-
#1500 by Rodal on 05 Oct, 2014 17:52
-
The calculation? Well I did a calculation based on Teflon about 70+ pages back. I just substituted the copper properties now and replaced the (COMSOL calculated) EF in the Teflon with the EF in the copper. I didn't post the calculations but they are very similar....
I can rule out thermal radiation pressure right now by virtue that heating and cooling are not instantaneous. ..
I agree. I just did a quick calculation. I edited the record accordingly.
Where is the record/living document? How did you do it so everyone can share? -
#1501 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 17:58
-
The more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.
And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?
In order from simple to not simple top 6:
1. It doesn't work
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, like heat and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
The reason I'm trying first to get rid of Wheeler-Feynman absorber is because while I think his theory is correct, it isn't applicable to emdrive. I should probably promote it higher up the list because actual scientists think it is salient, but it is my choice.
I edited this >9000 times.
-
#1502 by Rodal on 05 Oct, 2014 18:07
-
Mmmm simplest explanations for the measurements for NASA EagleworksThe more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.
And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?
In order from simple to not simple top 6:
1. It doesn't work
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, like heat and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
I edited this >9000 times.
, let's see
1, 2.5 do not explain the measurements
2 I thought you had ruled out heat (too slow)
3 Unruthzpf/casimirMcCulloch (no zpf needs to be involved, that's just an interpretation) rises to the top but has the "Q" problem I discussed
4 I don't recall we discussing that one (De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda )
5 No way that (EM ZPF, Haisch) this is more likely than dark mass
4 and 5 are not simple explanations and they have lots of problems
Need more editing and review agreed ?
And what happened with interaction between magnetic damping / power cable and dielectric ? Is that really more unlikely than Haisch ?
-
#1503 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 18:21
-
Mmmm simplest explanations for the measurements for NASA EagleworksThe more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.
And the simplest coherent explanations, per your understanding are ...?
In order from simple to not simple top 6:
1. It doesn't work
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, like heat and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
I edited this >9000 times., let's see
1, 2.5 do not explain the measurements
2 I thought you had ruled out heat (too slow)
3 Unruthzpf/casimirMcCulloch (no zpf needs to be involved, that's just an interpretation) rises to the top but has the "Q" problem I discussed
4 I don't recall we discussing that one (De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda )
5 No way that (EM ZPF, Haisch) this is more likely than dark mass
4 and 5 are not simple explanations and they have lots of problems
Need more editing and review agreed ?
And what happened with interaction between magnetic damping / power cable and dielectric ? Is that really more unlikely than Haisch ?
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one. -
#1504 by Rodal on 05 Oct, 2014 18:28
-
Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.. Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
-
#1505 by aero on 05 Oct, 2014 18:36
-
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from
http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/
It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower.
My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger?
Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.
It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated.
JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.
-
#1506 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 18:36
-
Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.. Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
Yes
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9906084v3.pdf -
#1507 by Rodal on 05 Oct, 2014 18:40
-
Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.. Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
Yes
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9906084v3.pdf
What we need is a calculation using this theory that comes close to the measured thrust force. Where is such a calculation? -
#1508 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 18:41
-
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from
http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/
It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower.
My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger?
Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.
It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated.
JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.
Akin to my previous logic, the universe would need to be absolutely saturated with dark matter and folded up upon itself and the emdrive would not work using dark matter solely because it doesn't interact with by anything. A photon would then interact with it solely by the mass energy the photon possesses from its momentum, giving rise to its own gravity. Photons work like this, and that is why you get gravitational lensing. -
#1509 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 18:44
-
Well rather than me dismissing Haisch on arguments with words, how about if we get to numbers
In order from simple/likely to not simple/unlikely top 6:
1. It doesn't work, they got it wrong by some means I don't know and neither do they.
2. The generally accepted ideas for inertial mass are correct and it still works but by some other way, and isn't useful.
2.5 Same as above but is useful.
3. Inertial mass works some other way; Unruh, zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
4. Inertial mass works some other way; De Broglie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
5. Inertial mass works some other way; EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Ok I conceded some by the modifications I made. Removed heat, put x in its spot. Unruh has a , after it. 4 and 5 remain. I blew dark matter out of the water. Awaiting comments on that one.. Can quantitative predictions be made based on (Compton resonance Haisch Reuda) ?
Yes
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9906084v3.pdf
What we need is a calculation using this theory that comes close to the measured thrust force. Where is such a calculation?
