Quote from: Notsosureofit on 12/22/2014 01:40 pmQuote from: Notsosureofit on 12/22/2014 01:17 amThere is some similarity of the EMDrive to the Sagnac oscillator if the optical fiber has a linear variation in the index of refraction. The frames of reference are stationary and accelerating rather than constant velocity. But, I havn't seen any reference or calculation giving rotary forces as yet. At the moment I'm chasing old photon to graviton papers. The Sagnac effect compares the (rotating) velocity frame of reference in which the opposing photons show the same frequency w/ the (stationary) frame in which the doppler photons are observed.The Shawyer cavity photons can be compared in the (stationary) dispersion frame w/ the same frequency and in an (accelerated) frame which balances out the dispersion and expresses the doppler shifts.A classic (1967, Air Force Cambridge Research Lab , Massachusetts) article on the Sagnac effect, by Post:http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Post1967.pdfQuotePost admits in his great review article: “The search for a physically meaningful transformation for rotationis not aided in any way whatever by the principle of general space-time covariance (relativity), nor is it true that the space-time theory of gravitation (general relativity) plays any role in establishing physically correct transformations (relevant to the Sagnac effect).” (parenthesis and bold added for explanatory purposes)For a contentious viewpoint, here is a paper claiming interferometric measurements validate the classical approach and invalidate the relativistic approach (W. Engelhardt, Division Head, Wissenschatlicher Angestellter JET, Max-Planck-Institut für Physik)http://www.kritik-relativitaetstheorie.de/Anhaenge/Wolfgang-Engelhardt-Sagnac.pdfQuoteIn 1925 Michelson and Gale built a huge earth-fixed Sagnac Interferometer in Illinois demonstrating that the light velocity is anisotropic on the rotating earth. For Sagnac this result did not come as a surprise having explained the underlying effect on the basis of the ether theory in 1913. The Special Relativity Theory (SRT), however, had predicted on the basis of the Lorentz Transformation (LT) that the velocity of light is isotropic in all inertial systems

Quote from: Notsosureofit on 12/22/2014 01:17 amThere is some similarity of the EMDrive to the Sagnac oscillator if the optical fiber has a linear variation in the index of refraction. The frames of reference are stationary and accelerating rather than constant velocity. But, I havn't seen any reference or calculation giving rotary forces as yet. At the moment I'm chasing old photon to graviton papers. The Sagnac effect compares the (rotating) velocity frame of reference in which the opposing photons show the same frequency w/ the (stationary) frame in which the doppler photons are observed.The Shawyer cavity photons can be compared in the (stationary) dispersion frame w/ the same frequency and in an (accelerated) frame which balances out the dispersion and expresses the doppler shifts.

There is some similarity of the EMDrive to the Sagnac oscillator if the optical fiber has a linear variation in the index of refraction. The frames of reference are stationary and accelerating rather than constant velocity. But, I havn't seen any reference or calculation giving rotary forces as yet. At the moment I'm chasing old photon to graviton papers.

Post admits in his great review article: “The search for a physically meaningful transformation for rotationis not aided in any way whatever by the principle of general space-time covariance (relativity), nor is it true that the space-time theory of gravitation (general relativity) plays any role in establishing physically correct transformations (relevant to the Sagnac effect).”

In 1925 Michelson and Gale built a huge earth-fixed Sagnac Interferometer in Illinois demonstrating that the light velocity is anisotropic on the rotating earth. For Sagnac this result did not come as a surprise having explained the underlying effect on the basis of the ether theory in 1913. The Special Relativity Theory (SRT), however, had predicted on the basis of the Lorentz Transformation (LT) that the velocity of light is isotropic in all inertial systems

