Quote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 10:31 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.ShellThe scale of rulers and clocks is relative to the gravitational potential with which they are in equilibrium. The scale is variable in a gravitational field. So in that sense, a vehicle starting on Earth has a scale that is different than say a vehicle starting near the event horizon of a black hole. In that regard, the "preferred frame" is the one from which the vehicle originated. It is not absolute, it is relative, but it is different from some other location at a different gravitational potential. So, there is a preferred frame but it's not absolute, it's relative.Todd
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.Shell
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...
Quote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...
...
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 10:31 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.ShellI'm sorry to say that light doesn't help in an asymptotically flat and field-free spacetime - i.e. floating in the black, empty void of deep space, far from anything. Light always presents the same face to you, unwavering and constant; it always wizzes past you at the same speed. It doesn't care about "how fast you are going relative to X"
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 10:31 pmHelp me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?Are we back to Mach's Conjecture? "Inertial frames are determined by the large scale distribution of matter"?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 11:00 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 10:31 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.ShellThe scale of rulers and clocks is relative to the gravitational potential with which they are in equilibrium. The scale is variable in a gravitational field. So in that sense, a vehicle starting on Earth has a scale that is different than say a vehicle starting near the event horizon of a black hole. In that regard, the "preferred frame" is the one from which the vehicle originated. It is not absolute, it is relative, but it is different from some other location at a different gravitational potential. So, there is a preferred frame but it's not absolute, it's relative.ToddConsider asymptotically flat, field-free spacetime please. You may keep your gravitational potential, but please don't change it. It simply muddies the waters and confuses people. Leave gravity out of this because all it does is obfuscate. I trust your intentions are not to obfuscate.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 10:55 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 10:31 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.ShellI'm sorry to say that light doesn't help in an asymptotically flat and field-free spacetime - i.e. floating in the black, empty void of deep space, far from anything. Light always presents the same face to you, unwavering and constant; it always wizzes past you at the same speed. It doesn't care about "how fast you are going relative to X"That's correct but doesn't answer the question. The EMDrive is a tyre (tire for us Rebels) and it is something that maintains a relative gravitational potential no matter where it is. It warps spacetime, just a little but it does. I can follow you both, I've worked with physicists and theories and engineers and techs all my life and they worked for me. The question is very relevant for I believe it's one of the keys here. How would you put it together to make sense of what Todd is trying to say. I really would like to read and understand how you would do it. Your a very sharp guy, a very nice and respectful please.
In principle a resounding "Yes". In practice, obfuscatory. It's all about orders of magnitude. The gravitational effects considered by @Warptech were also considered by @StrongGR. He concluded that they were so many orders of magnitude smaller than the macroscopic effects that they could be disregarded.A similar thing happened with @Warptech's latest attempts to include the loss of mass of the battery via special relativity. It is so incredibly tiny (10 orders or more down) that it too can be disregarded.It's easy to do this maths. Take someone like Shawyer using a certain power for a certain time. Divide that energy by c2, and compare that mass to the mass of his rig. It's about 14 orders down, I reckon.(1 KW, 30 seconds, 50 Kg)
****UNDER CONSTRUCTION *****[snip...]
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 11:17 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 10:55 pmQuote from: SeeShells on 07/10/2015 10:31 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 08:42 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 05:36 pmQuote from: wallofwolfstreet on 07/10/2015 03:22 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 01:59 pm...Unfortunately, IMHO spacetime is not a road and EmDrive is not a tyre riding on it.Help me here, I'm grappling at something and trying to get my head around it. Everything is in a frame of reference to everything else?When an object is moving at a whatever speed, doesn't matter what speed it's all relative, how does spacetime keep track of it's speed in relation to light speed the limiting factor?What in the object has the signature that records the speed? Is it the space in between the quarks and gluons? Vector change or strength in the weak and strong forces? Not only for me but others who are wondering, Inquiring minds want to know.ShellI'm sorry to say that light doesn't help in an asymptotically flat and field-free spacetime - i.e. floating in the black, empty void of deep space, far from anything. Light always presents the same face to you, unwavering and constant; it always wizzes past you at the same speed. It doesn't care about "how fast you are going relative to X"That's correct but doesn't answer the question. The EMDrive is a tyre (tire for us Rebels) and it is something that maintains a relative gravitational potential no matter where it is. It warps spacetime, just a little but it does. I can follow you both, I've worked with physicists and theories and engineers and techs all my life and they worked for me. The question is very relevant for I believe it's one of the keys here. How would you put it together to make sense of what Todd is trying to say. I really would like to read and understand how you would do it. Your a very sharp guy, a very nice and respectful please. Todd has been a Rebel in physics since I've known him (over ten years I reckon, dating back to my Woodward days and my collaborations with Woodward, Paul March and others). My love affair with Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lasted 15 years and consumed large amounts of my time, both theoretically and experimentally. As legacy and witness, I sit in a room festooned with equipment and tools and instruments, all dedicated to the cause. Todd has had a love affair with Hal Puthoff's Polarisable Vacuum (PV) theory for at least as long. My affair ended; Todd's continues. That's the short version
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 07:55 pmQuote from: MyronQG on 07/10/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.Todd
Quote from: MyronQG on 07/10/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.
The irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/11/2015 12:04 am...That's correct but doesn't answer the question. The EMDrive is a tyre (tire for us Rebels) and it is something that maintains a relative gravitational potential no matter where it is. It warps spacetime, just a little but it does. Todd has been a Rebel in physics since I've known him (over ten years I reckon, dating back to my Woodward days and my collaborations with Woodward, Paul March and others). My love affair with Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lasted 15 years and consumed large amounts of my time, both theoretically and experimentally. As legacy and witness, I sit in a room festooned with equipment and tools and instruments, all dedicated to the cause. Todd has had a love affair with Hal Puthoff's Polarisable Vacuum (PV) theory for at least as long. My affair ended; Todd's continues. That's the short version Had I known that you had a << love affair with Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lasted 15 years and consumed large amounts of ...time, both theoretically and experimentally>>... I would like to ask many questions then.So, first three questions: 1) do you consider Woodward's version of Mach's Principle to be within what you have called in previous posts "mainstream physics" ?2) does Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lead to overunity and free-energy?)3) can an EM Drive without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?
...That's correct but doesn't answer the question. The EMDrive is a tyre (tire for us Rebels) and it is something that maintains a relative gravitational potential no matter where it is. It warps spacetime, just a little but it does. Todd has been a Rebel in physics since I've known him (over ten years I reckon, dating back to my Woodward days and my collaborations with Woodward, Paul March and others). My love affair with Woodward's version of Mach's Principle lasted 15 years and consumed large amounts of my time, both theoretically and experimentally. As legacy and witness, I sit in a room festooned with equipment and tools and instruments, all dedicated to the cause. Todd has had a love affair with Hal Puthoff's Polarisable Vacuum (PV) theory for at least as long. My affair ended; Todd's continues. That's the short version
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 09:39 pmQuote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 09:25 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 07:55 pmQuote from: MyronQG on 07/10/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.ToddI'm surprised alarm bells aren't sounding for you and your theory, then. As another poster remarked, Ein=0 is a perfectly physical situation. But it causes your mathematical edifice to explode, without any consideration for breakeven and the like. That fact alone should tip you off that your theory is wrong.No, it proves your theory is wrong. That Ein =/= Eout. My formula for Eout is perfectly correct. It is only when I try to equate it to Ein that it fails, because it can never happen. There is no "break even" in the relativistic case.Todd
Quote from: WarpTech on 07/10/2015 09:25 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 07:55 pmQuote from: MyronQG on 07/10/2015 06:53 pmQuote from: deltaMass on 07/10/2015 06:06 pmThe irony in WarpTech's incorrect theory claiming that over-unity is "a fantasy" is that, as pointed out by @wallofwolfstreet, it tends to make it easier to achieve over-unity - by lowering the critical velocity below the Newtonian value!WarpTech's theory in its relativistic version, which should be deemed as the correct one, is fatally flawed. It predicts an imaginary break-even (Eout=Ein) velocity for the limiting case Ein=0.I am having trouble seeing that. Can you expand please?If Ein = 0, then gamma = 0, which can only happen if v is infinite and imaginary. It's impossible and comes from setting Eout = Ein in the equation, which is also impossible.ToddI'm surprised alarm bells aren't sounding for you and your theory, then. As another poster remarked, Ein=0 is a perfectly physical situation. But it causes your mathematical edifice to explode, without any consideration for breakeven and the like. That fact alone should tip you off that your theory is wrong.
Here's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/11/2015 12:30 amHere's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)HA! That never stopped me or my old business partner, he didn't have a degree, but he taught computer science at Case Western, he had patents up the kazzo at Motorola and the list goes on and he even routinely debated with Brian Green and sometimes won. Ack, degree. Shell
...3) can an EM Drive without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?...3) Yes
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/11/2015 12:42 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/11/2015 12:30 amHere's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)HA! That never stopped me or my old business partner, he didn't have a degree, but he taught computer science at Case Western, he had patents up the kazzo at Motorola and the list goes on and he even routinely debated with Brian Green and sometimes won. Ack, degree. Shell I confess I do have an honours degree in Physics (Oxford, got a place when I was 16, my biggest claim to fame I suppose) but that was the sixties and I did get a bit... distracted. I also have about 18 patents. I'm a bit of a klutz with my hands, so experimental work is somewhat uphill sledding for me. But there's nothing like strong motivation to get me bending metal and soldering (I built my first radio aged nine). If I saw some decent experimental results coming out of the superb DIY community here, I'd be clearing off the dusty workbench in two shakes of a lamb's tail; you can take that to the bank.
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/11/2015 12:35 am...3) can an EM Drive without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?...3) YesHow can an EM Drive without a dielectric insert be possibly explained by Woodward's theory?
Quote from: deltaMass on 07/11/2015 12:48 amQuote from: SeeShells on 07/11/2015 12:42 amQuote from: deltaMass on 07/11/2015 12:30 amHere's the real problem - neither of us are professional physicists. We are both engineers (hardware/software/systems)HA! That never stopped me or my old business partner, he didn't have a degree, but he taught computer science at Case Western, he had patents up the kazzo at Motorola and the list goes on and he even routinely debated with Brian Green and sometimes won. Ack, degree. Shell I confess I do have an honours degree in Physics (Oxford, got a place when I was 16, my biggest claim to fame I suppose) but that was the sixties and I did get a bit... distracted. I also have about 18 patents. I'm a bit of a klutz with my hands, so experimental work is somewhat uphill sledding for me. But there's nothing like strong motivation to get me bending metal and soldering (I built my first radio aged nine). If I saw some decent experimental results coming out of the superb DIY community here, I'd be clearing off the dusty workbench in two shakes of a lamb's tail; you can take that to the bank.I'm going to do my absolute best to make you hold to that. I've never backed away from a challenge. I must admit you beat me out at 9 took me to 14-15 to do my first TV.Shell PS: Yep the 60's and 70's at the UofM were kinda spacy.