EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8

[OnlyMe]

...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...

What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account.  And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.

Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.

What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed.  What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory.  All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann.  The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.

"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects"  Alexander Chase

Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal. 

Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.

Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.

Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.

GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.

[WarpTech]

Interesting that electrons have the ability to gain mass in a magnetic field.

http://phys.org/news/2016-08-electrons-mass-presence-high-magnetic.html#jCp

My Best,
Shell

Yup.. I've been saying this for years (decades?). The observed mass of an electron is mostly due to induction.

[Rodal]

...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...

What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account.  And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.

Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.

What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed.  What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory.  All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann.  The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.

"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects"  Alexander Chase

Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal. 

...

Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.

Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.

Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.

GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.

OnlyMe, I strongly disagree with your very narrow view of Einstein's goals, as if he was just interested in very limited aspects of Nature, your spoon and forks view of Einstein's modeling of the Universe.  Special Relativity was just an early effort of Einstein's goal of explaining the Universe.  As a matter of fact this goal did not at all stop with his theory of General Relativity (which is called General Relativity because it generalizes Special Relativity, by providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of spacetime) but continued until his death with his effort at a Unified Theory of the Universe which was Einstein's goal.

Unfortunately, you did not not get the point of not confusing a path with the goal.  Einstein's goal was to explain and model our Universe and not simply on "improving Newtonian dynamics" or improving on the relationship between space and time.  No, it was not a question of spoon and forks 

Again,

Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal.

I presume that Shawyer's goal is to enable a propellant-less drive .  The electromagnetically resonant truncated copper cone is just a means to that end.  His theory is a particular path to that end.

Stating  that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity is actually a dead end.  I am surprised that he has not yet acknowledged this and come up with a more realistic model. 

[jelake]

Please forgive an outside observer for asking a dumb question...couldn't much of this argument be resolved by putting an EM drive into LEO and seeing whether it developed thrust? We have a space station, do we not? If that is the case, why do you not pool your efforts to make that happen?

[zellerium]

So I got stuck pretty quickly. Turns out I have the following standard outputs to work with:
Electric and magnetic fields both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Surface currents, current density both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Real Poynting vector
local SAR or avg SAR (Specific absorption rate)
surface loss density or volume loss density
temperature
magnitude or vector of displacement current
surface force density vector

I can take any component of a vector and use any of the buttons seen below. Not a very user friendly system here…

I should be able to calculate the magnetic vector potential by doing the inverse curl of the magnetic vector. I found this https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf which explains how to do so, but even if I separate the components I still need to calculate the constants h1 h2 and h3 for each element somehow…

Then what about the time derivative of the voltage potential? Looks like I can only do spatial derivatives with the wave port or eigenmode solvers, maybe a steady state transient solution would allow that.

The voltage potential seems pretty simple, I just have to take the spatial integral of the E field and then the time integral of that would yield the magnetic flux.

But all of this is moot if I can’t do an inverse divergence. 

[D_Dom]

I am doing this wrong, I promise to get smarter. Deleted some good along with the nonsense, apologies for that. Great theory and practice discussions, keep it up! Wikipedia and politics just amplify the noise.

[M.LeBel]

...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...

What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account.  And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.

Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.

What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed.  What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory.  All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann.  The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.

"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects"  Alexander Chase

Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal. 

...

Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.

Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.

Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.

GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.

OnlyMe, I strongly disagree with your very narrow view of Einstein's goals, as if he was just interested in very limited aspects of Nature, your spoon and forks view of Einstein's modeling of the Universe.  Special Relativity was just an early effort of Einstein's goal of explaining the Universe.  As a matter of fact this goal did not at all stop with his theory of General Relativity (which is called General Relativity because it generalizes Special Relativity, by providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of spacetime) but continued until his death with his effort at a Unified Theory of the Universe which was Einstein's goal.

Unfortunately, you did not not get the point of not confusing a path with the goal.  Einstein's goal was to explain and model our Universe and not simply on "improving Newtonian dynamics" or improving on the relationship between space and time.  No, it was not a question of spoon and forks 

.........

IMO... Yes, SR and GR are spoon and fork. Here is why.

