Quote from: Mulletron on 11/04/2014 08:03 am... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....The Quantum Vacuum is by definition the lowest state of energy and cannot be a source of infinite energy. The idea that one can get infinite energy from the quantum vacuum rests on the singularities of quantum electrodynamics (before renormalization). No leading university or leading research institution has people believing that the Quantum Vacuum is a source of infinite energy. One has to distinguish between the singularities in mathematical models from physical reality. In classical mechanics there are also all kinds of singularities, that are recognized as non-physical.
... the QV is a source of infinite energy. ....
I operate as if in order to prove something is "real" you only need to observe it. Be it directly or indirectly. You don't necessarily need to measure it.What is measurable is limited by technology. Reality goes on being what it is, regardless of it is observable or measurable.
Still bumbling around looking for interaction mechanisms..............http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.0733v1.pdfSee: p.19, F. Microwave resonators
Ron, they've been abusive to the idea of QVPT because of the unfortunate use of the word plasma. The QV in and of itself is accepted and supported by experiment after experiment.
Quote from: Mulletron on 11/05/2014 02:52 pmRon, they've been abusive to the idea of QVPT because of the unfortunate use of the word plasma. The QV in and of itself is accepted and supported by experiment after experiment.I'm sorry but that's just not even close to true. I've watched this debate for more than 10 years, and what I wrote is the truth. The QVF model, and the ZPF theory before it both require virtual particles to transfer momentum and they have no mass to do this. They are both for this reason, broken theories. Momentum transfer and energy transfer using particles, certainly requires the particles have mass, and virtual particles do not--indeed they CANNOT or the universe would collapse under its own weight.And again I would remind you, that the only evidence for these mistaken beliefs is Casimir Effect, which is easily explained with no reference to ZPF or QVF at all. These are merely consistent with Casimir Force. The fact of Casimir in no way requires ZPF nor QVF. People who think this have been bamboozled, and whole books exist to give people this mistaken impression.
Quote from: Rodal on 11/03/2014 11:16 pmQuote from: frobnicat on 11/02/2014 11:33 pmNext batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al. The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped. Same caveats as previously posted. For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)Power Spectral Density (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6Peaks Period (seconds)3 1/(3/(94.6)) = 31.53 s Pulse period5 1/(5/(94.6)) = 18.92 s 4*Pendulum Period7 1/(7/(94.6)) = 13.51 s10 1/(10/(94.6)) = 9.46 s 2*Pendulum Period15 1/(15/(94.6)) = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears on both Top and Middle18 1/(18/(94.6)) = 5.26 s20 1/(20/(94.6)) = 4.73 s Pendulum Period25 1/(25/(94.6)) = 3.78 s41 1/(41/(94.6)) = 2.31 s 1/2 Pendulum PeriodFrobnicated Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous NASA report (Mean, Linear Least Squares Fit and Quadratic Least Squares Fit)Autocorrelation of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue), by Linear LS (Red) and by Quadratic LS (Green)Power Spectral Density of Middle of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Quadratic LS (Red)horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*98Peaks Period (seconds)3 1/(3/(98)) = 32.67 s Pulse period5 1/(5/(98)) = 19.60 s 4*Pendulum Period7 1/(7/(98)) = 14..00 s12 1/(13/(98)) = 7.54 s 16 1/(16/(98)) = 6.13 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears strongly on both Top and Middle22 1/(22/(98)) = 4.45 s Pendulum Period29 1/(29/(98)) = 3.38 s 34 1/(34/(98)) = 2.88 s36 1/(36/(98)) = 2.72 s 40 1/(40/(98)) = 2.45 s 42 1/(42/(98)) = 2.33 s 1/2 Pendulum Period
Quote from: frobnicat on 11/02/2014 11:33 pmNext batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al. The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped. Same caveats as previously posted. For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.Frobnicated Top of Fig. 19 page 15 of anomalous (Mean and Linear Least Squares Fit)Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Mean (Blue)Autocorrelation of Top of Fig. 19 page 15 (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)Power Spectral Density (from FFT) on raw data detrended by Linear LS (Red)horizontal scale = frequency(Hz) * 0.1 * (DataLength/2) = frequency(hz)*94.6Peaks Period (seconds)3 1/(3/(94.6)) = 31.53 s Pulse period5 1/(5/(94.6)) = 18.92 s 4*Pendulum Period7 1/(7/(94.6)) = 13.51 s10 1/(10/(94.6)) = 9.46 s 2*Pendulum Period15 1/(15/(94.6)) = 6.31 s <---- This unidentified frequency appears on both Top and Middle18 1/(18/(94.6)) = 5.26 s20 1/(20/(94.6)) = 4.73 s Pendulum Period25 1/(25/(94.6)) = 3.78 s41 1/(41/(94.6)) = 2.31 s 1/2 Pendulum Period
Next batch of scraped data from figure 19 page 15 of "anomalous thrust..." from Brady et al. The top (result1.txt) and middle (result2.txt) graphs are scraped. Same caveats as previously posted. For first curve (top figure 19) I removed the (non existent) flat last sampled data of the previous version to avoid artefacts when analysing with filters.Each line of those files is the value in µN at each .1 s interval (linearly interpolated from manual reconstruction). The vertical scale were roughly given by the calibration pulses at about 30µN (expect no more than 5% precision). Absolute values are arbitrary (because of the drifting baseline). Horizontal scale given by the indication of 196 s for the whole display graph window of the pictures.Will proceed with other graphs when time permits. Will post attempts at original signal reconstruction : thrust(t) while what we see is only balance displacement(t). Since the balance is underdamped, a lot can hide behind those oscillations and drifts in position.
