Please restudy the GR! The planklenght is dependent on the strength of G The light have to travel a longer way. So it is not faster or slower! Inside a Material the permittivity and permabillity is higher than in vacuumor got anybody a other universal meter in the toolbox?
...A distant observer may see these geodesics as curved, but nevertheless when a particle follows a null geodesic, it is not accelerating in the GR sense.http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20289/do-photons-have-acceleration/20296#20296
As many have said before the EW drive just can't work without violating CoM. The frustum is a closed cavity, at some level the forces must balance out. Unless, somehow, the frustum is being 'tricked' into thinking it's actually open.Shawyer attempts to use Special Relativity to open the system, White uses the Quantum Vacuum, what is Yang proposing? Yang talks about charged particles but that doesn't fit the bill.
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 05:51 pmAs many have said before the EW drive just can't work without violating CoM. ...Who has said that "the EM Drive drive just can't work without violating CoM"? I don't know of any author that has advocated that the EM Drive works by violating Conservation of Momentum. Every single theory I know of, Shawyer, McCulloch, Yang, White, you name it, postulates that the EM Drive does not violate conservation of momentum (they all have different explanations as to why momentum is conserved).
As many have said before the EW drive just can't work without violating CoM. ...
Quote from: Rodal on 06/02/2015 05:59 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 05:51 pmAs many have said before the EW drive just can't work without violating CoM. ...Who has said that "the EM Drive drive just can't work without violating CoM"? I don't know of any author that has advocated that the EM Drive works by violating Conservation of Momentum. Every single theory I know of, Shawyer, McCulloch, Yang, White, you name it, postulates that the EM Drive does not violate conservation of momentum (they all have different explanations as to why momentum is conserved).I think you can find the forum is full of extremely knowledgeable people who have said as such. Yes, the authors you listed have made claims but in each case have opened their system such that CoM appears to not be violated and that's how they make the 'claim' they are not violating basic physics.Focusing on the question I asked might be more productive. How did Yang open her system such that CoM does not appear to be violated? Or do you really believe that the EM Drive, a closed cavity, is not violating CoM without a mechanism for opening it up and therefore in your opinion this line of questioning can lead no where?
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 06:11 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/02/2015 05:59 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 05:51 pmAs many have said before the EW drive just can't work without violating CoM. ...Who has said that "the EM Drive drive just can't work without violating CoM"? I don't know of any author that has advocated that the EM Drive works by violating Conservation of Momentum. Every single theory I know of, Shawyer, McCulloch, Yang, White, you name it, postulates that the EM Drive does not violate conservation of momentum (they all have different explanations as to why momentum is conserved).I think you can find the forum is full of extremely knowledgeable people who have said as such. Yes, the authors you listed have made claims but in each case have opened their system such that CoM appears to not be violated and that's how they make the 'claim' they are not violating basic physics.Focusing on the question I asked might be more productive. How did Yang open her system such that CoM does not appear to be violated? Or do you really believe that the EM Drive, a closed cavity, is not violating CoM without a mechanism for opening it up and therefore in your opinion this line of questioning can lead no where?Perhaps we are using different languages to express this.I use the following definition of an open system:"A open system is a system that has external interactions. Such interactions can take the form of information, energy, or material transfers into or out of the system boundary, depending on the discipline which defines the concept. An open system is contrasted with the concept of an isolated system which exchanges neither energy, matter, nor information with its environment. An open system is also known as a constant volume system or a flow system."According to that definition Dr. White's theory is opening the system by involving the Quantum Vacuum, if we take that the Quantum Vacuum was not part of the system being considered. I think that neither Shawyer, McCulloch or Yang are "opening the system". I don't think that discussing a gradient of group velocity, or Unruh radiation, or considering current density J is opening the system. But I guess that it all depends on what one means by an open system.As to what Prof. Yang is doing, I don't completely understand it, but my take (with a grain of salt) is that she maybe considering the case of a cavity coupled externally with a waveguide or a coaxial. Thus, the excitations of a mode in a cavity can be modeled by an equivalent electric ( J ) or magnetic ( Jm ) density current representing the sources of the modes. The equivalent magnetic sources are, for example, the magnetic field on a coupling slot between the waveguide and the cavity and the magnetic field generated by a loop coupled with a cavity, while the equivalent electric sources are the currents on a small antenna coupled with the cavity.
In conventional physics, it is clear that the momentum of the radiation injected into the cavity produces a back reaction upon the source of that radiation. Therefore if you put a box around [source + cavity], where the source includes a portable power supply (e.g. battery) - then the net momentum of the system is zero forever as viewed from outside the box.If there is a radiation leak, thrust no greater than P/c ("equivalent photon rocket") may result from such a system, including thermal effects originating from the input power P.Clearly here the claim being made is not conventional physics because:1. The claim is made that the box as a whole will moveand2. The claim is made that the magnitude of the thrust causing this movement exceeds the maximum expected thrust of the equivalent photon rocket by orders of magnitude.Thus any successful attempt at explanation will not use conventional physics.
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 06:11 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/02/2015 05:59 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 05:51 pmAs many have said before the EW drive just can't work without violating CoM. ...Who has said that "the EM Drive drive just can't work without violating CoM"? I don't know of any author that has advocated that the EM Drive works by violating Conservation of Momentum. Every single theory I know of, Shawyer, McCulloch, Yang, White, you name it, postulates that the EM Drive does not violate conservation of momentum (they all have different explanations as to why momentum is conserved).I think you can find the forum is full of extremely knowledgeable people who have said as such. Yes, the authors you listed have made claims but in each case have opened their system such that CoM appears to not be violated and that's how they make the 'claim' they are not violating basic physics.Focusing on the question I asked might be more productive. How did Yang open her system such that CoM does not appear to be violated? Or do you really believe that the EM Drive, a closed cavity, is not violating CoM without a mechanism for opening it up and therefore in your opinion this line of questioning can lead no where?Even the most disruptive force in our known universe, a black hole, it has to play by the rules and not violate CoM and CoE, drop down to plank scale you might pull something from the quantum foam, but only for the briefest amount of time. Even SpaceTime when inflation ruled and everything accelerated away exponentially from everything else, still didn't violate CoE and CoM. To me a fundamental fact, is you can't do it. Just because it looks like the drive is a closed container it doesn't mean it really is, does it? Somehow that mix of RF bouncing around in the copper Frustum is making it to the outside world or an outside force is felt through the copper walls and the wave functions are acting on it.Data, we need more Data, to be able to fill in the theories.
In conventional physics, it is clear that the momentum of the radiation injected into the cavity produces a back reaction upon the source of that radiation. Therefore if you put a box around [source + cavity], where the source includes a portable power supply (e.g. battery) - then the net momentum of the system is zero forever as viewed from outside the box.If there is a radiation leak, thrust no greater than P/c ("equivalent photon rocket") may result from such a system, including thermal effects originating from the input power P.Clearly here the claim being made is not conventional physics because:1. The claim is made that the box as a whole will moveand2. The claim is made that the magnitude of the thrust causing this movement exceeds the maximum expected thrust of the equivalent photon rocket by orders of magnitude.Thus any successful attempt at explanation will not use conventional physics.There is a corollary to all this:If you attempt to explain this effect with conventional physics alone, you have made an error.
K ~ exp[2GM/r*c^2]
I think that the issue with closed systems is the reason that Paul March proposed a higher-dimensional space mechanism. What looks like a closed system in our 3+1 dimensional everyday reality, could easily be an open system in 5D+ spacetime. And this is why the experimentational factor is so vital. We need a demonstrator with high enough unidirectional force outout that can be reliably reproduced by any random, sufficiently technically skilled person on this planet. As string theories predict, reality is actually a lot higher-dimensional than what we can perceive and conceive with these little brains of ours.
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 06:11 pmQuote from: Rodal on 06/02/2015 05:59 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 05:51 pmI think that the issue with closed systems is the reason that Paul March proposed a higher-dimensional space mechanism. What looks like a closed system in our 3+1 dimensional everyday reality, could easily be an open system in 5D+ spacetime. And this is why the experimentational factor is so vital. We need a demonstrator with high enough unidirectional force outout that can be reliably reproduced by any random, sufficiently technically skilled person on this planet. As string theories predict, reality is actually a lot higher-dimensional than what we can perceive and conceive with these little brains of ours.Not so sure about that little brain, mine went through a period of exponential inflation, then I got onto this forum and then went through a longer period of deflation. Is there such a thing as negative mass?
Quote from: Rodal on 06/02/2015 05:59 pmQuote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 05:51 pmI think that the issue with closed systems is the reason that Paul March proposed a higher-dimensional space mechanism. What looks like a closed system in our 3+1 dimensional everyday reality, could easily be an open system in 5D+ spacetime. And this is why the experimentational factor is so vital. We need a demonstrator with high enough unidirectional force outout that can be reliably reproduced by any random, sufficiently technically skilled person on this planet. As string theories predict, reality is actually a lot higher-dimensional than what we can perceive and conceive with these little brains of ours.Not so sure about that little brain, mine went through a period of exponential inflation, then I got onto this forum and then went through a longer period of deflation. Is there such a thing as negative mass?
Quote from: phaseshift on 06/02/2015 05:51 pmI think that the issue with closed systems is the reason that Paul March proposed a higher-dimensional space mechanism. What looks like a closed system in our 3+1 dimensional everyday reality, could easily be an open system in 5D+ spacetime. And this is why the experimentational factor is so vital. We need a demonstrator with high enough unidirectional force outout that can be reliably reproduced by any random, sufficiently technically skilled person on this planet. As string theories predict, reality is actually a lot higher-dimensional than what we can perceive and conceive with these little brains of ours.Not so sure about that little brain, mine went through a period of exponential inflation, then I got onto this forum and then went through a longer period of deflation. Is there such a thing as negative mass?
Quote from: WarpTechK ~ exp[2GM/r*c^2]So K ~ 1. What use, then, is it?
Quote from: CW on 06/02/2015 07:11 pmI think that the issue with closed systems is the reason that Paul March proposed a higher-dimensional space mechanism. What looks like a closed system in our 3+1 dimensional everyday reality, could easily be an open system in 5D+ spacetime. And this is why the experimentational factor is so vital. We need a demonstrator with high enough unidirectional force outout that can be reliably reproduced by any random, sufficiently technically skilled person on this planet. As string theories predict, reality is actually a lot higher-dimensional than what we can perceive and conceive with these little brains of ours.There just doesn't seem to be any way around it in my mind. Perhaps this is the first experimental evidence of a 5D spacetime (or interacting with the QV) - otherwise the thrust is an experimental artifact. I just don't see how it can be any other way. I do 'believe' there is thrust and it's not an experimental artifact - I also believe the theories proposed by Shawyer and Yang are wrong and perhaps White is on the right track - Shawyer's and Yang's drives just happen to work based on entirely different principles than they proposed.
Quote from: deltaMass on 06/02/2015 06:50 pmIn conventional physics, it is clear that the momentum of the radiation injected into the cavity produces a back reaction upon the source of that radiation. Therefore if you put a box around [source + cavity], where the source includes a portable power supply (e.g. battery) - then the net momentum of the system is zero forever as viewed from outside the box.If there is a radiation leak, thrust no greater than P/c ("equivalent photon rocket") may result from such a system, including thermal effects originating from the input power P.Clearly here the claim being made is not conventional physics because:1. The claim is made that the box as a whole will moveand2. The claim is made that the magnitude of the thrust causing this movement exceeds the maximum expected thrust of the equivalent photon rocket by orders of magnitude.Thus any successful attempt at explanation will not use conventional physics.There is a corollary to all this:If you attempt to explain this effect with conventional physics alone, you have made an error.Thank you, thank you, thank you. Exactly.