We gotta do it. Nobody but me as far as I know has said this is why emdrive might work. I ain't gifted enough to go alone. Read the paper, it is salient as far as I can tell in the respect of how controversial the origin or inertial mass is. I like how the paper says, "in part responsible for inertial mass." That is why I connected this to emdrive. -
#1510 by Rodal on 05 Oct, 2014 18:53
-
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from
http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/
It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower.
My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger?
Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.
It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated.
JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.
Akin to my previous logic, the universe would need to be absolutely saturated with dark matter and folded up upon itself and the emdrive would not work using dark matter solely because it doesn't interact with by anything. A photon would then interact with it solely by the mass energy the photon possesses from its momentum, giving rise to its own gravity. Photons work like this, and that is why you get gravitational lensing.
Inverse Primakov effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0701198 -
#1511 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 18:56
-
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
I'm not sure its time to shut down dark matter as a possibility. Attached is another estimate of dark matter in the solar system, from
http://www.universetoday.com/15266/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/
It is not quite as high as the upper limits given earlier, but quite close: 2.99E-17 kg/m^3 verses 1.40E-16 kg/m^3 . That is about a factor of 5 lower.
My point is that we don't know enough about dark matter to rule it out yet. All of these estimates are for dark matter in space but we know that dark matter is gravitationally attracted to mass (read "Earth") so can we say with any confidence what the dark matter density is at the surface of the Earth where the gravitational field is much stronger?
Further, the small end of the cavity is about .022 m^3, but the large end is about 0.05 m^2. There was the mention of an effect akin to antenna gain earlier. That has not been considered.
It seems to me that in order for the effect to be due to dark matter, and allowing for some conceptual inefficiencies, there needs to be about 3 orders of magnitude more dark matter accelerated by the thruster than has so far been estimated.
JMO, but we don't know enough to rule out dark matter at this point.
Akin to my previous logic, the universe would need to be absolutely saturated with dark matter and folded up upon itself and the emdrive would not work using dark matter solely because it doesn't interact with by anything. A photon would then interact with it solely by the mass energy the photon possesses from its momentum, giving rise to its own gravity. Photons work like this, and that is why you get gravitational lensing.
Inverse Primakov effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0701198
Ok I'm reading it. I'm also reading up on tunnel diodes for you. At some point, we need to stop adding layers of complexity and start focusing on what we got and rule them out as a team from order of least to most likely.
What is the connection to emdrive for the axion paper? Is it the strong cp problem or the dark matter candidate? I'm really trying here. Lead me the right way. Is it the Dichroism that is the interest? -
#1512 by Rodal on 05 Oct, 2014 19:11
-
The dark matter candidate . I have to go now. 'Later
Ok I'm reading it. I'm also reading up on tunnel diodes for you. At some point, we need to stop adding layers of complexity and start focusing on what we got and rule them out as a team from order of least to most likely.
What is the connection to emdrive for the axion paper? Is it the strong cp problem or the dark matter candidate? I'm really trying here. Lead me the right way. -
#1513 by JohnFornaro on 05 Oct, 2014 19:26
-
I think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.
I would say, do it on this forum. Perhaps start a thread, "Anomalous Thrust Theory Lineup", or something. In the OP, state the "living document nature" of the thread, and ask that others not post, just you.
The principle is like the political SpaceEx vs ULA lawsuit update thread, which is separate from the discussion thread. the primary benefit would be that the "Living Document" thread, with one author, who would link to pertinent work by the others of your gang of genii as required, would be very short and cogently written.
The links would supply the background knowledge. The second post would be an executive summary of the several theoretical approaches to date. Subsequent posts would elaborate on the pros and cons of each approach, along with current suggestions of experimental apparatus.
This would require much of you, in that, were someone to object to this or that phraseology or terminology, or even propose another approach, they should be honor bound to discuss it with you via PM. If a dissenting voice persists, the "Living Document" could at least say something along the lines of So-and-so disagrees with the "pony to unicorn transition", and link back to this thread for moree info.
The key benefit to all is the long, messy thread supports the short concise thread. -
#1514 by JohnFornaro on 05 Oct, 2014 19:27
-
I really want some feedback concerning my comments trying to shut down dark matter. Good science is trying to break things.
Agreed, but good science also takes time to enable thoughtful responses. Just like thermal effects
Brain overheating again, good buddy? -
#1515 by JohnFornaro on 05 Oct, 2014 19:35
-
The more far fetched we get here, creating more and more complex explanations, probably won't help us. Seems the most simple explanations are more likely correct. Occam's razor and all. I'm ready to start shutting down theories. I also intend to make my critical analysis of the paper more known in detail as soon as I can.