SR and GR are two separate truth systems. A truth system is a sequence of logical inferences stemming from one original “strong” truth. A truth is but an absence of choice. The strongest absence of choice is an “impossibility”. This is why these original truths are expressed as impossibilities. Impossibility to measure anything going faster than light. Note that I say “measure” because this is physics, not metaphysics. Things could go faster .. but we can’t measure it. Impossibility of distinguishing (physics) between inertia and gravity. To say that they ARE the same.... would be again, metaphysics. The problem with the word “impossibility” is that it suggests that we already know the outcome of every test that will be made to test it. So, this big original strong truth is but an assumption. This assumption will gain strength as inferences are made and experiments are done to test each inference. But, no matter the strength gained.. it will always remain an assumption. Unless, one inference is contradicted by an experiment, in which case we run back to the assumption board and rip this one out.

The moment we introduce a new assumption that we intend to explore, we are dealing with a totally new truth system. Two truth systems may share some approach, tools etc. but they don’t owe each other anything. The truths inferred within a truth system will not be “true” in another truth system. Best example, QM and GR.

Physics is a collection of loosely connected truth systems. Each one is a specific window of physicality onto the subject matter which is never addressed directly. Only a proper metaphysics may go there....

As for Einstein wanting to model the whole universe .... it is not a truth system as such and it is hardly a goal unique to him...

[PotomacNeuron]

PotomacNeuron

....

However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results. 

Thank you for acknowledging the swirl torques that are associated with the air bearing. Because of that, the rotation test is not reliable. I will be more convinced if you hang the Cavendish Balance with a thin steel wire. I will really be impressed if the hanging Cavendish Balance can rotate a whole round.

Best, Paul M.

Thank you again.

Am I missing something?

The portion (I placed) in bold above does not seem a logical conclusion.., since the the test article experienced self acceleration in both directions, when the orientation of the test device was reversed.., even while any swirl torque would have remained constant in its direction, no matter what orientation the test article was in.

Well, unreliable is unreliable. You can't assume that the air bearing will reliably produce swirl torque toward the same direction when the frustum is mounted with opposite directions. The mass center changes, the way the moving part of the bearing leaning on the non-moving part changes. I am sure an air dynamics engineer can design an air bearing to show that it can change swirl torque direction when the moving part leans its opposite sides toward the non-moving part. 

[Rodal]

...

But all of this is moot if I can’t do an inverse divergence. 

Not just you, but nobody can do an inverse divergence. The divergence operator takes a vector field and produces a scalar field.

To produce an inverse divergence operator one would need to take a scalar and produce a vector field. Hence, given a scalar field, one should expect to find a very large number of vector fields whose divergence is equal to the given scalar field.

You could use parameterization, but you would end up with a large number of free parameters, and only one constraint.

It is not a well-posed problem !

Your number of unknowns greatly exceed your number of equations (you only have one constraint).

[Rodal]

...
IMO... Yes, SR and GR are spoon and fork. Here is why.

SR and GR are two separate truth systems. A truth system is a sequence of logical inferences stemming from one original “strong” truth. A truth is but an absence of choice. The strongest absence of choice is an “impossibility”. This is why these original truths are expressed as impossibilities. Impossibility to measure anything going faster than light. Note that I say “measure” because this is physics, not metaphysics. Things could go faster .. but we can’t measure it. Impossibility of distinguishing (physics) between inertia and gravity. To say that they ARE the same.... would be again, metaphysics. The problem with the word “impossibility” is that it suggests that we already know the outcome of every test that will be made to test it. So, this big original strong truth is but an assumption. This assumption will gain strength as inferences are made and experiments are done to test each inference. But, no matter the strength gained.. it will always remain an assumption. Unless, one inference is contradicted by an experiment, in which case we run back to the assumption board and rip this one out.

The moment we introduce a new assumption that we intend to explore, we are dealing with a totally new truth system. Two truth systems may share some approach, tools etc. but they don’t owe each other anything. The truths inferred within a truth system will not be “true” in another truth system. Best example, QM and GR.

Physics is a collection of loosely connected truth systems. Each one is a specific window of physicality onto the subject matter which is never addressed directly. Only a proper metaphysics may go there....

As for Einstein wanting to model the whole universe .... it is not a truth system as such and it is hardly a goal unique to him...

My point was to discuss Shawyer's not changing his EM Drive theory in the last 16 years.

You, rather, prefer to discuss your views of SR and GR as "spoon and fork." 

Your argument (SR connection with GR) is off-topic for a thread << EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8>>, so I am not going to pursue any further our disagreements over SR and GR, or our views about Physics, which you describe as << a collection of loosely connected truth systems. >>  ?

[JasonAW3]

Please forgive an outside observer for asking a dumb question...couldn't much of this argument be resolved by putting an EM drive into LEO and seeing whether it developed thrust? We have a space station, do we not? If that is the case, why do you not pool your efforts to make that happen?