.....After reading these papers my conclusions are that you can dismiss the second one as looking to disprove relativity. The 1967 paper is exhaustive and it shows decisively (I could see no errors in the math) that the closed path of the Sagnac effect is an example of a "closed system" even in the case of a dispersive medium. Edit: I suppose I should add that the EMDrive can be treated the same way(s) with the radius and area = to infinity (or the cosmological size ?) but the implications are not immediately obvious. Edit2: Went back to check a few thoughts. Nothing was considered that could give any relevant calculation to the EMDrive, unfortunately. The only dispersion considered here would just cancel out.Edit3: (the last ? for now)By way of clarification, I've been following the proposition that the existance of photon dispersion in a (gravitational, for instance) accelerated frame of reference (AFR) can imply the generation of an acceleration in a stationary frame by the presence of a dispersed photon field and it's possible application to the EMDrive.In practice, the dispersion relation is translated to an AFR in which the wavenumber dispersion disappears and the doppler shifted frequency dispersion can be used to calculate the force exerted per photon.The required conditions for a cavity resonator would seem, so far, to be the assymetry of the cavity dispersion relation and the existance of higher order modes which exhibit "cutoff frequencies".The 1967 paper above, and other papers I've looked at so far do not include calculations that meet those criteria.The conservation of momentum is still to be rationalised. So far, none of the electro-gravitational papers I've seen have had the interaction arise "naturally" out of General Relativity. (that may be my own predudice, so I'm still looking)Thanks for your patience.

Another blog post from Professor McCulloch. He links to a paper he just published describing how he believes the EM drive is a manifestation of his theory: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/

Awoke to memories of the '60s, ie. the Sachs-Schwebel version of GR using quaternions having an addl. coupling. Found at least one ref. this AM.mendelsachs-fromspecialtogeneralrelativity-macrotoquantumdomains28p-120114095137-phpapp02.pdf"This expression predicts a coupling of the ‘gravitational field’ (in terms of qk) with the matter field components Tρ to define a gravitational current contribution. The latter is not foreseen in the conventional theories that neglect the gravitational coupling to matter fields."That expression has a form that is at least "similar" in outline to that from the cavity dispersion relation. The "gravitational current" might provide the missing momentum.I need to find a way to get copies of the original papers which were in Il Nuovo Cimento as I recall.Edit: Looking for, Sachs, M. (1964).Nuovo cimento,31, 98. Sachs, M. (1968a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 387. Sachs, M. (1968b).Nuovo cimento,53A, 561. Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1961).Nuovo cimento, Supplement21, 197. Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1962).Journal of Mathematics and Physics,3, 843. Sachs, M. and Schwebel, S. L. (1963).Nuclear Physics,43, 204.

it might be remarked that the quaternion form of the metrical field equations lends itself in a natural way to a unification between the inertial and gravitational manifestations of interacting matter. This is because of the basic expression of the matter fields themselves in terms of the same spinor and quaternion variables.

I have found in my research program in general relativity, that the primary contribution to the inertial mass of any local elementary matter, such as an ‘electron’, are the nearby particle-antiparticle pairs that constitute what we call the ‘physical vacuum’. [The main developments of this research are demonstrated in my two monographs: General Relativity and Matter, and Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity]. A prediction of this research program is that the main influence of these pairs on the mass of, say, an electron comes from a domain of the ‘physical vacuum’ in its vicinity, whose volume has a radius that is the order of 10^(-15) cm. Of course, the distant stars, billions of light-years away, also contribute to the electron’s mass, though negligibly, just as the Sun’s mass contribution to the weight of a person on Earth is negligible compared with the Earth’s influence on this person’s weight! Nevertheless, it was Mach’s contention that in principle all of the matter of the closed system – the nearby as well as far away constituents – determines the inertial mass of any local matter.

"With more focus on space flight applications " (as per http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1301658#msg1301658) the metric chosen by the NASA's "Anomalous" report was the thrust force per power input.Here is a comparison of reported measurements for EM Drives.........reported measurement ForcePerPowerInput (milliNewtons/kW)(* Brady c TE mode *) 21.31(* Brady a TM mode*) 5.396(* Brady b TM mode*) 3.000

So what TRL would you guys say the devices presented in the "Anomalous Thrust Production...." papers are at right now?....

