal, the cone cavity is not the best choice. It uses a more special induction structure to asymmetrically pull the electromagnetic field, such as a very asymmetrical shape, filling with a polymer, adding a metal diaphragm, and etching trenches. They are all common goals. My cavity is just a visual copy, and there is no strict theoretical calculation, so even in the TE013 mode, there is probably no obvious electromagnetic gradient distribution. I will next copy the cavity of Dr. Chen Yue and use the high K substance to further change the trapezoidal cavity.
Maybe EW will loan Jamie their cavity, so he can apply my alterations and start to see significant thrust?
After some discussion with Roger, on the subject of altering my KISS Thruster dimensions to match that of the EW cavity, Roger sent me the attached, with permission to share, which I now intent to follow. It does mean I need to order a higher freq 100W Rf amp and maybe run the thruster and Rf system inside faraday cages, as the freq is outside the 2.45GHz ISM band.
Quote from: Ricvil on 09/17/2018 02:50 pmDear Meberbs.The difficult to find the solution is not the point.One can find a path integral representation of the problem.The problem are the ad-hoc choices made in the process to mantain the unitarity of final form of the path integral representation of the simplified problem.A lot of prescriptions to disapear with "unwanted" terms.The "problem" emerge when the ad-hoc prescriptions cannot be applied because of topological restrictions.As I said, the only simplification that makes the problem tractable is using the limit of large numbers so you don't need to track 10^23 electrons. After taking that limit, you are no longer in the quantum regime and nothing you are talking about is relevant. If you had unlimited resources and hypothetically were going to solve that problem, to have the results at least have useful insight, you would want to account for the fact that electrons are fermions, and get rid of the 0-spin assumption. Not to mention that ignoring the arrangement of copper atoms makes it impossible to see any resistance related effects.I'd suggest you reformulate the problem to one with a small enough number of particles to at least write down the first equation so we could actually talk about specifics, but that would miss the point, since that would just be a distraction unrelated to my original post. Something actually relevant to my original post would be if you could link to a paper showing that QED doesn't actually obey conservation laws. (But I sincerely doubt that there is one, at least not from someone who knows what they are talking about.)
First point: There is no affirmation at any point of my posts about violation of conservation laws.
Quote from: TheTraveller on 09/17/2018 04:59 pmAfter some discussion with Roger, on the subject of altering my KISS Thruster dimensions to match that of the EW cavity, Roger sent me the attached, with permission to share, which I now intent to follow. It does mean I need to order a higher freq 100W Rf amp and maybe run the thruster and Rf system inside faraday cages, as the freq is outside the 2.45GHz ISM band.What is the frequency of magnetron on/off switching?
I think I had discover the secret of Emdrive.It is working as a dual TWT (Traveling Wave Tube).In a TWT, an electron beam transfer it's kinetic energy to a slow electromagnetic wave carring a signal, amplifying it.This interaction occurs at condition of electron beam velocity beeing equals the group velocity of electromagnetic signal slow wave.I think I had discover "similar" equations for Emdrive, and theorically, one can construct a Emdrive with two "dark zones" of surface currents, one at each side of cavity, then any pressure will occurs only at conical section of the cavity.The TE011 mode appears do it because it has no surface currents at endplates.Then, the Emdrive, as a dual of a TWT, under specific resonant condition, converts a modulated microwave signal, into kinect energy directed to small endplate, through it's surface currents.
Quote from: Ricvil on 09/20/2018 03:35 pmI think I had discover the secret of Emdrive.It is working as a dual TWT (Traveling Wave Tube).In a TWT, an electron beam transfer it's kinetic energy to a slow electromagnetic wave carring a signal, amplifying it.This interaction occurs at condition of electron beam velocity beeing equals the group velocity of electromagnetic signal slow wave.I think I had discover "similar" equations for Emdrive, and theorically, one can construct a Emdrive with two "dark zones" of surface currents, one at each side of cavity, then any pressure will occurs only at conical section of the cavity.The TE011 mode appears do it because it has no surface currents at endplates.Then, the Emdrive, as a dual of a TWT, under specific resonant condition, converts a modulated microwave signal, into kinect energy directed to small endplate, through it's surface currents.About your "dark zones" at both ends: wouldn't it be better to have one single "dark zone" near big end? Can you write a sound paper with equations?
Quote from: Star One on 09/17/2018 04:32 pmQuote from: meberbs on 09/17/2018 03:53 pmI made no assumptions other than that they were speaking standard English, and not some code where words don't represent their dictionary definitions. Their statement was the embodiment of the fallacy I referenced. I have explained repeatedly why that is the case, but you seem to continue ignoring the words I am saying.In his most recent post spupeng7 changed what he said to something completely different, which avoids the fallacy, but which would make the make the original question pointless, because the relevant theories already meet the looser criteria he stated.This is getting really confusing because how can you claim you made no assumption when your OP was couched in terms of an assumption, and yes I have read what you posted several times?It really sounds like you are responding to something unrelated to my posts. Again, there is no assumption in my original post. I did use the word "sounds like" to soften the statement, mostly so that spupeng7 could rephrase, which he did, and in a way that negates any relevant meaning in the original question.Rather than stating that you have read my posts, you could instead demonstrate some comprehension of them by making a post that actually addresses the content. (For example, you could state an assumption I made rather than blindly accusing me of making assumptions, or you could actually make a comment related to the specific fallacy I mentioned.)