Occam's razor is a good thing. You left the peanut gallery in the dust about thirty pages ago. -
#1516 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 19:36
-
The dark matter candidate . I have to go now. 'Later
Ok I'm reading it. I'm also reading up on tunnel diodes for you. At some point, we need to stop adding layers of complexity and start focusing on what we got and rule them out as a team from order of least to most likely.
What is the connection to emdrive for the axion paper? Is it the strong cp problem or the dark matter candidate? I'm really trying here. Lead me the right way.
Ok axions are intriguing and I just gulped down a bunch of info. I gathered they are very low mass, barely detectable, and you need a very very high magnetic field to detect them or interact with them by turning them into photons, which are photons that were once non interacting axions. So photons from nothing, which would add energy to the system that is detecting them. There is something there, but I need to read more. A neat but probably loose connection I'm intrigued to make is that the QCD vacuum is paramagnetic. I don't think the emdrive makes anywhere high enough magnetic flux to play in here but it is a hunch. Math help please? Look we can all focus on this one at once if you like. I just want to get us all on the same page, I can put it at 6 on the list and we can ALL work together on it. I'm saying at 6 solely because while it is eye catching, the very early info I got from the best source for bs science in the world (wikipedia)
says "It had been thought that the invisible axion provides a solution to the strong CP problem without being amenable to verification by experiment or observation. In invisible axion models, the axion is chosen to be so weakly coupled that it does not appear in any of the experiments that had been attempted to detect it."
Body of info I have so far:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0701198v1.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primakoff_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peccei%E2%80%93Quinn_theory
https://www.google.com/search?q=Axion+Dark+Matter+eXperiment+%28ADMX%29&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs
Break time. I've been on this too much. -
#1517 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 19:51
-
I think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.
I would say, do it on this forum. Perhaps start a thread, "Anomalous Thrust Theory Lineup", or something. In the OP, state the "living document nature" of the thread, and ask that others not post, just you.
The principle is like the political SpaceEx vs ULA lawsuit update thread, which is separate from the discussion thread. the primary benefit would be that the "Living Document" thread, with one author, who would link to pertinent work by the others of your gang of genii as required, would be very short and cogently written.
The links would supply the background knowledge. The second post would be an executive summary of the several theoretical approaches to date. Subsequent posts would elaborate on the pros and cons of each approach, along with current suggestions of experimental apparatus.
This would require much of you, in that, were someone to object to this or that phraseology or terminology, or even propose another approach, they should be honor bound to discuss it with you via PM. If a dissenting voice persists, the "Living Document" could at least say something along the lines of So-and-so disagrees with the "pony to unicorn transition", and link back to this thread for moree info.
The key benefit to all is the long, messy thread supports the short concise thread.
I don't know how to make that work and not be a mess and take up some poor poster's time. We all have lives to tend to. I'm down for a shared google doc. They have access control and versioning.
http://www.google.com/docs/about/
-
#1518 by JohnFornaro on 05 Oct, 2014 19:59
-
I think we need to combine the forum's conclusions in a living document. Even though science is not democratic, I don't want to keep beating dead horses that have been decided on as fact (not to say any of my ideas are generally accepted or anything). Do you agree? If so, we could implement it using this forum or a shared google doc.
I would say, do it on this forum. Perhaps start a thread, "Anomalous Thrust Theory Lineup", or something. In the OP, state the "living document nature" of the thread, and ask that others not post, just you. ...
The key benefit to all is the long, messy thread supports the short concise thread.
I don't know how to make that work and not be a mess and take up some poor poster's time. We all have lives to tend to. I'm down for a shared google doc. They have access control and versioning.
http://www.google.com/docs/about/
The key factor for it to work is the honor system and no random posts. The mods, properly asked (which is to say in part, not by me) may help with that.
As to the poor poster, see your PM. -
#1519 by Mulletron on 05 Oct, 2014 19:59
-
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B4PCfHCM1KYoTXhSUTd5ZDN2WnM&usp=sharing
Done.
Edit:
Google Drive provides information security safeguards so I'm making it public.
https://support.google.com/a/answer/172541?hl=en
, let's see
says "It had been thought that the invisible axion provides a solution to the strong CP problem without being amenable to verification by experiment or observation. In invisible axion models, the axion is chosen to be so weakly coupled that it does not appear in any of the experiments that had been attempted to detect it."