All I ever wanted to know about Maxwell's equations, and more, including evanescent waves.http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-013-electromagnetics-and-applications-spring-2009/readings/MIT6_013S09_chap09.pdfEvanescent fields/waves are more versatile than simply providing power coupling and quantum tunneling ... I guess.
The attached plot shows the Power Spectral Density for the detrended joint data from Fig. 19 Top and Middle, for periods ranging from 12 seconds to approximately 1 second.It is evident that:1) The strongest period (taking into account decay of Power density with frequency) is 2.32 seconds, which corresponds to the half period of NASA's Eagleworks pendulum. The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight.2) NASA's Eagleworks pendulum, acts as an effective filter for frequencies below the 1/2 period of the pendulum3) The strong power corresponding to the 6.42 seconds period is 8% below 3 times the pendulum half period (this 8% difference is real and not part of uncertainty, as the amount of data permits to discriminate within 3% at that frequency)4) The 9.63 seconds period corresponds to twice the pendulum period.
Quote from: Rodal on 11/05/2014 07:40 pmThe attached plot shows the Power Spectral Density for the detrended joint data from Fig. 19 Top and Middle, for periods ranging from 12 seconds to approximately 1 second.It is evident that:1) The strongest period (taking into account decay of Power density with frequency) is 2.32 seconds, which corresponds to the half period of NASA's Eagleworks pendulum. The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight.2) NASA's Eagleworks pendulum, acts as an effective filter for frequencies below the 1/2 period of the pendulum3) The strong power corresponding to the 6.42 seconds period is 8% below 3 times the pendulum half period (this 8% difference is real and not part of uncertainty, as the amount of data permits to discriminate within 3% at that frequency)4) The 9.63 seconds period corresponds to twice the pendulum period.Hi there %)Rodal, you should be aware and cautious of the fact that those data points are a linear piecewise reconstruction by hand from a badly compressed picture of a low definition display. While I was trying to fit as best as I could without introducing bias, I put vertex at the "visually central" position only where it made sense : it means that there is not a lot of points on a given "wave". After correction for perspective (bilinear interpolation, should be pretty good at restoring "flat" upright geometry) the data points at each .1s were obtained from this piecewise linear curve by averaging a sampling (at .01s resolution) .1s on left and right of said data point, so there is a slight smoothing (low pass filtering) going on at this stage. Even with this smoothing around, a lot of consecutive data points are given by the same segment, and I guess we have shapes more triangular than they should (triangle crests instead of sinusoidal bumps) : this surely introduces some harmonics and might explain the magnitude of this half period (twice freq.) relative to the magnitude of the central period of 4.65 (or so).I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.
I would appreciate to know if you questioned calling the Eagleworks pendulum "inverted", for curiosity or because you object to that description and if so what would you like to call it and why. ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1282051#msg1282051 ) No vocabulary flame please just trying to understand if I missed or failed to notice something with the Eagleworks pendulum
Quote from: frobnicat.../...I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.I meant that what strikes me first is that I see the 1/2 period harmonic pattern. I meant nothing else. Nothing about seconds. Nothing about horizontal or vertical distance..../...
.../...I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.
Quote from: RodalQuote from: frobnicat.../...I don't get what you are saying with "The half-period is also the most evident feature of the data to a person's eyesight." You mean that people see more the horizontal distance between bump and next dip than between two successive bumps ? Or that you see a (non alternated) pattern repeating at 2.32 s ? No vocabolurary flame please, just trying to understand what you see. Vacobolury, vocubolary, vocabulary, that's it.I meant that what strikes me first is that I see the 1/2 period harmonic pattern. I meant nothing else. Nothing about seconds. Nothing about horizontal or vertical distance..../...Maybe again a problem of wording, and eye maybe. What my eyes see as pattern is "something that is similar when shifted laterally in position by some amount". And the translation needed to put the crest on the next crest and the dip on the next dip is, well, a full period of about 4.6 s, not 2.3s ? Do I have a real problem of translation here (quite possible) ?
You're muddling the issue by stipulating "rest". Rest mass is actually a thing. I'm not muddeling. Virtual particles have no mass at any time, of any kind. Where did you get your thorough understanding of the QV and virtual particles from? It is still a subject of intense research. You appear to be in the lead. Congratulations! If they did they would gravitate and collapse the universe. You are making a hasty assumption here. Did you consider their stochastic nature? The fact we distinguish between virtual and real photons should be explanation enough. No content here. Photons have mass unless they're virtual, and virtual particles cannot mediate momentum nor energy transfer. You know something the rest of the world doesn't. This is by definition, and it is when people redefine virtual particles to suit their pet theories (who? citation needed), that the folks like Sean Carroll get so upset. You're speaking on behalf of someone else. Would they appreciate that? Are you acknowledging that virtual particles exist but not the QV?Virtual particles are not necessary to do any physics. Virtual particles need not be material in order to be considered real. Their influence is seen in the material world, Zitterbewegung et al, and they are a useful mathematical accounting tool. You see them in Feynman diagrams. Their effects must also be adjusted for in calculations and also subtracted out by renormalization. They're an invention for people who like to see field phenomena in terms of particle exchange, but the fields are enough. Inventions are okay if they are useful and hold true. You don't need the particles for anything. Says you? They're really just a form of pandering to the need to see things in terms of particles which are really field phenomena. the graviton is another example of this. We have never found one, despite looking for 4 generations, but most people believe in gravitons anyway. I don't believe in gravitons either, however it is a popular theory that hasn't been ruled out. That's because particle theory is so emotionally satisfying. I don't get all emotional over particles. Beer is satisfying to me, not particles. It lends itself to the emotional need (see below) to feel we know what's going on when fields are the opposite--quite mysterious by nature. "Sometimes I just don't get it."