Author Topic: E/M propellant-less propulsion using delayed information/dielectrics (patent)  (Read 54108 times)

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Liked: 409
  • Likes Given: 565

I don't think I would want to be on record stating that it's impossible.  There are a lot more papers than these that support the concept.  One device built demonstrates the concept of effective negative mass.  http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html  Were also not talking photon drives here.  Were talking that information can't travel faster than light and that can be manipulated to violate conservation of momentum. 

@ laszlo This thread was started to encourage those who would like to build one.  Are you interested?

A system with fixed a lattice background is not invariant under small translations, hence momentum is not conserved. This is because you'd typically ignore the momentum of the atoms in the lattice. It is much like how assuming that the earth or the sun is stationary will also approximate away momentum conservation, but you get it back if you start including the Earth's or the sun's momentum as well.

Free space does have translation invariance, so momentum is conserved by Noether's theorem. The latter is more fundamental than any single conservation law and will tell you exactly when and why things like energy and momentum are conserved.

Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 09:34 pm by Nilof »
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2595
  • Likes Given: 3346
Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.

I think the problem is that some of the people who believe the crackpot propulsion stuff are very prolific posters, so these threads tend to stay high on the recent activity list.

Offline _INTER_

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 7
Quote
You can't get a propellantless drive with known physics.  It's true that known physics might be wrong in places and that might allow propellantless propulsion.  But not with known physics.
I did not read much of this thread and I'm totally not knowledgeable in physics at all, but to me it always looks funny when inventions or concepts first need to be proven on the drawing boards (or heads) of the mathematicians and physicists first to receive remote attention and even then it's hard, like the Higgs idea. However if it's the other way around they always tell you that it's impossible and deserves no further thought etc. In the end if the idea worked out, the physicists are dumbfounded and desperate the "bend" the math around until convinced they actually knew how it worked all along.
« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 09:58 pm by _INTER_ »

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2595
  • Likes Given: 3346
Quote
You can't get a propellantless drive with known physics.  It's true that known physics might be wrong in places and that might allow propellantless propulsion.  But not with known physics.
I did not read much of this thread and I'm totally not knowledgeable in physics at all, but to me it always looks funny when inventions or concepts first need to be proven on the drawing boards (or heads) of the mathematicians and physicists first to receive remote attention and even then it's hard, like the Higgs idea. However if it's the other way around they always tell you that it's impossible and deserves no further thought etc. In the end if the idea worked out, the physicists are dumbfounded and desperate the "bend" the math around until convinced they actually knew how it worked all along.

You completely missed my point.  If an experiment shows something doesn't work according to known physics, then known physics will have to be reconsidered.

But nothing on this thread is about anomalous experimental results that contradict known theory.  Instead, it's about people who have done calculations based on misunderstanding of known theory to say that known theory predicts a device will work in a way that it has been mathematically proven is not the way known theory would actually say it would work.

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 205
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 47
@ laszlo This thread was started to encourage those who would like to build one.  Are you interested?

Love to, but first I need to accumulate enough copper and find that special platinum isotope :-)

Seriously, though, who wouldn't want to build their own propellantless space drive? Unfortunately, I don't see enough information to get started on designing hardware.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.

I think the problem is that some of the people who believe the crackpot propulsion stuff are very prolific posters, so these threads tend to stay high on the recent activity list.

Replying to them keeps them at the top as well.  That is assuming you think this is one of them [crackpot threads].  I admit it doesn't necessarily violate conservation of momentum but there are plenty of people who will claim it does if they feel its not pushing off propellant and the force seems greater than simply light based propulsion.  [if you don't know what it's pushing off exactly than it might appear that way]. 

Apparently the drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". 

The Challenge To Create The Space Drive
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center
http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTM

Quote: "Disjunction Drive

The fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.

Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."

Quote: "Diametric Drive

This is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.

Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"

This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html
« Last Edit: 05/11/2015 01:56 am by dustinthewind »

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2595
  • Likes Given: 3346
Is there any way that the multiple threads on reactionless thrusters could be somehow merged or thinned out somehow? There are now four threads on the first page that discuss crackpot propulsion, which is starting to get on my nerves.

I think the problem is that some of the people who believe the crackpot propulsion stuff are very prolific posters, so these threads tend to stay high on the recent activity list.

