Quote from: Star-Drive on 09/10/2009 07:17 pmG/I thruster:Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length "In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units. The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."They are the same. In QM, the claim is about what can be known. In Loop theory, the claim is concerning existence itself. In Loop theory, space is the place where existence can occur, meaning it can only occur within the loops and there is literally no "between" them or "outside" them. So in Loop theory for example, if one presumes our big bang is the only big bang, then existence itself cannot occur outside the farthest reaches of the universe. There is literally an outside where there are no loops, but there is no way for existence to occur there so "outside" the universe is literally not a place or a space.
G/I thruster:Please explain the difference between the diameter of a loop in Loop Quantum Gravity theory and QM's minimum Planck Length. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length "In physics, the Planck length, denoted, is a unit of length, equal to 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters. It is a base unit in the system of Planck units. The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, and the gravitational constant. Current theory suggests that one Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known."
QM is talking only about knowledge. Loop theory is making much stronger claims about existence itself. More importantly, QM is not saying that space-time has this fabric of quantum loops. In QM, we have the notion that space is this empty void that stuff like particles move around in. In Loop theory, the void has structure and reality whether or not a particle is present. This structure connects all things and can indeed be used to explain spooky action at a distance. I'd bet if Einstein were with us today, he'd be a very strong proponent of Loop theory.
1. Anything beyond very modest mass fluctuations seem to me to be founded on very shaky ground. I read some of the paper presented by Woodward on his website, and it seemed very heavy in the "we did our math calculations before in some other paper and we get this 2nd or 3rd order effect," when physics often ignores 2nd or 3rd order effects. Many of the arguments are hand-waving, or appealing to obscure papers 50 years ago. 2. These relativistic gravity effects seem analogous to Magnetism, which is much weaker than electricity (which is its real source). It is easy to show how magnetism arises out of electrostatics with relativistic effects. 3. Why is it so hard to show that these effects arise out of gravity, either with experiment or analytically? (Of course, general relativity is much harder than special relativity.) Gravity is very weak compared to electrostatic or even magnetic effects, so I find it difficult to believe that you're going to end up being able to manipulate it and get effects that are strong enough to be practical.
Quote from: mikegi on 09/12/2009 03:24 pmQuote from: mlorrey on 09/12/2009 05:27 amQuote from: mikegi on 09/11/2009 05:21 amPolarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.The problem with non QEM explanations of refraction is that the ray of light must penetrate some distance into the second medium in order to know what it is index is, so it knows what direction to travel inside the second medium, yet photons change their vector, as far as can be determined, upon entry into the second medium, even though this should take at least a half a wavelength. However if you take a material with a thickness of less than half a wavelength and send photons through of long enough wavelengths, they still exhibit the full vector change expected of the mediums refraction index.Also you are talking "conduction", plz be sure we are both discussing photons and not electrons. Dielectric materials deal in electrons. Refraction deals in photons.
Quote from: mlorrey on 09/12/2009 05:27 amQuote from: mikegi on 09/11/2009 05:21 amPolarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.It's not a strawman. It's a real example of changing an em wavefront's direction that you can both simulate via computer and verify with an oscilloscope. No magic communication between wavefront elements required. It's a straightforward result of mindless, completely local wave propagation. We assign concepts like "reflection" to the result but nature couldn't care less.
Quote from: mikegi on 09/11/2009 05:21 amPolarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?Sorry, not going to take a strawman structured to give the answer you want.
Polarization in dielectric materials. There's no need for any instantaneous "communication" between distant parts of a wavefront. How do you think that a pulse going down a parallel plate transmission line reflects off a change in the geometry of the transmission line? Let's keep it simple and say the plates are superconducting and in a vacuum. Is there some sort of communication between the elements of the pulse wavefront so that it "knows" that part should be transmitted and part reflected?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/14/2009 08:18 pm1. Anything beyond very modest mass fluctuations seem to me to be founded on very shaky ground. I read some of the paper presented by Woodward on his website, and it seemed very heavy in the "we did our math calculations before in some other paper and we get this 2nd or 3rd order effect," when physics often ignores 2nd or 3rd order effects. Many of the arguments are hand-waving, or appealing to obscure papers 50 years ago. 2. These relativistic gravity effects seem analogous to Magnetism, which is much weaker than electricity (which is its real source). It is easy to show how magnetism arises out of electrostatics with relativistic effects. 3. Why is it so hard to show that these effects arise out of gravity, either with experiment or analytically? (Of course, general relativity is much harder than special relativity.) Gravity is very weak compared to electrostatic or even magnetic effects, so I find it difficult to believe that you're going to end up being able to manipulate it and get effects that are strong enough to be practical.1. Even modest mass fluctuations can be usable for thrust.2. Bad analogy. Gravitomagnetism has nowt to do with this.3. I don't think it's hard at all. Woodward and March have been demonstrating anomalous thrust with their pocket money.
Well, I must admit I'm more persuaded by the Machian. There is some (slight) evidence for action-at-a-distance - such as the post-Big Bang inhomogeneities. QVF, I can accept but the issue for me is the reference frame for this medium. How or why is it at rest? Etc.
Quote from: Lampyridae on 09/15/2009 11:32 pmWell, I must admit I'm more persuaded by the Machian. There is some (slight) evidence for action-at-a-distance - such as the post-Big Bang inhomogeneities. QVF, I can accept but the issue for me is the reference frame for this medium. How or why is it at rest? Etc.Yeah, that the qvf ref frame is always at rest seems odd (and illogical) to me, too, but quantum vacuum fluctuations are already appealed to in relatively mainstream physics as explanations for a wide variety of physical phenomenon, and that would also have to act the same in all inertial ref frames, so that's kind of why a quantum vacuum source of inertia seems more plausible than a Machian source. I still don't completely buy either explanations, though.EDIT: And it OUGHT to be at rest if it's true at all, since many experiments have shown that there isn't an "ether" frame that we are moving with respect to.
What is the projected input power its projected thrust? That's all I want to know.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/23/2009 09:24 pmWhat is the projected input power its projected thrust? That's all I want to know.In my most reliable M-E experiment, the Mach-2MHz MLT, the input power was ~7.0 watts RF at 3.8 MHz that yielded a ~5.0 milli-Newton thrust for a thrust to power figure of merit of 7.14x10^-4 Newton/Watt. And the M-E theory predicts that as the thrust is increased by increasing the M-E drive's operating frequency and voltage, the efficiency of the M-E drive should go up as well as shown in the attached slides originally from my STAIF-2007 WarpStar-1 presentation. Will we ever reach this hoped for 1.0 Newton/Watt efficiency that the M-E theory indicates may be obtainable and that I used for my STAIF-2007 paper? Perhaps, but it may take decades of material science research into capacitor dielectrics optimized for M-E drive applications, just like it took close to a century to perfect the internal combustion piston engine for the automobile industry. Advancements like this don't come for free...
For comparison, 3x10^-10 Watt / Newton for photon drives. A leap of about 6 orders of magnitude. Even with the current efficiencies, with beamed power it's a viable drive. A 1GW microwave beam could push a 7 tonne payload at 1G. Mass to thrust and cap lifetime is the issue in this case.