As I understand it, there is a cubesat experiment in the works to do just that, although the ISS likely won't be involved.

[M.LeBel]

...
IMO... Yes, SR and GR are spoon and fork. Here is why.

SR and GR are two separate truth systems. A truth system is a sequence of logical inferences stemming from one original “strong” truth. A truth is but an absence of choice. The strongest absence of choice is an “impossibility”. This is why these original truths are expressed as impossibilities. Impossibility to measure anything going faster than light. Note that I say “measure” because this is physics, not metaphysics. Things could go faster .. but we can’t measure it. Impossibility of distinguishing (physics) between inertia and gravity. To say that they ARE the same.... would be again, metaphysics. The problem with the word “impossibility” is that it suggests that we already know the outcome of every test that will be made to test it. So, this big original strong truth is but an assumption. This assumption will gain strength as inferences are made and experiments are done to test each inference. But, no matter the strength gained.. it will always remain an assumption. Unless, one inference is contradicted by an experiment, in which case we run back to the assumption board and rip this one out.

The moment we introduce a new assumption that we intend to explore, we are dealing with a totally new truth system. Two truth systems may share some approach, tools etc. but they don’t owe each other anything. The truths inferred within a truth system will not be “true” in another truth system. Best example, QM and GR.

Physics is a collection of loosely connected truth systems. Each one is a specific window of physicality onto the subject matter which is never addressed directly. Only a proper metaphysics may go there....

As for Einstein wanting to model the whole universe .... it is not a truth system as such and it is hardly a goal unique to him...

My point was to discuss Shawyer's not changing his EM Drive theory in the last 16 years.

You, rather, prefer to discuss your views of SR and GR as "spoon and fork." 

Your argument (SR connection with GR) is off-topic for a thread << EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 8>>, so I am not going to pursue any further our disagreements over SR and GR.

Dr Rodal, thank you for the appropriate reply. My mistake! I just saw an opportunity to give my opinion and perspective on the subject of SR and GR as theories.. I should have ended my post with the usual "Food for Thought" line which does not require any reply, just thinking as is offered , and not comment on a comment you made on someone else's comment.... 

[JasonAW3]

Rodal,

     All things being equal, how best do you think that the EM drives could be used?

     At present, they don't seem that they would be too useful in LEO, although at GEO or even an orbit mid way between LEO and GEO, they could be useful for maintaining satellite orientation.

     As an interplanetary drive, I'm a bit confused.  It appears that this system should be able to maintain a constant thrust over VERY extended periods of time, using only electricity, however; I've seen some postings that seem to contradict this.  Could you clarify this for me?

[Rodal]

Rodal,

     All things being equal, how best do you think that the EM drives could be used?

     At present, they don't seem that they would be too useful in LEO, although at GEO or even an orbit mid way between LEO and GEO, they could be useful for maintaining satellite orientation.

     As an interplanetary drive, I'm a bit confused.  It appears that this system should be able to maintain a constant thrust over VERY extended periods of time, using only electricity, however; I've seen some postings that seem to contradict this.  Could you clarify this for me?

Let's go one step at a time.  First it has to be demonstrated that there is any force produced that is in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, for a completely closed cavity.

I think that this test can be accomplished in LEO, at a much smaller cost than a synchronous or higher orbit test.

If it it could demonstrated that the EM Drive, as a closed cavity, without ejecting anything into space, or interacting with any external fields (other than gravity) can produce a force in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket it would be revolutionary.

The funding for these efforts has been miniscule up to now, so there are no good answers for your questions yet.

If it can be demonstrated that a force in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket can be produced, then real money will be available to answer your questions.

[Augmentor]

Rodal,

     All things being equal, how best do you think that the EM drives could be used?

     At present, they don't seem that they would be too useful in LEO, although at GEO or even an orbit mid way between LEO and GEO, they could be useful for maintaining satellite orientation.

     As an interplanetary drive, I'm a bit confused.  It appears that this system should be able to maintain a constant thrust over VERY extended periods of time, using only electricity, however; I've seen some postings that seem to contradict this.  Could you clarify this for me?

Let's go one step at a time.  First it has to be demonstrated that there is any force produced that is in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, for a completely closed cavity.

I think that this test can be accomplished in LEO, at a much smaller cost than a synchronous or higher orbit test.

If it it could demonstrated that the EM Drive, as a closed cavity, without ejecting anything into space, or interacting with any external fields (other than gravity) can produce a force in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket it would be revolutionary.