Replying to them keeps them at the top as well.  That is assuming you think this is one of them [crackpot threads].  I admit it doesn't necessarily violate conservation of momentum but there are plenty of people who will claim it does if they feel its not pushing off propellant and the force seems greater than simply light based propulsion.  [if you don't know what it's pushing off exactly than it might appear that way]. 

Apparently the drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". 

The Challenge To Create The Space Drive
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center
http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTM

Quote: "Disjunction Drive

The fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.

Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."

Quote: "Diametric Drive

This is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.

Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"

This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .

You're just misunderstanding the paper.  They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space.  They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.

Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass.  It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.

Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics.  It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.

It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
The drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". 

The Challenge To Create The Space Drive
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center
http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTM

Quote: "Disjunction Drive

The fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.

Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."

Quote: "Diametric Drive

This is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.

Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"

This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .

You're just misunderstanding the paper.  They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space.  They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.

Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass.  It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.

Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics.  It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.

It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.

While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration.  Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking".  They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. 

Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass.  The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light].  I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. 

quote from the abstract: "Newton’s third law of motion is one of the pillars of classical physics. This fundamental principle states that the forces two bodies exert on each other are equal and opposite. Had the resulting accelerations been oriented in the same direction, this would have instead led to a counterintuitive phenomenon, that of diametric drive1. In such a hypothetical arrangement, two interacting particles constantly accelerate each other in the same direction through a violation of the action–reaction symmetry. Although in classical mechanics any realization of this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"

They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins. 
« Last Edit: 05/13/2015 02:59 am by dustinthewind »

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 238
  • Likes Given: 92
well the wave forms in which these apparent negative conditions exist travel the negative bit and the much larger positive bit move along but are followed by more negative bits and of course more positive bits. effectively overtime you have a ribbon of negative and positive energy. in regular things of this nature you can make a flat motor or in the case of a ring a regular motor.

I have already commented elsewhere on the optical diametric drive article on this perhaps being a way to create that negative mass energy shell needed for a warp effect or a wormhole effect; in duration and geometry if not in quantity. but it should be possible to "play with" (meaning to experiment with) some of the ideas inherent in alcubiere like space systems and wormhole apertures using the diametric drive rings. I don't think you could open up a full alcubierre metric or a real wormhole. but maybe you could measure a deflection of photons or maybe tiny pellets with a unambigous positive signal so we aren't perpetually fighting arguments about spurious measurements.
« Last Edit: 05/13/2015 03:53 am by Stormbringer »
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2595
  • Likes Given: 3346
The drive would be classified by in this document as either a "diametric drive" or a "dis-junction drive". 

The Challenge To Create The Space Drive
Marc G. Millis
NASA Glenn Research Center
http://u2.lege.net/cetinbal/SPACEDRIVE.HTM

Quote: "Disjunction Drive

The fourth type of hypothetical field drive, as illustrated in Fig. 7, entertains the possibility that the source of a field and that which reacts to a field can be separated. By displacing them in space, the reactant is shifted to a point where the field has a slope, thus producing reaction forces between the source and the reactant. It is assumed that the source and reactant are held apart by some sort of rigid device.

Obviously, a critical issue of this scheme is whether the field’s source is a separate entity from that which reacts to a field. This perspective is similar to that used in the analysis of the properties of negative mass. [12] In the course of examining the nature of hypothesized negative mass, three different masses can be distinguished: the "source mass," "reactant mass," and "inertial mass." Although these distinctions were made to classically analyze the behavior of negative mass, they do invite speculation. Could either a "source" or "reactant" mass be mimicked through some coupling between gravity, electromagnetism and spacetime? If so, the propulsive effect suggested above may be possible. This is unknown at this time."

Quote: "Diametric Drive

This is directly analogous to the "negative mass" propulsion suggested by Bondi 12, Winterberg 13 and Forward. 14 The diametric drive can also be considered analogous to creating a pressure source and sink in a space medium as suggested previously with the Induction Sail.

Negative mass propulsion is not a new concept. It has already been shown that is theoretically possible to create a continuously propulsive effect by the juxtaposition of negative and positive mass 12 and that such a scheme does not violate conservation of momentum or energy. 14"

This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .

You're just misunderstanding the paper.  They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space.  They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.

Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass.  It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.

Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics.  It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.

It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.

While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration.  Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking".  They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. 

Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass.  The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light].  I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. 

quote from the abstract: "Newton’s third law of motion is one of the pillars of classical physics. This fundamental principle states that the forces two bodies exert on each other are equal and opposite. Had the resulting accelerations been oriented in the same direction, this would have instead led to a counterintuitive phenomenon, that of diametric drive1. In such a hypothetical arrangement, two interacting particles constantly accelerate each other in the same direction through a violation of the action–reaction symmetry. Although in classical mechanics any realization of this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"

They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins.

You're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.

Really, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium".  It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity.  It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that.  But it is not a path forward for making a space drive.  It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.

You quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important.  Here is that last sentence of the abstract:

Quote
The demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.

In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons.  There's no mention of a space drive.  If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that?  It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.

The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2595
  • Likes Given: 3346
well the wave forms in which these apparent negative conditions exist travel the negative bit and the much larger positive bit move along but are followed by more negative bits and of course more positive bits. effectively overtime you have a ribbon of negative and positive energy. in regular things of this nature you can make a flat motor or in the case of a ring a regular motor.

I have already commented elsewhere on the optical diametric drive article on this perhaps being a way to create that negative mass energy shell needed for a warp effect or a wormhole effect; in duration and geometry if not in quantity. but it should be possible to "play with" (meaning to experiment with) some of the ideas inherent in alcubiere like space systems and wormhole apertures using the diametric drive rings. I don't think you could open up a full alcubierre metric or a real wormhole. but maybe you could measure a deflection of photons or maybe tiny pellets with a unambigous positive signal so we aren't perpetually fighting arguments about spurious measurements.

No, it's not a way to create negative mass in free space.  By "negative effective mass" what they mean is less mass than the surrounding medium.

Anyway, it's been shown that even negative mass isn't enough to get an Alcubierre Drive working.  You also need to get the negative mass up to faster-than-light speed.  All the Aclubierre Drive really does is says if you already have the right configuration of positive and negative mass moving faster than light, it will continue moving faster than light, and there will be a region of normal space in the middle that it drags along.  That's all.

Offline Stormbringer

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1340
  • Liked: 238
  • Likes Given: 92
i don't see the difference between relatively negative energy or mass and the theoretical kind. i think you should be able to treat the differential as real because...

 I am having difficulty conveying my exact meaning here.  The region in which the value of energy conditions is different than adjacent regions should result in an equivalent effect on space time.
When antigravity is outlawed only outlaws will have antigravity.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
...
This paper below appears to be a working experiment, http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n12/full/nphys2777.html .

You're just misunderstanding the paper.  They're not claiming they're getting actual propulsion in free space.  They're talking about photons moving through a lattice, which has some fundamentally different properties than free space, as mentioned upthread.

Of course with negative mass you can have an object that can accelerate without applying an external force without violating conservation of momentum -- just have your object include equal amounts of positive and negative mass and no matter how fast it's moving, it will have zero momentum because it has zero net mass.  It's an obvious result, and a completely useless one, because there's no reason at all to believe there is any way to physically get negative mass.

Any kind of matter with negative mass falls into the category of new physics.  It's silly to believe some kind of new physics just because it lets you do something you want to do instead of because there's experimental evidence for it.

It's also extremely silly to be designing devices to use new physics without doing the experimental physics to establish the proposed new physics is actually right.

While the paper does deal with light in a mesh, still they are dealing with acceleration.  Quote of title: "Optical diametric drive acceleration through action–reaction symmetry breaking".  They use the same concept to accelerate by using phase modulation. 

Further the drive doesn't use "real negative mass" but rather effective negative mass.  The light doing negative work doesn't have negative mass but rather "effective negative mass" and seems to attract rather than push [eg. when 2 currents move in the same direction or when working against the electric field of light].  I am willing to bet another example might be optical tweezers. 

quote from the abstract: "...this process requires one of the two particles to have a negative mass and hence is strictly forbidden, it could nevertheless be feasible in periodic structures where the effective mass can also attain a negative sign"

They are not the exact same concept but are related like cousins.

You're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.

Dustinthewind: Think of action and reaction.  If two magnets pull together for example.  Symmetry breaking on the other hand messes that up.  How do you do that?  Do magnetic fields travel faster than light?  no.  Do changes in the magnetic field always push? Not if the current of the observer does work against the electric field of light.  If you get the phase relation just right between two observers currents you get Symmetry breaking.

Really, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium".  It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity.  It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that.  But it is not a path forward for making a space drive.  It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.