Yes, thanks. This is great stuff and will require a lot of reading. (not to mention the brain-busting)But do look back at that expression in the AM reference, it looks (to me w/o justification) like it could be the "doppler frame" expression.Edit: Found the AM paper online, (on the Beardon site, of all places! I have NO idea what this would have to do w/ free energy.)http://www.cheniere.org/references/Symmetry_in_Electrodynamics.pdf See p.24, the three-current density

The role of the Mach principle is revealed at this stage of the analysis. Since Fρλ depends on the spin curvature tensor Kρλ, which automatically vanishes in a vacuum (i.e. a flat spacetime), the electromagnetic field, and therefore the previously considered electric charge of any quantity of matter in a vacuum must vanish. Thus, not only the inertial mass but also the electric charge of a ‘particle’ of matter does not exist when there is no coupling to other matter. I have generalized this idea in the field theory based on General Relativity, to the case where all previously considered intrinsic properties of discrete matter, in addition to inertial mass and electric charge, vanish identically in a vacuum. This view exorcises all of the remaining features of the discrete, separable ‘elementary particle’ of matter. It is replaced with a view of matter in terms of a closed, continuous field theory, according to the theory of general relativity. I have called this view of matter, whereby all of its previously considered intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, ‘the generalized Mach principle’.

...Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.

...In his website he has posted several of his articles. For example this relatively recent one on the Mach principle and origin of inertia:http://mendelsachs.com/wp-content/uploads/articles/the-mach-principle.pdfIn that reference, Sachs convincingly argues against the approach to Mach's Principle followed by Woodward (-of course- he does not mention Woodward), he considers the particle-antiparticle pairs of the quantum vacuum having a most important effect, while the effect of distant stars is negligible:Quote from: SachsI have found in my research program in general relativity, that the primary contribution to the inertial mass of any local elementary matter, such as an ‘electron’, are the nearby particle-antiparticle pairs that constitute what we call the ‘physical vacuum’. [The main developments of this research are demonstrated in my two monographs: General Relativity and Matter, and Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity]. A prediction of this research program is that the main influence of these pairs on the mass of, say, an electron comes from a domain of the ‘physical vacuum’ in its vicinity, whose volume has a radius that is the order of 10^(-15) cm. Of course, the distant stars, billions of light-years away, also contribute to the electron’s mass, though negligibly, just as the Sun’s mass contribution to the weight of a person on Earth is negligible compared with the Earth’s influence on this person’s weight! Nevertheless, it was Mach’s contention that in principle all of the matter of the closed system – the nearby as well as far away constituents – determines the inertial mass of any local matter. (Bold added for emphasis) ==> this is the anti-thesis of Woodward's approach to Mach's principle!

...The "delayed action at a distance"of Feynman and Wheeler is restored to currency. The "advanced" solutions take their place beside the "retarded" solutions in a single, complete space-time....

Quote from: Rodal on 12/28/2014 04:41 pm...Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.so how does one create this coupling?

Quote from: birchoff on 12/29/2014 02:46 amQuote from: Rodal on 12/28/2014 04:41 pm...Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.so how does one create this coupling?See: http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/986/art%253A10.1007%252FBF02755823/000.png

Quote from: Notsosureofit on 12/29/2014 01:33 pmQuote from: birchoff on 12/29/2014 02:46 amQuote from: Rodal on 12/28/2014 04:41 pm...Sachs formally answered (in the 1960's !) the criticism that the matter in Quantum Vacuum "does not gravitate": intrinsic properties are explained in terms of coupling within the closed system, they don't really exist (thus they are "virtual") in the vacuum per se, they only become into existence when there is coupling.so how does one create this coupling?See: http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/986/art%253A10.1007%252FBF02755823/000.pngSince I am not a physicist, and I didnt sleep at a holiday in express last night. I will not even begin to pretend I understood most of what that reply was attempting to show. All I could get out of it was Sachs provided a point of clarification on why the complaint of his theory lacking internal consistency was not correct. other than that didnt see an argument for how one could physically force the virtual particles to experience coupling and gain their intrinsic properties. Though I suspect this experiment may light the path towards doing something of the sorthttp://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project077.htm