The funding for these efforts has been miniscule up to now, so there are no good answers for your questions yet.

If it can be demonstrated that a force in excess of the one of a perfectly collimated photon rocket can be produced, then real money will be available to answer your questions.

A definitive test of any space drive is testing beyond the influence of earth especially earth-sun and earth-moon interactions.

A great test would be to test with the solar wind and then against the solar wind well beyond the van Allen belt influences.

When pursuing space flight especially using any propulsion system, testing has to be done incrementally to be of value. For space drives, a space flight envelope development of sealed propulsion systems, reasonable increments of testing in scaling power and length of time is essential. For sensitive applications testing has to be done well outside earth and any other body of mass. Earth has gravitational and magnetic effects which will mask the true operation of the craft in deep space. Furthermore, ISS may contribute artifacts to any testing.

ISS testing is a consideration to proving the anomalies exist. However, ISS testing is not convincing enough for mainstream science which requires testing beyond earth's influences.

For a space drive, incremental testing would depend on what the ultimate goal is. If the space drive is to operate in the atmosphere, then there is no need to go to LEO or ISS in LEO. If the space drive is to operate in the solar system, then the final test will be outside earth's influence (or moon) and in the solar wind. If the space drive is going beyond the heliosphere on an interstellar mission, then one might want to send more than one test article beyond the heliosphere.

All the risks have to be reduced to an acceptable level. Sometimes this means disastrous failure. Keep in mind the US Space Shuttle was given a 1 in 9 chance of failure on first flight after extensive testing.

Testing at ISS is a stepping stone. However, one has to be careful since scientifically, there are many issues associated with testing in ISS and a few outside ISS. One should test if the thrust is the same inside the craft, outside the craft, and at some distance from ISS. Same test article, not three different systems.

The difficulties in LEO are the earth's magnetic field, gravitational field, and tidal effects are possible factors in the theory of operation and more importantly, in definitively determining whether there is an undue influence or con game frustum. To get at the specific effect, physicists remove major artifacts that may provide contributions to thrust such as thermal currents, thermal photons, ionization, ablation, contributions from cosmic radiation and other false positives.

dm

[WarpTech]

...
Shawyer's theory is just a theory, a paper, there are lots of other theories, that doesn't make them bad or good they just may have flaws.
...

What makes some of them really bad is the obstinacy displayed at improving the "theory" which is still frozen in time, particularly when there has been universal criticism of many aspects of it like its claim that there is no pressure on the side walls of an electromagneticaly resonant truncated conical cavity, inability to present a self-consistent free-body-diagram of forces, and the claim that an electromagnetic cavity can self-accelerate simply based on Special Relativity, Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws, and that nothing else needs to be taken into account.  And that he keeps repeating this after 16 years.

Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.

What is really wrong is not just to present a theory that can be shown to be flawed.  What is really wrong is to keep insisting on the same old flawed theory after decades of criticism and the lack of improvement of this wrong theory.  All the greatest scientists made mistakes, so did Einstein and Feynmann.  The difference is that they corrected themselves and they continuously improved their models of the Universe.

"The obstinacy of human beings is exceeded only by the obstinacy of inanimate objects"  Alexander Chase

Obstinacy on a chosen individual particular path, and unwillingness to improve it should not be confused with obstinacy in pursuing a goal. 

...

Compare this with a good theory: Einstein's paper on the Special Theory of Relativity was followed, 11 years afterwards by his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein did not need any criticism to improve his theory: it was self-motivated.

Dr. Rodal, General relativity (GR) is not just an improvement on the special theory of relativity (SR). They are really two different theories, that happen to share an author and the word relativity. The fact that SR remains valid where the tidal effects of gravitation either do not exist or can be ignored as insignificant, or probably more accurately unmeasurable, does not make GR, a theory of gravitation, an evolutionary improvement on (of) SR, which does not even attempt to address gravitation.

Stating that Einstein did not need criticism to improve his theory, is similar to saying that after inventing a knife, the invention of a fork was an improvement, on the knife.., and the spoon then an improvement on a fork.

GR as an improvement on Newtonian dynamics would have been an accurate comparison/example. Both are theories describing, what we can observe of gravitation.

OnlyMe, I strongly disagree with your very narrow view of Einstein's goals, as if he was just interested in very limited aspects of Nature, your spoon and forks view of Einstein's modeling of the Universe.  Special Relativity was just an early effort of Einstein's goal of explaining the Universe.  As a matter of fact this goal did not at all stop with his theory of General Relativity (which is called General Relativity because it generalizes Special Relativity, by providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of spacetime) but continued until his death with his effort at a Unified Theory of the Universe which was Einstein's goal.

Unfortunately, you did not not get the point of not confusing a path with the goal.  Einstein's goal was to explain and model our Universe and not simply on "improving Newtonian dynamics" or improving on the relationship between space and time.  No, it was not a question of spoon and forks 

.........

IMO... Yes, SR and GR are spoon and fork. Here is why.

SR and GR are two separate truth systems. A truth system is a sequence of logical inferences stemming from one original “strong” truth. A truth is but an absence of choice. The strongest absence of choice is an “impossibility”. This is why these original truths are expressed as impossibilities. Impossibility to measure anything going faster than light. Note that I say “measure” because this is physics, not metaphysics. Things could go faster .. but we can’t measure it. Impossibility of distinguishing (physics) between inertia and gravity. To say that they ARE the same.... would be again, metaphysics. The problem with the word “impossibility” is that it suggests that we already know the outcome of every test that will be made to test it. So, this big original strong truth is but an assumption. This assumption will gain strength as inferences are made and experiments are done to test each inference. But, no matter the strength gained.. it will always remain an assumption. Unless, one inference is contradicted by an experiment, in which case we run back to the assumption board and rip this one out.

The moment we introduce a new assumption that we intend to explore, we are dealing with a totally new truth system. Two truth systems may share some approach, tools etc. but they don’t owe each other anything. The truths inferred within a truth system will not be “true” in another truth system. Best example, QM and GR.

Physics is a collection of loosely connected truth systems. Each one is a specific window of physicality onto the subject matter which is never addressed directly. Only a proper metaphysics may go there....

As for Einstein wanting to model the whole universe .... it is not a truth system as such and it is hardly a goal unique to him...

The truth is SR is an incorrect approximation of GR, because in SR it is assumed that ALL inertial frames are equivalent, but in GR we can approximate an inertial tangent plane at "ANY" relative gravitational potential. They are not all equivalent. The same is true in Conformal Gravity, where space-time is flat but is scaled. There can be two inertial reference frames with different scale factors, and they are no longer equivalent because of this. Nothing causes more confusion than SR, simply because we are incorrectly taught that all inertial frames are equivalent, which is "not true".

[Rodal]

...

The truth is SR is an incorrect approximation of GR, because in SR it is assumed that ALL inertial frames are equivalent, but in GR we can approximate an inertial tangent plane at "ANY" relative gravitational potential. They are not all equivalent. The same is true in Conformal Gravity, where space-time is flat but is scaled. There can be two inertial reference frames with different scale factors, and they are no longer equivalent because of this. Nothing causes more confusion than SR, simply because we are incorrectly taught that all inertial frames are equivalent, which is "not true".

going from SR to GR also has many other problems, for example:

* there is no potential energy, in general, in GR...
* conservation of energy and conservation of momentum in GR: it depends on what you mean by energy, what you mean by momentum and what you mean by conserved
* no center of mass in general in GR...
* many subtle issues in GR

[WarpTech]

So I got stuck pretty quickly. Turns out I have the following standard outputs to work with:
Electric and magnetic fields both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Surface currents, current density both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Real Poynting vector
local SAR or avg SAR (Specific absorption rate)
surface loss density or volume loss density
temperature
magnitude or vector of displacement current
surface force density vector

I can take any component of a vector and use any of the buttons seen below. Not a very user friendly system here…

I should be able to calculate the magnetic vector potential by doing the inverse curl of the magnetic vector. I found this https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf which explains how to do so, but even if I separate the components I still need to calculate the constants h1 h2 and h3 for each element somehow…

Then what about the time derivative of the voltage potential? Looks like I can only do spatial derivatives with the wave port or eigenmode solvers, maybe a steady state transient solution would allow that.

The voltage potential seems pretty simple, I just have to take the spatial integral of the E field and then the time integral of that would yield the magnetic flux.

But all of this is moot if I can’t do an inverse divergence. 

The easiest way to get the vector potential "A" is through E = -dA/dt. We know what "E" is, so "A" will be the negative integral of E*dt. "A" will be circles around the z-axis with amplitude A ~ E/w. There is no need for the inverse-curl(B).

If you have the surface force density vector N/m², and the surface loss density (Watts/m²) these numbers would be of interest.

Is there any way to calculate decay time at each point on the surface?