Dustinthewind: The medium is space and time [information delay] and electromagnetism. 

You quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important.  Here is that last sentence of the abstract:

Quote
The demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.

In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons.  There's no mention of a space drive.  If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that?  It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.

The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.

Dustinthewind: Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet.  :-\
« Last Edit: 05/13/2015 07:00 am by dustinthewind »

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2595
  • Likes Given: 3346
You're still missing the main point -- that an "effective" negative mass in a mesh doesn't help you get a real negative mass in free space.

Think of action and reaction.  If two magnets pull together for example.  Symmetry breaking on the other hand messes that up.  How do you do that?  Do magnetic fields travel faster than light?  no.  Do changes in the magnetic field always push? Not if the current of the observer does work against the electric field of light.  If you get the phase relation just right between two observers currents you get Symmetry breaking.

Nothing you've said here has anything at all to do with my point.

Really, the "effective negative mass" they're talking about just means "lower mass than the surrounding medium".  It's fundamentally no different than saying a ship has negative mass in water and that's a way to get anti-gravity.  It's true, relative to the medium of water, the ship does have negative mass, and it does get pushed away from the center of the Earth because of that.  But it is not a path forward for making a space drive.  It's a fundamental property of the medium -- water, in this case -- and the effect cannot exist outside that medium.

The medium is space and time [information delay] and electromagnetism.

Space and time are not a medium in the sense the lattice is.  Electromagnetism is not a medium in the sense the lattice is.  They are fundamentally different.

People used to think of space and time as a medium.  Then Einstein pointed out that Relativity explains our observations of the universe better.  Relativity has a lot to say about why empty space is fundamentally different from a lattice.

You quote most of the abstract of the Nature paper, but you leave out the most important part, the last sentence of the abstract, which tells you why the authors think this is important.  Here is that last sentence of the abstract:

Quote
The demonstrated reversal of action–reaction symmetry could enable altogether new possibilities for frequency conversion and pulse-steering applications.

In other words, the paper's authors think it's an interesting result because it might be useful for steering photons and doing other operations on photons.  There's no mention of a space drive.  If that paper really did have implications for propellantless propulsion, why wouldn't the authors of the paper mention that?  It would certainly be far, far more significant than the mundane applications they do mention about steering photons.

The reason the paper's authors don't mention space drives is that they know full well this has nothing to do with propulsion in free space.

Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet.  :-\

Seriously, you should realize how delusional that sounds.  You think you see revolutionary implications in a paper that never occurred to the authors.  Or you have some sort of conspiratorial world view that scientists can't tell the truth out of fear.  If they feared pointing out the implications for space travel, why would they publish in the first place?  You think that somehow they're publishing and yet somehow hoping the people they fear don't notice the implications you think are obvious?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8829
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3829
  • Likes Given: 916
Remember when this forum was about stuff that flies in space?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
well the wave forms in which these apparent negative conditions exist travel the negative bit and the much larger positive bit move along but are followed by more negative bits and of course more positive bits. effectively overtime you have a ribbon of negative and positive energy. in regular things of this nature you can make a flat motor or in the case of a ring a regular motor.

I have already commented elsewhere on the optical diametric drive article on this perhaps being a way to create that negative mass energy shell needed for a warp effect or a wormhole effect; in duration and geometry if not in quantity. but it should be possible to "play with" (meaning to experiment with) some of the ideas inherent in alcubiere like space systems and wormhole apertures using the diametric drive rings. I don't think you could open up a full alcubierre metric or a real wormhole. but maybe you could measure a deflection of photons or maybe tiny pellets with a unambigous positive signal so we aren't perpetually fighting arguments about spurious measurements.

I don't think the drive if it works could move faster than light.  Even in the article they state at one point the mass the particles increasing {if i remember right} suggesting the light speed limit as mass approaches infinity.  I was just hoping for something competitive with the ion engine.   

I suppose one can think that by reducing the effective energy in an area you might lower the dielectric constant of free space changing the speed of light, maybe though not in a locally measured sense but rather non-local (outside observer).  Between Casimir plates for example.  There was an engineer that talked in a video they had on the EM thread that I can't find [about space flight] where he talks about an object under the influence of a low dielectric constant of space time (negative gravity) that has reduced mass and could move faster than light and had its infrared up-shifted to visible light ect (time passes by faster).  It struck me as a ship existing in the hill of the Alcubierre drive where as the Alcubierre drive had the ship passengers existing in the flat part of space with the pumps in the region between the negative and positive dips. 

