Quote from: WarpTech on 06/07/2015 12:39 amQuote from: Prunesquallor on 06/06/2015 11:13 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 06/06/2015 10:32 pm...Einstein's Equivalence Principle still rocks! But...Stage 2 has gone through the same acceleration and momentum change and should have experience the same subatomic effects as Stage 1. So why would it operate? In fact after reaching the first delta-v and turning off Stage 1, the two stages should be indistguishable. So why could Stage 2 accelerate and Stage 1 be "dead"?I didn't say that. They would be indistinguishable. If after reaching delta-v with Stage-1, it is now "hovering" at a constant potential. Turning off Stage-1, it now continues with constant inertia in free-fall. If you turn on Stage-2, identical to Stage-1, it's now hovering again at the same potential. If you turn on both stages, you've doubled the Power so it will accelerate to 2*delta-v. The difference will be in that when the engine is running, there is an acceleration toward the floor, when it's off, you're floating. The relative speed does not change, and just like pushing on a wall, no work is being done. So although the engine is running, it's is not increasing the inertia any higher. To increase the inertia further, a higher input power is required.Hmmm.. So t becomes an artificial gravity machine upon reaching delta-v?
Quote from: Prunesquallor on 06/06/2015 11:13 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 06/06/2015 10:32 pm...Einstein's Equivalence Principle still rocks! But...Stage 2 has gone through the same acceleration and momentum change and should have experience the same subatomic effects as Stage 1. So why would it operate? In fact after reaching the first delta-v and turning off Stage 1, the two stages should be indistguishable. So why could Stage 2 accelerate and Stage 1 be "dead"?I didn't say that. They would be indistinguishable. If after reaching delta-v with Stage-1, it is now "hovering" at a constant potential. Turning off Stage-1, it now continues with constant inertia in free-fall. If you turn on Stage-2, identical to Stage-1, it's now hovering again at the same potential. If you turn on both stages, you've doubled the Power so it will accelerate to 2*delta-v. The difference will be in that when the engine is running, there is an acceleration toward the floor, when it's off, you're floating. The relative speed does not change, and just like pushing on a wall, no work is being done. So although the engine is running, it's is not increasing the inertia any higher. To increase the inertia further, a higher input power is required.
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/06/2015 10:32 pm...Einstein's Equivalence Principle still rocks! But...Stage 2 has gone through the same acceleration and momentum change and should have experience the same subatomic effects as Stage 1. So why would it operate? In fact after reaching the first delta-v and turning off Stage 1, the two stages should be indistguishable. So why could Stage 2 accelerate and Stage 1 be "dead"?
...Einstein's Equivalence Principle still rocks!
Quote from: Prunesquallor on 06/07/2015 01:05 amQuote from: WarpTech on 06/07/2015 12:39 amQuote from: Prunesquallor on 06/06/2015 11:13 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 06/06/2015 10:32 pm...Einstein's Equivalence Principle still rocks! But...Stage 2 has gone through the same acceleration and momentum change and should have experience the same subatomic effects as Stage 1. So why would it operate? In fact after reaching the first delta-v and turning off Stage 1, the two stages should be indistguishable. So why could Stage 2 accelerate and Stage 1 be "dead"?I didn't say that. They would be indistinguishable. If after reaching delta-v with Stage-1, it is now "hovering" at a constant potential. Turning off Stage-1, it now continues with constant inertia in free-fall. If you turn on Stage-2, identical to Stage-1, it's now hovering again at the same potential. If you turn on both stages, you've doubled the Power so it will accelerate to 2*delta-v. The difference will be in that when the engine is running, there is an acceleration toward the floor, when it's off, you're floating. The relative speed does not change, and just like pushing on a wall, no work is being done. So although the engine is running, it's is not increasing the inertia any higher. To increase the inertia further, a higher input power is required.Hmmm.. So t becomes an artificial gravity machine upon reaching delta-v?More like it's being chased by a black hole, similar (?) to Dr. McCulloch's model. At constant acceleration, the faster you go the closer the black hole gets and eventually the ship reaches a limit to where it can't go any faster because all the power you have can only keep it hovering at this distance from the event horizon. Didn't the Borg project a black hole in front of the cube to create their warp drive? Todd
...If EM drives like to be free to accelerate to thrust, so be it, if they don't like to be accelerated to thrust, so be it, either way, a buffering intermediate link can accommodate for those whims, at a very, very, very modest energetic cost. So, a 40s long thrust of 50µN for 50W at constant velocity, that is exactly the same conditions as claimed results at Eagleworks, if it is reproducible many times, can be used intermittently to reach break even velocities, in principle (if not in practice). What could possibly make it, in principle, not reproducible many times if it can genuinely work one time ? Growing distance with the lab, or cumulative disturbance of the Force ?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/07/2015 12:03 amQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 06/06/2015 11:53 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 06/06/2015 11:27 pmInside the EMDrive frustum all it knows of the world outside is when acceleration causes internal Doppler shift, dropping Q and stored energy, which converts into Kinetic. Reverse happens if something tries to move it small end to big end. Acts like a Kinetic energy sink.Push big end toward small end and it is a Kinetic source, push it the other and it is a Kinetic sink.That doesn't resolve the energy paradox though. The EMdrive doesn't have to be accelerating at all to act as a free energy machine, so converting EM energy to kinetic energy when an acceleration occurs solves nothing. This has been fleshed out a few times now, so I'm just going to link to my previous post on the matter: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1385685#msg1385685.Free energy doesn't require acceleration, so CoE during acceleration just isn't enough.If the EMDrive is not acceleration (in motor mode) nor opposing acceleration (in generator mode), some small fraction of cavity energy does turn into thermal energy, assuming constant input, due to wall losses.How is this a Free Energy Source?Did you read the post I linked? It doesn't require a perfectly efficient cavity, where no power is lost to resistive heating effects. Such power losses can be, and are free to be, quite large. All that matters for the analysis to hold is that the Thrust to Power ratio is greater than 1/c, which has been true for all EMdrives to date.As long as the thrust to power ratio is greater than 1/c, there will be a break even velocity where, when held at constant velocity (so no "motor mode" effects), the emdrive creates more power than it takes in. It doesn't matter if the power it takes in is converted to heat or unicorn dust. Please, read the link. You will see that thermal energy losses in the cavity don't play into this issue at all. (note: I reserve the right for the preceding analysis, props to @frobnicat, to potentially be made irrelevant by theories like @warptech's.)
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 06/06/2015 11:53 pmQuote from: TheTraveller on 06/06/2015 11:27 pmInside the EMDrive frustum all it knows of the world outside is when acceleration causes internal Doppler shift, dropping Q and stored energy, which converts into Kinetic. Reverse happens if something tries to move it small end to big end. Acts like a Kinetic energy sink.Push big end toward small end and it is a Kinetic source, push it the other and it is a Kinetic sink.That doesn't resolve the energy paradox though. The EMdrive doesn't have to be accelerating at all to act as a free energy machine, so converting EM energy to kinetic energy when an acceleration occurs solves nothing. This has been fleshed out a few times now, so I'm just going to link to my previous post on the matter: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1385685#msg1385685.Free energy doesn't require acceleration, so CoE during acceleration just isn't enough.If the EMDrive is not acceleration (in motor mode) nor opposing acceleration (in generator mode), some small fraction of cavity energy does turn into thermal energy, assuming constant input, due to wall losses.How is this a Free Energy Source?
Quote from: TheTraveller on 06/06/2015 11:27 pmInside the EMDrive frustum all it knows of the world outside is when acceleration causes internal Doppler shift, dropping Q and stored energy, which converts into Kinetic. Reverse happens if something tries to move it small end to big end. Acts like a Kinetic energy sink.Push big end toward small end and it is a Kinetic source, push it the other and it is a Kinetic sink.That doesn't resolve the energy paradox though. The EMdrive doesn't have to be accelerating at all to act as a free energy machine, so converting EM energy to kinetic energy when an acceleration occurs solves nothing. This has been fleshed out a few times now, so I'm just going to link to my previous post on the matter: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1385685#msg1385685.Free energy doesn't require acceleration, so CoE during acceleration just isn't enough.
Inside the EMDrive frustum all it knows of the world outside is when acceleration causes internal Doppler shift, dropping Q and stored energy, which converts into Kinetic. Reverse happens if something tries to move it small end to big end. Acts like a Kinetic energy sink.Push big end toward small end and it is a Kinetic source, push it the other and it is a Kinetic sink.
The EMdrive doesn't have to be accelerating at all to act as a free energy machine,
Quote from: SeeShells on 06/07/2015 12:06 amQuoteBecause, when the engine was running, every sub-atomic particle of matter was accelerated and in dong so, their momentum increased. Relative to where it started from, the wavelength of every matter-wave has been reduced in size and this represents the real stored energy of inertia. Therefore, the matter that was accelerated "knows" it was accelerated because it possesses more inertia than when it started. In this regard, when the engine is turned off, it is equivalent to orbiting at a constant gravitational potential (v^2), in free-fall at a constant velocity, as opposed to hovering at this potential when the engine was running. Einstein's Equivalence Principle still rocks! ToddSo let me get this right. The real reference frame isn't the gravitational field but spacetime? Since that is how an object "knows" it's speed from the stored compression of the matter it's made of? So if we backwards think this and look at the Emdrive removing that spacetime compression while it's running...The real reference frame is the rest frame the mass started from. As work is done to accelerate it, matter acquires inertia which is physically stored as a reduction of the wavelength of matter waves, leading to relativistic length contraction and time dilation as physical effects as v -> c. For v << c, the effect is still there, but we perceive it as inertial mass, or total energy content of the body. The inertial mass of an object moving at velocity v is greater than it was in the frame in which it started. Again, this is not a Lorentz transformation anymore, this is GR not SR. This is that part of SR that they leave out when trying to explain the Twin Paradox. Then they say "it's because one of the twins was accelerated". You must integrate along the world-line of the matter being accelerated to get the right answer. It's not simply comparing 2 identical inertial frames, it is comparing 2 inertial frames at different gravitational potentials. Todd
QuoteBecause, when the engine was running, every sub-atomic particle of matter was accelerated and in dong so, their momentum increased. Relative to where it started from, the wavelength of every matter-wave has been reduced in size and this represents the real stored energy of inertia. Therefore, the matter that was accelerated "knows" it was accelerated because it possesses more inertia than when it started. In this regard, when the engine is turned off, it is equivalent to orbiting at a constant gravitational potential (v^2), in free-fall at a constant velocity, as opposed to hovering at this potential when the engine was running. Einstein's Equivalence Principle still rocks! ToddSo let me get this right. The real reference frame isn't the gravitational field but spacetime? Since that is how an object "knows" it's speed from the stored compression of the matter it's made of? So if we backwards think this and look at the Emdrive removing that spacetime compression while it's running...
Because, when the engine was running, every sub-atomic particle of matter was accelerated and in dong so, their momentum increased. Relative to where it started from, the wavelength of every matter-wave has been reduced in size and this represents the real stored energy of inertia. Therefore, the matter that was accelerated "knows" it was accelerated because it possesses more inertia than when it started. In this regard, when the engine is turned off, it is equivalent to orbiting at a constant gravitational potential (v^2), in free-fall at a constant velocity, as opposed to hovering at this potential when the engine was running. Einstein's Equivalence Principle still rocks! Todd
Quote from: WarpTech on 06/07/2015 12:52 am...Again, this is not a Lorentz transformation anymore, this is GR not SR. This is that part of SR that they leave out when trying to explain the Twin Paradox. Then they say "it's because one of the twins was accelerated". You must integrate along the world-line of the matter being accelerated to get the right answer. It's not simply comparing 2 identical inertial frames, it is comparing 2 inertial frames at different gravitational potentials. Hmmm. I find this interesting and I'm trying to wrap my brain around it. I thought the Higgs field gave mass to matter and part of the mass it has was as it traveled through the Higgs field. What your saying makes some sense, but if I have a object traveling at lets say near light speed, it's mass increases we know that, now does that increased mass warp spacetime like a star or a black hole? If it did pass close to lets say me floating in free space would I feel its gravitational effect in passing?Sorry if I'm being silly here but you have a good way with words.
...Again, this is not a Lorentz transformation anymore, this is GR not SR. This is that part of SR that they leave out when trying to explain the Twin Paradox. Then they say "it's because one of the twins was accelerated". You must integrate along the world-line of the matter being accelerated to get the right answer. It's not simply comparing 2 identical inertial frames, it is comparing 2 inertial frames at different gravitational potentials.
Quote from: SeeShells on 06/07/2015 01:52 amQuote from: WarpTech on 06/07/2015 12:52 am...Again, this is not a Lorentz transformation anymore, this is GR not SR. This is that part of SR that they leave out when trying to explain the Twin Paradox. Then they say "it's because one of the twins was accelerated". You must integrate along the world-line of the matter being accelerated to get the right answer. It's not simply comparing 2 identical inertial frames, it is comparing 2 inertial frames at different gravitational potentials. Hmmm. I find this interesting and I'm trying to wrap my brain around it. I thought the Higgs field gave mass to matter and part of the mass it has was as it traveled through the Higgs field. What your saying makes some sense, but if I have a object traveling at lets say near light speed, it's mass increases we know that, now does that increased mass warp spacetime like a star or a black hole? If it did pass close to lets say me floating in free space would I feel its gravitational effect in passing?Sorry if I'm being silly here but you have a good way with words.Thanks, no problem.Yes, and yes. In an accelerated reference frame the total inertia of the mass warps spacetime and makes pushing it faster like going up-hill. The faster it goes, the steeper the grade. At some potential, there is not enough power available to push it to a higher inertia. The best you can do is "hover", and if you turn off the engine you "orbit" meaning free-fall at constant velocity. It shows an accelerated reference frame is identical to a gravitational field, as it should be. Also, the Higgs field is a scalar field. Newtonian gravity is a simple gradient of a scalar field. Probably the same thing, IMO. I don't know enough about the Higgs field to say more than that. My understanding is, the equilibrium power exchanged between matter and the EM ZPF, works pretty much the same way for all ZPF's, including the weak and strong nuclear force fields, and the Dirac field. So my model of how gravity and inertia work is the same, all the way down to the smallest scales and highest energies. IMO however, I only care that it works. Where it's right or wrong will come out in the end, so far, it works better than any other engineering physics model I've seen.Todd
I've been following this discussion and one thing I wonder about. When you turn the engine off, what happens to the Inertia? Obviously if you are hovering in a gravity field, you fall, but in freespace what happens to it?I see no reason for the ship to loose it's accumulated momentum but does it? The extra inertia of the engine particles must dissapate when the power is removed?
Quote from: aero on 06/07/2015 02:29 amI've been following this discussion and one thing I wonder about. When you turn the engine off, what happens to the Inertia? Obviously if you are hovering in a gravity field, you fall, but in freespace what happens to it?I see no reason for the ship to loose it's accumulated momentum but does it? The extra inertia of the engine particles must dissapate when the power is removed?When a mass is accelerated, it's velocity, in reference to an initial stationary reference frame, continually increases. When the acceleration stops, the velocity stops increasing and remains constant.
The real reference frame is the rest frame the mass started from. As work is done to accelerate it, matter acquires inertia which is physically stored as a reduction of the wavelength of matter waves, leading to relativistic length contraction and time dilation as physical effects as v -> c. For v << c, the effect is still there, but we perceive it as inertial mass, or total energy content of the body. The inertial mass of an object moving at velocity v is greater than it was in the frame in which it started.
Not just that, but "frame-invariant" absolutists are not taking into account that frame-invariance only applies to isotropic constitutive material properties. Frame-invariance does not apply to chiral anisotropy and diverse kinds of anisotropy where there are preferred material frames. Blindly imposing absolute frame-invariance on the EM Drive is precluding anisotropic explanations based on chirality for example.
Equation 2) is making the assumption that there exists a preferred frame. Because for v << c, you are writingP = F vand we all know by now what that implies, I would hope. The entirety of the rest of your paper rests on this assumption. Throwing gammas around with abandon does not change this basic fact.