In the EM equation we have (1/c²) x Watts/Coulomb
In the GEM equation we have (1/c²) x Watts/kg

I expect that  X = Omega/sqrt(4pi*G*e0), but my thoughts are along the lines that at 2.4GHz, the kinetic energy of the electric charge in a magnetic field greatly increases its kg/C, versus the at-rest inverse charge to mass ratio of the electrons. Thereby resulting in a stronger GEM force.

I'm still working on these ideas. Any help or criticism is appreciated.



EDIT: Fix typos, damn spell-checker!

 

[zellerium]

So I got stuck pretty quickly. Turns out I have the following standard outputs to work with:
Electric and magnetic fields both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Surface currents, current density both real and/or complex in vector or magnitude form
Real Poynting vector
local SAR or avg SAR (Specific absorption rate)
surface loss density or volume loss density
temperature
magnitude or vector of displacement current
surface force density vector

I can take any component of a vector and use any of the buttons seen below. Not a very user friendly system here…

I should be able to calculate the magnetic vector potential by doing the inverse curl of the magnetic vector. I found this https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2239.pdf which explains how to do so, but even if I separate the components I still need to calculate the constants h1 h2 and h3 for each element somehow…

Then what about the time derivative of the voltage potential? Looks like I can only do spatial derivatives with the wave port or eigenmode solvers, maybe a steady state transient solution would allow that.

The voltage potential seems pretty simple, I just have to take the spatial integral of the E field and then the time integral of that would yield the magnetic flux.

But all of this is moot if I can’t do an inverse divergence. 

The easiest way to get the vector potential "A" is through E = -dA/dt. We know what "E" is, so "A" will be the negative integral of E*dt. "A" will be circles around the z-axis with amplitude A ~ E/w. There is no need for the inverse-curl(B).

If you have the surface force density vector N/m², and the surface loss density (Watts/m²) these numbers would be of interest.

Is there any way to calculate decay time at each post on the surface?

In the EM equation we have (1/c²) x Watts/Coulomb
In the GEM equation we have (1/c²) x Watts/kg

I expect that  X = Omega/sqrt(4pi*G*e0), but my thoughts are along the lines that at 2.4GHz, the kinetic energy of the electric charge in a magnetic field greatly increases its kg/C, versus the at-rest inverse charge to mass rate of the electrons. Thereby resulting in a stronger GEM force.

I'm still working on these ideas. Any help or criticism is appreciated.

Ahh okay, once I get the vector potential "A" what can I do with it? What does the magnetic vector potential conceptually mean?

I'll see what the surface force density vector and surface loss density look like for EW TM212 cavity tomorrow (unless you have another cavity in mind).

What do you mean by "decay time at each post"? Perhaps the time rate of change of the field at a particular set of positions?

Are you saying that electrons are gaining kinetic energy due to the magnetic field and distributing their asymmetric momentum to the cavity? So what happens if we increase the electron number density to that of an Argon plasma?

[otlski]

PotomacNeuron

....

However what really has made it clear to me that what we are seeing here is a real force and not some spurious Lorentz force is the fact that the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount. Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results. 

Thank you for acknowledging the swirl torques that are associated with the air bearing. Because of that, the rotation test is not reliable. I will be more convinced if you hang the Cavendish Balance with a thin steel wire. I will really be impressed if the hanging Cavendish Balance can rotate a whole round.

Best, Paul M.

Thank you again.

Am I missing something?

The portion (I placed) in bold above does not seem a logical conclusion.., since the the test article experienced self acceleration in both directions, when the orientation of the test device was reversed.., even while any swirl torque would have remained constant in its direction, no matter what orientation the test article was in.

Well, unreliable is unreliable. You can't assume that the air bearing will reliably produce swirl torque toward the same direction when the frustum is mounted with opposite directions. The mass center changes, the way the moving part of the bearing leaning on the non-moving part changes. I am sure an air dynamics engineer can design an air bearing to show that it can change swirl torque direction when the moving part leans its opposite sides toward the non-moving part.

You are correct, you should not assume.  However, your statement that follows is not usually true; in practice, that is not how air bearings typically respond.  My direct experience with hundreds of air bearings in multiple configurations is that they not only reliably produce motoring (swirl) torque in only one direction but magnitude of this motoring torque is pretty consistent.  What this means is that one can quite easily measure this and establish repeatability.  Control over input pressure is the largest variable that spoils this repeatablity.  I hedged at the beginning of this post mainly because Paul described their bearing a particularly troublesome; if their bearing is outside the norm, then more rigorous characterization is in order.