I have toyed with the idea that by manipulating space and time by information delay and considering near field effects greater than radiation.  Maybe, we might end up pushing against space and time making those regions of low and high pressure in space seen on the Alcubierre plot... maybe.  If so, you should be able to measure it with an accurate clock, if there were such a field in the vicinity.  Time runs slower on earth for instance.  It would be a dip in the plot of space time.  A rise in the plot being negative gravity and speeding up time.  The Alcubierre drive being a gravity drive. 
« Last Edit: 05/13/2015 07:42 am by dustinthewind »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315

Maybe they didn't give it much thought in particular, maybe they don't think it does, or maybe they didn't wan't to open up that can of worms just yet.  :-\

Seriously, you should realize how delusional that sounds.  You think you see revolutionary implications in a paper that never occurred to the authors.  Or you have some sort of conspiratorial world view that scientists can't tell the truth out of fear.  If they feared pointing out the implications for space travel, why would they publish in the first place?  You think that somehow they're publishing and yet somehow hoping the people they fear don't notice the implications you think are obvious?

Your kinda rude.  I made no assumptions about what their reasons were.  Hence the  :-\ symbol.  I try not to jump to conclusions about that.  Maybe they don't think it' impossible or maybe they do. 

All I am proposing is that it might be interesting to test if it will work (the patent or the dual cavities). 
« Last Edit: 05/14/2015 03:37 am by dustinthewind »

Offline dustinthewind

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • U.S. of A.
  • Liked: 277
  • Likes Given: 315
OK, ignoring everything else, (especially the dual cavities, it won't work unless using dielectrics maybe.)  all I am really interested in is, if this patent attached blow my message and posted at the beginning of this thread for some reason would not work.  I get the impression it would work.  It is based on "time retarded signals between wires".  The patent even gives illustration of the time retarded signals in a diagram of two wires experiencing a unidirectional force with 3 oscilloscopes near by.  If you "read through the patent", the author appears to be aware, that for a phased array antenna, the magnetic force works against the electric force.   The author of the patent appears to have solved the problem so that the electric force works with the magnetic force. 

I am only interested in clear scientific ideas on why this patent would or would not work.  Currently I don't see why it wouldn't work.  Objections like, "all you would get are photon propulsion" are unfounded without proof or testing, as it could be for some unknown reason it might induce spontaneous particle creation similar to the time retarded Casmir force with a vibrating mirror for all we know (Or the dynamic Casimir force via a superconducting circuit which has been done).  Another possibility is some underlying link to manipulation of space time via EM fields which actually DavidWaiteMSPhysics appears to touch on in some of his videos.  Some of the other papers in this thread by Todd Desiato and/or Mario Pinheiro or The youtube video by DavidwaiteMSPhysics at the beginning of this thread are along the same lines.  Todd gets into the idea of modifying the gradient of the Casimir force via radiation which is what is considered to push to plates together.  The patent states that the forces achievable are that of the attraction of two DC magnets but "unidirectional" in force. 

The theory is classical but time retarded and easy to understand and test.  Is there any reason this isn't achievable?  Does anyone know of anyone who has tested this concept?  See the attached video to get a simple gist of the effect. 



Currently I would say this concept is detached from the EM drive as the EM drive doesn't have any solidly proven working theory and there is still effort to show if there can be a force from the device, so I am keeping this thread separate.     

By the way, a simple phased array antenna won't work.  There needs to be engineering so that the "time retarded" magnetic force works with the "time retarded" electric force and that they don't work against each other.
« Last Edit: 12/09/2015 05:46 am by dustinthewind »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3049
  • 92129
  • Liked: 827
  • Likes Given: 293
Very interesting ...
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1486
  • Likes Given: 1127
I watched the video and he is concentrating on what happens to the top circuit, not the whole system.

The top circuit at t=d/c "sees" the bottom at t=0 and the identical magnetic charges repel. That means both the top and bottom try to move away from each other, not just the top moving up.

The bottom circuit at t=d/c "sees" the top circuit at t=0 and the opposite electrical charges attract. That means both the top and bottom try to move towards each other, not just the bottom moving up.

The forces between the two circuits alternate between repelling and attracting each other. These forces cancel and result in a net force of zero.

It doesn't work.

Tags: